Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24495

purchasers knew that without these products

they could save some number of dollars, that

now often amounts to a sizeable percentage

of the computer package purchase price, they

could apply pressure to the vendor to

provide alternative (likely less expensive)

products. Microsoft has stated concerns that

selling computers without operating systems

equates to software piracy. This assertion is

absurd, and has become irrelevant with

Microsoft’s newest release of Windows XP,

which requires license activation.

Having consumers and end-users with

more information is clearly in the public

interest. All of what is suggested here

concerns supplying information that enables

computer users to make informed decisions,

and to access their own work on their own

computer.

In summary, I believe the proposed

settlement is seriously lacking, and will, if

implemented as proposed, aid Microsoft in

its efforts to hinder its most viable

competitors. Any successful settlement must

protect the rights of computer users to choose

the products they desire to access their data.

Sincerely,

Carl Michal

Department of Physics & Astronomy

University of British ColumbiaTel: (604)

822–2432

411–6224 Agricultural RdLab: (604) 822–

3898

Vancouver, BCFax: (604) 822–5324

Canada V6T 1Z1Email:

michal@physics.ubc.ca

MTC–00004367

From: Joseph Henry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 5:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to congratulate the DOJ’s

stellar work in bringing Microsoft to justice.

By forcing the company to donate $1 billion

dollars (in cash, equipment and software)

you really hurt them. Oh wait, now that I

think about it you actually just increased

Microsofts market share dominance and hurt

it’s only viable competitor Apple Computer.

It just goes to show you that if your a big

corporation with unlimited resources, you

can buy anything in this country including

justice (and DOJ personel). Lets hear it for the

good ol US of A!

Joseph Henry

604 Riverside Ave. Apt. 2

Park Rapids, MN 56470

218–732–7664

MTC–00004368

From: Joseph Henry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 5:53pm

Subject: Dear Department of Justice,

Dear Department of Justice,

I would like to express my feelings on the

proposed Microsoft settlement. I am

vehemently opposed to it as it is written for

a number of reasons. First, as it is written the

settlement won’t be able to stop Microsoft

from illegally using its market power and

isn’t easily enforceable. Second, The $1

billion donation to schools will only

strengthen Window’s (Microsofts) position in

education at the expense of Apple Computer.

Although the schools will be able to spend

the cash portion however they seem fit, what

operating system do you think most will

choose if they are given loads of referbished

Windows machines (as well as a bunch of

Windows only based software). Lastly, $1

billion isn’t enough. For a guy like Bill Gates,

who has built his personal net worth to over

$87 Billion through Microsoft’s monopolistic

practices, $1 billion is pocket change to keep

the Federal Government at bay. The way I see

it this settlement does exactly the opposite of

what antitrust laws are intended to do. It

slaps the wrist of a monopolistic company,

imposing no real sanctions and at the same

time erodes the market share of it’s only

viable competitor (Apple Computer).

Please don’t let Microsoft get off this easy.

Joseph Henry

604 Riverside Ave, Apt. 2

Park Rapids, MN 56470

218–732–7664

MTC–00004369

From: Linda Quick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 5:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I support Microsoft. It is a company that

employs thousands of people in an industry

that was almost nonexistent 25 years ago.

Microsoft has made technology easy for the

average person to learn and to use. Why

would we punish a company that has

contributed so much to society? I for one am

happy that there is essentially one operating

system. I can’t image the problems we would

encounter if everyone used different

operating systems to ‘‘talk’’ to each other.

PLEASE SUPPORT MICROSOFT. Thank you.

L. Quick, Connecticut

MTC–00004370

From: John Kristjansson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 6:00pm

Subject: Settlement

To whom it may concern:

Historically, Microsoft has had little

problem with deliberately changing their

operating system source code in order to

destroy a competitor’s competing, and

oftentimes superior, products—a la ‘‘it ain’t

done ’til Lotus won’t run’’. These practices

have led to a situation where the consumer

has become convinced that the only safe

product to buy is one manufactured or

endorsed by Microsoft. They have employed

underhanded tactics in their licensing

schemes to prevent PC manufacturers from

offering competing products alongside the

Windows platform—the infamous boot time

license. Further, they use federal

certifications, specifically the Orange Book

(DOD Trusted Computer Systems Evaluation

Criteria), in order to convince the consumer

that their products are more secure than they

really are(Orange Book C2 certification

applies to standalone machines rather than a

networked o/s). I won’t even touch the topic

of software bundling at this point, only the

illegal maintenance of a monopoly. I am not

convinced that the settlement, which has

aspects that appear to help reinforce their

monopoly position, goes far enough in

remediating the conditions which led the

DOJ to prosecute an antitrust suit against

Microsoft. I feel that the only possible

resolution that will prevent further illegal

maintenance of their monopoly is to place

the source code of their current operating

system and its immediate predecessor in

public scrutiny under a license similar to the

Artistic License, as well as a 15-month ban

on any further operating system releases.

This will have the effect of lowering the

barrier to entry in the marketplace, allowing

a certain amount of competition to redevelop

in the marketplace, and ultimately improve

the overall security of the architecture. While

this may sound a bit extreme, the actions that

Microsoft has taken in the past are no less

extreme, and their current activities and

plans appear to make their past misconduct

a more desirable situation. They must be held

liable for their actions, and suffer the

consequenses.

MTC–00004371

From: Karen Messenger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 6:03pm

Subject: Don’t allow Microsoft to determine

what is a ‘‘viable business’’

Dear Sir/Madam,

Having seen the proposed settlement, I

would like to register my strong objection to

it. The agreement is full of loopholes,

whereby Microsoft is allowed to determine,

at its own discretion, whether to adhere to

certain principles. For example, Microsoft is

required to make available its APIs, but only

to organizations which Microsoft deems to be

‘‘viable businesses’’. This is outrageous!

What constitutes a viable business?

I am an independant software developer. I

have spent 3 years developing groundbreaking Internet technology designed to

facilitate free broadcasting of media (e.g.

video) between communities of cooperating

clients (see www.freebeam.com for a short

explanation). I have applied for a patent. I

have acquired no outside funding. My

business development plan calls for giving

away my software for free, for some years, in

order to develop a user base. After that time,

I expect to derive income from patent

royalties paid by large-scale commercial

users. I expect I may derive no income for

several years, in other words. Eventually, it

will be very lucrative for me, so that makes

up for it.

Am I a ‘‘viable business’’? Will Microsoft

be required to make their APIs available to

me? If not, then I would be unable to

compete on an equal basis with competitors

which Microsoft deemed to be ‘‘viable’’. That

would be self-fulfulling.

In the interest of fair play for small-scale

developer/entrepreneurs, such as myself, I

implore you to reject the proposed

settlement. Such a settlement would very

clearly tend to squelch small-scale

developers—a powerfully innovative force.

Microsoft should not be able to exercise its

own judgement in deciding how to live up

to the terms of the agreement. The terms

should be interpreted and enforced from

outside of Microsoft. To do any less would

be to further entrench Microsoft’s illegal

monopoly.

Sincerely,

24496 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Chuck Messenger

CC:chuckm@rochester.rr.com@inetgw

MTC–00004372

From: John Jensen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 6:08pm

Subject: Microsoft

Did someone sell out to Microsoft, that

they effectively have no punishment to go

with their conviction? They are still at their

old tricks, so STOP THEM ALREADY!

John Jensen

520 Goshawk Court

Bakersfield, CA 93309

icq #: 18494316

MTC–00004373

From: Ellsworth, Jenny

To: ‘Microsoft.atr (a)usdoj.gov’, ‘Microsoft

Comments (a)d..

Date: 12/13/01 6:24pm

Subject: Please Reject the Proposed Microsoft

Settlement

As a remedy for Microsoft’s abuse of

monopolistic power, it would be better to

forbid them to give their products to schools

than to require it. I am an IT professional for

the City of Newport Beach, and an important

part of my job is computer training. I know,

from observing users in our Microsoftdominated environment, that exposure and

training are the determining factors for a

user’s choice of software. Allowing Microsoft

to monopolize the schoolchildren and future

computer professionals of this country will

only serve to ensure that they continue to

monopolize the software industry in years to

come.

In addition to serving Microsoft’s business

needs of the future, such so-called ‘‘charity’’

would cost them pennies to provide software

to schools, and offer Microsoft both tax

benefits and good public relations. Microsoft

has in the past regarded the DOJ as giving

them a mandate to monopolize the software

industry, and this would be no different.

Were they to provide cash, rather than

software, to be used as the schools need to

use it, that would be a great aid.

Allowing PC makers to install nonMicrosoft software is not sufficient to enable

competition. Microsoft must be made to

separate the operating system from their

other applications. Many users I know are at

least somewhat confused about the difference

between Windows, Office, and the Internet.

This is the result of Microsoft’s deliberately

ambiguous naming conventions and the

interaction between Microsoft products that

cannot be matched by any other software

manufacturer. I realize that dissociating their

OS and other software is a tall order, but

without such a move, competitors will not

succeed.

Microsoft clearly believes that the DOJ and

the State Attorneys General will not act

against them. This has made them arrogant.

They feel safe to act in a non-competitive

manner, bullying companies and extorting

money from them. When Newport Beach’s IT

department invited their reprentative to help

us be in complience with their license

agreements, the person from Microsoft spent

most of his time threatening to audit us,

telling us why piracy was bad, and often

insulting us. To quote their representative

when we produced our evidence of

legitimate purchases, ‘‘That and a dollar will

buy you a cup of coffee,’’ and, ‘‘You know,

we audit cities like you, and we win. Ask

your city attorney; he will tell you it isn’t

worth it to fight us.’’ Remember, we invited

them to visit us. We asked for their help.

They acted like bullies. Coercion through

legal action is distasteful in a major

corporation, but is illegal in a clear

monopoly.

Microsoft must be made to clarify their

licensing. Although we had paid for every

single copy of Microsoft software, we, as

intelligent computer professionals, couldn’t

understand the requirements well enough to

comply with them. The licensing

requirements are deliberately confusing and

hard to comply with, and Microsoft knows

that most companies will simply pay for

more licenses, rather than try to fight them

on an audit.

Please, do not allow Microsoft to infiltrate

schools to increase their monopolistic power.

Please, demand that Microsoft separate their

OS from their other software. Please, require

that Microsoft establish clear licensing that

doesn’t lead to entrapping customers.

These opinions represent my observations

as an IT professional in an organization of

over 400 people. The views do not

necessarily represent those of the City of

Newport Beach.

Jenny Ellsworth

MIS Technical Services Specialist

City of Newport Beach

3300 Newport Blvd.

Newport Beach, CA 92663

MTC–00004374

From: Robert Neely

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 6:42pm

Subject: One citizen’s view

I have been a DOS & Windows user since

near day one and have NEVER been

disappointed in Microsoft’s updating of

existing software or maintenance of adequate

customer service. This entire litigation seems

to be solely motivated by other software

manufacturers who were able to attract the

attention of some office-holders.

I have yet to hear of even one consumer

who claims to have been damaged by

Microsoft’s products. This entire matter

seems to have jealousy as a base. Will

someone please breath some common sense

into the case? Thank you.

Robert Neely,

3055–84 N. Red Mountain,

Mesa, Arizona 85207; 480–641–9578

MTC–00004375

From: Joan Amino

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 6:47pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Can we get off Microsofts case and let them

get on with their business. I cannot believe

that we are holding them up to appease some

of their competitors. Let’s get off their backs.

PLEASE!!!

MTC–00004376

From: Russell Yuma

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 7:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

I do not believe that Microsoft has done

anything against the law that harms

consumers in anyway. The complaints

against Microsoft were brought about mostly

by competitors of Microsoft. The states that

have not agreed with the settlement are

wrong and no more punishment should be

made against Microsoft.

Microsoft is a most successful company

that Benefits Consumers. Competitors should

not be able to use the Justice Department and

courts to gain a competitive advantage.

Russell Yuma

PO Box 165

Oakland, OR 97462

MTC–00004377

From: John Gelston

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 7:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530–0001

I am a retired Boeing Company computer

research and technology manager with 31

years of computing industry experience. I

have first hand knowledge of the industry

and its evolution. Competitors of Microsoft

have succeeded in misleading government

lawyers. They have characterized Microsoft’s

success as the result of illegal activity.

Microsoft became successful long before

anyone could have called them a monopoly

because they understood consumers’ (both

commercial and individual) desire for

products that worked well together on the

personal computer. With all due respect,

lawyers are not competent to evaluate what

software product designs are good or bad for

consumers! The marketplace is!

In the existing federal/state government

suit, claims of damage to consumers are

speculative at best. If valid, one would expect

the plaintiffs to have been a host of corporate

users rather than government lawyers

parroting claims of disgruntled competitors.

Where were the damaged consumers in the

case? It was some of Microsoft’s competitors,

with their ringleader Scott McNealy, not

consumers, who contrived the idea that

consumers were being harmed and initiated

complaints against the software company.

The plaintiffs have not shown damage to

consumers. We are expected to take on faith

that helping competitors by harming

Microsoft will somehow help consumers.

Hogwash!

Claims of anti-competitive practices by

Microsoft focus on hard-nosed business

practices. While some of their tactics are

deemed unacceptable due to their now

dominant position, they are common among

competitors in the industry. It is a fact that

there is no industry that is any more

competitive. The rapid rate of change in the

software industry has been brought on by

competitive innovation. The barriers to entry

are nil. Linux, a significant alternative to

Windows, came out of a dorm room. Anyone

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24497

that can program can become a billionaire if

they have the initiative. The fact that the

marketplace freely gravitates to de facto

standards of one vendor does not mean they

are being harmed! There is no other example

in human history of such rapid increase in

the benefits, features and functionality of

product offerings accompanied by

plummeting prices. Consumer damage is

laughable! Every business and individual

user around the world has benefited from

Microsoft in one way or another. Before their

contribution, the personal computer relied on

a chaotic mish-mash of incompatible

software, appealing to only the techie world.

Microsoft’s great success is due to

overwhelming marketplace desire for and

acceptance of the benefits they provided,

more than any heavy-handed competitive

acts they are charged with. I include a direct

quote from a piece on this subject by Bob

Williams of the Evergreen Freedom

Foundation, a non-partisan public policy

research organization in Washington State.

[‘‘Microsoft’s actions have increased the

rate of technological development, but the

same cannot be said for the actions of the

government. Thousands of hours of labor and

millions of dollars have been diverted from

technological research and development to

respond to the government’s lawsuit.

‘‘The government’s case falls short in

several areas, most notably in the

government’s misuse of antitrust laws. The

proliferation of new products on the market

and falling prices make it difficult to defend

the idea that Microsoft’s alleged monopolistic

activity has harmed consumers. Consumers

do not have to buy Microsoft products if they

don’t want to. This was illustrated best by an

attorney from Ralph Nader’s organization

who criticized the size of Microsoft’s market

share, then proceeded to undermine his own

argument by proudly stating that his office

used no Microsoft products.

‘‘It is litigation-happy state AGs who are

harming consumers, not Microsoft. Certainly

the rapid increase in useful technology has

created enormous challenges for our society

and many issues must be addressed, but the

response from government should not be to

crush all innovation by over- regulation and

litigation. If the federal government is going

to look suspiciously at lower prices and

improved quality as evidence of illegal

activity, American consumers are in big

trouble.

‘‘State attorneys general need to let this

lawsuit end and focus on true threats to

America’s citizens and consumers. ]

Respectfully,

John H. Gelston

9811 Marine View Drive

Mukilteo, WA 98275

425–349–1628

johngelston@email.msn.com

CC:Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Patty

Murray, msfin@...

MTC–00004378

From: Chris Griffin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 7:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom this may concern,

I hope and pray that the DoJ has the

common sence to realize the chance at hand

to to make a stronger economy. By forcing

microsoft to open up source code, especially

that of their Office suite, it could be ported

or atleast partially used to help other vendors

compete.

If the unix environment had a compatable

office suite it could be used on more

desktops at offices. Companies would then

have more money to spend in other areas,

such as user training, pay raises, technology

advancements by being able to afford bright

new programers that wouldnt have as much

of a chance in a proprietary world. The list

go on and on.

If the Apple/MacOS environment had

another option than microsoft office that

would also open doors for new jobs, and the

before mentioned benefits. MS claims that if

they open the code they will not have any

incentive to better the product? Then what

drives the free software movement? The

people that either don’t get paid or get paid

very little. What keeps them improving their

product? It’s because they love what they do,

and want to help people.

It should be obvious to everyone by now,

with the momentum the open source people

have built up that MS is trying desperatly to

keep themselfs in the #1 position and not let

anyone else even close. While competition is

healthy, and almost all companies see that,

even if they dont like it, microsofts tactics are

unreasonable and should not go unnoticed by

the courts.

Making MS open their office code to the

public is a good and fair judgement I believe.

I don’t think their InternetExplorer code is as

much of a big deal because with their latest

release it has dropped support for some of

the most common internet plugin software

making it not the best choice of internet

browers.

But I ask you to also consider how when

MS updated their newest version of msn.com

the site refused service to non IE browsers.

That should be noticed as a blatant DoS

(Denial of service) which has been pursued

by the FBI. I think MS should be treated as

any ‘‘hacker’’ the uses a DoS attack because

the outcome is no different, its a Denial Of

Service.

Thank you for your time, and I hope you

make the right choice in this matter.

Chris Griffin

MTC–00004379

From: lloyd olson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 7:41pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs:

My husband and I think that the last five

{holdout} states are completely out of line in

trying to inflict more penalties on Microsoft.

The first solution, one with providing

software to the under privileged is enough.

Let Microsoft do their things and help the

country out of recession. sincerely, Eileen

and Lloyd Olson

MTC–00004380

From: Roland Hughes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 8:36pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I very much disagree with the settlement

reached with Microsoft. They are a preditory

company and will do anything to anything to

crush oposition. The idea of letting them

indoctrinate school children as a punishment

is to idiotic to even comtemplate.

MTC–00004381

From: Monica Samec

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 8:38pm

Subject: Proposal Re: Microsoft anit-trust

settlement

Dear Justice Department member,

I am writing with regards to the Microsoft

antitrust settlement. The Linux company,

RedHat has proposed that all the money that

Microsoft was currently planning on giving

in the form of software for the poorest

schools in America be redirected towards

hardware. Red Hat then promiss to provide

software to the schools, free of charge, with

several additions:

—Red Hat will provide software for ALL the

schools in America.

—Red Hat will also provide training and

technical support.

—Red Hat’s offer does not expire, ever. The

Microsoft one expires after 5 years.

This proposal has many large advantages

over the original plan. Problems with the

original proposal:

1) Don’t punish a monopoloy by extending

it and giving it a foothold in the nation’s

most vulnerable.

In giving so much Microsoft software to the

schools, the original proposal would result in

extending Microsoft’s dominance over the

education sector. This does not make sense

since the reason why there is a settlement is

that Microsoft was found guilty of illegal

monopolistic practices.

2) After 5 years, the most vulnerable

schools will be trapped.

Microsoft’s software lisences would expire

after 5 years. After that time, the schools

would be under great pressure to start paying

very large software fees to Microsoft which

ultimatelly hurt their funds very severely.

The alternative would be to move away from

Microsoft products, but that would be very

difficult because the curriculums would

already be based around the Microsoft

software.

3) Most of the money that Microsoft would

be ‘‘giving’’ would be entirely fictional to

them.

Microsoft’s proposal also serves to avoid

paying the penalty imposed on it.

Independently of how much Microsoft

charges for its software, it costs next to

nothing to print another CD. Also, it doesn’t

cost Microsoft anything to give someone a

lisence. A lisence is not a product that must

be manufactured, it doesn’t cost the provider

anything.

Benefits of RedHat’s proposal:

** Schools get a much greater assistance.

1) Over 5 times more computers for the

schools. In redirecting the cost of software

towards hardware the number of computers

given would jump from 200,000 to over a

million. The number of computers per school

would grow from 14 to over 70.

2) More schools are benefited. Every single

school in America gets Red Hat software, not

just the poorest 14,000. It is clear that this

new proposal brings a much greater benefit

to the schools.

24498 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

** More seccurity for the schools to build

a curriculum.

2) Red Hat’s offer does not expire.

The RedHat software, including all

upgrades, will remain completely free to all

the schools in America indefinitely.

3) Red Hat also offers free technical

support and training.

Just as important as having access to

software, is being trained in it and having

someone responsible when you have

difficulties. Red Hat offers technical support

and training, also for an unlimited time. With

this proposal, the schools rest secure in the

knowledge that the software the enjoy will

remain available to them at no cost. It is now

possible to build a curriculum.

** Red Hat’s software is better:

Red Hat’s software consists of the Linux

operating system and an very large selection

of applications for it.

1) Linux easily the most reliable and

flexible operating system in the world.

Schools don’t have to worry about

downtimes.

2) Linux is fast and efficient. The schools

can keep their hardware longer.

Windows has a tendency to grow larger

and slower over time, forcing consumers to

purchase newer hardware to be able to

upgrade. Not so for Linux. Linux itself grows

very little over time (in some areas it actually

gets smaller and faster). This frees schools

from the need of continuous expensive

upgrades.

3) The Open Source software running on

Linux is of excellent quality.

* Computer Science.

—Linux offers the best selection of computer

languages of any platform, as well as more

tools for programming than any other

operating system. Several of these (Perl,

Python, PHP, Tcl, etc) are accessible to

young children, and others (C, C++, Java,

etc) can be taught at a high school level.

—Linux offers more tools for programming

(program debuggers, editors, etc) than any

other operating system.

—The Linux compiler for C and C++ is

probably the best in the world.

—Linux comes with the best web server in

the world: Apache. Schools can use it to

allow students to make their own websites.

—Linux comes with many excellent tools for

website development which are certainly

accessible to both a younger audence and

profesionals alike.

* Science and Mathematics.

For the areas of mathematics, science, and

engineering, there is simply no coparisson.

The tools in Linux are many, they are the

most powerful, the most efficent, and they

are free. This is why, UNIX and Linux are the

standard platform for the physical sciences

and math. To learn more about Linux and

children, please visit www.linuxforkids.com

* Imaging.

Red Hat provides the excellent program

GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program)—

GNU is an organization responsible for some

of the best software in the world.

Children can use this tool to create

astounding artwork which might then be

used on a printing press or on a website.

References: www.gimp.org, www.gnu.org

* Other.

Red Hat’s software also contains several

excellent office applications, vector graphics

tools, multimeda, etc. Now that you have

seen an overview of what Red Hat is offering

to the schools (I left out much for space

reasons), I would ask you to find out exactly

what Microsfot is offering to the schools and

make a comparison. It is my honest opinion

that the software that Red Hat is offering free

of charge far surpases what would be

available to the schools through Microsoft

software.

I would like to strongly encourage the

Justice Department accept the offer from

RedHat and greatly extend the help offered

to the most needy schools in the nation.

If you wish to ask questions or

clarifications about any of what I have

written here, please do not hesitate to ask. I

am a strong believer in the importance of

education, and this is a great opportunity to

help those who are least capable of affording

one.

Sincerely,

Monica Samec

MTC–00004382

From: blburton@mac.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 8:57pm

Subject: AtATgram: Over Before You Knew It

(12/13/01)

Brian <blburton@mac.com> is sending you

a scene from _As_the_Apple_Turns!_Scene

3451 follows:

Over Before You Knew It (12/13/01)

‘Tis a sad day, indeed, for ‘‘Redmond

Justice’’ has finally wound to a close. That

news may come as a shock to those of you

who have been following the antitrust action

from the very beginning, because you

probably thought that a federal judge still

needs to approve the proposed settlement

between Microsoft and the Justice

Department before the case can officially be

considered over and done with. We thought

that, too, but evidently we were wrong— at

least, if Microsoft’s latest actions are any

indication.

See, faithful viewer CHOLLYHEAD noticed

a CNET article which reports that Microsoft

has already gone ahead and named two

‘‘compliance officers’’ responsible for

ensuring that the company sticks to the

behavioral changes outlined in the consent

decree. That’d be the_new_consent decree,

mind you, as opposed to that old one from

’95 which Microsoft treated with as much

respect as it would a used Kleenex facial

tissue. But hey, this time will obviously be

different— these two compliance officers will

make sure of that! Especially since one of

them is already on the Microsoft payroll in

the company’s ‘‘Law and Corporate Affairs

antitrust practice group.’’ (Way to inspire

confidence...)

Now, clearly Microsoft wouldn’t jump the

gun and appoint compliance officers before

the settlement was even _approved,_ right?

As Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer himself

stated, ‘‘As a major employer and a leader in

our industry, we take our legal obligations

very seriously.’’ Therefore, the company

would _never_ try to influence a judge to

approve a proposed settlement by enacting

the restrictions in said settlement before it’s

been given the go-ahead. No sirree Bob.

Apparently all that stuff we heard about a

sixty-day period of public comment followed

by another thirty days of Justice Department

response before the judge even has the

_option_ of approving the settlement was just

a hoax.

Then again, if Microsoft _is_ enacting

compliance months before the settlement is

even approved, we can only hope that the

judge isn’t na?ve enough to fall for a blatantly

transparent ‘‘we’ll be good little boys’’ act. As

faithful viewer JONATHAN FLETCHER

pointed out, the Senate Judiciary Committee

is pretty skeptical about the settlement

proposal, at least according to the New York

Times, so here’s hoping that people in

general aren’t really as painfully stupid as

Microsoft seems to think they are. As for

those nine states still pushing for tougher

(read: ‘‘actual’’) penalties, check out The

Register’s commentary on Microsoft’s ranting

attempt to get the judge to force them to

accept the settlement as it’s currently

worded— it’s worth a giggle. And here’s

hoping that Microsoft’s voluntary early

compliance with the as-yet-unapproved

consent decree only shows the judge just

how ineffectual those ‘‘remedies’’ will be

before she actually accepts or rejects it...

To see this scene as it was meant to be

seen, complete with links to articles and

formatted as originally broadcast, visit:

<http://www.appleturns.com/scene/

?id=3451>

To see the complete, unadulterated episode

in which this scene was originally broadcast,

visit: <http://www.appleturns.com/episode/

?date=12/13/2001>

As the Apple Turns: <http://

www.appleturns.com/>

This Scene: <http://www.appleturns.com/

scene/?id=3451>

This Episode: <http://

www.appleturns.com/episode/?date=12/13/

2001>

Copyright (c)1997–2001 J. Miller; please

don’t forward without this attribution and

the URLs above. Other reproduction requires

J. Miller’s explicit consent; please contact

him at the site. Thanks.

MTC–00004383

From: Rich Hurd

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 8:57pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Hi

I am a student thinking of being a teacher.

Information Technology can and will shape

the teaching profession in the future. Please

dont put Microsoft in charge of that future by

allowing the current settlement terms to go

forth. If they continue and extend there

monopoly, I wont teach Math or Science. I

will do something else.

Thanks for listening

Rich Hurd

MTC–00004384

From: Hurd, Richard P

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/13/01 9:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi

I am a student thinking of being a teacher.

Information Technology can and will shape

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24499

the teaching profession in the future. Please

dont put Microsoft in charge of that future by

allowing the current settlement terms to go

forth. If they continue and extend there

monopoly, I WILL NOT teach Math or

Science. I will do something else.

Thanks for listening

Rich Hurd

MTC–00004385

From: Patricia J Bennatts

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 9:21pm

Subject: Leave Microsoft free to improve,

invent and share their innovations

PLEASE !!!!!!

Please stop this stupid case to prohibit

excellence in designing better and more

desirable ways .. Stopping competition ties

the inventiveness of Microsoft because the

others can’t or don’t have the expertise to do

so.. Let us complement this company under

seige and value the good opportunities it

offers to so many to make a good living and

keep the economy progressing ... PLEASE

LET US BE FAIR TO THIS GOOD COMPANY

AND STOP TRYING TO PUT THEM DOWN

Also note they don’t hoard their wealth but

contribute to many educational and

philanthropic organization ... They are for

excellence and continue to keep the

marketed products ever new and wondrous.

MTC–00004386

From: bpetit@mac.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 9:26pm

Subject: Breakup

I support breaking up Microsoft and think

the current agreement you have made with

Microsoft is a plain giveaway to them. They

are a ruthless monopoly!!!

Concerned citizen

MTC–00004387

From: Len Bloch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 10:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to offer feedback on the

proposed Microsoft settlement. There are

many aspects of the settlement which I feel

could be improved, but I will focus on the

requirement that Microsoft disclose some of

their code to other companies.

I am fully in favor of disclosure, but I feel

that the disclosures should be made to the

public at large, and the all members of the

public should then have the right to modify

and use the code. Microsoft’s most significant

competition comes from the free software

movement, and it is crucial that the

disclosures become available to anybody who

wants to compete with Microsoft, even if

they are not a ‘‘company’’.

As for the proposal that Microsoft be

required to port their office applications to at

least three other operating systems. It should

be specified which operating systems, with

the understanding that it should be widely

used systems, like Linux and Open BSD.

Remember, Microsoft has been found

guilty of criminal activities, and the remedies

need strengthen Microsoft’s main

competition or they will not work as

remedies. Microsoft’s biggest competition

comes from free software. By making more

and better free software available, everybody

will benefit.

Aloha,

Len Bloch

MTC–00004388

From: James Brundege

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 10:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530–0001

I would like to comment on the proposed

Microsoft antitrust settlement. It is my

understanding that the settlement requires

Microsoft to disclose information on their

APIs, protocols, etc. to competing businesses,

but that this requirement does not extend to

non-profits and government agencies. This is

a critical problem with the settlement as

proposed! As a developer of bioinformatics

software for the scientific community, I

develop free and open source software that

fills critical scientific niches. This work is

paid for by government grants. This type of

software is critical for the research

community, and it, like most software, must

interact with systems operating under the

Windows OS. This has become increasing

difficult as open standards have been ignored

to generate a competitive advantage. If nonprofits, universities, and other sources of free

software are locked out of the settlement

agreement it will impede our ability to

produce these niche programs. This will

ultimately harm major government directives

in bioinformatics and other areas.

I thus request that you reject the Microsoft

settlement as proposed. Please reconsider the

settlement to include provisions to give nonprofits and other organizations the same

competitive rights and the same access to

Microsoft APIs and protocols that businesses

are guaranteed in the current settlement.

Thanks you,

James Brundege, Ph.D.

Division of Medical Informatics, BICC

Oregon Health & Science Univ.

3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd

Portland, OR 97201

Phone: 503–494–7906 Fax: 503–494–4551

E-mail: brundege@ohsu.edu

MTC–00004389

From: Rolf Paloheimo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 10:58pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to inform you of my

discomfort wioth the settlement that the

government has entered into with Microsoft.

The settlement:

*does not give Microsoft any incentive to

stop deceiving its customers,

*does not punish microsoft for attempting

to deceive the government and the public,

*institutionalizes microsofts monopoly.

I hope that the court will reconsidor this

settlement.

Thank you,

Rolf Paloheimo

http://healthyhousesystem.com

Creative Communities Research Inc.

MTC–00004390

From: Gary Rost

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 11:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

There is still plenty to complain about in

the text of the proposed settlement, itself.

Those who followed the case closely will

remember that one of Microsoft’s chief claims

during the trial was that times and the nature

of business have changed, and that anti-trust

enforcement ought to be different today than

it was when the laws were first passed in the

early part of the last century. This is a fastmoving industry based on intellectual, rather

than industrial, capital, goes the argument.

Sure, Microsoft is on top today (and every

day since it got bigger than Lotus around

1986) but, hey, that could change in a

Redmond minute. This argument evidently

didn’t resonate with the court, though, since

Microsoft was found guilty. Keep repeating to

yourself: ‘‘Microsoft is guilty.’’

Well, Microsoft now appears to be exacting

its revenge, leaning this time on the same

letter of the old law to not only get a better

deal, but literally to disenfranchise many of

the people and organizations who feel they

have been damaged by Microsoft’s actions. If

this deal goes through as it is written,

Microsoft will emerge from the case not just

unscathed, but stronger than before.

Here is what I mean. The remedies in the

Proposed Final Judgment specifically protect

companies in commerce—organizations in

business for profit. On the surface, that

makes sense because Microsoft was found

guilty of monopolistic activities against

‘‘competing’’ commercial software vendors

like Netscape, and other commercial

vendors—computer vendors like Compaq, for

example. The Department of Justice is used

to working in this kind of economic world,

and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy

that will rein in Microsoft without causing

undue harm to the rest of the commercial

portion of the industry. But Microsoft’s

greatest single threat on the operating system

front comes from Linux—a non-commercial

product—and it faces a growing threat on the

applications front from Open Source and

freeware applications.

The biggest competitor to Microsoft

Internet Information Server is Apache, which

comes from the Apache Foundation, a notfor-profit. Apache practically rules the Net,

along with Sendmail, and Perl, both of which

also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit

organizations have no rights at all under the

proposed settlement. It is as though they

don’t even exist. Section III(J)(2) contains

some very strong language against not-forprofits. Specifically, the language says that it

need not describe nor license API,

Documentation, or Communications

Protocols affecting authentication and

authorization to companies that don’t meet

Microsoft’s criteria as a business: ‘‘...(c) meets

reasonable, objective standards established

by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity

and viability of its business, ...’’

So much for SAMBA and other Open

Source projects that use Microsoft calls. The

24500 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

settlement gives Microsoft the right to

effectively kill these products. Section III(D)

takes this disturbing trend even further. It

deals with disclosure of information

regarding the APIs for incorporating nonMicrosoft ‘‘middleware.’’ In this section,

Microsoft discloses to Independent Software

Vendors (ISVs), Independent Hardware

Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers

(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)

the information needed to inter-operate with

Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in

the footnotes at the legal definitions for these

outfits, we find the definitions specify

commercial concerns only. But wait, there’s

more! Under this deal, the government is

shut out, too. NASA, the national

laboratories, the military, the National

Institute of Standards and Technology—even

the Department of Justice itself—have no

rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan is such

a low-tech adversary and that B–52s don’t

run Windows.

I know, I know. The government buys

commercial software and uses contractors

who make profits. Open Source software is

sold for profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is

easy to argue that I am being a bit shrill here.

But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They

probably saw this one coming months ago

and have been falling all over themselves

hoping to get it through. If this language gets

through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY

TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. Is the

Department of Justice really that stupid? Yes

and no. They showed through the case little

understanding of how the software business

really functions. But they are also complying

with the law which, as Microsoft argued, may

not be quite in sync with the market realities

of today. In the days of Roosevelt and Taft,

when these laws were first being enforced,

the idea that truly free products could

become a major force in any industry—well,

it just would have seemed insane.

MTC–00004391

From: karsten koepcke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/13/01 11:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I’ve been in the computer business for

about 20 years. I think this settlement is a

total capitulation by the DOJ. The

government is supposed to protect and

encourage competition. All this does is allow

Microsoft to continue its monopolistic

practices. Judge Jackson had the right idea.

Breaking the company up, much like

Roosevelt did with the oil, steel and railroad

trusts, is the right thing to do. No large, and

especially no monopoly, enterprise is

interested in innovation much less

competition. To the contrary it is in their best

interest to stifle innovation. Is there anyone

out there who cares about ‘‘We the

people’’???? The government seems to have a

phobia in regard to competition. You break

up AT&T and then you allow the Bell

Companies to merge! And now with Taunzin

Dingle you want to stifle competition in the

telecommunications arena. I just don’t get it.

Sincerely,

Karsten Koepcke

MTC–00004392

From: Patrick Thurmond

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:15am

Subject: Your doing the right thing!

Your doing the right thing! The MS

settlement is absolutely correct. I do not want

to see MS busted up. Thank you for holding

steady to your decisions.

Happy Holidays,

Patrick Thurmond

MTC–00004393

From: Philip Sandiford

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:19am

Subject: One Public Comment on Microsoft

Punishment

I’ll be brief. Microsoft has been found

guilty. They are not repentant, in fact, they

defy the court’s judgment. The company has

so much leverage that points raised within

the Bush administration include the negative

impact on the economy if the punishment is

too severe, as well as the costs in time and

expense.

I am not a wise man and will not pretend

to know the ‘‘just’’ answer but I hope ‘‘the

dollar’’ doesn’t sully the correct remedy. I

will gladly pay my part if society must also

share a price to correct the unlawful behavior

of those found guilty. Better that then

increasing the public cynicism towards the

court and Government.

Please don’t allow these giants to believe

they have grown above the law.

Philip T. Sandiford

Spokane Washington

MTC–00004394

From: T Paluchniak

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:27am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am opposed to the settlement the Justice

Department has negotiated with Microsoft.

The settlement proposed by the nine

dissenting states makes more sense. The

DOJ’s settlement does not do enough to

insure that Microsoft does not further abuse

its monopoly power. For example, the

settlement now claims Microsoft does not

have to afford certain protections to small

developers unless they have been in business

for a year, and have given out more than a

million copies of its software. Whoever

negotiated this has little knowledge about

how the software industry works. In a year

Microsoft could have already stomped out

the competition. Such as a deal does not

encourage competition, it hinders it

drastically.

Furthermore, the proposed deal does not

even require Microsoft to admit guilt, which

makes it harder for companies like Netscape

to collect damages resulting from Microsoft’s

illegal activities that brought it into court in

the first place.

For some one such as myself who chooses

to use alternative products such as the

operating system put out by Apple Computer

I personally am injured by Microsoft’s

practices because Apple is continuously

threatened by Microsoft, which uses its

monopoly power to get Apple to do things its

way. Apple is afraid Microsoft will stop

making Microsoft Office for it (which is is

profitable for Microsoft) because Microsoft

claims that it will stop making it. Apple then

is forced to stop competing with Microsoft in

certain areas, as no Microsoft Office would

mean the death of Apple. Again this hurts

competition. Worse it hurts me the consumer

who likes to have a choice in the computer

operating system market.

Microsoft shows no sign of letting up

either, just look at its proposed settlement in

being heard in Boston. Microsoft wants to

punish itself by expanding its own market

share at Apple’s expense. How does this help

competition? It does not.

I plead that the court will truly come up

with a solution that sends a clear message to

Microsoft that illegal competition is not

tolerable.

MTC–00004395

From: mikey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:46am

Subject: MS Settlement

Call this justice NO I call it a mockery. You

have told Microsoft that because it has

money it can buy its way out of breaking the

laws. this is it too you have sent the signal

that because they have money they can force

there way on Us the many citizens of this

great country

MTC–00004396

From: Josh Wurzel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:14am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

As a user of an alternative platform, as an

investor, as an educated student, and as a

republican, I can not agree with Microsoft’s

settlement. This concession by the world’s

largest software company is clear an attempt

to 1) look generous to the public 2) solve a

major problem for the company and 3)

continue to do business as usual. The fact of

the matter is that Microsoft’s presence and

tactics hurt the economy far more than to

help it, and this will not change if this

settlement goes through. In fact, Microsoft

will become even more bold than it did after

the trial a few years ago. Nothing will stop

them from using their market share to

dominate every conceivable market. People

do not buy windows because they want to.

People buy windows (and other microsoft

products) because ‘‘everyone else uses

them’’. And people do not use these products

for their quality, they use them because

Microsoft forces vendors to cater to their

demands, bundling their products and

threatening retribution if strict rules are not

followed. It takes no psychic to see where

Microsoft is going with its current

technologies. Do you really think Microsoft

would launch subscription-based software if

it did not have a monopoly? Now, it can

FORCE people to use its operating system,

and to repeatedly pay for the privilege of

doing so. This is WRONG, in the very truest

sense of the word.

With .net in the near future, Microsoft is

going to be in a position to virtually control

the internet. How much more grabs for power

will it take before something is done to stop

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24501

them? How long before Bill Gates can

threaten to take down the entire world wide

web if billions in ransom are not paid? The

idea seems far-fetched now, but it didn’t take

much threatening from Microsoft to get a

small city in Virginia to cough up nearly a

million dollars. And even if it is un-realistic

to assume that Bill Gates is involved in some

world-domination scheme, the fact is that his

company puts him in a position to go

through with it, if he should ever want to. We

can’t allow companies to have this much

control over the population.

Please see Microsoft’s offer for what it is:

a pathetic attempt to ingratiate itself to the

world while offering no real solution for its

behavior.

Thank you,

Josh Wurzel

Bring MATLAB to OS X for Macintosh!

Sign the petition!

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/matlabx/

petition.html

MTC–00004397

From: suzerain.studios

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:18am

Subject: Settlement Proposal Comments

To whom it may concern:

As an American citizen who relies on

computers for his everyday life, and for

putting bread on my table, I’m extremely

concerned about the proposed settlement

proposal in the Microsoft antitrust case. It

doesn’t even begin to address the ethical

breaches of repeatedly building from

antitrust status to promote future product

exposure. Microsoft is in a dangerous

position where they could become more

powerful than any single company,

individual or country in history. Why? They

are the leaders in an industry that is rapidly

controlling more and more of everyday

human life. Computers store DNA records,

medical records, salary information, credit

card data, and so on. Further, the network

between computers is rapidly becoming the

most important communications

infrastructure between people.

Communications lies at the heart of what

makes a society able to function.

If any one entity gains control of the

communications infrastructure, it will mean

bad things for ordinary citizens. Any

Microsoft settlement must do a few things:

(1) Prevent them from repeating the same

ethical misgivings in future universes (i.e.,

networking protocols, networking software)

(2) Punish them for moving to keep people

from technologies they wanted (Netscape’s

browser, QuickTime, etc.), for stifling the

development of open protocols which would

ease development of online product.

Therefore, I am disheartened, and would

like to see the following:

(1) Any future networking protocols that

Microsoft develops must be governed by

truly open, multinational and multicorporate

standards bodies which can keep the

specifics of communication open for

developers.

(2) A ‘‘fine’’ of enough to affect the

company (i.e., in the billions). I think the

money should be paid back to an entity that

helps the very consumers they have

adversely affected with their anticompetitive

behavior (perhaps to fight hunger, or help

people, or assist schools with getting the

technology they wish to purchase).

Cheers,

Marc Antony Vose

Suzerain Studios

MTC–00004398

From: Speedy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:42am

Subject: Microsoft must be punished.

Briefly, the views expressed are similar to

those in this article: http://

www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/

3952/1/. This is where I saw the need to

contact you regarding this issue. To Whom it

may concern.

I wish to express my concern at the unjust

‘‘penalties’’ that Microsoft has been offered.

The anti-trust case has proven the company

to be trading in a way to retain a monopoly,

and this is now where the penalties are to be

given. Instead, they have been offered

compromise after compromise, without

having to compromise themselves.

I am not a resident of the US, but rather

of Australia. Thus, I offer this email as an

opinion of a resident of the internet. As a part

of the Linux community. As a person with

enough technical insight to understand what

needs to be done in the industry to benefit

both sides. I am disgusted at the way the US

DoJ has handled this case, after it was already

proven but yet to be settled. I am disgusted

even more at the backflip done by the Bush

administration to not punish a criminal, as

was found in the courts of the Clinton

administration. I won’t even go into the

evidence that Microsoft had pumped a lot of

money into Bush’s campaign. This is not

about politics, but about justice and the IT

industry.

I am not a lawyer, and I am not a Microsoft

user. How many messages supporting

Microsoft will be from normal users? Not

many, I would assume. But why would

Microsoft need users to write in with bad

spelling and grammar, when they can pay

lawyers to write full dissertations which are

littered with Latin?

Microsoft has it’s place in this world, and

a decent agreement would benefit them, as

well. It would force them to write more

secure and stable systems, while allowing

others (Linux, FreeBSD, and all the other free

and proprietry Operating Systems) to be a

choice for the end user. When I buy a

computer, I hate the fact that I often have

little to no choice about software. I can buy

pieces and build my own, but if a large chain

was offering a system for a budget price, why

am I then forced to buy Window’s with it?

I could save another hundred dollars and

have it loaded with Linux. Or with nothing

at all, leaving it up to me to choose (there’s

that word again). But only if Microsoft is

forced to comply with the law.

We need at least three items dealt with:

1) Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers, so

that the user who does not wish to purchase

them is not forced to do so. This means that

for the price differential between a new

computer with Microsoft software and one

without, a computer seller must offer the

software without the computer (which would

prevent computer makers from saying that

the difference in price is only a few dollars).

Only then could competition come to exist in

a meaningful way.

2) The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

3) Any Microsoft networking protocols

must be published in full and approved by

an independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing defacto control of the Internet. As to the point

about Microsoft needing to remain as it is for

‘‘National Security’’? HA! Ask the NSA what

operating system they recommend. Better

still, here is the address you may find the

information: http://freshmeat.net/redir/

selinux/7258/url—homepage/ (NSA Securityenhanced Linux is a set of patches to the

Linux kernel and some utilities to

incorporate a strong, flexible mandatory

access control architecture into the major

subsystems of the kernel. It provides a

mechanism to enforce the separation of

information based on confidentiality and

integrity requirements, which allows threats

of tampering and bypassing of application

security mechanisms to be addressed and

enables the confinement of damage that can

be caused by malicious or flawed

applications. It includes a set of sample

security policy configuration files designed

to meet common, general-purpose security

goals.)

Why would a company, who have hijacked

an entire industry and created their own

‘‘standards’’ without allowing others to use

those standards (case in point: Word

documents), be more secure than one whose

standards are open? Any attempt by

Microsoft to say otherwise should be

regarded as fraud, or at least contempt. After

all, what would happen if the ‘‘security’’ was,

at some point, compromised? Would

Microsoft take responsibility? I doubt it.

Thank you for letting me participate in this

decision.

Shane Phillip Ravenn

219 Duffield Rd

Clontarf QLD 4019

Australia

MTC–00004399

From: Conrad Gempf

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:47am

Subject: Microsoft Penalty Phase

As an American citizen living abroad, I

have great hope that the United States courts

will accomplish something that I see for

myself no other body can: restore

competition and fair play to the computer

industry. My ‘‘day job’’ is not directly in

computers, but in theological education.

24502 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

However, I have been involved with writing

for computer journals both in print and

online for some time. I think most people in

the industry are under no illusion about

Microsoft’s claims to want ‘‘to innovate’’.

They have systematically moved into every

lucrative field that they could by copying or

buying out the competition and then

leveraging the new product with their vast

operating system monopoly. We have seen

this happen with their buying of a webbrowser and renaming it Explorer to compete

with Navigator, we’ve seen it with their

copying of the Palm handhelds, and

nowadays we’re seeing it with the launch of

yet another games platform, with promises of

integration to Windows and their new vision

of a corporately-controlled internet and with

their efforts in media players in Windows.

They maintain their monopoly in a way

which quite evidently has strangled the

competition. The numbers speak volumes.

Even people who think that the Microsoft

Windows operating system is superior to the

Mac operating (and those people are not that

easy to find) do not think that, on merits

alone, it would deserve 95% of the market.

It’s not *that* much better. Consumers

simply don’t have a choice.

Even people who think that Microsoft

Word is a better word processor than the preWindows 95 market leader Corel Word

Perfect do not believe that it is 98% better.

Microsoft has and keeps the monopolistic

market share that it has not because

consumers choose them, but because

manufacturers and consumers are made to

choose them.

Microsoft have, we all know, broken

agreements in the past. In the face of having

been found guilty and having had that

conviction upheld unanimously, they are

still quite publicly maintaining that they

have not done anything wrong. They cannot,

therefore, be relied upon to conform

willingly with the spirit of a voluntary

penalty —they do not, apparently,

understand what the courts are saying to

them about their past behaviour.

A just and effective penalty would have to

restore the possibility of competition. One of

the best tests of a penalty would be the

possible effects in the marketplace in terms

of restoring competition and allowing the

alternatives of the Microsoft Windows

operating system to regain marketshare that

reflects how consumers regard them on their

merits.

In many ways, the structural remedy

seemed to me ideal, both in terms of what it

would accomplish and in terms of how little

continual monitoring would have to be done

by other people. I recognise that, for some

reason, this has been withdrawn from

consideration. But something needs to be

done that is more drastic than the proposals

that some of the States have accepted.

Saying ‘‘You must behave lawfully from

now on’’ is not a penalty, it doesn’t go

beyond what any ordinary company would

have to do. A repeat offender like Microsoft

needs to be penalised in such a way as to

artificially restore the balance it has

wrongfully tipped in its favour, and

preferably in ways that quickly give a boost

to those competitors, like Apple, who have

been directly harmed by their practices.

Thank you for your time and

consideration.

Conrad Gempf, PhD

US citizen,

Lecturer in Theology in London, UK

MTC–00004400

From: Tuukk4 (124)(091):)(060)–(060)(124)

p4s4n3n

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:21am

Subject: Microsoft

hi,

I agree completly with there arguments

* Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers, so

that the user who does not wish to purchase

them is not forced to do so. This means that

for the price differential between a new

computer with Microsoft software and one

without, a computer seller must offer the

software without the computer (which would

prevent computer makers from saying that

the difference in price is only a few dollars).

Only then could competition come to exist

in a meaningful way.

* The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

* Any Microsoft networking protocols

must be published in full and approved by

an independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet.

These arguments can be found on http://

www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/

3952/2/ Also I like see Microsoft be more

polite to open source community/free

software foundation. Everyone have right to

exist without rasism. GPL is about freedom

(I think you americanz admire that:).

All the bugs should be let out to public as

soon as possible. All the bug data and

securitys holes should be informed.

Microsoft should collect any information

from it’s customers without asking it directly

with email (Ok button isn’t enough).

Money giving schools is fine but schools

should have right to choose what they want

to use. these are the main things.

Tuukka

Wallankumous alkaa ajatuksesta

MTC–00004401

From: Campagna, Tim

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 4:11am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please explain how giving more market

share to the behemoth Microsoft is a

punishment for it’s action’s. Is it not in plain

site that Microsoft wants to push this through

as fast as possible because they know they’re

getting off with nothing less than an advance

in the education market. This is absolutely

ridiculous!

Microsoft has a strangle hold on the

business market and couldn’t push

companies like Apple out of the education

market with it’s system alone, so now they

must use their monopolistic ways to attempt

a take over. What’s amazing about this is that

the govt. wants to hand it to them with this

settlement. Do not let Microsoft bully you!

Please!

We need fare competition, let them

compete for their money back, make them

cough up the cash and let the schools decide.

Sincerely,

Tim Campagna

Newport Beach, CA

MTC–00004402

From: tc

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 4:43am

Subject: Drop the Case Against Microsoft

I believe the government‘s case against

Microsoft is an absurd abuse of process

whereby Microsoft‘s competitors have

attempted to use the power of government to

achieve what they could not do in the free

marketplace. This case should absolutely be

settled at as little cost to Microsoft as

possible. I am not a MS stockholder, but I

believe that MS should be praised for making

computers accessible to the average person

rather than being persecuted for its success.

Anthony R. Conte

MTC–00004403

From: r.baggarley@waldmann.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 6:50am

Subject: Comments on the proposed antitrust settlement

I am an American citizen living abroad:

Richard Baggarley

Paul-Ehrlich-Weg 2

78549 Spaichingen

Germany

I fail to understand how the proposed

settlement punishes Microsoft for its illegal

activities. On the contrary, this ‘‘remedy’’

only serves to increase Microsoft’s presence

in the education computer market. The dollar

value of the settlement is minute since it

costs Microsoft very little to manufacture

copies of software. I’m sure that a settlement

more in line with the gravity of the illegal

activities of which Microsoft has been found

guilty can be developed. Do not ‘‘punish’’

lawbreakers by allowing them the means to

continue their illegal behavior.

Respectfully,

Richard Baggarley

MTC–00004404

From: Michael Vander Sande

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 8:00am

Subject: Comments on

Renata,

It is good that the Federal government is

reconsidering the proposed Microsoft

settlement as it fundamentally wrong to

provide Microsoft with a clear path to

expand it’s general monopoly. The education

market is one of very few that Microsoft

controls and allowing them to freely

promote, evangelize and otherwise steal

market share seems more like a gift than

punishment. We should not be suggesting, or

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24503

polluting, the minds of educators and

students to use Microsoft versus it’s

competitors by forcing Microsoft products

and services upon them. Microsoft products

have proven to be less than easy to use, prone

to security risks and generally unreliable.

Please don’t force children and educators to

use them, instead provide a choice to those

who seek it.

I look forward to staying informed of your

decisions and am hopeful they will result in

all that is fair and right.

Best Regards,

Michael Vander Sande

the Project House

859.431.4157

859.250.1313—cell

prjcthouse@mac.com

MTC–00004406

From: Wlwelter@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 8:40am

Subject: Justice

Dear Renata Hesse,

Please consider my choice/voice to have

Microsoft ‘‘punished’’ or held accountable for

trying to elliminate its competition. If the

company was found guilty and lost its appeal

why would they not be punished. No one

would give me that break.

Bill Welter

Orlando, FL

MTC–00004407

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 8:55am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘Carlos Edwards’’

<rcedwards@corcystems.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:49

AM

Subject: Microsoft

I am very disappointed with the out come

of the Microsoft trail. I believe harsher

penalties should be enforced. Please do not

back down, do not settle.

Sincerely,

Ronald Edwards

270 South 5th Street

Brooklyn NY, 11211

MTC–00004409

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 8:59am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘Brian Higgins’’

<bghiggins@ucdavis.edu>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:00

AM

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Attorney General,

I am utterly appalled by the decision of the

US Justice department to settle the Microsoft

suit as described in the press. The DOJ

settlement agreement is a joke and a total

affront to the consumer. I trust that you and

your staff will not buckle under to the

Microsoft propaganda. The courts have ruled

that Microsoft has acted as a monopoly and

we as consumers need to see the law upheld,

the events of Sept 11 notwithstanding.

Please prosecute this case with vigor.

Support the consumer.

Thank you

Brian Higgins

3202 Grosbeak Court

Davis, CA 95616

MTC–00004411

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:03am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘Rutherford, Ronald’’

<ronaldrutherford@dwt.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:44

AM

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings. This is just a short note to say

that I also believe that the proposed

Microsoft settlement, as it currently stands, is

unacceptable.

Please keep up the fight. Thanks.

Ron Rutherford

Seattle

MTC–00004415

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:09am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘Tom Moore’’

<tom.moore@landslidedesign.com>

To: <Recipient List Suppressed:;>

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:13 PM

Subject: Stay the course!

To the Attorney General:

I cannot urge you in strong enough terms

to continue on your path of seeking to punish

Microsoft for its egregious antitrust

violations.

What they have done—and what they still

plan to do—to the computer industry, and,

by extension, almost every industry in

America, is outrageous.

I’m extraordinarily disappointed in the

federal government’s abdication of its duty in

this matter. It is now up to you to protect

businesses like mine, and families like mine,

from Microsoft’s relentless and lawless

clutches.

Thank you.

Tom Moore

Tom Moore

President, Landslide Design

tom.moore@landslidedesign.com

11 Forest Ave., Rockville, MD 20850

phone: 301.762.0627 fax: 301.762.5156

MTC–00004417

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:12am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘Jonathan Ness’’

<jness@frontbase.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:46 PM

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello West Virgina AG,

I want you to know that I support your

continued fight to pursue justice against the

Microsoft monopoly and it’s anti-competitive

business tactics. They sure got off easy in that

settlement. Please don’t give up the fight to

ensure that they change their ways. Thanks!

Jonathan Ness

10520 19th Ave NE

Seattle, WA 98125

MTC–00004418

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:34am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘Jack Tyler’’ <jack@jtectn.com>

To: <uag@att.state.ut.us>

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:22 PM

Subject: I support further prosecution of

Microsoft

I am a resident of Memphis, TN.

Unfortunately, my state has settled with

Microsoft in the anti-trust battle. My

Attorney-General does not represent me, and

my only recourse is to ask that you continue

to prosecute.

Microsoft’s latest action, the ‘donating’ of

$1 billion worth of microsoft windows,

software and hardware to schools (while in

theory a nice gesture) illustrates how they

continue to use their power to and unlimited

wealth to move more and more people onto

their platform.

Please help.

Please continue the fight for equality.

Jack tyler

JTEC

http://www.jtectn.com

memphis, TN

MTC–00004419

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:35am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘Ron LaPedis’’

<Sales@realpens.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:38

AM

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Mr. Attorney General,

I would like to commend you for not

accepting the proposed DOJ settlement with

Microsoft. I believe that it has been shown

time and time again, that Microsoft ’extends

and extinguishes.’ That is, while appearing to

support a standard, such as Java or Kerberos,

they then add extensions to it that will only

run on the Microsoft operating system (OS)

platform.

When threatened by Netscape, which sold

a browser which allowed web pages to be

displayed on any platform, they developed

their own browser and tightly integrated it

into the OS then bundled it free of charge.

Coupled with web pages that used coding

which would only work on the Microsoft

browser, they took over the market,

effectively eliminating Netscape as a viable

company. And this was AFTER a consent

decree with the DOJ in an earlier case!

With Windows XP, Microsoft is attempting

to take over access to the Internet, forcing

users to use their middleware and go to

Microsoft approved sites when a URL (web

24504 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

address) is mistyped. Microsoft MUST be

reigned in as a convicted monopolist, or

there will be no choice whatever left for

consumers.

I sincerely hope that you and the other

dissenting state attorneys general will work

for a settlement with teeth in it which will

prevent Microsoft from crushing the

competition through illegal practices, of

which it has already been convicted .

Ron LaPedis

2115 Sea Cliff Way

San Bruno, CA

650–359–9887

http://realpens.com

MTC–00004421

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:42am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘TechSupport->CBC-Saint Louis’’

<techsupp@cbc-stl.org>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:54 PM

Subject: Microsoft ‘‘Settlement’’

Dear Sirs:

I am very glad that you are resisting the

effort of Microsoft to get off scott-free from

their monopolistic behavior. Please, since the

Federal Government has caved in to

Microsoft, continue this battle until real

remedies AND punishments have been levied

against Microsoft.

I find it very difficult to understand how

a company can be found guilty, egregiously

guilty in fact, of crimes, and all the Federal

Government wants to do is to get them to

promise to maybe never do it again! An

individual, or a company without limitless

pockets, that were to be found guilty of such

behavior as has Microsoft, would be facing

strict punishment that would make them

truly regret committing such crimes and

would make them think twice before

committing such crimes again. Remedies for

the future are needed, as well as

punishments for past misbehavior. This is

the second time that Microsoft has been

found guilty of essentially the same crime—

does the Three Strikes and you’re out rule

apply here? Because they will be back in

court for the same crimes again!

Thanks for your care for the consumer.

Please don’t give up!

Brother Ray Bonderer, FSC

CBC-Saint Louis

Christian Brothers College High School

Technology Coordinator

6501 Clayton Road

Saint Louis, MO 63117–1796

314–721–1200

MTC–00004422

From: Joe (038) Micki Wilder

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:43am

Subject: Let go Microsoft!

It was fair what the Dept. of Justice and the

9 states & Microsoft agreed on . Let go of this

great company and get on with National

Security.

MTC–00004424

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:48am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘Patrick McDonald’’

<patrick. mcdonald@courrier. usherb. ca>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:26 PM

Subject: Keep them on their toes

To whom this may concern,

Congratulations on not selling out to

Microshaft, an unrepentant monopolist,

bully, and lawbreaker of unique proportions.

Congatulations on being clever enough (or

honest enough) to not fall for their

‘‘compromise offer’’ that conveniently lets

them walk away from legal proceedings...

while laughing loudly at the federal and state

governments, law-abiding corporate entities,

and consumers. Please don’t give up; the

importance of staying the course is as

immense as Micro$oft’s repeated and

conscious violation of fair competition laws.

Your perseverance and determination will

have crucial repercussions, not only for your

constituency, but also for people living as far

away as snowy Canada, and even beyond.

Best regards,

Pat McDonald

MTC–00004425

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘Dave Coker’’ <dcoker@panix.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:29 PM

To whom it may concern :

I am totally appalled by the current

MicroSoft settlement.

For years they have without restraint of

any kind practiced a predatory form of

business. They have effectively increased

costs and limited consumer choice, all in the

course of their efforts to control and increse

market share.

I plead with you to revisit this decision as

soon as possible, before it is too late.

In closing, as a Computer Professional with

over twenty years experience I am obliged to

point out that many lay people don’t really

know what they are being deprived of

because of Microsofts practices.

Please correct this wrong.

Dave Coker

MTC–00004431

From: Berl R. Oakley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 10:02am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:

I am e-mailing with respect to the proposed

Microsoft antitrust settlement. It is my firm

belief that the proposed settlement is

inadequate to prevent Microsoft from

continuing its pattern of abuse of its

monopoly power. Indeed, judge Jackson1s

remedy was probably inadequate. A more

reasonable solution would have been to break

the company into four or more companies.

The currently proposed remedy is clearly and

obviously inadequate. It is important to note

that Microsoft has engaged in illegalities

repeatedly and over a very long period of

time. It has successfully thumbed its

collective nose at previous rulings and has

shown that it can not be trusted in any way.

In addition, the wide-spread use of

Microsoft software (particularly in the

networking area) is a threat to national

security. Microsoft has been very weak on

security issues and the wide-spread use of a

single platform makes us particularly

vulnerable. Given the damage caused by kids

engaged in mischief, it is frightening to

consider the damage that could be caused by

a serious cyberterrorist.

In addition, antitrust enforcement has been

much too permissive in recent years. For one

example of many, we get our news from

fewer and fewer sources because of mergers

of news organizations. This is unhealthy for

democracy. When companies become very

large and the management makes serious

mistakes, the entire country suffers. Japan

certainly has experienced this in the past

decade in the banking sector. There are only

a small number of banking corporations in

Japan and they all made bad real estate loans

a decade or more ago.

This has stifled credit flow and hindered

economic recovery. The Enron debacle in the

US may have similar (although one hopes not

as severe) consequences. It is time for

antitrust enforcement to regain some teeth. A

just penalty for Microsoft must include, at a

very minimum, the following.

First, Microsoft products must be extra-cost

options on computers. Now they are

bundling products into an operating system

that has become extremely expensive (half

the cost of an entry level computer). This

clearly stifles competition as one is unlikely

to pay for a program from a Microsoft

competitor if one has already paid for the

Microsoft version as part of the operating

system or as an add-on that comes with the

operating system.

Second, Microsoft applications should be

required to use open document formats (such

as XML). These document formats must be

approved by an independent body (as is the

case with XML). Microsoft must not be

allowed to modify these formats to make

them Microsoft- or Windows specific. As

long as Microsoft1s closed formats are a de

facto standard, other companies will be at a

significant competitive disadvantage.

Requiring Microsoft to use open document

standards will help level the playing field.

The value of open document standards (e.g.

HTML, PDF) is apparent from how

remarkably they fostered the growth of the

internet. If Microsoft is not required to use

open document formats, the specifications of

their current and future document formats

must be made public so that other software

development companies can design their

software to open, read and save Microsoft

format documents. This is a simple matter,

but is hugely important.

Third, Microsoft must be forced to respect

open standards such as JAVA. This will

allow developers to create cross-platform

applications which will give users more

software choices. Microsoft has responded to

the promise of JAVA by producing a

modified version that is Windows-specific.

This is clearly an effort to hinder the

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24505

development of cross-platform software and,

thus, reduce the choices available.

Fourth, any Microsoft networking

protocols must be published in full and

approved by an independent network

protocol body. It is apparent that Microsoft

would like to control the internet (note their

.NET strategy). It is of paramount importance

that they be prevented from doing so.

Fifth, Microsoft must be required to

produce (or in some cases continue to

produce) versions of their most popular

software such as Word, Powerpoint, Excel,

etc. for platforms other than Windows

(Macintosh, Linux). These applications must

be cost-competitive and features competitive

with the Windows versions. This would go

some way toward allowing these platforms to

compete with Windows. Please note that I

have no financial interest in antitrust actions

that might restrict Microsoft. I do not work

for a Microsoft competitor and I suspect that

I own more Microsoft stock through mutual

funds than that of all of its competitors. My

motivations are simply an interest in fairness

and the well being of our country.

Yours sincerely,

Berl R. Oakley, Ph. D.

Professor of Molecular Genetics

The Ohio State University

MTC–00004433

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 10:06am

Subject: Miscrosoft Settlement

——Original Message——

From: ‘‘Dennis & Diana Wright’’

<wrightsdd@home.net>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:50

PM

Subject: Thanks!

Thanks to your state for having the

credibility and will to not agree to the bogus

Antitrust settlement agreed to by nine of the

18 states and the U. S. DOJ.

The settlement negotiated by USDOJ and

Microsoft and the nine states is an absolute

disgrace. It will have no effect on the crimes

committed by Micro$oft. They will continue

their predatory practices and thumb their

nose at the courts as they have in the past.

Microsoft has severely damaged the

Computer Industry through their practices

and continue to do so.

I and many Americans will view this bogus

settlement as another example of political

contributions to the Republican Party and

this administration being rewarded

generously through this lame settlement.

I encourage you to push for punishment

that will change these predatory practices

and level the playing field for smaller

companies. I commend you for your courage

and your attempt to squeeze justice out of

this process.

Thanks,

Robert Wright

MTC–00004435

From: Piolino, Thierry

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 10:10 am

Subject: Miscorsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

I have been following the proceedings for

quite a while and I was struck by the

‘penalty’. In simple words DoJ says:

‘‘Microsoft, you are a bad boy. Promise that

you will not do it again.’’

Microsoft has been found guilty of its de

facto monopoly and with its new operating

system Windows XP it is ’cementing’ its grip

on that monopoly. Under the guise of ‘‘this

is what people want’’ Windows XP locks out

standards owned by competitors (Java from

Sun Microsystems, QuickTime from Apple,

audio and video formats from RealNetwork).

This is why I have certain concerns about

any effect that the opening of the Windows

application program interface might have.

Some people argue, that it is a question of

National Interest. Remember the USS

Yorktown (CG–48, Ticonderoga-Class AEGIS

cruiser, lying dead in the Atlantic water after

a complete crash of Windows NT, forcing her

to be towed back to Norfolk, VA). Remember

all viruses running on Windows, Outlook or

Office.

For me ‘National Interest’ means interest

for the Nation, nor for Microsoft ALONE. If

MS gets some benefits, that is OK, but if only

MS gets benefits and the rest of the world

gets harmed, it is not National Interest, but

Microsoft interest.

Microsoft should be punished for

practicing illegally (and not thanked and

encouraged to do so).

Merry Christmas and rule wisely.

T. Piolino

MTC–00004436

From: Brian Densmore

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 10:10am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

You really need to get some professional

software and hardware engineers on your

staff. This proposed settlement is ludicrous.

You don’t seem to even have a basic

understanding of the computer industry. This

settlement would be far more damaging to

the computer industry than is the current

situation. If you allow this settlement to

happen, you will have cleared the way for

Microsoft to systematically wipe out all

serious competitors. Example:

Microsoft would be able to define its own

standards and block and seek to destroy all

opposition on the web server front. Apache

is the leading webserver in use today, but

since it is part of a not-for-profit company

Microsoft could attack this company in much

the same way as it destroyed Netscape. This

is a seriously flawed document. Go back to

the drawing board and start over.

Take it from a professional computer

software engineer (go check it out I’m in the

Who’s Who for the IT industry [or whatever

they called it], or at least I was at one time—

I really don’t keep track of that stuff, too busy

writing code).

By the way, in case you forgot. The courts

found Microsoft guilty, not non-compliant.

These guys are criminals, you should treat

them accordingly.

Best Regards,

Brian Densmore

<mailto:densmoreb@ctbsonline.com>

Associate

CompuTech Business Solutions, Inc.

http://www.ctbsonline.com/

(816) 880–0988 x215

MTC–00004437

From: Neal T Konneker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 10:13am

Subject: Opposed to settlement

I oppose the proposed settlement with

Microsoft. It does nothing more than reiterate

existing laws in more specific terms. Since

Microsoft violated these laws before, simply

restating them in more detail accomplishes

nothing. It offers little if any protection to

Microsofts future competitors and no redress

for those companies harmed by Microsoft in

the past.

Neal Konneker

MTC–00004438

From: John Lightsey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 8:56am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi there,

My name is John Lightsey and I’m a

computer programmer and systems

administrator for a small web development

company in Houston Texas. Though I don’t

have an opinion about the legal wording of

the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement,

I do feel qualified to voice my own opinion

about its spirit.

The question of wether or not Microsoft

holds a monopoly position in the desktop OS

marketplace is already resolved. They do

hold a monopoly and have for some time

now. The question of wether or not Microsoft

misuses their monopoly has also been

resolved. They have misused it on numerous

occasions in very direct way and are

continuing to do so today. The proposed

settlement, while acknowledging these facts,

does little to prevent or halt current and

future abuses of Microsoft’s monopoly

position. For example, it is patently obvious

that Microsoft illegaly tied Internet Explorer

into the Windows OS in order to destroy the

market for third party web browsers, why is

Microsoft STILL being allowed to bundle it

in Windows XP. Why is there so little

discussion of compensating the parties who

were directly damaged by that action

(Netscape, Mozilla, Opera, etc)? And, as a

consumer, why do I still not have the option

of purchasing a retail version of Windows

without Internet Explorer built into it with

the cost of Explorer reduced from the price?

This same line of reasoning applies to a

wide variety of programs being bundled with

the latest release of Windows which in

reality are not a part of the operating system

itself. Media Player (Microsoft’s latest anticompetitive move very obviously designed to

kill off third party applications like Real

Player, Winamp, Power-DVD, Win-DVD

which had done so well on Windows 95/98),

its integrated firewall (destroying the market

for products by Norton, Black Ice, Zonelabs

and others), CD-burning capabilities (Nero,

EZCD-Creator, CDR–Win), .Net capabilities

(Java). The list of all the markets for third

party applications that Microsoft has already

destroyed is quite voluminous. The list of

what companies they are directly targeting

24506 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

with their latest OS release is also quite

lengthy. Microsoft’s contention with Internet

Explorer has always been that it is ‘‘free’’. So,

are all of these applications similarly ‘‘free’’?

If so, why doesn’t Microsoft make versions of

these ‘‘free’’ applications available for other

Operating Systems? The answer is

obvious...these programs simply aren’t free.

They have a cost associated with them, and

that cost is being directly rolled into the cost

of the OS. So, if I’m already a happy

consumer of RealMedia’s products, why am

I being forced to purchase Media Player? If

I’m already happy with Nero as my CD

burner, why am I being forced to buy the

bundled Microsoft CD Burner? Out of the

$200 cost for a full version of the Home

Edition of Windows XP how much of the

money am I spending on Microsoft products

that I’m perfectly content to purchase from

third parties? Unfortunately, when you

combine the Microsoft bundling practices

with it’s other practices designed to force

upgrading in order to maintain compatability

you get a very nasty combination that will

most certainly destroy any consumer choice

in these areas in a very short time span. In

fact, the length of time it has taken just to

decide wether or not Netscape was pushed

out of the browser market illegaly has seen

the birth and the first stages of the death of

valuable markets in CD burning software,

personal firewalls, and integrated media

applications. As a consumer, the

government’s nod of approval towards

Microsoft’s actions in this regard are quite

disheartening.

Personally, I stopped using ALL Microsoft

products when I read the news that the

government was throwing in the towel and

giving microsoft the go ahead to do as it

pleases. It’s quite obvious Microsoft has no

intentions of stopping it’s practices which

will ultimately destroy the markets for any

and all profitable third part computer

applications. It’s also becoming quite obvious

that the current administration is not

interested in addresing the monopolistic

practices of Microsoft. As a programer I

worry that if I ever build a profitable business

off an application designed to work in

Windows, I would be in jeopardy of having

the functionality of my product integrated

into the OS and any future market for my

product destroyed. As a consumer, I’m

disturbed to find that the government has no

intention of creating a level playing field on

which products can compete on the basis of

merit, rather than the financial clout of their

creators or their forced purchase through

bundling. As a result I’ve started using Linux

and contributing to the development of a

truely free desktop OS. Though I do beleive

many Microsoft products stand on their own

merits (the core of the Windows OS, Office,

Visual Studio) the fact that neither the

government or Microsoft intended to halt the

continued unfair, and IMHO illegal, anticompetitive practices or Redmond is really

making it an all-or-none decision. Everything

is Microsoft’s or nothing is Microsoft’s...

Things like the Frontpage 2002 End Users

Licensing Agreement, and it’s conditions that

you can’t use the product to design a website

critical of Microsoft or its subsidiaries, make

it obvious that the ‘‘Everything is Microsoft’’

route will eventually destroy the computer

industry.

Wether or not you agree with anything I’ve

had to say up until this point, before I close

I’d just like to mention another concern I’ve

had recently. Many industry insiders are

claiming the Desktop computer will fall by

the wayside in another decade. While I don’t

necessarily agree with this prediction, it

appears that Microsoft does. The X-Box,

Windows CE, and .Net seem to be the

spearhead of their advance into these new

markets. Backed by the financial clout their

OS monopoly has produced and their

complete control of the desktop and it’s

standards for communication with other

devices, Microsft is pushing its way into

these new markets with the intention of

dominating them as well. It has been

reported, for instance, that Microsoft LOSES

$100 on each and every X-box sold. Given

that fact, how long is it going to take

Microsoft to turn it’s OS monopoly into a

game console monopoly, into an internet

appliance monopoly, into a PDA OS

monopoly. I hope that any changes to the

current settlement will take considerations

like these into account, and that these issues

can be addresed prior to Microsoft using its

current monopoly to become the defacto

standard in these new markets as well.

Thank you fo your time.

John Lightsey

webmaster@wazzim.com

1526 Richeleiu ln

Houston Tx, 77018

(713)812–1389

MTC–00004439

From: klg@humerus.mae.cornell.edu@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 10:33am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I maintain the computer systems for a

computing facility in the biomechanical

engineering field at a leading university. I am

not content with the proposed settlement of

the antitrust suit currently pursued against

Microsoft. Microsoft has been found guilty of

monopolistic behavior that negatively affects

the consumer. The proposed settlement does

not go far enough to prevent further illegal

behavior. Microsoft has demonstrated in the

past a willingness to skirt the letter and

intent of former consent decrees. Several

weaknesses in the proposed settlement allow

for continued harmful behavior with little

remedy. We need a better settlement that also

addresses past injuries to the consumer and

discourages ongoing illegal behavior. This

settlement falls short of that.

Thank you for your consideration. I can

offer further details and specific examples

should you be interested.

Kirk Gunsallus

Biomedical Mechanics

232 Upson Hall

Cornell University 14853

MTC–00004440

From: Jelagin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 10:34am

Subject: Public comment—Microsoft antitrust

remedies

Gentlemen,

Thank for the opportunity to express my

opinion regarding this issue. I am aware that

my message is only one of many that you are

receiving, and I am especially appreciative if

an actual human being is reading this

(besides someone from the FBI or NSA). If I

am wrong on this assumption, shame on you

for not caring, and shame on me for believing

in the system. Enough of that, lets get to the

heart of the matter; I’ll try to make it quick

and painless:

1. Microsoft has an unfair, and illegal,

monopoly (you know this already).

2. The remedy you propose does nothing

to break up that monopoly, in fact, it assists

them in establishing new monopolies (re: the

education market).

3. The penalties you propose are not severe

enough to prevent them from continuing

their current business practices.

4. While this may not be the case, many

perceive this as a politically influenced

process, which leads people to speculate if

the outcome of this issue would have been

different, had a few hundred people in

people in Florida were more adept at using

a butterfly ballot.

Thank you for your time,

Andy

Andy Jelagin

Network Administrator

Kaleidoscope Imaging, Inc.

700 N. Sacramento, 2nd Floor North

Chicago, Il 60612

www.ksimage.com

MTC–00004441

From: Greg Granger

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 10:35am

Subject: Travesty

This toothless agreement with Microsoft is

a travesty of justice. Mr. Charles A. James

needs to be investigate to determine why he

would broker an agreement so hurtful to the

American People. This has given the

impression to the citizens of the United

States (and the rest of the world) that in

American Justice is for sale. It is a very very

sad day. Millions were spent to bring MS to

court and they were found guilty of AntiCompetitive behavior in both the original

trial and the appeal.

But I suppose that’s unimportant, in the U.

S. today, Mr. James is justice. I suppose we

can in the next ten years expect another 6–

8 fold increase in software prices, buggier

software and a continued lack of support. No

doubt this is ok with Mr. James as long as he

keeps Bill Gates happy. I also found it very

interesting that the wording on the agreement

was changed from ‘‘The United States

Government’’ and ‘‘The People of the United

States’’ to ‘‘The United States Department of

Justice’’, no doubt this insures that even the

few points of this agreement that require any

participation from MS will be ignored.

Certainly, unpatriotic (isn’t that the term for

person who have no concern for their

country or it’s citizens) people like Mr. James

won’t trouble MS and the wording of the

agreement insures that not other part of the

government can/will either. Even if MS were

force to following the largely vacuous

wording of the agreement to the letter, it’s

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24507

wouldn’t effect their monopolistic

stranglehold over the software industry.

I will be writing my representatives

requesting that Mr. James and Mr. Ashcroft

be investigated. We need people of

unquestionable patriotism and integrity

working and leading the Deparment of

Justice. We cannot afford to have men who

through appathy, incompetence or corruption

make a mockery of our Justice system and by

extension our Country.

Greg Granger

R4305 x15876

‘‘Happiness is good health and a bad

memory.’’ Ingrid Bergman

MTC–00004442

From: Earl Helbig

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 10:39am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We think the time is overdue to resolve

this ongoing dispute. Freedom to innovate is

curtailed by dragging out this dispute. It is

more important to get our country moving

again.

In the national interest, find a suitable way

to let Microsoft forge on with its proven track

record of innovation.

Ruth and Earl Helbig

MTC–00004443

From: Mark Tennent

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 10:40am

Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft

To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney, Suite

1200, Antitrust Division, Department of

Justice, 601 D Street NW, Washington, DC

20530 From: Mark Tennent, 71 Wish Road,

Hove BN3 4LN, UK Re: U.S. v. Microsoft

I understand that public comment has been

invited on the above case and hope that as

a non-US resident my comment is valid. I

have been involved in the computer industry

since 1985, before Microsoft held a near

world-monopoly position in software. Since

1985 I have observed that as Microsoft’s

influence has grown, they have actually kept

users of their operating systems and software

at a disadvantage. Their operating systems

are prone to attack by computer virus

writers—and subsequently have been

responsible for an immense cost to the world

in recovering from the effects. Often the

reason for the easy access offered to virus

writers is due to Microsoft’s badly or

incompetently written software. Because of

their control of the operating system they are

also able to prevent faster development of

computers and software by deliberately not

supporting existing standards, such as MP3,

or by making other companies software

incompatible with Microsoft’s, such as

Apple’s Quicktime, or by refusing developers

access to Microsoft’s codes. Consequently

they have held back their own customers and

limited their choices.

Currently I choose not to use a Microsoft

operating system and avoid Microsoft

applications because I have learned from

experience of both that they are seldom the

best tools for the purpose in hand. If

Microsoft is allowed to extend their

monopoly position it will have a great effect

in limiting my own choices in software and

what I am able to do with it. Microsoft were

guilty of taking a competitor’s product, Sun’s

Java, and changing it to make it proprietary

to Microsoft. I am still suffering from the

effects of this.

For example: I use on-line banking

services, accessing my accounts from my

computer. However, I am often barred from

doing so unless I use specifically Microsoft

operating systems and software. The only

reason for this is that access has been blocked

deliberately for non-Microsoft users. My

bank, my Visa card supplier and others,

operate similar secure services but on opensource applications and operating systems

instead of Microsoft programs. They are able

to be accessed from any computer that can

use the Internet.

Another example is where the UK

Government used to run its on-line services

on open-source operating systems, at that

time I had full access to the services.

Microsoft was contracted to improve the

services and since then they are only

available to computers running Microsoft

operating systems and applications. This has

prevented me from using the facilities I used

to have, to pay taxes and such like over the

Internet. Microsoft have been found guilty of

maintaining a monopoly yet the proposed

settlement does little to correct the situation.

Microsoft will not suffer in any way for their

guilt and will themselves supply the

controllers to prevent future transgressions.

Already their proposed settlement of other

cases—by donating software and computers

to schools—seems deliberately designed to

extend their monopoly into an area where, so

far, they have not gained an overwhelming

control, by damaging their biggest rival,

Apple Computer.

I respectfully suggest that Microsoft have

no intention of following the instructions of

the court unless it has a beneficial effect for

Microsoft. The penalties imposed should

curb their behaviour and punish them for

their past mis-behaviour. At the very least the

settlement should contain the following three

elements.

1. Microsoft be prevented from insisting

that computer manufacturers must sell

computers with Microsoft operating systems

or only Microsoft products. This will allow

computer manufacturers to supply computers

with or without Microsoft operating systems

with no fear of losing their licence to sell

Microsoft products. In addition they should

be able to place whatever other applications

on the computers and make any icons or

links to those applications appear on the

computer’s desktop at start-up time and to

open as the default application in preference

to Microsoft’s.

2. Microsoft’s present and future document

file formats be made public, so that

documents created in Microsoft applications

may be read by programs from other makers,

whether on Microsoft’s or other operating

systems. This is in addition to publishing

Microsoft’s Windows application program

interface so that other authors will be able to

write applications for Microsoft operating

systems.

3 All Microsoft networking protocols

should be published in full to prevent

Microsoft from extending their control of the

Internet and that and programming

instructions be removed that prevent other

operating systems from accessing

applications running on Microsoft servers

and applications.

MARK TENNENT

MTC–00004444

From: John Zukowski

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 10:58am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I just wanted to send a note that I feel the

proposed settlement will not prevent

Microsoft from further monopolizing the

desktop computer arena. The proposed

alternatives from the holdout states (mine

includes / Mass.) provides, in my opinion,

better remedies.

John Zukowski

MTC–00004445

From: AMaiersugg@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 11:02am

Subject: (no subject)

Dear Sirs,

Between the Justice Department and Mr.

Greenspan, those of us who are retirees are

really having a difficult time.

Settle this suit, those states who are

unwilling to settle are not helping me, the

hunt and pick user, but those companies who

have just not gotten the message. Use the

KISS system, you know, keep it simple,

stupid. There are plenty of systems for those

companies that use this commercially, but for

me I need the Windows and Word programs

provided by Mircrosoft, so please, for my use

and my pocket book. Put an end to this thing.

I have felt from the beginning that the Justice

Department was not interested in those who

use the Mircosoft systems, but in those local

companies who had been setting on their

hands too long and the market had passed

them by.

Thank you.

Anna C. Maier-Sugg

MTC–00004447

From: Duncan Holley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am writing this letter as a response to the

‘‘penalty’’ that Microsoft Corporation is to

receive in the proposed settlement of their

anti-trust violation case. As a professional in

the IT industry, I come into contact with

Microsoft products, and those of their

competitors, every day, and I feel that

through this experience, I am qualified to

comment on the issue at hand.

Microsoft has already been found quilty in

this case, and therefore, I will not discuss

here the issue of their market place

dominance, or the practices which brought

the courts to this decision. However, I look

at the proposed settlement and find myself

asking several questions:

1) Why a settlement. Traditionally, are not

settlements reserved for out of court

decisions, reached before a defendant is

found guilty of a crime? Why should a

defendant have any right to influence his or

her own sentence, after he or she has been

24508 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

found guilty? Seemingly, this is the duty of

the judge or jury, and not of the defendant.

In light of this, I propose that Microsoft have

no further input into the outcome of this

case, beyond that of this public forum, which

they are as entitled as the rest of us to partake

in.

2) If a settlement, why this one? While on

the surface, the support for financially

challenged children is a noble ideal, it

simply does not address this issues that are

brought up in this case, nor remotely punish

Microsoft for their illegal activities. In a

statement released earlier in the week,

Microsoft reacted with venom to the idea that

the nine states which still pursue the case

against them were attempting to punish the

company. Forgive me if I am incorrect here,

but isn’t that what we are supposed to do

with those that break the law, punish them?

Below are the flaws I see in the current

settlement, please review them at your

liesure.

* Microsoft’s competitors are in no way

compensated for the damage the Micorsoft’s

abuse of monopoly powers has caused. While

I understand the reality that each of these

competitors would benefit only mildly from

a financial perspective, isn’t it up to those

bodies to decide how the money should be

spent, not Micorsoft? Additionally, the sheer

volume of parties damaged by Microsoft’s

illegal activity is what would make each

individual settlement so small. It seems to

me that this implies Microsoft has hurt too

many parties too be punished so lightly.

* Microsoft stands to Gain More

Marketshare from this action. They will

provide their equipment to school children,

therefore increasing their marketshare. Even

if they pay a small fee here, they will recoup

it in the future, as these children will become

accustomed to working with Microsoft

equipment, and be more likely to use it in the

future. This means that the settlement is a

tool for Microsoft to Further Enhance It’s

Monopoly.

* If my understanding is correct, Microsoft

stands to MAKE MONEY on the settlement.

The production costs on a Windows CD are

likely no more than a dollar each. If they are

allowed to treat this penalty as a charitable

donation, they will actually return more

money in tax benefits than they spend in

production costs.

In short, I hardly see how a settlement in

which the Guilty party is not responsable to

those it has injured, is given a tool to further

perpetuate it’s crime in the future, and even

makes the perpetrator a few dollars on the

side, is in any way a penalty for the great

disregard Microsoft has shown for the law,

the government, and the American consumer.

The administration has set as a goal that this

issue be finished in a final way, that it not

reoccur, and we do not see Microsoft back in

court every five years. The way to do this is

to actually penalize them. By rewarding

them, we are incouraging these individuals to

not only continue to break the law, but to get

it brought back to court. It seems to help their

business. Remember, the last time they were

found guilty of an anti-trust violation, they

ignored the penalties put against them. It

seems this time a more serious punishment

is in order.

And if you simply must make them give

one billion to the schools, just make it in

cash, and say that no one is allowed to buy

Microsoft software or hardware with that

money. Apple, Sun, and Linux systems are

all viable alternatives, and, as a member of

the IT community, it is my experience that

learning UNIX skills will make an individual

at least as employable as learning Windows

(Windows is so dominant in the home

market, that those of us with UNIX skills are

rare) and this will benefit those kids as well.

Sincerely,

Duncan H. Holley

9451 Lee Hwy #304

Fairfax, VA. 22031

MTC–00004451

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 11:17am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

——Original Message——

From: ‘‘rj friedman’’ <rjf@indoserv.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:56

PM

Subject: MS Settlement is Unacceptable

As a concerned US citizen living abroad,

I wanted to write to let you know that I am

extremely disturbed at the proposed terms of

settlement that the US Dept. of Justice has

agreed to with Microsoft.

Given Microsoft’s past history of

manuevering around their supposedly

binding agreements; given the huge number

of loopholes in the proposed agreement;

given the overall weakness of the remedies in

relation to the crime; it would make a

mockery of all the time, effort, and money

that went into the proceedings to date, to

accept those terms.

I appreciate the stand that West Virginia

has taken to this point, and would like to

STRONGLY urge the Attorney General to

continue holding out for a more just and

more meaningful remedy.

RJ Friedman

MTC–00004452

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 11:20am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

——Original Message——

From: ‘‘George Wagner’’

<gwagner@macconnect.com>

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:23

AM

Subject: More on the Microsoft settlement

After reading more on the Microsoft

settlement, I am even more concerned. While

the point of this was to reduce or eliminate

Microsoft’s use of their monopoly to expand

its markets, the settlement forces them to do

just that. It has Microsoft providing

hardware, software, and training for schools.

While I am all for helping out schools, all

this does is increase Microsoft’s marketshare,

and in the long run makes them more money

than it costs through upgrades and

replacements. Providing straight funding

with no strings attached would allow the

schools to use the funds for whatever the

SCHOOL decides is needed.

Additionally, the settlement doesn’t appear

to address any of Microsoft’s new markets

such as Internet transactions, Microsoft could

be paid a fee for every transaction made with

the computer. This could be huge. In

addition, their software license agreement

borders on a protection racket, dealing with

the software as more of a lease than a

purchase.

Microsoft’s foray into the game console’s is

another example where their sheer force has

made them a contender in a market where

they have had no reputation. Had it not been

for their monopoly, there would have only

been moderate interest until the product

actually hit the market.

There are other examples, but I am sure

that you get the idea, and I hope that you are

able to do something about it.

George Wagner

MTC–00004453

From: rsobba

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 11:32am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Justice Department,

I believe Microsoft is running an illegal

monopoly and believe the would will greatly

benefit from a competitive market (which is

currently not the case.) Please let me know

if I can do any thing to help this cause, i.e.

petition, e-mail, letters...etc.

Sincerely

Rick Sobba

7739 Fontana

Prairie Village, KS. 66208

MTC–00004454

From: jda

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 11:45am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am writing to express my profound

disagreement with the settlement of the

Microsoft monopoly case proposed by the US

government. The proposed remedy has little

teeth, and the ‘‘penalty’’ is actually a

prescription for extending the monopoly into

the sphere of education. The proposal put

forward by the dissenting States is better. In

particular, Microsoft must be obliged to

provide its de facto monopoly software

(Office) on other (non-Windows) platforms,

in particular the MacOS and Linux.

Furthermore, if Microsoft is to donate

resources to poor schools, it should be in the

form of cash, not refurbished (obsolete)

computers and their own software—these

will inevitably have the paradoxical effect of

furthering Microsoft’s presence one of the

few arenas in which it does not already enjoy

a monopoly. If the reimbursemet was only in

the form of money, Microsoft would have to

compete on an equal footing with other

platforms/vendors who provide technology

for the classroom. That is, they will have to

earn their way in (like the other vendors)

with out an unfair advantage.

The proposal, as it stands, is an obvious

and cynical maneuver by Microsoft to further

its monopoly status at little actual cost to

itself. It should be soundly rejected.

Jonathan Ashwell

8903 Seneca Lane

Bethesda, MD 20817

MTC–00004455

From: Chris nelson

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24509

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 11:52am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

I am very disturbed at the prospect of the

proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust action going into effect. In my work as

an aerospace engineer I am exposed to the

negative effects of the Microsoft monopoly on

a daily basis. The hassle caused by

substandard software quality, incompatible

interfaces, poor security, and undocumented

formats is a present reality, not a theoretical

abstraction, for me. I had hoped that, after all

the time and money spent pursuing the case,

after having convicted Microsoft of illegally

maintaining their monopoly, and after the

conviction had been sustained by the appeals

court, that Microsoft would actually be facing

punishment for its misdeeds. Instead, the

current settlement would seem to set the fox

in charge of guarding the coop, with the

promise that he won’t take any more

chickens- unless he decides that he really

needs to. How does this settlement even

pretend to penalize Microsoft for the things

they have been convicted of doing? In many

ways, it would appear that this settlement

actually improves Microsoft’s position as a

monopoly.

In my opinion, a just settlement (one

designed to limit Microsoft’s ability to repeat

its misdeeds) should include:

1) Microsoft’s operating system API should

be released to the public. Not just some of it,

but all of it- especially the parts dealing with

security. How is one to write a secure

program in a Windows environment if

Microsoft is obfuscating the API? Further,

this release should truly be made to the

public, not just to the companies that

Microsoft deems significant enough to

warrant it.

2) Microsoft’s document formats should be

made public (as above, I mean by this

‘‘released to anyone who is interested’’). This

would allow competitors to write products

which can seamlessly access documents

produced in Microsoft applications and

restore much-needed competition in this area

(which is one of the prime leverage points

that Microsoft uses to preserve its monopoly).

3) Microsoft software should be prohibited

from being bundled with hardware

purchases. While one would not want to stop

people from buying their products at the

same time that they purchase a computer,

they should be a separate line item with a

price tag attached to it. In this fashion, the

myth that Microsoft operating systems come

‘‘free’’ with a computer would be dispelled,

and, if the price was not right, then people

would be able to evaluate other alternatives.

In addition, those who never wanted to buy

a Microsoft product with their new system

would not be forced to pay the so-called

‘‘Microsoft Tax’’ as they usually are now.

4) Microsoft should be required to make

it’s operating system available to hardware

manufacturers and resellers according to an

openly published price schedule with

uniform terms and conditions and a common

date of availability. This would prevent

recurrence of the blackmail strategies in

which Microsoft withheld an operating

system from a vendor (or made it available

at a significantly higher price than

competitors were paying) until the vendor

complied with Microsoft’s demands

regarding competing products.

A settlement with the above points would

truly work toward the elimination of the

stranglehold currently held by Microsoft in

the arena of operating system and office

productivity software. Accomplishing this

would, in the end, benefit everyone in the

nation as competition resulted in better

products at lower prices. Indeed, virtually

the entire world would benefit from it.

Sincerely,

Dr. Chris Nelson

Chris Nelson

nelsoncc@hap.arnold.af.mil

931–454–6696

Home address:

431 Campfire Dr

Murfreesboro TN 37129

MTC–00004456

From: Julie Rubenstein

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:01pm

Subject: Comments on Microsoft

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I wish to offer my comment on settlement

of the Microsoft case and important lingering

issues I believe will still haunt Windows

users, a group which pretty much equates to

the general public at this point in our

technological development.

I am a trained attorney, with basic

education in antitrust law and a 25 year

career in the public policy arena, currently

working in the field for a United States

Senator. It’s been my observation as an early

(1993) user of the Internet and a lifelong

devotee of the Macintosh operating system,

that Microsoft has pulled out every stop, at

every opportunity, to prey upon its own

customers throughout the distribution

network as well as upon the end user market.

I applauded the government’s pursuit of this

case and the excellent work Joel Klein

performed on its behalf. Settling out at this

point is a capitulation of important

principles that will reverberate for many

years to come, to the shame of this

Administration. Is this the legacy you want

to leave?

Further, I have grave concerns about

allowing this monopoly to continue its

overwhelming market dominance in this new

era of terrorist threats, dangerous computer

hackers and the possibility of network

communications breakdowns. Reliance on a

single operating system makes each and

every one of us that much more vulnerable

to this type of attack, so all the more reason

to foster, not dampen, competition in this

industry.

Thank you for your attention.

Julie Rubenstein

CC:Kathleen.Foote@doj.ca.gov@inetgw

MTC–00004457

From: Brian Kelly

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Well, I must that I have a mixed reaction

to the proposed ‘‘settlement’’. First off, just

from a philosophical point of view, I can

understand Micrsoft’s contention that the

added functionality provided was simply

giving the end user more for their dollar.

And I must also say that much of this

litigation has sounded like propped up ‘‘sour

grapes’’ from Mr Barksdale and Netscape,

however, there are other issues which this

litigation didn’t even attempt to address

which is quite simply,

‘‘How did Microsoft’s behavior in

obtaining exclusive contracts to access

points, web server services, and by

contracting with numerous supposedly

independent Internet Service Providers affect

the access market?’’

Much of the debate has centered around

whether Microsoft’s integration of additional

software functionality was a violation of the

Law, however you folks don’t see the true

strategy behind Microsoft’s latest initiative.

You seem to believe that they don’t care

how the people connect, they simply want to

be able to control the market once they do.

And since there are numerous access

‘‘players’’ in the market, everything must be

honky dorey.

I think if you did a little more

‘‘investigative’’ work instead of spending

your time juggling through mounds of

paperwork, you’d understand the true

‘‘intentions’’ of this corporation. Anybody

even tangentially involved in this industry

sees it as plain as day, unless they’ve been

too befuddled by their overreliance on a

single application.

They, meaning Microsoft, don’t mind the

antitrust ruling at all, since it still allows

them to be probably the largest player in the

access business. And access in combination

with the leasing of Ware products, not HOME

INSTALLED SOFTWARE, is what it’s going

to be all about in the coming years folks.

Sure they’ll sell their lion’s share of

standalone Office products, but office has

competitors. With Microsoft’s Cash reserves,

and their ability to institute the forthcoming

‘‘passport’’ system, their jewel has slipped

right under your eyes folks.

They will argue there are thousands of

Independent Access Providers, however,

Microsoft is now poised not only to dominate

the desktop but to dominate the very market

which we all foolishly thought would be a

free, more open way of doing business, the

Internet itself and how people connect with

each other.

But if you want my opinion on the case

before the court, this seems like a bunch of

litigation over whether Netscape is better

than IE. So since it’s simply a squabble

between two companies who both were given

access to the Public Markets in the form of

Stock Issues, warrants and the rest, there

won’t be much sympathy in the end user

community for either player.

The question actually centers on this,

‘‘Why shouldn’t Microsoft be allowed to

extend their product beyond the traditional

sit at home and type on the computer

realm?’’ Why shouldn’t Microsoft be able to

compete for the very market that their

desktop systems helped to create, almost by

mistake.? I don’t think even years ago the

computer industry realized how big a market

to the home user, independent internet

‘‘access’’ would be.

24510 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

So not only will Microsoft control the

method of displaying web pages, via ISS, and

their rolling out versions of ASP and .NET,

but they will also be able to track every single

consumer in the form of either their passport

system or through acquisitions such as

Hotmail and other services. Microsoft is

probably the least concerned with end user

privacy of any company in the market. They

print out nice little privacy policies and the

rest but behind the scenes I think we all

know what they’re going after.

I don’t know if it’s exactly the ‘‘freedom to

innovate’’ scenario Bill likes to describe, but

I’d be more concerned with Microsoft’s

behavior in dealing with the actual access

points including the telecommunications

providers, backbone providers (UUNet),

Qwest, etc etc, then I would be with

Microsoft’s dealings when it comes to simply

producing standalone applications like Office

and IE.

Because we all know, unless we’re floating

around in some sort of self induced trance,

that the Bottleneck is where it’s going , not

the standalone ‘‘blip blip blip’’ of typing your

self printed flyer for your local yard sale.

I applaud the DOJ’s efforts, but I must say

folks that in some respects, you missed the

boat. Microsoft will go on, and they will be

stronger than ever. Nice try though, who

could expect a bureaucratic organization like

the DOJ to actually have any clue about

what’s really going on besides typing

complaints with footnotes on their Microsoft

Word desktops provided by Michael Dell.’

MTC–00004458

From: Cadet

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:11pm

Subject: justice

Dear DOJ,

Please do not let microsoft decide it’s own

punishment. They are a company with a total

disregard for the law and the justice

department. They have bullied and strong

armed the industry to their advantage. They

do not promote innovation, they ether aquire

it or destroy it. They cannot compete evenly

on the merit of their products, so they use

anti competitive tactics to compensate.

Punishment should be harsh and final!!

Thank you for you’re attention,

Christian Manasse

971 E Monterey St.

Chandler, AZ. 85225

MTC–00004459

From: Quinn Perkins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement

I strongly urge the courts to reject the

current settlement proposed by Microsoft.

The only way to repair the damage Microsoft

has done to the software industry over the

past five years is to implement the following:

1) Require Microsoft to continue

development of Office and Internet Explorer

at an acceptably high level for the Macintosh

operating system. Apple cannot fairly

compete with Microsoft because they hold

development on the Mac platform for these

two key areas over Apple’s head.

2) Prevent Microsoft from pressuring PC

manufacturers to include their Windows

operating system, Internet Explorer browser

and Windows Media Player multimedia

device. To allow for fair competition, buyers

of PCs should have options available to them.

3) Prevent Microsoft from forcing their ISP

partners (such as Qwest Communications)

from restricting use of operating system,

browser or media player. If one wants DSL

in Denver, one has to be on a Windows PC,

using Internet Explorer if they deal with

Qwest.

There will not be a second opportunity to

remedy this situation. The political courage

needs to be found to reign in Microsoft and

restore competition and consumer choice to

the computer and software industries.

Quinn Perkins

10309 West Fair Ave #C

Littleton, CO 80127

MTC–00004460

From: Bruce Moore

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 12:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This settlement is a joke. It will allow

Microsoft to keep its monopoly with HUGE

barriers to entry into the software OS

industry. This settlement has so many

loopholes I’m suprised that the Department

of Justice just asked for a Congressional bill

that would grant a monopoly and give them

all the power they want to continually break

the anti-trust laws of the United States.

This settlement isn’t even a slap on the

wrist, more like a handshake and a pat on the

back telling them ‘‘hey don’t worry the

nations economy and the approval rating for

the Bush administration is more important

than law.

Bruce Moore

Web Programmer

Quickdinero Inc.

MTC–00004461

From: Tristan Ishtar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:19pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To Whom it May Concern,

I am upset that the government is

apparently letting Microsoft off the hook in

this antitrust case. While I’m glad that

Microsoft is not being broken up (just look

at what that did for the telephone industry!),

I feel that there needs to be an actual

punishment imposed and mechanisms put in

place to prevent Microsoft from owning the

internet and the software industry.

Competition is good for any industry.

Please make sure that Microsoft gets spanked

for past infractions and prevented from

committing future ones.

Thank you,

Tristan Ishtar

Orlando, FL

MTC–00004462

From: Wenger, John R

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 12:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Renata Hesse,

As someone familiar with computing and

the computer industry, and the adverse

effects of Microsoft’s monopolies in these

areas, I cannot see how the settlement that is

proposed even pretends to remedy the

antitrust violations for which Microsoft has

been found culpable. The company has, I

remind the judge, already been found in

violation, and this is the penalty phase of the

case, but the settlement contains no penalties

and actually advances Microsoft’s operating

system monopoly. A just penalty, I continue,

would at barest minimum include three

additional features:

Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers, so

that the user who does not wish to purchase

them is not forced to do so. This means that

for the price differential between a new

computer with Microsoft software and one

without, a computer seller must offer the

software without the computer (which would

prevent computer makers from saying that

the difference in price is only a few dollars).

Only then could competition come to exist in

a meaningful way.

The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

Any Microsoft networking protocols must

be published in full and approved by an

independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet.

Also, the Center for Strategic and

International Studies has pointed out that the

use of Microsoft software actually poses a

national security risk.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jack Wenger, IS Mid-Tier Administrator

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources

‘‘Black holes are where God divided by

zero.’’

Albert Einstein

MTC–00004463

From: tkj

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:22pm

Subject: Please dont let MS off the hook!

Dear Members of US Government, the

Litigation Team, and those of the various

States of these United States of America.

It would represent a serious travesty of

justice and would represent terrible policy

were Microsoft Corp. be allowed such a

meaningless and insulting end to this matter.

Microsoft’s greed, furthered by its proved

arrogance and disregard for any concept of

fairness in the American business world,

must not be rewarded. Many millions of our

citizens have been harmed by Microsoft.

Products famous for promulgating insecurity

and all sorts of vulnerabilities to our

institutions have been forced down the throat

of the buying public which, in its innocence,

carries the MS banner aloft, unwittingly

betraying basic tenents of fairness that have

helped make our country great.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24511

Of all possible influences for good that can

befall a nation, it is the IDEA of ‘fair play’

that is at the heart of our freedoms, our

willingness to defend our way of life with

our lives, and our confidence that we’re

doing the right thing for our children.

Do not let the harm done by this company

go rewarded by such weak and unenforceable

terms of the proposed agreement.

jon anderson, md

32 school st

northampton, ma. 01060

MTC–00004464

From: Thomas W. Carr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:28pm

Subject: Bad settlement

To the lay person it was clear that

Microsoft was a monopoly. The findings of

fact determined that Microsoft was a

monopoly. The trial demonstrated

Microsoft’s propensity to deceive,

manipulate and otherwise try to unfairly use

the judicial and legislative system in their

favor. The proposed settlement does not do

nearly enough to protect the consumer and

Microsoft competitors from their unlawful

acts. It does not adequately punish Microsoft

for their previous and continuing bad

behavior.

The present settlement should be rejected.

We need stronger remedies.

Tom Carr

Professor of Mathematics

Dallas, TX

MTC–00004465

From: George Chamales

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:32pm

Subject: A humorous look at the world

ahead.

I’m sending you this e-mail from 2021—40

years after IBM released its first personal

computer—in a last attempt to prevent the

mistakes in computer development that put

civilization in jeopardy... Not everything is

awful. Some things are just, well, weird. For

instance, Apple Computer continues to do

well, but not for its stockholders. The

company gained tax-exempt status as a

religion in 2015. Authorities were convinced

the designation was appropriate after many

users took to flagellating themselves in

public when Steve Jobs failed to make any

significant new-product announcements at

Macworld in Boston. Apple evangelists have

become common in shopping malls and

airports. The cult tends to attract very nice

people, and they’ve managed to integrate into

society quite well. The rest of us simply

avoid talking about technology around them

lest we get flooded with irate e-mail.

Bill Gates has been barricaded for the last

two years in a vast subterranean bunker,

along with a core group of true believers from

the old Microsoft Corp.

Gates and his minions literally went

underground in 2019 after the Supreme Court

ruled against the company for the 1,249th

time in the antitrust case that began in 1997.

Authorities gave up trying to extract them

after concluding that cracking open the

bunker might hurt the people inside, who

technically weren’t criminals because they’d

never actually been charged. Various

philanthropic groups tried to ‘‘deprogram’’

followers of the man who once headed

Microsoft and entice them out of the bunker.

But the would-be rescuers were usually met

with derisive laughter. The Microserfs said

they’d only emerge from their shelter if the

humanitarians correctly answered three

riddles.

One group, having craftily recruited a team

of Linux programmers, was able to pass the

test. But those inside insisted that the Linux

folks must have cheated and thereafter

refused to respond to any more entreaties

from the outside.

The only reason we know they’re still alive

down there is the frequent issuing of news

releases, such as the one yesterday declaring

that Microsoft takes security very seriously.

In recent weeks, the releases have sometimes

taken on a more plaintive tone, offering bug

fixes for Windows Uber Grande users in

exchange for a case of Malomars.

But the problem relating to the licensing

system Microsoft established remains. Some

years ago, the company stopped selling

software outright and instead set up a

subscription-based system. Users paid a fee,

just like the cable bill and got to use a

Microsoft operating system or Microsoft

software, like the Office suite.

As a result, when Microsoft decided to

issue an upgrade, we all upgraded pretty

much simultaneously because the company

eventually would cut off access to the older

software. It wasn’t too long before everybody,

everywhere, was running exactly the same

thing.

This had some great advantages.

Computers got a lot simpler and more

reliable because they didn’t have to be quite

as flexible. Things such as technical support

and interoperability issues largely

disappeared. All our appliances pretty much

run on a stripped-down version of the

Microsoft operating system, everything from

the microwave oven to the thermostat. The

problem is, because everything runs the same

operating system—even my electric shaver—

once somebody discovers a security flaw, it

can bring down our computers. All the

computers. All over the world. In some

places, the power is on for only a couple of

hours a day now. It’s not safe to drive

because the traffic lights can’t be trusted.

Torch-bearing mobs occasionally break into

the homes of known technologists and . . .

well, let’s just say we’re starting to run low

on people who can fix things. We’re on the

brink of disaster, akin to the great corn blight

of 2012. Then, all commercially planted corn

had been made genetically identical, which

produced spectacular yields. But when a new

disease infected a crop in a small field in

Iowa, it ripped through all the corn around

the world because none of the plants had any

resistance to the blight. God, what I wouldn’t

give to taste Frosted Flakes again. This story

can be found at: http://

www.dickypimpkins.com/article.php’sid=34

Thanks for your time,

George Chamales

College Student majoring in Electrical

Engineering.

MTC–00004466

From: Stephen Putman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Ms. Hesse:

I wish to take advantage of the Tunney Act

public comment period to express my sincere

disappointment with the settlement reached

between the Department of Justice and

Microsoft Corporation in the antitrust matter

currently being litigated.

I am a Senior Consultant with a major

software company, frequently implementing

solutions using Microsoft software. I also

possess a Bachelor of Science degree in

Economics with a concentration in Antitrust

Policy. With this combination of experience,

I have been following the progress of this

case with great interest.

Microsoft has shown all of the classic

behavior traits of an abusive monopolist

throughout its corporate history. They have

routinely intimidated competitors, kept

prices artificially high in relation to other

portions of the computer industry, and

restricted innovation in the overall computer

industry. They also do not have the incentive

to correct major design flaws in their

products because of lack of competition

brought on by their monopoly position. This

results in a computer industry that frustrates

most people who use the machines I spend

a good portion of my days explaining

problems inherent in their systems and often

times having no good answers.

During the course of the current litigation,

the behavior of Microsoft was proven to be

anti-competitive. Even though the original

remedy for their transgressions was

overturned on appeal, the fundamental

finding of monopoly power was not. The

settlement that you have reached does not

address this basic fact, based on antitrust

precedent. In my mind, the best examples of

proper remedies in a case like this are the

Standard Oil case in the early 1900s and the

ATT case of 1984. In both cases, the abusive

monopolist was split into multiple entities,

and the result was more competition, better

products, and lower prices for consumers.

This settlement does not achieve anything

close to this, which means the status quo is

maintained, to the detriment of everyone

concerned save one party Microsoft.

Microsoft has made the argument that any

remedy in addition to your settlement would

be inefficient economically. In this, I agree

additional items of remedy would make my

occupation more difficult in the short run

because integration of disparate software

products is inherently difficult in the current

evolutionary state of the computer software

industry. However, the currently proposed

settlement does not adequately address the

proven behavior of the company, nor ensure

that this behavior would not reoccur. One

can only hope that Judge Kollar-Kotelly will

see this and rule appropriately, which would

include harsher penalties than you have

proposed.

I cannot help but think that the current

political environment has contributed to the

Departments desire to settle this matter in the

way it has chosen to do so. It is quite

unfortunate that the Department of Justice

cannot rise above political expedience and

pursue this matter to its logical conclusion,

24512 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

protecting the interests of the public at large

instead of the interests of a major

corporation. But, based on the actions of the

Department in other areas recently, I cannot

say I am surprised. I fully expect this

criticism to be sent to the electronic trash

bin, after my name is added to the

Departments Treason list for speaking out

against your performance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Stephen J. Putman

Antelope, CA

MTC–00004467

From: Steve Rudeseal

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Requiring that Microsoft donate software to

schools does nothing to remedy their illegal

business practices. What it does in fact, is

allow Microsoft an unfair advantage in a

market in where Apple is competing

successfully. The proposed final judgement

does nothing to address the fact that

Microsoft is guilty of attempting to maintain

its monopoly. Microsoft has become a de

facto standard through both legal and illegal

means. Therefor, they bear the burden of

ensuring interoperability with other systems.

Microsoft’s competitors consist of both

businesses and communities of individuals.

Companies like Apple, Sun, Netscape and

Red Hat compete directly with Microsoft in

the business arena. But, there is also the

Open Source and free software communities

which are not related directly to any given

company. Open source projects like the

Apache web server and Samba file server

have been very successful in competing with

Microsoft. The proposed remedy does

nothing to ensure that these Open Source

competitors will be able to compete in the

future.

To ensure that both companies and open

source communities are able to compete

fairly with Microsoft, two measures must be

taken. First off, Microsoft must not be

allowed to pre-install and bundle its software

onto new systems. The consumer should be

allowed to choose what software they want

on their system. Microsoft would still be able

to offer volume pricing to vendors, but would

not be allowed to attach restrictions on how

the software is used by the vendor.

Secondly, to ensure that there is other

software available, Microsoft should be

compelled to release the documentation on

their protocols, APIs and file formats. Doing

so would allow other competitors, both

companies and communities, to compete on

a level playing field. This solution would not

require Microsoft to open up its source code,

but it would ensure interoperability with

competitors products.

Steve L. Rudeseal

System Administrator

TraceAnalysis, Inc.

email: srudeseal@traceanalysis.com

MTC–00004468

From: Kevin Colussi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:41pm

Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft

To Whom it may concern:

I’m writing on behalf of the proposed

settlement of the U.S. v. Microsoft case. I do

not agree with the decision and would only

agree with the decision if the following were

included in the settlement.

—Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers,

so that the user who does not wish to

purchase them is not forced to do so. This

means that for the price differential

between a new computer with Microsoft

software and one without, a computer

seller must offer the software without the

computer (which would prevent computer

makers from saying that the difference in

price is only a few dollars). Only then

could competition come to exist in a

meaningful way.

—The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on

Microsoft’s or other operating systems.

This is in addition to opening the

Windows application program interface

(API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’ that allow other

parties to write applications for Windows

operating systems), which is already part of

the proposed settlement.

—Any Microsoft networking protocols must

be published in full and approved by an

independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet.

If the national interest is at issue, as I

believe it is and as the judge has suggested

it is, it is crucial that Microsoft’s operating

system monopoly not be extended, I quote

the study released a year ago by the highly

respected Center for Strategic and

International Studies, which pointed out that

the use of Microsoft software actually poses

a national security risk.

In closing, 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.

Sincerely,

Kevin Colussi

3711 Rock Haven Dr.

Greensboro, NC 27410

MTC–00004469

From: dave@bfnet.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:45pm

Subject: Argument against the Consent

Decree

As a member of the computer industry, I

am very familiar with the adverse effects of

Microsoft’s monopoly. Contrary to the

statements of the US Department of Justice in

its impact statement discussing the Consent

Decree, the remedies settlement embodied in

the Consent Decree fails to achieve the ends

mandated by the Court for the following

reasons:

—it fails to deny Microsoft the fruits of its

statuatory violations,

—it fails to ensure that competition is likely

to result,

—it was an agreement reached for the

purpose of expediency, not for ensuring an

adequate remedy and,

—it establishes an untenable precedent for

future antitrust cases.

The Federal Government has already found

Microsoft in violation, but this settlement

contains no penalties and actually advances

Microsoft’s operating system monopoly. A

just penalty would at barest minimum

include three additional features:

—Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers,

so that the user who does not wish to

purchase them is not forced to do so. This

means that for the price differential

between a new computer with Microsoft

software and one without, a computer

seller must offer the software without the

computer (which would prevent computer

makers from saying that the difference in

price is only a few dollars). Only then

could competition come to exist in a

meaningful way.

—The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on

Microsoft’s or other operating systems.

This is in addition to opening the

Windows application program interface

(API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’ that allow other

parties to write applications for Windows

operating systems), which is already part of

the proposed settlement.

—Any Microsoft networking protocols must

be published in full and approved by an

independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet.

If the national interest is at issue, as the

judge has suggested, we must stop the growth

of Microsoft’s operating system monopoly.

The Center for Strategic and International

Studies has pointed out that the use of

Microsoft software actually poses a national

security risk.

This case is of great importance not only

to national security, but to the US economy

and future competitiveness of US industry.

We must take the time to craft a careful and

deliberate remedy for the sake of our nation’s

health.

Sincerely,

David Michael Wuertele

Palo Alto, CA

MTC–00004470

From: Joseph Blough

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please reconsider this settlement in the

Microsoft (MS) antitrust case. The settlement

(http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/

nov01/11–02settlement.asp) in no way

prohibits MS from using predatory practices

against competitors or consumers since there

are huge loop holes that MS can (and will)

use. A good analysis of one such hole can be

found here http://linuxtoday.com/

news_story.php3?1tsn=2001–11–06–005–20–

OP–MS.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24513

The Christain Science Monitor went so far

as to call Windows XP a ‘‘tourist trap’’ where

they suck you into using nothing but their

software with their proprietary file formats.

This is surely not the behavior of a company

that plans to make amends and compete

fairly with its competitors. As a linux user,

I have seen how many options a user can

have as far as computer operating systems

(OS), software, and file formats. Microsoft

seeks to remove these options through OEM

agreements/arm-twisting hidden behind a

‘‘trade secrets’’ tag. The internet is a OS nonspecific and browser non-specific medium,

but MS is even taking that away. Windows

XP heavily pushes you toward MSN in an

attempt to overtake their latest competitor

AOL. Personally, I use a local Internet

Service Provider (ISP), but soon I’m sure MS

will make it unprofitable to be a small time

local ISP.

Consider this recession and how so many

smaller computer software companies have

had to close their doors. The main reason

that many of these software companies

remain small is that most of the money in the

computing industry ends up in Redmond.

Other companies only hope is to be bought

by MS. MS monopoly eats into the revenue

of practically every aspect of the computing

industry (OS, ISP, office productivity,

hardware, and now even console video

games). These smaller companies can grow

and hire more employees if only they have

the assurance that MS is not able to use it’s

monopoly to destroy the smaller company.

Please, in the interests of protecting the

consumer, do NOT accept that settlement. It

will lead to unprecedented abuses by MS

resulting in the loss of choices for many

computer users. Many users do not even

realize that they have a choice thanks to MS’s

past (and ongoing) strategies.

Thank you for your time.

MTC–00004471

From: Wpnelson@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:48pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Following are my comments for the public

record regarding the Microsoft settlement.

Microsoft code should be made public to

such an extent that programmers can write

topnotch programs that are fully compatible

with Windows. They should also be required

to release such code that allows other

programs to interface with their operating

system so as to allow easy file translation

between different programs such as word

processing, spread sheets.

Their internet activities and code should

be sufficiently open so that they cannot gain

control of the net via their operating system

through required registrations etc. Programs

to make their browser Java compatible should

be provided in the operating system as

readily available and visible option to allow

consumers to install the necessary code for

cross compatibility. Kid’s programs should

remain compatible with Windows and

Macintosh. Microsoft should be required to

continue making Macintosh specific

Microsoft Office programs available on a

regular basis.

Microsoft should not be allowed to extend

the reach of their operating system via

‘‘giveaways’’ in the public school system. If

there is such a program it should be in cash

with no strings attached as to where the

money is spent on computers and software

and the amount should be larger than

currently indicated.

They should be prohibited from engaging

in tactics that intimidate or enter into deals

that require/allow programmers/companies

from publishing competing software.

MTC–00004472

From: Brian Kelly

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:53pm

Subject: P.P.S

Oh and by the way, I use Microsoft

products because I simply think they are in

every way shape and form superior to

competitors products offered currently, so

don’t think I’m just a mindless Microsoft

basher with an Interior decorator who thinks

Linux is just the COOLEST. . . Not.

Microsoft kicks butt, that’s why people buy

their stuff, so let’s move along now folks and

get on to the 21st century.

I’m just concerned over how little the

general public actually understands about

how these companies actually operate, but

who am I but another senseless user behind

a keyboard with a satellite dish.

God Bless the USA!

MTC–00004473

From: Fidel Davila

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

Comments

I am writing to state my opposition to the

proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement. In

general, the proposed settlement does little to

change the underlying monopolistic practices

of Microsoft Corporation. First, history has

shown that monopolies must be broken up

into several entities OR become regulated if

they are to stay as single units. Standard Oil

and AT&T are just two situations that prove

that break-up of monopolies lead to future

increased competition and better services for

the US public. And, investors in these

companies ended up in better economic

positions. Barring break-up, strict regulatory

control like AT&T before its break-up is

required to control the monopoly. The

proposed Microsoft settlement does not

break-up the company to increase

competition nor provide sufficient regulation

to prevent continued monopolistic practices.

Second, controlling Microsoft in current

monopolistic areas will not prevent Microsoft

from using their monopoly to control other

areas of the digital realm. Microsoft wants to

monoplize the PDA arena with its Pocket

Windows system, television recording with

its Ultimate TV, digital game boxes with their

X-boxes, and regular television through set

top box software being developed. They will

use the same tactics used in gaining

monopolies in web browsers and multimedia players to dominate these other areas.

So, limiting Microsoft’s monopolistic

practices in some desktop operating systems

and extensions areas will do nothing to

control them from acquiring monopolies in

these other areas noted.

Microsoft’s distain for the US antimonopoly laws and unrepentant attitude

revealed itself in Microsoft’s initial proposed

settlement with the nine states that opted out

of the Federal settlement. Their proposed

settlement actually would have increased

their monopoly into the educational area—

one of the few areas they do not monopolize.

Their arrogance at using a anti-monopoly

settlement to extend their monopoly is

incredible. The current proposed settlement

does nothing to change this arrogance.

In summary, Microsoft’s problem is one of

attitude and processes. The current

settlement does limit these marginally in the

areas where Microsoft currently has

monopolies but does nothing to prevent

Microsoft from gaining monopolies in other

areas of the digital realm. So, Microsoft keeps

their current monopolies and is allowed to

gain monopolies in other areas. Where do

we—the general public—win? Given the

current distaste for regulatory control of

businesses, the only credible action is the

break-up of MicroSoft into multiple entities.

These would be at a minimum: a) an

operating/server systems unit, b) applicants

unit and c) multi-media unit. Then and only

then will Microsoft units be in positions to

cooperate with others to compete. With

competition, the public will win!

Fidel Davila

5909 Edinburgh Drive

Plano, Texas 75092

972–378–9996

MTC–00004474

From: Ernie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 12:55pm

Subject: microsoft anti trust trial

Hello,

I was recently informed by a news web site

I frequently visit that public comments were

now being taken about the Microsoft trial,

and the punishments, if any, they will face.

Although I realize one voice may be lost in

the shouts of millions of others, I felt that I

had to respond, to at least show my support

for some sort of major punishment for

Microsoft. I am a user of Free Software. I run

Linux, and OpenBSD, both of which are

Freely available, and Open, operating

systems. Many people around the world use

software like this, and I won’t bore you with

the reasons. With Microsoft in control, free

programs and operating systems such as the

ones I use, and the many others in use

around the world, will have a harder and

harder time communicating with those who

choose (or had chosen for them) Microsoft’s

Windows Operating Systems.

Microsoft has continually done things to

promote anti-competitive behavior. They

have changed their networking protocols,

their .DOC word file format, and even the

format of their file system from release to

release. Although there may be technical

reasons behind their changes, you would

never be able to get that information from

them. All of this is showed in mystery, as is

their right as a private company, and yet

Windows and MS Office are the most widely

used pieces of software around. Yet only

Windows can read and write the doc format

with 100% compatibility, forcing you to use

24514 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Office, and a Windows based machine. If you

want to network with Windows, you are

forced to use their ever changing network

protocols, and so on. It is with much doubt

and trepidation I look forward to the coming

months, and with it, Microsoft’s ultimate

fate. I feel that punishments need to be put

in place, punishments that will foster

competition in the technical market, and

allow Microsoft to no longer maintain the

stranglehold they have now.

At a minimum, I feel:

Microsoft should have to publish the

format of its Microsoft Office suite. This will

allow open communications between users of

differing operating systems, regardless of the

program they use.

OEM computer vendors should be allowed

to change and modify the Windows desktop

as they see fit, and Microsoft should no

longer be allowed to ‘‘strong-arm’’ those

vendors into installing, and only installing,

its Windows operating system. Windows XP

does not need to be any better or different

than its predecessors for it to become to

standard. New computers will simply come

with it pre-installed, and the consumer will

not have a choice.

Microsoft’s networking protocols must be

published IN FULL, and approved by an

independent body, such as the IETF. I have

no problem with Microsoft also donating

large sums of money to the poorer school

system around the world, education is very

important; But, to allow them to simply

further their dominance by letting them flood

the school systems with their own software

is insane. That will simply increase their

dominance, and the cost to them will be

minimal. In fact, its really more of a benefit

for them, than anything. They should simply

donate cash, and let the schools have the

choice that a consumer walking into his local

computer store does not have (the choice of

not getting a computer with Windows).

I hope my comments will be taken

seriously. Microsoft, which started as small

as any company, has grown exponentially

since. They seem to not represent the ideals

that founded this country: Openness,

fairness, and a willingness to cooperate.

Ernie Cline

MTC–00004475

From: Eric Ries

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Renata Hesse,

Trial Attorney

Suite 1200

Antitrust Division,

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20530

Thank you for this opportunity to comment

on the recent proposed settlement in the

Microsoft antitrust case. As a member of the

computer software industry, I am concerned

about the precedent created by this proposed

settlement. If it is the court’s ruling that

Microsoft is in violation of relevant antitrust

laws, then it is imperative that the penalty

imposed be adequate to address those

violations. The proposed settlement does

nothing to reduce Microsoft’s monopoly

power in any way. Furthermore, it sends the

signal that Microsoft’s methods are

acceptable—even necessary—for success in

the software industry.

Like many others, I am myself

uncomfortable with excess government

intervention in my industry. However, if

government is to have a role, it should be a

constructive one. I therefore would like to

add my support to several other remedies

being proposed by various scholars and

industry experts. I feel that these remedies

would be more effective at reducing

Microsoft’s monopoly power, and be easier

and simpler to implement, leaving less room

for ambiguity. They are:

1) De-coupling Microsoft software products

from OEM computer hardware products. This

would allow other companies to compete

with Microsoft for the OEM markets in

operating systems and office productivity

software.

2) Requiring that Microsoft allow other

operating systems to have access to the

hardware ‘‘boot loader’’ which controls

which operating systems a computer may

run. Microsoft has used both technical and

legal means to shut out various competitors

from access to this vital system component,

most notably Be, Inc.

3) Require Microsoft to publicize full

details of all of their APIs, file formats, and

network protocols. This would require

Microsoft to go back to competing on the

technical merits of its products.

In any event, I urge the Department of

Justice to reconsider its proposed settlement

with Microsoft and replace it with something

that is both less ambiguous, more appropriate

as a remedy, and more comprehensive in its

scope.

Thank you for your time,

Eric Ries

950 Crane St #1

Menlo Park, CA 94025

MTC–00004476

From: John Beidelman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:16pm

Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft—Public Comment

in opposing settlement

I oppose the proposed settlement of the

case U.S. v. Microsoft on these grounds:

1. Under the proposed settlement,

Microsoft maintains its dominant monopoly

in operating systems and office applications

software, contrary to sound public policy.

This is the root of the problem. If you control

the operating system, you control the

desktop, the applications, the application

programming interfaces (APIs), the network,

and everything else that runs atop or in

conjunction with the operating system. We’re

talking about the crown jewels of the

information age. I can’t believe that this

nation could bust up the anti-competitive

and illegal monopolies of Rockefeller and

Morgan, but can’t come to grips with the

challenge presented by Gates and Ballmer.

2. The proposed penalty for Microsoft’s

offenses pales in comparison to the

additional market capitalization they

achieved by their illegal and harmful

conduct. (They got away with it!) Indeed, if

they are allowed to pay this proposed paltry

penalty with software (in lieu of cash) to

needy schools, their marginal expense is

negligible—and Microsoft succeeds in

capturing a new market presently held by

Apple Computer. This part of the proposed

penalty is preposterous! I remind you that

the purpose of a penalty is to penalize, not

do further harm.

3. By allowing Microsoft to ‘‘embrace and

extend’’ internet standards and circumvent

open APIs on the public internet, there is a

real chance that the internet will become

more and more inaccessible to those unable

or unwilling to adopt Microsoft products and

standards. This would be tyranny.

For these reasons and others, I oppose the

proposed settlement and urge the Department

of Justice to remove it from the table. Any

settlement should be a cash only settlement

and should provide no clauses to enable

Microsoft to strengthen its negotiating

position in the marketplace.

Respectfully yours,

John D. Beidelman

MTC–00004477

From: Jerrysafediver@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement proposed by Microsoft

appears to be reasonable, fair, and just. Let’s

quit punishing success and put this illconcieved action against Microsoft to rest.

Significant harm has already occurred to

consumers as a result of this action through

the curtailment of innovation and increase in

cost. Enough is enough!

Regards,

Jerry Effenberger

17511 32nd. Ave. N. E.

Seattle, Wa. 98155

MTC–00004478

From: Steve Brewer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:23pm

Subject: Proposed settlement unacceptable

The proposed settlement with Microsoft is

unacceptable. The nature of the settlement

itself is unacceptable because Microsoft has

already shown that it does not believe its past

behavior was a violation of law and it has

consistently flouted consent decrees and

rulings of the course in the past. There

should be some remedy which actually

reduces Microsoft’s potential to illegally

extend their monopoly into other businesses.

A consent decree seems unlikely to

accomplish that.

Furthermore, the language used provides

loopholes for Microsoft to not release

information to programmers working on open

source and free software alternatives to

microsoft software, especially with respect to

file formats. Even if the consent decree were

followed, it would give Microsoft new tools

to fights its only serious competitors.

Please reject this settlement and impose a

remedy on Microsoft that will have the effect

of actually limiting their ability to extend

their monopoly into other businesses.

Without such a remedy, it seems certain that

we will be back in this same situation again

soon.

Steven D. Brewer <limako@mediaone.net>

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24515

http://revo.ne.mediaone.net/∼sbrewer/

Ne lauxdu la tagon antaux vespero.

MTC–00004479

From: root@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft

ATR,antitrust @ftc.gov @inetgw,

Ralph@essen...

Date: 12/14/01 1:26pm

Subject: ‘‘How Much Do We Need To Pay

You To Screw Netscape?’’

CC: letters@latimes. com@inetgw,letters@

sjmercury.com@i...

Re: Bin Laden Tape Sparks Debate

‘‘This is your lucky day...according to

profit Ronnie Reagan, peace be with him.’’

MTC–00004480

From: Brad

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement currently proposed by

Microsoft does little to penalize them and

potentially does a lot of harm by allowing

them to extend their monopoly into

education.

Brad Brooks

West Hills, Ca

MTC–00004481

From: Kevin Gryczan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:36pm

Subject: Public comment on MS v. DOJ

Antitrust case

I have been a user of Microsoft products

since MS–DOS 6.2 I know Microsoft has

published quality software and should be

allowed to continue doing so. What I disagree

on is the marketing tactics that Microsoft has

used to expand its business at the expense of

third-party competition keeping a level

playing field, particuarly in the area of office

applications and suites. I feel that an

appropriate punishment for Microsoft for its

violation of anttrust law is the following:

1: The proposed donation of computer

equipment and software to poor school

districts should be computer equipment

purchased by Microsoft, with no software

installed, and software being made available

through grant money provided by Microsoft

for the school districts to spend on software

as they wish. School districts can then

decide, with the help of IT professionals such

as myself and others, which software

packages and operating systems they can

purchase and utilized on these donated

computers.

2: Any Microsoft proprietary document file

formats should be made open, and

developers should be allowed to have

unrestricted access to software development

kits to develop programs that can read from,

write to, and modify these documents. With

this clause as part of a final judgment, better

quality software products, such as a version

of Microsoft Outlook that contains very few

security holes which can be exploited

through the spread of e-mail ‘‘worm’’ viruses

can be developed.

3: Any standards and protocols that

Microsoft has establshed while it was

operating as a monopoly must be made open,

with unrestricted access to developer kits

and documentation for software and

hardware developers wishing to utilize these

standards and protocols. Again, this will

level the playing field, with better quality

products being developed by many

manufacturers and developers.

The real issue at hand here is how fair is

it to the consumer to allow Microsoft to

continue operating under their current

business practices.

Kevin Gryczan

Software Technician

InfoRad, Inc.

kevin.gryczan@inforad.com

MTC–00004482

From: Sean

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:36pm

Subject: Bad settlement Idea

Hello,

Having spent much of my career as an

Information Systems professional dealing

with Microsoft and it products, I have to add

my voice to the multitudes that think your

proposed settlement is a bad idea. I have seen

many good products go out of existence

because of their inability to maintain their

user base after Microsoft has decided to

compete. The worst part of it is this; the

competing Microsoft product is not as good,

is more expensive, and generally doesn’t play

well with the other applications. It is

impossible to get rid of, as it is ‘‘part of the

operating system’’ or ‘‘is required to work

with the Microsoft Server software’’ or some

other tie in. Please do not take the offer

settlement, it is to my detriment, and the

detriment of all of those who make a living

in the internet community.

Thank you,

Sean Flynn

Partner

STModdell.com Security Consulting

MTC–00004483

From: David Freeman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust settlement.

To whom it may concern. I want to know

why a corporation that has been found to be

engaging in an illegal monopoly is now going

to be given the opportunity to legally

continue said monopoly. If I were convicted

of a crime, would I be given the settlement

that allows me to legally commit the same

crime over and over again? I think not.

Microsoft is the great stifler of innovation.

Look at Java. Java is an awesome

programming language whose greatest

attribute is platform-independence (that

means the same code can run on Macintosh,

Unix, or Windows without being re-written),

yet Microsoft goes MILES out of its way to

ensure that Java is not implemented properly

in there operating system. It sickens me to no

end. Please, do the right thing and deny the

settlement that Microsoft has been pushing

for.

Regards,

David Freeman

14500 Cottingham Dr.

Austin, TX 78725

dfreeman@austin.rr.com

MTC–00004484

From: Dan Moore

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:50pm

Subject: Why microsoft software should not

be in public schools.

To whom it may concern,

I am a computer programmer who has

worked as a system administrator and a

technical support provider for unix,

windows, and macintosh machines. I’m

currently working on an electrical

engineering degree from the University of

Utah. I’ve been very concerned about the

Microsoft Settlement currently proposed by

the Department of Justice. The Microsoft

Windows Operating System is uniquely

unsuited to the public education sector. I

believe this to be true for a number of

reasons:

1) There are several very good Operating

Systems available free of cost (all of the

distributions of both Linux and BSD can be

obtained for free, the GNU Hurd will soon be

freely available). My wife teaches seventh

grade english and I believe it’s evident that

there are many ways in which the funds

allocated for public education could be better

spent than on complicated and cripplingly

expensive licenses.

2) Microsoft software makes an effort to

hide from the user many of the fundamental

processes that a computer routinely performs

in day to day operation. The objective of

hiding these preocesses is to make a

computer easier to use and probably

accounts, in large part, for Microsoft’s

success in the market, but does not seem

suited to educating young people about how

computers work. If a person can use a unix

clone operating system (such as Linux, BSD,

or Hurd) that person can easily adapt to

Microsoft software and is often more

competent than life long Microsoft users. As

the goal is education it seems apparent that

unix clones are the better alternative.

3) Most operating systems in use today

(including the MS Dos Operating system

upon which the windows operating systems

are based) are based on Unix. This makes it

a very easy jump from Unix to any other

Operating System.

4) The freely available software is most

often willing to furnishthe source code for

the Operating Systems and all applications.

The educational value of this for Computer

Programming students cannot be overstated.

For students to be able to examine the source

code of professionals will help produce a

generation of skilled, creative programmers

with very professional coding styles.

5) Microsoft is a for-profit corporation.

Adam Smith warned of the dangers of

Government Sponsored Monopolies. To

place Microsoft Software in schools is a

government endorsement of their product.

This could certainly viewed as a sanction.

There are many distributions of opereating

systems furnished entirely by not-for-profit

volunteer organizations. (Look at

www.debian.org and www.gnu.org for

starters). The use of these non-corporate

operating systems would help to protect

capitalist ideals of a free market and of no

government endorsements of corporations.

Taking into account the considerations that

makes Microsoft software unsuitable for

public education, I feel strongly that the antiVerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:13 Apr 24, 2002 Jkt 189961 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\OC\A68AD3.251 pfrm11 PsN: ADVBOOK3
24516 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

trust settlement ought to be altered such that

Microsoft makes their contribution to public

education entirely in computer hardware,

and that software better suited to public

education be selected by schools to be put on

those machines.

Dan

MTC–00004485

From: Michael Haisley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:50pm

Subject: Public comment

As someone familiar with computing and

the computer industry, and the adverse

effects of Microsoft’s monopolies in these

areas, I cannot see how the settlement that is

proposed even pretends to remedy the

antitrust violations for which Microsoft has

been found culpable. The company has,

already been found in violation, and this is

the penalty phase of the case, but the

settlement contains no penalties and actually

advances Microsoft’s operating system

monopoly. A just penalty, I continue, would

at barest minimum include three additional

features: *Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers, so

that the user who does not wish to purchase

them is not forced to do so. This means that

for the price differential between a new

computer with Microsoft software and one

without, a computer seller must offer the

software without the computer (which would

prevent computer makers from saying that

the difference in price is only a few dollars).

Only then could competition come to exist in

a meaningful way.

*The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

*Any Microsoft networking protocols must

be published in full and approved by an

independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet. If the national

interest is at issue, as I believe it is and as

the judge has suggested it is, it is crucial that

Microsoft’s operating system monopoly not

be extended, and in this I quote the study

released a year ago by the highly respected

Center for Strategic and International

Studies, which pointed out that the use of

Microsoft software actually poses a national

security risk. In closing, I say that all are

surely in agreement that the resolution of this

case is of great importance, not just now but

for many years to come. This suggests a

careful and deliberate penalty is far more

important to the health of the nation than is

a hasty one.

Michael A. Haisley Jr.

Chief Executive Officer, Phenotek Corp.

MTC–00004486

From: Brian McHugh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 1:59pm

Subject: Please accept settlement

December 14, 2001

Renata Hesse

Trial Attorney

Antitrust Division, Department of Justice

601 D Street NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530

Subject:Microsoft Settlement

VIA EMAIL

Dear Attorney Hesse:

I am aware that the Department of Justice

is accepting public comment on the

Microsoft settlement and write to support the

proposal. Our country is in a recession.

President Bush and Republican leaders in

Washington are working to pass legislation

that would stimulate the economy. People

are out of work, businesses are cutting costs

and laying off workers and families are

tightening their budgets.

The absolute last thing we need right now

is for the federal government to continue to

spend taxpayer dollars in pursuit of this

private company. Microsoft employees

thousands of people and makes a major

contribution to our economic vitality. The

federal government should follow the lead of

taxpayers and families and limit its spending.

This will not only help the economy, it will

allow Microsoft to prosper and continue to

have a positive impact in our country.

Thank you for your commitment to public

service.

Sincerely,

Brian McHugh

McHugh Funeral Home

283 Hanover Street

Manchester, NH 03104

MTC–00004487

From: Victoria Welch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:01pm

Subject: Comments on microsoft anti-trust

case.

Dear Sir or Madam,

My comments for the Microsoft Anti-Trust

Case. Microsoft has been determined guilty of

violating anti-trust laws and the penalty

phase just seems to miss the mark, I am

hearing comments on the street that the U.S.

Government is now a wholly owned

subsidiary of Microsoft. I will admit that I

find the ‘‘penalties’’ somewhat perplexing in

that they certainly seem to miss the mark

rather completely.

I personally think that is probably a little

radical, but then I see demo copies of

Microsoft’s XP operating system on all the

workbenches of my local post offices and I

do wonder what is going on here. I do not

see any other vendors product demos

available there. This seems to indicate

implicit approval of Microsoft products and

no other by a government entity?

The following are the flaws that I see in the

‘‘penalties’’ that essentially seem to leave

Microsoft better off than they were before the

trial.

I do not see that Microsoft is penalized in

any way in that there is no separation of

integrated software that harms and stifles

competition to the microsoft operating

system. Further I see no provisions for

computer manufacturers to be able to offer

other and more viable operating systems in

a fair and price competitive atmosphere—

essentially nothing has changed.

I do not see that the proprietary protocols

for the operating system, networking and

other elements are to be made public in order

that others may have equal opportunity to

develop applications in a spirit of healthy

competition and to encourage innovation.

Microsoft appears to be allowed to maintain

the closed, proprietary and monopolistic

systems that started this process. Again it

appears that nothing has changed and it will

be business as usual for Microsoft.

In Washington State, Microsoft continues

with its obnoxious and heavy handed

practices only now in a new area. Their

handling of their Internet Service Provider

(ISP) business seems to be following the same

basic marketing strategy that they used with

their operating systems. This has even been

noted in the Seattle Times Newspaper in a

city where normally Microsoft can do no

wrong:

Again, it appears to be business as usual

for Microsoft. Thus I am perplexed at the

current ‘‘penalties’’ being ‘‘imposed’’ on

Microsoft. They seem to be more of an

encouragement for Microsoft to continue in

the same ways it has been and those are the

very same ones that brought this issue to the

DOJ in the first place. If these are

implemented as currently stated then fair

business practices, innovation and

competition are DEAD in the computer field.

I do use Microsoft products, a very few are

reasonably decent but I am forced to use

others because the only option I have for

them is other Microsoft products. Because of

this my time is considerably less efficiently

used in repairing and working to keep the

systems going rather than accomplishing

work that I need to do. If one does not expect

much from the computers running Microsoft

products then they are not the absolute worst

products on the planet. If you expect much

from them and/or use them heavily then you

are going to rather constantly going to have

them fail to the loss of time, effort and

money. On days when I am working hard it

is common to have to reboot my machine to

recover my working ability at least several

times. As time goes on from the initial (or

subsequent complete re-install of the

operating system) the situation grows

steadily worse. The overall cost of running

Microsoft products is incredibly high and far

higher than it ever should be were Microsoft

concerned with more than creating a market

for the next version of its products. Bluntly

quality is not job one.

In order that Microsoft be brought into line

and with any hope of curbing their horrid

business practices, it will take REAL

penalties and serious oversight. With the

obscene amounts of money that Microsoft has

managed to accumulate through its less than

fair business practices (to be kind) there is

some doubt as to whether that can actually

be accomplished. It has become quite

obvious to anyone working in the field that

there is no honor or integrity in Microsoft,

only the search for more money in complete

disregard for the good of the industry, the

users and at this point in time it becomes

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24517

rather blatantly obvious that national security

is at risk due to the poor quality and serious

lack of attention to security that is epidemic

in their products. That alternatives are few is

a direct result of the issues that DOJ is

supposed to be addressing in this matter.

I’ve been told that I am wasting my time

here in that Microsoft can pay people to

submit positive comments for this business

enhancing solution that has been proposed as

a ‘‘punishment’’. They have done the same

things in the past, that is pretty much

common knowledge. I can only hope that

DOJ will prove wise, not be bought out by

Microsoft and free the industry for the good

of the consumer and the country. Thank you

for your time and effort in this matter.

Sincerely,

Christine V. Welch

4337 8th Avenue NE, Apartment #C–107

Seattle, Washington 98105

(206) 634–0984

vikki@oz.net

Victoria Welch, WV9K, DoD#–13,

SysAdmin SeaStar.org, vikki.oz.net

‘‘Walking on water and developing

software to specification are easy as long as

both are frozen’’—Edward V. Berard.

Do not unto others, that which you would

not have others do unto you.

‘‘Micro$oft Windows. I’ll bet you can’t

install it just once!’’

MTC–00004488

From: Richard Hecker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:05pm

Subject: Settlement comments

Richard A. Hecker—Senior Software

Engineer

42906 47th Street West

Quartz Hill, California 93536

Renata Hesse—Trial Attorney

Suite 1200, Antitrust Division, Dept. of

Justice

601 D Street NW,

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Renata;

I thank you for this opportunity to express

my concerns about the proposed settlement.

This case has been difficult from the start and

I have followed the progress of it diligently.

As a Senior Software Engineer, my

understanding of the claims has motivated

me to give serious consideration to the

proposed settlement. I hope the invitation to

use this email account was sincere and that

my views will be given equal weight as the

comments that are submitted via other

means.

Perhaps my biggest concern involves the

attitude Microsoft displayed throughout the

process. The litigation phase is over and the

facts are clearly established. As a monopolist,

Microsoft must follow the law. It will

encourage them to break the law if you

minimize the penalty. Their view of the law

was expressed by some of the evidence they

tried to submit and I was shocked from a

professional standpoint.

I am also concerned that this settlement

does little to eliminate the gain Microsoft

accrued from killing their competition. If

Microsoft keeps the gains from their previous

illegal action, how can we expect the new

competition to fair against them? I would like

to see a settlement that provides assurances

for such fair competition.

I see this settlement as having national

significance in my own specific way.

Microsoft is a large company with many

shareholders and they contribute a

significant amount to our economy. I see

them as collecting monopoly benefits from

the desktop section of this computer

revolution. I expect that this desktop section

will continue to drive productivity gains.

Healthy competition based upon open

standards is important. Full disclosure of all

file specifications and application

programming interfaces should be a

minimum requirement. I would also like to

see complete documentation of their network

protocols as they expand their .NET services.

Basically, I want to eliminate any aces they

might try to conceal up their sleeve. In

summary, the proposed settlement does not

suffice. I know it will require more effort but

the health of our desktop industry warrants

it.

Richard

MTC–00004489

From: Mike Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:03pm

Subject: Public comments: Penalty phase of

Microsoft Case

Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly:

Having heard and read stories about the

proposed settlement and what it contains (or

lacks) I am pressed into sharing my

comments and ask that you give them your

consideration. I think they are directed to the

heart of the matter.

From my perspective, Microsoft has been

found guilty of hoarding thus the penalty, to

be just, must require them to share.

All of the proposed settlement points do

not address this issue so I ask that you

include the following remedy.

The specifications of Microsoft’s current

and future file formats must be made public,

so that files created by Microsoft applications

can be read by programs from other makers,

on any operating systems.

Sincerely Yours,

Michael Lee Smith

3355 Claire Ln #903

Jacksonville, FL 32223–6661

MTC–00004490

From: mike stephen

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 12/14/01 2:09pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney,

Suite 1200, Antitrust Division,

Department of Justice,

601 D Street NW,

Washington, DC 20530;

Please I beg of you........... If you let

Microsoft get away like the current proposal

suggests, We (the computer professionals)

may never be able to dig ourselves out from

the pit Microsoft has cast us all into.

Microsoft products by virtue of being a

monopoly, have been designed without

concern for security or reliability. I can prove

that the design of Microsoft products leads to

the spread of countless virii in the computer

industry. They (Microsoft products) are the

perfect products to use to send damaging

virus from many groups like the terrorists

from Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt....

And do not imagine that these places have

not already done damage.

And it is not only because Microsoft

products are in such wide use, but the real

problem is that the products have been very

poorly designed. It seems Microsoft has

enough money to do the job right, so the

remaining reasons why the products are so

poorly written is that there is currently no

need to be ‘‘Best of breed’’. when you are the

only option.

It will not be long till they (the terrorists)

discover that they can inflict hundreds of

billions of dollars in damage. All this because

Microsoft has a virtual monopoly, and

instead of actually writing well designed

programs, they spend all the energy they

have to simply maintain that monopoly.

Often I give speeches to information

technology groups that state.... ‘‘Without

Microsoft in the industry, we would be at

least 10 years ahead of where we are today’’.

But because of the constrictive designs and

monopolizing practises of Microsoft, no

possible competitive products have been able

to get a start.

As just one example: IBM wrote a fine

operating system called OS/2 in 1992. Only

today some 9 years later is Windows XP

beginning to catch up to the technical

capability of OS/2. In fact it still has a long

way to go to catch up to OS/2 in security and

reliability. What happened? IBM could not

get any hardware vendors to carry the

software because Microsoft had tied up all

manufacturers of computers to include with

each and every computer, a copy of

Windows. This in spite of the fact that many

wanted to use OS/2 instead of Windows.

What happened to anyone who decided to

use OS/2 was they also paid and received a

copy of Windows that they did not desire.

The only way to get the marketplace back

in order is to separate the computer hardware

from the operating system. When you go to

a store to buy a computer, you should be able

to buy any computer available without

having to also purchase an operating system.

That choice should be made at the time of

purchase rather than included in the cost of

the computer.

Please suggest that all operating systems

should be available as separate products. The

purchase of a computer should not also be

the purchase of products from Microsoft.

It is much akin to buying a car, and with

that car purchase, it also comes with a

coupon for gasoline from the Microsoft

gasoline company. We agree that the car uses

gasoline, and we all buy gasoline, but what

if we prefer to buy gasoline from Shell rather

than prepay for gasoline from the Microsoft

gasoline company? Should we not have the

option of not prepaying for fuel from the

Microsoft gas company?

Please at least bring this option up. It

solves all the problems inflicted upon us by

Microsoft and some of their abuses of the

Sherman act. It also requires little

supervision, and levels the playing field for

others to play.

I suggest this (above) in addition to any

penalty that might be given Microsoft

24518 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

because of the illegal activities regarding the

Sherman act. It’s just that without the above

mentioned separation of operating system

from the hardware, we will not see any

competition in the operating system industry.

And when I imagine where we (the users of

computers) could be were it not for

Microsoft, I am almost brought to tears over

the condition Microsoft has left the computer

industry in.

We are a multi Trillion dollar industry, and

to be controlled by illegal means, by one

company that has already shown distain for

the law and ethical business practises, means

unless someone like you makes a move to

change it, you will be remembered as part of

the problem rather than as part of the

solution.

Mike Stephen

Computer consultant

MCSE, IBM BesTeam, CNE.

MTC–00004491

From: Kenny, Eric

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:14pm

Subject: Settlement

I am a software developer living in

Cincinnati, Oh (who works with Microsoft

products), and I would like to register my

total dissatisfaction with the DOJ’s settlement

with Microsoft. It amounts to nothing more

than a slap on the wrist, and does almost

nothing to rectify the situation. Consumers

will be in no better situation that they were

before this case.

Sincerely,

Eric Kenny

MTC–00004492

From: Andy Freed

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Comments

To: Renata Hesse

Trial Attorney

Suite 1200,

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20530

microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

The proposed Microsoft Settlement is a

sham. We should expect this from them by

now, but we shouldn’t accept it. If Microsoft

is allowed to choose the terms of their own

punishment, they will choose to advance

their own software. The current wording of

the settlement is very different from the

original ruling by Judge Michael Penfield,

and lacks any true punishment for

maintaining a monopoly.

There are plenty of arguments for breaking

the company up. This is what was originally

ordered by Judge Penfield, but was

overturned in later rulings. This would be the

best solution and punishment for Microsoft.

As a Mac User, I avoid their operating system

whenever I can. However, their Office

software suite is excellent on the Macintosh

platform, and only continues to get better.

This software was created by a separate

group, one that operates outside the realm of

Microsoft and its operating systems. This

shows that Microsoft doesn’t require codevelopment of its software and operating

system. However, by tying the two, they can

successfully prevent the use of their software

on other platforms.

The current settlement, as proposed by

Microsoft, should be thrown away. I think a

situation that truly punishes the corporation

for violating anti-trust laws, which they have

been convicted of, is needed. This could

range from splitting the company into

separate entities, or forcing Microsoft to share

their source with developers, so other

companies can have equal access to

information that is pertinent to developing

good software.

Microsoft has not been reprimanded for

their monopolistic behavior, which they have

not changed as of yet. They have also used

their powers as a monopoly to extend other

software, services, and protocols which will

continue to advance their position as a

monopoly. This case affects everyone who

uses computers, in some way or another. The

correct response to this case has nothing to

do with the settlement that Microsoft has

proposed. It should be thrown away, and a

new settlement, something closer to Judge

Penfield’s ruling should be used.

Thank you for this opportunity to

comment.

Andy Freed

1415 SW Custer Dr. #A6

Portland, OR 97219

503–246–4836

MTC–00004493

From: Rock.Roskam@wachovia.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:22pm

Subject: comment on the settlement

Microsoft has, I remind the judge, already

been found in violation, and this is the

penalty phase of the case, but the settlement

contains no penalties and actually advances

Microsoft’s operating system monopoly. As a

consumer I have repeatedly forced to pay

extra and recieve inferior customer service

because there is no recourse. A just penalty,

I continue, would at barest minimum include

three additional features:

Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers, so

that the user who does not wish to purchase

them is not forced to do so. This means that

for the price differential between a new

computer with Microsoft software and one

without, a computer seller must offer the

software without the computer (which would

prevent computer makers from saying that

the difference in price is only a few dollars).

Only then could competition come to exist in

a meaningful way.

The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

Any Microsoft networking protocols must

be published in full and approved by an

independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet.

Sincerely,

Rock Roskam

P.O. Box 14466

RTP, NC 27709

MTC–00004494

From: Jed Haile

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:23pm

Subject: Objection to Microsoft Settlement

Dear Department of Justice Official and

Judge Kollar-Kotelly,

I have spent a large amount of time

studying the proposed settlement for the

Microsoft antitrust trial and I must express

my extreme displeasure with the settlement.

Both the initial trial verdict and the

appeals verdict upheld the fact that Microsoft

is a monopoly that has illegally used it’s

monopoly power to deny other companies a

chance to compete, and to control the flow

of technology. Microsoft official were evasive

and borderline to committing perjury in their

testimony during the antitrust trial. Microsoft

willfully disregarded the terms of their 1995

consent decree. What reason does any of us

have to believe that Microsoft will honor the

letter or the spirit of the proposed settlement?

There are no strong enforcement clauses in

the settlement, and there are enough

exemptions and loopholes to make it entirely

unclear what the settlement even restricts or

enforces.

When the 18 states and the Department of

Justice began this antitrust action against

Microsoft the goal was to establish that

Microsoft had illegally exercised monopoly

power and to obtain punishment for that

crime and to insure that Microsoft would no

longer be able to commit further crimes of

this nature. The proposed settlement does

none of these things. Nowhere is there any

punishment for Microsoft’s breach of law,

and the settlement contains enough

exemptions and exclusions to leave Microsoft

a broad lattitude to operate how it pleases.

The settlement effectively makes it legal for

Microsoft to continue their illegal practices.

The settlement is hopelessly biased in

Microsoft’s favor and I believe that

Microsoft’s past behavior warrants extreme

reason to believe that Microsoft has no

intention of honoring this settlement.

Microsoft has never acknowledged their

guilt, Microsoft has never accepted

responsibility for their crimes, and Microsoft

will certainly never agree to sign a settlement

that limits their ability to continue to operate

as they accustomed. The only option is to

have punishment and corrective measures

IMPOSED on Microsoft. I would ask that the

court consider the new settlement terms

being proposed by the states that have not yet

agreed to the settlement. The simple fact that

not all the states are satisfied with the

settlement should be ample warning that

there are serious reasons to object to this

proposed settlement. I urge the Department

of Justice, the State Attorney Generals, and

the Judge officiating over this trial to reject

this proposed settlement. A great amount of

time, money and effort have gone into

establishing that Microsoft did indeed violate

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24519

the law, and this settlement does nothing to

justify that great effort.

With all respect,

Jed Haile

290 E 13th St

Idaho Falls, Id. 83404

Phone:

(208) 522–4518

MTC–00004495

From: Tony Kocurko

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:08pm

Subject: Proposed Settlement of Microsoft

Antitrust Case

14 December 2001

Renata Hesse, Trail Attorney

Suite 1200

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC

U.S.A. 20530

Anthony J. Kocurko

23 Burling Crescent

St. John’s, Newfoundland

Canada A1E 5H3

Office Phone: 709–737–8898

Office FAX : 709–737–2589

E-mail: akocurko@mun.ca

Dear Ms. Hesse:

As a U.S. citizen living in Newfoundland

and employed as a systems manager in a

research department of a university, I have a

keen interest in the Microsoft antitrust case.

To be succinct, I believe that the complete

details of the formats, including syntax and

lexical interpretation, of both the data files

and the network communications protocols

of Microsoft products should be made public.

That is the short of it.

Here is the long of it, although not very

long. It is not uncommon for me to be asked

by researchers, who do not happen to be

using Microsoft operating systems, to help in

deciphering e-mail attachments sent to them

from colleagues or institutions using

Microsoft products. (In fact, amazingly, there

have been instances of researchers, who do

use Microsoft operating systems, receiving email text attachments and being unable to

read them because they do not have the same

Microsoft program that produced them.) Most

often, we end up asking the sender to

recreate the attachment in an open format,

such as Rich Text Format, for example, for

which there are available readers for nonMicrosoft computer systems. On the

networking side, if it were not for the

existence of the Samba software (http://

www.samba.org), we would have a very hard

time sharing our research data among our

Microsoft and non-Microsoft systems. My

fear, as a systems manager of a heterogeneous

facility, is that Microsoft will use the

proposed terms of the settlement to make it

impossible for third parties to produce open

source software that will allow the fluent

interchange of data between Microsoft and

non-Microsoft products.

In thinking about this issue, I usually

return to several situations to which almost

anyone could relate. At the moment, I can

pick up my phone and talk to a person

anywhere in the world, regardless of the

manufacturers of the phones and regardless

of any fancy extensions that either phone

may have. Similarly,I will be able to FAX this

note to you without wondering whether the

company that made your facsimile machine

has so arranged things that only a FAX

machine by the same company can send to

yours. Again, I can make a recording on my

VHS VCR and not have to concern myself

with the VHS system on which it is replayed. Now, one may argue that no

company would be so foolish as to create a

phone that only phones of the same

manufacturer can call, but, if that phone

manufacturer controlled 90% of the phone

market, it could well be tempted to do just

such a thing.

It is my opinion that what goes on within

the strict confines of a computer is up to that

computer’s operating system, but when the

produce of that software leaves the computer,

either as e-mail or a data file or a network

transmission, then it has entered the public

airways, so to speak, and its format should

be readable by anyone on that airway. To put

it in an almost ridiculously simple form, it

is one thing to write a program that adds two

numbers, but it is quite another to write such

a program with an interface that requires that

the two numbers be supplied to the program

in some secret, proprietary language.

Sincerely Yours,

Anthony J. Kocurko

P.S. Please note that a FAX version of this

note is being sent to one of 202–616–9937

and 202–307–1545.

MTC–00004496

From: tigre@roo.ybos.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:40pm

Subject: Regarding the Microsoft settlement

proposal

My name is Titiimaea Ala’ilima and I am

a computer professional in Cambridge, MA.

I have read of the proposal for a settlement

and I must say I feel very strongly that this

is an entirely unsatisfactory remedy to the

antitrust violations of Microsoft. It entirely

sidesteps the issues at hand of abuse of

monopoly power, giving no restitution to

those who have actually been harmed by

their anti-competitive practices. It is a work

of pure public relations. Their so-called

penalty involves giving away a certain dollar

value of software, with the valuation of that

software self-determined as a result of their

monopolistic manipulation of the market.

And it only serves to entrench their

monopoly even further by training more

children on their proprietary software. There

is scarecely any sense of the word in which

I would consider this a penalty, much less a

reasonable remedy proportional to

Microsoft’s culpability.

Why not take the proposal offered by Red

Hat, a distributor of the popular Linux

operating system? If Microsoft wants to

channel their punishment towards the

benefit of needy children, why not do it in

a cost-effective manner. They could provide

hardware, the prices of which they have not

themselves artificially inflated, and a more

cost-effective operating system could be

provided for these machines from another

source, Red Hat themselves, for example,

who have offered to provide the operating

system software completely free of charge.

This would impose a real, measurable

financial cost to Microsoft, and a real benefit

to society, without furthering the monopoly

that Microsoft is in trouble for abusing.

It may seem like expediency would serve

the interests of all involved, but I think this

nation and its economy will suffer if we let

Microsoft continue to dictate its own terms.

The government will have wasted all of its

time and money in prosecuting this case

successfully if this settlement is accepted.

This decision demands careful deliberation.

The public may be tired of seeing this case

in the news, but we must not let that dictate

the merits of pursuing it further. The future

of computing is at stake.

Sincerely,

Titiimaea Ala’ilima

180 Third Street

Cambridge, MA 02141

MTC–00004497

From: John Walker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:43pm

Subject: Giving away intellectual property

Some of the states have suggested that

Microsoft be forced to share its source code

for Office and Internet Explorer, among other

remedies, in punishment for its recent

‘‘conviction’’ for anti-trust violations. My

opinion: BAD!!

Microsoft should NOT be forced to disclose

the ‘‘secret formula’’ which it has spent

BILLIONS of dollars and MILLIONS of manyears to develop. The purpose of any

remedies should NOT be to ‘‘punish’’

Microsoft for the alleged offenses (I still don’t

believe their conviction is valid, but. . .) but

to set guidelines to control any future

‘‘abuses’’.

The ‘‘reveal your source code’’ solution is

the equivalent of disemboweling someone for

running a red light: effective (in that the

person is unlikely to run any more red lights)

but excessive (obviously).

MTC–00004498

From: Adolf von W(00FC)rttemberg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:47pm

Subject: Microsoft case

Microsoft is a creative company. Leave

these guys alone.

Adolf V. Shastri von Worttemberg, Ph.D,

MCP

Computer Lab Manager/Sanskrit Professor

Emory University, Atlanta, GA

Office Ph.: 404–727–7619

Cell Phone: 404–314–3056

Home: 770–963–2699

***People often find it easier to be a result

of the past than a cause of the future.***

Idam satyam: . denn so redet m i r die

Gerechtigkeit: die Menschen sind nicht

gleich. Und sie sollen es auch nicht werden.

MTC–00004499

From: Tony Kocurko

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 2:18pm

Subject: A Thousand Pardons, Ms. Hesse!

Dear Ms. Hesse:

After FAXing a copy of my previous e-mail

regarding the proposed settlement in the

Microsoft antitrust case, I discovered that my

24520 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

(non-Microsoft) spell checker happily let me

give you the title ‘‘Trail Attorney’’. Of course,

if you’re originally from Wyoming, this may

well be the case. However, since we don’t

know each other, I beg your pardon.

Regards,

Tony Kocurko

Seismological Systems Manager (Phone:

709–737–8898 or –8142)

Department of Earth Sciences

Memorial University of Newfoundland

St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada A1B

3X5

MTC–00004500

From: David L. Craig

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 3:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I understand from Robert Cringley’s article,

‘‘He’s Not in It for the Profit—Steve Satchell

for Microsoft Anti-Trust Compliance

Committee!’’ (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/

pulpit/pulpit20011206.html), _this_ email

address/Subject combination is the online

place to register my comments on the

proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. If this is not so, please let me

know.

I have been very troubled by the turn in

this case since Judge Jackson’s ruling was

overturned. I do not believe the best interests

of the public, indeed, the entire planet, are

being served any longer. Microsoft was

proven to be guilty of very serious

anticompetive behavior, yet the government

appears to have backed off any serious

response to that guilt. I regret the actions of

Judge Jackson that have muddied the waters

of the appropriate response—break up the

monopoly! I see no other guarantee that will

restore proper market forces and the ultimate

good of competition fostering better products

enhancing the quality of life. As long as

Microsoft remains unchanged in its

determination to use every possible means of

abusing its monopoly position for its own

gain at the expense of everybody else, and

this seems to be the case still and into the

foreseeable future, then it is the duty of the

government to intervene and mete out the

proper remediation. To not do so dooms us

all to more abuses and their costs.

Judge Jackson had the right idea. Please

deliver us from the monster in Redmond.

May the LORD God bless you abundantly!

Dave Craig

MTC–00004501

From: Roger Ayers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 3:04pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I am an interested technology consumer

and citizen of Washington State. I have

followed this case from Day 1, including the

original consent degree and the history

leading up to the original District Court

Filings. I have read, as suggested, the

documents related to the proposed

settlement, as well as all current District

Court Filings and Appeal Court Filings. I find

the proposed settlement preposterous and

insulting to previous DOJ antitrust

administrations, the informed public, and

myself. It fails all forms of reasonableness in

light of the District Court Finding of Facts

and the Conclusions of Law, and the

unanimous Appeals Court Ruling. It also

ignores the basic evidence established

throughout the history of the case, including

Microsoft’s current willingness to continue

past transgressions into new areas as they

attempt to extend their monopoly into new

markets. I propose that the Court throw out

the proposed settlement and instill the two

simple remedies as best explained by the

author of the attached article. Please allow

me to include my suggestion of proper

remedies as contained in the attached article.

If this is not acceptable, please reply so I may

remove the link and author my remedy

within my text.

Thank you.

MTC–00004502

From: Pete Parks

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 3:06pm

Subject: Voodoo Economics

To whom it my concern:

If Coke was given the same opportunity as

Microsoft is being given. Non-Coke drinkers

would have limited choice, which means the

consumer suffers. It’s sad to see that justice

makes the victims suffer to the same crimes

that monopolist tries to create in the first

place which is ‘‘limited choice’’.

While getting my college degree my

economics professors each stated the best

economy is the economy where the consumer

has multiple sources from which to make a

choice. In addition the freedom to make the

choice is what America is suppose to be

about.

Please side on the consumers side by

making Microsoft payout money to the

schools so they can decide what’s the best

choice for them (note it might not even be a

computer). Otherwise, it just like the joke the

average American is hearing right now ‘‘first

hit is free kid!’’ states the school drug dealer.

Once the first hit has taken effect these

school become an annuity based cash cow for

Microsoft.

Pete Parks

MTC–00004503

From: Logan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 3:29pm

Subject: Anti-Trust

To Whom It May Concern,

Years spanned into decades as I formulated

my own personal view of morality in this

world. Years of experience and learning have

come together to form the three basic

principles by which I live. These principles

may be best described as ‘‘truisms’’ because

of their base nature, yet they remain effective

in day to day use. They are:

‘‘If it ain’t yours, don’t touch it’’

‘‘Lead by example and others will follow’’

‘‘That which does not kill us, makes us

stronger’’ (her Friedrich Nietzsche)

In respect to the anti-trust case against

Microsoft all of these truisms can be applied,

and in all cases to less than satisfactory

implications. First, a word about my true

interest in this case.

Nearly seven years ago I had my first

experiences with the internet. One of those

experiences was with a burgeoning new

technology known as Java. I downloaded an

application that allowed one to create Java

Applets for implementation on the web. This

software was known as ‘‘Liquid Motion Pro.’’

I was thrilled with the product as it allowed

me as a creative designer to make things

happen that were never before available to a

‘‘non-programmer.’’ Three weeks after this

initial download, a message was posted on

the manufacturers site stating that they had

been purchased by Microsoft and that further

development would be implemented by that

company. A new web address was given to

view the progress of the product. Two weeks

after that, the product was discontinued and

trash-canned by Microsoft.

Since that time I have watched as dozens

of innovative applications simply go away

due to the influence of this all-devouring

monster known as Microsoft. They have

trashed, beaten on and devoured more

innovation and and innovative spirits than

anything I’ve seen in my lifetime.

This breaches the first of my base tennets

of living. If it ain’t yours, don’t touch it.

Microsoft seems to understand this ideal, but

from a strange sense of perspective. If they

can’t touch it, they find a way to make it their

own, then they break it. If they can’t break

it, they make it so no one else can touch it.

Example: Bungie Software at one time was

the only major manufacturer of games for the

Macintosh platform. They were to have

released a ground breaking game called

‘‘Halo’’ for simultaneous release on Mac and

WinTel. After having been purchased by

Microsoft, they are only writing software for

the proprietary Microsoft gaming system

known as Xbox.

Lead by example and others will follow is

supposed to be an inspirational slogan

designed to motivate people to ‘‘do the right

thing.’’ Lead by example for Microsoft has

led to the capture of the major share of

processor market by Intel. A company which

produces inferior products for the nonprofessional market(check the benchmark

tests of Pentium-IV vs the DEC Alpha EV67

or the Athlon XP). A company which has

forced everyone to conform to their standard

of chip architechture. Not surprising is this

company’s close working relationship with

Microsoft. (A secondary truism that may be

used effectively here is ‘‘birds of a feather...’’)

That which does not kill us. Well, this only

applies if we do not die in the trial. Many

companies who have fought against this

Goliath have died. Many more will continue

to die by their hand. Some who see their

comrades fall by their side decide simply not

to fight. How many of these corpses on the

field of battle does there need to be in order

to see this company for what it is?

I am not a legal expert. I am a layman. And

as a layman I have to gather information and

make decisions to the best of my ability

based on a few simple principles. I used to

have faith in this country. I served in it’s

armed forces. Now I see the winds of change

beginning to blow.

As I see it, in my own small way, the antitrust laws were established to promote

fairness in business practices—to create an

environment of competition—in a free and

open market. They were also designed to

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24521

increase the technological innovations

available to the public, thereby increasing the

standard and quality of living for every

citizen (not to mention the advancement of

military capabilities).

What seems to be advancing is the idea

that money makes might and might makes

right. Through legal wrangling about the

comments that a judge made about their

company during the trial they wiggle their

way into a legal impass. Their defense was

not ‘‘We’re not guilty’’ their defense was

‘‘You didn’t follow proceedure.’’ After a

costly stalemate the monopolists simply turn

around and say ‘‘we’ll give you some money

so you can fight your war and you make this

all go away’’

What appears to be huge amounts of

money are about to be sloshed in the

direction of the government. That is what the

settlement is about. This is not about what

is right or wrong, but about the size of the

payoff. If it was about right or wrong, this

case would have been taken to the Supreme

Court and Microsoft would have been

confirmed as guilty. I begin to realize that

soon I will be at my desk forced to stare at

the incredibly inane flag of the conqueror as

I start up my computer for the third time that

day and repeat the mantra to myself

‘‘Resistance is futile, you will be

assimilated’’, then wonder if I’ll have enough

money to pay to vote for president on the

next election day.

Thank You,

Logan

Creative Director,

USinns.com

MTC–00004504

From: George McCullen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 3:11pm

Subject: COMMENT ON MICROSOFT AND

DOJ SETTLEMENT

As part of the public comment on the

Microsoft settlement, I would like you to

know that I believe your settlement with

Microsoft is fair and just. While we waste our

time with Microsoft, we are not paying

attention to other companies that are anticompetitive. For example, the cable TV

industry. I have a choice whether I wish to

use Linux or Windows on my PC, and I can

choose what media player or browser I would

like to use by either buying it, or

downloading it for free. I do not have a

choice with my cable TV access. I cannot

choose the channels I wish to see (I pay for

all or none). What about cable broadband

internet access? It seems that a lot of

consumers are stuck without a choice there.

Do we punish one company because they

out-smarted their competitors? What about

AOL? Netscape, Sun and Oracle? Should

they US Govt help them compete? I think

that has no bearing on consumer choice. I

support your settlement with Microsoft. After

this is settled, maybe cable TV operators or

AOL should be next.

George McCullen

MTC–00004505

From: Matt Williamson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 3:12pm

As a linux user since 1995 I can proudly

say the MS is not the only horse in town,

please remember this.

And consider the following:

*Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers, so

that the user who does not wish to purchase

them is not forced to do so. This means that

for the price differential between a new

computer with Microsoft software and one

without, a computer seller must offer the

software without the computer (which would

prevent computer makers from saying that

the difference in price is only a few dollars).

Only then could competition come to exist in

a meaningful way.

*The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

*Any Microsoft networking protocols must

be published in full and approved by an

independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet.

Matt Williamson

< mattw_unix@yahoo.com >

MTC–00004506

From: Greg Baker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 3:24pm

Subject: Please reconsider you settlement

before its final.

This is not meant to be a bash, only my

personal opinion that soon I will have no

choice to but to use Microsoft products for

everything I do on my computer. While this

isn’t such a horrible thing in and of itself, the

fact that I won’t have a choice makes me feel

extremely exposed. I will be paying more

because they will have me right where they

want me and in that day there will be no

turning back.

I am completely happy with my copy of

Windows 2000 professional BUT I know that

soon if I want to log on to my banks website

I will have to use an array of Microsoft

products. This means I will have to upgrade

to Windows XP, because Microsoft won’t

release the necessary components for

Windows 2000 NOT because they are

technically unable, but because they have a

monopoly and can force me too. Force me to

pay for the another copy of windows (keep

in mind I’m completely happy with W2K),

use Microsoft Internet Explorer etc etc.

Please DO NOT settle with the current

agreement. It does not help consumers to

essentially let MS walk away with no fines,

no punishment and most importantly no real

way for new products to come into the

market.

Thank you

Greg Baker

MTC–00004507

From: Annalisa—SecureStore

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 3:23pm

Subject: Auguri!

Scalda il tuo inverno e quello dei tuoi cari.

Approfitta di questa occasione anche per

Natale!

Tutto questo all’indirizzo: http://

ghirosonno.monrif.net

oppure http://scaldaletto.xoasis.com—

http://spazioweb.inwind.it/scaldasonno

DIRETTAMENTE DALLA FABBRICA A

CASA TUA!!!

***L’OFFERTA E’ VALIDA FINO AD

ESAURIMENTO ***

Tutti i dati sono trattati in conformita’ con

la Legge 675/96.

MTC–00004508

From: Paul Burkeland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 3:30pm

Subject: Harsher Penalties for Microsoft

Please, please, please impose harsher

penalties upon the software giant Microsoft.

Their maintaining of a monopoly is hurting

us computer users. They make proprietary

formats, and people accept them because of

the huge hold they have on the market. They

can charge whatever they want for their

software (which is the only way to access

these formats), essentially forcing people to

pay outrageous prices to get work

accomplished. If there were more

competitors in this area, prices would be

cheaper, and we wouldn’t have to conform to

Microsoft’s way of doing things.

Microsoft keeps making their own

standards on the internet. They make others

conform to what THEY want. That isn’t how

the internet is supposed to be. One company

isn’t supposed to dictate how things are

viewed and interacted with. One company

isn’t supposed to have a stranglehold on the

future of computing.

Please?

Paul Burkeland

MTC–00004509

From: Shawn E Matthews

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 3:40pm

Subject: Microsoft DOJ Settlement

Shawn E MatthewsWhile it’s not perfect

(what is these days), it is better than nothing.

It’s time to move on ... the States, while

thinking that they’re taking the best interests

of the people in hand, are only making this

worse by dragging it out.

Technology changes at lightning speed,

what was wrong two years ago is no longer

relevant today. I wonder, will the same level

of scrutiny be applied when other

monopolies like AOL Time Warner are

investigated? Let’s hope so.

Thank you,

Shawn E Matthews.

MTC–00004510

From: Warren Downs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 4:02pm

Subject: Comments on settlement

Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney Suite 1200

Antitrust Division, Department of Justice 601

D Street NW, Washington, DC 20530

To whom it may concern:

24522 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

I’m writing to express my concerns with

the proposed Microsoft-DOJ settlement. As a

user of the Linux operating system, who has

used multiple computer operating systems,

including Microsoft Windows (in various

incarnations) and IBM OS/2, I have found

Linux to be the most flexible and useful basis

for my computing. However, it is my concern

that the proposed settlement will, far from

opening up competion in the marketplace,

actually assist Microsoft in removing my

choice to use an alternative operating system.

Here are some of my specific concerns,

which I hope will be addressed by the final

settlement (and are not addressed by the

currently proposed one):

1. When friends, family, and business

associates send me Microsoft documents (e.g.

Excel spreadsheets, Word documents,

Powerpoint presentations), I need to be able

to view those documents without being

forced to use Microsoft products. Or, at the

bare minimum, by using Microsoft

applications on top of Linux, should that be

an option. At present, there are a number of

non-Microsoft products which attempt to

read Microsoft file formats. However, they

are hindered by Microsoft’s frequent

undocumented file format changes. At a bare

minimum, I would request that Microsoft

applications (e.g. MS Word, Excel,

Powerpoint, Microsoft Money, Internet

Explorer, Outlook/Outlook Express,

including Windows Address book file

formats such as .wab and .pab) should be

available to run on Linux. It seems unfair to

require Microsoft to port them to Linux,

because there may be other operating systems

which should also be supported. Rather, I

feel it would be better if Microsoft be

required to license the porting to third party

companies. For programs which Microsoft

charges for, such as MS office, the licensing

wouldn’t be free, but the price of the end

product should be no more expensive than

it’s counterpart on Windows. Thus, Internet

Explorer for Linux should be free, just like

it is in Windows.

Microsoft will claim that Internet Explorer

is part of the OS, as it is integrated into

Windows. Regardless whether that is the case

or not, users consider it to be an application,

and as long as Microsoft continues to

encourage Internet Explorer specific

enhancements to the web pages on the

internet, Microsoft should be required to

make Internet Explorer available to other

operating systems. Otherwise, we’ll all be

forced to use Windows in order to view web

pages.

However, the best solution to the file

format problem, would be to require

Microsoft to make these file formats public

documents. Microsoft could then keep their

intellectual property, but third-party

programmers would be able to produce

compatible programs, so end-users such as

myself would be able to access their data on

alternative operating systems such as Linux.

2. Similarly, I need to be able to share

information between my Linux computer and

computers running Windows. At present, I

am able to use the Samba (http://

usl.samba.org/samba/samba.html) file

sharing system on Linux to retrieve my files

from the office computers. However, should

Microsoft continue to make undocumented

(and even patent-restricted!) changes to their

network protocols, this option may not

remain available to me.

Microsoft will claim that it is necessary to

restrict details of their file formats and

network protocols for security reasons. It is

true that, in many cases, their file formats

and network protocols attempt to be secure

through obscurity, rather than through

provably-secure algorithms. See http://

www.softlab.ntua.gr/-taver/security/

secur3.html for a definition of ‘‘security

through obscurity’’.

However, the notable insecurity of

Windows even without its file formats and

network protocols being publicly

documented should be testament enough that

obscurity isn’t helping security in this case.

Instead, were Microsoft required to document

their protocols and file formats, they would

be more inclined to fix any security problems

that came to light, and users of alternate

operating systems such as Linux would be

able to interoperate with their Windowsusing co-workers, friends and family.

Therefore, a useful remedy would be one

that requires Microsoft to publicly and nondiscriminately document any changes to

their network protocols, to be approved by an

independent network protocol body.

3. In point #1, I mentioned the option of

running Microsoft applications on Windows.

At present, there is an effort, known as the

Wine project (http://www.codeweavers.com/

), which is attempting to make it possible to

run Windows applications on Linux. It has

been largely successful with applications

which are written to use only the publiclydocumented Windows Application

Programming Interface (API) which Microsoft

already provides.

However, it is well known that Microsoft

applications (and perhaps those of a few

other companies in close association with

them) make use of undisclosed interfaces

between Windows and the application. This

makes it impossible to run those applications

using an interface (such as Wine) created

from only the public documentation.

Therefore, it is unsurprising that Microsoft

applications have been the least successful at

running on Linux using Wine.

A useful remedy should require Microsoft

to document all Application Programming

Interfaces (APIs) which are used by any

applications which it sells separately from

Windows, bundled with Windows, or

downloadable from Microsoft’s website. This

would at least make it possible to

interoperate with Windows users by using

the native Windows applications on Linux.

However, it is Microsoft’s trend to actually

work against this option, in spite of being

under anti-trust investigation. Microsoft

licensing agreements for many of their

applications currently state that you may

only use the application in conjunction with

Microsoft Windows. Thus, even if it were

technically possible to run the Microsoft

application on Linux, those licensing

agreements would make it illegal! This is

unconsionable, and should be addressed by

requiring that Microsoft licensing agreements

allow usage of their applications in

conjunction with alternate operating systems,

if the user so desires.

Of course, Microsoft doesn’t wish to allow

or encourage piracy of their software, and

rightly so. However, as long as they maintain

a monopoly, restricting interoperability with

users of alternate operating systems, they

should also allow their applications to be

used in conjunction with alternate operating

systems, as long as the application is legally

owned by the user. Applications which are

freely downloadable for Windows users,

should also be freely downloadable for Linux

and other operating system users.

4. When I purchase my next computer, I

should be able to purchase the computer

without Windows, or with Windows but

without any bundled Microsoft applications,

if I so desire, at a reduced cost. It is unfair

of Microsoft to require bundling their

products, or allow unbundling but only if the

purchaser pays a penalty.

In order to be effective, a remedy must

insure that, as a monopolist, Microsoft

should be required to allow sales of Windows

with or without bundled applications, with

no penalty in the latter case. And Microsoft

should not be able to penalize a computer

vendor for selling some of their computers

without Windows, either. This means that

the software should also be available

separately from the vendor, priced the same

as the difference between the cost of the

computer with and without the software.

Only then will competition be able to

flourish.

In closing, though my comments are

written from the point of view of a Linux

operating system user, I believe that it will

be to the benefit of all computer users,

including those using Windows, and yes,

even Microsoft itself, for effective remedies to

be taken in this case. I believe that the

remedies I have proposed are reasonable, and

I hope that the court will agree with me. I am

not writing on behalf of a large competitor of

Microsoft, and I strongly object to Microsoft’s

claim that this whole case is about it’s

competitors. It is of unmost concern to me,

that I be allowed choice in what operating

system and programs I use on my computer,

and I believe there are many other users who

feel the same. At present, we feel that we are

held hostage to the infrastructure provided

by Microsoft.

I am not antagonistic to Microsoft, and if

I could be assured that I would have freedom

of choice regarding the operating system I

use, I would be happy to use and pay for

Microsoft applications. However, my

experience has been to the contrary, and I

feel that only government intervention and

continued supervision of Microsoft will be

able to ensure that freedom of choice.

Sincerely,

Warren E. Downs

525 S. Williwaw

Palmer, AK 99645

(907) 745–6811

MTC–00004511

From: Herbst, Mike M.D.

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 4:07pm

Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

I oppose the proposed Microsoft anti-trust

case settlement. I believe that it neither

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24523

punishes Microsoft for past abuses nor

effectively prevents future abuses.

I support measures to require Microsoft to

reveal and license its source code for

Windows operating systems. I believe that

the Microsoft dual monopolies in the

operating system business and the

application business should be strictly

separated.

Michael Herbst, MD

Chair, Santa Monica—UCLA Medical

Informatics Committee

MTC–00004512

From: Jake Burns

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 4:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement View.

I view the settlement of the US Department

of Justice’s v. Microsoft to be inadequate. I

urge you to reconsider the ramifications of

the agreement the Microsoft is so heartily

agreeing to.

I belive that all current Microsoft Software

should be relicensed underthe GNU gpl

scheme. All future Microsoft releases should

be required to have no extra software

bundled with it. For example, an operating

system would be sold as an operating system

with no extra applications. Internet Explorer

would come as a separate product, so would

Wordpad, Notepad, and any other

applications that are not necessary or

inherent in the operation of the system. This

means, no bundled e-mail clients or games

either.

Essentially an operating system sold by

Microsoft would be the kernel,memory debug

tools for kernel crashes and a Window

manager or Shell.There are two reasons for

this, it forces Microsoft to compete in several

arenas legitimately. Instead of relying on the

fact that they’ve made it hard for people to

go out and use/install other softare. It also

provides people the ability to show who they

truly support as a business.it is fair to

Microsoft in that they can charge for the

software products that they currently bundle

and make even more money (if

their‘‘aftermarket’’ product is truly that

marketable or saleable).These ‘‘aftermarket’’

products should be bundled in packages of

no more than two prodcts. In otherwords, a

Word Processor/Spreadsheet package could

be made available, or any other combination

of two products bundled could be made

available.

On another level Microsoft’s hardware,

software, and services/internetdivisions

should be split up. As we can see from past

this did not hurt AT&T or any of the spinoffs.

As a matter of fact, AT&T has had a few

major spinoffs since the creation of the baby

bells (eg Lucent). On top of these measures,

Microsoft should pay back the rest of the

industry that it has helped to stifle by,

creating endowments for open source

development. Essentially, they should create

seed funds for full time open source

development teams. The teams would work

on software that doesn’t compete with

Microsoft’s kernel products, eg. Linux open

source software.

I personally think that this settlement gives

Microsoft the ability to make money in three

well defined separate arenas. I also believe

that it levels out the playing field a little bit.

With Microsoft’s new .net strategy, they

should be more than happy to open up the

source code of their prior products. They

should realize the profit potential of selling

software as separate packages, rather than

bundling with an OS to stifle competition.

They should realize they have a well

established internet presence that nearly

stifles competion on its own.

I hardly think my proposal is harsh. The

reason being, is that it stillallows Microsoft

to make enough money to satisfy any greedy

executive. Of course the lynchpin to it all is

3 oversight groups. One to monitor their sales

of bundled software, one to monitor their

funding of open source development and

making sure that the open source

development is adequately used. The third

group would monitor internet services/

hardware sales (making sure drivers for their

products are available to otherOS’es, and

making sure that their internet services are

truly compatible,(the most recent incident of

them blocking other browsers to their content

is outrageous)).

Bill Gates is a driven man, he should be

up to the challenge of making three separate

enterprises run well without each other.

Jake Burns

MTC–00004513

From: TOM HAVILAND

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 4:23pm

Subject: I am against the current settlement

I am against the current Microsoft anti-trust

settlement. I do not believe it provides any

remedy to their past and current practices. In

fact I believe that it was developed with an

eye more toward sexpediency than justice.

Any settlement should contain the following

restriction: Microsoft must publish all

internal file formats and APIs to an

independent 3rd party standards body.

Additionally, Microsoft must submit any

network protocols that it develops to an

independent 3rd party standards body.

Microsoft may not develop or deploy any

products based on these file formats, APIs

andnetwork protocols until the standards

body approves and publishes same. No

protocol, API, or file format may be

encumbered by patent restrictions.

Thank you

Thomas Haviland

100 Duxbury Road

Bolton, Vermont 05676

CC:senator_leahy@leahy.

senate.gov@inetgw

MTC–00004514

From: Triodes12AX7@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 4:37pm

Subject: Submittance of comments regarding

the DOJ/Microsoft Settlement

The Department of Justice is doing the

world no favor by settling with the

conditions they have set. Microsoft has been

devising ways to bend the conditions to their

advantage ever since their creation. Microsoft

does not create programs, but rather is a

business machine. Microsoft has not sold

software since the mid to late 80s, rather they

have sold infleunce. By IBM making a fatal

mistake and selling off DOS (they thought no

money could be made by selling software at

the time, they thought the bucks were in the

hardware) Microsoft gained a foot hold in the

standards of the PC. Through this, they’ve

decided who suceeds and who fails by using

their image. Talk to anyone in america, it’s

very doubtful you will find many who do not

know who Microsoft is, and how powerful

they are. Through design they try to make the

market theirs. By implementing their own

‘‘bastardized’’ standards (ala Java, the Kerbos

networking protocol, microsoft proxy server

etc.) they make it so you can only use their

products or products approved by them. Back

in the day, there was an authentication

protocol called CHAP (an open standard was

used called CHAP 80) Microsoft in an

attempt to sieze control of the market

implemented a version called ‘‘CHAP 81’’

which was basicly the same thing except it

involved ‘‘handshaking’’ that would refuse

connections to non CHAP 81 servers. In

doing so they tried to push their OSes and

networking products, but it failed miserably.

Microsoft is like the mythical Hydra Hercules

fought, this punishment will be like cutting

off the heads, and there will merely be more

in the places of the ones you cut off. Aim

your attack for the heart of Microsoft instead.

Some people say release the source code to

Microsoft programs, but that’s a punishment

that would ultimately lead to their total

destruction. Microsoft serves a place in

socciety that is very important, as does

windows. If you want to hurt microsoft

without killing them, force them to release

the source code to the version of software

that was formerly released or after 3 years of

the software being sold in retail (eg Windows

ME whereas Windows XP is the current

home edition, NT version 4.0 whereas

Windows 2000 (NT 5) is the current version,

and so on under the GNU Public liscense.

Also allow versions of their software over 8

years old to become part of the public

domain. There should also be a strict

forbiddance for Microsoft to bundle more

then the basic software (e.g. the updated

versions of the Windows 95 install, as well

as drivers such as DirectX) and they should

be forced to put the rest on seperate CD(s.)

If you have any issues that you desire to

regard in this commentary, please email me

at the address above. I will be happy to take

any of your questions or comments to the

best of my ability.

Regards,

Alan H Draconic

MTC–00004515

From: Terence E. Shelton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 4:57pm

Subject: Microsoft

You should be ashamed of your proposed

settlement with Microsoft! They are an

abusive illegal monopoly and we the

taxpayers pay your salary to protect us from

them.

Microsoft does not invent. I have

challenged several news groups to name a

single software invention from Microsoft, so

far there are two, BOB and DLL hell.

Everything else was invented by others,

mostly individuals and small companies,

24524 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

only to have Microsoft copy their ideas and

bake them into their product lines. This

usurping of others ideas is the greatest

hindrance to advancement for the software

industry today. Nobody wants to put down

the time and effort to write neat and useful

programs because they know they will never

be able to capitalize on it, Microsoft will

copy it and get all the money. What will your

proposed settlement do to hinder this in the

future? As far as I can see nothing! At least

the ‘hold out states’ proposed solution

provides a glimmer of hope for breaking the

monopoly. They appear to be doing your job.

When I was an officer in the Navy we were

restricted in our purchases from IBM because

they were quasi-monopoly. Does that

restriction still apply? Hopefully so! That

would put the entire US government

including the DOD out of Microsoft’s pocket.

That would break the monopoly and rekindle

the innovation in the software industry.

Terence E. Shelton, MCSE

Systems Administrator

Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers Inc.

8080 Park Lane #600

Dallas, Texas 75231

Phone 214.739.4741

MTC–00004516

From: Juan Rivero

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 5:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

To whom it may concern:

As a computer user, developer, and

educator, I wish to express my concern about

the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement. My

understanding of the matter is that Microsoft

has been found guilty of Sherman Act

violations, and that the public has been asked

to comment on the penalty phase of the case.

It is my opinion that the settlement, as

currently stated, does nothing to remove the

Microsoft monopoly and in fact enhances it.

As far as I can determine, Microsoft is not

required to take any significant steps to

relinquish its monopoly of the Software

Systems market. At a bare minimum, the

settlement should additionally:

(1) Require full publication of all file

formats, especially those of Word Processors

and Spreadsheets, so that competitors can

produce equivalents of e.g. MS Word without

being unduly handicapped by proprietary

formats.

(2) Require that any network protocols

invented by Microsoft be approved by an

independent organization, in the same way

that other protocols are.

(3) Require that retailers be permitted to

sell computers with any operating system at

all (including none) preinstalled, and adjust

the price of their machines accordingly.

The issue of open file formats is extremely

important, as MSWord files exchanged over

networks have become a *de facto* standard

for both business and governments; these

organizations are reluctant to consider any

alternatives to Microsoft operating systems

because of the unavailability of MSWordcompatible products on the alternative

platforms.

If a national security issue is at stake here,

as the judge apparently has suggested, then

all the more reason not to extend the

Microsoft monopoly. The National Security

Agency, who is surely qualified to judge, has

stated for example that Windows NT is not

auditable. In this case, it becomes desirable

to allow alternative platforms an opportunity

to enter the market without undue hindrance.

This opinion is my own, and in no way do

I pretend to represent the University of

Alaska or any other institution.

Yours,

Juan Rivero

Dr. Juan Rivero, University of Alaska

Southeast

http://www2.jun.alaska.edu/∼jfjr

email:juan.rivero@uas.alaska.edu

MTC–00004517

From: Perrault, Brian

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 5:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

December 14th, 2001

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530–0001

Ms. Hesse,

I am writing to voice my concerns over

Microsoft’s monopoly of the software and

specifically, operating systems, industry.

First of all, let me thank you for taking the

time to consider my comments. It is much

appreciated that this opportunity has been

granted to the public, I am most appreciative

that I live in a society where I am able to

participate in such dialogue.

I feel that the suite of operating systems

which Microsoft has delivered to the public

for the past 10 years have been poor in

quality, at best. Furthermore, Microsoft’s

brute-force mass distribution of their

product, has brought our society to a point

where consumers and businesses cannot

function without their product. This is a

serious issue which must be dealt with

immediately. Microsoft cannot continue to

operate with the business practices they have

employed in past years.

An appropriate alternative would be to

break up Microsoft into several pieces. One

piece would control development of their

operating system, one would control their

suite of office products, and a final one

would control their suite of web software.

Furthermore, Microsoft should be forced to

sell a stripped-down version of their

Windows operating system, which would

allow users to customize their software

options. Thank you for your consideration in

this matter. I encourage you to use the full

force of the law to save our society from this

plague which is Microsoft.

Sincerest thanks,

Brian J Perrault

Group 99

Advanced Space Systems and Concepts

MIT Lincoln Laboratory

Lexington, Massachusetts 02420

MTC–00004518

From: Jon Sellers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 5:12pm

Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement

My name is Jon Sellers. My address is 5541

Oak Hollow Drive, Titusville, FL 32780. I

would like to make public comment on the

proposed settlement for the Microsoft case.

I have over 15 years of experience in the

systems management and software

development fields and I am currently an

Information Systems Manager with the

Brevard County Board of County

Commissioners. The opinions stated here are

strictly my own and do not necessarily

represent the opinions of my employer.

The current proposed settlement will have

no affect on the maintenance of Microsoft’s

monopoly in desktop operating systems. The

basis of this monopoly is simple:

1. Control of the Application Programming

Interface (API) to the Windows operating

system. By maintaining this control,

Microsoft can modify the API to its advantage

and to the disadvantage of its competitors.

2. Control of the file formats associated

with its products. A commercial competitor

cannot be assured its products will work

with these formats which again, can be

modified to Microsofts advantage.

3. Control of the network protocols

associated with its network protocols. The

argument is exactly the same as above.

Because the settlement proposed by

Microsoft and the Department of Justice will

not rectify any of these fundamental

problems, it will not have any effect on

Microsoft’s maintenance of its monopoly.

It is my stated opinion that a better

settlement would be to simply require that

the above are made into public standards,

alterable only by the consensus of an

organization whose members represent both

Microsoft and its competitors.

Jon Sellers

MTC–00004519

From: Mike Dewey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 6:11pm

Subject: Comment on Microsoft’s antitrust

case

Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney

Suite 1200, Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20530

I would like to express my concerns about

the penalty phase of the U.S. v. Microsoft

antitrust case. My qualifications for

commenting on this case are that I am a

computer programmer and I have been

working in the computer industry for nine

years. I do not have any ties to the parties

involved in this case other than I am a user

of their products.

Microsoft has been found guilty of

violating U.S. antitrust laws, and therefore a

just penalty must not encourage the

continuation of this monopoly. The proposed

settlement, however, would not punish

Microsoft at all, and would actually help

them hold onto their unfair advantage. I feel

that the major reason that Microsoft has been

able to hold onto their monopoly is that they

do not make their file formats and other

protocols public. In order for competing

products to move into a space that is

controlled by Microsoft, they must be able to

interact with Microsoft products. However,

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24525

this competition cannot spend their

resources creating new features because they

are constantly playing catch-up with

Microsoft’s changing proprietary protocols. I

think that it is very important for any penalty

to include opening file formats, as well as

having all of their protocols approved by an

independent body of computer professionals

and academics.

Another concern that I have is that

Microsoft’s settlement proposal involves

distributing their software to our public

schools. This is not a punishment at all, but

rather a way for the company to guarantee

that our next generation of computer users

were raised on Microsoft products. I fully

endorse the idea that any capitol exchanged

as part of the punishment should go toward

the public good, but it should not be done

in a way that just makes the problem worse.

In closing, I would like to address the issue

of how this settlement will affect our national

interest. Computer systems most definitely

play a role in our overall national security,

and as things stand today they are our

Achilles heel because they are controlled by

a proprietary monopoly. When network

protocols are open and public they can be

reviewed by hundreds of people around the

world, and this makes them more secure. I

realize that this may be contrary to what one

might think, but in the computer world

secrecy always leads in insecure products. As

an example, the web server made by the open

source Apache group is the most widely used

server in the world, yet it has been more than

three years since a known remote root exploit

has occurred through Apache. Microsoft’s IIS

server, on the other hand, is closed source

and proprietary. IIS has had several major

exploits in the past several months (the code

red worm for instance).

I appreciate that you took the time to read

my comments, and I hope that you take them

into consideration when you make your

decision.

Sincerely,

Michael Dewey

307 MacArthur Blvd.

Oakland, CA 94610

(510) 839–1892

MTC–00004520

From: Sugars, Kirk

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 5:25pm

Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I would like to express my deep

reservations and concerns about the

proposed settlement of the Microsoft case.

First of all, Microsoft was indeed found

guilty of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust

act. Having worked with their products in a

corporate setting for nearly two decades, I

can personally attest to the damage their

unfair tactics have caused the marketplace.

The most notable would be the destruction

of competition by buying out competing

products, killing innovation by promising the

same function in some future release of their

operating system, or the maintenance of a

monopoly (through onerous licensing

practices) that is based on products that fail

to meet necessary standards for security and

stability. Having looked at the proposed

settlement, I cannot see how the settlement

addresses any of the CAUSES of the problem,

or incents Microsoft in any way to change

their behavior in the future. Quite the

contrary, the settlement is almost a kiss and

an apology to Microsoft for ‘‘all their trouble

with this annoying lawsuit.’’ This does not

appear to me to be in the public interest.

Secondly, I would like to suggest that this

case and its consequences are of historic

proportions. In my job I have spent many

hours trouble-shooting instabilities in

Microsoft’s operating systems, fighting

viruses that were virtually ‘‘invited’’ into the

systems by their poor design decisions, and

developing work-around’s to the systems’

limitations. All the while my choices have

been limited by the unethical tactics of

Microsoft. The future of our nation may well

depend upon our ability to establish public

control of, or at least influence over, the

technological foundations of our economy.

We cannot afford to ‘‘hand over the keys’’ to

a company that has shown that it can’t be

trusted. I see no sign of remorse or any

intention to behave differently in the future

on the part of the defendant. Therefore, they

should not be ‘‘set free.’’

Respectfully Submitted,

Kirk Sugars

VP-Systems Liaison Manager

Technical Services Group

Bank of Albuquerque

3900 Vassar Dr. NE

Albuquerque, NM 87107

505–855–0802

ksugars@bokf.com

MTC–00004521

From: Robert Ridgard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 5:22pm

Subject: MS court decision

Please consider that MS’s ‘reluctance’ to

accept the ‘punishment‘ of placing PC’s and

software in schools sounds too much like

Brer ‘Rabbit pleading’ please don’t throw me

in that brier patch’. It gives MS a segue into

a market they had little presence in

previously. Then there’s the ‘refurbished’ PC

option. Sure, an old PC is better than none,

but a new one would be more useful to

students AND would represent a more

convincing decision. Plus, without adequate

tech support and training, the computers are

just boat anchors in Arizona! I urge, at the

very least, that proper (not just ‘adequate’)

training personnel be provided.

Thank you

Robert L. Ridgard

32779

Your focus determines your reality.

MTC–00004522

From: Bransky, Alex

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 5:22pm

Subject: suggestion

You should have Microsoft supply schools

with computers that run Linux or Macintosh.

Alex Bransky

Anagram International

Eden Prairie, MN

952–949–5727

MTC–00004523

From: Clewley,Daniel T

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 5:24pm

Subject: Reject the DOJ Settlement

C C: ‘thurrott(a)win2000mag. com’

I urge the Honorable Judge Colleen KollarKotelly to reject the proposed settlement

between Microsoft and the US Department of

Justice (DOJ) . I strongly support that the

proposed remedy from the remaining states

and ask that it be accepted. Adopting the DOJ

settlement will reward Microsoft for its past

criminal actions, encourage future

misconduct, damage the few remaining

viable competitors, and force consumers to

continue to pay inflated prices for inferior

software. The attached analysis and opinion

from the Editor of Win 2000 Magazine

accurately conveys my beliefs regarding how

and why the convicted monopolistic

Microsoft corporation should be punished.

‘‘Unlike the previously announced settlement

between the DOJ and Microsoft, these

remedies create a real prospect of achieving

what the DOJ said it intended to accomplish:

‘Stop Microsoft from engaging in unlawful

conduct, prevent any recurrence of that

conduct in the future, and restore

competition in the software market.’’ ’

Daniel T. Clewley

700 North Alameda Street,

Los Angeles, CA, 90012–2944

(213) 217–7576—phone (213) 830–4574—

fax

dclewley@mwdH20.com

..... Original Message .....

From: WinInfo Daily UPDATE

[mailto:WinInfo_UPDATE@lists.win

2000mag.net] Sent:

Monday, December 10, 2001 1:11 PM

To: dclewley@mwdh2o.com

Subject: WinInfo Daily UPDATE, December

10, 2001

1. NEWS AND VIEWS (contributed by Paul

Thurrott, News Editor,

thurrott@win2000mag.com)* AN ANALYSIS

AND OPINION OF THE STATES’

PROPOSED MICROSOFT REMEDY As

expected, on Friday the District of Columbia

and the nine remaining US states allied

against Microsoft presented their proposed

remedy for Microsoft’s antitrust case. After

the watered-down and ineffectual proposed

settlement between Microsoft and the US

Department of Justice (DOJ) and nine other

US states last month, I didn’t expect much

from this proposed remedy. But this proposal

is far more realistic and pragmatic than the

earlier proposed settlement, and I strongly

urge Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to

wholeheartedly reject the DOJ agreement and

adopt this proposed remedy instead. In this

analysis and opinion, I’ll examine the

remedial proposals the states have presented

and explain why they represent a more

suitable punishment for Microsoft’s repeated

violations of US antitrust law.

But first, a quick review. The US Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

unanimously agreed with the earlier ruling

that Microsoft had illegally maintained its

desktop OS monopoly by ‘‘suppressing

emerging technologies that threatened to

undermine its monopoly control.’’ Microsoft

prevented these technologies, which

included Sun’s Java and Netscape’s Web

browser, among others, from succeeding by

24526 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

maintaining what the Court of Appeals called

the ‘‘applications barrier to entry,’’ in which

a dominant platform such as Windows stays

in power by keeping consumers locked in. As

noted in the proposed remedy, ‘‘the

applications barrier to entry, coupled with

Microsoft’s 90 percent plus market share,

gave Microsoft the power to protect its

‘dominant operating system irrespective of

quality’ and to ‘stave off even superior new

rivals.’’ ’ To specifically combat Java and

Netscape, Microsoft ‘‘aggressively and

unlawfully prevented these rivals from

achieving the widespread distribution they

needed to attract software development and

ultimately make other platforms meaningful

competitors with Microsoft’s Windows

operating system.’’ The proposed remedy

also notes that the US Court of Appeals

‘‘cataloged an extensive list of

anticompetitive [and] exclusionary acts by

which Microsoft artificially bolstered the

applications barrier to entry, including

commingling the software code for its own

middleware with that of its monopoly

operating system, thereby eliminating

distribution opportunities for competing

middleware; threatening to withhold and

withholding critical technical information

from competing middleware providers,

thereby allowing Microsoft middleware to

obtain significant advantages over its rivals;

threatening to withhold porting of critical

Microsoft software applications and financial

benefits from those who even considered

aiding its rivals; contractually precluding [PC

makers] and ultimately end users from the

opportunity to choose competitive software;

and even deceiving software developers to

conceal the fact that the software they were

writing would be compatible only with

Microsoft’s platform.’’ The list is long and,

sadly, only a subset of the strategies that

Microsoft has employed over the years to

stifle competition and innovation.

After losing its appeal, Microsoft entered a

new phase of its antitrust trial. Kollar-Kotelly

recommended that the company attempt to

settle the case, and the court eventually

provided a mediator. Then on October 31, the

last day of mediation, Microsoft and the DOJ

shocked the world by announcing a

settlement. However, Microsoft critics

immediately denounced the settlement as

being too lenient on the company. Even I

referred to the settlement as ‘‘a travesty of

justice that leaves an illegal monopoly in a

position of power, enabling Microsoft to

continue harming competitors, partners, and

even customers’’ (see the URL at the end of

this article for my take on the DOJ and

Microsoft settlement).

As a result, the District of Columbia and

nine of the 18 states allied against Microsoft

refused to sign the agreement, calling on

antitrust precedent and noting that ‘‘the suit

has been a futile exercise if the Government

proves a violation but fails to secure a

remedy adequate to redress it,’’ and ‘‘a

remedies decree in an antitrust case must

seek to ‘unfetter a market from

anticompetitive conduct’ to ‘terminate the

illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the

fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure

that there remain no practices likely to result

in monopolization in the future.’’ ’ So the

states’ proposed remedy, delivered Friday as

required, addresses these issues and

punishes Microsoft for its illegal behavior.

And the proposal elegantly explains why

Microsoft should be punished in a manner

more appropriate than that in the DOJ

settlement. ‘‘A meaningful remedy must do

more, however, than merely prohibit a

recurrence of Microsoft’s past misdeeds,’’ the

proposed remedy reads. ‘‘[First,] it must also

seek to restore the competitive balance so

that competing middleware developers and

those who write applications based on that

middleware are not unfairly handicapped in

that competition by Microsoft’s past

exclusionary acts, and [secondly,] it must be

forward-looking with respect to technological

and marketplace developments, so that

today’s emerging competitive threats are

protected from the very anticompetitive

conduct that Microsoft has so consistently

and effectively employed in the past. Only

then can the applications barrier to entry be

reduced and much-needed competition be

given a fair chance to emerge.’’

The states even specifically take a jab at the

proposed DOJ and Microsoft settlement.

‘‘Unlike the previously announced settlement

between the DOJ and Microsoft, these

remedies create a real prospect of achieving

what the DOJ said it intended to accomplish:

‘Stop Microsoft from engaging in unlawful

conduct, prevent any recurrence of that

conduct in the future, and restore

competition in the software market.’’ ’

Here are the states’ proposed remedies. I’ve

ordered them by magnitude, with the

proposed remedies I consider the most

important listed first.

1. Microsoft should be required to license

its Office source code so that competitors can

sell Office on rival platforms. ‘‘To begin to

erode the applications barrier to entry that

was enhanced by Microsoft’s unlawful

behavior, and thereby begin to ‘pry open to

competition a market that has been closed by

defendants’ illegal restraints,’ Microsoft

should be required to auction to a third party

the right to port Microsoft Office to

competing operating systems,’’ the proposal

reads. Also, Microsoft should be forced to

continue offering its Macintosh Office

product, with the stipulation that each

revision of that product ship within 60 days

of each Windows version of the suite and

include similar functionality. And Microsoft

should be forced to auction off Office

licenses so that at least three companies can

port the suite to the platforms of their choice;

Microsoft will receive a royalty for each

auction but no further payments. And

Microsoft will be required to give the third

parties all the technical information needed

to make the ports successful.

This controversial remedy hits Microsoft

right in the gut because it hands over some

of the company’s crown jewels—the source

code to its dominant Office products—to

competitors and opens up the Office

productivity market once again. Critics have

long maintained that Microsoft’s OS

monopoly is unfairly bolstered by users’

reliance on Office, and this proposal seeks to

answer that complaint. Indeed, given that

many of Office’s features have found their

way into Windows over time and that the

Office team has had unfair and early access

to internal Windows technologies for years,

it’s only fair that competitors get the same

benefits.

2. Microsoft should be forced to opensource Internet Explorer (IE). Much of the

original trial focused on Microsoft’s illegal

bundling of IE in Windows solely to harm its

competitor Netscape; the Appellate Court

finally ruled that Microsoft designed IE not

to make browsing more attractive to users,

but to discourage PC makers from

distributing rival products. In other words,

the company ‘‘integrated’’ IE into windows

solely to harm Netscape, not to help its

customers. ‘‘Eliminating Netscape and

establishing [IE] as the dominant browser

was a critical component of Microsoft’s

monopoly maintenance strategy,’’ the

proposed remedy notes. ‘‘Given that

Microsoft’s browser dominance was achieved

to bolster the operating system monopoly, the

remedial prescription must involve undoing

that dominance to the extent it is still

possible to do so. Accordingly, the

appropriate solution is to mandate opensource licensing for [IE], thereby ensuring at

a minimum that others have full access to

this critical platform and that Microsoft

cannot benefit unduly from the browser

dominance that it gained as part of its

unlawful monopolization of the operating

system market.’’

If the court enacts this proposal, Microsoft

will have to disclose and license the source

code for all current and future versions of IE

and any related Web-browsing functionality

found in various versions of Windows. This

action will give competitors and other

developers a perpetual, royalty-free license to

create any derived products they want,

without fear of retaliation from Microsoft. As

with the Office porting proposal, this

proposal hits right at the heart of the matter

and is an appropriate remedy for a company

that abused competitors, partners, and users

through its anticompetitive bundling of IE

and Windows.

3. Microsoft’s bundled software should be

unbundled from Windows. As with the

previous proposal, this requirement relates to

Microsoft’s illegal commingling of IE and

other middleware with Windows, which

deterred PC makers and users from installing

competing products. The states give

Microsoft two options: Either cease bundling

middleware such as IE, Windows Media

Player (WMP), and Windows Messenger in

all current and future versions of Windows,

or start selling Windows versions that don’t

include those bundled applications. If the

court chooses the latter option, those

unbundled Windows versions should cost

significantly less than the versions that

include bundled software and should

function properly. This requirement applies

to Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows

Me, and Windows NT 4.0, but not to

Windows 98 or Win98 SE, for some reason.

Again, I endorse any remedy that addresses

a specific area in which the court found

Microsoft guilty of breaking the law. Indeed,

the US Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia unanimously upheld the earlier

District Court ruling that Microsoft bundled

middleware such as IE solely to ‘‘deter

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24527

computer manufacturers from installing a

rival browser such as Netscape Navigator.

Microsoft offered no specific or substantiated

evidence to justify such commingling, and

such commingling had an anticompetitive

effect.’’ Users and PC makers should be able

to choose whether to install Microsoft or

third-party middleware, and this proposal

makes the choice possible. Contrast this

solution to Windows XP, where users can’t

uninstall components such as WMP,

Windows Movie Maker (WMM), and

Windows Messenger, let alone replace them

with other software.

4. If Microsoft knowingly violates the terms

of this remedy, the company should be

forced to license the source code of the

product in question. Given Microsoft’s

repeated violation of previous agreements,

this proposed remedy is key. If the court

finds in the future that Microsoft illegally

commingled software code into Windows, for

example, the company will have to freely

license the Windows source code to the

appropriate parties. ‘‘If the Court determines

that Microsoft has knowingly committed an

act of Material Non-Compliance, the Court

may, in addition to any other action, convene

a hearing to consider an order requiring

Microsoft to license its source code for the

Microsoft software that is implicated by the

act of Material Non-Compliance to anyone

requesting such a license for the purpose of

facilitating interoperability between the

relevant Microsoft product and any nonMicrosoft product,’’ the ruling reads. If the

court finds that Microsoft knowingly engaged

in a pattern of noncompliance, the company

will have to pay fines and suffer further

appropriate remedies. This remedy is crucial

because it openly warns Microsoft about the

consequences of its future behavior, giving

the company no wiggle room to ‘‘reinterpret’’

its legally binding conduct remedies as it has

so often in the past.

5. Microsoft should be forced to adhere to

industry standards. Microsoft frequently

‘‘embraces’’ open standards only to ‘‘extend’’

them with proprietary additions that make

interoperability with non-Windows platforms

difficult or impossible. The states refer to this

practice as the ‘‘co-opting and/or

undermining of industry standards,’’ and

they point to Microsoft’s specific behavior

regarding Java: The company ‘‘purposely

deceived software developers into believing

that the Microsoft Java programming tools

had cross-platform capability with Sun-based

Java’’ when they didn’t. Under terms of this

proposal, Microsoft would again have two

options: The company could adopt and

implement industry standards into its

products and not modify them at all. Or it

could modify these technologies and supply

the changes to any party that requests them.

Furthermore, Microsoft couldn’t require third

parties to use standards-based technologies it

had modified.

This is another compelling request,

because it addresses a specific behavior

Microsoft has long been guilty of. If enacted,

Microsoft’s embrace-and-extend strategy will

be open to competitors and thus rendered

moot.

6. Microsoft should be forced to distribute

Java with Windows and IE. According to the

states, ‘‘Microsoft’s destruction of the crossplatform threat posed by Sun’s Java

technology was a critical element of the

unlawful monopoly maintenance violation

affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Microsoft

continues to enjoy the benefits of its

unlawful conduct, as Sun’s Java technology

does not provide the competitive threat today

that it posed prior to Microsoft’s campaign of

anticompetitive conduct. Because an

appropriate antitrust remedy decree should,

among other things, attempt ‘to deny to the

defendant the fruits of its statutory violation,’

Microsoft must be required to distribute Java

with its platform software (i.e., its operating

systems and [IE] browser), thereby ensuring

that Java receives the widespread distribution

that it could have had absent Microsoft’s

unlawful behavior, and increasing the

likelihood that Java can serve as a platform

to reduce the applications barrier to entry.’’

Under the proposal’s terms, this bundling

would continue for 10 years and would

require Microsoft to continue developing

modern versions of Java that conform to

Sun’s latest Java specifications. This is the

only part of the proposal I disagree with,

largely because Sun has never opened up

Java to an internationally recognized

standards body (I likewise reject any

argument that Java is a de facto standard).

During the company’s original trial, the court

asked Bill Gates about Microsoft bundling

Netscape Navigator in Windows. Gates

replied that that would be like requiring

Coca-Cola to include one Pepsi in each of its

six-packs of Coke. I agree that such a

requirement is ludicrous, as is requiring

Microsoft to bundle Java with Windows.

The remaining proposed remedies are less

exciting and more closely mimic the

remedies in the DOJ’s proposed settlement.

Thus, I’ll cover them more succinctly.

7. Microsoft should be required to reveal

all interoperability technologies so that

‘‘Microsoft middleware developers [don’t]

receive preferential disclosure of technical

information over rival middleware

developers.’’

8. Microsoft should have to license its

intellectual rights when necessary to meet

the requirements of this remedy. Some of the

aforementioned proposals will require

Microsoft to license its intellectual property

to third parties. The company will have to do

so when appropriate.

9. Microsoft should have to provide

uniform and nondiscriminatory licensing to

PC makers, regardless of their relationships

with Microsoft and Microsoft competitors.

10. Microsoft should be prohibited from

entering into agreements that would harm

competition. Furthermore, ‘‘Microsoft must

also be prohibited from taking certain actions

that could unfairly disadvantage its would-be

competitors, whether by knowingly

interfering with the performance of their

software with no advance warning or

entering into certain types of contracts that

could unreasonably foreclose competing

middleware providers.’’

11. Microsoft should be banned from

retaliating against companies or users that

choose non-Microsoft technologies.

12. Microsoft should be prevented from

forcing PC makers and users to choose

Microsoft-only solutions. No Microsoft

middleware can be included in Windows

unless it can also be removed and replaced

by PC makers and end users.

13. Microsoft should be prohibited from

requiring partners to sign noncompete

agreements, such as the agreement it

allegedly tried to enter into with Netscape.

14. Microsoft should be required to

undergo regular compliance certification to

ensure that it meets the requirements of the

ruling against it. This certification will

include an internal compliance officer,

annual compliance certifications, a

compliance committee consisting of at least

three members of Microsoft’s Board of

Directors, and extensive internal-document

retention.

15. A Special Master should be empowered

to promptly investigate any future

complaints against Microsoft.

16. Microsoft should be required to report

any potential technology or corporate

acquisitions to the plaintiffs for review

because the company has used such

acquisitions in the past to extend its

monopoly power.

Folks, this proposal represents your tax

dollars at work. I salute the states of

California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa,

Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah,

West Virginia, and the District of Columbia

for erecting a logical and workable remedy

that addresses, rather than rewards,

Microsoft’s illegal, anticompetitive behavior.

Just weeks ago, it seemed that Microsoft

would escape punishment, but these

proposed remedies give new hope that justice

will be served. If Judge Kollar-Kotelly can at

least find a happy middle ground between

the DOJ’s proposed settlement and this more

reasonable set of remedies, we might see

competition and innovation return to the

computer industry. If I’m not mistaken, that

was the original point of this legal nightmare.

MTC–00004524

From: Timothy Taebel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 5:28pm

Subject: Microsoft

To whom it may concern:

As a end user, I am grateful to the people

at the Microsoft organization. I am 60 years

old and never have had any formal training

in the usage of computers. All I know, is that

the cost of computers continues to fall and

they are easier to use which is most

beneficial to me and my family. It seems to

me that the folks at Microsoft got up earlier,

worked later and smarter than their

competition and made the best mousetrap.

The only mistake that Microsoft made is they

weren’t politically savvy. While Microsoft

was tending to their knitting, the out witted

competition cried foul and hired a bunch of

lawyers and lobbyist. Then unfortunately the

states got involved as their politically

motivated Attorney Generals decided that

suing Microsoft was good for the

advancement of their careers. It seems to me

that nobody is speaking up for the consumer,

who has benefited immensely from the

products from Microsoft. The lawsuit is

nothing but a waste of tax payers money and

should be resolved as quickly as possible. I

24528 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

suggest the competition should just try to

make a better product at a cheaper price and

the public will buy it.

Thank You

Timothy C. Taebel

2020 Goldengate Dr.

Michigan City, In. 46360

MTC–00004525

From: David Morrissey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 5:42pm

Subject: Public comment

Hello...my name is David Morrissey.

I am not in favour of this settlement. I am

an individual who understands many of the

aspects of the computer industry. Within that

sphere, I feel that the need for a hasty resolve

is not as important as a proper resolve.

This is the aspect of the trial where

Microsoft’s punishment for breaking the law

is being created and myself I would wish to

see the following also included as they have

all been raised my many voices from many

corners of the issues.

1. Microsoft to offer the windows operating

system’s without additional software

included or embedded to OEM’s with both:

A) a price difference which reflects the cost

of products such as MS Office instead of say

5–20$ dollars. Example-if MS office costs 100

dollars...I would like to see the price of the

Office free windows OS 100 dollars cheaper.

B) A uniformed contract set up which

would prevent MS from favouring or

punishing OEM’s who choose one variety or

‘‘flavour’’ over another. My feelings for this

are that MS will be limited in it’s ability to

abuse it’s monopoly in the OS market if it is

unable to retaliate against manufacturers who

wish to either not support Microsoft’s other

products and or choose to support a

competitor’s instead.

2. Microsoft must be made to release

information required by competitors in a

public and universal form in a timely

manner. As they are a monopoly they must

not be able to choose who may and may not

and in what order and when software

developers gain access to required Microsoft

product information or ‘‘hooks’’ as their

called.

3. Details of document file formats of

Microsoft programs (Office) must also be

made public and universal in a timely

manner. If not then fear of another monopoly

may prove warranted but unheeded.

4. Microsoft must not be allowed to create

proprietary networking protocols which may

take away from the internet as a free and

open place devoid of the requirement for one

company over another. Any new networking

protocols Have to be FULLY documented and

reviewed by an established Independent

body such as tcp/ip is today. This could in

effect remove the Open Source movement

and competitors such at Linux, the fastest

growing operating system avalible, from

being a viable solution to an Internet virually

inclosed behind a Microsoft yoke.

5. The moniting will last only a few years.

What will happen after that is over? I feel

that as long as there is a monopoly, then

Microsoft should be held in check to prevent

it from abusing it’s monopoly. Hence the two

items should be linked together in some

manner where reports of abuse may be

investagated where the monopoly abuse issue

is called into question.

6. In the punishment stage I do no believe

that Microsoft should have a hand in

selecting who will be chosen to see that the

punishment will be observerd... Or to have

say in when and where these 3 purposed

wardens can go and see within that area.

More to the matter, here while the purposed

agreemenet is being reviewed and this

request of comments from the general public

is being asked for, Microsoft has selected 2

of the people that MS says will oversee that

it conforms to the agreement which MS also

say through these actions will be agreed to

by the DOJ. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/

stories/news/0,4586,5100682,00.html This

leaves myself feeling that my time in

responding to this request for public

responce carries little to no weight. Big time

buisnees and big time goverment?

7. There is NO penalty being required of

Microsoft. They will pay no fines, they will

have nothing laid agaisnt them. This illegal

abuse of it’s monopoly has streagthened and

benifited Microsoft greatly at the cost of

others. And those others will not recover

from it or see any of their loses returned to

them. Indeed this is more than worth it to MS

to continue to break the law in order to break

competitors.

8. The ability to embed software which

directly compeates with competors such as

Internet Explorer, must be removed to

prevent effective bundeling. MS has the

ablitiy to merge into the operating system a

number of programs and software which will

be paid for via higher OS prices and or

licences fee’s as the case may become.

Microsoft in this matter is not being

properly addressed by the purposed

agreement. I feel that the public would be

better represented by a new sentence which

would address the above concerns.

This company has been mentioned by the

Center for Strategic and International Studies

as a possible threat to national security. I

would like to see it removed from gaining

that sort of position. I fail to see how without

addressing the above issues this agreement

intends to effectively do this.

This company has also repeatedly made

statements and remarks reflecting a goal to

the only operating system available including

comparisons to items such as the Open

Source moment’s Linux to Cancer. It may be

well pointed out at this time that Microsoft

is itself funning FreeBSD, a free open source

OS, for it’s hotmail service as I write this

letter.

Thank you for your time and I hope that

my time in this letter as well as others

writing in will have some voice in this

matter. Computers can be very complicated

devices, and many people do not carry the

level of understanding some of the more

technical aspects of the issues dealt with in

this case. I hope only the letters you recieve

from those who do understand some or much

of this case aid in adding weight against this

agreement (or as the public opinion may go),

and is not just an exercise in public relations.

Sincerly

David Morrissey.

MTC–00004526

From: Ted Kim

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 5:50pm

Subject: Public Comment RE: US vs.

Microsoft

As a longtime computer user, I find that

the proposed settlement regarding the

Microsoft Anti-Trust case to be inequitable

and not in the best public interest. The

proposed settlement does nothing to punish

or curtail Microsoft’s monopolistic business

practices. In my humble opinion, the

proposed settlement allows Microsoft to

further its monopolistic business practices

with no competition and with the Court’s

blessing. Gladly I observe that the Court has

not gone blindly down that primrose path

and is hearing other players in the industry

to gather their opinions before acceptance of

the proposal.

The Court is now determining the penalty

to Microsoft for violating the Sherman AntiTrust Act. Microsoft has been found to be

illegally maintaining a monopoly of the

operating systems market. Any penalties

handed down to Microsoft should include,

but not be limited to the following in my

opinion.

1. Microsoft operating system software

should be billed, listed as, and invoiced to

the consumer as a separate option on any

computer purchases. This allows for the

consumer the choice of not buying

Microsoft’s operating system and using

another competing product. This also negates

the argument from retailers that ‘‘the

computer will not run without Windows!’’

There are alternatives to Microsoft’s

operating system. This allows those

consumers, that choose not to use Microsoft

product, not be punished for taking

advantage of choices that are in the

marketplace.

2. Specifications for past, present and

future file formats must be publicly

published by Microsoft. This is to ensure that

third party vendors and programmers may

design and make software to work with

Microsoft product, not only on Windows, but

on other operating systems.

3. Although already proposed, there should

be more firm standard to be adhered to in

regards to the public publishing of

Application Programming Interfaces or API’s.

They should be fully disclosed and not

partially disclosed and key important pieces

not published as has happened in the past.

A neutral panel or a neutral third party

should be placed in charge of oversight.

4. Specifications for past, present and

future network protocols should also be

published and approved by a neutral third

party. This is to ensure that Microsoft does

not extend its monopoly to the Internet and

become the de-facto standard.

I thank the Court for hearing my opinion,

and hopefully my opinions and the opinions

of others will help you in this monumental

decision.

Respectfully,

Ted Kim

crazyk@powdersoft.com

crazyk@mac.com

3736 Colonial Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90066

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24529

‘‘Difficulties exist to be surmounted.’’—

Ralph Waldo Emerson

MTC–00004528

From: Paul Van Noord

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 6:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement

12/14/2001 5:22 PM

Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement

To whom this concerns;

I am a computer consultant who focuses on

small businesses, churches, missions and

families. I build systems, write custom

applications and train users. I have been in

business since 1989. This needed to be said

to lend credibility to what I have to say.

First, this is an anti-trust suit. Why?

Because Microsoft cannot be trusted. If this

were a different time in history Bill Gates’

name would be Al Capone. The primary

difference between these two men is their

choice of weapons and the playing field.

Both are/were driven by greed and an

insatiable desire to control people.

Any settlement that increases the

distribution of Microsoft products is totally

contrary to what is needed to send a message

to the up and coming ‘‘wannabes’’ that the

type of Microsoft crime does not pay. AOL

got where they are by giving away their

software. Now you are proposing to do the

same for Microsoft? Please do not do it.

Make Microsoft refund to any purchaser

who asks, a substantial portion of the

Windows purchase price as just

compensation for manipulating them. Also,

require their operating systems to be made

open source and available to anyone. They

can keep their proprietary applications but

the operating systems should be open source

because they are the weapons used to

bludgeon purchasers into using their

software. No Microsoft software should be

part of any settlement. Only cash should be

involved.

Sincerely,

Paul Van Noord

Common Sen$e Consulting

6480 Thoman Drive

Spring Grove PA 17362

717–633–6392 Fax 717–633–9886

MTC–00004529

From: Raul X. Garcia

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 6:13pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement.

Dear Department of Justice:

I feel the present settlement agreement

regarding the Microsoft Anti-Trust suit is

contrary to the purpose of the suit and it’s

legal proceedings. The fact that Netscape as

a browser company is no longer, and that

Microsoft gave away it’s competiting product,

under the disguise of being part of the

operating system, speaks for it’s self. Being a

computer professional, I find it puzzling that

Microsoft has captured 90% of the PC

operating systems, office suites. It as if there

are no other alternatives out there. Based on

the wording of the agreement (which I feel

has been written by Microsoft) there are loop

holes which Microsoft will take advantage of.

There have been and will continue to be

companies victimized by Microsoft. Which

will only result in a benefit for Microsoft, and

detriment for the consumer.

I also believe, that appointing Steve

Satchell to the Microsoft Compliance

Committee, will bring it a certain degree of

creditability and dignity.

Thanks,

Raul X. Garcia

Wk. 626–287–8520

Hm. 626–442–6521

Em. 626–278–4479

MTC–00004530

From: root@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR,antitrust@ ftc.gov@inetgw,

Ralph@essen...

Date: 12/14/01 6:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Hegemony’ The IBM

Monopoly Torch

CC:letters@latimes.com@ inetgw,letters@

sjmercury.com@i...

‘‘What do you expect!!? What do you

expect!?? Uncle Sam PASSED the IBM

monopoly torch to Microsoft in 1982... you

think we should hand it off to Joe Q. Public?

Jesus Christ, Uncle Sam, you made the

decision to screw Joe Q. Public then, so live

with it!’’

‘‘All I say to Uncle Sam is Ka Ching, Ka

Ching...ha ha, speak their language, they

listen...’’

MTC–00004531

From: Eric Swanson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 6:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Proposed Final

Judgement

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

TO: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney

Suite 1200

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20530

microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

FROM: Eric Swanson

2934 Folsom Street

San Francisco, CA 94110

415–377–6531

swanson@mooselessness.com

REGARDING: Microsoft Antitrust Proposed

Final Judgement

Dear Renata Hesse and All Those It May

Concern:

I am writing as a concerned citizen to

register my comments on the PFJ now being

considered in the Microsoft antitrust case

currently before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

of the US District Court in the District of

Columbia.

As a technology consultant, an expert

implementor of both Microsoft’s and other

technology platforms, and a 20-year veteran

in information technology, I believe the

proposed settlement would be completely

ineffective in correcting the harm Microsoft

has done and continues to do to the

computer industry overall. I won’t belabor

the point of how Microsoft’s practices have

limited my choices as a technology

consumer—after all, their misdeeds have

already been proved—but I will comment

briefly on what I believe is wrong with the

propsal.

First, the requirement that Microsoft

disclose necessary software interfaces for the

purpose of allowing competitors to develop

network products and middleware that work

with Microsoft systems may be well

intentioned, but appears entirely toothless.

This appears to require only that Microsoft

disclose these interfaces upon release of the

operating system that uses them. This still

leaves a period of months or years when

Microsoft internal developers will be aware

of planned interfaces and can develop for

them without competition. By the time

external competitors catch up—perhaps six

to eighteen months later—Microsoft could be

nearly ready with another new OS release,

complete with another window of advantage.

To be effective, I believe this measure must

require that Microsoft release such interface

information even as it is being developed, so

that outside developers can begin developing

with accurate specifications at the same time

it becomes practical for Microsoft developers

to begin.

Second, the idea that Microsoft should be

allowed any role in selecting the Technical

Committee that will oversee its compliance

(much less the very substantial role

proposed) seems patently ridiculous. Any

body that oversees compliance should be

appointed by the Court, and selected based

on technical skill, legal acumen, and a real

understanding of how Microsoft’s previous

actions have caused harm. I endorse

appointing a single special master to oversee

this process, but at the very least any

committee should be appointed by the

presiding judge—or at least somebody other

than a proven antitrust violator.

Third, the proposal does not define to my

satisfaction how one finds whether Microsoft

is ‘‘retaliating’’ against a competitor. As

written, it seems to require that a court

proceeding determine Microsoft’s intent in

order that they be held responsible. To me,

this seems like a recipe for more years-long

bouts of legal wrangling. Instead, I believe

that biased treatment plus an identified

motive for Microsoft should automatically be

construed as retaliation unless Microsoft can

prove otherwise. For example, if Microsoft

changes some licensing terms for a

competitor that recently started shipping

systems with Linux instead of Windows, that

change in terms would be automatically

taken as ‘‘retaliation’’—the burden shifts to

Microsoft to prove conclusively that the

change was not retaliatory.

I have quite a few other disagreements with

the proposed judgement, but there are people

far more qualified than I to expand upon

them.

I echo most of the sentiments of Attorneys

General Bill Lockyer and Tom Miller, and

many of the non-Microsoft industry leaders

who have spoken about this issue. In short,

I recommend taking a much harder line

against a company that has shown not only

violation of, but complete contempt for, the

antitrust laws of our nation. If we fail to

contain this threat, Microsoft and other large

companies will be sent a terribly permissive

message. Please don’t let this happen.

Sincerely,

Eric Swanson (via email:

swanson@mooselessness.com)

MTC–00004532

From: Wizard

24530 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 6:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

To whom it may concern:

As a software developer for nearly 20

years, I find myself concerned with the

details of the proposed settlement in

Microsoft’s antitrust case. As stated, I have

been developing software for Microsoft’s

operating systems (OSs) as well as OSs from

Sun, DEC, HP, and Linux. Since the

inception of Windows 95 however, I have

shied-away from any sort of development on

Microsoft’s OSs. I have done so because I

believe that by developing software for

Microsoft OSs, I am condoning the behavior

that Microsoft has in the past, and continues

to, exhibit in regards to it’s competition.

I believe that any settlement with Microsoft

that fails to directly and strongly address the

central issue of the case by forbidding any

similar practice in the future is irresponsible

on the part of the DoJ. To this end, I believe

that the DoJ must enforce a policy that does

the following:

—The DoJ must ensure that any computer

system sold that can be a target for a

Microsoft OS, must declare the separate

price of that OS and sell it separately for

that price. It can include additional

Microsoft products as a ‘‘package’’ with the

installed OS for no additional cost, but the

base OS must be a separate cost.

—Microsoft must make it’s storage format for

files of any and all of it’s products that

have benefited from it’s monopoly. This

would include all of the applications

associated with it’s Office suite, as well as

Outlook Express, NetMeeting, and many

others. This will help to level the playing

field back to something that resembles fair.

As it stands presently, the companies

cannot compete as long as Microsoft is so

far ahead.

—Microsoft cannot be allowed to create

proprietary network protocols. All

protocols that are intended to

communicate beyond the physical

boundaries of the machine must become a

matter of public record, without

restrictions on it’s use. Any and all

network protocols should be approved by

some governing body providing oversight

in such a manner as to ensure

interoperability with other OSs. Microsoft

should not be allowed to extend existing

protocols without first seeking public

comment on such extensions, and then

publishing all of the details of the

proposed extension. It can however, add

functionality to existing systems provided

that such added functionality does not

interfere in any way with the proper

implementation of the existing systems,

and provided that the specification of the

existing systems allow for such added

functionality.

I feel most strongly about the last item.

Microsoft has already extended the Kerberos

standard to meet it’s own desires (see http:/

/www.usenix.org/publications/login/1997–

11/embraces.html). This extension is not

only proprietary, but it’s not compatible with

the existing Kerberos V5 standard. This has

the interesting effect that the NT domain

controller must be a Microsoft product, and

that, I believe, is intentional.

The end result with what Microsoft is

doing, is that it is intentionally developing

it’s OS in such a way as to make it extremely

difficult to integrate other OSs into a

Microsoft environment. With their existing

monopoly, I believe that this is the HEART

of why the antitrust settlement must take

these items into account. As long as

Microsoft is allowed to continue to benefit

from it’s monopoly status, there will never be

any real competition in the marketplace, and

that is just un-American.

Thank you for your time,

Grant Mongardi

Software Developer

Scituate, MA.

wizard@bostonhot.com

MTC–00004533

From: Alan J. Ecklof

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 6:28pm

Subject: Why now?

The fact that Microsoft is being punished

now for behavior everybody knew was

occurring since at least 1994, is like closing

the barn door after the horse is out. Those

who turned to IBM’s OS/2 for a far superior

OS in the early to mid-nineties are well

aware of how MS manipulated the

independent vendors. By making

intentionely premature promises of a new

OS(Windows 95) delivery, MS forced them to

allocate resources to Windows development

and ignore an OS that was better(by Gates’

own admission) and already existed. The

infamous MS software delays came to be

known as vaporware. This led to a dearth of

applications for OS/2 and no new OS for

Windows machines. When it finally arrived,

it was more hype than substance. I,

personally, stopped using OS/2 when MS

made a minor change to the Win32 service

and forced IBM to pay ’again’ for the right to

be compatible, which according to sources

was the last straw and led to a niche OS.

As far as forcing computer mfrs. into

expensive licensing deals, that is only

another example of how a monopoly can

extend its reach and force people to by their

software, when that may not be the buyer’s

first choice. Now the problem has become

trying to punish the company after it

‘‘finally’’ has gotten it right and made a

product that is worthy of praise

(WindowsXP). This would only serve to

make life difficult for all that use Microsoft

products and possibly regress to the bad old

days. This would have been a perfect

scenario 4–7 years ago when Microsoft

products were still, basically, expensive

garbage and their far superior competitors

still had some semblence of market share to

further develop. Now it’s nothing more than

window dressing and does nothing to repair

the software companies ruined by these

illegal practices. In addition, some of the

plaintiffs, AOL in particular, are no better

than the defendant.

I wish I had a dime for every hour I spent

trying to keep an MS Operating System alive

and working or just reinstalling it again.

Please don’t do anything that would bring

back those days.

MTC–00004534

From: Jim O’Dell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 6:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

As a Operating Systems Analyst I have a

serious interest in computers, and their

operating systems(OS). Please do not let

Microsoft get away with unfairly, and

illegally, cornering the computing market.

Microsoft has effectivly a strangle hold on

OS’s, and the applications that run on them.

By controlling the OS’s Application

Program Interface (API), and the release dates

of applications that must use the API, they

keep anyone else from competing.

The only hope of leveling the playing field,

and increasing the quality of programs that

the world depends on, is to force Microsoft

to adhere to Open Standards. Open

Standards by their nature allow the world of

computing to interface, interact, and grow.

BTW, the Internet is a prime example of

how Open Standards can allow may diverse

systems to work together.

Jim O’Dell

24429 Tyann Ct.

Moreno Valley, Ca. 92551

MTC–00004535

From: John Hilker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 6:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs:

I am one who feels that the proposed

settlement between my government and

Microsoft who was found guilty of violating

portions of the Sherman Act is far from being

in the best interest of me and is clearly not

in the nation’s interest. Microsoft may be a

formidable component of our nation’s

economy but it’s dominance is transitory.

The decision on a penalty for Microsoft’s

behavior will have a long standing, precedent

setting effect. Might makes right may be

nature’s example but our country was

founded on a premise that the people must

be shielded from oppressors.

I find it offensive that Microsoft is being

allowed to thumb its nose at the People who

have proven the guilt of the company in its

behavior towards its customers and

competitors.

Thank you for the opportunity register my

opposition to the proposed settlement.

John Hilker

256 Genthner Road

Waldoboro, ME 04572

MTC–00004536

From: hersh@ri.cmu.edu@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 6:57pm

Subject: comments on the Microsoft

settlement

The breakup of the Bell Telephone

monopoly spawned many new technologies

and services which would never have

happened otherwise.

There is now a thriving industry of local

and long-distance phone carriers, DSL

services, etc. Similarly, a real end to

Microsoft’s monopoly on computer software

would spur huge growth and competition in

operating systems and application software.

The global internet holds fantastic promise

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24531

for new applications, new ways of

connecting people, and incredible

innovation. Building these new things and

offering them at reasonable prices is not in

Microsoft’s interest when they have a

monopoly, and is not possible for other

companies. Break up the monopoly, and I

believe we’ll see enormous economic growth,

as new companies spring up to compete.

To effectively allow competition, the

settlement must enforce the publishing of

standards. There are many standards we take

for granted in everyday life without which

whole industries would be impossible. Light

bulbs all have the same type of socket. No

one company has secret control over a socket

standard, so no one company has a lock on

selling the fixtures *and* the lights.

So Microsoft must be forced to expose their

interfaces. Interfaces include APIs of course,

but they importantly include document

formats. A document saved in Microsoft

Word *must* be openable (correctly) in a

competing word processor program, and

other programs must be able to correctly

write files which MS Word reads. Sending

and receiving documents is a fundamentally

important communication, and if Microsoft is

the only company which can sell software to

read documents published by others,

Microsoft’s monopoly will continue

unaffected, and new companies and new

economic growth will not appear. In essence,

*every* interface between one piece of

software and another must be made public.

This should be true not only for Microsoft,

but for every software company. Interfaces

include:

—network protocols

—Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)

—document formats

and possibly others. There must be no

‘‘secret handshakes’’ exchanged by Microsoft

software which keeps others from competing.

As a Ph.D. student in Robotics with

Masters and Bachelors degrees in Computer

Science and several years in the

programming industry, I have a good deal of

experience with different software systems. It

is my firm belief that Microsoft’s software is

as unreliable as it is and as expensive as it

is because of Microsoft’s monopoly. It is also

my firm belief that other companies have

been prevented from offering competetive

software products because of Microsoft’s

monopoly. The court has found Microsoft

guilty of maintaining a monopoly. The

penalty given to Microsoft is a critical

opportunity to enliven the whole nation’s

economy, but it must be done carefully, and

include the publication of all interfaces.

Thank you,

David Hershberger

1235 Bellerock St.

Pittsburgh PA 15217

MTC–00004537

From: srd@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 7:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Honorable Sirs and Madams:

Microsoft’s proposal to distribute their

software to needy schools to atone for their

monopolistic behaviour is ludicrous.

Addicting yet another generation to their

software exacerbates rather than mitigates the

problem. While young and flexible, students

should learn that alternative computing

environments, such as Linux, BSD, UNIX,

MacOSX and BeOS exist and have

considerable virtues. In particular, students

should be exposed to the open source

movement, because of its low cost,

intellectual freedom, and technical

excellence. Education in the comparative

merits of these systems is vastly preferable to

indoctrination in the Microsoft way...

Microsoft’s proposed remedy is blatantly selfserving and an insult to intelligence.

A sensible way to reduce Microsoft’s

stranglehold on the software market is to

*compel* them to open their proprietary

Office file formats to the software world. I

believe the sole reason Microsoft’s OSes are

so widely utilized is the public’s addiction to

their proprietary Office applications. Only by

opening/documenting Microsoft’s proprietary

Office file formats, can competing office

products, such as Sun’s StarOffice, gain a

competitive foothold. Without the capability

to convert documents to and from Microsoft

Office format, alternative office application

software will *never* break through

Microsoft’s entrenched user base.

Microsoft’s strategy of usurping and

perverting open standards in their exclusive

interest is well documented (http://

www.opensource.org/halloween/) and must

be curtailed. It is time to reverse this parasitic

process, and make their proprietary

‘‘standards’’ open to the public. All

‘‘standards’’ should be public.

While compelling Microsoft to make its

Office software available for Linux or

MacOSX would benefit those OSes in the

short-term, it would increaser Microsoft’s

dominance in the Office applications arena

in the long run. I believe that opening/

documenting the Office file formats would be

a far more effective means of simulating

software innovation and development.

While the courts have found Microsoft to

be a monopoly, the DoJ’s recent actions

suggest that there will be no meaningful

penalty. By putting Microsoft above the law,

Microsoft’s predatory behavior will become

more egregious. Although Microsoft’s

malicious actions toward Netscape and Sun

were serious, they pale in comparison to

their apparently little-known, yet longstanding licensing practice that forbids or

penalizes computer resellers from setting up

dual-boot systems capable of running other

operating systems. Microsoft must be

compelled to cease and desist in this

particular anti-competitive practice!

Microsoft has recently waged a libelous

war against the the open source software

movement. Their officials have called the

movement ‘‘un-American’’, ‘‘communist’’,

and ‘‘a cancer’’. There can be no doubt that

Microsoft will stop at nothing to erradicate

the open source movement. The DoJ’s

ultimate goal *should* be to insure that this

kind of predatory Microsoft behaviour is

banished from the face of the earth. Any

settlement wording that requires Microsoft to

share its APIs and file formats with other

software businesses MUST BE WORDED TO

EXPLICITLY INCLUDE THE MEMBERS OF

THE FREE SOFTWARE MOVEMENT!

Anyone who doubts the value of a diverse

‘‘gene pool’’ in the software field should pay

closer attention to the litany of virii that

plague Microsoft, but not other, OSes. A huge

amount of time, money and productivity

have been wasted as a result of Microsoft’s

inability or lack of motivation to secure its

OSes. Further, the never-ending cycle of

pointless ‘‘upgrades’’ that Microsoft has used

to sustain it’s revenue stream should offend

rational people everywhere.

Respectfully,

Dr. Stuart R. DeGraaf

Advisor Engineer / Systems Architect

Northrop Grumman ESSS

Baltimore, MD

410–531–0061 (home)

srd@erols.com (home)

410–765–4560 (work)

Stuart_R_DeGraaf@mail.northgrum.com

(work)

CC:DeGraaf, David,Thyberg, Robert

MTC–00004538

From: Mike Muldoon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 7:05pm

Subject: Public response to Microsoft

settlement action

Renata Hesse,

As someone familiar with computing and

the computer industry, and the adverse

effects of Microsoft’s monopolies in these

areas, I cannot see how the settlement that is

proposed even pretends to remedy the

antitrust violations for which Microsoft has

been found culpable. The company has

already been found in violation, and this is

the penalty phase of the case, but the

settlement contains no penalties and actually

advances Microsoft’s operating system

monopoly. A just penalty would at barest

minimum include three additional features:

1. Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers, so

that the user who does not wish to purchase

them is not forced to do so. This means that

for the price differential between a new

computer with Microsoft software and one

without, a computer seller must offer the

software without the computer (which would

prevent computer makers from saying that

the difference in price is only a few dollars).

Only then could competition come to exist in

a meaningful way.

2. The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

3. Any Microsoft networking protocols

must be published in full and approved by

an independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet.

If the national interest is at issue, as I

believe it is and as the judge has suggested

it is, it is crucial that Microsoft’s operating

24532 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

system monopoly not be extended, and in

this I quote the study released a year ago by

the highly respected Center for Strategic and

International Studies, which pointed out that

the use of Microsoft software actually poses

a national security risk.

In closing, 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.

Thank You,

Mike Muldoon

Senior Architect

Digital Age Media

MTC–00004539

From: Cage, Russell

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 7:08pm

Subject: Comment on settlement proposal

Russell Cage

1615 Morton

Ann Arbor MI 48104

14 December 2001

Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney

Suite 1200, Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20530

202–616–9937 FAX

microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

It is my understanding that the Department

of Justice has reached a proposed settlement

with Microsoft in the matter of the recent

anti-trust suit. Despite the established guilt of

Microsoft, this settlement calls for only a

token cash outlay, no fines, few conduct

penalties and great freedom on the part of

Microsoft to continue doing business as it

wishes.

In my humble opinion, such a settlement

is unconscionable. Not only does it fail to

remedy the effects of past monopolistic

behavior or prevent the same or worse in the

future, it leaves the victims of the monopoly

without a remedy. Worst of all, it may

present a threat to national security.

Certain terms of the proposed settlement,

such as the provision of $900 million in

Microsoft software to schools, do nothing to

ameliorate the damage done by previous

monopolistic behavior. It has been argued

that this would only extend the monopoly

into an area where Microsoft is currently

weak. This should not be allowed. By all

means allow Microsoft to make up some of

the damage the company has done to schools

with its marketing practices, but make them

do it in cash. The disposition of the cash

should be overseen by people charged with

getting the most benefit to the schools;

benefit to Microsoft should not be a

consideration. For this reason stock is

inferior to cash; the value of the stock can be

affected by the purchasing decisions of the

schools, and Microsoft’s welfare should not

be a factor in the decision.

Other terms leave much to be desired.

Microsoft has been proven to ignore conduct

restrictions imposed on it by consent

agreements. What is to prevent Microsoft

from doing what it pleases regardless of the

terms of this settlement? For this reason, I

believe that the court was premature in

ruling out a structural remedy.

But the most important issue may be

national security. Microsoft’s dominance in

desktop operating systems means that most

businesses run it on most or all of their

computers. The vulnerability of Windows

and other utilities such as the Outlook mail

agent to viruses, worms and Trojan horse

software has made both the global Internet

and company intranets subject to being

swamped with traffic and even crashed. Even

crude viruses such as the Love Bug required

eradication efforts amounting to billions of

dollars world-wide.

This vulnerability is almost entirely due to

Microsoft’s ‘‘integration’’ of unwanted

functionality into Windows and its related

utilities. Once such functionality is

‘‘integrated’’, users and companies alike have

few ways to remove or disable it if it becomes

a liability. If an intelligent and determined

enemy were to exploit many such liabilities,

the cost to the USA could be far greater than

the September 11 disaster.

For this reason, any settlement must stop

Microsoft from ‘‘integrating’’ utilities and

‘‘middleware’’ with the operating system.

Microsoft should be required to package, sell,

install and remove software functionality in

distinct, related units. If functionality such as

an insecure web browser can be removed and

replaced, the damage from an attack on that

utility’s vulnerability is limited. The effect on

competitors to Microsoft may be one of the

smaller issues; if such functionality cannot

be removed and replaced because it is

‘‘integrated’’ by Microsoft, the entire Internet

can potentially be shut down by a single

security flaw.

Thank you for your attention to this

pressing matter.

MTC–00004540

From: Graham, J. Christopher

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 7:16pm

Subject: My opinion on the MS case

I think that Microsoft should be SEVERELY

punished for its monopolistic, heavy-handed

practices. Industries and innovation elevate

when there is competition in the

marketplace. The technology industry—and

as a result the business and home users—

have suffered due to Microsoft running its

competitors out of business. The initial

judgment that was passed down is a joke—

they need to be hit hard—financially or

otherwise. As an independent technology

consultant, whose organization is a Microsoft

Consulting Partner—I am disappointed in the

number of vendors or solutions that my

clients have to choose from.

J. Christopher Graham

Baker Robbins & Company

Knowledge, Solutions, Partnership

Ph: 312.425.4458

http://www.brco.com

This transmission and all attachments are

the copyrighted materials of Baker Robbins &

Company

MTC–00004541

From: Kengo Hashimoto

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 7:31pm

Subject: Comment from a non-MS user

To all whom it may concern:

I, as do millions of other citizens across the

world, have an interest in sterner remedies,

be it conduct or structural, in the United

States vs. Microsoft Corporation case.

As the largest publisher of operating

software and business applications software

in the world, Microsoft is at a unique

position to create an illegal monopoly in

more ways than one. Some of these have

been shown in court, and Microsoft has been

found to be guilty of illegal monopolistic

practices.

What concerns me about the current

conduct of Microsoft is as follows: First,

there is virtually no way for a consumer or

a business to purchase a PC from a large

vendor, such as Dell, without having some

version of a Microsoft operating software preloaded on it. Second, Microsoft is notorious

for creating non-documented application

programming interfaces for use by Microsoft

programmers, but not by their competitors in

the applications field. Finally, as the largest

producer of operating environments and

Internet software, they alone can create nonstandard extensions upon the languages

spoken between computers, called protocol,

potentially locking out competitors.

It is vitally important for a consumer or a

business to be able to purchase a computer

from a large OEM without Windows

preloaded on it. Despite what Microsoft may

claim, computers without Windows is not a

hotbed of piracy. In fact, Microsoft

themselves have taken steps with their

newest operating environment, Windows XP,

to prevent such casual copying. Therefore, in

order to level the competitive playing field

for different operating environments—such

as BeOS, a potential PC version of MacOS X,

Linux, Sun Solaris, to name a few—these

machines should be made available without

any operating environments, with separate

prices for machines. For businesses, the

situation is slightly different. Most large

businesses purchase a business-wide license

for operating environments from Microsoft. If

these machines are not made available

without an included Windows license, then

these businesses will in effect end up paying

twice for the same product. Of course, having

two price lists, one for computers with, and

the other for computers without, will have

secondary beneficial effect of exposing what

the various OEM prices for Windows are, and

will prevent Microsoft from ‘‘punishing’’

OEM’s who sell other operating

environments (as happened with IBM’s PC

division in the early 1990’s, when they chose

to offer the IBM OS/2 operating environment

as well as that of Microsoft’s).

Of course, changes in the way Microsoft

handles their Windows applications

programming interface (API) needs to change

as well. It is often rumoured, and once

proven, that Microsoft maintains a list of API

methods that are not available outside of

Microsoft. What this allows Microsoft to do

is to create two methods for receiving

operating environment support for such

common tasks as opening a file, differing in

execution speed but otherwise identical in

function. As virtually everything a program

or an application can do, it must do so via

calling the API methods, a Microsoft

application, with the faster of the two

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24533

method calls available to it, will have a

distinct and unfair advantage over the nonMicrosoft competition. Obviously, these

method calls are not limited to opening files,

and can include, but not be limited to:

launching new programs, opening a new

network (including Internet) connection and

reading in and writing out to it, opening a file

and reading from and writing to it, displaying

a graphics, and playing a sound.

As for Internet standards of protocols, there

already exists several independant bodies for

creation and maintenance of protocols. These

include, but are not limited to, the World

Wide Web Consortium, the Internet

Engineering Task Force, ANSI, and ISO.

Unfortunately, with Microsoft’s track record

of building their own, proprietary protocols

that compete with the open protocols created

by these independant committees, Microsoft

has often closed the doors on competing

operating environments on different

platforms. For example, in the translation of

human-readable domain names (such as

www.sun.com) to machine-readable numeric

representation (such as 192.168.1.2),

performed by nameservers, Microsoft has

already created a non-standard extention to

their own system, such that a non-Windows

nameserver takes a performance hit against a

Windows-based nameserver when the client

is also running Windows.

Similarly, Microsoft has created their own

then-proprietary and closed extention to the

Kerberos network authentication protocol

with the introduction of Windows 2000.

Because of their immense size, allowing this

conduct can and will stifle innovation by

their competitors, which is exactly what

Microsoft has been found guilty of.

I would like to believe that Microsoft will

not continue these behaviours, now that the

courts have deemed them illegal. However,

in the case of criminal behaviour by an

individual, we as a society do not, after

finding such a person guilty of the deed, tell

them merely to stop doing that deed, and let

them go. Instead, oftentimes, we incarcerate

that individual. Similarly, we must place

strict penalties upon Microsoft, as they have

broken a law, and must be punished.

Sincerely,

Kengo Hashimoto

I request that my contact information be

kept private, but for the purposes of full

discloser it is as follows:

Contact Information:

email: hashik@cs.rpi.edu

phone: 314–878–4610

address: 1265 Whispering Pines Dr., Saint

Louis, MO 63146

MTC–00004542

From: Logan Harper

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 7:30pm

Subject: Proposed Microsoft Anti-trust

Settlement

From my understanding of the proposed

settlement, Microsoft is hardly being

penalized for their previously uncompetitive

maneuvers and even gaining the legal right

to maintain its monopoly of the operating

systems market. Any penalty that is assessed

should not be payable in Microsoft Software

any more than printed ‘‘Microsoft Dollars’’

would be a reasonable currency. For mere

pennies on the dollar, Microsoft can reduce

the fine from millions to a few thousand

dollars. For the penalty phase, I would

recommend at least several hundred million

dollars in levied fines for their cavalier

disregard of anti-trust law, payable directly to

the US government, with absolutely no PR

value for Microsoft, and no forced further

integration of Microsoft products in school

systems.

The key to breaking the monopoly on

Operating Systems is first to allow buyers

their choice of operating systems. Previously

this choice was heavily discouraged by

Microsoft. A remedy to this problem would

be to make the choice of an operating system

entirely distinct from the hardware—each

buyer purchases a computer at a ‘‘base

price’’, and any operating system, setup

costs, etc. are added to this base price

afterwards. In other words, no more package

deals. Also, all computer resellers should pay

the exact same price for the Microsoft

software, regardless of how many other

operating systems they offer to consumers.

Another consideration is the proprietary

formats that Microsoft has established for

programs running solely on its operating

system. This can do little but maintain the

necessity of their own operating system, and

force users to purchase ‘‘compatible

Microsoft operating systems and programs’’.

A fitting solution to this concern would be

to force Microsoft to release the details of the

proprietary file formats so closely integrated

into their operating system—word, excel, etc.

Then, should someone wish to produce an

application for another operating system that

was compatible with the Microsoft standard

files, they would be able to. This would help

to make the choice of operating system just

that—a choice.

In short, I feel the proposed settlement is

little more than a mockery of the anti-trust

law that it supposedly upholds. I would like

to see a real settlement that would force

Microsoft to end their stranglehold on the

operating system market, and punish them

for maintaining that stranglehold for way too

long.

Sincerely,

Logan Harper

5500 Wabash Ave.

Terre Haute, IN

MTC–00004543

From: Donovan Bernauer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 7:35pm

Subject: Settle!!! Settle!!! Settle!!!!

Sincerely,

Donovan Bernauer

MTC–00004544

From: Andrew Gillean

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 7:47pm

I do wish you people would get off

Microsoft’s case and do what you are

supposed to be doing. Without Microsoft’s

Internet Explorer being given away way back

when we would still be paying someone like

Netscape money to have the technology to

access the ‘Web’.

Would you please remember that.

The other ‘free’ browsers would not even

exist if it were not for Microsoft’s efforts.

A Satisfied Microsoft Customer,

Andrew Gillean (agillean@rogers.com )

CC:support@msn.com@inetgw

MTC–00004545

From: Ed Reames

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 7:48pm

Subject: COMMENT ON MICROSOFT AND

DOJ SETTLEMENT

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Dear M. Hesse,

I believe that you have erroneously settled

with Microsoft. You should have required

much more in settlement terms. Microsoft

can really do whatever they want under the

terms of your settlement.

I have been in the computing and

telecommunications business for about thirty

years. I do not think that you have done

anything that will cause Microsoft to change

their opertions.

Respectfully,

Calvin E. Reames, Jr.

14504 Ascot Square Court

Boyds, MD 20841–9036

301/353–9027

CC:Paul Sarbanes,Connie Morella,Barbara

Mikulski

MTC–00004546

From: Aaron R. Kulkis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 7:59pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Considering the GREAT amount of harm

which Microsoft has caused to it other

businesses through it’s anti-competitite

practices... I notice that the currently

proposed remedy consists of

A) PROMISES from Microsoft not to do it

again.

(Just like Germany promised to not invade

any neighbors in the 1940’s)

B) Microsoft giving away CD–ROMs of

their software....thereby FURTHER extending

the monopoly by eliminating sales

opportunities by competitors.

C) No TANGIBLE punishment in the form

of fines of the corporation and/or jail time for

officers of the corporation who made these

criminal decisions.

(B) and (C) need to be changed.

Microsoft must NOT be allowed to further

destroy competitor’s opportunities to even

gain customers, and Microsoft MUST suffer

SIGNIFICANT punishment in the form of

LARGE fines (large enough to have a REAL

DETERRENT EFFECT... that is, on the order

of $1 Billion or more). If Microsoft’s investors

get hurt...well, that’s the price of choosing to

become part of, and benefit from the behavior

of, a criminal organization.

Aaron R. Kulkis

Computer Systems Engineer

General Motors Corporation

MTC–00004547

From: Anthony Hologounis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 8:03pm

Subject: Please stop the Microsoft monopoly

Hello

24534 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Please make note that I do not agree with

the DOJ decision with respect to Microsoft.

They are a monopoly and they have harmed

the consumer.

Cheers

Anthony

MTC–00004548

From: Phillip Hofmeister

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 8:18pm

Subject: United States v. Microsoft

Settlement

To: Renata Hesse

Trial Attorney

Suite 1200

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20530

microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

To whom it may concern:

I am a concerned citizen of the State of

Michigan who sees the proposed DOJ and

Microsoft settlement to be inadequate for true

justice and the national interest.

As can be seen throughout the course of

the past 20 years, Microsoft’s market share in

the computer industry has steadily risen.

Along with this rise has also come a rise in

prices of Microsoft’s operating systems and

software (a rise in price that is faster than the

rate of inflation). One can only assume this

rise will continue as Microsoft’s hold on the

market becomes stronger. This is the exact

reason that unregulated monopolies are NOT

in the favor of national interest. As Microsoft

continues to drive competition out of the

market its prices will only continue to rise

(I would be highly surprised if anything

contrary to this happens). The proposed

settlement does not adequately protect

consumers and competition from this

horrible, grim future.

A few of the many problems I see with the

proposed judgement are mentioned below:

III.C.1 ...provided that the restrictions are

non-discriminatory with respect it nonMicrosoft and Microsoft products.

This portion of the judgement is open to

manipulation and interpretation. What

exactly qualifies as ‘‘non-discriminatory’’? It

is not specified in the definitions. This leaves

the door open to a year or more debate down

the road as to what is discriminatory and

what is not, which equates to loss of several

thousands of dollars in taxpayers’ money in

legal expenses. This is definitely not in the

public’s best interest.

II.C.2 ...so long as such shortcuts do not

impair the functionality of the user interface

One again, this statement is opened to

much interpretation and the same problems

as section III.C.1 (mentioned above).

IV.A.2 To determine and enforce

compliance with this Final Judgment, duly

authorized representatives of the United

States and the plaintiff States, on reasonable

notice to Microsoft and subject to any lawful

privilege, shall be permitted the following:

Not that I do not trust Microsoft, but what

would prevent them from ‘‘loosing’’ such

documents when they receive this notice?

Who could prove if this ‘‘loss’’ was

accidental or intentional? The plaintiff’s

should have the right to inspect documents

and source code without notice.

IV.A.4 The Plaintiffs shall have the

authority to seek such orders as are necessary

from the Court to enforce this Final

Judgment, provided, however, that the

Plaintiffs shall afford Microsoft a reasonable

opportunity to cure alleged violations of

Sections III.C, III.D, III.E and III.H, provided

further that any action by Microsoft to cure

any such violation shall not be a defense to

enforcement with respect to any knowing,

willful or systematic violations.

There is no limit place on what is a

‘‘reasonable time’’. Is it a year? A week?

During this time it takes Microsoft to ‘‘cure’’

the problem it is still there. Microsoft should

be required to pay damages for the time the

problem was not ‘‘cured’’. This provision

would encourage them to ‘‘cure’’ the problem

quicker. In addition, there is no provision

that says what will happen if the problem

reappears after it is ‘‘cured’’. Does the process

start over again with the same problem as the

first time?

V.A Unless this Court grants an extension,

this Final Judgment will expire on the fifth

anniversary of the date it is entered by the

Court. Why does Justice and a settlement that

is supposedly in favor of the nation’s

interests expire? Are we only concerned with

the nation’s interest for 5 years? This clause

effectively allows the whole battle to begin

once more in 5 years. I do not believe anyone

wants to endure this battle again. I would

urge the reconsideration of this proposed

settlement.

Respectfully submitted,

Phillip Hofmeister

6080 Academy Drive

Saginaw MI 48604

plhofmei@svsu.edu

MTC–00004549

From: Blake Buzzini

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 8:25pm

Subject: Fully Support Proposed Settlement

I fully support the proposed settlement

between Microsoft and the DOJ. It strikes the

right balance between addressing the issues

found by the court and ensuring that

technology companies can continue to

improve their products.

Many who support stricter sanctions prefer

to ignore the facts of the case in favor of

pushing their own technological agendas

(Linux users, the Free Software Foundation).

Still others are simply jealous of Microsoft’s

success (Sun, Oracle, AOL, Novell). I urge the

Court to ignore these zealots and sore losers

and approve the proposed settlement.

Sincerely,

Blake Buzzini

MTC–00004551

From: Preston A. Elder

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 8:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust case.

Hi,

As a member of the wider internet

community, I would like to voice my opinion

of the proposed settlement by the US Dept.

of Justice in regards to the Microsoft AntiTrust case. Microsoft has been proven (and

upheld) to be a monopoly, a corporation that

stifles competition—however it seems the

proposed settlement is little more than a slap

on the wrists saying ‘bad boy’, but does not

really address stopping Microsoft from

BEING a monopoly.

Microsoft was proven to attain its

monopoly status by such things as bundling

software items with their operating systems

(even if the user did not want to install the

extra software on their machine), and worse,

making it difficult for any user of these

operating systems to chose to use a

compeatitors product, and KEEP using it.

For example, if someone installs one of

Microsoft’s operating systems, Windows

Media Player is installed, weather the user

wanted it or not. The user must then take

extra steps to NOT use Windows Media

Player. To add insult to injury, after the user

gets their system fully setup to use an

alternate product, and then must do

something as innocent as upgrade Microsoft

Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player is

installed aswell and set as the default player

again. Even though the user did not want a

newer version of Windows Media Playe, it

was upgraded for them, and its dominance

re-established. This is obviously

monopolistic behavior, and the settlement

proposed by the Dept. of Justice does not

really restrict such behavior.

In addition, Microsoft has taken active

roles to try and lock out anyone who chooses

to use another operating system, by

deliberately making Microsoft operating

systems use slightly modified internet

protocol standards, that are just different

enough to make them not work with any nonMicrosoft product, however, Microsoft still

calls them a ‘standard’ implementation of the

protocol in question. A recent example of

this was Microsoft’s using the Kerberos

standard for their Windows 2000 network

authentication schemes. Only after much

pressure from the technically aware did

Microsoft releace the source code to their

proprietary extensions (to a public standard),

and even then forced people who viewed

these extensions to agree to a click-through

license that essentially ment no-one could

implement them for compatability.

Microsoft should be subjected to two

destinct restrictions. Given their market

possition, any protocols Microsoft invents

instantly become a kind of de-facto standard,

however most are not published, and must be

reverse engineered to allow other operating

systems and applications to communicate

effectively with Microsoft products. This

essentially gives Microsoft a ‘stifling’

possition in the market, especially as more

laws such as the DMCA start to restrict the

right to engage in activities such as reverse

engineering. Therefore, Microsoft should be

compelled to release full documentation on

any new protocols and standards they

employ. I also believe that some kind of

third-party review committee should

continually be involved in the process of

creating these new standards, to ensure that

Microsoft does not try and create a new

protocol or standard that, by its very nature,

precludes any competing product (such as

another operating system like the Linux or

Solaris operating systems) from

implementing these protocols or standards,

and effectively ensures that people must use

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24535

Microsoft only systems to be able to use

whatever has implemented this standard.

Even if Microsoft is not broken in to two

or more companies (it really is so large, and

stifling, it should be broken into three

destinct companies)—a better solution to

their monopolistic behavior would be to

force them to be more honest with the public,

and open up their development process a

little. Microsoft is such a widely used

product, and a critical part of most desktop

computers, that the amount of secrecy inbuilt into Microsoft’s systems is more

harmful than good. This in itself has been

proven by the recent spate of virii that has

attacked Microsoft systems, servers and

desktops alike. Most of the time, by the time

a hole in a Microsoft product is exploited, the

problem is already known by Microsoft, but

they cover it up, and hope nobody notices.

If Microsoft had more open standards, such

as opening up Microsoft’s programmatical

interfaces (API’s, etc), and their file formats,

these kinds of problems would be known alot

earlier, and more importantly, fixes, patches,

and even prevention by things such as virus

scanners would be achieved much easier.

This would also have the added side-effect

of helping end Microsoft’s monopoly. It is

well known that many applications Microsoft

releases, such as Microsoft Office, use ‘backdoor’ hooks into the various Microsoft

operating systems. This means that products

like Microsoft Office have more intergration,

and can be alot faster than any compeating

product could ever achieve because the

developers of Microsoft Office have much

more knowledge of and access to the program

interfaces that the various Microsoft

Windows operating systems use, which

means they can stifle the competition by

ensuring their product is always better

because of the various tricks it can employ.

Microsoft recently sent a memo out to all

the major PC vendors stating that they should

NOT allow any consumers who purchase a

PC from them to purchase it without a

Windows operating system. The reasoning

behind this was ‘Since they are going to buy

it anyway, this will help cease the increasing

trend of software piracy’. This is clearly

monopolistic behavior. There is an increasing

number of users, businesses, and even

governments that are NOT using Windows on

their desktop and server machines, instead

they are using alternatives such as Linux,

Solaris, and other unix variants. However

increasingly, every time a new PC is sold, the

user is forced to purchase the Windows

operating system with it, even if they have

no intention of using it.

This behavior is increasing Microsoft’s

monopoly in two ways. Firstly, they get more

and more ‘sold’ copies of their Windows

operating system even from users who did

not want it in the first place, and secondly,

most of these systems come with Windows

pre-installed, which means that users arent

getting a choice of which operating system

they wish to use, and Microsoft once again

(as with their software bundling) is forcing

the user to go through extra effort to NOT use

a Microsoft product. In addition, most PC

vendors have to pay Microsoft weather they

put the Windows operating system on a new

PC they sell or not, which effectively means

there is ‘no cost difference’ between a PC

with or without the Windows operating

system—which means even if a user DOES

manage to purchase a PC without the

Windows operating system, they still end up

paying for it anyway, as its already been

added into the cost of their new PC by the

vendor.

Microsoft products have been proven by

multipal studies to be the biggest security

risks on the internet. Microsoft’s attitude and

assumptions mean that more and more

security flaws are being released in each

successive product, and having farther and

farther reaching concequences. With

Microsoft introducing their new .NET

initiative, this prospect is even scarier, as

Microsoft will be forcing EVERYONE who

wants to use their .NET systems to give

Microsoft personally identifying information,

which, as part of their licensing agreement,

they may share with anyone they wish to.

Microsoft’s closed archetecture, and

monopoly in the marketplace means that

everyone will be forced to start giving up any

information Microsoft wants—a scary

prospect when you think about all the recent

virii, and vulnerabilities found in Microsoft

products (especially when compared to their

compeatitors).

Finally, the Dept. of Justice settlement,

apart from being too minimalistic in its

conditions placed on future Microsoft

business practices, also only gives Microsoft

a slap on the wrist financially. Microsoft will

be spending $1.1 billion dollars getting new

computers to needy schools, a worthy and

noble thing to do. However looking deeper,

they will only be spending $200M on actual

computer equipment, and the rest on

software, their own software. They will be

working out this $900M cost based on retail,

or slightly discounted costs of their products.

However this costs relatively little to

Microsoft itself. The software is already

created, and actually burning it to CD, and

issuing site licenses for it is an extremely

cheap process. Microsoft may say its worth

$900M, and it would indeed be that much to

buy if a business wished to purchase the

same amount, however it costs them much

less. Thus it ends up being only a small

financial hit to the company, especially when

you think about their profits from just one

year.

There have been several offers from other

companies, such as RedHat Inc. to make this

a more equitable deal—by forcing Microsoft

to pay the entire amount in hardware costs—

something they cant just make cheaply and

assign any price to it. RedHat even offered to

supply all the software free, and give

indefinate support and upgrade, as opposed

to Microsoft’s limited support and upgrade

offer. I believe these kinds of offers by third

party companies should seriously be

considered as part of any Dept. of Justice

settlement.

In summary, Microsoft’s monoply has farreaching effects, both now and especially in

the near future. Microsoft stifles competition

by changing or inventing standards that block

compeating products from communicating to

Microsoft products. Microsoft uses special

code within its products to ensure that any

product they make will always be faster or

better intergrated than any compeatitor could

be—infact, they’ve been caught in the past

writing specific code to hinder compeating

products! Microsoft ensures that a user will

have to go through more effort to try and use

(or keep using) a compeating product, than

they would to use a Microsoft product. All

of this behavior requires a stiffer repremand

than the current Dept. of Justice settlement

gives. Microsoft will push any settlement to

its absolute limit, and find any loophole that

is left in it—however with Microsoft’s

current dominance in the PC market, looking

forward, we cannot allow Microsoft to

maintain to its current practices, especially

when Microsoft could soon be the gate

keeper of thousands, even millions of

peoples personal infromation.

Thank you for your time,

PreZ

Owner, Shadow Realm (http://

www.srealm.net.au)

Systems Administrator, GOTH.NET (http:/

/www.goth.net) Development Head, Magick

IRC

Services (http://www.magick.tm)

Maintainer, CoreWars (http://

www.corewars.net)

Founder, DARKER.NET (http://

www.darker.net)

CEO, RelicNet IRC Network (http://

www.relic.net)

Death is life’s way of telling you you’ve

been fired.

— R. Geis

MTC–00004552

From: ANTHONYNAT@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 8:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Name: Anthony J. Natoli

Organization: CEREBRAL PROPERTY LAW

OFFICE

DISCLAIMER: I am not and have not been

an employee, shareholder, or business

partner of Microsoft, and I, as an attorney, do

not and have not had Microsoft or any of its

business partners as a client.

Statement: I strongly support the proposed

settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft I find the

proposed settlement of the antitrust case of

U.S. vs. Microsoft to be a fair and balanced

resolution of the issues, protecting and

helping consumers while also acknowledging

the legitimate rights of Microsoft to practice

its business.

I submit the following comments on the

proposed settlement as a concerned

consumer, a technophile, an intellectual

property attorney, and a U.S. citizen:

1. As a consumer:

a. I have determined, from over two

decades of using technology, that there has

been significant price stability and/or

reduction in prices of software and other

components used in consumer devices and

applications, generally referred to as

‘‘computers’’ and ‘‘the Internet’’, based on the

business activities and products of Microsoft;

b. I have determined that there is and has

been significant and valuable competition

and choices available to me, as a consumer,

to obtain more and better computers and uses

of the Internet based on the business

activities and products of Microsoft; and

24536 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

c. I have determined that the proposed

settlement is far more beneficial to

consumers such as myself instead of the

more harsh or draconian remedies proposed

by other parties, with such suggested

remedies including divestiture and/or

breaking up of Microsoft, or stripping

Microsoft of its intellectual property and/or

its ability to innovate in consumer-related

computing, including the Internet and

browsers for use with the Internet.

2. As a technophile:

a. I have seen and benefited greatly from

the advances in computing brought on by the

business activities and products of Microsoft,

especially market-driven standardization

over two decades, of systems and

components for use on or with Microsoft

products and related products, including

operating systems, graphic user interfaces,

productivity suites, and Internet browsers;

b. I have seen and benefited greatly from

the advances in computing brought on by the

entry by Microsoft into different and diverse

markets involving many areas of computing,

including personal computers,

wordprocessing and other productivity

applications, and the Internet; and

c. I am wary of any government action

which may decrease interoperability and

standardization of computing technologies,

such as the situation presented twenty years

ago with far too many competitors pushing

and selling disparate and incompatible

computing platforms and software, with such

chaotic conditions being potentially revisited

and brought on by any government’s

imposing and implementing the more harsh

or draconian remedies proposed by other

parties, with such suggested remedies

including divestiture and/or breaking up of

Microsoft, or stripping Microsoft of its

intellectual property and/or its ability to

innovate in consumer-related computing,

including the Internet and browsers for use

with the Internet.

3. As an intellectual property attorney,

experienced in patents, copyrights, software,

and licensing and business agreements:

a. I favor the ownership and enforcement

of intellectual property rights as an incentive

for Microsoft, as with all other entitled

entities, to innovate with the promise of

reward via legitimate and enforceable

government granted or recognized limited

monopolies, for a limited time, as per Article

I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution;

b. I believe that the compulsory licensing

of intellectual property rights by Microsoft to

other parties including competitors, as found

in the proposed settlement, is an appropriate

remedy and balancing of interests for

permitting the government to apply and

enforce antitrust laws under the Commerce

Clause of the U.S. Constitution in view of the

intellectual property rights granted by law

under the U.S. Constitution, with such

compulsory licensing of intellectual property

being well known and applied in other

countries but generally unheard of in the U.S.

and so being extraordinary but reasonable for

enforcing the U.S. antitrust laws; and

c. I deplore the statements and attitudes of

certain critics who blithely pooh-pooh,

dismiss, or otherwise put no value in the

intellectual property rights entitled to

Microsoft, in its software and/or business

licensing practices, so that such critics may

pirate or otherwise obtain the intellectual

property of companies for little or no

payment of justifiable royalties and/or

recoupment of research and development

costs (and allegedly justified by such critics

pompously in crying ‘‘information wants to

be free!’’), with such royalties and

recoupments owed to Microsoft or other

software creators.

4. As a U.S. citizen:

a. I favor the present market system in the

U.S. to permit Microsoft to utilize any and all

business practices which are well-established

and commonly used throughout multiple

industries, including the computing industry,

such as the free distribution of software such

as Internet browsers to increase market share,

a practice conducted extensively by Netscape

(but unfortunately only in the past in order

for Netscape to establish over 90 % market

share in the browser market) with its freely

downloadable browser available years before

Microsoft even had an Internet browser to

itself freely distribute;

b. I deplore the unequal application of the

antitrust laws by the U.S. government in

pursuing Microsoft, which has clearly

benefited consumers, when there are many

other businesses, including competitors of

Microsoft, with more egregious practices

and/or more monopolistic market power of

certain other companies, such as the over 90

% market share of the Netscape browser at

one time, via the aforementioned free

distribution of software, as well as Cisco

Systems which, for a number of years in

nationally broadcast advertisements in

television and other media, touted that over

90 % of the Internet systems used Cisco

servers, without any investigation of

Netscape or Cisco by the Federal Trade

Commission and/or the Department of Justice

of such pervasive and (according to some of

Microsoft’s critics) presumptively

monopolistic market power; and

c. I seek a final resolution of this antitrust

case against Microsoft in order to permit

Microsoft to continue to further advance

computing and Internet applications, for

example, via WINDOWS XP and OFFICE XP,

and to spur the recovery of the U.S. economy

from the current recession for the betterment

of all citizens of the United States.

CC:natoli@cerebralproperty.com@inetgw

MTC–00004553

From: Lee Bane

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:03pm

Subject: MS Settlement—My Comments

Please!!

Set down and ask yourself, is this

settlement the right way to protect the

public? For now and the future.. or is this the

right way to protect the big money people so

they can buy more favors and forget the

public interest. I am 76 years old and would

like to just have a nice ‘‘bread & butter’’

operating system that I could add things to

it that I want not what some big ole bully

wants to put on it . Please, again what is right

and what is wrong?

Thank you for your good service to ALL of

us voters.

Lee Bane

lebane@cox-internet.com

www.banefamily.com

MTC–00004554

From: John Maxwell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:13pm

Subject: Microsoft case

I have never had to deal with such an

aggravating, arrogant, and despicable

organization as Microsoft.

Whether I want their products or not, I

have to pay a premium on each computer I

buy because of their licensing practices. The

government’s total failure to treat them as the

monopoly they are cost me money every time

I buy a Personal Computer, forcing me to

support them whether I want to or not.

Since they own the market, Microsoft

seems to care little if the products they sell

are substandard—in fact their poor practices

have been adopted by competitors since there

appears to be no recourse for consumers. A

case in point is the proliferation of virus

attacks launched through the same errors and

poor practices that have existed for the last

five years in their software. We would not

allow this incompetence bordering on fraud

in other industries to continue indefintely,

but the government ignores Microsoft’s

repeated failures to provide their customers

a reliable product.

I actually feel the blame belongs to the US

government. This cut-throat operation has

been unchecked for years, and the excuse is

the consumer can always pay again for

another operating system, pay again for nonMicrosoft products to replace the ones they

have already bought bundled into the

machine, and the customer can always pay

yet again for add on products such as antivirus programs to make the Microsoft

products almost safe to use. I submit if these

were cars that consumers had to buy

replacement brakes, replacement seatbelts,

and functioning doors because those

supplied at the factory were known to be

defective, the Justice Department would have

stepped in almost immediately.

And now that Microsoft has managed to

drive most of its competitors out of business,

the government is suggesting consumers let

this organization automatically update users’

software, forcing them onto th Internet

whether they want to go or not. WHAT does

Microsoft have to do to show the government

that it has no ethics, no morals, and cannot

be trusted to keep its word—yet again?

The Department of Justice should be

ashamed.

MTC–00004555

From: Eric Crone

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:25pm

Subject: Microsoft comments to webmaster’s

inbox

The two attached emails came into the

Antitrust Webmaster inbox.

Best Regards,

Eric Crone

202–307–2782

CC: ATRMAILD:ATRMAILD.

ATRISG01:ATRMAILD. ATRISG01(HESSR...

Date: 12/14/2001 03:33 pm (Friday)

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24537

From: Stoney, Ericka

o: Atr, Webmaster

Subject: FW: Microsoft Antitrust case

Original Message ——-

From: Wojtyniak, Tim

[mailto:twojtyniak@gentex.com] Sent:

Friday, November 02, 2001 10:30 AM

To: ASKDOJ; ‘senator(a)stabenow.senate.gov’;

‘senator(a)stabenow.senate.gov’

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust case

I hope that what I am hearing is not correct

about the wholly inadequate ‘‘settlement’’ in

the Microsoft-DoJ anti-trust suit. If it is, I

must protest that the DoJ is failing to protect

me and all consumers from a monopolist

convicted in Federal court of anticompetitive behavior. This settlement not

only has no teeth—and Microsoft has shown

a propensity toward failing to comply with

the letter of agreements, not only the intent—

but misses the point entirely that some

proactive sanctions are necessary to keep

Microsoft from illegally defining the future of

ALL electronic technologies to it’s tastes—

and the detriment of all others. Despite their

protestations, Microsoft’s tactics do NOT

benefit consumers in the long run. They

benefit Microsoft alone. Consumers benefit

from a legitimately open, competitive

marketplace where companies are not

allowed to use monopoly power in illegal

ways to extend their market dominance.

To the DoJ:

As a US citizen, I am counting on you to

vigorously enforce the laws of this country

and not defer the opportunities of all

Americans and all American companies to

earn their success in the modem marketplace.

If I am misunderstanding the position of

the DoJ, I apologize and would appreciate

some further information about how the DoJ

intends to proceed on the case.

To my esteemed representatives in the

107th Congress:

As my elected representatives, I am

counting on you to look after my interests in

this matter. Note that these are the interests

of a citizen, first-most, and, secondarily that

of a consumer. I trust that, while you hold

elected office and thus have additional

considerations and responsibilities, you still

share the concerns of all citizens for just laws

and enforcement of laws to protect the true

American ideals, not the false ideals of greed

and dishonesty so prominently displayed by

the Microsoft Corporation.

Best,

Timothy A. Wojtyniak

twojtyniak@earthlink.net

twojtyniak@gentex.com

2614 S 9th Street

Kalamazoo, MI 49009

Date: 12/14/2001 03:32pm (Friday)

From: Stoney, Ericka

To: Atr, Webmaster

Subject: FW: USDOJ Comments—Microsoft

settlement

——- Original Message ——-

From: WOLF

[mailto:admin@wolfdenftp.com] Sent:

Friday, November 02, 2001 5:04 PM

To: ASKDOJ; attorney.general@po.state.ct.us

Subject: USDOJ Comments—Microsoft

settlement

Dear DOJ and Connect State Attorney

General Blumenthal; As a personal computer

user I am dismayed at the happenings with

the DOJ’s lawsuit with Microsoft. Microsoft

has shown total disregard for the government

(re issue in 1995 where microsoft violated an

agreement with you, and the recent XP

operating system) and for computer

manufacturers and finally final users. Their

products are ridden with hidden functions

that spy on users, and are not reliable in

terms of operating smoothly, and the easy of

hackers to gain access to personal/corporate

computers.

I agree with the following:

The Washington-based Computer and

Communications Industry Association

charged the administration wasn’t pushing

for tough enough penalties such as requiring

Microsoft to disclose its source code

blueprints for its flagship Windows operating

system. ‘‘The Justice Department isn’t settling

this case, it is selling out consumers,

competition, and all those who want a

vibrant, innovative high tech industry

contributing strength to our economy,’’ the

group’s president, Ed Black, said in a

statement.

I am very disappointed that the

government that we the people have elected

has decided to go soft on microsoft. Judge

Thomas Penfield Jackson’s decision to

breakup microsoft and impose strict

regulations of microsoft and their behavior

was the most appropriate action to be taken

for this monopolistic company whose only

desire it seems is to continue it’s domination

by whatever means it chooses. And it seems

the government has no objections to it. Does

the LAW apply only to one group, and not

others? What happened to the other

monopolies in our past? Railroad and

telephone and oil companies were all broken

up, and became separate companies, not

owned by the original monopolistic

company. Why is that not happening here?

About the recent terms of settlement: What

is the government thinking? The source code

of microsoft contains many secrets that if

discovered would show just what they are up

to. There are many sites on the internet that

show a great deal of hidden activities that

microsoft has embedded in the operating

system. What are they hiding? Microsoft

needs to be broken up. Period. Their source

code needs to be made public, and only then

will we know just what they are up to. And

only then will computers be made secure,

applications will be made by others (and that

will stimulate job growth) that actually work

without crashing and then the people will

have more faith in their elected officials.

Unbundling of certain parts of the operating

system should not just include them, or hide

them. They need to be removed from all

source code, and only installed at the users

discretion, not hidden in the background.

Remember that the government is made up

of those elected by the PEOPLE, NOT

monopolistic corporations. YOU are our

protection against them, as they strive to

impose their shoddy products upon us while

stifling competition. Please reconsider your

agreement. This case has dragged on for a

long time. Do not let the events of September

1lth be an excuse to roll belly up to a rich

monopoly (how did they get so rich?!). If it

goes longer, that’s ok, just do the right thing

for a change: represent the people, follow the

LAW, and enforce it strictly.

I thank you for your time and attention.

Regards,

Phil Rizzuto, JR.

361 West Main Street

Cheshire, CT. 06410–2414

203.605.5696

MTC–00004556

From: Tom Kiatchuck

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

It is my belief that the proposed antitrust

settlement with Microsoft Corporation is not

in the best interests of the American people.

It does not protect against future abuses and

in fact encourages the spread of the Microsoft

software monopoly by training a vast army of

young people to use their operating system

and attendant application programs to the

exclusion of very viable software alternatives.

America is based on freedom of choice; but

students in Americas’ public schools can

only learn to use computers, an essential skill

for the coming generation of employees, on

the products provided to them. Today, the

Dept. of Justice has an opportunity to

broaden the scope of that choice and thus

empower generations yet unborn. It also has

the opportunity to cave in to Bill Gates and

thus must choose between greatness and

ignominy.

The Northern Territories school district in

Australia, with apopulation of just over

200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000 in the

first year alone by using Linux alongside

Microsoft products to provide computer

education at all grade levels. This was

enough to allow the school district to

purchase an additional 1,000 computers for

distribution in the schools and as loaner

units for students (and their parents) to use

at home. In a few short years their children

will be competing, very effectively, on the

worldwide intellectual marketplace against

American children whose access to hardware

was hampered by the prohibitive cost

imposed by the practice of using Microsoft

products all but exclusively in the public

schools. The Australian experience could

have been dramatically more productive had

they used Linux as the operating system on

all their computers but it was a good initial

step. The present savings represent its use in

their servers only.

http://opensourceschools.org/

article.php’story=200 11207001012102

[opensourceschools.org]

I support the notion that Microsoft should

pay its fine in hardware donations only. It

has been brought to my attention that Red

Hat Software of Research Triangle Park, NC,

(near Durham, NC) has offered to provide

pro-bono copies of the Linux operating

system corresponding to a Microsoft

donation of hardware. It is my desire that any

donation of software that Microsoft might

choose to make would not be included in the

proposed settlement but must also be a probono gesture corresponding to the Red Hat

Software offer. Moreover, any copies of

software Microsoft might donate should

require no payment of any sort by the schools

at any forward point in time. It must be a true

24538 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

donation of indefinite duration, just as the

Red Hat offer is. Otherwise, if required to

pay, the schools would eventually have to

abandon their training programs for lack of

funds to re-license / upgrade their software.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744—

1.html [yahoo.com]

While Microsoft Corporation should not be

excluded from expressing generosity, such

generosity, expressed as software gifts, only

furthers their ability to monopolize the

marketplace and should not be permitted as

a part of the penalty for having followed

illegal practices in the establishment of their

dominance in the software market.

Microsoft has painted itself the champion

of choice and freewill while villifying opensource software as being un-American. I

think it is time for their actions, public and

private, to match their very public words.

Software donations should be no part of

the proposed settlement.

MTC–00004557

From: James Z. Coleman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:48pm

Subject: Microsoft, Owns what they MAKE,

not the Goverment!

Hey,

What’s the deal... Microsoft has its right to

what they make... Why should our

Government care... Microsoft made

Windows, Microsoft can decide if they want

Internet Explorer or any thing else in there...

That’s their Business, not Sun Micro, or you

name it! If I made Windows, I’d be up there

like Microsoft. I’d protest to the ending day...

You have NO Control over what people put

in their software, they made it, they decide

on it! Unless something is copyrighted.

What I think... I think everyone is being a

BIG BABY. If AOL and SUN Are upset and

everyone else... Why doesn’t Sun go with

Linux, and AOL make an AOL O.S of their

own, and not of Microsoft!

Second, Microsoft holds the right to their

source... I don’t think ANY STATES, should

be trying to force Microsoft for open source...

I’d leave any State over that reason. I’d hate

them to NO END. I think its bad enough for

this to go on.

There are other companies and people that

need to be in court besides Microsoft!

James

James Z. Coleman—Owner

Digital Advance—Computer & Internet

Specialists

jzcole@digitaladvance.net

Phone: 731.402–3444

<http://www.digitaladvance.net/> http://

www.digitaladvance.net

MTC–00004558

From: PSHSR@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 9:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Ever since the antitrust case began I have

felt that Microsoft was being prosecuted for

being good at their business. I disagreed with

Judge Jackson’s ruling then and I still

disagree. I would prefer to see all charges

against Microsoft dropped.

Peter S Hanson

MTC–00004559

From: Silva

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 11:19pm

Subject: Disappointing

www.slashdot.com and other technical/

software web news spots have begged readers

like myself to send in our 2cents worth of

comments towards the outcome of this trial.

Therefore, please read below. Reading

through the technical/software news, it

appears that this trial is taking a

disappointing turn for the worse since the

outcome appears that Microsoft will be

allowed to be a monopoly, but will have the

additional legal backing to keep doing even

more of it. The first trial was correct in

attempting to split Microsoft into 2 separate

groups. The reason for that is that the

operating system group would be {forced} to

lay an even and fair playing field for anyone

and everyone wanting to create programs to

run on the Windows operating system, while

the application software group would be

equally on a level competition field by {only}

using the known application interfaces

provided to everyone by the operating system

group.

Please....To keep Microsoft the way it is

now behaving with only a task force of 3

people to keep Microsoft honest by looking

at millions and millions of lines of source

code would be a disappointing result of the

trial. Microsoft is based on all major

continents last time I checked. 3 people is

simply not enough to look at all that

information and deal with all the extra issues

that will be thrown at them on top of all that.

It is too many tasks for too few people and

things will be easily obfuscated past such a

small group. If you decide to go this way,

please add more people.

Microsoft strongly relies on the fact that

customers do not go beyond loading the

initial CDrom or bootdisks. Therefore if your

3 people find problems {after} the CDroms

are sent out in public, you have just lost what

you wanted to achieve. Few people actually

update their machines with the fixes

presented afterwards and the only way to be

sure that the majority of users use the

updated version is to physically send

customers updated CDroms which Microsoft

will not want to do at all. Despite all the

patches and software updates and fixes

presented on the Microsoft website, it prefers

to know that the majority of users has nonupdated.... Windows98 CDrom—it is difficult

to remove Internet Explorer Windows2000

CDrom—it is difficult to load a competing

operating system.

WindowsXP CDrom—it is impossible to

remove Internet Explorer and it is taking a

big hit against a company called SUN by

leaving out Java. Please.... Separate Microsoft

Applications from the Microsoft Operating

System in some form or manner so that it is

a level playing field for everybody. Right now

Microsoft has the inside scoop on Microsoft

while everybody else is on the outside

looking in and only able to use the

published/known operating system

interfaces. If a person, group, or business is

to create a program using only the known

application Program Interfaces (APIs),

Microsoft has the homegrown advantage to

be able to create a quicker, fancier version

competing against that product. We all

watched NETSCAPE die to a former shadow

of what it could have become because it was

starved for income against Microsoft’s free

Internet Explorer plus all the twists and turns

put into the operating system to keep

Netscape Out.

If you do not separate applications from

operating system in some form so that

everybody has a fair chance, you will be

seeing history repeat itself. BORLAND (a

competing programming language company)

and several other companies used to create

very good compiler programs for Microsoft

DOS and early Windows but they are mere

shadows of themselves since they do not

have insider information like the Microsoft

compiler language programmers have access

to. Right now, I won’t be surprised if Adobe

ACROBAT and other great programs become

part of the Microsoft stable in a few years.

The reason for saying that is that they have

incorporated Microsoft’s Visual Basic into

their program(s) and since they have no

competing product to replace it, Adobe

Acrobat is either going to be a mere shadow

of itself in the future or it will have to be sold

to Microsoft itself when it eventually gets

cornered with no alternatives to Visual Basic

and the information Microsoft decides to

present or break. Please have all application

program interfaces (APIs) for the operating

system brought out for everybody to use so

that others can bring out competitive

products.

Being a monopoly isn’t wrong if you are

the biggest fish in the pond, especially if all

things are considered equal, fair and played

on a level playing field, but doing actions to

hinder fair competition and maintain that

monopoly should be considered illegal.

Sincerely,

Jose Da Silva,

11280 Westminster Hwy,

Richmond, BC, V6X–1B3,

Canada

MTC–00004560

From: Alex Zarenin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/14/01 11:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it may concern:

I would like to express my overall

satisfaction with the wording of the proposed

settlement. I think it properly addresses

rights and obligations of all the parties and

provides environment in which innovations

from all sides may thrive.

I also think that provisions of this

settlement will be beneficiary to consumers

community by providing them with stable

and rich operating environment without

unduly limiting the choices and preferences.

It is true that Microsoft presently has a

dominant role on the desktops; however this

role was obtained as a result of fast and

innovative development and, as a result,

sufficiently good offering. Windows OS

obtained its present position in competition

with other OSes, such as OS/2, Macintosh, X/

Windows etc. Moreover, even today its

dominance is challenged daily with new

offering (supported by pretty large

companies, such as IBM, Sun, etc)—Linux,

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24539

System 7 just to name a few. As such I don’t

think that Microsoft has a true monopoly,

which would imply that they may stop

development and just reap the benefits of

previous work for times to come—it has to

improve its offering every day just to

maintain this leading position.

In my opinion the states that continue

pressing additional charges against Microsoft

and do not agree to the proposed settlement

are just blinded by the Microsoft-bashing

mentality—their proposals would skew the

marketplace towards Microsoft competitors

and would let mediocre companies, such as

Netscape, to make huge profits of the

consumers and corporations by selling to

them products that otherwise comes from

Microsoft for free (like browser or Media

player).

Netscape Navigator version 2 was much

better then Internet Explorer 2— and it was

dominating the market! However since then

IE was greatly improving with each new

release (and still was free!), while Netscape

Navigator was lagging behind, which made it

lose the market share. Similarly other

companies should compete with Microsoft by

providing better products, which in these

years of instant communications will

immediately attract consumers’ attention!

In conclusion I would like to suggest some

minor additions to proposed settlement:

For section ‘‘C’’ I would suggest to allow

Microsoft to imbed in OS tools and features

that would allow end users (and only end

users!) to revert to Microsoft-provided

versions of middleware and other tools,

which were replaced by the OEM, if user

feels that these replacements are detrimental

to the stability or usability of the system. For

example a user should be given an option to

revert customized versions of the browser

(installed, for example, by Comcast or AOL)

to the vanilla version of this product.

For sections ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘E’’ I would suggest

that Microsoft should not only made

appropriate APIs and interfaces available to

broad developers community (through MSDN

or similar ways), but also take effort to

submit them for non-binding review to

corresponding committees (such as WWW

consortium etc). The non-binding nature of

these submission should not preclude

Microsoft from implementing solutions that

receive negative reviews; however negative

reviews of appropriate APIs or interfaces will

open the doors for competitors to provide

alternative products, add-on tools etc.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to

provide my comments to this settlement!

Alex Zarenin, Ph. D. in CS

MTC–00004561

From: Bol, Chris

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/14/01 11:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrus Case

To whom this may concern,

Microsoft has proposed to donate products

to failing schools to help educate the

children in Microsoft Products, this only

further their holds in the market place. I

manage the the web and networking

divisions at a small West Michigan

computing firm. There are many solutions

that Linux can provide to us, but we can’t

find people with appropiate training. Use

Microsoft money to purchase Linux products

to truly give our children a diverse

education, filling huge gaps for network

managers and programers world wide.

Thankyou,

Chris Bol

chrisb@issol.com

www.issol.com

616–785–0745 x 113

MTC–00004562

From: Josh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 12:24am

Subject: Microsoft have an illegal monoply

Microsoft have an illegal monoply, they

leave consumers no choice but to use MS

software for general use, eg games, movies,

web sites. This is wrong and should be

stopped.

MTC–00004563

From: Dennis Jugan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 1:52am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

An apologue of the proposed Microsoft

settlement A man intending to rob a bank

parks his car and walks away without feeding

the parking meter. While ’busy’ at the bank,

a parking enforcement person places a ticket

on his car. His criminal act completed, he

walks briskly back to his car with $20,000

tucked in a bag. Noticing the ticket, he rips

it off the windshield, throws it aside, and

escapes.

The ticket prompts the police to investigate

him as a suspect in the robbery. Evidence is

abundant. He’s arrested and goes to trial in

what everyone presumes to be an open-andshut case.

Having failed to pay his parking ticket, he’s

served with papers to appear in traffic court

as well, where he’s found guilty and fined

$100. The district attorney strikes an

outrageous plea bargain: Pay the $100

parking fine and we’ll drop the bank robbery

charges.

This is no stupid man. He walks out of the

courthouse minus $100, but enjoys the

freedom to return to a locker at the bus

station where he retrieves $20,000 in illgotten gains and begins to case the next bank.

Bank robber takes all.....Microsoft takes all !!

Any reasonable person would recognize

this hypothetical plea bargain as an

unconscionable travesty of justice. Yet

parallels can easily be drawn to the Microsoft

settlement.

In the case of Microsoft, there is an

undeniable maintenance of monopoly at the

expense of competitors and the consumer.

The remedy must ensure a reasonable

opportunity for the market to return to a level

playing field. Microsoft’s behavior must also

be closely scrutinized by a special master

that fully understands the nuances of

information technology as they relate to

Microsoft’s incorrigible conduct of the past as

well as the company’s announced designs for

the present and the future in this market and

in other unrelated markets.

The nine dissenting states have put forth

a comprehensive remedy that promises a fair

redress on the part of Microsoft and allows

for the necessary requirements and scrutiny

that Microsoft has proven necessary by its

record of flaunting past legal agreements with

the courts and its persistent misdeeds in the

marketplace.

I encourage the court to dismiss the

Department of Justice’s ‘‘plea bargain’’

settlement with Microsoft and to pursue the

recommendations thoughtfully set forth by

the Attorneys General of the nine dissenting

states.

Dennis Jugan

393 Devon Drive

Johnstown, PA 15904

djugan@devonbrook.com

MTC–00004564

From: Curtis(u)E(u)Combs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 4:07am

Subject: antitrust case

dear sir

i work at a campus in south georgia where,

like most campuses, computers are a part of

everyday use. my system administrator is

constantly having problems with the lack of

security installed with windows operating

systems and it is a constant headache for

him, i am forced by an unknoledgeable

manager to use microsoft windows, and on

a daily basis i’m made well aware of its

uselessness. i’m a linux user. i am very

competant and very aware of the needs of

others who are not technically minded, i

work with them everyday. i only wish that

i had a suitable alternative not only the the

constant failings of the operating system but

to its shortcoming and its inablities to

efficiantly provide constant stable, reliable

performance. please, please, for the future of

our children do not let microsoft continue to

influence our market and continue providing

us with less than workable environments for

computing and yet continue to profit from it

i would not expect to have to pay for a

haircut in which the barber only cut a single

hair and said that he has done his job, i

would not expect to be arrested because i

didnt pay, because the barber had brought

the local police with his money.

thank you

curtis e combs jr

cecombs@valdosta.edu

MTC–00004565

From: James Saunders

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 5:30am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The consumer has not been harmed, quite

the contrary. Is this the price of success in

this country? If you really want to go after a

monopolist that is gouging all of us, try Frito

Lay. Sincerely, Pat Saunders

MTC–00004566

From: Roland Seuhs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 8:24am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The best settlement would be if Microsoft

is forced to charge the same price for

Windows and have to treat PC-makers the

same way.

This way, PC-makers could preinstall nonMicrosoft operating systems without being

afraid of facing higher price for WinodwsVerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:13 Apr 24, 2002 Jkt 189961 PO 00000 Frm 00249 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\OC\A68AD3.273 pfrm11 PsN: ADVBOOK3
24540 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

licenses. Of course Microsoft should be

allowed to give volume-discounts, but for

100,000 licenses, they would have to charge

the same, no matter if the PC-maker installs

competing operating systems or not.

For example Vobis, a big PC-maker and

former market leader in Germany was nearly

driven out of business because Vobis decided

to preinstall OS/2 on some computers and

Microsoft responded in shipping delays and

higher license-prices. A fair license price

which is the same for all PC-makers would

solve that problem.

This settlement would also help

competitors in the application market,

because PC-makers could preinstall nonMicrosoft applications without fear. For

example Microsoft threatened several PCmakers not to preinstall Netscape. Since this

solution is very fair (Microsoft still can set

the prices, still can give volume discounts,

they just have to treat every customer the

same) I think Microsoft will have a very hard

time arguing against it.

Thanks for listening and regards,

Roland Seuhs

MTC–00004567

From: Dr. Martin Senftleben

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 9:00am

Subject: Request for justice

Dear Sir,

I have noticed the ongoing attempts to

reach a settlement between the DOJ and

possibly the mightiest software company in

the world, Microsoft. Microsoft has not

become the mightiest because of the quality

of their products, but because of their

marketing methods, which forced me more

than once to buy a computer with their

operating system already pre-installed. I

never ran this OS, but yet was forced to pay

for it—no vender would give me any

discount when removing Windows, actually,

they refused to do that or offered to do it only

at a high price.

Further, Microsoft did everything possible

to avoid compatability with other products,

once their operating system was established.

The history is well known and has been on

trial. I have knowingly been a victim—others

never knew they were—of this misuse of

monopoly power.

If you want to reach a settlement rather

than breaking Microsoft’s monopoly, then I

request that a fair chance is given to every

other software manufacturer. This can be

reached only if Microsoft is forced to do the

following:

1—The Microsoft Windows OS must be an

option for every consumer, i.e. computers

which have Windows pre-installed must be

more expensive than computers without this

OS, and computers with the same hardware

configuration, but another OS must not cost

more than a computer with Windows preinstalled.

2—Microsoft products besides the pure OS

must be an option which needs to be paid,

and must not be combined with Windows as

has been with Internet Explorer and appears

to be with the .NET technology in Windows

XP, for example.

3—Since Microsoft’s Windows has become

kind of a standard, it’s programming

interfaces must be completely public. This is

necessary for other software manufacturers to

be able to exploit Windows functions to its

fullest, since Microsoft has this advantage for

its own products.

4—The document format of Microsoft

applications must be fully public, so that

migration from Microsoft products to other

products becomes simple. The strongest

reason for not migrating to another,

competetive product for most people is the

fear that they cannot handle their documents

which have been created in Microsoft

products any longer.

5—Microsoft must never be able to seize

control of the Internet. Hence, any new

networking protocol which might be

incorporated into a Microsoft product has to

be public, in order to enable others to use

this protocol. Best would be to have an

independent body keep control over the

protocols used in the Internet.

6—Focusing on Microsoft products poses a

high security risk, as has been proven

hundreds of times every year. Yet, more and

more companies feel forced to use such

products, thus risking the security of their

own confidential data (and eventually

presenting it unknowingly to Microsoft on a

silver tablet?). This fact should be reason

enough to make sure that Microsoft must not

be enabled to control any section of the

market, as it shoudn’t be the case with any

company in this highly vulnerable area.

Please consider all facts very carefully. Do

not give up our independence as consumers,

and do not risk the national security by

leaving an area uncovered which can be used

by Microsoft to unfold it’s power even

further.

Thank you very much,

Dr. Martin Senftleben, Ph.D.

using Red Hat Linux 7.2

my webpages:

MTC–00004568

From: sbskinner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 9:41am

Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust Settlement

Dear Ms. Hesse:

Below describes just one of the problems

I have with 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),as well to you

at the Department.

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 not

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.

WHAT IS HAPPENING?

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.

sbs

P.P. S. NOW: I am unable to send this

email to you because, even though THERE IS

NOT TOPIC TO BE SELECTED IN THE

TOPIC AREA DROP-DOWN MENU, I

CANNOT SEND THIS TO YOU BECAUSE I

HAVE NOT SELECTED A TOPIC! 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.’’

MTC–00004569

From: Mike Goodman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 10:17am

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Agreement

I would like to speak my mind on the

impending anti-trust agreement with

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24541

Microsoft. The original judgement should

have been left in place, as a computer/

technology professional I have long been

plagued by Microsoft’s attitude towards

business and the public in general. Bust’em

up, nothing less will do.

MTC–00004570

From: Jeff and Shauna

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 10:17am

Subject: What Happened?

I would like to add my two cents to the

whole mess. The best thing for the world is

to break up Microsoft. One it punishes them.

But more importantly it would be the best

thing that could happen for the industry. It

would force Microsoft to either create a stable

and open operating system or they would go

out of buisiness. It would force Microsoft to

create software that works equally well on

Linux or Mac as it does on Windows. In the

end Microsoft would become a great

competitor in the industry, not an

overbarring monopoly.

Jeff Swenson

Driggs, ID

ps. I use Linux exclusivly at home. I use

Windows at work. I am not anti-Microsoft. I

am strongly in vavor of more real options.

MTC–00004571

From: mummum@hotmail.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 10:34am

Subject: Microsoft Trial Comment

To whomever it may concern,

I believe that the decision made by the

Department of Justice and the nice settling

states was a fair and adequate one. It will

impose certain restrictions to allow

competitors to be able to get their products

out to consumers and also give them an equal

chance where one was not present before.

Although, what I don’t agree with at all is the

fact that the remaining nine states are

choosing to pursue this further. There should

be no way that the restrictions they have

suggested should go through or even be

considered. Allowing other companies access

to protected source code violates patent laws

and making it so that Microsoft will not be

able to add anything to their OS is

unspeakable. It is afterall their piece of

software and any company should be able to

create something and add to it what they

please. Offering two versions, being a light

version and a regular version makes perfect

sense, but not just a stripped down version.

We see now that competitors such as Sun

Microsystems, AOL-Time Warner, Oracle and

Apple have continually intervened with the

trial proceedings and now they are coming

out with techonologies and products that will

damage Microsoft. While consumers should

be protected, the United States and its parties

are not and should not be out to destroy

companies that contribute so much revenue

to the overall economy. Another retrcition

asked by the states is that Microsoft include

the Java VM by Sun Microsystems in their

OS. This is absurd, as in 1997, Sun sued

Microsoft for using it and modifying it,

making it clear that they didn’t want them to

use it. Why would it be forced on them now?

Furthermore, how can anyone even fathom

the idea of forcing competing software on

another company. It makes sense when Bill

Gates made the comparison of saying that we

can’t force Pepsi to bundle a can of Coke with

every six pack. Just like you can’t get a

Mercedes Benz dealership to make and sell

Toyota cars for them. It just doesn’t make

sense any way that you put it. Consumers

should have a choice, yes, but this choice is

up to them to create for themselves. It was

deemed that Microsoft should not decide

what consumers should be able to use, but

equally the Federal Government and

governments of the individual states should

not credit themselves with the authority to be

able to do this either. I hope my comment has

been taken to heart, because Microsoft is one

of the greatest innovators in the history of US

enterprises and hurting them more than

necessary is a huge and terrible mistake.

They make excellent products and I have

benefited from them for many years. As a

consumer I don’t see where the harm came

in in the first place, but these other

restrictions are ludacris in their very nature.

If it goes through, we would be destroying

the very principles on which the concept of

Free Market enterprises was created, it is an

attack on her soul.

This should be considered as well as many

other points, I have not been able to mention.

Your truly,

Stephen Ristich

MTC–00004572

From: Dr. Volodymyr Kruglov

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 12/15/01 10:34am

Subject: On MS cases—a view from abroad

Dear Sir,

I have wrote you, because I am worrying

on the result of the Microsoft-DOJ and

Microsoft-19 states cases. Let me discribe my

own position that has shared with many

friends of mine.

1. From our own experience we know very

well that MS is using predatory practice—it

is just impossible to buy PC without some

Windows installed, even in Russia and

Ukraine. Moreover, nobody never returned

money, if I need not in their Windows.

2. Quality of MS Windows (all versions) is

low: you can observe this, even via watching

TV or reading the newspapers—permanent

noise on ‘compromised Web sites’, ‘new

viruses’ and similar. But, if you choose an

alternative OS—Mac OS, Linux, OS/2—you

will immediately be faced with troubles—

some sites will reject to service you; there is

not broad support from vendors and so on.

Instead, everybody will propose you plenty

of mediocre Windows-XYZ programs.

3. Few years ago, when the historical case

against Microsoft has started, we have

obtained some hope to see punished

predator. All this process was, unfortunately,

very long, but it showed to all (unblind)

persons, what kind of tactics was used by

MS: for killing OS/2, for struggle with

Netscape, with attempts to remove or reduce

Java etc. It was, sometimes, even funny to

see, how ‘great’ Bill Gates impudently lying,

how MS witnesses had permanent troubles

with truth. The result was: guilty, should be

splitted and it was just great! You can tell

that Judge Jackson did mistake—he gave

interviews to the newpapers—yes, it was

tactical mistake, but I can understand this:

what should you feel on MS, when you were

forced to hear their lying for almost 3 years?

And, also, the Appeal Court has never

changing the main case result: they were

agree that MS is guilty!

4. When we started to hear talks on

‘settlement’, I couldn’t even think that such

a variant is possible. After this, we started to

hear on attempts to mediate states’ cases. It

was especially intresting to read on MS

proposal to settle—via introducing themself

in the one of the last sectors of market, where

they weren’t presented yet. It was strange, it

was horrible ... We heard a lot on ‘fair game’,

‘competition’, holy ‘American Justice’,

‘innovations of MS’ (may be, MS Mouse?), of

course. But please tell me, in what country

the person, who was already announced

guilty, has (with the help of government)

opportunity to escape from real charges and

to enter to a new beautiful marketing sector—

schools? Sorry, but we can not see any justice

in the lastest news—we could see only new

victories for MS (and the absense even the

‘commom sense’ in American Justice).

If MS escapes their punishment, we will

know very well, what is the meaning of

‘Justice’ in the USA, but, in this case, please

avoid using of words aforementioned in the

future—now we will know, how much these

words cost!

Sincerely yours,

Volodymyr

PS

Microsoft should be destroyed!

MTC–00004573

From: Joey Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 12:08pm

Subject: Settling the case with Microsoft

To whom it may concern,

I am a computer programmer and Systems

Administrator with more than 8 years of

experience with varying Operating Systems,

and feel it my moral and civic duty to speak

out against the proposed deal with Microsoft

to settle the antitrust case.

Like the majority of the other programmers

that I personally know, I have watched most

of the recent legal developments concerning

the so-called ‘‘Tech Sector’’ with fear and

trepidation. I am not a lawyer, but I have

tried to understand how the Justice

Department thinks that the proposed

settlement will solve anything.

It has been found that Microsoft holds a

monopoly in Operating Systems Software,

and that Microsoft has acted to maintain that

monopoly, in clear violation of the laws of

the United states. It has also been found that

this monopoly has allowed Microsoft to

create a ‘‘Barrier to Entry’’ for Application

developers (see ‘‘Competitive Impact

Statement’’, III.B.2).

I am not a lawyer, but it seems fairly clear

to me that any action taken should strive to

remove from Microsoft the power to maintain

this monopoly. I cannot understand how the

proposed settlement addresses this issue. In

fact, the language of the proposed settlement

in several areas gives Microsoft a government

enforced monopoly, by hiding it behind such

concepts as ‘‘security’’ and ‘‘anti-piracy’’. By

24542 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

using these words that are so emotionally

bound, they have manipulated their way into

a proposed settlement that does nothing to

stop them from continuing their anticompetitive practices.

I would like to propose some additional

actions that, from a computer programmer’s

point of view, are the barest minimum action

that would remove this Microsoft from this

position of power.

(I) In addition to the proposed requirement

that Microsoft make available their ‘‘API’s

and other Documentation’’, there needs to be

some provision made to allow the public to

obtain the file formats for both existing and

future Microsoft products.

(II) Microsoft should not be allowed to set

the terms and price of distribution for such

API’s, Documentation, of file formats. I can

understand if Microsoft feels they need to be

fairly compensated for this information, but

allowing Microsoft to set the price would

give them the power to put this

documentation out of the reach of those who

best stand the chance to break this monopoly,

and those most hurt by it.

(III) In the ‘‘Revised Proposed Final

Judgement’’, I propose that the following

sections should be stricken: III.J.2(b),

III.J.2(c), III.J.2(d)

These conditions make it possible for

Microsoft to exclude from these reparations

the group that Microsoft’s CEO himself has

declared to be the single biggest threat to

their businees. I’m speaking of an

international community of programmers

who volunteer their time to give to the world

software that is technically superior, freely

avialable to everyone (including the

background logic, or ‘‘source code’’), and not

legally encumbered by crippling or binding

licenses. I speak of the people collectively

referred to as the ‘‘Open Source

Community’’. I am a member of the Open

Source Community, and have repeatedly

attempted to legally obtain from Microsoft

documenation that would allow me to release

a product that either competes with, or

cooperates with, Microsoft products, and had

these attempts blocked simply due to my

involvement in Open Source. In the past,

there was nothing I could do except attempt

to legally reverse engineer this information.

But if we are to truly achieve a result which

will allow a competitive marketplace, we

must remove this ‘‘Applications Barrier to

Entry’’, as discussed in ‘‘Competitive Impact

Statement’’, III.B.2. III.J.2(b), III.J.2(c), and

III.J.2(d) give Microsoft all the ammunition

they require to maintain this barrier.

(IV) If it is determined that Microsoft

should make some sort of financial

reparations, it should be declared that this

may NOT be in the form of Microsoft

Software, as this would simply allow

Microsoft to spread their monopoly even

further under the guise of compliance to the

settlement.

These opinions are likely quite naive from

a legal viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of

a computer programmer, this is the minimum

that will give us empower us to overcome the

barriers Microsoft has thrown in our way.

In closing, I would like to draw your

attention to the comments made by Matthew

Szulik, CEO of Red Hat, Inc., generally

regarded as the most successful company

selling and supporting open source software.

‘‘...contrary to the statements of the US

Department of Justice in its impact statement

discussing the Consent Decree, the remedies

settlement embodied in the Consent Decree

fails to achieve the ends mandated by the

Court for the following reasons:

it fails to deny Microsoft the fruits of its

statuatory violations,

it fails to ensure that competition is likely to

result,

it was an agreement reached for the purpose

of expediency, not for ensuring an

adequate remedy and,

it establishes an untenable precedent for

future antitrust cases.’’

MTC–00004574

From: promo@f1trading.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 12:44pm

Subject: REMOVE SUCCESS

This is to confirm your removal from our

database. You will receive no further emails

from F1Trading.com

MTC–00004575

From: Marc (038) Denise Bryant

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 12/15/01 1:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi,

I would just like to comment on the

Microsoft anti-trust case. I know quite a bit

about computers. I feel Microsoft has taken

over the computer industry. I have seen

many good companies that made a better

product, but were bought out by or put out

of business. I’ve seen good programs that are

coded well but no longer are available

because of Microsoft. One can argue ‘‘It’s a

free country, they can do what they want’’.

The truth of the matter is we have many

freedoms in this country however we have no

freedom of choice when it comes to

Microsoft. There are other operating systems

available, but who can go up against

Microsoft. You may have the best product,

but you’re never going to sell it because

Microsoft won’t let you. Does that sound like

freedom to you?

very truly yours

Marc C. Bryant

MTC–00004576

From: Joseph Boschert

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 1:39pm

Subject: Microsoft case

As a student at the University of

Wisconsin-Whitewater, I see first hand the

harm that is done when mixing Microsoft

and education. I wont go into great detail,

because I believe the CEO of Red Hat Inc.

already discussed it, but I do feel that by

donating software and hardware to poor

education disctricts is a suitable punishment

for Microsoft. I do favor the proposal that has

been making the rounds about Microsoft

donating $1 billion in hardware, and having

Red Hat, Inc. donate all the software to run

on the Microsoft donated hardware. I see this

a perfect opportunity to introduce

competition into the marketplace, and have

Microsoft do the ‘‘right thing’’ by giving poor

educational school districts the appropriate

means of computing technology. I do not see

any solutions brought to the public as

suitable. As you look to your constituents for

answers to this complex monopolistic

situation, I hope you continue to read and

listen to suggestions. Thank you for your

time.

Joseph Boschert

UW-Whitewater Student

MTC–00004577

From: Steve Black

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 1:42pm

Subject: Comments on Settlement—United

States vs. Microsoft

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 the

demise of Microsoft’s commercial viability

which are equally meaningless. Attorney’s

are highly skilled at avoiding lies, but

extremely skilled at presenting misleading

information.

2. There is a 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 compatibility issues

of multiple PC operating systems . As it is,

having to maintain separate server and PC

systems is more than enough headache and

there are strong financial forces to compel the

fusion 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 hard drives. Every computer

should be able to connect to these shared

drivers. 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 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.

4. Alternative operating systems have been

soundly rejected by the marketplace for

reasons of commonality, cost of training and

lack of return of investment for businesses.

The Apple monopoly could have been wildly

commercially successful, except they chose

to maintain high prices. The high 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 correct,

however, there are no barriers to marketing

any other software product as thousands of

large and small companies have done,

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24543

provided there is a viable marketing concept

and perceived value to the product.

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 mis-use of marketing

propaganda, proves nothing and has no basis

in fact.

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 demise of JAVA is dependent

on it’s authors making it a safe and viable

product. Their technical competence and

business acumen is 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

mail, numerous web sites offer it daily.

Linux, Unix, Beos and several operating

systems are available, but do not provide the

features and benefits of Windows and will

not even be cosidered by businesses.

7. This 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 due to Microsoft innovation is

the real benefit of a free market. This is why

Netscape and Sun are losing billions due to

the demise of their empires and why they are

in such a panic to get revenge by destroying

Microsoft. They are using the legal system to

compensate for their business failings. Did

the largest makers of the buggy whip sue

Henry Ford for anti-trust behavior?

Steven Black

1916 Camas Court SE

Renton, WA 98055

MTC–00004578

From: Dave Muse

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 1:55pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

to: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney, Suite

1200, Antitrust Division, Department of

Justice, 601 D Street NW, Washington, DC

20530 Greetings,

As a long-time computer hobbyist (since

about 1979) I have long lamented the slow

but steady demise of choices in the computer

operating system and computer applications

market, brought about by Microsoft’s

increasing dominance.

Many users of computers are relatively

new to computing, and cannot appreciate

what can or should be different about this

marketplace. But I had to watch, over the

years, many excellent software products

vanish by being forced out of business or

bought up by Microsoft—and in most cases

I did not feel that the competing Microsoft

products were as good (in any way but

marketing) as what was no longer there.

I am very disappointed at the proposed

settlement supported by Microsoft and the

DOJ. I believe it is full of the very sort of

loopholes that Microsoft can enjoy exploiting

to its advantage. Where is the punishment for

what Microsoft has been found guilty of? Do

not make the issue into one of national

security, or the strength of our economy; this

is the time to fix the problem and get it

behind us. The task will not become easier,

indeed, much longer-term damage to our

competitive marketplace could eventually

result.

In my opinion, what consumers need, at a

minimum, to be able to truly choose

alternatives to Microsoft are:

—Both the Windows API and Microsoft

document formats (MS Word, MS Excel,

etc) must be made freely available. This

will enable competitive products to view

and edit documents created by Microsoft

products., and to create programs that can

run on Windows as well as Microsoft’s

applications do. Open standards benefit

everyone except a monopolist.

—Microsoft networking protocols must be

standardized by a standards body. This

will prevent Microsoft from using their

private, proprietary protocols to seize

control of new applications used on the

Internet. Again, open standards are in

everyone’s interest except Microsoft.

—Microsoft products should be provided

only as extra-cost options on personal

computers. I should always have the

choice of whether or not I’m going to buy

a Microsoft product.

Sincerely,

Dave Muse

200 Burt Ave

Jackson MI 49201

mrvideo@softhome.net

MTC–00004579

From: mitchell@deckard1.

mcmurdo.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 2:21pm

Subject: Break the application lock

Microsoft’s lock on the computer industry

stems from its proprietary file formats. In

short, everyone runs Word because the only

way to share a document is by using the same

application to read/write it. Other programs

—try— to read/write .doc files, but invariably

they fail in some way or another. As a result,

to be fully compatible, you must use Word

as well, because that is what everyone else

using. And this isn’t just Word, but all the

file types; spreadsheets, presentations

(powerpoint), etc.

IF the format of these files were openly

published, then any software company could

write programs that read and wrote to those

specifications. Any company then has the

chance to write the next ‘‘killer word

processor/spreadsheet/etc’’ based on the

functionality and user-interface of their

program. They are not locked out because it

isn’t compatible with whatever program

currently has the greatest user-base.

As an example of this in other

technologies; anyone can make a tv because

the broadcast format is well documented and

it will work with everyone else’s. We aren’t

tied to choosing a CBS tv because we want

to watch a few CBS shows.

Likewise, we are not tied to using MCI (in

the telephone industry) because that is what

our friends/work/etc uses. We are free to

choose our own telephone company and can

talk with anyone else regardless of what

telephone company they use. In the same

goal as standards in other communication

areas, file formats should also be

standardized. That would allow people to

choose what company/program they want to

use based on their own preferences, not

because they have to conform to what

everyone else uses.

Any company selling a ‘‘communications’’

program (that is what documents,

spreadsheets, presentations, etc, programs

are, they communicate ideas to other people)

must conform to a standardized way of

exchanging that information. As changes are

needed to the standards, those changes must

be at the very least, well publicized, and

ideally would be reviewed and incorporated

into the standards such that everyone has

equal access to the new extensions.

With this solution adopted, it allows

Microsoft to succeed or fail based on the

quality of their own products and allows

other companies to enter the market and

compete equally. Further more, Microsoft is

then not being ‘‘penalized’’ by the

government for being successful, as the very

staunch Microsoft supporters view it.

Sincerely,

Richard

Richard Mitchell—Airborne

Oceanographic Lidar

mitchell@aol.wff.nasa.gov—Laboratory

mitchell@osb.wff.nasa.gov—(shining a

little light on the world)

MTC–00004580

From: Steve Cohen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 2:33pm

Subject: My comments re: US vs Microsoft

I am writing to express my opposition to

the proposed settlement in the case. I am a

software developer with over ten years in the

industry. I have worked with Microsoft

products and others for most of those ten

years. I have seen the harm that the Microsoft

monopoly does to the industry.

THE SETTLEMENT IN MANY WAYS

MAKES THINGS WORSE

The settling of this suit on the terms

proposed would be a travesty. Although

convicted of many violations of antitrust law,

the settlement does not require Microsoft to

admit any wrongdoing and they have not

done so. Worse yet, the settlement resolves

many of the ambiguous portions of earlier

decisions upon which most of the case was

argued— in Microsoft’s favor! Microsoft’s

ability to destroy competition by

incorporating new features into the Windows

operating system has been explicitly allowed.

How is that a reasonable outcome of a case

where the defendant was convicted?

24544 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MICROSOFT’S PREDATORY

DESTRUCTION OF THE INDEPENDENT

SOFTWARE INDUSTRY

I remember in the early 1990’s when

Microsoft was eager to get Independent

Software Vendors to write to the Windows

platform; I remember a few years later seeing

Microsoft enter the market with competing

applications to those which had been written

for the Windows platform. Software Vendors

who may have envisioned years of profitable

activity as a ‘‘partner’’ of Microsoft now

found that their partner was directly

competing with them—enabled by the unfair

monopoly Microsoft enjoyed over Operating

System distribution through new computer

sales. Today, the Independent Software

industry is a shambles. In the late nineties,

venture capital for competitors to Microsoft

dried up. The filing of US vs. Microsoft in

1997 temporarily reversed this trend as

Microsoft temporarily was forced to stop

some of its most egregious predatory

practices. This settlement, if adopted, will

revert this industry to this unhealthy state.

POOR SECURITY PRACTICES BY

MICROSOFT PROTECTED BY ITS

MONOPOLY

Microsoft products are notorious for the

poor security they provide. Much of today’s

problems with viruses and other malicious

junk distributed on the Internet would be

lessened if this security were improved. A

marketplace in which only Microsoft

products were readily available would

remove whatever incentives Microsoft has to

improve this aspect of their products. And

recent comments prove that they still don’t

get it.

Recently, Scott Culp, Manager of the

Microsoft Security Response Center issued a

broadside to the industry calling for there to

be less talk about known security weaknesses

in Microsoft products. Rather than fixing

problems, they want to be free to hide

problems and be shielded from bad publicity.

The less ‘‘monocultural’’ the general

computing environment is within society, the

more security there will be against these

threats. Thus diversity in computing

environments is in and of itself a benefit to

the general health of our networked

computing environment. And this is all the

more true when the dominant player is the

weakest link in terms of security.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ‘‘OPEN

SOURCE’’ SOFTWARE

There are other problems with the

settlement, even with some of the sections

that would seem to be improvements. Certain

sections of the settlement protect Microsoft’s

competitors ‘‘in commerce’’ against actions

which Microsoft has committed before.

Netowrk protocols, file formats and similar

technical information must be freely shared

with these competitors.

But the ‘‘in commerce’’ clause protects

Microsoft from disclosing this information to

what have become its most important

competitors—Open Source software, which

has emerged as a viable alternative in many

areas, particularly the Internet. Because Open

Source is not distributed on a for-profit basis,

it is not protected as are commercial software

companies. Worse yet, Microsoft is permitted

to set the criteria designating to what

businesses it is required to release this

information.

And yet many Open Source applications

have been adopted for use by for-profit

companies, as well as the Unites States

Armed Forces and other branches of

government. They find it to be not only costeffective but also find the ability to fix bugs

themselves an advantage that cannot be

duplicated in the world of commercial

software, where bugs can take months if not

years to be fixed, if they are fixed at all. Also,

Open Source programs such as SAMBA

allow Windows computers and nonWindows computers to coexist and

communicate well on the same local-area

networks, a big advantage. If Microsoft is not

required to release its network protocols to

the Samba project, this facility will be killed,

thus forcing many customers who might

otherwise not wish to buy only Windows

computers to do so, thus FURTHERING THE

MONOPOLY EVEN MORE.

The restriction on providing protocols only

to organizations ‘‘in commerce’’ must be

lifted. There is no reason why these

specifications should not be freely available

to anyone. Some might object that this would

release information compromising security—

this is refuted by the mess that already exists

with unreleased information, as well as by

the fact that other organizations which DO

release this information have far fewer

security problems than Microsoft systems. At

a minimum the decision of who to release to

should NOT be made by the convicted

defendant in this case, Microsoft.

LACK OF CONSUMER CHOICE IN NEW

COMPUTER PURCHASES Another problem

is the whole problem of customers forced to

take operating systems they may not want

when purchasing a new computer. If a

consumer wishes to run a different operating

system on a new consumer, that consumer

should not be forced to pay for an OS he or

she will not use. This practice should be

forbidden since it is at the core of so many

of the abuses on which Microsoft was

convicted.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is my belief that this

settlement is a total cave-in to the convicted

defendant in this case, and would effectively

remove this industry from antitrust

protections of the law. While the original

remedy of breakup ordered by Judge Jackson

is not a necessity (and many sincere people

have questioned its effectiveness), the terms

of this settlement need to be tightened to

prevent Microsoft from the abusing the great

wiggle-room this ill-advised settlement gives

them.

Sincerely,

Steven M. Cohen

335 Darrow Avenue

Evanston, IL 60202

MTC–00004581

From: root@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR,antitrust@ftc.gov@

inetgw,Ralph@essen...

Date: 12/15/01 2:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: Proud

American, Please Be Happy

CC: letters@latimes.com@

inetgw,letters@sjmercury. com@i...

‘‘Instead of crash-proof unix, consumers

get pure unadulterated koran.’’

‘‘Instead of exciting software

enterpreneurship, young graduates can

worship at my mosque.’’

‘‘Instead of implement paradigm shifting

ideas, all nerds grow beards or wear burqas.’’

‘‘This I choose for you, proud American,

please be happy. Okie dokie? Ha ha ha ha...’’

MTC–00004582

From: Lonnie Rolland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 2:46pm

Subject: doj settlement

Sir:

I honestly think ( and there is plenty of

proof to back it up ) that Microsoft is ‘killing’

off many, many nitch markets in the

computer industry. You could see it 5 years

ago. You can see it even better today. Is

justice blind ? ( or corrupted ? ) There is a

whole army of extremely un-happy

programmer wanting to do something about

this. Fix the problem now. Do we really need

‘democrats’ back in the public office in order

to fix the glaring wrongs. Prove me wrong !

Disgusted,

Lonnie Rolland

CC:letters@latimes.com@inetgw

MTC–00004583

From: George Beekman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 3:04pm

Subject: antitrust settlement

DOJ,

I’m writing to express my shock and

dismay concerning the settlement proposed

by the Bush administration in the Microsoft

antitrust case. The proposed settlement has

several serious shortcomings:

1. It does not punish the company for its

illegal activities

2. It does little to prevent future illegal

activities

3. It essentially rewards the company for

its abuse of power

4. It effectively increases the company’s

market share, strengthening its monopoly

position.

For a settlement to be fair, it must:

* make it easier for competitors (AOL,

Apple, Sun, Oracle, and others) to penetrate

markets that Microsoft dominates

* make it harder for Microsoft to abuse its

monopoly status.

* discourage other companies for engaging

in illegal monopolistic practices.

The current settlement proposal isn’t

justice. Our government must do more to

bring Microsoft to justice.

Sincerely,

George Beekman

3825 NW Hayes

Corvallis, OR 97330

MTC–00004584

From: lifedata@vol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 3:11pm

Subject: Comments on Microsoft Anti Trust

Case

To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney.

People knowledgable in computer

technology and unbiased by connections

with Microsoft know and declare the

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24545

obvious. Microsoft has used its enormous

financial power to crush smaller competitors.

In the process it has stifled the innovation

typical of those lean operators whose bottom

line depended on truly ‘‘doing it better,’’

rather than on massive advertising

campaigns.

The findings that Microsoft is in violation

supports the voices thus speaking out. It does

not intimate the damage to private enterprise

when they disappeared, one after the other

nor the enormous loss of the technology

these innovators had been contributing.

Security is but one example. The loss of

billions of industry dollars when hackers

attack through the myriad, continuing,

security leaks in Windows software is

unnecessary. Far better security is available

in other systems. Microsoft callously ignores

this.

Remedies should be commensurate with

the massive culpability of Microsoft. Serious

penalties and corrective measures are in

order. As should be expected, current

proposals, written by Microsoft itself,

actually enhance their monopoly, and

deepen the technological loss to the

American people. The posturing of

Microsoft’s legal cadre notwithstanding,

breaking up Microsoft, therefore their

monopoly, is step in the right direction. Such

breakups in the past have proven to give

birth to many new technologies.

Further, because of their immense power:

1. Microsoft should be prevented from

forcing their system to be installed on any

new machine whether by old or new

schemes. Schemes designed to bypass this

intent by ‘‘creative’’ pricing or clever

wording should be flatly prohibited.

2. Microsoft should be ordered to make

their system APIs available in full to all

software developers equally. That is, they

should not charge more or license less to a

competitor than to a partner.

3. Microsoft should be ordered to make all

their networking standards public, therefore

prevented from secretly making competing

browsers disfunctional.

Sincerely,

James P. Lalone

9835 Standifer Gap Rd

Ooltewah, TN 37363

MTC–00004585

From: ROBERT REMINGTON

To: Microsoft ATR,rremington

@webtv.net@inetgw,mcarona@...

Date: 12/15/01 4:26pm

Subject: Financial News 12/15/2001

Business & Financial News from 11/1/2001

to 12/15/2001

Houston based Enron Corporation lays out

the plan for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The

failed Azurix water unit and wind energy

assets may be sold for $4-$6 billion dollars.

Other assets as the energy trading unit may

be sold to one of three financial bidders

including JP Morgan Chase, Citicorp, two of

the largest Enron creditors, or UBS Warburg.

Enron employee 401K pension funds were

vested in Enron stock, now virtually

worthless! Enron’s total bank debt, including

bonds and derivatives is about $15 billion.

Accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s CEO has

been quoted as saying that Enron did not

disclose subsidiary company information to

Andersen, a felony violation of SEC

regulations. Enron hid negative balance sheet

information through affiliated

companies.Total value of failed Enron

Corporation is over $60 billion dollars,

including stock and preferred shareholders

values.

The Microsoft Anti-Trust Deal is under

bipartisan fire in Congess. The Senate

Judiciary committee has been overseeing the

Justice Department’s proposed deal, with

nine states still pressing for tougher terms.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. has received an

antitrust lawsuit from 29 states. The

attorneys general alleged that the Company

illegally kept generic versions of its BuSpar

anxiety medication off the market, cheating

consumers out of millions of of dollars.

Prudential Financial launched the largest

IPO ever in the insurance business, selling $3

billion dollars of stock to investors.

AOL Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin

announces his retirement from the Company,

effective May 2002, the earliest date his

employment contract offered.

Vivendi-Universal executive Edgar

Bronfman, from the Seagrams family, resigns

the number two position at the media

conglomerate. French based Vivendi retains

Jean-Marie Messier as CEO.

Barry Diller, of USA Networks and the

Home Shopping Channel has been named

chief executive of Universal Studios,

overseeing all theme parks, television, and

motion picture operations. The huge music &

publishing division of Universal will remain

under separate management. VivendiUniversal has announced a financial

partnership with Echostar /DirecTV in the

range of $1.5 billion dollars. The strategic

partnership is designed to provide content

for HDTV and traditional satellite

subscription broadcasts.

The Federal Reserve Bank reduces the

prime rate for the 11th time this year.

Hollywood studios and directors agreed

this week on a new three year contract six

months earlier than the deadline in May

2002. Run away productions to foreign

countries has been one of the major issues in

resolving conflicts early.

Major League Baseball places contraction

on hold until 2003. Speculation from many

general managers is based on elimination of

collective bargaining and other labor/salary

issues wrapped up in a smokescreen of talks

regarding team elimination.

‘‘Anaheim Angels’ Done Deal

Disintegrates’’. Headlines from the Orange

County Register detail Disney executives

nixing a negotiated trade with the Chicago

White Sox involving Angel Darin Erstad and

the Sox’ Garland, Singleton, & two minor

league players.

ABC & AOL Sports purchase 6 year rights

to broadcast the NBA, winning the bid from

NBC.

NBC announces the elimination of

broadcast advertising bans on hard liquor

commercials, allowing Smirnoff vodka and

other Diageo brand to advertise on the

peacock network from 9–11 PM and on the

Tonight Show with Jay Leno & Saturday

Night Live. ABC, CBS, & FOX networks will

allow only beer and wine advertisements at

this time.

MTC–00004586

From: Lou Owens

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 4:34pm

Subject: microsoft

Quit wasting tax dollars trying to punish

Microsoft for exercising free enterprise. This

country is a capitalistic society and free

enterprise is one of the core principles.

I run a small business and no one is

wasting tax dollars to limit my competition.

The market decides if I am providing

products and services at the right price and

quality.

Lou Owens

MTC–00004587

From: Ray Ashmun

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 5:09pm

Subject: settle

You need to keep asking yourself, where is

the consumer outcry about Microsoft. There

isn’t much, because most people are very

happy with the current situation. I’m an oldtime pc user and remember how things were

before Windows. It cost us a fortune in

money and work to get the necessary utilities

up and running in our computers. Now we

save time and money with almost everything

in Windows. I don’t want to go back to the

old days and I will continue to purchase

Microsoft products for as long as they are

available. It is disgusting to me that you have

allowed competitors who are unable to

develop decent products to convince you that

everything will be better as soon as you

cripple Microsoft. The entire PC revolution

would be much farther behind where it is

today if it hadn’t been for Microsoft. Most if

us chose Microsoft when given the chance,

and will continue to do so for the foreseeable

future.

Leave things alone and settle this court

case now.

Ray Ashmun

MTC–00004588

From: lmuntz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 5:46pm

Subject: Microsoft attitude toward

intellectual property

I am a doctoral candidate in English at the

University of Iowa and serve as a teaching

assistant at UI and at Mt. Mercy College in

Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The temptation that

essay-for-sale-or-trade websites offer to

undergrads is quite strong and offers a

constant battle for those of us who wish to

prevent plagiarism and teach our students

how to perform rigorous, honest intellectual

work. The publication of the following article

on Microsoft’s website Slate undermines

such attempts. For a corporation that portrays

itself as concerned about intellectual

property rights and about making the Internet

a learning tool for students, the promulgation

of such an article on-line by MSN indicates

at the least a faulty editorial policy and at

most an arrogance about or negligence in

enacting the corporation’s policies and

missions, in my opinion.

I appreciate having this venue by which to

comment.

Lori Muntz

24546 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Original Message From <lorimuntz@uiowa.edu> shopping

Adventures in Cheating

A guide to buying term papers online.

By Seth Stevenson

Posted Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at

11:04 AM PT

Illustration by Nina Frenkel Students, your

semester is almost over. This fall, did you

find yourself pulling many bong hits but few

all-nighters? Absorbing much Schlitz but

little Nietzsche? Attending Arizona State

University? If the answer is yes to any or

(especially) all these questions, you will no

doubt be plagiarizing your term papers. Good

for you—we’re all short on time these days.

Yes, it’s ethically blah blah blah to cheat on

a term paper blah. The question is: How do

you do it right? For example, the chump

move is to find some library book and copy

big hunks out of it. No good: You still have

to walk to the library, find a decent book, and

link the hunks together with your own awful

prose. Instead, why not just click on a term

paper Web site and buy the whole damn

paper already written by some smart dude?

Que bella! Ah, but which site?

I shopped at several online term paper

stores to determine where best to spend your

cheating dollar. After selecting papers on

topics in history, psychology, and biology, I

had each paper graded by one of my judges.

These were: Slate writer David Greenberg,

who teaches history at Columbia; my dad,

who teaches psychology at the University of

Rhode Island (sometimes smeared as the

ASU of the East); and my girlfriend, who was

a teaching assistant in biology at Duke (where

she says cheating was quite common). So,

which site wins for the best combination of

price and paper quality? I compared free

sites, sites that sell ‘‘pre-written papers,’’ and

a site that writes custom papers to your

specifications.

Free Sites

A quick Web search turns up dozens of

sites filled with free term papers. Some ask

you to donate one of your own papers in

exchange, but most don’t. I chose one from

each of our fields for comparison and soon

found that when it comes to free papers, you

get just about what you pay for.

EssaysFree.com: From this site I chose a

history paper titled ‘‘The Infamous Watergate

Scandal.’’ Bad choice. This paper had no

thesis, no argument, random capitalization,

and bizarre spell-checking errors-including

‘‘taking the whiteness stand’’ (witness) and

‘‘the registration of Nixon’’ (resignation). My

judge said if they gave F’s at Columbia, well

Instead, it gots a good old ‘‘Please come see

me.’’

BigNerds.com: Of the free bio paper I chose

from this site, my judge said, ‘‘Disturbing. I

am still disturbed.’’ It indeed read less like

a term paper than a deranged manifesto.

Rambling for 11 single-spaced pages and

ostensibly on evolutionary theory, it

somehow made reference to Lamarck, Sol

Invictus, and ‘‘the blanket of a superficial

American Dream.’’ Meanwhile, it garbled its

basic explanation of population genetics.

Grade: ‘‘I would not give this a grade so

much as suggest tutoring, a change in majors,

some sort of counseling .’’

OPPapers.com: This site fared much better.

A paper titled ‘‘Critically Evaluate Erikson’s

Psychosocial Theory’’ spelled Erikson’s name

wrong in the first sentence, yet still won a

C+/B¥ from my dad. It hit most of the

important points-the problem was no

analysis. And the citations all came from

textbooks, not real sources. Oddly, this paper

also used British spellings (‘‘behaviour’’) for

no apparent reason. But all in all not terrible,

considering it was free. OPPapers.com,

purely on style points, was my favorite site.

The name comes from an old hip-hop song

(‘‘You down with O–P–P?’’ meaning other

people’s ... genitalia), the site has pictures of

coed babes, and one paper in the psych

section was simply the phrase ‘‘I wanna bang

Angelina Jolie’’ typed over and over again for

several pages. Hey, whaddaya want for free?

Sites Selling Pre-Written Papers

There are dozens of these—I narrowed it

down to three sites that seemed fairly

reputable and were stocked with a wide

selection. (In general, the selection offered on

pay sites was 10 times bigger than at the free

ones.) Each pay site posted clear disclaimers

that you’re not to pass off these papers as

your own work. Sure you’re not.

AcademicTermPapers.com: This site

charged $7 per page, and I ordered ‘‘The

Paranoia Behind Watergate’’ for $35. Well

worth it. My history judge gave it the highest

grade of all the papers he saw—a B or maybe

even a B+. Why? It boasted an actual

argument. A few passages, however, might

set off his plagiarism radar (or ‘‘pladar’’).

They show almost too thorough a command

of the literature.

My other purchase here was a $49 bio

paper titled ‘‘The Species Concept.’’ Despite

appearing in the bio section of the site, this

paper seemed to be for a philosophy class. Of

course, no way to know that until after

you’ve bought it (the pay sites give you just

the title and a very brief synopsis of each

paper). My judge would grade this a C¥in an

intro bio class, as its conclusion was ‘‘utterly

meaningless,’’ and it tossed around ‘‘airy’’

philosophies without actually understanding

the species concept at all.

Illustration by Nina Frenkel

PaperStore.net: For about $10 per page, I

ordered two papers from the Paper Store,

which is also BuyPapers.com and

AllPapers.com. For $50.23, I bought

‘‘Personality Theory: Freud and Erikson,’’ by

one Dr. P. McCabe (the only credited author

on any of these papers. As best I can tell, the

global stock of papers for sale is mostly

actual undergrad stuff with a few items by

hired guns thrown in). The writing style here

was oddly mixed, with bad paraphrasing of

textbooks—which is normal for a freshman—

side by side with surprisingly clever and

polished observations. Grade: a solid B.

My other Paper Store paper was ‘‘Typical

Assumptions of Kin Selection,’’ bought for

$40.38. Again, a pretty good buy. It was wellwritten, accurate, and occasionally even

thoughtful. My bio judge would give it a B

in a freshman class. Possible pladar ping: The

writer seemed to imply that some of his ideas

stemmed from a personal chat with a noted

biologist. But overall, the Paper Store earned

its pay.

A1Termpaper.com (aka 1–800–

Termpaper.com): In some ways this is the

strangest site, as most of the papers for sale

were written between 1978 and ’83. I would

guess this is an old term paper source, which

has recently made the jump to the Web. From

its history section, I bought a book report on

Garry Wills’ Nixon Agonistes for $44.75, plus

a $7.45 fee for scanning all the pages—the

paper was written in 1981, no doubt on a

typewriter. Quality? It understood the book

but made no critique—a high-school paper.

My judge would give it a D.

I next bought ‘‘Personality as Seen by

Erikson, Mead, and Freud’’ from A1

Termpaper for $62.65 plus a $10.43 scanning

fee. Also written in 1981, this one had the

most stylish prose of any psych paper and

the most sophisticated thesis, but it was

riddled with factual errors. For instance, it

got Freud’s psychosexual stages completely

mixed up and even added some that don’t

exist (the correct progression is oral-analphallic-latency-genital, as if you didn’t

know). Showing its age, it cited a textbook

from 1968 and nothing from after ’69 (and no,

that’s not another Freudian stage, guttermind). Grade: Dad gave it a C+. In the end,

A1 Termpaper.com was pricey, outdated, and

not a good buy.

With all these pre-written papers, though,

it occurred to me that a smart but horribly

lazy student could choose to put his effort

into editing instead of researching and

writing: Buy a mediocre paper that’s done the

legwork, then whip it into shape by

improving the writing and adding some

carefully chosen details. Not a bad strategy.

Papers Made To Order

PaperMasters.com: My final buy was a

custom-made paper written to my

specifications. Lots of sites do this, for

between $17 and $20 per page.

PaperMasters.com claims all its writers have

‘‘at least one Master’s Degree’’ and charges

$17.95 per page. I typed this request (posing

as a professor’s assignment, copied verbatim)

into its Web order form: ‘‘A 4-page term

paper on David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest.

Investigate the semiotics of the ‘addicted

gaze’ as represented by the mysterious film

of the book’s title. Possible topics to address

include nihilism, figurative transgendering,

the culture of entertainment, and the concept

of ‘infinite gestation.’ ’’ This assignment was

total hooey. It made no sense whatsoever. Yet

it differed little from papers I was assigned

as an undergrad English major at Brown.

After a few tries (one woman at the 800

number told me they were extremely busy),

my assignment was accepted by Paper

Masters, with a deadline for one week later.

Keep in mind, Infinite Jest is an 1,100-page

novel (including byzantine footnotes), and it

took me almost a month to read even though

I was completely engrossed by it. In short,

there’s no way anyone could 1) finish the

book in time; and 2) write anything coherent

that addressed the assignment. I began to feel

guilty. Some poor writer somewhere was

plowing through this tome, then concocting

a meaningless mishmash of words simply to

fill four pages and satisfy the bizarre whims

of a solitary, heartless taskmaster (me). But

then I realized this is exactly what I did for

all four years of college—and I paid them for

the privilege!

When the custom paper came back, it was

all I’d dreamed. Representative sentence:

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24547

‘‘The novel’s diverse characters demonstrate

both individually and collectively the

fixations and obsessions that bind humanity

to the pitfalls of reality and provide a fertile

groundwork for the semiotic explanation of

addictive behavior.’’ Tripe. The paper had no

thesis and in fact had no body—not one

sentence actually advanced a cogent idea. I’m

guessing it would have gotten a C+ at Brownmaybe even a B¥. (Click here to read the rest

of the paper.) If I were a just slightly lesser

person, I might be tempted by this service.

One custom paper off the Web: $71.80. Not

having to dredge up pointless poppycock for

some po-mo obsessed, overrated lit-crit

professor: priceless.

sidebar

Return to article

Infinite Jest

Introduction

Wallace’s fictional narrative Infinite Jest is

an epic approach to the solicitous and

addictive nature of humanity. The novel’s

diverse characters demonstrate both

individually and collectively the fixations

and obsessions that bind humanity to the

pitfalls of reality and provide a fertile

groundwork for the semiotic explanation of

addictive behavior. Although Wallace may

have actualized the concept of the ‘‘addicted

gaze’’ to the literal or physical response to

the viewing of Incandenza’s coveted film the

Entertainment [Infinite Jest], it is manifested

symbolically throughout the novel in the

distractions of its characters.

Nihilism

It would appear that Wallace has chosen

society’s most frequently rejected and

denounced individuals as the vehicle for the

narrative search for and preservation of the

ultimate fix, which is illustrated by the

obsession for Incandenza’s film. At the same

time and despite their diversity and

distinctions, these individuals will

ultimately represent the inextricable and

covert characteristics of nihilistic behavior.

School-aged malcontents, drug addicts and

the physically challenged all attempt to get

a hold of a copy of the film and experience

its pleasures at any cost. Ironically, it was the

film maker James Incadenza’s habit to

regularly observe the depravation of Boston’s

crowded street milieus, where ‘‘everyone

goes nuts and mills, either switching or

watching’’ (620). It is not surprising therefore

that he should develop a film that would be

perceived as the panacea to the

entertainment addictions of the masses.

Figurative Transgendering

Wallace devotes a substantial amount of

space to the illustration of the contradictions

of gender, where the adoption of gender

behavior or symbols contrary to the

character’s true gender can be analyzed. The

occasion of Hugh Steeply in drag as he met

with Marathe to discuss the emergence of the

Entertainment’s cartridge may have served

the literal purpose of the agent arriving

incognito however his devotion to applying

feminine mannerisms appear to go above and

beyond the call of duty (90). In spite of his

practice, Marathe nevertheless describes

Steely’s appearance as ‘‘less like a women

than a twisted parody of womanhood’’ (93).

Wallace also presents the steroid-driven

objectives of a number of the female tennis

player’s like Ann Kittenplan. ‘‘who at twelveand-a-have looks like a Belorussian shot

putter’’ (330). It may be fair to assume that

their desire to acquire a manly physique is

not entirely confined to the advantages it

offers on the tennis court. In his notes,

Wallace suggests that the ‘‘gratification of

pretty much every physical need is either

taken care of or prohibited’’ by the tennis

academy (984). Clearly, the administration of

steroids or any other drug of choice is

prohibited by the ETA considering the wide

scale purchase of ‘‘clean’’ urine for the

academy’s drug testing.

An Endless Jest

Perhaps the most significant example of

the addicted gaze is demonstrated not so

much in the stationary and fixated attention

to satisfying one’s obsession but in the

demand for the continuous pursuit of it. The

halfway house/rehab center, Ennet House,

represents the often ineffectual and

delusional pursuit of ridding oneself of

addiction. A clear example of the deceptive

environment of rehab is demonstrated by

Lenz’s use of cocaine while at the facility.

For many of the residents like Lenz, the

limitations at Ennet House are often so

unbearable that its residents are driven to the

use of drugs in order to preserve their sanity.

Ironically, Lenz’s stash of cocaine works as

a contrived temptation that undermines any

true potential for ridding himself of his

addiction.

Conclusion

Wallace’s Infinite Jest is a chaotic amalgam

of humanity and the similarly depraved

behaviors that they demonstrate in the

pursuit of amusement and satisfaction.

Although the restrictions to their attainment

are clearly represented by the physical

entities of the Academy, the Ennet House and

the wheelchair, they are also fostered by

them.

If Incandenza’s ‘‘Accomplice’’ is any

indication of the content of the

Entertainment, it only reinforces the

contention that human nature includes the

inherent desire to not only view the

depravity and debauchery of human behavior

but even more, to participate in it. There is

little to ponder why so many of Wallace’s

characters must depend on their mind and

body altering drugs of choice, if not to

influence how they are viewed by others then

at the very least to make more palatable their

own perceptions of self.

John L.’s monologue delivered at one of the

AA meetings illustrates the destructive

implications of either reasoning: ‘‘all the

masks come off and you all of a sudden see

the Disease as it really is??and see what owns

you, what’s become what you are—’’ (347).

References

Nihilism. The Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. [online] Available: http://

www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm.

Wallace, David Foster. Infinite Jest. New

York: Little, Brown & Co., 1996. for future

reference

MTC–00004589

From: Todd Chilson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 6:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Monopoly

Hi,

In regards to the attached email, my

thoughts are as follows. I think Microsoft

winning (winning in my definition meaning

slaps on the hand being irrelevant...) is very

disheartening. The reason it is disheartening

is because it sends the message that our own

government is not really in control, nor has

the actual ability and/or care to note and

control such behavior. If you will notice that

Microsoft is using the ‘‘loss’’ to market there

own products yet again. And once again, our

judges and government officials just aren’t

bright or competent enough to see through

these things.

On another note, I make a living

supporting NT and Unix networks and I am

currently using MS products to send you this

message. I would like to see sensible cases

and sensible reprimands. Companies like

Novell and Sun that do not really ‘‘compete’’

with MS and then sue is a little ridiculous

as well. Novell just sat there and watched the

giant come without really trying to compete.

Sun has never targeted the home user or even

the low end server market, yet the complain

about MS? We need research, relevant facts,

and accurate penalties. I actually don’t hate

MS. I hate a system that allows companies

like MS to do whatever they want with

nothing more than a inconvenience or the

ability to turn their ‘‘punishments’’ into

‘‘advantages.’’

Thank you,

Todd Chilson

P.S. In all sympathy to government

officials, I know they have a very hard job

and they are doing the best they can with

enlightening counter-arguments to my

position. I believe in them equally, but this

is my opinion as it stands today.

MTC–00004590

From: Ron

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 8:18pm

Subject: Microsoft case

I personally don’t see how consumers have

been harmed by any of the so-called actions

of Microsoft. In fact, consumers have

benefited. Microsoft has bundled other

products into the operating system so the

consumer doesn’t have to buy them

separately. This is a win for the consumer.

There is no consumer or consumer group that

can say this is not a benefit to them. Where

can you get an operating system which comes

with audio and video editing capabilities, CD

writing capabilities, and built-in networking,

for $100 (or less). You can’t. Check the price

of Novel’s operating system, or Sun’s

operating system. They cost much more.

It is obvious that this case has been

spearheaded by Netscape. Netscape

originally gave their browser away for free to

flood the market. Microsoft has been accused

of this too, but Netscape did it first.

Unfortunately for Netscape they did not have

the capital to hold them over while they gave

away a free product. Microsoft came along

with their own browser, and late in the game

I might add. After several revisions,

Microsoft’s browser became superior to

Netscape’s browser. Netscape buried

themselves, Microsoft didn’t bury them.

Ronald Listo

24548 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

11006 Old Cheshire Lane

Chester, VA 23831

MTC–00004591

From: Karl Vogel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 8:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Attn: Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530–0001

Greetings:

The proposed Microsoft settlement

language lets the company off far too easily.

If the deal goes through without

modification, I believe Microsoft will

actually become stronger and better able to

act as an industry monopoly.

As I understand the proposed final

judgment, remedies specifically protect

organizations in business for profit. This is

fine as far as it goes, but Microsoft’s greatest

current threats come from the noncommercial arena: Linux-based systems on

the operating system front, the Apache

webserver on the IIS-alternative front, and

the Gnome and KDE GUI packages on the

desktop front. These three competitors are all

not-for-profit in nature, and not-for-profit

organizations seem to have no rights at all

under the proposed settlement.

Section III(J)(2) says that it need not

describe nor license API, Documentation, or

Communications Protocols affecting

authentication and authorization to

companies that don’t meet Microsoft’s

criteria as a business:

‘‘...(c) meets reasonable, objective

standards established by Microsoft for

certifying the authenticity and viability of its

business, ...’’ In other words, Microsoft can

now effectively kill any not-for-profit product

which makes use of Microsoft protocols,

which doesn’t amount to much in the way of

punishment for precisely that sort of past

behavior. The biggest loser in this settlement

would seem to be the U.S. government, as it

also doesn’t qualify as a for-profit

organization. This includes your office, the

military, and anyone else working for the

government who might benefit from some

real competition. Finally, nothing in this

proposal would prevent a future Microsoft

monopoly based on .NET and HailStorm.

Recommendations:

* People should be able to create

independent implementations of Microsoft

APIs without fear of legal retaliation. This is

the only way that other organizations can

hope to make their products work and play

nicely together with MS products on an MS

desktop.

* Instead of auctioning the right to port

Office to specific systems, or forcing them to

give up code for IIS, simply require that MS

Office work properly when installed and run

under the ‘‘Wine’’ emulator for Intel-based

systems. This prevents MS from making a

product dependent on undocumented

Windows features, without hobbling them or

making them give up their corporate crown

jewels.

http://www.kegel.com/remedy.html holds

more specific language changes for the

proposed final judgment.

Please rethink this. You can get a very clear

picture of a company just by watching what

they’re willing to do to get the last 5% of a

market. If Microsoft had been willing to settle

for 85% of the desktop, do you think this

trial would have happened in the first place?

Winning is one thing, but winning by any

means necessary is another. Thank you for

your time.

Karl Vogel

Wright-Patterson AFB

Beavercreek, OH

MTC–00004592

From: Dave Gant

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 9:48pm

Subject: MS Settlement

I think it’s utterly ridiculous to reward a

monopolist entity that has proven time and

again to have no respect for morality, fair

play, or even the law. If the DOJ cannot see

that the placement of one’s product in an

institution for education is a huge benefit, I

have honest concerns about the competence

of the government to deal with these matters

in today’s world. If this settlement goes

through, it will send the message to

businesses that fair competition and business

ethics are an optional hindrance.

Dave Gant

MTC–00004593

From: morrownr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/15/01 10:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust Case

After having read the agreement between

the USDoJ and Microsoft concerning the

settlement of the ongoing case I must say that

I feel justice will not be served by this

agreement. I have followed the small

computer software industry for many years

and I identifed what I thought to be illegal

activity by Microsoft as early as 1986. I then

watched as the years passed and the

increasingly obvious illegal activities

increased. I watched as the DoJ made a

couple of attempts to curb this illegal activity

in the early ’90’s but Microsoft totally

ignored both the letter and the intent of the

agreements they signed with the DoJ.

Microsoft has not and nor do I expect them

to show any regard for the laws of the United

States of America until far more reaching

corrective action is taken. Microsoft has

made billions by disregarding the law. The

current settlement allows them to keep it all.

This is simply not right. It is also not right

that the company be left with the same

structure that it has today. This company

must be broken up to stop the illegal activity.

A strong message needs to be send to the

business community...that the laws of the

United States will be enforced.

Regards,

Nick Morrow

MTC–00004594

From: Louis Vonderscheer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 12:09am

Subject: Comment

As an end user of computers and software

I feel I must protest the proposed settlement

of the Microsoft Case. To me it seems a small

slap on the wrist for a company that has a

virtual monopoly on both operating system

and applications.

Most executives that choose the software

for companies will pick Microsoft much as

they used to pick IBM. They are afraid of

incompatibilities when using 3rd parth

software.

Microsoft has bought their compitition, or

dried up their sales by announcing a

competing product to be released ‘‘real soon

now’’. Much software that I have used over

the years is now gone, replaced by some

‘‘kitchen sink’’ variety, bundled into the

current Windows version. Now we are stuck

with Access, Word and Excel, while old

industry standars like Paradox, Lotus and

WordPerfect are fading into obscurity. It

would be nice to have a choice in software

at least if not the OS. I like General Motors

but I want more then Chevrolet available. We

need the competition.

Thank you for your consideration

Louis A. Vonderscheer

Redding, California.

MTC–00004595

From: ROBERT REMINGTON

To: Microsoft

ATR,rremington@webtv.net@inetgw

Date: 12/16/01 2:31am

Subject: USPS Mail Tampering

During the past weeks I have been

receiving encoded messages as to the origins

of the shenanigans, hijinx, assaults, and

felonies against me while living at 62

Trofello Lane, Aliso Viejo, CA. This

supposed secure gated community at the

edge of Soka University, has operations

funded by a Mission Viejo based company,

Benchmark Funding. The tip, provided by

the local USPS carrier is only one of the

many discoveries of subversion & deception

here.

Additional stalling and funding by

Canadian based companies as well as the

entry of a ‘‘planning’’ neighbor from St. Louis

via Laguna Niguel reeks of another’s idea of

how I should live my life. Tonight’s mail

featured a card addressed to this woman’s

(Laura) three year old daughter (Brianne)

with our 62 Trofello address. Last week, my

only income, the California unemployment

check arrived after 10 business days from the

date it was mailed from Sacramento,

normally a one to two day trip even with the

9/11 security and holiday mail demands.

Someone, I believe one of the residents living

on my block, intercepted my unemployment

check for over a week, and then placed it in

a US Postal mailbox for a second routing

through the US Postal Service. I have timed

the prior receipt of this biweekly check and

have received it directly in two days from the

US Postal carrier when I wait for my mail at

home. I shouldn’t have to do this!

Apparently someone’s thinking I would

stay at home for weeks while my check was

lost, as my bank account is close to zero.

Wrong! I will continue to sell personal items

in order to live normally by searching for

employment in an area of my choice. The

Merino community in Aliso Viejo is not even

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24549

close to an area that I desire to reside in. I

want my money rightfully returned to me

without delay in order to continue living

without others dictating business for me.

This is the United States, folks. For over 35

years I have been enslaved while my money

and royalties were intentionally withheld in

order to clone a replacement musician for the

Chicago Blackhawks Hockey Team, and later,

as a ‘‘Project’’ for Canadian funded television

shows and other nonsense. Additional

royalties and revenue have been illegally

used by others without my consent, resulting

in a multi-decade fight for my rights to live

in a safe, secure community of my choice,

not another’s decision.

A strategically placed December 17, 2001

People Magazine with George Harrison on

the cover features an article by Susan

Forward titled ‘‘Ties That Bind’’ ‘‘Outraged

By Your In-Laws? Author and self-help guru

Susan Forward has some tips for easing the

strain’’. Referring to the intense abdominal

strains from the multiple poisoning by my

sister, Bonnie, her husband, Al Rex, as well

as my parents during the past year, the

People feature descries the various varieties

of poisonous in-laws with her new book,

‘‘Toxic In-Laws: Loving Strategies for

Protecting Your Marriage’’. Reciprocal

communications or assistance from the

Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the

United States Department Of Justice are less

than direct to me. An occasional feature

article by someone unknown to me may be

left in my view at the 24 Hour Sporting Club

in Irvine. Big deal, all it confirms is that

someone deliberately poisoned me, I already

knew that, as well as some of the motives for

the assaults.

Official replies or settlements after decades

of investigations and over three years of my

direct communications have yet to occur.

COX Cable, one of the media &

communications conglomerates bidding for

the $60 billion dollar assets of AT&T’s cable

communications division has been active

plotting behind the scenes. Cox Cable

provides the telephone communication at the

Merino community as well, forcing me to

choose yet another cellular provider,

Verizon, in order to obtain return calls from

employers.

Friday’s edition of the LA Times Living

section features two cartoons in the comics

pages relevant to my complaint. The first is

Real Life Adventures on page E21. The

authors, Wise & Alderich, choose to show a

couple behind a hedge with the words,

‘‘NUDIS COLON’’. The author could have

chosen the exact wording, Nudist Colony,

however the encoding is for New Disney

Colon, referring to the continued attacks and

subsequent ‘‘creative juices’’ prepared in

Tropicana Pure Premium Orange juice with

a special ‘‘White Cap’’, the company my

father retired from.

I now believe that my brother’s ‘‘spastic

colon’’ and colon surgery for Crohn’s disease

several years ago was actually caused by my

family’s intentional poisoning against him,

without his knowledge of the origins of the

attacks. Barry is intelligent and has clued me

into my mother’s subversive personality in

his jewelry business years ago. It has taken

me longer, unfortunately, to believe that

parents could be so cruel! The discoveries of

the chronic Muenchausens Proxy and ‘‘Toxic

In-Laws’’ Syndromes proven frequently with

attacks from my parents, sister, and her inlaws. I belive my mother’s brother, Allan, an

insurance agent, has interfered with my

money. Allan’s mysterious disappearance

overseas on cruise ships coincides with

‘‘Disney done deals that disintegrate’’ and

other fizzled plots.

Above the Real Life Adventure is the Over

The Hedge comic. This comic has been

mentioned in several of my previous US

Justice communications. This entire week

has been devoted to the theft of $30 million

dollars by the ‘‘mastermind’’ critter against

the ‘‘turtle’’ character through credit card

fraud. The settlement occurs in Saturday’s

edition when an African credit card is used

to pay off the debts incurred. This cartoon is

close to the truth, folks!

I am requesting your immediate attention

to my complaints! This situation is degrading

daily and will result in EXTREMELY

UNPREDICTABLE BEHAVIOR if my money

is not returned to me immediately. I have

waited for over 15 years and have informed

the US Department of Justice regarding the

truth in the deceptive business and theft of

my money and assets. I deserve the

opportunity to live my life in security and

peace, away from my family’s continued

attacks and interference! There is adequate

comfortable safe housing available in other

areas! You know it, and so do I.

DO IT NOW !!

DO NOT DELAY THIS ANY MORE !!

Robert Remington

MTC–00004596

From: Ryan Johnson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 3:34am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Dept. of Justice,

I am concerned about the anti-trust

settlement with Microsoft. It is clear that

Microsoft is guilty of antitrust violations.

Although I am not an expert, I have been

keeping up with the case and would like to

express my concern with the way that the

agreement addresses open source software

and other access to the API’s associated with

Windows. It seems clear to me that the power

Windows holds over the market is much

more than a coupled browser, but the way

that Microsoft can leverage that monopoly to

increase the barriers to entry of other

software makers into producing software for

Windows.

Section III(J)(2) and Section III(D) both

contain language that could damage free

software and other enterprises that Microsoft

does not consider a business. Since programs

like Apache and Linux make a huge

difference in the server market, and

consequently the internet, this language

essentially gives Microsoft the keys to the

gate regulating the connection of PC’s with

internet servers. Additionally, since these

programs are maintained by large

communities of people not formed into a

legal entity, they have little way to legally

fight Microsoft if Microsoft decides they are

not worthy of the API’s necessary to interface

with Windows.

This language would also hurt the

government, NASA and any other non-profit

scientific or other organization that would

like to interface with Windows. Please look

at this area further and do not give the

company a chance to strengthen it’s position

in the market. Additionally, it does not seem

like the agreement provides enough

penalities to the company for it’s

monopolisitic actions. Microsoft should not

be stopped from competing fairly in the

marketplace, but they should be given a new

way to strengthen their position either. It is

not enough just to make it available to

remove coupled programs or to change

certain features. The benchmark should be

whether or not the average computer user is

able to make that choice when they buy their

computer. As one last point, I would like to

advocate the selection of Steve Satchell as a

member of the three member watchdog

committee over Microsoft. Robert X. Cringley

has recommended him highly and I have

learned to trust Mr. Cringley’s opinion after

having read his column for a long time.

Sincerely,

Ryan C. Johnson

Los Gatos, CA

MTC–00004597

From: Alex Johnson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 3:48am

Subject: DOJ v. Microsoft comments

Below are my comments regarding the

conclusion of the US v. Microsoft trial, in

accordance with the public comment period.

I hope they are considered in the resolution

of this case:

I have followed the trial very closely, and

am most disappointed with the resolution

proposed. I do not feel as though Microsoft

has respected the court at any stage of it’s

trial, and has acted with distain toward our

entire system. Furthermore, I feel as though

the Attorney General after the change in the

administration has pursued this issue with

less vigor than is appropriate for a case with

such far-reaching implications. I hope that

the Court again finds against Microsoft, a

company that does not respect it’s customers,

competitors, or the legal system. Please

punish Microsoft in a way that will make it

take notice, and that will help competition.

I’m very concerned that favorite technologies

such as Quicktime and Java will be knocked

out using the same unfair Microsoft practices

that already cost consumers innovative

products like Netscape, and has hurt the

adoption of the Macintosh OS.

Thank you for your consideration.

Alex Johnson

3438 Vista Ave

Cincinnati, OH 45208

MTC–00004598

From: Dan Cannon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 8:31am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Other than some vague language about

‘‘harming consumers’’, I could find no

specific statements in the complaint that

clearly defines what the damage has been to

consumers. The complaint itself clearly

focuses on competing products and

24550 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Microsoft’s competitors. While not

specifically mentioned in the complaint,

anyone familiar with computer industry

knows who these competitors are. It is clear

this complaint was fostered by these

competitors and not by consumers.

From a consumer’s (and industry

participant’s) viewpoint, the complaint

seems like a contradiction in that producing

affordable software requires a ubiquitous

platform and re-useable infrastructure, but a

ubiquitous platform and re-useable

infrastructure(according to the complaint)

somehow equates to a monopoly. In addition,

moving functionality down into the platform

has always been a way of achieving reusability and thus reducing software

development cost. Microsoft’s competitors

understand these basic tenets and are coming

up with alternatives to achieve ubiquity; they

just don’t do it as well and efficiently as

Microsoft—yet.

I had a vision of what our world would

look like when I started out in the computer

industry some 30 years ago. Microsoft has

done more to advance that vision by making

it possible for the masses to afford computing

devices. We are still in the vision’s infancy.

The evolutionary process will continue to

weave exciting new capabilities into the

consumer’s daily processes. Microsoft

understands this and is aggressively bringing

these new capabilities to the masses. They

are also empowering many whole industries

and individuals to take advantage of exciting

new opportunities.

I would suggest our government send a

loud message that reaching any vision is not

accomplished by filing complaints, but

instead by innovation and hard work. From

a consumer’s viewpoint we are punishing

success; exactly the wrong message we

should be sending. Tell the computing

industry (and all other sectors) to focus less

on fostering legal action and more on

building competing platforms, providing reuseable infrastructure, achieving ubiquity,

and ultimately providing markets with costeffectiveness solutions to process

improvement.

Dan Cannon

xiggi@hotmail.com

MTC–00004599

From: Steven Zaveloff

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 9:48am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Ms.Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney

Suite 1200

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Ms. Hesse:

I am writing regarding the proposed

settlement of the Microsoft antitrust

litigation.

I believe that the proposed settlement is a

travesty of justice. Its effect will be to make

it even easier for Microsoft to make its

operating systems even more pervasive and

its monopoly position more secure—with a

tax write-off to boot.

Yours truly,

Steven H. Zaveloff zaveloff@earthlink.net

P.O. Box 200203 Tel: (512)219–7142

Austin, Texas 78720–0203 Fax: (707)988–

8694

http://www.foreignword.com/cv/

document_353.htm

MTC–00004600

From: Zach Arnold, JMaD

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 12:19pm

Subject: Microsoft

To whom it may concern:

I am of the opinion that the proposed

Microsoft antitrust settlement is a sham. It

would not promote competition in any way.

Microsoft, which has been found to be guilty

on numerous occasions, does not deserve

such a blatant concession by the federal

government.

Zach Arnold

zacharnold@excite.com

‘‘If you’re not going to be better tomorrow

than you were today, what need have you for

tomorrow?’’

Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav

MTC–00004601

From: Robert Constant

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 12:42pm

Subject: AntiTrust Settlement

The case should be settled. Microsoft

wants to settle the case and now the States

are are holding up the process with more

demands. The States that are holding out are

of course the States that have Competitors to

Microsoft. Hopefully this is not a case of

Competitors basically trying to get want they

want from Microsoft by USING the

Goverment. I believe that what the goverment

has put forth. It is not up to the goverment

to try and make a competive arena. Punish

the Micorsoft for its behavior, not make its

competitors get a free ride or even to playing

field for them.

MTC–00004602

From: Ryan, Randy

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/16/01 1:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Case

I work in public education and experience

Microsoft everyday. While I feel that they are

somewhat over-zealous in grabbing every

penny they can from all users of their

software, it still is the only way to fly.

There are other solutions we could use, but

truthfully, Microsoft has a very good and

stable product. I think that this is because of

the resources they have and if they don’t

protect their position in the marketplace,

then all computer users will suffer.

Don’t tear apart the best thing for

computers, but don’t let them just run

roughshod over us either. I trust that the DOJ

will make the correct decision as long as the

justices in question keep an open mind and

take in both sides of the case....the consumer

and the company.

Thanks for the opportunity to air my

position.

Randy Ryan

Marble Falls, Texas

MTC–00004603

From: Mike Westkamper

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 12:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I strongly disagree with the settlement that

has been publicly touted in this case. From

my perspective as a business person in this

industry, Microsoft has destroyed

competition, stifled creativity and has

exposed this country to irreparable harm.

The arrogance shown by this monopoly and

defiance of the law coupled with products

which expose us to significant harm are a

direct result of their apparent invulnerability.

The settlement is a coup for Microsoft. It

provides junk computers and Microsoft

software to kids. A marketing win for them.

Nowhere do those who were harmed see

compensation or recognition.

I hold that Microsoft should be made

accountable to those who claim harm from

their manipulation of the market as a

monopoly. Further, Microsoft should be

made to compensate those who have been

harmed by the poor software allowing

hackers to infect their sites.

I would gladly offer additional comments

if you would like another voice in the chorus.

Mike Westkamper

President, WEI Inc.

CC: Connecticut Attorney General,Mike

Westkamper

MTC–00004604

From: Starr81

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 1:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I found on the Internet that citizens may

comment on the proposed settlement of the

Microsoft case. Therefore, I offer these

thoughts: The proposed settlement is a

travesty. It is the desired product of a clever

defendant who has found a prosecutor eager

to throw Br’er Rabbit back in the briar patch.

The settlement fails to honor the verdict of

the trial court and the unanimous conclusion

of appellate judges. It even defies common

sense, because it leaves a monopolist in

undisturbed control of the market. PC

shoppers will continue to find no choice but

machines in which Microsoft’s operating

system has already been installed. (Apple

doesn’t count, because it has a miniscule and

declining percentage of the market.)

Pre-installation of the operating system

means the consumer cannot know what is

being paid for Windows, and what the price

would be if the computer came with no

operating system or an alternative system.

Worse, it effectively defines other software

options, leveraging Microsoft’s power. The

only answer is a remedy that prevents

Microsoft from preventing consumers from

making an informed choice. The consumer

must be offered a true choice. This requires

two things. First, that Windows be ‘‘unbundled,’’ so that computers be offered and

priced on the basis of all of these options:

with no operating system included, with a

sysem such as Linux, and with the buyer’s

choice of Windows ME, 98SE, 2000 or XP.

(The latter choice is necessary to prevent

Microsoft from forcing consumers to accept

Windows XP’s special ‘‘hooks’’ that will lead

to control of software application markets

Microsoft doesn’t already dominate.)

Second, Microsoft must be forced to allow

the natural development of alternative

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24551

operating systems. Its 90% control of the

word processing/spreadsheet/etc. office

software package market is part and parcel of

its monopolist power; Office strengthens

Windows, and Windows strengthens Office.

Accordingly, Microsoft must be compelled to

develop or license versions of Office for

Linux (and any other competitive system that

may arrive), much as it currently does for

Apple’s machines. This must continue to be

required as long as either Windows’ or

Office’s share of the ‘‘IBM-compatible’’

market is greater than fifty percent. Only

when Microsoft voluntarily chooses to

market application software on a nondiscriminatory basis can one conclude its

monopolist personality has changed. In sum,

the acid test of a settlement should be this:

if the defendant is happy to enter into it, then

the prosecution has been duped and justice

will be denied.

Gerald Starr,

Norman, Oklahoma

MTC–00004605

From: Edward Styles

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 1:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Now I agree that Microsoft should face

penalties that will slow the grow of this

monopolistic practice.

Now we are all aware of monoploies. The

utilities and cable companies are examples of

monoploies. I feel that if Microsoft became a

monopoly because it was just the best

product for the job I would say let them be,

but I cannot say that. Microsoft is a product

that I am forced to use. I also have to pirate

the software because there is no way to learn

about the software for IT jobs. Two wrongs

don’t make a right but how can I learn about

it if I can’t afford to use it. What does

Microsoft have to say to that.

Also I feel that Linux should be pushed

into schools. The money saved could be used

on teachers and better classrooms. Open

source technology would be great for that.

Also there is a place for Windows and Office.

I do feel the companies should be split so

that it can promote competition and through

this competition better products. I do not

wish for Microsoft to fail, we need Microsoft,

but we also need choice as well. No

penalities, just the company split.

MTC–00004606

From: hyperkat44@netscape.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 1:16pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

As a senior programmer analyst with long

industry involvement, I strongly agree with

the counter-proposal for settlement of the

United States vs Microsoft offered by the 9

states and am vehemently opposed to the

proposed final judgement of Nov. 6th.

In my opinion, the proposal of November

6th would not restore competition and sends

the wrong signal to an organization that

rationalizes criminal behavior as

‘‘innovation’’. I feel that even the stronger

counter-proposal by the dissenting states

does not go far enought in punishing

Microsoft corporation for ill gotten gains.

Sincerely,

Richard T. Van Cura

14256 Jennifer Road

Omaha, Ne 68138

MTC–00004607

From: John Bekas Jr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 2:40pm

Subject: DoJ vs Microsoft settlement

Dear DoJ

I am writing to you in response to the

settlement terms of the antitrust case against

Microsoft. I am extremely disappointed with

the outcome, as Microsoft is receiving little

or no punishment for their actions. As a

software developer in Chicago, Illinois, I am

sorely disappointed that the federal

goverment and my own state government

have given up the fight and have decided to

settle on terms favorable to Microsoft. The

courts have ruled that Microsoft is indeed a

monopolist. Not only that, they ruled that

Microsoft abused this monopoly. Therefore, I

believe Microsoft should be treated

accordingly.

I understand that ongoing court cases take

time and cost a lot of money. Plenty of both

have been invested over the past few years

of litigation. However, coming to a settlement

favorable to Microsoft, such as this one is, is

equivalent to throwing away all of the time

and money invested in the case.

One example of abuse I experienced came

about a few years ago when I was purchasing

a new computer from Dell. At the time, IBM’s

OS/2 Warp was an alternative operating

system which I was interested in running on

my new system. When asked if I could

receive my computer with OS/2 Warp

installed instead of Windows 95, the sales

person said no. When asked if I could receive

my system with no operating system

installed, the sales person again said no.

When I persisted, the sales person changed

his attitude and said that I could get the

system without an operating system

installed; however, the system cost remained

the same. I was unable to purchase a new

system without paying Microsoft for software

that I had no intention of using.

I have no idea whether this situation has

changed in the past few years. Instead, I have

discovered that if I assemble a system on my

own, no software is included. Unfortunately,

a typical computer generally does not have

this option.

As for software and bundling, I believe

Microsoft abuses this power greatly.

Although the common person probably does

benefit from the inclusion of Web Browsers,

Media Players, Image Manipulation Tools,

etc., many power users uninstall these

‘‘freebies,’’ and instead opt to purchase more

fully functional software. Unfortunately,

these users are forced to pay for the included

software in order to upgrade their operating

system. If Microsoft was truly interested in

including software that was of use to a

majority of users, why do they not include

Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel with their

operating system? I would imagine that more

people probably use a word processor or

spreadsheet than Media Players or Image

Manipulation Tools. My guess is that

Microsoft no longer has any competition in

these markets and has no incentive for

forcing their use. When is the last time

someone sent you a document in Word

Perfect format?

I also want to touch on the proposed

settlement of the Class Action lawsuits

currently being proposed by Microsoft.

Please do not let them extend their monopoly

further by allowing them to install $1 billion

of their software in needy schools. Instead,

let Microsoft donate their money and let the

schools decide which solutions they are

interested in buying. Apple Computer has

focused on software designed for children

and they should be given a fair opportunity

to compete for installation rights in these

schools. RedHat Software is willing to donate

free software (with no time limit) to these

schools if the settlement money is given in

the form of hardware and not software. Any

of these alternative options will increase

competition and will not just help Microsoft

extend their grasp to new areas.

In closing, I think that the proposed

solution from the remaining states in the

antitrust case is much better suited to the

crimes committed. In particular, I’m referring

to the stricter punishments for noncompliance that the states are requesting—

namely, the opening of source code to the

Windows OS if Microsoft is found to be

continuing its anticompetitive behavior

during the next few years.

Thanks,

John Bekas, Jr.

Software Developer

Chicago, Illinois

MTC–00004608

From: Roger O’Brien

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 3:07pm

Subject: You have NBC, you have a part of

Apple, please don’t take the Education

You have NBC, you have a part of Apple,

please don’t take the Education market!

MTC–00004609

From: Bill

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 6:19pm

Subject: RE: Microsoft and your DOJ

Action—STOP your actions against this

Fine American Company!

Gentlemen:

This email is to let you have one more

American citizens opinion about YOUR

actions ...the actions of our elected

government officials and how you spend MY

tax dollars. Microsoft has been shown to be

a monopoly. This is not illegal. The lawsuits

propagated against this fine company were

brought during the liberal administration of

the past 8 years and the era of ‘‘competitive

lawsuits’’ as a method of competing in a

market where the companies supporting the

lawsuit were unable to produce a product

that was competitive. Said another way:

STOP your actions against Microsoft and live

with the current settlement that has been

proposed. This company has been damaged

enough even though they do NOT deserve

these actions!

They make a wonderful product...one that

consumers WANT to buy. They make it

better than OTHER competitors can make it

and they market it ‘‘CHEAPLY’’...well within

24552 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

the product development and production

costs. They do not make a huge profit for

what they charge. In fact the profit they make

is THEIR business...not the consumer or

government’s business. Let them alone to

continue to produce a better mousetrap!

STOP being ‘‘bought’’ by other competitors!

MY TAX vote says leave them alone!

I am not a Microsoft employee or have

anything to do with their company. I simply

use their products. I believe that THIS

company should be PROTECTED by your

DOJ from these frivolous lawsuits brought by

competition that cannot simply come up

with a competitive mousetrap! By the way...I

am extremely computer fluent and KNOW

much about computers and all software

involved! Personally I PREFER Microsoft

software to all of the rest...and I have bought

and used the rest!

The point is I am an American Taxpayer,

a businessman and a VOTER. Please respect

my vote and bring back some decency to our

government at the DOJ levels by CUTTING

your DOJ actions and departments. LAYOFF

many of your unneeded lawyers and put our

TAX dollars back into the consumer’s hands

and OUT of the government

BUREAUCRACY!

Thank you,

Bill Martin

2850 Country Club Blvd

Orange Park, Fl 32073

wem@pobox.com

MTC–00004610

From: Steven B. Ronsen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 7:16pm

Subject: United States v. Microsoft

Settlement

I am an IT professional who specializes in

creating applications for the Microsoft

Windows environment.

I am extremely disappointed in the

proposed remedy which holds no hope for

forcing Microsoft’s compliance to nonpredatory practices. I am appalled to think

that, after five years of litigation, the DOJ

feels this is a satisfactory conclusion. It really

begs the question of where Microsoft is

investing its political contributions and

reflects very poorly on the entire

administration.

A fitting solution would be much closer to

remedy originally proposed by the trial

judge.

Steven B. Ronsen

72 Norwood Ave.

Buffalo, NY 14222

(716) 881–4809

Steven B, Ronsen

sronsen@buffnet.net

(716) 881–4809

MTC–00004611

From: alan malnak

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 9:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please be advised that I have read most of

the legal documents concerning the Microsoft

settlement and am of the opinion that the

settlement is fair and just.

It seems to me, that as indicated in the

Microsoft brief, much of the opposition to the

settlement comes from companies that have

selfish motives.

Having Microsoft reveal as much as the

opponents request would be similar to the

government ordering Coco Cola to reveal its

recipe to all of the competitors on the street.

We even see our elected official taking the

part of companies that are located in their

political district.

Despite what may be claimed, can anyone

really say that telephone service is better or

cheaper for the consumer since the inception

of all of the smaller companies since the

court ordered breakup ?

In addition, and one only has to look at the

Market history to come to an obvious

conclusion, as Microsoft goes so goes the

market. Many company pension plans are

suffering severe loss in value as a result of

the drop in Microsoft stock and the effect it

has on other investments That may not be of

great importance to some, but it is to me

since I am retired and cannot vote myself a

larger pension and increased health benefits

as our elected officials do.

Again, I am in total support of the

settlement agreed to by the Government and

Microsoft.

MTC–00004612

From: Frederik Eaton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 10:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft must be required to provide

documentation about APIs, ABIs, and

communications protocols to individuals and

developers of free software, not just to

commercial vendors. A large part of

Microsoft’s competition comes from free

software community, and to deny its

members the same rights as commercial

interests under the new antitrust settlement

would be absurd.

If there will be any kind of committee

appointed to oversee Microsoft, Steve

Satchell should be on it.

MTC–00004613

From: Patrick J-Whitty

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 10:43pm

Subject: Microsoft: Enough is Enough

I am writing this email as a concerned

American citizen. Ever since the beginning of

the anti-trust case against Microsoft, I have

learned more and more about how they

connived and manipulated their way to

success. I’ve learned how they tried to

muscle other companies out of business

because they didn’t want to have any

competition. This is wrong. Microsoft is a

monopoly, and monopolies do nothing but

harm this country. They stifle innovation and

they place power into the hands of the

wealthy.

Just because Judge Jackson’s ruling was

overturned does not make these facts untrue.

Microsoft does nothing but harm others. I am

appalled that Judge Kollar-Kotelly would use

the disasters of September 11 to try to shield

these crooks from the justice they deserve.

This is downright tasteless.

Microsoft must be brought to justice. Their

programs should all be open sourced, people

should be given the opportunity to choose

whether or not they want Windows, and

Microsoft should not be allowed to dominate

the Internet.

I hope other Americans see what I have

seen. What is decided with Microsoft will

affect the rest of the world for years to come.

They must be stopped and brought to justice.

Sincerely,

Patrick Johnson-Whitty

MTC–00004614

From: Yev Bronshteyn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 10:59pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern:

As it stands, I believe the proposed

settlement is insufficient. While giving

certian limited freedoms to the

manufacturers, I believe all parties involved

have lost track of those for whom the

settlement is necessitated—the consumers.

As a consumer, I am entitled to demanding

free choice in buying a product, and to

government protection of my choice. In

regards to Microsoft settlement, this applies

as folows:

* The consumers must be given inalienable

right to select any and all of the software he/

she purchases with a new computer. This

includes both middleware and operating

systems.

* The consumer must not pay for any

software he/she does not receive as a result

of making the decision described above.

* No OEM or retailer should suffer any

financial loss for granting a consumer the

afore-mentioned fundamental freedoms, and

no party should (yes, even Microsoft) should

gain from denying these rights to the

consumer. Specifically, this translates into:

—No exclusivity contracts with OEMs.

Microsoft must not be allowed to enter into

contracts that bind the OEM to providing

any Operating System and/or middleware

on all or any specific fraction of systems

sold but that OEM.

—No discounts to OEMs based on their

choice of operating system or middleware.

Any settlement that fails to provide for the

above rights are included in ironclad,

incontravertible language with no

‘‘exceptions’’, falls short of satisfactory to the

needs of the consumers.

As a consumer, I thank you for your

concern for our interests.

Yev Bronshteyn.

MTC–00004615

From: Yev Bronshteyn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 11:02pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern:

As it stands, I believe the proposed

settlement is insufficient. While giving

certian limited freedoms to the

manufacturers, I believe all parties involved

have lost track of those for whom the

settlement is necessitated—the consumers.

As a consumer, I am entitled to demanding

free choice in buying a product, and to

government protection of my choice. In

regards to Microsoft settlement, this applies

as folows:

* The consumers must be given inalienable

right to select any and all of the software he/

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24553

she purchases with a new computer. This

includes both middleware and operating

systems.

* The consumer must not pay for any

software he/she does not receive as a result

of making the decision described above.

* No OEM or retailer should suffer any

financial loss for granting a consumer the

afore-mentioned fundamental freedoms, and

no party should (yes, even Microsoft) should

gain from denying these rights to the

consumer. Specifically, this translates into:

—No exclusivity contracts with OEMs.

Microsoft must not be allowed to enter into

contracts that bind the OEM to providing

any Operating System and/or middleware

on all or any specific fraction of systems

sold but that OEM.

—No discounts to OEMs based on their

choice of operating system or middleware.

Any settlement that fails to provide for the

above rights are included in ironclad,

incontravertible language with no

‘‘exceptions’’, falls short of satisfactory to the

needs of the consumers.

As a consumer, I thank you for your

concern for our interests.

Yev Bronshteyn.

MTC–00004616

From: Bill Fox

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 11:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to express my opposition to

the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case.

I am not a lawyer but a user of personal

computers, a tool essential to my livelihood

for approximately 20 years. I have used many

personal computing operating systems over

the years, including those made by Microsoft

(MSDOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95,

Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 4.0

and Windows XP Pro), Amiga, Commodore,

IBM, Texas Instruments and Apple

Computer. My opinion is that operating

systems other than Microsoft’s have been

superior in features and performance at each

stage of development of the personal

computing platform. Yet Microsoft achieved

a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of

the personal computer market. Microsoft’s

illegal behavior in maintaining and

expanding that monopoly to in excess of 90

per cent of the market effectively destroyed

all existing competitive personal computing

operating systems in the process, save one,

and perhaps prevented others from being

developed.

I am firmly opposed to the settlement for

three principal reasons. First, the settlement

does not in anyway compensate for the

effects of Microsoft’s illegal maintenance of

a monopoly. Second, it forecloses further

pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to

prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior

is inadequate.

Microsoft stands convicted after appeal of

conducting illegal acts to maintain its

monopoly of personal computer operating

systems. Microsoft’s illegal acts certainly

have cost consumers billions of dollars

directly and possibly much more by

preventing the development of alternatives.

We will never know what we’ve lost as a

result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the

settlement does not provide even a miniscule

penalty for the deleterious results of

Microsoft’s egregiously illegal behavior. It

simply dismisses this and proceeds with a

lame attempt to prevent a continuation of

such illegal behavior. No corrective action of

any type that simply attempts to put

Microsoft on a legal course can be reasonably

construed to be a penalty of any sort. A

penalty is required and none is provided by

the settlement.

Microsoft was also convicted of illegally

tying its products to its monopoly operating

system but that conviction was overturned on

appeal based on the standard used by the

District Court judge to convict Microsoft. The

issue was remanded to the District Court for

further consideration. A decision to not

pursue the illegal tying issue is formalized in

the settlement even though the Justice

Department announced that it would not

pursue it before entering into the settlement.

In my experience it is indeed Microsoft’s

tying of its products to its monopoly

operating system that has been the most

damaging to competition in the personal

computing market. Microsoft was initially

found guilty of illegal tying and the

remanded issue should be pursued. The

settlement formally forecloses the

opportunity to do so. Finally, the settlement

is inadequate to prevent Microsoft from

continuing its practices of illegally

maintaining its monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft

is an unrepentant criminal. As an example,

its CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating

that he does not even know what a monopoly

is after Microsoft was convicted of being one.

It is totally incredulous to believe that

Microsoft will simply go forth and be a good

corporate citizen. While the settlement

contains provisions to enforce its restrictions

through oversight, the burden is on the

government to catch Microsoft in the act and,

if so, then Microsoft is simply returned once

again to proceedings such as these. Where is

the incentive for Microsoft to comply? My

mind boggles in that this is the second time

that a settlement of this nature has been

reached with the same convict. The second

is no more satisfactory than the first. Any

resolution of this case against Microsoft must

provide appropriate incentives for the

unrepentant criminal to comply with the law.

Respectfully,

William W. Fox, Jr.

9805 Fox Rest Lane

Vienna, VA 22181

703–281–3126

MTC–00004617

From: Benjamin Everson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 11:19pm

Subject: the settlement is flawed

I will keep this brief—the settlement in the

Microsoft anti-trust case is severely flawed.

MS has been found guilty, yet the DOJ has

found it more appealing to just make the case

go away rather than really trying to solve the

problem that has been determined to exist.

Please don’t allow this mistake to happen. If

you do, I promise it will come back to bite

us all. The Internet is supposed to be an open

community, not owned by any one entity.

This will cease to be true if Microsoft is not

reigned in, and the day that happens will

truly be a sad one.

Ben Everson

MTC–00004618

From: Michael Longfield

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/16/01 11:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I am one of many people upset by the

potential ramifications of the Settlement.

Although I do not live in your jurisdiction (I

am Canadian), I am nonetheless concerned.

I use Microsoft products. Yet I do not think

they should be given the opportunity to

strengthen their market position in schools as

punishment for their other monopolistic

practices. The suggestion of Steve Jobs,

requiring Microsoft to provide money not

software and hardware, is worth greater

consideration.

Sincerely,

Michael Longfield

MTC–00004619

From: C. R. Brade

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 12:40am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I don’t see how this settlement changes

anything. Microsoft (MS) already has a

foundation (started after the suit, I think) that

donates money that K-12 schools can apply

to, how does expanding the visibility of such

PR do anything to change MS. Microsoft used

to have a lower market share than Borland for

the then popular C++ Programming Language

software; MS didn’t have a better product

and couldn’t get Borland (Enprise(sp.?)) to

sell their company to MS, so they took over

half of Borland’s top programming staff

(wages that no one else could match).

Borland never did get anywhere near their

marketshare in programming language

software back. Sure MS might of had to pay

Borland (briefly changed its name) a fine, but

I am sure MS has more than made of the

difference. Why should MS ever deal

ethically with anyone? If they get caught they

may pay a fine, but the fine won’t be enough

to make them suffer any long term loss in any

area.

Everyone knows that the Apple Computer

Company’s strategy that helped them get a

foothold in the K-12 schools was its heavy

rebate program for schools to buy one of their

computers. What this settlement would do is

basically give MS the same strategy to slowly

remove Apple’s presence. Why not require

that the computer’s not run MS software?

Money not used can grow interest deferred

and be used for improving technical training

in non-Microsoft equipment. The Red Hat

people said they would provide free Red Hat

Linux OS’s with technical support for the

schools MS gives equipment to. There is a

glut of MS certified people, why not train

some disadvantaged children in high school/

jr. high in Linux administration. There are

probably many inner city or Appalachian

Mountain children who would jump at the

chance. Companies in economically

disadvantaged areas would then have

someone to hire who knows how to run a

server with very low site license fees and has

24554 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

a lower number of security issues requiring

patches with each new release. This could

help a new company compete and grow—

helping a company grow and employ more

tech. savvy employees which could help the

area no longer be an economically

disadvantaged area. Note Linux has in some

cases been put on computers and have them

run compatible applications that choke on

MS OS & software. If not why not require MS

if it takes more than 10% (when agreed upon

market share rate) of Apple’s K-12 OS share

in K-12 schools during and 2 years after of

this billion dollar K-12 assistance phase;

require that MS pay an additional one billion

(at one year anniversary date of first

payment) plus whatever percent of share loss

over 10% times 100 billion until either MS

for over a year doesn’t exceed its when

agreed upon market share rate or holds less

than 65% of the market share in all of the

following: PC OS’s, word-processing

packages [note the large share they took from

with bundling (WordPerfect/ Lotus 1–2–3)],

programming language software, and internet

browsers.

Maybe it is true that money talks and big

corporations never have to apologize as long

as they have the money. I hope I am wrong,

but the case of the intermittent windshield

wiper patent comes to mind.

C.R. Brade

twiggy139@home.com

aj7301@wayne.edu

MTC–00004620

From: Wes Peterson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 12:56am

Subject: Microsoft’s Monopoly

I have been using both Microsoft operating

systems and the Macintosh for as long as they

have existed. I could write a long letter, but

I won’t. It is very clear to me that on many

occasions Microsoft has used their

dominance of the operating system marked to

further their monopoly. You might not

realize that they have done it in the word

processing market in Japan.

Today let me just say that I am seriously

concerned about two things. First, by putting

their media player into Windows and making

it the first choice media player, they have

taken a big step towards squeezing out Apple

Quicktime and RealNetworks RealPlayer.

Secondly, there is Microsoft Passport,

which is collecting a lot of data about

subscribers and forcing all who are using

Microsoft Hotmail, Microsoft Network, and

Microsoft Developers’ Network to subscribe if

they want to continue to receive those

services. I think it is a very unhealthy thing

for this service to be under Microsoft’s

control at all, and it will be very unfortunate

if they dominate this field as well as the

operating system market.

Very Sincerely Yours,

W. Wesley Peterson

Professor of Information and Computer

Sciences

University of Hawaii

wes@hawaii.edu

MTC–00004621

From: js aal

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 3:15am

Subject: Proposed settlement is an

embaressment to the US/DOJ

Ladies/Gentlemen;

As I reviewed the proposed settlement

offered Microsoft in its recent anti-trust suit,

I am struck by the lack of any real penalty

to Microsoft. The original trial judge found

MS guilty of being a monopolist and ordered

a series of remedies. The appeals court did

not agree with the remedies, but they did

uphold the finding of monopolistic actions.

This confirms the need for some sort of

penalty or sanction that forces MS to end

their monopolistic actions.

The DOJ proposals to settle this case

clearly have an odor of a payoff of some sort.

MS has hired the right type of Washington,

DC attorneys, it has sponsored the right

lobbyists, BUT it has yet to admit the

monopolistic practices and show some sort of

remorse. The company has continued in the

same course it has prior to the trial.

DOJ should ask for two things:

1. Disallow the OEM relationship MS has

with the makers of personal computers that

allows them to ship a unit with MS installed

along with along with the placement of

unique icons that tie the machine back to

other MS products.

2. Force MS to publish the full interface

specifications to its Windows operating

systems packages. This should be a standard

that all other vendors (including other

divisions within Microsoft) would use in

developing their applications.

There is a precedent for the second

penalty, because that is the condition forced

upon IBM when it settled with DOJ in one

of its several anti-trust cases. IBM continued

to prosper as did many of the smaller

ancillary companies.

That is anti-trust justice displayed in the

past. I hope DOJ and the US Court system has

the same courage to do this today.

Have a great Day!

Alex Lukshin

MTC–00004622

From: gwintle@csc.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 4:29am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is clear to me that the Consent Decree

was reached for the purpose of expediency

rather than a sustainable result. When the

result of the antitrust litigation has been

upheld by the highest court in the nation,

why is a lower court and, more specifically,

the Justice Department willing to accept a

less favorable settlement to consumer than

the Microsoft proposed settlement when the

finding of guilt was still at issue. I find it

inconceivable that a firm with 96%

marketshare, which has routinely annihilated

competitors in its path, be offered improved

terms after guilt has been established. I find

that it is with deep regret, that contrary to the

statements of the US Department of Justice in

its impact statement discussing the Consent

Decree, the remedies settlement embodied in

the Consent Decree fails to achieve the ends

mandated by the Court for the following

reasons:

* it fails to deny Microsoft the fruits of its

statuatory violations,

* it fails to ensure that competition is

likely to result,

* it was an agreement reached for the

purpose of expediency, not for ensuring an

adequate remedy and,

* it establishes an untenable precedent for

future antitrust cases.

I feal that as someone familiar with

computing and the computer industry, and

the adverse effects of Microsoft’s monopolies

in these areas, I cannot see how the

settlement that is proposed even pretends to

remedy the antitrust violations for which

Microsoft has been found culpable. The

company has already been found in

violation, and this is the penalty phase of the

case, but the settlement contains no penalties

and actually advances Microsoft’s operating

system monopoly. A just penalty would at

barest minimum include three additional

features:

* Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers, so

that the user who does not wish to purchase

them is not forced to do so. This means that

for the price differential between a new

computer with Microsoft software and one

without, a computer seller must offer the

software without the computer (which would

prevent computer makers from saying that

the difference in price is only a few dollars).

Only then could competition come to exist in

a meaningful way.

* The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

* Any Microsoft networking protocols

must be published in full and approved by

an independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet.

There is considerable national interest in

this issue, it is crucial that Microsoft’s

operating system monopoly not be extended.

This is a 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.

I would like to finish by quoting the nine

State Attorneys Generals who are opposing

the settlement ‘‘Nothing in the text of this

agreement forces Microsoft to change its

business practices and technical

implementations in the least.’’

MTC–00004623

From: Mike

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 4:36am

Subject: Microsoft settlement must be

amended.

To the U.S. DOJ et al:

Good morning. My name in Michael Mohr.

I am writing to you today to share my

opinion regarding the Microsoft antitrust

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24555

settlement. Having used PCs for almost a

decade now, I am familiar with most

Microsoft operating systems, including DOS,

Windows 3.11, Windows 9X, and NT. After

reading about the proposed settlement

between Microsoft and the USDOJ, I am

outraged that such nonsense could come

about. Please read first my experiences as a

Windows 98 user, and then my

recommendations on what should be done.

After many years experimenting with

various operating systems, including all of

Microsoft’s and quite a few unices, I have

come to the conclusion that Windows 98 is

the operating system that I must keep

installed on my laptop. Note that I said must,

not wish to. Go into any Staples, Office

Depot, Circuit City, or Office Max and take

a look at the software on the shelves. Look

closely and you will see that all the software

available runs solely under Microsoft’s

Windows operating system. You will not find

software for Solaris, UNIX, BSD, Linux, QNX,

or any other operating system. This also

poses a problem in the arena of device

drivers, which are often solely distributed for

the Windows OS. This is a result of

Microsoft’s OS being bundled with almost all

new computers sold today. Why is this so?

Because Microsoft has more money and

power than the other developers. It lets them

freely violate the Sherman Antitrust Act

without fear of reprecussion from the

government, as shown by your settlement. It

also lets them crush competetion before it

has its legs under it, as shown by AOL’s

buyout of Netscape.

In addition to this, I have recently begun

to notice strange things happening when I

run Internet Explorer. It crashes 2 to 3

minutes after execution, without fail, every

time. Now this wouldn’t be so much of a

problem for me, except that the browser is

actually the operating system. Hence, when

the browser crashes, the operating system

crashes, often leading to a complete system

freeze or a blue screen. This requires the

computer to be shut down, power removed,

and booted again.

Every 2 to 3 minutes. Imagine if your

computer frize every 2 minutes at work and

you lost all data you had input in that time.

You would be pretty angry, wouldn’t you?

Moreover, you would be unable to get any

work done at all. I have been forced to use

Netscape Communicator to browse the web.

At least when Netscape crashes (and it

happens a lot less than Internet Explorer

does), it doesn’t crash the entire operating

system.

Now take all of this and compare it to

Linux. If an application fails, it can be easily

terminated from a command prompt. If the

graphical interface crashes (which happens

QUITE infrequently), it can also be shut

down and restarted from a command prompt.

This is the result of a very smart group of

people who designed the OS to be modular.

If one part fails, all of the other parts are

completely independant, and therefore a

crashing browser will not take down the

entire system. Try to find any Windows

server with a continuous uptime of 6 years

and you will be looking for the rest of your

life. Anyhow, that ends my complaints

against Microsoft (for now). Here are some

suggestions that you may wish to consider

when finalizing the settlement with MS.

(1) Anything that MS does which is

intended to expand its monopoly MUST be

offered as options which cost more money.

In this way, a computer buyer who does not

wish to purchase these options is not forced

to do so.

(2) All distributors or vendors should be

required to offer their new computers with a

choice of non-Microsoft operating systems

such as Linux, QNX, or nothing at all. In

addition, these vendors must ship their

computers with hardware which is

compatible with all operating systems

offered. For example, the notorious Lucent

Winmodem should not be shipped with

Compaq laptops because it was designed for

use ONLY under Windows.

(3) Microsoft’s present and future

document formats should be made public so

that other applications running on other

operating systems are able to read and save

into these formats.

(4) 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. Microsoft must

not be allowed to extend its OS monopoly

and other choices must be available to

consumers, right there, on the front page. 100

percent compatibility for Linux should be

offered in all desktops and notebooks.

Thank you for your time. I hope that you

take my words into account when finalizing

your judgements.

Michael Mohr

MTC–00004624

From: Jonathan Kingaby

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/17/01 4:56am

Subject: Public Feedback

I have been using Microsoft Products for

over 10years and generally I think they are

great.

However, a genius it does not take to

realise that they have been up to some very

suspect shenanigans since about 1990. I

would not want to see them shutdown, split

up or otherwise reduced since in many ways

they are the engine room of the good ship IT

economy. I would like to see a tougher stance

taken though and a more punitive slap

delivered.

Regards

Jonathan Kingaby

Development Manager

Elan Computing

Elan House

5–11 Fetter Lane

London

EC4A 1QX

The information in this email is

confidential and may be legally privileged. It

is intended solely for the addressee and

access to this email by anyone else is

unauthorised. Any views or opinions

presented are solely those of the author and

do not necessarily represent those of Elan. If

you are not the intended recipient, any

disclosure, copying, distribution or any

action taken or omitted to be taken in

reliance on it, is prohibited and may be

unlawful. When addressed to our clients, any

opinions or advice contained in this email

are subject to the terms and conditions

expressed in the governing client engagement

letter or contract. If you have received this

email in error please notify the Elan

Helpdesk by telephone on +44 (0) 20 7830

1542

MTC–00004625

From: Gerald S. Abreu

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 7:23am

Subject: The Microsoft Case

As I see it competition would force

Microsoft to improve the quality of its

products in areas including but not limited

to reliability and security. The settlement

before the judge would benefit only

Microsoft; a sterner settlement would benefit

everybody. I think now is the time to move

the world in the direction of open markets

and opportunity in the field of personal

computing.

Thank you and sincerely

Gerald S. Abreu

104 Linden Lane

Culloden, WV 25510

MTC–00004626

From: david javid

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 7:48am

Subject: COMMENT ON MICROSOFT AND

DOJ SETTLEMENT

Hello,

I think it is a shame that Microsoft has to

be punished for the good it has done to the

public across the World. The World owes

B.Gates for making computer technology

available to all men and women, old and

young, white and black, rich and poor, even

in the remotest part of the World and in any

language at an affordable price. More

importantly, I admire Bill Gates for providing

an environment in which every interested

person or body can learn, educate and

flourish in the field of computers and

computing. This is in contrast to the

behaviour of some other corporate operating

in the high technology market and for some

reason CISCO comes to my mind!!

Regards

David Javid

MTC–00004627

From: Aaron Katz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 8:35am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to express my opposition to

the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case.

I am not a lawyer but a user of personal

computers, a tool essential to my livelihood

for approximately 20 years. I have used many

personal computing operating systems over

the years, including those made by Microsoft

(MSDOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95,

Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 4.0

and Windows XP Pro), Amiga, Commodore,

IBM, Texas Instruments and Apple

Computer. My opinion is that operating

systems other than Microsoft’s have been

superior in features and performance at each

stage of development of the personal

computing platform. Yet Microsoft achieved

a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of

the personal computer market. Microsoft’s

24556 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

illegal behavior in maintaining and

expanding that monopoly to in excess of 90

per cent of the market effectively destroyed

all existing competitive personal computing

operating systems in the process, save one,

and perhaps prevented others from being

developed.

I am firmly opposed to the settlement for

three principal reasons. First, the settlement

does not in any way compensate for the

effects of Microsoft’s illegal maintenance of

a monopoly. Second, it forecloses further

pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to

prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior

is inadequate.

Microsoft stands convicted after appeal of

conducting illegal acts to maintain its

monopoly of personal computer operating

systems. Microsoft’s illegal acts certainly

have cost consumers billions of dollars

directly and possibly much more by

preventing the development of alternatives.

We will never know what we’ve lost as a

result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the

settlement does not provide even a

minuscule penalty for the deleterious results

of Microsoft’s egregiously illegal behavior. It

simply dismisses this and proceeds with a

lame attempt to prevent a continuation of

such illegal behavior. No corrective action of

any type that simply attempts to put

Microsoft on a legal course can be reasonably

construed to be a penalty of any sort. A

penalty is required and none is provided by

the settlement.

Microsoft was also convicted of illegally

tying its products to its monopoly operating

system but that conviction was overturned on

appeal based on the standard used by the

District Court judge to convict Microsoft. The

issue was remanded to the District Court for

further consideration. A decision to not

pursue the illegal tying issue is formalized in

the settlement even though the Justice

Department announced that it would not

pursue it before entering into the settlement.

In my experience it is indeed Microsoft’s

tying of its products to its monopoly

operating system that has been the most

damaging to competition in the personal

computing market. Microsoft was initially

found guilty of illegal tying and the

remanded issue should be pursued. The

settlement formally forecloses the

opportunity to do so.

Finally, the settlement is inadequate to

prevent Microsoft from continuing its

practices of illegally maintaining its

monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft is an

unrepentant criminal. As an example, its

CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating that

he does not even know what a monopoly is

after Microsoft was convicted of being one.

It is totally incredulous to believe that

Microsoft will simply go forth and be a good

corporate citizen. While the settlement

contains provisions to enforce its restrictions

through oversight, the burden is on the

government to catch Microsoft in the act and,

if so, then Microsoft is simply returned once

again to proceedings such as these. Where is

the incentive for Microsoft to comply? My

mind boggles in that this is the second time

that a settlement of this nature has been

reached with the same convict. The second

is no more satisfactory than the first. Any

resolution of this case against Microsoft must

provide appropriate incentives for the

unrepentant criminal to comply with the law.

Sincerely,

Aaron M. Katz

Beverly, MA 01915

MTC–00004628

From: Jeremey Wise

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 8:52am

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust

I am a Technical Computer Consultant for

one of the world’s largest computer resellers

in the world. I have both an MCSE, CNE, and

other certifications (tried for RHCE but failed

on first try). I only say these things as

examples that I understand the industry.

I have been following the MS antitrust case

closely from the aspect of its direct impact

on my wellbeing. I do believe that MS did

and does still participate in very anticompetitive activities to the extent of falling

under the auspices of antitrust. Yet, I do not

believe it is the job of the government to

break them up. I believe that free market will

solve this issue in the long run. My concern,

and why I am writing this letter, is that the

proposed solution of having MS purchase

hardware and provide the software for

schools makes no sense. In all my years of

consultation I have strived to help companies

understand Total Cost of Ownership is the

real gauge of a successful deployment. In the

proposed settlement MS would not be

helping the school systems in any way by

adding there software to the settlement.

Hardware is less than 1% of the total

deployment and maintenance cost. Not to say

this would not help out schools. If that is

how the government wishes to punish MS,

and MS is ok with that, then ok. But please

asses the total cost long-term before letting

them tack on the software pieces.

MS software like any software is a license

that is essentially ’leased’. The end user must

eventual upgrade to retain any level of

support. MS also, to there credit, has built a

structure that provides disincentive to its

customers to retain older software via

support, or integration of new software being

contingent on upgrade of the old software

infrastructures.

Synopsis: I believe that the hardware

purchase aspect of the settlement, if agreed

to by both sides (MS & DOJ) to be a viable

one. The adding of software to the mix will,

in the long run, cost the US Governement far

more and to a large extent further expand the

hold that MS will hold over the market

sector, a market sector which is particularly

sensitive to monetary constraints that would

be enforced vi upgrade incentive build into

MS marketing strategies (the upgrade

concerns of the government are reflected in

there maintaining a high amount of

Macintosh systems in schools which have a

very different software marketing strategy

than MS). I am not objecting to MS holding

a large sector of the market. Just that if the

stated goal of MS is to demonstrate, via this

act of donation, there intent to follow non

anti-competitive strategies. Then they should

be open to alternative solutions of software

where the later upgrade fees are not a

concern.

Jeremey Wise (MCSE,CNE,CSE)

MTC–00004629

From: SSchwartz@MICROS.COM@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 8:56am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division U.S.

Department of Justice 601 D Street NW Suite

1200 Washington, DC 20530–0001 Under the

Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the

Microsoft settlement’s inadequacy in

improving the competitive environment in

the software industry. Some serious

shortcomings relate to: 1) Middleware: The

current language in Section H.3 states

‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product would be

invoked solely for use in interoperating with

a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the

context of general Web browsing)’’ does

nothing to limit the company’s ability to tie

customers and restrict competition in non

Web-based networked services under .NET,

as they fall ‘‘outside the context of general

Web browsing’’. Microsoft has already begun

abusing its desktop monopoly to tie

customers into .NET revenue streams and set

up a new monopoly over the network.

Part 2 of the same section states ‘‘that

designated Non-Microsoft Middleware

Product fails to implement a reasonable

technical requirement...’’ essentially gives

Microsoft a veto over any competitor’s

product. They can simply claim it doesn’t

meet their ‘‘technical requirements.’’

2) Interoperability Under the definition of

terms, ‘‘ ‘Communications Protocol’ means

the set of rules for information exchange to

accomplish predefined tasks between a

Windows Operating System Product on a

client computer and Windows 2000 Server or

products marketed as its successors running

on a server computer and connected via a

local area network or a wide area network.’’

This definition explicitly excludes the SMB/

CIFS (Samba) protocol and all of the

Microsoft RPC calls needed by any SMB/

CIFS server to adequately interoperate with

Windows 2000. Microsoft could claim these

protocols are used by Windows 2000 server

for remote administration and as such would

not be required to be disclosed. The Samba

team have written this up explicitly here:

http://linuxtoday.com/

news_story.php3?ltsn=2001–11–06–005–20-

OP-MS

3) General veto on interoperability In

section J., the document specifically protects

Microsoft from having to ‘‘document,

disclose or license to third parties: (a)

portions of APIs or Documentation or

portions or layers of Communications

Protocols the disclosure of which would

compromise the security of anti-piracy, antivirus, software licensing, digital rights

management, encryption or authentication

systems, including without limitation, keys,

authorization tokens or enforcement criteria’’

Since the .NET architecture being bundled

into Windows essentially builds ‘‘anti-piracy,

anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights

management, and authentication systems’’

into all levels of the operating system, ANY

API, documentation, or communication layer

can fall into this category. This means that

Microsoft never has to disclose any API by

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24557

claiming it’s part of a security or

authorization system, giving them a complete

veto over ALL disclosure.

4) Veto against Open Source Substantial

amounts of the software that runs the Internet

is ‘‘Open Source’’, which means it’s

developed on a non-commercial basis by

nonprofit groups and volunteers. Examples

include Apache, GNU/Linux, Samba, etc.

Under section J.2.c., Microsoft does not need

to make ANY API available to groups that fail

to meet ‘‘reasonable, objective standards

established by Microsoft for certifying the

authenticity and viability of its business.’’

This explicitly gives them a veto over sharing

any information with open source

development projects as they are usually

undertaken on a not-for-profit basis (and

therefore would not be considered authentic,

or viable businesses).

These concerns can be met in the following

ways:

1) Middleware: Extend middleware

interoperability with a Microsoft server to

ALL contexts (both within general Web

browsing as well as other networked services

such as are those being included under

.NET).

2) Interoperability: Require full disclosure

of ALL protocols between client and

Microsoft server (including remote

administration calls)

3) General veto on interoperability: Require

Microsoft to disclose APIs relating to ‘‘antipiracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital

rights management, encryption, or

authentication systems’’ to all.

4) Veto against Open Source: Forbid

Microsoft from discriminating between forprofit and nonprofit groups in API

disclosure.

Additionally,

5) Keep Microsoft out of the classroom. It

is bad enough having to use their desolate

software at work, don’t force it onto children

who are so malleable and may still have a

chance to become creative and improve the

world. Giving away antiquated software and

hardware, which is what the

$1,000,000,000.00 would be, becomes a tax

write off. Make them purchase

$1,000,000,000.00 worth of NEW, state of the

art goods in the open market. What an

economic stimulus that would be!!! And,

make them provide services to set up and

maintain the equipment, in addition to the

$1,000,000,000.00 worth of goods.

Sincerely,

Stephen Schwartz

MTC–00004630

From: Schultz, Michael S

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/17/01 9:02am

Subject: Thoughts

Greetings,

My name is Michael Schultz, and I am an

IT Professional working for Pfizer. After

reading about the settlement, I was

disappointed in the results. Microsoft has

been using their heavy handed practices for

years to gain an edge on the competition.

However, they have also been an incredible

boon to the digital community by bringing

the computer to households much as TVs in

the past. Their bad practices need to be

curtailed, so other companies can compete,

but you don’t want to cut the legs out from

under a company that has done so much in

this field.

The settlement as I would have it:

1. MS must stop their heavy-handed

practices against competitors. (If you can’t

beat em, buy em attitude, and forcing PC

manufacturers to do ANYTHING other than

install the OS)

2. MS can continue to offer their ‘‘all-inone’’ package for their OS, but they must also

offer a ‘‘Lite’’ version for those who want the

OS, but not be forced to use anything else.

3. The losers from MS actions are the

people. Because of this, I recommend that all

fines against Microsoft go towards a

commission to provide learning materials

and computers to public schools.

I know it seems like a very simple solution,

but it’s all that we have been asking for. Stop

MS from forcing things down our throat.

Allow the competition room to enter the

market...as competition makes BOTH parties

better. And finally, fine MS enough for them

to take notice, but not enough to injure the

companies growth...putting this money

toward something benificial to the people.

Heck, I’d have this whole thing over in a

day!

Michael S. Schultz

SMS Consultant

(860) 441–1022

LEGAL NOTICE

Unless expressly stated otherwise, this

message is confidential and may be

privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s)

only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is

unauthorized. If you are not an addressee,

any disclosure or copying of the contents of

this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken)

in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be

unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please

inform the sender immediately.

MTC–00004631

From: Harry Hochheiser

To: Microsoft ATR,hsh@cs.umd.edu@inetgw

Date: 12/17/01 9:21am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

The proposed settlement of the Microsoft

anti-trust agreement is does not go far

enough. By leaving the basic components of

Microsoft’s dominance in the PC operating

system and office application markets

untouched, this proposal does little, if

anything at all, to enhance meaningful

competition. This proposal should be

replaced by a stronger settlement that opens

the way for realistic opportunities for

competition in desktop operating system and

productivity software.

Microsoft’s dominance in the OS market

has led to a situation that is fraught with

dangers for the computer-using public. The

susceptibility of Windows machines to

viruses points out the costs of a closed,

vendor-driven operating system: substantial

economic inconveniences caused by Code

Red and related viruses are directly

attributable to Microsoft design and

marketing practices, and could easily have

been avoided. Furthermore, operating costs

due to reliability and usability problems of

Microsoft software place a burden on

businesses, schools, and government

agencies that make substantial use of

computers.

Microsoft’s monopoly on the operating

system and office applications has also led to

a slowing in innovation: without meaningful

competition, advances in application tools,

interfaces, and reliability have slowed. New

releases of Microsoft products appear to be

driven by a desire to sell additional software

licenses, rather than by any meaningful

innovation. Microsoft products that are

shipped bundled with new computers should

be priced separately, to provide consumers

with information necessary to make informed

decisions about the costs of Microsoft

products.

Any settlement should include provisions

that would create the realistic possibility of

a completely compatible alternative to

Windows and the Office Suite. Specifically:

Operating systems API interfaces, file

formats, network protocols, and other details

should be published and freely available to

any interested software developers. Provision

of this information post-fact to commercial

developers on a fee basis is insufficient.

Substantial fees for access to this information

would essentially close off the vital opensource community ,and delays in

dissemination would significantly reduce the

value of this information.

New versions of software should maintain

compatibility with older Microsoft products

and existing competitive products. In

particular, Microsoft should be required to

use file formats that are baked on

community-supported consensus and

widespread publication.

Microsoft products must respect ongoing

standards efforts and refrain from using

extensions that place competitors at

significant disadvantages. Microsoft-specific

extensions HTML tags that go beyond

accepted standards of the World Wide Web

Consortium have made use of Netscape

Navigator increasingly difficult. Where

standards such as HTML exist, Microsoft

should be required to adhere to standards as

published.

Microsoft and its supporters can be

expected to argue that these measures would

raise the cost of innovation and stifle

advances in the state of the art. The recent

history of the computer industry does not

support this view. Efforts such as SMTP and

POP3 protocols for Internet mail, the World

wide web, and Linux have proven the ability

of open standards and common shared

platforms to foster development of software

that innovates and provides value to end

users. The Microsoft settlement must be

strengthened to achieve these goals.

Harry Hochheiserhsh@cs.umd.edu

Human-Computer Interaction Lab,

University of Maryland

Director-at-Large, Computer Professionals

for Social Responsibility

http://www.cs.umd.edu/∼hsh http:/

www.cpsr.org

(Affiliations provided for identification

purposes only. I do not speak for either U.

Md. or CPSR)

MTC–00004633

From: Daniel Mann—Centreville KW164

To: Microsoft ATR

24558 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Date: 12/17/01 9:26am

Subject: The Proposed Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am 21 years old. I’m about to graduate

from college, and I have grown up with

computers. In school, I have used mostly

Macs, and in work, I use windows machines

exclusively. That is to say I have extensive

experience on both platforms. I think that the

proposed settlement is a joke. Not only does

it excuse the findings of fact and the verdict

of the court, but also the settlement offers a

public relations coup by allowing Microsoft

to ‘‘donate’’ 500 million dollars of their own

products. This costs them very much less

than they propose. The duplication of

software is very inexpensive. In a year,

nobody will remember that it was due to an

antitrust conviction that the software was

even donated. I feel that the punishment

necessary is far greater than what is being

offered. If Microsoft cannot be split, then I

urge you to open the windows source code,

offer unbundled versions of software, require

full java support as a standard feature, and

require development and production of office

and internet explorer software for all

competing platforms. Additionally, strict

fines should be imposed. Perhaps half of the

damages, or roughly 6 Billion dollars could

be a more equitable compromise. Thank you

for your time.

Daniel Mann

MCA

Keller Williams Realty

Centreville, VA

P: (703) 815.5700 F:(703) 815.5707

MTC–00004635

From: IAMDMANN@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:27am

Subject: settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am 21 years old. I’m about to graduate

from college, and I have grown up with

computers. In school, I have used mostly

Macs, and in work, I use windows machines

exclusively. That is to say I have extensive

experience on both platforms. I think that the

proposed settlement is a joke. Not only does

it excuse the findings of fact and the verdict

of the court, but also the settlement offers a

public relations coup by allowing Microsoft

to ‘‘donate’’ 500 million dollars of their own

products. This costs them very much less

than they propose. The duplication of

software is very inexpensive. In a year,

nobody will remember that it was due to an

antitrust conviction that the software was

even donated. I feel that the punishment

necessary is far greater than what is being

offered. If Microsoft cannot be split, then I

urge you to open the windows source code,

offer unbundled versions of software, require

full java support as a standard feature, and

require development and production of office

and internet explorer software for all

competing platforms. Additionally, strict

fines should be imposed. Perhaps half of the

damages, or roughly 6 Billion dollars could

be a more equitable compromise. Thank you

for your time.

Daniel Mann

MTC–00004636

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:29am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

——Original Message——

From: ‘‘Herb Himmelfarb’’

<himby@open.org>

To: ‘‘Himmelfarb, Cyn & Herb’’

<himby@open.org>

Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:15

PM

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi, The proposed settlement in the antitrust case against the Microsoft Corporation

appears to me to be too lenient. In my

opinion, this corporation has engaged in

restraint of trade to an alarming degree.

Rather than bore you with information you

already have, I request that more severe

penalties be imposed upon Microsoft.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Herbert S. Himmelfarb

615 19 Street NE

Salem, OR 97301–2713

503.375.2934

himby@open.org

MTC–00004639

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:33am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

——Original Message——

From: ‘‘Blaize Clement’’

<blaizec@home.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 1:54 PM

Subject: Microsoft

Just one example of how Microsoft has an

unfair advantage is that as a freelance writer,

I am not able to submit work to many

publications or internet sites because I use a

Mac. I should not be forced to use a

Windows-based program to sell my work

when I prefer the more efficient Apple

system. Please don’t let Microsoft control my

personal choice and that of a lot of other

writers.

Thank you,

Blaize Clement

MTC–00004641

From: DArmour@weatrust.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:35am

Subject: Opposed to the Settlement

To Whom It May Concern

As a computer profesional and avid user of

computers I oppose the proposed Microsoft

settlement. Microsoft’s efforts have damaged

the creativity and vitality of the American

software industry. A broad industry with

multiple players will produce higher quality

software that will more directly benefit the

consumer and American businesses. There is

no evidence to suggest that Microsoft’s

practices of bundling software have offered

consumers any advantage. The quality of

their software has cost consumers and

business large sums of money. The constant

upgrade cycles have promoted their bottom

end, but have not drastically improved or

changed the computing experience. Since

1995 there have been at least 6 Microsoft OS

upgrades. Four of them have been of equal

quality and problems which have been sited

as reasons for upgrading namely stability and

usability. The user interface of OS have not

changed substantially since 1984 when

Apple introduced the Macintosh.

If the government does not take an

extremely active role in the the punishment

of Microsoft they will cause the software

industry to irreparably damaged. In the long

run this will hurt America and American

interests. Without competition there is no

true progress. In this case, there is already

insufficient competition, to promote true

advantages and benefit to the consumer.

Please re-think this settlement and attempt a

more comprehensive and restricive solution.

Sincerely

David Armour

MTC–00004643

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:37am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

——Original Message ——

From: ‘‘Gordon Krum’’

<gkrum@appletserve.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 12:48 PM

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Greetings,

As a programmer who specializes in

educational projects I can tell you from

personal experience that the way Microsoft

conducts business has held back the

usefulness of computers to education at all

levels. Schools just can’t cope with the

additional expenses generated by Microsoft’s

attempts to own the world. The losers here

are our kids and therefore our society.

Allowing Microsoft to buy their way out by

giving schools hardware and software will

only increase the problem by further limiting

competition. Instead, and at least, make them

give the thing the value most COLD HARD

CASH and let the schools decide how to

spend it without restrictions of any kind.

Some excuse Microsoft by saying that they

are just good technology manipulators. So

were the robber barons of almost a century

ago. Through new technology they then and

Microsoft now manipulated, circumvented,

squashed and laid waste the honest well

intentioned efforts of many people all in the

name of filling their own wallets. If what the

robber barons did was criminal then what

Microsoft is doing is criminal.

Having lived and worked in the silicon

valley I know that there are thousands of

Gates want to be’s. How this settlement goes

down sends a message to the entire industry

about what behaviors will or will not be

tolerated.

Please make it a RESOUNDING message!

Gordon Krum, programmer

gkrum@appletserve.com

4151 Olive Hill Rd.

Fallbrook, Ca 92028

MTC–00004644

From: DArmour@weatrust.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:36am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern

As a computer profesional and avid user of

computers I oppose the proposed Microsoft

settlement. Microsoft’s efforts have damaged

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24559

the creativity and vitality of the American

software industry. A broad industry with

multiple players will produce higher quality

software that will more directly benefit the

consumer and American businesses. There is

no evidence to suggest that Microsoft’s

practices of bundling software have offered

consumers any advantage. The quality of

their software has cost consumers and

business large sums of money. The constant

upgrade cycles have promoted their bottom

end, but have not drastically improved or

changed the computing experience. Since

1995 there have been at least 6 Microsoft OS

upgrades. Four of them have been of equal

quality and problems which have been sited

as reasons for upgrading namely stability and

usability. The user interface of OS have not

changed substantially since 1984 when

Apple introduced the Macintosh.

If the government does not take an

extremely active role in the the punishment

of Microsoft they will cause the software

industry to irreparably damaged. In the long

run this will hurt America and American

interests. Without competition there is no

true progress. In this case, there is already

insufficient competition, to promote true

advantages and benefit to the consumer.

Please re-think this settlement and attempt a

more comprehensive and restricive solution.

Sincerely

David Armour

MTC–00004645

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:43am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘Wilner, Richard A.’’

<WILNERI@mail.northgrum.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:22

AM

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi,

I am very disappointed with the Feds

settlement.

Microsoft has been getting away with

activities like this for years. From stealing the

operating system from the Macintosh to

pulling the rug out from under developers

that were developing applications for OS/2,

to taking control of the internet with their

browser. With money brings power and they

have much to much power. They wiped out

Netscape by offering their browser for free

and putting it on every PC that was sold

Richard Wilner

Command Media

AEW & EW Systems

Phone (516) 575–0997

Fax (516) 346–2577

email:

richard_wilner@mail.northgrum.com

MTC–00004646

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:44am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘JLilly’’ <john@corpgraphics.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:34

AM

Subject: Microsoft settlement offer

perpetuates the monopoly

Dear Sir,

The proposed settlement by Microsoft to

supply schools with computers and software

does nothing but further entrench their

monopoly. In fact, it leverages their share

into one of the last markets where there is

still real choice; education.

Instead of letting Microsoft dump their

software into the nations schools, I suggest

having Microsoft pay that same amount in

cash, perhaps for a ‘‘technology’’ earmarked

fund, and let the schools choose what they

want to do with it. If they choose Microsoft,

more power to them. If they continue to use

Macs, that’s fine too. At least they will have

a choice, and they won’t have the monopoly

hoisted onto them under the false pretense of

a ‘‘gift.’’

John Lilly

MTC–00004647

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:44am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘Marcus Nelson’’

<Marcus.Nelson@Dobson.net>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:37

AM

Subject: Microsoft

Please do not let Microsoft get away with

this. When I first got into computing fifteen

years ago, there were several multi-media

and office solutions. Prices were competitive

and acceptable (around $150 or so), now it’s

almost $600 for the professional version. The

fact is, it is in my best interest to have to use

their proprietary solutions to work with their

other products. How much longer will it be

before this will be a requirement?

When a company gets as big as MS, it is

very easy for them to either steal another

smaller companies intellectual property,

knowing their own lawyers are stronger and

can drag it out until the smaller company has

to cave in. Or they can just buy the company

out and bury it. This is not innovation. It’s

tyrant bully-ism at it’s finest. No company

can compete against this.

Please consider cafefully the judgements

placed upon MS. They do not deserve to get

off easily. If they do, we’ll be right back here

again in a couple of years.

Regards,

Marcus Nelson

CELLULARONE

Regional IS Coordinator

Wisconsin/Michigan 1

5000 Stewart Avenue

Wausau, WI 54401

Cellular (715) 571–0051

Fax (715) 551–2300

Office (715) 551–2554

marcus.nelson@dobson.net

MTC–00004648

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:47am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Original Message

From: ‘‘Tony Palumbo’’

<tpalumbo@netcsi.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:44

PM

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern...

I have just finished reading an article about

the proposed Microsoft settlement and can

only shake my head in disbelief. While I

agree that severe penalties are in order, the

form of this settlement will only further

establish the monopolistic behavior that MS

already enjoys.

YES ... forcing them to spend $1 billion on

the poorest school districts is a wonderful

idea and I applaud the effort. Unfortunately,

this also helps the Microsoft WinTel cartel

into a more dominant position. Wasn’t this

entire case about CHOICE

A better idea would be to force Microsoft

to outfit these schools with software/

hardware solutions from its competitors

(Apple, Linux, Sun)

This settlement is neither in the interest of

consumers who will further have their ability

of choice eroded, nor those business and

their employees who will be forced out of

business as MS is allowed to play the same

games it has since its inception.

Thank you for your consideration

Anthony J. Palumbo

80 Ridge Road

Hackettstown, NJ 07840

MTC–00004649

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:46am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

——- Original Message ——-

From: ‘‘Ken’’

<macessen@accountmaster.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu> Sent:

Wednesday, November 21, 2001 12:26

PM

Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement

The proposed settlement between the

Justice Department and Microsoft is weak,

will not stop future abuses, and does not

protect consumers. This settlement favors

Microsoft to such a degree that it would

appear that Microsofts donations to the

Republican party and the Bush presidential

campaign were a quid pro quo, and this

directly affected the course of the Justice

Department in settling the case. As a

consumer, I find it incredible that the

defendant in this case has gotten so much

influence regarding the nature of the

punishment. This is not justice and its not a

remedy for proven anti-trust violations.

The settlement does not address unfair

advantages Microsoft has gained using illegal

behavior. Companies have been destroyed,

not though fair competition, but rather by

Microsofts monopoly tactics to maintain and

increase their market share. For all practical

purposes, there is no longer any competition

in the browser market. Microsofts

competitors have been harmed and many

companies completely destroyed.

The proposed restrictions will not prevent

further abuses. Just look at the features that

Microsoft has bundled, or in some cases

excluded, in its new Windows XP just

24560 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

released in October of 2001. It was proven in

the anti-trust trial that Microsoft attempted to

coerce, bully, and illegally obtain and

maintain a monopoly with multimedia

application technology to the detriment of

Real Media, Apple Computer, and others.

They include their own multimedia player

and exclude other similar products from

other companies. By removing support and

making it difficult for consumers to add

competing products that are often superior to

Microsofts bundled products, consumers

have been harmed.

They have removed support for Java from

Windows XP which will disrupt e-commerce

and Java based applications delivered over

the Internet. This has harmed Sun and other

companies that have invested heavily in Java

based technology that Microsoft considers a

threat to their monopoly. Microsoft has

modified their version of another technology,

JavaScript, the programming language for

Web browsers. These changes to Microsofts

implementation of JavaScript are intended to

hijack the previous JavaScript standard and

make it their own. As a result, only Microsoft

Web browsers will handle this new standard

properly. The examples go on and on.

Consumers have been and continue to be

harmed.

The proposed 3 member panel that will

oversee Microsoft will likely be biased in

favor of Microsoft, or at the very least, not

fair in protecting consumers. With one

member chosen by Microsoft, one chosen by

the Justice Department, and the third chosen

by these two members, the judgment of the

panel will be questionable. With their

oversight activities done in secret and their

salaries paid by Microsoft, it looks like the

fix was in and Microsoft won.

Ken Goff

422 5th Street SE

Watertown, SD 57201

(605) 882–1917

MTC–00004653

From: Chris Lee

To: Microsoft

ATR,antitrust@usdoj.gov@inetgw

Date: 12/17/01 9:50am

Subject: MS is found GUILTY and gets away

w/‘‘MURDER’’!

BAD SETTLEMENTS WILL LEAD TO

FURTHER COURT ACTIONS, WHICH

MEANS MORE RESOURCES AND MONEY

WILL BE EXPENDED IN THE FUTURE TO

CORRECT THE CURRENT MISTAKE!!!!

HOW CAN MS WIN WHEN IT LOST THE

TRIAL AND THE APPEAL??????

December 17, 2001

For Microsoft, a Season of Triumph

By STEVE LOHR

or most technology companies, the fall of

2001 was a season to forget, with its

deepening sales slump, losses and layoffs.

But for Microsoft (news/quote), it was a time

of triumph, even some vindication. In the

federal antitrust case that Microsoft fought so

long, with so little success, things turned in

the company’s favor when the Bush

administration decided to settle in

November.

Within weeks, Microsoft announced a

settlement with plaintiffs in more than 100

private class-action antitrust suits. To be

sure, protests remain. Some states that sued

Microsoft are urging a federal judge to

toughen provisions of the settlement with the

Justice Department, and there are objections

to the class-action deal. A European

investigation also continues, although

Microsoft says it wants to settle that case as

well. In all, however, Microsoft has made

rapid, dramatic strides toward finally putting

its antitrust troubles behind it.

The proposed settlement in the crucial

federal case is widely seen as a Microsoft

victory. It would not restrict the company’s

product designs, allowing Microsoft to fold

software into its Windows operating system

for potentially huge new markets, including

online shopping, personal identification and

downloading music and movies over the

Internet. Those features are found in the

recently released Windows XP.

And the drastic sanction of splitting

Microsoft up the remedy championed by the

Clinton administration, and approved by a

lower court judge, but regarded quite

skeptically in a federal appeals court ruling

in June was rejected by the Bush

administration.

But the settlement terms do require

Microsoft to share technical information with

competitors and industry partners more

openly. In addition, Microsoft would be

prohibited from bullying other companies

with anticompetitive contracts.

Some Microsoft rivals and industry

commentators argue that the case could do a

lot to encourage competition, by forcing

Microsoft to change its corporate behavior.

Microsoft’s legal team is certainly echoing

the behavioral theme. ‘‘The client has learned

a lot through all this,’’ said William H.

Neukom, the tall, silver-haired general

counsel and legal field general in Microsoft’s

antitrust battles.

Mr. Neukom, 60, is stepping down next

year, and his designated successor, Bradley

P. Smith, suggested that priorities for

Microsoft would be to establish a ‘‘strong

track record of compliance’’ with the

settlement order and to ‘‘strengthen our ties

with the rest of the industry.’’

But legal pressure is not the only thing

forcing Microsoft to change. Technology

trends notably the spread of Internet

technology are equally responsible.

Over all, investment in technology may

have slowed, but Bill Gates, the Microsoft

chairman, believes that some cooling off may

be healthy. With the get-rich-instantly

mentality of the dot-com bubble gone, Mr.

Gates said, chatting with journalists in

October, ‘‘I think the environment for doing

major research and development real

innovation is better now than it was before.’’

Certainly it is for Microsoft, which is sitting

on $36 billion in cash.

Microsoft is putting some of its capital to

work by investing heavily in the

development of ‘‘Web services,’’ mainly

clever software sent over the Internet to

automate all kinds of business and personal

tasks. A company’s data will be linked with

a supplier’s to replenish needed parts

automatically, for example. Or a person’s

scheduling data, stored on a PC or hand-held

computer, will interact with the dentist’s

data to set up an appointment or with an

airline to arrange travel.

To realize these goals will require open

communications in software, which raises

privacy and security issues that must be

resolved. The move will also require

businesses to form partnerships and trusted

relationships with other companies. This will

mean a change of many corporate cultures,

including Microsoft’s.

Consequently, over the next several years,

it will be very difficult to determine the

legacy of Microsoft’s antitrust conflicts,

because so many other forces will also be

shaping the company and the industry.

MTC–00004654

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01–9:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

——- Original Message ——-

From: ‘‘Stephanie Santmyers’’

<ssantmyers@triad.rr.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu> Sent:

Wednesday, November 21, 2001 6:49 PM

Subject: microsoft settlement—No

If Microsoft wants to give schools a billion

it must be in cash. Poor schools need books,

supplies, and breakfast programs for students

not computers. Microsoft wants to make good

little consumer Microsurfs.

Stephanie Santmyers

MTC–00004658

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01–9:58am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

——- Original Message ——-

From: ‘‘Don Adams’’ <dadams@vallnet.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu> Sent:

Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:07 AM

Subject: MS antitrust

I can’t believe Microsoft is getting off so

easy. After reading an superior article in

Wired magazine I believe MS should be

severely punished or it will continue it’s anti

competitive behaviors. Only the government

can protect consumers from a giant like MS.

Don Adams

MTC–00004659

From: Daphanie M. Mullins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01–10:02am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

——- Original Message ——-

From: ‘‘Doug Walker’’ <dwal@mac.com>

To: <consumer@mail.wvnet.edu> Sent:

Friday, November 23, 2001 6:48 PM

Subject: Unhappy with federal settlement

I am very unhappy with the Federal

government’s settlement of the Microsoft

anti-trust case. Microsoft broke the law! The

punishment is far too mild. Furthermore

something needs to be do to prevent

Microsoft from continuing these violations. It

appears our government has failed to do its

job.

I am very happy the West Virginia

Attorney General did not join the Federal

government’s settlement. Keep up the good

work. I am in support of your decision.

Doug Walker

2743 Blackburn Drive

Davis, CA 95616

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24561

MTC–00004660

From: JOHN BONANNO

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 10:04am

Subject: Microsoft again!!!

‘‘I would like to express my opposition to

the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case.

I am not a lawyer but a user of personal

computers, a tool essential to my livelihood

for approximately 20 years. I have used many

personal computing operating systems over

the years, including those made by Microsoft

(MSDOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95,

Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 4.0

and Windows XP Pro), Amiga, Commodore,

IBM, Texas Instruments and Apple

Computer. My opinion is that operating

systems other than Microsoft’s have been

superior in features and performance at each

stage of development of the personal

computing platform. Yet Microsoft achieved

a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of

the personal computer market. Microsoft’s

illegal behavior in maintaining and

expanding that monopoly to in excess of 90

per cent of the market effectively destroyed

all existing competitive personal computing

operating systems in the process, save one,

and perhaps prevented others from being

developed.

‘‘I am firmly opposed to the settlement for

three principal reasons. First, the settlement

does not in anyway compensate for the

effects of Microsoft’s illegal maintenance of

a monopoly. Second, it forecloses further

pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to

prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior

is inadequate. ‘‘Microsoft stands convicted

after appeal of conducting illegal acts to

maintain its monopoly of personal computer

operating systems. Microsoft’s illegal acts

certainly have cost consumers billions of

dollars directly and possibly much more by

preventing the development of alternatives.

We will never know what we’ve lost as a

result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the

settlement does not provide even a

minuscule penalty for the deleterious results

of Microsoft’s egregiously illegal behavior. It

simply dismisses this and proceeds with a

lame attempt to prevent a continuation of

such illegal behavior. No corrective action of

any type that simply attempts to put

Microsoft on a legal course can be reasonably

construed to be a penalty of any sort. A

penalty is required and none is provided by

the settlement.

‘‘Microsoft was also convicted of illegally

tying its products to its monopoly operating

system but that conviction was overturned on

appeal based on the standard used by the

District Court judge to convict Microsoft. The

issue was remanded to the District Court for

further consideration. A decision to not

pursue the illegal tying issue is formalized in

the settlement even though the Justice

Department announced that it would not

pursue it before entering into the settlement.

In my experience it is indeed Microsoft’s

tying of its products to its monopoly

operating system that has been the most

damaging to competition in the personal

computing market. Microsoft was initially

found guilty of illegal tying and the

remanded issue should be pursued. The

settlement formally forecloses the

opportunity to do so. ‘‘Finally, the settlement

is inadequate to prevent Microsoft from

continuing its practices of illegally

maintaining its monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft

is an unrepentant criminal. As an example,

its CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating

that he does not even know what a monopoly

is after Microsoft was convicted of being one.

It is totally incredulous to believe that

Microsoft will simply go forth and be a good

corporate citizen. While the settlement

contains provisions to enforce its restrictions

through oversight, the burden is on the

government to catch Microsoft in the act and,

if so, then Microsoft is simply returned once

again to proceedings such as these. Where is

the incentive for Microsoft to comply? My

mind boggles in that this is the second time

that a settlement of this nature has been

reached with the same convict. The second

is no more satisfactory than the first. Any

resolution of this case against Microsoft must

provide appropriate incentives for the

unrepentant criminal to comply with the

law.’’

Ditto JOHN BONANNO

J.S. Bonanno Inc.

MTC–00004667

From: Peter Ekstein

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 10:19am

Subject: anti-trust penalties

‘‘I would like to express my opposition to

the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case.

I am not a lawyer but a user of personal

computers, a tool essential to my livelihood

for approximately 20 years. I have used many

personal computing operating systems over

the years, including those made by Microsoft

(MSDOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95,

Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 4.0

and Windows XP Pro), Amiga, Commodore,

IBM, Texas Instruments and Apple

Computer. My opinion is that operating

systems other than Microsoft’s have been

superior in features and performance at each

stage of development of the personal

computing platform. Yet Microsoft achieved

a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of

the personal computer market. Microsoft’s

illegal behavior in maintaining and

expanding that monopoly to in excess of 90

per cent of the market effectively destroyed

all existing competitive personal computing

operating systems in the process, save one,

and perhaps prevented others from being

developed.

‘‘I am firmly opposed to the settlement for

three principal reasons. First, the settlement

does not in anyway compensate for the

effects of Microsoft’s illegal maintenance of

a monopoly. Second, it forecloses further

pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to

prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior

is inadequate.

‘‘Microsoft stands convicted after appeal of

conducting illegal acts to maintain its

monopoly of personal computer operating

systems. Microsoft’s illegal acts certainly

have cost consumers billions of dollars

directly and possibly much more by

preventing the development of alternatives.

We will never know what we’ve lost as a

result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the

settlement does not provide even a

minuscule penalty for the deleterious results

of Microsoft’s egregiously illegal behavior. It

simply dismisses this and proceeds with a

lame attempt to prevent a continuation of

such illegal behavior. No corrective action of

any type that simply attempts to put

Microsoft on a legal course can be reasonably

construed to be a penalty of any sort. A

penalty is required and none is provided by

the settlement.

‘‘Microsoft was also convicted of illegally

tying its products to its monopoly operating

system but that conviction was overturned on

appeal based on the standard used by the

District Court judge to convict Microsoft. The

issue was remanded to the District Court for

further consideration. A decision to not

pursue the illegal tying issue is formalized in

the settlement even though the Justice

Department announced that it would not

pursue it before entering into the settlement.

In my experience it is indeed Microsoft’s

tying of its products to its monopoly

operating system that has been the most

damaging to competition in the personal

computing market. Microsoft was initially

found guilty of illegal tying and the

remanded issue should be pursued. The

settlement formally forecloses the

opportunity to do so.

‘‘Finally, the settlement is inadequate to

prevent Microsoft from continuing its

practices of illegally maintaining its

monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft is an

unrepentant criminal. As an example, its

CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating that

he does not even know what a monopoly is

after Microsoft was convicted of being one.

It is totally incredulous to believe that

Microsoft will simply go forth and be a good

corporate citizen. While the settlement

contains provisions to enforce its restrictions

through oversight, the burden is on the

government to catch Microsoft in the act and,

if so, then Microsoft is simply returned once

again to proceedings such as these. Where is

the incentive for Microsoft to comply? My

mind boggles in that this is the second time

that a settlement of this nature has been

reached with the same convict. The second

is no more satisfactory than the first. Any

resolution of this case against Microsoft must

provide appropriate incentives for the

unrepentant criminal to comply with the

law.’’

Peter Ekstein

Miami, Florida

MTC–00004668

From: Matt Brittenham

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 10:21am

Subject: Don’t let Microsoft off so easy

I’m sure you’re aware of the facts and

Microsoft’s history with regard to the

previous consent decree in 1995. I’m also

sure you will have plenty of other

correspondence to sift through on this

subject. so I won’t bore you by trying to

support or argue my opinion, but merely

offer the opinion that the proposed

settlement is a terrible idea. If it is to be a

penalty make it hurt, if it is to be a

protection, at least make it something that

protects other software companies in some

way. The proposed settlement neither

24562 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

punishes nor protects, and at worst it could

further embed Microsoft’s monopoly into the

Education market.

Sincerely,

Matt Brittenham

MTC–00004673

From: Alex

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 10:37am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

These are not my own words but I am in

full agreement.

Alex Castillo

214 Lynnhurst Dr.

Ormond, Fl 32176

‘‘I would like to express my opposition to

the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case.

I am not a lawyer but a user of personal

computers, a tool essential to my livelihood

for approximately 20 years. I have used many

personal computing operating systems over

the years, including those made by Microsoft

(MSDOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95,

Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows T 4.0

and Windows XP Pro), Amiga, Commodore,

IBM, Texas Instruments and Apple

Computer. My opinion is that operating

systems other than Microsoft’s have been

superior in features and performance at each

stage of development of the personal

computing platform. Yet Microsoft achieved

a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of

the personal computer market. Microsoft’s

illegal behavior in maintaining and

expanding that monopoly to in excess of 90

per cent of the market effectively destroyed

all existing competitive personal computing

operating systems in the process, save one,

and perhaps prevented others from being

developed.

‘‘I am firmly opposed to the settlement for

three principal reasons. First, the settlement

does not in anyway compensate for the

effects of Microsoft’s illegal maintenance of

a monopoly. Second, it forecloses further

pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to

prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior

is inadequate.

‘‘Microsoft stands convicted after appeal of

conducting illegal acts to maintain its

monopoly of personal computer operating

systems. Microsoft’s illegal acts certainly

have cost consumers billions of dollars

directly and possibly much more by

preventing the development of alternatives.

We will never know what we’ve lost as a

result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the

settlement does not provide even a

minuscule penalty for the deleterious results

of Microsoft’s egregiously illegal behavior. It

simply dismisses this and proceeds with a

lame attempt to prevent a continuation of

such illegal behavior. No corrective action of

any type that simply attempts to put

Microsoft on a legal course can be reasonably

construed to be a penalty of any sort. A

penalty is required and none is provided by

the settlement. ‘‘Microsoft was also convicted

of illegally tying its products to its monopoly

operating system but that conviction was

overturned on appeal based on the standard

used by the District Court judge to convict

Microsoft. The issue was remanded to the

District Court for further consideration. A

decision to not pursue the illegal tying issue

is formalized in the settlement even though

the Justice Department announced that it

would not pursue it before entering into the

settlement. In my experience it is indeed

Microsoft’s tying of its products to its

monopoly operating system that has been the

most damaging to competition in the

personal computing market. Microsoft was

initially found guilty of illegal tying and the

remanded issue should be pursued. The

settlement formally forecloses the

opportunity to do so.

‘‘Finally, the settlement is inadequate to

prevent Microsoft from continuing its

practices of illegally maintaining its

monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft is an

unrepentant criminal. As an example, its

CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating that

he does not even know what a monopoly is

after Microsoft was convicted of being one.

It is totally incredulous to believe that

Microsoft will simply go forth and be a good

corporate citizen. While the settlement

contains provisions to enforce its restrictions

through oversight, the burden is on the

government to catch Microsoft in the act and,

if so, then Microsoft is simply returned once

again to proceedings such as these. Where is

the incentive for Microsoft to comply? My

mind boggles in that this is the second time

that a settlement of this nature has been

reached with the same convict. The second

is no more satisfactory than the first. Any

resolution of this case against Microsoft must

provide appropriate incentives for the

unrepentant criminal to comply with the

law.’’

Thank you

MTC–00004674

From: james stanley

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/17/01 10:43am

Subject: My Feedback

Stop wasting tax dollars and leave

Microsoft alone. Give them the $1B

education settlement and move on.

James T. Stanley

Technical Product Manager

Powerway, Inc.

(317) 915–6140

MTC–00004675

From: Steve Watkins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 11:18am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wish to express my opposition to the

proposed settlement in the Microsoft

aantitrust case. I have served as a Director of

Information Technology for over 10 years and

am also an attorney. This settlement does not

address the fundamental issue of Microsoft’s

illegal monopoly. Through the years,

Microsoft has stifled superior products, such

as Corel WordPerfect Office, the Macintosh

OS, and Novell NetWare, to name a few.

Microsoft has stifled these products and

sought to force consumers to use its own

inferior versions of these products through

heavy-handed tactics and leverage of its

illegal monopoly. The only way to prevent

expansion of Microsoft’s monopoly and

hopefully reverse it is to break the company

up into smaller companies and I urge the

Court to reject the current settlement

proposal.

Steve Watkins

590 Kirkwood Dr.

London, KY 40744

MTC–00004676

From: Patton, Simeon

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/17/01 11:29am

Subject: Settlement

it would not serve the children of poor

neighbor hoods to be subjected to the

microsoft control. It is a great jester for them

to provide computers to all these schools but

that cost absolutely nothing it’s a tax write

off( big penalty there). Further more at the

end of this school computer deal, will we the

tax payer before to pay MS more for new

license fees on each of the computer(I don’t

think so) what a deal give computer and

software away get tax break then charge them

back for licenses and hardware upgrade and

not only do we make money but we further

our dominance in the computer business.

WOW that was will thought out. on top of

that we’ll be getting all of the youngest minds

drugged into the MS cartel, forever a junkie

to a bad drug. This is not a punishment the

selling of the American youths to corporate

America.

Please do not make the children suffer just

to bring a end to this.

MTC–00004677

From: caezar5

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 11:50am

Subject: comments

I am a student at Mechanicville High

School, in New York. For my 12th grade

English term paper, I will be writing about

why Microsoft is a monopoly. I would like

to ask you one question. Why do you think

Microsoft is a monopoly?

MTC–00004678

From: Tim Breaux

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 12:05pm

Subject: Comments on the Microsoft penalty

Gentlemen—

I was more than shocked to note that the

penalty phase of the Microsoft anti-trust trial

did not actually apply any penalties after the

court confirmed that the anti trust infraction

had occurred in fact. Microsoft has always

manufactured inferior products (with only

one historical exception) and bludgeoned

their competitors through intimidation and

through extending their operating system

monopoly to other services. Microsoft

(according to the court) maintained their

operating system monopoly. I certainly agree

with this finding. Their ensuing success with

Microsoft Office and Internet explorer was

based ONLY on the pre-existing power of

their operating system monopoly and not on

the strength of the products. Microsoft’s

tactics has generally been to release inferior

products, give them away as part of a ‘‘deal’’

with the operating system, get them

entrenched, and then slowly upgrade quality.

This give Microsoft years to complete

development of a product, where competitors

need to create a great one out of the gate, and

then maintain superior function in

perpetuity.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24563

The only product that Microsoft ever

introduced that was a credible competitor to

its peers (at introduction) was Excel. Excel

was introduced in the late 1980s and was

superior to the entrenched competitor (Lotus

1–2–3) but (humorously) did not run on

Windows because Windows was not yet

capable enough. Excel was introduced on the

Macintosh. Hmmm. I wonder where

Microsoft got the display ideas to make Excel

function on Windows? Microsoft deserves to

incur a real penalty. The penalty should

include:

1) Pricing of the MS operating systems

must be separate from the purchase of a PC.

That would let competitors actually compete.

Even on price. Imagine that.

2) Microsoft must publish of file standards

for all Microsoft application products,

particularly Microsoft Office products. That

way, competitors with better products could

displace them

3) Microsoft should be precluded from

using any API (application programming

interface) to Windows that they have not

published. That way, others could use their

monopoly as well as they do. Microsoft

would still have a timing advantage, as they

would always help themselves first (that is

they would release their APIs internally

before they would externally) but Microsoft

actually is not that strong at development, so

they would still lose some market share over

this.

4) Any network protocol that Microsoft

releases should be approved by an

independent protocol committee, to preclude

Microsoft from using its existing monopoly

base to supplant the heterogeneity of the

internet.

I am happy to discuss this further.

TSB

Tim Breaux

Chief Executive Officer

Full Market Value, Inc.

‘‘The Multiple Listing Service of Excess

Computer Equipment’’?

Phone 503.221.7800

Fax 503.221.7820

tim.breaux@fullmarketvalue.com

FullMarketValue.com

MTC–00004679

From: RasselArt@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 12:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am deeply disappointed by the current

settlement proposals. Microsoft is a twice

convicted monopolist and is getting away

with a slap on the wrists. I am a graphic artist

that has been using computers for 16 plus

years. Being a graphic artist, most of my

computer use has been based on Apple’s

Macintosh platform, but I have used others,

including Microsoft Windows. As a

consumer, over the years I have witnessed

Microsoft Corporations very aggressive

behavior. I am no lawyer, but I consider some

of the following to be anticompetitive,

monopolistic behavior.

Years ago I used a software program that

was first marketed by the former Aldus

Corporation—Aldus Persuasion. Persuasion

became an Adobe product after Aldus was

purchased by Adobe. Persuasion was a

presentation graphics program. Persuasion

was considered by myself and others to be a

much superior program to Microsoft’s

PowerPoint. Adobe, for whatever reason,

decided to stop marketing Persuasion not

long after Microsoft starting bundling

PowerPoint for free with their Office suite of

products. Coincidence?

Perhaps, but how could Adobe compete in

a marketspace where the competition gives

their product away to gain market share?

Now, I and everyone I work with uses

PowerPoint. It has become the defacto

standard for electronic presentations because

it was bundled with Microsoft Office.

I have also witnessed two occasions, where

in my opinion, Microsoft has made financial

investments in their competitors to keep

them in business: My first example is Apple

Computer, the only company with an

operating system that can even be considered

competition for Microsoft’s Windows. Apple

computer was in grave financial health and

Microsoft made a $150 million dollar

investment and a five year software

commitment. I think most people in the

industry would agree that Microsoft’s

commitments saved Apple Computer from

going out of business.

My second example is Corel Corporation.

Corel is the maker of a suite of office

products that are the only software programs

that can be considered competition to

Microsoft’s Office software. Microsoft made

another huge financial investment to keep

Corel from going out of business. This time

though, the investment raised so many

eyebrows that Microsoft had to withdraw

their name and the strings attached to the

investment, yet leaving Corel with the

financial investment to keep the company

viable.

In my opinion, Microsoft’s own

monopolistic behavior has forced them to

invest in their competitors to keep them from

going out of business. The investments

sustain Microsoft’s only viable competitors. If

that isn’t evidence of total and complete

control of a marketspace, I don’t know what

is.

Sincerely,

Steve Rassel

338 Edgewater Road

Sheboygan, WI 53081

Rasselart@aol.com

V 920.459.8375

F 920.459.9655

MTC–00004680

From: Robert Burcham

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 12:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is foolhardy to believe that a monopoly

such as Microsoft will ever play fair. They

will not. They are a bigger monopolistic force

in their industries than Bell ever was, and yet

there seems to be a magic new standard

applied to this case.

The company should be broken up. It is a

crime against the future if they are not.

And for God’s sake, why would you ever

want to ‘‘punish’’ a monopoly by giving them

NEW CUSTOMERS? If MS is allowed to

‘‘donate’’ software to America’s schools, what

boat will those schools be in 5 years from

now? We will be able to simply chalk them

up as the latest group of consumers stripped

of choice and indentured to MS unchecked

illegal business practices.

MTC–00004681

From: Smith Eric D Contr ASC/YSXI

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/17/01 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft case

Please insist on another look at the

Microsoft case. Microsoft has consistently

used illegal (much of their technology was

openly stolen) and unfair tactics (antitrust

prctices) to propagate mediocre software.

They consistently ignore international

software standards so that their software

forces users to use MS software for something

which should have been done using existing

international standards. Worse yet, they force

users to upgrade to newer versions of existing

MS software (for example, they force the

latest version of their browser just to display

help pages in a nonstandard HTML format).

Perhaps more importantly for the

governement, the software they produce is

riddled with huge, undocumented security

holes. Their web server (IIS) alone has been

known to have almost daily security fixes

released. Almost all the viruses have beeen

aimed at known security vulnerabilities in

MS products such as OutLook, Exchange, IIS,

etc.

1. The proposed settlement should be

tossed.

2. Various agencies of the US government

should be ENCOURAGED to use standard

‘‘Open Source’’ software where possible.

—Occurance of viruses would be reduced to

near nonexistant.

—Using the Apache web server (most

popular in the world) would save billions

by providing for a more stable and secure

web server environment. Almost all web

server targeted viruses would be

eliminated.

—Using Open Office, www.openoffice.org (or

the slightly enhanced Star Office), instead

of MS Office would save hundreds of

billions of dollars just in the DoD and

would eliminate most of the viruses aimed

at MS Office.

—Using the more stable Linux operating

system accross the DoD would save

hundreds of billions of dollars in software

purchases and licensing. It would also

eliminate virtually all major viruses.

3. Please encourage the Justic Dept to

enforce antitrust laws.

Thank you for your continued hard work,

Eric Damon Smith

MTC–00004682

From: McCay, Joseph

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/17/01 12:43pm

Subject: The Microsoft Case.

I believe the current proposed solution

does nothing to stop Microsoft’s behavior.

Even during the court case, Microsoft has

continued the practices of pushing there

monopoly. They have been slapping the

court in the face. Recent examples of this

would be Windows XP. Windows XP

includes the MSN (Microsoft’s equivalent to

AOL) built into the operating system. They

24564 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

are trying to force AOL, Prodigy, et. al. out

of business with the same tactics that have

been ruled a violation of the Antitrust clause.

They continually show complete disregard

for the courts of the United State of America

and the people prosecuting them. If you take

a closer look at Windows XP, I am sure you

will find many problems. Please reconsider

you stance against Microsoft and move

forward with harsher penalties that will

actually force Microsoft to change their ways.

Microsoft is stifling innovation. They have

never really been innovative. They only

‘‘borrow’’ open source code that doesn’t

require changes that are made to be open

source too (BSD style licenses), and they

‘‘embrace and extend’’ open standards to

prevent a standard from gaining any

momentum. The embrace the standard, and

then they add proprietary technology that

only they can use. I am sure you will find

more if you start looking.

Thank you for your time.

Joseph L. McCay

MTC–00004683

From: Lawrence D.W. Graves

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 12:30pm

Subject: comments on US v. Microsoft

settlement

This e-mail is to communicate my strong

opposition to the terms of the proposed

settlement.

Let me state at the outset that I support

government intervention in commercial

spheres only within the exercise of its

constitutionally-granted powers, and then

only when market forces will not remedy the

perceived problem. Further, I generally

believe that not all monopolistic competition

is bad, as there are many industries in which

the traditional economic model with its

‘‘dead weight loss’’ is simplistic and ignores

the benefits of reinvestment of the

monopolistic prices in a manner that shifts

the supply curve downward (the Schumpeter

analysis). In short, please accept that I am a

very reluctant advocate of government action

in the anti-trust arena. Nevertheless, the

Microsoft case is one where I feel that

government intervention is not only

appropriate now, but actually is long

overdue.

Microsoft is a company that has achieved

and perpetuated its market dominance by

various unfair means, only a few of which

were brought into issue and proven in the

present case. Moreover, Microsoft shows

absolutely no sign of changing its ways. If

ever there were a case where structural relief

was warranted, this is it.

I was dismayed at the judgment of Judge

Jackson when he prescribed structural relief,

but not in the way that Microsoft was:

breaking the company into only two pieces

(without soliciting the input of experts on

this point) is clearly inadequate. The

Microsoft juggernaut was able to succeed

largely as a result of improperly exerting its

control over one part of the software market

(operating systems) and leveraging this into

others (e.g., internet browsers, office suites).

On the facts known to the industry, I would

suggest a break-up into at least the following:

(1) consumer operating systems, (2)

corporate/server operating systems, (3)

consumer applications, (4) corporate

applications, (5) internet-related applications

and services. With a prohibition against

preferential treatment by and for any other

companies spun out in the break-up, this

would allow each of the new companies to

act in an independently-rational way, rather

than as now (where, for example, the MS

Office suite is not ported to run on Linux,

despite the clear market for it).

The proposed settlement does little to

address the company’s past misbehavior, and

puts all of its past conduct out of the reach

of future enforcement. Failing to pursue, now

and to the utmost, the government’s remedies

will effectively immunize Microsoft against

governmental sanction for any misbehavior

for the next decade. I cannot imagine a worse

result to consumers in the computer

industry.

Please contact me if you have any

questions regarding any of the foregoing

comments.

LDWG

Lawrence D.W. Graves

Graves@Ent-Atty.com

Fierst & Pucci LLP

(413) 584–8067

64 Gothic Street

(413) 585–0787 (FAX)

Northampton, MA 01060

PGP key at pgp.com

MTC–00004684

From: Caveman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 12:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Case

As a long time computer user, and now, a

software quality engineer at the Checkfree

Corp, I would like to give a few thoughts on

what judgements should be given to

Microsoft in the Anti-trust settlement and the

technical elements of such a settlement.

First, I believe it is important for Microsoft

to remain intact, as one company. Microsoft

has been an industry leader, and it would not

benefit the computer industry, or Microsoft’s

ability to deliver its product, by breaking up

the company.

Next, it is very important that Microsoft be

reigned in with regards to its licensing and

fees policies that currently are in place.

Because of its sheer size and familiarity in

the marketplace, Microsoft has been able to

provide computer makers with deep discount

prices on their software, but then they turn

around and make end-users pay very high

fees for access to the software. This creates

a problem, because for the computer makers

who do not have much of an interest in how

their customers actually use the computer, so

in almost all cases they will pick the

cheapest operating software to package with

their computer so that the customer can use

the hardware that they make. Because

Microsoft’s software is therefore so well

distributed, the end user is forced into a

relationship where the middleman (the

computer manufacturers) get what they want,

Microsoft gets what they want (high licencing

fees), but the end user doesn’t get what they

want (effective product support and low

costs). Because their are really two products

involved, software and hardware, a lack of

accountability is also introduced since

Microsoft can blame the hardware

companies, and the harware companies can

blame Microsoft when something is defective

for the end user. And the end user has no

recourse to determine the exact party at fault,

because they need to pay ridiculously high

licensing costs to Microsoft to determine how

the software code is using the hardware.

Think of the Firestone/Ford Explorer tire

blame game that is still going on, which

hasn’t benefitted the consumer at all.

Lastly, I believe that an Operating System,

such as Microsoft’s recently release

WindowsXP need only to provide the

necessary protocols and low level functions

to run the computer hardware. All other

software that Microsoft packages with their

current operating systems software is

superfalous. OfficeXP, Outlook, Internet

Explorer, etc. all have been woven so closely

with the Operating System software so as to

close out other software companies

attempting to build equivalent alternatives.

This is not needed. I have no problem with

Microsoft developing protocols to run extra

software packages such as these more

efficiently than their competitors software,

but to exclude access to these operating

system protocols so that a competitor is

intentionally hindered in making the most

efficient use of the Operating System is

wrong. This is an attempt to increase market

share—only—using monopolistic tactics, and

does not allow creativity or competition in

the marketplace.

MTC–00004685

From: Chris KeepsSecrets

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 1:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to voice my opinion in the

matter of United States v. Microsoft. I believe

that it will be inherently impossible for

Microsoft to remain in it’s current state and

not be considered a monopoly. As long as

Microsoft is allowed to coordinate their

operating systems Division and Software

departments in coordination, the consumer

will lose out. Microsoft has shown in OS’s

such as Windows XP that they are willing to

sacrifice user security in order to advance

initiatives such as Microsoft Passport and

.NET. I believe the only remedy to the

current situation is to create 2 separate

entities to handle software and operating

systems. I must strongly object to the

regulations in this settlement and ask for a

new set of guidelines Thank you for your

time.

Chris Bradshaw

Columbia Missouri

MTC–00004686

From: andrew.cook@mail.sprint.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 1:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to add my voice to the

dissenting states who desire to tie Microsoft

compliance to source-code publishing.

Microsoft has a track record of finding

loopholes in consent decrees, and the less

that is left to interpretation the better. Please

give this decree teeth, but also keep the

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24565

constraints within reason so Microsoft will

stop trying to win via courts and marketing

and go back to software development.

Regards,

Andrew Cook—Senior Network Engineer

Sprint LTD—Advanced Network Services

Tallahassee, Florida

PH: (850)847–0457

FX: (850)656–6133

E-Mail: andrew.cook@mail.sprint.com

MTC–00004687

From: Jason A. Bubenicek

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/17/01 1:07pm

Subject: A Simple Solution the Microsoft

Fine

Hi,

Microsoft should have to pay the

$1,000,000 in cash. The money should go a

special school technology committee. This

committee will take requests for technology

from all IT departments at the nations

‘‘poorest schools’’.

All the requests should be tallied, the best

ideas win. Emphasis should be placed on

shared/networked technology. A community

should be created that schools can connect to

and share information. That should be one of

the biggest points.

The system should only use technology

that is standards based (XML, HTTP, HTML,

SOAP, SMTP, SQL Databases, etc.) Once this

system is developed, the money should be

evenly divided between the schools to

purchase whatever hardware and software

they choose. The only stipulation is that

whatever they purchase will have to connect

to this standards based network system that

has been created.

Each school’s IT manager would then

petition all the major hardware/software

vendors for bids on the system they want to

setup.

All the above should foster competition,

reliance on standards based systems, a

connected/shared environment, use of the

private market to get the best price and above

all a rich set of tools for the education of our

students.

Jason Bubenicek

MTC–00004688

From: Scott Purl

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 1:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

1. When I worked at a university, we were

covered by the site license negotiated with

Microsoft, which allowed us to not budget or

buy the operating system on new PCs.

However, the vendors were not allowed to

sell the computer without the operating

system, thus allowing Microsoft to doublebill the University.

2. These new PCs fequently had Microsoft

Office ‘‘bundled’’ with it. We were again

covered by a site license, and the vendor was

not allowed to un-bundle the Office sofware.

Double-billing again by Microsoft.

3. Seperating Microsoft into two companies

would probably not remedy the situation.

However, requiring Microsoft to not bundle

software with the operating system, and to

not require bundling by hardware sellers,

would probably be a good start. I would

suggest 3 required operating system offerings:

(1) No Microsoft Operating system, (2) Basic,

(3) Deluxe with previously bundled

applications (image processing, windows

media player, internet explorer, outlook

express, solitaire/freecell/pinball).

4. I fear that the seperation of Microsoft

into two or more companies would result in

more monopolies.

Cheers,

Scott

MTC–00004689

From: jonathan hirschman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 1:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I firmly believe that the proposed DOJ

settlement for Microsoft does not serve either

the best interests of the consumer or the

business community at large. I’d like to

recount several experiences that underscore

that conviction.

I’ve been involved in the IT and Interactive

Media industries since the ’80s, and I’ve seen

how Microsoft has stifled competition,

progress and made the technological

workplace less efficient as a result.

Additionally, Microsoft has made my life as

a consumer more difficult, removing choices

that I’d like to see in the marketplace.

Examples:

* While overseeing a switch-over from a

DOS environment to a Windows

environment in the early ’90s, my company

(Newkirk Products, Inc. in Albany, NY) was

forced to remove DR-DOS from all machines,

and move instead to MS-DOS. Why? Because

Windows 3.0/3.1 was purposely made to not

function on DR-DOS. Newkirk was actually

paying extra to use DR-DOS (most PC’s came

with MS-DOS at the time, bundled in) since

it was far superior. Newkirk was compelled

to move to Windows due to the business

community’s wholesale move to Office.

Companies were moving to Office not

because it was the best software at the time,

but because Microsoft’s bundling practices at

the time made it the cheapest. Newkirk had

been using Borland and other office

productivity products up to that time.

Newkirk did not want to move to Windows,

had their been versions of Office for other

GUI products of the time (for example, GEM,

from DRI, which was more functional and

more advanced than Windows at the same

time).

The move to Windows ended up increasing

costs, overall, as Windows did not work on

existing PCs as well as competing GUI

products. It was, however, a case of either

being able to trade documents with other

companies, or not being able to.

Moving to MS-DOS, in turn, made it more

difficult for Newkirk to continue using

Novell’s Netware product. Again, Newkirk

felt compelled to move to Windows NT.

Microsoft’s predatory pricing at the time also

helped fuel management’s decision; NT was

given away nearly for free at the time, even

if the official pricing didn’t reflect that.

When I left Newkirk after 6 years, it had

gone from a multi-product environment to

one that was exclusively Microsoft products.

Microsoft’s lock on both the operating system

market, and the applications market,

effectively forced Newkirk off of a technology

path that was essentially non-Microsoft.

* As an Executive Producer at Time Inc.

New Media’s Pathfinder, Microsoft’s grip on

the industry became even more accute.

Pathfinder was one of the first commercial

Internet sites, and was the first ‘‘portal’’ as

well. Microsoft effectively forced many

technological choices upon us due to

bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.

Despite the fact that Netscape’s browser was

far superior, Pathfinder was forced to ‘‘dumb

down’’ its Web site so that Internet Explorer

users wouldn’t be left out.

It was clear to me that users only used

Internet Explorer since it was shipped with

their computers, not because it was a good

product. During my exposure to users of the

Internet, it became clear to me that if no

browser had shipped with Windows, users

would have picked Netscape almost all of the

time.

* Two other events from my days with

Pathfinder bear recounting: In 1995, we were

visited by a representative from Microsoft

that told us that Microsoft was going to

dominate the Internet, and that if we didn’t

fall in line with their techological vision,

we’d be ‘‘swept aside’’. It made more than a

few senior executives nervous.

It is my understanding that, later, Microsoft

even took the step of proposing a ‘‘quid pro

quo’’ arrangement with Pathfinder: that if

Pathfinder changed its site to ‘‘favor’’ Internet

Explorer, Pathfinder would enjoy both the

latest inside track technology from Microsoft

as well as lucrative ‘‘banner’’ advertising.

This was rejected due to concerns of

journalistic integrity and general ethics.

* As an end-user, I enjoy the benefits of

Linux and other ‘‘free’’ operating systems and

related technologies. However, Microsoft’s

industry dominance has strangled efforts for

innovation on non-Microsoft platforms.

One example is computer games.

Microsoft, again, due to their platform

ubiquity, was able to compel game publishers

to change the APIs that they used for creating

the games. In the ’90’s, many, if not most,

game publishers were using OpenGL as their

graphical API. OpenGL is cross platform,

which means that it is relatively easy for

game publishers to port their software to

Macintosh or Linux should they wish to do

so. However, Microsoft, again using bundling

tactics, forced the industry to move to

DirectX—a Microsoft only API. As a result,

most games realistically cannot be ported to

other platforms—it is too expensive an

endeavor to re-write them from the ground

up.

As a result, at least partially, there are very

few games for the Macintosh and Linux. If

Microsoft were forced to move their gaming

technology (as well as their other software)

to ther platforms, consumers would greatly

benefit from increased choice. Although

there are efforts to clone Microsoft’s API on

other platforms, my understanding is that

such efforts have no standing in the current

settlement. They should.

Microsoft’s dominance of network

operating systems have also spawned workalikes, such as Samba. Samba allows anyone

to run Microsoft file and print sharing

24566 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

protocols, but for free. It is an excellent

product that large companies such as HP

have based for-pay products on. However...

Microsoft keeps on changing their

proprietary APIs, seemingly to ‘‘break’’

compatibility. This is a well known fact in

the Samba community.

Since Samba is the only real competitor to

Microsoft’s networking operating systems, it

deserves standing in any settlement.

Lastly:

I believe that the only way to effectively

stop Microsoft from their stifling effect on the

technology world at large is to split the

company into two or entities. One such

entity, Applications, should be mandated to

provide equal version of their software on at

least three non-Windows operating systems.,

preferably those with the largest user-bases.

I believe that Microsoft’s source code should

be open to examination by competitors,

including those that represent ‘‘free’’

products like Samba. I believe that

Microsoft’s source code should be released to

the public domain within a year of

commercial release, to ensure that there are

no hidden functions or agendas within their

products.

Hopefully letters such of this one will have

an effect on the outcome of this case. I

sincerely believe that the current settlement

will do very little to rein in Microsoft’s

continuing abuse.

jonathan hirschman

MTC–00004690

From: yonder

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 1:42pm

Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement

Information

By definition, a monopoly must be

detrimental to or restrict competition. Many

people will remember a little feature in early

versions of Internet Explorer for Windows 3.1

that disallowed the downloading of Netscape

citing that the file was too large. Yet

somehow I was still able to download larger

files than Netscape from other sites. I was

even able to download the same Netscape

executable that IE felt was too large from

alternate sites. While this example was from

many years ago, I believe that Microsoft’s

aggressive corporate philosophy has

remained unchanged. More recently you may

note that Microsoft has included in its end

user agreement for Frontpage 2002 the

following clause:

‘‘You may not use the Software in

connection with any site that disparages

Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their

products or services, infringe any intellectual

property or other rights of these parties,

violate any state, federal or international law,

or promote racism, hatred or pornography.’’

While the legality of this clause is

questionable at best, what remains clear is

Microsoft’s commitment to eliminating

criticism and competition. It has been their

argument that federal intervention and

restriction on their business practices stifles

innovation. I think you must ask yourself

what kind of corporation refers to preventing

the downloading of competitive products and

making critical speech a violation of an end

user agreement innovation. You will also

remember Kodak’s suit against Microsoft over

desktop photo software. Why would it be so

difficult for a user who has installed Kodak

software to use it as a default with Kodak

digital cameras? This may be a long shot but

I think it has something to do with the

percentage Microsoft makes off of every

photo processed with the default XP

software. They have done much worse things

that tying Internet Explorer to Windows and

have to wonder why the DOJ was so quick

to attempt dropping the case. The coming of

Windows XP, Microsoft .NET, and Passport

tracking only signals worse things are to

come, especially if the settlement proposed

by Microsoft is accepted. I do not feel that

training millions of children on Microsoft

products from an early age is an appropriate

remedy for an existing monopoly. If they

truly cared about providing kids with

computers, why have they violently rejected

to proposal to provide schools with alternate

operating system based systems (Mac OSX,

Linux, etc...)?

As a computer software professional and a

security advocate, I implore you to look

closer at the consequences of allowing

current trends to continue. I would like to

believe that any software company I create

has a fighting chance of competing with

Microsoft supported companies.

Jaymin Benjamin Kessler

yonder@nyc2600.org

1.201.967.1601

378 Harrison St

Paramus, NJ 07652

MTC–00004691

From: Vince Pratt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 1:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft has been found guilty. It is my

opinion that the Proposed Final Judgment

will do little or nothing to stop the anticompetitive practices from Microsoft. It is my

belief that Microsoft should also be held

accountable for the security and reliability of

it’s products. Here are a few examples of

actual issues I take with Microsoft.

In Windows 2000 operating system

software of course comes with the Internet

Explorer web browser software and Outlook

Express email software. On a recent occasion

I wanted to remove Outlook Express from the

computer as I did not want to use it and

because of security (virus) concerns. I would

like to point out the Microsoft has a Control

Panel to Add/Remove programs to/from the

computer. The end user has no option during

install or by using Add/Remove Programs to

remove Internet Explorer or Outlook Express.

One might think well since I don’t want

Outlook Express I’ll just manually throw the

program into the trash. Well that will not

work. The operating System will not allow

the end user to remove Outlook Express.

Below is a link to the Microsoft document

that describes the steps necessary to remove

Outlook Express. I would like to point out

that 80% of computer users would not be

able to complete the steps described.

http://support.microsoft.com/

default.aspx’scid=kb;EN-US;q263837

I link to a Slashdot article from 12/12/

2001:

http://slashdot.org/articles/01/12/12/

1357232.shtml

Which links to the original article here :

http://www.eetimes.com/story/

OEG20011211S0054

These articles speak about Microsoft now

entering into a new market. DVD players. It

seems Microsoft now wants to have it’s own

proprietary CODEC (Compressor/

Decompressor) installed into every DVD

player that exists. My question is why is

Microsoft able to ’set standards’ when we

have committees of experts and academics

that develop and set ’industry standards’.

This shows how Microsoft operate. There are

perfectly viable standards out there right now

that work on all computing platforms. This

will harm anyone who does not want to run

on the Microsoft platform.

I would just like to have my opinion

known. I believe that the Proposed Final

Judgment will do nothing to help protect

consumers or other technology companies. I

believe that the states proposal does a great

deal more to punish Microsoft. After all they

were found guilty and are supposed to be

punished for their behavior.

Sincerely,

Vince Pratt

Network Administrator

LeMoyne-Owen College

Memphis, TN 38126

901–942–6252 Voice

901–775–7600 FAX

MTC–00004692

From: Josh York

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/17/01 1:49pm

Subject: Microsoft.

Greetings,

I am Josh York an Information Technology

professional and I have followed this case

from the beginning.

The Monopoly that Microsoft maintains

over the Personal Computer Desktop

Operating System market must be stopped.

Allowing them to extend their monopoly to

our children is downright absurd! Giving

Microsoft a foot in the door of our education

systems is appalling do not want my children

to grow up and know nothing but

Microsoft...allowing them to pump our

schools full of their Monopoly-ware will

provide them with an Army of young adults

who only use Microsoft products.

Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers, so

that the user who does not wish to purchase

them is not forced to do so. Only then could

competition come to exist in a meaningful

way.

Microsoft must not be allowed to offer

benefits to companies for selling their

software preinstalled. This FORCES

customers to pay high prices for Microsoft’s

monopoly-ware, ensuring the nourishment of

the software giant. Computer companies have

paid Microsoft large sums of money for every

computer sold for far too long,*this is

because computer companies have no real

alternative.* This MUST stop. And this is the

only way it will happen, Microsoft enforces

this policy with monopolist aggression.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24567

Any Microsoft networking protocols must

be published in full and approved by an

independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing control

of the Internet. Microsoft is notorious for

using a VERY monopolistic and unfair

business practice to drive competition our of

markets: Protocol switching. Open standards

drive the internet and all Technology.

Microsoft wishes to use their own

trademarked protocols to monopolize

markets they cannot dominate using Fair .

For inbusiness practices stance: Microsoft

Windows 3-windows XP use the SMB

protocol for file and printer sharing, This

protocol is being utilized by Red Hat Linux,

Novells’ NetWare, Sun Microsystems’

Solaris, and other Operating systems to

interface with Microsoft software. Studies

show that Red Hat Linux, Using the SMB

protocol, can OUTPERFORM Microsoft’s

OWN servers, using SMB to provide files and

printers to Microsoft’s clients. Microsoft sees

a threat in these companies ability to provide

services to their clients so they try to are

seeking to disable their ability to do so by

rejecting the standards.

I also propose that Microsoft’s Operating

System and Applications divisions be

Seperated,not into two, but into MANY

companies.

Here is a list of proposed split results:

Microsoft Windows OS. (Win

95,98,Me,XP,Windows 2000 Pro,NT

Workstation.)

Microsoft Office/Visual Studio/Internet

Explorer/Other Development.

MSN /MSN messenger/Hotmail

Windows Embedded/MS compact edition

Microsoft Entertainment/ MS-Media

player/MS-Xbox/MS gaming Zone.

Microsoft Server OS.(ExchangeServer,Microsoft Data Center,Internet

Security and Acceleration Server, .Net

server,2000 Server,Win NT server,SQL

server,IIS server,Back office,Sharepoint

server,Biztalk,) Having separate Desktop and

Server OSes would force Microsoft to adhere

to Open standards.

Splitting Office and Development suites

from the main distribution could lead to the

Development of Office for Unixes (Linux,Sun

Microsystems’ solaris ect..),as well as lead to

better development tools for other platforms.

Splitting the Embedded division would

help enforce the use of open standards, many

companies believe that PDAs and PocketPC’s are to play a big role in Microsofts’

future, and aid in their monopoly of

Software. Creating a Microsoft Entertainment

company will help keep Microsoft from using

things like Hotmail and Passport to force

their customers to use their Email or Internet

service providers (ISP). The separation of the

ISP and messenger would keep Microsoft

from using their OS monopoly to put

companies like AOL out of

business.Currently Windows XP only ships

with Microsofts ISP connectivity and

Messenger software,this is a very blatant

monopolistic practice.

That is all,

Thanks

Josh York.

My Opinions do not reflect the opinions of

anyone but myself,that includes my

Company.

This Document is free to distrubute, copy,

quote, Plagarize and spray paint on a wall if

you want...Just give credit where credit is

due.

Special thanks to:

dennispowell@earthlink.net For Content

provided by he.

MTC–00004693

From: Sam Steingold

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 1:48pm

Subject: MS settlement—break-up is

necessary!

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

Given the Microsoft’s history of ignoring

anti-trust settlements with the government, I

see no reason to believe that they will behave

any better now.

A monopoly will never change it’s

behavior as long as it is a monopoly. No

agreements, no oversight, no committees—

nothing will change that. In my opinion, the

only way to contain Microsoft’s monopolistic

anti-competitive behavior is to split the

company.

Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/

sds)

MTC–00004694

From: John Monahan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 2:00pm

Subject: Microsoft ‘‘punishment’’

Dear Sir(s),

Microsoft should not be allowed to escape

with such a ‘‘punishment’’ as giving away a

boatload of their own software that costs

them very little to reproduce.

Besides, it will give them stronger hold on

the education market, which is one of the

very few markets that MS does not already

have a stranglehold on. As Steve Jobs of

Apple Computer, Inc. has said, if MS wants

to give the $1 Billion dollars to the schools,

then let the schools decide how they want to

spend the money. This would be fair to MS’s

competitors and giving $1 Billion in

ACTUAL MONEY (not their own software)

may be a true and just punishment.

Thank you,

John C. Monahan

Webmaster of www.bright.net

In-House Network Administrator, Com Net,

Inc.

MTC–00004695

From: Justin Mahn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 2:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust case

I think Microsoft should be broken up into

operating system and other components as a

company. Look what happened to the

Microsoft Office ’firewall’ that Microsoft was

supposed to have from the last decade.

Justin Mahn

439–67–2244

MTC–00004696

From: William Affleck-Asch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 2:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

William C.S. Affleck-Asch

3648 Francis Ave N, #B

Seattle WA 98103–9323

Phone 206–632–3010

In regards to the proposed final settlement

of the US v Microsoft case, I believe that I

may have some relevent points to make, both

as a long-time investor and as someone who

has worked with (and for) Microsoft.

Please note that I live in the Seattle area

and through investments in Microsoft owe

the establishment and ownership of my first

house. I worked for one of the direct

contractors of Microsoft, and have been a

Microsoft Certified Professional and many of

my friends and neighbors work for or have

worked for them.

In my opinion, the current final settlement

is unworkable. Microsoft is unlikely to abide

by the constraints in terms of business

practices, as in the tech industry it is easier

to use legal loopholes or gray areas to attack

one’s opponents and crush them at the early

stages of marketing, than to play totally by

the book. Historically, this has been one of

Microsoft’s chief tactics, and it is unlikely

that their behavior would be changed under

this final solution.

The main problem that I see is that the tech

oversight committee is toothless. Without the

ability to delay or force immeadiate (90 day

or less) remedies, they would be a reactive

committee that could only admonish

Microsoft, and by the time anything would

occur, Microsoft would have succeeded in

demolishing their opponent in a tech sphere.

The second, and perhaps most egregious,

problem is that the offer to provide Microsoft

software and hardware to public schools

would have the unintended effect of

increasing Microsoft’s profitability and

ability to dominate the software market,

particularly in terms of education. This could

be easily remedied by requiring Microsoft to

donate the $1 billion with no strings tied as

to the hardware or software chosen.

In fact, it would be preferable for Microsoft

to basically write a blank check, by having

a form where one chose between PCs and

Operating Systems—where one could choose

to receive a Microsoft software bundle at the

educational discount rate (e.g. WinXP plus

OfficeXP for $100) or a similar solution from

a Linux provider (since they admit this is

their competition—and since I have read that

Red Hat will provide a similar solution for

free). It also should be vendor neutral in

terms of what networking solutions are

required—for many schools it is the server

software and hubs, routers, and gateways that

cost the most.

Beyond this, however, my only point is

that Microsoft maintains its dominance in PC

OS market primarily through the use of

continual changes to standards and

protocols—a requirement to fully and quickly

publish any such documents and

specifications and do so at no or minimal

charges would be the easiest way to bring

back competition in this sphere.

Sincerely,

Will Affleck-Asch

current member of the B.F. Day school

PTSA in Seattle

current member of the 43rd District

Democrats—currently serving as their

Secretary, but not speaking for them past

member of the 36th District Democrats—King

County Democratic Central Committee alt(m)

24568 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00004697

From: DYMOND Christopher S

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 2:11pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Reneta B. Hesse,

I’m writing to express my shock and

dismay concerning the settlement proposed

by the Bush administration in the Microsoft

antitrust case. For the settlement to be fair

Microsoft it should make it easier for

competitors to penetrate markets that

Microsoft dominates. The proposed

settlement does very little to accomplish this,

in fact it would appear to give Microsoft a

win by helping them to move into the

markets (such as schools) where they are not

dominate.

Sincerely

Christopher Dymomd

Salem Oregon

(503) 378–8325

MTC–00004698

From: wellner@weida.dyndns.org@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 2:16pm

Subject: Proposed Final Judgment

As I understand it you are required by law

to make yourselves available to public

comment, but I thank you for the chance to

put in my concerns regardless of why you

read them. I also am quite sure that in a high

profile case you are getting much in terms of

input, so I’ll keep this short and to my

primary concern. In that past Microsoft has

shown great contempt for both the free

market and the court in it’s business

practices. This was proved in the case.

I don’t agree with the settlement that has

been proposed. It seems to me that it is a

terribly light slap on the wrist for a company

that, by it’s own admission, is central to the

computing economy to suffer so little for

such egregious crimes.

However, there is little I can do except to

state that I hope stronger punishment can be

given in place of the current PFJ.

Assuming that the PFJ is put into action

*please* make sure that the supervisory

functions are actively executed and that all

future violations (at this point I think we

must assume there *will* be future violations

since Microsoft has shown no remorse for it’s

past illegal behavior and, in fact, have built

the largest software company in the world

using said practices) be quickly dealt with.

The problem with the software industry is

that it moves so much more quickly than the

court system. In the current context Netscape

is a great example of a company that

Microsoft put out of business using illegal

practices, but there are dozens of others. I

have worked with several databases, GUI

tools and general utilities made by

companies that no longer exist because

Microsoft colluded to put them out of

business using illegal practices.

As I say earlier I think the PFJ is a

startlingly punishment free proposal for such

egregious crimes. My preference would have

been a fine of $17B (the amount of free cash

that Microsoft has in the bank right now) as

it seems the only thing they respect is the

dollar. If it cannot be, then please make

certain that future violations are dealt with

swiftly. It’s the only way that competition if

going to be reintroduced to the competitive

market.

rw2

Rich Wellner

531 Canyon Trail

Carol Stream, IL 60188

MTC–00004699

From: Michael Peele

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 2:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My suggestions, as a voting, taxpaying US

citizen:

Do not allow Microsoft to spread its

software as a ‘‘cost’’ to Microsoft. If Microsoft

wants to donate software to schools, let it,

but remember that the incremental cost of

producing software is zero. Do not allow

Microsoft to spread its software to anyone for

any reason as part of this settlement. Make

Microsoft pay the fees in CASH. US Currency

only. Not stock, not software, not hardware,

CASH.

I like Red Hat software’s suggestion from

Matthew Szulik.

I would really like to see Microsoft split

up.

I would like to see Microsoft compete fairly

in all markets.

Michael Peele

Georgetown University

MTC–00004700

From: Anthony K. Galanis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 2:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to submit my opinion on the

Microsoft antitrust case during the 60-Day

public feedback phase.

This case in no way represents the best

interests of the consumer. This case is all

about Microsoft’s competition. You cannot

compare the computer software industry to

anything else that has existed before. It does

not work the same way. Things that used to

take years in other markets can take days in

this market. Innovation and improvements

are based on an iterative standard. The

consumer has chosen their standard and it is

Windows. Millions and millions of people

appreciate and choose Microsoft’s software

and they want to be able to reap the benefits

of having a standard. There is much more

software available to solve almost any

problem. Have you tried to find a program for

the Amiga, Linux or even Macintosh. It is

difficult because not many developers make

programs for them because they can’t make

money. From an economic standpoint, there

are more benefits from having one dominant

OS. As a consumer I have many, many more

choices because I do have Windows. For my

other OS’s my choices are very, very limited.

When a new technology come around, the

best of breed is usually purchased by

Microsoft (the original development

company wins) and then that product is

integrated into Windows (which then

benefits millions upon millions of other users

who otherwise would never have been

exposed to that technology). If a better

solution exists that is not Microsoft’s, people

can still go out and buy that if they choose.

Microsoft’s not stopping that.

Here is a good example. Take the backup

utility and the disk defragmentor. Both

would be considered middleware. Both serve

the purpose for millions of users. Those users

don’t have to go out and purchase a $49.99

backup program and a $49.99 disk

defragmentor program, which of course

would not benefit them at all. Yet other

backup programs and disk defragmentor

programs are flourishing in today’s market.

They add additional abilities that Microsoft’s

’middleware’ does not, so they succeed. You

don’t see any plain backup or defragmentor

programs out there because everyone with

Windows already has one. This drives

innovation because it forces manufactures to

improve upon the ’standard’ to succeed. It

has worked very well in the past. Look at all

of the amazing things that a consumer can get

for less that $200.

The hot issues are of course IE and Media

Player. If these products we not the best, they

would not succeed. If Microsoft was not

constantly improving them or not following

standards, they would end up like the

backup or defragmentor programs, still

included for out of the box functionality.

But if the States have there way, all

middleware would be striped from Windows,

forcing consumers to once again purchase

every little thing. It is very obvious what the

benefit is to Microsoft’s competition but what

exactly is the benefit to consumers?

I do not think it is any coincidence that all

of the states remaining in the antitrust case

represent Microsoft’s biggest competitors.

Where are the consumers that are supposed

to be complaining that the states so

vehemently claim to be protecting?

Do I think Microsoft is perfect? No. Did it

pull some shady deals with PC

manufactures? Probably. So fine them for that

and make it illegal for deals like that to be

made again. But wait, isn’t that what AOL is

trying to do right now? If Microsoft can’t

make exclusive deals, then nobody else

should be able to either.

The World and humanity itself benefits

from having a ’standard’ operating system.

The Internet is where it is today in no small

part to the integration of IE with Windows.

The digital music and video will experience

similar benefits from Media Player. All

consumers will win. Only the competition

that does not have a compelling product will

lose.

One last note on Java. Sun refuses to

submit Java to a standards body leaving it as

a proprietary programming language. This is

very much unlike Microsoft’s C#, .Net, XML

and DHTML initiatives. Microsoft should in

no way be required to integrate Sun’s Java

virtual machine (VM) into Windows. I used

to program in Java and very much

appreciated Microsoft’s extensions to the

language. It made programming for the

Windows environment much, much easier.

But Sun did not own those extensions so the

sued Microsoft. Now the want their VM

included. Give me a break. They had it made

and they bit their own leg off. Too bad for

them.

Please don’t take away my benefits because

a lot of very rich, jealous competitors did not

succeed.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24569

Thanks you for your time,

Anthony K. Galanis

CTO

qBill, Inc.

MTC–00004701

From: Steve Russo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 3:16pm

Subject: Nail them to the cross.

As a valid MCSE, I would like to say that

I am dissapointed about the outcome of this

court case. I think that you are letting them

off to easily. I would like to see something

done about how they have repeatedly broken

the law. I don’t care if Mr. Bush is president,

and I don’t care if the sales of their products

bring us out of a recession. What I care about

is JUSTICE. Don’t let them put their junk in

schools! If ATT&T had tried to put more

phone systems in libraries as the settlement

for their case, they would have been laughed

out of court. The same should be done for

Micro$oft. I feel that it is wrong that

everytime I buy a new PC, I need to pay for

a windows os to come with it. I DONT USE

THEIR OS’s! I shouldn’t need to pay for it.

This is a monopoly and I am not happy about

vendor lock-in. I want to see you people get

off of your asses. Do something about them

instead of taking bribes from them. Let justice

prevail!

Thanks,

Steve

PS Also, if you do do something about

them, please sleep better at night knowing

that you did the right thing. We can’t get back

the companies that we lost, but we can do

something about the companies that we

WILL lose. PSS If you would like more

information about me or my MCSE

information, please email me back. I will

gladly give you my Microsoft Certificate

numbers.

MTC–00004702

From: Lord Sith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 3:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Dear Department of Justice;

The events and findings of the second MS

anti-trust trial were more or less brought

about by Microsoft’s willful failure to follow

either the letter or the intent of the first

consent decree.

Given the numerous exemptions and

limitations placed on items set forth in

section III (Prohibited Conduct) of the

‘‘Revised Proposed Final Judgment’’ I fear

that this settlement is doomed to suffer

similar fate. Too many loopholes are

available for Microsoft to skirt around the

intent of this judgment.

It is my opinion that this proposed

settlement is not strong enough to control or

curtail Microsoft’s monopolistic behavior.

Thank you for your time,

Jonathan Call

Springville, UT

MTC–00004703

From: Smith, Wayne

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 12:16pm

Subject: Proposed Remedy

To Whom It Should Concern:

The schools of America do NOT need a

bunch of out-dated PC machines running

Microsoft software—as proposed. Software—

free to schools, and also nearly free to

Microsoft.

There are countless numbers of software

producers who work hard to sell there wares

to the education market. Governmentsponsored ‘‘give-away’’ programs as

proposed in the Microsoft remedy simply

shuts out all other competition...and you call

that punishing a monopolist company for

past transgressions?

A fair solution would be to have Microsoft

PAY cold, hard, CASH to the schools to use

on needs educators identify. The cash

amount should be significant and on-going

for a period of at least 12 years, so that each

of the 12 grades could benefit over time by

the purchase of NEW technology OR

reduction in class size, or other

enhancements that educators know will

make a real impact in learning improvement.

My government should not be assisting a

law-breaking monopolist in finding new

ways to shut out its competitors in the

education market.

Show me you understand what is at stake

in this case by rejecting this ‘‘free softwarehardware’’ bait.

Microsoft did not get to be so big by being

the best or by being dumb. They got caught

violating laws designed to protect us. Punish

them, do not reward them!

Wayne Smith

3043 Shannon Lakes North

Tallahassee, FL 32309

MTC–00004704

From: Jason LaVoie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 12:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

As a member of the software industry

whom is intimately familiar with Microsoft’s

Windows NT based operating systems, I find

the settlement agreement with Microsoft

Corporation unsatisfactory. The three

member oversight committee is laughable.

First and foremost it is open for corruption

(e.g. payoffs.) Secondly, it is far too

subjective. Thirdly, I possess severe doubts

this committee is going to have any real

bearing on Microsoft’s practices.

More needs to be done to open up the

marketplace for competition. I do not feel the

current settlement is going to change the

landscape of the desktop operating system

market. Microsoft ships unstable and often

junky operating systems to people who can

barely use a computer. The end user suffers

while Microsoft takes its time shipping

service packs. Most end users do not even

know what a service pack is, let alone know

how to install it. In any other market this

practice would be unacceptable. Perhaps

service packs to prematurely shipped cars

that fell apart while driving would be

appropriate? Microsoft gets away with this

behavior because it CAN. Capitalism works

because of competition, and Microsoft has

none. Linux is not and may not ever be a

viable competitor in the Desktop Operating

System market.

I believe more can and should be done to

curb the anti-competitive behavior of

Microsoft and to open up the marketplace for

competition. The current settlement does not

effectively accomplish either of these goals.

Thank you for your time.

Jason LaVoie

34 Maple Ln

Mahopac, NY 10541

MTC–00004705

From: Charles Duffy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 3:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Good day. As a free software developer and

an employee of a company which deals

primarily in software developed through

non-commercial means, I’m concerned about

the current settlement’s implication that only

for-profit, commercial entities should have

access to Microsoft’s APIs. Much software

developed not-for-profit has commercial

impact or usage; developers of such software

should be recognized without the need for a

commercial entity to represent their interests.

As an example, the WINE project is a

development effort which seeks to build an

application programming interface

permitting software written for Windows

platforms to function on UNIX-based

operating systems such as Linux. While

WINE presently has commercial backers and

has been used in some commercial products

(such as CorelDRAW for Linux), for much of

its development life its development was run

by a loosely affiliated group of developers.

If providing commercial interests with

access to interoperability information is in

the public good, providing similar access to

non-commercial interests is no less so; such

open access benefits both personal users and

commercial interests which make use of the

fruits of such development efforts. For these

reasons, I urge that the language recognizing

only commercial interests in the proposed

settlement be striken.

Thank you kindly for your consideration.

MTC–00004706

From: Matthew Johnson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 3:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Regarding the proposed settlement of the

case Microsoft vs USA—this settlement

proposes to solve the problem of Microsoft’s

anti-competitive behavior, and change the

fact that competing in the markets (principly

those of operating systems and office

software) that Microsoft control is currently

very difficult. A large part of that difficulty

are problems with the interoperability with

those Microsoft systems—if I write some

wordprocessing software, for example, which

is better than Microsoft Word, I cannot hope

to get any market penetration, due to the fact

that my software will not be able to be

compatible with data generated by

Microsoft’s version—which is the current

industry standard. This is obviously bad for

competition. The same is true of operating

system protocols, notably the SMB protocol

that Microsoft use for networking file sharing

and authentication—they have frequently

updated this so that other Operating Systems

(for example Linux) will not work correctly.

I think (and I know that I am not alone in

this) that any attempt to make that market

24570 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

more competative would have to begin my

requiring MicMicrosoft Settlement.rosoft to

release details of these formats, and restrain

from making undocumented changes that

break compatibility with other systems. If

this was the case, the software would have

a greater chance of competing purely on

merit, which is, of course, the ideal.

Given that the proposed settlement has a

Technical Oversight Committee to ensure

compliance with the judgement, I hope you

will consider this as a condition they should

enforce, either that specifications for these

are released so that other software can be

compatible with Microsoft products, or that

they should look closely at that issue with

regards to deliberate changes that they make

to file formats and protocols, that are

primarily designed to break functionality,

rather than implement new features, or if

new features are added, that this be done in

such a way as to leave existing functionality

in place.

Yours Sincerely,

Matthew Johnson.

<techieguy@breathemail.net>

Why the EU-CD is bad—don’t let this

become law!

http://eurorights.org/eudmca/

WhyTheEUCDIsBad.html

‘‘They that would give up essential liberty

for temporary safety deserve neither liberty

nor safety.’’

Benjamin Franklin

‘‘Those who desire to give up Freedom, in

order to gain Security, will not have, nor do

they deserve, either one.’’

Thomas Jefferson

MTC–00004707

From: Dan.Nolan@ni.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 3:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I have been following the Microsoft

antitrust case since its early beginnings. I

would like to humbly suggest a possible

remedy. Years ago, IBM released the IBM PC.

Although the PC is now the computer

hardware platform of choice (as opposed to

Apple’s Macintosh or the now defunct DEC

Alpha), very few of the PCs sold today are

actually made by IBM. The creation of the

IBM-compatible computer allowed third

party companies to sell computers on which

PC software would run, without having to

pay residuals to IBM. This allowed the

explosion of diversity of software that we

have enjoyed over the last decade. As

hardware competition brought computer

prices down, consumers benefited from the

broad variety of offerings and software

vendors flourished on platform that allowed

them to sell to a wider audience than ever

before. What I propose is simple: we need to

encourage the creation of Windowscompatible operating systems. If there were

other companies besides Microsoft who

could sell an operating system that could run

the same programs as Windows, at no

additional expense to the consumer or

software vendor, then Microsoft’s monopoly

would be broken without directly penalizing

them. In fact, if there were an industry of

Windows-compatible OS vendors, each one

would try to distinguish itself by bundling

useful software or partnering with other

software companies to provide value-added

packages. While Microsoft remains a

monopoly, these practices make competition

nearly impossible, but in a free market with

fair competition these same tactics become

acceptable and even encouraged.

Consider the case of Netscape Navigator vs.

Internet Explorer. When Microsoft decided to

bundle IE with Windows, there wouldn’t

have been any problem is Netscape could

have made a deal with a competing OS

vendor to bundle its software. But since there

were no competing vendors, Netscape’s

demise was guaranteed.

So how do we encourage and empower

companies to create Windows-compatible

operating systems? By exposing the internals

of Windows to the public. If the source code

for each version of Windows that was

obsolete ( no longer on store shelves ) was

released to the public under an open source

license like the GPL, it would allow third

party companies to create compatible

operating systems. Microsoft could still

compete and even dominate the industry by

producing high quality software and

bundling them with the latest version.

However, since many software products

require it in order to run, tightly bundled

software like DirectX which provides

additional graphics capabilities to Windows

programs would also have to be made open

source (except for the latest version, of

course). If this remedy is applied, it would

benefit all parties involved: consumers

benefit from lower prices on software and

operating system upgrades, software vendors

could sell their products to a larger market,

computer science researchers benefit from

the years of technical innovation that made

Windows possible, and Microsoft can still

remain the leading operating system vendor

in the market (at least for the next five years).

Dan Nolan

Software Engineer,

National Instruments.

MTC–00004708

From: Micah Quinn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 3:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My correspondance with you today is in

response to a call for public comment on the

proposed Microsoft Settlement.

I am the president of a small software

development company in Houston, Texas.

We develop web-based applications that

employ open-source tools including the

Linux OS, the Apache web server, and the

PERL scripting language. I write to you today

because I believe my perspective as a

technical professional in the computer

industry and my experience with my

customers over the past four years may help

to support the position that an expeditious,

rather than a settlement that addresses the

monopolist abuse perpetrated by Microsoft

will do further damage to an industry that

has already seen abusive use of a monopolist

position. The proposed relief settlement may

have been appropriate in reducing

monopolist abuse six or seven years ago

when competitive products such as office

suites and web browsers existed, but today it

would serve as a ‘‘20–20 hindsight’’

commentary on monopolist abuse.

One example of the direct damages

incurred on consumers and my customers is

the inability to deploy alternative desktop

solutions to a purely Microsoft based

environment. The solution is not infeasable

because of any technical deficiency in

alternatives or lack of functionality, but

rather becase of a monopolist abuse of

proprietary file formats. The Microsoft Office

suite changes file formats routinely to

prevent competitive office suites from

succesfully implementing import filters for

those formats. The proposed settlement

includes a remedy for this situation, but does

so a Microsoft’s discression. This power to

decide what information and to what extent

it is made available is exactly the abuse that

has damaged the free and open software

marketplace. By routinely changing

published standards and advertised

intentions to keep their competitors one step

behind.

In a truly free and openly competitive

marketplace, a company would /* never*/

change their file formats so radically, but

rather work to support third-party filters and

products to allow consumers to more easily

manipulate their data. The remedy does

nothing to insure that Microsoft will not

continue their abuse of these notorious

strongholds. My customers routinely ask me

for alternatives to the high cost of proposed

Microsoft solutions and for the time being we

are able to offer such solutions in limited

cases. However, these limited cases too are

falling into peril as Microsoft continues to

abuse industry standards. One of my

customers was recently quoted an e-mail

system costing in excess of $45,000 US to

support roughly a 400 user community.

Because we were able to convince our

customer to not restrict themselves by using

Microsoft Outlook clients, we were able to

implement an competitive solution for $2500

US.

The entire project, however, was

predecated on the customer not using

Microsoft Outlook’s group calendaring

features. Had they insisted on that their

business need for group calendaring be based

on Microsoft Outlook, then the ONLY usable

solution would be Microsoft’s Microsoft

Exchange server. The protocols and formats

used by the Exchange mail server are

routinely changed, not well documented for

third-party developers, and are not

developed as an industry standard. Forcing

Microsoft to devulge it’s proprietary data

formats means more than monitoring their

license agreements with third-party

companies at this point. To fix years of

abuse, the information must be made, free of

charge, to a wider group of software

developers, thus helping to restore

competitiveness to these areas of the

industry. Making the information available

free of charge will allow Microsoft’s

competitors to offer solutions that can coexist with todays Microsoft domainated

landscape.

If time and effort is not taken to thoroughly

evaluate the reprecussions of a hastily made

settlement, the software industry will

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24571

continue to wither in the hands of a

monopoly company. Strength in our

economy and society has been achieved

through radical diversity. The software

industry in years past has seen tremendous

strides from it’s diversity. Any entity that

threatens that diversity by strangling

competitors and prohibitively raising the

barrier for the entry of new products must be

seen as a threat and as destructive to our

economy.

If Microsoft is not firmly held at bay until

a monopoly no longer exists, competitive

products and corporations such as mine will

simply fail to survive. Not because they don’t

offer superior products or services, but

because they cannot find entry into an

industry that uses /*exactly one */ vendor for

all of it’s core software needs.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Micah T. Quinn

Quinn Team Incorporated

Micah T. Quinn

President

MTC–00004709

From: Tony Kimball

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 3:44pm

Subject: Comments on Proposed Settlement

Lectori Salutem:

Pursuant to the announced proposed

settlement conditions which purport to

provide remedy to the antitrust violations for

which Microsoft has been found culpable, I

write to provide for the record my specific

objections, as a computing professional of 12

years experience in the field:

Firstly, the proposed settlement fails to

provide effective remedy in that restrictions

on interface disclosure are left to the

judgement and discrimination of the culpable

party, and explicit conditions are placed on

disclosure requirements, which prevent

public-interest organizations from obtaining

essential information enabling the

development of interoperable components.

Secondly, the proposed settlement fails to

provide effective remedy for the damaging

monopolistic practice of hiding the cost of

Microsoft products in the cost of purchasing

a computer or other device. Unless

consumers are able to purchases devices at

lower cost in the absence of a Microsoft

product, all consumers are in effect being

taxed to subsidize Microsoft’s monopoly.

Thirdly, the proposed settlement fails to

provide effective remedy because it does not

require Microsoft to provide adequate

disclosure of file formats, type library

formats, document formats, network

protocols, and other crucial related interfaces

to the public, or even to purchasers of

Microsoft products. As a result, publicinterest development organizations and

commercial competitors alike are prevented

from providing product offerings which are

competetive with Microsoft products in

performance and capability.

Fourthly, the proposed settlement allows

Microsoft to avoid compensating the public

for its criminal practices, places the burden

of paying for the costs of obtaining remedy

on the goverment and the people, rather than

upon the culpable party, and in fact assists

Microsoft in extending its monopoly into the

educational systems of the various states.

Fifthly, the proposed settlement does

nothing to protect the public from the

evident intention of Microsoft to subvert the

global Internet as a tool of monopoly

extention, and to the detriment of the privacy

of all persons, by insinuating proprietary

protocols into the conduct of commerce, and

enforcing the disclosure of detailed personal

and financial information to entities

controlled by Microsoft. Sixthly, the historic

and continuing failure of Microsoft to

provide secure information systems

constitutes a dire threat to the national

interest and security, which can only be

prevented by placing Microsoft installations

on equal competetive footing with installed

computer systems which use more robust

and secure software systems. Microsoft has

placed backdoors in its operating systems

which allow surreptitious access to private

information by unauthorized parties. Until

and unless the source code for all of

Microsoft’s software components are

available for public inspection, continued

security lapses and abuses must be expected.

The only effective means of resolving these

problems, both the competetive disadvantage

of non-Microsoft systems, and the instability

and insecurity of the predominant Microsoft

systems, is to require that all of the source

code for Microsoft’s system software as

distributed with OEM computers and

appliances must be made available to all

persons constructing interoperable or

competing software. The proposed

settlement, to the detriment of the security,

stability, and viability of nations economic,

military, and emergency systems

infrastructure fails to provide any such

requirement or stipulation.

In summary, the proposed settlement

provides no effective remedy to the illegal

practices of Microsoft, and imposes a

substantial penalty on the wronged parties

(the goverment and public of the United

States) by failing to exact compensation for

court costs or for damages done.

Sincerely,

Anthony Lee Kimball

1822 N Park St

Fergus Falls, MN

56537

alk@pobox.com

MTC–00004710

From: root@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR,antitrust@ftc.gov

@inetgw,Ralph@essen...

Date: 12/17/01 3:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Hegemony’ Wall Street

Journal’s Double Standard

CC: letters@latimes.com @inetgw,letters

@sjmercury.com@i...

Re: Haitian Connections—How Clinton’s

cronies cashed in on foreign policy.

We are not suggesting that Fusion’s

business in Haiti is illegal.

...We are saying that Fusion’s Haiti deal is

sleazy.

Sleazy like Bill Gates’s modus operandi or

different than that of Wall Street’s poster

boy?

‘‘My friends at Dow Jones, they know who

to criticize and who not, ha ha ha...’’

MTC–00004711

From: Steven Bach

To: microsoft.atr

Date: 12/17/01 3:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

I am writing to protest the proposed DOJ

settlement with MicroSoft. The net result of

this settlement is in no way punitive, nor

does it help to resolve past damages, or do

enough to prevent future predatory

monopolistic behavior by Microsoft.

Specifically, currently many of MS’s most

serious competitors are Open Source

software projects headed by non-profit

foundations. Section III(J)(2) makes it clear

that these groups would not be entitled to

API documentation. While it is outrageous

that only for-profit corporate entities would

be considered worth of documentation, the

fact that no for-profit corporate entities

appear to be able to compete with MS, while

projects run by various non-profit

foundations are in many cases more

successful than MS (Apache, BIND,

sendmail) makes it ludicrous. This must be

addressed.

Section III(D) makes it outlines that MS

will disclose to Independent Software

Vendors (ISVs), Independent Hardware

Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers

(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)

the information needed to inter-operate with

Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in

the footnotes at the legal definitions for these

outfits, we find the definitions specify

commercial concerns only(!). The most

important competition is running on a noncommercial level. Consider that even our

Gov’t, for instance NASA, the national

laboratories, the military, the National

Institute of Standards and Technology—even

the Department of Justice itself—have no

rights. In some cases nat’l labs and other

groups produce free software, and it makes

no sense for the gov’t to exclude itself from

the right to access MS’s APIs. This too must

be addressed.

Even with these aspects rectified I do not

think that the settlement is adequate. A split

of the company into four groups (HW,

Developer Tools, Applications, Server

Software), along with a substantial fine

would be the only proper way to dispense

justice to the guilty party.

Thanks for your time,

Steven Bach

MTC–00004712

From: Byron York

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 4:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to see an investigation started

that looked in to George Bush and John

Ashcroft’s dealings with Microsoft. As the

Proposed Final Judgment was obviously

written by an attorney for Microsoft, and not

the DOJ, I feel it would be prudent to look

in to the back room deals that made the

settlement possible.

I believe there are major abuses of power,

fraud, conflicts of interest, and other high

crimes and misdemeanors that were

committed in Microsoft’s name. The real

24572 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

culprits, Bush and Ashcroft, should pay for

their crimes. There is no way a reasonable

person can look at how Ashcroft has handled

this case since he took over and not see the

glaring capitulation that the DOJ has handed

Bill Gates.

Why surrender when you have won? Nine

federal judges agree: Microsoft is an abusive

monopoly and needs to be punished. Why,

other than fraud or an abuse of power, would

the DOJ give up like this?

‘‘The best thing that happened to Microsoft

in years was George Bush being elected

president.’’ THAT is not how JUSTICE is

supposed to work in this country. The law,

and the enforcement of the law, should be

blind to who is sitting in the White House.

The DOJ’s actions in this matter have left a

bad taste in my mouth and have brought into

question the entire system of justice in this

country.

Hoping that the real criminals behind this

fiasco are brought to justice,

Byron York

713.416.4487

MTC–00004713

From: Lysinger, Sam (ISS Atlanta)

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/17/01 4:12pm

Subject: Microsft anti-trust case

Hello,

After reviewing the documents regarding

the charges against Microsoft and spending

many years using and supporting their

products (I write this email using Microsoft

Outlook), I feel that the US Courts should

throw the book at Microsoft.

Most of the argument regards Web

Browsers. Why is it that Microsoft Outlook,

an email program, requires Internet Explorer

in order for it to function? Web browsing and

email are completely unrelated things. This

alone tells me that I am being forced to use

Internet Explorer on some level or other.

Most people don’t take the time to

download Netscape if another web browser is

already on their computer. This is laziness,

and not Microsoft’s fault but they are

exploiting the basic human desire of taking

the path of least resistance in doing a task.

To make it more interesting, HTML is a

computer langauge that is platform

independant. Why is it that Microsoft added

specific HTML tags that only work in Internet

Explorer. Most people don’t think about it,

but there are web pages I cannot browse

without their html browser. I don’t

particularly like their browser, it functions

fine, but I prefer the layout of Netscape. If

you were to surf Microsoft’s web page with

a competitors web browser, you will find it

difficult at best. This is clearly forcing me to

use another piece of web browsing software,

theirs, when I need to download a patch or

security update for the windows operating

system.

I like choice, I like Windows NT and 2000,

I totally hate win95 and win98. I like unix

and I like Mac OS also. I like Excel and I hate

Microsoft Word with a passion (I use Word

Perfect for DOS and I think much could also

be said about Microsoft forcing application

competitors out of the market but I don’t

want to take up too much of your time).

I do not like being forced into using

something and I feel that I am. This is why

the 13 colonies kicked out the English and

this is why we broke up Standard Oil and

IBM.

I’d like to see justice done.

Thanks for your time,

Sam Lysinger

IT Infrastructure

slysinge@iss.net

404–236–4063

Television is so educational, every time I

turn it on I want to go to the library and get

a book.

MTC–00004714

From: Jerry Seeger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 4:21pm

Subject: thoughts on the antitrust settlement

I am rather perplexed and amazed by the

proposed settlement of the antitrust

violations of Microsoft. Perplexed because

the settlement is so weak that it is not a

punishment at all and amazed that anyone

thinks it would change Microsoft’s behavior

after the brazen way the company rolled over

the last consent decree.

Microsoft broke the law. Microsoft is

continuing with the exact same illegal

behavior in Windows XP by bundling CDburning software, instant messaging, and a

host of other features. As an example, the CDBurning features in Windows XP are vastly

inferior to other commercial (non-free)

products, but despite the higher quality the

independent vendors cannot compete with

free. Yet, if the features listed above are

intrinsic features of an operating system

which should be available at no charge, why

do you have to pay an extra $200 to connect

securely to Microsoft’s own servers? Which

one of those sounds more like a necessary

operating system feature that should not cost

extra? The extra cost for a secure connection

to a Microsoft server is an example of what

happens when Microsoft has no competition

in a market. This so-called settlement merely

legitimizes Microsoft’s continued predatory

behavior. More competitors will vanish each

year, until there is only one software

company. Any software maker who makes a

useful product for the windows platform will

eventually be replaced by second-rate, but

free, software from Microsoft.

Jerry Seeger

Vice President of Software Engineering

BinaryLabs, Inc.

MTC–00004715

From: Andrew W. Hill

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 4:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I strenuously object to the settlement in the

Microsoft antitrust trial. I am a student,

programmer and computer technician. I do

technical support on both Windows and

Macintosh computers, and it has been my

experience that Windows is a far inferior

operating system. It crashes more frequently,

is harder to use and users are far less timeefficient on the Windows machines. Despite

this, Windows runs on 90% or more of the

computers in America.

Microsoft was convicted of engaging in

illegal activities that enabled it to create and

maintain a monopoly. There is no penalty

suggested for such illegal activities in the

settlement, merely clarifications that hope to

prevent further illegal continuation of the

monopoly. I do not believe these will prevent

such a continuation, and a penalty should be

required in response to the illegal actions

performed so far.

I am also skeptical about the availability of

unbiased persons to sit on the technical

committee. Microsoft’s effect on the

computing industry is such that there would

be very few people with such technical

knowledge that would not have any

predisposition towards Microsoft.

In addition, the matter of illegally tying

applications to the operating system has not

been adequately addressed. Microsoft was

initially convicted of illegally tying, but was

overturned on appeal. Since then, it has been

remanded to the District Court for

consideration. This settlement prematurely

closes the issue of illegal tying before it can

be considered properly. This settlement is

unsatisfactory for a number of reasons,

especially the lack of a penalty. There is no

incentive for Microsoft to comply with future

requirements, as they have not been

penalized for their actions, merely to cease

such actions. What is to stop them from

engaging in further activities knowing that

there will be no drawbacks beyond stopping

them? It would be akin to debating whether

to take a miracle drug with the long term

effects of water. No, there is no incentive

here to prevent further abuse of the legal

system, or of the market through the use of

illegal monopolies.

Sincerely,

Andrew W. Hill

MTC–00004716

From: Matthew Toczek

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 4:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Department of Justice,

It is my opinion that Microsoft has already

proven it does not respect and will not abide

by antitrust laws in this country. I appreciate

your work and time spent in attempting

reasonable compromise with Microsoft;

however, it is not your fault a legal, lasting

and appropriate solution cannot be made—it

is Microsoft’s. As such, I feel the only way

to get the point across to this gigantic

corporation is through extensive legal and

economic means.

Sincerely,

Matthew Toczek

public key: www.wpi.edu/toxic/public—

key/public—key.html

CC:Matthew Toczek

MTC–00004717

From: mpl22@cornell.edu@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 5:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter presents my response to the

revised proposed Final Judgement to resolve

the United States’ civil antitrust case against

Microsoft, which is currently up for public

review. I am a citizen of the united states,

and a resident of Ithaca, NY.

I. Critique of Proposed Final Judgement

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24573

The proposed Final Judgement that the US

and Microsoft agreed to on November 6th

appears to have the best intentions, and

addresses many of the major issues raised by

the case. Unfortunately, I feel that it falls

short of being an effective remedy.

I agree with many of the points in the

following critique of the proposed final

judgement, and it is more complete than my

own statement will be. Please review the

statement on the antitrustinstitute.org

website at: http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/

recent/149.cfm

There is much to consider in that

document, the points in the proposed final

remedy that I consider most important to

review are that:

(1) it makes no attempt to address ‘‘illgotten gains’’ garnered by microsoft through

its anticompetitive practices. This is a serious

shortcoming because the company’s illegal

tactics have placed it in a very advantageous

position in the industry. In order to make

anticompetitive behavior unprofitable, there

must be substantive punishment that reduces

those gains.

(2) the anti-retaliatory clause is

insufficient. Section 3.A.1 specifies that

Microsoft shall not retaliate against and OEM

for ‘‘developing, distributing, promoting,

using, selling, or licensing any software that

competes with Microsoft Platform Software

or any product or service that distributes or

promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware;’’.

Section 6.L defines Microsoft Platform

Software as ‘‘(i) a Windows Operating System

Product and/or (ii) a Microsoft Middleware

Product.’’ As I read this clause, it still allows

retaliation against OEM’s for developing,

distributing, promoting, using, selling, or

licensing, software that competes with other

Non-Platform Microsoft Products, such as

Office, .Net, and other applications. This

opens an important window for Microsoft to

continue its anticompetitive practices.

(3) the api disclosure provision in section

3.D is impossible to enforce. The only way

to ensure that microsoft isn’t hiding

undocumented API’s is to audit the source

code. No body with sufficient manpower has

been appointed to do this. A more

appropriate solution would be to require

disclosure to API’s AND source to ISVs,

IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs. They could

then audit suspect code themselves, and

present an informed complaint to the

Technical Committee, which could verify

and investigate.

(4) The only punitive measure specified to

discourage Microsoft from non-compliance is

a 2 year extension of the terms of the

judgement. If Microsoft is not complying

with the judgement anyway, this is an

extraordinarily ineffective punishment.

II. Support for Plaintiff Litigating States’

Remedial Proposals (December 7, 2001)

The proposal filed by the state on

December 7th, 2001 is a much more complete

remedy. The proposal is available on the web

at: http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/

ms-remedy—filing.pdf

(1) It addresses the Microsoft’s ill-gotten

gains in section H by Open Sourcing the code

to Internet Explorer. The Court’s Findings of

Fact, issued on 11/5/99, state that Microsoft

successfully used its monopoly power to

increase the market share of Internet

Explorer. These findings of fact can be found

on the US Department of Justice webpage at:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/

msjudgex.htm#vh By Open Sourcing the

code to Internet Explorer, Microsoft is

deprived of the gains associated with their

anti-competitive behavior. Additionally,

consumers and the entire computing industry

benefit by augmenting the publically

available software infrastructure of the

internet.

(2) Section E offers a stronger antiretaliatory clause which covers all microsoft

products, and not just Platform Products.

(3) Section C offers an API Disclosure

provision that is enforceable. ISV’s, OEM’s,

etc are provided access to source as well as

API documentation. This will allow them to

inspect suspicious code and present well

informed complaints to the Technical

Committee.

(4) Section O offers excellent punitive

measures in the event that Microsoft does not

comply with the Judgement. Additionally,

section L of this document provides excellent

protection against Microsoft co-opting and

breaking standards compatibility, as the

findings of fact show it did with the JAVA

standard. This topic is not addressed in the

Proposed Final Judgement.

III. General suggestions

Unbundling microsoft middleware/

products/services is a superior solution than

requiring alternatives be bundled as well.

The latter has the effect of favoring a small

number of well established middleware/

products/services by creating large barriers of

entry to new middleware/products/services

that are not included in the OS distribution.

Mandating that Microsoft offer licenses to

third-party companies to port its applications

to alternative Operating Systems is a superior

solution than requiring that Microsoft

maintain ports of particular products to

particular OS’s. Determining whether a port

of a given application to a given platform can

be profitable is difficult and should be

decided by the market. Microsoft should not

be allowed to lock-out existing markets by

not porting applications and not allowing

others to do so. However, is it not feasible to

expect Microsoft to port every application to

every platform. There is not always a

demand.

There should be a reward in the event that

microsoft makes every effort in good faith to

comply with the judgement. Perhaps make

the judgement applicable for 10 years, with

an option to terminate the measures in 5 if

microsoft makes efforts in good faith to

comply.

IV. Relevant Links

(1) The Proposed Final Judgement (11/6/

2001) http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/

9495.htm

(2) The commentary on the Proposed Final

Judgement at antitrustinstitute.org http://

www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/149.cfm

(3) Plaintiff Litigating States’ Remedial

Proposals (12/7/2001) http://www.naag.org/

features/microsoft/ms-remedy—filing.pdf

V. Closing

Thank you for your time and

consideration. I hope an appropriate set of

remedial measures can be decided upon

soon.

Mike Lococo

Coordinator Computer Facilities

221 Tjaden Hall

College of AA&P

Cornell University

14853

CC:mpl22@cornell.edu@inetgw

MTC–00004718

From: Frank Carreiro

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 5:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Just a quick note regarding the settlement

with Microsoft Corp.

I am rather disappointed with the DOJ.

Despite the facts behind the case and a higher

court supporting the facts, I was hoping

Microsoft would be penalized for exercising

regularly their monopoly powers. How many

people do you know running Microsoft

products? How many run alternative

operating systems. Now we have Windows

XP. At $300 a copy I’m outraged. Over time

products usually get better and cheaper for

the home user. Not in this case. I believe this

is the most Microsoft has charged for an

operating system to date.

Fortunately there are a large number of

people walking away from Microsoft. I am

now running RedHat Linux 7.x for over 90%

of my computer usage these days. At every

opportunity I push Linux as a solution

simply because it’s high quality software

without the Microsoft bugs. Someday we all

should have the joy of working on a

computer that is reasonably priced and very

productive.

Speaking of which. I do run a couple of

SAMBA servers (www.samba.org) which

permit me to connect my friends computers

and communicate with them. If I am reading

this deal correctly SAMBA and every other

product in Linux which can communicate

with Windows will be killed. Some deal.

Giving Microsoft MORE power to

monopolize the world? I don’t believe this

has been well thought through. I would

strongly suggest everyone pay closer

attention to what is going on here. Also the

not for profit organizations such as Apache

would be in great jeopardy.

Section III(J)(2) concerns me a great deal.

You may wish to re-read it as it seems to

allow Microsoft to define what is a business

(well.. just about). Right now the biggest

threat to Microsoft is open source software.

I think we all understand just how well

Microsoft’s security by obscurity has worked

in the last few years. Pathetic would be kind

in my estimation. Certainly the other OS’s

have their share of problems however it IS

easier to troubleshoot and fix problems with

10,000 people looking at the code over 100

people doing the same work. Over time it

becomes harder and harder for bugs to creep

in as more people get involved. In closing I

don’t believe splitting the company into two

entities will solve the problem at hand

however the other end of the spectrum also

does not resolve our concerns with Microsoft.

Some middle ground must be reached.

Microsoft must not be allowed to continue

operating as they have in the past. Ma Bell

and the oil companies from the early 1900’s

were not allowed to continue their

24574 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

monopolistic practices after the courts ruled

against them. Why should Microsoft be

allowed?

There are better alternatives to Microsoft

which are just as difficult to learn and use.

Give them a chance to prove themselves. I

believe the economy will turn around as they

contribute in their own way. Other countries

have learned what open source can give

them. Let us be leaders and not followers in

technology. Else we will be eating their dust

in the years to come.

Frank Carreiro

MTC–00004719

From: C HOFFNER

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 5:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Renata B. Hesse,

(A Problem—Partial Standards)

Standards are rules system components

must embody to interact correctly with other

components. Without standards it is

impossible to build a new component to

extend or upgrade the original system.

Components of the DOS and Windows

operating systems are at three levels. The

drivers at the bottom level include the

hardware interface. The applications at the

top level include the user interface. There are

three areas where the software industry

depends on standards to ensure aftermarket

products are compatible. These three areas

are file formats, application interfaces, and

communication protocols. The de jure

standards defined by the CCITT and similar

bodies inherently promote competition. On

the other hand, the de facto standards

defined by the Microsoft monopoly

effectively stifle competition.

In the telecommunications industry, de

jure standards have become a part of the

culture. In fact, de facto standards are not

viewed as standards at all since they change

at the dictates of a single company. The de

facto standards from Microsoft stand in stark

contrast to those from AT&T and IBM. Entire

books have been written on undocumented

DOS and Windows. Missing information is

only found by reverse engineering. It is not

that Microsoft fails to provide details of the

standards it defines. It is rather that they are

all too often incomplete and inaccurate.

Something must be done to level the playing

field.

(A Solution—Improved Disclosure)

Before computer programmers write any

code, systems engineers write a set of

specifications. Among other things, these

spell out the standards, both de facto and de

jure, the software must implement. Because

communications protocols found in

Microsoft products are those drafted by

standards bodies in the telecommunications

industry, complete and accurate

documentation is available to competitors.

This is not the case with the documentation

for file formats and application interfaces. In

fact, it is sometimes necessary to find what

works by trial and error. The result is

unexplained failures.

Standards documents are of use to

developers rather than end-users. They

should be tracked and updated in a manner

consistent with industry practice. The

consumer benefit is higher quality products.

Changes to file formats and application

interfaces may be made late in the

development cycle. A product group that is

ISO-9001 certified will have procedures for

updating the specifications accordingly. To

ensure responsible use of its de facto

standards:

(1) Order Microsoft to seek ISO-9001

certification.

(2) Order Microsoft to provide missing

information.

(3) Impose harsh fines for repeated noncompliance. Improving disclosure of de facto

standards is not all that is needed. It is a

problem by itself, but only a part of the

broader problem. But here, the example of

AT&T and IBM can help in fashioning a

solution.

Sincerely,

Charles W. Hoffner

MTC–00004720

From: JMHynes@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 7:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the US DOJ:

For what it’s worth, it is time for you to

hear from the backbone of the US economic

system—The small business owner. Below is

a copy of an email that I sent to Microsoft.

It was written from the culmination of many

years of my frustration with attempting to use

Microsoft’s products. This direct lack of

respect for customer service sent me over the

edge. And so, I send this to you to read and

understand that the economy will never

realize the true efficiency gains from

Microsoft software because we spend twice

as much time as we save with it on the phone

with poor customer service issues. Bottom

line = If there was a competing operating

system out there to which I could easily

switch, I would be gone from Microsoft in an

instant. Please negotiate a settlement that

encourages better service and/or competition.

If I receive a response from Microsoft, I will

submit it for your review as well.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Hynes

Partner

Excidian, LLC

To whom it may concern (Manufacturing/

Engineering/whoever):

I own a small business. I purchased a

computer from Gateway with your Millenium

product on it and a FREE upgrade to

Windows XP. Gateway tells me that I will

have to wait for my upgrade until next spring

even though they are shipping new

computers with their OEM version of XP on

it now. Microsoft customer support had a

great deal of difficulty explaining this to me

(I cannot believe you leave your customer

service people hanging out to dry without the

info to explain these problems), but from

what I can understand, Microsoft tweaks

each OEM version so that it runs correctly

with each manufacturer’s BIOS. I cannot

believe that you cannot burn enough upgrade

disks so that your OEM customer, Gateway,

does not have to tell their customers that they

will have to wait until the spring of 2002! Or,

did you release the XP version before the bios

designs were ready and now software

engineering cannot keep up? Or, did Gateway

run a promotion to keep selling computers

and screw their customers that were stupid

enough to buy a device with Millenium (and

I write that branded product name with

disdain)? Can someone at Microsoft explain

why I will have to wait until the spring of

2002 for my upgrade from Millenium to

Windows XP? I’m thinking right now that if

there were competition for operating systems,

this type of ‘‘glitch’’ would not happen. If I

could easily switch to a competing operating

system right now, I would do it. I certainly

would not run my small business like this.

Show me your entrepreneurial spirit. Show

me that you want to under promise and over

deliver. Show me that you want to keep your

customers happy enough so that no other

competing operating system would be able to

take customers from you. Show me that you

care enough by letting Bill Gates read and

answer this email. Better yet, send me my

Gateway customized upgrade from

Millenium to Windows XP!

John Hynes

Excidian, LLC

(724) 728–8477

CC:Excidian@aol.com@inetgw

MTC–00004721

From: Patrick McCloskey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 7:52pm

Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement

I am firmly opposed to the settlement for

three principal reasons.

First, the settlement does not in anyway

compensate for the effects of Microsoft’s

illegal maintenance of a monopoly.

Second, it forecloses further pursuit of

illegal tying. Third, its attempt to prevent

future illegal monopolistic behavior is

inadequate. THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY STILL

UP TO THEIR SAME OLD TRICKS AND

THINK YOU AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

ARE FOOLS.

Patrick McCloskey

MTC–00004722

From: Pam Takada

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 8:44pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement, I am opposed

to the settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to register my OPPOSITION TO THE

MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT, which is too

lenient. I am an ordinary citizen with no

connection to the case. I feel that Microsoft

is a monopoly and that the settlement is a

slap on the wrist for Microsoft. Clearly, the

evidence shows the monopolistic and

predatory behavior of Microsoft.

The settlement only serves Microsoft’s

interest in further propagating its monopoly.

A suitable settlement would include the

breakup of Microsoft into 2 or more

companies.

Thank you for your consideration,

Kevin Takada

916 San Ramon Ave.

Huntsville, AL 35802

Pam.Takada@mindspring.com

256–881–7750

MTC–00004723

From: jackie lightfield

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24575

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 8:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed terms of the settlement, in

particular ‘‘that Microsoft does not have to

disclose portions of the APIs that might

‘‘compromise the security of anti-piracy,

antivirus, software licensing, digital rights

management, encryption or authentication

systems’’ is problematic. Under such vague

definitions, Microsoft would be able to avoid

other provisions of the settlement by

invoking this clause. I don’t think it was the

intent of the courts to create a case law that

is unspecified and therefor unenforceable.

Much like there are Government

regulations separating the consolidation of

power amongst owners of broadcast and

newspaper media companies in the same

markets, there too should be regulations

against the consolidation of of power

amongst a single company in the technology

market.

It is imperative that the industry adopt

standards in order to assure interoperability.

This is the area that I hope the Department

of Justice review and determine that an

enforcement of published standards, long

before the release of software, would provide

competition an equal opportunity to develop

for the operating system in question, and as

a by product, create better software. Under

the proposed settlement there are no time

provisions, that would define clearly the

period in which new APIs can be introduced

and disseminated. Further, there should be a

classification of where, within the operating

system code, such portions of the API as it

related to security of anti-piracy, antivirus,

software licensing, digital rights

management, encryption or authentication

systems, are utilized, and what alternatives

the Operating System will provide for thirdparty software to utilize such API calls. For

example, a chat service that requires

authentication, should not require that the

chat service ‘‘recreate: authentication,

encryption or other such code, in order to

perform correctly on the operating system.

regards

jaqueline lightfield

president

http://www.blowtorch.com

interactive publishing technologies

tel 203/497–8832 fax 203/497–8836

* http://www.yourct.com *

MTC–00004724

From: Ken Worthy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:17pm

Subject: Software monopolies and Microsoft

Hello.

The government’s solution to its case

against Microsoft, and its strategy in pursuing

the case, are completely misguided and

ineffective. In short, MICROSOFT’S

MONOPOLOY MUST BE ELIMINATED,

NOT MITIGATED, AT ITS SOURCE, BY

FORCING THE CREATION OF OPEN

STANDARDS, PARTICULARLY THE

STANDARDIZATION OF THE INTERFACE

BETWEEN THE OPERATING SYSTEM AND

APPLICATIONS AND THE

STANDARDIZATION OF FILE FORMATS,

SUCH AS WORD PROCESSING DOCUMENT

FORMATS.

The government has managed to get this

case completely wrong. There is a fact about

software development which is essential to

Microsoft’s position which has been

obscured by the whole conversation. That’s

because the correct distinctions between

more traditional technologies and software

have not yet been discerned. This case is not,

at its essence, about ‘‘unfair’’ practices, but

rather aobut the very existence of a harmful

and unnecessary monopoly control over what

should be in the public domain—operating

system and file format interface

specifications. The fact is that monopoly

proprietorship of operating system and file

format interfaces is NOT essential to

interoperability. A standard IS essential, and

that standard will either be intentionally

created/maintained, or it will be

spontaneously generated by whichever

company has an early market lead. In the

case of the operating system / application

interface, Microsoft was lucky enough to

have an early lead, and its momentum in the

control of the operating system interface has

lead to a huge market advantage which has

only grown and will continue to do so. In

addition, they have been able to parlay their

position as controller of that standard into

the monopoly control of yet more standards,

particularly the file format standards for

word processing and spreadsheets.

The very fact that the solutions arrived at

involve simply penalizing Microsoft for

unfair business practices and reforming those

practices reveals that there is a real lack of

understanding that it is not simply

Microsoft’s use of their defacto monopoly

position that is harmful, but rather the very

existence of that monopoloy position, which,

contrary to much of what they and others say

is NOT essential for the health of the

industry and innovation, but rather

extremely DETRIMENTAL to those things.

Evidence of the latter is the fact that

Microsoft continues to produce defective,

inefficient operating systems (which are

continually purchased due to their monopoly

position, NOT their quality), that are quite

inferior to readily available alternatives

which do not enjoy a monopoly hold on the

operating system to application interface.

Microsoft’s astounding success and wealth

has been gained primarily due to their

monopoly control over these interfaces.

Because of that, they now should be forced

to fund the creation of an independent

industry consortium or standards board

responsible for creating and developing the

open interface standards, and they must be

forced to conform to those standards in all of

their products. At that point, the market will

be truly open and free and other competitors

will be able to actually compete with

Microsoft. Microsoft knows full well that

when this happens, their market hold will

dissolve because other companies are more

streamlined and efficient and will be able to

produce these products at a fraction of the

price. The result will be the release of the

vast human resources now occupied by

Microsoft, into more efficient and productive

companies. This would be the most positive

development in the software industry,

perhaps ever.

These thoughts come from about 15 years’

experience as a software developer and

observer of the software industry. Now that

I am in graduate school, I see firsthand many

more of the negative effects of Microsoft’s

monopolies. In academia, as in much of the

rest of society, word processing documents

cannot usually be accessed by other people

unless they are in Microsoft’s proprietary

‘‘Word’’ .doc format. That is simply because

it has become the defacto standard format.

There is no reason why one company must

control the defacto standard format; it could

as well be controlled by an open standards

board who are responsible for its

maintenance and technical development.

Also, we are effectively required by the

defacto operating system standard to have

Microsoft Office as our operating system for

computers; this is because many of our

scholars require certain programs which only

work on that operating system. If Microsoft

did not own the defacto standard operating

system interface, ANY vendor would be able

to produce operating systems which would

run all of those applications that we need.

The interface itself would be developed in

such a way as to benefit consumers and the

industry as a whole rather than being

developed primarily at the discretion and for

the benefit of a single company.

The fact that it is the operating system /

application interface which Microsoft

controls (and is the defacto standard) is

obscured in most of the discussions that I

have seen in this case. Government lawyers

have ASSUMED that it is the operating

system itself, rather than the interface to it

which is central to the monopoly, but this is

false. The following analogy should illustrate

the point: In the world of transportation,

imagine that one single company owned all

of the information (and patents) needed to

construct a road or highway (other

companies might be able to make railroads,

for which the exact design specifications are

public knowledge). This company basically

owns the interface between roads and cars.

Other companies can produce cars to drive

on their roads (because they publish that side

of their interface), but other companies

cannot produce roads on which those same

cars can drive, because patent law prohibits

them from building roads to those secret,

proprietary specifications—the road/car

interface specification. You would think it is

absurd, but this is exactly the situation we

are in with software. One company got an

early lead in producing desktop operating

systems, gained momentum from the

market’s deep need for a standard interface,

and has reaped the rewards ever since, to the

detriment of industry and consumers. Please

make Microsoft give up its proprietary

control of operating system and file format

interface specifications, and create an open

standards board to administer industry-wide

standards for these things.

Thank you very much,

Kenneth Worthy

University of California, Berkeley

MTC–00004725

From: Taran Rampersad

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 9:29pm

Subject: Public Comment Regarding

Microsoft Inc.’s Case

24576 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

To Whom It May Concern:

For the record, I am a Software Developer

who has worked in the industry for almost

10 years. I have used many Microsoft

products, and have enjoyed the increasing

abilities of software systems developed by

Microsoft. I also enjoy using other operating

systems, but as a software developer, I have

to follow market trends to keep myself fed—

regardless of the market trends.

However, it is apparent that Microsoft has

attempted to maintain a monopoly on the

Internet Web Browser market to any casual

software user. It is more apparent to a

software developer who work 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.

Furthermore, 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

way of gearing Microsoft Certified

individuals (who pay for courses and tests!)

to use only Microsoft Products. Operating

Systems. Software. Software Development. In

an internet enabled world, these are the tools

for maintaining a monopoly on the Internet

Browser Market.

One could argue that nobody else has

attempted these things on the level that

Microsoft Inc. has. Yet that is my point.

Nobody should. Freedom of Choice.

The newer versions of Windows have the

internet technologies wrapped in them. This

IS an obvious attempt to maintain a

monopoly on the Internet Browser market.

They may be able to prove that they did not

do it ’on purpose’, but they have done it. If

I run over a man with my car, and I broke

a traffic law while doing so, the offense is

manslaughter. It I planned to do it

(premeditated), it’s Murder 1.

The fact remains that a man would be

dead. The fact remains that Microsoft has

leveled the playing field. Odds are that when

this is read, it will be read on a Windows NT

4.0 machine. Why? Because the U.S.

Government has certified Windows NT 4.0 as

a secure operating system. Furthermore, this

mail message will probably be read through

another one of Microsoft’s applications.

The U.S. Government, for lack of any other

’secure’ operating system, has gone with the

highest bidder. Neil Armstrong quipped

about going to the moon on everything built

by the lowest bidder, and here the United

States states that we’ll go with the ONLY

software manufacturer that creates an

operating system.

This seems counterintuitive. Freedom of

Choice. If you need more proof than the

software that the reader of this document is

using, and my ability to predict that, I’m at

a loss.

These two points highlight the fact that the

average American consumer is paying more

than once for the same software—first as

consumers, then as taxpayers. When banks

charge twice for ATM withdrawals, we cringe

and say that it may be legal, but it is

obviously immoral. Given, the hardware

manufacturer is hiding the price of the

operating system on new computer systems,

the fact remains the same. This is a sticky

situation, but legal recourse in the interest of

the people of the United States (and the rest

of the world!) should contain the following

items:

(1) Microsoft products—or products of any

software manufacturer—must be sold as

separate items by computer vendors. Users

can then make a CONSCIOUS choice. Other

software manufacturers then also have a

chance to compete. Installation of the USER

SELECTED software can remain free.

(2) Any Microsoft 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

Process for creation of their operating

systems would give software manufacturer’s

a chance to keep up with Microsoft.

(5) Device Driver information for new

operating systems MUST be made public

prior to the release of the operating system

by a minimum of 6 months. This is VERY

important when dealing with future web

enabled embedded devices. This is also very

important to the average consumer—they get

a better product!

This judgement is not only of import to the

United States, where it is a national issue. It

is in fact an INTERNATIONAL issue, since

the monopoly itself extends to all corners of

the world. Judgement in this case MUST be

fair to the consumer, because future cases

along these lines will look toward this

precedent. And, in future, it may not be as

domestic an issue.

Furthermore, if Microsoft Inc. were a

foreign company, this would be seen as a

security issue. It should be seen this way

despite the fact that Microsoft is a domestic

software manufacturer for the SAME reasons.

Please realize that the implications in an

internet based society reach further than the

next few years.

They affect society ad infinitum.

Thank you,

Taran Rampersad

2546 Oak Trail West, #203

Clearwater, FL 33764.

MTC–00004726

From: Derek Chen-Becker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 10:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

My name is Derek Chen-Becker and I am

currently a Graduate student at Washington

University in Saint Louis, Missouri. I am

writing to voice my concern with the

proposed remedy for the Microsoft Anti-trust

settlement. Specifically, I feel that the

proposed remedy does not in any way

recognize the significance of non-commercial

works and the importance of maintaining

open standards to the process of innovation

in the computer industry. The Internet,

originally DarpaNet, was conceived on the

basis of open standards to ensure

interoperability between disparate systems.

The proposed remedies would allow

Microsoft to leverage its monopoly in the

personal computer market to impose de facto

standards without requiring that these

standards are open for interoperability

purposes. Without this requirement,

Microsoft can effectively stifle competition in

any one area by changing its standards

enough to break competing products.

As a graduate student, I am aware of many

projects written for non-Microsoft operating

systems which are used to allow

compatibility between systems. For instance,

the Samba project

(http://www.samba.org) provides network

filesystem compatibility between Microsoft

and non-Microsoft operating systems. This

project is non-commercial and is effectively

in the public domain. Section I.1 specifies

that all terms be reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND), but what is RAND

for a commercial entity is hardly RAND for

a non-profit project composed of volunteers.

I feel that without modifications to the

settlement that provide for requirements of

open standards, Microsoft will have little

incentive to change its current practice of

breaking interoperability with non-Microsoft

systems.

Thank You,

Derek Chen-Becker

Derek Chen-Becker

dwb2@cec.wustl.edu

http://cec.wustl.edu/dwb2

MTC–00004727

From: Craig Ogle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/17/01 11:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As an Australian Computer user for the last

15 years I have seen the rise of personal

computers. This has been an amazing

journey. The darkest part of computing has

been the rise of the Microsoft Corporation as

it has constricted competition and forced

IT’S standards upon the computing world. I

think the settlement that Microsoft wants to

reach is a slap in the face for justice (world

not just American). This corporation who has

destroyed countless companies, has to be

held accountable for its actions.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24577

Please as a concerned world citizen do not

let Microsoft railroad the justice system at it

has done the computer world.

Craig Ogle

4 Sylvia Crt Eatons Hill

Queensland Australia 4037

MTC–00004728

From: skoric@EUnet.yu@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 12:17am

Subject: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST

‘‘Red Hat’’ <RedHat@redhat.rgc2.net>

wrote:

November was a busy month for Microsoft

and the US judicial system. It began when

the Department of Justice announced it had

reached a settlement of the antitrust suit

against the company. The DOJ had

previously found Microsoft to be a

monopolist, but the settlement included no

punishment for past actions and left doubt as

to its protections against future monopolistic

practices.

The DOJ is collecting your letters about the

settlement via email. We encourage you to

share your opinions.

send your letters to:

microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

That’s my opinion. The global position of

Microsoft’s Windows has made it the world’s

leader in operating systems. That is ok as

long as it is considered as a market

competition. But, when such a leader

position is used to remove competitive

products in areas that are not so close to (or

just not needed to be used by) an operating

system—then it is the monopol.

It makes me wonder why the DOJ (or any

other US official) doesn’t include any

punishment for past actions, because that

might motivate other similar cases. In the

same time, looks that such ‘‘justice’’ is very

‘‘gentle’’ to the monopolyst that is an US

company. Would it be the same when a nonUS company behaved like Mocrosoft? It

won’t be good if such ‘‘justice’’ works for

only those players who might belong to the

US ‘‘national interests’’, but does not for

others.

Regards,

Misko

MTC–00004729

From: David C. Hill

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 12:36am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

‘‘I would like to express my opposition to

the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case.

I am not a lawyer but a user of personal

computers, a tool essential to my livelihood

for approximately 20 years. I have used many

personal computing operating systems over

the years, including those made by Microsoft

(MSDOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95,

Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 4.0

and Windows XP Pro), Amiga, Commodore,

IBM, Texas Instruments and Apple

Computer. My opinion is that operating

systems other than Microsoft’s have been

superior in features and performance at each

stage of development of the personal

computing platform. Yet Microsoft achieved

a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of

the personal computer market. Microsoft’s

illegal behavior in maintaining and

expanding that monopoly to in excess of 90

per cent of the market effectively destroyed

all existing competitive personal computing

operating systems in the process, save one,

and perhaps prevented others from being

developed.

‘‘I am firmly opposed to the settlement for

three principal reasons. First, the settlement

does not in anyway compensate for the

effects of Microsoft’s illegal maintenance of

a monopoly. Second, it forecloses further

pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to

prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior

is inadequate.

‘‘Microsoft stands convicted after appeal of

conducting illegal acts to maintain its

monopoly of personal computer operating

systems. Microsoft’s illegal acts certainly

have cost consumers billions of dollars

directly and possibly much more by

preventing the development of alternatives.

We will never know what we’ve lost as a

result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the

settlement does not provide even a

minuscule penalty for the deleterious results

of Microsoft’s egregiously illegal behavior. It

simply dismisses this and proceeds with a

lame attempt to prevent a continuation of

such illegal behavior. No corrective action of

any type that simply attempts to put

Microsoft on a legal course can be reasonably

construed to be a penalty of any sort. A

penalty is required and none is provided by

the settlement.

‘‘Microsoft was also convicted of illegally

tying its products to its monopoly operating

system but that conviction was overturned on

appeal based on the standard used by the

District Court judge to convict Microsoft. The

issue was remanded to the District Court for

further consideration. A decision to not

pursue the illegal tying issue is formalized in

the settlement even though the Justice

Department announced that it would not

pursue it before entering into the settlement.

In my experience it is indeed Microsoft’s

tying of its products to its monopoly

operating system that has been the most

damaging to competition in the personal

computing market. Microsoft was initially

found guilty of illegal tying and the

remanded issue should be pursued. The

settlement formally forecloses the

opportunity to do so.

‘‘Finally, the settlement is inadequate to

prevent Microsoft from continuing its

practices of illegally maintaining its

monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft is an

unrepentant criminal. As an example, its

CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating that

he does not even know what a monopoly is

after Microsoft was convicted of being one.

It is totally incredulous to believe that

Microsoft will simply go forth and be a good

corporate citizen. While the settlement

contains provisions to enforce its restrictions

through oversight, the burden is on the

government to catch Microsoft in the act and,

if so, then Microsoft is simply returned once

again to proceedings such as these. Where is

the incentive for Microsoft to comply? My

mind boggles in that this is the second time

that a settlement of this nature has been

reached with the same convict. The second

is no more satisfactory than the first. Any

resolution of this case against Microsoft must

provide appropriate incentives for the

unrepentant criminal to comply with the

law.’’

You can’t be serious about letting Microsoft

off the hook !

Sincerely,

David C. Hill

Arvada, Colorado

‘‘Let every nation know, whether it wishes

us well or ill, that we shall pay any price,

bear any burden, meet any hardship, support

any friend, oppose any foe to assure the

survival and the success of liberty.’’

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

1/20/61

Dave Hill <dchill1@qwest.net> :-)

MTC–00004730

From: Ted McFadden

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 12:55am

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Suit

To whom it may concern:

I was made aware of this e-mail address by

an online forum, and wish to contribute my

opinion to the trial, for whatever it may be

worth. Microsoft makes itself to appear

harmless, but in fact they are a gigantic

international monster, crushing any and all

competition in its path to maintain its own

kingdom. While this in itself may not be a

bad thing, consider that the ideal Microsoft

world basically consists of us ‘‘low-life’’

consumers feeding them money on their own

terms. Microsoft does not care whether the

customers are happy; they simply want

money, and they will do anything in their

power to get it. Recently, Microsoft has been

issuing progressively worse software (starting

with the release of their Windows 95

operating system, and continuing today in

the form of their Windows XP operating

system), but a lack of a real choice has

subjected many (including myself) to

Microsoft’s whim.

As an American who believes in the

freedom to choose, I object to Microsoft’s

continued abuse of their monopoly power,

especially after having been disciplined once.

Microsoft was given a second chance by the

1995 Consent Decree, issued by the highest

law of the land (our own Supreme Court).

They not only disobeyed the Decree, they

insulted the very heart of our judicial system

by doing so. The punishment for doing so

should *NOT* give them the chance to

extend their monopoly power further, as the

current proposed settlement would allow. I,

personally, am all in favor of Microsoft

donating money instead of software and

hardware, to let the said schools choose their

own preferred route. Not only that, Microsoft

should make information about competition

available to the said schools, so the schools

can make an informed choice. If the schools

choose to go with Microsoft’s software, then

so be it.... at least they had the ability to

choose.

Sincerely,

Edward Ridout ‘‘Ted’’ McFadden

MTC–00004731

From: John McBride

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 1:38am

24578 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Dear Ms. Hesse,

As stated on the subject line, I am writing

you this letter in regard to the proposed

settlement between the United States Justice

Department and the Microsoft Corporation. I

must tell you up front that I am not a lawyer

or economic specialist. My only real interest

in the case stems from my profession as a

computer programmer, a means with which

I have earned my living (to some extent)

since the mid 1980s.

As outlined at the DOJ website, I have

reviewed the various sections of the

document found at :

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/

9495.htm

As I am a simple person, I am partioning

this message into three parts. The first part

will address the shortcomings I perceive in

the proposal, the second part will address

what I believe to be positive areas of the

proposal, and the final section will be a

declaration of my personal concerns about

the overall proposal.

I will quote the portions of the document

that concern me, then follow the quote with

some type of comment.

Part One: Shortcomings of the Proposal:

‘‘Section III. Prohibited Conduct’’

‘‘A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against an

OEM...’’

‘‘B. Microsoft’s provision of Windows

Operating System Products to Covered

OEMs...’’

‘‘C. Microsoft shall not restrict by

agreement any OEM...’’

Microsoft’s upcoming strategy is to replace

hardware OEMs (Dell,HP,Compaq) with their

own hardware platform, and derivitives of

the same, known as ‘‘The Xbox’’. These

prohibitions are meaningless in such a

scenario.

‘‘Section III. Prohibited Conduct’’

‘‘E. Starting nine months after the

submission of this proposed...’’

‘‘D. Starting at the earlier of the release

of...’’

Part of the text includes the wording ‘‘..for

the sole purpose of interoperating with a

Windows Operating System Product...’’ Does

this mean that any code written must, at the

time of execution, be connected on at least

one end to a Microsoft product? In other

words, Microsoft is guaranteed 50% market

share during a transaction instance? If this

interpretation can be made, it is hardly a

penalty—it is guaranteed market share.

‘‘Section III. Prohibited Conduct’’

‘‘F.2. Microsoft shall not enter into any

agreement relating...’’ The wording is so

complex that it will be, in practice, easily

circumvented.

‘‘Section III. Prohibited Conduct’’

‘‘J.1; J.2 ...’’ IP, Piracy, Hackers...this is an

enormous loophole; an open hoop that

Microsoft will jump through in an instant.

These two sections, in many ways, invalidate

the entire proposal.

Part Two: Positive Areas of the Proposal:

Anything exposing the inner workings of

the Windows System, both the protocols and

APIs, so that programmers, researchers and

scientists can make their products work

efficiently and competitively with the

Microsoft Platform are beneficial. I hope that

Section III.E,D can be interpreted in such a

way that no Microsoft product need be

present in the transaction using such exposed

protocols and APIs.

Part Three: Declaration of Personal

Concerns:

My primary personal concern is that, at

nearly every technical conference I attend,

there is an increased Microsoft presence at a

rate that far exceeds the market saturation of

General Motors (1950’s) and IBM (1970’s)—

both of which had dealings with the US

Government regarding antitrust issues—in

the American marketplace Given the extreme

market penetration, the continuing patterns

of abuse, and a marketing department that

(quite frankly) lies at every opportunity, all

I can say about Microsoft (with regards to this

proposal) is the following statement:

‘‘As a result of this proposal, Microsoft will

have an increased presence on computers

and computing devices in the near and long

term. Consumers will continue to have less

choice in the computing environments they

use, as such, the proposed settlement will not

have accomplished its goal—to end the

Microsoft monopoly on computing devices’’.

If the DOJ and Federal Government were

serious about increasing consumer choice,

you would have found a way to mandate

Operating Environments (in general) on a

percentage basis, in much the way

broadcasting and monetary environments are

regulated. Indeed, the political arm would

have insured that no platform ever control

more than, say, thirty percent of the user or

server environment. Until the Federal

Government and the DOJ acknowlege this

reality, my choice in computing

environments is, quite simply, Microsoft. The

proposal has not, and will not, change this

reality.

Thank you for your fine service, and I

strongly appreciate this opportunity to

express my opinions.

Sincerely,

John McBride,

North Edwards, CA

MTC–00004732

From: Scott Walters

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 2:07am

Subject: Settlement Comments

Dear Renata Hesse;

I wish to go on record as I feel I have been

materially harmed, as have all businesses and

software developers in America. Microsoft

sets a standard for compatability for nearly

all computer systems in the United States.

Competing systems by other vendors, such as

Compaq, IBM, RedHat, SGI are frequently

and genereally rejected for applications for

which they are technically superior and more

cost effective because they do not meet this

standard of compatability set by Microsoft

Corporation. The standard that Microsoft sets

shifts to suit Microsofts needs. When

competing products are able to interoperate

with their file formats, programming

conventions, or network protocols, Microsoft

quickly changes the standards. As a result,

people and companies genereally fear to use

anything not endorced by Microsoft, as they

know it will soon be incompatable. This

afflicts even vendors who wish to support

Microsoft, by building their software

exclusively on this platform. Any company

that makes good or useful software for

Microsoft quickly finds that Microsoft has a

version of their own software that is tightly

integrated with Windows that is difficult to

remove or replace. This has happended to

Lotus, to dBase, to Netscape, to Harvard

Graphics, to WinAmp—and hundreds of

other companies and products.

A previous computer software and

hardware monopoly, before being broken up,

held the market from any outside innovation,

and provided standard software

programming processes and computer

systems. These systems are the heart of many

large companies, including my current

employer, Qwest. These systems became

deeply entrenched, after 15 years of

monopoly. It has proven impossible to

replace these computers or move the software

off of them, due to their proprietary nature.

The backbones of thousands of companies

like Qwest/USWest are these ailing,

proprietary, hulking beasts. They cannot be

upgraded any longer to deal with the new

demands increased capacity and business

models have placed on them. Modern

software design processes and methods don’t

apply to them. Even today, as each year goes

by, it becomes harder and harder to replace

them.

Closed, secret systems owned by a single

vendor are creating time-bombs for the

future. While businesses know they will

never be able to run software for Windows

on any other system, they are failing to

consider the fact that the face of computing

will have completely changed in 10 years.

Unless Microsoft’s protocols, file formats,

and ‘‘API’’ (software’s specification for

interfacing to the operating system) are not

intentionally minipulated to maintain

incompatability and secrecy, we will face

this same legacy, and this same disaster,

again. Billions of dollars will be spent

maintaining systems from a previous

generation, while businesses information

backbones could easily be taking on new

shapes and dimentions. Every business

bullied into using Microsoft products today

for fear of being subjected to incompatability

will find the future holds much greater

threats.

This monopoly will essentially be leagized

if Microsoft’s offer is accepted. The

corporations, software developers, computer

manufacturers, and consumers deserve better

then this. Microsoft can maintain a viable

product and business without this. The

quality of Microsoft’s product will not

noticibly deteriate, and will likely improve,

if they are not held in a status where they

can refuse to interoperate with other vendor’s

products. Data and resources being shared

between computers will produce a more

diverse, competitive market. Businesses will

be able to elect to use software, hardware,

and other technology that best suits their

needs, including new, untested, experimental

and futuristic ideas. Businesses will be at

liberty to plan and build for a future, and to

take this future in their own hands.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24579

Thank you sincerely for your time and

attention on this grave matter.

Scott David Walters

16231 E Balsam Dr

Fountain Hills, AZ 85268

MTC–00004733

From: Christopher Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 2:42am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Apparently it is quite impossible for nontechnologically enhanced people to look at

the situation logically-especially US Justices.

Trust in that if Microsoft is penalized to the

letter and spirit of the law-that the sky won’t

fall. There are alternatives to Microsoft. It is

incredulous to my mind that Microsoft has

been allowed to thrive. Apparently Mr. Gates

can buy ANYthing-even justice. I wish you

all a lifetime of windows for your actions to

date, may you live with unstable operating

systems. thousands of computer viruses, and

a stagnant tech sector due to your laissezfaire policies. Not to mention a

megalomaniac named Gates. Usually I am

sympathetic to people of Mr. Gates nature,

for he is truly a unique individual. A real

shame that due to his business practices and

unrepentant behavior he is no better than a

criminal, and since he is super-wealthy can

buy what he wants. For myself I will not

purchase Microsoft software, nor will I use it

unless it is free, and superior. Fortunately

Microsoft Macintosh products are superior in

this area where Microsoft has had to compete

with other Macintosh products. Microsoft

CAN do a good job of software if they have

to. Why do they have to under the settlement

you propose?

I would rather not service Microsoft OS

based computers in my work, and since I an

a Macintosh specialist I don’t have to. Even

the new Windows XP will crash if a real load

is put into the OS-not to mention the back

orifices that report the contents of your hard

drive to Redmond every time you connect to

the internet. I realize that Microsoft has a

piracy of software problem-but I am not

prepared to live in a world where some

engineer can look at the contents of my hard

disk whenever I use the net. No thanks

America, I’ll stick with my Mac.

MTC–00004734

From: Karl Fusaris

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 6:37am

Subject: Rewarding Crime

Dear Sir or Madam,

Rewarding criminals in exchange for their

crimes sends the wrong message to everyone.

Yours truly,

Karl Fusaris

MTC–00004735

From: tidwell@tekelec.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 7:34am

Subject: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

Just upgraded to windows XP and wanted

to share some concerns I have as a consumer.

During the upgrade process from Windows

98 MS informed me that Java would no

longer work with my new system and must

be removed for the upgrade. It also informed

me that my Adaptec CD software would have

to be removed as well.

While the Java issue makes me laugh the

Adaptec issue IS SERIOUS. The reason being

the software WILL WORK ON WINDOWS

2000 BUT NOT XP. XP uses the EXACT same

’kernal’ as Windows 2000. So to use the

analogy of a car I should be able to use the

same gas but now I have to visit a different

gas pump for CDs!

On further examination I find that MS is

making it difficult for me to work with MP3

but PUSHING their own WMA format for CD

data. I COULD NOT EVEN READ my

Quicken data from a CD-RW disk because XP

changed the driver.

Now for the cleancher ...

MS HAS LOCKED DOWN ACCESS TO

DRIVERS. IF YOU WRITE A DRIVER FOR

MS THEY HAVE TO APPROVE IT NOW. So

now unless I do a deal with MS my driver

would NOT GET USED by the average

consumer. MS will use this to force upon

consumers hardware and media that the

consumers will have NO CHOICE on.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop this. The

American software market will go to Japan or

Europe if the bright minds in this country are

not given access to the OS.

MS was born on 3rd base and wants

everyone to think they got there by hard

work. Well if MS is TRULY a competitive

company then shouldn’t their application

divisions have to play by the same rules as

everyone else?

MS only has to hit it out of the infield for

THEM to get a homerun. For everyone else

writing software you have to swing blind

folded and HOPE you hit it.

I see no way for a software company to

make money writing software that run on

Windows. MS continues to dump on the

market and sit on their cash. If an oil

company was in the car buinsess would you

let them give away CARS?

Then how can an OS company give away

applications while still making money selling

them? Why can’t everyone see that if Ford

and Exxon where the same company and

DESTROYED ALL THE OTHER ONES that it

would be a BAD THING. Operating sytems

and application software SHOULD BE

considered seperate markets. IF REVENUE IS

GAINED. MAKE MS GIVE AWAY EITHER

THE APPLICATIONS OR THE OS. MAKE

THEM PICK.

No other software company can give away

free code without someway to make a profit.

Sincerely,

Ed Tidwell

Raleigh, NC

MTC–00004736

From: Andrew Kuenzi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 8:31am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think it is absolute joke that you would

allow this company to settle when you have

mountains of evidence and countless

witnesses to the fact that this company has

demonstarted, and continous to demonstrate

monopolistic behaviors. It really makes me

wonder what kind of justice we have when

you have solid evidence to a crime, and from

my last review of the laws of the United

States, monopolistic behavior is a crime, and

you choose to settle instead of procecute to

the fullest extent. It would not surprise me

to read that the justice department will also

settle with Bin Laden for 2 years probation

or a settlement of $100,000. You always take

the easy way out. There are reasons laws are

created. Either you enforce the laws or you

change them.

MTC–00004737

From: PRAXIS Institute

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 8:37am

Subject: MS Settlement

Greetings and good day.

We are requesting information on how to

provide services to over 20,000 low income,

at-risk, under-served, under-represented

minority and ethnic youth. The Microsoft

settlement with the DOJ is an answer to our

prayers. We currently operate computer

repair classes for our youth and families, but

we need software and computers for their

homes and their schools. Lots of schools.

Could you please give us the relevant contact

information from both the U.S. and

Microsoft?

Thank you. We can be reached at

215.769.2441, 215.514.7680, 781.239.0115,

and through this e-mail address.

Horace Arthur Trent III

President and CEO

PRAXIS Institute

CC:pdwhite@juno.com@inetgw

MTC–00004738

From: Immanuel.Babu@

industrialrisk.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 9:10am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to register my strong

reservations regarding the settlement reached

with Microsoft. A company which limits

consumers access to competitors software

should not receive such a liberal settlement.

The source code for the Windows platform

should be open source so that all vendors

would have an equal footing. There should

be strict restrictions on the aggressive

marketing policies of this company.

Best Regards

Immanuel Babu

860/ 543 6246

MTC–00004739

From: Marc Schafer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 9:14am

Subject: comments

Attached, please find my comments

regarding the proposed settlement of the

Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit.

Marc Schafer

Dear Sirs,

I am writing this letter to express my

dissatisfaction with the proposed settlement

against the Microsoft monopoly. I have

worked in the software industry for 10 years

now. Great strides have been taken in that

time and Microsoft has made many

contributions; however, they have used their

power and control in the market to limit

consumer choice.

They have taken advantage of their

operating system monopoly to take over

24580 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

every area of application software seen as

profitable. They do this by providing their

own internal developers with the

Applications Programming Interface (API) for

the Windows operating system well before

the public has access to it. Some parts of the

API are never published at all. Microsoft has

also used bundling to great advantage. The

anti-trust action started as a result of their

unfair competitive practices used against

Netscape and the results can already be seen.

Microsoft has used it monopoly in web

browsers to begin modifying existing web

standards into proprietary, undocumented

extensions that render some web pages

unviewable in Netscape. Many content

creators using Microsoft tools are not even

aware that are using these extensions

resulting in numerous pages on the web that

simply don’t work with anything but

Microsoft tools. Microsoft enjoys unrivaled

market power and uses its wealth to maintain

this dominance. Licensing agreements with

computer vendors ensure that the discount

for ordering a machine with Windows

installed is almost nothing while the retail

purchase price of the operating system is

large. As a frequent linux user, I have also

seen companies producing software for both

operating systems get purchased by Microsoft

and forsake their linux products within

months afterwards.

Despite their numerous abuses, the current

proposed settlement does nothing to improve

the comptetive situation. In fact, donations to

schools will only cement Microsoft’s position

by training a new generation of computer

users in a Microsoft only environment. The

remedies against the monopoly must include

the following:

1. Microsoft products must be listed as

extra-cost options in the purchase of new

computers, so that the user who does not

wish to purchase them is not forced to do so.

This means that for the price differential

between a new computer with Microsoft

software and one without, a computer seller

must offer the software without the computer

(which would prevent computer makers from

saying that the difference in price is only a

few dollars). Only then could competition

come to exist in a meaningful way.

2. The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

3. Applications in markets where Microsoft

enjoys a monopoly due to past anticompetitive behavior must be made available

on non-Windows operating systems. For

example, Internet Explorer should be ported

to Linux/Unix along with the Microsoft

Office Suite. Selling these products on other

operating systems would generate revenue

for the company yet they refuse to do it

because it weakens their stranglehold on the

market.

4. 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 as they are trying

to do right now by subverting Java and

introducing extensions in their web server

which are undocumented and work only

with Internet Explorer.

5. Microsoft must make available for sale

a ‘‘bare-bones’’ version of its operating

system to prevent bundling. Although great

arguments have gone on about what

constitutes a ‘‘bare-bones’’ operating system,

there are examples to work from. Linux, for

example, still fits entirely on a single 1.4MB

floppy disk.

6. Microsoft must be prevented from

entering the hardware market. The

introduction of the XBox clearly paves the

way for a future for where Microsoft software

will be the only choice and it will only work

well on their own hardware. Without these

remedies there will be no other operating

systems, web browsers, or office productivity

suites. The United States is a world leader in

technology for the digital age. It is time for

Microsoft’s control over the future of the

entire industry to be broken so that other

innovators may have their chance to shape

the future.

Sincerely, Marc Schafer

MTC–00004740

From: Brendan Moore

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 9:28am

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement

Just wanting to convey my disbelief at the

proposed settlement for the Microsoft antitrust case. Allowing Microsoft to provide

software to schools will have the effect of

strengthening their position, not punishing

them for past vioalations and preventing new

ones. Any settlement MUST punish

Microsoft for their past abuse of their

monopoly position, prevent future abuses,

compensate victims of the abuse, and allow

current and future competitors a level

’playing field’. Nothing else is good enough;

nothing else will send out a clear message

that huge corporations such as this will not

be allowed to abuse their extremely

priveleged position.

Regards,

Brendan J Moore

23 Buller Road

Brighton

BN2 4BH

United Kingdom

MTC–00004741

From: Thomas Diehl

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 9:40am

Subject: Public Comment

I usually do not comment on issues such

as this trial, but I am baffled by how much

leeway Microsoft has had in determining its

own punishment for abusing monopoly

power.

If a person commits and is convicted of

murder, there is very little disagreement on

whether jail time is appropriate punishment.

The defendant doesn’t decide the nature of

the punishment. While I understand that

there is little well defined precedent for this

case, that does not justify repeated rebuttals

of punishment until they fit within the

control of Microsoft.

I would like to add my own suggestion for

part of the punishment appropriate to the

crime. One of the reasons Microsoft

maintains a monopoly is control of the Office

software sales. I would think removing

proprietary rights to any file formats of

current and future (5+ years) mocrosoft

products would be appropriate. I believe that

if this is done, it would allow competitors

access to the market since purchasing

microsft software would not be required for

compatibility. This could have addressed

issues with Java compatibility, preventing the

continous upgrade path Microsoft forced on

the office software consumers, and several

other area where Microsoft is trying to gain

control, such as video and audio formats,

graphics drivers and others.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

as I have watched this case through several

phases, the arrogance and poor morality of

Microsoft has made itself readily apparent. I

believe something must be done that will

actually changed how business is done at

Microsoft. The current settlement does not

appear to offer any repercussions that could

prevent microsoft from maintaining a

monopoly through abuse of that monopoly.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas Diehl

MTC–00004742

From: Jason Glazer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 10:19am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I do not believe the proposed settlement

will prevent Microsoft from abusing its

monopoly position in the software market in

the future. I call for structural remedies.

Innovation is the cornerstone of the software

industry yet innovation throughout the

industry has slowed to a trickle. Microsoft

provides innovative new features slowly in a

measured approach so that they can ensure

continued upgrades to software in future

years. Office and Internet Explorer have seen

very few real innovations since competition

has ceased. No real competition or

innovation is possible unless the competitive

threat that exists today as Microsoft is

removed from the industry. Microsoft

prevents new companies from starting based

simply on the fear that if they become

successful they will face Microsoft.

Instead of the current settlement, please

recommend that Microsoft be broken into

many small companies (about 20). Each ‘‘subMicrosoft’’ would be provided the entire set

of source code and 1/20th of the employees

chosen by lottery. These companies not be

allowed to rejoin in any form for at least 15

years nor allow any of the companies to hire

any programmer from any of the competing

companies for the same 15 years. Any

collaboration between the companies would

be prohibited unless done in a open forum

that anyone could attend for the cost of

attendance. If Microsoft has been shown to

have abused its monopoly position than only

structural remedies can have any lasting

effect.

Jason Glazer

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24581

MTC–00004744

From: Mark Carrara

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 12:57pm

Subject: Proposed Settlement

As a user of Microsoft products,

specifically the Windows Operating system I

do not feel that the proposed settlement is a

fair remedy for the illegal activities that

Microsoft was found guilty of committing.

Contrary to Microsoft’s current spin on the

matter, they were found guilty and the

verdict was upheld by the appellate court.

The only question open is that of a fair

remedy. I feel that the remedy proposed by

the current DOJ is based on political

considerations and not what is fair for users

and the country as a whole.

One argument put forth by the supporters

of Microsoft is that it is in the ‘national

interest’ that they not have harsh remedies

applied. With the rapid reduction in the cost

of computer components the operating

system is becoming one of the most

expensive ‘part’ of a modern computer. If

Microsoft was not allowed to maintain the

monopoly it has on operating systems, costs

to consumers, including businesses, would

be reduced, increasing profits throughout the

economy.

Any remedy needs to address the ability of

purchasers of computers be allowed to

reduce their costs by not buying Windows

when they purchase a new computer. Also

sanctions must be put in place to prevent

Microsoft from extending their operating

system monopoly to other areas, such as the

Internet.

Mark Carrara Technology Coordinator

School District of Gilman 325 N. 5th St

Gilman, WI 54433

MTC–00004745

From: David J. Liszewski

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 1:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

I suggest that this remedy be implemented

and enforced as soon as possible. Today it is

impossible to buy an Intel-based personal

computer without paying for Microsoft

software. I hope that the penalties are a

sufficient deterrent: any amount less than

hundreds of millions or billions is immaterial

to them.

Sincerely,

David J. Liszewski

MTC–00004746

From: Chris Compton

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/18/01 2:12pm

Subject: Commentary on Microsoft settlement

While the DOJ settlement does seem a little

light to me, it is the best offer on the table

for the United States. The other states want

to destroy Microsoft, you cannot let this

happen. Despite the personal interest of the

people at Oracle, Sun, et. al., Microsoft has

propelled the microcomputer industry

foreword to a standard. This benefits

everyone (including people that don’t own

computers). I have been a professional

programmer since 1989, and while I still

prefer the Mac OS, I believe that especially

with the current economy we need to

SETTLE THIS CASE BASED ON THE DOJ

RECOMMENDATION IMMEDIATELY.

Thanks,

Chris C.

P.S. In my personal opinion Larry Ellison

is even less relevant than Steve Jobs.

MTC–00004748

From: Alexander Hutton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 3:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Remedy

To Whom it May Concern,

I am writing to you to express my extreme

displeasure with the proposed anti-trust

settlement.

The reasons for my displeasure are simple.

If, in fact, Microsoft is a monopoly and has

abused its position as found by the court

system, then the settlement only serves to

strengthen that monopoly, NOT remedy the

situation.

It will not seriously punish Microsoft for

the following reasons:

1.) The cost of goods provided do not

equate to a ‘‘cost detriment’’ for the amount

stated. Software, aside from the time to

develop, the $1.00 or so it would cost to

produce the CD and paper goods, only has

value to the consumer. So even a billion

dollars worth of software ‘‘donated’’ to

schools might only actually cost Microsoft a

hundred thousand dollars worth of $.02

compact discs.

2.) Microsoft has an enormous cash

position. Even if they were to somehow be

forced to pay 1/10 of their liquid assets,

they’d still have more money than 99.999%

of the businesses in the world, and certainly

a grossly large amount when compared to

various competitors. So much cash that, it

would not put them or their business

practices at risk, nor would it serve to curtail

their monopolistic practices at all.

Furthermore, the remedy will actually HELP

Microsoft. If, for example, you were a rich

Arab speaking nation that desired to

influence the western world into increasing

trade with your homeland. One way you

could naturally affect that outcome would be

if all children attending American schools

were to learn Arabic. What better way to

make sure that happens than to donate what

seems like a huge sum of goods and services

to the ‘‘impoverished’’ school systems of

America? How much better for you if your

donation actually didn’t tangibly cost you

any real considerable cash flow? Soon, these

schools, whose foreign language programs

have been languishing without proper

funding, would almost automatically be

producing young citizens to be fluent in

Arabic—thus increasing the probability that

when they entered the job pool they would

use these skills to betterment of themselves

and said Arab nation. In the same way,

planting Microsoft products in schools (one

of the few niche markets that Microsoft does

not own 95% market share) will only

encourage future use of their products and

services, and wide spread adoption of their

technologies. This remedy actually hurts

competition, and increases their market share

even more. Please consider other options, I

would recommend options that actually

increase the adoption of open standards

authored and steered by multi-vendor bodies.

Thank You

Alex Hutton

Principal

Alexander Hutton, L.L.C.

http://www.alexhutton.com

614.596.0967

MTC–00004749

From: ross

To: Microsoft

ATR,rdestaf@home.com@inetgw

Date: 12/18/01 4:07pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement IMHO

Microsoft is a monoply.

1) OS dominance leveraged to maintain/

create Application dominance

2) Application platform exclusivity to

maintain/expand OS dominance Remedy/

Solutions:

1) Seperate the OS from the Apps.: seperate

the development/marketing decisions of MS–

OS from MS–APPS, this may require

seperation of money/ownership.

2) If MS provides an application free/below

market value, then they should have to

garantee it remains free for lets say 10years,

that way we ensure it is not leveraging its OS

profits for APPlication development. (Maybe

allow pay-for distribution if app is pulled

from market for 2yrs prior to return to the

market place)

3) MS should offer OS-build-in-apps(free)

as a second source-cd distribution seperate

from their OS. Also these free apps should

be installed in the same manor as other third

party vendors. Should not be placed on startbar as intrinsic to the OS.

4) If a MS-App gains a certain percentage

of OS saturation or profit margin, then it

should be required to port that app to other

OS’s Overview/Background/Discussion: MS

(Microsoft) dominance as an OS (Operating

System) provider gives them leverage as an

Application provider. MS has manipulated

it’s OS to gain Application market share. This

has occured by devalualing the actual cost of

Application development from the App to

the OS. In a Second method MS has modified

its OS to give it’s Applications prominance:

by use of default settings and uninstallable

Apps: DirectX, Internet explorer are not

uninstallable (I believe MS’s latest audio/

visual player behaves the same). Thirdly, MS

has limited OEM’s ability to ‘‘bundle’’ third

party apps with new machine sales. MS has

used pricing leverage to limit third party

inclusion.

MS does not provide it’s excellent

Application to other OS’s (except in the MSoffice/MAC case). The is small sales benefit

of porting MS-Word to Linux/Solaris

definitely out ways the possible loss of

Desktop OS share. (IF MS-word was available

to Unix, there would be very little push to

move from Unix to MS–OS.) But, because of

the MS-word reliance on MS-OS there is a

trend to move from Unix to MS–OS. In my

employment case, most users have two

machines, one to run engineering apps and

another computer to run MS–OS/MS-Office.

I believe MS does not port it’s Apps to Unix

because it would negatively effect MS–OS

market share. Overall MS does a wonderful

job on its user interfaces and with

interoperablity of its applications, but I

believe the ability of microsoft to leverage it’s

24582 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

OS dominance to benifit it application

market and it’s ability to limit its apps to a

particular platform restrict industry growth

and increase reliance on MS instead of

providing a better market.

I think the proper solution is to seperate

the development/marketing decisions of MS–

OS from MS–APPS, this may require

seperation of money/ownership.

BTW: Having MS pay for computers and

OS’s for schools and local governments is not

a solution, it has nothing to do with the

problem. It is just greedy politicians looing

for handouts from greedy corporations.

Ross M. DeStafeno

MTC–00004750

From: CCDHankA@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 4:11pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs,

I agree with many that a rush to settle this

case can only aid Microsoft in achieving its

continuing malpractice. I will leave it it

position to expand its dominance of the

software industry.

Henry G. Adams

MTC–00004751

From: slewis@mac.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 4:18pm

Subject: Microsoft

I find it hard to believe what is going on

with Microsoft. As a shareholder of Apple

stock, I must add that the settlement is

extremely mild and will likely jeopardize

Apple’s share of the education market. I am

against the settlement and the new proposed

settlement from Microsoft. ‘‘Microsoft’s

proposed settlement compels schools to

adopt Microsoft technology. Most educators,

along with Apple, think this is simply wrong.

Any settlement must guarantee that schools

have the freedom to choose, and this requires

that Microsoft pay their penalty in cash, not

donated Microsoft software which will cost

them only pennies on the dollar. A $1 billion

cash penalty represents less than 3 percent of

Microsoft’s $36 billion cash hoard,’’ said

Jobs.—taken from http://

www.maccentral.com

Thank you,

Steven Lewis

1010 Lee St

Barboursville, WV

25504

MTC–00004752

From: rshiller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 4:22pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am very disappointed that the

government has caved in to the Microsoft

Corporation. First, $1 billion is a drop in the

bucket compared to what they have cheated

its customers and suppliers out of. Second,

the $half billion in software devoted to

operating systems(OS) costs Microsoft

practically nothing and gives their monopoly

in operating systems a boost, giving them

new markets(some punishment!). Third,

there is no protection from or punishment of

Microsoft continuing its monopolistic

practices. Red Hat has offered to give these

schools free operating systems if the amount

Microsoft was to use for OSes is given to the

schools in cash instead of software. This

seems like a good deal too good to refuse!

Please put me on any mailing list you have

that would keep me informed about what you

are discussing or doing on the Microsoft

matter.

Thank you,

Robert N. Shiller

MTC–00004753

From: Scott M. Fulton, III

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 4:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlepersons:

Attached to this e-mail are my comments

with regard to the Proposed Final Judgment

in the Microsoft antitrust matter. I am a

published author, editor, and developer of

software, currently in partnership with

Ingenus. My credentials are explained in the

attached comments. I thank you for directing

this document to the proper authority, and

wish you the best of holidays.

Yours sincerely,

Scott M. Fulton, III

Senior Partner, Ingenus

5664 Fen Court

Indianapolis, IN 46220 USA

voice: (317) 475–0212

Ingenus

5664 FEN COURT

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46220 USA

(317) 475–0212

smfulton3@apexmail.com

Scott M. Fulton, III

Jennifer Fulton

PROFESSIONAL I.T. SERVICES

Editorial Consulting

Engineering Training

Research

18 December 2001

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

United States Dept. of Justice

601 D. Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530–0001

Ingenus

Dear Ms. Hesse:

I am submitting to you this document in

accordance with the U.S. District Court’s

request for public commentary in the matter

of the proposed settlement in U.S. v.

Microsoft, Civil Action No. 98–1232, and

New York v. Microsoft, Civil Action No. 98–

1233.

I am currently a computer book author and

private computing consultant, and until very

recently, was employed with CMP Media,

Inc. as a Senior Editor for the Planet IT Web

site—one of the recent victims of the ‘‘dotcom fallout.’’ I have been a published author,

editor, and correspondent in the field of

computing for over 17 years, several of those

years having been spent as one of Computer

Shopper magazine’s original contributors.

Under the pseudonym ‘‘D. F. Scott,’’ I am the

author of 13 books, nine of which are on the

subject of Microsoft Visual Basic, one of that

company’s most prominent programming

languages. I am currently working on my

fourteenth title, on the subject of the

Microsoft Access 2002 database. As an

author, programmer, and private consultant,

I am intimately familiar with Microsoft’s

products, applications architecture, and

corporate history. I have developed software

using Microsoft products for 23 years.

I know Microsoft, and I know my industry.

I thoroughly comprehend how Microsoft’s

products, agendas, and conduct have shaped

and defined computing as we know it today.

I have friends and colleagues who work at

Microsoft, and I have others who work with

its current partners, its former partners, and

its direct competitors. Having read Judge

Thomas Penfield Jackson’s Findings of Fact

in the civil matter as rendered 5 November

1999, and having shared my opinions at

length with others directly affected by those

Findings since that time, I can state without

hesitation that there is nothing in those

Findings to which I take exception, or about

which I personally can find any reason to

disagree. I call your attention to the fact that

these Findings of Fact were given deference

by the Court of Appeals, despite that certain

elements were called into question, and

despite the disqualification of the judge. The

Appeals Court’s thorough study of the

Findings of Fact, as well as the other

evidence in the case before the District Court,

uphold a quintessential truth whose

importance transcends any scrutiny of

judicial misconduct: Microsoft’s conduct as a

corporation and a manufacturer of computing

products, is predicated upon an internal

policy of deception, which includes

deceiving customers, deceiving competitors,

deceiving partners, deceiving its own

vendors, and at some level, deceiving its own

staff.

Although the Appeals Court—with

reluctance—deferred to Judge Jackson’s

Findings of Fact, it appears to me that the

settlement currently proposed by Microsoft

and the Justice Dept. has ignored the basic

tenets of those Findings. This proposed

settlement does not specify the actions of a

company that has violated the Sherman

Antitrust Act—a fact which has been upheld

by the Appeals Court. Instead, it is a

document with ample evidence of being

scripted by a company entangled in its own

self-importance and intoxicated by a

fundamental belief in its own immunity, and

having been agreed to by a plaintiff that no

longer represents the cause of fairness in free

enterprise originally championed by Joel

Klein and Janet Reno.

That Microsoft Corp. has monopoly power

in key markets is not in dispute. To hold

monopoly power in this country is not

illegal, and in certain conceivable

circumstances, it may even be justified.

Microsoft achieved its monopoly power

through means which stand the test of

legitimacy under the closest scrutiny.

Throughout its history, the company has

shrewdly and wisely taken advantage of

imminent and remarkable opportunities. Its

initial agreement in 1981 with IBM, allowing

it to produce compatible operating systems

for non-IBM computers, actually created an

industry where there had not been one

before, and which actually might never have

been. That competitors, including IBM, have

been unable to produce viable alternatives to

MS–DOS or Microsoft Windows, can indeed

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24583

be attributed to failures in foresight, design,

and marketing solely on the part of those

competitors. Generally, the prominence of

Microsoft Corp. can be credited to its own

legitimate successes, and to its competitors’

legitimate shortcomings, wild notions, and

simply wrong ideas.

But once Microsoft attained its lofty

position, the measures it took to fortify,

protect, and defend that position were clearly

immoral, unethical, and as the Court of

Appeals has upheld, illegal. The antitrust

case against Microsoft has been mainly about

deception as a means not of attaining

prominence, but of ensuring it. Any remedy

imposed upon Microsoft, or settled upon by

Microsoft and the Justice Dept., must

acknowledge this deception, must take steps

to completely disable and render defunct

Microsoft’s means of deception in the future,

and must in some measure compensate those

who were harmed—if not monetarily, then

through good faith measures that go beyond

the requirements of an ordinary company to

do respectable and competitive business in

its chosen industry. As it stands now, the

proposed settlement may actually be used as

a tool to extend and sustain the sheath of

deception Microsoft has sewn, to further its

own interests, and to continue the basic

falsehood that the state of the computing

industry now is as it should be.

ENTER THE DUNGEON

Once it became a monopoly as early as

1988, Microsoft’s executives almost

immediately adopted a Watergate-style cloakand-dagger approach to its internal corporate

and even personal conduct, to the extent that

some executives were privately relishing in

the opportunity for them to emulate Nixon’s

‘‘plumbers,’’ or characters from ‘‘The

Godfather,’’ or anti-heroes from comic books,

or even leaders of the Third Reich. The

company’s chief executives not only

tolerated but helped foster this new

approach, like ‘‘dungeon masters’’ in a roleplaying game encouraging nastier selfcharacterizations by players who deemed

themselves ‘‘evil.’’ Before the company had

actually violated the law, Microsoft’s

executives were adopting other-worldly

roles, imagining themselves as saviors of the

world but rebels against the establishment,

immunized from the laws that apply to mere

mortals. It was this immersion in this

surrealistic fantasy vision that empowered

Microsoft not only to commit its undisputed

violations of antitrust law, but also to defend

its conduct to this very day as somehow fair,

honest, innovative, and pro-competitive.

In 1994, Newsweek correspondent Michael

Meyer sat in on a meeting of Microsoft’s key

executives, including then-CEO Bill Gates,

and product managers who were

discussing—while fully aware of Meyer’s

presence—the lackluster performance of their

personal accounting software, called

Microsoft Money, against a competitor,

Intuit’s Quicken. (Later, Microsoft and Intuit

announced a merger, which even later fell

apart.) In his 11 July 1994 article entitled,

‘‘Culture Club,’’ Meyer recounted his

experiences in the boardroom:

Then comes a strange moment, the sort of

thing that happens often at Microsoft, which

seemingly within moments turns disaster

into salvation. Talk has turned to broader

trends in banking. Where’s it going, what’s in

it for us. Banks are dinosaurs, says Gates. We

can ‘‘bypass’’ them. [The Money product

manager] is unhappy with an alliance

involving a big bank-card company. ‘‘Too

slow.’’ Instead he proposes a deal with a

small—and more easily controllable—checkclearing outfit. ‘‘Why don’t we buy them?’’

Gates asks, thinking bigger. It occurs to him

that people banking from home will cut

checks using Microsoft’s software. Microsoft

can then push all those transactions through

its new affiliate, taking a fee on every one.

Abruptly, Gates sheds his disappointment

with Money. He’s caught up in a vision of

‘‘the transformation of the world financial

system.’’ It’s a ‘‘pot of gold,’’ he declares,

pounding the conference table with his fists,

triumphant and hungry and wired. ‘‘Get me

into that and goddam, we’ll make so much

money!’’

Here is Microsoft in action. In just three

hours, it laid plans to buy at least two

companies, ditched an alliance with a major

financial institution, opted for another and

made major moves into ‘‘two incredible new

worlds,’’ as Gates put it—home banking and

sports entertainment. Another company

might take months to accomplish as much. It

is important to note here that, seven years

later, none of this ‘‘of gold’’ thinking actually

led anywhere—not for Microsoft Money, not

for Microsoft Corp., and not for the world

financial system. Nothing took place that

day, or any day since, on this particular

subject that offended anyone’s rights or broke

any laws. Nor was Microsoft Money as a

software product the least bit improved.

Meyer was astonished by Microsoft’s

‘‘accomplishment,’’ but today, little evidence

of it remains outside of this article.

What did happen that day in 1994 is an

example of how Microsoft approaches its

everyday business: not by applying itself to

the truths and principles and operating

parameters of its chosen industry, and not by

solving the arguably solvable problems put

before it, but instead by concocting a fantasy

world where Microsoft is the world’s great

benefactor, the great multitude is the

recipient of its mercy and grace, and all other

entities in the computing industry are

either—to borrow a recently reborn phrase—

’’with us or against us.’’ This is a world

where media entities such as Newsweek, and

professional observers such as myself, should

stand in awe of that company’s

‘‘accomplishments,’’ as if its role-playing

conquests held tangible value in any

currency in which common people trade.

How MICROSOFT LOST THE MORAL

HIGH GROUND

In another civil matter separate from the

suit brought forth by the Justice Dept., the

Canadian software producer Caldera took

action against Microsoft in U.S. District Court

in Utah, on behalf of a product it had

acquired from Novell Corp.—a competitive

operating system called DR–DOS. (This civil

action was later settled, and the specific

terms of that settlement were undisclosed.)

As revealed by evidence subpoenaed by

Caldera and presented in its Consolidated

Statement of Facts, Microsoft’s executives

openly conspired to develop MS–DOS in

such a way that compliance with its

principles would mean, by definition,

incompatibility with DR–DOS. Later, these

same executives came up with the idea of

tying MS–DOS together with Windows—the

first instance of ‘‘tying’’ in the company’s

history—in such a way that DR–DOS users

would be artificially prohibited from running

Windows 3.1. In fact, as the evidence in

Caldera v. Microsoft indicates, Microsoft’s

idea of tying MS–DOS to Windows derived

from its efforts to thwart the development of

DR–DOS, and may have been created for that

specific purpose alone and no other.

The Consolidated Statement in the Caldera

case uses subpoenaed internal documents

and e-mails from Microsoft executives to

draw a picture of a company whose central,

overriding, and only interest from 1990 to

1995 was not to produce a viable operating

system for consumers, but to prevent Digital

Research, and then Novell, and then Caldera

from doing so. (Granted, IBM’s OS/2 was also

a Windows competitor during this time,

although the Caldera Statement makes little

mention of that system.) According to the

Statement, in the summer of 1990,

Microsoft’s OEM sales force was directed to

only use per-processor terms in licensing

agreements with both small and large PC

manufacturers, in order to prevent, as one

account manager put it, ‘‘losing them to DR.’’

Per-processor licensing practices was the

subject of one of the Justice Dept.’s first civil

actions against Microsoft, and was a matter

of contention throughout the current civil

case. Such exclusionary licenses made it

cost-prohibitive for manufacturers to offer

DR-DOS, or any other alternative operating

system, to their customers while at the same

time maintaining their critical link to

Microsoft. As Microsoft’s company

memoranda—excerpted in the Caldera

Statement—indicate, the company was fully

aware of that fact. For instance, there is this

note of congratulations:

Congratulations are in order for John ‘‘DRI

Killer’’ McLaughlan (No, he isn’t having

another baby) who signed a $2.5M agreement

with Acbel (Sun Moon Star). The agreement

licenses DOS 5 per processor on a worldwide

basis for 3 years (they will be replacing DRI

DOS which they currently ship outside the

US).

In July 1991, Novell announced its merger

with DR–DOS producer Digital Research, in

order to build a stronger, more complete

operating system product line that could

compete on the same level as Microsoft, and

that could be licensed to IBM, which had

already identified itself as an interested

party.

In a memorandum to fellow executives

dated March 1992, Microsoft Vice President

(now Senior Vice President) Jim Allchin

spelled out his perception of the threat

imposed by Novell: I still don’t think we take

them as serious as is required of us to win.

This isn’t IBM. These guys are really good;

they have an installed base; they have a

channel; they have marketing power; they

have good products. AND they want our

position. They want to control the APIs,

middleware, and as many desktops as they

can in addition to the server market they

already own. We need to start thinking about

24584 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Novell as THE competitor to fight against—

not in one area of our business, but all of

them.

If you want to get serious about stopping

Novell, we need to start understanding this

is war— nothing less. That’s how Novell

views it. We better wake up and get serious

about them or they will eventually find a way

to hurt us badly. Allchin’s concept of ‘‘war’’

sparked then-Windows Product Manager

Brad Silverberg to advocate developing

Windows 3.1 intentionally so that it gave

DR–DOS users the impression that it could

not run on that platform. The Caldera

Statement provides this e-mail exchange

between

Silverberg and his deputy (now Senior

Vice President), David Cole: Cole: A kindgentle message in setup would probably not

offend anyone and probably won’t get the

press up in arms, but I don’t think it serves

much of a warning [* * *] What is the guy

supposed to do? Silverberg: what the guy is

supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and

when he has bugs, suspect that the problem

is dr-dos and then go out to buy ms-dos, or

decide to not take the risk for the other

machines he has to buy for in the office. With

company policy having been determined that

the Windows user should be made to feel

uncomfortable with the notion of using a

non-Microsoft product, work began on how

to intentionally develop the beta code of

Windows 3.1 so that parts of it fail to execute

on a DR–DOS platform. In an e-mail

discussion excerpted in the Caldera

statement, a developer of Windows 3.1 told

his development manager, Phil Barrett, of an

incompatibility he discovered between a disk

cache utility for 3.1, code-named ‘‘Bambi,’’

and DR–DOS. The developer reports that he

has created a build of the utility that solves

this problem. Nevertheless, Barrett suggests

in his response that this fix never see the

light of day:

heh, heh, heh * * * my proposal is to have

bambi refuse to run on this alien OS.

comments? The approach we will take is to

detect dr 6 and refuse to load. The error

message should be something like ‘Invalid

device driver interface.’ The actual error

message in Windows 3.1 Setup would read,

‘‘The XMS driver you have installed is not

compatible with Windows. You must remove

it before SETUP can successfully install

Windows.’’

Whether on direct instruction to do so or

working on his own initiative, a Microsoft

programmer made contact with Andrew

Dyson, a technical support analyst at DRI,

and in so doing identified himself as ‘‘Roger

Sour, Director of Windows Development,

Microsoft.’’ Explaining that he was trying to

solve an incompatibility problem with the

‘‘memory control blocks,’’ this Microsoft

developer requested information from Dyson

on whether DRI has written Windows code

to detect whether a program is running under

a DR–DOS or MS–DOS platform. In the

interest of fair play, Dyson submitted this

information; but later, a DRI official wrote

‘‘Roger Sour’’ (whether or not he knew Sour

existed is beside the point) to tell him that

DRI was aware of Microsoft’s plan to make

Windows 3.1 fail on DR–DOS. The letter

stated, ‘‘Usually, when a software

manufacturer feels that something in our

operating system is preventing their

application from running well, that company

works with us to resolve the actual,

perceived, or potential conflicts.’’

In a letter dated 1 November 1991, Phil

Barrett responded to the DRI official that

there no ‘‘Roger Sour’’ at Microsoft, and

added, ‘‘Perhaps you may have been the

victim of a prank.’’ This ‘‘prank’’ was

reported to the Federal Trade Commission,

which contacted Microsoft later that week.

News of the FTC contact prompted David

Cole to write the following in an executive

memo:

The bothersome part is where the hell is

DRI getting their information. Are they just

speculating? Seems like a pretty risky thing

to do with the FTC? Did they interpret

‘‘Roger Sour’’ thing broadly and conclude we

are doing it for Windows?

What bothered Microsoft more than the

possible appearance of impropriety was the

possibility of a mole within the company. For

the next year and a half, Microsoft would

deal with DRI, Novell (which acquired DRI),

and the FTC as a single monkey on its back—

the collective entity preventing Microsoft

from smoothly integrating itself into the

corporate computer network. Beginning in

1992, Microsoft would develop the entire

Windows platform into ‘‘Chicago‘‘—a

confusing amalgamation of possible

development scenarios which only Microsoft

would be able to decipher, leaving confused

independent developers and consumers to

sort them out for themselves. In a 16 June

1992 strategy document circulated by

Microsoft’s then-Vice President Brad

Silverberg, the company outlined its concept

of Chicago as a product that could be

packaged three ways—as Windows for

Workgroups, as plain Windows, and as MS–

DOS. Thus, the answer to the question, ‘‘Are

you merging MS–DOS with Windows?’’

could be ‘‘Yes,’’ and the answer to the

question, ‘‘Are you maintaining the two

product lines separately?’’ could also be

‘‘Yes.’’ This obfuscation, according to

documents, was crafted deliberately for the

sole reason of throwing off the competition

and keeping consumers guessing, thus

fulfilling the following directive Brad

Silverberg had made in late 1991:

This is a very important point. We need to

create the reputation for problems and

incompatibilities to undermine confidence to

drdos6; so people will make judgments

against it without knowing details or fats

[sic].

In 1993, following its acquisition of DRI,

Novell re-engineered DR–DOS to become

Novell DOS 7—a product which it promised

would not only serve as a cohesive network

and desktop platform, but which would also

run Windows 3.1 without problems. At long

last, the monkey on Microsoft’s back became

too much for Chairman Bill Gates, who on 21

July wrote the following memo to his

subordinates:

Who at Microsoft gets up every morning

thinking about how to compete with these

guys in the short term—specifically cut their

revenue. Perhaps we need more focus on

this. After their behavior in this FTC

investigation, I am very keen on this. Once

again, Gates infuses his fellow executives and

product managers with a lofty vision of

Microsoft as having carte blanche, on account

of its size, to set the rules for the industry,

even if it means teetering on the edge of

implying that it’s above the law. With Gates,

there is never a smoking gun. The job of

providing the smoke is left to others, such as

Jim Allchin who, in an 18 September 1993

memo, advised the following:

Sentiment is against us. We can and MUST

turn this around. As we become more

aggressive against Novell product and

marketing-wise, we must get our mouth in

order. The press, etc. is very sketical of us so

one slip up and we get set back quite a ways.

This really isn’t that hard. If you’re going to

kill someone there isn’t much reason to get

all worked up about it and angry—you just

pull the trigger. Any discussions beforehand

are a waste of time. We need to smile at

Novell while we pull the trigger.

The strategy that Microsoft concocted is for

the company to represent Chicago as the

successor to MS–DOS 6.3, and as perhaps

Windows bundled with DOS and perhaps

Windows merged with DOS. Consumers and

businesses considering their upgrade options

would have to consider the extent to which

they considered Windows an asset. Not

knowing whether the two products would

bundle or merge, consumers were forced to

evaluate MS–DOS as though it were

Windows, and not for its own merits—which,

against Novell DOS, were admittedly lacking.

As long as Windows continued to support

Novell NetWare—and it did, quite

completely—consumers would conclude

they had nothing to lose from their current

NetWare investment, if they were to choose

an all-Microsoft upgrade path for the future,

which included DOS as well. The decision to

actually merge DOS with Windows was

withheld until the last possible minute—in

1994, well after what was supposed to have

been Chicago’s initial release date. This

decision was the coup de grace to Novell

DOS, indicating to buyers that there would

be no need for a DOS once Windows 95 was

installed.

Consumer confusion about Microsoft’s

course of action led to the desired result:

Buyers turned away from Novell, believing

what Microsoft itself calls its own ‘‘FUD

messages’’ (fear, uncertainty, and doubt)

about the future reliability of Novell DOS in

tandem with Windows. The term ‘‘FUD’’ is

said to derive from a similar term used by

Pres. Nixon’s famous ‘‘plumbers‘‘—the

people hired to spread rumors and false

information about possible presidential

opponents. It is a term which shows up in

Microsoft internal memos and documents as

though it were its own brand name.

MIRACLE INGREDIENTS

The DR–DOS story is important because

the behavior of Microsoft during the early

1990s established a prototype for its behavior

during the ‘‘browser wars‘‘—one of the

current antitrust action’s two key periods of

interest. It is in some ways humorous to note

that Microsoft held little or no regard for the

Internet as a global information resource,

until such time as it perceived that resource

as a threat to its business. Bill Gates actually

wrote an entire book, ‘‘The Road Ahead,’’

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24585

that was a national bestseller, and that

afterwards was amended as a ‘‘Special

Edition’’ after its author had received too

many inquiries about its omission of the

Internet as a topic. Microsoft is not a

company that believes in creating

opportunities, or even in finding fair and

open opportunities outside of its own

corporate walls. This is a company whose

key success during the 1990s was stifling the

opportunities of others in order to protect its

own products and intellectual assets.

After Novell had been thoroughly

decimated by Microsoft FUD, the company

turned its attention in late 1994 to Netscape,

as the threat-on-the-horizon it needed to

continue to function the way it had trained

itself to do. Microsoft, as we all know now,

perceived Netscape Navigator as a platform

that could potentially be leveraged to

distribute a future form of Sun Microsystems’

Java as a substitute operating system. The

cross-platform capabilities of Java awakened

developers to the potential of crafting

applications that did not need to rely on the

resources of any one operating system

exclusively—especially Windows.

As Judge Jackson’s Findings of Fact show,

Microsoft’s internal policy was to develop its

own Java programming language and

applications resources—called J++—to

appear to be compliant with Sun’s Java,

while actually presenting Java developers

using Windows with non-portable libraries.

Jackson writes:

In a further effort intended to increase the

incompatibility between Java applications

written for its Windows JVM and other

Windows JVMs, and to increase the difficulty

of porting Java applications from the

Windows environment to other platforms,

Microsoft designed its Java developer tools to

encourage developers to write their Java

applications using certain ‘‘keywords’’ and

‘‘compiler directives’’ that could only be

executed properly by Microsoft’s version of

the Java runtime environment for Windows.

Microsoft encouraged developers to use these

extensions by shipping its developer tools

with the extensions enabled by default and

by failing to warn developers that their use

would result in applications that might not

run properly with any runtime environment

other than Microsoft’s and that would be

difficult, and perhaps impossible, to port to

JVMs running on other platforms. This action

comported with the suggestion that

Microsoft’s Thomas Reardon made to his

colleagues in November 1996: ‘‘[W]e should

just quietly grow j++ [Microsoft’s developer

tools] share and assume that people will take

more advantage of our classes without ever

realizing they are building win 32-only java

apps.’’ Microsoft refused to alter its

developer tools until November 1998, when

a court ordered it to disable its keywords and

compiler directives by default and to warn

developers that using Microsoft’s Java

extensions would likely cause

incompatibilities with non-Microsoft runtime

environments.

The part of this story that Judge Jackson

didn’t touch on, and that was not introduced

as evidence, concerns Microsoft’s efforts

during 1996–1999 to promote a cloudy but

potentially promising future system called

ActiveX as an alternative to Java for

developers, and an alternative to Netscape for

Windows users. Just exactly what ActiveX

was, is, or was supposed to be, isn’t entirely

clear. I understand this fact better than most

people alive. In 1996 and ‘97, I wrote a book

on ActiveX technology for developers, with

the full cooperation of a major worldwide

publisher. For the better part of two years, I

wrote seven complete drafts of this book,

overhauling the content each time in order to

keep up with Microsoft’s mind-boggling

changes in its definition of the product/

concept/marketing scheme.

In an early document for developers such

as myself, dated 18 June 1996, Microsoft

defined ActiveX in this way:

ActiveX is a set of open technologies that

bring the power of the personal computer to

the ubiquitous connectivity of the Internet.

ActiveX takes the Internet beyond static text

and picture documents to provide users with

a new generation of more active, exciting,

and useful experiences. For intranet

developers (intranets are private Web sites

published on internal, corporate networks),

ActiveX provides core functionality for

building robust enterprise-wide applications

that offer enhanced functionality and

productivity beyond basic HTML document

sharing.

So in June, at least, ActiveX was a

multimedia standard for Web sites. The very

next month, Microsoft announced it was

turning over stewardship of ActiveX to an

independent body. In its press release,

Microsoft quoted an independent industry

analyst as stating the following:

COM and DCOM—the foundation for

ActiveX—constitute the most widely used

object framework, but as technologies owned

and controlled exclusively by Microsoft, they

were not vendor-independent solutions. In

the hands of a neutral standards body,

ActiveX can become a vendor-independent

solution, enabling interoperability while

allowing both developers and customers to

take full advantage of their existing

investments in OLE and DCOM technologies.

‘‘COM and DCOM’’ are, respectively, the

Component Object Model and the Distributed

Component Object Model. These are

legitimate architectures which, in my view,

represent some of the best ideas Microsoft

has ever put forward. COM enabled source

code from diverse and varied applications

and program components to address one

another dynamically, using a common

framework and an amendable object

language. This way, old programs could

conceivably determine the capabilities of

newer programs when they shared the same

system, under a multitasking framework such

as Windows 95. DCOM extended these

principles to program components over a

network, so server-based components could

communicate with client-based components

and provide them with requested resources.

These were delicately intricate systems, but

they were constructed with the best of

intentions, and their creators deserve respect.

But it was apparently never the intention

of Microsoft’s executives to exploit the full

potential of COM and DCOM. Instead, they

deployed ActiveX as a marketing tool to

befuddle the market as to Microsoft’s

intentions, and to repeat the company’s

successful strategy against DRI and Novell,

this time to kick Netscape and Sun

Microsystems into the death spiral.

Developers such as myself were given a

myriad of mixed and often self-contradictory

messages. In the summer of 1996, we were

told that ActiveX was a system that would be

deployed on Microsoft’s Internet Explorer

Web browser, to enable online applications

from Windows servers to utilize controls—

buttons, menus, lists, and common ‘‘user

interface’’ elements—whose programs were

deployed on the client side, thus freeing

bandwidth and relieving much of the burden

on the server. This was—and still is—a good

idea. We were told that ActiveX controls

would make use of a Windows feature called

Object Linking and Embedding (OLE,

pronounced ‘‘olay’’) to enable their code to

be called up on the server side by container

programs on the client side—again, a good

idea. This utilization of resources would free

the controls programs from the constraints of

the client-side architecture called Microsoft

Foundation Classes (MFC)—the architecture

upon which Microsoft’s Office applications

are based. (Microsoft’s developers are indeed

capable of creating good ideas, and executing

good plans based on them.)

In the fall of 1996, the FUD began.

Microsoft offered developers a free, limited

edition of its Visual Basic development

environment, geared exclusively toward the

creation of ActiveX controls. These controls,

we were told, leveraged the power of MFC to

make them more fully integrated with

Windows. This went against the company’s

original design strategy, for reasons we

couldn’t yet fathom.

While the newly-formed ‘‘ActiveX Working

Group,’’ assigned stewardship of the ActiveX

standard, did establish a Web site for a brief

period, the group only held a few token

meetings, and even then with a subset of its

membership. Many members listed on the

Web site were surprised to find they were

members at all. As soon as January of 1997,

the Working Group had become a non-entity.

Later that same month, Microsoft

announced its intention to deploy a network

communications system then called

Microsoft Transaction Server (MTS), and to

market that system under the ActiveX

collective umbrella. MTS would be the hub

of a system that processed DCOM

transactions over networks and over the

Internet, between Microsoft servers and

client systems that were running ActiveX

controls. What confused us at first was the

fact that DCOM was not OLE, so the ActiveX

controls we had now appeared not to be the

ActiveX controls we were supposed to build

for later. Furthermore, the new controls—to

be created using that free edition of Visual

Basic—could only operate within the

confines of a single, designated container

program—which, not coincidentally, was

part of Internet Explorer 3.0. So it appeared

that the capability of Netscape Navigator to

be adaptable, through a third-party product,

to display and use ActiveX controls, was due

for extinction.

By the spring of 1997, Microsoft had

announced the replacement of its core

database transaction protocol with something

24586 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

called ActiveX Data Objects (ADO). This

protocol would be used by Microsoft Office

applications, and would be licensed for free

to developers making their own programs for

data transactions. For ADO to be deployed in

a network environment, it appeared, the

server would need to run MTS. So if

everyday applications wanted to take

advantage of Web deployment capabilities,

Netscape was appearing to be less and less

of an option. ADO objects were not

controls—what’s more, they weren’t COM

objects or DCOM objects either. So the

umbrella seemed to be reaching further.

Almost every Windows protocol had

something to do with ActiveX—and thus, by

association, something to do with future

deployment over the Internet.

In the summer of 1997, Microsoft sprung

the trap. MTS as a product was integrated

with Internet Information Server, and very

soon thereafter, IIS was incorporated as a

native part of Windows NT 4.0. If your server

had NT4, it had IIS, so it had MTS. On the

client side, Internet Explorer would be

‘‘sewn’’ onto the front end of Windows 98,

not as an integral part or even an inseparable

one from Windows 98, but a part which the

common user could not easily detach from it.

Suddenly, the whole world of Windows

closed in on itself, excluding Netscape and

Sun technologies and immediately rendering

them obsolete. Users abandoned Netscape in

droves, and within only a matter of months.

Sun’s efforts to develop Java further,

gradually slowed to a trickle. The death

spiral still worked.

The code of conduct which the Appeals

Court upheld as illegal use of Microsoft’s

monopoly power, stems directly from the

code of conduct Microsoft taught itself in

fending off the DR–DOS threat. It is not the

behavior of an established, experienced

company whose leadership position is

bestowed upon it by its customers and

partners. It is the behavior of an adolescent,

catapulted quickly to prominence in a young

industry, without ever having found the time

or the inclination to learn how success may

be achieved fairly and with honor. It is a

spoiled brat kid that never listened to its

elders, and has never come to appreciate the

world outside of itself. It has erected its own

psychological ‘‘barrier to entry’’ that

prohibits it from absorbing anything of

positive benefit—any new ideas, any good

alliances, any substantive partnerships—from

the outside world, out there, where the

enemy lives. Paranoid, over-sensitive, and

withdrawn, it hides out in its room, nails a

‘‘Keep Out’’ sign to its door, locks the door

shut, loses itself in a video game, and drowns

itself out with loud music laced with

messages of pessimism and disdain. It is the

unloved child. It is built in the image of its

maker. It will not listen to reason.

Within the locked, sacrosanct confines of

corporate headquarters or boardrooms, no

fantasy world is illegal. Corporate fiefdom or

chivalry may assume any degree of

distortion, and black may very easily be

declared white without objection. It is when

these bizarre practices lead directly to tactics

of deception, sabotage, and bad faith against

not only a company’s competitors but also its

purported partners, and to a calculated

campaign of consumer choice control, that

they impede upon the rights of individuals,

of companies and corporations, and of an

entire industry. Microsoft’s private fantasy

world has evolved into a dangerous corporate

subculture whose principles and motives

threaten the very way business is done in

America, in Canada, in Asia, in Europe, and

anywhere there is a microprocessor.

When faced with a situation where the

only rational option is for Microsoft to solve

its own problems, Microsoft chooses instead

to go on the attack against some outside

enemy that could potentially expose or

spotlight those problems. As a result, those

problems may never be solved, but the

enemy du jour becomes so damaged that the

continued existence of those problems in the

context of the industry as a whole, becomes

inconsequential. To this day, serious bugs

and deficiencies in Microsoft’s operating

systems and applications, discovered by

myself and others and duly reported to

Microsoft, remain uncorrected, quite possibly

for fear of the political cost of exposing the

problem by making the world aware of its

solution.

Microsoft’s distorted perception of the

computing industry, and of the world as a

whole, is important because of a fact which

Judge Jackson came to realize but, all too

soon, commented on: Any conduct remedy

which relies solely upon Microsoft’s own

ability to scrutinize, admonish, and improve

itself through its own means, will be treated

by Microsoft’s executives with disrespect and

contempt. It’s like a parent ordering his

wayward son to shape up. The executives of

Microsoft are as unwilling to consider such

an order as an adolescent boy, bottled up in

his room, is willing to remove his

headphones and listen to his dad for five

seconds. They are likely to ignore such an

order altogether. I say this with the utmost

respect: They don’t give a damn what you

think.

FIRST NOVELL, THEN NETSCAPE, NOW

THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Microsoft is a company which views all

events and actions relevant to the computing

industry, taken outside of its corporate

headquarters, as attacks against it. These

include not only new product

announcements from Oracle or marketing

agreements from Sony, but legal maneuvers,

motions, and actions from the Justice Dept.,

and judgments and decisions from the courts.

Microsoft’s executives are charged with the

mission to manipulate circumstances to its

own advantage, so that the enemy’s actions

end up reinforcing the company’s

prominence. Bill Gates calls this mission

‘‘kicking them into the death spiral.’’ Here’s

how the death spiral works, paraphrased

from Microsoft’s own internal documents:

1. Make agreements with the enemy that

build an interdependence between the enemy

and us.

2. Generate uncertainty about our future

course of action, to throw the enemy offtrack.

3. Propose a clear solution to the

uncertainty that depends upon a certain set

of rules, and make it impossible for the

enemy to turn you down.

4. Change the rules so that the enemy is

forced to live with its own decisions, while

we move to an entirely new world where the

rules are different and we own the territory.

The proposed final judgment before you

now, presented by Microsoft and the Justice

Dept., is yet another clear example of the

death spiral methodology, this time applied

to the American justice system. Just as Novell

was compelled to commit itself to a category

of products that appeared to have been

rendered obsolete, and Netscape was

compelled to commit itself to offering for free

a product that once generated revenue and

that had been rendered in most consumers’

minds unnecessary, the Justice Dept. and the

District Court are being compelled to accept

a vision of Microsoft’s conduct for the future

that is incompatible with Microsoft’s own

vision of the future. Microsoft plans to

change the rules, to pull the rug out from

under you, and move on to a new territory

where it gets to make new rules.

Last 12 December, Microsoft counsel

Charles F. Rule presented a statement to the

Senate Judiciary Committee, defending its

Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) as taking

corrective measures that are far broader than

may even be necessary, given that ‘‘fourfifths’’ of Judge Jackson’s findings were

invalidated, by his estimate, by the Appeals

Court. As with most prepared statements

before a Senate committee, the latter part that

no one has time to read aloud, is ‘‘read into

the record’’ without objection. The body of

this statement explains the three-part

provisions of the PFJ. The following excerpt

explains the Judgment’s provisions with

regard to the category of software called

middleware:

The case that the plaintiffs tried and the

narrowed liability that survived appellate

review all hinged on claims that Microsoft

took certain actions to exclude Netscape’s

Navigator browser and Sun’s Java technology

from the market in order to protect the

Windows operating system monopoly. The

plaintiffs successfully argued that Microsoft

feared that Navigator and Java, either alone

or together, might eventually include and

expose a broad set of general purpose APIs

to which software developers could write as

an alternative to the Windows APIs. Since

Navigator and Java can run on multiple

operating systems, if they developed into

general purpose platforms, Navigator and

Java would provide a means of overcoming

the ‘‘applications barrier’’ to entry and

threaten the position of the Windows

operating system as platform software.

A person might expect that a decree

designed to address such a monopoly

maintenance claim would provide relief with

respect to Web-browsing software and Java

or, at most, to other general purpose platform

software that exposes a broad set of APIs and

is ported to run on multiple operating

systems. The PFJ goes much further. The

Department insisted that obligations imposed

on Microsoft by the decree extend to a range

of software that has little in common with

Navigator and Java. The decree applies to

‘‘middleware’’ broadly defined to include, in

addition to Web-browsing software and Java,

instant messaging software, media players,

and even email clients—software that,

Microsoft believes, has virtually no chance of

developing into broad, general purpose

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24587

platforms that might threaten to displace the

Windows platform. In addition, there is a

broad catch-all definition of middleware that

in the future is likely to sweep other similar

software into the decree.

To summarize: It is conceded that

Microsoft acted unlawfully to thwart any

action that Netscape and Sun may have taken

to use Navigator and Java as leverage for the

distribution of an operating platform that

substitutes for Windows. Microsoft is to be

praised, says Rule, for its broad definition of

middleware as more than just Web browsers,

but many categories of software with

functionality that currently isn’t part of an

operating system—software that could not

displace Windows in and of itself, because it

isn’t really an operating platform like Java

anyway. ‘‘A broad catch-all definition of

middleware,’’ Rule calls it—essentially, any

software that isn’t Windows. Defined so

broadly, anything that isn’t on the Windows

Setup CD-ROM could potentially be defined

as middleware. The settlement’s provisions

would, conceivably, apply to Microsoft’s

treatment of the producers and

manufacturers of any non-Microsoft package

on a store shelf or Internet download site.

Which sounds perfectly wonderful if we

allow ourselves to forget recent history:

Microsoft has a reputation for incorporating

features from non-Microsoft software

packages—or features which at least appear

to incorporate their functionality—in new

versions of Windows. The new digital photo

management features of Windows XP are a

clear and present example. What is to

prevent Microsoft from adopting any new

feature into Windows, thus narrowing the

feature set of ‘‘middleware’’ at will? Certainly

not the proposed judgment, which includes

specific provisions enabling Microsoft to

share resources with a third party for the

development of products that compete with

that party. From the top of page 5:

Nothing in this section shall prohibit

Microsoft from entering into (a) any bona fide

joint venture or (b) any joint development or

joint services arrangement with any ISV, IHV,

IAP, ICP, or OEM for a new product,

technology or service, or any material valueadd to an existing product, technology or

service, in which both Microsoft and the ISV,

IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM contribute significant

developer or other resources, that prohibits

such entity from competing with the object

of the joint venture or other arrangement for

a reasonable period of time.

So conceivably, if we accept Mr. Rule’s

explanation, a category of software that was

middleware in the past, could at Microsoft’s

discretion no longer be middleware today or

tomorrow. But if you read the Definitions

section of the PFJ, you discover Mr. Rule’s

explanation isn’t entirely accurate. In this

section, there are two main categories:

Microsoft Middleware, and non-Microsoft

middleware. The definition of middleware as

‘‘Internet browsers, email client software,

networked audio/video client software,

instant messaging software’’ applies only to

the Microsoft category. In other words, the

broad definition applies only if Microsoft is

the producer of the broadly defined products.

Non-Microsoft middleware is defined later in

the same section in this way:

‘‘Non-Microsoft Middleware’’ means a nonMicrosoft software product running on a

Windows Operating System Product that

exposes a range of functionality to ISVs

through published APIs, and that could, if

ported to or made interoperable with, a nonMicrosoft Operating System, thereby make it

easier for applications that rely in whole or

in part on the functionality supplied by that

software product to be ported to or run on

that non-Microsoft Operating System. In

other words, any product that exposes its

own functionality to outside developers in

the same way for Windows as for other

operating systems, enabling them to

conceivably write code that supports that

functionality, for instance, for Macintosh,

Linux, and Windows simultaneously. This

isn’t exactly Rule’s ‘‘broad catch-all

definition’’ that applies to instant messaging.

Essentially, what this truly refers to is any

software that establishes dependencies with

other software, apart from the native

dependence that all Windows software has

with the Windows operating system.

Speaking as a developer, I can speak with

experience: This definition may sound quite

broad, but it isn’t. Excluded from this

definition are the drivers that software

requires to be able to, for instance, print an

image on the printer or display something

on-screen—drivers are always considered

part of Windows, even though Microsoft may

not have written them. Excluded from this

definition are the kinds of products whose

mutual benefit, from the perspective of the

user, is derived from their being bundled

together rather than from their

communication with one another—for

example, Netscape Instant Messenger’s

bundling with Netscape Navigator. Excluded

from this definition are programs that

establish dependencies on categories of data

(as opposed to programs or source code) that

rely on the native operating system

independence of the system that uses them—

as, for example, MP3 music files are nonspecific to Windows or Macintosh or Linux.

It is not broadness that distinguishes

Microsoft’s legal definition of middleware,

but fuzziness. Depending on how you look at

it, and where you look for it, it can be

anything at any time. The conduct

restrictions in the PFJ prohibit Microsoft

from entering into agreements with

manufacturers that, in turn, would prohibit

them from choosing their own middleware

for their own systems. Such restrictions

would be important if we could be certain

what it is that Microsoft is prohibited from

prohibiting.

This fuzziness extends to the present

moment. As I write, the entire ActiveX

marketing scenario is in the final stages of

being disbanded, in favor of a program

architecture that replaces it entirely: the .NET

(pronounced ‘‘dot-net’’) architecture. The

basic principle of .NET is that Windows may

be enhanced to include a just-in-time

compiler (JIT) whose job is to execute

programs in the Windows environment. The

role of the JIT is analogous to that of the Java

Virtual Machine (JVM), although Microsoft’s

implementation will have no cross-platform

capabilities. Conceivably, as developers are

compelled to switch their program

architectures from the now-obsolete COM to

the new .NET, the architectural model of the

Windows application may be redrawn in

such a way that ‘‘apps’’ become satellites of

a sort—small, shared components designed

to interoperate and, in so doing, produce a

collective, de facto application on behalf of

the user. In such an architectural model,

middleware by one definition would not

exist. The reason is because the functionality

of a collective .NET application would not

have to be ‘‘exposed’’ like the opening of a

telephone directory—and as the PFJ

expects—but is instead derived as a result of

an independent assessment by Windows of

the collective capabilities of the .NET

component programs. Imagine telephones

that could publicize their own phone

numbers, and you get a glimpse of the idea.

The architectural concepts underlying

Microsoft’s .NET architecture are among the

best ideas the company’s developers have

ever conceived. Nonetheless, the mechanism

is being put in place today for Microsoft to

change the rules yet again. Microsoft itself

has stated in press conferences throughout

the antitrust proceedings, that the rules of the

computing industry change so fast that, by

the time a judgment or settlement is finally

reached, its terms will have been rendered

obsolete by the very evolution of the

industry. Microsoft is actively working to

demonstrate this principle, and we must see

.NET not only as a good idea, but a warning.

As long as we consider Microsoft the de facto

keeper of the computing dictionary, we will

render that company of changing its terms—

and to some extent, our lives as a result—on

a whim.

Microsoft has a history of making its

enemies follow a set of rules, which it then

changes. Provisions in the PFJ would

prohibit Microsoft from excluding from any

party the right to include icons and menu

selections on its systems that point to any

software it chooses. As both a developer and

an editor, I have heard news—whether it be

controlled leaks or the usual FUD—that

Microsoft is considering eliminating the

‘‘Desktop’’ as a feature of Windows, replacing

it with a more resplendent, multimediaoriented, Web-based system that’s possibly

tied into its MSN network. The Windows

Desktop is where all the icons and menu

selections are. If Microsoft changes the rules,

these provisions would immediately be

rendered archaic.

The provisions of the Proposed Final

Judgment as they stand today would restrict

Microsoft to behaving as we would expect

any large, successful company to behave with

regard to its partners, competitors,

supporters, and customers, had that company

attained its position of prominence by

legitimate means. What the PFJ would have

us forget is that Microsoft has a duty, at this

point in its history, to make reparations to

those parties whom it knowingly and

willfully deceived. It must behave not as an

ordinary large company, but as one with

unordinary obligations to the market in

which it does business: to provide its

partners, competitors, supporters, and

customers with more than is expected of the

company that has operated in good faith,

competed on the quality of its products and

24588 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

services, and has not broken federal and state

laws.

MICROSOFT’S WORLD, AND OTHERS

Unlike any single corporation in any other

industry in the world, Microsoft has attained

the freedom to dictate not only the terms of

the course of action for others in that

industry, but also the very terminology,

principles, and rules of existence by which

that industry operates. In 1984, an operating

system was a ‘‘bootstrap’’ program whose

basic function was to engage the computer,

take keyboard commands from the user, and

give the user some rudimentary access to

stored files. In 2001, the operating system has

become something which removes red-eye

from photographs, bounces instant messages

to digital cell phones, and handles copyright

infringement management on behalf of music

publishers—and all of these things, not

particularly very well. This transfiguration of

the concept of the operating system is

referred to by Microsoft as ‘‘innovation.’’ No

similar concept of innovation can be applied

to any other industry in the world. In our

own fantasy world, we can imagine an

automobile industry whose leader endows its

products with microwave ovens, paper

shredders, and Spanish teachers. We can

imagine the manufacturer calling these

developments ‘‘innovation.’’ And we can

argue that such developments would not be

illegal in and of themselves. But even in that

fantasy world, we cannot concoct a situation

where the inclusion of these features in

automobiles would in any way impede,

hinder, or prohibit a consumer’s means of

nuking a hot dog, shredding a letter, or

counting to diez by any other method.

Microsoft’s incorporation of often

arbitrarily-chosen new features in its

operating system, by design, impedes the

channel of delivery for any company whose

business is specifically to provide those

features. Knowing that, Microsoft has created

its own little market where partners and

potential partners bargain for prominence.

The price of a partner striking this bargain is

often the termination of its own native

distribution channel for its product—without

Microsoft’s backing, neither the product nor

the company can exist. And yet Microsoft

itself has shown it had no intention for its

partnerships to continue for any longer than

it could conjure its own, self-branded

alternative. Microsoft used its partnerships to

develop new markets in voice recognition,

storage security, file backup and restoration,

messaging, imaging, multimedia, database

organization and translation—markets whose

main channel of distribution were controlled

by Microsoft. Once that market exists,

Microsoft rescinds its partnership and offers

its own ‘‘innovation’’ as a substitute.

The Definitions section of documents in

the current antitrust case, including the

overturned District Court’s Final Judgment,

paints an outline for a newcomer to planet

Earth of an industry constructed in general

accordance with Microsoft’s current vision.

What an operating system is, what a

‘‘browser’’ is, what an application is, what a

database is, are definitions that could have

been supplied by a Microsoft manual. That

a company should have such a defining

vision should never be made illegal—any

American company should be free to dream

of redefining its industry. But the very

definitions of these things as we have come

to understand them, derive from Microsoft

actions taken to defend its own prominence

and thwart enemy attacks. Had these actions

never been taken, our very understanding of

the parts of a personal computer may be

almost unrecognizable to the inhabitants of

this world. Taking that into account, any

remedial measure which accepts the present

state of computing at face value, without

taking into account not only what computing

is becoming, but also what it might have been

today had Microsoft never acted with such

aggression and deception, is of no benefit to

the companies outside of Microsoft who each

should have the right to challenge Microsoft’s

prominence in a fair and competitive

manner.

We use personal computers today whose

processing power and data address capability

supersede that which the Dept. of Defense

categorized as ‘‘supercomputing’’ only eight

years ago. Knowledge of their technology

falling into the hands of enemies of the U.S.,

was considered a threat to national security.

The processors on our desktops are capable

of calculations which, as late as 1989, were

deemed impossible given the laws of physics.

Yet what can we truly do with these

computers? Can we calculate the trajectories

of celestial bodies? Can we give them voice

commands and ask them to perform

sophisticated analyses of financial

transactions, bodily functions, or legal

maneuvers? Can a computer tell me what I’m

eating that jeopardizes my cholesterol rate?

Can we make heads or tails of Enron’s

bookkeeping strategy?

These are jobs, the basic functions of

which supercomputers of the 1980s could

perform with ease. Yet the modern, everyday

personal computer, whose processing ability

supersedes that of those machines by orders

of magnitude, just barely delivers enough

power for you to type a letter, or keep a list

of your colleagues’ phone numbers, or even

play a decent game of chess with you.

Crashing has become one of the fundamental

functions of a computer. Entire careers are

spent by system administrators whose

principal jobs are helping their users recover

from system crashes. We speak often of how

the computers on-board Apollo 11 had onefourth the processing power of a T.I. pocket

calculator. Today, an everyday personal

computer, capable of literally millions of

times the processing power of Apollo 11, has

difficulty running a real-time simulation of

the Apollo 11 on-board computer, without

being bogged down by the colossal overhead

incurred by the operating system. Most of us

computer users and developers are just

barely eking out our everyday jobs.

Had there been a true state of competition

between Microsoft and other producers of

operating systems over the last 15 years, this

pitiful state of existence would never have

come about. Microsoft yesterday and today

has employed brilliant programmers, with

the capability to endow computers with

extraordinary functionality and richness of

experience. These programmers—not just

those outside the company—have been

handicapped by the crippling weight of the

monstrosity that has become Microsoft

Windows, a platform that transforms the

definition of ‘‘moving target’’ into an

unfathomable, four-dimensional puzzle from

which rational minds can barely escape.

It is bewilderment in the apparently

minuscule importance of the law within

Microsoft’s own little world, that Judge

Jackson attempted to express—and which,

sadly, he did at the wrong time and with

improper motivation. Judge Jackson’s

judgment was indeed clouded, as was Joel

Klein’s, and those of the other parties in this

case who have attempted to craft an

appropriate remedy for Microsoft’s offenses.

To date, no solution on the table—including

the breakup of the company—has taken into

account this obvious fact: Any remedy that

fails to render the future executive conduct

of Microsoft or its successor companies

innocuous to those whom its prior conduct

knowingly deceived, is no remedy at all.

NEW CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FINAL

JUDGMENT

Tough love, for a misbehaving adolescent

child, often mandates that the parent be

willing to cut that child off—not to kick him

into the death spiral, but to make him live

with his own choices. Microsoft would have

itself continue to live in a world defined by

the agreements it makes with others—how

free and open they are, how restricted and

narrow they may be, but in any event, how

many agreements there are! It is my

suggestion to you that, in the interest of

tough love, Microsoft should be cut off. We

must take steps to force Microsoft to live with

the decisions that it has already made for

itself. We must allow Microsoft to live in the

world it has constructed for itself. But we

must not allow circumstances to continue

which force, or compel, or rely upon any

other company doing business in the

computing industry—software, hardware,

services, networking, or elsewhere—to have

to make any agreements with Microsoft

whatsoever just to stay alive.

What if we’re sick of Microsoft? Why must

developers, manufacturers, vendors, and

retailers be forced to endure even the fairest

and most legally honorable of relationships

with a corporation that has proven its

inherent incapability to see value in the

ideas, works, and products of others outside

its own doors? Why must the rest of the

computing industry be bunched together

under the category of ‘‘third party’’ by legal

definition?

In the early 1980s, the computing industry

at large made a collective decision to support

a single, pre-eminent operating system, and

to trust Microsoft with the stewardship of

that system. This decision was not reached

by having been kicked into the death spiral.

This was a rational decision made by honest,

persevering corporations whose mutual

interest was to build an industry together so

that each could prosper.

Microsoft Windows did not, as Microsoft’s

self-authored history proclaims, compete

head-to-head with other operating systems on

equal turf, and achieve a position of

prominence through overwhelming customer

acclamation. MS–DOS—and by succession,

Windows—were handed this position of

prominence on a silver plate, under the

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24589

auspices of a bond of trust between Microsoft

and the rest of the computing industry. This

trust was the collective property of the

computing industry. Microsoft violated,

ruined, and destroyed that trust. Entire

corporations were destroyed as a result, and

others today struggle simply to break even.

To presume that Microsoft can make

reparations for this violation by way of an

agreement stating that it promises this will

never, ever happen again, is to ignore the

extent of the damage that was done. For

Netscape, Sun, and Novell, the death spiral

was indeed devastating, but their survival is

foreseeable. They may each yet rise from the

ashes, with or without Microsoft’s aid—and

they may be better off without it anyway.

These are companies that may never benefit

from any settlement on the content of future

agreements with Microsoft. These companies

don’t want future agreements with Microsoft.

The offended parties in the Microsoft

antitrust matter are Microsoft’s many

software development partners, the computer

manufacturers who depend on Windows, the

retailers who have the right to sell the

products they want to sell, and most

importantly, the consumers and businesses

who rely on Windows every day. The state

of Windows today—and as a result, the state

of the way their businesses work every day—

was designed, planned, built, and executed

in bad faith.

In the interest of crafting a proper redress,

I make the following suggested replacements

for the terms of the District Court’s Final

Judgment:

1. Microsoft should cede stewardship of all

components of its operating system directly

related to the function of maintaining the

readiness and usability of the computer, to an

independent Licensing Bureau. This Bureau

may be comprised of representatives of

software manufacturers (including

Microsoft); hardware manufacturers; leaders

in services, support, and education. Any

element of Windows whose basic function

does not directly relate to the operability of

the computer and its peripherals, may be

retained exclusively by Microsoft. This

definition may include Media Player,

Outlook Express, and such elements that

Microsoft has called ‘‘Microsoft

Middleware.’’ This central element of

Windows is referred to here as the Windows

core.

2. Representatives of lawmaking entities

worldwide will be appointed as special

liaison to the Licensing Bureau, for the

purpose of overseeing all development,

licensing, and educational operations. This

includes representatives of the US Justice

Dept., but may also include representatives

from the various plaintiff states, from

Canada, from the EU, and elsewhere.

3. The Licensing Bureau will make public

all relevant information required by any

independent developer to be able to create an

application or program for any purpose that

developer may conceive, in a timely manner

such that a program constructed using this

information may be guaranteed to run on the

most premium version of Windows

commercially available for a period of time

24 months following the developer’s receipt

of the information. Costs incurred for this

publication will be assumed by the Bureau,

and the Bureau will be free to make certain

premium versions of its publications—such

as ‘‘courseware‘‘—commercially available.

4. The Licensing Bureau will serve as the

central authority for licensing of shared

Windows components to independent

developers, for inclusion in independent

programs. This way, developers who use a

compiler package will be able to incorporate

elements of shared code necessary for the

software to perform common functions, such

as display buttons and present menus.

5. Members of the Bureau will grant

themselves licenses to produce, develop,

distribute, and sell operating systems with

any package, design, or name they may

choose, but which has guaranteed

compatibility with the Windows core, and

whose principles comply completely with

the level of interoperability and

communication required by the Windows

core. Costs incurred for licenses will be paid

to Microsoft Corp., and for the first two years,

Microsoft will be credited in any nonMicrosoft version of Windows as the creator

of Windows. For example, ‘‘IBM Windows’’

may include this message: ‘‘Based on

Microsoft technology.’’ (Use the ‘‘Intel

Inside’’ logo for a prototype.)

6. Each member of the Bureau will retain

the right to develop (or ‘‘innovate’’) its own

exclusive packaging arrangement for its own

version of Windows. Hypothetically, ‘‘HP

Windows’’ could include HP’s own choice of

media player, e-mail client, or instant

messenger; and HP may even choose to make

a ‘‘plain’’ version of Windows available

without these items. Meanwhile, Microsoft

may continue to offer Windows Media

Player, Outlook Express, and MSN

Messenger. Fair market competition will

determine which package is superior.

7. It will be the sole and exclusive

responsibility of the Bureau to determine for

the benefit of its own members, as well as the

computing industry at large, the

developmental strategy for the Windows

core, to assign the tasks of development to

Microsoft teams or to teams from other

companies, to manage the development

process, and to ensure compliance with the

interoperability principles of the Windows

core. Microsoft has a seat at the table, but it’s

a seat among equals. It can elect to play

along, or go home and sulk.

At this time in the history of the computing

industry, and of the country as a whole, it is

incumbent upon us all to get smarter very

quickly. We now live and work in a society

dependent upon the free and expedient flow

of information. The computing industry has

helped the concept of information to evolve

to include not just news and mail, but

functionality—the type of work that can be

performed by software and yet represented

digitally.

Microsoft’s most ardent supporters have

argued that it should not be the business of

the federal government to interfere with,

place controls on, or make restrictions to the

free flow of information, or to any company

that facilitates this flow of information. They

are right. Acceptance of the Proposed Final

Judgment as it presently stands, is a tacit

surrender and assignment of all rights to

restrict the free flow of information, by the

federal government, to a single company. The

Proposed Final Judgment defines the future

as a magnification of the present—in a state

of existence that does not appear to have

evolved much from where we stand now.

And yet we know that the company to which

the government would, in effect, render this

authority is capable of using its own

monopoly power in deceptive ways to

manipulate the information industry in such

a way that every single transaction comes

closer and closer to flowing, at some point,

through Microsoft.

‘‘Get me into that,’’ Bill Gates is quoted as

saying, ‘‘and goddam, we’ll make so much

money!’’ The free flow of transportation was

engineered by geniuses—Henry Ford, John A.

Roebling, Norman Bel Geddes—and

championed by presidents—Abraham

Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight

Eisenhower. The free flow of ideas is one of

the basic principles upheld by the United

States Constitution. Up to now, all successful

freedom has been constructed and

established on solid principles. Are we truly

prepared to draw up a statement that speaks

for all of us as a people and a nation, that

serves as a catalyst for the surrender of the

free flow of information not to an institution

defined by principles, but a corporation

defined by deception? We are a smarter

people than that. We know, for a fact, that

all information, all knowledge, all wisdom is

truly free, and that all people are entitled to

fair and equal access. This principle will be

demonstrated, clearly and unequivocally,

either in the relative peace of today or in the

turmoil of the future. You may spare the

people a great ordeal now, against a powerful

yet unprincipled force, by putting a stop to

the death spiral. The way you do this is the

way you deal with a wayward adolescent:

Stop making deals. Take away its power.

Spell out the law. And don’t get kicked in

yourself.

Yours sincerely,

Scott M. Fulton, III

Senior Partner, Ingenus

MTC–00004754

From: Jay Starkman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 4:34pm

Subject: Awful settlement proposal with

Microsoft

Dear Sir or Madam:

Your proposed ‘‘settlement’’ with

Microsoft still leaves me with an intrusive

Windoz operating system that I can’t avoid

using because it’s a monopoly. As a

monopoly, other vendors’ software is written

to run only on Windoz. MS makes sure that

the Windoz API calls cannot be emulated by

another OS. A real settlement would require

MS to publish all its APIs so that other OS’s

could write emulation code allowing

Windoz-specific software to run on nonWindoz OS’s like Linux and OS/2. It would

allow me (not just computer manufacturers)

to remove unwanted software like Outlook

Express, NetMeeting, and Front Page. It

would give me access to hidden directories

and hidden registry entries. It would give me

a choice of which OS I want to run given

software and give me control over Windoz

OS if I chose to use it.

24590 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

I use both OS/2 and Linux, but it’s

becoming harder and harder as MS tightens

the noose around those systems. Even surfing

the Internet, there are sites written

specifically for MS Internet Explorer and the

Windoz user. The .NET and Passport initiates

will seal Internet into the MS corral. Your

‘‘settlement’’ unchains a tyrant MS on the

world. Innovation will suffer. So will my

pocketbook. Just try to find a copy of Windoz

XP for a non-fair traded price. Why did they

even bother with a ‘‘settlement’’. It’s a

capitulation.

The second tragedy of September 11 is that

it led to the unleashing of Microsoft.

Please fire every lawyer in the anti-trust

division Justice Department.

They’re all incompetent.

-Jay Starkman, CPA

Atlanta, GA

P.S. In 1973, I was employed by Price

Waterhouse to assist with their anti-trust

matters. I’ve got first-hand familiarity with

the resources and connivance used to get the

government to drop that case. The Justice

Department is again being taken for fools.

And you are!

Jay Starkman, CPA

Voice: 404—636–1400 Fax: 404–636–1130

2531 Briarcliff Road, Suite 116

e-mail: jay@starkman.com

Atlanta, Georgia 30329

Internet: http://www.starkman.com

MTC–00004755

From: Karl Zaske

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 4:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement of the antitrust

action against Microsoft Corporation is most

alarming. As I understand it, instead of

punishing MS for violating the law, this

settlement rewards their misdeeds by

providing them an unfair competitive

advantage in one of the few markets where

they have not been able to bully their way

to domination, K–12 education. How can this

possibly make sense? As punishment for

abuse of monopoly power the remedy is to

increase the monopoly? It’s my opinion that

Microsoft is making a fool of the DOJ, and

Lord help consumers if this settlement goes

through.

Sincerely, Karl Zaske

MTC–00004756

From: Rich Murdock

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 5:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Department of Justice

I have worked in Education as a computer

Technician for 3 years and I have seen over

and over Microsoft pushing out the smaller

companies. No one can compete with them

because they have the money to push out the

little guy who needs to make a profit on

everything, where Microsoft can afford to

loose money just to get their foot in the door.

Like this new proposal, it’s like convicting a

child molester and then for a punishment

make him the director of a daycare center. If

you want to punish Microsoft don’t give

them the oppertunity to molest more kids,

make them pay by breaking them up or give

half of last years income in cash to needy

schools. This helps everyone, the schools

need money and Microsoft has unfairly

earned the money so take it away and give

it to the needy.

Rich Murdock

Freshwater Education District

Computer Technician

MTC–00004757

From: Jeremy Richter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 6:21pm

Subject: Very Upset Citizen

As a citizen of the United States who

believes in the spirit of competition, I am

deeply concerned about the steps being taken

to settle the Microsoft Antitrust case. I am a

Macintosh user and like the choices that are

provided to me using Apple’s operating

system. But with Microsoft’s recent

suggestion that a fair settlement could be

reached by donating software to

underprivileged schools, I am outraged. This

is such an obvious ploy to gain additional

customers that I can’t believe the government

is not objecting to it. Didn’t they break the

law? How does donating software to schools

remedy the monopoly stranglehold they have

in the PC industry? Allowing Microsoft to

donate a billion dollars worth of software

completely wipes out any competition. How

can Apple and other companies compete

with Microsoft in the education market if

Microsoft’s software will be for free? This

isn’t a remedy; it’s simply creating an even

bigger beast that will further destroy

competition.

Make Microsoft donate billions in cash for

its previous violations and have an

independent organization manage how the

money is dispersed. Currently, Microsoft has

over $36 billion dollars in cash, so I’m pretty

sure a few billion would not hurt them in the

long run. This would be the right thing to do.

In addition, Microsoft should be required to

provide its popular Office Suite to both the

Macintosh and Linux platforms indefinitely

(and they should be released at the same time

as the Windows versions and have the same

features).

I am confident that most consumers believe

preserving competition is worth having to

spend a little more time and money to

implement the right remedy for Microsoft’s

wrongdoings.

Thank you for your time and consideration

Sincerely,

Jeremy Richter

MTC–00004758

From: Gregory J. Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 6:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I’m quite displeased that my government

has decided to let Microsoft off the hook

when they have been declared a monopoly.

The terms of this settlement does little to

prevent Microsoft from continuing their

monopolistic practices and does nothing to

punish them from their past regressions.

Microsoft has proved itself as a fierce

competitor and will stop at nothing to own

what ever market it wishes to own. It will try

and try again destroying it’s competitors or

at the last resort buying them out. At work

I use a MS operating system, MS Office, we

have MS servers and I use a MS web browser.

Forget about using an ‘‘alternative’’ web

browser, my IT department forbids it because

it would be incompatible although

technically possible. MS marketing at work!

Now they want to control my personal

information with their .NET initiative. They

say it’s because that is what people what and

they are just trying to give us what we want.

The real reason is because MS wants to own

a potential market and keep the rewards for

themselves. They have shown that they have

no interest in security or doing anything of

interest to the user. They don’t make changes

until they are forced to and then they are

often do a poor job or steal from other

companies. I certainly do not trust Microsoft.

From a Wired article: ‘‘Microsoft chairman

Bill Gates on Thursday defended the

settlement as tough but one that ‘‘we’re really

pleased to have.’’ If Microsoft is glad to have

it then it clearly does not go far enough. I

hope that the judge will reject this settlement

as inadequate. I also hope for a Department

of Justice that is interested in protecting the

interests of American citizens rather than the

interests of large corporations.

Gregory J. Smith

1840 Peach Rd. NE

Rio Rancho, NM 87124

(505) 891–6160

gregjsmith@mac.com

MTC–00004759

From: AMERHOME@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 8:18pm

Subject: Microsoft antitrust case

December18, 2001

Renata Hesse

Trial Attorney

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street, NW # 1200

Washington, DC 20530

By fax and Email: <A

HREF=‘‘mailto:microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

’’>microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov</A>

Dear Ms. Hesse:

We are writing to comment onissues in the

settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. We

also wish to commend the Department of

Justice for negotiating a fair and reasonable

Revised Proposed Final Judgment in the case,

and to urge the Department to resistefforts of

Microsoft competitors to undermine the

proposed settlement of thecase.

The American HomeownersGrassroots

Alliance is the national advocacy

organization representing, alongwith its sister

foundation, the nation???s 70 million

homeowners since 1983. Ourinterest in this

case comes from the fact that nearly 60% of

homes have one ormore computers. Those

tools are increasingly important to

homeowners who dependon them as tools for

personal and business communications,

financial managementand planning, adult

and children???s education, and also to

manage the rapidlygrowing number of homebased businesses.

In the early history ofthe personal

computer industry there were many choices

for operating systems,much as there are in

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24591

cellular telephones in the U.S. today. The

utility ofpersonal computers was

undermined by the inability of software

written for oneoperating system to work on

a different operating system, just as

theincompatibility of today???s cellular

telephone operating systems is a

limitingfactor in their value to consumers.

Over time the development of many types

ofsoftware for the Windows operating system

lead more and more consumers toselect the

Windows operating system. Consumer

preference for a wide variety ofsoftware

applications, convenience, and ease of use

also lead to a consumerpreference for the

integration of software applications into the

Windowsoperating system.

The evolution of theWindows operating

system into an industry standard through

consumer choice isthe most valuable

consumer benefit of Windows. Actions taken

to addressMicrosoft behavior should, in no

case, undermine the current right of

consumersto select Microsoft operating

systems and popular arrays of integrated

softwareapplications.

We believe the revisedproposed final

judgment strikes the right balance in

effectively addressingMicrosoft???s

unacceptable practices and also preserves

consumer choice. Theagreement calls for

uniform pricing and allows computer makers

flexibility toconfigure Windows and promote

non-Microsoft programs. Both interfaces

andprotocols necessary for other software to

work with Windows must disclosed, andboth

retaliation and exclusive agreements are

prohibited. An independentlyappointed

permanent technical committee will monitor

compliance and assist withdispute

resolution. The U.S. or any of the states have

a right to inspect allMicrosoft documents and

all source code for any Microsoft program,

interviewany Microsoft employee, and order

Microsoft to prepare any report under

oathregarding any issues relating to the final

judgment. Any person may

complainregarding noncompliance to the

Justice Department, the states and/or

thetechnical committee and the plaintiffs can

immediately initiate proceedings tohold

Microsoft in contempt. We see no loopholes

in this remedy.

Our members have noturged us to support

more stringent sanctions against Microsoft. In

fact webelieve there is little or no consumer

opposition to the revised proposed

finaljudgment. We oppose many of the

suggestions of Microsoft competitors,

directlyor through their influence of federal

legislators, state attorney generals, third party

organizations, for settlement provisions

designed to increase their market share.

These companies do not represent

consumers, and consumers havemade their

preference for the Windows operating system

known by their actionsin the marketplace.

We thank you for theopportunity to present

our views on this case.

Sincerely,

Beth Hahn

President

MTC–00004761

From: Kent L. Shephard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 8:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

I have followed the case carefully and seen

the effects of Microsoft’s violation of antitrust statutes. Microsoft has shown that it

can’t be trusted to not engage in this type of

behavior. They had been brought before the

court previously and found guilty of similar

behavior. This settlement does nothing to

protect the consumer or competition from

Microsoft’s abusive monopoly.

Quite frankly, this settlement had no teeth.

What happens if Microsoft finds itself again

guilty of this behavior? What action will be

taken and what is the penalty? I see nothing

outlined. Do they just get to walk and be told

‘‘don’t do it again’’? What happened to

punishment for prior actions? Do they just

get away with putting companies out of

business? Blatantly ignore the law and walk

away?

I say this with the utmost respect. This

settlement stinks.

Sincerely,

Kent L. Shephard

Kent L. Shephard

B2C2, Inc.

ASIC Design Manager

(510)814–7373 x153

kshephard@b2c2inc.com

The opinions expressed are mine

and not those of B2C2, Inc.

If I expressed them, they would have to be

mine wouldn’t they?

MTC–00004762

From: Bill Martin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 8:43pm

Subject: comments on proposed Microsoft

settlement

As someone who has long believed that

government anti-trust enforcement was

unnecessarily heavy handed, I am

nonetheless appalled and outraged by the

Justice Department’s handling of the

Microsoft case.

I have studied what I can find about the

terms of the agreement, and find myself

wondering whether Mr. James had the wool

pulled over his eyes due to his ignorance of

(and/or bad advice on) the technical aspects

involved, or whether ‘‘the (political) fix was

in.’’ I am a retired Fortune 500 corporate

financial executive, and as such, with inhouse legal assistance, negotiated many eight

figure financings and other agreements. I

have never seen an agreement so full of

loopholes. I honestly believe that the

settlement agreement is worse than no

settlement at all.

For the last four years, I have worked as

the (volunteer) computer staff person for a

local professional performing arts

organization. I first built the network,

including repairing and upgrading a hodge

podge collection of donated PCs and building

the server. I have then kept the network

maintained since then, upgrading it when

necessary. As such, I have greatly expanded

my long time computer hobbyist’s knowledge

and am well aware of Microsoft’s

transgressions. I have watched them target

and destroy many entrenched or potential

competitors by improper use of their OS

monopoly. I have seen them tell outrageous

lies to the public, and later to the courts, to

maintain and build their monopoly. I am a

lifelong believer in free markets and

capitalism; their behavior is an

embarrassment to me and gives aid to those

who would replace our economic system

with socialism or state capitalism.

To refute just one faulty Microsoft

technical argument that DOJ improperly

accepted, secrecy is not a necessary, nor even

a reliable, way to build a secure operating

system. Microsoft used the secrecy = security

argument to sell DOJ on allowing it to

improperly keep parts of its OS inaccessable

to firms writing competitive applications. Yet

the most secure PC operating system in the

world (Open BSD Unix) has made its code

public. The ultimate security comes from

having others review the code to find flaws.

Microsoft’s secrecy policy does not work;

new security holes are found weekly. Secrecy

merely delays the discovery of problems

until the software is in wide use—

maximizing the problem. The public would

be better served by requiring them to publish

their OS secrets—better served through

improved detection of security holes, and

also by facilitated competitors who are able

to better program applications to run on

Microsoft’s operating systems.

I will not get into other technical issues

here; they are well documented in the

industry press and the Wall Street Journal.

And their transgressions are well

documented in the court record. Where is the

punishment for their past misdeeds and

perjuries? Where is the incentive for them

not to continue the practices that the appeals

court has properly found to be illegal? Where

is there a single provision in the agreement

that does not have at least one large

loophole? They have clearly demonstrated

that they will use (and extend aggressively)

any opening that they can find (or create (or

imagine).)

Microsoft has made fools of the DOJ. Please

go back to the negotiating table or the

courtroom. Further delay in justice is better

than legitimizing Microsoft’s illegalities and

other misdeeds. The health of our economy

demands it.

William R. Martin

2725 River Road

Virginia Beach, VA 23454–1210

bill_martin@usa.net

MTC–00004763

From: Mark Taggart

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 9:06pm

Subject: An outsider’s viewpoint

Make them give cash—$1 Billion—there’s

my opinion. If they don’t like it, raise it to

1.5 billion, and keep going up because they

are wasting your time and our tax dollars. I’m

willing to be the tax payers have already paid

a hefty sum for these hearings and with the

$1 billion fine at hand we will at most break

even. I’m not going to bother you with my

reasoning any more than that.

Have a good day,

Mark Taggart

MTC–00004764

From: David Phillips

24592 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 10:35pm

Subject: Comment on proposed Microsoft

Settlement

2689 Elmwood Avenue Apt 2

Kenmore NY 14217

716–874–9407

davep@niagaracyber.com

Greetings.

I’m writing to comment on the proposed

Microsoft settlement. Microsoft’s major

penalty should be financial. They benefited

enormously from direct and indirect effects

of the intimidation tactics they employed.

Also, they got caught lying bare-assed to

Judge Penfield, which is a major disgrace.

Under no circumstances should they be

allowed to use a legal penalty to dump

hardware and software onto a market

segment, such as Education, which has seen

a fair amount of competition over the years.

For Microsoft to use your settlement as a

’free’ way to kill Apple Computer, for

instance, would be adding serious insult to

real injury.

Alternatively, let Microsoft pay cash—not

credit, not millions of copies of their inferior

software with a marginal production costs of

pennies per unit—to a completely

independent foundation which can allocate

funds to help EDUCATION. Not necessarily

only for the most needy schools, but for the

most needy geographical areas, such as rural

or inner-city school districts. Some of those

billions of dollars could—should the

foundation so decide—go to local Headstart

programs, for teacher professional

development or to help school districts

attract better-quality teachers. Math and

Science teacher shortages, and the need to

recruit girls into these fields, could be among

the areas addressed by this foundation.

To recap: Microsoft should just pay money.

Lots of it. And the recipient foundation must

be COMPLETELY independent of Microsoft.

And the funds should be able to be spent to

alleviate ignorance.

Clearly, Microsoft’s own executives could

have used some civics lessons when growing

up. How about we break that cycle of

ignorance in this generation?

Thanks very much,

David Phillips, PhD.

MTC–00004765

From: Ole Sock

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 11:23pm

Subject: Open letter to the confused Attorney

Generals

Subject: Open letter to the confused Attorney

Generals

The attorney generals in all 50 of our states

should realize that the biggest monopoly of

all is the ‘‘Government (sic Public) Education

System’’. In order to curry favor with the

influential education bureaucracy the two

party politicians have allowed the fox into

the hen house, fully disregarding the sound

government procurement principle to never

‘‘sole source’’. In this respect the politicians

have failed the taxpayer miserably. Even

though we now have 5 year vesting the future

looks grim for millions of baby boomers who

have been bashed about with downsizings in

the ‘‘private sector’’.

Competition and the supposedly global

free market are the built in checks and

balances to keep ‘‘private’’ sector goods and

services reasonably priced. The ‘‘public’’

sector worker is largely immune from

NAFTA and FAST TRACK. This is unfair

and its further unfair to encumber an

innovative company such as Microsoft which

competes in the private sector. It’s companies

such as Microsoft that eventually produce a

product to serve the public by taking over an

entity that in its present state is cumbersome

and an expensive burden on the backs of

society. Our aging populace could better use

these saved dollars for medical needs.

Therefore I ask the AGs to stop encumbering

our free market companies and direct their

attention to areas that are bigger concerns to

the taxpayer.

I challenge all states attorney generals to

rid us of our biggest monopoly and stop

violating the constitutional rights of

America’s children, which under the present

situation does not provide an equal

opportunity to education. Dangle that

education dollar in front of our private sector

technological companies and let the

innovation of the free market bring a better

and equal education to America’s children at

a cost that is determined by the free market.

If any of you 50 need further convincing

in free markets for education try

WWW.FRIEDMANFOUNDATION.ORG.

Ray Bastings

29 Hickory Lane

Malvern Pa 19355

FARKNARKLE@MSN.COM

MTC–00004766

From: laspencer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/18/01 11:35pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Microsoft should be split up into 3

companies.

1. An operating system company.

2. An application software company.

3. A web browser company.

Microsoft has clearly abrogated the

traditional rules for monopoly control. They

are unrepentant. It is time for the federal

government to limit Microsoft’s power.

Lee Spencer

3323 Seawind Circle

Anchorage, AK 99516

laspencer@gci.net

907–345–0772

MTC–00004767

From: Bill Defelice

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 7:52am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to express my concern to the

settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. I

am a computer support professional of more

than 22 years with the past 16+ of those years

spent in the area of education.

I have used a variety of personal

computing operating systems in both the

retail and educational channels, including

those made by Microsoft (MS–DOS,

Windows 3.11/95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP),

Amiga, Commodore, IBM, Unix, BeOS,

Novell and Apple.

My opinion is that a variety of operating

systems other than Microsoft’s provide

superior features and performance at each

stage of development of the personal

computing platform. Yet Microsoft achieved

a monopoly in excess of 70% of the personal

computer market. Microsoft’s illegal behavior

in maintaining and expanding that monopoly

to in excess of 90 per cent of the market

effectively destroyed all existing competitive

personal computing operating systems in the

process, save one, and perhaps prevented

others from being developed. There have

been numerous ways that this has been

documented, including the PBS television

special ‘‘Triumph of the Nerds’’, which

covers every aspect from Microsoft’s own Bill

Gates taking advantage of the original author

of the PC Dos operating system to stealing the

look and feel of Apple Computer’s operating

system used in the Macintosh and Lisa

personal computer systems.

I am quite opposed to the settlement for

several reasons. The one I most strongly

object to is the fact that is provides Microsoft

with an unfair advantage through an

increased market share. By the fact they are

to provide a majority of their settlement

award with their own hardware/software in

lieu of cash only strengthens the foothold of

Microsoft in the educational environment.

Many school districts, including the one I

work for, utilize multiple computing

platforms from Unix, Macintosh as well as

Microsoft.

Receiving product from Microsoft not only

hinders progress within districts like ours,

but provides further deterioration of the other

platforms utilized—regardless of the merits

of these other platforms. I would recommend

that Microsoft be required to pay a mostly

cash settlement instead of providing them

with an avenue for furthering their

stronghold.

Microsoft was also convicted of illegally

integrating its products and/or its key

technologies to its monopoly operating

system but that conviction was previously

overturned. In my experience it is indeed

Microsoft’s tying key technologies to its

monopoly operating system that has been the

most damaging to open competition in the

personal computing market. Microsoft was

initially found guilty of this act and this

should be remedied. The settlement formally

forecloses any future opportunity to do so *

this simply can’t be allowed.

There doesn’t appear to be any further

action to prevent them from furthering their

monopoly. The nerve of CEO Steve Ballmer

stating publicly that he does not even know

what a monopoly is after Microsoft was

convicted of being one. This should show

that the Microsoft mentality is they believe

we are all drones and will be bamboozled

anything they say as gospel! How can the

American public believe that Microsoft will

change their ways and become law abiding?

There is no apparent incentive to keep

Microsoft’s compliance. There must be

safeguards provided in the settlement to

insure compliance as well as monitoring

them to prevent deviation from those

guidelines set forth for a settlement.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill DeFelice, Sr. Technician

Norwalk Connecticut Public Schools

Bill DeFelice

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24593

Sr. Computer—A/V Technician

Norwalk Public Schools

Instructional Technology Center

125 East Avenue

Norwalk, CT 06852

Tel: 203–854–4104

MTC–00004768

From: Eleanor J Morgan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 9:26am

Subject: Microsoft Settment

I think it is time the Government put this

subject to rest. I feel other company’s feel

they aren’t getting as much money and are

poor losers. Bill Gate’s has done so much for

others and people are taking advantage of

him. Hope something is done soon to get this

behind him.

MTC–00004769

From: Wendell Galbraith

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/19/01 9:36am

Please do not let Microsoft get away again

without stiff penalties. They use the words

‘‘innovate’’ and ‘‘consumer’’ over and over to

bamboozle the public and lawmakers and

force us to use their software. It got no

publicity but research the case of ‘‘Blue

Mountain Arts vs. Microsoft’’ and you will

get a crystal clear understanding of what they

do.

Wendell Galbraith

Research Director

WJMK Television

Boca Raton, Fl.

MTC–00004770

From: Rebecca Matthews

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 10:37am

Subject: How do you apply for a grant?

Please let me know how you apply for a

Microsoft grant.

RM

MTC–00004771

From: Steven Randolph

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 10:58am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I am writing to express my disapproval of

the proposed settlement with Microsoft in

the anti-trust case. I heartily concur with the

finding of the courts that Microsoft is an

abusive monopolist that has acted illegally to

limit competition. But the proposed

settlement will not sufficiently restore

competition. Microsoft should be divided

into two independent companies as per the

plan described by the original trial judge.

Furthermore, strong measures should be

taken to ensure that Microsoft does not

‘‘bundle’’ applications into its operating

systems so as to prevent or discourage

consumers from consideration of competing

applications from non-Microsoft sources.

Sincerely,

Steven Randolph

6710 Taylor Road

Lakeland, FL 33811

863–255–8954

steven.randolph@starband.net

MTC–00004772

From: Bernard P Ducamp

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 11:13am

Subject: Monopoly Maintenance

Please refer to the we site: http://

www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/

byt20010824s0001/. The article about the

demise of BeOS points out the following: The

reality is that Be’s failure has made a point

to the world, to whit: ‘‘Don’t bother trying to

create a better commercial desktop OS—it

doesn’t matter how hard you try, how many

engineers you throw at the problem, how

much money you spend, how many years

you put into it, or how wonderful the

product is. Microsoft owns that (monopoly)

space, and will VIGOROUSLY defend it.’’

MTC–00004773

From: Mark

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 11:17am

Subject: Comment about Microsoft antitrust

settlement

Having worked in the computer industry

for more than 20 years I have seen the

bennefit TRUE competition as done for our

industry. The current Microsoft settlement

does nothing to promote competition and in

fact further promotes Microsoft’s monopoly

into the education market. In the future, the

underfunded schools will be forced to pay for

upgrading Microsoft software. This is an

expense our schools can’t afford.

Additionally the true cost of the software

Microsoft plans to donate is significantly less

than the list price. A better solution would

be to have Microsoft pay cash to the schools

and allow the schools to spend to money on

what ever they wish or non-Microsoft

platforms. Redhat has offered to donate

Linux for free. Let Microsoft buy the

hardware. Or let the schools buy Apple

computers.

I would prefer to see Microsoft broken up

in to an operating system company and an

application company.

Sincerly,

Mark Wisner

101 Farrell Ct.

Morrisville, NC 27560

MTC–00004774

From: holtf@redwood.rt.cs.boeing.com

@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 1:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Here’s a snippet from an e-mail making the

rounds today, 19 Dec 01—This is the sort of

compliance you can expect from Microsoft:

‘‘I understand that some people using

Netscape’s browsers had trouble reading my

recent IETF trip report. Unfortunately, I had

forgotten that Microsoft had changed their

HTML conversion utility for Word2000 such

that it creates great content for their IE

browser but horrid content for Netscape

browsers.

Because I used Word2000 to create this

report, I have been getting emails reporting

great frustration trying to read/access my

report.

Fortunately, <name deleted> used a utility

to strip out the Word2000-isms from an older

version of my trip report. . . .’’

The only innovative work we’ve ever seen

from Microsoft has addressed avoiding

standards and undermining competitors. The

people impressed with Microsoft products

are the turn-key users and those who benefit

directly from the largesse. Everyone I know

who works in information technology

admires Microsoft’s business strategy—a

monopoly in an area the government doesn’t

understand. However, in these technical

circles, I never hear Microsoft praised for its

technical innovations or for its quality; quite

the opposite.

(Technically, what has Microsoft *ever*

innovated? A dancing paper clip? Seriously

review this question of innovation with

someone knowledgable in the history of

information technology—every major

Microsoft product is the result of purchase or

imitation.)

Those in the industry know that antitrust

action against Microsoft should have started

in the late 1980s. The government has clearly

been slow to understand the information

technology sector of business. But finally the

suit came, too late for Lotus and Caldera, but

Microsoft’s fundamental business practices

had not changed. I can’t believe that after

winning the case, the U.S. Government is

now going to capitulate.

Fred.

Fred B. Holt Phone: (425)865–4148

Math and Eng. Analysis FAX: (425)865–

2966

The Boeing Company e-mail:

fred.b.holt@boeing.com

The Boeing Company takes no

responsibility for the content of this message.

CC:senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

@inetgw,attorney.gen.

MTC–00004775

From: Richard D. Copeland, Jr.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 2:18pm

Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement

Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney

Suite 1200, Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20530;

(facsimile) 202–616–9937

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am a computer programmer and consider

myself knowledgeable of the computer

industry. I am writing concerning the

proposed Microsoft settlement with the

Department of Justice. Since Microsoft has

already been found guilty, I consider the

existing settlement to be severely lacking in

several areas. As it is currently written, the

settlement will not prevent Microsoft from

continuing their anti-competitive behavior.

Also, it provides no penalty for Microsoft’s

past behavior. A meaningful settlement

needs, at a minimum, the following:

* Both the Windows API and Microsoft

document formats (MS Word, MS Excel, etc)

must be made freely available to anyone who

wants them.

* Microsoft networking protocols must be

standardized by a standards body. This will

prevent Microsoft from using their private,

proprietary protocols to seize control of new

applications used on the Internet.

* Microsoft products should be provided

only as extra-cost options on personal

24594 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

computers. The software should also be

available for the same price as the difference

between a computer loaded with Microsoft

products, and one without any Microsoft

products. This will prevent Microsoft from

‘‘bunding’’ an entire kitchen sink of

applications with Windows, increasing the

price of Windows (either directly or

indirectly), and preventing competition.

Sincerely,

Richard D. Copeland, Jr.

concerned, informed Citizen

MTC–00004777

From: Brian Uecker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 4:16pm

Subject: My support

I totally endorse the DOJ’s settlement with

Microsoft! Don’t let those liberal, knownothing states screw this up!!!

Brian Uecker

MTC–00004778

From: Russell Parker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 4:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom this may concern, I am Russell

Parker and have been a Systems and Network

engineer for over 17 years. And as a

professional in this field I would like to say

that I think that the US Gov. is doing a gross

case of Injustice in regards to the harassment

of Microsoft. Why is it that the US Gov thinks

it has to punish a company once they are at

a certain size? As for as the claims that

Microsoft does not play fair. That is just the

cry of companies that do not have a product

that is as good as what Ms has and they are

using this to get an unfair advantage over Ms.

If the consumer does not like what any

company does they have the ‘‘right’’ not to

buy from a company that does not do

bossiness in the manor that they like. That

is what happened to WordPerfect, and for the

government to tell a company what they can

and can not do is not only bring us closer to

socialism in the US.

Russell Parker CNE, MCSE

4400 S. Bell Apt 102C

Amarillo TX 79109

MTC–00004779

From: Wally Flint

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 5:02pm

Subject: antitrust issues

THE IDEA PROPOSED HEREIN IS THE

DEVELOPMENT OF A STANDARD SET OF

OPERATING SYSTEM COMPONENTS. The

specification of these components is not a

specification for how the components should

work. Instead, it is only a specification for

the nature and scope of components (what

module does what), together with the

interfaces for the components (how to

‘‘connect to’’ a component, or how to access

the functionality of each component). I call

this operating system the ‘‘Standard

Operating System’’ (SOP).

METHODOLOGIES

Many well-known software companies

(BEA, IBM, Sun, ...) compete on a level

playing field to produce J2EE application

servers. This ‘‘fair and competitive market’’

did not emerge from the mist of random free

market chaotic activity. Instead, it developed

on the basis of the following methodologies:

1) Modularization of Software

Dell manufactures computers from video

cards, mother boards, and other electronic

modules and components. Contrast this with

the old way of carrying out circuit design—

wiring together a bunch of resistors and

transistors. With the old methodology, every

electronic product was essentially ‘‘custom

built’’. Then, electronic hardware became

modularized. The integrated circuit (IC)

offered complex functionality (such as an

amplifier) as a modular unit. Circuit boards

(like a PC’s mother board or video card)

offered even more complex functionality as

a modular unit. If a circuit board goes bad,

just replace it with a new one (as opposed

to replacing the entire computer). If a cheaper

video card appears on the market, companies

like Dell can lower costs by changing to the

new cheaper video card.

This modularization could not have

developed without standards. For example,

circuit boards have standard connectors that

plug into standard sockets in the PC. If every

video card had its own custom connector,

then each PC design could use one and only

one type of video card.

Just as electronic products are built from

standard modules, large complex software

programs may be built from standard

software modules. For this to happen, the

interface for accessing the functionality of

that component must be defined.

Standardizing a software module interface is

analogous to standardizing circuit board

connectors. For example, if a software

module draws lines on the screen, then the

line drawing functionality may possibly be

accessed by calling a ‘‘drawLine’’ function, a

‘‘paintLine’’ function, a ‘‘renderLine’’

function, and so on. A standard is developed

by choosing one of these names, and asking

all component developers to use the same

name. This allows software modules to be

mixed and matched for a variety of purposes

(optimization of cost, speed, quality, ...), just

as hardware components are mixed and

matched in the design of a PC.

2) Community Process Sun has developed

a community process, called the ‘‘Java

Community Process’’, for allowing interested

parties to influence the development of a

standard. (www.jcp.org)

3) Proving Compliance with a Standard To

prove compliance with a standard, a

compatibility test suite is developed. A

compatibility test suite is a software

application that exercises the various

functionalities of a software module, and

verifies that the behavior that results is the

same behavior as that required by the

standard. The same compatibility test suite is

used for all software module developers,

producing a ‘‘level playing field’’ for

competition in meeting the standard.

(http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/

technicalArticles/JCPtools/)

IMPORTANT FEATURES OF THE

METHODOLOGIES DESCRIBED ABOVE

A) These methodologies allow code to

remain proprietary (unless a company elects

to open source its code), yet still facilitate

competition for all operating system

components. They also facilitate mixing and

matching components. You could run a

Microsoft kernel with a windowing system

from company XYZ, or visa versa. Allowing

code to remain proprietary stimulates

competition and investment, promotes

quality, and is fair to investors.

B) Part of the difficulty in solving the antitrust problem lies in defining where the

operating system ends and software

applications begin. Should an instant

messenger be classified as an operating

system component, or is it a software

application? This issue is highly significant

when trying to determine whether Microsoft

is bundling its applications with its operating

system, and thereby forcing consumers to

purchase the applications in order to get the

operating system. I call this bundling

phenomenon ‘‘operating system creep’’.

Operating system creep is the process of

expanding the definition of word ‘‘operating

system’’ for the purpose of legitimizing the

practice of bundling applications with the

operating system.

The above methodologies indirectly

provide a solution to the problem of

operating system creep. Assume the standard

operating system is developed as a bunch of

components, instead of as one giant blob. In

this case, the standard for a given component

may change frequently while the standard is

maturing. However, the standard for that

component will eventually stabilize, and

thereafter the standard will probably not

change very often. After a component

standard has stabilized, companies that

develop that component are not affected by

operating system creep. That is, if company

XYZ markets a component for rendering the

desktop on the screen, then that component

cannot be adversely affected if Microsoft

bundles an instant messenger component

with its version of SOP. Under the current

situation (no standardized modularization),

the entire operating system is pushed onto

the consumer as a single giant ‘‘blob’’ (a

single giant component), and in this case, no

other company can compete to provide this

giant component, because the component

changes with each iteration. (For example,

the giant component may include an instant

messenger in one iteration, where it did not

include an instant messenger in the previous

iteration.) But with standardized

componentization, the standard for a given

operating system module eventually

stabilizes, and all companies can then easily

compete to implement that standard. The

point is that the standard for a stabilized

component cannot be affected by changing

the scope of what is considered the

‘‘operating system’’.

C) In order to end up with a quality design,

an industry consortium should develop the

standardized interfaces, as well as the scope

of those interfaces (should it be one big

interface, or a component for screen

rendering, a component for I/O, and so on?

should screen rendering be one big

component, or should it be broken into

several sub-components?). The industry

consortium could standardize components

using a process similar to the java

community process described above.

ONE ASPECT OF THE REMEDY

Suppose the Windows operating system is

required to implement the SOP interfaces. In

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24595

this case, if Microsoft applications (such as

Microsoft Word) communicate with

Windows using proprietary (non-standard)

interfaces, then this effectively creates an

artificial shortage of applications for

competing operating systems. Looked at

another way, it forces competing operating

systems to implement the proprietary

interfaces to become ‘‘Microsoft Word

compatible’’, and thereby destroys the

standard. Perhaps one aspect of a remedy

could be requiring Microsoft applications to

use ONLY the standardized interfaces.

MTC–00004780

From: Tom Harwood

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 5:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft Is An Unrepentant Criminal And

Must Be Treated As Such: On November 29,

we first noted that the 60-day comment

period on the Microsoft antitrust settlement

with the Justice Department and nine states

had begun. Today, we filed our comments on

the settlement. It is incredulous to us that

anyone could think that the settlement is

reasonable and effective. Here is the text of

our submission to the Justice Department: ‘‘I

would like to express my opposition to the

settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. I

am not a lawyer but a user of personal

computers, a tool essential to my livelihood

for approximately 20 years. I have used many

personal computing operating systems over

the years, including those made by Microsoft

(MSDOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95,

Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 4.0

and Windows XP Pro), Amiga, Commodore,

IBM, Texas Instruments and Apple

Computer. My opinion is that operating

systems other than Microsoft’s have been

superior in features and performance at each

stage of development of the personal

computing platform. Yet Microsoft achieved

a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of

the personal computer market. Microsoft’s

illegal behavior in maintaining and

expanding that monopoly to in excess of 90

per cent of the market effectively destroyed

all existing competitive personal computing

operating systems in the process, save one,

and perhaps prevented others from being

developed.

‘‘I am firmly opposed to the settlement for

three principal reasons. First, the settlement

does not in anyway compensate for the

effects of Microsoft’s illegal maintenance of

a monopoly. Second, it forecloses further

pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to

prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior

is inadequate. ‘‘Microsoft stands convicted

after appeal of conducting illegal acts to

maintain its monopoly of personal computer

operating systems. Microsoft’s illegal acts

certainly have cost consumers billions of

dollars directly and possibly much more by

preventing the development of alternatives.

We will never know what we’ve lost as a

result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the

settlement does not provide even a

minuscule penalty for the deleterious results

of Microsoft’s egregiously illegal behavior. It

simply dismisses this and proceeds with a

lame attempt to prevent a continuation of

such illegal behavior. No corrective action of

any type that simply attempts to put

Microsoft on a legal course can be reasonably

construed to be a penalty of any sort. A

penalty is required and none is provided by

the settlement.

‘‘Microsoft was also convicted of illegally

tying its products to its monopoly operating

system but that conviction was overturned on

appeal based on the standard used by the

District Court judge to convict Microsoft. The

issue was remanded to the District Court for

further consideration. A decision to not

pursue the illegal tying issue is formalized in

the settlement even though the Justice

Department announced that it would not

pursue it before entering into the settlement.

In my experience it is indeed Microsoft’s

tying of its products to its monopoly

operating system that has been the most

damaging to competition in the personal

computing market. Microsoft was initially

found guilty of illegal tying and the

remanded issue should be pursued. The

settlement formally forecloses the

opportunity to do so.

‘‘Finally, the settlement is inadequate to

prevent Microsoft from continuing its

practices of illegally maintaining its

monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft is an

unrepentant criminal. As an example, its

CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating that

he does not even know what a monopoly is

after Microsoft was convicted of being one.

It is totally incredulous to believe that

Microsoft will simply go forth and be a good

corporate citizen. While the settlement

contains provisions to enforce its restrictions

through oversight, the burden is on the

government to catch Microsoft in the act and,

if so, then Microsoft is simply returned once

again to proceedings such as these. Where is

the incentive for Microsoft to comply? My

mind boggles in that this is the second time

that a settlement of this nature has been

reached with the same convict. The second

is no more satisfactory than the first. Any

resolution of this case against Microsoft must

provide appropriate incentives for the

unrepentant criminal to comply with the

law.’’

MTC–00004781

From: Jen Huebert

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 6:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to express my support for

Steve Satchell to be a nominee for the threemember committee stationed at Microsoft for

the Microsoft Anti-Trust Compliance

Committee. I believe Mr. Satchell is well

qualified for this postion, and would be a fair

and knowledgeable member of the

committee.

I would like to comment on the case for

public record according to my rights under

the Tunney Act:

One of Microsoft’s chief claims during this

trial was that times and the nature of

business have changed, and that anti-trust

enforcement ought to be different today than

it was when the laws were first passed over

a century ago. Microsoft now appears to be

leaning on this to disenfranchise many of the

people and organizations who feel they have

been damaged by Microsoft’s actions.

Here’s the explanation:

The remedies in the Proposed Final

Judgement specifically protect companies in

commerce—organizations in business for

profit. On the surface, that makes sense

because Microsoft was found guilty of

monopolistic activities against ‘‘competing’’

commercial software vendors like Netscape,

and other commercial vendors.

Microsoft’s greatest single threat on the

operating system front comes from Linux—a

non-commercial product—and it faces a

growing threat on the applications front from

Open Source and freeware applications. The

biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet

Information Server is Apache, which comes

from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit.

Apache practically rules the Net, along with

Sendmail, and Perl, both of which also come

from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit

organizations have no rights at all under the

proposed settlement. It is as though they

don’t even exist. Section III(J)(2) is a prime

example, and Section III(D) is another. Under

this deal, the government is shut out, too.

This is all cause of great concern, and

should be to us all.

Regards,

Jen Huebert

jhuebert@postmark.net

MTC–00004782

From: frank xu

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 6:43pm

Subject: the settle is fair and benefical to

consumers

TO who it may concern,

I think the settle fair and benefical to

consumers. Any opposition to this settle has

seen to be only benefical Microsoft’s

competitors such as SUN and Oracle. The

products from these MS competitor have

much higher price, in the order of magnitude.

Tax payer’s money should be used to help

companies to make good and more products,

not to put any limit on all the good stuff MS

created and consumers have long been

enjoying. MS competitors should spend more

time on improving products intead of firing

laws suits which are waste of Tax payer’s

money.

Thanks for asking public opinion.

Frank Xu

MTC–00004783

From: James Dixon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 9:35pm

Subject: Comments on the proposed

settlement.

Dear Sirs:

I am writing to voice my opinion on the

proposed settlement in the Microsoft

antitrust trial. I have no legal training and am

writing solely as an informed layman. I do

have experience with computers, as I have

worked as a computer technician for the past

6 years, and have been using computers since

1976.

Microsoft has been found guilty of

establishing and maintaining a monopoly in

the field of computer operating systems. It is

my opinion that the proposed settlement

does nothing to penalize them for past illegal

actions taken in this regard, and does little

24596 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

to prevent such actions in the future. Quite

frankly, in both this trial and the previous

one, Microsoft has shown a complete and

total disregard for the law and legal

agreements. Any penalty must take this into

account, and be crafted accordingly. I believe

there are three simple components to such an

effective penalty.

First, Microsoft should pay a large fine for

its past actions—large not just in layman’s

terms, but in relationship to the size of the

company and it’s current cash reserves. This

money should be used by the court to

compensate those injured by Microsoft’s

illegal activities. How best to do so is a

matter best left to the judgement of the court.

This serves two purposes. Hopefully it

reminds Microsoft that there is a penalty to

pay for breaking the law, and thereby

dissuades them from doing so in the future.

More importantly, it reinforces the standard

(and reminds the public and other

corporations) that the rule of law is absolute,

and disregard of it will not be tolerated.

Secondly, since Microsoft is an acting

monoply, it should be regulated as one.

Microsoft should no longer be allowed to

negotiate individual license fees for

Windows and Office. Instead, as with other

regulated monoplies, they should publish a

public tarriff which lists the quantities and

prices at which their products may be

purchased. This would prevent Microsoft

from providing reduced prices in exchange

for exclusive contracts, a popular tactic of

Microsoft’s in the past. This tarriff would be

the only way in which Microsoft would be

allowed to sell their products. Since this is

a fairly harsh penalty, it should probably be

subject to periodic review to determine if it

is still required. Every 3–5 years would seem

to be appropriate.

Thirdly, all API’s to Microsoft’s products

should be made public. This should be

enforced by a panel of outside experts with

full access to Microsoft’s source code, and

their decisions should be binding. No API’s,

security or otherwise, should be excluded,

and the disclosure should be fully public, not

limited in any way. This will prevent another

of Microsoft’s popular tactics, reserving

hidden API’s and only partially documenting

others.

Taken together, these three components

will act as a significant check on future

illegal activities on Microsoft’s part, and will

allow competing firms and Open Source

developers to offer products which both

compete and interoperate with Microsoft’s.

They do not, of course, address the full range

of Microsoft’s illegal and anti-comptetitive

actions, but doing so is outside of my

capabilites or time. These are the points on

which I feel qualified to speak, and I believe

my recommendations are both simple and

relatively easy to implement, especially in

comparison to the currently proposed

settlement. I would like them to be

considered in lieu of or in addition to the

proposed settlement.

Finally, if Microsoft cannot agree to these

types of regulations, or breaks the agreement

in any way, final drastic action is required.

Just as a convicted criminal can no longer be

allowed to possess weapons, if Microsoft

cannot act within the law their weapons

should be taken from them. In this case,

those weapons are Windows and Office. If

Microsoft will not agree to these terms, or

live by them, the copyright to Windows and

Office should be removed from them and

placed in the public domain. I realize this is

an extreme and drastic action, but given

Microsoft’s well demonstrated and total

disregard for the law and lawfully negotiated

settlements, I can think of no other final

penalty which meets the needs of the public.

Thank you for your time and patience.

Respectfully,

James E. Dixon

Route 3, Box 85-B

Mannington, WV 26582

jdixon@pobox.com

MTC–00004784

From: Mark Sealey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/19/01 11:54pm

Subject: Comment against the recent

MicroSoft judgement settlement,

payment to schools

Mark Sealey

24668–A Brighton Drive

VALENCIA

CA 91355–4374

(+1 661) 255 7044

As a long time educator and computer/IT

specialist, i am extremely concerned at the

recent settlement proposed for industry

monopolist Microsoft.

The proposal to ‘pay off’ monies owed to

the industry and public by making

equipment and software available to

educational establishments would, in fact,

further that company’s monopoly.

Such an arrangement would effectively tie

in those schools and colleges unwise enough

to receive such merchandise to depending on

Microsoft products from the time they took

delivery of the goods onwards. Microsoft has

a proven record of releasing inferior software

and operating systems necessitating that the

buyer pay later on for upgrades and

improvements.

Schools participating in this deception

would sooner or later find themselves under

strong pressure to abandon superior products

for Microsoft upgrades and later versions.

This is not good for American school

students, parents, tax payers or the spirit of

competition which has put such otherwise

excellent resources into our schools.

Please inform me of the Department’s

intention not to let this happen.

Thank you!

best

Mark Sealey

<www.markworks.com>

MTC–00004785

From: RedGhost

To: NEWCASE ATR,Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 1:24am

Subject: Microsoft use of Federal Facilities

for Advertising

I am disturbed to find that Microsoft has

been allowed to advertise in a Federal

Facility. Today I was at the Main Post Office

in Seattle and found that Microsoft has paid

for placement in local Postal Facilities. This

apalls me. I understood that the case

Department of Justice had prosecuted ended

up in a Conviction on the Charges. The

appearance of the posters, CDs and other

items promoting Microsoft, seems to imply

that the Federal Goverment condones the

actions, historical and future that this

criminal endevour undertakes. Maybe I am

mistaken in my understanding, but the left

hand either does not know what the right

does, or there is a new policy of selling

access to government facilities to the highest

bidder.

This sets a precedent that leads down a

slippery slope in allowing anybody with a

wad of cash to buy a their way into

government facilities. If this is going to be

policy, what is to restrict any enterprise from

dispensing items of a questionable nature

other buildings where the public has access?

The assault on postal facilities with bacterial

agents, though tragic, is not as insidious as

allowing this activity to continue.

I have reviewed the contents of the ‘‘free’’

disk and have found that this item

perpetuates the continued anticompetative

activities the company was investigated for.

This item forces the user to ‘‘upgrade’’

software on their computer, to the

Proprietary microsoft item, instead of

allowing the interested party to view this

with a competitors browser or multimedia

program. It also promotes gambling with a

‘‘Contest’’ for prizes, which forces the user to

‘‘register’’ with the microsoft Passport

software, to allow the company to monitor

the users online activities, and track actions.

Thank you for your attention to this matter

Clay Monroe

5702 43rd ave NE

Seattle, WA 98105–2225

MTC–00004786

From: Aaron Peluso

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 3:24am

Subject: Microsoft Feedback

Lets get this thing settled and get on with

our lives. The DOJ settlement is more than

fair.

Aaron Peluso

MTC–00004787

From: Jeremy.Duane@Metavante.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 8:11am

Subject: MicroSoft Settlement

I’m 27yrs old, and need some explantion.

How is it any different when companies like

‘‘AOL’’ & ‘‘Time Warner’’ merg, and take a

commanding lead in their fields. Then now

AT&T plan a merger & now are going to take

control of the market more then what their

competitors had. HOW is it then different

then how ‘‘MicroSoft’’ conducts itself? I have

no business/law degree, but to me....it just

seems unfair. Punish ‘‘MicroSoft’’ for

‘‘bullying’’, but then when other huge

companies are doing the same....say&do

nothing to them? If your going to make this

‘‘fair’’, make it fair down both sides of the

street. I work hard for a living, manage to stay

afloat, I could care less what one company

does to another.... my point is: Make it legally

fair to everyone. Personally, the whole thing

against ‘‘Microsoft’’, to me, just makes no

sence at all. Why anger the richest man in the

world? He now is reaching out into different

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24597

markets, soon his ‘‘XBOX’’ will eliminate

competitors, are you then going to go after

him for that? Then after that, then what?

From a plain guy in WI., I say leave it be

already.

Jeremy Duane

www.geocities.com/soul—seeking

MTC–00004788

From: mmcweeney

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 8:19am

Subject: Comments on Antitrust for Federal

Register

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to voice my concerns at the haste

at which the Antitrust case against Microsoft

is being reached. I believe there are superior

alternatives to Microsoft products available,

but believe the penalties proposed will not

allow the companies and individuals who

comprise the computer community to benefit

from these.

Specifically, I have found it close to

impossible to purchase a desktop or laptop

computer for my own personal use, without

having Microsoft Windows included in the

price. In other words as a consumer, I was

forced to buy a product I neither required nor

wanted. This is an unacceptable situation.

Those engaging in this practice include

virtually all the major computer

manufacturers, and almost all retail outlets.

On enquiring why this is the case, most

informed me that they were prevented from

shipping the computer alone (without

bundled Microsoft software) because of

agreements with Microsoft. As such, these

same companies would not quote me for a

software-free machine.

Microsoft should not be allowed to yield

profits from those who want to use their

products. By imposing penalties which

prevent these agreements, the Department of

Justice has the opportunity to:

1:Prevent Microsoft from dubbing closed

proprietary file formats and other

technologies as ‘‘Industry standards’’, thereby

improving interoperability.

2:Allow true competition which will

benefit the entire computer community in

terms of software quality and security.

3:Facilitate the public by allowing them to

choose software on merit.

4:Eliminate the scourge of viruses which

are almost non-existant outside the realms of

Microsoft, but as Code Red and Nimda

showed, could potentially grind the internet

to a halt for everybody. It’s everybody’s

internet.

Please protect it.

I sincerely hope that the Dept. of Justice

will be mindful of this and impose

meaningful penalties which will undo past

damage, and improve future competition.

Yours faithfully

Mel McWeeney

Mr. Mel McWeeney,

I.T. Consultant,

136 Teffia Park,

Longford,

Rep. of Ireland.

MTC–00004790

From: Stacey Tarbell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 10:16am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

December 20, 2001

Renata Hesse

Trial Attorney

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530

Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft

By Email

Dear Attorney Hesse:

The Department of Justice Antitrust

Division is accepting public comment in the

settlement between the United States

government and the Microsoft Corporation

until the end of January 2002. I write to offer

my support of the settlement.

Although I do not work in the high

technology industry, I can see the benefits it

has had in our country, specifically those of

Microsoft. In the span of a few short years,

this company has totally transformed how

Americans communicate in business and in

their private lives. Microsoft has brought

worker efficiency to a level that was never

dreamed of when we were all using

typewriters and calculators.

If any of Microsofts competitors could even

come close to a product that could rival

Excel, Word or PowerPoint, consumers

would have a real choice. Since no other

company can even come close, consumers

chose Microsoft. As a result, its competitors

have chosen to try and defeat them in the

courtroom, rather than the marketplace. They

are co-opting the governments resources

because they really have no alternative to

compete with other than their inferior

products.

It is a shame that the government has fallen

prey to the special interests of Microsofts

competitors. Through this settlement, we

have the opportunity to finally put an end to

what has already been a case that has gone

on too long. I urge you to settle this case once

and for all. Consumers, families and the

marketplace deserve nothing less.

Sincerely,

Stacey Tarbell

121 Pinewood Drive

Contoocook, New Hampshire 03229

MTC–00004791

From: Joseph J Wolff

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 11:04am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

The Microsoft proposed settlement will

only serve to make Microsoft a stronger

monopolist.

1) ‘Giving’ software away to

underprivileged schools benefits Microsoft

far more than it benefits the schools—and in

fact giving software away to schools is a

proven marketing tacting used by Apple

computer 20 years ago to put its business on

the map—it is akin to ‘planting the seeds’ in

young users of your operating system or

platform—grabbing mindshare at the earliest

point, and while the minds are still open and

gullible, without the ability to filter

propaganda and spin. It also plants the seeds

for upgrades—sources put the IT budget of

Microsoft-based schools at 30–40% of the

total IT budget—hardly something that the

underprivileged schools will be able to afford

after their first five years of free ride is ended,

with the next release after that of

MSWindows or MSOffice being

(intentionally) ‘‘incompatible’’ with the

previous release—a proven tactic to force

upgrades.

A better solution is proposed by RedHat

Software, here: http://www.redhat.com/

about/presscenter/2001/press—

usschools.html This would preserve the

future of the software for the schools, and

would quintuple the number of systems and

schools receiving a benefit.

2) An even more disturbing manipulation

contained in the settlement is described here:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/

pulpit20011206.html So once again,

Microsoft is using the settlement to actually

lock in its future—rather than actually be

constrained by it.

These clauses will give Microsoft the

leverage it needs to prevent distribution of

it’s API documentation to whomever it

doesn’t want to see them, perpetuating the

problem, in precisely the same way it has

done in the past—only this time with the

force of law!

The clauses also attack the only real

competition Microsoft now has—the opensource community, where the products are

available for nothing—the only way it has

proven possible to compete with Microsoft

given its monopolistic practices.

In conclusion, I urge the DOJ to rethink the

proposed settlement—I also respectfully

submit that the selttlement, and the

comments from the knowledgeable members

of the media and industry experts, indicate

clearly that there is a fundamental lack of

understanding by the DOJ of the software

business and the way Microsoft has

competed unfairly and used monoipolistic

practices to squash competition—and in fact

the DOJ in the current settlement is simply

another pawn being played by Microsoft to

further its own interests.

Respectfully,

Joseph J Wolff

Founder and CEO,

eRacks Thin Systems

www.eracks.com

joe@eracks.com

CC:joe@eracks.com@inetgw

MTC–00004792

From: Michael W. Shelton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 12:07pm

Subject: Let Justice Prevail

As a long-time network administrator, I

have long suffered from the abuses

perpetrated by Microsoft’s hegemony in the

sphere of small-computer operating systems.

Whereas my suffering is not sufficient for the

law to require relief, Microsoft’s actions have

been determined to violate the law, and in

this penalty phase of the case, penalties

should be meted out appropriately. It is

beginning to look like that may not happen,

and that computer consumers and users will

continue to suffer. Thus, I’m offering my

opinion.

* Users should not be forced to buy

Microsoft products as part of the purchase of

24598 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

a new computer. The cost of those products

should be added on, and their inclusion

made optional. Thus, a computer without

software could be configured with software

products of the buyer’s choice at prices that

reflect true competition between those

products, rather than settling for Microsoft’s

products because they are ‘‘included’’ or add

‘‘only a few dollars’’ to the price.

* Microsoft’s file formats should be made

public, so that other vendors’ programs can

read them, even on other operating systems.

Also, the Windows application programming

interface should be opened to allow other

vendors to write programs for the Window

operating system with the same advantages

that Microsoft’s internal programmers have.

* If Microsoft insists on developing its own

networking protocols, those protocols should

be made public, so that the company cannot

leverage its hegemony into control over even

more of the internet.

Whereas I am, like most Americans,

appalled by the events of September 11, there

is no excuse for sacrificing that which makes

America great in a headlong rush to

concentrate on the solution of a single

problem at the expense of all others. This is

not a time for us to be sacrificing civil rights

or to knuckle under to corporate greed,

however it may be clothed. Microsoft has

been found, appropriately and finally, to be

in violation of the law, and an appropriate

remedy should be levied. We will all

(including Microsoft, if you believe in that

most capitalistic of values: free and open

competition) benefit from a leveling of the

field and from the business-as-usual

continuity of the proper application of the

rule of law.

Thank you for the opportunity to make my

voice heard.

Sincerely,

Michael W. Shelton

If you think education is expensive, try

ignorance.

Derek Bok

Michael W. Shelton

1537 North Lakeside Ridge Drive

Sand Springs, OK 74063

phone 918/245–0510

Mike@MikeRocosm.com

MTC–00004793

From: Sylvia Rapp

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 12:19pm

Subject: objection

Dear Sir:

I want to voice my objection to the

settlement our Government is plannig to give

Microsoft. I feel it is unfair to consumers and

will crush all competition in the market

place. It is not in our best interest to live in

a world dominated by Microsoft.

Sincerely,

Sylvia Rapp

MTC–00004794

From: Chet

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 11:20am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please review carefully the proposed

settlement in this case.

I, like millions of other tax paying citizens

of this country feel that Microsoft is not being

punished, but rewarded with this proposed

settlement. Where is the justice for the

thousands of businesses and individuals who

have been hurt by Microsoft. They are not in

the underprivileged schools of America. I

agree that a settlement going to the schools

would be wonderful. But not in the form of

more Microsoft software and training. That

would only diminish Apple’s stronghold in

the Educational Sector and further promote

Microsoft’s monopoly.

And where do all those who have been

negatively effected by Microsoft’s monopoly

get there justice? Certainly not in this

proposed settlement.

Please, let’s get a grip on this situation and

muster up the intestinal fortitude to devise

an appropriate settlement that actually

punishes Microsoft and rewards those who

have been harmed by their monopolistic

practices!

Regards,

Chet Poulton

Creative Director

ICS Inc.

cip@icsys.cc

MTC–00004795

From: E Floyd

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 12:44pm

Subject: Comment on MS/DOJ Settlement

I can’t beleave they were let off that easy.

This is not more then a slap on the hand for

a company like that. Not to mention they are

still useing the same tactic as we speak. In

my opinion, this does nothing but set up the

world for a ‘‘Microsoft Tax’’ In this case, I

don’t think my tax dollars were put to good

use. It seems as if it was a waste of time and

money.

MTC–00004797

From: Chuck Scott

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 1:29pm

Subject: Comment on Microsoft settlement

I have been using Microsoft Windows

software for well over 20 years now for both

business and personal use. I can not begin to

fathom how it is that the government would

say that improving your product is a

detrimental to consumers. In order to

improve your product you have to stay

competitive. Microsoft did just that. If you

look at the root cause of everything that has

been laid at the feet of Microsoft I think you

will find that personal greed and ego were as

much to blame for what happened as

anything Microsoft did in terms of business

deals. If you really look at this objectively

you will see that Microsoft is the leader of

the this industry and certainly is not the

detractor it is made out to be.

I am sure that their competitors would love

to hamstring Microsoft so they can force you

to pay bloated prices for their software which

they do not test very thoroughly and the

support for which is poor if it exists at all.

I recently shifted to Windows 2000 at work

and Windows XP at home. The quality is

remarkable and if recent experience holds

true the return on investment period will

happen much earlier in the lifecycle than I

ever imagined possible.

And lets talk about Netscape. I began using

it when it first hit the market and used

Navigator quite a while after MS Internet

Explorer came out. I never cared what was

pre-installed on the PC I went with the

software that was best suited for my needs.

What influenced me to change was to IE was

when the level of quality and performance in

IE surpassed Netscape. Netscape got sloppy

and IE became a superior product which was

incrementally improved and for which

quality and stability and security were more

important than ego, flashiness, and

advertising opportunities. Netscape did

themselves in, Microsoft’s only real hand in

this was building a better product and

marketing properly.

And as a consumer of quit a large library

of non-MS software that runs on Windows I

would also like to make a point that

Microsoft has enabled a huge and extremely

productive industry around the world.

Because of this the price of software for

personal and business use is affordable by a

great many people. If Microsoft’s competitors

were to have their way they would control

the price and access. And limit it to running

only on their hardware. The key point here

is that Microsoft was successful in building

a operating system that runs on wide range

of hardware from many manufacturers at a

price that is affordable to nearly every one.

This sounds to me like something that is

good for consumers and business.

So the agreement more than exceeds the

necessary level of ‘‘protection’’ we need from

this industry leader. Accept it as is and get

on with more important things. Get more

from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download

: http://explorer.msn.com

MTC–00004798

From: Bill Parish

To: rickbe@microsoft.com@inetgw,steveb 

@microsoft.com@i. . .

Date: 12/20/01 2:35pm

Subject: 5 Brief Story Ideas—Request for SEC

Action

CC: John Chambers,Larry

Carter,radkem@sec.gov@inetgw,r. . .

Hell Steve, Here a few thoughts you might

consider. I am confident that sooner or later

you will see the significance of supporting

these efforts and iron out a compromise. Also

copied are john chambers and Larry Carter

given the enron like public relations

techniques they have used to suppress my

research. Can you imagine, dedicating their

entire monthly corporate pr plan (keep in

mind the size of their staff) to discrediting

my efforts toward working toward reform and

clarifying unusual financial transactions at

cisco? Most surprising was that this was not

even news to leading publications, especially

after they said I could not talk about the plan

because it constituted a ‘‘trade secret.’’ To

those leading reporters out there unable to

report on Microsoft, Cisco or AOL, please do

consider giving O’Reilly, Oprah and a few of

the other talk show hosts a call on my behalf.

Maybe we could arrange a show featuring

‘‘little bill’’ and ‘‘big bill’’ best regards,

Bill

cc: SEC Chief of Staff, Federal Reserve,

FTC, John Chambers, Larry Carter

bcc: leading business reporters, regulators,

legal experts, academics, federal reserve

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24599

1) Enron/Microsoft—CEO Key Lay’s

previous Quote to employees at Memorial

Coliseum in Portland, Oregon.

‘‘We’d like to look at ourselves as the

Microsoft of the energy world.’’ Lay saw that

Microsoft was able to make massive off

balance sheet speculations using derivaties

on its own stock, manipulate earnings and

use employee options to completely

eliminate their corporate income tax. Like

Enron, Microsoft also has a staggering mix of

what could be direct conflicts of interest

among insiders that make Enron’s offenses

look minor. Corruption that was tolerated at

Enron was enabled by the Microsoft

Corporation and their orchestration of a

complete breakdown in corporate accounting

practices.

This included Microsoft firing its own

internal auditor who told them what they

were doing constituted securities fraud, as

documented on my website and reported by

ABC News. It is also noteworthy that two

previous CFO’s at Microsoft boasted over

their ability to impact accounting standards.

One of these individuals was also Chairman

of the Board of the Nasdaq stock exchange

while CFO at Microsoft and also aggressively

setting new accounting standards. The other

CFO was so brazen as to do an op-ed piece

in the NY Times after the Times did a key

feature story titled Financial Engineering 1.0.

The Op Ed piece is a shining example of

misrepresenting the significance of financial

activity at Microsoft and it is startling that he

was not sanctioned by the SEC. Financial

integrity was a joke to this CFO who is also

on record as boasting of 10 reasons why

Microsoft should have a market value of $1

trillion. Even more startling is how Microsoft

is now triggering the collapse of the Internet

itself as documented in the http://

www.billparish.com/

20011128msftupdate.html. Although poorly

written, this report contains numerous

excellent well documented story ideas and

can be directly quoted.

2) Impact of Comcast/Microsoft purchase

of AT&T Broadband. AOL now has more than

$100 billion of what a prudent person might

consider ‘‘fake’’ assets or inflated goodwill on

its balance sheet.

Why hasn’t AOL written this down similar

to what JDS/Uniphase did. Parish &

Company hereby specifically asks the SEC to

conduct a review here given the significant

impairment of these assets in many other

companies.

Microsoft has almost no ‘‘fake’’ assets and

more than $35 billion in cash. In addition,

AOL also has bank debt of more than $20

billion and back taxes to the IRS resulting

from the Time Warner merger of more than

$13 billion. Most disturbing however is their

championing of ‘‘pro forma’’ earnings and

eliminating the cash expenses of interest and

taxes from these pro forma earnings. In the

summer of 1999 at an investor town forum

I asked a question of Arthur Levitt that was

reported in the Oregonian. The question was,

when will the SEC go after the big offendors

who are breaking down the rules rather than

simply focusing on smaller cases. Please

allow me to repeat that request today and

suggest that the SEC focus on AOL and

Microsoft. This seems especially prudent

given Gerald Levin’s announced departure

next Spring. Clearly, Ted Turner is being set

up as the fall guy.

In April of 2000 I issued a public warning

on AOL’s bonds and specifically asked both

Moody’s and Standard and Poors why their

debt was not downgraded. The SEC could

also look at the business relationships

between S&P and Moody’s and AOL to see

if more disclosure of potential conflicts of

interest should be required. Two useful

reports regarding the impact of the Comcast/

Microsoft purchase of AT&T broadband are:

http://www.billparish.com/

20010430aolpart2.html This is more pure

background on unique situations at AOL.

http://www.billparish.com/

20011128msftupdate.html Addressed AT&T

more directly.

3) Citigroup and Spinoff of Asbestos

Liability. Completely unreported regarding

the spinoff of Traveller’s Property Casualty

unit is what could be the real reason for the

spin-off, as noted in note 77 in the following

report on Citigroup. This report also contains

my letter to FTC trying to block Assoc First

Capital merger that occurred last fall. Note 77

details Citigroup’s asbestos exposure from

purchasing Aetna’s Property Casualty

Business for $4 billion. This is a shining

example of an activity banks should not be

allowed to enter, that is, property casualty

insurance. This was also one of the rationale

presented to the Federal Reserve Board of

why they should have denied the Associated

First Capital merger, known in the industry

as the icon of predatory lending. http://

www.billparish.com/citigrouppyramid.html

4) Microsoft Hoodwinks Grover Norquist.

Grover Norquist, along with Howard Jarvis,

was responsible for the legendary property

tax limitation #13 that was passed in CA in

1978. I heard Grover speak recently in

Portland and, knowing that Microsoft is one

of his biggest funders, as dicated on his

website, I asked him afterward how he felt

about Msft paying zero federal income tax.

His reponse was ‘‘how do they do that.’’

Think about the implications, simply

remarkable. Tax policy is important and

clearly what drives many organizations to

fail, most notably Enron, due to an attempt

to justify economic illusions from a

manipulation of the tax code. For example,

you can be certain that 90 percent of Key

Lay’s wealth resulted from stock option

wages were taken as a tax deduction by

Enron but never charged to earnings. This

greatly inflated their true earnings. Other

financial engineering similarly modeled

other techniques used at Microsoft, for

example those used at Expedia.

5) Microsoft Speculations on Own Stock.

Miraculously, Microsoft’s SEC 10K for the

year ending June 30, 2001 indicated that this

obligation had been settled. Given that this

loss was more than $8 billion a few months

earlier, the question becomes, was the

disclosure adequate. More important, were

any of these options held by company

insiders including Paul Allen. Parish &

Company hereby formally requests that the

SEC, given the recent collapse of Enron,

make an inquiry to determine if any of these

options were held by Paul Allen or any other

significant Microsoft insiders. Although not a

board member, given overlapping business

dealings Allen is still an insider. This is

critical to restore integrity to the market. 6)

Overcoming Ruthless Legal and PR

Intimidation: For example, as many of you

know, Cisco Systems had an orchestrated

company wide effort to try and discredit my

efforts to disclose what was clearly unusual

financial activity at Cisco. This campaign,

which was a monumental failure, occurred in

October 2000 just before Cisco’s stock began

a steep decline from $82 to $20 per share.

When I was later anonymously sent a copy

of this confidential plan, I would guess from

some employee trying to clear their

conscience, I was told that it represented a

‘‘trade secret’’ that could not be discussed.

Sure sounds like Enron like PR to me?

Summary Comment: Any opportunity to be

quoted regarding helping generate a dialogue

on these issues is always most appreciated.

I can understand that many of you have

considered me somewhat opinionated on

these matters. Let’s not worry about that but

rather how to get the economy back on track.

The validity of my claims should only be

magnified by the situation at Enron. Enron

was able to climb to slot number 7 in

Microsoft’s pyramid scheme, 7th in the S&P

500, but they did not see how they were

structured to fail, nor does AOL now. As an

aside, it is amazing how the Janus family of

funds seems to be insulated. They own

almost $10 billion of AOL and you have to

wonder who is doing the research.

I was able to help a lot of people locally

avoid large losses on Enron but it is up to you

to help maintain the integrity of the system.

I’ll keep putting out hard hitting studies

designed to help fix the system but I can’t

have much impact without you. You might

scan my archive at www.billparish.com for

various other ideas pertaining to these topics,

all designed to help restore integrity to the

financial reporting process. Again, if you are

a reporter and can’t do the story, please do

try and contact another media outlet that

might. I do produce quite a lot of most

interesting research not put on the web site

that might allow you to greatly advance your

career. People tell me that I am much better

via radio or television, in terms of media

experiences. Probably because they are more

interactive and allow for questions. My

strategy is all about win/win and maybe one

of these days I’ll even convince Bill Gates of

its merits.

Please do lend a hand.

Most sincerely, Bill Parish

Bill Parish

Parish & Company

10260 SW Greenburg Rd., Suite 400

Portland, Oregon 97223

Tel: 503–643–6999

Website: www.billparish.com

Email: bill@billparish.com

MTC–00004799

From: Ole

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 3:59pm

Subject: Antitrust settlement.

Dear USJ Folks,

One citizen’s view: The Microsoft offer to

settle the class action anti-trust suit should

be accepted only with the modification

24600 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

suggested by Red Hat. Otherwise, in it’s

original form, Microsoft offers nothing—

except a further extention of it’s (illegal)

monopoly.

We are rather disappointed with the

proposed settlement of the original case

against Microsoft, considering the resolution

something just short of a sellout. But DoJ has

an opportunity for at least partial redemption

by obtaining a resolution of the instant case

in some fashion closer to the Red Hat

proposal. And the schools of America would

be the beneficiaries.

With sincere wishes for a more free and

open market,

Duane L. Olson

(Retired system design engineer, with no

current industry affiliation of any kind)

MTC–00004800

From: William Douglass

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/20/01 3:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

TO: The U.S. Department of Justice

This letter is written by officers of both

Incremax Technologies Corporation of New

York City, and the International Association

of Microsoft Certified Partners (IAMCP), a

group of independent organizations selling

solutions based primarily upon Microsoft

software.

We wish to express full agreement with the

settlement that has been arrived at between

Microsoft and the federal government and

nine states. It is in the best interests of the

consuming public, the industry, and the

economy, which has been negatively affected

by the uncertainty this lengthy litigation has

generated.

Any future litigation against Microsoft will

re-introduce uncertainty to the marketplace

while threatening over-regulation of an

industry that already functions quite well to

the marketplace (and to the arm of the law)

on its own.

We urge that the settlement be finally

approved because it has harnessed Microsoft

for over-stepping its bounds. It is now time

for consumers to benefit from the unfettered

workings of a free marketplace.

Sincerely,

Kerry P. Gerontianos

President, Incremax Technologies

Incremax Technologies

President, IAMCP

William H. Douglass

Director of Communications,

Board Member, IAMCP

CC:Kerry P. Gerontianos

MTC–00004802

From: West, Dennis

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/20/01 4:29pm

Subject: DOJ Proposed Microsoft Anti-trust

(Monopoly) Settlement

DOJ Proposed Microsoft Anti-trust

(Monopoly) Settlement The US judicial

system found Microsoft was a monopoly but

the DOJ and some states have proposed a

settlement that doesn’t fully solve the

Microsoft anti-trust/monopoly issue and

prevent Microsoft from continuing to expand

the company’s present monopoly.

Asking Microsoft to not do it again will not

work.

In the 1990s, I personnel watched Cecil

Dobbs from Microsoft in Foster City

California give hundreds of copies of free

software packages to Lockheed Martin in

Sunnyvale California that resulted in

Lockheed Martins standardizing on Microsoft

software and other software venders that sold

Word processor, Spreadsheet, Presentation,

Project Management, Calendar/Scheduling

and E-mail fade away since they depended

on the sale of their software to survive.

What I saw was Microsoft using the sale of

the Windows Operation System software to

finance free gifts to a major company to

standardize on other Microsoft software.

Without separating the Window Operating

System cash cow from other types of

software, competition will die and Microsoft

end up being the consumers only choice.

Windows XP Operating System is a good

example of Microsoft’s effort to eliminate

competition from 5 other software packages

by bundling other Microsoft software with

the Windows XP Operation System for

consumers and companies.

Without software choices, Microsoft will

be free to set software prices and their will

be little or no motivation to improve

software. Some REAL legal remedies are

needed at the present time to reduce the

existing Microsoft software monopoly that

the courts agreed presently exist. Please

stand firm that a lot more is needed than the

present DOJ settlement proposes.

Personally, I would like to see some kind

of a barrier between the Windows Operating

Systems and general user Microsoft software

that would foster competition.

Dennis L. West

10670 Cordova Road

Cupertino, CA 95014–3912

(408) 255–2077

MTC–00004803

From: Scott

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 4:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Having been an unwilling Microsoft user

for some time, I have quite a few comments

in regards to how Microsoft should be dealt

with. Microsoft should be required to port

Win32 Emulators and Direct X to Linux and

Macintosh computers. Microsoft has had a

stranglehold on the gaming industry;

requiring that they expand their proprietary

software to other platforms will aide in

giving gaming companies choice, and

providing for consumer freedom.

Microsoft should also be required to

release full source code within a two to three

year period. This permits watchdog groups to

analyze Microsoft’s work in WindowsXP

(and later OS’), so that it can be assured that

Microsoft is, (a) not purposely placing

barriers in its software, against competition;

and (b) security flaws can be identified, when

they arise, and independent groups have the

ability to react.

Microsoft .NET should receive heavy

government attention, and be both open

source and restriction free, for other

companies to improve upon Microsoft’s

foundation.

MTC–00004804

From: Robert Levy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 4:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Comments on the Microsoft Settlement

Here is the good news if the Microsoft

settlement is approved: Although the

company may face litigation from

competitors, a few consumers, the European

Union, and recalcitrant state attorneys

general, at least the federal antitrust lawsuit

won’t be around to drain Microsoft’s energies

and undermine economic growth so essential

to the post-September 11 recovery.

From a longer-term perspective, the

Microsoft antitrust dispute, which has been

festering in one form or another since the

Federal Trade Commission opened its

investigation in 1991, produced nothing but

losers. There are no long-term winners. To

settle the case, Microsoft will be making

more concessions than is justified by the DC

Circuit’s opinion. In the meantime,

consumers had to pick up the tab while hightech executives wasted resources on

politicking instead of developing the kinds of

integrated products that customers demand.

The settlement addresses and corrects, with

minor exceptions, each objection raised by

the DC Circuit in affirming Judge Jackson’s

holding of monopoly maintenance. Microsoft

may not retaliate against other companies for

supporting competing software; or enter into

exclusive agreements with software

developers, Internet content providers, or

Internet access providers. Nor may Microsoft

prevent PC makers and consumers from

installing a rival operating system, or

removing Microsoft’s ?middleware? products

and installing rival middleware. Further,

Microsoft must disclose and license its

applications programming interfaces (APIs)

to software developers; and charge uniform,

published prices (except for volume

discounts) to its 20 top PC-maker clients.

The principal Microsoft ?transgression? not

addressed in the settlement is the

commingling of operating system and

browser code. Of course, that problem is

trivial as long as the consumer and PC maker

are not forced to use, and can actually

uninstall, Microsoft’s browser. In two critical

respects, the settlement goes beyond what the

appellate court directed. First, the court

found that Microsoft had suppressed

competition in the middleware market as a

means of maintaining its Windows

monopoly. Middleware, according to the

court, consists of products that expose APIs

and thereby compete against traditional

operating systems. But the settlement

agreement defines middleware more broadly,

to include not only browsers but also

products like email, instant messaging, and

media players. Those products do not expose

APIs; they do not compete against

Windows; yet Microsoft will be compelled to

treat rival ?middleware? products as if the

court had found ? which it did not ? that

bundling those products somehow

constituted an illegal tying arrangement.

Second, the settlement dictates that

Microsoft will have to disclose its server

protocols so that non-Microsoft servers (like

those produced by IBM, Oracle, Sun

Microsystems, and Novell) will be able to

interoperate with Windows. The allegation,

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24601

first leveled by Sun in a complaint filed with

the European Union two years ago, is that

Microsoft is attempting to extend its PC

monopoly to the server market by making

newer versions of Windows incompatible

with servers other than Microsoft’s. But the

newest version of Windows (XP), just

released on October 25, has a miniscule share

of the operating system market. Quite simply,

there is no monopoly to leverage. Older

versions (Windows 95 and 98) are perfectly

compatible with non-Microsoft servers,

which by the way supply about 60 percent

of the server market. Most important, the

server issue was never part of the Justice

Department’s case. On that issue, there was

no complaint, no trial, no evidence, and no

verdict ? just a restriction on Microsoft’s

behavior.

There’s a lesson in all of this. Two years

ago, an attempted settlement mediated by

appellate judge Richard Posner came to

nothing, reportedly because of several

intractable attorneys general. Judge Posner

had little to say about his efforts until

September 2000 when, in a speech, he

lambasted the states? role in antitrust

litigation, accused them of being captured by

competitor interests, and suggested that they

should limit themselves to price fixing cases

involving goods sold to the state.

That’s good advice. Ten years have lapsed

since the Microsoft case first unfolded.

Silicon Valley, supposed bastion of

entrepreneurship, has become part of the

problem. Multiple governmental entities,

responsive to the parochial interests of rival

businesses, initially combined to challenge

Microsoft. Now, with that challenge resolved

to the satisfaction of almost everyone, nine

states might dawdle just long enough to foul

the country’s near-term economic recovery.

It’s time to shut down this lawsuit and let the

software industry get back to serving

customers.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert A. Levy

Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies

Cato Institute

1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Phone: 202–789–5253

These comments are extracted from a

longer article by Robert A. Levy entitled ?Soft

Settlement,? Los Angeles Daily Journal, Nov.

26, 2001.

MTC–00004805

From: Haven, Richard

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/20/01 6:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Please add my objection to the proposed

settlement, specifically regarding the

definition of the beneficiaries of the

remedies. Not-for-profit and governmental

organization are part of this market and

deserve the compensation and protection of

any agreement.

Allowing the subject of penalties any

discretion in who is to benefit does not

remedy the market as a whole, or benefit

those potential beneficiaries who Microsoft

might try to exclude for the same reasons

they were convicted in the first place.

Thank you for your attention

Richard C Haven

MTC–00004806

From: Jim Saxton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 8:47pm

Subject: Appropriate settlement

Microsoft has gained and maintained its

monopoly in the PC desktop Operating

System market by enforcing an anticompetitive boot loader license with its OEM

customers. As you know, this license

prohibited Microsoft OEM customers from

installing non Microsoft Operating Systems

on the same computer that includes

Windows. This license leveraged the

Microsoft Windows market share to prevent

the computer manufacturers from

differentiating their computers by including

non-Microsoft products. This license

effectively killed such products as BeOS and

OS2.

The appropriate remedy is to modify this

license to require Microsoft OEM customers

to include a non Microsoft Operating system.

This would put microsoft in a position of

actively repairing the damage it has caused

to the Computer Operating system market.

Microsoft may indeed have to resurrect a

competing OS to allow its customers to

bundle Windows with their computers.

The personal computer industry would

benefit by allowing the manufacturers to

once again differentiate their products. This

would benefit the consumer by allowing

them to buy a computer with an alternate

Operating System to Windows. This would

also make the Internet more resilient as there

would be a more diverse environment and

consumers would be less vulnerable to virus

attack.

Black Belt Jimmy

MTC–00004807

From: JShoe2@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 10:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am simply a homemaker/family business

person and I don’t understand why big

Government can’t leave something alone that

isn’t broken—Just look at the mess the phone

industry is in—this is your fault!

I like going to the store and buying a

computer with all the programs I need

already loaded and ready for my use. I don’t

know enough to want to pick and choose

between various hardware and software

programs.

Seems to me these states that won’t settle

are very jealous of all Microsoft has

accomplished and the revenue that OUR state

makes from their success. Bill Gates and

Microsoft are very philantropic and give

many things back to our state, schools,

universities, as well as other charities. They

even spread this largesse to other charities

and other educational programs thru-out the

US.

Seems to me that these other states should

be embarrassed by their greed and have their

hands slapped.

Thanks for listening to me.

Jean Shoemaker

MTC–00004808

From: Jud Meaders

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/20/01 11:12pm

Subject: XP security hole

Still think MSFT can be trusted with

mission-critical work? Want to let the

security of the country depend on MSFT?

Want to hire MSFT ‘‘security experts’’ to

advise the federal government?

I am still outraged at your complicity in

letting MSFT get off the legal, political and

economic hook totally. I will do my

everything I can to vote you guys out of

office.

Here’s the link: http://

www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/15458.html

MTC–00004809

From: Mal Elliott

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 12:18am

Subject: My lack of choice

I am tired of being shoved around by

Microsoft. I have purchased software from

many companies such as Digital Research,

Novell, Corel, and many others only to have

Microsoft use its muscle and money to push

them aside with inferior products and

operating systems. Microsoft was found

guilty of monopoly in federal court but was

not punished for it and it is obvious from

what is going on now that it is doing things

even worse than it did before the federal law

suit. Microsoft should be broken up into a

company that manufactures the operating

system and all other software it produces

should be under another entity. That is the

only way to bring them back to the level of

competition with the remainder of the

software companies. Microsoft did not grow

to its present size with superior products; it

did it with money and market control, with

inferior products. I am a retired writer now

writing books. I want to use better products

to produce my books but am forced to use

Microsoft products because that is what the

market dictates. I want choice.

Mal Elliott,

Wichita, Kansas.

MTC–00004810

From: Robert Wong

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 12:21am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Plaintiff-Microsoft Revise Propose

Final Judgment should be reject because the

proposal is too HARSH on Microsoft. There

is consumer harm if Microsoft agrees to abide

by the terms of the agreements.

Microsoft is to provide information on

server products, but server products is an

area where there is healthy competition and

which Microsoft does not have a monopoly.

The server platforms were never mentioned

in any of the Finding of Facts and Conclusion

of Law or the Full Court of Appeals ruling.

By providing such information, competitors

can damage the Server platform products if

that is there intent and this agreement will

allow it to occur.

Microsoft agrees to provide technical

information to all competitor’s of

middleware, it does not rule on inferior

middle ware created by competitors in order

to sabotage the Windows platform. Java is

one form of middle ware, but the Finding of

24602 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Facts indicates that Java is not mature and

was slower than native Windows

applications.

The terms on the Technical Committee and

three appointed members represent endless

investigation which are a waste of Microsoft

time and money. There is no lines of division

on the technical committee between

investigating Windows platform and XBoxes. They have access to all Microsoft

source code, contracts and internal

documents. Will an investigation of X-Box be

warrant if someone like Sony complains that

X-Box is too rough on the game station

market? With three technical members, each

one of them can conduct the same

investigation and come up with a different

conclusion. There is nothing in the

agreement which allows one investigation

per committee member. Endless competitors

can flood complains for each of the three

technical committee members.

Please revise this proposal to eliminate the

abuse by Microsoft competitors who have no

interest in consumer interest before

approving. This settlement is too HARSH on

Microsoft.

Robert Wong

e-mail: robertwong@hotmail.com

CC:robertwong@hotmail.com@inetgw

MTC–00004811

From: Lionel Berthomier

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 1:39am

Subject: microsoft settlement

microsoft v. french justice

interesting links :

http://www.01net.com/

rdn?oid=168836&rub=2796

http://www.vnunet.fr/mac/kios/

sommaire.htm?revue=90

http://www.weblmi.com/daily/2001/1129/

condamnation.htm

http://www.thestandard.ru/cw/1996/36/

2.htm

http://www2.computerwoche.de/

index.cfm?pageid=254

&artid=30183&type=detail&category=84

MTC–00004812

From: larry a price

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 5:36am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement too weak.

There are several issues that the proposed

settlement needs to address, in order that

Microsoft not walk away unpunished for

their CRIMINAL behaviour.

1. Protecting Open Source. The proposed

final settlement offer contains language

intended to let Microsoft itself determine

who is qualified to have access to the

technical information intended to allow other

operating systems to interoperate with

Microsoft software. In point of fact, the

language specifically claims their right to

require that those party to interoperability

information be businesses. This is clearly

intended to to discriminate against the

MANY software projects that are run entirely

as volunteer efforts. The court should require

that any technical information that Microsoft

is required to disclose must be available to

the public, so that the public itself might act

in redressing the harm created by Microsoft’s

illegal tactics.

2. Closed File Formats Are A tool of

Monopoly. One of the most insidious tactics

used by Microsoft in the construction of their

monopoly in business productivity and

personal computing software is the creation

of incompatible, undocumented file formats.

In addition the tactic of making new

versions of their software produce files that

were incompatible with their old software

led to their being in effect able to require

users of their software to upgrade their

systems on their schedule.

The fact that Microsoft’s file formats were

undocumented has meant that competitors

were effectively locked out of providing

equivalent services to consumers who had

unwisely chosen to use Microsoft products

and that those consumers were themselves

harmed in that their property was held

hostage to Microsoft’s software and would

need to be either abandoned or (at great

expense) converted to some other format.

3. Security Needs Of Consumers and

Appropriate Liability. A further issue that

could be addressed by the court is

Microsoft’s liability for the millions of

person-hours of time wasted in dealing with

the inadequacies of their operating system

and of their email products. A clear

statement by the court that consumers had at

a minimum an implied warranty of

functionality, including an expectation of

data privacy in the form of mechanisms to

prevent both Microsoft itself and others from

altering, destroying or illicitly copying data

without it’s owners permission; would set a

clear precedent that software is the same as

any other class of product and should not be

allowed to exempt itself from product

liability through specious End User License

Agreements. In that a product sold in

exchange for value should meet a reasonable

buyers expectations for functionality and

safety.

http://www.efn.org/laprice ( Community,

Cooperation, Consensus

http://www.opn.org ( Openness to

serendipity, make mistakes

http://www.efn.org/laprice/poems ( but

learn from them.(carpe fructus ludi)

http://allie.office.efn.org/phpwiki/

index.php?OregonPublicNetworking

MTC–00004813

From: steven st catherine

To: Criminal Division,Microsoft

ATR,Barrie.Thurlow@hom...

Date: 12/21/01 6:52am

Subject: Industrial Espionage is a serious

crime

New Age Informations

Dear Barrie Thurlow

The list of crimes are as incomplete and as

the following criminal investigation in part

details, I was at a Ms Christine Hodder flat

29 Campden House, Harben Road NW3

where I was allowed to work and stay for

over a year at her home, and where I am an

intellectual property designer of a sort. On an

argument over her involvement into the theft

of my intellectual property and or thinking

process methodology, and or any material

gain via dishonest contact which she

admitted at one point only to retracted it

later. On leaving she insisted that I take the

computer where I had found a memohasp-

??device on the table when she was

dismantling the computer to give to me.

Which I now believe is a bug of some sort,

as I had checked out the product on the

internet and found out it was a multi-purpose

electronic transmitting device. Returning

three day later to a website which detailed

the memohsap-1 differently from what I had

first read its product details to be. On

investigation I found that the company

Aladdin was the said sole distributors of

Hasp products and the only entry found on

their website search facility for this product

was solid.asp. Solid.asp is a webpage relating

to Solidworks Corporation who when

questioned via their public information

access info@solidworks.com about there

involvement in this product deceptive uses

they refused to answer a product company

relationship claimed by Aladdin to exist.

Returning to Aladdin and using the website

search facility the only entry for memohasp1 was removed and marked 0. On further

investigation many webpages at Aladdin

Hasp were false and some completely blank

and their relation to other companies they

claim are also false. On contacting Progress

Soft Corporation a claimed distributor by

Aladdin for Hasp products in Jordan and

other Arab countries does not have a word

of the Arabic Language on their website

www.progressoft.com, as fact. On writing an

email to Progressoft their reply was towards

that of denial and claimed that IS is the sole

distributor for Aladdin Hasp products where

Aladdin and other sources claim that they

are. However IS does not yet exist to my

knowledge and is a mystical company name

given out of share panic. The electronic

device is a form of bugging device which is

given to their company related clients and or

individual to use which their company

product, and or claimed uses. And as

Solidworks Corporation is in 3D design

technology of a kind their clients may of been

bugged by them so they refuse to answer any

question relating to this product. On

contacting a UK distributor and questioning

them about the product they stated that they

only put the device on the back of machines

without knowing there internal description

workings. However, this device was claimed

to be a Cara Professional protection device by

Ms Christine Hodder and this can be

confirmed by the two officers who attended

its return to her and which was refused by

her but confirmed by her as a Cara

Professional protection device. Webpages

have been changed at the US patent office,

and or distorted by electronic manipulation

as else where also and where I am still trying

to complete the formal addressing procedural

action to be address to the US patent office.

On contacting Aladdin Hasp claiming I was

given the memohasp-1 by Ms Christine

Hodder as is the case to have the device

reinstalled lead me to the FTP.exe file. It is

already on the computer she had given me

and where I was instructed by Aladdin to

download a ftp:/ extension file Hinstall.zip.

Ftp stands for File Transfer Program and

the extension ftp is used in connection to the

internet. This is in part the crime and if the

British government now want to state that

crimes involving intellectual property is not

criminal and is civil I disagree completely.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24603

As any act to obtain information and or

property of any kind via dishonest means is

a criminal offence. And as yourselves may be

involved in this crime and or involved by

way of none action I can now see why you

try and play this issue down and alike

matters. This is a clear claim by the British

government to be involved in maintaining

criminal activity for their own benefit. The

computer was also witnessed by two officers

to be communicating with an external source

without a phone line being connected. My

phone line was then connected days later as

the cover-up continues where I had made

phone call on a phone line which did not

exist by my request. This is a worldwide

espionage network and it uses Microsoft

Corporation operating system the FTP.EXE

file and or files similarly alike to

communicate undetected and gain access

control of computers, and or complete

control undetected. Aladdin also claimed it

had a concise National Software Testing Lab

(NSTL) report and on contacting NSTL they

reply that they have a report that is three year

old or older. On requesting this report via

paying for it from NSTL they have not

replied because they may also possibly be a

bogus website for selling illegal bugging

devices. Microsoft are the claimed owner of

NSTL logo and if this is correct and they own

the logo of NSTL they then possibly own the

company who is a advisor to US

governmental institution. Industrial

Espionage is a serious crime sir please take

note.

Yours sincerely and respectfully

Steven St Catherine

Director

From: Thurlow Barrie

To: ‘‘‘steven_st_catherine@hotmail.com’’’ CC:

‘‘Public Enquiries (CD)’’

Subject: Serious criminal activities

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 09:58:16 -0000

Dear Mr St Catherine,

Thank you for your message to report

serious criminal activities. As you did not

mention what these activities were I regret

that the Home Office is unable to help.

Please report criminal activity to your local

police, and please consult your legal adviser

or Citizen’s Advice Bureau in the first

instance regarding any dispute over

intellectual property.

Yours sincerely,

Barrie Thurlow

Home Office

Direct Communication Unit

MTC–00004814

From: Tanya L. Durni

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 7:45am

Subject: microsoft case

The sanctions ordered in the Microsoft

case are not tough enough. Microsoft has a

history of bending and breaking the laws to

suit them, at the expense of their partners

and competitors. The case has at least

exposed some of these practices.

I think Microsoft’s worse enemy in the long

run is itself, however, in the meantime, the

companies with new innovative ideas are at

risk. I don’t understand why our government,

when it finally determines there is a problem,

waits sooooo long to deliver the appropriate

discipline. Unfortunately, by waiting they are

rewarding the lawbreakers and penalizing the

honest hard working American. By not doing

enough to control the source of the problem

early on, we only allow things to get way out

of hand.

MTC–00004815

From: James Wall

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 7:48 am

Subject: Microsoft Case

Please settle the case as is. Microsoft has

done more for average users than any other

company. One could have always bought

Apple or IBM. Apple made biggest mistake

in US business history in not unbundlely

their OS. never understood the PC business.

Microsoft was just more aggressive and

smarter than others. The states case is stupid.

Most of those opposed to settlement are

angry billionaires who were out smarted by

MS.

jjwall

MTC–00004816

From: Leon Schafer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 8:08am

Subject: Proposed settlement

Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney

Suite 1200

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Sirs,

I am writing this letter to express my

dissatisfaction with the proposed settlement

against the Microsoft monopoly. I have

worked in the software industry for 27 years

now. Great strides have been taken in that

time and Microsoft has made many

contributions; however, they have used their

power and control in the market to limit

consumer choice.

They have taken advantage of their

operating system monopoly to take over

every area of application software seen as

profitable. They do this by providing their

own internal developers with the

Applications Programming Interface (API) for

the Windows operating system well before

the public has access to it. Some parts of the

API are never published at all.

Microsoft has also used bundling to great

advantage. The anti-trust action started as a

result of their unfair competitive practices

used against Netscape and the results can

already be seen. Microsoft has used it’s

monopoly in web browsers to begin

modifying existing web standards into

proprietary, undocumented extensions that

render some web pages unviewable in

Netscape. Many content creators using

Microsoft tools are not even aware that are

using these extensions resulting in numerous

pages on the web that simply don’t work

with anything but Microsoft tools.

Microsoft enjoys unrivaled market power

and uses its wealth to maintain this

dominance. Licensing agreements with

computer vendors ensure that the discount

for ordering a machine with Windows

installed is almost nothing while the retail

purchase price of the operating system is

large. As a consumer, I have also seen

companies producing software for both

operating systems get purchased by Microsoft

and forsake their non-Windows products

within months afterwards.

Despite their numerous abuses, the current

proposed settlement does nothing to improve

the comptetive situation. In fact, donations to

schools will only cement Microsoft’s position

by training a new generation of computer

users in a Microsoft only environment. The

remedies against the monopoly must include

the following:

Microsoft products must be listed as extracost options in the purchase of new

computers, so that the user who does not

wish to purchase them is not forced to do so.

This means that for the price differential

between a new computer with Microsoft

software and one without, a computer seller

must offer the software without the computer

(which would prevent computer makers from

saying that the difference in price is only a

few dollars). Only then could competition

come to exist in a meaningful way.

The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

Applications in markets where Microsoft

enjoys a monopoly due to past anticompetitive behavior must be made available

on non-Windows operating systems. For

example, Internet Explorer should be ported

to Linux/Unix along with the Microsoft

Office Suite. Selling these products on other

operating systems would generate revenue

for the company yet they refuse to do it

because it weakens their stranglehold on the

market.

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 as they are trying

to do right now by subverting Java and

introducing extensions in their web server

which are undocumented and work only

with Internet Explorer.

Microsoft must make available for sale a

‘‘bare-bones’’ version of its operating system

to prevent bundling. Although great

arguments have gone on about what

constitutes a ‘‘bare-bones’’ operating system,

there are examples to work from. Linux, for

example, still fits entirely on a single 1.4MB

floppy disk.

Microsoft must be prevented from entering

the hardware market. The introduction of the

XBox clearly paves the way for a future for

where Microsoft software will be the only

choice and it will only work well on their

own hardware.

Without these remedies there will be no

other operating systems, web browsers, or

office productivity suites. The United States

is a world leader in technology for the digital

age. It is time for Microsoft’s control over the

future of the entire industry to be broken so

24604 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

that other innovators may have their chance

to shape the future.

Sincerely,

Leon Schafer

2116 Mark

Lansing, MI 48912

MTC–00004817

From: Johnny Barrett

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 8:15am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I honestly hope the Justice Department sees

through the facade MS is proposing. The deal

offers very little value (pennies on the dollar)

and gives MS an inroad to market they have

been historically the underdog. This is just

another market to conquer and the settlement

is a great vehicle to begin the process.

Better to force them to give the actual

dollars to the schools and inform the schools

the funds are earmarked for computer

education.

Johnny C. Barrett

CST-Supporting NMD XBR (256) 313–9879

FAX 319–757

Johnny.Barrett@nmd.army.mil

MTC–00004818

From: finortis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 8:18am

Subject: A few things about Microsoft, I do

not like and think needs addressing

CC: finortis

These are newer issues then was brought

up in the US vs. Microsoft trial .... but one’s

that absolutely show Microsoft’s monopolist

behaviour .... and too much control they have

gained over the consumer. Certain things that

should be addressed, and also show that

Microsoft has not ‘‘learned their lesson’’, but

remains bad as ever, and perhaps worse/more

bold then in the past:

1. Windows Product Activation: This has

been bundled into Windows XP (the

successor to Windows 2000, and their

current lattest operating system). With this

system in place, the OS keeps track of peices

of info about the hardware in the computer.

Some of the things, an upgrade becomes

necessary largely due to the bloat provided

in software ..... of which Microsoft is a main

culprit through the inclusion of useless

features such as ‘‘Mr. Clippy’’ in Microsoft

Office. Things such as RAM .... people need

more RAM because the software comes to

utilize more RAM, as each generation

progresses. Disk space, need we look at the

disk space requirements of win3.1 and Dos

6.22 vs win95, win95 vs. win98, winNT 4.0

vs win2k, etc? CPU, same thing .... it wasn’t

that long ago that a 400 MHz CPU was plenty

fast .... not with many software products on

the market .... that same CPU, the

performance would tank.

Microsoft, with ever increasing amounts of

bloatware has contributed to the need of

consumers to upgrade their hardware, and

despite this, they now restrict the users right

to upgrade their own computers as they see

fit. Under Windows Product Activation (or

WPA), one is allowed to have 4 of those

identifiers changed (a CPU upgrade changes

too of them). After that, the operating system

will cease to function, requiring reactivation.

One is then at the mercy of Microsoft to

allow them to reactivate, or have to repurchase an operating system, they already

payed for a liscence to use.

They will site software piracy as a reason

for this .... but they won’t mention the flip

side. How many times has a user, upgrading

their computer from an OEM, been required

to buy a bundled copy of Windows (many

times the SAME EXACT VERSION the

customer is liscenced too), due to Microsoft’s

OEM contracts? Ask many a Linux user how

feasable it is to buy a ‘‘naked PC’’ (one

without an operating system) and see what

they say? They’re refered to it as the

Windows tax. One should not have to get a

new liscence when one is replacing a PC, and

not adding to it. The liscence in the past has

stated that the user has a right to do a clean

transfer of their Microsoft software from one

computer to another. However, OEM

contracts that Microsoft holds, has effectively

prevented the user the right to do this. This

WPA could further force the user to have to

purchase an OEM copy of winXP, even if

they own the upgrade, simply because they

bought a new PC .... even if they migrate their

hard drive from the old to the new. This is

bunk, Windows Product Activation has got to

go.

2. I am extremely opposed to the ‘‘Secure

PC anitiative’’. Gettng in bed with the RIAA,

that has lobbied the DMCA through Congress,

in which other elements of society were

unwisely not listened too ..... fair use rights

which have been enjoyed by US citizens for

decades are rashly being discarded. There is

no balance sought here anymore .... and take

this entire mess, and throw in some people’s

ideas of brain fingerprinting, the cost to

civilization could be quite negative ..... and

the consequences to future generations quite

bad. Brain fingerprinting, another one of

these perposterious ideas that (in that case

cropped up after Sept 11, supposedly to keep

us safe, by allowing them to monitor brain

responces, to figure out the inner workings of

people’s minds, and profile people’s thoughts

or what is in their brain) .... is nothing short

of an Orwellian nightmere. The possible

applications of this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/

archive/22020.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/

archive/22123.html

But in the case of the RIAA, which MS is

getting in bed with, the DMCA (Digital

Millenium Copyright Act), unwisely

legislated under pressure from lobbyiest,

without balancing this against other elements

and interests of society, other then the

recording industry, has even been used in

case to stiffle scientific progress. And what

is this about scientific confrences migrating

accross seas out of fear to publish work that

is against the interests of a given corporation?

http://www.eff.org/effector/HTML/

effect14.37.html#I

‘‘’This judge apparently believes that the

fact that hundreds of scientists are currently

afraid to publish their work and that

scientific conferences are relocating overseas

isn’t a problem,’’ noted Robin Gross, EFF

Intellectual Property Attorney.’’

Allowing copyright law (the DMCA

specifically, which seems at the urging of the

RIAA (Recording Industry Association of

America) and others, to have largely thrown

out fair use rights of previously legislated

copyright law, to stiffle scientific progress is

most unwise, and could serve to hinder

innovation, more then help it. So much of the

technological progress we have seen in recent

times, so many innovations, owe their

existence to scientific discoveries which have

been made over the last couple hundred

years. Without the contributions science has

offered to society, we might still be farming

the backlands, and going to the bathroom in

out houses. Without the discoveries of

modern medicine, cures to many formerly

dreaded diseases and ailments would not

have been found. Without the discoveries of

scientists, much of the technology now being

discussed would not have even existed.

A hinderance of science, and the ability of

scientists to publish their discoveries ....

because it is not in favor with a given

corporation, could do more to hinder the

progress of civilization, then any good that

could ever come from it. Instead of

welcoming discoveries of a flawed system,

and learning from it, and learning how to

make better systems (assuming the system

imposed on customers is even a good idea,

and that is quite an assumption), they have

instead chosen to threaten legal action

against researchers, if they should publish

their work, which the motion picture

industry does not like. Under conditions

such as this, the objectivity in both findings

and in the publication and sharing of

findings, which the scientific method is very

much dependent upon, is largely

compromised. It little matters if it is

corporate interest, or religious doctrine and

persecution (Galileo anyone?) that stands as

a hinderence to such objectivity being

allowed in said findings and reporting of

them.

This should come as no surprise in a court

room type environment .... where the search

for the truth in any given case, should be of

utmost importance. When the objectivity in

fact finding is compromised, because it might

be in disfavor of a given corporation (as

much as a given religious authority of old) ....

the ability to arrive at the truth, and using

such knowledge arive at a wise decision is

itself compromised.

Taking all of this, the Secure PC Anitiative

that Microsoft is behind, essentially amounts

to nothing less then a decleration of war

against the consumer ...... and in the name of

preserving the power of the recording

industry (which society is largely progressing

to the point of their obsollesence) is further

erroding the freedoms that US citizens have

enjoyed under law for decades. For

information on the Secure PC Initiative, one

can begin looking here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/

23387.html

This, and other initiatives such as CPRM,

their ‘‘Digital Rights Manageament’’ and

other such proposals, are totally

unacceptable. Further the DMCA, and certain

applications of it, such as in the case above,

should be up for Constitutional Review, and

put to the test against both prior articles of

legislation and the US Constitution. Making

such a law, without considering and

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24605

balancing all the interists and parties of

society is both unwise, and unwarrented. If

endeavors such as this, and Micosoft’s

contribution to this aren’t checked ..... the

cost to civillization and the impact on society

it makes, in years to come could be extremely

negative.

3. Microsot’s .NET proposals should be

reviewed. Much of what I have read, and it

all being under Microsoft’s control, leaves me

extremely concerned. I would tend to be

extremely cautious before rushing right into

acceptence of .NET.

4. MSN (the Microsoft Network) could very

well be an anti-trust violation waiting to

happen. I just recently recieved an email

from Qwest.net (my current provider)

concerning a merger Qwest made with MSN.

We are being encouraged to migrate to ‘‘MSN

service powered by Qwest’’. Some of this

information can be viewed on the qwest.net

Internet site until January 3rd, when the site

will be updated, per their announcement

http://www.qwest.net/nav4/public/bus/

crossroads.html

Specific info on this merger is here:

http://www.qwest.net/nav4/msn/faq.html

Browsing around, I got info that states only

Windows is supported. Umm.... I dual boot

between Linux and Windows .... and as far

as I’m concerned that is my right. When I

signed up with qwest.net, I never agreed to

run in a Windows only environment, and

should not have to do so now. Such a

provision is absolutely unacceptable, and I

will not tollerate or agree too. I do not plan

on migrating, but am looking into alternative

services now .... since having further looked

into MSN and gathered more information

about this service from DSL Reports. I then

got indication that not only is Linux not

totally supported, but that MSN prohibits one

from using non-Microsoft email software. It

is none of their business, and they have no

right to tell me what software I can and can

not use ..... and to prohibit me from using an

email program from a competitor to

Microsoft. The suggested transition ..... I

come to like even less. http://

www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,

1775836root=msnetworkmode=flat

‘‘In addition, Microsoft also prohibits MSN

users from using any third-party e-mail

programs. Good Luck on Microsoft EVER

supporting Sendmail :-D’’

Further searching .... I find even less to like

about the ISP Qwest wants to switch us all

over too .... since certain corporate alliances

were made between Qwest the phone

company, and Microsoft (MSN specifically):

http://www.dslreports.com/comments/1646

In fact, I have yet to find one positive

feedback from any of MSN’s customers. All

indication is that they’re holding people

against their will ..... by holding them to the

service and making it very difficult ot leave

once transitioned. Doing a futher search

around

http://www.dslreports.com

for info on MSN or this merger will find

much of the same, from very disatisfied

customers. This whole MSN proposal has the

ear marks of possible anti-trust viloation

associated with MSN (or anti-trust violations

in the possible making) .... In any case, as for

me, I have NO intention of transitioning ....

but plan on changing my service before the

current one runs out. The more I read about

MSN ..... the less I like the service, and do

NOT want to get ensnared in this ISP from

the get go. That they are taking over from my

current ISP .... I do NOT like, and very much

loathe the prospects. I will even have my

Qwest DSL service cancelled, and sign up

with another provider such as Covad .....

before I will switch to them, given all I have

read about their service, on top of my initial

hesitation, which has only been confirmed

and expanded upon, the more research I do

on them. I just hope that neither MSN or

AOL expands into the customer base of any

new ISP I go with, through such mergers.

MTC–00004820

From: Lyon, David

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/21/01 12:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to comment on the revised

proposed Final Judgment to resolve the

United States’ civil antitrust case against

Microsoft. I am a professional programmer

certified with both Sun Microsystems and

Microsoft. As a United States citizen I believe

that my tax dollars have been wasted on this

case against Microsoft and I am glad to see

it is finally being settled. I believe that this

case was not brought against Microsoft to

protect the interests of the United States

citizens, but to protect the interests of

government lawyers who need to justify their

jobs and in the interest of various

competitors of Microsoft. I believe that

Microsoft’s competitors are large enough and

powerful enough to compete effectively with

Microsoft without the help of the United

States government. I also believe that the

lawyers and judges involved in this case do

not have an understanding of the

technologies and products involved, and

have made decisions based on assumptions

many of which are aided by the Marketing

teams from competing companies.

Thank you for this opportunity to

comment.

David Lyon

Senior Programmer Analyst

MTC–00004821

From: JefRaskin@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 1:02pm

Subject: (no subject)

Jef Raskin

8 Gypsy Hill

Pacifica CA 94044

650–359–8588 www.jefraskin.com

jefraskin@aol.com

MICROSOFT’S REAL SINS

The courts have determined that Microsoft

has used its economic clout and

technological hegemony to maintain and

extend its market dominance unfairly. But

this insult to the body corporate and

intrusion into the body politic does not

compare in severity to the injury Microsoft

has done to our bodies, minds, and wallets

as individual and corporate users of its

products.

The problem I speak of is not one of market

dominance, but of an inhumane disregard for

our physical frailties and mental limitations.

The human-machine interface of Microsoft

products is badly designed, as if interface

designers did not know how to do better. The

effects of this willful ignorance are manifold.

One, for example, is to force us to make many

more keystrokes and mouse motions than is

necessary for a task. This excess can be

total— as when there is no action you may

take but must either use the mouse to point

to and click on a certain on-screen button or

tap the Return key before you are allowed to

proceed. I estimate that overall, compared to

good interface design practice, over 25% of

the keyclicks and 50% of the mouse moves

are unnecessary. Where is the reckoning for

the human pain and loss of productivity from

repetitive stress injuries? Who will dun the

Redmond Monolith for the large negative

impact on productivity that the wasted

motions themselves have caused?

More subtle is the unnecessary taxation

Microsoft software interfaces impose in terms

of frustration and annoyance. Due to designs

that ignore what is presently known about

human cognition—the software often causes

us to make errors, errors that would not have

occurred had decent cognetic engineering

been applied. In another time, riled

revolutionaries might have tossed the

software into Boston harbor (nowadays

they’d be fined for polluting the harbor).

When I give talks on usability, I never find

one computer user who is not fed up with

the petty impediments we face. I ask, ‘‘Who

here has accidentally struck some key

combination when using Microsoft Word and

then spent minutes figuring how to turn off

the undesired feature that resulted?’’

Almost every person raises a hand. I can

bring down the house by saying, ‘‘It looks

like you’re writing a letter. You are an idiot.

You need help?’’ It is not that the problems

of Microsoft’s works are unrecognized, it is

that they seem to be accepted as an inevitable

part of using computers. Apple’s Macintosh

interface, our only almost-big-time

alternative, suffers from the similar interface

problems: it is only a little better. Besides,

most of us are forced to use Microsoft

products on it anyway. Outside of Gates’s

Domain, we note that the Internet and the

World Wide Web could be made far easier to

understand and use.

Most of the people who design the systems

and the software, those who we think of as

leaders and visionaries, are woefully behind

the times when it comes to interfaces. They

have not progressed much beyond where we

were 20 years ago.

To compound these sins, Microsoft’s

products demand far more computer

resources than necessary. For example, in

one editor I use, a 22-word memo, with 118

characters, is stored in 456 bytes of memory.

In Word, it takes up 19,742 bytes. A business

plan that requires 98,482 bytes in the first

editor is bloated into 225,280 bytes by Word.

Depending on the average size of your

documents, Word wastes from half to over 90

percent of your memory. That’s memory you

or your company pays for. Now add in the

hundreds of megabytes of memory and

gigabytes of hard drive space their latest

operating system demands. With competent

design, it could run a lot faster and fit in a

lot less memory then it now does. Besides

24606 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

stealing resources, large programs are harder

to learn and understand, and are more prone

to bugs than are smaller programs. They eat

into your time and pocketbook relentlessly.

Nobody is taking Microsoft to court over

these brazen acts of theft.

Some defend Microsoft on the grounds that

it has brought a measure of uniformity and

standardization to the industry. They point

out that because of Microsoft, skills are

transferable from one machine to another.

Even if true, and it is possible to argue that

standards arise in ways other than by

domination, that is no excuse for the awful

quality of the products. Others believe that

there is no other possible approach than

Microsoft’s, but this opinion comes purely

from parochialism. Microsoft (and, to a lesser

extent—only because they sell fewer units—

other software makers) is injuring us

physically by making us do unnecessary

labor; waste our time and that of our

enterprises; cause us avoidable mental stress,

anxiety, frustration, and annoyance; and

force us to buy more far more hardware than

is necessary to do the job. Even if the

department of Justice had applied the

severest remedies open to it, these crimes

would not have been touched.

Computer and software designs are not like

the weather. We can do something about

them. The technology is available. If the

courts cannot, it is time that users,

management, and shareholders demand

better.

Jef Raskin, an independent interface

designer and writer who lives in Pacifica,

California, created Apple’s Macintosh series

of computers and is the author of the recent

book ‘‘The Humane Interface’’ (Addison

Wesley, 2000).

MTC–00004822

From: Brett Markham

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 1:08 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am a computer industry professional,

well versed in both Microsoft products, and

those of competitors.

I am not a pinko commie that wants

Microsoft punished for being successful. I

would describe myself as a distinctly probusiness guy. However, Microsoft has

engaged in such rampant abuse of free

enterprise that I believe the settlement is too

light.

Microsoft makes everything in its operating

systems dependent upon installation of their

browser, rather than competing products. In

fact, one of the steps needed to make NT Y2K

compliant was downloading IE4. I recently

needed to install an antivirus package on an

NT server, and was forced to download their

IE5 as a prerequisite of upgrading the OS, not

as a prerequisite of the Virus package.

That is insane. Nobody can convince me

this is necessary, since no other OS in

existence has that dependency.

But why their insistence on IE? BEcause of

Internet Information Server, and front page.

You see, using those products, it is possible

to create web sites that only work with their

browser. In other words, Microsoft is creating

a world where no competing clients OR

servers can exist. On an ongoing basis,

Microsoft deliberately introduces changes in

its products that make it stop functioning

with other companies’ products. An example

is Samba, an SMB server that operates on

Unix platforms to make files on Unix servers

available to Windows clients. Microsoft

deliberately broke compatibility in SP3, and

then again with the Win2K release.

Why? Because they are trying to force

everybody in the world to abandon every

other product, and install MS products

instead.

And I’m sure you are aware of what goes

on with laptop computers and most others.

MS enters into agreements with

manufacturers that essentially make MS the

only choice. In and of itself, having an

agreement between companies is not a

problem. But margins are so narrow in the

computer hardware market that the

difference between a manufacturer paying

$189 and $25 for a Windows license is the

diference between a profitable company, and

bankruptcy. By making these deals with

manufacturers, it isn’t long before others are

forced to comply or go under. At best, that

is an illegal contract of adhesion.

So what happens to the consumer is he

ends up buying a computer, and having to

pay for MS products, even if he intends to

load another OS! This automatically makes

competing products more expensive for the

end user. And guess what? The agreements

between MS and manufacturers often deprive

the manufacturer of the ability to even sell

computers with competing products!

I could go on and on; and doubtless many

have. Microsoft’s treatment of Blue Mountain

greetings after a failed buyout bid are

legendary and were the source of an

injunction.

Microsoft lies, steals, enters into contracts

which are adhesive, forces reliance on its

browser, breaks competing software, etc. etc.

etc.

Anything short of separating its OS

company and its application company will

not work for protecting the American public.

Very truly,

Brett Markham

MTC–00004823

From: Dorothy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 1:28pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

When will you wake up. Microsoft stiffles

all competition. If some one has a better

product, they either steal it or buy it and

effectively puts the little guy out of business.

Reliance on one leaky, leaky system is

foolhardy!!

Dorothy Sucre (I use both Apple and

Microsoft, but Apple doesn’t leak like

Windows does!!)

MTC–00004824

From: Glenn Murray

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 1:40pm

Subject: Comment on proposed Microsoft

settlement

Glenn Murray

Research Asst. Professor

Dept. of Chemical Engineering

Colorado School of Mines

Golden, CO 80401

Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney

Suite 1200

Antitrust Division, Department of Justice

601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 20530

Dear Renata Hesse,

I am writing to object to the proposed

settlement to the Microsoft antitrust case. As

an educator and researcher in technical fields

it has been my experience that Microsoft’s

dominance and way of doing business has

hampered innovation and the free exchange

of information. In particular I am concerned

about the following points:

(1) Microsoft’s attempt to control the

internet via proprietary protocols. I believe

these protocols should be open standards and

that Microsoft should have to compete on a

level playing field.

(2) Microsoft’s proprietary document

formats (e.g., for Word, Excel, and Power

Point) and their acceptance as a closed

standard strongly discourage any

competition. It has come to the point that to

communicate with others it is necessary to

buy expensive Microsoft products—-there are

no compatible competing products,

expensive or otherwise. Having open formats

could not but help this situation and, again,

provide a level playing field for competitors.

It seems we have antitrust laws for a

reason, but the proposed settlement does not

address the harm Microsoft has done,

continues to do, and evidently intends to do.

I found it particulary ironic that the

settlement encourages Microsoft to extend its

dominance into the educational sector. In

education we are continually introducing

students to new technology. I think that

marketplace competition is the best way to

keep prices reasonable and introduce

innovation for people trying to learn these

technolgies. I would like to see an antitrust

settlement which has a chance of achieving

this.

Sincerely,

Glenn Murray

www.mines.edu/gmurray/public_html/

Welcome.html

MTC–00004825

From: Stephanie (038) Ted Coopman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 2:03pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Dear Ms. Hesse,

I am extremely concerned about the

proposed settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust case. I feel the settlement is wholly

inadequate to curb Microsoft’s illegal

behavior and fails to adequately address

several key issues that are critical to not only

the future of computer and internet based

business, but has broader societal

implications. I discuss my specific concerns

below:

Microsoft Is a Remorseless Repeat Offender

Microsoft has shown no willingness to

accept responsibility for its actions. In fact,

it still adheres to the concept that it is

innocent of any wrongdoing. Earlier

conditions placed on Microsoft for its anticompetitive behavior were completely

ignored. To think that this company will

simply be polite and follow the tepid

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24607

suggestions of the Department of Justice(DOJ)

is sheer folly. If Microsoft believes it is doing

no wrong and they have not be censured for

their activity, it will, as it has in the past,

continue to behave in the manner that has

brought it so much wealth and power.

Microsoft is the same as the repeat offender

thief who feels that they are somehow above

the rules and laws that apply to everyone

else. Microsoft has violated its parole (so to

speak) and should be hit with the maximum

penalty.

Settlement Sets a Bad Example

This settlement will have so little impact

on the computer and internet related markets

and conditions as well as the ability of

Microsoft to operate in preferred anticompetitive mode, that other companies will

not see anti-competitive monopolistic

behavior as anything other than a successful

business model. If we, as a society, believe

that harsh sentences are required to deter

illegal behavior by others, how can we give

Microsoft a pass in this case? Rather than an

example of the harsh fate awaiting those who

defraud the public, this settlement would be

an example that the DOJ is a paper tiger who

will not hold companies responsible for their

actions.

Any Settlement Without Requirements for

Interoperability is Useless What makes

Microsoft so dangerous is not that its size,

but its actions. Microsoft intentionally makes

its software so it will not run well with other

competing products or even industry

standard code. This combined with their

dominance in the market makes any real

competition impossible. For example,

Microsoft Internet Explorer will not

accurately read standard HTML, the

foundation of the internet. Nor will it read

HTML generated by most other HTML

composing software. It is designed to only

accurately read code produced by another

Microsoft product, Frontpage. As with

Microsoft Java, this code has no real

deviation or innovation related to the original

code, other than elements designed to foil

competing software or coding formats. This

makes extra work for those trying to make

alternative formats function with the

ubiquitous MS operating systems and

integrated applications.

Interoperability is a critical element for the

development of the internet. To purposely

sacrifice this on the alter of monopoly control

and corporate greed is unacceptable. This

intentional interference with attempts for

consistent interoperability must be stopped.

The Microsoft Monopoly is a Threat to

National Security With the focus on

‘‘cybersecurity’’ by the current

administration, it is amazing that this issue

has not come up in conjunction wit this case.

Time after time, worms, virus’s and other

cyber-assaults have wreaked havoc on

computer systems world wide costing

billions of dollars. The main form for

entering all these systems has been Microsoft

Internet Explorer and the Outlook Email

system. Weaknesses in this program are so

easy to exploit and the connections between

the program and the MS OS are so numerous

that anyone with a few classes in

programming can crash millions of

computers. This is the computer equivalent

of planting a forest with the same type of

tree. One bug can wipe out the whole lot.

Microsoft’s monopolistic attitude of ‘‘ship it

now and fix it later’’ leaves our computer

networks open to attack. The resent glaring

security fault in Windows XP is just the latest

example. This is a clear example of how

Microsoft’s actions are a threat to the general

public. The US Government has a specific

interest in making sure that there is a diverse

mixture of internet software to blunt the

threat of attack. Microsoft’s intentional

interoperability thwarts many attempts to

harden systems by using alternative software.

This Settlement Will Not Eliminate or

Redress Harm Done to Businesses and

Consumers

I have personally been harmed by

Microsoft’s actions. I have wasted hours of

programming time trying to make code

function on Microsoft Internet Explorer. Code

that is technically correct and runs on every

other interface. Because of the market

dominance of Microsoft, I must make this

code work. This is not caused by some

superior aspect of this program, but by

intentional meddling that ensures only code

written in Microsoft Internet Explorer,

Frontpage, or MS Office versions will look

correct. This is to crush any competitors

product. This Microsoft software is not

superior in functionality or operation. In fact,

it generates useless extraneous code that

doubles or triples the size of coded pages

which consumes more hard-drive space and

makes website run slower. This also slows

down the internet. Because Microsoft

controls such a large market share, I am

forced to use Microsoft software in order to

move data other computers. I have little or

no choices for programs because I would

have to convert them to a MS program first

or alter the files name so Microsoft products

can read them. There is NO technical need

for this. I own Apple computers and the

Apple OS will read ANY document no matter

what the title. If Microsoft decides it doesn’t

want to write compatable programs for

another OS, that OS is doomed.

In conclusion, I urge the DOJ to reconsider

this settlement. Microsoft will not comply

with any remedy as long as they fail to admit

wrong doing. Steps must be taken to ensure

all software has the ability to operate with

Microsoft’s products. Microsoft must be

forced to adhere to industry standards for

HTML, Java and other code that allow

functionality and interoperability. They must

be severely punished and forced to adhere to

all remedies by a oversight body that has the

power to force compliance. Microsoft must

be forced to support alternative OS such

Linux and Apple. The penalties for

Microsoft’s actions must serve as a dire

warning to any other company who dares to

defraud the public and abuse United States

Law.

Sincerely,

Ted M. Coopman

Rogue Commuication

2501 Friesland Court

Santa Cruz, CA 95062

831–477–7780

MTC–00004826

From: Chris Hedberg

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’

Date: 12/21/01 2:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Just wanted to send a quick comment

regarding the recent Microsoft settlement. I

think that the mechanism described whereby

Judgement Compliance Officers on the

Technical Committee help to resolve issues

between Microsoft and customers or

competitors is a very good one, assuming that

you find the right people for the Compliance

Officer positions and that the committee is

free to act and backed up by the power to be

heard. It’s a much better idea that Judge

Jackson’s initial ruling, which I definitely

feel could have led to a lot of confusion in

the PC market and not much real advantage

to consumers.

I would not have minded provisions

requiring Microsoft to publish their APIs

more completely and to release specifications

for their internal formats to allow other

companies easier access to the features

internal MS developers take for granted in

many cases, but this solution seems very

flexible and powerful, both of which I think

are required elements when dealing with a

market that changes rapidly and a creative,

strong-willed, dominant company. I am a

former full-time employee of Microsoft, and

while I feel that its employees and many of

its products are among the best in the world,

I have long disagreed with the company’s

aggressive and often short-sightedly selfserving approach to standards and

competition. Microsoft is at its best when it’s

forced to compete against strong products. It

products tend to weaken and fail when

there’s no clear competitor meeting an unmet

need.

Thank you for reading my comments.

Chris Hedberg

MTC–00004828

From: blburton@mac.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 5:00pm

Subject: AtATgram: One For The Record

Books (12/20/01)

Brian <blburton@mac.com> is sending you

a scene from —As—the—Apple—Turns!—

Scene 3467 follows:

One For The Record Books (12/20/01)

Hey, guess what? Something amazing

happened today. Ready for this? They found

a MICROSOFT SECURITY HOLE. Wait, don’t

leave! Yes, we know that Microsoft security

flaws are about as rare as pennies with

Lincoln’s picture on them, but this one is

different: it’s bad. Really bad. So bad it makes

most Microsoft security holes look like

terrific new features they should be

advertising in boldface caps on the box with

lots of exclamation points. Yea verily, this is

the great-granddaddy of all Windows

vulnerabilities. (This is the part where you’re

supposed to gasp audibly and one or two of

you actually faint for effect.)

Actually, technically the bug was

discovered several weeks ago, but it was

apparently kept pretty hush-hush until now.

Faithful viewer DAVID MCCONNELL tipped

us off to an Associated Press article which

leads off with one of the greatest

introductions we’ve ever seen: ‘‘Microsoft’s

newest version of Windows, billed as the

24608 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

most secure ever, contains several serious

flaws that allow hackers to steal or destroy

a victim’s data files across the Internet or

implant rogue computer software. —The

company released a free fix Thursday.—’’

Gosh, all they did is put the personal data of

millions of customers at terrifying risk, and

the fix is —free?— The newfound

benevolence of Redmond never ceases to

amaze us. Clearly that whole Justice

Department brouhaha did some good after

all.

And the amazement just keeps on coming,

because Microsoft actually seems to be

admitting the gravity of the situation, calling

it a ‘‘very serious vulnerability’’ and

acknowledging that ‘‘the risk to consumers

was unprecedented because the glitches

allow hackers to seize control of all Windows

XP operating system software without

requiring a computer user to do anything

except connect to the Internet.’’ We are

stunned— —stunned—, we tell you— that

Microsoft hasn’t therefore simply blamed the

Internet for the problem. What’s this world

coming to?

By the way, no, there’s no word on

whether this was one of those ‘‘trojans,

trapdoors, and bugs’’ that a captured terrorist

insists Al Qaeda managed to stick into

Windows XP, but feel free to incorporate that

possibility into your own twisted world view

sans evidence if you like. Meanwhile, word

has it that Microsoft has ‘‘forcefully urged’’

all users to install the patch right away,

although we noticed a distinct lack of any

mention of the problem whatsoever when we

visited the company’s home page. Maybe

things haven’t changed that much after all.

Those of you running Windows XP should

probably hunt down and install that patch

ASAP; those of you who are just itching to

exploit that vulnerability can rest easy in the

knowledge that even if Microsoft calls every

single registered user of XP, there’s still going

to be a fair percentage of people who won’t

bother to apply the patch. So take your time.

In closing, Microsoft is clearly the

company with whom you want to trust your

sensitive personal and financial information.

Oooooh yeah, .NET and Passport just sound

better and better all the time ...

To see this scene as it was meant to be

seen, complete with links to articles and

formatted as originally broadcast, visit:

<http://www.appleturns.com/scene/

?id=3467>

To see the complete, unadulterated episode

in which this scene was originally broadcast,

visit: <http://www.appleturns.com/episode/

?date=12/20/2001>

As the Apple Turns: <http://

www.appleturns.com/>

This Scene: <http://www.appleturns.com/

scene/?id=3467>

This Episode: <http://

www.appleturns.com/episode/?date=12/20/

2001>

Copyright (c)1997–2001 J. Miller; please

don’t forward without this attribution and

the URLs above. Other reproduction requires

J. Miller’s explicit consent; please contact

him at the site. Thanks.

MTC–00004829

From: Shneiderman, Ben

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/21/01 5:51pm

Subject: comment on behalf of consumers

Much of the discussion of settlement terms

focuses on strategies that promote

competition. This is fine, but some method

of assessment of the benefit to consumers and

computer users might be an appropriate

addition.

The current level of user frustration is

high—one survey of 6000 users reports that

an average of 6.1 hours a week are wasted.

This drain on productivity could amount to

$100B annually in the US alone. Although

there are few reliable statistics about the top

ten sources of trouble and frustration, a good

start has been made in collecting data about

the most serious annoyance—a system crash.

The web site www.bugtoaster.com presents

data from its clever technology to capture

data on crashes (I have no relationship with

this company).

Other sources of frustration include:

—difficulties with installation and

configuration

—inability to open email attachments

—incompatible file formats

—inability to complete e-commerce

transactions

—incomprehensible instructions or dialog

boxes

—insufficient information to isolate problems

—lack of feedback about system state

—hostile or incomprehensible error messages

I propose that Microsoft (or an outside

independent agency, possibly NIST), be

required to establish metrics for frequency

and severity of user problems and report on

these publicly on a monthly basis. This

parallels what airlines do with respect to lost

baggage and flight delay frequencies. Then as

Microsoft and other software developers

improve their software quality, measurable

gains could be shown.

A basic approach would be to develop a

frustration reporting mechanism that would

automatically or by email enable users to

register the problems they have. Such a

database would help identify problem

frequency and measure their severity.

I hope that this proposal generates

competitive activity that benefits consumers.

Sincerely,

Ben Shneiderman

Dept of Computer Science

University of Maryland

College Park, MD 20742

www.cs.umd.edu/ben

301–405–2680

301–405–6707 fax

www.cs.umd.edu/hcil

Founding Director (1983–2000), HumanComputer Interaction Lab

Professor, Computer Science

Member, Institute for Systems Research &

Institute for Advanced Computer Studies

CC:Shneiderman Ben

MTC–00004831

From: Phillip C. Wolf

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov,senator

(a)graham.senate....

Date: 12/21/01 6:07pm

Subject: Microsoft comment period

Sirs:

I am an avid computer user since learning

about them in my high school in 1972.

I am also a member of the Armed Services

of the United States of America, and have

witnessed firsthand the tears of frustration at

using an incompetent software suite foisted

upon the country by Microsoft.

This is NOT a benevolent monopoly as

ATT was. This is an evil, greedy,

incompetent corporation which stops at

NOTHING to extend and prevail it’s

dominance.

Witness: Bill Gates, Microsoft, et alia

working dilgently behind the scenes to

control and steer the COMCAST/ATT

broadband merger, so as to completely stiffle

any potential competition from AOL Time

Warner.

My industry-standard, world-standard

computer software is today increasing

finding internet sites which do not function

properly due to Microsoft’s blatant

highjacking of such standards with

proprietory ‘‘flavors’’ which are known only

by Microsoft, and which overtake the world

internet by their monopoly stranglehold.

(Java, C++, VisualBasic, FTP, html, and TCP/

IP)

The self-imposed, self-proposed ‘‘penalty’’

offer (truly, THIS IS A PATHETIC ATTEMPT

TO MAKE A COMPLETE MOCKERY OF THE

JUDICIAL SYSTEM) to pay off foul deeds

against the comsumers of America and the

world, by ‘‘donating’’ used systems

containing Microsoft products

EXCLUSIVELY to public schools. Is there no

one in government today who can see that

this is a thinly disguised attempt to POISON

the minds of schoolchildren and pull them

into the Hell that is Windows(tm)?????? Unix,

OS/2 (killed by Microsoft) even Linux, are

far, far, far better operating systems than

Microsoft Windows. ANYONE who uses a

computer extensively and dares to compare

will see this in a micro-second.

To close, I add the thoughts of a

commentator I read at Linuxplanet.com, with

which I am in COMPLETE agreement:

* Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers, so

that the user who does not wish to purchase

them is not forced to do so. This means that

for the price differential between a new

computer with Microsoft software and one

without, a computer seller must offer the

software without the computer (which would

prevent computer makers from saying that

the difference in price is only a few dollars).

Only then could competition come to exist in

a meaningful way.

* The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

* Any Microsoft networking protocols

must be published in full and approved by

an independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24609

PLEASE: Stop this monster run amok.

PLEASE: protect Americans and others from

this criminal hegemony. PLEASE: decide in

favor of the American Way of Life which has

worked so well for hundreds of years—a fair,

open, and LEVEL playing field for business.

Do the right thing.

Please.

sincerely,

Phillip C. Wolf

Master Chief Petty Officer (USCG)

Consumer Patriot

MTC–00004832

From: Dave.Pickens@sun.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 6:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I wish to register my disagreement with the

Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final

Judgment in re: United States of America v.

Microsoft Corporation. I understand that

under the Tunney Act, I as an American

Citizen have the ability to comment and wish

to do so.

I’ve been in the information technology

field since the late 1970’s... I had just started

my career when Microsoft was founded and

therefore have seen the world both preMicrosoft and post-Microsoft. My main

issues with the proposed settlement are:

1. Does not address non-commercial or

open source usage of Microsoft technologies.

Specifically it excludes anything that is does

not have a viable ‘‘commercial’’ entity. How

does one measure this? Who is to say what

is or isn’t viable? Under the proposed

settlement, Microsoft would have the ability

to exclude much of the development efforts

at Universities, non-profit organizations, and

small businesses simply by saying that these

are not legitament or viable. At that point,

these Universities or non-profit entities

would need to file a complaint with the

oversight group which would undoubtedly

take considerable resources and efforts. Many

of these organizations could not afford to

undertake such efforts.

To limit the access to Microsoft’s APIs, etc.

in such a manner creates a divide that many

would not or could not cross.

I urge you to eliminate this loophole that

would allow Microsoft to exclude a

significant portion of the information

technology community.

Equal access needs to be assured,

regardless of whether it’s an individual

person, a non-profit organization, a

University or a for-profit organization.

2. Does not address harm caused by

Microsoft’s past abuse of monopolistic

practices.

Their ability to fund economically

unfeasible products or investments—some

software related, others not related at all to

software, is tremendous.

A prime example is their investment in the

new gaming system X-Box... depending upon

which analyst you read, estimation is that

this product will not even begin to make

money until late-2004, perhaps 2005. This is

a loss-leader designed to further their

business goals in a new market but utilizing

capital obtained via monopoly power in

other market segments.

Another example is their investment /

‘‘partnership’’ with customers with the

ultimate outcome of locking in their products

/ technology use with these customers. This

has been accomplished in several ways

including the investment in target

organization, outright purchase of target

organization or significant product discounts

beyond normal levels to similarly sized

organizations. The only way that Microsoft

has been able to do this is by using money

(capital) obtained via their monopolist

practices.

The proposed settlement continues to

allow Microsoft to enjoy the fruits of their

criminal activities, so far as to even allow

Microsoft to be insulated against market

forces due to their diversification. Had

Microsoft not invested in nor used money

obtained via monopolistic practices, their

ability to maintain a monopoly may have

been address by the market itself.

I urge you to either require Microsoft to

divest holdings in customers, business

partners, etc. or place them into a separately

managed holding company that is the

equivalent of a blind-trust. The ability of

Microsoft to continue to utilize these tainted

assets is great.

I further urge you to seek punitive damages

by way of divestiture to address the harm

caused my Microsoft’s abuse of monopoly

powers.

3. The duration of the settlement is too

short a period of time. Based upon my

reading of the documents, the settlement

could expire in as little as 5 years, and at

most 8 years.

My concern is that Microsoft will wait

things out, then return to their usual tactics

once oversight has been eliminated. The

other part of my concern is that Microsoft

reduces their aggressiveness to a point, and

then frustrates the oversight group for 8

years, effectively distracting and tying up the

oversight group with argument upon

argument, issue upon issue— effectively

outlasting them via appeals, taking things

back to court, etc.

4. No specific penalties for nonperformance or violation. Most contracts I

read tend to have some form of penalties for

non-performance or breach written into

them. I don’t see any of that in the proposed

settlement. Based upon this, Microsoft could

easily continue to violate the settlement and

fight any attempts at punishment for many

years to come.

I think certain minimum penalties need to

be spelled out should Microsoft even appear

(‘‘appearance of impropriety’’) to violate the

settlement terms, not obey the oversight

group, and any other US laws for that matter.

These penalties could be as simple as the

term of the settlement / oversight is extended

to 10 years beyond the date of the infraction.

It might also include monetary or other

penalties such as breaking Microsoft into 3 or

4 separate companies is avoided initially but

should Microsoft violate the terms of the

settlement, then they consent to being broken

apart into separate companies.

Without penalties, I am concerned that

Microsoft will continue abuses, simply

writing off the oversight and annoyances

because there is no incentive to do otherwise.

Respectfully submitted,

David B. Pickens

Dave Pickens Sun

SunONE Enterprise Architect

Academic and Research Computing

Microsystems, Inc.

8900 Keystone Crossing

Suite 700

Indianapolis, IN 46240

ph: 317–574–5729

em: dave.pickens@sun.com

MTC–00004833

From: Nick Bogan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 7:34pm

Subject: Comments on the Proposed

Settlement

Since before the original trial and consent

decree, continuing through the U.S. vs

Microsoft trial preceded over by Judge

Jackson, to the present, Microsoft has had as

its sole goal the elimination of consumer

choice in the computing environment. Time

and again, they have used all means both

legal and illegal, indifferent to either the

interest of consumers and the public at large

or the law, to ensure that no other company

or influence could tamper with their total

control of the PC market. Whether it was

crushing Netscape by means of illegal deals

with OEMs, or in more recent times working

to ensure that only Microsoft browsers on

Microsoft OSes can use the Internet (witness

their recent trial closure of msn.com to all

browsers but IE and old, non-Web-standardscompliant versions of Netscape, shutting out

newer, more-compliant-than-IE third-party

browsers allegedly in the interest of Web

standards compliance; I won’t even speak of

what Microsoft would like to do to the

Internet with .NET), the company has made

it clear that it will never change its ways

unless the law is enforced.

If Microsoft is not stopped, computer users

will continue to be forced to either use their

products (Office and IE, and hence Windows)

to permit compatibility with other computer

users, or use third-party solutions that

attempt to provide compatibility with

undocumented Microsoft APIs and file

formats (for example, the Office file formats)

but are burdened with needing to reverseengineer them. With the planned changes to

Microsoft’s software licensing, future

purchasers of their software may simply be

required to upgrade when Microsoft sees fit.

As it is, installing Windows XP requires

contacting Microsoft (this must be repeated if

the computer’s hardware is changed at any

time) and is accompanied by several requests

for the installer to sign up for Microsoft’s

Passport service.

The evidence that Microsoft has used its

monopoly power illegally to protect and even

to further its monopolies is indisputable; it

is simply a given that the company is a

monopolist and has been for years. What is

not given is the response of the DOJ to this

preponderance of evidence. As a computer

user who currently enjoys the opportunity to

choose third-party software such as Linux

and Mozilla, I hope that a forceful settlement

is enacted that prevents Microsoft from

continuing to try to force such products out

of the computing world. Such a settlement

24610 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

should, at least, include a provision requiring

Microsoft to provide accurate and freely

available documentation of its APIs and file

formats at the time of launch of any new

product, whether it is free or charged for, that

modifies these formats. If they do not do so,

or release inaccurate or restricted

documentation, they would not be allowed to

ship (or continue to ship) the product.

I do not support any proposal that

mandates Microsoft to produce versions of its

software for other computing platforms. By

providing free and accurate information

about its currently proprietary APIs and file

formats, it would be possible, albeit with

much work, for Microsoft’s competitors and

other agents such as writers of Free Software

to produce genuine alternatives to Microsoft

software. The notion that the only hope for

alternative computing platforms is for

Microsoft Office or IE to be ported to them

speaks volumes about the unhealthy and

damaging control that Microsoft has obtained

and retains, in large part through illegal

actions.

In addition, while the option for OEMs to

bundle third-party software and operating

systems under the currently proposed

settlement is a good start, it should be

extended to prohibit the imposition of any

future ‘‘Windows taxes’’ that use Microsoft’s

monopoly position to effectively force OEMs

to preload Windows. If I don’t want to buy

Windows when buying a computer, I

shouldn’t have to, and I should save at least

as much as the per-unit license cost to the

OEM by excluding it.

I appreciate the efforts of those who are

reviewing these comments. I hope that my

voice, along with those of many others, will

help strengthen the settlement, making it into

an effective tool that will restrain Microsoft

from illegal actions and help bring an end to

its hurtfully excessive domination of the

computing industry.

MTC–00004834

From: RobAnn Mateja

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 8:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a taxpayer and citizen of the United

States, I strongly urge the DOJ to accept the

settlement offer. Like many American

citizens, I feel this case was always more

about protecting the interests of Microsoft’s

competitors than the interests of the

American public. Let’s let the marketplace,

not the competitors or the government,

decide who shall prevail in the software

computer industry. The settlement terms will

put constraints upon Microsoft to mitigate

any real, imagined, or trumped up anti

competitive behavior by Microsoft.

On a tangential note, I would love to see

the DOJ shift its attention from attacking

successful American enterprises, such as

Microsoft, and focus instead upon protecting

this country from the very real threat of antiAmerican extremists. As sad as it is to say,

perhaps if the priorities had been set

correctly in the first place, we would not

have had to bear the horrible tragedy of Sept.

11. Perhaps that sounds like a cheap shot, but

that thought is certainly in my heart and in

the hearts of many other American citizens.

MTC–00004835

From: Jack Belland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 8:26pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

It is time to get off Microsoft’s back.

Companies that compete with MS would

dearly love to have the government diminish

MS’s ability to compete in future software &

tech markets in order to improve their

chances of making billionaires for

themselves. This country needs mega

successful businesses & the people with the

talent to run and nurture these wealth

creating entities which produce the muscle

the USA must have to prosper in this world.

Jack in Tucson, AZ

MTC–00004836

From: Amit Jain

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 11:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing

their monopoly. They should be broken up.

Anything less is unacceptable.

Peace,

Amit Jain

1 Castle Pt. on the Hudson S–724

Hoboken, NJ 07030

MTC–00004837

From: Ryan Boder

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/21/01 11:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Attached is an Adobe Acrobat file that

includes my comments on the settlement. If

you cannot view an Acrobat file please

inform me and I will send you another

format.

Thank You.

Ryan Boder

6635 Olivetree Court

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530–0001

To the United States Department of Justice:

I am writing in response to the proposed

settlement which is currently under the 60

day public comment period. I consider

myself to be a person whom the outcome of

this case will have a very significant effect.

Currently, as a senior at Carnegie Mellon

University, majoring in Computer

Engineering and minoring in Computer

Science, I am naturally looking for a place in

the computer industry in the very near

future. As I compare companies and go from

interview to interview I am realizing a very

hard to face reality. There are almost no jobs

available in my field that really interest me.

My main interest is in operating system

development and I would like to work on a

desktop OS. I am a proponent of open source

software and some day I hope to either work

for or have started an open source software

company. But the reason I am writing you

today is because I don’t understand why it

is so difficult to find a job doing what I want

do. I believe the answer to that question is

the lack of an actual competitive operating

systems market. Sure I could go to work for

Microsoft, but then I don’t like Redmond and

more importantly, I don’t like the company

who illegally injured the industry I want to

work in.

Then I begin to think to myself, what about

my colleagues? What about my friends in the

Computer Science department who aren’t

really interested in working on an operating

system but would love to find a good job

developing cutting edge office software or get

a job developing some kind of networking

application that people would actually use.

What should they do? Should they go to

work for Microsoft also?

The fact is that now, Microsoft has a

monopoly on not only operating systems, but

also to a lesser degree, office software and

web browsers. They have blatantly and

obviously abused this monopoly in many

cases over the years and it has to stop. The

DOJ has made that very clear. I have carefully

read the ‘‘Complaint’’, ‘‘Stipulated and

Revised Proposed Final Judgment’’ and the

‘‘Competitive Impact Statement’’ files from

the case web site and while they do cover

many of the needed changes that need to be

made, I do not feel they properly punish the

Microsoft Corporation for hurting such a

large number of people and an entire

industry as they have done. In fact, I do not

feel they punish the Microsoft Corporation at

all. They do a very good job at setting rules

so that it will be more difficult for Microsoft

to abuse it’s monopoly in the future. This in

itself is a good thing but the damage has

already been done. While Microsoft was

using it’s operating system monopoly to keep

competitors from competing, it was also

illegally building an empire that it does not

through legal business practices deserve to

have. And who pays the price for their

actions? I do. My friends do. Every other

company in the the world who is completely

and utterly dependent on Microsoft products

does.

The DOJ claims that while we all realize

that Microsoft is an illegal company, it would

be in the best interest of the general public

to settle now because it provides ‘‘effective

and certain relief’’. I admit that it provides

a certain action to be taken place, but I

disagree that it provides certain relief. Let’s

say two warriors start out as equal

competitive fighters. Then one, through an

illegal means, grows 100 times as large as the

other. Finally the king steps in and says to

the the criminal warrior, ‘‘Now you have to

abide by the rules, but you will not be

punished for you actions’’. Is it going to be

a fair fight now? You are effectively pitting

David against Goliath except this is no

religious fairy tail, this is the computer

industry in the 21 st century.

My opinion of software

I have learned software is unlike any

product that we have ever seen in history.

1. It takes a long time and a lot of work by

smart people to make good software.

2. It can be developed at very little actual

cost besides time.

3. Once a usable version is released, it can

be ‘‘manufactured’’ at practically zero cost.

4. It is never actually done. There are

always bugs and defects that can be

improved. So from the inherent properties of

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24611

software, it seems as though this would be

one of the easiest industries to get into. But

for some reason even huge organizations like

Netscape, Sun, Compaq and many other are

struggling or have failed because they were

unable to compete. Not to mention the many

small software companies that have fallen

before they even left a mark. The reason for

this is that standards are not open to the

public.

What constitutes a standard

A standard is a specification that a group

of people have agreed upon so that they can

work with each other and not against each

other. A communications protocol that

everyone on the internet uses is a standard.

A programming API that programmers

around the world have agreed upon is a

standard. A file format that everyone in the

business world uses every day to

communicate is also a standard. In fact, it

might even be considered a communications

protocol since it is a method for the person

who creates the file to communicate with

those who read the file. Standards are a great

idea but what happens if a single person or

company owns a standard?

Why standards should be public domain

When a standard is public domain

everyone can use it. When a standard is

proprietary then only the people who satisfy

a condition set by the owner can use it. The

example I would like to mention here is the

Microsoft Office binary file format. This is a

perfect example of what happens when a

standard is owned. Microsoft and only

Microsoft has the ability to truly read and

write to Office documents. Others can try and

come very close to succeeding, but unless the

standard is completely opened one cannot

truly be compatible with it. The Office

software that I am using to write this paper

claims to be Microsoft Office 2000/XP

compatible, and for all intents and purposes

it is. I have been able to read and write every

Microsoft Office file that has come my way

with the OpenOffice.org software. Basically

what has happened is a group of very

talented programmers from Sun

Microsystems and the general public have

put a lot of time and effort into reverse

engineering the Microsoft Office binary file

format. The reason for this effort is so that

when a person uses their product he or she

is not constrained by the twenty Microsoft

Office files sent to them every day that they

are expected to open and read. Most of the

people who send these files have never heard

of and can’t even fathom the idea of using

something other than Microsoft Office to do

daily office work. So if the OpenOffice.org

people could do it, then there is nothing to

worry about, right? Wrong. They were placed

at an extreme disadvantage from the start and

have still managed to develop a product that

I guarantee you can compete with Microsoft

Office from a technical standpoint. However,

those hours spent tirelessly reverse

engineering a binary format could have and

should have been spent doing something

else. They could have been working on other

parts of the program to give it even more

useful features than it already has. The

Microsoft programmers did not have to worry

about this dilemma because they exclusively

had the standard. There is no intellectual

property in the Microsoft Office file format.

In fact it is agreed upon by most people in

the software industry that a text based format

(such as XML which is what OpenOffice.org

uses for their native file format) works better

for these types of files. So why does

Microsoft continue to use a binary format and

not share the specification? Because they

know that if they did either of these things

they would suddenly have to compete with

other software developers and might lose the

stranglehold they now have on office

software and thus, on every business in

America.

Let’s assume I convince a non-computer

person to try the OpenOffice.org software or

Sun Star Office and one day they get a

Microsoft Office file that doesn’t look right

when they open it. I guarantee you the first

thing they will think is that their program is

bad and Microsoft Office is better because

Microsoft Office could open that file while

OpenOffice.org could not. (I have never

actually seen that happen because those

OpenOffice developers did such a good job,

but this is a hypothetical situation) Is it

because the OpenOffice.org developers are

not as good as the Microsoft developers? That

question can’t really be answered, but as a

software expert I seriously doubt it. When a

company owns a standard protocol it is

inherently anticompetitive and everyone

(except Microsoft) loses.

What must be done

These standards all need to be completely

and absolutely open to the general public and

anyone who wishes to compete. The

settlement has the right idea in disclosing

most communications protocols and API’s

but that doesn’t cover it. All communications

protocols, all API’s and all standard file

formats need to be opened up to the general

public. There is no way to have a competitive

market otherwise. I place a big emphasis on

file formats because the DOJ has not

mentioned them at all in the stipulations of

the Final Judgment proposal. They are just as

important as communications protocols and

in my opinion should be treated exactly as

communications protocols for the duration of

this case.

The only argument the DOJ has given

against opening all protocols is that the ones

that are security related should be kept

secret. I realize that in the ‘‘Competitive

Impact Statement’’ it was explained that this

exception was only for authorization tokens

or keys, but it seems to me that the wording

for the actual stipulation is weak and that it

will allow Microsoft the ability to still close

access to certain functionality under the ‘‘It’s

for security purposes’’ umbrella. What must

happen is that all protocols, all API’s and all

file formats be completely opened to the

general public.

Why the general public

The parties mentioned in the stipulations

who are protected from anti-competitive acts

are ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs. These

people deserve to be protected, but what

about open source software developers? Why

are they excluded from this list? Do they not

have as much a fight to this information as

the independent software vendors? Where do

you draw the line? Redhat is an independent

software vendor, but they produce open

source code, so how can they sign the nondisclosure agreement when they always

‘‘disclose’’ their software? What about the

many other software companies who produce

open source products? Are they not

independent software vendors? Bill Gates

argues that they are not and that they ruin

the country because they don’t pay taxes, but

something tells me that if Redhat didn’t pay

their taxes they would be punished. Would

opening these three standards: protocols,

API’s and file formats to the general public

cause any harm? No way. If you are going to

open them to competitors, open them to all

competitors, not just the competitors

Microsoft has beaten before (in many cases

illegally) and already have a huge advantage

over. Open them to the open source software

developers who not only are some of the

most eager people to see them, but also the

last group in the world that Microsoft wants

to compete with. This is the group that has

Microsoft worried sick because they actually

might be able to legitimately compete.

How it should be done

I do not want to see the DOJ settle on this

case and believe me, I will be lobbying my

home state to jump back in this fight. On the

other hand, if it the DOJ is going to settle now

I hope that they do it the right way. Yes, the

Technical Committee is a good idea and I

hope the people who get hired to do the job

never let one mistake slip by. The TC has the

fight to hire as many as it deems necessary

to help carry out its task and I hope they do

so without holding back. The TC should hire

a team of as many programmers and

technical writers as it needs and have them

prepare and maintain the documentation that

will be provided to competitors, Do not let

Microsoft be responsible for this task. Let

people who actually care about the cause and

are passionate about getting these standards

out there and helping their colleagues

compete fairly handle this important job.

Don’t leave it up to Microsoft who has only

to lose from this stipulation and has for so

long kept it secret.

As I have stated before, I do not think that

this final judgment will induce a competitive

industry as it is supposed to. I believe that

while on the fight track, this proposal has

some weaknesses and some stipulations that

are likely to not be enforced at all. Also it

does not in any way punish Microsoft for the

crimes they have been committing for the

past decade. Here are the stipulations that I

question, denoted by letter and number from

section HI of the proposal, ‘‘Prohibited

Conduct’’.

Section III: Prohibited Conduct

C)

1. The part about allowing them to restrict

OEM’s from installing software that provides

a particular type of functionality as long as

the restrictions are non-discriminatory

between non MS products and MS products.

Microsoft will be able to take advantage of

that by claiming that a product that competes

with their own product has a prohibited type

of functionality. It is easy to take two

programs that provide a similar function but

in all other aspects provide different

functions, and say they are two different

types of products prohibiting the competitive

product.

24612 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

3. The restriction that non-MS middleware

must either not display a user interface or

should display a user interface similar to the

corresponding MS product. This forces

competing software vendors to follow

Microsoft’s lead in these type of products.

Then to the user it seems that Microsoft is the

only innovator and the other vendors are

merely copying. I believe there should be no

restrictions whatsoever on competing

middleware products. With this exception,

Microsoft is allowed to define the

configuration of the desktop. That should be

the job of the OEM.

D)

This is one of the most important rules to

stop Microsoft from illegally abusing it’s

monopoly as it has done consistently and

effectively in the past. The settlement is right

on the concept here but you are leaving out

the single most important group that wishes

to have access to this API: the public. The

general public includes people like myself

and other software developers who use and

maintain software products that compete

with Microsoft products. Open source

software developers and the general public

want access to those API’s just as badly as

the commercial organizations mentioned.

And we deserve access just as they do.

Microsoft API’s are not and cannot be

considered intellectual property because of

Microsoft’s monopoly on the entire software

industry. Those API’s are a de facto standard

and must be treated as such. My personal

opinion as well as many other software

experts like myself believe that no API

should ever be closed to anyone for any

reason. However, I am willing to not argue

that debate in this paper because that is not

what this settlement is about. I do believe

that Microsoft will continue to abuse its

monopoly if these API’s are not released to

the general public with all documentation.

The reason is that I believe competitors to

Microsoft are growing out of the hard work

and effort of the Free Software Foundation

and the GNU organization, the Linux Kernel,

distribution providers such as RedHat,

MandrakeSoft, Suse, 3T Solutions and many

other equally important open source software

developers. The open source movement has

utilized a method of creating better software,

that even a closed source giant like Microsoft

itself will have to work very hard to keep up

with. Unless these de facto standard API’s are

released to them and the public, there will

not be competition in the software industry.

As for the other closed source software

vendors, they most likely will not be able to

compete with Microsoft even with the API’s

simply because Microsoft will bury them in

marketing and other tactics such as the

infamous ‘‘Embrace and Extend’’ strategy that

was used to retard the popularity of excellent

ideas such as Java, Javascript and ANSI C++.

Please do not allow Microsoft to harm the

industry and the public more than it already

has by allowing them to define the playing

field even more. In conclusion to this section,

the DOJ must force Microsoft to release any

and all programming API’s and

communications protocols to the general

public, so that competing open source

software developers can make their products

compatible with the de facto standard

products of the Microsoft monopoly.

E)

This is a very good and necessary

stipulation, but it does have a weakness. I

tend to learn from experience and it has

shown that the Microsoft Corporation will do

anything and everything it can, stopping at

nothing to not just help it’s own products,

but to also injure and even paralyze the

products of all of it’s competitors. We have

seen Microsoft make illogical technical

decisions for the sole purpose of killing

excellent products like Netscape

Communicator and Sun Java technologies.

Therefore, I do not trust Microsoft to handle

such an important task as making all

communications protocols absolutely and

completely open to all people. For example,

Microsoft’s biggest fear right now is the GNU/

Linux Operating System becoming as easy for

a computer user weaned on Windows as

Microsoft’s own OS. They have good reason

to be afraid, since these systems have a

history of being more stable and secure than

Windows. However since Microsoft owns the

vast majority of the desktop Operating

Systems being used today, it is imperative for

every single Microsoft communications

protocol to be open and available for any

(competing) open source developer.

Otherwise an ignorant user will make the

assumption that the competing system is

broken, because it does not easily

communicate with all the Windows systems

they already have. I have suggested a possible

solution to this problem above in the ‘‘How

should it be done’’ section.

G)

1. This stipulation is contradictory. It

claims that Microsoft may not enter into a

contract that will force the other party to

exclusively or favorably deal with Microsoft

products as opposed to competing products.

Then it says that they actually can do this as

long as they can provide numbers that show

it is reasonable to favor the Microsoft

product. (In good faith? Who are we talking

about here?) Since Microsoft has such a large

percentage of the market they will always be

able to produce numbers that show this.

Besides, if you want to see how the Microsoft

Corporation likes to fudge numbers, ask them

how exactly they came up with the

availability rate for their web servers. They

are a monopoly and achieved that through

marketing and questionable business

practices. That is not what got them their

enormous market percentage, rather it was

abusing that monopoly that made it difficult

and sometimes even impossible for their

competitors to sell enough product to stay in

business. (Even in the cases where the

competing product was technically superior)

The DOJ must never let them enter into an

agreement that removes the other parties

right to use a competing product.

H)

3. Along with this stipulation, there should

be a message defined by the DOJ that is used

every time windows tries to automatically

change settings. Also, there should always be

an option that the user can choose that will

permanently disable each automatic

configuration change. This must be clearly

explained when asking for user confirmation

so that, for example, my grandmother can

read and understand exactly what choices

she has. The reason for this is simple.

Microsoft, if given the opportunity, will ask

if the user wishes to change settings on a

regular basis so that the user will become

extremely annoyed. Then they will use

phrases like ‘‘Internet Explorer is currently

not your default web browser. Would you

like to make it your default? (Click yes to

make this message stop appearing)’’. There

should always be an option such as ‘‘No,

keep SomeBrowserName as my default web

browser and don’t ask me again’’. Also, the

DOJ should define these messages to keep

Microsoft from wording it like this, ‘‘Keep

SomeBrowserName as my default web

browser (Some functionality may be lost)’’. If

I am the kind of person who gets nervous

about things like using a different program

than Word to write a paper, then that

statement will be enough to scare me into

using IE. Microsoft’s Operating System

monopoly gives them the power to make any

program they want look bad. A perfect

example of this is the Caldera vs. Microsoft

case where Windows was generating false

error messages when run on DR–DOS instead

of MS–DOS. They have abused this power

many times with their FUD attacks and

messages like the one shown above. This

must be stopped and only the DOJ has the

power to stop it. In the freeway of the

software industry, Microsoft has built the

roads that most people drive on and history

has shown us that only Microsoft brand cars

are allowed a smooth drive. This must be

changed.

H—Exceptions:

1. Assuming that all communications

protocols and programming API’s are open to

the public, this should never be an issue

because any decent non-Microsoft program

will be able to handle the users requests.

2. If the user has installed a program that

is unable to handle that request, then the user

most likely had a very good reason for it and

probably doesn’t want Windows stepping in

and changing that for them. Also, this

stipulation gives Microsoft programs an

inherent competitive advantage over other

programs. When Windows decides a program

failed (which will be up to Windows’ own

discretion?), it steps in and uses a Microsoft

program to handle it. But when a Microsoft

program fails to handle a request, will

Windows step in and use a non-Microsoft

product to handle it? No way. On top of all

this, it gives Microsoft the ability to leverage

the content of their web sites in the same

manner that they leveraged the Windows OS

to stamp out competitors. I know plenty of

people who would not even consider using

a non-IE web browser at all if they couldn’t

access the web sites maintained by Microsoft

with it. I remind you of the day, a couple

months ago, when they tried to block all nonIE web browsers from viewing msn.com. This

attempt was met by an uproar from non-IE

users and they removed the block in fear of

looking bad in public. With Microsoft

extending it’s presence into basically all

other industries that deal with information

distribution and digital media (as they have

been doing at a steady rate), this will only get

worse. The DOJ must force Microsoft to not

switch to a Microsoft program when

accessing Microsoft’s servers. They must let

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24613

any program access it and the

communications protocol must be

completely available so that all other

developers can make their client software

also work with Microsoft’s servers. If the

competing middleware doesn’t work then let

the user choose to stop using it.

J)

1. Why not? As has been shown in the past

time and time again, reverse engineering or

even random hacking can and will find those

API’s and find the security holes in them.

Also it has been shown by software packages

such as OpenSSH, a program is more secure

when it is open for not just the hackers that

sit around all day and reverse engineer

hidden protocols to find exploits, but also to

users who may find the exploits first and

then tell the developer to fix them. I don’t

want to hear that my own government, the

people who are supposed to protect me, are

relying on a protocol or API hidden in

Windows for security. No one is asking for

authorization keys or tokens that are hidden

in windows. Those should stay hidden and

with good reason, but the protocol or API

should be open and available. There is no

way for a non-Microsoft product to compete

with a Microsoft product when Microsoft can

access parts of the OS that competing

products can’t with hidden protocols or

API’s.

2. This section specifically allows

Microsoft the ability not to describe to or

license their ‘‘secure’’ API’s and protocols to

their number one competitor, open source

software. Do you think that they will disclose

these protocols to open source programmers

when they have the power to discriminate

against a business that does not ‘‘meet

reasonable, objective standards established

by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity

and viability of its business’’ when Microsoft

publicly describes the GPL as a cancer? This

stipulation is anti-competitive by nature and

does not belong in this proposal. As noted by

Robert X. Cringely, Microsoft can and will

take advantage of this power. The people

who have a desire to crack those protocols

can and will crack them whether the DOJ and

Microsoft wants them to or not. How long did

it take before the eBook anti-piracy code was

cracked? Or how about the DVD decryption

algorithm? I can’t think of any reason to

allow them to keep hidden any

communication protocol other then to allow

them to use Windows as leverage to keep

customers away from competing products.

The first thing my operating systems

professor said in his security lecture was, ‘‘If

the security of your system relies on others

not knowing how it works, then you’re in a

lot of trouble’’. The reason Microsoft wants

it this way is to keep open source software

projects from competing. The DOJ cannot

allow this.

Conclusion

To conclude this paper I will reemphasize

the most important points:

1. Microsoft monopolized, and through

illegal abuse of that monopoly, retarded the

growth of the entire software industry. These

illegal actions have injured myself as a

software developer along with my colleagues.

They have also injured Microsoft’s own

customers through high prices, lack of choice

in purchasing a product and lack of

innovation. There is no reason to innovate

when you aren’t competing against anyone at

all.

2. The most important change that must be

made to stop this illegal abuse of power is

to open all standards up to the public. The

keys standards I mention in this paper are

communications protocols, programming

interfaces and file formats. The most

important being file formats because the DOJ

did not even mention them in its Final

Judgment.

3. The Final Judgment only includes

opening these standards to independent

software developers with a non-disclosure

agreement. The standard must be opened to

the general public so that all can compete

fairly, including Microsoft’s most fierce

competitor to date: open source software.

4. Even if all the changes I mentioned are

made, Microsoft will still be the undisputed

leader in the software industry and will

remain that way for a long time unless they

are actually punished for their crimes. This

final judgment is what I consider a slap on

the wrist, considering the amount of people

they have harmed and the software industry

that they have corrupted. I ask the DOJ to

reconsider it’s decision to settle and put

Microsoft on trial. They are guilty and they

will be found guilty if tried. If the trial takes

two years, so be it. At least then they will be

convicted and they will be punished. The

Final Judgment does not offer any kind of

certain results and it might not change

anything. Microsoft has been building up an

empire while they illegally shut down all

competition and that empire will still be

strong even if they do have to compete fairly

from this point on. I urge the DOJ to put

Microsoft on trial, and if (when) they are

found guilty, punish them as they deserve to

be punished.

If the DOJ decides to continue with the

settlement, I urge that they strengthen some

of the stipulations, add the general public to

the list of those protected and completely

open the three key standards mentioned in

this paper. For all those who have been

injured by the illegal activities of the

Microsoft Corporation, they have my

sympathy and hopefully the sympathy and

support of the government of the United

States of America.

Sincerely,

Ryan Boder

boder@cmu.edu

MTC–00004838

From: Alan Mark

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 12:21am

Subject: Justice isn’t doing the US justice

Regarding the Microsoft anti-trust case:

I worked for Novell in Asia from 1992–

1993. All the PC manufacturers were afraid

of Microsoft because of the licensing

agreements they were forced to sign. No PC

could ship without Windows installed.

They continue such practices today. It is a

shame that you have let them continue to

proceed in this fashion. Soon, they will try

to corner the home game market. Just wait.

Alan Mark

Chief Security Strategist

Novell, Inc.

MTC–00004839

From: PapaHalland@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 12:28am

Subject: Proposed Microsoft Suit Settlement

I wish to protest in the strongest terms

possible your proposed settlement of the

antitrust suit against Microsoft. The

proposals as reported in the newspapers and

other media I read on a regular basis are

wholly inadequate to correct the egregious

violations of the antitrust laws by Microsoft

over the years but rather give Microsoft

license to keep on bullying its way through

the computer software markets without fear

of any consequences or effective control by

the government.

I think that the only way to level the

playing field in computer software is to force

Gates and Co. to establish open Operating

System interface standards so that anyone

with a better piece of software can

competitively interface with the Windows

OS and compete with Microsoft produced

appplication SW of all types (Productivity,

internet browsers, et. al.). Additionally,

Microsoft applications of all types should not

be given unfair advantages. The best way to

do this is to sever and establish a fireway

between the OS and Application SW

divisions of Microsoft. In addition, there

should be a special master appointed by the

court of jurisdiction to monitor and bring to

the courts’ attention any further efforts on

Microsoft’s part to subvert these approachs to

free and open competition.

For years, consumers have paid outrageous

sums for half baked upgrades of MS software

and thereby lined Microsofts corporate

treasury and Bill Gates’ pockets. With the

findings of their guilt alread in the bag, it is

time for DOJ to step up to the plate and

follow through with real remedies rather than

the proposed puny ‘‘settlement solutions’’

that will solve nothing. Please don’t let the

country down. Please restore competition to

the PC software market.

Sincerely,

Irving W Halland

Saratoga CA

MTC–00004840

From: Jerome Krough

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 12:29am

Subject: ms—v—U.S. Settlement

The current settlement between the DOJ

and microsoft is unsatisfactory in it‘s present

state. I fail to see anywhere in the settlement

where microsoft is being punished for their

activities, in fact microsoft is being rewarded

for conducting business that is at the very

least detrimental to consumers and the tech

industry as a whole. In short, I decide how

I use MY computer and neither bill gates nor

microsoft will dictate to me what software or

hardware I use.

MTC–00004841

From: Mike Riley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 12:30am

Subject: a global tragedy

I wish someone in a position of power

would stand up to Microsoft ‘‘quit being such

24614 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

winnies’’! I am a computer engineer with

over 15 years experience; I make a living

fixing the so called innovative software that

microsoft hacks together; I would much

rather be out installing new systems and

networks that all ways fixing billy’s trash. I

use Linux on all of our servers because it is

better; I don’t have to call anyone if it were

ever to break I can just look completely under

the hood and fix it; but Linux rarely brakes;

I have servers that have been running nonstop for 3 years never a problem and never

need to be shut down.

here are some facts that I have not heard

brought up in the case against microsoft.

microsoft is to big even for you politicians;

and he is just getting bigger! you better stop

him now or it will be to late!

Microsoft needs to be split up in to 3

separate companies just like the just said;

this would spur an enormous amount of new

startup companies to produce better

programs for Windows and Linux because for

once in 10 years it would be an even playing

field and millions of new faces would be in

the race to compete in software development.

I have more I will send later gota run; so

I can pay my taxes! LOL :)

MTC–00004842

From: sydneymat@netscape.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 12:43am

Subject: About the proposal

To the US Department of Justice,

In regards to the settlement by Microsoft,

it would be a great idea to transfer the

’money’ as was said into something tangible

and of worth to the school’s of the United

States.

An example comes to mind in regards to

Red Hat’s proposal (http://biz.yahoo.com/

bw/011120/202744_1.html) but I think it

would be much more sensible to give the

money to the nations #1 provider of

eductation hardware and software, Apple

Computers. The solution is simple, buy the

required number of computers from Apple to

reach that figure of money and then

distribute them all. There are many good

reasons to do this:

-Apple provide the best user experience

-Apple have been a leader in education for

basically its known existance

-Apple provide a quality solution to any

problem with OS and app’s built in

-Office for Mac can be distributed at no real

charge to the buyers of the new Mac’s

-Microsoft does not solidify its position in

anything but the office suite market

This is a truly reasonable response to the

dilema and would be appreciated by all.

Regards,

Mat

MTC–00004843

From: Olie Echevarria

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 3:51am

Subject: Against DOJ-Microsoft agreement

To whom it may concern,

As an American, I am now executing my

right to free speech and opinion. This

opinion is in regards to agreement between

Microsoft Corporation, the DOJ and 9 of the

18 states that are suing Microsoft. I regret to

inform you that the current agreement that

was reached does not go far enough in

stopping Microsoft’s current behavior. Me,

myself, a web developer, and internet user

can tell you that there are serious flaws that

DOES allow Microsoft to keep its current

behavior. Microsoft’s proposal is by passing

the whole issue why there was a litigation in

the first place. They are proposing $1 Billion

dollar donation to schools.

My second issue is, why hasn’t Bill Gates

and any of his associates who testified, under

oath been charged with perjury and contempt

of court and falsifying evidence(ie, Professor

Felton’s computer program that seperates the

browser from the Operating System)? I urge

the courts to please address these issues.

Microsoft because of it’s financial and

corporate status in the United States of

America should have no bearing or influence

whatsoever!

For example, the agreement fails to address

fully the browser issue, the whole reason

why the case started. Users will still not be

able to have a choice on what browser they

will want to use. As a former PC user, I can

tell you that there is no choice on what I can

use for a browser, except ONE, Internet

Explorer, of which I consider a inferior

product compared to Netscape, Opera,

Mozilla, etc. Try going to Circuit City or

CompUSA and ask for a PC with Netscape or

Opera preloaded, I can attest to you that you

will not find ANY, only Internet Explorer!

Yet Microsoft will tell you they are all for

competition and choice, but only their choice

and terms not yours, the consumer. If they

are for choice and competition, then I urge

you to force them to allow OEMs to include

rival software that will compete based on

technical merits and not marketing merits.

Secondly, my second argument comes from

their behavior in the market place in terms

of their End User License Agreement.

According to their ‘‘EULA,’’ their software is

deemed: ‘‘As is’’ meaning if their software

blows up your machine, they are not liable

to damages. I urge the courts to have

Microsoft modify their EULA so that if a

consumer who buys a PC and DOES NOT

want or to use the Microsoft OS, that they be

allowed to return the software to Microsoft

and as a result, the consumer be allowed to

obtain a full refund based on the full market

retail price of the Microsoft software

bundled/included.

Third, I would have them open up their

source code to Internet Explorer, force

Microsoft to license their Office suite to 5

platforms and not two(Windows and

Macintosh). Lastly, have them modify the

EULA so that includes a clause that holds

Microsoft liable for ANY security related

defects in their software that they tout as ‘‘the

most secure’’ ever. As of right, their software

is labled as, ‘‘As is.’’ Microsoft has a history

of telling the public their software is secure

and robust and when it comes to enterprise

level computing, they fail in that arena.

I urge you, the courts to review their

proposal and I urge the courts to find another

solution since the current proposal does not

go far enough to even come close to finding

the correct remedy to impose on Microsoft.

With the opinions states above, I urge the

courts to look my remedy objectively and I

hope that my proposal is good.

Thank you,

Your fellow countrymen,

Orlando Echevarria

MTC–00004844

From: Betty Whitaker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 8:25am

Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement

I would like to comment on the proposed

Microsoft settlement from my perspective as

a U.S. citizen and a consumer. I am not a

lawyer, so I have difficulty reading the

legalese you asked that I read before

submitting my comments, however I do

know justice when I see it; and I do not see

it in the proposed settlement. I do, however,

know what I have seen happen over the last

few years; and it is from this knowledge that

I make my comments.

First, as a law abiding citizen I am outraged

that although our court system has judged

Microsoft to be a monoply, the Department

of Justice is effectively negating that

judgement by not requiring Microsoft to quit

the behavior for which I understand it was

judged to be a monopoly. I don’t know who

is in whose pocket; but our courts are being

made a mockery of by this proposed

settlement. There is a clear distinction

between an operating system and the

programs that run on it. By bundling

programs with their operating system,

Microsoft is gaining a clear advantage over

competitors to their programs just by having

Microsoft’s programs already installed on

consumers computers. Many people will look

no farther for programs just because they

already have one installed. This gives

Microsoft a clear advantage over companies

with competing browsers, music players,

office suites, etc. This is monopolistic

behavior; and must be stopped to be an

effective remedy. The only possible just

remedy is to split Microsoft into two

companies, the operating system and the

programs that run on the operating system,

both of which must compete for market

share. Second, as a consumer I am incensed

that I will continue to be forced to pay for

programs that I do not use just to purchase

an operating system. Microsoft is not

providing me with anything I want with their

bundled programs. All they are doing is

taking up space on my hard drive. I want to

be able to determine for myself which

programs I want to use for what; and I want

to be sure that I get the best program for my

money. That is becoming increasingly

difficult for me to do. Remember the old

adage ‘‘Jack of all trades, master of none.’’?

That is what is happening to Microsoft today.

Even their operating system is getting worse

instead of better in some ways, bloated and

a resource hog, with worse and worse

security holes. Nobody can be all things to

all people. I want the best buy for my money;

and Microsoft’s bundled programs are not the

best that I can get. However, they will soon

become all that I can get if Microsoft is not

forced to compete for market share fairly. All

I want from Microsoft is an operating system.

Then if they make a better program to run on

it I will buy their program, otherwise I will

use a competitor’s program. That is what I

have been doing from the day I bought my

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24615

first computer; and that is what I want to

continue to be allowed to do.

Thank you for reading my opinions on this

matter.

Sincerely,

Betty Whitaker

whitak35@swbell.net

MTC–00004845

From: Ramsey G. Brenner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 10:18am

Subject: Recent security flaw (Public

Comment)

The recent Windows XP security flaw

demonstrates how destructive Microsft is to

consumers. They knowingly witheld

important information about a very

destructive vunerability for 5 weeks while at

the same time telling consumers that

Windows XP was secure. They knew it was

a lie but did not tell anyone because they did

not want to negatively affect their sales.

Additionally, MS has added new ‘‘features’’

that force consumers to upgrade their

product every 3 years (or after every 3 installs

(which ever is shorter)) after they have

already paid MS hundreds of dollars to use

their product. MS has also started to make all

their older products unsupported, thereby

forcing consumers to upgrade to Windows

XP even if they have no need to.

Microsft has shown they do not care about

the law; taking the attitude that it applies to

everyone but them. They have shown that

they do not care about thier customers. The

only thing that it appears they care about is

taking our money.

When a company cares more about money

than the quality of their product and their

customers, they deserve to be punished.

Don’t let Microsoft off the hook again; they

will never learn.

MTC–00004846

From: Brad Schmitcke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 10:20am

Subject: Microsoft Case

As a comsumer, a citizen, and a registered

voter, I am appalled at the settlement that has

been proposed for Microsoft’s anti-trust case.

Bill Gates should spend time in prison like

anyone else who would submit false

evidence to a federal court. There are so

many specific points that I cannot go into all

of them here.

However, it is clear that MS is not getting

the punishment is deserves. They are a law

breaking monopoly. Their CEO is a cheater.

Allowing MS to merely donate one billion

dollars in software that it develops and

valuates is like telling a thief he can pay one

victim with the money he has raised from

stealing from others. Actually, it would be

more like telling a thief that he can pay on

victim with the profits he has made on the

sale of property he has stolen from other

victims.

Microsoft would not have reached it’s

current financial level if it hadn’t done some

very illegal and unscrupulous things.

Microsoft has been found guilty in a Federal

Court. How much is Bill Gates worth now?

How much was he worth before he broke the

law. He should be reduced to his former

shadow and even be taken down a notch

from there. If I did some of the things that

Bill Gates and MS had done, and if I were

prosecuted and convicted, I would have

nothing and I would be in prison. What is the

difference between Bill Gates and me in this

land of equality? Does the amount of money

a person has determine their level of equality

before the law? In theory, no. In practice, it

seems to be YES!!

Well, just as a murderer cannot collect life

insurance on someone he has killed, MS

should not be allowed to keep money that

was obtained through illegal practices.

Furthermore, they should not be rewarded by

being allowed to penetrate the educational

market as a ‘‘punishment’’. Give Bill Gates

what he deserves. He deserves to be

punished, not rewarded with another avenue

in which to unfairly dominate a market.

Regards,

Bradley D. Schmitcke

Bellingham, WA 98226

MTC–00004847

From: kevin lyda

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 10:06am

Subject: public comment...

The anti-trust settlement as currently

described will do nothing to curb Microsofts

monopolistic behaviour. Even today i read

about the Microsoft UPNP security flaw, I

also note that UPNP itself is a tool Microsoft

is using to extend its monopoly. Even

correctly implemented, the design of UPNP

looks suspect from a security viewpoint, but

as time goes on firewalls and NAT routers are

going to need to run UPNP in order to use

certain Microsoft services.

In other words UPNP is being used to

extend Microsoft’s dominance on the desktop

to the firewall arena.

The fact is that if the current situation

continues, the hitech field will be held back

and even Microsoft will eventually be hurt by

its monopoly position. This settlement must

do more to push Microsoft away from this

path.

Microsoft should be forced to openly

describe file formats and network protocols

that it uses. It should also be forced to port

its most popular desktop applications to

other platforms (linux and solaris). In

addition as part of its cash settlement to

schools, it’s offering software. This is cynical

to the extreme. The offer made by RedHat to

give away its software to schools and have

Microsoft just donate computers would do

much more for schools, and better address

Microsoft’s monopoly.

Thanks,

Kevin Lyda

US citizen

Ballinvoher

Caherlistrane

Co. Galway

Ireland

kevin@suberic.net gpg or pgp encrypted

mail is preferred. my

fork()’ed on 37058400 public key is

available at:

meatspace place: orbit http://suberic.net/

kevin/gpg.roo.public.txt

http://suberic.net/kevin

MTC–00004848

From: Ian

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 10:48am

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Proceedings

I am writing this to show my

disheartenment at the United States

Government over the ’slap on the wrist’ that

they gave the Microsoft Corporation in the

latest anti-trust lawsuit. It is utterly

fascinating that the you are looking into these

flaws for the difficulty exploits could cause

people, after basically letting M$ off the hook

in the monopoly punishment phase. This is

another reason why monopoly for a

universally adopted and used O/S is bad. I

use Microsoft’s Products at home, work, and

at school; however, I also use a free operating

system, ’linux’ at home, work, and school—

I like knowing that my operating system is

safe...I can look at the source code, and say,

‘‘Hey, wait, that’s not supposed to be in

there,’’ take it out, and then make another

operating system. I feel that Microsoft should

be punished as follows:

—They make the source code available (after

an NDA) to any interested parties

—They drop the copyright on all older

versions of their software (Software that

hasn’t been made in 5 years should be

released under the public domain without

support)

—They disallow the .NET fiasco that is

currently going on now.

Thank you for your time, and for letting my

participate in a part of these proceedings.

Ian Wilson

P.O. Box 304

Ada, Ohio 45810–0304

-From RFC 1925: ‘‘(3) With sufficient

thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not

necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure

where they are going to land, and it could be

dangerous sitting under them as they fly

overhead.’’

MTC–00004849

From: Mike Haji-Sheikh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 11:09am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530–0001

I would like to encourage you to rethink

the settlement with MS. One disturbing

section would allow Microsoft to withhold

code to non-profit orginizations such as

SAMBA.org. This would effectively allow

MS to monopolize the business server

business. as quoted from Kringly;

‘‘Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong

language against not-for-profits. Specifically,

the language says that it need not describe

nor license API, Documentation, or

Communications Protocols affecting

authentication and authorization to

companies that don’t meet Microsoft’s

criteria as a business: ‘‘...(c) meets reasonable,

objective standards established by Microsoft

for certifying the authenticity and viability of

its business, ...’’

This is a ludicrous section—effectively

using the DoJ to firm up it’s monopoly since

24616 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Microsofts biggest competitor depends on

non profits. This competitor is another nonprofit called LINUX which has become very

important in the world of advanced science

and engineering. The LINUX operating

system has given the scientific world a low

cost way of building supercomputers using

clustering. It is imperative that the LINUX

operating system is not impacted negatively

by the DoJ. The development of new

medicines, semiconductors, aircraft and

transportation will depend more and more on

LINUX based systems. This effective gutting

will make it difficult for the LINUX operating

system to thrive in a Microsoft world.

Please include my comments as a noncomputer professional and scientist

Dr. Michael James Haji-Sheikh, PhD

Sr. Principle Development Engineer,

Honeywell’s Embedded Systems

MTC–00004850

From: Paul Venezia

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 11:10am

Subject: Microsoft = bad for the world

To put it simply, this trial and

‘‘settlement’’ is a farce. Microsoft is trying to

do to the federal government what it’s done

to countless competitors over the years. This

company is ruthless, powerful, wealthy and

without conscience. You cannot let this

continue, period. A world with a tame

Microsoft would be the only way to ensure

the growth, stability and security of the

Internet, commerce, the economy, and the

country. My terms are strong and true.

Do not let them get away with corporate

rape and murder any longer. Do not let them

run roughshod over hapless consumers. DO

NOT LET THEM WIN.

Paul Venezia

US Citizen

MTC–00004851

From: Jezmo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 12:43pm

Subject: Microsoft

I am a little ashamed of the proposal set

out for Microsoft. I don’t care if I have to go

back to living in the stone ages, a convicted

entity CAN NOT be let off just because it will

upset the economy. One analogy would be to

say if I punish a killerm it will hurt that

individual’s loved ones. Justice MUST BE

SERVED regardless of the consequences of

those actions. Please rethink your your

remedies! A very concerned CITIZEN.

P.S. I am a Microsoft user and certainly do

not want see them put out of business,

however there is better answer than the one

proposed!

MTC–00004852

From: Ronald Large

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 1:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir:

I am a Microsoft product user, a user of

Quicken (Intuit), and use software by many

other developers. I started using home

computers in 1981 (that is eighty-one, 20

years ago).

Microsoft has not harmed the consumer.

On the contrary, Microsoft has immeasurably

helped the consumer. We now have an

unlimited choice of software. And Microsoft

isn’t really a monopoly: if I wanted to run

Mac OS10 I could buy a Mac and do so. Or

if I want to use Linus I can get it free and

run it on any of my computers! Actually I

really don’t care which operating system I

use as long as it will run my current software

and future software will be developed for it.

I once paid $4,000 for a DEC computer

using a DEC operating system. In all of

Southern California there were only 2 stores

selling software for that operating system,

and there was only 1 wordprocessor for it! At

that time Egghead Computer and numerous

other stores were selling software written for

IBM/MS DOS. DOS eventually dominated the

market and became the operating system of

choice for software developers (larger market

for their product). This simplified things and

expanded our choices of software.

As a California resident I am troubled by

our Attorney General’s stance on this issue.

I assure that if Microsoft were located in

Silicon Valley instead of Washington he

would not be pursuing this suit.

California’s interest in this case is simply

to help Sun Microsystems, Oracle and other

California firms do what they cannot do

themselves: outsell Microsoft in the

marketplace.

Please settle the suit as agreed to by

microsoft and most of the states.

Ronald J Large

400 Susana Avenue

Redondo Beach, CA 90277

310.316.2075

MTC–00004854

From: Ronny Ong

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 3:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I agree that the proposed settlement is an

acceptable way to resolve the antitrust action

against Microsoft Corporation. The

settlement obtains timely and adequate

protection for consumers, but does not grant

unjustified advantage to Microsoft

competitors. I believe that the existing

antitrust laws are fully applicable in today’s

technological world. At the same time, the

monopoly perceived to be held by Microsoft

is clearly different than traditional abusive

monopolies.

In a monopoly held by a utility, consumers

are forced to purchase the product from the

utility on an ongoing basis, month after

month. The only choice is to do without the

product. In the case of consumers who

purchased Windows 95, they remain free to

use that product today without ever having

paid additional money to Microsoft. Even if

we assume that the direct competition to

Windows (e.g. BeOS, OS/2, Linux, Solaris,

Unix, etc.) are irrelevant, consumers are not

forced in any way to upgrade to newer

versions of Windows unless they desire the

additional benefits of the newer versions. To

prevent Microsoft from being able to add

features to its operating system in order to

compete for those upgrades would be a

misuse of regulatory and judicial power.

If we survey all manner of industries and

product categories outside personal computer

software, there are many manufacturers

permitted to favor their own add-ons over

those provided by aftermarket suppliers,

even when those manufacturers have an

overwhelming share of the market. Microsoft

makes a tremendous amount of technical

information available to Independent

Software Vendors (ISVs) on a very timely

basis, and the size of the Windows

marketplace (which has been used to

illustrate Microsoft’s monopoly position) is

truly a result of how open a platform

Windows has been.

This nation is obligated to protect equal

opportunity but not to impose equality where

not deserved. An extraordinary volume of

dissention is being generated by those who

have failed to compete successfully with

Microsoft in the free market, as well as a

relatively small number of disgruntled and

greedy consumers. Rational consideration,

however, cannot conclude that ongoing

litigation serves any purpose besides

boosting the self-importance of a few parties

and their attorneys. Prompt settlement with

Microsoft is in the public good.

Regards,

Ronny Ong

5801 Hilton Head Dr

Garland, TX 75044–4964

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00004855

From: Greg Mumm

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 3:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

I write this email to express my displeasure

over the absence of any meaningful

punishment against Microsoft.

The recent ruling is a symbolic slap on the

wrist that will harm competition and further

degrade the economy.

As a software engineer I have had the

advantage of observing the last decade and

half with a depth and breadth of

understanding most do not experience.

Two misconceptions exist about Microsoft.

First is that they are innovative and second

that they compete fairly. Microsoft is not

innovative and never has been. Four

examples follow.

First, since the 1970’s UNIX-based

computers have allowed file names of

virtually any size. While other operating

systems like Novell allowed long file names,

Microsoft operating systems didn’t until late

in 1995. Even though Microsoft operating

systems contained this glaring handicap,

consumers continued to purchase them in

favor of those systems with superior features.

Secondly, while many operating systems

used more powerful 32-bit instructions in the

1980s and early 1990s, Microsoft continued

to use the less powerful 16 and 8 bit

instructions. Use of this less powerful

instruction set wasn’t completely abandoned

until Windows NT was shipped, 6 to 8 years

after other operating system began using

them—an eternity in the high technology

industry. If the market place was

competitive, wouldn’t customers consider

purchasing the more powerful of two

operating systems? They generally didn’t.

Sales of Windows 3.1 and Windows 95

soared.

Third, in the 1980s operating systems

frequently included graphical interfaces. This

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24617

user-friendly feature was included with the

operating systems in the Apple Macintosh,

UNIX and the Commodore Amiga. Yet

consumers waited many years until Microsoft

released Windows rather than purchasing a

competitor’s operating system containing this

desirable feature.

Fourth, an example about Microsoft

inferior compiler products. Compiler

technology is important because these

utilities allow programmers to write

applications for a particular operating

system. During the late 1980’s and early to

mid 90’s there were many different compilers

available from several vendors. In particular,

the company Borland produced a tool that

was smaller, faster and more robust than

Microsoft’s tool. Once again consumers

choose the Microsoft product

overwhelmingly over the competitors

product. A few programmers even created a

compiler that was given away for free that

couldn’t compete with the Microsoft

compiler. Why would consumers pick the

Microsoft product over a more innovative

product?

Finally, there is the issue of quality. While

Linux and other UNIX systems frequently

run for months or years without problems,

it’s often difficult to get a Microsoft operating

system to run all day without crashing. Still,

the consumers overwhelmingly choose

Microsoft as the operating system of choice,

despite it’s legendary unreliability. In these

cases, and others, the products offered by

Microsoft are less innovative, less powerful,

harder to use and more unreliable than the

products offered by it’s competitors.

Microsoft has been very abusive in it’s

desire to make money as the following four

examples illustrate.

First, it’s a matter of fact that Microsoft

applications like Word and Excel used

undocumented features of the Microsoft

operating systems they ran under. It wasn’t

until this practice was widely publicized that

Microsoft produced documentation for it’s

competitors to use. The operating system is

like a socket, and applications like Access

and Word are the technical equivalent of the

light bulb. Microsoft owns both.

The second example concerns malicious

code created by Microsoft. The code was

placed into Microsoft programs and would

display strange messages when running on a

non-Microsoft operating system. The phony

messages weren’t a side-effect, they were the

entire purpose of the code modules. In this

example, Microsoft’s competitor is now out

of business.

Third, Microsoft tried to stop the

acceptance of Java. Java is an OSindependent language created by Microsoft’s

rival, Sun Microsystems. Microsoft did not

adopt the language and in fact developed a

similar one which only runs on Microsoft

operating systems. In fact upgrading your

Microsoft browser will cause all traces of the

Java language to disappear silently from your

computer.

Finally, upgrading browser versions causes

other problems. Updating a Microsoft

browser disables the Netscape plug-in

feature. This open-ended feature has been

around as long as the Web, but a recent

installation quietly removes it in place of a

Microsoft-only solution. In conclusion,

Microsoft is not, nor has ever been,

innovative. What they have been is an overly

aggressive monopoly. Monopolies are bad for

everyone because they take a bigger piece of

the economic pie than they are entitled to. It

is a travesty of justice to let Microsoft’s

abusive, monopolistic behavior continue

unabated for this long. The current ruling

does nothing to solve the problem.

Sincerely,

Greg Mumm

MTC–00004856

From: Michael Ferguson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 7:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Since the U.S. government owns so many

computers, it should be required to have a

computer of another operating system for

every computer it owns with the Microsoft

operating system. So for each Microsoft type

computer the government should be required

to use one linux computer, one apple

computer, one atari computer, one BeOs

computer, one unix computer, etc. This way

the government won’t be contributing to and

exacerbating Microsoft’s dominance in the

computer industry.

Michael Ferguson

Pelican, Alaska

MTC–00004857

From: JRWORRELL@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 8:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Terms

Dear DOJ Pussycats:

The settlement with Microsoft for it’s

proven monopolistic practices is a sham. For

several years after Microsoft gave me a free

copy of one of their programs I was under the

Microsoft spell. Then I began to wake up to

the fact that some other very good software

was beginning to dissapear from the market

and that whether I liked the newer Microsoft

offerings or not, which I often did not, I no

longer had a choice. So, I was delighted

when the DOJ took Microsoft to task for the

way they were using their monopoly status

to gobble up or destroy competitive internet

access tools. I also hoped they would get

whacked for the tactics they had used to

wipe out other graphic user interfaces

(including the software that ran on them) in

order to establish the Windows monopoly.

I can tell you it was heartning when the

court ruled against Microsoft...but, I can’t tell

you how sick it made me when you guys

caved when it came time to access penalties

and establish some rules with teeth to

prevent more of the same from happening in

the future. Why waste the taxpayers money

on a fight, win it and then roll over an play

dead? I am almost seventy and I don’t have

much to show for my working life but I still

have my self respect for not caving in when

the political winds called for something other

than marshmallow gonads.

How about a second issue? For a few years

there was hope for competitive, alternative

software after Corel bought the Word Perfect

and Quatro Pro products which Microsoft

had almost killed. I was delighted because

Corel had long been beating Microsoft’s butt

in the graphics area and I felt that this might

provide some welcome competition. I began

to use the Corel alternatives and was pleased

with the results. Corel even began to make a

position in Linux the alternative, open source

operating system that dared to challenge

Gates and company.

Then right in the midst of the antitrust

proceedings guess who bought Corel? Now

Microsoft has taken over the number one

graphics product they could never come

close to let alone equal and almost the last

if not the last of the surviving office suites,

not to mention the possibility of getting a foot

in the door to muddy up the Unix/Linux

products that Corel was into. Not a whimper

from any DOJ pussycats? Talk about a slap

in the face of justice and fair play.

Now about the settlement itself. What kind

of a deal is it to punish someone by giving

them the biggest marketing opportunity of

the ages. Let them give free software to

thousands of future buyers who know little

or nothing about the software marketplace

and who may never have a chance to see, use

and compare a competive product? All it

does is serve to create a bigger more

dominating monopoly. Doesn’t anyone at

DOJ have the integrity and guts to stand up

to the politicians who have inspired this

sham? Probably not!

Well, at best I can hope that someone read

enough of this to classify it as an uniquivocal

and utterly damming condemnation of the

settlement and those who have allowed it to

happen after plainly whomping the crap out

of Microsoft in court. You deserve more and

we, the American public deserve more.

B.W.

MTC–00004858

From: Peter Leckie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/22/01 11:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the poing microsoft would have more

competition if other operating systems were

able to execute there cope The program

‘‘Wine’’ for linux is such a program But is

only is alpha stage and needs a lote of work

But mainly it needs help from Microsoft,

documentation on all the api’s so they can be

reproduced to allow wine to run windows

programs as well as windows does. But will

Microsoft allow this there is plenty of

documentation on how to use there api’s so

software developers can produce microsoft

code so shouldn’t microsoft release details on

how to reproduce there api’s.

If Wine could run 100% of windows

programs it would give people the choice of

either Windows or Linux, giving people a

choice of what they use, which we don’t have

at the moment.

this is a very bad situation we are in now

and someone should put a stop to it.

Yours truly Peter Leckie

MTC–00004859

From: svedvik@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/23/01 6:25am

Subject: this is the lightest ’punishment’ I

have ever seen

I can honestly understand how the DoJ

would allow Microsoft to remain a single

24618 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

company. What I can’t understand is why

anyone would believe that this is going far

enough. I think that Microsoft should be

required to release all of it’s proprietary file

formats to competitors, so there is a real

competitor to Microsoft Office. Currently no

one without MS Office can create a MSOffice Document. Since businesses all use

MS Office, everyone had to use MS Office to

create compatibility. That is wrong, and

should be put to a stop immediately.

MTC–00004860

From: Jerry Davis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/23/01 9:04am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

I have been in the Computer Industry for

over 27 years. And I would like to say a few

words about the Microsoft/DOJ Settlement. I

believe that the Settlement does very little to

curb Microsoft’s maintenance of their illegal

monopoly. Microsoft will basically be doing

business as usual, and even though the DOJ

did a reasonably good job of amassing the

evidence leading up to the monopolist being

found guilty. It just appears that during the

penalty phase (this IS the penalty phase is it

not?), everyone lost sight of the fact that

Microsoft is guilty. Everyone apparently

wants to get it over with rather than really

restore competition to the software industry.

I urge you to go on to incorporate the other

nine states proposal. It goes a lot further in

trying to restore competition.

Jerry F. Davis

Sr. Computer Programmer.

Try Linux, the Operating System which

values your freedom. Not the Outlaw

Microsoft, which values their bottom line.

MTC–00004861

From: root@puma.awmach.org@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/23/01 9:30am

Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement

What a cop out.

Of my computers, I have one which runs

Microsoft 98SE as its operating system. Yet

I had to indirectly pay for Microsoft

operating system licenses when I bought the

others. That has been going on for years.

The courts found them to be a monoply. As

punishment, you are giving them direct

access to one of the few markets they don’t

dominate—schools. What a crock.

My biggest fear as a software developer is

that they will decide to put their foot in the

door of the market I sell products in. They

are trying already, but the experience most of

our customers have with their bug ridden

security hole dominated O/Ss that you have

to reboot every week has kept them from

wanting to put Microsoft O/Ss in the remote

computer end of it (although it is just about

impossible to sell our host products

anymore).

Whining that we can’t compete? Partially.

But our company doesn’t have this lucrative

arrangement with most of the free world’s

computer producers that if the free world

buys a product from those companies (that

we have nothing to do with producing

ourselves), the free world has to give us

money indirectly anyway—just on the

chance that they might use our product

someday. What a sweet deal! Now the DOJ

is going to roll over and reward that! Any

market that Microsoft wants to go after they

can stomp on. Their first entry into the

market may be crap, but since they have this

unending stream of money coming in—

completely unrelated to the product they are

going after, they can throw tons of money at

any problem, hire or buy up as many

companies they need—and eventually after 5

years or so, have some product that isn’t

completely unreliable. Their programmers

have better access to the O/S than any

outsider ever will have (which you’re also

rolling over on) both to suggest features

beneficial to their product and to get help in

coding for the O/S.

Since they can bundle their crappy

products with their buggy O/S products right

from the version 1.0 level, it is an extreme

disincentive for people to even try out

anyone else’s products. They spend enough

time learning and trying to get the 1.0 level

product working that they have a time and

frequently a data investment in the product

that comes essentially free with the O/S. By

that time, they figure that version 2.0 will be

available soon, so even if they aren’t happy

with the product, they aren’t going to spend

their own money to try out something else.

So even if there is a better product out there,

it doesn’t get a chance 80% of the time (or

higher). By bundling this information into

suites (or bundling IE with the O/S as

another example) it makes it harder for

standalone products to compete.

From the programming standpoint—you

have reasonably small companies trying to

innovate even on Microsoft O/Ss, that can’t

keep up with their rapid progression of

operating systems with multiple interfaces.

To stay approved as being Microsoft logo

careers, you have to stay associated with the

latest O/S. Otherwise you can’t play. Yet as

a small company, you don’t have the

resources to learn everything that is on the

DVD–ROM of new Microsoft avalanches

every few months. So, that’s another way

they win. 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, NT, ME, 2000,

XP, ....—we’re a big company with a lot of

people working for us—let’s change things

every year—make sure we only sell the latest

O/S on the new computers (pre-installed so

people don’t have much of a choice), change

things enough every couple of years that

older products don’t work quite right on the

new stuff—and make sure that our unending

flow of money gets our suites updated to

work with the latest so we always have a nice

integrated moving target for everyone else to

hit. Wherever possible, get our products to

pop up first on the list of options—if

possible, keep the competitors products from

even coming up as an option, and if we get

extremely lucky (which seems to happen a

lot more often than it should) figure out how

the competitors products are working and

find out how to disable them (or worse—just

make a part of them not work right which

leads people to think that the other product

is faulty) when we install our own products.

Well, I’ve ranted enough. But letting

Microsoft off is just plain wrong in the first

place, and letting them into the schools

(rewarding them for their monopolistic

behaviour of the last decades) really stinks.

William Haller Webservant awmach.org

alpha-omega mach

MTC–00004862

From: Don Jerman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/23/01 10:21am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Thank you for your consideration of these

comments on the proposed settlement of

United States v. Microsoft.

I am a database administrator with more

than 12 years in professional service to the

State of North Carolina. I have worked in

many capacities within our IT organization

and I have worked with Microsoft operating

system products for the majority of my

career. I find that the settlement is probably

too lenient to be in the public interest, but

with a little strengthening in specific areas,

it may serve. Here are the points of weakness

that I would like to see addressed, if this

settlement is to be entered.

In abstract, the main problem is that the

settlement does not protect the consumer, but

protects only businesses that consume

Microsoft products. Particularly, that an

assumption is made that only viable

businesses which publish software have a

valid interest in API’s and communication

protocols.

While I recognize that the settlement is the

product of a negotiation, it should be noted

that Microsoft has been found guilty of

violations of the law, and that any settlement

must adequately limit their ability to

continue to restrain their competitors in an

unfair manner. I submit, further, that

constraining the ability of private citizens to

become competitors falls into this category.

Below, I comment on individual sections and

paragraphs, preceeding the comments with

the reference to the relevant section and

paragraph of the Proposed Final Judgment. I

refer you especially to the comments

regarding III,J, as in my opinion they form a

critical weakness in the document,

apparently founded on an incorrect

appreciation of the nature of computer

security. Here are my comments by section

and paragraph:

III,A

Although the settlement requires two

warnings before termination of an agreement,

and allows instant termination of the

agreement upon the third, it does not require

that the three warnings be given in good

faith, nor does it provide a mechanism for

timely review of the claims, merely a 30-day

period for remedy by the OEM. Microsoft can

use this to stop any agreement it pleases

simply by making spurious claims.

III,B,3

The limits on size and appearance of a

middleware user interface are not consistent

with III,B,1 and III,B,2, and do not serve an

obvious purpose other than to allow

Microsoft to limit the options of its

competitors. The limitations permit

Microsoft to minimize their competitors’

ability to innovate in this area without regard

to the functionality their competitors may be

attempting to provide. These limits should be

struck from the settlement, and replaced with

language similar to III,B,2, which says that

differences shall not impact the usability of

the operating system.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24619

III,I

For the purpose of licensing or publishing

API’s and Communications Protocols, ‘‘Third

Parties’’ described in III,E and III,I should be

construed to be anyone permitted by III,J,2(a),

that is, anyone who ‘‘has no history of

software counterfeiting or piracy or willful

violation of intellectual property rights’’

Businesses are not the only providers of

software and services, and with respect to

these products, failure to license is failure to

permit competition. This is one of the core

weaknesses of this document, in my opinion,

because as a State agency my organization is

none of the entities named, yet we have used

Microsoft APIs and communications

protocols to build our software.

III,J,1

This is one of the main weaknesses in the

document. III,J,1(a) should be limited to

‘‘keys, authorization tokens and enforcement

criteria’’ only, but the API’s and

Communications Protocols should not be

withholdable. Here is my analysis: Observe

that ‘‘secret’’ bugs, APIs and protocols have

been compromised regularly by virus-writers

in recent years.

For instance Thai hackers have hacked the

anti-piracy features of Windows XP,

presumably without API documents:

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/

O,4586,5099511,00.html

There is no reasonable expectation that

failure to provide documentation will

prevent insecure use of these APIs by those

who want to abuse them. If the code is

published in machine-readable form (as it

must be, to be used), then those who do not

follow rules will be able to read it and use

it, whether a formal API is published or not.

Anything readable by a machine is readable

by some people, and those people can write

their findings in documented form for lessskilled people to use.

Keys, tokens and enforcement criteria are

legitimate secrets that must be kept secret to

be effective. However, documentation of

methods, APIs and communications

protocols are useful to those who wish to

interact with the system. They are not

required to abuse the system, as reverseengineering will yeild the needed

information. But they are required to make

legitimate use of the system, as reverse

engineering of these methods, APIs and

protocols is prohibited by the Digital

Millennium Copyright Act, since they may be

used to secure access to copyrighted

materials. Since the abuse of these systems is

likely to be an offense anyway, it its not

necessary to restrict the information required

for legitimate use.

Allowing Microsoft to keep these items a

secret permits them to have an advantage

over their legitimate competitors, without

significantly retarding the development of

attacks against Microsoft systems.

I refer the reader to these excellent

discussion of whether secrecy about methods

and flaws is desirable or not:

http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/

0%2c4125%2cNAV47—

STO65969%2c00.html

http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram0111.html

Essentially, they take the position that the

vulnerabilities in a system exist whether or

not the documentation is published, and will

be discovered and exploited whether or not

documentation is forthcoming.

My conclusion is, therefore, that nonpublication merely prevents competition, not

abuse. Furthermore that publication can lead

to informed decisions, error detection, and

intelligent application of precautionary

measures, rather than discovery-by-abuse as

we’ve seen before. III,J,2

This is another of the main weaknesses of

the document III,J,2(a) is perfectly

reasonable, and should be left alone. III,J,2(b)

prohibits entities from reviewing the

documentation to discover if they have a

need for it. As such, and given the arguments

under III,J,1 above, III,J,2(b) should be struck

from the document. Furthermore, the word

Business offers a ‘‘handle’’ for III,J,2(c), to

which I object below. The word should be

struck if this paragraph is allowed to stand.

III,J,2(c) allows Microsoft to prohibit

anyone who is not a Business, by whatever

criteria they decide, from accessing these

API’s. I have argued under III,J,1 above that

such prohibition is not requried, and I now

argue that it is harmful to the consumer. If

these API’s and protocols are required to

interact with Microsoft servers, then

preventing the private consumer from doing

so prevents their contribution to noncommercial entities, and their full use of the

product. There is no justification offered why

only businesses, and only viable businesses,

should have this access. In any case,

permitting Microsoft (and not, say, the TC or

USDOJ) to provide the criteria at their sole

discretion is absolutely ludicrous!

If anything, the settlement should be

forcing more disclosure, and should include

all end-users of Microsoft platforms as

potential licensees. Furthermore for

documentation licenses, the standard for

reasonable charges should be related closely

to the cost of any required redaction and

distribution, as presumably Microsoft needs

to produce the documentation for its own

use. III,J,2(d) permits Microsoft to charge any

price from anyone using one of these API’s,

for and unspecified testing procedure. Again,

this permits Microsoft to restrain private

citizens, nonprofits and businesses with

relatively little capital from producing

products that might compete with Microsoft

products. In my analysis:

1. If the API or protocol is secure, then no

product could possibly corrupt or violate the

server systems by using it (after all it’s

perfectly reasonable for the server to refuse

any request that would violate security).

2. This test permits Microsoft to analyze

competing products prior to release—a

directly anticompetetive act! It offers prior

knowledge and time to act to Microsoft

whenever a competitor wishes to release an

innovative product.

3. Reliability and security testing now

resides with the end-user. End users such as

my employer have frequently found that

Microsoft’s testing of its own products leaves

much to be desired. What assurance does

Microsoft offer that their testing of these third

party products will be more useful? This test

will not reduce the burden on the end-user,

but may reduce their perception of the

potential risk (without really reducing the

risk), resulting in a less secure world.

4. If, through some extraordinarily poor

judgement on the part of the plaintiffs, this

paragraph is allowed to stand, then Microsoft

should be held liable for subsequent failures

of security for any products surviving this

test, and furthermore, the TC should be

available for appeal should Microsoft fail to

approve any competitor’s product. Absence

of that language makes this paragraph an

invitation to restrain competition! In short, if

Microsoft is to become a mandatory testing

body, they should be unable to disclaim

liability for damages caused by failure of

their product and the products they test.

5. If the tests are to be performed, a third

party should perform the tests, and all

relevant Microsoft products should similarly

endure the tests and be approved or rejected

based on the same criteria that are applied to

their competitors. Finally, the competitors

must be able to appeal to the TC any

discrepancies between the provided

documentation and the test results. I strongly

recommend that III,J,2(b,c,d) be struck

entirely, or radically altered to provide a real

opportunity to all consumers (including noncommercial consumers) to license these

materials without providing anticompetetive

advantages to Microsoft.

IV

With regard to section IV, my only

comment is that the proceedings of the TC

should be in the public record, including all

documentation and communication between

Microsoft, the Plaintiffs and the TC, except

where the TC or the Court determines that

specific data regarding authentication keys

and tokens, trade secrets or future business

plans should be redacted or released on a

delayed schedule, to protect the viability of

Microsoft’s business and their business

dealings. In such cases they should be

redacted in a manner consistent with existing

practise in disclosure of public records, so

that the public can know the existence and

extent of the redacted material, but not its

content. It is my hope that these changes, or

changes in this spirit, will be introduced to

the Final Judgment. Thank you for your

consideration.

MTC–00004863

From: r(u)hodg Hodgson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/23/01 10:54am

Subject: Microsoft Settelment

I feel that the offer that Microsoft has made

is a good one and that it should be excepted

by all partys concerned.

Thank you; Robert Hodgson;

MTC–00004864

From: ksvm@mac.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/23/01 12:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

RE: Reject Microsoft Settlement

Please include in the record of US v

Microsoft

DATE: December 21, 2001

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to ask that you do not accept

the Revised Proposed Final Judgement. It

does nothing to remedy Microsoft’s illegal

behavior, and moreover appears to be

completely written by Microsoft lawyers.

24620 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Charles James would have us believe that this

is a good agreement for the United States of

America. I disagree. It is worse than no

agreement at all. Microsoft has adopted a

corporate culture which has no respect for

the law or the free society in which we live.

Microsoft is unrepentant and believes itself

above the law and beyond the reach of the

court system. Now is the time to prove them

wrong.

‘‘AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgement

does not constitute any admission by any

party regarding any issue of fact or law.’’

I’m not a lawyer, but this says to me that

Microsoft does not, in the proposed

settlement, admit any wrongdoing or illegal

behavior. This seems unacceptable given that

they have already been found to have a

pattern of illegal behavior by both a Federal

Judge and a Federal Court of Appeals. What

possible justification can there be for such

weak terms at this point? This is a remand

only for remedy not, points of law or fact and

yet Microsoft appears to be able to maintain

it’s legal position that it did no wrong in the

Proposed Judgement. This is unacceptable.

The only thing the public can surmise from

these terms is that The United Sates of

America is afraid of Microsoft. The United

States of America is afraid to face the world’s

largest software maker in court, in a case they

have already won, not once but twice. The

United States has won both in Federal Court

and on appeal by an overwhelming margin.

What possible scenario of negotiations would

lead to wording which allows Microsoft not

only to go free without sanctions, but free

without admission of an already proven

pattern of illegal behavior? On it’s face it

appears ludicrous.

I have always had a great deal of faith in

our system of government, particularly the

judicial branch. This branch has not offered

us perfect justice of course, it is merely one

which attempts to rectify something which

has gone wrong or at least to steer society in

the right direction. At it’s best that is all we

can ask of our judicial branch.

Steer us in the right direction.

Prove to us and to Microsoft that we are

equal under the law. The Revised Proposed

Final Judgement is flawed. It is full of

loopholes such as describing a ‘‘Windows

Operating System Product’’ as ‘‘The software

code that comprises a Windows Operating

System Product shall be determined by

Microsoft in it’s sole discretion.’’ Clearly, as

much of this case has revolved around

whether or not browsers, media players and

other similar software or middleware can be

considered part of the Operating System. The

few restrictions only apply to APIs,

middleware and software that ‘‘Microsoft in

it’s sole discretion’’ doesn’t consider a part of

the ‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’.

As they tried to prove in court that they

could not separate their browser from the

Windows Operating System Product, we

know what Microsoft’s view is on the subject

even while we also know from court records

that it is untrue. Given that Microsoft in this

Revised Proposed Final Judgement need not

heed previous court findings of fact or law

they will most assuredly continue in their

legal position that it is the nature of their

‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’ to add

functionality ad infinitum, which expands

and extends Microsoft’s Windows Monopoly

into any and all new markets as it pleases.

Or in section J.2.

‘‘No provision of this Final Judgement

shall: Prevent Microsoft from conditioning

any license of any API, Documentation or

Communications Protocol related to antipiracy systems, anti-virus technologies,

license enforcement mechanisms,

authentication/authorization security, or

third party intellectual property protection

mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any

person or entity on the requirement that the

licensee: (a) has no history of software

counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of

intellectual property rights, (b) has

reasonable business need for the API,

Documentation or Communications Protocol

for a planned shipping product, (c) meets

reasonable, objective standards established

by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity

and viability of its business, (d) agrees to

submit at its own expense, any computer

program using such API, Documentation or

Communications Protocols to third party

verification, approved by Microsoft, to test

for and ensure verification and compliance

with Microsoft specifications for use of the

API or interface, which specifications shall

be related to proper operation and integrity

of the systems and mechanisms identified in

this paragraph.’’

Microsoft, here is being given ‘‘carte

blanche’’ to restrict access to protocols

ostensibly being offered in other parts of the

agreement. Specifically, ‘‘reasonable,

objective standards established by

Microsoft’’, allows Microsoft, essentially in

it’s sole discretion the ability to be the

gatekeeper of the APIs and protocols. This

Judgement is worse than no Judgement at all

because it is actually the building of

Microsoft’s next case, with the clear

expectation that there will be a next case. We

already know from past behavior, that

Microsoft will push this language beyond the

limits of crediblity in order to extend their

monopoly.

In particular the wording of J.2. (c) seems

directed at open-source software, the only

credible long term competition to Microsoft

in the Server market. If disallowed access to

APIs and communications protocols used by

Microsoft in PCs, Microsoft will be able to

embrace and extend into the Server market.

They will of course suggest that open-source

is not a viable business model, in spite of the

fact it is being sold by many of the largest

server vendors, such as IBM, Dell, SGI and

others.

The Revised Proposed Final Judgement

does nothing to remedy or sanction Microsoft

for past illegal behavior. Further, this

agreement in effect leaves no recourse but

further litigation to remedy any

transgressions in the future of the few weak

sanctions it contains. Microsoft is moving

rapidly into financial services and banking

with Passport, their hope at the least is to

capture a transaction fee for every online

transaction. It does not seem at all unlikely

that ‘‘Passport’’ once established would then

be made of plastic to replace VISA,

MasterCard, Discover and American Express.

What if any restrictions would the Proposed

Final Judgement place on these types of

behavior? None, in my estimation.

Microsoft has developed a copy protection

scheme and is already deep in the process of

entering the field of entertainment, media

and access via MSN/ MSNBC. None of these

endeavors are even approached by the

wording of the Final Judgement. Microsoft

clearly expects to extend it’s Operating

System Monopoly into media access and

entertainment monopolies. XBox, for

example, is tied to the MSN service. There

is nothing to keep Microsoft from having the

MSN service inextricably tied to Windows in

future versions.

Given the nature of their Windows

monopoly, Microsoft can easily integrate

these services into the ‘‘Windows Operating

System Product’’ and raise the price of that

product even more dramatically than they

already have, as well as charging businesses

for access to customers. These practices will

not only crush other software vendors they

will rapidly crush vendors in all manner of

digital commerce.

Microsoft has made no real concessions,

nor have they admitted the flaws of their past

behavior. They have not promised to improve

their behavior in the future. If the Proposed

Final Judgement stands, Microsoft will not be

a better Corporate citizen. They will be

worse.

Sincerely,

Michael Mirande

PO Box 441

Dufur OR 97021

MTC–00004865

From: Joel Landry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/23/01 2:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Speaking as a Canadian who has very little

knowledge in interpreting law, I like what I

am reading. This is the first step in breaking

Microsoft’s strangle hold on the computer

industry. In the past, everywhere I turned,

Microsoft was the ‘‘required’’ normal

environment for computers. Now maybe

other companies can start giving Microsoft

some real competition and/or other software

will hopefully work better in Windows.

Although this settlement sounds nice, there

is a side of this argument I have not seen

though.... When you submit ‘‘incidents’’ to

Microsoft for technical help for either MS

Windows or Internet Explorer, they are

attributed to the same Product Identifier.

Now this creates a problem.... Are these 2

software programs not separate? If they are

separate, why do they have the same Product

Identifier when other Microsoft products are

different? Internet Explorer 6 which was just

released, still uses the same Product

Identifier scheme.

When you purchase Windows, you get a

specific number (2 or 3 I think) of ‘‘FREE’’

tech help incidents, which can be used up

very easily and quickly. If you used these

incident for Windows and then run into

problems with Internet explorer, then you are

out of luck because the PID is the same. The

process to get help is a little irritating and

complicated. There are only 4 ways I have

found to get immediate help:

1- PAY for it. After the ‘‘FREE’’ incidents,

you are supposed to pay. YA right. Pay for

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24621

Internet Explorer when it’s supposed to be

free.

2- Find what you are looking for in the

Knowledge Base. If you are lucky, when you

consider most people are not very computer

tech literate.

3- Pray for one of those (Usually) irritating

POPUP Window Surveys. Maybe they will

reply.

4- There is an e-mail link at the bottom of

the WEBRESPONSE area on the Microsoft

web site. This link is ‘‘hidden’’ at the bottom

of the page and is not evident. It doesn’t even

look like an e-mail link. All that being said....

I have been managing to get tech support

from Microsoft for Internet Explorer without

paying for it. The question now remains.....

Why do 2 apparently separate software

packages have the same Product ID? Is this

some way for Microsoft to keep everything

together even when they say they are not?

MTC–00004866

From: rgr@rgristroph-austin.ath.cx@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/23/01 5:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This is an emailed version of a letter also sent

by the US Postal Service.

Robert G. Ristroph

11612 Hidden Quail

Austin, TX 78758

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530–0001

Dear Ms. Hesse,

I am writing with regard to the Justice

Department’s proposed settlement with

Microsoft. I believe that this settlement

should be scrapped and completely

rewritten. Most of the ‘‘restrictions’’ placed

on Microsoft are already illegal; what few

restrictions are left are impossible to enforce

and seem designed to produce more legal

disputes rather than resolve them; and the

proposed enforcement mechanism is a

ludicrous embarrassment. In addition to

scrapping this proposed settlement, any

payment or further employment of the

authors should be re-evaluated in light of this

idiocy.

I have read the original complaint of

United States and the several States at http:/

/www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1763.htm,

the proposed settlement at http://

www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm,

the Competitive Impact Statement at http://

www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm, as

well as numerous other sources including the

findings of fact and other documents.

My own injury by Microsoft’s illegal

actions comes from Microsoft’s agreements

with OEM’s which forced my employer to

pay for Windows when buying a new

computer from Dell, which we had no plans

to use Windows, intending it for Linux. This

was supposedly addressed in a prior case to

the present one, and yet to this day the same

hardware without a Microsoft license has the

same cost.

I wish to examine the elements of the

proposed agreement item by item, and then

propose an outline of an alternative

settlement.

A. That Microsoft will not retaliate against

OEMs for distributing non-Microsoft

software. This is already prohibited by law,

given Microsoft’s monopoly. The proposed

settlement can not consist of Microsoft

agreeing to follow the law in the future; like

other companies in the United States, it has

to follow the law regardless of this

settlement.

B. That Microsoft make public it’s

licensing agreements and offer the same

terms to everyone. This is the only part of the

proposed settlement makes sense, however,

OEMs have shown in the past they were

willing to collaborate in Microsoft’s illegal

activities. Should Microsoft offer an OEM a

secrete payback or special deal, the

cooperation of the OEM will make this

section difficult to enforce.

C. That Microsoft cannot restrict certain

OEM software through agreements. This is

already illegal, like A.

D. Some meaningless nonsense not worthy

of comment or the paper it is printed on.

E. That communications protocols in

Microsoft software be publicly available. In

light of Microsoft’s previous behavior in

exploiting secrete calls in it’s software, all of

it’s source code should be available for

public examination. The suggestion that only

‘‘communications protocols’’ be public is

problematic because it leaves open to dispute

what consists of a communications protocol.

This is foolish given Microsoft’s previous

self-serving interpretations of court orders.

F. That Microsoft will not retaliate against

software vendors for competing against them.

This is already against the law given that

Microsoft is a monopoly.

G. That fixed percentage distribution

agreements be banned. This is already against

the law. The exceptions listed in this

paragraph are also against the law, creating

the suggestion that the United States will

enter into an agreement with Microsoft to

allow it to break the law in some cases.

H. That OEMs and users are allowed to

configure the Microsoft software they buy.

This is vague and confusing because it is

difficult to precisely describe what consists

of configuring software, and thus impossible

to reliably enforce. In a competitive market

it would be the natural case, and the

proposed settlement should focus on

restoring competition.

I. That Microsoft offer licenses to

‘‘intellectual property’’ necessary to allow

others to exercise ‘‘alternatives provided

under this final judgment.’’ The reference to

alternatives provided to others contradicts

the final section of the proposed settlement,

which explicitly denies that the final

settlement gives any rights to third parties.

Even aside from that, this section probably

denies behavior already illegal, is riddled

with exceptions, vague, and seems designed

to produce legal action rather than remedy.

J. A section devoted wholly to exceptions

for Microsoft, as if there where not enough

already.

The Enforcement Authority:

A. Access to source code is probably one

of the best remedies. The exceptions and

limitation of this access to a committee are

silly.

B. The Technical Committee. It has too few

members, it should be composed of Officers

of a United States Federal Court in order to

make it’s requests immediately enforceable

through Contempt hearings, and the gag on

public statements renders the whole

committee useless. The further restriction

that the testimony of this muzzled and

hobbled committee not be admissible in

court is a bit like shooting the deer after it’s

tied down with it’s throat cut.

C. The Microsoft Compliance Officer. This

section is nonsense. Other companies

manage to obey the law without the use of

a special office. If Microsoft needs one they

can implement it without a judgment.

D. Voluntary Dispute Resolution. This

section seems dedicated to stipulating that

various parties send each other letters before

seeking court hearings, common practice.

4(d) guts all enforcement power from the

proposed judgment, and suggests that the

Attorneys for the Justice Department don’t

believe in their own system of courts.

Third Party Rights:

This section is in contradiction with other

references to the submission of complaints to

the Technical Committee and the

requirement that Microsoft offer ‘‘intellectual

property’’ licenses to the third parties so that

they can pursue the alternatives guaranteed

them in this proposed final judgment.

In summary, this proposed final judgment

is a poor sham for a capitulation by the

Plaintiffs. It’s not even a good surrender,

because it’s vagueness and selfcontradictions guarantee more legal action; if

we must capitulate, at least we should save

on legal costs. It also completely fails to

disguise the capitulation in any way. This is

why whoever wrote it should be fired, even

if the Justice Department unwisely chooses to

fail to enforce the law as applies to Microsoft.

A real final judgment, which might have the

chance of remedying the situation, would

have to be in some way ‘‘self enforcing.’’ By

‘‘self enforcing’’ I mean that the remedy by

it’s nature should preclude further legal

wrangling and evasion efforts by Microsoft.

Stipulations on Microsoft’s future behavior

inherently have to be enforced, and thus are

not well suited to this case. Furthermore,

when the proposed judgment stipulates that

behavior already illegal be banned and then

suggests exceptions, the Plaintiffs are

acquiescing in further law breaking by

Microsoft. An example of a ‘‘self enforcing’’

remedy would be denying Microsoft

copyright protection. No Technical

Committee is required; all that is needed is

to reject out of hand cases of copyright

enforcement that Microsoft brings. Thus,

revoking copyright privileges for some

portion of the works that Microsoft used to

violate the law might be an appropriate

remedy. Or perhaps Microsoft could post

substantial bonds against it’s future behavior.

Many of the major flaws in this proposed

final settlement result from the needless use

of vague and disputable terms, when simple

and undisputable ones would do.

Replace all references to ‘‘Microsoft

Middleware’’ ‘‘Windows Operating System

Product’’ and such with the simple phrases

‘‘products of Microsoft’’ and ‘‘products of

third parties.’’ Avoid even the use the term

‘‘software products,’’ as Microsoft would

produce hardware required to run their

24622 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

products and then violate the agreement. Be

sure the phrase ‘‘products’’ is defined to

mean anything Microsoft does, including

services.

Replace all references to ‘‘ISVs, IHVs, ICDs,

OEMs’’ and such with the phrase ‘‘any third

party.’’ Quibbling over which member of the

alphabet soup a particular entity fell under

is thus eliminated. The final judgment

should require no differentiation between the

various consumers and companies

interacting with Microsoft. This also

remedies the fault that the current proposed

judgment allows Microsoft to exempt any

third party from the benefits of what legal

behavior is required by claiming they do not

have a viable business plan.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful

in writing a real judgment.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Ristroph

From: ksvm@mac.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/23/01 12:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

MTC–00004867

From: Al Koscielny

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/23/01 4:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I do not believe the proposed settlement

will alleviate the lack of competition in the

software industry. In the monopoly days of

IBM, a single company controlled the

hardware and all the software than ran on it.

Many years of investigation by the DOJ

forced production of enough documentation

that other vendors could compete. In the

current monpoly days of Microsoft, a single

company controls the operating system and

all the software that runs on it. The vertical

stack of tied products has simply moved up

the complexity chain.

I should have a choice between at least 2

operating systems, which would preclude the

barriers to entry described in the findings in

this case. The proposed settlement would

only prevent the abuses that Microsoft used

in the past to keep its monopoly position. But

those previous abuses are no longer

important to preserving Microsoft’s

monopoly position. Currently it’s claimed

that there is not enough demand to preinstall

any operating system other than Windows on

a PC, although some vendors have offered

Linux, mostly on servers. So Microsoft’s hold

on the desktop, 92% by some accounts, is not

going to change without intervention. How

will this settlement remedy Microsoft’s

ownership of the desktop market?

Recent years have seen a vast shift from

single machine computing to a focus on

inter-networked computers. The proposed

settlement offers no mechanisms for keeping

Microsoft in check that adapt to the rapid

changes in technology. Over the past few

years, I’ve come across a few sites that only

work with Internet Explorer. If Microsoft can

popularize IIS sufficiently, they can extend

the vertical stack to include the server side

of the Internet as well. Will Passport be

popular enough that other vendors can be

excluded from competition? Will Windows

XP put RealPlayer out of business? Will false

promises of interoperablity help .net triumph

over Java? Where are these areas of potential

abuse addressed in the proposed settlement?

Thanks for taking the time to listen to my

concerns.

Al Koscielny

alko@nc.rr.com

MTC–00004868

From: Fisk, Kevin

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/23/01 6:14pm

Subject: Settlement

This is NOT in the public interest. I am a

registered republican, but will NOT vote for

any politician who supports this settlement.

It is a joke.

Kevin Fisk

CC:‘attorney.general(a)po.state.ct.us’

MTC–00004869

From: HarryBower@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/23/01 11:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I strongly oppose the proposed settlement

with Microsoft wherein they offer to provide

a billion dollars worth of computers to

schools. That is not a penalty at all. It is

simply good advertising omn their part. It

results in unfair competition against much

smaller Apple Computer (a California

Business) which has been able to compete

well in the education market. A substantial

increase in the Microsoft presence in schools

will seriously impact Apple’s position.

Please find a way of punishing Microsoft

instead of giving them an other opportunity

to help drive a competitor out of business.

Thank you,

Harry M. Bowers

MTC–00004870

From: Jerry Clabaugh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/24/01 1:17am

Subject: Public comment on US v. Microsoft

‘‘None of the people who run divisions are

going to change what they do or think or

forecast. Nothing.’’

-Bill Gates, interview in The Washington

Post on the 1995 consent decree, August

1995 ‘‘The practices Microsoft agreed to forgo

had already served their purpose. Gates was

right when he summed up the effect of the

[1995] consent decree in one word:

‘Nothing.’’’ -James Gleick, ‘‘Making Microsoft

Safe for Capitalism’’ The present Consent

Decree has many shortcomings which render

it ineffective in ‘‘unfettering the market from

Microsoft’s anticompetive conduct’’. In

particular, the Technical Committee, which

has been characterized as a major concession

by Microsoft, gives the proposed Decree the

appearance of meaningful enforcement while

moving the reality of enforcement beyond

reach. These are some of the difficulties with

the Technical Committee:

(1) The Committee has wide powers to look

at documents and interview individuals, but

has no power to cause Microsoft to behave

differently.

(2) The information gathered by the

Committee will be confidential, unlike

information gathered in the past by the

Justice Department, further complicating

enforcement (B9).

(3) Since Microsoft appoints one of the first

two members, and the third member will be

appointed by the first two, Microsoft is

permitted to establish a committee with a

majority of members who have no interest in

enforcing the consent decree, even if thay

had the power to do so.

(4) The members are supposed to be

individuals who are experts in software

design and programming (B2), while they

will also require expertise in antitrust law

and history.

Even though the terms of the proposed

Decree are very relaxed, Microsoft, if it

remains under the same management and

philosophy of the 1990’s, will pay no heed

to the proposed Decree. If the Decree is

accepted, we will be in the same position as

in 1996, with a decree in place, but no

enforcement options beyond bringing yet

another antitrust action.

It is my belief that breaking up Microsoft

would be a bitter experience, full of

dislocations for all those with an equity in

Microsoft; managers, employees,

stockholders, and customers. Yet when the

antitrust action is brought yet again, the only

reasonable remedy then will be a breakup.

The only measure we can take now to

prevent this outcome is to provide

meaningful, effective enforcement in the

current case.

The Committee only impedes the job of

enforcement. The dissenting States’ proposal

does include real enforcement terms, and is

a preferable alternative to the proposed

Consent Decree.

I have focussed on the Technical

Committee, but the present Decree gives

Microsoft the imprimatur of the Department

of Justice to pursue many anticompetitive

strategies. Reading the proposed Decree

without context gives one the impression that

it was the government that was found guilty

of interfering with Microsoft’s right to abuse

its monopoly. If I have read the news

accounts correctly, then it is instead the case

that every federal judge who has had to

evaluate the Microsoft’s behavior (nine, to

date) has found Microsoft guilty of abusing

its monopoly. Why then, are there so many

limitations and exceptions? Is Microsoft in

such danger of being unfairly treated by law

enforcement, when that enforcement has

been vindicated again and again by the

courts?

The proposed Decree unfairly limits the

ability of the public to seek enforcement of

antitrust law against Microsoft, and should

therefore be discarded. Even a simple fine

would motivate management at Microsoft to

learn about the meaning of antitrust law,

without limiting the rights of the public.

In addition, the proposed Decree does

nothing to ‘‘deny Microsoft the fruits of its

violations of the Sherman Act’’, as instructed

by the Appeals Court.

The importance of implementing an

effective remedy looms larger than ever

before, since computer security is now an

issue that needs very serious attention in the

United States:

‘‘In a report released this month titled

‘‘Cyber Threats and Information Security:

Meeting the 21st Century Challenge,’’ the

Center for Strategic and International Studies

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24623

(CSIS) concluded that the government and

the private sector should be concerned about

the ‘‘trustworthiness’’ of future Microsoft

products’’ -cnn.com, December 29, 2000

‘‘Gartner recommends that enterprises hit by

both Code Red and Nimda immediately

investigate alternatives to IIS, including

moving Web applications to Web server

software from other vendors, such as iPlanet

and Apache. Although these Web servers

have required some security patches, they

have much better security records than

[Microsoft’s web server software] IIS’’

-Gartner Group, September 19, 2001

The fact that Microsoft’s attitude toward

security remains so casual, despite many

high-profile security failures is an indication

of the unhealthy effect of their monopoly

power. In a competitive market, competitive

pressure should have caused Microsoft to

‘clean up its act’ with respect to security.

Today, the United States cannot afford an

unrestrained predatory monopoly in

computer software.

Besides security, the other important

reason to reject to proposed Decree and

instead insist on real enforcement is

economic: Microsoft’s policy of extinguishing

innovation that it cannot co-opt certainly has

benefitted Microsoft and its investors, but

threatens the larger United States economy.

The Microsoft monopoly and the consumer

software market emerged simultaneously, so

no one can say what the economic benefits

of antitrust enforcement would be. I can only

hope that the Court will give prosperity a

chance.

I am in no way a competitor of Microsoft.

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard,

Jerry Clabaugh

20 Magoun Street

Cambridge, MA 02140

MTC–00004871

From: Curtis Michelson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/24/01 1:28am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I want to just say as a consumer, and as an

independent software developer myself, I

strongly support the nine states who are

looking for tougher remedies against

Microsoft. The proposed settlement doesn’t

go nearly far enough.

Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer made

a good point recently that requiring Microsoft

to offer software to needy schools is not

punishment. It further extends their presence

in a market they are looking to further

dominate.

It’s a gift, and not a sanction. Microsoft was

found GUILTY of monopolistic practices and

needs to be punished. One billion dollars is

a fraction (1/30th more or less) of Microsoft’s

on hand cash assets.

Finally, I want to draw your attention to

some important points made by Robert

Cringely, noted computer columnist. http://

www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/

pulpit20011206.html His concerns about the

settlement allowing Microsoft to not publish

its API’s to businesses it deems ‘‘noncommercial’’ like Open Source projects needs

to be heard. We have to make sure that any

third party software developers (like myself),

whether working for profit or nonprofit

institutions, have the same access to

Windows API’s as Microsoft’s own engineers

do.

Thanks for listening.

Sincerely,

Curtis Michelson

Small Company (www.smallco.net)

Orlando, FL

MTC–00004872

From: Michael K McCarty

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/24/01 2:19am

Subject: Comments about Microsoft

Monopoly trial

Hello,

I feel that Microsoft should have no say in

what it’s penalty should be. If we provided

the same oppertunity to criminials we’d have

empty prisons and a whole lot of community

service for crimes they committed. It simply

doesn’t make any sense.

What Microsoft has chosen is to do it to

seed schools with Microsoft software and

make sure a new generation is locked into a

Microsoft upgrade path which will provide

them continued market share in the future.

How does this help?

Please split Microsoft into separate entities.

(1) Operating Systems & Develppment tools,

(2) Business applications, (3) Online services

& communications, and (4) Entertainment.

Michael McCarty

Michael K McCarty :: K6MMC

PGP Key @ http://www.thehunted.net/keys

MTC–00004873

From: Tom Caloz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/24/01 9:41am

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sir or Madame:

The proposed settlement does not take into

account that the only real competition to

Microsoft, in the x86 space, is from non

profit agencies. Apache, Sendmail, Samba,

Linux are all non commercial entities, and

would be unable to have access to the APIs

and other technical information needed for

interaction.

Please reconsider the settlement, and

provide some form of relief for the groups

that have been adversely affected by

Microsoft.

Thank You,

Tom Caloz

MTC–00004874

From: Steve (038) Kerry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/24/01 9:48am

Subject: Microsoft Sett;ement

I along with many other members of the

public have been harmed by the ever

increasing number of software enabled

services being bundled with the Windows

desk-top operating system that has monoply

status. Having abused that power, why not

strip them of much of it by forcing MSFT to

offer a bare bones Windows OS to which the

consumer can add service enabling software

selected from a competitive marketplace.

Given current arrangements if consumers

wish to participate in an expanding array of

software enabled services into the future,

they will be given the choice of MSFT

services unfairly advantaged by the wide

distribution and the guaranteed

interoperability association with the

monoply confers. The consuming public,

given a ubiquitous bare bones OS could vote

with its pocketbook on the value of additive

software upgrades. Current monopolistic

advantage unfairly limits the economic

vitality of competing software enabled

services. Innovation is hampered. Innovative

services from MSFT bundled with, Windows

95,98,2000, XP while possibly desireable,

derive support from and unfairly extend a

monoply into new areas. MSFT is able to roll

out successive versions of its OS and find a

market largely because of bundling new

software enabled services. I and peers would

be better served by a marketplace in which

new software enabled services could be

selected from vendors based on value rather

than upon advantages derived from

membership in a monopoly. To do otherwise

merely repeats the browser transgression.

Steve Krogh

MTC–00004875

From: Thomas King

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/24/01 9:56am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I must say I am very disappointed with the

settlement that the United States government

has reached with Microsoft. You went

through all the work and won the case to give

them a slap on the wrist and tell them not

to do it again. What is this? Fines and threats

will not work with Microsoft. They can

afford to pay any fines levied against them,

ten time over. And as far as threats are

concerned they have seen what the

Department of Justice can do and I must they

are probably laughing right now thinking that

they got away with it. The only way you can

break the Microsoft monopoly is to open up

the code for the operating systems so clones

of windows can be made. Until this is done

Microsoft has nothing to worry about.

Thomas King

MTC–00004876

From: Honorland@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/24/01 12:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement appears to be no

more than a slap on the wrist. It does nothing

to punish Microsoft for past transgressions,

and does not stop them from such

transgressions in the future. The proposed

oversight committee does not have sufficient

power ro enforce corrective actions, nor is it

free of Microsoft patronage. The oversight

committee should not be funded by

Microsoft, but rather from government

sources. The members should be appointed

by an independent body.

In addition to those concerrns, there is real

concern about the effect of this settlement on

the so-called ’Open Source’ software

development, such as Linux. Microsoft is not

prevented from circumventing the

development of this major alternative to

Microsoft products. The Linux development

poses a real threat to Microsoft, and

Microsoft should not be able to adversely

affect such development.

24624 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Respectfully,

Howard O. Norland

6212 Buchanan St.,

Fort Collins, CO 80525

MTC–00004877

From: John Hamlet

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/24/01 2:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

they are your enemy and we know it. make

them revail the source for windows 95/98/NT

MTC–00004878

From: Doug Armstrong

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/24/01 3:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a professional software developer with

over 17 years of experience in the field I feel

compelled to express my opinion on the

proposed settlement to the Microsoft antitrust ruling. My livelihood, indeed the future

of the entire software and high technology

industry, has been and may continue to be

directly affected by the behavior of Microsoft

should this settlement be approved.

While reading the proposed settlement I

was struck by how generous it was to a party

which has been found guilty of stifling a very

important industry for such a long time. I

was also appalled that the victors in this case

would agree to terms which encouraged a

ruthless monopolist to further its attempts to

control each aspect of the software industry,

not to mention the Internet.

The company I work for uses Microsoft’s

office productivity products, despite the

well-known security flaws and a history of

unreliable operation, simply because the

alternatives have been deemed ’too risky’ by

the corporate IT (Information Technology)

department. In explaining what ’too risky’

meant, we were told that the IT department

was worried that upgrades and support for

alternative products might not be available in

the future if Microsoft decided to crush the

already struggling competition in this arena

of software products.

The company I work for also uses

Microsoft’s software development tools,

although not exclusively, and certainly not to

develop our own main product. Instead we

use their tools to develop test suites to

execute within a Windows environment. We

have discovered numerous flaws in the tools

themselves, and in the compiled code they

produce. When we attempted to report this

issues to Microsoft’s technical support group,

we were told that we would have to pay

Microsoft for the privilege of helping them

find bugs in their own products. No other

company in the industry that I am aware of

has such an egregiously arrogant attitude

toward its customers and developers.

In short, I must convey my strong

opposition to the proposed settlement and

urge you to continue to work toward

achieving a fair and just punishment of

Microsoft.

Doug Armstrong

snoop@mediaone.net

MTC–00004879

From: Alfonso Baqueiro

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/24/01 3:32pm

Subject: Anti Microsoft

Of course Microsoft use monopolic tactics,

they want to invade all aspects of computer

technology, with their close source

technology, and ‘‘use our software or use our

software’’, they generate incompatibilities

and don’t listen to the world wide standards,

they build the software on their own and

define their own standards making hard to

provide universal solutions in the world.

One example, that everybody knows is

what they do with Internet Explorer againts,

defining things that only work on Internet

Explorer and aren’t part of the w3c

consortium standards.

Other example is how they want everybody

use Visual Basic, without consider well

security issues, so they included VB scripting

capabilities in Excel, Word, etc, and for that

now exists a lot of macro viruses, but the

most irresponsible is they include VB

scripting in Outlook Express, providing a

way to VB Scripting Macro Viruses to spread

automatically across the web. Remember that

viruses only affect Windows with Outlook,

other mail clients are not affeted, why could

be the reason?

Well, we can make the world a better

place, with freedom (means freedom, not

price) using free software and contributing to

open source develpment.

THE INFORMATION IS POWER.

BYE.

abaqueiro@yahoo.com

MTC–00004880

From: John Losse

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/24/01 5:47pm

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 companies.

John Losse

668 Wakefield Rd.

Goleta, CA 93117

MTC–00004881

From: Bob Jensen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/25/01 3:12am

Subject: microsoft settlement

Never have i heard of a more serious case

handled so lightly. Fine them(microsoft),

break them into at least three pieces, and fine

them mightily for what they illegally did to

their worthy competition.

MTC–00004882

From: Charles Stanley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/25/01 8:45am

Subject: microsoft

Dear Sirs,

I am but consumer I am not however a

lawyer, a rabid Anti-Microsoft person nor a

employee of any company working against or

for microsoft.

In my opinion the current settlement does

not go far enough which is sad to say as I us

and prefer microsoft operating systems right

now I am using windows 2000.

I would like to suggest you consider an

alternative to the issue with Microsoft as

follows though. Instead of totally breaking

Microsoft up instead could you consider the

following suggestions so please put up with

me a little bit as I know I am not as smart

as the people that work at the DoJ that

practice law First the MSN division and all

the divisions directly under the MSN

division should be separated from Microsoft

forming a new entity Next the Internet

Explorer browser should be separated into a

totally separate entity that is builds a browser

sort of like what is being done with Netscape

except where MS has no say so in how it is

run.

Now we come to the heart of the matter the

windows 9x code that is the heart of the

kernel of the windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME

operations systems should be released under

General Public License so other parties could

use it. after all they have claimed they have

abandoned the 9x kernel for the NT kernel.

This would sort of be similar to what is

done regarding the Linux operating system

and I think this would foster more

competition in the market place.

Let Microsoft keep the NT kernel which is

the heart of the windows 2000 and Windows

XP and let them keep the Microsoft Office

and other programs. In this way I think it

would solve the worst problems Microsoft

causes yet still leave a viable company.

Sincerely,

Charles D. Stanley

MTC–00004883

From: Harvey Clowers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/25/01 11:22am

Subject: United State v. Microsoft

An article appearing on

www.defendersproprights.org has suggested

that Jusge Kolleen Kollar-Kotelly should

accept the DOJ’s proposed settlement with

the Microsoft Corporation on the grounds

that doing so will insure protection of

Microsoft’s intellectual property rights, while

not doing so will constitute judicially

sanctioned violation of those rights.

While the constitutional protection of

property rights must be had, that protection

does not authorize the property right holder

to violate anti-trust law or committ other

illegal business practices.

Thus, the just course of action for the

judiciary to take is the punishment and

penalization of the Microsoft Corporation for

its violation of law. It is, after all, an illegally

maintained monopoly !!!

MTC–00004884

From: Steve Fisher

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 1:55am

Subject: Microsoft Law Suit.

I would just like the Justice Department to

know that as a consumer, any Microsoft’s

products that I have purchased, have only

saved me time and money. For the US Justice

Department to attack this company is waste

of the energy and assets of our Government.

This suit to our country as an auto immune

disease to a person. It hurts our stock market,

undermines our economy and destroys our

capitalistic system. We have some serious

problems, security, defense, missing nuclear

suitcase bombs, terrorist cells in our country,

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24625

if we don’t focus our energy in the right area

we will cease to exist. Settle the suit and get

on to important things.

Sincerely,

Steve Fisher

MTC–00004885

From: Quincin Gonjon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 8:25am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I personally believe that Microsoft deserves

stronger punishments for destroying

thousands of potential computer businesses.

They have killed the spirit of

entrepreneurship in the software arena and

no one will never know if such competition

will have been better for this nation. I also

strongly believe that Microsoft is alienating

the poor underclass people of this nation

through pricing. Windows is the standard

Operating System around the world and

every computer must at least have an

Operating System to function. Why not have

this OS free for all? I believe that software

applications should be the point were

purchasing should start.

The Linux community is right about

providing this world with a free Operating

System that will allow everyone to compete

on an equal footing. The OpenOffice

organization, SUN microsystem and Ximian

Inc are demonstrating the potential benefits

of open source and proprietary licensing.

This appears to be a win-win situation for

both the underclass society and

entrepreneurship. Microsoft will never allow

this to flourish because it could spell the end

to Microsoft’s empire. That is why this

government should force Microsoft to release

the needed documentations to allow

OpenOffice and SUN to develop products

that have the ability to read and write in

standard Microsoft formats.

May your conscious guide you.

MTC–00004886

From: Miller, Michael S.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 10:26am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Anything less than breaking up Microsoft

into two companies (operating system and

applications) will allow them to continue

their anticompetitive practices exactly as

they have been doing for the last twenty-plus

years—to the detriment of the development

community and the consumers.

Regards,

Mike Miller

Michael S. Miller, Ph.D.

Director, eLearning Solutions Group

Information Resources Management

College

National Defense University

Fort McNair, DC 20319

voice: 202.685.4882

email: millerm@ndu.edu

MTC–00004887

From: Weiqiang Fang

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 2:55pm

Subject: United States v. Microsoft

Settlement

Dear Sir,

Many of us don’t think the settlement will

control Microsoft from destroying

competitors. Many of the Microsoft

competitors have very good products we like.

We are so sad to see these technologies (e.g.

Unix, Linux, Java, etc) killed by Microsoft.

Wayne Fang on behalf of some developers.

MTC–00004888

From: Randall Wood

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 3:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern:

I would like to go formally on the record

as opposing the proposed Microsoft

settlement currently in debate in the

Department of Justice. To me, a casual

internet user and once-Microsoft customer,

the proposed settlement is anything but just.

Allowing Microsoft to inundate the

education sector with its software products

will have exactly the opposite effect required

of an anti-monopoly ruling: it will allow

Microsoft to further entrench its monopoly in

one of the few markets it has yet to dominate.

I am an American consumer and I find the

idea appalling. I urge you to reconsider

alternative settlements in order to find some

way to punish a known offender without

actually allowing it to benefit. For starters,

any software provided to schools ought to be

non-Microsoft. I hope you will seriously

consider the very well thought out opinions

expressed by staff of Apple Computer and

RedHat Linux Inc. Regards,

Randall S. Wood

P.O.Box 817

Westhampton, NY, 11977

rsw22@cornell.edu

MTC–00004889

From: madodel@ptdprolog.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR,piu@doj.ca.gov

@inetgw,attorney.gener...

Date: 12/26/01 3:27pm

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 preload 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 private power

to a point where it becomes stronger than

their democratic State itself. That in it’s

essence, is Fascism— ownership of

government by an individual, by a group or

by any controlling private power.’’ Franklin

Delano Roosevelt, Message proposing the

Monopoly Investigation, 1938 For a choice in

the future JOIN VOICE NOW check out http:/

/www.os2voice.org/index.html

MTC–00004890

From: shaun arral

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 3:49pm

Subject: Need another copy of the Finding of

Facts.

I have one for you. Don’t forget what it

says, please. If Microsoft likes the settlement,

it’s not good. If Bill and Steve are smiling,

you’re not doing your job. Bill and Steve

should only be smiling AFTER THE

HEARING IS OVER and when their business

is not a mopolistic parasite on the nation and

it’s economy. Relieve this M$ pressure that’s

holding down the computer industry in the

US. The internet is an open platform, don’t

give them the power to control that too....

If Microsoft OS’s are so user friendly why

can’t I see Apples and Linux clients and

Shared directories? While with my Linux

computers I can read microsoft, apple and

many, many other types of client manchines

(shared folders). This is what openness and

no secrets on things that aren’t meant to be

secrets.

Engineering has standards, protocols (I’ll

make white wire ‘‘hot’’)

Telecomm has standards, protocols (i’ll

transmit on frequency: 90Khz)

Government has standards, protocols (we’ll

just buy it, it looks good to me)

Computers have them too....

Happy New Year.

Shaun Arral

24626 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

PS. I’m not yelling with the caps above.

‘‘My mind is a mind that I have come to

know’’, Blind Melon

MTC–00004891

From: Joshua A Hansen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 3:51pm

Subject: Urging a stricter Microsoft AntiTrust remedy

I write to voice my support of a stricter

remedy in the Microsoft anti-trust case than

has been proposed. Microsoft is more of a

threat to the health of the American economy

than any monopoly prior to it (Standard Oil

for example). This is because what is at stake

in this situation is information, and our

rights to have and utilize it.

Microsoft should be required to disclose its

file format and network protocol

specifications to any organization,

commercial or not-for-profit, without nondisclosure agreements. This would facilitate

interoperability between Microsoft’s products

and those products which hope to compete

with Microsoft. It must be seen that Microsoft

has no remorse over its unfair practices in the

past, and so it will continue to repeat similar

practices to maintain and solidify its

monopoly for years to come. Only

government intervention can alter this.

Specifically, Microsoft is preparing to

unleash its proprietary .NET ‘‘application

framework’’ on the world. Much like

Microsoft has done before, it will flood the

marketplace with .NET-based Operating

Systems and web servers until everything

depends on their framework. Then, they will

begin ‘‘extending’’ the .NET framework so no

other Operating Systems will be able to

interoperate with it. Through a cycle of

forced license-updates, Microsoft will ‘‘lock

in’’ most computer users in a way that strips

the market of competitive forces and heaves

Microsoft products only upon anybody who

wishes to do anything on the Internet.

These ideas may sound radical and too

conspiratorial in tone. Were they not backed

by precedent this would be the case.

However, the past repeats itself, so I feel

justified in saying that just as Microsoft has

dominated the Operating Systems, servers,

Web Browsers, and Office Applications

markets it will attempt to dominate the Web

Services market (.NET), the Instant

Messaging market (MSN Messenger), the

video game console market (XBOX), the

streaming audio and video and digital audio

market (Windows Media Player), the

Handheld Computers market (PocketPC

2002), and the embedded devices market

(Windows XP embedded). Such a wide-based

attempt at monopoly solidification and

expansion is simply not healthy in a market

economy such as ours.

As a computer science student, I hope that

through wise government intervention and

promotion of competition, the workplace I

enter in a few years will not be further

enslaved to the Microsoft monopoly. My

future will be a much happier one if I can

choose software products based on quality,

not based on whether or not it will read

Microsoft file formats. It is a well-known

saying in the computer world that once

Microsoft enters a market, all hope is lost for

incumbents who try to compete with their

products. Is this due to superior products on

Microsoft’s part? Sometimes, but usually not.

It is really due to tricky marketing and

product lock-in schemes. This is not right. A

market economy will only thrive when

exchanges are made willingly, not through

product lock-in. A market economy will only

thrive when competition forces higher

product quality, not when monopoly causes

sloth in product development on the part of

the monopolist. For the sake of America’s

economy and the freedom of choice of

America’s consumers, I urge the Department

of Justice and the judge in the Microsoft antitrust case to impose stricter remedies on

Microsoft.

Hoping for a just outcome in this case,

Josh Hansen

Student, US Citizen, Registered Voter

MTC–00004892

From: christopher Dehaan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 3:59pm

Subject: Microsoft case

Dear Sir/Madam,

It is my greatest disappointment to see the

judgment that was rendered regarding the

Microsoft case. It is sad but true that might

is right, and the people that have the power

to make policy and to right wrongs are

avoiding their responsibility. Based on the

years of unfair business practices, illegal

activity and the fact that Microsoft has

repeatedly used its monopoly power to

influence and control the software and OS

market, anything less than a fine of a few tens

of billions of dollars is unacceptable.

The leadership of Microsoft should also be

barred from the software or technology

industries, the company should be forced to

reveal the file formats for its office products.

Anything less than this says to people that

would break the law both in its letter and

spirit, that it is ok to do so, provided that you

are big enough. This company has no respect

for the rule of law, has been guilty of

attempting to lie and mislead the court

during part of the video deposition, which

was videotaped. The fine leveled against

Microsoft should be severe. I would suggest

a minimum of about 30 billion dollars,

believe me after this judgment, those

companies that were thinking of breaking the

law will think twice.

If evil is allow to triumph in a democracy,

then democracy cannot long last. This has

always been true and will always be true.

While it may appear that my suggestion is

severe, please note that suggestion comes

after this company has been tried before and

has broken the law before and still continues

to break the law. And continues to fight and

refuses to yield. The Government should

continue to litigate until Microsoft gives in to

the demands of the Government and of the

people. Then they should be forced to pay

the court costs of the Government, this will

set a very good example for this country and

the world, failing this we would be sending

a signal that breaking the law is ok if you big

enough.

Sincerely,

Christopher Dehaan

MTC–00004893

From: Brent R Brian

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 4:07pm

Subject: Settlement

To put Microsoft on competative ground.

Windows should only be an operating

system.

a. no media players

b. no web browsers

c. no office tools, databases, or such

d. no bundling rules put on OEM’s

e. no ‘‘built in ad’s’’ for Microsoft products

f. no ‘‘ET phone home’’ gimmicks for

upgrades

g. no system management tools

h. no fax capability out of the box

If consumers want these other tools, let

them get them on their own.

So long as Microsoft gives away free-bies,

they control file format standards, and they

control the industry.

There should be no ‘‘accountability’’ of

OEM’s to Microsoft. If an OEM chooses to

install Windows, fine, but Microsoft should

be kept in the dark about the installation of

other OS’s.

Brent R Brian

95 Smith’s Creek Dr

Clayton, NC 27520

MTC–00004894

From: Charles H. Courtney

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 5:09pm

Subject: Comments Microsoft Settlement

I am dismayed at the proposed settlement

as it, in fact, does little to break Microsoft’s

de facto monopoly in the personal computer

industry. To accomplish this, the Department

of Justice should require as part of the

settlement that:

1. All of Microsoft’s data file specifications

be made completely public for all to see

without any restrictions or preconditions

whatsoever. This will in no way compromise

Microsoft’s true intellectual property—the

source code of their operating systems and

applications programs. However, it will give

users of Microsoft products the freedom to

use alternative applications programs,

networking protocols and operating systems

without having their, or their business

partners’, data held hostage within an

unconvertable proprietary Microsoft file

format. Doing this will give Microsoft’s

competition a much needed ‘‘foot in the

door’’ that will allow them a fair shot at

competing for market share.

2. All of Microsoft’s networking protocols

must be made completely public for all to see

without any restrictions or preconditions

whatsoever. This will prevent Microsoft from

locking out competing vendors by making the

latter’s networking protocols unable to

interoperate with Microsoft’s, which, if not

prevented in this manner, in effect limits

users to only Microsoft networking products.

Again, this does not give away Microsoft’s

intellectual property, but it does give

potential competitors a fair chance at market

share.

Sincerely yours,

Charles H. Courtney, DVM, PhD

Associate Dean for Research and Graduate

Studies

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24627

College of Veterinary Medicine

Box 100125

University of Florida

Gainesville FL 32610–0125

tel: 352–392–4700x5111

fax: 352–392–8351

e-mail: chas@ufl.edu

MTC–00004895

From: earendil@chicagonet.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 4:17pm

Subject: proposed settlement of microsoft

antitrust case

As a long time computer user, I would like

to respectfully register my dissatisfaction

with the proposed settlement of the antitrust

case brought against the Microsoft

Corporation. It is my understanding that the

Court has determined that Microsoft has

indeed illegaly maintained a monopoly. It is

my belief that any settlement that has the

public interest at heart will require Microsoft

to open its networking and file format

protocols. At this stage in the development

of our country, it would be retrograde to

allow one corporation to dictate the manner

in which ideas are to be exchanged.

Moreover, to allow the continuance of a one

company monopoly in such a crucial field as

information exchange and technology would

be detrimental to the economic well being of

the country because it would allow Microsoft

to continue to impose its inefficiencies on the

public as a whole. Opening the market to

choice in this regard would be of significant

benefit to our economy.

Finally, Microsoft has repeatedly exhibited

a totally irresponsible disregard for security

in its software products, most recently by

releasing on an unsuspecting public, even

while its harmful practices are scrutiny by

the Court, a seriously flawed operating

system: Windows XP. The wide publicity

that has attended this arrogant and

irresponsible act (including an FBI warning

regarding XP’s serious security flaws) speaks

volumes regarding Microsoft corporate

philosophy. At a time when the US is

increasingly under threat of terrorist act, we

can no longer afford to allow Microsoft to

operate an illegal monopoly that exposes our

whole information infrastructure to

devestating attacks. The only solution is to

require Microsoft to open its proprietary

formats and protocols to allow creative

Americans to forge solutions that will be

conducive to the free and secure exchange of

ideas and information.

For these reasons, I respectfully request

that you carefully rethink the proposed

settlement in order to provide a more

constructive and secure basis for the future

of information technology in America.

Thank you,

Mark Wauck

MTC–00004896

From: Jonathan Spearman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 5:27pm

Subject: Antitrust Lawsuit

Mr/Mrs Renata Hesse,

I would like to voice my opposition to the

microsoft settlement. I feel that if the courts

have found microsoft to be in violation of the

antitrust laws, then they should pay a stiff

penalty for breaking that law. I also feel that

any resolution that does not allow for stiff

penalty will show americans that if you break

the law, the only punishment you will get is

a penalty, that will allow you to continue

your monopoly. When AT&T and IBM were

found to be monopolies, they were broken up

and had to pay a stiff penalty for breaking

this law. Microsoft is a monopoly that has

hurt competition in many areas. If they have

a product that can withstand the pressures of

competition, then they will show this by the

sales of their products. I a consumer, do not

like the fact that if I buy a system and don’t

want microsoft on it, I still have to pay the

price as if it was present on the system.

Resellers, manufacturers, still have to pay

microsoft and that cost is push on to

customers like myself.

Also according to reports that microsoft

may have to put system’s into poorer schools

would further it’s monopoly, this is a very

bad decision and I for one, would not be

happy about it. Also I feel that microsoft

should as part of their punishment, have to

purchase systems with other OS’s and put

them for free into the poorer school districts.

This would be a fair solution. And have to

pay the government back all that it spent to

prosecute them for their crime, and break up

the company Did you know that if microsoft

continues it’s monopoly, that it will control

most of the data on every server, and that

microsoft can at it’s decretion, do whatever

it feels necessary with that data. Would you

be confortable in knowing that all your

personal data belongs to microsoft and that

you may have to pay large amounts to

retrieve this data, and also that the servers it

sits on, because of the Microsoft OS is not

secure allowing terrorist and any hacker to

obtain this information. Would the

Government like to know that it’s top secret

information is controlled by microsoft and

that anyone may have access to that

information. If you feel comfortable with

knowing that a corporate company has

control over all data on the internet and

private networks, and can do with it what it

wants, then you are sadly mistaken. What are

we showing our children about the law,

when a company that has committed a crime,

is let off with a slap on the wrist and has

successfully controlled the U.S. Government

and let them know that they cannot do

anything with microsoft because it rules this

country and not our Government.

Thank you for taking time out of your busy

schedule to read this, I hope that by voicing

my opinion it will not fall on deaf ears.

Jonathan Spearman

3535 14th St #2804

Plano,Texas 75074

May GOD Bless america!.

May GOD bless you richly

Jonathan Spearman

jspearman@onebox.com—email

(972) 354–2521 x6161—voicemail/fax

MTC–00004897

From: Chris Woodard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 5:39pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern:

I am not a reflexive Microsoft hater. I have

friends who work there and have worked

there, and I know that they have produced

some really good software. Having said that,

I believe that the ‘‘settlement’’ worked out by

Charles James and Microsoft is woefully

inadequate.

Microsoft is a company that seems

incapable of changing its corporate culture,

and that culture is cut-throat and win-at-allcosts. The history of the digital revolution is

littered with the corpses of companies who

brought out a product, built a business, and

provided jobs only to have Microsoft offer a

slightly lower-quality (or in some cases much

lower-quality) product for free ‘‘because it’s

part of the OS’’. Bye bye, market. Bye bye,

company. Bye bye, jobs.

Microsoft has already ignored one consent

decree, and another one with a laughable

penalty of ‘‘if they break this agreement, it’ll

be extended for another two years’’ is the

briar patch that the Department of Justice is

throwing Br’er Rabbit into. There’s no reason

whatsoever to think that Microsoft won’t just

ignore this settlement too, since they’re still

convinced that they didn’t do anything

wrong.

The dangers of having an essentially

unfettered monopolist provide the software

infrastructure for an entire digital economy,

which is in their plans, can be illustrated

nicely in two words: Windows XP. Or, if you

prefer, three words: Internet Information

Server. The dangers of having an

unscrupulous monopolist in a position of

power should be obvious to anyone with two

brain cells connected by a synapse.

The states’ counter-offer is the least that

Microsoft should suffer for flouting the

lawful judgements of a duly appointed court.

Money alone shouldn’t carry the day, unless

that’s the message you want to send your

children. If you won’t think of anything else,

think of them and think of what it would tell

them about breaking the law and getting

away with it if you let Microsoft off with the

faintest slap on the wrist.

Chris Woodard

MTC–00004899

From: John Saxby

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 5:59pm

Subject: Monopoly

Clear DayDOJ,

At one time the computer industry was

ramping up to the PC revolution, as it was

called. SOL,Ohio Scientific, Apple !!, Alltar,

Osborne and others were designing and

creating personal productivity tools. CPM

was a simple operating system followed by

DR DOS, PC Dos, IBM DOS.

IBM made the mistake of hiring a small but

almost legal organization to assist it with

creating a multi-programming system for

their recently released PC. This venture was

to give them the chance to create OS/2 which

would grow into a decent PC operating

system allowing you to run multiple

programs concurrently. The partnership gave

this fledging computer company the cash to

hire competent staff and move the visual

interface to their own proprietary operating

system based on OS/2 and what was gleaned

from another early innovator in the

industry(XEROX).

24628 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

From what was learned from IBM and their

methods of controlling the industry this

model was then used to control the PC

industry. Make sure that the OEM’s cannot

ship computers with OS/2 or UNIX or

Solarius or Linux operating systems. Force

the consumer whether it is an individual or

corporation to buy and undesireable

operating system and refuse to return their

money if they return the product!

When the DOJ was convinced this was a

monopolistic practice, allow them to

continue, and further their control by

infecting all educational systems with this

operating system. Making sure they are able

to convince students that this is the operating

system of choice.

I have been in the computer industry since

1969 after serving 13 years as a marine and

a defender of our system of justice. Having

seen what has occurred with this mockery of

justice, I find it hard to even verbally defend

our justice system. As has been stated many

times this is the best judicial system money

can buy, one does begin to beleive this may

in fact be true.

Respectfully,

John R. Saxby

MTC–00004900

From: John Daly

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 7:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft has demonstrated flagrant and

repeated disregard for the rights of other

companies in the software business. They

have used the legal system to keep

competition at bay while eroding the

solvency of competitors. Now they are

proposing a settlement which is more to their

benefit than their detriment. The so-called

punishment for their monopolistic actions

would further leverage them into markets not

entirely strangled by their previous actions.

A more fitting settlement would be to treat

them as they have treated with their

competition by vacating all patents,

trademarks and copyrights held by Microsoft

Corporation or its members held individually

or aggregately.

MTC–00004901

From: Maurice Davis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 7:22pm

Subject: Public comment—US v Microsoft

December 26, 2001

To Whom It May Concern,

I write to comment on the proposed

Micrsoft settlement. I am a software

developer and user. I use Linux and various

open source software packages for most of

my day to day activities because they are

technically superior to and much more stable

than Microsoft products (as an example, I last

rebooted this computer 141 days ago when I

upgraded the Linux operating system on it—

and this despite the fact that I run web sites

and mail services for 20 different small

companies and groups on it in addition to a

full graphical windowing interface).

While I love the software I use, I find that

I can not avoid the need to maintain at least

one computer with Microsoft software loaded

on it. This is because of their file format lockin. I need their software only to read their file

formats. So, I beg of you, require Microsoft

to openly publish their past, present and

future file format specifications. In doing so

you will also be doing a great service to the

country. How many documents being written

today will be totally useless 10 years from

now simply because they are stored in a .doc

file format that has long since been outdated

by later Microsoft treadmill upgrades? Must

we really maintain old Microsoft applications

just to access the information locked away in

their proprietary file formats? Here I stress

the ‘‘openly publish’’ part of my request. It

is essential that open source programmers

have unmediated access to this information

as we currently represent the only real

competition to Microsoft. I don’t ask for

access to their code, who would want it

anyway, just the file format specs so that I

can get at users’ data. Remember that the data

does belong to the user after all.

I also have a second request. Require

operating system software and bundled

application software to be priced and sold

separately from the underlying hardware. It

is in large part because of Microsoft’s past

exclusive tie-ins with PC vendors that they

were able to establish their monopoly to

begin with. How else do you explain the low

penetration rate of IBM’s superior OS/2

operating system. If you wanted OS/2, you

had to first buy a PC with Windows

preloaded, then spend for OS/2. As recently

as two weeks ago, I was in MicroCenter, a

large computer store in Tustin, California. I

asked if I could buy a PC without Windows

preloaded and was told I could not. Of

course, I am sophisticated enough to seek out

one of the few vendors who would do this

or to piece together my own machine, but

what real choice does the average consumer

have?

Incredibly, many believe that Windows

comes free with the computer. Separating the

hardware and software purchase will reveal

the true cost of competing options and make

it more likely that consumers will inquire

about alternatives when it is no longer

implicit that buying a PC means buying

Window as well.

Put yourself in the place of the average

computer buyer and imagine the affect of just

these two changes. Now, you walk into a

store looking for a computer. There are many

brands to choose from. Choices of processor,

disk drives, CD–ROM drives and burners, etc.

can be weighed on a cost benefit basis but,

no matter your selection, you always get

Windows because it comes with the

computer and, even if you know enough to

ask, you’re told that it’s the only option. Oh,

and by the way, you better get that with

Microsoft Works or Office or else no one will

be able to read your files and data you bring

home from work will be totally unusable.

Contrast that with a scene in which the buyer

learns that Windows will cost an extra $50

or $100, or whatever it costs, on top of the

price of the computer. You mean, I could get

something other than Windows? Sure, there’s

OS/2 or BSD or Linux, and BSD or Linux cost

much less and are better systems in addition

to being easy to use. OK, but what about file

compatibility—will I be able to read and

write .doc files I get from work and friends?

Sure, there are many fine word processing

and spread sheet programs which will read

those files and better yet you can store your

information in universally readable XML

format so that they never go out of date. I

think that we would then have a choice again

and Microsoft would be forced to really

compete on price and quality again. As

things stand now, they’re always a step ahead

in the lock-in game.

Sincerely,

Maurice Davis

25 Morning Dove

Irvine, CA 92604

714–549–9745

mjd@networklogic.com

MTC–00004902

From: Charles D Hixson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 8:14pm

Subject: Certain comments on some proposed

Microsoft remedies

The proposed solution to the monopoly

that MS holds in the software industry, i.e.,

to allow them to engage in advertising

(distributing their products in the schools) as

a remedy is ... at best unjust. This is

rewarding them with the opportunity to

practice further predatory mechandizing. The

proposed oversight committee is heavily

stacked in favor of Microsoft, and really only

has the power to require that it be allowed

to look at Microsoft longer than it otherwise

would if it finds that they haven’t changed

their business practices. Either or both of

these, if adopted as legal remedies, would ...

the legal system of the United States has been

increasingly regarded as ineffectual against

large organizations with a lot of money. If

these decisions are adopted, then the matter

would be settled beyond any reasonable

doubt. I know that legally this shouldn’t

matter, but if I felt that the matter was being

handled in accordance with justice then I

wouldn’t feel that I needed to write.

Note: I feel considerably more strongly

about this than this letter may indicate, but

a desire to be inoffensive has caused me to

censor much of the content. I wish that I

were more eloquent about this case, but rage

tends to cause one to be incoherrent.

Charles Hixson

MTC–00004903

From: rich mycroft

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 8:23pm

Subject: Re: MS Settlement

255 Summerfield Drive

Alpharetta, GA 30022

Dec 12th, 2001

As someone who has spent the last 16

years in the software industry, who has

worked on everything from tiny embedded

systems to mainframes, I find the proposed

‘settlement’ to be ludicrous. The idea that an

organization that is a convicted, law-breaking

monopolist should get such a light set of

restrictions is almost beyond belief. Microsoft

has done almost nothing in the way of

innovation, but they are extremely good at

tying everything under the sun into Windows

and the proposed settlement does nothing to

alter or restrict that behavior. I have worked

on Microsoft systems as well as many other

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24629

systems and as a technologist I can plainly

state that their success has nothing to do with

the technical capabilities of their products

but a great deal with their ability to use their

financial and marketing muscle to restrict

and destroy alternative technologies they feel

might encroach upon their monoploy—and

this was clearly stated in the decisions from

the two courts. There was a time when I

championed the Microsoft products as they

seemed designed to give the average user

more ability to do useful things with their

personal computer systems, but over the last

decade or so it has become apparent that they

are now simply trying to find new ways to

milk yet more money out of the consumers

of the world while delivering products that

are so shoddy that even the FBI has to call

them up to inquire about the latest security

holes.

That the current administration via John

Ashcroft can seriously submit this so called

settlement is almost beyond comprehension.

I hope the court will see past Mr. Ashcroft’s

lack of desire to enforce a section of the law

he evidently does not find appealing and in

so doing create the real opportunity for

technologists in this country and around the

world to truly push for innovations. The

alternative is to merely protect

Mr. Gates and his monopoly.

Richard Mycroft

MTC–00004904

From: mike woods

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 10:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Domination

I live in the United States and I still have

somewhat of a freedom of choice in my life

up to this point in time, but if the DOJ

doesn’t stop Microsoft at this time with

something more than a slap on the hand we

will be long down the road toward their

Monopoly that they have well underway. I

want to have the choice of software,

operating systems & etc. that I want to use

every day without Microsoft dictating to me

what I haveto use or run to be compatible

with what they want. I have used their

product most of the time since Windows 3.0

and they have yet to produce a secure or

stable product. Even their products like

Word, Excel, etc are some of the most buggy

products out there. The only reason most

people use them is because they don’t know

of the other products that are available and

Microsoft has people conviced that they have

to use their products or nothing will work

and because people don’t understand

computers they think they have to trust

Microsoft. Why else would anyone pay for

something that crashes several times every

day and we have been told or led to believe

that that’s normal and a good thing. Most

people would gladly use something else if

they knew about it just to end the

aggrivation. Not only Americans need to have

the choice of products to use and have

available everything out there but so does

everyone else in the world that will be

affected by this decision of the DOJ. Let’s just

hope the light will be seen and they will do

the right thing for everyone and not

something that will benefit Redmond.

MTC–00004905

From: Dave Terret

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 9:57pm

Subject: Re: Red Hat’s settlement

counterproposal of Nov. 27, 2001

Dear Sir or Madam,

As a computer professional having no

connection to either Microsoft or Red Hat

other than using their software, I would like

to register my support for Red Hat’s

counterproposal. I felt that Microsoft’s

settlement proposal had been insufficiently

punative. Also, there is no reason to give a

monopolist an opportunity to extend its

monopoly. While one could say that, by the

same token, there’s no reason that Red Hat

should be allowed the opportunity to benefit

from that monopolist’s penalty more than

other injured parties, their proposal is still

vastly more just than Microsoft’s.

David Terret

Indiana University

MTC–00004907

From: glenn green

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 11:03pm

Subject: Public Comment

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am a computer professional, working in

what is by necessity an almost pure Microsoft

environment. This is not by choice, but

necessity. Not because it is the best product

for the job necessararily but because

Microsoft has so entrenched their

monopolistic, blackmail upgrade practices to

the point that it is in effect the only viable

solution pretty much regardless of the cost at

this point in time. Happily, I don’t have to

make that decision in the work environment,

much less justify the expense.

In the performance of my duties I have had

forced Internet Explorer upgrades rammed

down my throat many more times than I care

for, sometimes they cause compatability

problems with other microsoft products,

creating a domino effect. Sometimes this

results in hours of down time, not just for a

workstation. The effect as applied to a server

can affect an entire organisation. This merly

scratches the surface, Internet Explorer

upgrades have been ‘required’’ for as

innocous things as printer drivers, this is

rediculous no, criminal!! I feel that some of

the comments I have read on

linuxplanet.com have stated this in an

unarguable and perfectly clear fashon that I

have no chance of equaling. Rather than

plagerise the material I am including links.

I implore, no beg of the doj to read very

closly these linked comments. The current

remedies are virtually benign to microsoft, it

will be business as usual, nothing really

changes. http://www.linuxplanet.com/

linuxplanet/reviews/3973/2/ and http://

www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/

3973/3/

To sum up a few key points. The proposed

settlement mentions disclosing api’s and

other intellectual property, presumable file

formats. Are these being disclosed to

Microsoft’s only real competitor?? The open

source software comunity? I fear this

disclosure will be made only to Microsoft’s

chosen vendors or develepors under the

restriction of non-disclosure. Even were this

to be disclosed to the open source

community. Microsoft intentionally creates a

moving target, by updating and forcing

updates of key elements of this material. Not

correcting known problems in existing

version, but creating enhancements to new

versions. We don’t need html enabled email,

active scripting in email and word

documents, we’ve all seen what this enables.

Yet this practice further entrenches the

strangle hold on not only US consumers and

businesses, but the entire world. Remember

the Haloween Documents.

The proposed penalty as it stands does

virtually nothing to change this.

A personal experience with my home PCs.

My newest one came with Microsoft’s

Windows ME, which at first glance seemed

as if it may be an acceptable solution to

maintain compatability with other (Windows

95) systems on my small lan.

Not so!! After downloading the supposedly

free DirectX Ver 8 from work, which was

necessary because I refused to sign up for

passport on my home system when I had

another avenue. I then copied it to the home

PC over a dialup connection into work,

planning to simply copy if over my lan to the

broken PC to repair DirectX which was

broken by installing a game. Ah, a third party

game?? No!! A MicroSoft game, but I digress.

I was unable to connect to the Windows 95

machine, unless I installed an ME

networking upgrade on the Windows 95

machine. I refused to be strong armed into an

upgrade of even a small component of the

existing system.

At this point I had a simple solution,

reboot the machine to Linux, copy the

DirectX ver 8 download to a cd-rw, carry it

into the other room and repair the broken PC.

Upon returning to my main PC, I promptly

deleted the Windows ME partition. Problem

solved, I refuse to be blackmailed into any

more upgrades on my personal computers.

Enough is enough. It’s not as simple, it’s

not as compatible, it’s not as elegant, but I

control the upgrades, and I know at least in

general terms why they are required.

Microsoft will not blackmail me into any

more upgrades, I’m done, furthermore I will

not rent software for a year or two (XP) or

whatever Microsoft’s current half baked

scheme is.

Again I implore the doj to consider the

only real competitor, of which I believe

Microsoft is terrified and will eliminate by

any underhanded means at it’s disposal,

legality be damned. The open source

community, by introducing competition if

given half a chance will force Microsoft to

consider something other than what is best

for Microsoft. Both quality and security will

have to improve significantly if Microsoft is

unable to eliminate this newest competitor,

or Microsoft is going to be in trouble. Thank

you for taking the time to read this, and

please consider the open source community

in the penalty of the Goliath Microsoft has

become.

Glenn Green

1582 Railroad Drive

Carson City, Nevada 89701

MTC–00004908

From: Randy Wieck

24630 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/26/01 11:23pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Sirs:

I do not believe that the settlement

between Microsoft and the DOJ is in the best

interest of consumers. It allows Microsoft to

basicly continue doing what is has in the past

with only a small slap on the hand and also

assures them of a gaureented monopoly into

the educational market. If you’re not going to

discipline them, at least DON’T give them a

lock on yet another market sector!

Thank you

Randy Wieck

CC:attorney.general@po.stat.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00004909

From: Robert Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 12:05am

Subject: Microsoft

In the first trial that Microsoft was

convicted of abusing it’s monopoly power,

the judge rejected the DOJ’s proposed

‘‘punishment’’ (which was essentially—stop

doing the bad things you’ve been doing)

since it was not punishment. At that point,

the DOJ joined Microsoft in arguing that it

was. They succeeded in getting a new judge

to accept their non-punishment. Now a

second trial has convicted Microsoft of

abusing it’s monopoly power. Again the DOJ

has chosen to not punish Microsoft. And this

despite Microsoft executives continuously

lying or conveniently not understanding their

own damning written communications.

Despite Microsoft being caught giving

deceitful demos, but for which they went

unchastised during the trial. Compaq decided

they wanted to include Netscape’s browser

on their computer. Microsoft immediately

decided Compaq would not be able to buy

Windows. Compaq was forced to longer use

Netscape as they couldn’t sell computers

without Windows. Prodigy Internet wanted

to be one of the Internet Service providers

preinstalled in Windows. Microsoft said,

sure, as long as you switch from Netscape to

Internet Explorer. Intel wanted to develop

some Java apps. Microsoft said if you do, we

will make Windows work better with AMD

products. And more abuses, including the

current Microsoft license that says no second

operating system may be added by the

computer manufacturer to any machine

which has Windows on it. An item which the

DOJ CHOSE NOT TO PURSUE IN IT’S

CASE!!!! Incredibly the first trial finally

forced Microsoft to stop using a software

license that forced payment to them for each

machine sold, not just those that had

Windows installed; and yet the second trial

decided not to pursue their equally abusive

current license.

I would be reluctantly expecting a third

trial, except for the fact that Microsoft’s

monopoly is now complete. There is no

company to worry about them damaging. OS/

2 is gone. Corel is only in business because

Microsoft gave them some money. Netscape

is no longer a company, and it’s new owner,

AOL only uses Internet Explorer with their

service. Only consumers can force a trial

now, and unfortunately, the excessive price

Microsoft charges for their products—giving

them a huge monopoly sized profit margin

and profits—has never been an issue. And a

recent class action lawsuit was settled at

Microsoft’s suggestion with a settlement that

just shows Microsoft has the government in

their pocket— the ‘‘penalty’’ was again a nonpunishment—Microsoft gets to give their

software (along with machines to run them)

to poor secondary schools. Secondary

schools, one of the last places where

Microsoft had some competition—from

Apple. Amazing.

Thanks for making a mockery of justice

and right and wrong, DONJ.

Robert Smith

MTC–00004910

From: Brent Farwick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 12:30am

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs and Madames,

I am a bit unnerved that such a toothless

compromise has been arrived at as a remedy

to Microsoft’s misbehaviour. It is certainly no

secret to those of you in the Justice

Department that Microsoft has not lived up

to the requirements of the last consent

decree. Please show us that you can be

trusted to act in the interest of all parties, not

just the richest entity.

Brent Farwick

Southern California

MTC–00004911

From: Zach Anthony

To: Microsoft ATR,dennispowell

@earthlink.net@inetgw

Date: 12/27/01 1:12am

Subject: A threat to our national defense.

Hello,

I work for a government contractor in the

development of information systems. The

project I am currently working on is an

important intelligence application that has

been in use by the Department of Defense

since the 70’s.

I am writing because I am particularly

concerned about the negative impact that

non-standard, closed software may have on

our project and our national defense.

Development of new functionality of our

application relies heavily upon open source

software and open standards. Software

currently being utilized in our system

includes: Java, Apache HTTPD, Apache

Tomcat, Apache SOAP, Ghostscript, and

various GNU utilities; gzip, gcc, gdb, and the

list goes on.

My point is this, open source and open

standards provide the public and the

government with quality software

components that are being used **right

now** to reduce costs and increase

flexibility. Only by using standards based,

open software can the government or any

corporation ensure that they are free from

control of a single entity.

The Internet evolved from the work of the

U.S. government to create an indestructible

infrastructure that no one could stop. Why on

earth would we want to hand this over to

Microsoft?

It has been said in several other articles

and correspondence that Microsoft’s control

over the Internet is dangerous. Their ability

to monopolize technologies through

marketing and distribution of incompatible

software is widely known.

To me, America is about freedom. We must

encourage the freedom of the government,

corporations, and all individuals by insuring

the free exchange of information.

Microsoft seeks to ‘‘loan’’ their computer

applications, and store information saved

with those applications in a closed or

encrypted format which only Microsoft

applications can unlock. What this amounts

to is data hi-jacking * * * you can get to

**your** data only if you are willing to pay

the price Microsoft asks.

Please, protect your country; every citizen,

every corporation, every government agency.

Do not let Microsoft continue to release nonstandard, closed technology that benefits

only themselves.

Sincerely,

Zach Anthony

MTC–00004912

From: Jud Meaders

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 1:39am

Subject: TMF: Are you XPerienced? / Apple

(AAPL) http://boards.fool.com/

Message.asp?mid=16344903 thought

maybe you guys and gals might like to see

some of what is being said about your

favorite monopoly; one that you seemingly

refuse to punish and/or hold accountable.

Thanks

MTC–00004913

From: maureen@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 2:07am

Subject: RE: Judgement of Microsoft

As a private citizen of the United States

and a computer user, both at home and at

work, I was very disappointed to see that the

DOJ appears to have been bought and paid

for by Microsoft (Bill Gates). There is nothing

in the document that protects my rights as a

citizen. According to this proposed

document I would have to use Microsoft

products. When I purchase a new machine,

I would have to purchase it with Microsoft

on it.

What happened to my freedom of choice.

I use three forms of Microsoft products at

work. I am a 911 call taker and dispatcher.

Our radio system is based on Windows NT.

The machines freeze approximately once a

month. This means we are not able to talk to

the units we have dispatched in the field

until we reboot the machine (providing it

only has to done once). This could cost lives

of the very people who protect and serve the

public. Our 911 phone system is based on

Windows 2000. Of the six machines we use,

at least two of them freeze in the middle of

911 calls once a week. These people call us

for help. They have a prowler, maybe a house

fire, or a domestic. When these calls get cut

off we don’t even know where they go. All

we can do is try to call the number back (after

we reboot the machine, which takes about 3

minutes), or pray they call us back. Our CAD,

Computer Aided Dispatch, machines are

based on Windows 98SE. These are the

machines we use to record the call and the

response of the units. It also holds all the

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24631

information regarding the call. They freeze at

least twice a month. This is not too much of

a problem providing all three machines don’t

freeze at the same time. All our machines are

networked. All of been installed by Microsoft

certified people. They cannot stop these

machines from freezing.

The above happens because Microsoft is

the defacto OS. We have three different

versions of Microsoft software. All three fail

us. There have been no improvements in

there software since 3.0 came out. The loss

of information has cost companies millions

of dollars. The down time of employees

increases this amount. The loss of life due to

software failure should not be permitted. At

home I choose to use Linux. I paid for the

boxed version because I believe in supporting

companies that supply to the consumer a

decent product. It doesn’t crash, freeze, or

change any of my input information. When

I retrieve a file, it is exactly what I had saved.

I don’t have to reboot. In fact I haven’t

rebooted my machine in months. I have a

multitude of choices in software. I also did

not have to pay an enormous fee for the

software included with the OS I choose.

Should you continue with the proposed

judgement I would not be able to surf the

internet as in the past. Microsoft would, with

its propreitary software, not allow me to

connect to any MNS sites. I would be unduly

restricted from many websites including the

Goverment ones that I use frequently.

Please reconsider your judgement. Do not

allow Microsoft to keep their monopoly in

the software market. Protect us, the public,

who use software. Allow us, the public, to

have the freedom of choice.

Maureen L. Thomas

8234 Autumn Oak Ave.

Port Richey, FL 34668

MTC–00004914

From: Oliver Bausinger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 5:35am

Subject: Comment on the Microsoft

settlement

First of all, I have to say that I’m not a US

citizen (I’m German), so my voice may not be

heard in this phase of public comment. But

nevertheless:

Microsoft’s use of its monopoly in the

Operating System, Office and Internet

Browser market is a high danger for its

competitors. With its proprietary closed

protocols and formats (MS Office Formats,

Kerberos, etc.), it’s limiting its competitors

abilities.

Therefore I urge the US Government not to

let the get away the easy way: Microsoft

should be forced to open up their technical

specifications for their file formats and

protocols so that competiting products can

provide interaction.

Obviously, protocols that are used by 90%

and more of the users should not be

controlled by one company (but by some

kind of non-commercial independent

organization).

As non-US citizen, I urge you to apply the

appropriate measures to this case.

Yours sincerely,

Oliver Bausinger

MTC–00004916

From: David Kubalak

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 8:39am

Subject: Not happy about settlement

I don’t know that much about the

settlement, but what I have heard of it shocks

and puzzles me. What I have heard doesn’t

seem to me to solve anything—it doesn’t

actually provide any real punishment for

breaking the law, it doesn’t even seem to

assure that Microsoft obeys the law in the

future. I have heard many good arguments for

better remedies—opening up file protocols,

making licensing agreements public,

publishing the cost of Microsoft products

bundled with computer sales.

I have seen copies of letters sent to you,

and I couldn’t tell you anything new, but I

do want my voice to count as another heavy

computer user and programmer who is not

happy with the settlement. Please listen to

the suggestions that other have sent to you,

and provide a more useful solution.

Thanks,

dave

David Kubalak

These opinions are my own and not my

employers. I don’t know what their opinions

are in this situation.

MTC–00004917

From: Jeff Muse

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 9:55am

Subject: proposed Microsoft settlement

To Whom it May Concern:

I would like to spend a few moments

discussing the proposed anti-trust settlement

with Microsoft. One of the ways I make a

living is by migrating individuals and

business from Microsoft products to those

produced by the open-source community, so

I am in a good position to assess the impact

of Microsoft’s actions on the market. For a

long time, it has been painfully clear to me

that there are a number of issues that need

to be addressed in order for the playing field

in the computer and software markets to be

level. In no particular order, they are:

1) Eliminate the bundling of Microsoft

operating systems with hardware. Currently,

it is difficult, indeed nearly impossible, to

buy a PC without a Microsoft operating

system pre-installed. This has the effect of

making consumers pay for an operating

system whether they want it or not. Worse

yet, this situation increases the proliferation

of Microsoft based viruses and worms by

shipping Outlook and Outlook Express as

mail clients. These mail programs are far and

away the most common vector for the spread

of malicious code throughout the Internet. In

the current state of concern for national

security—which was one of the concerns

cited by Judge Kollar-Kotelly in urging a

swift settlement—it is incomprehensible that

this situation would not be addressed. As

matters stand now, the current Microsoft

monopoly has no reason to improve the

security of its systems.

2) Require that any Microsoft file formats

have published standards. One of the most

vexing issues in transitioning away from

Microsoft is that many clients feel tied to

Microsoft and its office suite because they are

concerned that they will not be able to read

documents sent to them by others. This is

problematic for two reasons. First, rather

than choose the best software available based

on price and features, consumers choose

Microsoft products because that’s what

everyone else uses. Second, the closed file

formats used by Microsoft software allow

Microsoft to force consumers to upgrade not

only programs but hardware as well,

consequently forcing the purchase of more

powerful machines which just coincidentally

come pre-installed with a Microsoft operating

system. This is accomplished by changing

the closed file formats every so often.

A case in point is my mother, who had a

perfectly functional older PC with Windows

95 and Office 95. She could not read

documents sent to her that were written in

Office 2000. As her machine was not

powerful enough to handle the newer

versions of Windows, she was forced to buy

new hardware in order to run software that

would read her email attachments.

3) Publish all Microsoft interoperability

specifications.

Microsoft is notorious for an ‘‘embrace and

extend’’ policy with regards to industry

standards. A case in point in Kerberos, the

authentication policy that runs with

Windows 2000. For years, this was an open

standard used by the Unix community. After

Microsoft’s embrace and extension, Kerberos

on Microsoft failed to work with Kerberos on

Unix. Had the specifications for the Microsoft

extensions of Kerberos been published, this

attempted lock-in to Microsoft products

would have failed.

Another example is Samba, a program used

to emulate a Windows server on various

flavors of Unix. Samba developers have been

forced to spend quite a bit of time reverseengineering rather then developing software.

Were it not for them, Microsoft would have

a much larger chunk of the server market

than they do currently. Having monopolized

the desktop, as illustrated above, they then

attempted to make sure that only Windows

servers would work with the ubiquitous

desktop machines.

Opening Microsoft’s standards will expose

their products to a higher level of scrutiny

than previously possible. There is a saying in

the open source community: ‘‘With enough

eyes, all bugs are shallow.’’ These additional

eyes can only improve the performance and

security of Microsoft products. Consequently,

the standards to be opened must be available

to all, and at the time of product release.

Restricting access to a privileged few will

dilute the efficacy of the solutions to

Microsoft’s monopoly. It is also necessary to

realize that the rest of the world, with a few

notable exceptions, is moving towards open

standards in computing. As globalization and

international trade increase, we may find that

continued endorsement of Microsoft’s

practices will have an isolating effect.

In short, the existing Microsoft monopoly

is harmful to consumers, to our national

security, and to our nation’s commercial

interests. A strong and vigorously enforced

anti-trust settlement, such as outlined above,

will rectify these problems.

Sincerely,

Jeff Muse

24632 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

3895 Connecticut

St. Louis, MO 63116

jmuse@kcnet.com

MTC–00004918

From: Bergmeister, Frank

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 10:17am

Subject: name=‘‘winmail.dat’’

To whom it may concern,

I just wanted to voice my opinion on why

the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a

bad thing. My state unfortunately has already

conceded (we are a Microsoft state here in

Maryland) and signed off on the settlement.

Believe it or not, students at the University

of Maryland have to pay a fee each year for

using Microsoft products ... whether they use

them or not!! It’s not a lot of money each

year, but when you have 20,000 students, it

really adds up. Also: Because the most

successful competitors in recent years in

product markets in which Microsoft holds a

true or de facto monopoly (eg. personal

computer operating systems, Internet

browsers, and office productivity software)

have arisen from the open source software

community, I believe it is of extreme

importance that any settlement protect and

enhance this community’s ability to produce

products that provide end-users with viable

choices.

In my reading of the proposed settlement,

such protection is not provided. On the

contrary, the settlement will serve to allow

Microsoft to continue to hinder the open

source software community’s efforts. The

proposed settlement speaks of disclosure of

APIs and licensing of intellectual property. I

fear that any information disclosed by

Microsoft will only be licensed to vendors or

developers under conditions of a nondisclosure agreement, thus preventing the

implementation of such protocols in an open

source project or product.

This settlement, if implemented as

proposed, will serve to entrench Microsoft’s

monopolies further, by allowing it to exclude

the open source software community from

any future technologies and APIs it develops.

As this community is currently one of

Microsoft’s most serious competitors, it

seems unbelievable that the proposed

settlement will aid Microsoft in eliminating

this ‘‘threat’’ to their monopolies. It will give

them gain a monopoly in the last place that

they do not have one * * public education.

I hope that the decision is changed and

that some thought is used to come up with

a better solution!!

Frank Bergmeister

MTC–00004919

From: john.andrews@amsys.ie@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 10:26am

Subject: Proposed Final Judgment

Dear Renata Hesse,

As a consumer who uses Microsoft

products on a daily basis I feel severely let

down by the remedies as contained in the

Proposed Final Judgment in the case United

States of America vs Microsoft Corporation.

While publication of the windows API’s may

be a good idea in principle it is not sufficient

on its own and it should be expanded to

include publication of file formats. Let me

give my situation as an example of why this

should be so. In my case I use Microsoft

Word on a daily basis even though it is not

my word processor of choice. However I am

forced to use it both at home and at work in

order to be sure that colleagues and friends

will be able to read and update documents

that I produce and vice versa. Alternative

word processors that I have used have been

unable to import and export Microsoft

Word.doc files to a sufficient standard for me

to be able to use them. This is the only reason

I do not use an alternative word processor to

MS Word.

The difficulties and frustration at having to

use a product that I find poorly designed and

counter intuitive cause a considerable loss of

productivity in my daily work. While I hope

that this loss of productivity is not replicated

by millions of other consumers across the US

I would not be surprised to find out that it

was. To remedy this the judge should

mandate the setting up an independent

commission that would have the following

powers and duties:

1) It would publish all current and past

Microsoft file formats, protocols and

windows API’s.

2) It would require Microsoft to explain

and justify any changes to its current file

formats, protocols and windows API’s. Any

changes would have to be justified on the

basis of improved consumer utility.

3) It would have the power and the duty

to prevent Microsoft releasing products using

new file formats, protocols and windows

API’s in any cases where it was not

convinced that the benefits to consumers

outweighed the disadvantages of the new file

formats, protocols and windows API’s.

4) In cases where it was satisfied of the

benefits to consumers it would publish any

new Microsoft file formats, protocols and

windows API’s at least 6 months in advance

of any Microsoft product using them. This

gives other producers the opportunity to

update their products in time for a new

Microsoft release. Consumers using these

non-MS products would not then experience

periods during which their product of choice

was unable to use the latest Microsoft file

format. Items 2 and 3 would benefit all

consumers even if they only ever used

Microsoft products. Items 1 and 4 are

essential to the protection of any consumers

who wish to have a choice between Microsoft

products and those produced elsewhere.

There are some very important

requirements for the operation and makeup

of this commission:

The commission should do as much of its

work as possible in public. It would be

required to consider submissions from

consumers before making important

decisions. It would need a strong and

technically capable staff. Although the

commission and its staff would need to be in

constant communication with Microsoft none

of the commission members would be

Microsoft employees or have been proposed

by Microsoft. This is in order to insure the

commission’s independence. Finally the

commission must have the power to enforce

its decisions at the time that they are made.

Any Microsoft appeals should be considered

only after the decisions have been enforced.

To Conclude: The remedies as agreed by

the government and Microsoft will make

almost no difference to me as a consumer. In

order to make any improvement to my day

to day experience as a consumer of Microsoft

Operating Systems and Microsoft

applications, most if not all, of the

suggestions above would need to be

implemented.

Yours sincerely

John Andrews

MTC–00004920

From: Quincin Gonjon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 11:06am

Subject: Microsoft’s Monopoly

This country has been blessed with

freedom and the strength to empower its

people with it. Freedom is independence,

liberty and the exemption from the power

and control of another. Microsoft takes away

freedom from this country as well as from the

entire world. By allowing Microsoft to

complete its stated goals to provide the only

de facto Operating System, Office suite, and

internet tools for the entire world we are

giving away our rights as free people. Todays

way of living has changed dramatically and

more people depend on computers to

communicate, buy, find jobs, plan daily

activities, organize, travel and search for

information like a library. A great deal of

control will be placed on one company

(Microsoft) to secure our very freedom

without selfishly using this to empower

themselves into the biggest entity that the

world has ever known. I personally don’t

believe that such power should be given to

Microsoft and that the best way is for this

government to stop all monopolistic goals

and activities generated by Microsoft.

Microsoft products are by nature insecure

and they are in constant threat of being

hacked or cracked. Their product is not

secure because they implement insecure

features like portal, hailstorm,IIS, Outlook,

vb scripting, remote appliance control

through the web, MS Java machine and the

macro features in their Office Suite.

Microsoft’s goal is not to secure its Operating

System but to make sure its users find it

easier to use. This by nature makes the

Operating System even more hacker and

cracker friendly. Our nation and other

countries will need to have choices. Our

citizens should also be aware and have the

freedom to choose from different applications

without the propriety licenses of file format

to hinder one application from

communicating to another. I strongly believe

that if Microsoft would be permitted to

continue its journey of monopolizing the

software industry, the entire world would

loose its freedom. The only recourse as a free

nation is to make sure that the proprietary

formats and protocols of Microsoft is made

public and can be used by new and older

companies to build competing products.

CC:qgonjon@nyc.rr.com@inetgw

MTC–00004921

From: David McKellar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 11:32am

Subject: Open is the solution

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24633

I am sure many other people will be

making suggestions like this... The answer for

the Microsoft problem is to force them to

release all details on all their file formats and

protocols. In the future they should be barred

from using proprietary format/protocols—

strictly ISO/ANSI/W3C standards. This

would mean other companies (and non-profit

groups) can fairly complete with the 800

pound gorilla Microsoft has become.

MTC–00004922

From: Sherman, Robert (Orlando)

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/27/01 11:34am

Subject: Nader & Love said it best!

Linux is not a Cancer attacking

innovation...It represents the innovation of

every college, gifted user/programmer and

even some highly innovative companies.

Microsoft is actively trying to squash this

movement...look closely at the changes at

Corel, a company which once offered a

vibrant Linux distribution which had a focus

on creating a viable Linux Desktop OS. They

experienced some financial trouble, which is

in and of itself an odd situation, and when

Microsoft bailed them out...they decided to

end Linux OS developement.

Mr.(s) Nader and Love Stated ... What is

surprising is that the US Department of

Justice allowed Microsoft to place so many

provisions in the agreement that can be used

to undermine the free software movement.

Note for example that under J.1 and J.2 of the

proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold

technical information from third parties on

the grounds that Microsoft does not certify

the ‘‘authenticity and viability of its

business,’’ while at the same time it is

describing the licensing system for Linux as

a ‘‘cancer’’ that threatens the demise of both

the intellectual property rights system and

the future of research and development. The

agreement provides Microsoft with a rich set

of strategies to undermine the development

of free software, which depends upon the

free sharing of technical information with the

general public, taking advantage of the

collective intelligence of users of software,

who share ideas on improvements in the

code. If Microsoft can tightly control access

to technical information under a court

approved plan, or charge fees, and use its

monopoly power over the client space to

migrate users to proprietary interfaces, it will

harm the development of key alternatives,

and lead to a less contestable and less

competitive platform, with more consumer

lock-in, and more consumer harm, as

Microsoft continues to hike up its prices for

its monopoly products.

This open Source movement is important,

innovative and should be protected.

MTC–00004923

From: Harka Steinhart

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 11:45am

Subject: Comment on MS case

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

I thank you for the opportunity to comment

on the recently proposed remedies in the

case against Microsoft.

It is with great regret, that I have found

those remedies to be not of such nature at all.

They, in their current form, will not in any

way change the sad state of affairs in the

computer software industry and by extension

not enhance and empower the end users of

software products.

The proposed settlement in the case will,

however, be of great damage to the

Government of the United States and the

Department of Justice in particular.

Essentially people see this case and it’s

recent development as a sign, that Microsoft’s

devious ‘‘business’’ practices will again go

unpunished and nothing will change

whatsoever. In fact, now it seems even more

legitimized because everything is ‘‘settled’’

and ‘‘remedied’’. This dramatically

undermines peoples faith in the Justice

system. I cannot stress enough the

importance of this! I work in the IT

profession and come in contact with many

different people. Even those, who are

generally big proponents of Microsoft

(products), see this case as ‘‘MS having

bought out the DoJ’’ and in return having

gotten the most benevolent treatment that

could possibly have been hoped for in

Redmond.

Having mentioned this, I would like to take

the opportunity to suggest a couple

possibilities, that would really make a

difference to the industry and consumers

alike. Let me also preface this with the fact,

that these following options do not in any

way intend to ‘‘damage Microsoft as much as

possible’’ out of spiteful reasons, but are a

real attempt at restoring a healthy and

beneficial market atmosphere of competition,

where the best product advances on it’s own

merit, as opposed to a product that is quite

literally forced upon users against their will.

1. Decouple hardware from software. The

proposed ‘‘non-exlusive contracts’’ between

hardware vendors and Microsoft do not

accomplish this.

Hardware needs to be sold as

that...hardware. The Operating System and

any applications must be an additional

option (if desired at all) based on the buyer’s/

user’s true choice.

Currently it is just about impossible

without extensive research to find vendors

where one’s hard-earned money does not go

by default to a significant extent to Microsoft.

Even people, who later on exercise their

choice in software, tend to have to buy a

computer with a Microsoft OS and

applications preinstalled, thereby rendering

their later choice impactless in the market

because Microsoft has already gotten paid,

even though their products, including the

MS-Windows OS itself, weren’t used (which

is also why the proposed changes in regards

to ‘‘middleware’’ are not enough, because

they assume the MS-Windows Operating

System as being the one used, thus yet again

cementing the monopoly of Microsoft!)

This situation is contrary to the

*foundation of this country*, which is a free

and competitive market, where money votes

for which product will survive. The freedom

of choice is currently quasi non-existent.

An even more unfortunate extension of this

problem of hardware being tied to a

particular Operating System and/or

applications from a specific company is, that

in recent years even the usually generic

hardware has become OS specific. An

example of that are the infamous

‘‘WinModems’’...modem’s, which will only

work with a Windows-driver and thus

precluding any other OS. So yes,

theoretically the user could install another

OS but won’t be able to go online, effectively

preventing even the possibility of such a

choice of OS. I have seen similar examples

with graphics cards and other components.

The only true remedy for this is to make the

Operating System and applications an

*option* upon buying!

Further, Microsoft needs to be prevented

from leveraging their financial standing by

offering substantial and competitor-hostile

discounts on their software, even if it is

preinstalled with the users approval. I.e. a

copy of the MS-Windows OS should be the

same price whether it is purchased seperatly

or preinstalled. This also means, that if no

Microsoft OS and/or applications were

desired by the user, Microsoft should not get

a single penny (as opposed to ‘‘perprocessor’’ contracts, where MS got paid

regardless, even if nothing at all was

installed). This not only would restore a

market balance and give users an extremely

important choice over their computing

environment, but also lower costs by not

having to pay for undesired products.

2. Force Microsoft to open their formats.

The proposed opening of the Windows API

to ‘‘commercial’’ ventures is not only to

restrictive in it’s scope since it excludes notfor-profit development efforts, but also not

effective in eliminating the illegal monopoly

Microsoft is holding over the market place.

Far more important than the API are the

formats used for wordprocessed files (*.doc),

spreadsheets (*.xls), networking protocols

and the handling of formats such as XML.

Microsoft keeps these formats not only a

secret, but tends to deliberately change them

every so often, not only making it almost

impossible for competitors to, well, compete

but also forcing even users of it’s own

products into a viscious and expensive

‘‘upgrade’’ cycle if they want to be able to

read documents being sent to them by

someone with a newer version of the

program.

The development of alternatives in the

Office-Suite area, for example, are

dramatically hindered by the obscurity of the

formats used by Microsoft. The situation is so

dire, that people don’t ask how well an

alternative might work as a word processor

in itself, for example, but ‘‘how well does it

handle Microsoft Word(TM) documents’’.

Generally it can’t possibly handle it well

because the developers do not have access to

the *.doc format, thus forcing users to use

Microsoft’s own Word-processor as opposed

to a perhaps technically superior alternative

just because they have to remain

‘‘compatible’’ in the document format.

This is so important an issue, that not only

the choice of Office-Suite is currently

inhibited, but users are not able to adopt an

alternative Operating System such as Linux,

simply because it doesn’t have Microsoft

Office ported to it (although there are several

very good Office-Suites available for Linux).

The opening of the various formats and

protocols, however, would among other

24634 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

things allow the developer’s of alternatives to

correctly import and handle MS-Word *.documents and thus give the users the tools they

want and can most effectively use. A word

processor would be a word processor again

and not a ‘‘Microsoft Word(TM) Document

Processor’’. This step in itself would

dramatically alter the unhealthy landscape

currently present to a more productive and

balanced (not monopolized) market place.

Ladies and Gentlemen, these two points

outlined above would be far more reaching

towards the underlying goal to ‘‘unfetter [the]

market from anticompetitive conduct,’’ to

‘‘terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the

defendant the fruits of its statutory violation,

and ensure that there remain no practices

likely to result in monopolization in the

future’’, than the current proposals. The

current terms of the proposed settlement do

not accomplish that and are therefore

UNACCEPTABLE! It is therefore my hope

and and wish to see revised terms including

the points made above, that would indeed

unburden the market and users from the

heavy weight of a monopolist such as

Microsoft Corporation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Harka Steinhart

MTC–00004924

From: boyd

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 11:48am

Subject: DOJ proposed Microsoft Antitrust

Settlement

Reading the proposed settlement, and the

arguments put forward by the DOJ in support

of it, I find myself wondering how the DOJ

could craft a solution that not only does not

solve the problems it addresses, but

exacerbates them.

As a Computer Scientist who teaches about

Operating Systems and Networks, I am very

familiar with the problems that have arisen

as a result of Microsoft’s monopoly on the

desktop OS market. These problems have

cost the United States billions of dollar in

lost time and productivity. These problems

threaten our domestic security and make us

easy to attack from abroad. Simply put, any

monopolist in this area makes us easier to

attack, and Microsoft, with their very poor

security record, make us a sitting duck for

any 13 year old kid with a virus kit. We talk

of bioterrorism, but I think there is a much

greater danger of real economic loss from

computer terrorism.

There aren’t any easy solutions to this

problem, but the need for remedies is real

and the ones put forth by the DOJ are not

useful remedies. If you adopt them, Microsoft

will have been given your permission to

continue and even increase its monopolist

behavior and our country will be damaged by

a lack of innovation in computer software

and by a lack of security. Please give serious

consideration to the alternative proposals put

forth by the states that have, wisely, refused

to accept the DOJ settlement proposal and to

the suggestion you receive during this

comment period.

Sincerely,

Mark J Boyd, PhD.

Assoc Prof of Computer Science

University of North Carolina

MTC–00004925

From: mark dufour

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 12:11pm

how simple can it be? microsoft should not

purposefully make their software

incompatible with software by others! require

of them to thoroughly document public

formats such as Word so there can be honest

competition. unless you are being bribed, or

your whole government is owned by

microsoft, you will agree with me that this

can only benefit the consumer. mark dufour,

student of computer science, the netherlands.

MTC–00004926

From: Sharon A. Fordham

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 12:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the DOJ:

Folks, I urge you to reject the proposed

Microsoft settlement which would allow

Microsoft to donate old Windows equipment

and software to schools, probably at cost, as

a way of compensating the ‘‘class’’ of

consumers who believe they were ripped off

by Microsoft due to uncompetitive pricing of

their Windows products.

First, let me say that I am a sizeable

stockholder in Microsoft and I use their

software everyday. It1s good and I1m pleased

to have it. That said, I think the proposed

Microsoft settlement in patently wrong at

many levels and needs to be completely

rethought.

First and foremost, the settlement is

completely unresponsive to the court case,

which defined a class of oppressed

consumers who were forced to purchase

Windows at a higher premium than they

deemed appropriate. How is a proposal to

contribute old hardware and software to

schools in poor urban districts responsive to

a class action lawsuit for unfair, anticompetitive practices? Shouldn1t those in

the class be compensated, accepting that a

donation to a school is perhaps more noble?

Second, and far more troubling to me, is

that the proposed Microsoft settlement is

clearly a Trojan horse strategy for Microsoft

to begin to dominate one of the few

industries where they are not nearly as

competitive. In fact, Apple has almost a 50%

share in schools, and is the current category

leader. This is a very clever way for Microsoft

to begin to take control of the school channel

as well. Hummm, let1s see...they gave away

Internet Explorer and took away a 70% share

of the market from Netscape; they1re giving

away a free media player to unseat

RealPlayer as the leader. Doesn1t a free

‘‘giveaway’’ to indigent school systems sound

like it1s yet another leg of the very

uncompetitive trade practices for which it

was found guilty in the first place?

I urge you to reject the Microsoft proposal

for the reasons above.

Many thanks for your time...

Sharon A. Fordham

CC:safordham@rcn.com@inetgw

MTC–00004927

From: Nugent, Michael P (SAIC)

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/27/01 12:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

In the settlement of the antitrust lawsuit

against Microsoft, the DOJ states that

imposed restrictions will stop Microsoft’s

unlawful conduct. My warranted distrust of

Microsoft aside, even were Microsoft to

adhere to the restrictions set forth by the

settlement, Microsoft could and would still

continue to wield monopoly clout.

The most profound loophole is evident in

Section II ‘‘Overview of Relief’’, bullet point

6. While the settlement requires that

Microsoft publish its APIs, the settlement

does not deal at all with file formats or

network protocols.

Without forcing Microsoft to provide

information about these, Microsoft would

continue to prevent serious competition to its

office productivity software monopoly, and

hinder interoperability with other networked

OSs. Competing products do not have any

way to interpret Microsoft’s proprietary file

formats or network protocols without reverse

engineering, which puts competitors at a

severe disadvantage. It may also prove legally

impossible to develop a competing product,

depending on licensing agreements, some of

which explicitly restrict reverse engineering.

The most egregious loophole allows

Microsoft to continue to extract a price from

each new PC sold which is bundled with

their Microsoft OS, regardless of whether the

PC will ever run that Microsoft OS.

The settlement contains provisions in

Section II, bullet points 1, 2, 3 and 5, that

allow PCs to feature alternative middleware

products, but not provisions to allow PC

manufacturers to feature an alternative to the

Microsoft OS, pre-installed on nearly all new

PCs. That is to say, PC manufacturers must

pay for a pre-installed Microsoft OS, even if

they de-install the OS before the OS is used,

and replace it with another, non-Microsoft

OS. The Microsoft OS cost is then passed

down to the customer.

A recent and personal case in point: I

intend to purchase a notebook from Sony,

and though I will never boot to Windows, I

incurred the cost of the pre-installed OS.

Predictably, Sony does not sell any

computers without a Microsoft OS. And,

though I do not ever agree to the licensing

agreement, nor do I open the shrink-wrapped

software accompanying it, I cannot get a

refund.

While a recent ruling in another court does

permit me to sell the licensed software, I will

not likely get the full value. Nor would I like

my incidental purchase of a Microsoft

product to add to their revenue or bolster

their market penetration statistics.

(To read the ruling mentioned above, see

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/

RecentPubOp.nsf/

bb61c530eab0911c882567cf00 5ac6f9/

574aa79ff518021188256aed006ea2dc/$FILE/

CV00–04161DDP.pdf)

MTC–00004928

From: Steven W. Orr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 12:55pm

Subject: Please break Microsoft up.

They need to be broken up for all of the

following reasons:

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24635

1. They insist on using proprietary file

formats. Things like Word and Excel are just

the tip of the iceberg.

2. Proprietary network protocols. Separate

from proprietary file formats is the format of

data used to communicate between different

processes which might be on different

computers. Microsoft is famous for trying to

subvert well established protocols and

changing them so that already running

software will not work with their systems. At

first blush, you might think they were just

plain stupid, but in reality they are trying to

prevent anyone from running any software at

all unless it was purchased from them.

3. Bad security implementations. They

insist on implementiung their security

protocols in a proprietary fasion. The end

result is that it’s impossible to evaluate how

secure their systems really are unless

someone figures out how to crack them. In

fact, time and time again, their systems

always turn out to be trivially crackable. And

when it happens, they do not act in a timely

fasion to fix the problem. All of the good

security protocols are developed out in the

open so people can see how they work.

4. They prevent people from being able to

buy computers without their OS. I happen to

run Unix systems. I would never be happy

being forced to pay the extra Microsoft tax for

software I don’t want and would never use.

5. They engage in unfair business tactics.

They are famous for their deceptive business

practices. Little guys are routinely stepped

upon and squashed.

And finally, their bad practices are

impacting my personal ability to enjoy the

services provided to me by others. One recent

story I have for you concerns the cable

modem I have at home to host my own

personal domain. About 5 months ago when

the Code Red virus struck, my ISP, RCN, as

well as other major ISPs (like MediaOne)

simply shut off port 80. They were well

within their rights to do this for a number of

reasons; the main one being that People are

not allowed to run servers on a cable modem.

The driving force here is that the Microsoft

OS implementation is susceptible to virus in

an era when all other OS’s are not. The latest

episode is that RCN has just shut off all

access to all computers within their own

router groups, just for the purpose of

squashing yet another virus that affects the

Microsoft OS.

Please help. This is what government is

for. —

-Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a

banana. Stranger things have— -happened

but none stranger than this. Does your

driver’s license say Organ -Donor? Black

holes are where God divided by zero. Listen

to me! We are all- -individuals! What if this

weren’t a hypothetical question?

steveo@syslang.net

MTC–00004929

From: Chris Barr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 1:10pm

Subject: Comment on Microsoft suit

Microsoft has, as we all know, gained its

market position via illegal business practices.

Severe penalties should be levied for their

misdeeds, including substantial payments to

injured parties and substantial changes in the

company’s future business opportunities.

The proposed settlement is far too lenient

in regard to Microsoft.

Chris Barr

21 Riverview Avenue

Wayland, MA 01778

MTC–00004930

From: Bill Rausch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 2:06pm

Subject: Microsoft judgement

I am a concerned user and programmer. I

use Microsoft products as well as Apple

products. I also use quite a few different

UNIX systems as well as Linux. In fact, my

use of Linux and related open source

products such as Apache has been growing.

I’m concerned that the not-for-profit

organizations appear to have been left out of

the settlement. It appears to me that

Microsoft’s current competition is these very

organizations and that they must be

specifically included in the settlement.

I’m also concerned about the make-up of

the three person panel. That seems to me to

be too small a number of persons to properly

assess the vast number of software

technologies involved. I’ve spent my

professional career in software development

and am familiar with more many operating

systems and platforms and more

programming languages, yet certainly

wouldn’t feel qualified to sit on such a small

panel wielding such large influence. I don’t

think any group of three persons could do a

satisfactory job. I’d be more inclined to

support a group of seven or more persons,

along with some support staff.

Bill Rausch Software developer for

Numerical Applications, Inc. in Richland,

WA Adjunct computer science faculty for

Washington State University From comments

by Robert X. Cringely:

The remedies in the Proposed Final

Judgement specifically protect companies in

commerce—organizations in business for

profit. On the surface, that makes sense

because Microsoft was found guilty of

monopolistic activities against ‘‘competing’’

commercial software vendors like Netscape,

and other commercial vendors—computer

vendors like Compaq, for example. The

Department of Justice is used to working in

this kind of economic world, and has done

a fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein

in Microsoft without causing undue harm to

the rest of the commercial portion of the

industry. But Microsoft’s greatest single

threat on the operating system front comes

from Linux—a non-commercial product—

and it faces a growing threat on the

applications front from Open Source and

freeware applications.

The biggest competitor to Microsoft

Internet Information Server is Apache, which

comes from the Apache Foundation, a notfor-profit. Apache practically rules the Net,

along with Sendmail, and Perl, both of which

also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit

organizations have no rights at all under the

proposed settlement.

It is as though they don’t even exist.

Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong

language against not-for-profits. Specifically,

the language says that it need not describe

nor license API, Documentation, or

Communications Protocols affecting

authentication and authorization to

companies that don’t meet Microsoft’s

criteria as a business: ‘‘...(c) meets reasonable,

objective standards established by Microsoft

for certifying the authenticity and viability of

its business, ...’’

So much for SAMBA and other Open

Source projects that use Microsoft calls. The

settlement gives Microsoft the right to

effectively kill these products.

Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend

even further. It deals with disclosure of

information regarding the APIs for

incorporating non-Microsoft ‘‘middleware.’’

In this section, Microsoft discloses to

Independent Software Vendors (ISVs),

Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs),

Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Internet

Content Providers (ICPs), and Original

Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) the

information needed to inter-operate with

Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in

the footnotes at the legal definitions for these

outfits, we find the definitions specify

commercial concerns only.

But wait, there’s more! Under this deal, the

government is shut out, too. NASA, the

national laboratories, the military, the

National Institute of Standards and

Technology—even the Department of Justice

itself—have no rights. It is a good thing

Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and

that B-52s don’t run Windows. —

Bill Rausch, Software Development, Unix,

Mac, Windows Numerical Applications, Inc.

509–943–0861 bill@numerical.com

MTC–00004931

From: Robert Fischer

To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general

@po.state.ct.us@inet...

Date: 12/27/01 2:59pm

Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust remedies

To whom it may concern;

I would like to present the viewpoint of a

volume consumer of Microsoft products as

you consider possible remedies to the judged

illegal actions of Microsoft.

1)Integration of products does not benefit

consumers. Trust me. We are a

$400,000,000.00 + company employing about

700 people. A browser used to cost about

$25.00 per copy under the various volume

purchase agreements between Microsoft &

Netscape. I spend many, many times that

fixing bugs, and fending off the latest virus

because Microsoft integrates application

function in the operating system or viceversa. It isn’t an advantage.

2)My Microsoft licensing costs

QUADRUPLED this year because Microsoft is

leveraging the fact that there is no

competitive operating system or office

productivity suite. I can no longer purchase

and deploy upgrades as I need them in a cost

effective way, I have to buy maintenance on

a 3 yr contract, for products that come out

every two years or so (that are usually VERY

buggy, see the recent XP news) that would

take a year to deploy. Do the math, this

improves their cash flow tremendously while

giving our company nothing. It is cheaper to

buy new PC’s and depreciate them. In a

24636 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

down year like this, we can’t do that and

survive.

3)Microsoft would like to think they are an

innovator. Xerox invented the GUI interface,

most everything else is the result of

acquisition (or theft). XP is experiencing the

same problems as Windows 95, Windows

NT, or Windows 2000. Where’s the

innovation? Innovation is usually the result

of competitive pressure. They have no

competition, they are not innovating. I don’t

know that this will change anything but I

hope that it becomes another piece in the

puzzle. PLEASE, do not let Microsoft off the

hook. The industry need competition and

innovation to survive, and that isn’t the way.

Robert Fischer

Director-Information Technology

Communications Supply Corp.

630–221–6620

*‘‘Privileged/Confidential Information of

Communications Supply Corp. may be

contained in this message. If you are not the

addressee of this message, you may not copy,

use or deliver this message to anyone. In

such event, you should destroy the message

and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail.

It is understood that opinions or conclusions

that do not relate to the official business of

Communications Supply Corp. are neither

given nor endorsed by Communications

Supply Corp.’’

MTC–00004932

From: Thomas R. Bank

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 3:38pm

Subject: Proposed DOJ / Microsoft settlement

I have been familiar with computing and

the computer industry for nearly twenty

years now. I have long seen the adverse

effects of Microsoft’s monopolies in these

areas and I cannot see how the settlement

that is proposed even pretends to remedy the

antitrust violations for which Microsoft has

been found culpable.

The company has already been found in

violation and this is the penalty phase of the

case. However, I cannot understand how the

settlement contains no penalties and actually

advances Microsoft’s operating system

monopoly.

As an example of the current ‘problem’ of

Microsoft’s monopoly in the OS and office

productivity software markets, I point to the

ubiquitous ‘.doc’ file. This one proprietary

file format I believe is one of the cornerstones

of Microsoft’s OS/productivity suite

monopoly. Many people I know in the

business community regularly purchase

updated versions of Microsoft Windows and

Microsoft Office for the sole reason that their

correspondents send them .doc files as e-mail

attachments. The options for importing these

files into third party applications are many;

however, having personally tried a large

number of such programs, both free and

commercial, I can safely say that many work

well some of the time, none work well all of

the time. The continuing cycle of forced

upgrades to maintain compatibility with

correspondents lies at the heart of Microsoft’s

monopoly.

As a solution to this kind of problem, I

believe that Microsoft should be compelled

to disclose the specifications of the file

formats used by its products to anyone who

sends or receives files in such formats and

requests the information.

Left unsolved, this problem is bound to be

more severe in the future. It has been widely

reported recently that Microsoft is

considering moving to a yearly licensing-fee

system for its OS and Office software. In this

case, files created with licensed software and

saved in proprietary formats may be

permanently unavailable to the creator or

owner of the data in the file if a user or

company chooses to terminate its license. I

may own the copyright of the work I create,

but that is of little value if the only copy of

the work in existence is one saved in a format

to which I do not have access. I will be

required to maintain my yearly license

merely to access my past body of work.

Of course the .doc file format is not the

only proprietary file format Microsoft

products use, and the arguments above apply

equally well to other products and file

formats. The .doc format is likely the most

important however, because text-based

documents appear to be the most commonly

shared and transmitted.

I am also urging to court to act on future

technologies as well. Microsoft is now

planning to add vast pieces of the Internet to

it’s web of interdependencies. With it’s

initiative .Net, whole portions of the web

would be cut off from non-Microsoft

technologies. We have seen a glimpse of the

monopolist’s vision of the future with the UK

and MSN portal, designed by Microsoft and

accessible only with Microsoft technology.

Thomas R. Bank, II

281 Walton Street

Lemoyne, PA 17043–2025

MTC–00004933

From: Marc Hughes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 4:31pm

Subject: Proposed Settlement Problems

Hello,

I am an adminstrator of several commercial

websites which will remain unamed since I

send this email on my own behalf and not

neccesarily on the behalf of my company. I

am no legal expert, so I will keep my

comments brief and simply try to convey the

following points; I believe I have been hurt

by the microsoft monopoly. I do not believe

that the current penalties go far enough to

restrict the microsoft monopoly. And lastly,

I believe that if the proposed settlement is

accepted, little, if any, changes will likely

actually occur.

On our web servers, we use the linux

operating system. Up until recently I ran

linux on my workstation as well for it is far

easier to adminstrate a linux web server with

a linux workstation. I have recently had to

document many of the procedures using

Microsoft Word, and this has caused me to

install Windows on my workstation. This is

due to the fact that there are no good

alternatives that can read and write the Word

.doc files. This is because it is kept secret

from the general population. I would like to

see this, as well as all their other file formats

and network protocols documented fully for

anyone to use. Currently, under the current

proposal, only for-profit organizations would

have access to this information. This seems

irrelevant since the greatest threat to

Microsoft is open source, not for-profit

organizations.

Thank You for your time,

Marc Hughes

8 Lowell St

Worcester MA 01603

MTC–00004934

From: Rudy Socha

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 4:55pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I would like to publicly state my

disagreement with the Microsoft settlement.

I do not see anything in the settlement to

deter future monopolistic behavior. I also fail

to see any immediate remedies for corrective

action that can be taken by the oversight

commission.

Sincerely,

Rudy Socha

President

WildlifeGifts.Com

P.O. Box 410

Lorain, OH 44052

P-440–288–5400

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00004935

From: Art Mellor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 4:56pm

Subject: comments on MS proposed

settlement

While I have many complaints with this

whole situation (beginning with MS being

declared a target of anit-trust violations in the

first place), I feel compelled to comment on

the proposed settlement. If you are to accept

that MS is guilty of anti-trust violations

involving anti-competitive practices

surrounding their Operating System and

other software, it is (in my opinion) ludicrous

to allow their punishment to include the

further distribution of their software—

especially to schools! This seems like the

tobacco companies being allowed to settle a

suit by handing out free cigarettes. Also, the

dollar value of ‘‘software’’ can not be set at

retail prices when deeming the value of the

*punishment*. The value must be set by the

real cost to MS in dollars—the manufacturing

and packaging cost of the software plus the

lost sales for the schools who would have

bought some software anyway (which is not

very many, otherwise the punishment is even

more ludicrous).

Make them give cash, or other related

products that create no future revenue stream

for MS. Make them buy their competitor’s

products for the schools if the damage they

have done is monopolistic in nature. But do

NOT allow them to seed our children with

their poison.

Art Mellor : HTTP> http://

www.scumpa.com/art/ : Cool,Humor,Gross

Lists at art@scumpa.com : Cell> 617/899–

2360: www.scumpa.com/lists.html

Computers are not intelligent. They only

think they are.

MTC–00004936

From: steadyed

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 5:00pm

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24637

Subject: Microsoft Reaches Private Antitrust

Settlement

Microsoft Reaches Private Antitrust

Settlement

I am the computer specialist at the

company I work at. We are a Microsoft based

company, not out of choice but because we

have no choice. The company is the most

powerful monopoly the world has known

and now is the time to make real changes so

that other companies and software

manufactures can provide their skills and

products without fear of Microsoft stealing,

destroying, or braking interoperability.

This settlement as it stands now is a

charade. It makes no sense, looks like a

Microsoft pay off and it is horrible for

competition and consumer choice as well as

the rule of law.

It’s like punishing a cigarette company by

making it supply schools with free Cigarettes

for a few years. I’m sure Apple Computer and

network hardware and software companies

for example, will find the settlement

unsettling, to say the least. How can others

compete any longer in their main markets

when a competing company is given the key

to the facility and a green light to wire and

network the district with their proprietary

equipment and software?

It’s a hard place to be in for the schools

who see Microsoft waving one billion dollars

(the cost of what Microsoft would charge, not

the actual cost to the company), in front of

their face. It’s blinding. Who can argue the

benefits of technology to our youth and at

first glance, a cost reduction to our schools.

However, I estimate this one billion

investment will pay off handsomely and be

a windfall for Microsoft and its products

entrenchment in those very same schools

within the near future. The schools will end

up being dependent on one source, which

will be of no benefit to anyone but Microsoft.

This is not a remedy, it is a strangle hold

on those very schools which will now be

completely dependent on Microsoft. The

Ironic thing is that if Microsoft was to offer

a billion dollars to set up schools with their

equipment in a different environment, it

would most likely not be allowed to because

it would be anti-competitive since it would

block out all other companies that cant

compete cost wise. This act by Microsoft is

of course not altruistic. It is just the first step

in solidifying it’s future for the billions of

dollars schools will spend in the upcoming

decades. It also makes a future anti-trust case

more likely and more unsettling. You can not

punish a company that has over 30 billion

plus in cash in the bank (not including non

cash assets), by giving them whole markets

(and for pennies on the dollar), and call it a

Monopoly remedy. That’s just a joke.

One billion dollars is the same amount of

money that Microsoft is spending on

Advertisement alone for Windows XP.

Microsoft plows over multi-billion dollar

companies like Sony, as if they are ants.

The company plans on loosing roughly a

billion dollars on the Xbox this year alone inorder to solidify a market presence

dominated by Nintendo and Sony. The

company has factored in a loss of over onehundred dollars per Xbox it sells just to gain

market share. How can a start-up or even a

thriving company compete with Microsoft

when it can sell it’s products at margins of

a one-hundred dollar loss per unit. Microsoft

can lose a billion dollars a year and survive

with no problem for over 30 years.

The rest of the Tech industry lives from

quarter to quarter and has to compete (or in

most every case chooses not to) with

Microsoft, who has grown from a darling to

a cancer. This One billion to the schools, like

the XP marketing blitz and Xbox

expenditures, solidifies a presence in yet

another market for Microsoft, one of few

markets that it doesn’t yet have a Monopoly

in. You got to love the Genius behind

Microsoft though. They pulled another fast

one on US, the public. Microsoft out spends

the US government until the United States

can’t stand up against it. It just going to get

worse.

I don’t pretend to know what the remedy

should be, but it needs to be strong, effective

and no-nonsense. Even if there is a strong,

effective and no nonsense remedy Microsoft

will still be unstoppable in my opinion.

Hopefully, the settlement will prevent a

third anti-trust case at my(the consumer/tax

payers) expense and allow other companies

at least a slight chance to compete in an open

market, which at this point is almost

exclusively a closed Microsoft market.

Joshua Orzech

California, USA

MTC–00004937

From: Larry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 5:11pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Let the schools decide what computers &

software they want to buy for there own and

don’t put the decision in MS hand. that only

empowers them even further than they

already are.

thank you for your time

MTC–00004938

From: Rick Wintheiser

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 5:26pm

Subject: My ‘‘Bilingual’’ Opinion

ON the issue of the Microsoft case, it is

very clear to me what is the true way to go,

and the Microsoft, good company that it is,

is really a Monopoly or at least leading an

Oligopoly. I must state that I buy, sell and

develop for Microsoft Windows platform

products. I feel and see the results of

Microsoft everyday. It is my business. On the

other hand I choose to us Macintosh for my

personal needs. I ‘‘self support’’ my machine

at the office and in the home. So I feel I can

make a fairly unbiased opinion. Microsoft

carries a huge stick. They do what the want,

when they want ( you only need to look into

their relations with IBM and the

development of OS/2 or the recent Xbox

launch). They have the money and the

marketshare to hold out or buy out. This is

not the behaviour of fighting small company.

GM cannot work like this, Nestle, Citibank,

either. I think for me it is common sense that

Microsoft is pushed or broken up. They

cannot have unfair advantage based on

market share and size. It kills innovation and

stifles creativity. Feel free to contact me at

any time.

Rick D. Wintheiser

Methodus Consulting you’re going too

slow.

351 21 422 8870 (voice)—Mario Andretti

351 21 441 3099(fax)

www.methodus.com

MTC–00004939

From: Valient Gough

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 5:40pm

Subject: comments on proposed settlement

To whom it may concern, I am a software

developer for a large internet retailer based

in Seattle. Having followed the case against

Microsoft over the years, I am dissapointed

with the results. In our company, all our

developers (on the order of 1000) work on

Linux systems. Also our hundreds of web

servers and various online systems are

running either Linux or another type of Unix.

But even though Linux is where all of our

real work gets done, every developer also has

another computer under their desks which

runs Windows. That is because we

sometimes have to open Excel spreadsheets

or Word .doc files, which are notoriously

difficult to decode. The greatest potential for

a truely competitive marketplace comes from

open source projects, not other companies.

Microsoft knows how to deal with for-profit

organizations—they can make vapor ware

announcements, sabotage competing

programs, buy out competitors, basically use

their enormous bank account against a poorly

funded rival until the rival is dead. But this

doesn’t work against open source projects,

which I believe is why they have succeeded

against this gorrila where commercial

enterprises have failed.

What bothers me about this proposed

settlement is that it is not forward looking.

It does not look to prevent Microsoft’s illegal

actions against what it percieves as the

current threat (and our great hope)— open

source software. Part of the proposed

settlement stated that Microsoft could decide

who gets information based on wether or not

they were a viable buisness. This seems

clearly an attempt to exclude open source

software.

In order to really allow competition to

bloom, here’s what you need to address.

Microsoft uses sleazy buisness tactics to

destroy for-profit competitors. One solution

would be to try and reign in their tactics.

This is frought with danger and likely

doomed to failure because as long as they

have the money and desire, they will find

new and inventive ways of being sleazy. A

slightly better solution would be to try and

reduce their ability to act—by monitary fines,

breaking up the company, etc. The problem

is this doesn’t separate the wheat from the

chalf (the sleaze from the innovative

technology), so you end up reducing both in

proportion but you reduce the good just as

much as the bad. If there is no way to make

Microsoft compete fairly with other

companies, then that just shows that the

battle field to concentrate on is not the

graveyard of its former competitors but the

blooming competition from open source.

It is here that you can make a real

difference. The reason is that most of the

sleazy tactics do not apply against grassroots

24638 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

open source projects. Instead of using sleazy

tactics, Microsoft is forced to rely on tactics

based in technology. Their primary

technology-based tactic so far has to been to

create interoperable and propietary formats

and use their monopoly power to push those

formats across the board in an attempt to cut

out competition. The reason I think this is

where you have a chance at doing good is

because this is where the future competition

actually lies, and because technology can be

easier to control then tactics—as technology

leaves a physical existance (source code, runtime behavior) which can be witnessed and

serves as a record.

The first step is to open up Microsoft’s

proprietary formats—to everyone under

public domain. I think other people can

speak better to other parts of a remedy, so I

will limit myself to saying that from my

experience, Microsoft’s use of proprietary

formats is the greatest technological

stranglehold on their monopoly. They may

have maintained their monopoly for years

based on shutting out small competitors, but

the real competition today is from open

source. That is where you should be focusing

remedies. It would take much greater effort

to try and revive commercial competition

from the dead—you should act on preserving

an already existing and viable competition.

Additionally, there are many crossovers of

hybrid open source and commercial

enterprise entities. This is where open source

projects become the basis for a small

corporation providing either support or

services. By providing the atmosphere for

open source projects to interoperate with the

widely installed base of Microsoft products,

you can turn the fact that they are a

monopoly into an advantage by providing an

ample audience for new projects, which in

turn will provide many opportunities for new

companies to provide support and services,

all of which are an advantage to the

consumer.

regards,

Valient Gough

Senior Software Development Engineer

MTC–00004940

From: David W. Murray

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 6:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Monopoly Penalty

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was astounded to see the proposed

penalties to Microsoft Corp., which has been

found guilty of maintaining an illegal

monopoly, which amount to no penalty at

all, or a slap on the wrist. To allow Microsoft

to flood the education market, one of the few

markets in which they do not hold monopoly

position, with their software is not a penalty

but a boon.

If I am convicted of speeding, I must pay

the full fine in cash. I am not permitted to

pay to a third party in the form of a product

which will be considered at full retail cost,

despite the fact that it costs me but a few

percent of that figure to produce. Nor am I

permitted to pay my penalty in such a way

that it enhances and increases my business,

as that would turn my penalty into a simple

business investment.

A penalty for a crime must punish past

behavior, and prevent such behavior in the

future. The proposed penaltied do neither.

Microsoft has been so conteptuous of the

power of the Justice Department to control it

that, far from treading lightly during the

protracted proceedings, it has continued to

act to extend its monopoly. In the internet

arena, which seems to be the next target,

Microsoft has repeatedly modified open

access tools, such as Java, for no other

purpose except to prevent access, except

through use of the Microsoft tool. One

encounters more and more sites which can be

accessed only with Microsoft software, for

example.

The Republican party, of which I am a

member, has stood accused of being owned

by various large industries. It is time to put

that lie to rest, if lie it is, and to consider this

case on its demonstrated facts.

Sincerely,

David W. Murray

15 Moorage Ave.

Bayville, NJ 08721

732–269–5752

MTC–00004941

From: Jose Castejon-Amenedo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 6:30pm

Subject: US vs. Microsoft

Dear Madam/Sir:

The settlement proposed to bring the US

vs. Microsoft legal proceedings falls short

from accomplishing any useful social goals in

at least two respects: (1) Microsoft has been

found guilty of illegally abusing its monopoly

position on a regular basis for a number of

years now. That is, this company has shown

a consistent and olympic disrespect for the

law for years, and for that it deserves just

punishment.

The proposed settlement does nothing

much to administer any significant

punishment to Microsoft for its past

misconduct. The message that this sends to

individual citizens is that the consequences

associated with breaking the law can be

rendered irrelevant when a sufficiently large

amount of money and/or influence are

available. By allowing Microsoft the privilege

to come out unscathed, the DOJ is actually

mocking the foundations of the law.

(2) The proposed remedies do nothing

much to prevent Microsoft from carrying on

along its past lines of conduct. Worse, in

instances they actually provide Microsoft

with a leverage to expand its monopoly to

other areas where it has not achieved

hegemony yet. An expanded monopoly can

only result in further limitations of freedoms

of choice, with the consequent social

damage.

In order to provide effective means to curb

Microsoft’s monopolist ambitions, and to

promote competition, the remedies should

include the following:

(a) Force Microsoft to publish detailed

descriptions of its proprietary protocols, file

formats, and application programmer

interfaces (APIs). Microsoft ought to be also

forced to publish the details of any

modifications that it sees fit to carry out on

those items before it releases an actual

software implementation thereof. Finally,

Microsoft ought to be forced to adhere to

such published descriptions.

Notice that forcing Microsoft to make

public the source code of its operating

systems is neither necessary nor convenient.

Microsoft should be allowed to keep such

implementation details secret, as long as it

complies with the specifications above.

(b) Microsoft ought to be prevented from

buying out any competing companies for a

number of years. It should always be free to

innovate, but by its own means and

resources, not by extinguishing potential

competition.

(c) Microsoft ought to be prevented from

striking secret exclusive deals with any other

company. In particular, any deals that

Microsoft has with vendors, such that the

latter are prevented from preinstalling

competing operating systems, ought to be

declared illegal.

Sincerely,

JCA

Jose Castejon-Amenedo

1401 Red Hawk Cir.

#N312

Fremont, CA 94538

USA

Phone #: 510–739–3852

MTC–00004942

From: Stephen Besedick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 6:55pm

Subject: Antitrust Case

Dear Sirs,

Microsoft has been determined guilty of

violating anti-trust laws but has not been

‘‘punished’’ accordingly! No reasonable

person would ask that the federal

government impose ‘‘corrections’’ that

cripple Microsoft, but it must find ways of

leveling the playing field. With the

encroachment of technology into almost

every facet of our daily lives, it is imperative

that no ONE company be in control. It has

become quite obvious over the years that an

overwhelming majority of American

consumers do NOT really care what

computer operating system they use . . .

they just want it to WORK. Furthermore,

given the inherent communicative nature of

computer technologies, the American

consumer wants to be able to ‘‘talk’’ and/or

‘‘share’’ information with others; and have

this whole process WORK transparently

behind the scenes no matter what make or

model of computing device a person

uses.This model of compatibility is just the

thing that makes the internet such a

successful vehicle for communication. When

standards are invoked, all manufacturers

must meet the criteria or face exclusion from

the market. It’s sort of like UL approved

appliances . . . where standards of safety are

set, and all manufacturers build accordingly.

If, on the other hand, we let a manufacturer

establish the standard(s), the consumer is

subjected to the levels of safety this

manufacturer deems appropriate. It is quite

clear that this latter model most closely

resembles the state of technology is our

country. In this writer’s opinion, Microsoft

has been allowed to climb its way (on the

backs of unwary consumers) to the position

where it alone defines the viability of

technology solutions, It answers to no one,

and crushes any who may oppose it. Its not

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24639

that Microsoft is inherently bad, but that it

needs to be put in its place. The federal

government is at a crossroads wherein it can

help shape the technological future of our

country. If it allows Microsoft to continue in

its ways, everyone will be tied to its whims

and fancy. On the other hand, if it forces

Microsoft to become simply a tech company

(not the standard), it will truly level the

playing field for all who choose to compete.

The success or failure of a company will

again rest on its ability to meet consumer

needs.

Stephen Besedick

Tech Coordinator

MTC–00004943

From: David.Rosario@chase.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 6:55pm

Subject: Monopoly comment

I would like to comment on this topic.

I’m sure that everyone is aware of the fact

of Microsoft’s monopoly, including Microsoft

themselves, yet many reject to acknowledge

reality and put a spin on the truth (aka lie!)

In fact, I remember Microsoft’s vision in the

early 1990’s: ‘‘Windows everywhere’’ is what

they called it—in computers, cable boxes,

refrigerators—pretty much anywhere they

could get it into. That is what they would

like to see. Along the way they have

demolished many companies to further their

cause and gain an unfair advantage.

Toward the mid-1990’s they stated that

they would port their Office suite to OS/2

when OS/2 reached critical mass—2 million

users, according to them. What happened?

OS/2 reached critical mass and Microsoft

never delivered on their promise. Why?

Because OS/2 was superior to Windows and

would directly compete with them.

In an effort to fool everyone, Microsoft

invested in Apple and updated their Office

suite for the Macintosh. They did this

because they needed a ‘‘competitor’’ that

could take some of their market share.

Microsoft was merely trying to convince

naive individuals that there was a viable

alternative to Windows, namely the

Macintosh, that could compete with them. I

have heard too many reasons as to why the

Mac is not as successful as hoped (and you

will see the relevance of this) but nobody has

stated the correct reason. The correct reason

that the Mac has failed is because of their

closed hardware architecture and exorbitant

prices. Can you buy a Mac-compatible device

from another vendor? No. Can you buy a nonApple computer that runs the MacOS (or OS

X)? No. How is this important? The only two

operating systems (for desktops, not servers)

that Microsoft has attacked are OS/2 and

Linux. Why? Because you can use the same

computer that runs Windows to run OS/2 or

Linux. OS/2 and Linux have had a serious

following. Sure there have been other

desktop operating systems for the PC like

BeOS, but they never received serious

support. Microsoft has spread vicious lies

about Linux to any non-technical manager

that will lend an ear just because those are

the ignorant type of managers that make

technical decisions.

OS/2 created a version named ‘‘OS/2 for

Windows’’ (aka Ferengi). With this, the cost

of OS/2 would be lower because it didn’t

include Windows 3.1 which was an

additional license charge. You could use

your exisiting Windows and OS/2 would

incorporate it. Microsoft’s response? They

released a modified version of Windows

which became incompatible with OS/2 for

Windows. How’s that for uncompetitive?

I heard Microsoft’s arguments about how

they felt the Netscape browser was a threat

to Windows, which prompted them to take

the actions they did. However, everyone

seemed to overlook the fact that you need an

operating system to run a browser. A browser

is capable of rudimentary operations. Even

with Java applets, they do not have the

flexibility of Java applications. However, you

still need a JRE (Java Runtime Environment)

to be able to run applets, and where does the

JRE reside? In the operating system! I don’t

know how Microsoft was able to argue that

Netscape’s browser was a threat to their

operating system. It is just not possible.

Microsoft must be forced to publish API’s for

all of their products and port their products

to competing operating systems. Compilers

and window toolkits (like Qt) that grew up

on Unix were made to run on Windows—

now it’s time for them to do the same.

Microsoft has a history of introducting

incompatibilities with accepted standards to

further their cause. J++ had Windowsspecific hooks. Their Kerberos

implementation is incompatible (to an

extent) with the Unix standard. Their motto

is ‘‘embrace and extend’’. This is completely

uncompetitive. Something must be done

about it. Having them donate resources to

schools (a proposed remedy) is just a way for

them to further increase their penetration

into the market. We are in a county that

opposes taxation without representation.

Now it’s time to represent the taxpayers

voicing their opinions. Let’s see if the U.S.

Government’s judiciary system actually

works they way they teach us it does.

MTC–00004944

From: Brian Pankuch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 7:08pm

Subject: microsoft

Gentlemen:

I’m not a lawyer, but I am a heavy user of

software and a Professor of Chemistry. Since

Microsoft has been found guilty in several

high courts and found to be an illegal

monopoly, it is beyond belief that we can

even consider making them more of a

monopoly than they already are as part of the

settlement. The proposed settlement costs

Microsoft very little and does great harm to

other competitors in education.

Can I respectfully suggest if you want to

help poor school systems then money for

anything but Microsoft products should be

considered. Supplying only their own

software helps Microsoft and hurts their

competitors, how can this possibly be a

punishment??

I do think Microsoft has some good

products, but they are also a very dangerous

monopoly, please help while we still can still

have some competition. Thanks for listening.

Brian J Pankuch Ph.D.

MTC–00004945

From: Pierre F. Fogal

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 7:10pm

Subject: Comments of US v. Microsoft

To Whom it may Concern,

I am a scientist, and while not a computer

professional per se, I have programmed

everything from microprocessors to

supercomputers. Thus far, I have always felt

that I have had the ability to choose how I

will approach the programming task at hand.

However, it is clear that the choice has been

dwindling in direct proportion to the rise of

the Microsoft (MS) empire. Now, don’t get

me wrong, I have used many MS products

over the past 2+ decades, and early on was

quite happy with the results. Why and when

did that change? Well, to begin with, it

changed with the MS mentality that MS

should provide the software solution en toto,

usually in monolithic applications that lead

to the term ‘‘bloatware’’. As the complexity

of these applications increased, there has

been a comcomitant decrease in robustness.

So, we arrived at a point where we had the

opportunity to do many things (a large

percentage of which any one user won’t do),

but in reality not the ability. Also, as MS

further developed their technology, they

often managed to break mine. Computers that

were perfectly capable in January, became

nearly obsolete in June. Why ? They didn’t

have the capacity to run the latest versions.

So . . . don’t, we say. However, others did,

and eventually, the hardware really did need

replacement. Now there exists a hodge podge

of things that almost work. Is this a situation

restricted to MS products? No, but it occurs

on a far shorter time scale when MS products

are concerned. I raise these points at various

times with various people and a typical

response is ‘‘Well, what OTHER CHOICE is

there?’’ And that’s what its all about. Choice.

The ability to choose not to upgrade. The

ability to choose the functionality we want.

The ability to choose the software that will

deliver that functionality. The ability to

choose INTEROPERABILITY BEYOND and

OUTSIDE the MS family of products. To this

end, I propose that MS be required to deliver

something like the following....

(1) That they be required to support their

own earlier file formats as completely as

possible. This would ease the requirement for

rapid upgrades on the part of users.

(2) That they correctly export documents

into other formats, so long as those other

formats are capable. This allows us more

freedom to choose software.

(3) That if Microsoft writes files in a format

that is a ‘‘standard’’ and/or largely in the

public domain such as html, xml, postscript,

pdf, that they be barred from ‘‘enhancing’’

those formats and that any functionality they

wish to add be submitted to what ever de

facto administrative body oversees the

various formats, for inclusion. In the past

their enhancements have broken other

software, limiting our choices.

(4) As for 3, but dealing with

communications protocols including but not

limited to hardware, software, and the

internet.

(5) That they make public in a complete

manner, the complete specifications for

24640 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

operating system API’s, where those APIs

will allow a 3rd party to provide software

capability on par with MS products. This

goes directly to the issue of choice.

(6) That .Net not be permitted to evolve

into something that can only be effectively

used via MS products. Should it do so, the

potential for misuse and abuse is staggering!

(7) On a different note, MS should be

mandated to keep out of the information

gathering and management business. It is

utterly frightening that the people who write

the software that run our computers on one

hand, are potentially also the people

gathering information for the use, or by the

request of, entities such as insurance

companies, financial institutions, potential

employers, marketers, special interests, and

so on. . . .

(8) MS has also taken to releasing public

statements regarding how open source

software is not trustworthy, going so far as to

say that the open source model is UnAmerican. These diatribes are rarely factual

and MS should be restricted in much the

same manner IBM was restricted in the

1980’s and 90’s from making

pronouncements regarding software. It is

wrong for them to use their pre-eminent

position to distribute fear, uncertainty and

doubt (FUD) regarding potential competing

products.

To summarize, MS limits our ability to

choose how we want to work today. Please

ensure that they are limited in their ability

to do so.

Thank-you for your time,

Pierre Fogal, Ph.D.

Pierre F. Fogal, Ph.D.

Dept. of Physics and Astronomy

University of Denver

2112 E. Wesley Ave.

Denver, CO, USA 80208

voice: 303–871–3523

fax: 303–778–0406

MTC–00004946

From: Greg Cunneen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 7:52pm

Subject: Reward or punishment

There are extremely large numbers of

computers in the world, all of which become

obsolete within 2 to 3 years. Many are

recycled into other products, many are

dumped, yet many get donated to institutions

(like schools). The advantage of getting

school kids ‘‘hooked’’ on a particular system

are obvious; they continue to use what is

familiar to them in later school years and

adult years.

‘‘Punishing’’ Microsoft by allowing it to

hijack the sole remaining competitive market

seems very strange to me. Not only does it

kill off the other legitimate businesses (the

ones that did not break the law), it will

naturally lead to increased sales for Microsoft

in the future for the reason stated above in

paragraph 1. As a rule, I do not use Microsoft

products unless absolutely necessary. I admit

my bias. Unfortunately, their products are

now so dominant that it is impossible for me

not to use them (because everyone else uses

them too). I don’t know the technical

definition of a monopoly, but I cannot think

of any other industry that is so completely

dominated by one company.

And I cannot help but think that if

Microsoft were not an American company,

say Taiwanese or Japanese, everyone in US

political circles would be bending over

backward to nobble the foreign entity to

ensure valid competition. Instead, Microsoft

ends up being rewarded.

Where is the justice in that?

Greg Cunneen

MTC–00004947

From: Carl

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 8:13pm

Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft

To Whom it may Concern:

I’ve been working with computers for the

last six years, and I have seen the growth of

microsoft in the marketplace. It has reached

a point that a majority of computers sold

today are sold with microsoft products, while

it is quite difficult to find an alternative

offered.

My concern with microsoft’s monopoly lies

with the internet, a computer network

originally payed for by the taxpayers of the

U.S., and now is slowly being monopolized

by microsoft’s attempts at creating ‘closed’

protocols with their .NET initiative. The

internet should be free, the public payed for

it, and it should not be dominated by one

company for it’s sole profit. The internet best

represents our right to free speech, and no

company should dictate what that speech

should be. My ability to ‘surf’ the internet is

hindered by the fact that microsoft powered

sites cater only to microsoft browsers, and

that is just the beginning, soon, with the

.NET initiative, more of the world wide web

will be inaccessible. This is not just a

problem in the U.S. it is a problem that spans

the globe. The internet is such that the

people of the planet have the ability to

communicate, and the microsoft monopoly

will insure that the entire planet is running

microsoft products. The punishment of

microsoft must ensure that the internet

remains free and that all people enjoy the

freedom of choice of software products

worldwide.

Carl Miles

cmiles@fuckmicosoft.com

‘‘One is often kept in the right road by a

rut.’’

Gustave Droz

MTC–00004948

From: Lupe Anguiano

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 8:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Renata B. Hesse: I am a Latina small

technology consultant. I believe Settlement of

the Microsoft Antirust Case is critical to the

health of our US technology economy. The

interest of consumers and affordable user

friendly software applications should be the

overriding factor in this decision to settle this

case once and for all. It is obvious that

companies and States (California Attorney

General hired a Washington DC lawyer to

advice him) against Microsoft have various

personal financial gains at heart. Tax payer

monies should not be used to support

company and personal gains.

Lupe Anguiano

Technology and Fundraising Consultant

14420 Kittridge St. #220

Van Nuys, CA 91405

818–787–8807

languian@gte.net

MTC–00004950

From: Darren Varner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 9:06pm

Subject: Microsoft case.

They were found guilty of being a

monopoly. They are a monopoly. Due to this

they charge ridiculous prices for their

software. They have put people out of

business for years even though their own

software is of lesser quality. They got caught

cold threatening Apple to kill Quicktime, the

superior streaming media, or else they would

stop development of Office for Macintosh.

They trashed Java and when they got called

to mat on this what do they do? They remove

it entirely from their latest version of Internet

Explorer!

It is even more unbelievable to me that

they have had a hand in determining their

own punishment. And how do they do this?

By helping their chances greatly in the

education market! (This same strategy for

punishment never used to work when we

were youngsters either . . . don’t you

remember that?) They have shown how

unsecure their software is and recently, while

they claim that XP is their most secure work

to date, we find that the biggest security risk

ever to their software has now got them

scrambling again. Diversity in operating

systems is a good thing in todays

environment of hackers. Please do the right

thing. Punish them as the monopolists they

have been found to be!

Darren Varner

315 E. 68th Terrace

Kansas City, Missouri 64113

darrenv@kc.rr.com

MTC–00004951

From: James Ramsey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 9:13pm

Subject: Apparent misperceptions about

security

One of the sections from the Final

Judgment, III.J.1, has already been noted

controversial because it is a possible

loophole. However, aside from that problem,

it also appears to rest on a false

understanding of how to make secure

software. From III.J.1: ‘‘No provision of this

Final Judgment shall . . . [r]equire Microsoft

to document, disclose or license to third

parties: (a) portions of APIs or

Documentation or portions or layers of

Communications Protocols the disclosure of

which would compromise the security of a

particular installation or group of

installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus,

software licensing, digital rights

management, encryption or authentication

systems, including without limitation, keys,

authorization tokens or enforcement criteria;

or (b) any API, interface or other information

related to any Microsoft product if lawfully

directed not to do so by a governmental

agency of competent jurisdiction.’’

The above appears to be built on the idea

of ‘‘security by obscurity,’’ where security is

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24641

dependent upon hiding the implementation

used to secure something. In the physical

world, this would be analogous to making the

mechanisms of a lock or safe a trade secret.

In the computer realm, this would mean

keeping secret the mathematics or

algorithms, source code, protocols, etc. of

cryptographic software. While this appears to

make sense on its face, it has long been

discredited by those who deal with computer

security, such as Bruce Schneier, author of

‘‘Applied Cryptography’’ and ‘‘Secrets and

Lies,’’ a book about dealing with real-world

security problems. (His business’s website,

by the way, is http://www.counterpane.com.)

In particular, the core problem with ‘‘security

by obscurity’’ is that it is fragile, that is, the

security implementation is not necessarily

obscure to the ones who may attempt to

break it. Industrial spies or hackers/crackers

have the tools and expertise to discover the

source code or algorithms of a piece of

security software. Even those who are not

‘‘black hats’’ may break proprietary, secret

algorithms with relative ease. (See http://

www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram9902.html#snakeoil) Much of strong

cryptographic and security software, rather

than relying on the secrecy of the algorithm

or implementation, relies on public

algorithms and often public

implementations. What is kept secret is a

long number, a key, used in combination

with the algorithm, and knowledge of the

algorithm is useless without the key.

Examples of public cryptographic algorithms

are the government standards DES (recently

‘‘retired’’) and AES (DES’s replacement), and

RSA, the algorithm behind SSL, the protocol

used for secure Internet transactions.

Examples of secure software with public

implementations are OpenBSD, OpenSSH,

OpenSSL, and PGP.

The point of this discussion of ‘‘security by

obscurity’’ is that Microsoft (MS) should have

no need to hide the protocols and APIs used

for security. Unless their software has a

fragile security implementation, disclosing

the protocols and APIs should do no damage

or compromise security. The only possible

exception to the above points is digital rights

management (DRM), which is inherently

fragile. (See http://www.counterpane.com/

crypto-gram-0105.html#3) However, DRM is

more designed to deter would-be casual

copyright infringers, who lack technical

knowledge, rather than mass-scale pirating

operations of the kind one sees in Asia. The

documentation of DRM APIs and protocols

would be of little use to those whom DRM

is designed to thwart.

In general, there is no good technical

reason to allow Microsoft to have any private

APIs.

I am a fool for Christ. Mostly I am a fool.

MTC–00004952

From: Diveanddig@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 9:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to submit my comments

concerning the proposed Microsoft

settlement.

Allowing this company to continue the

abusive and damaging monopolistic practices

that have destroyed many innovative small

businesses, and has thwarted competition

and fee enterprise, would be damaging to our

inventive and superior technology industry

the in the United States. Microsoft has used

it’s monopolistic position to destroy the very

competition that has lead to our superior lead

in the field of computer technology, and

without competition, innovation is stifled.

They must be stopped for the sake of our

country, economy and free enterprise system

that has served us so well. Allowing them to

buy their way out of the suit by supplying

software and outdated near worthless

hardware would be a flagrant disregard for

the spirit of our antitrust laws that are in

place to protect private enterprise and

consumers from anti competitive practices of

abusive monopolies. The incremental cost of

producing a billion dollars worth of software

is pennies on the dollar, and would let

Microsoft get away with murder. Our justice

system would become a laughing stock, and

it would send the message that it is all right

for monopolies to pursue abusive practices

without consequences. Not only that, the

plan to supply schools with this software is

almost comical since it would extend their

monopoly to one of the last areas they do not

dominate. Microsoft has shown total

disregard for our antitrust laws in the past,

and without an appropriate penalty, and

corrective measures, they will continue to do

so in the future.

William D. Bird

MTC–00004953

From: Mark Kaiman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 10:49pm

Subject: the proposed settlement

I believe that Apple Computer is correct

when it opposes Microsoft’s proposed

settlement with the United States

government. To allow Microsoft to give free

copies of its software to schools will only

further entrench its position as an abusive

monopolist. How can Apple, Sun, or other

competitors hope to compete when Microsoft

is giving its software away for ‘‘free’’ in the

name of justice? A far better solution would

be to force MS to pay cash (many billions)

to schools, which the schools would use as

they see fit. If they dont want to buy

Microsoft products, then so be it. That is the

free market that Microsoft appears to loathe.

Microsoft is a predatory monopoly that is

anti-competitive and stifles innovation and

technological development. To allow them to

get away with a mere slap on the wrist would

be a travesty.

Mark Kaiman

Friday Harbor, WA

MTC–00004954

From: Quincin Gonjon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 11:04pm

Subject: Microsoft the Monopolist

This country has been blessed with

freedom and the strength to empower its

people with it. Freedom is independence,

liberty and the exemption from the power

and control of another. Microsoft is slowly

taking away our freedom of choice by taking

full control of our computer and the internet.

They are doing it without having any

responsibility over such consequences as

security of personal data.

Microsoft products are by nature insecure

and they are in constant threat of being

hacked or cracked. The thousands of viruses

and worms that are propagated each year is

proof of Microsoft’s lack of security. The fact

is that any 10 year old child can become

proficient enough in word or excel to create

a macro virus sophisticated enough to delete

files and email itself to others. It is no

wonder that a full range of Microsoft

products are by nature insecure and are

promoted as secure, for example, Microsoft

Portal and Hailstorm, Windows XP, IIS web

server, Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft

Outlook, and Internet Explorer. These

products are dangerous to the public at large.

They are the most attacked products on the

internet and they are the gateways for

hackers to get into servers that contain

personal public information. Today

companies can’t compete with Microsoft

products because they used their Operating

System and proprietary file formats and

protocols to Monopolize 90% of the software

industry.

Everyone knows that Microsoft killed its

competition by not releasing vital

information about its operating system on

time. In fact, Microsoft may have provided

out dated information about its operating

system just to make sure other applications

crashed. This type of competition is illegal

but Microsoft was allowed to play dirty in

the early days of Windows 3.X and 95. Now

that they have made their products the

standard in the industry through illegal

practices, why should they keep the

proprietary licenses for their file format and

protocols? I think that a case can be made

against Microsoft’s patent for these licenses.

This government should not allowed such

dirty underhanded and illegal practices to

continue unpunished. The law should be

firm and strict with Microsoft. The first

penalty I would act on is to force Microsoft

to make all of their formats and protocols

freely available to the public so that

compatible products that read, write and

understand Microsoft protocols and file

formats can be produce.

I strongly believe that Microsoft is a threat

to our nations security and to fair

competition in the software business

industry. The punishment that has been

applied to the company is far to lenient. The

only recourse as a free nation is to make sure

that Microsoft is crippled from performing

such actions today and in the future. To

make the company give up its competitive

edge by releasing its file formats and

protocols so that new software companies

can rise and compete. This should stimulate

growth and allow citizens to choose the best

product for their needs.

MTC–00004955

From: Edwin Schwab

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 11:22pm

Subject: Comment on Microsoft proposal

Please allow for a comment from overseas:

The settlement must make sure that

documents created using Microsoft products

24642 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

are usable 5 years after Microsoft ceases to

exist or chooses to no longer support the

given software or document format.

This implies:

—It must be possible to still use the software

—Microsoft must publish the document

structure

There is high hope for this trial to provide

some of the data security needs that are

sorely missing now.

With kind regards

Edwin Schwab

MTC–00004956

From: Louise Tremblay Cole

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/27/01 11:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Monopoly

Your Honor:

The proposed ‘‘reparation’’ will allow

Microsoft to expand its monopoly while

shifting the burden of disposing of obsolete

equipment to impoverished school systems.

This is no penalty.

Louise Cole

MTC–00004957

From: marcsten

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 1:00am

Subject: No Subject

Dear Sirs:

I wish to comment on the proopsed

litigationj involving microsoft and the DOJ.

AS I read it, in spite of microsoft having been

found in violation of the law, they are under

the settlement being encouraged to continue

to do so. In short, there is no justice in any

resolution of this case unless it contains the

following:

* Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers, so

that the user who does not wish to purchase

them is not forced to do so. This means that

for the price differential between a new

computer with Microsoft software and one

without, a computer seller must offer the

software without the computer (which would

prevent computer makers from saying that

the difference in price is only a few dollars).

Only then could competition come to exist in

a meaningful way.

* The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

* Any Microsoft networking protocols must

be published in full and approved by an

independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet.

I trust that you will take these suggestions

to heart when attempting to resolve this

litigation. War or no war, we do not wish to

have an automobile industry where there is

only one car company allowed to do

business—particularly if that company is

YUGO; similarly, the public is done a great

diservice if the only available operating

system and software is from microsoft, the

‘‘virtual Yugo.’’

Thank you for your attention.

Marc Stenchever

MTC–00004958

From: joey@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 1:05am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern—

You have probably received similar

statements already. As an ‘‘average,’’ slightly

technically inclined computer user; I would

like to see the following happen to prevent

one company from ‘‘owning’’ standards and

file formats:

1.) All networking protocols remain open

and compatible no matter what operating

system or device. In other words, NO

proprietary extensions for anyone—with

incompatibility designed into them.

2.) All file formats for Office (specifically

the Microsoft family of Office suites) must be

opened up to ensure compatibility with

competitors programs.

3.) All graphics files must remain open

standards.

4.) Media file formats must remain open to

allow for true competition.

This would include not only Microsoft

media formats, but also formats from Real

Networks, Apple Computer (specifically in

this case the Sorenson Vision QuickTime

codec), etc.

Most importantly, as the Internet was built

on Open Standards and Protocols to allow

machines to ‘‘communicate’’ over networks,

regardless of the operating system or

architecture; it’s important the Internet and

it’s connectivity remain Open and that

CANNOT be proprietarized and monopolized

by one company or group.

In order to ensure compliance:

1.) Set up a ‘‘watchdog’’ group of various

disinterested 3rd parties and groups, as well

as competitors of Microsoft. This includes

vendors who write software for the Microsoft

family of operating systems. Stiff penalties

for violations must be incorporated as well as

effectively and swiftly enforced, and

continued until the violation(s) are corrected.

2.) As part of the penalty phase, ALL APIs

(Application Programming Interfaces) should

be made available to anyone after a

reasonable fee is paid. This ensures that

companies that write software competing

with any past, present or future software

offerings from Microsoft can engage in FAIR

competition, and that Microsoft software

won’t automatically run ‘‘faster’’ or ‘‘better’’

than anything the competition may offer;

thereby including such software commingled

with the Windows operating system kernel—

such as Explorer, Outlook, Windows Media

Player, and Outlook.

Competitors should be allowed access to

the code that will allow their software to run

on equal footing with Microsoft software.

3.) No OEM (Original Equipment

Manufacturer) deals that includes threats

(implied or real), bribes, exclusionary

contracts or any other illegal means that

violate the Sherman Act shall be allowed.

Any OEM who wants to install other

(competing) operating system software, dual

boot operating systems (ie; Windows and

Linux), and/or software that competes with

offerings from Microsoft that run on their

family of Windows operating systems; shall

be allowed to do so without impediment.

This would include BIOS boot code.

4.) Lastly, I suggest that the true cost of

Windows on a new PC computer system be

put into the price listing of a PC. This would

apply to all other operating systems as well.

If the cost is $75 to an OEM, that should be

listed. Likewise, the cost of an ‘‘alternative’’

operating system (ie; Linux Mandrake, Red

Hat Linux or BeOS) should be listed on the

invoice or advertisement. This would ensure

true, fair price comparisons of the various

operating systems out there.

5.) Given Microsoft’s horrible security

record in the PC and Server computing

industries, ‘‘Lemon Laws’’ need to be

enforced on the software industry as well.

Any ‘‘reasonable’’ amount of time must be

considered to allow for a fixes. However,

bugs and security holes that are not patched

and/or fixed in a reasonable amount of time

must subject Microsoft, as well as other

software companies; to lawsuits, claims for

damages caused by defective software as well

as demands for consumer refunds; provided

the media is returned and it can be proven

the offending software product(s) from the

machine. Given the sheer number of known

as well as unknown back doors, security

holes and other ills that affect the dominant

Windows family of operating systems, it is

also advised that:

6.) The government, on all levels;

encourage the use of *only* software that’s

based on Open Standards and Protocols. This

includes software released under various

Open Source Licenses, especially Free

Software written under the GNU General

Public License (GPL). This would encourage

the distribution and reusing of software code

not only in government and business, but

also educational institutions as well. It is

time to put a stop to all the hand wringing,

delaying, stall tactics and legal maneuvering

being practiced by Microsoft at this time. The

penalties must be sure, swift, and final to

allow true COMPETITION to return to the PC

market, prevent monopolizing of future

industries and allow CHOICE for the

consumer mass market. Only then can the

consumer have a TRUE choice.

Regards,

Joseph Nicholson

MTC–00004959

From: Charles F. Waltrip

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 1:58am

Subject: Objections to the Microsoft

Settlement

Objection 1. Free Software to Schools

I agree with Apple, Red Hat, et al. that the

proposed remedy furthers Microsoft’s anticompetitive position. I’m sure Bill Gates is

saying: ‘‘Puh-leeeze B’rer Fox, don’t throw

me in that thar Briar Patch.’’

Objection 2. Failure to Break Up the

Company

The combination of selling both the OS

and the Software Applications was antiVerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:13 Apr 24, 2002 Jkt 189961 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\OC\A68AD3.370 pfrm11 PsN: ADVBOOK3
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24643

competitive for IBM and is more so for

Microsoft. Microsoft has unpublished

Application Programming Interfaces in their

OSs which they are free to use in their

Software Applications and change at will.

These APIs often confer performance and

feature advantages over Microsoft’s unwitting

competitors.

Microsoft is also able to plan both their OS

changes and their Software Application

product changes together. Again, they are

able to gain a time advantage over their

competitors.

I can say from personal involvement in

purchase decisions that these advantages are

often the overriding factor in choosing a

Software Application supplier. The clear

remedy for this is to break up Microsoft into

two companies: one company that develops

Operating System software only and a second

company that develops Software

Applications such as Microsoft Office.

Objection 3. Other Factors

It is clear that Microsoft’s monopoly

position has damaged consumers. While

Moore’s Law has so far governed the cost of

computer hardware causing constantly

improving hardware to cost constantly

decreasing amounts, we see no such decrease

in the cost of Microsoft software (though the

decrease appears elsewhere with software

developed for the Java environment being a

good example—much of it being freeware).

The free Java Software Development Kits

provide an environment richer than the

standard Microsoft OSs that runs in Java

Virtual Machines that can, in turn, run on

any OS including the free Linux OS. Much

valuable freeware is available written in Java.

And much valuable freeware is available for

Linux and other UNIX systems. Yet the high

cost of Microsoft software continues to eat up

the resources of Information Technology

departments that might otherwise be spent

on the tasks of training and converting to less

expensive and, often, better and more

productive free or inexpensive software.

And all consumers (individuals;

businesses; government) are damaged by the

lack of security features in Microsoft

products. All of the competitive OSs (UNIX,

Mac OS X; and Linux) have better security

features. Huge losses are attributable to just

one of the Microsoft products: Microsoft

Outlook. In aggregate, the losses attributable

to security defects in all Microsoft products

add greatly to the cost of these products and

exacerbate the difference in the cost trends

between computer hardware (way down) and

computer software (way up). And new

capabilities in Microsoft XP’s TCP/IP make it

possible for hackers or terrorists to disrupt

and even bring down the Internet.

While the lawsuit has been in process,

Microsoft has gained almost total control of

the Web browser software arena and has led

the market away from standards such as Java

and has introduced non-standard features

into XSL. They implement the features they

want in the way they want and there is

virtually no competition to challenge them

by fully implementing and encouraging the

use of standards.

Finally, Microsoft’s contempt for these

anti-trust proceedings is manifest in their

recent push into the area of personal portals

in which America On-line is the current

major player. It is as though they were

punishing them for starting this whole

business in the first place.

In all of these ways and many more,

Microsoft has damaged the market, the

economy and the users. Please provide a

truly effective remedy.

Your consideration of these remarks is

greatly appreciated.

Charles F. Waltrip

5063 Columbia Road

Columbia, MD 21044

(410) 992–1858

chuckwaltrip@home.com

Opinions expressed in this document are

my own.

MTC–00004962

From: Greg Walker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 2:38am

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam—

I am writing to express my discontent

regarding the anti-trust settlement with

Microsoft. The proposal to donate computer

hardware and software to schools would only

increase the public’s exposure to Microsoft

products, and therefore, because Microsoft

has retained its monopoly, would increase

the number of Microsoft customers. Microsoft

has already proven itself untrustworthy of

managing the power of a monopoly without

abusing it, and the school donations would

certainly further its ability to abuse that

power.

The most effective suggestion I have heard

requires that Microsoft make public all of

their present and future file formats,

networking protocols, and application

programming interfaces:

—Files created in Microsoft applications

could be read and correctly modified by

third-party programs, on the Windows

operating system (OS) as well as other

operating systems (such as Apple’s

Macintosh OS and the Linux OS).

—Other operating systems would be able to

implement Microsoft’s networking

protocols, and thus easily interact with

Microsoft-based computers on the internet

and on local networks.

—As I understand, opening the Windows

application programming interfaces is

already part of the proposed agreement.

Without requiring these or similar

measures, Microsoft would be able to

continue many of its abusive practices, in the

same or similar forms which caused this trial

in the first place. Opening up Microsoft’s

protocols would require the company to

compete on the merits of the design and

functionality of their software, and not

because they retain full and exclusive control

and understanding of those protocols.

Any attempt to curb Microsoft’s abusive

practices must be made with a broad brush—

making demands regarding a specific version

of its operating system, or one of its programs

in particular, will not end such abuse. Only

changes which affect any software Microsoft

could potentially create will have a lasting

and meaningful effect.

Thank you for your time, and for

considering my sentiments.

Sincerely,

Greg Walker

MTC–00004963

From: P=??B?5f==?=1 Hvistendal

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 3:46am

Subject: Opera Software’s reaction to

proposed settlement DOJ-Microsoft Corp.

This memorandum outlines Opera

Software ASA’s view on the proposed

settlement on the case US Department of

Justice (hereinafter ‘‘DOJ’’)vs. Microsoft Corp.

1. INTRODUCTION The Norwegian

company Opera Software ASA has on an

equal footing with Netscape been

systematically targeted by Microsoft Corp. by

way of illegal business practices in order to

monopolize the browser market. Although

Opera Software has created critically

acclaimed browser technology, the Company

is completely dependent on an open market

where free and fair competition sets the

criteria needed for success. Opera Software

ASA’s sole product is browsers, and the

Company does not have the financial

muscles of a large parent company behind it,

such as Netscape has in AOL. To secure a

competitive marketplace, Opera Software

ASA offers to provide the DOJ with its view

on the proposed settlement. In this short

memo we wish to draw the attention of the

DOJ to issues which we find are especially

troubling seen both from Opera Software’s

stance as a browser provider, and seen from

the software industry as a whole. It must,

moreover, be emphasized that the topics

discussed herein does not represent an

exhaustive list related to Microsoft’s abuse of

a dominant position in the browser market.

2. COMPANY PRESENTATION

2.1 Opera Software ASA

Opera Software ASA (hereinafter ‘‘Opera’’)

is an industry leader in the development of

Web browsers for both the desktop and the

embedded Internet markets and ranks

number three among the most widely used

Internet desktop browsers in the world.

Opera is a world leader in the embedded

space.

What started in 1994 as a research project

at Norway’s largest telecom company Telenor

ASA, led to the founding of the independent

development company Opera Software ASA.

The Opera browser has received international

acclaim for its small size, speed and stability.

Opera has not only survived in a tough

market; it has become a rival to the two major

browser-makers AOL/Netscape and

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.

Opera has grown strongly since its

founding. As of November 1, 2001 Opera

Software had 100 employees.

2.2 Commercial breakthrough

Opera has had a commercial breakthrough

in the years 2000 and 2001. Opera version 5

for Windows, the first version of Opera to be

offered as a no-cost ad-sponsored browser,

was launched in December 2000, and more

than 6 million users from all over the world

downloaded and installed Opera by

November 1, 2001. During this period Opera

also closed several important strategic

agreements in the embedded space with

some of the world’s leading Internet

companies. In addition to several still

24644 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

confidential deals, agreements with

companies like IBM, Advanced Micro

Devices (AMD), Sharp, Symbian, Canal+

Technologies, and Ericsson, have made

Opera a well-recognized world leader on

browsers for non-Microsoft systems.

2.3 Market and future potential

The Internet had a breakthrough in the

1990s, with millions of people all over the

world becoming accustomed to using this

new communication medium. Still, Opera

Software believes that the Internet is only in

its infancy. Currently, approximately 8

percent of the world’s population has access

to the Internet, and millions more new users

will log on within the next few years.

Not only will the sheer number of Internet

users increase; the way the users access the

Internet is also most likely to change. Until

now, most users have connected through a

PC/desktop from home or work, running

Microsoft’s Windows Operating System. In

the near future, the Internet will move out of

the confines of the traditional desktop

computer and into many new environments,

such as that of handheld devices and

WebPads. Such devices will be designed to

perform specific tasks, whether it is

completing work-related tasks in the

workplace, or entertainment functions at

home.

From being 100 percent focused on the

Windows operating system, Opera Software

turned its focus in 1998 focus towards this

new emerging market of embedded Internet

products. In most cases, embedded Internet

products are memory-constrained, and the

platforms and applications that run on them

have to be scaled to fit the device. Opera has

turned out to be the ideal Web browser

choice for this platform environment since

it’s compact and efficient coding has

produced a small, fast, and configurable

browser. The success of this strategy shift is

reflected in the many strategic agreements

that Opera Software has entered into in the

course of the last couple of years, with the

market leaders of producers of embedded

Internet products. Opera Software’s

development aim is to maximize the

commercial results by creating a multiplatform, high quality product. One central

aspect of the development strategy is the

platform-independent kernel (core), to which

thin platform-specific layers are added. This

enables the browser to easily be ported to

other emerging platforms and simplifies

overall maintenance. Opera has been released

for several platforms. Currently the Opera

family of browsers consists of releases on

Windows, Linux/ Solaris, Mac OS, Symbian

OS (EPOC), QNX, BeOS/BeIA, OS/2, with

other potential ports under continuous

commercial review.

3. OPERA AND MICROSOFT

3.1 Introduction

Opera Software has on an equal footing

with Netscape been systematically targeted

by Microsoft by way of illegal business

practices in order to monopolize the browser

market, in conflict with US antitrust

legislation, cfr. Judge Jackson’s findings in

the Antitrust Division of the Department of

Justice of the United States(1 U.S.

Department of Justice, Complaint in Civil

Action No. 98— 1232, May 18, 1998, at http:/

/www.usdoj.gov/atr/ cases/f1700/1763.htm.),

Despite the findings of Judge Jackson,

Microsoft’s campaign to gain a monopoly

over the browser market continues.

Relative to Microsoft, Opera Software is a

small company both in terms of finances and

staff. In this short memo we wish to draw the

attention of the DOJ to issues which we find

are especially troubling seen both from Opera

Software’s stance as a browser provider, and

seen from the software industry as a whole.

3.2 Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

3.2.1 Accessibility and unreadability

It is a recognized principle that Internet

tools and applications shall respect the

standards established by the World Wide

Web Consortium (W3C), see below. Such

standards are necessary to upkeep in order to

maintain the Internet principle that Internet

technologies shall be interoperable and

accessible to all.

Microsoft claims that it does its utmost in

order to comply with the W3C issued

standards, while it in reality pursues a

conscious policy of embracing only parts of

the standards, and thereafter pursuing a

strategy of extending the standard, i.e.

developing a standard only present in its

own browser client Internet Explorer. Thus

Web page authors that create web pages to fit

Internet Explorer’s Internet standards may

find that their web pages are not accessible

to other browsers and that they in many cases

only work on the Windows operating system.

Since testing Web pages with several

browsers running on several platforms is

time consuming and expensive, many Web

developers stick to testing and developing

only with the current market leader Internet

Explorer. In this way Microsoft has gained

control over standards which were meant to

be open and accessible to all.

Microsoft’s purpose with making Internet

sites unreadable to browsers that do not have

access to the developments added by

Microsoft is to motivate or force the users

that do not use Internet Explorer and

Windows to convert.

Gaining control over the browser market

again provides for possibilities to direct users

to Microsoft’s own Web properties, such as

the MSN portal. In this way Microsoft will

gain control over much of the Internet traffic,

and thereby making the situation of its

Internet competitors, such as Opera Software,

increasingly more difficult.

3.2.2 The World Wide Web Consortium

It is in the interest of Internet users that the

Internet shall be accessible to all no matter

the software used to access the net. In order

to keep up the speed of the development of

universal, converging infrastructure on the

Internet, consensus is needed among

developers on what languages may be used

and the sets of rules needed for

communication computer-to-computer. The

World Wide Web Consortium [W3C.org]

(hereinafter ‘‘W3C’’) is the Web’s

international standardization body created to

ensure a convergent development of the

technical aspects of the Web. The W3C

develops and coordinates common languages

and rules for the Web, to ensure the W3C’s

long term goals:

Universal Access

To make the Web accessible to all by

promoting technologies that take into

account the vast differences in culture,

education, ability, material resources, and

physical limitations of users on all

continents.

Semantic Web TO develop a software

environment that permits each user to make

the best use of the resources available on the

Web.

Web of Trust To guide the Web’s

development with careful consideration for

the novel legal, commercial, and social issues

raised by this technology.

Opera Software is an active participant in

developing the Web to its full potential

through the active participation of its Chief

Technology officer, H+kon Wium Lie, a

member of the W3C’s Advisory Board.

3.2.3 Opera’s compliance with the W3C

standards

No browser is a 100 percent in conformity

with the W3C standards. There is an industry

tolerance for slight divergences. These must

however not represent a conscious act to

further develop the standards, and thereby

making the developments inaccessible for

other standard compliant products. Opera

Software respects the open standard policy,

and is today to a great extent fully compliant

with the standards set by the W3C.

3.3 Control of browser—control of Internet

traffic

Recently, Microsoft introduced an update

to its portal MSN.com. A portal is an

electronic gateway to the Internet. The portal

is really an extension of the search engine

idea, but instead of providing lists of sites

matching someone’s search criteria it relies

on a selection process to choose starter sites

that new users might be interested in visiting.

Portals try to create stickiness (making

surfers visit and then getting them to return

again), and do so by providing a range of

information on services and entertainment

that will encourage visitors to return. The

information provided might include a

directory of other sites, a search facility, a

weather service, chat rooms, free e-mail and

a selection of sports, cinema and other

entertainment sites.

The MSN.com portal and the

Microsoft.com Web sites are some of the most

visited Web properties on the Internet. It is

therefore of vital importance that all browsers

are given full access to the site on equal

terms. This is further underlined by

Microsoft’s resent linking between its

operating system and the MSN: Microsoft has

an almost perfect monopoly in the market for

operating systems, and uses this position to

increase the traffic on the MSN.com portal.

The new Windows XP is thus full of hooks,

which directs traffic to MSN.com.

Opera Software was earlier this year

alerted by users that the newly released

version of MSN denied access to Opera both

from the main page itself, as well as to links

leading to subsections of the portal. The MSN

server was thus checking which browser was

being used, and programmed so as not to give

Opera users full access. In effect the Opera

browser and its millions of Internet users

were blacklisted. Microsoft admitted that it

was watching out for so-called Opera strings

(the identification of the browser sent from

the browser to the server), but stated that it

did so to encourage people to use a standardVerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:13 Apr 24, 2002 Jkt 189961 PO 00000 Frm 00354 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\OC\A68AD3.372 pfrm11 PsN: ADVBOOK3
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24645

compliant browsers. Microsoft claimed for

example that Opera did not follow the

XHTML standard. This is incorrect, as Opera

in fact has excellent support for XHTML. It

is in general incorrect that Opera is not

standard compliant as the Opera browser is

well known in the market for its adherence

to standards set by the W3C. The misplaced

criticism raised by Microsoft against the

Opera browser is in fact applicable to the

MSN site itself, as it is far from following the

W3C standards of web development. The

standards are broken consistently on every

page, and the blocking out of Opera users

must therefore be seen as a conscious policy

to manipulate the users to leave the Opera

browser and swap to Internet Explorer. After

a media uproar, Microsoft promised to fix the

problem of non-accessibility for the Opera

browser. Some items have been fixed (the

one’s mentioned in Opera’s press release on

the issue) but Microsoft has now again

reverted to the same tactics, but in a less

obvious manner, by hiding their targeting of

Opera in subcategories, or by giving Opera

users identifying as an Opera browser user a

slightly distorted version of the web page

presented to Internet Explorer user. Opera

Software worries that if the current pressure

towards Microsoft to end its anticompetitive

behavior ends without a serious legal

reaction, no public uproar will manage to

make Microsoft backtrack in its

determination to get control of the browser

market.

3.4 Predatory pricing

Microsoft has an almost perfect monopoly

on operative systems for PCs. Judge Jackson

found that from 1998–99, Windows has held

a market share of at least 95%. There is

reason to believe that market share has

increased since. Against the background of a

high percentage of the market, Microsoft’s

pricing behavior, the fact that there are no

viable alternatives to Windows, as well as

Microsoft’s behavior towards other firms,

Judge Jackson concluded that Microsoft had

monopoly power.

Microsoft is known to use its monopoly

power to maximize its profits where it holds

a factual monopoly, while it sells products at

a loss in markets where it is not in a

monopoly position, the purpose of such

pricing policy being to gain market share and

market power in markets where it does not

hold a monopoly. Opera alleges that this

practice amounts to predatory pricing. The

fact that Internet Explorer was included in

Windows for free, had the result that

Microsoft managed to take 40–45 % of the

browser market from the end of 1996 to late

1998, while Netscape’s market share dropped

from around 80 % to about 55 % in the same

period. Today, three years later, Internet

Explorer has a market share close to 90 % of

the market and Netscape barely 10 %. The

consequences of this price policy have thus

been dramatic. Microsoft is now pursuing the

same policy with respect to its operating

system for embedded products, the so-called

Windows CE / Pocket PC. The price for the

new Windows XP for the desktop market has

recently dramatically increased, while the

price for Windows CE on the other hand is

much lower.

There is no objective reason for this

dramatic difference in price. Windows CE

builds on the same platform as Windows XP,

but is designed to take up less storage space

in order to be more adapt to the limited

storage capacity of embedded products.

There is thus reason to believe that there is

no correlation between the cost of developing

Windows CE and the price currently being

charged. Opera Software is of the opinion

that the price charged for Windows CE is

probably below the average variable cost, and

may pursuant to the Areeda-Turner Test be

classified as predatory pricing.

3.5 Tying

The allegation of predatory pricing is

closely linked to Microsoft’s practice of tying

products. Opera Software alleges that

operative systems and browsers are separate

products, without any natural or necessary

link. Microsoft’s inclusion of Internet

Explorer in its operative system Windows

thus amounts to an illegal tying of products.

Microsoft’s practice in the desktop market

is well known to the States, as Judge

Jackson’s findings in the case against

Microsoft in the United States discusses this

issue in depth. The company’s practice has,

over a period of five years, increased the

market share in the browser market from

close to zero to almost 90 percent.

Microsoft is still practicing the tying of

Internet Explorer to the operating system

Windows: The newly released Windows XP

contains the latest version of Internet

Explorer.

3.6 The server market

Apart from controlling the market for

operating systems, browsers and some of the

world’s largest Web properties, Microsoft is

also a dominant and aggressive player in the

server market. This position has been used to

harm Opera Software, and with Microsoft’s

growing dominance in this market, the future

provides for even greater opportunities for

misuse of market power. A dominant

position in the server market gives Microsoft

the possibility to abuse its position in the

following manner: It is technically speaking

an easy operation to program the server’s

software to only give users of the Internet

Explorer browser access to web sites.

Microsoft has done this in the past, and only

relented after Opera Software raised this

issue with Microsoft directly. The problem is

however yet not fully solved, as users of

Opera have to mask their browser as Internet

Explorer in order to get full access. Opera

Software worries that if the public pressure

of antitrust fades away without a serious

legal reaction, nothing will stop Microsoft

from effectively closing Opera browser users

out from millions of Web sites around the

world.

3.7 Consequences of Microsoft’s business

practices

The business effect of Microsoft’s business

practices with regard to the points discussed

in the above have been severe. Many of

Opera Software’s potential partners have

chosen not to enter into cooperation with

Opera Software due to an expressed fear

about becoming subject to a campaign by

Microsoft by themselves being ‘‘blacklisted’’.

Due to the confidential nature of these

negotiations Opera Software is, as yet, not

able to provide examples hereof.

4 REMEDY

4.1 Proposed remedy in settlement

Opera Software alleges that its market

share would have been considerably higher

in the present situation, had not Microsoft

continuously practiced a policy of predatory

pricing, illegal tying of products, extension of

open standards and manipulation of the

server market. Opera Software further alleges

that its present market position will be

severely damaged if the present illegal

business practices by Microsoft are not

curbed.

In the view of Opera Software the proposed

settlement will not stop Microsoft from

continuing its abusive tactics for dominace

and monopoly power, to the detriment to all

Internet innovators. In addition, the

settlement is not a punishment for

Microsoft’s predatory behaviour.

4.2 Opera’s suggestions for remedies

In the view of Opera Software, a series of

actions need to be taken towards Microsoft,

to reflect the damage they pose to the entire

computer industry.

4.2.1 Standards compliance

Microsoft must be forced to follow the

international, open standards set by

organizations like the W3C. Microsoft would

have to follow these standards to the letter,

not partially or by introducing proprietary

standards under the guise of ‘‘innovation.’’

Only with that measure in place can

Microsoft’s practice of ‘‘embrace, extend,

extinguish’’ be put to a halt. To ensure

compliance, an independent body should be

able to check all Microsoft products before

their public release.

4.2.2 Competing browsers

To ensure a competitive browser market,

Microsoft should bundle Netscape and Opera

in all their Operating Systems.

4.2.3 Stripped Windows at lower price

Microsoft should be required to offer only

an unbundled version of their Operating

Systems, meaning that browser, mail client,

streaming media, etc. would be excluded.

The extra Microsoft applications can then be

offered in a separate packages, but no tying

of the application packets and Operating

System should be allowed.

4.2.4 No blacklisting on servers

Also, because of Microsoft’s position also

in the server market, the Company must be

held to promise that it will stop identifying

what browser is used to access its servers, to

avoid blacklisting competitors.

4.4.5 Pricing

The price of Windows CE and Windows

should be the same, or Windows CE should

cost more as it includes more applications.

The proposed solutions should all be

simple for Microsoft to introduce, while at

the same time opening the marketplace to

true competition, restoring a balance to the

marketplace for the benefit of the whole

computer industry as well as all computer

users.

MTC–00004965

From: PAULAnNEAL@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 7:18am

Subject: Microsoft case

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to comment on microsoft case/

settlement. By my reading of the settlement,

24646 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

msft seems to be more rewarded for their

monopolistic practices than punished. The

biggest reason why msft ran afoul of the law

in the first place was the fact that they

bundled and integrated all their extras in

with the operating system, essentially making

their standard the defacto standard. If you

read msft’s own press over the past years

prior to the introduction of the new xp

operating system, they have gone even

further doing this with this new system and

nothing in the remedy prevents them from

doing this again and again. Msft has also in

the past built things into the operating

system to make competing programs work

less well than their own products. This gives

msft an unfair advantage that is not

addressed in the settlement. Msft continues

to try to run afoul of accepted standards in

order to allow their own brand of product to

prevail.

Also as part of the settlement, Msft offered

to give a billion in used hardware and

software to schools. By structuring the

settlement in this way, it essentially furthers

msft’s monopolistic practices by shutting out

other potential solutions to the school

market, a market that msft has not been able

to totally dominate yet. A more proper

penalty and solution would be to have msft

make a cash donation to the schools to help

with purchasing the technology they feel

they need, not the technology that msft wants

to give them to further their dependance on

msft products in the future. In addition, msft

software donations would be valued at full

retail value but actually cost msft pennies on

the dollar. This would hardly penalize msft

at all.

Lastly, competing products must be given

a fair chance to compete. Msft needs to

adhere to standards chosen by the computer

industry, not try to force their solution to the

defacto choice simply because they control

the majority of the computer desktops.

Sincerely,

Neal

MTC–00004966

From: Bombs@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 7:25am

Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement

The settlement has done little to protect

consumers. One of the original issues was the

bundling of MS Internet Explorer into the

OS. A browser is not required to control the

disk, memory and peripherals of a computer,

which is the job of the OS. Fast forward to

November 01. MS in attempt to thwart soonto-be-announced DOJ penalties, releases the

latest OS (XP), weeks ahead of schedule

through OEM sales, such that it could not

easily be recalled. This OS has numerous

additional software features built into the OS

such as multi-media players, CD burners, etc.

These latest inclusions reflect MS blatant

attempt to monopolize the PC market and put

other software companies out of business. In

fact, the settlement offers more PCs and MS

software to educational facilities. This will

only help MS crack the educational market,

one of the last segments that had yet to

dominate. The actual cost to MS is virtually

nil, the CDs are pressed for mere pennies, yet

they can write each off for several hundred

dollars. What a joke, again MS is laughing all

the way to the bank and the DOJ looks like

a weak idiot. MS needs to be broken into a

Commercial Software Company and

Commercial OS Company. Obviously, MS is

resistant to this as the Software Company

would have to compete against the OS

company which they know is a losing battle.

However, the Software Company should win

out in the end: if MS Office was released in

a Linux form, it would continue to be a best

seller. However, it would lose many of its OS

customers, which is why MS is the only

major computer company that has failed to

jump on the Linux bandwagon (even

staunchy IBM has thrown serious muscle

into the effort). Do your job and protect the

consumers from an acknowledged monopoly.

The current settlement is weak, pro MS and

fails to protect the consumer. God knows XP

protects nobody, after being proclaimed the

most secure OS ever from MS, the FBI had

to issue an alert to warn all citizens of serious

security breaches. Bravo

MTC–00004967

From: HMAletter@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 8:54am

Subject: Antitrust settlement

After years of waiting and hoping, I cannot

find many in the corporate IT world that is

satisfied, or even a bit happy, with the

currently proposed settlement with

Microsoft. For a company that has scoffed at

Justice for many years, I find it hard to

believe that those involved in the case would

let them proceed as they have.

For those that are unaware of just how

much we have all suffered as a result of this

monopoly, I offer just some of the hardships.

Microsoft took over the browser market by

incorporating Internet Explorer (IE) into

Windows. Outlook and Outlook Express,

Microsoft’s e-mail software, virtually

eliminated all development from other

competitors. Outlook Express comes with

virtually all Windows computers for no

additional price. I might add that Outlook

has been the prime delivery mechanism for

hackers looking to spread dreaded viruses.

As the Justice Department looks for a speedy

end to this case, Microsoft has made it very

difficult for new browsers and other software

to work with their latest buggy system called

Windows XP. RealPlayer and various other

small competitive products have been locked

out from the system at various points, as have

any non Windows computers into the MSN

networks.

For those that are not tech-savvy, I must do

my best to dissuade you from believing that

Microsoft’s monopoly position has not stifled

creativity or slowed down technology. Many

‘‘new’’ features in the current release of XP

have been standard fare on Apple computers

for over 3 years. As one who both owns and

supports both platforms, I can attest to the

decreased stress level and increased

productivity on the Apple platform. Many

Apple standards are simply adopted by

Microsoft at later dates and used to further

entrench their monopoly. Apple stands today

only as a result of the infamous 1997 deal

with Microsoft in which Apple dropped all

pending lawsuits against them in return for

5 years of continued development of the

popular Microsoft Office Suite. I might also

add that Microsoft Word and Excel were

originally developed for the Macintosh

platform, not Windows.

If Justice or the Court needs any impetus

to look for a stronger settlement against

Microsoft they need look no further that the

current Windows XP or the .NET strategy and

corresponding products. I suspect that Justice

will have to revisit this issue 4 years or so

down the road. Unfortunately, it might be too

late for the many companies and products

that have been destroyed by current

monopolistic activities. I am always

saddened to see Windows machines in the

classroom, an area that has long been the

strength of Apple. Down the road, school

districts will have to grapple with the issues

of Microsoft’s licensing practices, not to

mention the tremendous support budget

increases required to keep the systems up

and running. This is fact, not merely

statements. There are far more issues to

contend with than those brought up in the

original antitrust case. In fact, I believe if

Justice had the foresight, they would be

preparing a new case based on the events that

have transpired between 1998 and the

present. At any rate, I would advise anyone

looking into a reasonable settlement to

discuss the current situations in the PC world

with the users, and the executives of

companies that sell the hardware and

software.

Steve Hinchey

MTC–00004968

From: Curtis Garrison

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 9:12am

Subject: Facts to keep in mind

Microsoft owes everyone, not just the

schools, for their abuse of maintaining a

monopoly. Here are a couple of examples in

which I was personally impacted:

—Several times up until a couple years ago,

I wanted to purchase a Dell, Compaq or

Micron computer primarily to use as Linux

servers if not for other reasons that put me

in the position of NOT wanting a Microsoft

related license. I had no choice but to

continue to buy the computers with MS

Windows of some sort since it was a

violation for the vendors to sell me a

customized or ‘‘blank’’ computer. The only

other choice I had was to build my own

computer out of parts which was not what

I wanted to do considering the reliability

I needed from a vendor and my experience

and abilities to do this.

—During the browser wars of Netscape and

Internet Explorer, there were many web

sites (StarTrek.com for example) that wold

only allow you access if you used Internet

Explorer. This cost me time to download

and install this software when I was

perfectly fine with Netscape. This was

imposed on me and also further cost me in

hard disk space usage at a time when it

was not as cheap as it is today.

—In the mid 90’s I was on a committee at

Nortel and we evaluated Novell and

Windows NT as possible Network

Operating System Solutions. Microsoft

held stiff penalties over our heads

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24647

regarding licenses overall such as on the

60,000 Microsoft Office licenses we had to

have. If we did not make the choice to go

to their platform, we would not be looked

at favorably when it came to further license

arrangements for Office, etc.. . . They also

emphasized to us that Novell was on their

way out as their technology was destined

to be outdated and limited. This cost

several people training options and career

directions that they were in the middle of

pursuing and stagnated developments in

that industry unless it was Microsoft

related. These are just a few examples of

how I am many many people were

personally effected with Microsoft’s

continued abuse of their monopoly. If this

is not resolved in a manner that is legit and

more beneficial to the public, I am sure

that there are very many people like myself

that would be disappointed and not

satisfied. I already have feelings that

someone is being bought out or influenced

in an unethical way simply in light of these

Microsoft proposals even being considered.

I implore you to make sure the right thing

is done to help correct things by taking

some action that will help realign the

balance in the industry some what

accordingly and/or compensate the public

for Microsoft’s actions.

Imagine the growth in the technical sector

if all of a sudden tens of thousands of small

developers and related businesses could get

funding and support if they didn’t have to

worry about the hopeless idea of trying to

compete against Microsoft.

Thank you

Curtis Garrison

InteractiveSociety.com

‘‘Join Our Click’’

http://www.InteractiveSociety.com

P.O. Box 801548; Dallas, TX 75380

214–808–2878

MTC–00004969

From: Fred Butzen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 10:00am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

The following gives my comment on the

proposed settlement with Microsoft

corporation. My comment is based on my 20

years’ experience as a computer programmer

and technical writer. Among my published

works are ‘‘The Linux Network’’ (MIS Press,

1998), ‘‘The Linux Database’’ (MIS Press,

1997), ‘‘ANSI C: A Lexical Guide’’ (Prentice

Hall, 1988), and ‘‘The SuSE Linux Network’’

(M&T Books, 2000).

—Criteria for a Settlement—

The settlement with Microsoft must fulfill

the following criteria:

1. It must, as much as possible, preserve

Microsoft as a corporate entity and engine of

commerce.

2. It must alleviate Microsoft’s illegal

monopolistic influence on the market in

computer software.

3. It must be clear, verifiable, and

enforceable.

The first point is obvious: while Microsoft

has behaved illegally, it is still a vital entity

in the marketplace. It needs to be tamed, not

destroyed. The second point is also clear: the

point of the settlement is not to punish

Microsoft, but to preserve the integrity of the

market from Microsoft’s illegal monopoly.

That is the goal: to preserve the market. The

third point is often overlooked: unless

Microsoft’s behavior can be verified

objectively, the result of any settlement will

simply be another round of lawsuits—an

outcome that no sane person could wish.

—The Proposed Settlement Fails These

Criteria—

The proposed settlement fails on all three

criteria.

1. The proposed board of oversight will

interfere with Microsoft’s internal operations,

slowing its ability to work and complicating

the already complex task of writing software.

2. The proposed settlement addresses some

contractual issues, but does not address

Microsoft’s warping of the marketplace in

technology—which is by far Microsoft’s most

damaging behavior.

3. The proposed settlement’s oversight

provisions are vague, and are subject to

interpretation and dispute.

With all due respect, the proposed

settlement is something only a lawyer could

love—and litigious lawyer at that. It is

possible to write a settlement that will be fair

to Microsoft yet preserve the marketplace

from its predations—but only if one

understands the techical core of Microsoft’s

threat to the marketplace.

—Technical Basis for Preserving the

Market—

Much of the government’s case against

Microsoft depended upon the internals of

Microsoft’s software—particularly the

Windows operating system. However, this is

misleading: the most important feature of a

software program is not how it behaves

internally, but how it interacts with other

programs. Computer programs exchange

information through the use of *protocols*.

A protocol is simply a set of rules that define

how data is interchanged. A protocol can

govern how data are written into a file, so the

data can be retrieved and processed again; or

it can govern how two programs ‘‘converse’’

with each other over a network.

This point is vital: ** A monopolist can

extend its influence from one software arena

into another arena if and only if it controls

the protocols with which the programs in the

one arena communicate with the programs in

the other arena. ** The vast computer

network that we call the Internet is governed

by a set of protocols that have been written

by the software community at large. A

mechanism called a ‘‘request for comment’’

allows an individual or group to propose a

protocol; others comment, amendations are

made, and votes taken before the protocol is

adopted. This openness permits a free market

in software and services: all software that

adheres to the protocol can participate in the

marketplace, and exchange data with other

programs by other vendors that also adhere

to the protocol.

** The key to Microsoft’s distortion of the

marketplace is that it unilaterally rewrites

protocols.**

Sometimes the rewriting consists of

changing a protocol’s rules. More often, it

involves adding extensions to the protocol.

These features are not documented, and often

are patented or copyrighted. They are offered

as improvements or enhancements to the

protocol; but whilethese changes may or may

not improve the protocol, but they *always*

have the effect of blocking other software

vendors from participating in the software

arena.

The rewriting of protocols is allowing

Microsoft to extend its monopoly in desktop

operating systems and applications into the

server market: its ability to unilaterally

rewrite how client and server communicate

means that commercial users will have to use

Microsoft servers in order to receive business

from Microsoft clients.

This extension of influence from one arena

into another is precisely the abuse that

antitrust law was meant to stop—and it is

precisely the abuse that the proposed

settlement does *not* address.

—A Settlement That Works—

Fortunately, the technical nature of the

abuse also makes possible a technical

settlement—one that fulfills all three criteria

that I outlined above. My proposed

settlement has the following points:

1. Microsoft software will use *only*

commonly accepted protocols for

communication between clients and servers.

No additions or modifications will be

allowed, except where approved by the

software community at large through the

normal request-for-comment process.

2. Microsoft will document and submit to

the request-for-comment process all of the

file formats used by its applications, in

particular, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Access,

and Microsoft Excel. Once the submission is

made, Microsoft must adhere to the file

formats so documented, and can change

formats only by submitting revisions to the

software community at large through the

normal request-for-comment process.

3. A set of computer programs will be

written by a court-appointed third party.

These programs will test whether Microsoft

software adheres to protocols as openly

documented.

4. Should the test program show that

Microsoft has violated a protocol, and should

the violation be verified by a third party, the

court will order adherence, and prescribe

appropriate penalties.

This settlement will let Microsoft carry on

its work unimpeded by supervisors or courtimposed bureaucracy. It will stop Microsoft

from extending its illegal monopoly into

other arenas, and it will let new companies

compete in the Microsoft arena. Most

importantly, it is clear and objectively

verifiable.

—Conclusion—

Thank you for taking the time to read my

comment. I hope that my comments will help

the court to arrive at a settlement that is truly

fair and truly effective. Most importantly, I

hope the court will take to heart the need for

any settlement to address Microsoft’s abuse

of protocols. This is the heart of the problem,

and any settlement that does not address it

will be a failure.

Fred Butzenfred@lepanto.com [home]

4320 N. Claremont

Avenuefred@vailsys.com [work]

Chicago, IL 60618–1612 USA(888) 599–

8854

24648 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

CC:fred@lepanto.com@inetgw,jith

@stanfordalumni.org@in. . .

MTC–00004970

From: MWLAURSEN@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 11:03am

Subject: Microsoft—Problems

Dear Sir;

I do have problems with Microsoft and

there size as a computer company. I believe

that Microsoft is out to control the software

industry on both the Windows and

Macintosh operating systems. I am a long

time Apple Macintosh user, and Microsoft

has cause me to purchase upgrade of their

software for Operating system changes. Now

I know that some times this is a necessity,

but the last time I had to upgrade was not.

This is why I believe that they are out to get

the consumer.

Example of this case: I have an Apple

Macintosh G3, that was running system 8.6.

I then purchased the next version, 9.0.4. All

the software that I had moved to the new

operating system except for Microsoft

products (Word, Excel, PowerPoint). I needed

to upgrade from my pervious version. Now

since all the other software worked, even a

shareware game that I have for years, and

several operating systems. Why does

Microsoft write their software not to function

on new operating systems.

This upgrade cost me the cost of the

operating system and the 249.00 for the

upgrade to the Microsoft software. Another

items is the number of choices that I have

word processors, and spread sheets. It has

dewinelled to one and that is Microsoft.

They have become the standard in the

software business for desktop computers, and

in some case this is good, because the data

that is created for any desktop computer and

be shared with another, not worry about the

maker of the computer, even Macintoshes

can read data from intel base desktop

computers. The items that Microsoft needs to

share with the rest of the computer world is

the standards. The data formats are now

default standards, which should be

disturbuted freely to all that want to

communicate with a piece of software (Word

processor documents). Then a standards

committy can then determine the changes to

the standard and distibute to all that would

want them. Microsoft is a strange computer

company because they are the only company

that creates an operating system for a

computer that they do not build. All the

other companies build a computer and write

the operating system for it. This one of the

reason I use an Apple Macintosh, it just

seems to work better.

Thank you

Mark Laursen

MTC–00004971

From: Monty Nicol

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 11:25am

Subject: Settlement Comments

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am not a Microsoft-hater or one who loves

any particular brand or type of software more

than any other. I believe, however, that the

current proposed Microsoft settlement is

extremely detrimental to today’s software

customers and to the competitive market at

large. The current proposed deal seems

extremely weak to me in light of Microsoft’s

past infractions. I urge you to re-evaluate this

settlement and choose impose not just

government oversight and enforcement, but

also organizational and structural changes to

Microsoft itself in order to better facilitate

competition in the marketplace.

Thank you,

Monty Nicol

Internet Developer

Brooklyn, NY 11238

Do You Yahoo!?

Send your FREE holiday greetings online!

http://greetings.yahoo.com

MTC–00004972

From: Joe Morse

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 12:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it amy concern:

I’m writing to express my extreme dismay

and sense of betrayal at the DOJ’s proposed

settlement of the United States v. Microsoft

civil antitrust case. I am a software engineer

with 7 years of experience in the computing

field. I also have a bachelors degree in

Economics from the University of California

at Berkeley, where I focused my studies on

antitrust issues relating to technology

industries.

For years Microsoft has been able to get

away with using anticompetitive practices to

anihilate any company that seeks to enter the

markets it dominates (OS, Office Suite, Etc).

The absence of competition has resulted not

only in higher prices, but also in software of

dubious quality. Every major worm and virus

on the internet in the last 5 years has targeted

blatant vulnerabilities in Microsoft software.

These vulnerabilities exist because Microsoft

has quashed (or acquired) competing

products whose presence in the marketplace

would have induced Microsoft to produce

better and more secure software. Consumers

(especially business consumers) lose because

they get a shabby product at a higher price.

Security and other defects also increase the

cost of computing. On two occasions in the

past year I have seen my company’s network

shut down for days at a time because of

security holes in Microsoft’s operating

system. This resulted in several thousand lost

man-hours and millions of dollars of

financial loss for the company.

The proposed settlement would allow

Microsoft to continue its predatory business

practices unabated. Antitrust violations are

often a cultural phenomenon at a corporation

like Microsoft. Procedural and behavioral

remedies fail to address Microsoft’s conduct

in markets it may seek to dominate in the

future. There’s an atmosphere of lawlessness

in Redmond that only a structural remedy

will cure.

Markets are created by society to fulfill its

needs and desires. When a business

enterprise becomes destructive of those

needs and desires the government has a

moral and legal obligation to step in and take

strong corrective measures under the

Sherman Act. The DOJ’s proposed settlement

falls well short of that obligation and betrays

the public trust. I strongly urge the DOJ to

abandon the proposed settlement in favor of

an effective structural remedy.

Sincerely,

Joe Morse

Do You Yahoo!?

Send your FREE holiday greetings online!

http://greetings.yahoo.com

MTC–00004973

From: Jon ‘maddog’ Hall, Executive Director,

Linux International

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 12:47pm

Subject: Additional comment and proposals

for Microsoft/Open Source solution

80 Amherst St.

Amherst, NH 03031–3032 USA

Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia

Your Honor,

I am writing in support of the change to

Microsoft’s penalties as proposed by Mr.

Matthew Suzlik, CEO of Red Hat Software,

Inc. As a former programmer and educator

with over thirty years of experience in the

computer industry, I feel that Mr. Suzlik’s

proposal of replacing the over-priced, closedsource Microsoft software with Open Source

GPL’ed software has real merit. However, I

have some additional comments and

suggestions to further increase the benefit/

function of his proposal.

Mr. Suzlik correctly points out that his

proposal would increase the number of

systems from 200000 to over 1 million. From

my understanding of the original proposal,

the total amount of the punitive measure was

about two billion dollars. I also understand

that a lot of the computer equipment was to

be ‘‘refurbished’’ equipment, which would

do little or nothing to strengthen the

economy. At today’s equipment prices, I

would encourage this course of action:

Generate a Request for Quote for a

hardware vendor to produce one or two fixed

models which would give basic multimedia

desktop or server capabilities to the school

systems, almost at manufacturer’s cost. The

schools would then be free to order these

machines from this list of systems. If the

manufacturer did not have to pay the

Microsoft licensing fees, I believe that the

cost of these computers would be able to

deliver basic multimedia functionality to

close to 2 million computers, not the one

million that Mr. Suzlik estimates, and at a

cost less than it would be to collect,

recondition and redistribute refurbished

models.

These units would then have a consistent

set of hardware that would make it easier for

both Red Hat Software to support the

operating system, and easier for the school

districts to support the hardware in the long

run. The use of new hardware will also

typically generate a longer warranty from the

manufacturer then the use of refurbished

hardware also. I am sure that the hardware

companies will work very hard to generate

the best possible bid on this contract, both for

the amount of systems it represents, and for

the publicity that they will get in being part

of this solution.

The building of these new machines, rather

than the refurbishing of the older machines,

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24649

would help to create jobs needed at this time

in the economy. While refurbishing machines

also generates jobs, it is not guaranteed that

the number of refurbished machines would

allow a consistent set of hardware across the

entire program, nor with a consistent

warranty and replacement program.

A second comment that I have on Mr.

Suzlik’s proposal is that the Open Source

software that he is suggesting be used has a

benefit to the students in the school system

that Microsoft’s code does not provide. While

both sets of software allow the students to

browse the web, write papers, use

spreadsheets, and do other tasks a student

has to do in education, only the Open Source

code allows the student to see HOW these

tasks are done. As a former college professor,

I would have given my eye teeth to have an

operating system like Linux to teach

operating system design, or compiler suites

like GNU (which come with all Linux

distributions) to show students how

compilers are actually written. I would have

been overwhelmed with joy to have a

database system like MySQL or Postgres to

show my students now only how to use and

manage a sophisticated database, but how

they worked inside. This can be done with

Open Source software, but can not be done

with closed source, proprietary software like

Microsoft’s.

But today Open Source software goes

beyond just operating systems, compilers and

database engines, and if you go out to the

place on the net called ‘‘SourceForge’’

(www.sourceforge.net) you will find over

30,000 projects with over 300,000 people

working on them. These projects cover

almost every area of academic pursuit, and

the use and encouragement of Open Source

software would allow these students in the

‘‘fourteen poorest school districts in the

United States’’ to work along side other

students from all over the world. Perhaps

some of these students from these poorer

school districts would get their work

recognized and publicized, increasing their

self-confidence, not only in the areas of

computer science, but biology, mathematics,

physics and other areas where the United

States is beginning to lag other countries.

Finally, I would like to point out that in

a lot of these poorer school districts there

exist already some local Linux user groups

nearby that might be willing to act as

‘‘sponsors’’ and ‘‘angels’’ for this program, to

provide support and help for these districts,

in addition to what Red Hat would provide.

If you need any additional information in

considering this proposal, please feel free to

contact me at the address given above, or the

telephone numbers give below.

Warmest regards,

Jon A. Hall

Executive Director

Jon ‘‘maddog’’ Hall

Executive Director

email: maddog@li.org

Voice: +1.603.672.4557

WWW: http://www.li.org

Linux International(SM)

80 Amherst St.

Amherst, N.H. 03031–3032 U.S.A.

Board Member: Uniforum Association,

USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered

trademark of Linus Torvalds in several

countries. (SM)Linux International is a

service mark of Linux International, Inc.

CC:maddog@li.org@inetgw

MTC–00004974

From: James Lancaster

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 1:16pm

Subject: Harsher consequences!

My tax dollars are going to this lawsuit so

I want to pay for something that

accomplishes the task it was set up to

perform. Giving Microsoft a slap on the wrist

will not prevent them from engaging in

further gouging of the market. I propose that

all Microsoft OSes be removed from all

government computer systems. Why would

the government want to trust the code of a

proprietary Operating System that has more

security issues than any other operating

system in existence? Would not an open

source solution allow for greater security

among government-owned systems? Anyway,

my 2 cents have just been added.

Sincerely,

James Lancaster

27157 Shadowcrest Ln.

Cathedral City, CA

92234

MTC–00004975

From: JBMARKETS@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 1:23pm

Subject: Comment re Proposed Settlement

Microsoft’s proposed settlement is a

travesty which makes mockery of the

findings and further, serves as a marketing

plan to extend its monopoly into the

education market, and it clears the way for

Microsoft to continue it monopolistic

practices for years to come. The ‘‘$1 Billion

donation’’ consists primarily of seedingenveloping less prosperous schools and

children with lesser-quality/refurbished

computers and Microsoft software which

costs pennies per copy to provide. It is not

a penalty, but a marketing reward, harmful to

some of the same competitors Microsoft has

already been found to have harmed. Cash

with no Microsoft strings attached is the only

proper remedy for this aspect of the

settlement. Schools and all markets deserve

the freedom to choose the products they

want. The provisions relating to supposed

assurance of monitoring-preventing future

anti-competitive practices by Microsoft are

woefully inadequate in the face of a company

culture that historically ignores and

obfuscates the law and any rulings and

findings.

Justice is not at all served by this

settlement, nor are consumers and

competitors. Continued delays have and

continue to play a major role in promulgating

Microsoft’s anti-competive practices and

strategies. There is great risk that an

inadequate settlement and loose behavioral

restrictions will result in Microsoft soon

controlling the internet and ultimately the

bulk of all electronic devices and systems in

the all-connected-wired future. The court

needs to impose a true and just settlement,

quickly.

Jeff B.

Columbus, Ohio

MTC–00004976

From: Joejensen@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 1:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Monopoly Must Be

Stopped

MICROSOFT IS A THREAT TO THE

SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

Microsoft was found guilty in that it

ILLEGALLY Maintained an operating system

monopoly. As Microsoft did not in any way

and at any time willingly cooperate with the

investigation (and in fact continued to lie,

mislead and use undue financial resources to

shape p[ubhlic opinion, IT THEREFORE

SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO PLEA

BARGAIN AT THIS TIME OR TO SELECT

ITS OWN DESIRED PENALTY. This case is

a travesty!

Microsoft’s business tactics are ruthless.

Based on the company’s anti social and

arrogant behavior The company is

determined to exercise total control of all

companies that it enters into business

agreements into and to enslave all who utlize

it’s operating systems. The company

regularly applies extorsion to its business

clients in forcing them to pay ever higher

maintenance fees, and its sole interest is to

extract money from every available resource.

I FEEL VERY THREATENED BY

MICROSOFT’S POWER AND

INTIMIDATION. It seems that every time the

justice department hones in on Microsoft,

there suddenly appears a crisis that totally

diverts attention away from itself. Examine

the history of its bad luck with the courts and

crisis like anthrax appear out of nowhere,

alowing microsoft to hide away from national

attention. Is Microsoft behind these attacks?

WHEN I READ ABOUT MICROSOFT’S

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH THE

STATES, I really lost faith in our government

and the leadership serving our nation,

because apprantly Microsoft is somehow

controlling or blackmailing them. I COULD

NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD

DONATE ABOUT 100 MILLION CASH,

WITH THE REST OF THE DONATION DEAD

INVENTORY OF OBSOLETE PRODUCTS

THAT MICROSOFT KNOWS WOULD NOT

REALLY HELP ANYONE.... AND IN

RETURN THEY WOULD GEET A $550

MILLION TAX DEDUCTION!!!! Have we lost

all of our better senses? The $550 MILLION

Tax DEDUCTION WOULD GIVE

MICROSOFT $275 MILLION OF CASH. IN

OTHER WORDS, THEY WOULD EARN A

PROFIT OF $175 MILLION paid for by us

dumb tax payers. IN ADDITOIN MICROSOFT

SHOULD BE FORCED TO SEPERATE ITS

OPERATING EARNINGS FROM ITS TOTAL

EARNINGS, a practive it refuses to do. In

other words, there is no way of knowing

whether microsoft made a profit from

operating the company or from its

investments. FINALLY, I sincerely hope that

Microsoft is severly PUNISHED for being the

criminal organization that it is, and that the

company should be made to pay a penalty of

one half of all its assets to be held by the US

Treasury. The funds should be returned to

the public at large via tax refunds and tax

credits. In addition a percentage of these

24650 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

funds should be used to expand competing

operating system technologies, such as

MacIntosh,

Linux, etc.

Thank you for your time and attention to

this matter.

MTC–00004977

From: gatzke@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 1:42pm

Subject: Microsoft must be punished.

Greetings,

I am a real person. I am NOT employed by

Microsoft to write letters of support.

Concerning the Microsoft Monopoly, I think

Microsoft has acted unfairly in the past. This

hurt consumers and continues to harm

consumers. Microsoft should be punished

severely.

1. To limit Microsoft’s use of muscle to

control hardware vendors, prices should be

published for the operating system for all

vendors, not just the top 20 OEMs. Loopholes

should be avoided, such as ‘‘dealer

incentives’’. People should be able to decide

what operating system to run. A PC should

be available without an operating system.

2. File formats should be specified. These

should be released 6 months prior to a

software release. If the software does not

conform to the file specifications, Microsoft

should be punished by stiff fines or refunds

to customers. I am sure there are many other

items that should be considered. Others with

better knowledge of the situation may have

more useful insight.

Thank you for your time.

Ed Gatzke

Assistant Professor, Dept. Chem. Eng.

Univ. of South Carolina

Swearingen Engineering Center,

Chem. Eng. 2C32,

Columbia, SC 29208

(803)777–1159 wk,(617)461–3634

cell,(803)419–9655 hm,(803)777–8265 fax

MTC–00004978

From: bfox@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR,webmaster

@ago.state.ma.us@inetgw,att...

Date: 12/28/01 1:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a citizen of the United States and the

State of Massachusetts, I am dissatisfied with

the proposed settlement of the Microsoft

Antitrust settlement, announced on or about

Nov. 20, 2001.

The proposed settlement, to compell

Microsoft to donate $1B in SW, HW, and

services to K-12 schools, will further

entrench Microsoft’s image as the only OS

option in the minds of children. What about

the competitors. Thats what this is all about.

The settlement is effectively a windfall for

Microsoft. Microsoft’s marketing division

probably views this settlement as $1B

windfall How will we have Microsoft

account forthe ‘‘cost’’ of $1 Billion in

exquipment, software, and services? I am

sure Microsoft will argue for ‘‘full cost’’,

while their true cost is nil. Consider the

economics of the software industry. Software

creation is 90% of a product’s cost,

reproduction is 2%.

The toothless settlement proposed will

only further encourage Microsoft, and

corporate America at large, to flaunt the DOJ

as merely a nuisance to business as usual, not

a formidable market police body to be

respected. I suggest restrictions of Microsoft’s

market access. It is clear Microsoft is moving

on other facets of the IT industry such as

online services, entertainment, and

telephony. Perhaps a settlement that freezes

them out of several of these industries to

prevent them from further controlling the

technology infrastructure of this country.

Similar to the AT&T settlement of the early

80s Another option is to limit Microsoft’s

access to Federl and State contract awards for

a period of several years, limiting them to

XX% of all awarded contract $$s These types

of punishments show teeth to the DOJ’s and

State AG’s actions.

William J. Fox

Director of Systems Architecture

400 West Cummings Park

Suite 2350

Woburn, MA 01801

781–938–7283 x272

781–389–3110 (mobile)

MTC–00004979

From: Robert Poreda

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 1:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Antritrust Case

From: Robert Poreda

31 East 25th Street

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114

December 28, 2001

The proposed settlement allowing MS to

give a large sum of money, product and

services to the educational market will only

serve to strengthen the Microsoft monopoly.

This proposal tells independent software

developers that here is another market

segment we will lose, courtesy of the

Department of Justice. I’m trying to start an

internet hosting company. At the outset, I’m

running into sites that either strongly

recommend the use of the MS internet

browser or fail to show properly when

accessed by Netscape 6. Some sites

developed by MS products are completely

inaccessable by other browser versions such

as Netscape 4.x or Opera. Now, MS

introduces their .Net program, which I

understand will exacerbate the problem by

creating more sites unusable by anything

other than MS Explorer. I was raised to keep

my options open, to not put all my eggs into

one basket. The United States has done just

that with office services software and now

appears to be doing the same with the

internet. This aspect alone creates substantial

vulnerability to our economy and technology,

let alone the problems related to you

regarding competitive markets and creativity.

Microsoft needs to be divided into at least

two companies, and perhaps as much as four.

MTC–00004980

From: Mark Bej

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 1:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Public

Comment

Sirs and Madames:

In my view, nothing short of breakup

would be an appropriate resolution to the

monopolistic behavior of Microsoft. It would

be one thing if there were a situation

analogous to the car, oil refining, or breakfast

cereal industries. Each of these has several

major players with fluctuating market share,

but in no case does one company have 90+%

market share. So, to bring the analogy back

to the computer market, if 30–50% of

computers were Windows+MS Office, and

there were sizeable proportions of OS/

2+SmartSuite, Mac OS+Claris Works, and

Corel Linux+Corel Office, I would not be

writing you. But all of you know that this is

not the situation at all. Breakup would be the

best remedy. If DoJ persists in not pursuing

this policy, only the most detailed, long-term,

and invasive scrutiny of Microsoft would, in

my opinion, be an appropriate response. This

would have to include review of Windows

source code to confirm that Microsoft is not

leaving itself back doors, undocumented

procedures, and ‘‘time bombs’’ for other

vendors’ software. To date, only one

company has been able to thumb its nose at

Microsoft and get away with it—Intuit. It

behooves DoJ to know exactly why.

Many thanks for the opportunity to

respond.

Mark D. Bej, M.D.

bejm@eeg.ccf.org

Section of Epilepsy & Sleep Disorders

Section of Neurological Computing

Department of Neurology Cleveland Clinic

Foundation S-51 9500 Euclid Ave. Cleveland,

Ohio 44195 U.S.A. CC:attorney.general

@po.state.ct.us@inetgw Phone (216) 445–

2565 Operator (216) 444–2200 bpr 24095 Fax

(216) 445–6617 (public) Voice mail (216)

444–0119 (nonclinical only)

MTC–00004981

From: Timothy Clark

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 2:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear People,

When people look back a 100 years from

now Microsoft will be listed as one of the all

time great robber barons of our history. Who

knows where are computer industry would

be now without their predatory tactics.

Please do not let them off the hook.

Tim Clark

MTC–00004982

From: Robert Cheetham

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 2:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ Antitrust Division,

I am writing to submit comments during

the Tunney Act public comment period

regarding the Department of Justice’s

settlement proposal of the antitrust case with

Microsoft Corporation. My company is a

Microsoft customer. We are software

developers that rely on the Microsoft

platforms and developer tools to make our

business work and to help our clients do the

same. However, over the past seven years we

have repeatedly witnessed the bullying of

competitors, stifling of innovation,

obfuscation of security flaws in the software,

increased prices for operating systems and

office automation software and a dramatic

decline in the choices we have available to

us as consumers of computer software.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24651

Observing these events, we believe the case

brought against Microsoft over the past

several years was fully justified. Moreover,

the behavior of Microsoft’s representatives

during the trial was appallingly dishonest

and disingenuous at best. In light of this, we

submit the following points:

* While we do not support the originally

proposed breakup of the company, we agree

with the Court of Appeals that Microsoft is

a monopoly and that it has illegally abused

that monopoly.

* The OEM terms requirements in the

settlement are positive moves and will be

helpful.

* The settlement requires licensing of

operating system APIs, but it allows so many

exclusions for security, anti-piracy,

authentication, etc., that there will be an

enormous amount of the operating system

that will remain closed. Moreover, whether

an API is subject to exclusion or not will be

subject to interpretation, turning compliance

into an argument over terms.

* The means by which the compliance will

be monitored includes a 3 person technical

committee, with one member chosen by the

plaintiff, one by Microsoft and the third

agreed upon by the first two. We do not

believe that Microsoft should have a voice in

forming the committee that will monitor its

own behavior.

* While the OEM terms are positive, we do

not believe that the settlement arrived at by

the DOJ and the States is going to be an

effective remedy to Microsoft’s past behavior.

It is therefore not in the public interest. We

encourage the Court and the plaintiffs to

reject the proposed settlement and consider

other more effective, remedies including

requiring Microsoft to release into the public

domain or to open source both the APIs and

source code for its Office, Windows operating

system, and Internet Explorer browser. These

are the products with which Microsoft both

has a monopoly and has abused that

monopoly. If the source code for these

products were available to the public for reuse, we believe the result will be a more

competitive market, more secure operating

systems, and greater innovation.

This still leaves an enormous range of

competitive products (such as Visual Studio,

SQL Server, MapPoint, etc.) upon which

Microsoft can innovate and make money.

Moreover, with Windows, Office and IE as

either open source software or in the public

domain, a common platform for future

software development will be maintained for

the benefit of the consumer. Such a remedy

would cause short-term damage to

Microsoft’s revenues, but in the long run, the

result will be a healthier Microsoft, a more

robust software industry and a more secure

information infrastructure. Despite the events

of September 11, we are confident that the

American economy is fundamentally healthy.

The settlement that was agreed upon in

October and November 2001 is, quite frankly,

toothless and nothing more than a slap on the

wrist for Microsoft. It rewards the company

for its past illegal behavior and will do more

to stifle the American economy than it will

to encourage it. Microsoft’s monopolistic

behavior has stifled far more innovation than

it has encouraged, and the US economy is

increasingly based upon such innovation.

Microsoft’s monopoly abuse should be

prevented in the future, and we encourage

the Department of Justice and the State

Attorneys General to consider remedies that

will do so. We believe the current proposed

settlement does not. We want to see

Microsoft be a successful company, but we

also want to see that happen on a level

playing field in which smaller companies,

like ours, have a chance to both compete

fairly and to purchase innovative,

competitively-priced software products.

Please consider withdrawal of the proposed

settlement and negotiation of a settlement

that is in the public interest.

Sincerely,

Robert M Cheetham

President

Avencia, Incorporated

Philadelphia, PA

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00004983

From: Randy Nye

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’,

‘attorney.general(a)po...

Date: 12/28/01 2:38pm

Regarding: Microsoft Corporation Antitrust

Litigation Settlement Agreement,

MDL Docket No. 1332

I have serious concerns, questions, and

problems with the proposed Microsoft

settlement. The reasons why I feel that the

settlement is unfair and does not properly

compensate the plaintiffs for the charges they

have filed against Microsoft in their civil

suits are the following.

*The final outcome of the settlement will

be a very large program aimed at training our

students attending the underprivileged K-12

schools and their teachers on how to use

Microsoft software.

*This program is designed to guide the

teachers on how to use Microsoft software in

their education curriculum.

*The computers purchased through this

program will be limited to those which are

certified by Microsoft. This means that these

computers will be configured to run

Microsoft software.

*The settlement excludes completely the

ability for rival software companies from

providing software and services to these

underprivileged K-12 schools, which

compete directly with Microsoft’s own

software products in the PC software market

place. This provision astounds me. It would

be more appropriate in an agreement where

the Justice Department were the offending

party making amends to Microsoft.

*The fact is there is a budding new

software industry based on free software

otherwise known as GNU or Open Source

software. The term free applies to both free

in cost and free as in freedom. This new

software industry is based on software

written by many programmers working

together through loosely tied collaboration

using the communication tools provided by

the Internet. (e-mail, file transfers, web

browsing).

*These same tools of communication and

methods of collaboration which the Internet

provides, are the ones which we wish for the

students of the underprivileged K-12 schools

to take advantage. This is due to the fact that

this is the same modality by which our

scientists use to achieve the latest advances

in science and technology.

*I am aware that Microsoft is working to

try and stop this new software industry based

on GNU/Open Source software. This GNU/

Open Source software industry is one of

Microsoft’s biggest concerns since it

threatens its dominance in the personal

computer software market. The current

settlement is structured to directly shut out

this segment of the software industry.

I do not understand why you entered into

this settlement agreement with Microsoft

which is so clearly beneficial to Microsoft. I

would have expected the agreement to

pursue corrections on inappropriate conduct,

not rewards. What I am interested in seeing

is;

*Ensure that the plaintiffs understand our

concerns regarding their settlement with

Microsoft.

*Ensure that you, as attorneys representing

the plaintiffs in this civil class action suit,

inform your clients that there are no

provisions in their settlement to allow free

and open competition for the needed

software products used to upgrade the

computers, networks and computer based

teaching aids for the underprivileged K-12

schools the settlement funds will be

targeting.

*Find ways to actually halt actions found

to be illegal and not be used to support and

dictate further market penetration. I would

further request you to change the terms of the

settlement such that Microsoft have no say

what so ever in how the money of the

settlement be spent. This should be

accomplished by having Microsoft donate

cash grants to the underprivileged K-12

schools which were targeted in the original

settlement. The size of the individual grants

should be in proportion to the number of

students enrolled in the school. The schools

should then be directed to spend the money

on computer hardware, software, networking

infrastructure and Internet connection

bandwidth for systems used by the teachers

and students, as they best see fit for

themselves. We emphasize that these funds

be restricted to upgrading the IT

infrastructure just mentioned, used directly

in the classroom environment. These would

be upgrades to system used in general class

rooms, libraries, science labs, computer clubs

or which ever other teaching forum the

school has developed for the teaching of their

students. The role of the Foundation, as

created in the settlement agreement, should

expend its efforts to ensure this funding

policy be enforced.

Furthermore, in order to ensure that

Microsoft has no part in directing how the

settlement funds be spent, the Foundation

created to manage the settlement funds

should be made up of people from our

leading science and education institutions.

Examples of the people who should be

sought to sit on the blue ribbon board of this

foundation would be the head of the National

Science Foundation, the head of the National

Academy of Sciences, the Presidential

Science Adviser, directors of our national

laboratories, presidents of our renown

24652 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

universities, heads of teachers unions, the

Secretary of Education, the Secretary of

Commerce or other people who have great

knowledge of both education, its

advancement and the free and open market

system upon which the strength of this

country is founded. The task of forming a

search committee for these board members

should be given to Honorable Judge Motz or

someone to which he delegates this task.

Thank you for your time and your

assistance in this matter.

Randy Nye

IS Director

Northland Services, Inc.

rnye@northlandservices.com

<mailto:rnye@northlandservices.com>

MTC–00004984

From: Eric Pickup

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 2:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This settlement just postpones the problem

until tomorrow. In five years, you’ll be back

in court for some other violation. Settling for

a slap on the wrist for the sake of a tiny boost

to the economy is bad judgement. If this was

decided politically you have little choice but

at least put some teeth in to it. Right now you

have behavioral remedies that can be easily

worked around that in the end will have little

effect on Microsoft’s business and a

laughable enforcement mechanism which

invites them to ignore the settlement. You are

doing a disservice to the industry and the

country. If you want to revitalise the industry

you need to allow the small and mid-size

businesses to survive the displeasure of the

reigning monopoly—afterall it’s those small

businesses that are being truly innovative.

Microsoft just takes other’s ideas, slaps them

into a bundle and calls that innovation. If

Microsoft repeatedly crushes smaller

companies, in the end there will be fewer

and fewer innovators and with no one else

to copy Microsoft will just stop bundling and

then where will we be?

Eric Pickup

MTC–00004985

From: Ben Rady

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 3:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern: I work in the

Software industry as a developer, and I work

with Microsoft products every day. Due to

the extensive experience I have developed

over the years it is my opinion that Microsoft

would have to do (at least) the following in

order to be considered non-monopolistic:

1) Publish all the internal API’s and

specifications of their products, before or at

the time of the release of those products.

Anything less than full and complete

documentation of these specifications should

result in the loss of any income due to the

related product.

2) Terminate and abstain from any

licensing agreements that prevent or

discourage computer manufacturers or resellers from installing competing products on

the systems they sell. Furthermore, all

licensing agreements with said computer

manufacturers/re-sellers should be made

public. There are many more areas in which

I believe Microsoft could and should make

their business more competitive, but these

two are the most glaring and any settlement

that even pretends to look out for the

consumer’s interests should include them.

Thank You,

Ben Rady

Houston, TX

Ben Rady

ben@int.com

PGP Key available at keyserver.pgp.com

MTC–00004986

From: Steve Stites

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 3:02pm

Subject: Dear Sir,

Dear Sir,

There are three remedies that I would like

to see included among those imposed upon

Microsoft. These are:

1. Permanently allow the hardware

vendors offer any operating system they

chose, or none if they so chose without any

coercion from Microsoft to use Microsoft’s

operating system. During Microsoft’s

probation period any computer sold with a

Microsoft operating system must also have a

second, non-Microsoft operating system

installed at Microsoft’s expense. The

hardware vendor can choose which

alternative operating system to install at

Microsoft’s expense.

2. Permanently dissallow Microsoft from

dictating to a hardware vendor what

application software will be installed on new

computers. During the probation period

Microsoft must make the source code, file

formats, etc. for all Microsoft applications

available to anyone who wants them.

3. During the probation period Microsoft

must adher to all Internet standards.

Miscrosoft cannot create product

differentiation on Internet protocols and

software. None of the various Microsoft

Internet applications can be set up to where

they will not work with rival products as

long as the rival products are adhering to the

standard Internet protocols.

Sincerely,

Steve Stites

GO.com Mail

MTC–00004987

From: arigsby@buffalorock.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 3:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I am definitely opposed to the current

settlements with Microsoft neither do I see

how the proposed remedy of breaking up

Microsoft would resolve the issue or help

level the playing field. What I think should

be done is to force Microsoft to separate the

Windows user interface and the Windows

operating system. I know that Microsoft

claims this is not possible but if they truly

can not then they have used a very poor

program development methodology. Once

they separate the user interface, they should

make the Windows user interface available

for sale on their major competitor’s operating

systems and they should allow their

competitors to market competing user

interfaces on the Windows operating system.

This would increase the competition in both

operating systems and user interfaces and

many third party software vendors would

have a better environment in which to

support their products across multiple

operating systems.

This is a personal opinion and not the

official policy of Buffalo Rock Company.

Thanks,

Jack Rigsby

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00004988

From: Adrian Byng-Clarke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 3:19pm

Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

I am a computer programmer and web

designer at the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology. I should make it clear that the

views that are presented hear are strictly my

own and necessary those of MIT. I believe

that Microsoft should be more severely

sanctioned for its anti-competitive behavior.

It is important at this time to make sure that

this behavior does not continue. Perhaps the

most effective way is to have Microsoft

release the source code for its Operating

Systems (or at least the main core of them).

Microsoft has imposed itself on 95% of the

desktop systems. However it has done so

through an unfair advantage: its monopolistic

network. Releasing operating system will

help to restore the competitive balance to the

market. Releasing the source code to the

public will open the market in a couple of

ways. First off, it will ensure that software

manufacturers are on equal footing with

Microsoft. Because 3rd party software

manufacturers aren’t privy to the inner

workings of the MS operating systems, they

are less able to compete with the Microsoft

programmers.

This should not be allowed to continue.

Opening the Operating System Source will

nullify Microsoft’s advantage for developing

software to run on its own operating system.

Microsoft’s software will have to compete

based on its functionality and performance,

not on the fact that its programmers get

insider information. Releasing the source

code to the public (vs. just to computer

manufacturers) will also help to restore

competition to the operating system market.

At this point it is very difficult for an

emerging operating system to be successful

due to Microsoft’s strangle hold on the OS

market. This is because most software is built

around Microsoft Windows. Operating

systems can only be as popular as the

software that they support. If one releases a

great operating system- it might just

disappear because there is no word processor

or spreadsheet for it.

However, with the Windows source code

open, operating systems will be better able to

emulate Windows and thus run windows

software. To continue to succeed (or

dominate), Microsoft will have to prove itself

by the quality of its products and service; not

just its universality. Operating system

competition can only benefit consumers with

better products at more competitive prices.

Microsoft should also be prohibited from

leveraging hardware manufacturers and

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24653

computer retailers for a certain amount of

time (5 years at least). As a preventative

measure, I believe that Microsoft should be

prohibited from penalizing companies that

don’t bundle their computers with Microsoft

software, particularly Windows. This should

further open up competition in the OS/PC

market. A final note should be made

regarding Microsoft Office. I believe that this

is an excellent product that has universal

appeal.

However Microsoft has historically used

this product to unnaturally control the

market. Word and Outlook use formats that

are inherently proprietary so as to prevent

users from migrating or using other products.

Microsoft has consciously stayed away from

proven, open and universal standards that

foster the easy transfer of information.

Instead they have relied on proprietary/

closed formats to maintain their dominance.

Because Office is so universally used in

business, this makes it particular difficult for

a user to use another program. I submit that

Microsoft has intentionally made it difficult

for other programs to open word documents

or for people to transfer other document

formats (such as Star Office). This kind of

sabotage, known as ‘‘Breakware’’, should be

illegal. Information should be kept in open

formats to foster knowledge transfer. Program

choice should be left up to the user. Right

now, If I wrote a program to open up a

outlook email message file, it would be

impossible without violating several patents

and lice.

MTC–00004989

From: Neufeld, Jonathan

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/28/01 3:35pm

Subject: RE: Appropriate Penalties for

Microsoft’s Antitrust Law Violatio ns

RE: Appropriate Penalties for Microsoft’s

Antitrust Law Violations

The following are the flaws that I see in the

’penalties’ that essentially seem to leave

Microsoft better off than they were before the

trial. I do not see that Microsoft is penalized

in any way in that there is no separation of

integrated software that harms and stifles

competition to the Microsoft operating

system. Further I see no provisions for

computer manufacturers to be able to offer

other and more viable operating systems in

a fair and price competitive atmosphere—

essentially nothing has changed. I do not see

that the proprietary protocols for the

operating system, networking and other

elements are to be made public in order that

others may have equal opportunity to

develop applications in a spirit of healthy

competition and to encourage innovation.

Microsoft appears to be allowed to maintain

the closed, proprietary and monopolistic

systems that started this process. Again it

appears that nothing has changed and it will

be business as usual for Microsoft.

I am perplexed at the current ’penalties’

being ’imposed’ on Microsoft. They seem to

be more of an encouragement for Microsoft

to continue in the same ways it has been and

those are the very same ones that brought this

issue to the DOJ in the first place. If these are

implemented as currently stated then fair

business practices, innovation and

competition are DEAD in the computer field.

If Microsoft’s agreements with computer

vendors forced the vendor to disclose to the

computer purchaser the price of the

Microsoft products included, it would help

consumers choose products and vendors that

were appropriate to their needs. Microsoft

has stated concerns that selling computers

without operating systems equates to

software piracy. This assertion is absurd, and

has become irrelevant with Microsoft’s

newest release of Windows XP, which

requires license activation. Having

consumers and end-users with more

information is clearly in the public interest.

All of what is suggested here concerns

supplying information that enables computer

users to make informed decisions, and to

access their own work on their own

computer.

Another issue I have with the proposed

settlement is the restrictions that are placed

on the entities with which Microsoft must

share their API’s. In the explanations I have

seen of the proposed settlement these entities

are restricted to ’commercial’ ventures,

implying for-profit status. This is simply

wrong and way too restrictive. I believe that

to be truly effective the parties with whom

Microsoft should share their API’s and the

like should be broadly defined, maybe

something like ’any party or entity that could

potentially benefit from such information’. In

other words this information should

essentially be in the public domain.

In order that Microsoft be brought into line

and with any hope of curbing their horrid

business practices, it will take REAL

penalties and serious oversight. With the

obscene amounts of money that Microsoft has

managed to accumulate through its less than

fair business practices (to be kind) there is

some doubt as to whether that can actually

be accomplished. It has become quite

obvious to anyone working in the field that

there is no honor or integrity in Microsoft,

only the search for more money in complete

disregard for the good of the industry, the

users and at this point in time it becomes

rather blatantly obvious that national security

is at risk due to the poor quality and serious

lack of attention to security that is epidemic

in their products. That alternatives are few is

a direct result of the issues that DOJ is

supposed to be addressing in this matter.

Microsoft products, by virtue of being a

monopoly, have been designed without

concern for security or reliability. I can prove

that the design of Microsoft products leads to

the spread of countless virii in the computer

industry. They (Microsoft products) are the

perfect products to use to send damaging

virus from many groups like the terrorists

from Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt....

And do not imagine that these places have

not already done damage.

And it is not only because Microsoft

products are in such wide use, but the real

problem is that the products have been very

poorly designed. It seems Microsoft has

enough money to do the job right, so the

remaining reasons why the products are so

poorly written is that there is currently no

need to be ‘‘best of breed’’ when you are the

only option.

This comments have been quoted from

other contributors, and I reproduce them here

as an indication of my full agreement.

Jonathan D. Neufeld, Ph.D.

Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry

UC Davis Department of Psychiatry

(916) 876–5149 voicemail

neufeldj@saccounty.net

MTC–00004991

From: Jon ’maddog’ Hall, Executive Director,

Linux International

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 4:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Data Formats,

Open Source Developers and

Global Economy

80 Amherst St.

Amherst, NH 03031–3032 USA

Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia

Your Honor,

I have been trying valiantly to keep up

with the proposals for settlement back and

forth between Microsoft, the different state

attorneys and yourself, and I can not find

three points that I hope have been covered.

1) In several of the documents I have seen

people refer to ‘‘interfaces’’ (used in

programming and running applications) and

‘‘protocols’’ (used in transmitting data across

networks), but little if anything in the area of

‘‘data formats’’, used in the exchange of

documents (e.g. the ‘‘.doc’’ format used by

Microsoft Word). As a barrier to entry into a

marketplace, the inability of a word

processor to read documents created by 90%

of the marketplaces’ word processing people

(i.e. users of Microsoft Office or other

Microsoft products) is very detrimental.

While products like Corel’s Word Perfect,

Applixware and Star Office all attempt to

read and display Microsoft Office’s data

formats, often they are not able to decipher

the data format, and therefore the document

interchange is incomplete or wrong. The

same is true for spreadsheets (Excel) and

presentation packages (PowerPoint). This

tends to be a stopping point for people

purchasing alternative products. In the past

there have been several successful products

that have created data interchange standards

that were uniform across vendors because the

designer of the interchange language

documented it and pushed it as a standard.

The level of documentation that Microsoft

has created for their data formats does not

allow complete transference of all the

information needed to create, read or write a

document with a simular product from

another vendor. Microsoft should either be

forced to document the data exchange

formats more fully, or make as their product’s

default data formats one of the standard data

exchange formats for documentation.

2) Specification of who has access to

Microsoft’s specifications and standards In a

lot of the documentation around the trial,

Microsoft is expected to make information

available to ‘‘ISVs, OEMs, ISPs, etc., etc.’’

However a lot of Open Source developers are

not part of any of these organizations. For

most of them, signing a non-disclosure or

other type of license is not an option, either

because of the time consuming aspect of the

act, or the fact that they would usually want

legal advice in signing such a non-disclosure,

and this is expensive for a person who

24654 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

normally receives no financial compensation

for their work. I feel that any of these

interfaces which are available to all of these

aforementioned groups should be PUBLIC

knowledge, openly available to ANYONE

without license of ANY kind. After all,

Microsoft should WANT people to use these

interfaces, protocols and data exchange

formats and make them as easy to understand

and use as possible. If Microsoft complains

about the cost of documenting these

interfaces, protocols and data exchange

formats to the extent needed, they should be

reminded that when a company reaches the

size of a monopoly these are the natural costs

of doing business.

3) Microsoft is a world-wide company in

a global economy. This last issue may be

harder (or impossible) to impose, but I would

like to make the problem known. I have

traveled to Taiwan, and spoken to various

members of the educational sector in that

country. They have told me that Microsoft

has been approaching Taiwanese magazine

owners and threatening to remove all

Microsoft and Microsoft-assisted joint

advertising in PC magazines that print

articles on Linux and Open Source software

or run advertising for Linux or Open Source

products. Since in some magazines Microsoft

sponsored advertisements cover over 70% of

their advertising revenue, these magazines

are hesitant to have Linux articles or

advertisement.

Similarly, I have been told by Taiwanese

motherboard manufacturers that Microsoft

has been threatening them with raised

royalty fees on any Microsoft products unless

they bundle in Microsoft licenses to all of

their motherboards, Since a large quantity of

systems built in the United States have

Taiwanese motherboards, this means that (in

effect) all systems have Microsoft operating

systems ‘‘built in’’ before they even start to

enter US jurisdiction. These licenses (and

therefore these costs) are then passed on to

the US companies making end-user products

out of these motherboards. While I could not

verify any of these rumors with actual

Taiwanese companies, I did hear it from

several reliable sources. I have also heard of

similar instances of intimidation by

Microsoft from companies in Brazil and

Argentina.

As the strongest economic power in a

global economy, the United States has a

moral obligation to protect companies in

other countries as we would protect our own,

particularly when these companies are part

of the total manufacturing chain for USbound products. Microsoft should not be

allowed to by-pass the judgment against them

just by moving the affected business outside

the United States, yet still expect to sell the

final product to US citizens.

Please make sure that these three items are

covered in any final draft of the agreement.

Again, if you have any issue or need any

clarification in the above areas, please feel

free to email or call me at (603) 943–6666.

Warmest regards,

Jon A. Hall

Jon ‘‘maddog’’ Hall

Executive Director

email: maddog@li.org

Voice: +1.603.672.4557

WWW: http://www.li.org

Linux International(SM)

80 Amherst St.

Amherst, N.H. 03031–3032 U.S.A.

Board Member: Uniforum Association,

USENIX Association

(R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus

Torvalds in several countries.

(SM)Linux International is a service mark

of Linux International, Inc.

CC:maddog@li.org@inetgw

MTC–00004992

From: Peter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 5:09pm

Subject: The DOJ apparently considers this

monopoly to be a positive outcome.

CC: dennispowell@earthlink.net

@inetgw

To whom it may concern, Though I could

find no reference to this provision in the

judgement, information has been widely

circulated of a gift of software to

underprivileged schools. It should be obvious

to the government that the provision of

software to the underprivileged by Microsoft,

might have been done even without the court

decision, in the interest of discouraging

piracy and the use of alternatives, and that

the cost of this remedy is insignificant to

Microsoft. This ‘‘remedy’’ could just as easily

be written off as a small part of the marketing

cost for Windows XP, as it in no way

penalizes the company. The prohibition

against retaliation against OEMS for shipping

dual-boot systems is very weak., as are the

provisions concerning ‘‘middleware.’’ In any

event, The concern with middleware is a redherring. Why has the entire Microsoft Office

suite been excluded from the middleware

definitions?

That product is the single biggest

application platform for Microsoft, and one

of the chief tools for broadening the

monopoly, yet it is not touched by the

judgment. The limited disclosure provisions

for source code and file formats does nothing

to encourage competition from the biggest

group that has the potential to compete with

Microsoft: the free software community. That

community cannot participate in ‘‘limited

disclosure’’ schemes, nor distribute the

results of work based on those agreements.

The blanket permission to keep security

and rights management API’s essentially

secret, (J. 1.) lays the groundwork for making

it illegal to produce competitive software.

The Department of Justice should know that

all electronic commerce is predicated on the

use of such systems, and that this exception

amounts to a gift of additional market share

to the company in markets where they do not

already dominate, by raising the barrier to

entry for competitive companies still higher.

While it is certainly legitimate to keep keys

or tokens secret, the provision covering

authentication mechanisms allows Microsoft

to divulge essentially nothing about key

technologies such as Passport. It further will

reduce the security of desktops wordwide, by

allowing Microsoft to rely on ‘‘security by

obscurity.’’ which is widely discredited in

technical circles. As a counter example, one

need only look to the NSA’s own release of

a secured operating system (http://

www.nsa.gov/selinux/). Mechanisms and

API’s need to be public, in order for them to

undergo sufficient scrutiny, and provide a

level playing field for competitive

implementations.

As for the technical committee, it is

inconceivable that Microsoft should have any

say whatever in who oversees their

compliance. This makes as much sense as

giving a prisoner his choice of jailer.

Taken together, it would appear that the

government has decided that, in this

particular case, a monopoly is good. In order

to make the monopoly as complete as

possible, The government’s remedy ensures

that no viable alternatives can be legally

produced. This is a misguided conclusion in

countless ways. It takes for granted that the

current monopoly will continue for the

foreseeable future, so there is no point in

encouraging any competition. It assumes that

there is no cost to the US economy for the

continuation of this monopoly, when in

reality there is an incalculable cost in lost

innovation. There is a tacit approval of what

will essentially become a tax on all citizens,

payable to Microsoft, in order to function in

the digital environment. In fact, every effort

must be made, not only to forestall the

encroachment of monopolists into new

markets, but to roll them back in markets

which they already control through the past

and current use of illegal tactics.

Leaving the weakness of the proposed

remedy to one side, one has to consider what

an adequate remedy for this monopolist is.

The clear answer is to encourage competition

to arise, and for the monopolist, as a form of

reparation, fund the leveling of the playing

field. There is only one direction to look in

to find a potential competitor for Microsoft:

Free Software. There is a reason why

Microsoft characterizes free software as

cancer. (Steve Ballmer http://

www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-finmicro01.html) (see http://

www.linuxuser.co.uk/articles/issue12/LU12-

ebenmoglen.html, an article by Columbia

University legal history professor Eben

Moglen, for a fuller discussion.) Free

Software has the potential to compete and

beat Microsoft, and encourage a more vibrant

software and hardware industry.

Current examples of such products are the

apache web server, which has a larger market

share than Microsoft’s own IIS, and is

immune to the many infections which

plagued the Microsoft driven portion of the

internet this past summer, in spite of the

secrecy of their current security provisions.

All key technologies of the internet are

public, and allow for different companies to

produce competitive implementations. Why

should the Microsoft Word file format (for

example) be any different?

Free Software means simply allowing

programmers in thousands of companies to

co-operate to produce ever better software in

a much more competitive environment,

where the best implementation wins, and the

others wither and disappear. It is, in no way,

an impediment to free enterprise or for profit

software development. It has nothing to do

with altruism, but is instead a method of

harnessing the self interest of vast numbers

of technical people, trying to help their

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24655

respective companies innovate. Free

Software is about leveling the playing field

to allow innovation to arise from anywhere.

All major computer systems vendors, (such

as: ibm, sun, dell, hp, compaq, intel) both

support and benefit from Linux development,

for example. Innovation can come from any

direction, when the environment is open to

it. It can come from a company that wants

to sell cheaper network file servers

(www.raidzone.com), cheaper internet

routers (www.snapgear.com) to any hardware

device that requires an operating system,

which can include anything from cellular

phones to dishwashers.

All of the products mentioned above can

be produced today, based on free software

technology. If free software withers because

of an inability to legally produce competitive

products, the US economy will suffer. A big

part of the problem with the Microsoft

monopoly is the immense chill it puts on any

software development project. The first

barrier is that information required is not

available. There is invariably a cost

associated with obtaining information, if it is

available at all. The second barrier is finding

the information (reverse engineering is

complicated, costly, and includes legal

complications beyond the means of small

start up companies.) The third barrier is the

natural cap on the market. Since any

successful software company, once they

achieve a certain market presence, will either

need to compete with Microsoft in the

current, steeply tilted environment or be

swallowed outright by them.

Currently, products based on Free Software

can survive because they use IETF (Internet

Engineering Task Force) standardized

interactions with other devices, and can

leverage their efforts off those done in the

mainstream desktop free operating system

realm. If Microsoft is the only source of

devices to interact with, and knowledge of

the protocols is only available at high cost to

select individuals within large corporations,

the pace of innovation will be severely

constrained, the number of people literate

about computing devices will be severely

limited by the lack of an ability to reference

others’ work in practicing their art. In short,

the software industry, outside of Microsoft,

will be largely limited to point-and-click

installation of Microsoft applications. It is

fundamental to realize that the Microsoft

monopoly is hurting innovation, and sooner

or later, that will hurt US competitiveness.

Combating the harmful effects on the US

software (and hardware) industry should be

the chief object of the remedies.

Any remedies should take into account the

needs of Free Software to remain viable.

First, there should be full disclosure to the

public domain of all file formats and

networking protocols, as well as validation

suites, to allow quick and complete

implementation of competitive products. For

example, there should be a collection of

reference word documents, which, taken

together, exercise all of the features of the

format, such that an implementer can have

confidence, that should Microsoft Word work

differently with a given file than a

competitive suite which successfully

interacts with the reference documents, then

it is a bug, and must be remedied in a timely

manner (IE. either Word must be changed to

conform, or the reference documents

improved to include the missing

functionality.) While the cost of maintaining

that information should be borne by

Microsoft in perpetuity, given the inherent

conflict of interest, it would be best if it were

maintained by a third party.

Second, there should be a ban on the

bundling of an operating system with the sale

of a desktop computer. Buyers should have

to make the choice to explicitly purchase

software (which could be packaged on a

CDROM ‘‘recovery disk’’, such that the

installation only requires a few clicks.) The

cost of software needs to be indicated

separately from the hardware. Buyers will

then know what the software costs, and have

the choice of purchasing or using

alternatives. Third, the remedies should not

do anything to further extend Microsoft’s

monopoly, but should instead encourage

competition. In that direction, Microsoft

should provide funding for other parties to

provide Free Software alternatives, including

technical consulting and ongoing support for

five years) to the under privileged, so that the

institutions have a chance of being free of

Microsoft software by the end of that period.

In summary, the remedy proposed is a

counter-productive encouragement to

Microsoft to not only continue their

unbridled monopolistic practices but expand

it into other markets, and constitutes a

government stamp of approval on those

practices. Proper remedies should aim at

reducing the harmful effects of the Microsoft

monopoly, and encouraging competitors to

arise. I hope the Department will take these

concerns, spoken by a neighbor who knows

the impact of this case will be worldwide, to

heart. Thank you.

Peter Silva,

(a concerned Canadian)

MTC–00004993

From: Christian BAYER

To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general

@po.state.ct.us@inet...

Date: 12/28/01 9:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust

Hello,

In my opinion the proposed settlement of

the Microsoft Antitrust case is absolutely

absurd. The Microsoft Corporation has

abused it’s monopolistic position in a severe

manner. The actions of the company have

greatly harmed consumers and businesses by

suppressing competitive and innovative

products, many of superior quality to

Microsoft’s offerings. The proposed

settlement does nothing to curtail the illegal

practices of the Microsoft Corporation, nor is

it a punishment fitting with the crime. The

donation of Microsoft Software to schools is

a twisted and downright sick idea. I suggest

the settlement be changed to a simple fine for

about 20 billion dollars. Some of the funds

should be used to finance a new lawsuit

against Microsoft for it’s Windows XP

product. It is my sincere wish that the

judicial system perform it’s function of

enforcing legislation and providing suitable

punishment for crimes. If the proposed

settlement of the Microsoft case prevails, it

will effectively place the corporation above

the law.

Thank you,

Christian Bayer

MTC–00004996

From: Ann Evans

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/28/01 11:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Monopoly

I am a home user of Microsoft Windows

operating systems. Working with these

systems can be a nightmare, even for those

of us who have been using computers for

about 25 years. We recently purchased a new

piece of hardware for our home network. We

got an antenna that hooks us to an ethernet

card for high speed wireless internet access.

Living in a rural area, our choices broadband

choices were limited. The hardware

installation went without a hitch, but the

installation and configuration of the drivers

and software have been a week long

nightmare.

We were using one of Microsoft’s ‘‘home’’

versions of operating systems. It baffles me

why Microsoft seems to think that a home

user would some how need less of an

operating system than a business would,

especially since businesses have support

people available to help when problems

arise. The Windows ME we have been using

for about a year and a half of frustration and

dreaded blue screens, hung up and

destabilized during the installation of the

network software. During the time we have

used this system software, it has been a

struggle to install even the simplest program

on the computer and get it working- much

less keep it working. This time, not only was

the system unable to install the new software,

but it became unable to manage normal

operation. (This same software later installed

without any problems on the professional

Windows 2000 system)

The system became so corrupted that we

were completely unable to restore it from the

original, licensed installation disk. I went to

the OfficeMax to purchase a better operating

system, Windows 2000. The young man at

the store insisted that even though the box

clearly stated that the version I was buying

would upgrade from Windows 98, it would

not do so, but would only upgrade from

Windows NT. I pointed out to him that if

necessary I could format my hard drive and

reinstall Windows 98, if it wouldn’t work

with Windows ME. He insisted that I should

continue to use the Windows ME, until the

hardware drivers I required became available

for Windows XP home version. That was out

of the question, since it was non-functional,

and couldn’t be repaired by its original disk.

He insisted that I had no business

purchasing the Windows 2000 software,

because it was designed for business, not

home use. Apparently he had been trained to

believe that home users are not entitled to

stable and secure operating systems. He made

his judgment of what I needed for my

computer not by asking me how I use my

computer, but by looking at me and

determining that I am a middle aged woman.

When I mentioned that I might format the

hard drive, he began a speech about how that

would be horribly expensive and require the

24656 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

installation of a new motherboard. Clearly

this was a misconception (big fat lie) on his

part, which I pointed out to him.

Reformatting and rebuilding a computer from

scratch is tedious, but does not require a new

motherboard. After all, my husband had

found it necessary to do this procedure three

times since we ‘‘upgraded’’ from Windows 98

to the software that Microsoft felt would be

‘‘good enough’’ for home users. Formatting

erases all information on the hard drive,

including system, programs and files. We

have lost our work, many hours of our time

required to reinstall and configure every

program we have, and have also lost program

upgrades that proved to be no longer

available at the time we had to format,

requiring the purchase of new software to

replace a perfectly good program. I have used

Macintosh computers and system software

for 15 years without going through all this

even once.

I feel that my family has been harmed by

the monopolistic hold that Microsoft has on

the computer industry because for all

practical purposes, our choice of operating

systems has been limited to one company’s

product, which has proven, at least in the

‘‘home’’ versions, to have been a shoddy

piece of work engendering anger and

frustration whenever we try to use it. Many

software functions, especially in regard to

internet and networking use, are only

available for Windows computers—the

programmers simply don’t write versions for

other operating systems.

We have been victimized by this company

which has made its own decisions about our

needs without consulting us, and then has

trained technicians all over the country to

force these inferior and non-functional

products upon us, and to ‘‘baffle us with youknow-what’’ in the process. I am a very

experienced user, and was able to stand my

ground with the young technician, though I

had to become loud and obnoxious before he

was willing to <allow> me to purchase the

Windows 2000 product, which I did as he

grumbled away. I was not interested in any

more inferior ‘‘home’’ versions of this

software, and I was very much aware of when

he crossed over the line of giving an honest

opinion. Another person, less experienced

than I, could easily have fallen for this

Microsoft-trained jerk’s confabulations, and

could have ended up forking over a large sum

of money to fix a problem that was entirely

caused by the slap dash quality of the system

software that Microsoft has determined was

ready for release to the ‘‘home’’ user.

Not only has Microsoft put a strangle hold

on the software industry itself, but it is also

well on its way to putting that same vise like

grip over everyone who uses their product by

means of its proprietary training programs,

which include, in my experience, training in

the same patronizing and demeaning attitude

that this young man displayed. Just because

a person is able to pass a test based on rote

memorization does not mean that they have

any particular ability to make computers

function properly, and from what I have

experienced, they are quite likely to inflate

their income by fixing things that are not

broken, or by randomly installing parts until

they accidentally replace what was broken—

while not really ever understanding what

went wrong. In addition to that, there were

no clear instructions anywhere on the

Microsoft website, nor in the help files about

how to configure the Windows software to

work with this network arrangement- which

was not a particularly complicated one. I was

finally able to find instructions at a website

called http://www.annoyances.org—which is

a revealing choice of titles, I think.

I would point out that if I had suffered this

much trouble with a brand of car—I would

buy a different brand, wouldn’t I? I would

have that choice, wouldn’t I? If a car

manufacturer trained its service people to be

universally rude and demeaning, one would

simply deal with a different manufacturer,

right?

Apple Computer, as a sharp contrast, has

only one set of system software—both for

home and for business use. The newest

system, OS X, only costs $120 for the full

professional version. Windows 2000 cost me

$199 for the upgrade version. The full

version was $269. There is no possible way

that Windows 2000 is worth almost three

times as much as an operating system than

OS X.

Only in an atmosphere of monopoly could

this company inflate its prices to three times

that of its competitors, sell a crushingly

inferior product, and not be beat to the

ground by the normal forces of fair

competition.

I hope that the Department of Justice will

examine the business tactics of Microsoft

very closely—not only as they take advantage

of their competitors, but also in how they use

their monopolistic position to take advantage

of their customer base as well. In a fair,

competitive market, I should have had the

choice to use someone else’s product if I was

unhappy with Microsoft’s work, shouldn’t I?

In reality, there is no choice.

Sincerely,

Ann Evans

Citizen and Voter

MTC–00004998

From: Scott Sayre

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 4:51am

Subject: U.S. vs. Microsoft

As a period for public comments in the

above case has been allotted, the following

are my views: Microsoft Is a Monopolist.

Once the Windows operating system (OS)

became the dominant platform for

computing, Microsoft clearly used its

position to bully IBM, to coerce PC clone

manufacturers, to dictate to Apple, to stifle

Netscape, etc., subsidizing it’s efforts with

the windfall profits from it’s OS. This is clear

to the most casual observer, as it was to Judge

Jackson, and the Court of Appeals. On-Going

Monopolist Behavior.

In the absence of a swift penalty, Microsoft

continues to flout its monopoly position. It’s

most recent OS, Windows XP, has integrated

even more software, including an internet

browser, messenging, e-mail, photo, and

video functions, all offered for free, virtually

eliminating the possibility for real

competition in these areas. Windows

continues to be plagued almost daily with

security flaws, viruses, and other bugs, yet

the structural barriers to competition insulate

Microsoft from acting seriously on these

critical issues. Apple Computer and the

Linux distributors, for example, cannot move

against the enormous inertia of the Wintel

marketplace. In order to win in such an

environment, competing products must be

not just good, but massively superior, a

nearly impossible task for small companies to

accomplish at the OS level.

The Public Interest Has Been Damaged

Microsoft has argued that it is the dominant

software purveyor simply because the public

prefers it’s work. Yet courtroom testimony

has demonstrated a persistent pattern over

the past ten years of using threats and

intimidation to secure a position for

Microsoft products, by bundling additional

software, usually for free, with Windows,

rather than through open and free

competition. The demise of Netscape’s

browser and Corel’s WordPerfect are the two

most obvious examples. Microsoft is

pursuing a similar strategy against Real,

Intuit, and numerous others at this moment.

Clearly, the public would be better served by

real choice. An Appropriate Punishment.

The change of administration has

apparently caused the Justice Deparment and

a number of States to shrink from seeking a

substantial penalty, something more firm

than the toothless consent decree issued in

a previous judgment several years ago.

However, the remaining nine states are

exactly right to pursue severe sanctions,

preferably ones that do not need on-going

supervision to succeed. Here are some

suggestions:

1) The PC manufacturing community must

be freed from some of the most onerous

provisions of their agreements with Microsoft

to use Windows, such as paying a license fee

even for computers sold without any OS, or

some other OS, pre-installed.

2) Windows must be compartmentalized,

so that the PC manufacturers, and the general

public, have the ability to freely chose which

browser, messenger, e-mail, etc., software

they want to install. Microsoft has fretted

publicly that these items are merely

‘‘features’’ of their OS, and are not separable,

but this is clearly a dodge, a device to avoid

putting their software up for competition on

an equal footing. Dividing Microsoft into

pieces is the only certain way to accomplish

this. Supervision by any select group will

most likely be evaded, as has happened

before.

3) The API’s, or hooks by which third party

software companies link their work to

Windows, must be made entirely public. It is

common knowledge that Microsoft creates

hidden API’s, known only to its employees,

for use with it’s other software products,

giving it’s own work tremendous advantages

over that of competing firms.

4) Some punitive monetary damages

should be assessed, to strip the company of

some of the huge economic power it wields

to absorb emerging technologies and subvert

industry standards. This could be given to

the U.S. government as a fine, or as rebates

to purchasers of Windows, or both.

Thank you for your consideration.

Scott G. Sayre

Arcadia, California

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24657

MTC–00004999

From: Sean S.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 10:34am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I just wanted to offer my opinion regarding

the proposed settlements of the Microsoft

anti-trust case.

I think the DOJ offer is in no way

satisfactory. It does little to punish Microsoft

for past illegal activity. The dollar value of

the proposed contribution to schools is a

paltry sum for Microsoft, it won’t actually

cost them anywhere near the claimed value,

and it could entrench Microsoft in one of the

few markets (education) where other

computing options (Apple, Linux) still have

a chance of competing. The DOJ settlement

offer also does nothing to prohibit Microsoft

from continuing their past behaviors—no

penalties for further illegal behavior are

outlined.

The proposal from the six states who

rejected the DOJ proposal is much better.

This proposal requires Microsoft to release

source code for some of their applications,

which will open up competition and remove

some of the competitive edge Microsoft

enjoys from owning the operating system. It

requires Microsoft to sell a version of

Windows that does not have bundled

applications. It prohibits Microsoft from

retaliating against vendors or developers for

providing non-Microsoft software with

systems or developing for non-Microsoft

platforms. The proposal also has teeth—there

are very specific penalties outlined for

breaches of the agreement.

I strongly urge the DOJ to abandon its

proposed settlement, and adopt the

settlement offer of the six states.

Sean Sawtell

MTC–00005000

From: RNG

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 11:17am

Subject: Comment on proposed Microsoft

settlement

Let me first clearly state that I am not a US

citizen. While this may disqualify me from

truly participating in the public comment

period, I wish to voice my opionons on this

matter for simple reason that in our

globalized economy any action taken by the

US government will have profound

implications on the state of the IT industry

world-wide. To put my comments into

perspective: I am a computer/programming

professional with a degree from a respected

US university and 10+ years of industry

.experience. I have worked for (major) US

software firms in development, support and

various consulting roles.

First of all, it is beyond my understanding

why the US government would want to

accept the proposed settlement after having

succeeded in getting the court system to

declare Microsoft a monopoly which has (in

the past) abused it’s market position to

further it’s own ends. The current settlement

does very little to ’fix’ the issue which caused

the current situation in the first place.

In my opinion, any settlement should

include the following:

1) Microsoft should be prevented from

using Windows licencing as a means of

coercing hardware vendors from not offering

to pre-install alternative operating systems.

The ability of a vendor to obtain a windows

licence from Microsoft must be

unencumbered: the same contract terms

should be granted all Windows licencees,

regardless of their size and any other

discretionary factors.

2) Microsoft should be forced to document

all file formats used by it’s applications (such

as the MSOffice suite) to allow 3rd parties to

develop document reading/authoring

capabilities with regards to Microsoft

application file formats. This documentation

should be available to all interested parties

for free (which includes the open source

community).

3) Microsoft should be forced to document

all network protocols in order to allow 3rd

parties to develop dependable

interoperability. This documentation should

be available to all interested parties for free

(which includes the open source

community).

4) Microsoft must be prevented from

further integrating external components into

the operating system. There are no

fundamental technical reasons for doing this;

it only serves to cement the stranglehold they

currently have over the industry. There is

nothing wrong with integrating more

components into and operating system, but

when a monopoly with limitless funds does

so (and gives the products away as part of the

Operating System), the consequences are far

more damaging and far-reaching than when

a ’normal’ company does so. In fact, it could

be said that Microsoft destroyed the market

for web browsers: since Internet Exploer is

(in essence) free, there is no incetive for other

companies to continue development and

marketing of another browser; most people

will not buy it since Internet Exploere is

available for free.

Lastly, I believe that Microsoft has shown

that it is willing to undermine past consent

decrees by carefully exploiting ambiguities.

Any settlement put forth should be devoid of

such ambiguities and amount to more than a

’slap on the wrist’; any remedies should be

clear, strict and painful. Microsoft has never

entertained the notion of competing on equal

ground and will not do so until the US

government forces it to do just this. They are

an entrenched monopoly fighting to keep

their grip on the IT sector. What is at stake

is nothing less than the openness of the IT

industry, the long term competitiveness of

the US software industry and competition in

the operating systems and applications

markets.

Respectfully

Robert Gasch

CC:dennispowell@earthlink.net@inetgw

MTC–00005001

From: Ron Nath

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 11:37am

Subject: Concerns regarding the US DOJ

settlement with Microsoft Corp

To whom it may concern:

I would like to submit my concerns and

thoughts regarding the recent settlement with

MS corp. I do not believe that the settlement

as it stands is in the publics best interest.

MS has been found to be a monopoly in

the operating systems arena. To restore

balance in this area, the government needs to

take much more aggressive steps. I would go

so far as to suggest that the company should

have been broken up not in two, but into 5

parts (Commercial/business OS, Home OS,

Commercial apps, Home apps, and internet

services). However, as this will not happen

we need to do the next best things:

1. Require that the OS be ‘‘unbundled’’

from hardware such that users can see the

cost of proprietary operating systems vs.

open/free software alternatives.

2. Require MS to open source its OS code

to all those who purchase it.

3. Require MS to port ALL its apps to

alternative operating systems (Linux, the

BSDs, Mac OS X, Solaris, AIX, HP–UX) to

‘‘level the playing field’’

4. Require MS to license its OS code to

others who could sell various ‘‘versions’’ of

the OS, ie having different apps added on by

default (AOL/Netscape Windows, IBM

Windows, Oracle Windows, Red Hat

Windows containing open source apps

running on top of core windos os, etc.)

5. Require MS to sell a lower cost version

of its OS that is devoid of all ‘‘bundled’’

apps, ie Internet Explorer, Windows Media

Player, IIS, instant messenger, Passport,

Outlook Express, etc. Beyond that, the

government needs to take its own steps to

encourage adoption of open source systems

and apps (Linux, BSDs, MySQL/PostgreSQL,

OpenOffice, etc.) as an alternative to current

costly commercial/proprietary systems. This

should be at all levels of government—

Federal, state, local, all public schools, etc.

By requiring that all purchases of

commercial software must be justified when

an equivalent open source solution exists

(much like generic drug substitution for

brand name drugs) we could save tax payers

an enourmous amount of money. More tax

breaks would make the current government

look even better in the eyes of the voters.

I hope you will consider these suggestions

in light of the remaining 9 states who have

not ‘‘caved in’’ to the might of Microsoft who

is basically holding the government hostage.

Its frightening to think that one corporation

wields this much influence and power over

what is considered the most powerful

country in the free world. We must take the

above steps to change this horrid situation.

Thank you for your time and interest in my

thoughts.

Ron Nath

Wolcott, CT.

MTC–00005002

From: Hubert Daugherty

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 12:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Good day,

Please modify the language of Section

III(J)(2) to insure that Microsoft must share

protocols used over the Internet with ALL

organized programing communities. The

substitution of the description ‘‘organized

programing communities’’ instead of just

commercial entities would allow both forprofit commercial and non-profit open source

projects to compete for the interconnected

24658 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

future of our society. The changes in

descriptive terms should apply to Section

III(D) as well. Competition is a good thing,

but it should include all of the innovative

elements in our society, not just Microsoft.

Thank you for your time and

consideration,

Hubert Daugherty

Hubert Daugherty Rice University/Rice

Multimedia and Edupop Project

hd@rice.edu (713) 348–4035 Fax (713)

348–6099

insight + planning + funding +

participation + documentation = creation

CC:Hubert Daugherty

MTC–00005003

From: Russ Wright

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 12:03pm

Subject: My thougts on the US vs. Microsoft

Case

I am a developer who for the past ten years

has benefited financially from developing

applications using Microsoft products. My

income came mostly from developing

software solutions using Microsoft

development tools. I have however

experienced many frustrations when

attempting to give my customers what I

consider the best solution and not just the

Microsoft solution. I would dearly love to be

able to suggest to my customers solutions

that fulfill the users needs from Open Source

or Microsoft. However, the largest obstacle

preventing me from doing so is kept secret

by Microsoft. Many of the projects I worked

on, experienced limitations when we were

unable to ‘‘look under the hood’’ and

understand how a particular protocol or file

format was created. To be more precise,

network protocols, and the layout of

Microsoft’s Office files are a secret. If these

protocols and file formats were published,

then I would be able to suggest the best

solution, whether it was Microsoft or another

company’s product. I ask that Microsoft be

forced to publish these protocols with all

detail.

I also see that the new .Net technology

touted by Microsoft has the potential to

monopolize large portions of the web. Users

who do not want or have Microsoft products

will be cut off from using portions of the web

built on .Net technology. I ask the court to

prevent this extension of the Microsoft

monopoly by forcing microsoft to disclose

and publish all protocols and formats to be

used with this technology so that the

monopoly will not extend further into the

web.

On a separate note, I understand that

Microsoft may be forced to give hardware

and software for use in underprivileged inner

city schools. I believe that this would only

benefit Microsoft and enable the extension of

their monopoly. It will benefit Microsoft of

another generation of students grow up to

think that the only solution is Microsoft. I

suggest instead that a trust be set up from the

fines that Microsoft must pay and that the

monies be used to purchase the best solution

for the need. Again, the point being to meet

the needs of the consumer and not limit their

choices.

Regards

Russell Wright

MTC–00005004

From: rj-lambird@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 12:02pm

Subject: United States v. Microsoft Corp.

Settlement

Ms. Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

This is not a legal memorandum. As an

elder member of the computing community,

I bring to this commentary 45 years of

experience.

My education and practical experience

with computers and their software began in

1956. My age (70) and health have slowed me

down a bit, but I am still a licensed electrical

engineer and CPA. I, and the companies I

work for, are users of Microsoft, IBM, and

Oracle products. In the past, Sun

Microsystems has been a source of hardware

and software. My experience with IBM dates

back to 1956.

During that 45-year period, I have seen

many companies enter and leave the

computer industry. Ultimately, the

companies that remain do so because users

perceive VALUE in their products. I see little

practical difference in the business practices

of Microsoft, IBM, Oracle and Sun. If

anything, Microsoft and IBM do a better job

of supplying the needs of the small

businesses that I am associated with. Two

examples follow: First, I regularly receive

notices of free and low-cost education from

Microsoft. Second, IBM (through American

Express) offers quality hardware at very

attractive prices. In contrast: Although I have

been an Oracle customer for years, I rarely

hear anything from them—and special offers

of products and education are rarely

included. Sun Microsystems treats us like we

don’t exist!

Why do I mention IBM, Oracle and Sun in

this commentary? After all, Microsoft is on

trial here. I do mention these companies

because they, directly and indirectly, have

financed the anti-settlement campaign in at

least a dozen States of the Union. I don’t

think that the DOJ Antitrust Division should

become further involved in what is really

bitter personal rivalries between top

executives of the above four companies. That

is not in the public interest.

In conclusion, I support the proposed

Settlement. It is time to move on to other

issues.

Robert John Lambird, PE, CPA

MTC–00005005

From: Tedd Potts

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 12:51pm

Subject: Microsft Settlement

The proposed settlement between the DOJ

and Microsoft is flawed because it does not

recognize Microsoft’s property rights. In fact

it presupposes that society has the right to

the property of Microsoft and it is simply a

matter of compromise to determine how

much of its property Microsoft should retain.

Microsoft is ‘‘guilty’’ simply because it has

too many customers. If customers had chosen

either IBM’s of Apple’s operating system then

Microsoft would be ‘‘innocent’’. Microsoft

negotiated with the DOJ under the threat of

physical force, so the proposed settlement

should be scrapped and Microsoft should be

compensated by the Federal government for

its legal costs.

Tedd Potts

President

Heartland Chevrolet, Inc.

Liberty, MO

MTC–00005008

From: Chuck Weitzel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 3:07pm

Subject: Microsoft’s monopoly on Operating

Systems

Dear Sirs,

I am writing this as a concerned citizen,

one who is forced to use the Windows

Operating System of the Microsoft

Corporation. There is no real competition for

this system due to the influence of Microsoft.

I cannot see how the settlement that is

proposed to remedy the antitrust violations

for which Microsoft has been found guilty.

The company has been found in violation,

and this is supposed to be the penalty phase

of the case. It appears to me that the

settlement contains no penalties and in fact

seems to actually advances Microsoft’s

operating system monopoly.

I would suggest that it would be a step in

the right direction in preventing a

continuation of Microsoft’s monopoly that

Microsoft products should be an extra-cost

option in the purchase of new computers.

This would permit the user who does not

wish to purchase Ms (Microsoft) products to

have a choice and not be forced to purchase

MS operating systems. This would mean that

for the price differential between a new

computer with Microsoft software and one

without, would clearly be a choice the

customer could make. That would truly be

market place competition in a meaningful

way.

Also, any Microsoft networking protocols

must be published in full and approved by

an independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet which at this

time it nearly has done. This case is of

paramount interest to the United States as a

nation as well as us individual consumers as

the Judge in this case has suggested.

Microsoft needs to be reigned in and others

permitted fair competition in the pursuit of

continued advancement in the computer

world.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Charles H. Weitzel

MTC–00005009

From: Leon Mintz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 4:51pm

Subject: Comments on proposed settlement

I’ve been programming since the early days

of personal computers and I have watched

Microsoft’ tactics since the beginning of Dos.

They have always used the revenues from

their operating system monopoly to put their

competitors out of business by either buying

them under threat to put them out of

business by selling a competing product at

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24659

artificially low prices or by gradually copying

the best features of competitor’s programs. In

my opinion they have always been more

interested in eliminating competition than in

producing reliable programs. Their programs

are always the ‘‘buggiest’’, especially their

operating systems.

In the early days, when IBM was paying

them to participate in a joint program to

develop the OS2 operating system, Microsoft

secretly stopped signiificant work on OS2

and started to work on Windows. OS2 is a

superior and much more reliable system than

Windows, but even IBM could not overcame

MS’s monopoly.

All of these comments are my own

opinions as an observer of the personal

computer history and I cannot supply any

information useful in court. It is also my

opinion that laywers and judges, with rare

exceptions, do not have the necessary

knowledge to understand how MS

undermines and eliminates competition. I

have no doubt that they will quickly

emasculate the proposed settlement. They

should be broken into at least three

companies to have a chance of bringing

competion back into the industry.

Thank you for your attention.

MTC–00005010

From: Gregory Slayton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 4:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Serious

Problems with the PFJ

Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally;

I am neither an employee or major

shareholder of Microsoft, Sun, AOL, Oracle

or any of the other major participants in the

long-running Microsoft antitrust battle. But I

am a software executive that over the past 10

years has run and sat on the Boards of a

variety of small and medium sized

companies that have partnered with all of the

above.

Over the past 6–12 months many of my

fellow CEO’s are laboring under the triple

whammy of a terrible tech economy, the

necessity of overseeing layoffs in their own

companies and the virtual shutting down of

capital markets. As a result, many of us,

including myself, have taken little or no time

to study the PFJ. Then of course there are

many of us who have been beaten by

Microsoft before—and are now afraid to be

yet again ‘Redmond Roadkill’ ’—and so are

willing to accept whatever decision our

government comes to.

However, over the holidays I decided to

take the time to actually review the PFJ and

study its probable implications for our

industry. And that is why I am now writing.

I am shocked at the fact that our DoJ has

apparently decided to give Microsoft not only

a free pass on its long-standing monopolistic

practices (the Appellate court’s finding

certainly came as no surprise to anyone here

in Silicon Valley)—but also that the basic goforward agreement is almost completely

lacking in any real restraints.

I’m sure I don’t have to go into detail for

you on the numerous loopholes and almost

complete failure of the PFJ to actually ensure

anything like a level playing field for current

or future Microsoft competitors. Leaving it up

to Microsoft to determine which company, if

any, is ‘viable’—or to allow them to ‘bolt’

important new software to their OS—are just

two examples of the ridiculous nature of

much of what the PFJ holds out as ‘remedies’.

The PFJ truly leaves the proverbial fox to

guard the ever shrinking henhouse.

The PFJ is not just a potential disaster for

all non-Microsoft supporters— it is a

potential death knell for one of our country’s

most dynamic and powerful job creators and

export industries. It is clearly a long-term

blow to all software consumers and users.

And it is a travesty for all who believe in the

free market and the power of competition to

drive simultaneous product innovation, jobcreation and cost-reduction. . .the true

brilliance of the American economy. Finally,

it sends the wrong signal to every company

that may be able to establish a defacto

monopoly in any field—that illegal activities

will not be pursued diligently and penalized.

Judge Kollar-Kotally: please use you power

under the Tunney Act to send this back-room

deal back to the DoJ for a complete overhaul.

Or at least remedy those portions of it (and

it appears to me as a layman that there are

many) that are completely ineffectual if not

downright harmful to our industry and our

country.

Out of respect for your greater knowledge

in this general area I have endeavored to keep

this note short. But please feel free to contact

me directly if you have any questions on any

of these points. . .or any others. I am sure

that I speak for hundreds—if not thousands—

of my fellow independant software

executives in voicing my deep concern with

the PFJ as it now stands.

Thank you for your time and

consideration.

Gregory Slayton

Palo Alto, CA

cell: 650–906–0155

CC:microsoftcomments@doj.ca.gov@inetgw

MTC–00005011

From: Thomas L. Wood

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 4:58pm

Subject: Penality Phase

Dear Sir or Madam,

Microsoft was found to have violated US

law. The remedies that have been shared

with the public fall short of what is needed

to correct the situation and redress the

damage done by Microsoft’s unlawful

activities. Indeed, the penalties seem to have

been designed by Microsoft’s own brilliant

marketing department. If the these one-sided

‘‘remedies’’ stand, it will undermine the

government as a force for fairness and justice.

With what is going on in the world today,

this is not the time for the Department of

Justice to undermine the perception of the

United States as a fair and just country.

Respectfully,

Thomas L. Wood

MTC–00005012

From: Randall Edick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 5:07pm

Subject: In the interest of small commercial

software developers

Having a standard platform worldwide is

beneficial to small commercial developers

everywhere. This standard allows one to

write, test and distribute worldwide ones

work. It is ESSENTIAL to small software

developers everywhere to keep this standard

alive.

Do what you will to stop illegal practices

but DON’T damage the infrastructure.

Randall Edick

Thin-Walled Structures Software

redick@thinwallsoftware.com

MTC–00005013

From: David Thompson (LC–DS)

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 5:22pm

Subject: MS Antitrust Suit Settlement is fair

Judge Jackson erred grievously in the early

going when he defined the entire market for

operating systems as Intel—based systems

only. By his logic, Apple has a predatory

monopoly on Motorola based systems; Sun

has a predatory monopoly on Sparc based

systems, etc.

The settlement as proposed is fair, and on

a par with the actual wrongdoing MS has

been found guilty of. The alternative

settlement proposals go far, far, beyond the

revised findings of the appellate court. Some

of these alternate proposals would force the

company to create software for other, non

Intel platforms against its will. This is

completely against the foundations of our

capitalist society.

David Thompson

Microsoft Platform Support

LC Professional Directory Services Team

MTC–00005014

From: a brody

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 5:31pm

Subject: My feelings on the Microsoft

Monopoly

Your honor,

I agree with the judges before who have

claimed that Microsoft has maintained a

monopoly. By maintaining a monopoly they

violate the Sherman Act, and current

remedies do nothing to solve the monopoly.

Any remedy that lets Microsoft get away with

less than losing half their value for practicing

this monopoly, and doesn’t let other

operating systems to prosper in the face of

Microsoft does not do justice for America.

Microsoft has gained a 95% market share on

all computers today, and even on the 5% is

allowed to produce the only Office software

package for business, namely their Microsoft

Office. Their Internet Explorer Browser even

on the Macintosh platform is the default

browser because they bullied web developers

into supporting standards that Netscape and

other browser developers can’t develop for

because of plugins and standards specific to

Internet Explorer, Microsoft’s web browser.

Microsoft has corrupted a standard

developed by Netscape by not supporting

some of the Netscape standards, and

introducing some of their own, by making

Javascript into their own JScript standard. A

look at—Javascript the Definitive Guide— by

David Flannagan (ISBN 1–56592–392–8,

O’Reilly Publishing, 1998) page 4 will reveal

that there are 2 Javascript 1.2 standards, one

for Netscape, and one for Internet Explorer.

Pages 417–749 will show just how divergent

these standards can get in Javascript 1.2.

24660 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

They have gone as far as to remove Java

from their latest operating system, Windows

XP. Java was the last hope to make an

independent system for internet browsing

that doesn’t depend on platform. Now with

Microsoft no longer installing Java, the home

user will have to download it for themselves

if they want to. Most do not know how to do

this. They must continue to install Java by

default. They also should conform to the

same Java standards Sun Microsystems has

created by making their Java standard. In

numerous cases they don’t and when they

don’t it makes internet developers write Java

code that doesn’t work on all browsers. If you

were to join http://chat.yahoo.com/ on Apple

Computer’s Mac OS X with Internet Explorer

you get a Java error. Yet on Internet Explorer

on a Windows system it works just fine.

Internet Explorer for Mac OS 9 is able to join

that chatroom without a problem. Why does

this happen? Consistant standards even on

the standard creating platform haven’t been

set by a variety of Javas on the market.

Microsoft made their own Java Virtual

Machine (or engine) for their own Windows

browsers that accepts its own code in

conjunction with ActiveX. ActiveX is a

Microsoft standard which has not been

ported over completely to other platforms.

This is a monopolistic practice since it forces

people to use their operating system if they

want to be compatible with the web.

To make matters worse, Microsoft’s

monopolistic practices have exposed

businesses to numerous computer viruses by

their being such a big target, and having

closed source code. Holes in their database

engine have been reported exposing

numerous internet databases to potential

viruses have been reported on:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/

12/27/sql.holes.idg/index.html

And their Windows XP operating system

which was billed their most secure system

ever, now is found to have a serious hole

letting any hacker take control of their system

by the FBI on:

http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=621579

That’s two serious security holes in one

week exposing 95% of the internet

population to potential data damage because

Microsoft has not opened their source code

to developers to find the holes before the

operating system hits the streets. If the had

done that, most likely these holes would

have been found and plugged before the

public had to worry about them. And how

many of those members of the public will

read those two news stories and know how

to plug the holes themselves. Microsoft

should offer free CDs to update the operating

system with security patches. By making

themselves 95% of the market, more hackers

have found the holes in their operating

system and exploited them as opposed to

other operating systems by a ratio of 50,000

to one. The bigger you are, the harder you

fall. You’ve probably heard of Code Red,

Melissa, and NIMDA viruses. They have cost

industry billions. Yet Microsoft does not pay?

Each of those viruses did not affect Apple

Macintosh or Linux systems, but did affect

Microsoft based systems exclusively. All we

ask is you make remedies that make

Microsoft no more than 50% of the market

in operating systems, office applications, and

web browsers.

Microsoft should pay developers to make

competing software in each of these fields,

and not get money back for those payments.

That’s the only way to balance the computer

market. Making Microsoft pay schools $1

billion is a drop in the bucket, especially

when it will be Microsoft’s software the

current agreement is calling for schools to

buy. In fact that $1 billion should not be

forwarded to any Microsoft software. It

should only be used to rebuild schools and

the rebuilding should go to hiring new

teachers, and buying books for schools that

need them. And it really should be more like

$50 billion. If you are going to make a

monetary punishment, make it cash with the

allowance it will not be payed on computing.

Unless the computing it is used to pay for is

a non-Microsoft system. Apple Macintosh

has been the system of choice for schools,

and is cross platform, and now is more

compatible to other computers than even

Microsoft thanks to http://

www.connectix.com/ VirtualPC software. An

Apple Macintosh can run 12 operating

systems simultaneously thanks to this. A

website called http://

www.macwindows.com/ devotes its efforts to

finding additional crossplatform solutions.

To help in the migration of people away from

Microsoft these solutions should be

considered to ease the migration so it is less

painful.

Additional reasons to not let Microsoft be

the soll provider of operating systems is that

it costs more to maintain than any other. A

very good report here explains the cost

benefits of not using Microsoft based

software exclusively:

http://homepage.mac.com/mac—vs—pc/

Intro.html

As you can see if people saw Apple

Macintosh as an alternative, which it really

is to running Microsoft based software

applications and operating systems, then

Microsoft’s monopoly would weaken to the

point that it wouldn’t hurt the market

anymore. It wouldn’t cause the lack of

software development to proceed. It is time

to encourage a crossplatform world. It is time

make Microsoft no longer the rule in

software.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Abraham Brody

MTC–00005015

From: John C. Glasgow II

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 8:09pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern,

I object to the Microsoft settlement.

Microsoft, agreeing to distribute their

operating system free of charge to

underprivileged schools, costs them little,

and amounts to a government sanctioned

promotion of Microsoft’s operating system in

one of the very few sectors in which

Microsoft does not enjoy an operating system

monopoly. That will create future victims of

Microsoft’s monopolistic practices and do

nothing to help their current victims. It is not

a remedy, and is in fact, a reward for

Microsoft.

John C. Glasgow II

33 Mooney Rd.

Ft. Walton Beach, Florida, 32547

CC:jglas@gnt.net@inetgw

MTC–00005016

From: Michael Getter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 8:27pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern:

I am protesting the terms of the proposed

settlement offered to and accepted by

Microsoft. I am a Macintosh user and have

appreciated some Microsoft products for

years. Excel, for example, is a terrific

spreadsheet—the best that there is, in fact.

However, I use far more non-Microsoft

products because they are better at doing the

job for which they were designed. In most

cases, Microsoft offers similar, though

inferior, products. In the future I hope I will

be able to continue to choose better products

from competing software publishers just as I

can today.

However, the illegal behavior practiced by

Microsoft in the past will not be significantly

abated in the future under the proposed

settlement. Microsoft will continue to be able

to offer inferior applications similar to

superior products on the market, wrapping

them up in the latest Windows operating

system that now controls over 90% of the

market. This practice alone will make it

increasingly difficult for small companies, let

alone larger ones, to stay in business even

though in many instances they offer better

solutions to user needs. This is unfair, and

I would think, illegal. I ask that the remedy

be altered to reflect this inequity. Today, it

does not. I do not wish to become a part of

the Microsoft .Net strategy, I do not wish to

use Windows in any flavor. I do not wish to

be ‘‘tracked’’ by Microsoft software. I do not

wish to be forced to purchase software, and

hardware, upgrades in order to feed

Microsoft’s profits. Rather, I prefer to make

independent choices for better software

based upon my knowledge that I am free to

make those choices and not be precluded

from doing so due to Microsoft’s insatiable

drive to eliminate all competition.

Please consider the following:

1 Allow computer buyers to choose the

operating system they prefer. Make the

operating system an separate, extra cost

option at the time of the hardware purchase.

This will give buyers a true choice when

purchasing the computer and the operating

system. It will also compel Microsoft to sell

the operating system CDs at the time of

purchase as other companies do.

2 Microsoft must be made to reveal its

document formats and operating system

requirements so that competing products

may interact with them. This will enable all

software publishers to compete in a

meaningful way.

3 Disallow Microsoft from embeding any

software in its operating system or offering it

for free to drive out competition. Demand

that all Microsoft products be sold at a true

and reasonable cost. This will open the door

to software competitors—a door that is being

closed more tightly as time goes on. If

Microsoft offers superior products in the

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24661

future, it will continue to thrive. By the same

token, other vendors will be given an above

board opportunity to compete in the software

and operating system market. They, too, will

have a full and fair chance to succeed. Please

review the proposed settlement and make the

changes required to allow the software

industry to regain its competitive balance

and prosper.

Respectfully,

Michael Getter

20206 Waterside Dr

Germantwon, MD 20874

MTC–00005017

From: Jack Fenchel

To: Microsoft Monopoly

Date: 12/29/01 10:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Monopoly

Microsoft Monopoly,

American system of justice is indeed

horribly wrong in this Monopoly Case. The

Justice Department, ‘‘ Alone ‘‘ is the only

qualified body by law to try this antitrust

case against Microsoft. If not, then from now

on All, S.A.G’s will take a part in all

upcoming Monopoly Cases. Hal Stratton, a

former Attorney Gereral of New Mexico, says

States should think carefully before they

branch out beyond their traditional fuctions.

The State Attorney General’s paraded across

the stage, hit all the night shows. They

committed one of the worst sins in judicial

history. ( A public Show Trial ) South

Carolina, State Attorney General, pulled out

‘‘ No Monopoly ‘‘ The United States

Government, issued Microsoft the License for

Windows. The S.A.G’s are in over their head,

by law. As Tom Miller, paraded across the

stage Charaacter Assassination, Bill Gates

was an Icon. At this point in time, this

tanked the Market & 401K’s. Investors lost

80B in one day by the S.A.G’s actions. Bill

Clinton, committed one of the worst Justice

Sin, by inviting Bill Gates, to a Sat. TV.

Lunch, for Political Reasons. ( $$$ Gore )

When this monoply case started, there

were at least two cases of purjury by the

prosecution’s witnesses. There were people

who got up on the stand raised their hand

and did not tell the truth. The DOJ, hid

letters till after the testimony. Congress got

wind of this and questioned Joel Klein, on

the validity of the findings of the facts.

Shortly after Joel Klein, resigns. At that point

in time the S.A.G’s changed Wall Street to

Short Street and they pickpocketed, investors

and 401K’s to death. The terrorist attack on

Microsoft, by our Government, destroyed

many 401K’s and retire funds like mine at the

age of 72. I lost $1,500 this past month from

my retiremet. I do not own any Microsoft

stock. I would like to see the DOJ, close this

Monopoly Case, and not do any more damage

to All America.

Thank you, God Bless America,

Jack Fenchel, 185 Friendship Rd. Beaver

Falls Pa. 15010 (724–843–4276)

MTC–00005018

From: Andrew S Van Heden

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 10:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please breakup the Microsoft monopoly by:

1. Breaking up the company

2. Forcing them to release their source

code.

Thankyou,

Andrew VanHeden

Engineering Student and Systems

Administrator

MTC–00005019

From: Bill

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/29/01 10:59pm

Subject: Microsoft decision

Microsoft is an 800 pound gorilla. You

finally have it afraid of you. To my way of

thinking, you may never be able to wrestle

this 800 pound gorilla to the floor again, so

you had best do the job right this time.

I urge you to make the settlement harshly

punitive. If you don’t pen the gorilla now, it’s

unlikely you ever will. Write a ‘‘plain

English’’ settlement. You should be able to

wrap the whole thing up in a single brief

paragraph. The more you write, the more

ammunition you are giving Microsoft.

Do not allow Microsoft to dictate any of the

terms. Microsoft is NOT repentant and will

NOT encourage language that allows a ‘‘level

playing field’’. It is clear that they well know

how to craft a settlement that looks good but

is totally without teeth. Take away their

paper and don’t let them write on yours.

They MUST repudiate all current license

agreements which require that their operating

system be installed on new computers. They

MUST repudiate any license agreements

which forbid ‘‘dual-boot’’ with their

operating system and another (without

restriction). They MUST repudiate any

license agreements which forbid revelation of

actual price paid for their operating system

as reflected in the retail price of a hardware

device.

They MUST agree to submit to the

decisions of internet standards bodies. ANY

network protocol that they implement MUST

adhere to those published standards and

NOT extend them in any fashion. Moreover,

they MUST consent to roll back

modifications already made to the kerberos

standard as presently utilized in their

operating systems to those in agreed upon by

the accepted standards bodies. The change is

simple to make. They should be given no

more than 90 days to comply.

They MUST accept that failure to abide by

the terms of the settlement ... to the letter ...

will result in immediate seizure of all their

financial assets without further recourse. The

law, particularly at this stage of the game, is

generous in the latitude given prosecution.

Go for the throat now or C.Y.A forever.

Sincerely,

W Canaday

Detroit, MI

MTC–00005020

From: Doug Munsinger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/30/01 9:37am

Subject: comment on Dept. of Justice

settlement with Microsoft

Dear Sirs and Madams:

I am a Systems and Network Architect with

a hardware company in Marlboro,

Massachusetts. I can implement as part of my

company’s network and communications

infrastructure any technology I wish. Or I

could if it were not for the presence of

Microsoft on the scene. I would choose, and

do where it is possible to do so, to implement

Open Source software such as Apache

webserver, RedHat Linux operating systems,

and many others. In some cases this has

proved impossible because of Microsoft’s

sheer overwhelming presence and effect on

the marketplace.

I recently purchased a Network Appliance

File Server, a specialized server for holding

and providing large quantities of data to

users. After several months of attempting to

make this product function without resorting

to a Microsoft Windows NT server for

authentication, I was finally forced to turn to

this for two specific reasons. The first is that

Microsoft, to extend their control and reach,

perverts and changes and adds to existing

interoperabe open sourced and publicly

defined protocols, making them no longer

work except with Microsoft products.

In this case the Samba program, an open

source alternative to an NT server,

communicates in this case differently than an

NT server in an obscure manner. Forcing

Microsoft to cease to alter defined protocols

or to publish their specifications for any

network communications would allow

competition that is not possible at present.

Second, Microsoft’s threatening position in

the marketplace causes companies such as

Network Appliance to heed what works with

a Microsoft solution and effectively ignore

interoperability which signifigantly cripples

software development by fragmenting

programs into those that adhere to the

Microsoft line and those who do not do so.

While Network Appliance pays lip service to

interoperability, the actual performance is

not present. This wastes an amount of effort

truly unimaginable. Microsoft can and does

incorporate new ‘‘features’’ all the time into

its ‘‘operating system’’. Many of these new

features, beyond the browsers, represent

formerly independent companies who were

forced to make a deal with Microsoft to

license or sell their technology, or are forced

out of business as Windows now contains

that feature.

Much more importantly, having a single

corporation guide all commercial software

development direction forces a single

viewpoint on how humans should interact

with computers. This is flat wrong. The

windows interface (it is truly NOT an

operating system as such, merely a way to

interact with hardware) is only one logic for

dealing with data and a very limited one. As

these machines become more interleaved into

our culture, such a mono-theism is s serious

mistake. Despite Microsoft’s claims to

innovation, they on the contrary stifle and

prevent an extraordinary amount of

development by their currentl monopoly.

The remedy proposed by the Department of

Justice is very weak and not really effective

in curbing Microsoft in the market. This

solution is inadequate and should be

rethought before this moves forward.

Sincerely,

Doug Munsinger

egenera, Inc.

dmunsinger@egenera.com

508–858–2612 Cell: 508–326–0872

24662 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

165 Forest Street, Marlboro, MA 01752

Sarah: And finally, does your computer

ever crash?

Bill: Oh definitely, believe me I get to the

bottom of it every time and that’s part of the

passion that I and a lot of Microsoft people

have is we want to make a tool that we want

to use ourselves and we know from our own

use we can make it a lot better and a lot more

reliable.

—Interview 6 December 2001 with Bill Gates

by BBC Children’s TV

PING!

ICMP: the protocol that goes ...

MTC–00005021

From: rpjday

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/30/01 11:38am

Subject: Comments on proposed Microsoft

settlement

Dec 30, 2001

Robert P. J. Day

President,

Eno River Technologies

Chapel Hill, NC

Re: Microsoft anti-trust settlement

Sir/Madam:

I’m writing to express my opinion on the

proposed settlement regarding Microsoft’s

illegal monopolistic behavior. While there

are numerous issues that could be addressed,

I’m assuming others will cover those issues

and I’m going to confine myself to discussing

just one topic which I would dearly like to

see addressed in any settlement proposal—

this involves Microsoft’s forced bundling of

their operating systems with almost every

OEM’s personal computer.

As everyone knows, it is virtually

impossible to buy a PC from any major

vendor (Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc.) that

does not come pre-loaded with some version

of a Microsoft operating system. The

consumer is, in all of these cases, never given

a choice of a non-Microsoft operating system

or, for that matter, the choice of no OS at all.

For years, the situation has been: if you buy

a new PC, you got a Microsoft operating

system whether you wanted it or not.

And let’s be clear: you paid for this

software, whether you ever used it or not.

While vendors would (disingenuously) claim

that the software was tossed in for free, it’s

clear that the actual cost was simply tacked

on to the final price of the PC. But it gets

better.

Once you got the PC home and got a

chance to read Microsoft’s end user license

agreement (EULA), you were told quite

directly that, if you did not agree to the terms

of the EULA, you had the right to return the

software for a refund. However, if you tried

to return it to the vendor, their response was

that you had to contact Microsoft. Microsoft,

of course, pointed the consumer back at the

vendor, with the result that no one was

prepared to refund the price of the software

back to the consumer. In short, the consumer,

in purchasing a PC, was forced to accept and

pay for software he did not want, and was

not given the opportunity to return it for a

refund, despite the guarantees of the EULA.

(By the way, this additional forced cost to the

consumer is jokingly referred to in the

industry as the ‘‘Microsoft tax,’’ for obvious

reasons.)

If anyone needs evidence of Microsoft’s

monopolistic power, it’s hard to imagine a

better example than a company which has

the clout to force a consumer to purchase and

accept, with no opportunity for refund, a

product that the consumer explicitly says he

or she does not want. What more proof does

anyone need of Microsoft’s abusive behavior?

There are many changes I’d like to see in

the current proposed settlement, but at an

absolute minimum, Microsoft should be

enjoined from forcing OEMs to bundle their

operating system if the consumer does not

want it and, furthermore, consumers who

choose to forego a Microsoft product should

have their purchase price adjusted (by a

realistic amount) to reflect this.

Thank you for your attention.

Robert P. J. Day

Chapel Hill, NC

MTC–00005022

From: tim stoughton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/30/01 12:12pm

Subject: microsoft

microsoft has done nothing illegal. get off

their backs tim stought

MTC–00005023

From: don@dbivens.dyndns.org@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/30/01 2:09pm

Subject: please reject proposed settlement

The proposed settlement with Microsoft, in

its current form, will in my view do

practically nothing to rememdy the behaviors

for which Microsoft was brought to justice in

the first place. I urge you to withdraw the

proposed settlement and implement the

penalties that were imposed upon Microsoft

by Judge Jackson in the first place.

Before I comment any further about the

actual settlement proposal, I should start by

saying that I am totally baffeled as to how a

convicted illegal monopolist found to violate

the Sherman AntiTrust laws in at least three

or four instances is in a position to negotiate

with the United States government. I have

never heard of any other criminal who has

been found guilty negotiating their own

punishment. Furthermore, what kind of

punishment is it when the convicted party

gets to select two of those who are tasked

with overseeing its compliance with its

punishment? This seems to me to be a case

of the fox guarding the henhouse. As well,

the proposed punishment appears to be that

if Microsoft is found to be in violation again

then they will be in the position of being

watched for an additional period of time.

This is no punishment at all.

As far as Microsoft opening their protocols,

etc., entirely too much leeway is given to

Microsoft in how, where, when, and to whom

it will document said protocols. If they are

allowed to determine the criteria then they

will do what serves their own interest which

has proven in court to be illegal.

If breaking Microsoft up is no longer a

consideration, although I feel it would be an

equitable remedy, then they should be forced

to document all networking and application

protocols and file formats so that people can

create alternatives and thereby introduce

competition into the Information Technology

realm.

Thank you.

Don Bivens

1059 Croyden Court

Fort Mill, SC 29715

MTC–00005025

From: hsrodgers@UCLAlumni.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/30/01 3:43pm

Subject: Settlement?

In my opinion the following article should

be required reading by everyone in the

Justice Department, Congress, and the White

House: The Wall Street Journal, December 27,

2001 Microsoft Has Good Year,At Expense of

Customers By WALTER S. MOSSBERG IT

HAS BEEN a terrific year for Microsoft, but

average consumers of its products haven’t

fared so well.

Microsoft made major progress in its goal

of using its Windows operating system to

push its other products and services at the

expense of its competitors. Consumers are

the losers.

When 2001 started, the software giant was

under the threat of a court-ordered breakup,

having been found guilty by a federal district

judge of violating antitrust laws in multiple

ways.

In June, an appeals court threw out the

breakup order and harshly criticized the

lower-court judge, although it upheld the

legal core of his findings. The seven appeals

judges ruled unanimously that Microsoft was

a monopoly that had violated the antitrust

laws by integrating its Web browser into its

Windows operating system in an effort to

freeze out other browsers.

Expressed in plain English, the court said

Microsoft shouldn’t be allowed to design

Windows in a way that limits consumer

choice—the ability of users to discover and

easily use other companies’ products and

services. The court said it was OK to add

features to Windows, as long as they weren’t

added mainly to maintain Microsoft’s

monopoly.

DESPITE THIS DECISION, the company

went on to launch a new version of

Windows—Windows XP—that continued to

integrate tightly into the operating system

new features that are crucial to extending

Microsoft’s monopoly onto the next

battleground: Internet-based services. And it

added these features in a way that hinders

consumer choice.

For instance, Windows XP allows users to

easily perform instant messaging, to

authenticate their identities across the Web

and to order prints of photos on their hard

disks. But these features work only with

Microsoft’s own proprietary Internet services,

or services owned by companies that pay

Microsoft for inclusion in Windows XP.

Competing services, including those betterestablished or more popular than Microsoft’s,

aren’t integrated into Windows XP in the

same smooth way, so users are less likely to

turn to them. Microsoft attempted an even

more breathtaking attack on consumer choice

and online competition. It tried to integrate

into Windows XP a feature whereby the

built-in Web browser would automatically

add links to millions of sites across the Web,

without the permission of the owners. These

Microsoft-imposed links, called browser

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24663

Smart Tags, would have led users to

Microsoft’s sites and those of its partners.

The company dropped the feature only after

it was discussed in this column (‘‘New

Windows XP Feature Can Re-Edit Others’

Sites’’) and sparked a massive outcry. But it

reserved the right to try again.

Given this unrepentant behavior, you’d

expect the Justice Department to react

adversely. Instead, it has proposed to settle

the antitrust case in a way that would leave

this sort of conduct unfettered.

The settlement reached in October, now

pending before yet another federal judge,

does bar some offensive Microsoft behavior.

But much of it pertains to the company’s

relations with the hapless makers of PCs,

which aren’t in any position to defy

Microsoft. It isn’t about consumer choice,

except indirectly; it’s more about placating

Microsoft’s competitors or partners. And it’s

all about the past, not the future battle in

Internet services. It doesn’t touch the

company’s ability to use Windows XP to

extend its monopoly to these new areas.

WHAT’S WRONG with Microsoft building

new features or gateways to services into

Windows? Nothing, per se. I have never

agreed with critics who assert that Windows

shouldn’t contain any feature that other

companies want to sell separately. A more

useful Windows is good for consumers. The

problem is the way these features are

designed.

It’s great, for example, that Windows XP

contains a built-in interface for doing instant

messaging. But that interface should be

neutral about which service a consumer

wants. If I prefer to use the America Online

instant-messaging service with the built-in

Windows interface, I should be able to do so,

just as I can use the built-in browser and email program with non-Microsoft services.

Instead, Microsoft has wired the interface to

its own service.

So what, some might ask? Isn’t it common

in a free market for companies to use one of

their products to cross-promote another?

Doesn’t AOL use its online service to boost

the movies made by its Warner Brothers

studios? Doesn’t The Wall Street Journal run

ads and plugs for its sister publications and

Web sites?

The difference is that these other

companies aren’t court-certified monopolies,

and when you’re a monopoly, you have to

follow different rules, as the appeals court

said.

So, in my view, the proposed Justice

Department settlement with Microsoft is bad

for consumers. It isn’t about preserving or

enhancing consumer choice. It seems to be

about getting the nettlesome case out of the

government’s hair.

Our government and courts shouldn’t try to

destroy, or run, Microsoft. But they should

require the software monopoly to expand

consumer choice in its dominant operating

system. Unfortunately, in 2001, that’s not

what happened 1Howardo

MTC–00005026

From: darklord@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/30/01 5:29 pm

Subject: Monopoly.... ;-(

I think that the recent Dept. of Justice

decision is a step in the right direction, but

sadly, does not go far enough. Firm,

corrective enforcement must be applied to

Microsofts monopolistic ways. Imagine that

David walked up to Goliath and slapped him

on the wrist. Do you honestly think that he

would have stopped slaying the Israelites?

No, of course not. In the very same context,

Microsoft will not stop dominating (I really

should use ‘‘domineering’’ there!) any and all

competition by whatever means it feels it can

get away with. I’m also very disappointed

with the thought that Microsoft will open its

API’s/standards to any ‘‘business’’ that meets

its qualifications. Hello? Just how many

competitors do you think will qualify for

that? Linux (the only real threat to Windows)

will certainly fall under Microsofts list of

‘‘not really a business’’ so we won’t help you

candidates...

Let me try one more analogy with

you...imagine you get up this morning and

your car won’t start. Its an older model with

lots of problems so you decide to just trade

it in on a new one. You go down to your car

dealer, and say, ‘‘I’d like to buy a GM to

replace my old jalopy’’. The dealer looks at

you funny and says, ‘‘sorry buddy, we only

sell Fords here’’. No problem, you just decide

to go to another dealer...except that every

dealer tells you the same thing, that only

Fords are sold. You -can’t- buy anything else.

No problem, you think. I’ll just repair my old

car. Except that you can’t even buy parts for

your old car, because all the ‘‘standards’’

only work with the Fords being sold. Your

right to a choice has been taken away. This

is what its like in the world of computers

now... I don’t want my children and

grandchildren to grow up in a world where

there is no choice...

I don’t think the founding fathers of our

great nation would have wanted this either...

I’m not looking for the complete and total

destruction of Microsoft, just a little fairness

please...some equalisation...like:

Ford

GM

Chrysler

let there be:

Linux

Apple Macintosh

Microsoft

Please -think- about this...its probably one

of the most important decisions you’ll ever

make.

Thank you...

Dark><Lord

MTC–00005027

From: Dan Pandre

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/30/01 9:34 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

There are two issues of monopoly

maintenance, one of which I believe the

revised proposed final judgment misses. The

contract/licensing issues that prevent OEMs

and others from switching away from

Microsoft products, or to building integrated

solutions have for the most part, adequate

solutions in the settlement. The one that it

completely misses is the programmatic ways

in which Microsoft maintains its monopoly.

By use of their power, they have been able

to charge anything they want for what is,

ultimately, a commodity.

A computer without an [available]

operating system, or an office suite arguably,

is without real commercial value. Yet

Microsoft has nothing to fear from

competitors attempting to replace them in the

market, because they control all integrative

bundling; their products will work better (or

with less effort) with their other products,

regardless of any attempts by competitors to

replace individual commodities in their

product line. The fact that bundling occurs

is not in and of itself a bad thing; it makes

things easier for the end user. However,

regulating this bundling on an individual

basis is a brain-dead approach. Any other

developers should be able to integrate their

products with Microsoft’s on the same level

of tightness that Microsoft itself does. For

this to be possible, all Microsoft APIs

(Application Programming Interface) of all

products must be fully documented, up to

date, and public. Their previous

[documented] attempts to ’embrace and

extend’ existing standards to tie people to

their products will no longer function. Also,

all developers will be able to, for example,

make emulators that run Microsoft software

on other platforms, or add a new file system

to windows, or in the case of AOL, instant

messaging, browsing, and shopping; all of

which Microsoft’s Windows XP provides,

furthering it’s grasp on the end user’s

possible spending and product use.

The fact that their monopoly exists

necessitates the openness of their APIs,

otherwise they can, by pricing, licensing, or

simple permission deny any competitors the

opportunity for innovation. To this end, they

should be monetarily punished for their

illegal uses of monopoly force in the past and

their compliance with open API

requirements should be monitored closely.

The judgment as it stands misses the

technological points of monopoly

maintenance, and establishes neither

precedent nor deterrent for future such

attempts by Microsoft.

-Dan Pandre

MTC–00005028

From: tom@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/30/01 9:53 pm

Subject: microsoft monopoly

Dear Americans,

Since reading all the published comments

about the microsoft monopoly, I find that

most of the other companies involved in the

desktop computer industry, support

microsoft by not competing. For example,

IBM spends one billion dollars on Linux,

porting many of its web and enterprise

software, but does not port any desktop

software from its lotus subsidiary.

If you want to punish microsoft and

increase competition, then you can make it

easy for Microsoft software competitors to

port their software to other Operating

Systems, including Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris,

Mac X, etc.

This would have the effect of stimulating

competition, and opening export markets to

American software, other than Microsoft. The

lesson of what American users did to IBM

24664 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

after it was let off by the doj, should not be

forgotton. A similar fate for Microsoft would

be disasterous to the world economy at this

stage.

Your faithfully

Tom Russell, Australia

MTC–00005029

From: stephen rector

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 12:35 am

Subject: Microsoft Proposed Settlement

I would like to state that I have read the

text of the settlement Microsoft agreed to,

and I was stunned at the concessions which

the DOJ appears to be ready to let Microsoft

have. The $1B of software and support

offered by Microsoft has strings attached all

over it, and the ‘‘platform-independence’’

which Microsoft mentions once or twice in

the document has statements so vague and

full of loopholes as to be meaningless. I see

no guarantees that the boards of independent

directors Microsoft has agreed to will place

any priority on extracting for schools what

they ask for if Microsoft places incentives to

choose Windows.

The settlement is not only *not* a

punishment, it is a reward to Microsoft for

behavior unrivalled even by the Standard Oil

Trust. Indeed, Microsoft is rewarded in the

language it understands best—market

control—being given an inroad into one

market where it doesn’t have a 90+%

monopoly. Besides that, the $1B is external

value to Microsoft, the actual cost to the

company being much less for distributing its

own product. The DOJ seems to be abetting

the crime rather than punishing it by

agreeing to this settlement, and that is an

outrage. I protest. I favor the alternative

proposed by Steve Jobs, which does not place

strings on the money provided to schools.

As for what has transpired between

Microsoft, the DOJ and the Courts in the past

10 months, the journalist Dan Gillmor of the

San Jose Mercury News summarized it well

in one paragraph today (Dec 30): ‘‘* The

Justice Department and nine of the states

prosecuting the Microsoft antitrust case

snatched a humiliating defeat from the jaws

of victory. Having trounced a corporate

lawbreaker in court, they sold out

competition and consumers with a vacuous

settlement. Nine states, led by California,

Iowa and Connecticut, couldn’t stomach the

deal and stayed the course. But the odds now

favor Microsoft, which has never wavered in

its determination to continue brutalizing an

industry over which it gained absolute

control through unethical and illegal

practices, and ultimately to control the choke

points of commerce and communications.

Makes you wonder if crime pays.’’

Regards,

Stephen Rector,

Tempe, AZ

mailto:stefano@amug.org

MTC–00005030

From: adi@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 2:05 am

Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement

U.S. Dept. of Justice,

I wish to express my whole-hearted

dissatisfaction with your decision to settle

your suit against Microsoft under an

agreement which is severely flawed. The

agreement will not solve any of the problems

which brought this suit against Microsoft in

the first place. In many ways it will actually

help Microsoft continue its monopolistic

practices.

For example, giving software to lowincome schools looks like a kind-hearted

gesture, but in reality it is nothing but a

public-relations ploy because it actually

helps Microsoft break into new markets it

didn’t otherwise have access to. That

software they’ll be donating is simply a loss

leader. All Microsoft products are designed

to work better (or sometimes, only work)

with other Microsoft products. Those kids

who learn basic computer skills on the

Microsoft platform will be trapped into using

it for years to come.

The effect is that it will extend Microsoft’s

monopoly. Let me also give you a bit of my

background, to show you another reason why

Microsoft is hurting the computer industry.

In 1998 I graduated from Cornell

University in Computer Science. Since then

I have been working for a startup venture

which is building a platform-independent,

standards-compliant healthcare transaction

processing engine. Due to various factors the

venture has had limited success. If the

venture fails, I have made a decision that I

will not support the Microsoft monopoly by

lending them my software development

talent. The main reason is that I believe

Microsoft is harmful to our economy, our

country, and our civilization as a whole.

I have already examined job opportunities

outside the computer software/hardware

field, and plan to leave the field permanently

if I cannot find work which does not support

the Microsoft monopoly. I simply do not

want the headaches, hassles, and guilt

associated with working with Microsoft

technology. Microsoft technology is shoddy

and weak, and the stress I’d have to put up

with is not worth the higher salary it would

bring me.

That’s one highly skilled and talented

information technology worker (in very high

demand in this economy) the industry will

have lost because of Microsoft. I’m sure there

are many more like me.

Sincerely yours,

Adi Fairbank

Chief Architect

CertSite, Inc.

MTC–00005031

From: Tim Jones

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:03 am

Subject: Proposed Settlement Comments

To Whom it may Concern:

I believe the proposed settlement currently

being considered is woefully incomplete, for

the following reasons:

It simply does not address enforcement or

punishments, nor even attempt to. The DOJ

should know from past experience (the 1995

Consent Decree) that they’ll simply continue

business as usual. The DOJ’s failure to curb

Microsoft’s vicious behavior would be

similar to allowing Usama bin Laden to

continue his pre-September activities.

Past wrongs are not assigned any kind of

monetary amount. The damages can easily be

valued in the tens or hundreds of billions,

when you try to fathom the losses caused by

crashes, prolonged downtime, endless

viruses, insecure software, increased costs,

decreased choices, entire sub-industries of

software absolutely devastated, jobs lost, and

entire generations of computer users who are

terrified to use more than a small set of their

their PC’s capabilities. Microsoft alone has

set back the information age at least 20 years

back from where it would have been

otherwise.

If a breakup is still anywhere on the radar

screen, let me add these observations:

Two, 3 or even 5 or 10 subdivisions of

Microsoft based on any conceivable lines

(product line, industry, etc) would not be

enough to keep them from pooling their

resources together in a way harmful to

everyone but themselves in the future. Put

succcinctly, every single line of business

must be cordoned off from all others, unable

to communicate with the others. Each

business unit must be forcibly held separate

and not have the authority to engage in any

business deals beyond producing and selling

their products on uniform terms. That means

no ’partnering’, no ’affiliates’, no ’reseller’, no

product tying, no discounts of any kinds.

Each of these devices they have ruthlessly

employed to further the monopoly.

The very freedom of individuals and

companies to choose their technologies that

run their lives and businesses is at stake. The

ability of users to choose their own software,

in all devices (especially those smaller than

PCs), is the one thing that will save us from

routine daily acts of privacy invasion and

further exploitation of the public from all

large companies. Microsoft has never

willingly indulged the users in any

meaningful kind of choice, and has proven

time and again, that THEY CANNOT BE

TRUSTED.

Their file formats, network protocols and

media codecs are all tools used to hinder

creativity and freedom—they must be forced

to publish and document them for ALL

PARTIES to see, FREE OF CHARGE.

Anything less will result in another market

for them to own outright, either through

restricting to (their definition of) ’legitimate

businesses parties’ or outrageous licensing

fees.

In this country, we do not let the Al

Capones of the world run free, keep their

money, and continue their business practices

and reigns of terror. The current proposal

would let them do just that.

Tim

Timothy Jones—tim@timjones.com /

tjones@tsiconnections.com

Unix/Linux/Java Programmer/DBA/

SystemAdmin & Brasswind Player

MTC–00005032

From: Jason Hoke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 9:37 am

Subject: Microsoft VS. DOJ and our Freedoms

DOJ,

I think it is only fair that other companies

be given the same chance, to develop new

software and operating systems that

Microsoft has been given. I am furious as a

consumer, and as a citizen of the United

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24665

States to think that we the people and our

laws cannot stop a company like Microsoft

from monopolizing and dominating the

computer and software markets. We as

consumers do not have freedom of choice

when our choices are being monopolized,

while I think that Microsoft does make good

products, I also think that other software

developer can do as well or better if given the

chance(which at this time are not given the

chance). And I think that Microsoft is

dominating our freedoms of choice, and is

manipulating our laws to their own benefit.

a. Controlling Manufactures to loading

only Microsoft Windows operating systems

does not give us choice.

b. Forcing their integrated internet

browsers does not give choice.

c. Microsoft trying to seize control over the

internet through their .net strategies does not

give us choice

d. Microsoft not allowing thier software to

be open source avalible to the public does

not give us the consumers any choice.

My main concern: Why is our goverment

and our judicial system allowing this to

continue? Or the better question will our

goverment be able to stop this from

happening and not be willing to accept

watered down deals with loopholes?

How can we allow/have allowed this

continue? When will we have a choice?

Thank you for your time

Jason Hoke

MTC–00005033

From: Jason Hartley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 10:44 am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

December 31, 2001

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Dept. of Justice

950 Penn. Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

I heard that the public comment period for

the Microsoft antitrust hearing was in full

swing, and so I thought it would be

important to announce my support for

Microsoft and the agreement. It’s fair to

Microsoft, consumers, and the government,

so I would like to thank the people who’ve

worked hard at the Department of Justice to

reach this settlement.

It wasn’t wholly proper to bring this suit

against Microsoft in the first place. Microsoft

has never been a monopoly; they just simply

make a better product than their competitors.

This suit was likely begun by those

competitors in order to attack Microsoft, not

outraged consumers looking for a break.

The government has better issues to spend

taxpayer’s money on than attacking

American companies that help our economy

to the extent that Microsoft does. Supporting

the American economy is important in this

time of recession, and the government should

do all it can to help.

I hope that you take my opinion into

account, along with the millions of others

who depend on Microsoft’s products. It’s safe

to say that we all hope that the government

will end its vendetta against Microsoft.

Thank all the people at the DOJ again for

their work, and thank you for your work in

this matter.

Regards,

Jason Hartley

MTC–00005034

From: George Cannon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 10:44 am

Subject: Microsoft penalties

NOW is the time to STOP Microsoft

aggressions.

George W. Cannon,

1404 Stratford Road, SE,

Decatur, AL 35601–6019

Voice: 256–351–0602

Fax: 256–351–0677

Email: <gwcannon@bellsouth.net>

MTC–00005035

From: Ike Bock

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 10:44 am

Subject: Settlement

Its time to settle this case once and for all.

Punishing a company for developing a great

product to me seems wrong. If there is a

better product around, put it out there,

custumers will buy it. Let companies

compete in the market place, not in the

courtroom.

Walter Bock

MTC–00005036

From: David Roth

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/31/01 10:50 am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

December 31, 2001

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft

US Dept. of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

I have been convinced for some time now

that this lawsuit against Microsoft was ill

advised at best, and represented one of our

government’s lowest points with respect to

supporting American business interests at

worst. Now that this settlement has been

reached, I am hoping that it will be

supported through the public comment

process and implemented as soon as

possible.

Not only are there far more important

issues facing our nation today needing our

undivided attention, but this would be a

good time to renew the American consumer’s

opinion that our government exists to

promote our corporate and economic

interests, rather than to hinder them with this

senseless bickering heard by all through the

halls of Congress, or, worse, through the

courts. Now is the time to renew our national

spirit of economic health and prosperity,

rather than to hold ourselves up for scorn

and ridicule because we seem intent on

devouring ourselves in front of the entire

world.

Sincerely,

David Roth

President

908.790.9400 ext. 11

Stratis Group, Inc.

76 Floral Avenue

Murray Hill NJ 07974

908.790.9200 Main

908.790.9543 Fax

http://www.stratisgroup.com <http://

www.stratisgroup.com/>

MTC–00005037

From: Michael Scottaline

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 10:47am

Subject: Proposed Settlement

I’m taking this opportunity to express my

dissatisfaction with at least portions of the

proposed settlement with Microsoft

Corporation in the US v. Microsoft case.I do

not use Microsoft products for the most part

(I use Linux), but I do not consider myself

one of the ‘‘enemies’’ of the their software.

While I believe some of their OS’s are rather

unstable, and some of their software is

‘‘buggy’’ and problematic, I actually do

believe that some of their software has been

resposnible for the incredible increase in the

usage and usability of personal

computers.My personal view is not that

Microsoft must be *punished* beyond the

scope of the proposed settlement. I have no

personal interest in punishment, per se. I am

interested in the settlement enhancing

competition in the computer software

market.I will stress only two areas of concern

at this time. As an educator for the past 28

years, I am naturally delighted that part of

the agreement has Microsoft providing

computers to underfinanced school districts.

It is unthinkable that students might graduate

from High School, unexposed to even the

most basic computer skills. However, I don’t

think that providing what are sometimes

called *Wintel* machines enhances

competitiveness. Microsoft simply gets

another opportunity to teach young people

that Windows is what an Operating System

is! Many students where I work, even those

that are reasonably computer literate believe

that x86 computers MUST run on Windows.

This portion of the settlement would simply

provide Microsoft with an opportunity to

extend that type of growing dominance in the

education market (likely at the expense of

Apple Corproation). Perhaps Microsoft

should be forced to provide the hardware

running an alternative OS along side the

ubiquitous Windows in a dual boot fashion

(this would have to be monitored; IBM might

be willing to provide some expertise in this

area).I’m also concerned that little is done to

insure that Microsoft not take advantage of

their near monopoly in OS to cripple

competitors in other software areas. Perhaps

Microsoft should be required to make the

filters of their productivity software (Office

suites, databases, etc.) OpenSource. For

example, competing Office Suites should

have acces to Microsoft code to make their

own Office Suites capable of importing and

exporting Microsoft Office files. I fear the

propsed UCITA will provide Microsoft with

an opportunity to make changes to their

proprietary extensions (.doc, .xls, etc) while

it will be illegal for anyone else to reverse

engineer that file format to create new import

and export filters.Again, my concern is not

necessarily punishment, but enhanced

competitiveness. I’m not certain the proposed

settlement/compromise goes far enough in

this direction. Thank You for the opportunity

to express an opinion in this matter,

Michael Scottaline

24666 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

85 Edgewater Ave.

Bayport, NY 11705

(Home) 631–472–4866

(Office) 631–321–3360

nbhs2@i-2000.com

MTC–00005038

From: Tony Lyall

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 10:57am

Subject: Microsoft case

Hasn’t this continued long enough. A great

company is being riddled with legal costs

and shareholder value is declining so a few

attorneys can line their pockets in hopes of

keeping legal process alive. Enough is

enough-time itself has allowed Mircosoft’s

competitors sufficient time to get their act

together and be competitive. It’s a free

market-time to set Microsoft free!

MTC–00005039

From: Richard C. Haight

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 10:56am

Subject: Microsoft has NOT reformed!

A friend has reported to me thet Windows

XP will not read data CD disks that are

recorded in ISO (International Standards

Organization) 9660 format. The same CDs

that failed with XP work fine on a Windows

98 system. This is just another case of

Microsoft subverting standards to exclude

other operating system software. Richard

Haight

MTC–00005040

From: Arlin Sorensen

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/31/01 10:55am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

December 31, 2001

Attorney General John Ashcroft

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

It is no particular secret that Microsoft had

always maintained an aggressive competitive

posture. I am not sure, however, that this

posture should have earned them a lawsuit

by our own government. That having been

said, I am gratified to see that the government

has chosen to settle this suit, rather than

pursuing it through the courts. We have all

seen the impact that this suit has, in part,

wrought upon our economy. While there are

a great many factors that have contributed to

our economic slowdown, I am convinced that

this suit has played more than a minor role.

I am writing to voice my support of this

settlement, as well as my hope that this sort

of legal action against any American

company can be avoided in the future. Thank

you.

Sincerely,

Arlin Sorensen

President

SCCI

653 Oak Road

Harlan, Ia 51537

MTC–00005041

From: Shepherd, Darren

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/31/01 11:21am

Subject: Microsoft Case

Dear Sir or Madam;

I think the point has been made clear to

Microsoft and it is time to let them do what

they do best, software and make money. Both

of which are good for the economy and time

for other companies to stop crying and start

competing. Most of the requests made by the

states would be asking smaller companies to

fold.

I have worked in Technology for 17 years

and I have seen Microsoft grow from being

ridiculed for releasing a network OS when

everyone knew that NetWare was the big

Cahuna, to developing solutions, to the Bill

& Melinda Gates Charity Foundation.

From someone who has seen all sides of

technology, believe me when I say that to be

fair, we need to quit looking towards

Microsoft by smaller companies who can’t

compete. They need to have the technology

as well as the media. I have seen both sides,

but seldom done as well as Microsoft. That

is the key to their success.

Sincerely,

Darren Shepherd

CNA, MCP+Internet, MCSE, CCNA, CCDA

MTC–00005042

From: Michael Jordan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 11:53am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

My name is Michael Jordan. First, I would

like state for the record that I am presently

working for a company that advocates the use

of an alternative operating system known

popularly throughout the world as Linux. I

previously used the Microsoft operating

systems known as MS–DOS, Windows 3.1

and Windows 95. Shortly after purchasing

Windows 95, it became apparent to me that

the goal of the Microsoft Corporation was not

primarily to sell me products to help me

develop computer software and to use

computers more efficiently, but to put me on

a ‘‘treadmill’’, so to speak, of never ending

costly software updates and of buying new

computer hardware on which could only

adequately work using Microsoft products. I

was trapped inside the Microsoft way of

doing things and I wanted the freedom to

develop on my own terms. Linux afforded me

that freedom.

My purpose for writing is to argue that the

settlement that the Department of Justice has

reached with Microsoft is far too lenient for

the egregious violations of both US law and

common ethics that the Microsoft

Corporation is guilty of. I would like to point

out briefly two things which have happened

to me, and I can safely assume this has

happened to others, regarding Microsoft and

software and computer purchases.

In 1995, after having bought Microsoft

Windows 95. I attempted to open files

created with software that I had purchased

from Microsoft to run under Microsoft

Windows 3.1. I was informed by way of a

dialog box that I could not open these files.

That is to say, I could not open files made

by an earlier version of a Microsoft product

with an updated version of the same

Microsoft product. This proves that at

Microsoft along with usability, obsolescence

in just as important a design issue. The do

this in an attempt to put users on the ‘‘update

treadmill’’ that I mentioned earlier. If these

frequent upgrades were justifiable on the

grounds that newer versions Microsoft’s

product would enhance computer

performance, I wouldn’t be writing this letter.

It it usually the quest for mere profit and

continued dominance in the software

industry that Microsoft releases frequent

upgrades. Moreover, it has been observed

that Microsoft either holds back or releases

upgrades of their and other companies’

software only for considerations of market

share, never taking into account the

importance that certain software innovations

could have in bettering the industry as a

whole. That is to say, if Microsoft is behind

on innovation, they either pressure strategic

partners to not release their software on

schedule or they hastily releaseill designed

and poorly tested software. This is done in

order to give the appearance that they were

the ‘‘first’’ with that particular innovation,

thus getting a jump on other firms, who are,

though technologically superior, unable to

compete with Microsoft purely for reasons of

name recognition and capitalization. Due to

this, innovative companies with highly

competent staff often are forced out of the

market and the world is deprived of new and

important developments in software.

A year after being introduced to the Linux

operating system, I decided to buy a newer

computer. Due to the aggressive and, as has

been proven in court, illegal attempt by

Microsoft to pressure computer dealers to

pre-install only Microsoft’s operating

systems, it was by all intents and purposes

impossible to get a ‘‘plain’’ computer without

Microsoft Windows pre-installed. I should

add that due to Microsoft’s illegal dominance

in the operating system market, anyone who

goes to a computer dealer today is almost, defacto, pushed unwittingly into buying a

Microsoft operating system along with her

computer. This takes on an especially

alarming significance since the attacks of

September 11, 2001.

It is clear and has been proven by countless

computer security experts that Microsoft

operating systems are by far the most

vulnerable to those computer attacks

popularly known as ‘‘hacking’’.

In the interest of brevity, I will leave these

two examples to speak for themselves. As I

mentioned, my motivation for writing is to

argue, from an informed perspective, that the

settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case

proposed in early November 2001 is far too

lenient. The basic flaw that can be seen in

the settlement is that it does not attempt to

effectively remedy the two most dangerous

consequences of Microsoft’s monopoly and of

which I have given two personal examples

here: stifling of innovation and stifling of

competition.

In order to set things right in the computer

world, the settlement should oblige Microsoft

to do two basic things:

1) Open up all source code for all software

products released on the open market. This

will give all developers the opportunity to

produce file formats which are compatible

with Microsoft’s software. If we have proven

in a court of law the Microsoft has

maintained a monopoly, what better remedy

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24667

than to give software companies the

opportunity to compete on an equal footing

with them. This is particularly important as

well, in light of the attacks of September 11,

2001. Microsoft’s code is flawed from a

security point of view. What better way to

audit and repair these flaws than countless

numbers of experts being able to look at the

give their opinion of their development

practices.

2) Prohibit Microsoft from operating

directly with computer dealers. The

settlement should expressly prohibit

Microsoft from getting their operating system

installed on a computer before the consumer

purchases it. Just as a person buying a new

car is not obligated to forever use the same

brand of gasoline, a person should not be

obligated to use an operating system on a

computer. This is why a computer dealer

should have the freedom to buy various

kinds of operating systems to have in stock

and then inform the consumer that they have

a choice. The computer dealer should be the

one to initiate any purchase orders with

Microsoft. Microsoft should in no way

initiate a contact or attempt to influence or

consult in any way about how a computer

should be sold.

This of course means that Microsoft can

and has the right under our free system of

government and our system of free

enterprise, to manufacture their own

hardware and market it with their own

operating system as is done by Apple

Computer. But independently manufactured

and assembled computer systems should not

contain an operating system until the

consumer either installs it herself or makes

arrangements with the computer dealer to

purchase a system from a company that she

deems fit.

I believe that these two simple measures

would provide the best remedy to the

situation of Microsoft’s illegal monopoly. It

would also create a climate where computing

is enjoyable for all, where innovation is

freely pursued and security for individuals,

governments and businesses is assured.

Thank you for your attention,

Michael J. Jordan

Website developer

Computer Assisted Language Learning

software developer

US Citizen

160 Western Ave.

Essex, MA 01929

Michael J. Jordan—Director, Academia

Boston

www.englishbos.com /

www.spanishbos.com

e-mail: info@englishbos.coms

MTC–00005043

From: Michael Daconta

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 11:52am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to comment on the proposed

settlement with Microsoft for its antitrust

violations. As an IT director and developer,

I was dissapointed to see that the settlement

does not address Microsoft’s illegal

hindrance of the Java platform. Nor, does the

settlement prevent future hindrance via its

C# language and .NET platform. Furthermore,

it did not require Microsoft to support a JVM

in its Internet Explorer Browser, whose now

dominant market share was gained illegally.

Microsoft’s illegal use of its OS monopoly

to thwart the Java platform continues to hurt

consumers by increasing the barrier to entry

for Java applications on Windows. As Java is

a current defacto, internet standard for

running applets (java programs that run

inside the browser), Microsoft must be

required to ship a compliant JVM in its

browser to redress its past violations and

level the playing field. Additionally, to level

the playing for standalone applications,

Microsoft should be required to incorporate

a compliant JVM into its operating system

(the browser could be designed to use the

same JVM).

Additionally, the proposed settlement in

no way guarantees that Microsoft’s abuse of

Operating System APIs (using hidden APIs,

or adding code in an API to thwart a

competitor’s product) will not occur in the

future. Thus through delay in providing API

documentation, or more importantly via API

thrashing (changing frequently) Microsoft can

continue its dominance due to its close

coordination between its Operating System

group and its application group. The

settlement makes no effort at creating a

‘‘chinese wall’’ between these parts of

Microsoft.

The only guaranteed way to do this would

be a structural remedy. I would prefer a

structural remedy be again considered.

I hope the settlement can be modified to

address these shortcomings.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment,

Mike Daconta

Michael C. Daconta

Director, Web & Technology Services

www.mcbrad.com

MTC–00005044

From: Zakariya, Shamyl

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/31/01 11:54am

Mrs. Hesse,

I’m writing with regard to the inadequate

proposed settlement for the Microsoft

antitrust case. As a graphics artist & hobbyist

programmer I work with computers, frankly

quite constantly; as such I have been made

painfully aware again and again of

Microsoft’s astonishingly monopolistic

practices. But the fact that Microsoft is a

monopoly isn’t in question. The trouble, as

I (and I think *many*) of my peers see it, is

that the proposed remedy will do nothing to

aid in the situation.

Let me describe a common situation. A

year or so ago I bought a new laptop

computer. The operating system I installed

was one called BeOS (the CEO of the

company which made BeOS, Jean Louis

Gassee, testified in the trial). BeOS was

exactly what I wanted from an operating

system (reliable, easy to use, fast, modern,

with concise developer documentation and

well documented programming APIs) and as

such I had no use or desire for windows. But,

I had no choice, and had to pay at least 100

dollars (I can’t recall how much now) for a

Windows 2000 install cdrom which I didn’t

want, didn’t use, and was forbidden from

selling or using on another computer. It lies

untouched in my closet.

Now, if you look at any (x86) computer

manufacturer’s product listing, all their

computers come with windows. This is

understandable, as most people prefer

windows [this is a bit chicken-and-egg, as

most people haven’t had the opportunity to

see what other operating systems are out

there]. But we aren’t given the option of

buying the machine at reduced price without

windows.

Our hands are tied here. Frankly, I have

several windows install cdroms from various

computers I’ve purchased over the years,

none of which have ever been used—as I

installed my preferred OS’s myself (Linux &

BeOS). Specifically, I have a windows 3.11

install diskette package, a windows 95

cdrom, a windows 98 second edition cdrom

and a windows 2000 cdrom. None of which

have ever been wanted, asked for, or used; all

of which I paid for. It seems reasonable to

assume I’ve spent about 1000 dollars over the

years for these disks.

[For reference, the BeOS operating system

is no longer in existence, as no computer

manufacturers were even *allowed* to

preinstall it on their own hardware due to

binding licensing agreements with Microsoft]

My next concern is the preponderance of

closed protocols and proprietary behavior

Microsoft is famous for. As we all know,

most office work is done via the Microsoft

Office suite of tools. The tools aren’t bad, but

as most people will agree, there *were* better

suites out there, but all computers now come

with MS Office... regardless, we are

dependant upon this suite, which puts MS in

the position of no longer needing to provide

high quality office/business products.

Just a few weeks ago, the email servers here

at my office were brought down for several

days fighting off the GONER email worm. As

they were with the previous worm, and the

previous worm before that one, and so on.

This is a trait unique to Microsoft tools, in

that MS apparently has zero interest in fixing

the problem.

[For reference, again, when a bug is found

in an open source product, like OpenSSH or

Apache for example, it is fixed immediately.

This is the nature and benefit of open

protocols and peer review, something

Microsoft labels as ‘‘anticompetitive’’.]

—But why should Microsoft fix any

problems? They already have our money,

after all. Billions of dollars have been lost

due to these virus outbreaks, and what is

Microsoft’s response? Apparently, instead of

fixing bugs in their shoddy protocols, their

response now is to threaten legal action on

parties who *find* and make public

weaknesses in their protocols. Microsoft’s

argument is that if these parties didn’t make

the bugs public, people wouldn’t know or

thereby take advantage of them. Is this the

behavior we want from the de-facto king of

modern computing? I think it stands to

reason that were Microsoft actually in

competition with other companies, their

behavior would be different—e.g. they would

quickly fix bugs and not attack legally those

who find them.

As a staunch capitalist, I don’t think

America has any business breaking up

24668 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Microsoft, and I’m glad that option was

thrown out (as most folks agree, it would

have probably actually been *good* for MS).

What needs to be done is some action which

doesn’t unfairly hurt Microsoft, but *does*

open the market up to fair competition.

Many wonderful companies with good

ideas and great talent have been broken by

the rich behemoth MS—this can’t go on.

Microsoft can’t be allowed to strong arm

computer manufacturers. Microsoft can’t be

allowed to continue to develop closed

internet protocols and document formats.

Thank you for your time,

Shamyl Zakariya

APCO Worldwide

1615 L. St NW

Washington DC, 20036

202.778.1031

shamyl zakariya

202.778.1031

MTC–00005045

From: S. Vetter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 12:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I thank you for allowing me at add my

comments to the Microsoft Settlement

proposal. Hopefully it is not too late to do so.

I would also like to congratulate those states

for wishing a more harsher settlement as they

are proper in doing so.

For many years Microsoft has grown to

proportions that this country has rarely seen

and they continue to grow. This company has

also expanded into other areas such as: The

Internet which they have stated they would

not do, but they did, they have gone into the

game station arena, they are going into TV /

news stations (MSNBC and MSFN), and a

few others.

Microsoft has also bought out other

companies and continue to do so and with

no end in sight. If they cannot purchase the

product they may either produce a similar

one or force that company out of business.

Another Microsoft tactic is to bad mouth the

company unjustly as you may recall the

words about Linux. Another favorite tactic of

Microsoft is to take them to court. Recently

you may have heard about a company

making a product called Lindows. This

product runs the Linux operating system but

is trying to allow Microsoft’s products to run

on it. Microsoft is claiming it will cause

confusion to the consumer. So, in order to

prevent this Microsoft is claiming the

Lindows is too similar to Windows and will

take them to court about it. If Microsoft wins,

the company making Lindows will probably

go out of business (one less competitor of the

few remaining). You may recall the Netscape

browser and the operating system called OS/

2. Eventually Microsoft will be the only

choice.

Lets also see another way Microsoft

dominates the market place. They woo

developers into making software that only

works on their operating systems. Other

platforms are left with little or nothing since

most have gone to the Microsoft way of doing

things and on their platforms.

For those of you that have not seen this at

work, I invite you to look in the archives.

Microsoft buys a company or a product from

a company. In doing so they tell the

consumer you must switch to their product

or be left without support. And to do so you

must pay a slightly more amount than what

you purchased the original product for. Now

all Microsoft has done is changed the

packaging and the product to include

Microsoft’s name, and perhaps a new feature

or two. Six months later, or maybe a little

more time goes by, and they release a newer

version with again a new feature or two

more. And once again for a little more

money. If the consumer does not buy this

new version, then support will be dropped.

And it continues on and on.

They have applied pressure to companies

to market ONLY THEIR products of face

repercussions. Such as Intel, Creative Labs,

and Compaq. If an individual or company

wanted to buy a computer system with

another OS, where would they turn? I

encourage you to try! Ever try to buy a

scanner or printer that works with some

other operating system? And have you

walked into a computer store to buy a

software package for something other than

Windows?

As for Microsoft’s claim about innovation.

This I would like to see myself! DOS started

out as someone else’s product. Windows is

the same. Viso and Microsoft Office, yes

someone else developed these as well. The

list goes on...

For the remedy the ones that have been

proposed are too light and can be expressed

best by calling them a slap on the wrist. Also

they have no real consequences should

Microsoft violate them. The idea of splitting

the company in two, while a good thought at

the time, has a flaw. You end up with two

Microsofts. There was no real split and

prevention of people having control of both.

Some ideas on how I would propose a

settlement:

Microsoft cannot purchase other software

companies. Or hardware companys.

They must publish all of their interfaces—

with documentation.

They must also open up the way files are

stored.

Security must be added to their products.

Open up the source code.

Java / Javascript must be included in any

more of their operating system releases.

They must not be able to branch out in

other areas such as game machines, TV /

news networks, or cable companies. (Just to

name a few)

The browser must be independent of the

operating system. Also any browser must

allowed to be used on the operating system.

Microsoft’s must be freed from controlling

computer part manufacturers, software and

hardware developers.

Computer vendors must be freed to market

any hardware or software as they please.

To allow other vendors to get a foot hold

in the market place no new releases or

variations there of must halt for at least two

years.

Ever wondered why Microsoft agreed to

the latest proposal? Because it had little

impact on them. They would loose virtually

nothing.

Any action on Microsoft has to be harsh,

with no loopholes, and is monitored and

enforced. It must also give competitors some

real hope of succeeding with their products.

I thank you for allowing me to voice my

opinions.

Respectfully,

Scott Vetter

45118 Geddes Road

Canton, Michigan 48188

MTC–00005046

From: Trace Windham

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 12:18pm

Subject: Open Comment

I am writing this out of concern and fear.

I don’t want to lose the internet to MS.

I don’t want to be forced to have MS

products to obtain information. I don’t want

a ‘passport’. I don’t want my services to be

forced to use the .Net framework.

I don’t have to have a particular phone

company to make or recieve certain types of

phone calls. When I buy a car, I don’t have

to agree to use a certain brand of gasoline to

make it run to certain locations.

I am free to speak on the phone, and my

government protects that freedom for me. I

am free to travel across the country in my car,

and my government protects that freedom for

me.

I am free to access information on the

internet with my computer that I built, with

the operating system that I chose. Will my

government protect that for me too? I hope

so.

Trace Windham

Centralized Systems Development

PDX Inc.

101 Jim Wright Freeway

Suite 200

Fort Worth, Texas 76108

817–246–6760 ext 4415

MTC–00005047

From: Ken Otwell

To: Microsoft ATR,dennispower

@earthlink.net@inetgw

Date: 12/31/01 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement position

Gentlepersons of the court;

As a 20-year computer programmer and

small business owner, I have used virtually

all Microsoft products since DOS 4.0. Due to

high cost, constant crashes when used as

intended, inability to be integrated with

products from other vendors, and radically

increasing hardware resource requirements, I

now find myself constantly looking for

realistic alternatives to Microsoft products,

and usually coming up short.

My opinion on the findings of fact in the

Microsoft case is that it is a reasonable

compromise based on available and provable

evidence. I strongly suspect that the actual

case would be much worse for Microsoft if

more evidence were available, but given what

is known, the ruling seems quite fair. My

opinion on the proposed settlement,

however, is not nearly as sanguine. The

settlement does virtually nothing to grant

relief to those harmed or to prevent future

abuses, and does a fair amount to increase

Microsoft’s monopoly and even extend it in

new directions, like educational software.

The minimal changes to the proposed

settlement that I feel are necessary is to

simply:

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24669

(1) Require every distinct functionality in

a Microsoft operating system to be separately

accessible by a complete API that Microsoft

must publish at least six months prior to each

version release of said functionality. (If

Microsoft cannot provide an API at six

months prior to release, then their software

development practices are simply not

acceptable in a world where financial and

economic security depends on correctly

functioning software.)

(2) Require that every protocol and data

format used in the saving of application data

or in transmitting data from one Microsoft

application to another must be published six

months prior to each version release of said

protocol or data format. This requirement

holds for all data transmitted via the internet

or stored on any medium.

(3) Require that where internationally

recognized standards committees have

established standards for such APIs,

protocols, or data formats, that Microsoft

systems must be configured, by default, to

fully and completely adhere to those

standards. For example, Microsoft’s

implementation of XML, while ‘‘technically’’

standard, is embedded in other protocols in

such a way as to defeat the clear intent of the

standard in that competing products cannot

make use of the Microsoft XML documents.

A typical Microsoft operating system will

include an internet browser, image browser

and/or image editor, music player, video

player, file editor, file browser, internet

connection subsystem, network configuration

subsystem, and many more proprietary

products from Microsoft. Each of these are

nominally distinct products that continue to

benefit from the network effects from

Microsoft’s operating system monopoly. The

only way to provide meaningful remedy is to

allow the competitors to have reasonable

access to the technologies necessary for

integrating their competing products into

each Microsoft operating system, and to

enable competing applications to process

documents or other data streams that are

generated by Microsoft software.

Furthermore, since the fastest-growing

competition to Microsoft now comes from the

non-profit, open source community, these

APIs, protocols, and data formats must be

published not just to proven business

competitors, but must be freely available to

anyone in any location around the world. I

cannot emphasize this latter point too much:

the strongest competitor to Microsoft’s OS is

Linux, and if the Linux development

community is barred from relief under the

settlement, then Microsoft will have clearly

‘‘won.’’

Without this minimal relief, Microsoft will

continue to benefit from the network effects

caused by their monopoly and they will

continue to extend their monopoly deep into

uncharted waters of internet business, and

even further into our collective wallets.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak

out on this grave issue. I wish you the best

of luck in your deliberations.

Sincerely yours,

Kenneth H. Otwell

CTO, Calidris Ltd.

http://www.calidris.com/

MTC–00005048

From: Bruce Lill

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 1:01pm

Subject: letting them off easy is wrong

The least microsoft should get is that we

shouldn’t be required to purchase their

products. If I purchase a computer and it

comes with Microsofts products I should be

able to sell them to someone else if I’m not

going to use them. This would require

microsoft to recognize the resale. I also

should not have to give them any information

if I want to use their product. Now I have to

sign up to use XP. With passport there isn’t

a way to get your information deleted.

The consumers have been hurt by lack of

quality software and the cost of the current

software. They have made it hard for novice

users to purchase computers that are

configured for them or technical users to not

have the restrictive software.

Bruce Lill

MTC–00005049

From: Mike Pestronk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 12:57pm

Subject: Ms settlement

I just wanted to voice my opinion on the

settlement. Microsoft needs to be broken up,

into at least two separate entities, but three

would be better. One needs to be the OS part,

one the office/productivity part, and a third

part encompassing Internet Explorer and it’s

new .Net software. Microsoft has continued

its monopolistic practices with its new .Net

initiative, as it will not cooperate with the

rest of the industry’s liberty alliance and j2ee

systems. They continue to use the os to

leverage this new technology, as they were

doing when with IE when the complaint was

first filed. I am very dissapointed the justice

department decided to drop the case, even

though it might show a sign of cooperation

between MS and the government over

security issues. Microsoft is continuing their

monopolistic practices worse than when the

case started and will need to be broken up

eventually. I hope the nine remaining states

or the EU can have some effect.

MTC–00005050

From: Larry D. Burton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 1:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Since we are inside of the 60 public

comment period I thought I ought to put my

two cents worth in. The more and more I

think about it the more I like the Red Hat

proposal for a solution. Microsoft has offered

to give away $X of hardware and software to

needy schools. Let them give it all in

hardware and take up Red Hat’s offer of them

providing the software. This way, no one is

tied down to a platform controlled by any

one company and it will go an awful long

way in reversing the damage done by

Microsofts monopolistic practices.

Regards,

Larry

mailto:larry@pickett.com

(423) 875–8034

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00005051

From: David Parsons

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 1:07pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The major difference between the

Microsoft trial and the ‘‘OJ’’ trial is that

maybe OJ wasn’t guilty; Microsoft actually

managed to have the case decided on the

emotional value of various libertarian slogans

like ‘‘we’re being punished for our success’’

rather than the actual facts of the case.

Microsoft’s monopoly makes Standard

Oil’s look trivial. Microsoft won, big time,

and it’s stranglehold over the field of

Information Technology remains intact and

will continue to tighten in the years ahead.

The DoJ, or rather the politicos who so

arrogantly place their uninformed opinions

of what they think ’should be’ above the

facts, should be ashamed. And now the

States are letting Microsoft pay off their

‘penalty’ by giving CDs of their software

(costing $1.00 or less to produce) to schools

and claiming $400.00 retail price, all the

while increasing their monopoly into yet

another area.

I for one am ashamed

David Parsons

Regional Technical Officer

US DHHS—OIG Region II

dparsons@os.dhhs.gov

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00005052

From: Debbie Andree

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 1:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I do not agree with the terms of the

Microsoft settlement. It is not in the best

interests of our schools, our children or

represent fair and open market competition.

Sincerely,

Debbie Andree

eVision-Ventures AG

da@evision-ventures.com

MTC–00005053

From: Diana Rogers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 1:29pm

Subject: Comments on Microsoft

I am writing because I am a 66 year old

woman who, thinks the whole antitrust is all

wrong. It was only brought my Microsoft’s

competitors who are not as resourceful as

Microsoft.

I like what Microsoft has done, because I

am not that great in figuring out how every

thing works, but I like all the programs

together. It is much easier for me. My

granddaughters figure things on the computer

much faster than . I love the BUNDLING, it

helps me. I really like the way Office is put

together, it has all the programs I need. I will

only use MSN, because I believe that AOL is

one of the Competitors that is trying to stop

Microsoft growth. My not stop AOL’s growth.

The only program I use that I like better

than a Microsoft is Quicken. It has some great

reports, that Microsoft doesn’t have.

Microsoft has agree a to fair settlement. Don’t

let the State Attorney General’s have their

way. They just want to make a name for

24670 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

themselves or run for Governor of their

States.

Does anybody remember when the Stock

Market went down? It was the day that the

other Judge ruled against Microsoft. The

People of the United States don’t want any

more penalties, they want a settlement now.

Diana Mayhew Rogers

23221 -60th Court So

Kent,WA 98032

253–373–1569

MTC–00005054

From: Shlomi Harif

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 1:34pm

Subject: Comment on the proposed Microsoft

anti-trust settlement

To Whom It May Concern and Attorney

General, State of Connecticut: Pursuant to the

Tunney Act of 1974 I am commenting on the

proposed settlement between the government

and Microsoft. I feel I am particularly capable

of providing professional input, as the father

of three children in school, and the Chief

Technology Officer for a finance-related

software firm, Austin Logistics, here in

Austin, Texas.

I would love to be able to say where my

traffic fines are spent: my sidewalk could use

a little fixing up. Oh, and I’m real particular

as to the kind of cement, and who does it.

Did I mention that I’m in the concrete

business? I’ll Just make the check out to

myself, and I’ll take care of the whole thing,

okay?

I’m not sure if the cynicism was obvious

enough, but punishments should never

enhance the crime for which a defendant is

being punished. Giving Microsoft additional

revenue and a tightened lock-hold on the

educational system is monopolistic in and of

itself.

This action, if executed, will set a

precedent for any future anti-trust cases, and

impinges on the ability of the public, through

the offices of the government, to get pure

legal redress for actions impacting citizens.

An independent, court-appointed monitor

should disburse the funds in a manner that

benefits the schools, not the criminal.

Sincerely,

Shlomi Harif

13303 Ivywood Cove

Austin, Texas 78729

shlomi@liquidmind.net

(512) 249–8888

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00005055

From: alex.qu@atfreeweb.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 1:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

AtFreeWeb.com, Inc.

801 Calle Mar Vista

Oxnard, CA 93030

Tel: 805–278–9548

Fax: 805–278–9554

http://www.atfreeweb.com

December 31, 2001

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530–0001

CC: Representative Elton Gallegly

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

I write this letter in accordance with the

Tunney Act expressing my support of the

settlement between Microsoft and the Justice

Department. I believe that this settlement

will be beneficial to both the IT industry and

the consumer, but continuing on with more

court nuisance is a fleecing of the American

taxpaying citizen. To prevent this from

continuing any further, the D.O.J. should

finalize the settlement as soon as the Tunney

Act comment period is over.

This settlement is fair and reasonable. If

anything,

Microsoft was treated a little spitefully. A

few terms of the agreement follow, which

should underscore the severity of this

settlement: the DOJ will establish an

independent technical committee,

monitoring Microsoft’s compliance with the

settlement; Microsoft also cannot retaliate

against computer makers that may ship

software that would compete with the

Windows operating system; and Microsoft

will open up their vault of secrets concerning

system interoperability to competition.

Even though the settlement prevents

laissez-faire economics, the right thing to do

is to settle the suit now and work to ensure

that the industry and the economy can move

forward again. Microsoft must be allowed to

return to innovation, rather than litigation.

Sincerely,

Alex H. Qu

President

MTC–00005056

From: Mike Friedman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 2:11pm

Subject: Comments on the Microsoft

‘‘settlement’’

I’m completely appalled by the so-called

settlement that the government has reached

with Microsoft. When will you people learn

that the only thing that will stop MS from

doing what it does is to go ahead and break

it up. Microsoft only understands the raw use

of power. The only entity that has the power

to keep Microsoft from doing what it does

best (gobbling up all its competitors because

it has a monopoly) is to break it up into

pieces so that others have the possibility of

keeping the Internet and the computing

world diverse.

The recent revelations of serious security

holes in Microsoft’s latest operating system

and the hideous security implications of the

new .Net Passport technology should only

serve to reinforce this sort of strategy.

Minimizing Microsoft’s power to keep

engaging in anti-competitive behavior is in

the best interest of the whole world.

Thanks.

Mike Friedman

2310 Alemany Blvd.

San Francisco, CA 94112

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00005057

From: Jim Acker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 2:36pm

Subject: Settlement

I am writing this email to express my

concern over the proposed settlement

between the DOJ and Microsoft Corporation.

It seems to me that the settlement does not

directly address the points on which

Microsoft was found guilty. Any settlement

should address these points in a manner that

at a minimum prevents the behavior from

continuing, and where possible, provides

payment to parties damaged by the past

behavior.

At the heart of Microsoft’s business model

is the extension of the Windows domination

on the PC platform. They accomplish this in

two ways; they strong-arm hardware vendors

and they bundle applications into their

Windows installation media to eliminate

competition. On both these fronts, Microsoft

was found guilty of monopolistic behavior.

On the first issue, it appears that an effective

settlement has been reached.

On the ‘‘bundling’’ front, the settlement is

tough enough. For example, they are

currently bundling the Microsoft Media

Player with every copy of Windows. It is not

an innovation, as it offers nothing that can’t

already be found in competing products in

the market, e.g. Real Player and QuickTime.

It has no valid operating system function. It

is purely an application which gets enormous

market share simply because it is included

with Windows. It gains that market share w/

o having to compete on it’s own merits in the

market. This was done with their browser,

their media player and will be continued

with future products under the guise of

‘‘innovation’’. It is very hard to regulate the

software business, but some remedy should

be proposed that determines if a product is

truly performing an operating system

function or is an application. Where it is an

application, why must it be ‘‘bundled’’ with

the Windows operating system? Are there

strong competing products already in the

market? With such simple scrutiny, Microsoft

would not have been allowed to bundle their

browser or their media player into Windows.

Finally, on the subject of restitution for

damages resulting from the behavior

Microsoft was found guilty of, this seems to

be miss the point. Giving lots of Microsoft

products to schools around the country is

from one perspective nothing more than an

expensive marketing campaign for Microsoft.

Hook the kids while they’re young. A better

solution would be to require hard cash

payment in the form of grants to the various

school districts to be used for the same

purpose, with one important difference. The

grants would have no strings attached

regarding what type of hardware/software

was purchased. If a school wanted to

purchase all Apple products, then they

would be allowed to do so.

Thank you for your consideration of my

views.

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00005058

From: ryan.morillo@convergys.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 2:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

I would still like to see the separation of

Microsoft into an operating system division

and an other software division, with strong

legal definitions of what an operating system

is. Not something very costly to the tax payer

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24671

or to Microsoft (possible loss of revenue is

not a cost or a loss no matter how the large

corporations may try to make it seem as

such.) The Operating system is a moot point,

but the other software bundled with it is

cutting into ability of anyone to have a

chance.

Ryan Morillo

—The opinions expressed herein do not

necessarily reflect those of Convergys

Corporation—

MTC–00005059

From: Jackson, David (Engineering)

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/31/01 2:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs

This is my opinion of the proposed

settlement of your case against Microsoft.

Needless to say I find it less than satisfactory.

I am surprised at the ease at which the DOJ

can be disregarded by a corporation operating

in this country. Microsoft does clearly use it’s

monopoly to the disservice of the people of

this country and shows no signs in being

interested at all in voluntarily changing it’s

ways. The settlement you propose is either

naive or motivated by something other than

the best interest of the people you purport to

represent. At best it’s nothing more than a

slap on the wrist and a promise from the

company to not do this sort of thing in the

future. This company has made promises like

this in the past. The fact that they have ended

up back in the sights of the DOJ should tell

you what you need to know about how that

went last time.

As a user of Microsoft products (by

necessity), Apple products (by preference),

and Linux/GNU products (for stability) I have

watched as my options have grown

increasingly smaller over the years. This is

become unbearable for me from an economic

standpoint. An example for this can be given.

I recently needed to buy a better video card

for my Apple Macintosh G3 computer which

I use for the majority of my computing at

home. I find the system to be more stable

than Microsoft Windows (any version) and

more pleasing to work on from an aesthetic

and ergonomic point of view. The video card

in my Macintosh was simply not up to the

task and so I went to my Local electronics

store to find another, better, and faster card.

That’s when I saw the end result of what you

are so ready to settle over.

There is only one current video card

available for Apple Macintosh computers

through retailers. It’s an ATI Radeon card

with 32MB of RAM and has very good

performance. For Windows this card retails

for $69 after rebate and is one of well over

a hundred options I might have. Windows

video cards vary in price from under $20 to

well over $400 (excluding the grossly

expensive video cards used by graphics

professionals, these can run in the thousands

of dollars) giving Windows users a card for

every need or budget. For the Macintosh this

card is priced at $229. It’s the same card. It

has the same graphics chip on it and it has

the same amount of memory. The Microsoft

monopoly has effectively destroyed any

choice I have in upgrading one of their

competitors machines by it’s sheer size and

weight. The cost of making this card with an

Apple Macintosh ROM on it simply doesn’t

justify it being priced in the same range as

the version for Windows.

In Linux you have a similar situation. Here

you can certainly buy any of the countless PC

video cards but you cannot find any

companies willing to create the driver

software to make these video cards perform

to their abilities. The Windows versions of

these drivers get updates and rewritten

multiple times per year but the same

companies will not expend the time or effort

to create equal quality drivers (or most often

‘‘any’’ drivers) for Linux. Again my choice is

limited and again Microsoft and it’s standard

way of doing business are at the root of the

problem.

My own personal solution to this has been

to not spend money on anything that will

make Microsoft richer. It’s a uniquely

American idea that the market is free and

that it will all come out in the wash. By my

estimation I have not given Microsoft a

penny since 1994 and I will continue to do

that even though it means my stepson might

just be the only kid on his street to not get

an X-Box, ever. Proceed with your settlement

and see how many kids own Nintendo

Gamecubes or Sony Playstation’s in five

years by the way. Whenever I can at work I

push for the non-Microsoft alternative and I

even win some from time to time.

Realistically though I know this isn’t making

any difference. I’m watching the products

and companies I do support slowly vanish

from the computing landscape. Individual

consumers cannot reign this company in and

it’s a matter of time before we are all

connecting to the internet, playing games,

getting work done, or doing any of a hundred

thousand other things that will help our lives

by nothing more than the grace of Microsoft.

Honestly when one looks at what this

company has done, is doing, and will be

capable of doing if they remain unfettered by

the laws of the country they do business in

it is frightening. At the same time if the

settlement is approved and those other states

which have turned away from it are stopped

from doing what is right I have to think that

my views on the Right and Wrong of my

government will have changed for good. It’s

been my idea for most of my life that this

country was usually (if not always) ‘‘right’’

and those who stood against it were usually

(if not always) ‘‘wrong’’. How can that be the

case if the DOJ is interested in selling my best

interests out because the administration of

the moment wants Microsoft to keep fueling

their economy?

There is a right and a wrong and it’s not

difficult to tell the difference between the

two. I urge you to not pursue this settlement

and instead actually make Microsoft do

business on an equal footing with their peers.

David Jackson

Systems Support Technician

713.755.1147

MTC–00005060

From: Kevin Buterbaugh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 2:47pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Greetings,

As a concerned citizen of the United

States, I would like to register my opposition

to the proposed settlement between the DOJ

and Microsoft. This settlement amounts to

nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Even

worse, it contains so many loopholes at to be

totally useless. Of course, since Microsoft is

the defendant, if a meaningful settlement

were enacted, it would have to be vigorously

enforced. Microsoft has repeatedly shown

that it will do whatever it can get away with.

Microsoft has been convicted of breaking

the law. An appeals court unanamously

upheld that conviction. Why in the world is

the DOJ letting them walk away scott-free???

About the only good thing that can be said

about this settlement is that, unlike the

proposed settlement in the K-12 Education

suit, at least the DOJ is not proposing to

reward Microsoft for breaking the law.

It is extremely obvious that those who have

made this decision are totally ignorant of the

ultimate consequences of their actions.

Consider this: Microsoft now has a 90%+

monopoly in the desktop operating systems

market. Let’s just say this farce of a

settlement is allowed to stand ... Microsoft

will then continue to extend their monopoly

... they will inevitably someday achieve a

100% monopoly, not just in desktops, but

servers as well ... when that day arrives,

when 100% of the computers used by the

United States government run a Microsoft

operating system, who then really runs the

United States, George W. Bush or Bill Gates?

I would not be surprised to find that those

who support this settlement are so ignorant

about what they’ve done that they cannot

even see that the answer to that question is

the latter.

It is my sincere hope that those who

support this settlement will realize their

ignorance to this point and choose to pursue

a meaningful settlement, before irrepairable

harm is done not only to the consumer (it’s

probably too late for that), but to our very

government and way of life.

Literally nothing short of the freedoms we

hold dear is at stake.

Kevin Buterbaugh

1500 Deal Road

Burns, TN 37029

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00005061

From: Michael Haag

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 2:52pm

Subject: Microsoft anti-trust file...

The corporate version of O. J. Simpson

style justice—bought and paid for.

MTC–00005062

From: Matias Moyano

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 3:12pm

Subject: About the settlement

hi, like an user of Microsoft Products, i

have to say that the settlement reached by

microsoft and the DOJ with the 9 of 18 states

is a joke, MICROSOFT is not only allowed to

keep doing their ANTI COMPETITIVE

activities, this will not help the consumers at

all, how can someone say that if microsoft is

break in 2 parts is going to hurt the economy?

what kind of joke is that??? MICROSOFT is

24672 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

destroying the economy by just being there

and doing what they do all the time! the

economy grows if there is a way to compete

arround!, the economy grows when someone

decides to create a product and start selling

and doing some competition, but with

microsoft arround like that.... no one will

have the chance to even take a product to the

market because microsoft will buy them or.....

wors and the most common strategy by

microsoft that is.......‘‘adding a new feature to

the OS’’ and that feature is the one that is

created by this new company, so, with this

kind of market, go will want to compete if

they know that they will be doom anyway or

another? they can loose because microsoft

haves the money to make you loose, or they

can loose because microsoft haves the most

selled OS arround, they just have to bundle

a new feature and the company is dead, So

now tell me, how this deal will benefit the

consumers? if i will still not have the right

to choice what ever i want? when i use

winamp i know that some day it will not be

manufactured because loose of money, and

what i have? windows media, and so on so

on so on, whats next?

how much time we have to wait until

someone realises that MICROSOFT IS NOT

THE ANSWER TO THE ECONOMI? i hope

for the good of every consumer out there, that

this deal between the DOJ, 9 states and the

HUGE MONOPOLY OF MICROSOFT is

cleared, and a new one.... the one that is

proposed by ‘‘rebel’’ 9 states is taken as the

remedi, please, hear what the people haves

to say, not what some idiots that dont know

what is to use a computer... whe dont need

to benefit microsoft, whe need to benefit the

consumers, and with the settlement that the

DOJ accepted, the consumers are not happy

at all.

that is all i have to say.

Matias Moyano.

MTC–00005063

From: john.m.curren@mail.sprint.com

@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general

@po.state.ct.us@inet...

Date: 12/31/01 3:15pm

Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I have never written a letter of my own

initiative to any government body until now.

I have been in the computer industry since

graduating from college so I have been

observing Microsoft’s behavior for about

twelve years. I cannot in good conscience

allow the proposed ‘‘settlement’’ to pass

without at least voicing my opinion.

I recall a time when there was competition

in the PC operating systems and application

software markets. You could use DOS, DR–

DOS, OS/2 and possibly others as your

operating system. You could also choose

between WordStar, WordPerfect, and

Microsoft Word for your word processor. You

could choose between Lotus 1–2–3, Excel, or

Quattro for your spreadsheet. There was

competition. Microsoft has completely

annihilated all competition in those and

other markets. I remember Stacker and the

Borland development tools. Unless

something is done competition will never be

restored to those markets.

I do not see how the proposed settlement

benefits the plaintiffs one iota. I doubt most

of the schools have or can afford the

resources to keep a handful of networked

PC’s running. I doubt that it will really cost

Microsoft one billion dollars in hard cash to

dump a bunch of outdated PC’s and copies

of software onto underprivileged schools. A

columnist in InfoWorld suggested something

that I believe would truly restore competition

in the PC marketplace. In a nutshell, make

the Windows operating system and the Office

platform a public standard or API which

other companies can write operating systems

and applications for. Make it illegal for

Microsoft to extend or go beyond the API

without first extending the public definitions

as they have done in the past with the

Windows API. This would instantly create

two huge markets that would create jobs,

stimulate the economy, and benefit

consumers globally. Of course Microsoft

would vehemently object but somehow I

think they will be able to manage.

Furthermore if Microsoft’s software is so

good they should be able to compete and win

on a level playing field.

Thanks for your time.

John Curren

System Administrator

MTC–00005064

From: sssfjet

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 3:58pm

Subject: ms

Microsoft has been a bad, bad boy. You

should do what the last remaining states (and

the citizens of America) want and wack the

hell outta Microsoft’s pee pee. It’s time for

the big bully Microsoft to get a taste of their

own medicine. There is no need to keep this

in the courtroom for another 10 or 15 years.

The court system has already found them

guilty. But what good is that if the court

system does nothing about it. Pass sentence

and kick their ass in the process!

sfjet

MTC–00005066

From: TQME2@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 4:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Court Decision

I, as a citizen of the United States of

America, longtime computer user, and former

manager of Information Technology

acquisitions for the US Department of

Agriculture, make a public record on my

great concern over and disapproval of the

proposed settlement made between the

Federal Government and Microsoft in this

case.

The strictures themselves and the results

stemming from implementation of them

cannot and will not solve the basic problem

of Microsoft’s illegal monopolistic activities.

They can and will embolden the firm to

continue its illegal practices and will

adversely affect individuals, corporations,

and governments around the world.

Please revise the settlement such that the

current and future actions of Microsoft will

be modified commensurate with the actual

legal findings of monopolistic practices by

the company.

T Q Stevenson

tqme2@aol.com

MTC–00005067

From: Chas433@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 4:21pm

Subject: Antitrust?

After spending my hard earned tax money

talking with Microsoft all these months, you

have lost the wet noodle for the wrist slap,

and are providing a craven settlement in the

Microsoft antitrust case on weaker terms than

negotiated before you won the appeals case.

I realize the slogan ‘‘Go Nuke???em’’ was

taken by the other side before you started but

given the egregious Microsoft conduct this

settlement is ridiculous. Their cries of

preserving ‘‘innovation’’ are smoke. Were the

gross incompatibilities of Wind ows

Millennium innovation, or the big security

holes in Outlook and Windows XP? I read in

the Washington Post for Dec 22, 2001 that the

FBI is now giving advice to XP users on

measures to block hackers. There has been

little innovation except on how to block

credible competition. Adding insult to injury

is the proposal to provide school donations

of software as a follow-up aimed at knocking

out the meager competition remaining. I

cannot say I am proud of the DOJ in this one.

The hold-out states have my appreciation

and may they prevail. May a better operating

never appear and your Windoze eternally be

hacked and crash. The only thing worse than

this settlement was the one proposed by the

FCC for the Nextwave wireless license fiasco.

MTC–00005068

From: Dramen Mendra

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 4:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Monopoly

I would hope that the continued

monopolization of the software and internet

markets by Microsoft will be stopped.

Microsoft has been determined guilty of

violating anti-trust laws, that’s good. But the

present solution is hardly worth the effort

that brings us to this point. I can only hope

that the DOJ take another careful look at their

present plans because those plans do nothing

more than improve Microsoft’s’ position to

further control the software and internet

markets. Please protect the American

consumer, business and ultimately the

citizens of this country by re-evaluating your

proposed ‘‘penalty’’ for violating anti-trust

laws. How many more enterprising software

developers must bite the dust. How much

more can consumers be forced to swallow

whatever Microsoft dishes out? Will it have

to get so bad that we will be forced to go

down this road again, and will we have the

dubious luxury at that point?

A concerned consumer and citizen.

MTC–00005069

From: tsungshiang sun

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:23pm

Subject: Microsoft

To whom it may concern:

As a pride American citizen, I definately

support Microsoft. It will be great to settle

this anti-trust case as soon as possibe for the

benefit of consumers and our economic.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24673

Fred Sun

MTC–00005071

From: Graham Grist

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:25pm

Subject: Settlement

I am amazed at the leniency of the

settlement proposed. It is evident that

Microsoft have flagrantly disregarded the law

in building a dominant monopoly position.

It is also clear that the settlement in no way

adequately prevents the company from using

its monopoly power again, and it is doing so

as much as it can.

The key architect Bill Gates should be

banned from any executive involvement. The

company should be split up. Just because the

original judge was foolish enough to breach

protocol does not mean his remedies were

wrong and that the American people and the

world should suffer the predatory pricing

and other actions that this company has at

the root of its culture.

Graham Grist MA (Oxon) FCT

MTC–00005072

From: John Peters

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is beyond me why my tax dollars are

even being used to investigate the so called

monopolistic acts of Microsoft.

I realize that this whole thing is the fact

that Internet Explorer is considered a part of

Windows. But I as a consumer have the

ability to go on the web, download, and

install any browser I feel. I do not feel forced

to use Internet explorer. Also as a consumer

I can purchase and install any operating

system I chose again I do not feel tied to

Windows.

I feel that the worse thing that Microsoft

has done is find out what the consumer

wants and put into an operating system. I

think we need to get rid of all these antiMicrosoft special interest groups and let

them find something else to complain about.

Perhaps they could complain about the lack

of affordable health care instead of

complaining about Microsoft.

What effect does a finding against

Microsoft have on the big picture.

Again please don’t waste my tax dollars on

investigating this or on any further court

cases against Microsoft.

I Love Microsoft!!

Also, if the DOJ replies to these messages

please feel free to send it through the mail.

I am proud Postal Worker.

John Peters

730 Armistice Blvd.

Pawtucket, RI. 02861–2749

MTC–00005073

From: Tjack1931

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:25pm

Subject: Settlement

I Would like to voice my Opinion on the

Microsoft settlement.. I think it is in our

Interest for you the Justice dept. to settle this

ongoing witch hunt against Microsoft, I think

that there is more of a monopoly going on

with AOL and Time Warner than any other

outfit out there.. why are you not faulting

them that brought the suit in the first place..

For Gods sake settle and move on to more

pressing problems that we have in this

country then picking a Company such as

Microsoft apart that has done so much for us

computer users,

Sincerely

Helga Jackson

4318 So 325th St.

Auburn, WA 98001

Tjack1931@msn.com

MTC–00005074

From: Jerald Hill

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft should not be penalized for its

business practices. I use Microsoft products

as well a many of their competitors and I

believe these companies should be let alone

to compete. We consumers can decide what

products we want to buy. Please end this

case and let everyone get back to developng

products.

Jerald Hill

8020 Thunder River Way

Cumming, GA 30040

MTC–00005075

From: William R (Bill) Moore

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

While I feel strongly that the entire case

against Microsoft has been an abuse of power

by the Justice Department pushed by

companies who could not compete and for

various self-interest groups, it probably is

best to put this matter behind us and get on

with business. I do not feel that the

restrictions and sanctions being placed on

Microsoft will significantly impact its ability

to provide quality products and enhance the

overall computer user community whether it

be business or personal. It may impact those

companies who sought to rely on government

and judicial powers to be able to compete.

Maybe now they will attempt to be more

competitive on a product basis.

William R. Moore

1300 Pebble Drive

Greensboro, NC 27410

William R. (Bill) Moore

www.big-m.com

wilmoo@triad.rr.com

Where there’s a Will, there’s a way but

only the saavy survive! It’s lonely up here on

Olympus.

MTC–00005076

From: Lee Pollard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

There are many more important issues for

this country than DOJ meddling in the free

enterprise market. It is ironic to me that AOL

/ Netscape can essential do the same thing as

Microsoft has been charged with, although

not nearly as well, and those companies are

not under any type of wasteful investigation.

Microsoft provides a solid platform for the

majority of computer users worldwide to be

able to communicate and work together.

Take whatever they have decided to give

you and leave them alone.

Lee Pollard

USMA ’86

Owner—Computer Therapy

MTC–00005077

From: Rollie Hallen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Th Whom it may concern;

I feel that the US government was

completely taken by microsoft in this ordeal.

Big business won, the government and

people from all over the world lost. But what

would you expect, doesn’t business run the

US government?

Roland W. Hallen

3310 9th St.

Lewiston, ID 83501

MTC–00005078

From: Gene Owens

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think it is time to stop this nonsense and

quit wasting my taxpayer dollars on this case.

Microsoft has literally created the computer

industry. The interchangeability of

applications on different brand PC’s is a

tribute to the Microsoft operating systems.

Who cares if it comes bundled with MS

products. Their products are good—and they

work! That’s what consumers really need.

The vast majority of PC users want something

easy to use— that’s MS products. They’ve

made a lot of money—so what? They deserve

it. They earned it.

Let’s settle this case and be done with it.

The Federal Government should devote its

efforts to tracking down criminals and

terrorists—not good businessmen!

Gene Owens

Shrewsbury, PA

MTC–00005079

From: Dick Foreman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:31pm

Subject: Re: judgement

This is a farce, you have given in to

Microsoft and their monopolistic practices.

They will continue to screw the public

knowing the government will do nothing to

stop them or punish them for their

transgressions. The golden rule is alive and

well in the USA, ‘‘he who has the gold,

rules.’’

Dick Foreman, dick@foremanart.net

Foreman Art, Research & Technology

1002–1 Pacific Grove Lane

Pacific Grove, CA 93950

Phone: 831.657.9493

http://www.foremanart.net

MTC–00005080

From: Hannum Dion G.

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/31/01 5:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I personally think this settlement is just. In

my opinion it would be a waste of taxpayers

money to prolong this case.

Dion G. Hannum

24674 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00005081

From: Jim Davlin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:32pm

Subject: Please read

There was once a time in this country

when a man could invent a better mousetrap.

He could benefit from it and live the good

life. Microsoft is such a company. Don’t

punish them because other big businesses

can’t figure out how to beat them. To bad you

did not watch Enron closer.

Jim Davlin

8833 Jaylee Drive

San Gabriel, caCA

91775

626–309–0429

CC:RFC-822=0—23163—79E0AE9D-3CC5-

D211–86EF-0008C7DAAE...

MTC–00005082

From: Jim Marsh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs

Please stop wasting our money going after

the American dream. This type of company

growth is what our country was built upon.

If government keeps stepping and trying to

make all types of companies the same then

why not have one company run everything

i.e. ‘‘The Government Company’’ that

provides software, support, etc.

I for one am very tired about the wasted

time and money being spent on trying to kill

Microsoft for the hurt feelings of the few. If

these companies products were better then

they would have been brought! I had various

M/S software clones and they just don’t do

the job!

I bet you are looking at this e-mail on some

M/S software product.

Regards

Jim Marsh

Public Citizen

MTC–00005083

From: Jim Miller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

Please initiate the settlement with

Microsoft and get on with other more

pressing businness fo the Department. This

has gone on long enough.

I have used Microsoft products for years,

I understand the breadth of their market

share and don’t blame their competitors for

being worried, they provide a good product

at a reasonable price, and that is why they

have the market they do.

Let Microsoft get on with developing new

products and helping the computer industry

reach its potential That after all is why they

call it ‘‘FREE’’ Enterprise.

James E. Miller, Alameda, Ca

A concerned consumer.

MTC–00005084

From: Ralph Heymann

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Microsoft’s competitors have caused

enough damage and should be restrained

from causing more havoc

As a satisifed user of Microsoft’s products

I believe that the proposed settlement is good

for all concerned, the consumer, Microsoft’s

competitors and, most of all, our economy.

There is a need that these proceedings

come to a close and the DOJ settlement be

accepted as a good and fair one.

Ralph Heymann

Chapel Hill NC

MTC–00005085

From: Killraven

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I’m posting this in response to a Microsoft

FINFlash e-mail asking people to give their

opinions to the DOJ in regards to the

proposed Antitrust settlement.

My opinion is that the current proposed

settlement would make the money spent on

the investigation a bigger waste than that

spent on the Whitewater investigation.

For a token penalty (less than 10% of MS’s

petty cash!) Microsoft would be handed a

huge victory in being able to strengthen their

Operating System monopoly in the one area

that they have largely been kept out of, the

Public Education System.

Years back, prior to Windows 95, the PC

public had a choice of at least three different

Operating Systems (MS-DOS, PC DOS, and

Novell DOS (aka, DR DOS)), all of which

would adequately run the Windows 3x

environment. Now we are restricted to

Microsoft only. This has certainly stifled

innovation in the technical arena, as history

shows that Microsoft has almost always been

a copier or purchaser of innovation. The

existence of alternative OS’s (Linux, Be and

various Mac flavors) is simply not adequate

as the majority of the worlds computer

programs are designed for the various flavors

of Windows, from business applications to

entertainment.

In my opinion, the nine states that did not

readily accept Microsoft’s tainted bait have

an acceptable solution in forcing Microsoft to

offer a stripped down version of Windows

that will allow users to build their OS with

only the tools they desire or require.

Also, in my opinion, the best overall

solution would be to require Microsoft to

license the portions of Windows code that

would allow competitors to build their own

Operating Systems that would be completely

Windows-x compatible so that consumers

would once again truly have freedom of

choice. Competition is the true mother of

innovation, and innovation helps everyone.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Paul A. Hoerner

Bismarck, ND

USA

MTC–00005086

From: Jbrumwell@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please wrap this thing up and move

forward! Examine every dissenting state AG

and you will see MS competitors among their

constituents and/or politically ambitious

grandstanders who are attempting to keep the

pot boiling on this issue to put their names

and faces in the newspapers. I have been

using computers for years and can assure you

that these machines were merely word

processors before Windows came along. If we

want the new industry leaders to be based

offshore then keep on harassing our

innovators.

Sincerely,

James Brumwell (MS stockholder, I’ll buy

Sun & Oracle too when they put their

primary emphasis on improving their

products rather than placing it on trying to

pull down the industry leader by court

action!)

MTC–00005087

From: Robert Keating

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/31/01 5:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

Leave Microsoft alone. Microsoft is the

market leader in software because they make

the best products. The market has voted with

their dollars, and Microsoft has won the

election.

Microsoft’s competitors could not compete

in the marketplace and are trying to use the

government to help their cause. They should

compete with their products instead.

Targeting Microsoft in the first place was

a bad idea. This DOJ suite has contributed to

the downturn of the economy. Encourage the

companies of the nation rather try to throttle

them.

Robert Keating

Oklahoma City, OK

MTC–00005088

From: Frank Rice

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

I strongly believe that it is in the best

interest of the economy and US consumers

that the government settle the DOJ case

against Microsoft. I find it extremely difficult

to understand why the government (both

federal and state) continues to pursue

litigation against a company that has created

thousands of much needed jobs and provided

so much benefit for the consumer.

Continuing this litigation will only worsen

an already sluggish economy with no

additional value to the consumer.

Sincerely

Frank Rice

MTC–00005089

From: Wright, Michael

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Leave American Business alone!!! All

things being equal.it could never become as

corrupt as a government.

MTC–00005090

From: shannon Gamba-Lewis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:45pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24675

D.O.J.—

This needs to be done with. The

government should seriously have more

important things to do than interfering with

private enterprise. Get off their backs for the

sake of the public, and stop spending tax

dollars to support vindictiveness on the part

of MSFT’s rivals. They have done nothing

but help our economy and our daily lives.

Microsoft touches all our lives every day.

This is America, remember? ‘‘Land of the

free’’. Thank-you

Shannon Lewis

7230 Harbor Light Way

Sacramento, CA 95831

916–255–4676

MTC–00005091

From: Keith R. White

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:47 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time for the litigations to end, even

though I do not believe Microsoft did

anything wrong or improper, the settlement

is as close to fair as we are going to see.

Keith R. White

Comp TIA A+ Certified

whitek1@airmail.net

MTC–00005092

From: Glenn Fincher

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:09 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This email is to lodge my concerns

regarding the settlement between Microsoft

and the DOJ. PLEASE cease and desist from

wasting ANY more of MY money on

pursuing this frivolous suit! Microsoft is

being pursued not by Justice, but by jealous

competitors who are unable to bring to

market satisfactory products able to compete

with Microsoft in the free market. Thus, they,

NOT JUSTICE has pursued this ongoing and

costly suit to the detriment of free enterprise,

the consumer, and untold employees in the

IT industry.

It is my opinion that Microsoft has been

driven unfairly to make concessions that

bode well only for those faithless companies

that have pursued them in the courts, not the

consumer. End this charade, and allow this

final settlement to put at rest the pursuit of

a company that has built an industry. AOL,

Sun, Netscape, Oracle and the others wish

only to supplant Microsoft as the single most

successful company in American history;

NOT to provide any real alternative nor

innovation of their own.

Glenn Fincher

Microsoft Certified System Engineer

Windows 2000 & XP MCP

InToto Technologies, Inc.

gfincher@intoto.com

MTC–00005093

From: marty-solveig@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:47 pm

Subject: Microsoft/Government Settlement

Sirs,

Please by all means end this situation.

Microsoft is on our country’s plus ledger

with respect to our balance of payments; as

is the Boeing Airplane Company and other

very large companies.

From my read the settlement appears OK

and it should get implemented.

This opinion from a World War 2 vet who

can remember the Depression Era and can

still think about assets in our national intrest.

Yours truly,

Martin Schames

MTC–00005094

From: Kevin Tracy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:58 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

As long as I can remember I have always

been a user of microsoft products, and now,

as a business owner, their products make up

the backbone of my company. Recently, it

has come to my attention that they had

reached a settlement which can still be

contested. While not clear what the

opposition wants as an end result to the

settlement, it is clear what harm could be

caused to microsoft, and indirectly to my

company. The longer Microsoft is busy

dealing with legal issues and spending more

money on them, the longer it may take for

them to release an innovative new product.

It may also cause a layoff of a worker.

This worker may be the one who could

have saved a contract for my company

through excellent and fast technical support.

While this is a improbable example, the

longer and more expensive the legal battle is

for Microsoft, as well as perhaps any

increased damages resulting from it, the more

this concept becomes a reality. And this is

not just my reality, there are millions of

people just like me who rely on Microsoft for

products and as a company. That is why I ask

that you as a group to finish this as soon as

possible.

Sincerely,

Kevin Tracy

MTC–00005095

From: Larry Babcock

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:49 pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Please do what ever it takes to settle this,

it has gone on long enough. The longer this

litigation takes the more obvious it is about

money, not fairness to the consumer. We

need to move on.

MTC–00005096

From: Stu Thomas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:49 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the US government—you need to do

whatever it takes to keep Microsoft in this

country. They could do like American

Express has done, or like Pinnacle West has

done and move the operations to India. This

takes you out of the picture. They could just

move north less than 200 miles and you are

out of the picture and what would you do for

software to run your computers? What would

I do? What would the people who haven’t

used their brains that are pushing for this do

for software? Lets realize that many people

would not be employed today if it were not

for what Microsoft has done. While I realize

that your efforts protect me and others in the

industry, please consider that the money

Microsoft has spent on this means that I pay

more for their products and I pay more taxes.

Any company must make a profit and if you

cost them money, they must pass it on to the

consumer. My taxes pay your salary! So lets

work out a compromise that keeps Microsoft

in the country.

If you want to prosecute someone or a

company look to companies that hire

consultants from India or Pakistan or the

Philippines or Australia. They say its because

of a lack of qualified applicants. That is a lie.

Why can I say that? I work for a company

that hires consultants from India and the last

two openings that were posted had over 87

qualified applicants after very careful

screening. There are literally over a thousand

computer programmers in the Phoenix area

alone looking for work and you and I mean

you allow companies to hire consultants

from another country and the money flows

back to that country. It doesn’t help the US

or the local economy. This slowly erodes our

society—it is done slow—it is done subtle—

you are fooled—the communities are ruined

forever. Why are the communities ruined?

People go bankrupt—they are ruined over

greed. And who cares about a few people?

Well let this continue and it may be you.

Think of the teachers from India teaching

your school children! What American

history, or perspective can they give your

school child?

This goes on—do you have the integrity to

do something about it?

MTC–00005097

From: Greg Manning

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:50 pm

Subject: Tunney Act

DOJ

As a consumer, I would like to comment

on the ‘‘Public interest’’ of the Microsoft

litigation case. It is my opinion that further

litigation would only cause harm to

consumers. Given the events of the last few

months, it is more important than ever to

move forward in a positive manner and allow

consumers and the markets work...the way

this country designed them to work. The

penalties put in place should allow all

companies to prosper in the highly

competitive, and ever changing, technology

marketplace, with the end result being better

products for consumers. Further litigation

would only harm consumers. Close the

case...move on...and let everyone get back to

business.

Thank you for your time,

Gregory J. Manning

MTC–00005098

From: Mark Eden

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:50 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I want to add my voice to the ‘‘settle

already’’ column. The settlement is fair and

just. Please allow the software business to get

back to business. This on-going litigation

only helps a few large companies and does

nothing to help consumers or other

competitors.

If the lingering states’ litigation was

actually based on protecting me I might feel

24676 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

differently. It is about greed and anticompetitiveness. Using the government to try

to help sales of their products is abhorrent.

They should be making better products.

Thank you,

Mark Eden

MTC–00005099

From: Sharyn Verdon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:50 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle this lawsuit. Enough time and

money has been spent. Let’s get on to

something more pressing...like responsible

immigration policies and tracking.

Sharyn K. Verdon

MTC–00005100

From: randaus

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:49 pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

YOU THE DEPT OF JUSTICE ARE TRYING

YOUR TO MAKE US A THIRD RATE

COUNTRY.

YOU MAKE THE RUSSIANS PALE IN

COMPARISON TO YOU.

MTC–00005101

From: Vitula Green

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:51 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am very pleased that the DOJ and various

states have come to common ground in the

suit against Microsoft. I have always felt it

was terribly wrong to blame a company for

being successful. I understand the final

settlement has not yet been reached and I

hope for a prompt and complete closure in

the near future. May all the companies in the

United States be as successful as Microsoft!

Ida Vitula Green

22506 SE Highland Circle

Issaquah, WA 98029–5207

12–31–2001

MTC–00005102

From: Jason D. Miller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:52 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I just wanted to voice my opinion that it

is in the public’s best interest to allow the

Microsoft settlement to go through.

Thanks,

Jason D. Miller

MTC–00005103

From: Shelley Anderson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:52 pm

Subject: Microsoft Case

I am not a computer whiz and I could only

parrot statements and articles others have

written about the Microsoft case. The best

that I can do is tell you how scared I am

about the things I read about what Microsoft

could do if not held back—the control over

ME they could eventually have—and all the

other little guys in the USA. My

understanding is that they are hoping to

crush the Internet freedoms provided by

other browsers and have total control.

No one or no company should have total

or nearly total control over anything in our

country. Isn’t that what outlawing

monopolies is all about? What has happened

in our country that we no longer protect and

encourage the little guy? Why does Microsoft

need so much control and/or so much

money?

‘‘Settling’’ the problem with ‘‘free’’

computers to schools sounds noble, but to me

it’s just another way to capture another

segment of the computer world. It’s

interesting that Microsoft’s recent attempts at

operating systems (the ones with ‘‘Window’’

in their name) are also attempts to be as

much like another operating system as they

can possibly be.

Why would we want to reward a system

that has ‘‘allowed’’ the hacking, worms and

viruses that have crippled the whole world

of computing at times? I’ve even read that

they leave loopholes on purpose so they can

heroically ‘‘fix’’ them later.

Please, please consider very carefully what

the outcome will be in this case. Microsoft

has, after all, been found guilty of violating

monopoly laws. Shouldn’t the penalties be in

line with those of other monopoly abusers?

Shelley Anderson

MTC–00005104

From: JOHN J JOHNSTON

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:53 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

GENTLEMEN,

The last thing the American economy

needs is more litigation that benefits only a

few wealthy competitors and stifles

innovation. The Federal Govt. should close

this case and tell the States to fall in line

with the Fed Govt. settlement.

MTC–00005105

From: Stephen Cracknell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:54 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I just wanted to make certain that the DOJ

decision makers were aware that there is a

great deal of support for Microsoft around the

country. It seems apparent that most of the

commotion about monopolies and unfair

practices is being generated by Microsoft’s

faltering competition and not by the end

users. These end users are currently

experiencing hyper-innovation to a point

where they are beginning to complain about

the pace of change in the industry. Please

focus your energies on industries that are

clearly being driven by unhealthy monopoly

practices like the airline industry’s

International Airline and Transportation

Association (IATA) who’s primary role is to

fix prices. Also please crack down on the

major airlines’ oligopoly practices used to

squeeze startup airlines out of business.

Stephen

MTC–00005106

From: Larry Davenport

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/31/01 5:58 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am very much NOT in favor of the

settlement you have negotiated with

Microsoft. It appears that once again,

Microsoft has outwitted the DOJ. It seems

that the DOJ is more interested in a quick

settlement than a just one. For those of us

who must do business with Microsoft, and

we must since that have a monopoly

position, we know that it is their actions and

not their innovations that are a corner stone

of their marketing practices. Just look at their

latest policies for upgrades.

You must reverse your settlement and do

something to eliminate the monopolistic

position that Microsoft exploits.

Lawrence G. Davenport

Executive Vice President & CIO

Foamex International Inc.

(610) 859–3618

(610) 859–3613 Fax

MTC–00005107

From: coolcraw@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:54 pm

Subject: Microsoft:

Microsoft:

Cannot believe that the DOJ spent such

little time and money on the terrorists and so

much on Microsoft. ( Of course before 911

Carl K. Kapikian

MTC–00005108

From: William and Gwen Fisk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 5:57 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We think The Tunney Act should be

accepted. This case should be settled. It’s

now four years old. Our economy does not

need more litigation. Consumers

overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good

for us, the industry and the American

economy.

Thank you,

William & Gwen Fisk

MTC–00005109

From: Ben Vega

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:00 pm

Subject: My Public opinion

End all litigation against Microsoft.

all litigation against Microsoft is against

the public interest and the capitalist system.

Benedict J. Vega

MTC–00005110

From: Joe Ciconte

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:00 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am in full support of Microsoft. I belive

that an American Tax Paying company has a

right to make money. Being a computer

professional I know that consumers have the

right to choose their software (bundled or

not), there are other companies that offer

Microsoft Microsoft makes top of the line

software and with Windows a lot of people

would not have the ability to run a computer.

Microsoft should not be punished for being

a successful corporation.

Joe Ciconte

MTC–00005111

From: (123)USER(u)FIRSTNAME(125)

(123)USER(u)LASTNAME(125)

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:01 pm

Subject: Microsoft settllement

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24677

I am of the belief that the Microsoft suit

brought by the various State attorneys

General should be dismissed in the interest

of justice and that no further prosecution of

Microsoft should occur.

Ronald

Matthews, San Diego, Ca.

MTC–00005112

From: JPW Consulting

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:02 pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Hi,

I do not agree with the terms of the

Microsoft anti-trust case settlement. As a

member of the software development

community I am more than aware, and have

suffered under Microsoft’s licencing policies

for several years. I especially find the

‘‘donation’’ to schools of Microsoft software

to be cruel and unusual punishment. This

money should be up to the schools to spend

and not to force additional Microsoft

products down the school’s throat. Head back

to the table and come up with something

more than the current slap on the wrist!

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00005113

From: Ben Vega

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:02 pm

Subject: MIcrosoft Setlement

End all action against Microsoft. It is NOT

in the interest of the American public or

Capitalism

Benedict J Vega

MTC–00005114

From: john keener

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:04 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs, To make this as simple as

possible, I am asking you to allow companies

in an extremely competitive and changing

marketplace to do business. We don’t need to

have all of the restrictive practices of past

decades.

Thank you for you consideration.

Regards,

John Keener

6500 Edgewood Court

Granbury, TX 76049–4318

MTC–00005115

From: GETAM@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:03 pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

I have comments about the Microsoft

Settlement. This entire matter has been out

of control since the beginning. There are

many companies that do business a certain

way, and the customers either buy or patron

the manufacturer or supplier or they do not.

All of Microsoft’s competition has had the

same opportunity to manufacture products

that the consumers will buy, but the

customers do decide what they want. If

Microsoft supplies a product the consumers

want, they will continue to purchase it, if

they fail the public, likewise, the public will

let them know. This settlement is more than

fair for Microsoft. To me, I feel it is totally

unfair to penalize a company for going after

the American dream, and providing the

world with products that have excelled, and

advanced the world.

The jealousy of others to go after Microsoft,

cost many in the business world their

businesses, and jobs. My opinion, it created

most of what we deem ‘‘the recession’’ due

to job losses.

I suggest, what would be a more

meaningful avenue to pursue is all of the fees

and surcharges American’s are paying in

their telephone bills, and cable bills under

the FCC fee’s, Universal Fee’s which amount

in excess of $300 annually per account.

These funds were not appropriated by

Congress to be taken from the consumers.

These are taken from as I said Telephones,

Cable, Cell Phone bills, and these are

uncalled for, and robbery from all Americans.

These collections are just the same as before

when Americans were paying for the Spanish

American War still from Phone bills recently,

those funds were not repaid to Telephone

subscribers either. This is something that

does need investigation and cleaning up.

Please end the unjust Microsoft ordeal, it

is a total waste of the taxpayers money, and

has cost America dearly in jobs and

businesses. Again, I feel strongly, the

consumer will purchase what they wish,

leave the manufactures to make the best they

can offer, and allow the public to choose. The

ones that are sore at free enterprise, need to

come up with ideas and products that drive

the consumers to buy their products, they

just need to be better, instead of fight this

way. Please end the ordeal, the settlement is

past being fair to those who have suffered

nothing, but are jealous of ‘‘Free Enterprise

of the American dream.’’ Thanks for your

time. God Bless America! May 2002 bring us

a very good year and blessings to all.

Sincerely,

Gerry J Slobe

CEO/President GETAM Enterprises

GETAM@aol.com

CC:GETAM@aol.com@inetgw,Hannity

@foxnews.com@inetgw,Ru...

MTC–00005116

From: Sherry Berghefer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In the matter of the Microsoft antitrust

settlement, I have to say I disagree with the

judgement. For years, I have watched the DOJ

and several states (unfortunately, mine is

included) waste time and money on a

pointless case. Because of Microsoft’s

success, they are now to be penalized and I

question the logic in this endeavor.

I was raised to believe that I lived in a free

enterprise system and that regardless of what

I did, I should do my best at it. What this

case has shown us is that the free enterprise

system works as long as everyone agrees to

be mediocre. Success is punished, while

mediocrity is lauded. What a puzzling

concept.

For a time, Netscape was the predominant

browser available on the market. Why?

Because it was free and, for a while, more

robust and user-friendly than Internet

Explorer. Along comes a significant

improvement in Microsoft’s technology and,

hold the phone, Netscape gets scared. It

realizes that it can’t keep up with Microsoft

anymore, that it’s product is nowhere near as

desirable as Microsoft’s. Now, instead of

demanding more innovation from its

programmers, Netscape ran crying to the

federal government that it wasn’t fair. Other

companies decided to join them on the antiMicrosoft bandwagon. After all, if someone is

making you look bad, it’s easier to push them

out of the picture than it is to change

yourself.

What I wonder is whether anyone has

thought about how Microsoft came to be so

dominant? The answer is simple: consumers.

Consumers want something that works the

way they want it to at a reasonable price.

Microsoft now offers that. I didn’t used to

like Microsoft’s products. They were

cumbersome, bloated and were not designed

with the user in mind. They learned from

their mistakes, though, and have created very

robust and easy-to-use programs. I’ve tried

many of the other options out there, and have

to say, that I’m very unimpressed. All these

other companies have apparently devoted too

much of their R&D money to pursuing the

big, bad giant. Meanwhile, consumers have

been moving away from the so-so software

and going to something they know works.

Microsoft has implemented a consumer wish

list for their products. Other companies just

sit back and whine.

I would suggest that perhaps the

government should take the time to see how

many consumers are really feeling put-out by

Microsoft’s success. I would wager that the

vast majority of consumers feel that this

entire pursuit is unwarranted.

Sincerely,

Sherry Berghefer

Nevada, Iowa

slbergh@home.com

MTC–00005117

From: Andy Baldwin

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/31/01 6:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it may concern:

As an IT professional I would like to cast

my $.02 worth on the Microsoft Anti-trust

settlement.

First and foremost I have always been of

the opinion that the lawsuit should never

have been brought in the first place. The

reasons are numerous but the best way I have

been able to voice my view is by means of

an analogy. If I were a headlight manufacture

and I as a businessman signed a contract with

my clients to provide an alternate headlight

to the standard headlight deployed on a

Chevrolet car and I was making money doing

so I would be set for a long time financially.

Then one year Chevrolet changes their body

style (without consulting me first of course)

and my headlights no longer work without

the clients doing some modifications to their

cars then what is my course of action?

In the case of Netscape they sued to make

Microsoft change their product to more easily

accept Netscape software. This is much like

me in the above analogy suing Chevrolet to

change their new car model to accept my old

headlights. What should happen is that I as

24678 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

a business man should adapt my product to

work with the new model OR start

manufacturing a car of my own that comes

with my headlights standard. Netscape could

do the same.......

If your product is harder to install or does

not function properly with the new versions

of Windows then create an OS of your own

and try to buy into the market, not use

taxpayer money to have the government

order a private business to change and accept

a product that was created and modified and

relies on certain things in Windows to work.

Netscape has modified their software to run

under Linux, Unix, Mac OS and you do not

hear them gripe when Mac changes their OS

and software needs updating.

I would love to see yet another OS on the

market that can perform and is supported

like Windows. Personally we have tried to

use things like Linux but found that the OS

is harder to use for end users and much more

difficult to maintain. We have elected not to

use it for these reasons. The point here is that

we made a financial decision to not use an

ALMOST free OS because it does not perform

at the same level as Windows.

You always hear about the patches and

fixes being release for MS software.

MMMMM .....Readhat has release at least 3

version this last year and a multitude of

security and bug fixes along side these

versions.

If you want to write software that relies on

a 3rd party OS or 3rd party software and that

manufacture changes something that disables

your tool then you have a choice. Change

your product to work or STOP RELYING ON

THE 3RD PARTY ALL TOGETHER!

Why is Microsoft at the top of the food

chain? In my opinion it is because the

founders had a dream, a goal, and did what

it took to accomplish that goal. Mind you this

was done in a time when your average Joe

Person had no idea what a computer was.

When this turned into a windfall of financial

rewards, those who did not latch on to the

possibilities cry foul and ask the government

to step in and give them a piece of the pie

that they were not fore-thoughtful enough to

cut into in the beginning.

If this lawsuit goes on then I plan on asking

the government to step in on my behalf. A

decade ago a company called Wal-Mart went

public. I did not think it would amount to

much so I did not buy stock in the company.

Now I think I am entitled to the profits that

I COULD have reaped had I invested. Is the

government going to use taxpayer money to

help me recover my ‘‘LOSS’’? I don’t think

so. Neither should the government be

stepping in to help companies that did not

perform when they should have been to

recover their so called ‘‘LOSSES’’.

To sum up the reason for this email I

would like to encourage DOJ to accept the

courts rulings, and most of all put this

lawsuit to rest for good. In other words

ACCEPT IT and MOVE ON. This goes for the

9 greedy states that are standouts from

accepting the offer for whatever reason they

stated. Think of the possibilities that all the

funds (taxpayer money) used in the frivolous

pursuit of Microsoft could have been used

for. All the real DOJ interest such as home

law enforcement, national safety, public

safety, and other endeavors. For instance

think about how quickly things like the Ford

/ Firestone problem could have been

identified if DOJ had gone after them instead

of private individuals who finally got the

Transportation Safety Administration

involved.

Think about the possibility of a much

lower crime rate if that money had been used

by state and local law enforcement. Think

about the backlog of cases that could have

been prosecuted in the last 4–5 years. After

all this I would once again as a voter and a

taxpayer HIGHLY ENCOURAGE you to

accept the Court findings (including the 9

stand out states) and move on to more

important endeavors.

Andrew Baldwin

Programmer/Analyst

Anatel Corporation

abaldwin@anatel.com

<mailto:abaldwin@anatel.com> 303.417.8149

MTC–00005118

From: Edward Kalabus

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:08pm

Subject: M/S Settelment

Dear US Government:

The Microsoft penalty should be far more

harsh and should be cold hard cash, a

penalty they would understand. The current

XP operating system shows there is no

contrition what so ever by this certified

monopoly.

Ed Kalabus

607 Thunderbird Dr.

Prescott, Az 86303

MTC–00005119

From: Cranham@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:11pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

New Year’s Eve, 2001.

Your Honour(s), Ladies and Gentlemen of

the District Court, and anyone else relevant:

Re: The Microsoft situation

First, for the record, I am not a Microsoft

shareholder, employee, or otherwise have

any interest in the Company, except that

occasionally I purchase (and duly license) its

products for my small business purposes.

Second, please let me be transparent and

state that I believe that Microsoft has been

dealt with harshly. There is ample evidence

that the Company’s competitors have been,

and continue during this comment period, to

be instigators.

Third, the Company’s products are a

tremendous facilitator of the small business

owner, including all the interchangeability

and cross-referencing between programs that

can be accomplished. Lastly, my view is that

the time has come to cease all the litigation.

If there is an end to this matter, after the

Appeals Court ruling, then fine, regardless if

one thinks it too harsh.

This country is in danger from terrorists

and other economic constraints. We need all

our economic, legal, and judicial power to be

constructive and progressive in times like

this. So let us have the settlement finalised

at the end of this commentary period, let us

get on with the pursuit of our true enemies,

and let us rebuild from the damage of 2001.

These goals will be greatly aided by getting

our economy going again.

Please feel free to contact me with any

questions that you may have with regard to

verifying this public comment. My office

(Pacific time) is (760) 930–0500 -0520(fax).

Yours very truly

Anthony W Fox

President

EBD Group

6120 Paseo del Norte, J2

Carlsbad CA

92009

MTC–00005120

From: Rob Foster

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

The whole Microsoft issue has been carried

on for far too long at your countries tax

payers? expense, it is time to come to a

settlement whereby the public are the

winners. I believe the settlement outlined

appears to be acceptable to all parties and

should be adopted as early as possible. I have

not always agreed with Microsoft’s policies

but they have been handled completely

unfairly during this ongoing farce ? it is time

to put an end to it

Best Regards

Rob Foster

Foster Information Services

web: www.fis-uk.comHYPERLINK ‘‘http://

www.fis-uk.com/’’

email: rob@fis-uk.com

tele: +44(0)7710 255561

fax: +44(0)1784 488142

MTC–00005121

From: michael govern

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:12pm

Subject: Den of Thieves

What share of market do the pirates have?

In China, it is some where around 90%—

almost the same for Latin America. The

Court, Media, & Microsoft Haters never

address this issue. If Penfield Jackson says

that MSFT has a 90% share, it must be true.

If Judge Edwards says MSFT has a 90%

share, it must be true. If Clinton said he did

not sleep with that woman, it must be true.

MTC–00005122

From: EBrauer712@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please!! Enough is enough. If you’re

interested in ability of the consumer to

receive the best at the least cost, continuing

this lawsuit is not the way to do it. Allowing

certain companies with agendas of their own

to push for the continuation is not fair to the

public, who are the only ones (besides

Microsoft) who will suffer. Please end this

thing.

Thank you,

Adrienne Brauer

MTC–00005123

From: Walter Ullengren

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:18pm

Subject: Freedom

To whom it may concern,

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24679

Listen folks you still have the best product

out there and that should what it’s all about!

If you our blocking somebody’s else’s dream

well then that’s another story!

E.O.M

MTC–00005124

From: Timothy Gorski

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

While I am generally sympathetic with

businesses that choose to make their own

decisions in the marketplace, I am very

concerned that the DOJ is setting Microsoft

free to engage in new and greater abuses of

its monopoly power. In particular, I see now

that Microsoft’s new XP operating system

*forces* users to upgrade, is configured to

interfere with the users’ ability to upgrade

their hardware components, and that these

features appear to be primarily designed to

wring cash out of users of the Microsoft XP

products. Microsoft has said right along that

it’s Windows operating system should be

thought of just like an automobile—their

favorite comparison.

But what automobile forces its users to

purchase additional modifications from the

manufacturer? What automobile quits

working when the owner puts in new

upholstery or makes other changes to the

vehicle? I urge you to reopen the Microsoft

case and consider these continued and, from

the looks of it, planned bigger abuses of

Microsoft’s monopoly power with respect to

PC operating systems.

Respectfully,

Tim Gorski MD

MTC–00005126

From: CHARLES CLAYWELL

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my opinion, the Department of Justice

or government and a group of people

including the judge that first tried the case,

and the state attorney generals that joined the

case and the news media with their lip

service in general, all were banded together

because they could not compete. Microsoft

was treating the public fairly plus doing a

better job of developing new software at a

better price then their competition. I think it

is time for everyone to tiptoe away and let

Microsoft do an even better job than they

have before.

Thank you,

Charles F. Claywell

MTC–00005127

From: Charles Romanus

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir:

Please bring this case to a final conclusion.

it ahs gone on long enough and we need to

concentrate our national efforts and resources

in other areas. I highly recommend that the

DOJ and all of the States involved in the

Microsoft case mutually agree with the

settlement that has been accepted by the DOJ.

Thank you for your consideration in this

matter and Happy New Year,

Charles F. Romanus

595 Eat Gate Drive

Thomasville, GA 31757

MTC–00005128

From: Richard F Schneider

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the settlement in fair to all

concerned and this should be settled without

further litigation. We need Microsoft back

doing what they do best and not spend any

more time in the courts. They have enough

good computers to keep progress on a path

forward to keep the US computer industry up

to or ahead of the rest of the world.

R.F. Schneider

MTC–00005129

From: ragweed

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a computer user. I hope the Microsoft

case can be finally settled. The uncertainty

has hurt the market place and the consumer.

I am a Microsoft supporter; I am also a Sun,

HP, Motorola, and Apple stock holder and

just updated my Real Networks Real One

software. I use a lot of Microsoft software but

I use Quicken, Corel Draw and other none

Microsoft software. I use Windows XP, I have

been a beta tester for Microsoft and I have

been impressed by the work done to obtain

compatibility with software from various

sources. I have both the Microsoft and the

Netscape browsers on my computer. I choose

which software I use. I welcome Microsoft

adding perks to its software, but if other

companies make better products, I use them.

I hope the computer industry can concentrate

in building better solutions for the consumer

instead of legal arguments.

David Shulan

ragweed@msn.com

MTC–00005130

From: Greg Post

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am firmly in favor of the proposed settle

of the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. As a small

business computer consultant, I rely on

Microsoft to provide operating systems and

applications that work well together. The

only thing that I saw Microsoft do wrong was

in their dealings with OEMs. OEMs should

be free to install whatever operating system

they want without fear of any reprisal from

Microsoft. The settlement agreement

adequately addresses this issue.

There is nothing wrong with any of the

Microsoft products in how they present them

in an integrated fashion. Yes, they should be

complete in the their disclosures of how the

operating system works, eg. a complete API

disclosure, but the settlement agreement

adequately addresses this issue. In my

business I work with a lot of regular users,

people who aren’t heavy duty technical types

but just people who want to get something

accomplished with their computer. All of the

improvements that I’ve seen Microsoft make

in Windows have been toward the end of

making the computer easier to use. The same

cannot be said of all other software/hardware

vendors although there are exceptions. The

chaos in the computer industry that would

have resulted without Microsoft’s leadership

and standard setting (even defacto standards)

have been largely mitigated by Microsoft’s

ability to freely innovate and produce good

products. A simple example is CD-RW

technology. Before Windows XP, there was

no good user interface standard for how to

create CD-RW disks. With Windows XP

handling the disk creation, all the different

user interfaces are gone and users can now

easily, intuitively create CD-RW. AND they

can help other Windows XP users do the

same.

Thank you,

Gregory Post

Cedarose Consulting

MTC–00005131

From: Neale, Miles

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 12/31/01 6:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a user of Microsoft products for over 16

years, a developer of software, and a native

born American I would like to see the

Microsoft Anti-trust case settled. The action

of the Government on behalf of the people

was warranted and the settlement that is

currently in place should be finalized. As a

long standing application developer and data

manager, I feel that leaving Microsoft in tact

is the prudent and necessary action. Making

two or three companies out of the one

company would be an unnatural and

abhorrent decision. Let the company over

time grapple with this issue, we might find

in the future a division that would be natural

and logical. Historically we have noted that

when an external mediator or arbitrator, who

is not intimately involved with software

development, gets into the process and

initiates decisions, the lack of in-depth

experience and knowledge will most often

cause damage to all sides represented in the

decision. In short, a person or organization

who has limited knowledge or a vested

interest to divide or not to divide, then the

people get shorted. We should eliminate this

shorting of the American public and let this

thing play out. Thanks for the opportunity to

comment on this.

Miles Neale

Data Administrator

Wash State Dept of Ecology

360–407–6592—Voice

360–407–6493—Fax

‘‘If there is a way in, there is a way out.’’

MTC–00005132

From: Jim Paxton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I support the settlement, I believe it is fairminded, tough and well within reason. Any

further delays, or negative actions could

cause additional harm to the US economy.

I sincerely believe that is in the US

consumer’s best interest to put this issue

behind us.

Thank You

James Paxton

1351 Rosenkranz Rd

24680 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Tieton, WA 98947

MTC–00005133

From: Richard Jennings

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Section E of the agreement only covers

communication between two products on a

Microsoft platform. The definition should be

expanded so APIs can be extended across

operating system platforms.

MTC–00005134

From: Bruce Hagen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

Have we come to the point that we must

punish those that excel? I hope not. The

previous DOJ cost all of us a ton of money

only because they hated success and had a

twisted understanding of the computer

business. If it was not for what Bill Gates has

accomplished we’d still all be stuck with

operating systems such as CPM and

computers would only be for the Geeks.

Bruce Hagen

MTC–00005135

From: Michael Jacquet

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

Enough is Enough, you have wasted

MILLIONS of U.S. Citizens tax payer dollars

litigating an absolute obserd law suite against

Microsoft Coporation over the last four years.

As a U.S. taxpayer, and a Microsoft share

holder I strongly urge you to accept the

settlement terms both parties agreed to earlier

this year and fight FOR the fair and equatable

settlement both parties reached in future

court hearing. I cannot believe that a few

special interest groups and some lazy

competitors are trying to derail this long

sought after settlement.

Enough is Enough, quit wasting my TAX

Dollars !!!!

Regards

Mike Jacquet

Concerned Citizen

MTC–00005136

From: Tom Shipley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:45pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am a user of personal computers—since

1977. Before Microsoft got involved. I used

WordPerfect until Microsoft Word overtook

it. I used Lotus until Microsoft Excel

outperformed it.Buy all of the old files have

always been accessible with Microsoft’s

products. I think that we should continue to

have the advances that Microsoft has been

continually introducing. I speak purely from

the standpoint of a user and I don’t think you

are getting enough input from users. We are

too busy—and that’s too bad.

Tom Shipley

tom@tshipley.cnchost.com

MTC–00005137

From: EFchristi@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

To Whom it May concern,

I am a Microsoft OS user, not because it

was on my computer when I bought it,

because I found it was the only system

offered that is user friendly. All the other

system I have experience with are very hard

to work with and not very friendly when you

make mistakes. I have had the opportunity to

change my OS and browser to Linex and

Netscape, Unix and Oricle, and several

others, but I didn’t because I use these system

at work and find they do not handle user

mistakes very well.

In my opinion, and I know my opinion and

75 cents might get you a cup of coffee in the

cafeteria, Microsoft has brought the computer

industry forward by leaps and bounds. It has

come along way in the past 20 years. I

remember when the home computer was just

a dream, now just about every husehold can

afford one. I have five and all of them have

Microsoft systems installed. My original

Apple II, is of no comparison to what these

computers can do today.

I think the settlement with Microsoft is fair

and just.

Sincerely,

Edwin F. Christian

P.O. Box 669

Scottsville, TX 75688–0669

E-mail: efchristi@aol.com

Phone: 903–934–8226

Fax: 903–934–8607

MTC–00005138

From: Onetonyc@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it may concern:

I am one who wishes to voice my opinion

about the ‘‘Tunney Act.’’ The Tunney Act,

provides for a fair and just settlement for

those involved in the lawsuit. Please see your

way clear to move ahead with the settlement

as outlined in the Tunney Act and give

Microsoft back their right to pursue

commerce in the competitive business they

have chosen to engage. Any further delay

will add to the already bogged down

economic crisis we are experiencing.

Let Microsoft do what they do best,

innovate and invigorate the computer

industry.

Sincerely,

Tony Chalupnik

San Diego, CA

MTC–00005139

From: bob@osterhout.org@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir;

Please LEAVE Microsoft along! They are

the best thing we have to keep the PC

industry going.

Thank You!

Robert Osterhout

MTC–00005140

From: Richard Dauphine

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:51pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I do not think Microsoft has done anything

wrong and that the U.S. Department of

Justice should settle the case and move on to

matters of national importance, not

repressing innovation.

Richard Dauphine

MTC–00005141

From: MORRIS KAY

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:53pm

Subject: The Microsoft Settlement.

To Whom It May Concern:

It appears to me that this litigation has

been going long enough. The settlement

agreement, in my opinion, is fair to all parties

involved. Let’s bring this action to a

conclusion NOW....

Morris Kay

MTC–00005142

From: Paul van Ast

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:53pm

Subject: microsoft setlement

Please approve settlement

MTC–00005143

From: jimlab2

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 7:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settelment

To Whom It May Concern:

We are sick of the ‘‘grandstanding’’ of a few

businesses and the government officials that

support them and cater to them because of

political contributions. The Microsoft

prosecution caused the current recession

(commonly known as the Clinton/Reno

economy) and the quick settlement of this

case is a must to get our economy back on

track. It is way beyond time to move on and

there are only a few people in the country

that feel that Microsoft has hurt anyone. The

real reason for the suit was they were not

contributing to the Democrat Party. Plain and

simple. Settle it now!

R. James Labyak

Irene L. Labyak

6142 NE 154th St

Kenmore, WA 98028–4333

CC:Congressman Jay Inslee,President

George W Bush, Sen...

MTC–00005144

From: Marlin Ritchie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 7:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ;

I think Microsoft has been punished

enough with the settlement that they have

offered to agree to. I think that this trial has

been driven by disgruntled competitors and

the by the states where they are located. I

further think that AOL-Time Warner and

Comcast are just as guilty in not sharing their

cable control thus preventing competition in

the cable communication field.

Settle for what Microsoft has offered to do

in response to the law suit and give them the

room to continue to innovate in the area of

software development in a way that will not

stifle the development of software that the

consumers need in a reasonable time frame.

Do not load them down with legal

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24681

bureaucratic oversight that is not required for

their competitors and that adds cost to the

consumer. A concerned US citizen,

Marlin Ritchie

MTC–00005145

From: Robert B. Yonaitis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 7:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it may concern,

I have followed the Microsoft Case for

Some time. I believe in the beginning there

was no harm to the consumers and no harm

to the competitive environment that helps

the consumer. I wanted to take this moment

to state that I think that the settlement

reached was extremely fair and that

Microsoft and the DOJ did excellent work in

reaching the settlement. I believe it is

excellent for the consumer and the

collaborative and competitive environment

that innovation requires.

Best Regards,

Rob Yonaitis

CEO

HiSoftware Inc.

www.hisoftware.com

MTC–00005146

From: Alex Kaufman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 7:16pm

Subject: My comments on MSFT

I firmly believe that the issue that our

country should have with monopolies is

monopolistic power that can be used to raise

prices while subsequently lowering

standards. This kind of abuse is simply not

happening with Microsoft. They are

constantly on the ball and coming out with

better and better software. Granted, it is

extremely difficult to beat the Microsoft

empire, but the empire is not yet an evil one

by any account. From the consumer

standpoint, Microsoft has been a beneficiary

for small and large corporations alike. My

father could not have started his own

business without the excellent tools provided

by Microsoft. I really don’t care if MSFT took

Netscape’s market share away, if you had

ever used Netscape you’d know it was a

crummy browser compared to IE. It is not

Microsoft that has engaged in anticompetitive practices, but rather our

government has done so by bringing this

lawsuit against the company. Competition

breeds excellence. Why would MSFT not

want to use every means possible to squash

its competitors? That is just what

competition is all about. Gates realized that

the OS battle would be a winner-take-all one.

He won. He receives the spoils of war. Now

he has stayed on top of his game yet again

by identifying the internet as a potential

threat and directing the machinery of

Microsoft to fully take advantage of the

opportunities it provides. The Internet battle

is slowly being won by MSFT as well, and

why shouldn’t they? To the victor go the

spoils. Please settle the suit against MSFT

quickly, because Bill Gates has done nothing

but see to it that the industry gets better and

better.

Alex Kaufman

MTC–00005147

From: DanSorkin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 7:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madame,

As a citizen of the USA I implore you to

release the Microsoft Corporation from the

tyranny of the past Administration’s war on

Capitalism. Microsoft should be able to move

freely to compete in the open marketplace.

May the BEST product win.

The settlement in this case should be a

blanket dismissal of all charges.

This paragon of American Free Enterprise

should be held up as a model for all to

emulate. It should not be emasculated in any

way. To do so would be to say to the world

WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE AMERICAN

DREAM.

Thank you!

Dan Sorkin

President & CEO

GFFC, Inc.

2109 Skycrest Drive

Suite one

Walnut Creek, CA 94595–1828

(925) 952–4408

MTC–00005148

From: Dwight Bale

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 7:27pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To: DOJ

Don’t you people have anything better to

do than to do as much as you can to make

some other lawyers richer...

Please start working on monopolies such as

gas and electric companies like PSE in

Seattle area, who have no competition

whatsoever.

Please start doing something for the

‘‘public’’ and let big business fight for

themselves. They got the money, let them

spend it on themselves. But you should be

helping us...

MTC–00005149

From: John Reese

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 7:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As an end user I feel the settlement is fair

for Microsoft. I don’t even think there was a

case against them from the start.

As a Customer I’ve always been treated fair

and am very happy with their products and

support.

Thanks for reading this,

John Reese

Sacramento, CA USA

MTC–00005150

From: jerrystuart

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 7:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

As a user of Microsoft products for years,

I am quite satisfied with the terms of the

DOJ’s proposed settlement with MS and

would like to see all further effort to litigate

stopped. Please let us all get back to our work

and lives and move ahead.

Jerry Bonow

Pompano Beach, Florida

MTC–00005151

From: Paul Wheeler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 7:35pm

Subject: Settlement Agreement

I support Microsoft’s position in the

settlement.

I am not an employee of Microsoft nor

compensated in ANY fashion by Microsoft. I

have been in the computer industry over 25

years and have seen a lot things come and

go. The worst of which is when I have

worked hard for a company only to see them

close their doors for any of a variety of

reasons. Starting the job search and starting

at the bottom again and again gets old. I have

seen the industry ignore a lot of activities

FAR WORSE than Microsoft’s behavior,

which I will not list here, but I could.

My position is, our US Justice Dept. should

go in the direction of what the majority of the

industry and litigants WANT and AGREE to.

Special interests risk softening an industry

and economy that needs STABILITY. If you

have chanced jobs a bunch of times like I

have, not by choice but because you were

laid-off, you will know what I am talking

about.

I feel we should clarify and re-clarify and

re-clarify computer laws so that they are

FAIR and apply them EQUALLY in the

industry. Keep POLITICS out of the computer

industry. I support Microsoft’s position and

whatever they agree to.

Thank you and God Bless America.

Paul A Wheeler,

MCSE NT 4.0, A+, MOUS certifications.

(currently studying for Cisco’s CCNA)

y2kpaul@tns.net

MTC–00005152

From: JACK FORD

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 7:45pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

It is my opinion that the current settlement

arrangements are as fair and just as possible.

There is nothing to be gained and much to

be lost in prolonging this matter further.

Jack Ford

14690 Fame Ave.

Colfax, IA 50054

MTC–00005153

From: PAUL NOLL

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 7:45pm

Subject: Settlement

Microsoft has helped Americans like

myself, but if you no settlement favors

Microsoft,then only wealthy other Ceo’s and

their companies will enrich themselves at the

sacrifice of our economy. As an average (or

below average) American, Microsoft has

made my life better, so please give them the

proper settlement.

Thank you,

Paul E. Noll

MTC–00005154

From: Ron Jenkins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 7:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sir(s)

24682 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

I work in the Computer Industry and after

many months of watching and listening to

the DOJ vs Microsoft, enough is enough. Did

Microsoft participate in illegal practices, I

feel we can safely say yes.

Did they hurt other inferior products, I

doubt it it. Should this mess be settled and

go away and stop spending my money on the

company that helps feed my family as it is

the premier player in my industry,

ABSOLUTELY! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

If the DOJ spent as much time and effort

prosecuting real criminals who seem to

always get off on technicalities this would be

a much safer place to live. Instead we have

several individuals who wanted dot make a

name for themselves, and did. So they have

accomplished their objective. Let’s move on.

Ron Jenkins

Knoxville, TN

MTC–00005155

FROM: Ray Parsons

TO: MS ATR

DATE: 12/31/01 8:01pm

SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement

We, [the voting public] think this has gone

far enough. It is a very waste of money to let

this gone any longer. Get this done, now.

A voter,

Ray Parsons

MTC–00005156

From: Ganesh and Sashikala Prasad

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 6:11pm

Subject: Comments on the proposed antitrust

settlement 01 January 2002

Dear Sirs,

I wish to submit my comments (attached)

to the database of public feedback on the

proposed settlement between the Department

of Justice and Microsoft, which must reach

you before the 27th of January.

I am submitting them in both plaintext and

HTML formats for your convenience.

Regards,

Ganesh Prasad

Sydney 1 January 2002

Dear Sirs,

I am an Australian citizen with about 15

years in the computer industry. What

happens in the US vs. Microsoft antitrust

case affects me professionally as well as

personally, since I am a fairly heavy user of

computer software and technology. I would

like to comment on the settlement jointly

proposed by the Department of Justice and

Microsoft. To be blunt, I believe the proposal

is a dishonest one that sells out the public

interest. I will explain why, and offer some

guidelines for a fairer remedy.

1. Microsoft’s main crime (not bundling,

but the prevention of bundling) has had

lasting anti-competitive effects that the

settlement should address but doesn’t The

argument that has most often been used

against Microsoft is the ‘‘bundling’’ one, the

allegation that Microsoft bundled its browser

(and now its media player and instant

messaging software) with its operating

system. By doing so, it leveraged its

monopoly in operating systems to enter other

markets. Though this is a classic antitrust

argument, people who believe in a free

market are not convinced because the remedy

does not sound right from the standpoint of

the consumer interest. Consumers enjoy

greater convenience, not less, when extra

software is bundled with the operating

system they buy. That is why the harsher

remedy proposed by some of the states is also

wrong. Forcing Microsoft to unbundle such

software needlessly inconveniences the

consumer. It also takes away from Microsoft’s

legitimate right to decide what goes into its

products and puts the courts in the avoidable

position of having to define the scope of

technologies such as operating systems when

they are not technically qualified to do so.

The only parties that are benefitted by such

a remedy are competitors. Doesn’t this add

credibility to Microsoft’s claim that its

competitors are inefficient and require

government intervention to survive?

However, the prosecution has failed from

the start to argue this point with the right

emphasis. What Microsoft did that seriously

disadvantaged the consumer was not so

much bundling its own browser with its

operating system, but preventing computer

resellers (OEMs) from offering consumers a

choice by bundling competing browsers such

as Netscape Navigator. Microsoft threatened

OEMs such as Compaq with the withdrawal

of their Windows 95 license if they dared to

bundle Netscape Navigator with the PCs they

sold. Given the overwhelming dominance of

Windows 95 in the operating system market

at that time, a withdrawal of that license

could have bankrupted even an OEM as large

as Compaq. The threat was credible and

secured the compliance of all OEMs. So

certainly, Microsoft did leverage its

monopoly in operating systems to gain entry

into the browser market, and it did so both

through the relatively benign means of

bundling its own browser, and by the

decidedly illegal means of preventing

consumers from sampling the wares of its

competitors. Any free market advocate can

readily see the consumer harm in this latter

action of Microsoft’s, but the prosecution has

damaged its own case by not emphasising

this enough.

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. This is often known as the

‘‘bootloader clause’’. Microsoft abused its

monopoly in operating systems by

threatening OEMs and blocking, at the

source, the entry of other operating systems

into the market. Consumers have had no

opportunity to know about or sample

competing operating systems. In other words,

Microsoft abused its operating system

monopoly to maintain that monopoly, which

is another violation of antitrust law. The fact

that no OEM except IBM dared to testify

against Microsoft during the trial is itself

proof of Microsoft’s terror tactics. Their

silence speaks louder than any testimony.

Microsoft’s history is full of such anticompetition and anti-consumer actions.

Bristol Technology won a case against

Microsoft (over Microsoft’s sudden

withdrawal of support for their Unix

interoperation software Wind/U) but was

awarded a laughably poor compensation of

one dollar. Caldera had a strong case against

Microsoft (over the illegal way in which

Microsoft used Windows 3.1 to force

consumers to buy MS-DOS rather than

Caldera’s DR-DOS) but its silence was bought

through an out-of-court settlement. The

consumer has been the ultimate loser in all

these cases because Microsoft’s actions

removed competitive choice and

interoperation options.

The DoJ’s proposed settlement shows an

awareness of these abuses and aims to

prevent their recurrence, but it needs to be

far stronger and bolder. The damage to the

industry has been done systematically, over

more than a decade, and significant network

externalities have been created that work to

perpetuate the Microsoft monopoly. How can

this damage be reversed by a mere forwardlooking arrangement? Consumers and

Microsoft’s competitors now face nearly

insurmountable market hurdles to creating a

viable alternative computing environment,

even though technically good alternatives are

available. Even if Microsoft’s abuses are

halted, the structural and systemic forces

they have created over the past decade will

continue to work in their favour. At a time

when consumers look to the government to

right these historical wrongs, the settlement

that the government proposes is inexplicably

defeatist. It resigns consumers to the status

quo! One would imagine that a prosecution

that has had its argument upheld by two

courts would have the momentum,

confidence and real power to broker a deal

that restores genuine choice to the consumer,

not step lightly around an entrenched

monopoly that was the problem to start with.

2. A criminal should not be allowed to

keep his ill-gotten gains Microsoft’s

monopoly profits are the direct result of these

and other illegally anti-competitive tactics.

The antitrust case established that the

absence of competition emboldened

Microsoft into charging $89 for Windows

instead of $49. In other words, consumers

paid extra merely because of a monopoly that

was being illegally maintained. Four eminent

economists filed an amicus curiae brief

during the remedies phase of the trial in

which they showed that Microsoft’s rate of

return on invested capital was 88%, while

the average in other industries was about

13%! [See www.econ.yale.edu/nordhaus/

homepage/Final%20microsoft%20brief.pdf]

Microsoft could never have made such huge

profits without its illegal maintenance and

extension of its monopoly, and therefore a

major part of its current wealth is illegally

earned.

There is absolutely nothing in the

proposed settlement that addresses the issue

of these ill-gotten gains, or how these will be

reimbursed to the public from whose pockets

they came. This simple omission easily

amounts to billions of dollars, and by itself

makes the settlement a sellout of the public

interest, even without an assessment of its

other shortcomings.

3. Ill-gotten gains should not be allowed to

influence the outcome of this case It is

disturbing to read that many states are

settling because they are running out of funds

to pursue the case further as they would like

to. Meanwhile, Microsoft, with its multibillion dollar war chest, has no such

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24683

constraints. They can outlast all their

opponents. The world is learning the cynical

lesson that the American justice system is a

mere extension of the free market—you get as

much justice as you can afford to pay for.

What happened to the principle (so

successfully applied in the A1 Capone case)

that criminals should not be able to use their

ill-gotten gains to pay for their legal defence?

Wouldn’t a scrupulous application of that

principle prevent the distortion we see here?

If a convicted abusive monopolist has more

funds than its prosecutors, and that fact is

forcing them to settle, can’t the monopolist’s

funds be frozen, or can it not be made to pay

the legal costs of its prosecutors? A simple

ruling along those lines might see Microsoft

scrambling to agree to a fairer settlement, one

that will better safeguard the freedom of the

consumer.

4. There is no attempt at punishment for

wrongdoing Though it has been established

that Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law,

the settlement only defines mechanisms to

prevent future wrongdoing. What about

punishment for past wrongdoing? Are

murderers let off scot free with mere

provisions to prevent future murders? What

kind of example does this set? And what

confidence does this inspire in the American

justice system? Any remedy must include

appropriate punishment.

5. The economy is being used as a

bogeyman to prevent punishment 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. An end to the

Microsoft monopoly may result in some

churn, but that churn will be the ferment of

genuine innovation from the rest of the

industry. The impact on the stockmarket

from a fall in Microsoft’s share price will be

more than offset by the rising stocks of

independent software companies that can

operate without fear of a monopolist’s wrath.

A decisive curbing of Microsoft’s stifling

influence will create more confidence in the

rule of law, generate more jobs and help the

economy.

Therefore, it is dishonest and self-serving

on the part of the DoJ to suggest that this

settlement proposal is the best one from the

viewpoint of the economy. Moreover, the

state of the economy should not determine

whether or not a crime should be punished.

It takes a statesmanlike judge to see beyond

the petty posturing and to do the right and

wise thing.

Guidelines for a fair remedy:

Any remedy in a case that has been so

clear-cut in its findings must be more

assertive in its defence of consumer interests.

Regardless of specifics, such a remedy must

address the following:

1. Recurrence: Microsoft must not be able

to continue to abuse its monopoly the way

it has in the past.

2. Reimbursement: Microsoft has no right

to retain the excess profits it has earned as

a result of its illegal actions. This money

should be repaid to the consumer.

3. Reparations: As Microsoft is responsible

for the current uncompetitive market in

operating systems and related applications, it

must underwrite efforts to restore

competition and consumer choice. The rest

of the market should not have to pay to

recover from Microsoft’s abuses.

4. Reference: Microsoft must pay punitive

damages over and above its reimbursement

and reparations obligations, to serve as a

warning to deter future monopolists. The

remedy must in no case send out a signal that

a large enough violator can get off lightly.

Future tax dollars can be saved by

discouraging abuses instead of having to

prosecute them. The DoJ is supposed to be

acting on behalf of the consumer, and they

must pursue a remedy that addresses all the

above issues.

For example, a remedy that required

Microsoft, among other things, to only sell

through channels that offer at least one other

operating system, could address the

reparations issue and break the structural

forces perpetuating their monopoly (If an

OEM requires training to support another

operating system, Microsoft may be forced to

subsidise such training).

The proposed settlement goes partway

towards addressing the issue of recurrence,

but does so only half-heartedly because it

creates significant exceptions and loopholes

for Microsoft to take advantage of. It

completely ignores the other three issues. An

impression is created that the DoJ is more

sensitive to Microsoft’s interests than to the

interests of consumers who have been

systematically robbed of both their choices

and their money.

Therefore this proposed settlement must be

rejected as not being in the public interest.

History will be the judge

After the immediate tumult over this case

dies down, there will be a dispassionate

analysis of all aspects of the Microsoft

phenomenon in the computer industry, and

the roles of all players will be dissected. It

seems fairly certain that the Department of

Justice will be likened to a champion boxer

who was paid to throw his fight. Judge

Jackson will probably be faulted for his many

indiscretions, but it may be remembered that

his analysis was on the mark, and his verdict

fearless. The appeals court will probably be

remembered as being fair though it started

with a reputation for being consistently

lenient towards Microsoft.

What will Judge Kollar-Kotelly be

remembered for? Will she be known as the

one who meekly accepted an agreement that

sold out the public interest, because it was

politically expedient to do so? Or will she be

remembered as the person who braved the

prevailing political winds to do the right

thing and restore balance to a corrupted

system?

The world is watching to see what she will

do.

Regards,

Ganesh Prasad Software developer and

web architect

3/1 Doomben Avenue

Eastwood, New

South Wales 2122

Australia

Tel: +61–403–902–483 e-mail:

sashi@easy.com.au

MTC–00005157

From: Tony Safina

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Public Comments

I have been using Microsoft products since

the 1980’s. I do not think Microsoft should

be broken up. I do not think they should be

punished for being successful. What ever

happened to the American way? Would

Horatio Alger today be considered a criminal

for wanting to better his lot in life? Why does

government in America encourage people to

make an honest buck but once someone has

earned a billion honest bucks or fifty billion

honest bucks it is immediately assumed they

are doing something dishonest.

I think a lot of the Microsoft brouhaha was

started by cry babies at Netscape. They want

the DOJ to think they invented the web

browser. I am here to tell you Netscape did

not invent the web browser. They improved

the web browser just as every company

before them improved the web browser. I

know because I switch web browsers every

time a better web browser becomes available.

In 1989 I did not use a web browser

because the web had not been invented yet.

In 1990 the web was invented and people

surfed the few web sites available using the

text browser Lynx. It was free. The authors

gave it away. I guess they wanted to be nice.

Nobody sues people who want to be nice. By

late 1991 the first browser for Windows was

invented. It had a graphical user interface

(GUI) and it was a lot better than Lynx. This

program was called Cello. It was free. The

authors gave it away. I guess they wanted to

be nice. Nobody sues people who want to be

nice. I don’t think the authors of the Lynx

program tried to coerce the DOJ into suing

the authors of the Cello program. I guess that

is because the authors of the Cello program

were not billionaires. If they had been

billionaires you would have called them evil

and said lets sue their sorry crass butts. I’m

glad that didn’t happen because change is

good, especially so when a new program is

a vast improvement over an earlier program.

I switched to Cello the instant I saw it.

By 1992 another browser for Windows

became available. It too had a graphical user

interface (GUI) and it was better than Cello.

This program was called Winweb. It had a

cooler slicker look than Cello. I don’t know

that it was any better than Cello, it just

looked sharper. It was free. The authors gave

it away. I guess they wanted to be nice.

Nobody sues people who want to be nice. I

don’t think the authors of the Cello program

tried to coerce the DOJ into suing the authors

of the Winweb program. I guess that is

because the authors of the Winweb program

were not billionaires. If they had been

billionaires you would have called them evil

and said lets sue their sorry crass butts. I’m

glad that didn’t happen because change is

good, especially so when a new program is

a vast improvement over an earlier program.

I switched to Winweb the instant I saw it.

24684 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

By late 1992 or early 1993 another browser

for Windows became available. It too had a

graphical user interface (GUI) and it was

better than Winweb. This program was called

Mosaic. It had a cooler slicker look than

Winweb. I don’t know that it was any better

than Winweb, it just looked sharper; I think

it could handle a wider variety of HTML tags

than any web browser before it. That made

better looking web pages possible, pages you

could surf faster too. It was free. The authors

gave it away. I guess they wanted to be nice.

Nobody sues people who want to be nice. I

don’t think the authors of the Winweb

program tried to coerce the DOJ into suing

the authors of the Mosaic program. I guess

that is because the authors of the Mosaic

program were not billionaires. If they had

been billionaires you would have called them

evil and said lets sue their sorry crass butts.

I’m glad that didn’t happen because change

is good, especially so when a new program

is a vast improvement over an earlier

program. I switched to Mosaic the instant I

saw it. By mid 1993 or late 1993 another

browser for Windows became available. It too

had a graphical user interface (GUI) and it

was better than Mosaic. This program was

called Netscape. It had a cooler slicker look

than Mosaic. I don’t know that it was any

better than Mosaic, it just looked sharper; I

think it could also handle a wider variety of

HTML tags than any web browser before it.

That made better looking web pages possible,

pages you could surf faster too. It was free

(at least initially, probably right up til

Netscape’s IPO it was free). The authors gave

it away. I guess they wanted to be nice.

Nobody sues people who want to be nice.

I don’t think the authors of the Mosaic

program tried to coerce the DOJ into suing

the authors of the Netscape program. I guess

that is because the authors of the Netscape

program were not billionaires, at least not

initially. If they had been billionaires you

would have called them evil and said lets sue

their sorry crass butts. I’m glad that didn’t

happen because change is good, especially so

when a new program is a vast improvement

over an earlier program. I switched to

Netscape the instant I saw it.

By mid 1994 or late 1994 another browser

for Windows became available. It too had a

graphical user interface (GUI) and it was not

better than Netscape. This program was

called Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. It did

not have a cooler slicker look than Netscape.

I didn’t like it at all and did not switch. I

continued to use Netscape. As I hope to make

clear I do not switch web browsers the

instant a new one becomes available, I only

switch when a better one becomes available.

In 1994 Netscape had the best web browser

available, bar none. They program was so

awful they couldn’t give it away, at least not

to a seasoned web surfer like myself. They

couldn’t have paid me to use it. Well,

perhaps if we were talking billions, okay

millions, well I guess for just a hundred or

so I would have given it a try.

By 1967 a new improved browser for

Windows became available. It too had a

graphical user interface (GUI) and it was

better than Netscape. This program was

called Microsoft’s Internet Explorer IV. It had

a much slicker look than Netscape and it

improved the functionality of Windows as

well. It was definitely better than Netscape.

It didn’t just look sharper, it was more

functional because it worked better in

Windows. Maybe it could also handle a

wider variety of HTML tags. This time the

authors of the previous best browser which

was Netscape did try to coerce the DOJ into

suing the authors of the Internet Explorer IV

program. I guess that is because the authors

of the Microsoft program were billionaires

and they now had a great product. Netscape

didn’t care to sue when Microsoft had an

inferior web browser which they had with

Internet Explorer I, II, and III, but as soon as

they had improved their product to a point

where they were now better than Netscape

Holy Hevell broke out. They called Microsoft

evil and they whined to their Uncle Sam and

said lets sue their sorry crass butts, I’m sorry

that happened because change is good,

especially so when a new program is a vast

improvement over an earlier program. I

switched to Microsoft Internet Explorer IV

the instant I saw it. I switched just as I had

always switched when a better web browser

became available. It’s being a Microsoft

product meant nothing to me. What mattered

was it was a better browser and I always

switch when a better browser becomes

available.

In Microsoft’s case it was a big deal that

it was free. The authors gave it away. I guess

they wanted to be nice. Nobody sues people

who want to be nice unless it’s Microsoft that

is being nice. Then suddenly it is no longer

a question of nice. Now they call it criminal

if your only fault is having a few billion

dollars more than the next guy (or gal). This

is why I decided to submit my comments

today. Microsoft has done nothing but excel

at what they do best, making and marketing

good software products. So what if they want

to give it away for free. Being a 1980’s

software junkie I have never paid for a web

browser to this very day. I used Netscape for

four years and never paid a penny for it. If

you run beta versions and use ftp to

download them you can use Netscape for

four years and never spend a penny. Same for

the Microsoft browser. I fail to see what the

big deal is all about.

I think you should tell Netscape to go

scratch and then drop the case against

Microsoft. It should not be a punishable

offense to excel at your job and that is the

only thing Microsoft has done wrong. They

are guilty of being too good, and that in my

opinion is not a punishable offense.

Sincerely,

Anthony X. Safina, Jr.

425 S Hubbards Ln, Apt 431

Louisville, KY 40207–4097

502–899–3723

tony@iglou.com

MTC–00005158

From: GRIZ1000@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

If Microsoft broke the law punish them but

don’t reorganize them or tell them how to

design their products. Ernest Ruterman,

GRIZ1000@aol.com

MTC–00005159

From: Doyle E. Whitten

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:08pm

Subject: Comment

I just want to say that Microsoft sometimes

drives me crazy with the way they do things

but they do not deserve what the previous

justice department did to them. It is

important that the market place be the place

where the decisions are made. There are

advantages to having one company for many

different software programs. Let’s get off their

back and let the customers decide which

company to support.

MTC–00005160

From: dhamm1@airmail.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Sirs,

I have believed in Microsoft all along. I still

believe they are innocent of any charges.

However the fact that a settlement has been

reached is wonderful it is about time. Lets do

it drop it and move on. The economy is weak

enough without penalizing one of the major

contributors to this economy. It is a crime for

this to proceed any further and will serve no

justice.

Thanks for the opportunity to express my

opinion thank God we live in the United

States and thank God for innovation keep on

keeping on Microsoft I am behind you 100%.

David Hamm

MCSE, MCDBA, MCP and A+

dhamm1@airmail.net

Microsoft XP rules

MTC–00005161

From: NIMRIHLDGS@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir:

I would like to urge the decision makers to

settle the Microsoft issue in a quick manner

to remove any cloud hanging over that

company and their employees, who after all

are consumers in this country, and consumer

is the backbone of the economy.

Andy Nimri

MTC–00005162

From: Lexx

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:10pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I have been advised that 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, I am aware that 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 our

American economy needs is more litigation

that benefits only a few wealthy competitors

and stifles innovation. I, for one, a Microsoft

stockholder and a committed user of its

products, wish that this would all be over

and let’s get things back to normal because

to settle these matters is in the public

interest, in my humble opinion. If you build

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24685

a better mousetrap, everyone else will copy

it very quickly and if the competitors of

Microsoft cannot compete fairly, why should

the Government help them with special

legislation and by burying Microsoft with

lawsuits. ENOUGH IS

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please settle the

cases as soon as possible.

Virginia M. Norris

10712 Highland Park Court

Las Vegas, NV 89144–4119

MTC–00005163

From: Gil Milbauer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to comment in support of the

REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

settlement agreement among Microsoft Corp.,

the Department of Justice, and the various

states who have agreed to it.

It seems to me to be more than adequate

penalty Microsoft’s activities. Drawing this

out further would not be in the interests of

justice, the economy, or consumers. I think

it would be a mistake to allow the

Department of Justice to become a weapon

that competitors can use against successful

companies.

Thank You,

Gil Milbauer

6308 154th ST SE

Snohomish, WA 98296

gilmilbauer@myrealbox.com

MTC–00005164

From: SALLYA28@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:14pm

Subject: Comment regarding Microsoft

settlement

I support the current settlement with

Microsoft by the Department of Justice and

half of the states involved in this lawsuit. I

do not think any more severe penalties are

warranted. Microsoft probably deserved a

little hand slapping because of the way they

dealt with the computer manufacturers. But

the issue surrounding the operating system

improvements and add on???s is frivolous.

The Internet Explorer was a needed part of

the operating system and add on???s such as

these should be allowed. It was also very

easy for others to use Netscape if they wanted

to. Bottom line is that Internet Explorer

wound up being the best browser. I believe

that a large part of the fuss on this issue is

being made by Microsoft???s competitors

who have wound up second and third best

and have tried to compensate for their under

performance by supporting the antitrust law

suit against Microsoft. I believe that a major

motivating force for the hold out states is

purely political as it relates to companies in

their area and political contributions.

As a consumer, I believe that Microsoft has

been good to us. They have provided

outstanding products at reasonable and

decreasing prices. Some states would prefer

that consumers buy all of the add on???s and

that could be big down the road. Where

Microsoft has been dominate in a particular

software application, prices have fallen. I

also believe that Microsoft has contributed

mightily to the US economy. They have

probably been the biggest contributor in the

last 10 years. They should not be punished

for being good to consumers and the

economy. I might also add that Microsoft is

a good corporate citizen.

It is time to settle this suit as the

Department of Justice and Microsoft have

proposed. The more harsh remedies that are

being proposed by the non agreeing states

should be rejected.

Sarah W. Andrews

1864 Castle Oaks Court

Walnut Creek, CA 94595

MTC–00005165

From: Ed Sackley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement—Public

Comments

Dear Federal Official:

My first experience with a computer was

as a high school student in 1969 . . . working

at a hospital that used punch cards as input

to a primitive ‘‘computerized’’ accounting

system. In the years that followed, I was

always around computers . . . even serving

as an operator for a University of Illinois

mainframe operated in support of

Department of Defense research in the early

to mid-70s. I’ve had a PC on my desk since

1982.

Why the history? It wasn’t until Microsoft

INSPIRED and ENABLED the necessary

economy of scale in the personal computer

business that computer applications and

hardware became possible for every

American. In the 80s, we all struggled with

applications that didn’t work together and

companies that were unwilling or unable to

stand behind their products. Our nation, our

economy and all of our citizens have

benefited from Microsoft’s innovation and

leadership. By most accounts, the company

did abuse some of its power and market

position and for that they have paid a price.

It is now time to close this chapter and move

ahead.

I urge you to support the Tunney Act and

turn aside those remaining special interest

groups who would have you derail the

settlement. Microsoft will be under more

scrutiny in the future than they have ever

experienced in the past. They are a fine

company that has played a significant role in

America’s technological dominance for over

20 years. Please allow them to devote all of

their resources to improving our lives and

our world.

Thank you for your consideration and

understanding.

Ed Sackley

10314 Archwood Drive

Portage, MI 49002–7101 USA

Voice: 616.323.8119 Fax: 616.323.0470

MTC–00005166

From: JOSEPH

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:26pm

Subject: Microsoft sentiment.

Hi,

I would like to let you know my thoughts

on the microsoft question. I do not agree with

the settlement. However, if it is the only way

to get this behind microsoft. It has always

struck me as odd the way the government

tries to help the consumer. In this case, it

would seem it seeks to help us by making us

purchase what we clearly don’t want. We

know of the other browsers. We know of the

other operating systems. We like Windows.

You treat Microsoft as if making a good

product that people want is evil.

You definately, seem to believe that it is

somehow illegal. As if it is Microsoft’s job to

make us like their competitors? Are you

kidding? Tell them that if we wanted a Yugo

we would give them a call ( the competitors).

We want the Rolls Royce (Microsoft). You

can’t make us drive the Yugo. It’s not what

we want. We will buy Windows. We will use

as many or as few browsers as we want. If

they can’t compete maybe they should try a

different line of work. Stop punishing

success. Unless of course, failure is what

you’re after.

Joseph morris

MTC–00005167

From: scn@san.rr.com

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 12/31/01 8:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The DoJ settlement with Microsoft is fair.

Don’t let the renegade states that are

representing competitors interest drag this

case on. This negativity is detrimental to

economic recovery and productivity

improvements. Close this case now by

accepting Microsoft’s fair settlement offer.

Thank you for hearing our opinion.

William and Stephanie Necoechea

6509 Caminito Catalan

La Jolla, CA 92037

MTC–00005168

From: B. Mitchell Loebel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:27pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Hello:

Please pass my comments to the DOJ.

I believe that the so called anti-trust suit

which was levied against Microsoft was a

travesty of justice! It’s promoters were

disgruntled Microsoft competitors, i.e. Sun

Microsystems, Apple Computer, Oracle,

Netscape, Novell, and perhaps a few others.

It’s no coincidence that members of the hate

Microsoft crowd are often affiliated with the

hate America crowd ... in both cases, theirs

is a hate of our Capitalist system. They are

the ones to be stopped ... now! I don’t always

agree with Microsoft’s strategies and tactics,

e.g. I’m not happy about the highly restrictive

licensing rules that the company is applying

to WinXP. However, and this is important ...

we consumers and stockholders (I am both)

can care for ourselves through the free

market! We don’t need and don’t want

(usually incompetent) government intrusion.

B. Mitchell Loebel

Executive Director

The Tech Startup Connection 408 264–

2068

(formerly The PARALLEL Processing

Connection)

CEO and Chief Technical Officer

Multinode Microsystems Corporation 408

264–2068

CEO and Chief Technical Officer

24686 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Minute-Tape International Corporation 408

264–2068

MTC–00005169

From: Anarg Frangos

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

Please settle the Microsoft case without

further litigation in the best interests of our

country.

Anarg Z. Frangos

MTC–00005170

From: Evan Heckel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

As provided for under the Tunney Act, I

would like to express my strong support for

the current terms and conditions of the

proposed settlement between the Department

of Justice, the various States, and the

Microsoft Corporation. I believe the terms of

this proposed settlement, as well as other

aspects of this litigation, strike a proper

balance between enforcing the Law and

maintaining the viability of the United States

interest’s in a strong technology sector.

I realize that there are those who would

prefer stronger punishments, but I think such

expansion is primarily at the behest of the

competitors of Microsoft and simply is not

appropriate or in the best interests of this

process.

I think the proposed settlement sends the

right messages about abuse of marketing

position, while at the same time recognizing

that dealing with evolving technology is

different than dealing with simple market

dominance. I think you have struck the right

balance in this case and that further

constraints and/or penalties are not

appropriate.

Thank you for considering my thoughts on

this very important matter.

Evan Heckel

1619 Corral Drive

Houston, TX 77090

MTC–00005171

From: Connie87@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to ask you to put a postive end

to this horrible persecution that has been

going on over the last few years of Microsoft

and Bill Gates. I’m sure you do not consider

it to be persecution, yet I’m sure that many

man-hours of productive time and many

thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars have

been spent during this procedure which has

seemed, too much of the time, like a witch

hunt. Microsoft is competitive...otherwise

they would not have survived this long.

Microsoft is innovative and creative in their

improvement of technology, and this has

made them the giant that they are today.

They are open to new ideas, to creativeness

from their employees, to listening to the

needs of consumers. These qualities have

allowed them to thrive. They have singlehandedly done more for today’s computer

users than any other company, bar none.

Other companies are jealous of their

achievements and because they are jealous,

they seek to force Microsoft to stop being so

successful in hopes that they may be able to

gain more customers. This is what has caused

all this problem with the law-suits. A

company can not give away their ideas, can

not give away their technology and expect to

survive. To expect Microsoft, or any other

company to do that, is to ask them to commit

suicide and is unreasonable.

We’ve heard a lot about America recently,

because of the horrible tragedy in NYC in

September. We’re all proud to be Americans,

and to have the freedoms that we do. On the

other hand, one of the freedoms that we

cherish here is the freedom to be what we

can be, to develop our potential, to become

successful without unreasonable restrictions

holding us back. Why is it then, that

Microsoft which is obviously very talented

and very good at what they do, should be so

threatened, so persecuted and so prevented

from being a success? We have an open

market. We have the freedom to buy

Microsoft, Netscape, Symantecs, McAfee, or

any other type of software that we feel will

enable us to use our computers in the way

we need to work. No one is forced to buy

Microsoft products. I buy them because they

are easy to use, and because they are

compatible with other software and

hardware. I want them to CONTINUE to be

easy to use, and to be compatible with my

software and hardware. I do not want the

company split up, the software disassembled, or to have to go through a bunch

of hoops to get it to work just because

another company is jealous. Please...Please,

allow Microsoft to get back to work without

worrying about all this lawsuit stuff. America

needs them, we have important work to do!

Thank you,

Connie Williams

(teacher)

P.O. Box 4515

Davis, Ca 95617

connie87@aol.com

MTC–00005172

From: JeremyC

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a member of the public I am obliged to

voice my opinion re: the above mentioned

settlement.

For many years I did not respect Microsoft

and their software. Things have changed a

great deal in the eleven years I have used a

PC for my work, I do now think that the

company produce a good product, (so do

most consumers judging by the number of

copies of Microsoft software legitimately

used daily.)

The bitter competitors of Microsoft are still

willing to try and block any settlement. But

if their products are so much better and their

business practices are In the interest of the

majority of people, why are their sales so

poor in comparison with Microsoft? Why do

they not unveil a superior product for the

benefit of all?

I am fed up with the wasting of time and

the potential damage to the international

progress in the world of IT.

Please approve this settlement and make it

clear to Microsofts ‘competition’ that to

compete, they need to put their resources

into innovation and skill instead of negative

destruction.

May I wish all of you in the US a good

2002, you all deserve to have one, God bless.

Sincerely

Jeremy Carr

MTC–00005173

From: Mary Euyang Shen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please do settle and help the economy

trend upwards.

Mary Shen

MTC–00005174

From: jeff—rouse@msn.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

In the strongest words possible, I write in

support of Microsoft. Though I could go on

in support of Microsoft for quite some length,

I will keep my comments relatively brief.

Microsoft is the standard, the underpinning

of our economy. To attack it or break it up

would be like attacking the Interstate

Highway system (cars and trucks need the

same highways in New Hampshire, Indiana,

or Wyoming), the Air Traffic Control System

(airplanes landing in Chicago, New York, or

Atlanta need the same kind of controls), or

money (our European friends will soon learn

the benefits of one currency).

If the Department of Justice wants to help

users like me, they should join with

Microsoft to educate the Microsoft-hating

press and the Microsoft hating public to stop

attacking Microsoft. My relatively new and

wonderful broadband Internet connection is

in a shambles because of the nearly constant

attacks I have suffered. The recent Windows

security problem that was in the news counts

me as one of its victims. On my other

computer, I cannot connect to the Internet

now. I compose this e-mail on another

computer using a 56k dial up connection,

cowering behind a software firewall, hoping

not to be attacked Microsoft has caused no

victims. Microsoft-haters have.....me.

Warmest regards,

Jeff Rouse

MTC–00005175

From: Carl Forester

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 9:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am 100 percent in favor of the settlement

unless the government decides to withdraw

completely and admit its part in terrorism

against an American company.

Carl Forester—

Advisory IT Specialist—

IBM Global Services—

carlforester@us.ibm.com—

Office/Fax (904) 928–4595—

MTC–00005176

From: P. Johnston

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 9:09pm

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24687

Subject: Settlement

This ‘‘settlement’’ is unfair and premature.

MSFT is guilty as sin and trying to

monopolize the Internet by putting other

companies out of business. That is

unAmerican. How can the DOJ let this go on?

MTC–00005177

From: Bill Lemon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 9:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think you shoul leave the settlement as

is so we can all get on to more important

matters.

Bill Lemon

Woodridge, Il.

MTC–00005178

From: Mark Grossman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 9:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have worked in the software industry for

over 20 years and have been a Microsoft

employee for a little over seven years. My

personal experiences at Microsoft have led

me to believe that this company has provided

consumers with reasonable quality products

at relatively low prices. It is mainly for this

reason that Microsoft has succeeded and

grown, consumers have had many choices

and they chose Microsoft. I believe that the

current settlement terms are appropriate to

remedy the problems found by the courts

with Microsoft’s behavior in the past and I

believe that the leadership of Microsoft has

the integrity and has made the commitment

to follow the letter and spirit of the

agreement, an agreement under which

consumers will continue to benefit from

Microsoft’s development of new software and

other technologies. While many of

Microsoft’s competitors and politicians

would like to handicap the company with

additional constraints for their own

economic and political benefits, the average

citizen will most benefit from the fair open

competition that the current settlement

provides for.

Mark Grossman

6435 132nd Avenue NE #201

Kirkland, WA 98033

MTC–00005179

From: Betty Trembley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 9:22pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The Microsoft case has dragged on entirely

too long. In this period of major lay offs and

many people becoming termed the ‘‘poor’’’

please see to it that the lawyers get no more

and that money spent on this litigation will

be freed up to be in circulation and to help

those who need it. I think Microsoft has done

a superior job to bring the computer into

almost every home and has made it ffordable.

Why should they be penalized for doing

eactly what we have encouraged people to

do. ‘‘Build a better mousetrap, Etc.’’

Betty Trembley

1314 23rd Avenue

Longview, WA. 98632

MTC–00005180

From: Richard Postrozny

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 9:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Whom It May Concern .....

Let’s put this case to rest once and for all.

America is supposed to be the land of

opportunity ... and that includes the freedom

to innovate. I’m an engineer and my main

responsibility is to come up with new

product and process ideas at the lowest costs

that will benefit both the producer and the

consumer. I’m not only speaking for myself,

but for other technical people as well. How

can we be creative if we fear that the fruits

of our labor will result in lawsuits on top of

lawsuits ... ad infinitum???!!! It’s the freedom

to create and invent that made our country

what it is. PLEASE don’t destroy that

freedom, especially now in these difficult

economic times.

Sincerely,

Richard Postrozny

21 N. Quincy St.

Hinsdale, IL 60521

MTC–00005181

From: BOBA28@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 9:30pm

Subject: Independent Institute in Oakland

Attached is a piece that I recently received

from the Independent Institute in Oakland.

They make some good points that you should

consider in your settlement with Microsoft.

Attachment: STATES’ PERSECUTION OF

MICROSOFT: Throwing Bad Money after

Good Because government bureaucrats don’t

bear the costs of their actions directly,

governments are especially bad at not

knowing when to stop throwing bad money

after good. The Microsoft antitrust case

clearly illustrates this truism of government

pathology. Although the U.S. Court of

Appeals discarded the guts of the

government’s antitrust suit against Microsoft

last June, nine states — led by California and

New York—have chosen to keep fighting

Microsoft. And although the federal antitrust

trial uncovered no proof that consumer

welfare was harmed by Microsoft’s fiercely

competitive behavior, the nine states

perpetuate the pretense that they are

pursuing Microsoft for the sake of consumers

rather than Microsoft’s rivals.

As Dominick Armentano put it in a recent

op-ed: ‘‘The first trial produced not one shred

of evidence Microsoft’s software licensing or

browser integration resulted in any consumer

injury; the new trial will be similarly cursed.

Instead, the testimony will confirm Microsoft

plays competitive hardball (who doesn’t?)

and intends to take market share from

competitors with new innovation, savvy

marketing and low prices.’’ ‘‘But that kind of

behavior (engaged in by all free market firms)

is the very nature of the competitive process

and should be applauded, not condemned.

Yet the holdout states and their politically

ambitious attorneys general falsely believe

antitrust laws exist to preserve specific

competitors or specific products and that

government must constantly level the playing

field or micro-manage inter-firm business

dealings with antitrust litigation. So the

states will put the competitors on the stand

and let them whine.

‘‘Consumers (and businesses) in all states

require government protection from force and

fraud but they don’t require decade-long

antitrust assaults on firms that innovate and

lower prices to consumers. Such assaults are

economically inefficient, create incentives for

additional litigation, perpetuate business

uncertainty and harm society’s long-term

welfare. Enough already.’’ The British legal

system requires that the loser pay all court

costs; this helps discourage frivolous

lawsuits. If American antitrust law imposed

a similar penalty, perhaps business rivals

would spend more time competing and less

time in antitrust litigation. And perhaps

government antitrust bureaucrats would also

curb their costly excesses.

See ‘‘It’s Time to Quit,’’ by Dominick

Armentano (NATIONAL POST, 12/21/01), at

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/

011221Armentano.html By the way, I think

the right long term job for Attorney General

Lockyer of California is City Attorney of

Berkeley. He would be great for that City.

Bob Andrews

1864 Castle Oaks Court

Walnut Creek, CA 94595–2358

925–933–6569

925–933–8991 (Fax)

MTC–00005182

From: Dragster

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 9:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir, Please dont stop short of breaking

up the Microsoft monoply. Windows is the

most troublesome backward system there is.

Why the world should have to bow to this

giant is beyond me. I run windows xp

because my new computer came with it and

Ive had to bing the thing back to the shop 3

times in 30 days! It wont work with all my

OLD software. Im going to run Linux from

now on as I cant afford to keep fixing this

‘‘more stable system’’ !!! Thank you and I

pray you wont bow to the giant just to end

this. Sincerely, Phil Winter pob 104 Dewitt,

Ia. 52742

MTC–00005183

From: Bruce G Murray

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 9:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Our family would like to see the Microsoft

Settlement move ahead, beyond the 9 States

who have already agreed. We are long-term

residents of California and believe that

California should agree to this same

settlement so that Microsoft can focus on

innovation and job creation, as opposed to

the litigation of the past several years that

primarily benefits attorneys.

Sincerely,

Bruce Murray

MTC–00005184

From: cvinson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 8:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a user of Microsoft Win ’95 and Win

’98 SE software on my personal home

computer, having purchased these items from

Gateway and the local Comp USA stores. I

24688 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

have used Microsoft software for the past 7

years as a professional engineer in the

employ of Rockwell International. This

software has made my job much easier, work

output greater and significantly increased my

ability to generate professional thesis,

proposals and written communications.

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. In my opinion, this

settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair

to all parties involved. I further think the

settlement is good for the consumer, the

software industry and Windows XP may

boost the American economy as it recovers

from recession.

The last thing the American economy

needs is more litigation that benefits only a

few of Micrsosfts wealthy competitors, stifles

innovation and lines the pockets of the legal

profession.

The federal government has spent far too

much money in pursuing this case already.

Clay Vinson

P.E. Retired

MTC–00005185

From: James Meehan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 9:49pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Please, you people who haven’t the brains

to compete, get off Microsoft’s back. James

Meehan

MTC–00005186

From: Roy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 9:57pm

Subject: Monopoly Suit

My opinion of this suit all along has been

that Microsoft produces the best operating

system in the world for home PC’s. To break

it up would be just like the phone service.

You go from the best, most reliable in the

world to the piecemeal crap we have now.

MTC–00005187

From: Timothy Bell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 10:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a computer professional and as a

computer hobbyist I believe the settlement is

a fair and reasonable agreement. This

settlement will allow the end user more

options to customize their system and will

encourage competing products that will

benefit the computer using public.

Timothy A. Bell

Ypsilanti, MI

MTC–00005188

From: Jeff (038) Gerrit Huston

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 10:11pm

Subject: Microsoft case

To Whom It May Concern,

Now is the time to think about the larger

impact that Microsoft has on not just the

technical sector of the computer world, but

also the large impact this great company has

on the economy. We have seen the burden

this continual trail has on the country. It is

time to put it to rest and to move on to much

more important issues.

It is doing very little to continue to pursuit

issues that have already fallen to the past.

Technology has and will continue to change.

We need to allow companies to meet the

wants of the people. What we want now is

to settle and to move on. Let the government

stay out of the fundamental freedom of

capitalism.

Thank you for your time,

Gerrit Christine Huston

MTC–00005189

From: Bobby Cammer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 10:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a very small user of Microsoft

products. Being retired I only use the

Microsoft products for personal work.

Problems I see with Microsoft having

complete control over the world’s and my

operating system.

1. I cannot sell their product (Windows 95

or Windows 98)to someone else without

including at least one part of hardware. This

is just intimidation by Microsoft. What if

Ford motors restricted the sale of a part from

their vehicles without sending the motor?

2. My operating system Windows 98 is

loaded with Microsoft stuff that I either have

to accept or find out how to delete or over

ride it. Tell Microsoft to keep their extras and

sell the on the open competitive market. If I

want their stuff I’ll buy it.

3. There is no competition in the operating

systems market that an old amateur like me

can buy or even compare costs. With this

monopoly Microsoft can and does sell the

product at an inflated price. They will only

sell at their controlled market price. You

can’t go to a discount store and buy the

product at a volume price.

4. Windows 98 frequently goes belly up

and stops in mid function. There is no

customer complaint department that really

listens. They state that they have most of the

problems taken care of. Where I come from

that’s called horse dung.

5. When I was working in the

manufacturing sector if you had a product

that garnered at least 80 percent of the market

you had to routinely justify the selling price.

How in heavens name can Microsoft justify

the current cost of Windows 98?

6. If you buy one of the popular PC’s it will

come with the Windows operating system

bundled on a single CD with the other

software. If you dump, trash or upgrade

(build your own)your PC you cannot take the

software to the new PC. It’s like Microsoft put

a soul in the machine and only Microsoft,

decay or God can remove it. The CD now is

only usable as a Frisbee! Who do you think

forces the PC builder to bundle their stuff?

7. Try selling your old copy of Windows

95 on eBay. Now that you have one of the

later versions you no longer need it.

Microsoft controls the sale by eBay and their

sellers. You can’t sell it without complying

with Microsoft’s rules. Microsoft has a large

paid legal staff to monitor and protect against

violations of their monopolistic rules.

I hope my name is kept in confidence. I

don’t need either the FBI or Microsoft legal

eagles checking me.

Regards

MTC–00005190

From: Joe Swafford

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 10:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To all concerned:

Microsoft is a great and innovative

company which has contributed immensely

to the American economy. They are a symbol

of the American dream. They have fore-sight,

ingenuity, and determination. They innovate

to make the best possible software solutions

which have made our lives easier, simpler,

and more enjoyable. They are aggressive and

pervasive. I admire this company; a company

which is truly an American business icon. I

cannot say enough good things about

Microsoft because they have truly helped

shape the future of our country and the

future of our planet.

That being said, I must admit that I do not

agree with some of the business practices in

which Microsoft has chosen to pursue. I

would never want Microsoft to stop

innovating or developing top-notch products.

I would never want them to cease as the

business entity they are today. But I cannot,

with a clear conscience, admit that they have

participated in practices which have not

stifled competition. I am just an average

consumer. I could say nothing and be

perfectly happy with using my Microsoft

products and nothing else. However, I think

our country is the greatest country on this

planet for a reason. I believe that reason is

opportunity; the opportunity of success

without unfair interference.

I feel there has been a major swing in

respect to the legal aspect of this antitrust

case. It seems the tone of this case has

changed. It seems the seriousness of this case

has changed. It seems the outcome of this

case has changed. It seems the judicial

process has changed. In effect, it seems the

whole development of this case has been

tainted due to a change in political power or

a change in the agenda of the government

because of the current economic

environment.

It disturbs me to think that our judicial

process is influenced to such an extreme by

the other powers of our government. Whether

it is from the legislative or executive branch;

this doesn’t matter. What matters to me is

that the principles of our founding fathers are

preserved and that we always do the ‘‘right

thing’’.

Again, I think Microsoft is one of the most

extraordinary companies in history.

Microsoft is a company which will be in

textbooks and will remain a strong

contributor to our economy regardless of this

legal matter. I still cannot understand how a

court can overlook the code mixing of

Internet Explorer and the Windows operating

system. This is an obvious example of

‘‘bundling’’ which is never mentioned in the

final judgment of the antitrust case.

As a native born American consumer who

appreciates Microsoft and its software, I am

not disappointed in Microsoft. I am

disappointed in our judicial process for

allowing the letter of the law to be

misconstrued and distorted in order to serve

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24689

the interests of the lobbyers, the politicians,

the big money making machines, and the

special interest groups. I think in the end, the

consumer has lost and this is very sad.

Because, when it comes right down to it, the

individual consumer is the one who makes

our economy work.

Thanks for your time,

A Microsoft fan who disagrees with a few

things

MTC–00005191

From: Lorimar712@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 10:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ:

As a concerned Citizen I urge you to ensure

that the proposed settlement between the

DOJ and Microsoft does not get derailed by

wealthy competitors or special interest

groups. The American economy NEEDS this

settlement.

Thank you, Mark G, Costa, San Diego CA

MTC–00005192

From: CHPETERSON@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 10:55pm

Subject: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST CASE

GENTLEMEN:

I REMAIN AMAZED AT THE TIME AND

RESOURCES MY GOVERNMENTS (BOTH

NATIONAL AND STATE) CONTINUE TO

WASTE PM THIS CASE. MICROSOFT HAS

DONE MORE THAN MOST COMPANIES IN

AMERICA TO INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY,

CREATE WEALTH AND GENERALLY

IMPROVE AMERICA’S QUALITY OF LIFE.

THIS CASE SEEMS TO BE DRIVEN BY

SEVERAL LARGE COMPETITORS

MOTIVATED BY THEIR OWN GREED AND

JEALOUSY, BY GREEDY STATE

GOVERNMENTS LOOKING FOR ANOTHER

DEEP POCKET (LIKE THEY FOUND IN BIG

TOBACCO) AND BY THE PREVIOUSLY

DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOMINATED

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST SEEKING A

SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS TO ATTACK.

IT IS TIME TO CALL IT A DAY AND LET

MICROSOFT AND ITS COMPETITORS GET

BACK TO COMPETING.

CHARLES H. PETERSON

3724 N. HULLEN STREET

METAIRIE, LOUISIANA 70002

CHPETERSON@AOL.COM

MTC–00005193

From: David Oakes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 11:08pm

Subject: Microsoft law suite

Dear Government and States,

Please leave Microsoft alone. They have

done nothing but create jobs for Americans

and help lead the USA in the technology

world. They also have helped make the

computer more user friendly throughout the

world. The politics of these lawsuits stinks.

David Oakes

daisyo@home.com

MTC–00005194

From: CKlein545@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 11:13pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I urge you to quickly approve the Microsoft

settlement. We do not need further litigation

of this matter. As a consumer, I have not been

harmed by Microsoft’s actions. Computing

costs—hardware and software—are extremely

low. I appreciate the standards that Microsoft

has set.

Sincerely,

Carla Klein

Sunnyvale, CA

cjklein2@msn.com

MTC–00005195

From: basil johnson jr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 11:14pm

Subject: Microsoft ; us government

Microsoft’s team, keep up the good work!

Lazy assholes ( US government) and other

companies that are too lazy or to damn

stupid to be integrative! MSN tries to keep up

support and free up dates for their products

but interference has damn near stopped

MSN. Assholes heed to get off their lazy ass

and build their own products! I spent 30

years of my life outside rain, sleet, snow, heat

for 12 hours a day to as many as 57 hours

straight building and repairing railroad

tracks. My choruses . $1.00 a day for meals

and lease money an hour than a Food Lion

bag boy would make! This was because of the

US governments lick common sense. Which

they still have a lack of! We would go as long

as 8 years with out a contract be cause

congress would average wages using all

railroad workers together. Upper officials

$5,000,000 to over $36,000,000 a year to our

$18,000 per year. The railroad like the US

government , may be corrupted , but not

stupid. So their cut the real work force 80%!

Damn R.R. workers per employ makes a hell

of a lot of money! Same shit the governments

are trying to do to MSN ! You have the

money and power ‘‘ FIGHT’’ for all of our

rights !

bcjr1@msn.com

MTC–00005196

From: Richard Tackett

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 11:21pm

Subject: to the DOJ...were I stand with

microsoft

This case is nothing but a bunch of

crybabies that don’t like Microsoft success. I

support Microsoft in this fight.

Rich Tackett

19811 Portal Plaza

Cupertino, Calif. 95014

408 253–7810

MTC–00005197

From: sheris Swain

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 11:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would really like to see this case settled

once and for all. I am not only a stockholder

of Microsoft, but I have 2 relatives that work

for Microsoft (one retired, one currently

employed) I lived in Bellevue just across the

road from Microsoft for over 10 years. I enjoy

all of their products and I commend them for

originally having a concept when on no else

did and capitalizing on it. I believe Bill Gates

dream of everyone having a computer and I

don’t think it is Microsoft’s intent is to be

dominate, just to be a pioneer and keep

forging new paths that others dare not

attempt, but want to reap the benefits.

I think it is time to settle in the favor of

Microsoft. It would do other companies a lot

of good to look at Microsoft, their culture,

their healthplans the employee moral etc.

They not only make great products but they

are progressive in their employee relations.

MTC–00005198

From: Mike McAtee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 11:34pm

Subject: Please drop charges against msft,

time to move on.

Please drop charges against msft, time to

move on.

MTC–00005199

From: Ron Nath

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/31/01 11:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I have reviewed to proposed settlement

and would like to submit additional, revised

comments from my previous ones. Overall, I

believe the requirements are inconsequential

and ineffective in stopping this convicted

monopolist. The best course of action would

have been to break-up the company as

originally suggested by Judge Thomas

Penfield Jackson (or even more so). However,

as that is almost certainly not going to

happen, alternatives need to be found.

The current list of remedies (besides being

ineffective) requires oversight and will

undoubtedly allow Microsoft to find

loopholes. Moreover, the duration of the

requirements are only in effect for five years.

I would suggest a much simpler, but more

stringent set of remedies that would require

no oversight. In addition, they would be in

effect as long as Microsoft maintains a

dominance (largest share) or monopoly

(>50%) in ANY market- operating systems,

office applications, internet browsers, etc.

These would include:

1. Microsoft must license its operating

system to hardware vendors who can

customize it any way they choose. In

addition, the operating system cost must be

separated out from the hardware cost so that

consumers will have the option to install a

free operating system.

2. Microsoft or the hardware vendors who

licensed and installed the operating system

must provide a 90-day money back guarantee

should a consumer wish to return the

operating system (after having it deinstalled

on their machine by the original seller of the

system).

3. Microsoft must provide source code (for

an additional but reasonable fee) upon

request to those who purchase a copy of any

of their software (though it will remain

copyrighted and can not be duplicated, etc.)

4. Older, unsupported versions of their

software (e.g. windows 95, office 95, etc.)

will enter the public domain and be

completely open source and free for any use.

5. ‘‘Core’’ applications (Office, internet

explorer, SQL server, etc.) must be made

available for all major operating systems

(Linux, FreeBSD, AIX, Solaris, etc.) while all

24690 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

their other applications should be eventually

ported to these other OS’s.

6. Their client and server operating

systems must interface equally well with

alternative platforms (ie, win9x or win2k

clients will provide native support to connect

a unix server via an X-server GUI or a win2k

server will allow unix clients to connect via

a provided terminal server client) Though

these requirements are not as drastic as the

original break-up, it goes much further than

the current, almost worthless stipulations.

S. Nath

Wolcott, CT.

MTC–00005200

From: Tdpage@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:13am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This suit was ill advised from the start.

Settle NOW!

Don Page

Dragoon, AZ

MTC–00005201

From: Don Stults

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:49am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my opinion, the litigation against

Microsoft should cease. I have a difficult time

understanding why the case was litigated.

There seems to be a ‘‘punish the proficient’’

attitude in this case. Microsoft has invested

a lot of money to develop products

CONSUMERS WANT and they have accepted

ALL the market risks (sales, worldwide

copyright infringement, and yes,

competition).

Let Microsoft get on with their business

(which they do well). . .the continuing

litigation expenses will NOT be paid by

Microsoft, it will be paid by consumers of

their products.

Don Stults

donstults@hotmail.com

MTC–00005202

From: Bob Levittan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:58am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle it NOW!!!!! Don’t let this travesty

continue. From the very beginning, this

whole thing has been about Sun, Netscape,

AOL et al, using litigation as a means to

compete. END IT NOW! STOP WASTING

MY MONEY! SPEND MORE TIME TRYING

TO MAKE OUR LIVES SAFER. STOP

WASTING TIME AND MANPOWER!

END IT NOW!

Bob Levittan

50 Cliftwood Drive

Huntington, NY 11743

MTC–00005203

From: Donald Hetrick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 1:30am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please record my support to finally settle

the endless litigation against Microsoft. I find

the current settlement harsh, but feel its fine

if it can finally be concluded so our country

can move on.

Thank You,

Donald J. Hetrick

MTC–00005204

From: tobeyd

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 1:32am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

I’ve been working as a software developer

since 1964.

In my opinion, Microsoft has attained their

current position is because—

1) They listen to the requests of Computer

Users.

2) They develop quality solutions based on

Users requests.

3) They provide an integrated platform for

Independent and Corporate Developers to

provide effective solutions for their clients.

Imagination and Innovation are the keys.

Thanks,

David Drake

MTC–00005206

From: Rick Weyenberg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 2:18am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle now!

MTC–00005207

From: Miriam A. Detert

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 2:32am

Subject: Microsoft

This entire case is the most unjust case

your so called Justice Department has ever

taken . You are prosecuting an innocent man

and company. They have done more for this

country than anyone in many, many years.

Miriam A. Detert

MTC–00005208

From: JRob98@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 2:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft settlement is harsh, and

more than enough penalty for Microsoft.

Prolonging this only benefits a few special

interests, for their own greed. AOL is prime

for a monopoly investigation, and is

campaigning for more against Microsoft to

benefit their own interests. The few states

protesting were only being more greedy than

the rest, looking for a free ride on someone

else’s money. No one is forced to buy

Microsoft or use IE, but do because it is a

better product. Leave them alone. Jan Roberts

MTC–00005209

From: DigitalBurn2k1

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 3:53am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear to whom this may concern,

I am an upcoming programmer at a major

university. And, this court case has caught

my attention. I would like to tell you that I

do not agree with the government completely

in the solutions to this problem. Microsoft

has been in violation of some monopoly

laws, I agree. However, I feel that to impede

on the authoring writes of a company is not

legitimate. Something would have to be

changed, granted, but I do not agree that

Microsoft Middleware such as Internet

Explorer should be changed.

A major step that Microsoft made in the

1995 windows was the integration of internet

explorer. I understood this major step, as it

makes the operating system more closely tied

to the internet. This is a convenience to the

user. Sure, it may impede on Netscape;

however, I believe that this is a must have

feature with today’s internet fueled economy/

society. This technology has led to other web

integrated technologies that Microsoft has

developed and have greatly impacted the

world, making our computer lives easier.

I feel that if the government impedes on

Microsoft’s freedom to produce technology,

then they are stopping progress. If you would

have told Microsoft that they could not have

integrated net features with the OS years ago,

then

1) this ordeal would not be in court

2) Microsoft would have surely lost

consumers as someone else would have

moved on the idea The government I

understand is trying to keep competition in

the marketplace. However, I would like to see

progress thrive. Competition will always

survive as it drives software makers to

produce better software. Netscape is not

better software, that is half the reason they

have fallen in sales, just a personal user

opinion. How can the government say what

the best road is for technology? What if they

are taking a wrong turn by penalizing

Microsoft, which will in turn cause

technology to slow progression? That is

neither healthy for our citizens or our

economy.

I think that if the government is going to

penalize Microsoft, they should do it in a

way that is not hurting their creative rights,

rights that have made the US dominant in the

computing field. Lets face it, it is Microsoft

that has given us an edge in the technology

industry for the past 20 years. Do not ruin

that because of some useless company like

Netscape.

Sincerely,

Brad Davis

MTC–00005210

From: Daniel Telford

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:40am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

I believe that the settlement reached

between the DOJ and Microsoft is more than

fair since Microsoft in my opinion has never

violated any anti-trust law. Take what you

have and go.

Daniel Telford

Kearney NE

MTC–00005211

From: Jason

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 6:00am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Given the number of years that have passed

since the trial began Microsoft have very

much responded to criticism and in my view

have made all efforts to remedy the situation.

Given that free operating systems are

around (how competitive is that!—what if the

situation existed with free cars!) and piracy

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24691

is rife—if microsoft was ever judged a

monopoly it was on its merits.

The level of piracy, the level of

competition, all work to undermine

microsofts efforts to conduct fair and legal

trade. The settlement is fair and just in my

opinion, if anything its too harsh. We all

know how big business works, with coca cola

signing exclusive deals with suppliers, sports

stars signing contracts that mean they can

only advertise with nike etc, so why

microsoft should be held aloft on a pedestal

for its alleged actions is beyond me.

If anything would be ultimately in the

publics interest it would have been a long

time ago that the whole matter was dropped.

Right now, barring that, the best thing is for

all parties to accept the settlement and for

those competitors of microsoft to stop trying

to use the courts for financial gain when

instead they should employ smarter people,

up the R & D, and increase the quality of their

products.

Jason

MTC–00005213

From: lynn orser

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 6:31am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I believe that it is time to finalize this

ridiculous fiasco and get on with the work of

the people. Please move forward with the

proposed settlement and put this case behind

the American people. I believe there are more

important issue that the government should

be dealing with.

Sincerely,

Lynn Wm. Orser

11288 James Court

Genoa, IL. 60135

MTC–00005214

From: Robin Datta

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 7:01am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Honorable Justices:

I have used Microsoft products from MSDOS 3.0 onwards through 6.0+; Win 2.0 (yes,

2.0, when the IBM OS2 was priced at $400+

but the MS product was quite reasonable to

dabble with) and on through 3.0, 3.11, Win

95 (briefly), WinNT3.5, 4.0 through SP6 and

on to Win2kProf and WinXPPro. Other OSs

have attempted to take the place of Windows

but have not offered the options and

versatility that we have now.

Microsoft was under no obligation to offer

automatic updates to its OS but has done so.

It is a wonderful feature. And Windows will

be the OS to be proficient in, in much of the

foreseeable future. To say that MS will have

an unfair advantage in providing its software

to the educational system is to neglect the

unfair disadvantage that the students now

have when screwing around with the Apple/

MacIntosh system. While MS does make its

Office Suite available for the Apple/

MacIntosh system (which refutes the

argument that the Office Suite holds the user

hostage to Windows), there are so many other

features of the Windows and so many other

applications and devices that run under

windows, that it is almost cruel to deprive

the student generation of proficiency in

these.

It is time for the pirhanas to get off

Microsoft. If they cannot compete in the

market, it is not right that they try to make

good in the courts. We have already seen a

candidate who could not win in the election

installed by the courts as the Presidentpretender of this country. I do not believe

that the court system should replace the

people’s choice whether in the software

market or at the ballot box.

Sincerely,

Robin Datta

robbin@ix.netcom.com

9228 N Stoneridge Ln

Fresno CA 93720–1210

(559) 434–0370

MTC–00005215

From: zach cross

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 7:00am

Subject: microsoft settlement

to whom it may concern,

The One and Only, Zachary B Cross

MTC–00005216

From: Michael Knight

To: ’Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov‘

Date: 1/1/02 8:10am

Subject: microsoft settlement

back off you idiots and get blumenthal to

do so also.

Michael J. Knight, CPA, CVA, CFE

Licensed Life, Accident and Health Agent

Michael J. Knight & Company, CPAs

Licensed Mortgage Brokers, Consultants

116 Sherman Street

Fairfield, Connecticut 06430

Tel: (203) 259–2727

Fax: (203) 256–2727

Website: http://www.mjkcpa.com

MTC–00005217

From: MarstonB@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 7:55am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a 64 year old sole practicing attorney

in Marietta, GA who has been sufficiently

computer literate and fortunate to be able to

practice by myself (no secretary, paralegal,

etc.) for the past several years due, in no

small part, I truly believe, to Microsoft’s

providing a simple yet comprehensive

‘‘workplace’’ for me.

Many will say others could do as well or

better...I do not believe others would make

my PC platform as simple, user friendly and

idiot proof as Microsoft has.

Leave them alone and able to continue to

provide as they have, please.

MTC–00005218

From: l.heath@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 8:00am

This is not a settlement but a travesty.

There is no meaningful change to the status

quo which means Microsoft continues to

benefit from its past monopolistic practices

and, indeed, benefits from this action by

expanding its influence though our school

systems. Where is the corrective action that

our laws are supposed to provide?

Thank you,

Larry Heath

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00005219

From: Gregg Christman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 8:08am

Subject: Nine State Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I am very dissappointed with our

government over this entire court case

against Microsoft.

First and foremost Microsoft has created an

industry that has made our country number

one again in the world and has created jobs,

increased productivity, and more importantly

for the Federal Government Billions of

Dollars of Tax Revenue!

The idea that they are a monoply is

absolutely absurd they have to compete

against thousands of competitors daily to win

and earn their revenues. They spend Billions

on Research and Development to provide

better software.

The notion that they are controlling the

software industry is ridiculous. Every

consumer in the marketplace has a choice

whether or not they want to own Microsoft

Software no one is putting a gun to there

head and forcing the consumer to purchase

Microsoft. This lawsuit which was initiated

by President Bill Clinton and

The Clinton Administration is an absolute

conspiracy to undermine the American

Way,to create, build, and sell products to be

successful.

This lawsuit has been counterproductive

from its’ inception and has cost our economy

Billions in lost revenue, and Billions in

investors portfolio’s value.

I believe the settlement reached by the

Nine States and Microsoft is extremely

generous a Billion Dollars worth of Software

and other computer related items for the low

income schools. I think this is a fair and

reasonable settlement.

I believe the US Government needs to

rapidly agree with this proposed settlement

by Microsoft and conclude this total

unfounded, ridiculous, lawsuit and let’s get

on with what is important getting our

Technology Economy rolling again. Microsoft

is the engine that is pulling the Technology

Sector forward. I hope our government can

see this however; sometimes I think our

leaders are in a closet.

Concerned Citizen,

Gregg Christman

greggchristman@earthlink.net

MTC–00005220

From: jack3108

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 8:10am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let’s get this case over. Even the few states

that are still objecting are purchasing

Microsoft products—The attorney generals

don’t seem to know what most of their dept.

purchasing agents are buying.

MTC–00005221

From: Joseph W. Guillory

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 8:50am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

24692 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

I believe that the only thing that needs to

be changed in this settlement is that

Microsoft should give cash instead of

software and computers. This way the

receiving schools or benifactors can choose

how best to use these funds.

Thank You

Joseph

MTC–00005222

From: Sun-Tzu1

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 8:55am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

A recently purchased computerized billing

and scheduling system running Windows XP

has made a tremendous difference for my

business. The efficiency of this new system

is significantly greater than the older non

Windows based system and yet was

extremely affordable. As a consumer of

computer and compter related goods I have

been greatly satisified with the reliability,

performance, variety, innovation and

affordability of Microsoft products. In today’s

current environment the citizens of this

country have fears that extend well beyond

Microsoft. The threat of terrorism, nuclear

weapons, unemployment, the decline of

America’s auto manufacturing, and the rising

costs of health care have become the issues

that require attention. As a country we

should be comforted by the existance of

strong global companies, such as Microsoft,

which through their existance provide fuel to

America’s economy and ultimately enhance

the power of our nations leaders. We must

remember that the blanket of freedom that

covers our nation is the direct result of the

economic strength we possess. It seems

ironical that a country that relies so heavily

on its financial strength to resolve world

crises would spend so much energy to

disrupt the very source of its strength. Any

other country in the world would welcome

Microsoft with open arms because with its

ecomomic might comes bargaining power. In

summary, be thankful that Microsoft exists

and let us, as a nation, encourage other

American companies to become as

successful. Let us begin to concentrate our

efforts on the issues that require immediate

attention and will have the most impact for

the American people.

Sincerely,

Richard Watson

MTC–00005223

From: BryantKing

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:18am

Subject: microsoft settlement

Please continue with the settlement as

agreed to and put this behind us. We need

less government and permit the American

entrepreneur to flourish. Businesses have to

compete to stay in business and it requires

long hours and hard work.

Sincerely,

Bryant A King

MTC–00005224

From: Jack Stoutenger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:20am

Subject: microsoft settlement

i do not think microsoft has done anything

wrong other than make some awesome

software that makes it very easy for anyone

to use

MTC–00005225

From: Robert Gardner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:36am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern

I believe that the proposed settlement

should be accepted for the common good of

USA & the world in general. The continued

uncertainties around Windows creates a

depressed marketplace, full of apprehension,

tightened purse-strings. Additionally it

makes the US look foolish when the Appleals

court overturned a decision, which granted

Microsoft the right to integrate the Web

Browser into the Operating System.

What the SUN Microsystems, AOL/

Netscape & affiliated companies complain

most about is that Microsoft has produced

products that integrate well together. SUN

has its StarOffice, but no one seriously

accepts it, as it offers little to build a business

system from. There is scant integration

between StarOffice and other software

applications produced by independant

software vendors.

Continued poor integration of open-source

software will damage consumer confidence

by offering too many options, that most

people do not understand the reasons why

they should choose one over the other. This

is why the Open Source community would

welcome Microsoft Office to the Linux

operating systems. From what I understand

the latest version of MS OFFICE for

MacOS10, would take little to port to the

Linux operating systems. It should be

pointed out that other computer related

companies have violated fair trading

practices in a much greater way, for example:

1) SUN also offered its Solaris operating

system for free, but after signing up for it, I

then found I was to be charged $75 (US) for

media. What a blatent misrepresentation!

2) Apple allowed, and openly greeted other

companies who were to produce clones of

their Mac’s. But when it was evident that

Apples share of the overall computer market

was not increasing, they then witheld their

operating system from the clone builders.

3) When the Mac OS was witheld, the

clone builders started offering G4 upgrades

for G3 machines, but then Apple changed the

BIOS routine so that these upgrade cards

would not function.

In closing, I hope you agree that in the

interests of the world economy, particularily

after September 11, that this proposal must

be accepted.

Sincerely Yours

Robert G Gardner

Port Macquarie NSW

Australia

MTC–00005226

From: Cdmorse@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:34am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

To whom this may concern,

I spent 2 years in the computer industry in

the US. I have had no problems with

Microsoft except they beat their competition.

Is this the US or not? Does free enterprise

exist or is the concept for fairly tales and

uncensored history books? I do not

understand a ’free society’ the penalizes a

company that delvers services to a majority

of the market, out distances their competitors

then is criticized for being successful.

Settle the dispute as quickly as possible

and allow the business of business to get on...

Sincerely,

Cindy Morse

149 Wallinwood NE

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

MTC–00005227

From: DavePenn60@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:35am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I’m writing in support of the settlement

negotiated by the DOJ and Microsoft.

I am both a user of Microsoft software and

an owner of Microsoft shares.

I have worked in the information

technology arena since entering the

workforce in 1962. I have known what it is

to develop systems for computers with only

4096 bytes of memory (that is not a typo). For

computers for which punched cards were the

only storage medium. For computers that

were anything but personal.

In my career the focus of my development

efforts changed from developing systems for

mainframe computers to developing systems

for personal computers in early 1988. At that

time the operating systems ‘‘war’’ was being

fought among IBM, Microsoft, and Apple. I

can personally attest that there has been an

‘‘order of magnitude’’ improvement in the

Windows operating system since that time.

That improvement was primarily attributable

to the ‘‘invisible hand’’ of competition among

that group of competitors.

As a user of application software, I can

personally attest to the value that Microsoft

has brought to that field. The organization I

was a partner of (Andersen) had adopted

Lotus 1–2–3 as its standard spreadsheet

software. The improvements that Microsoft

made to Excel that even the most diehard

supporter of 1–2–3 had to acknowledge that

Excel was the better product and ultimately

we changed to Excel as our standard

spreadsheet.

I’m also aware of the improvements that

Microsoft has made to programming

languages and the other software that

facilitates development in those languages.

In short, Microsoft has done a great deal to

foster improvements in information

technology and that has rippled throughout

our entire economy. If Microsoft has broken

the law, it should be punished in accordance

with that law. If current laws are not

adequate for the world we now live in, new

laws should be written and adopted in the

cold light of day. We should not, however,

develop new laws through the judicial

process. And, we should not develop new

laws through the judicial process at the

urging of organizations who have not enjoyed

the success they believe that they deserve in

the competitive arena.

Yes, you need to consider the source and

I acknowledged I was and am a Microsoft

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24693

shareholder. I’m a shareholder because I

recognized the value Microsoft was bringing

value to the field of information technology.

And, I continue to believe that Microsoft will

continue to bring value to that field as long

as the competition with other information

technology providers is fair. As I understand

the terms of the settlement agreement, I

believe that the proposed post-settlement

environment will be fair to all concerned.

Thank you for considering the voice of one

consumer and one owner of a part of the

American economy.

David Brunn

Professor of Business Administration

Carthage College

MTC–00005229

From: CF000@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Mr. Attorney General,

How much longer will we let a select group

of people continue to perpetuate an issue

such as the unsettled Microsoft litigation to

cause so much uncertainty in our economy.

It seems often that powerful and self serving

people, directly or through organizations

they influence, are able to manipulate

government actions that works contra to the

needs of the greater good. Certainly, that

seems to be the case with this new scheme

to delay this settlement.

Everyone now knows this settlement is the

right thing to do, because it is right in its own

merits, and because the economy was hurt by

the original suit and needs to be made right.

A lot of other companies and market

segments were hurt by the original action.

And not just the capital of those companies,

but more importantly employees and their

pension plans, their livelihood and the very

fabric of their family and sense of security.

So now these self interest are making one last

attempt. Is it because they are being

influenced by short sellers who are trying to

make yet one more killing in the market—if

they can cause confusion on the stocks of the

high tech sector, see these stocks crash and

burn again, so they could buy back low. Is

this what the DOJ and the Bush

Administration have in store for the country

in 2002—to let this happen. If so, its so

Clinton like.

My family, neighbors and friends are

watching this closely, and I can assure you,

a lot of others are too. We don’t see how

fixing this economy is possible without

sticking to the existing agreement and closing

this issue immediately. It’s time to take

leadership and complete the job you people

were put in office to address in 2000.

Thank you,

C. Figueroa

New Jersey

CC:RFC-822=3—23163—987C91CF-ED8ED211–9F48–00C04FB98E...

MTC–00005230

From: Barbara Sanborn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:58am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Get it done so business can move on. Settle

this so competition in business and the right

to innovate can continue. If Microsoft has

done things wrong...I am sure they are not

alone..but they have certainly demonstrated

what this country is all about..the right to

succeed in business and to be rewarded for

that success.

MTC–00005231

From: GDingoian4972035@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:05am

Subject: I FEEL THE STATES SHOULD

TAKE THE OFFER FROM MICROSOFT

i am writing because i feel since the D.O.J

started legal action against microsoft in 6–

2000 to present that it has caused a mess

within all the technology area microsoft is

the heart and engine of the tech and they like

the 3 auto makers feed alot of vendors we in

short as investors not only tech but the whole

market suffered the worse loss of 5 trillion .

not all of it was caused by the legal matter

against microsoft by also greenspan 6 rate

hikes the same time the legal matter against

microsoft we are in one of the worst

recession since 73–74 and it is global i feel

this matter has gone long enough and i have

followed this case and understand some of

problems but they were in the past and now

alot of the problems are gone microsoft

admited to some wrong dueing and is will to

pay damages the justice department agreeded

to some kind of settlement but 9 states want

to drag this and really what would they gain

i doubt that they could win if they are going

out to split microsoft first it has been stated

by appeal court that braking up microsoft

was off the table and settlement was only

thing on the table finally i feel alot of tax

payers money has been wasted and will be

wasted more for i truly believe that these 9

state attorneys have political movities and

not really interested in settling i urge the

D.O.J to wrap this matter and let microsoft

pay for damages to which they already have

agreeded to then they will then spend money

on r/d instead of attorney fees then with the

11 rate cuts and energy saving and

restruturing we will more r/d and hiring

layoff people plus those who lost alot will

start getting some of it back so i urge you not

on my behalf but the whole economy to end

this bleeding and urge to wrap this matter up

so microsoft can spend the money back into

r/d we have had a massive layoff mainly

coming from technology all good strong

companies all have laid off 10% some even

higher i feel once this matter is wrapped up

thinks will improve with economy and then

alot of these companies like

cisco,oracle,sunmicosystems,cien,junper,all

networking, and semi-conductors will get fed

by microsoft and they will feed the smaller

it is like a domino it just travels i urge you

the end this as fast as can be for people are

still fearful that we may continue another

year like 2001 that is why 3 trillion dollars

in low 1% money markets because with

technology there is no economy no growth

and no stock market

it is like the engine to the car for it will

not run it also effected the global markets for

like i said once you cut the leggs off then the

rest falls like a domino

finally i urge you to tell these hold outs

that it would be in the best interest

to all that they settle for they would loose

if they wanted to continue miscrosoft just is

to big and with over 30 billion in cash it

would take these 9 states 20 to 30 years to

get an answer and it would be no they can

not beat a giant like microsoft and neither

will anyone i was against this whole matter

for what did any citizen or investor get out

this whole matter

nothing and in fact paid a hell of a price

because all you got was what

microsoft offered from the begining

thank you

george g. dingoian

gdingoian4972035@aol.com

MTC–00005232

From: James Button

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:09am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs,

I believe that any settlement addressing a

companies monopolistic and/or anticompetitive actions should fulfil at least 1,

and preferably all of the following::

1) Financial restitution to the actual, and

prospective ‘competing’ organisations for the

damage already inflicted.

2) Financial restitution to the actual, and

prospective ‘competing’ organisations for the

loss of future profitability.

3) Financial restitution to the actual, and

prospective ‘customers’ for the probable

inflated costs due to lack of availability of

products from alternative sources.

4) Enforcement of ’proper’ business

practices in the future.

5) Require the offender to ensue that the

products they are currently supplying are

brought up to the standard that would have

been required to achieve their current

dominant status if they had been competing

in a ‘fair’ marketplace In the case of

Microsoft, I as a user suffer because Microsoft

OS and Office products have become the

‘defacto’ standard in industry.

My organisation also has to ( at our

expense) have somebody regularly monitor

the internet and PC systems for ‘security’

gaps, and ensure that the holes found are

addressed In order to interact with business

peers, and maintain the business’s

employability the organisation is forced to

purchase the new releases of Microsoft

products ( with the required hardware

upgrades). This being essential due to the

Microsoft policy of discontinuing support for

old versions. (To date about $1000 per PC

system directly attributable to business

compatibility upgrades). While I accept that

providing substantial assistance to

educational establishments may form part of

a ‘penalty’’ that does nothing to provide

restitution to the prior purchasers of their

products, nor does it actually impose a real

penalty on the organisation unless that

organisation is inhibited from adjusting their

prices and marketing to recover that cost

from their customers. If they are allowed to

include their own products in costs of their

penalty, they can simply ship 10,000 CD’sets

at a quoted $500 each ($5,000,000 billed for

$2,500 worth of media) and site licences of

20 accompanying each CD set (accounted for

@ say $5 per user = $10,000,000).

24694 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Not only does such an approach increase

their dominance in the market, as businesses

will have a greater incentive to use their

products because their new employees will

have already, at an education cost billed to

the public purse/wallet, gained experience in

the offenders products, but also opens an

opportunity to charge for increases in the

licensing ( to say 100 users per CD set @ say

$4 per user ) giving profits of $4 x 80 x

10,000 = $3,200,000— Booked cost of the

action = $15,000,000, at a net cost of $2,500

minus $3,200.000 = ?? Considering the above:

I feel that any settlement allowing the

offender’s products to be promoted is greatly

flawed. I also believe that the proposed

settlement will actually increase Microsoft’s

dominance, at the expense of the US

taxpayer, businesses, but also to the

detriment of PC users throughout the world.

J.B.C.S. Limited. ( a UK company )

MTC–00005233

From: scottwquigley@netscape.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:10am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I have been following the Microsoft Antitrust case now for quite some time, and feel

the need to offer some input on the subject.

My hope is that you will give due

consideration to input that I and others from

the public community offer, as the decisions

made by the judicial system will have a

significant impact on the consumers’ ability

to choose products that meet our needs at

reasonable prices.

Civil Action No. 98–1232, (Antitrust),

COMPLAINT devotes a significant amount of

text to the subject of the ‘‘bundling’’ of

Microsoft products in its operating system.

The main argument seems to be that, by

including products such as Windows Media

Player and Internet Explorer on PC’s using

the Windows Operating System, consumers

are prevented from using other products.

This is absurd. I am writing this e-mail from

a computer running Windows 98 Second

Edition, which came ‘‘bundled’’ with IE, but

I am writing this e-mail from a Netscape 6.2

browser window. I normally use IE, not

Netscape. However, after reading the text of

the Complaint, I decided to see just how hard

it is to get Netscape onto my machine and

use it. I found Netscape to be free, with the

task of downloading and installing to be

quite simple. Further, I was able to eliminate

IE from my machine using the Windows

Add/Remove function in its control panel. (I

have since subsequently downloaded and

insatalled IE back to my machine for free,

with equal simplicity). I found it interesting

that Netscape came with AOL Instant

Messenger (AIM) ‘‘bundled’’ with it! Frankly,

I believe the charges against Microsoft are

being generated by individuals that do not

have the first idea of how to use computers

and the internet. If they did, they would

know how ridiculous these charges are.

‘‘Bundling’’ is a common practice in one of

the largest industries in the US and the

world—the automobile industry. Imagine

going to a dealer and trying to buy an

automobile with a Cadillac body, Ferrari

interior, Porsche engine, and a Ford

transmission. Not possible. We can’t pick

which brand fuel injectors we want, which

brand audio system we want, which brand

tires we want, which brand paint we want,

or which brand suspension components we

want. We choose a package. If we don’t like

a particular package, we go to another dealer

and choose a different one. The freedom to

choose which package we want is the

freedom that needs to be protected. Years

ago, when the Chrysler Motor Corporation

was on the verge of failing, we protected this

freedom bailing them out. We did NOT try

to protect this freedom by forcing GM and

Ford to be broken into smaller groups, nor by

forcing GM and Ford to stop ‘‘bundling’’ so

as to allow consumers to ask for Chrysler

components to be included on their GM or

Ford products. Why, then, are we trying to

take these actions against Microsoft? The fact

that no other product is being offered that

competes with Microsoft is, perhaps, reason

to provide some sort of initiative to potential

competitors, but certainly not to order the

breakup of Microsoft or to force them to stop

‘‘bundling’’. Browsers and media players are

as much an integral part of a computer as

engines and transmissions are for

automobiles. Microsoft should be able to

provide the packages that they choose to

offer, as they are doing now, based on the

wants and needs of the users.

I urge you to consider carefully the

comments I have provided, and all others

offered by the public through this and other

avenues. I appreciate the opportunity to

provide these comments to you. I look

forward to you decisions on these matters.

Sincerely,

Scott Quigley

606 Ashford Place

Newport News, VA 23602

Phone: 757–890–0017

E-Mail: scottwquigley@netscape.net

MTC–00005234

From: Mr Bleakley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:15am

Subject: Microsoft settelment

Sirs:

I ask the D. O. J. discontinue ANY further

action that is detrimental to Microsoft and

the business community. I suggest a full

settlement of the charges against Microsoft as

outlined by the court. In my opinion, the

governments should all be ashamed of

themselves for persecuting a company that

has done as much for an industry as has

Microsoft. Mr. Bleakley

MTC–00005235

From: Milton Karafilis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:19am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please approve the settlement of the

Microsoft case. This is not the time to be

undoing a settlement to the harm of a US

Company like Microsoft. The problem seems

to be with the States that have Microsoft

competitors, let them find their profits in the

marketplace like the rest of us. Thank You for

your consideration...

Milton Karafilis,

Sole Proprietor & Microsoft User

MTC–00005236

From: Bob Little

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:25am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement of the DOJ vs. Microsoft

case should NOT include free Microsoft

software for schools. That would only further

Microsoft’s Monopoly. Microsoft should put

up cash and let the schools decide how to

spend it. In fact, rules should be put in place

so that the money must be spent at

companies other than Microsoft. That would

be a proper punishment for Microsoft’s

monopolistic practices.

MTC–00005237

From: Suji Singh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:28am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

USDOJ —-

In my opinion Microsoft Settlement is fair

and equitable. Enough is enough! No

company should be punished for its success.

Sincerely, Suji Singh, Professor of

Mathematics, SW Texas State University, San

Marcos, TX 78666.

MTC–00005238

From: Charles Stark

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:29am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I oppose all attempts to institute

government control of Microsoft. Leave them

alone! Let free enterprise solve the problems

of free enterprise.

Charles R. Stark

MTC–00005239

From: Mike Ezekiel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:31am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have no great love for the way Microsoft

does business. They essentially did the same

thing Apple and other computer companies

have done through the 80’s—they stole their

ideas from others. The result is, that they

have been highly successful and a dominant

force in the industry. But, that’s not what I’m

writing about.

Fairness! It is unfair to go after Microsoft

when you have the bloodsuckers at AOL

doing whatever they please. I would like to

know what happened with that 18 Billion

dollar lawsuit against them. Swept under the

rug? I have not heard anything about it. Lots

of states also had lawsuits against them. And

believe me, those were valid lawsuits. I

owned my own computer company in 1999—

2000, and we had nothing but problems with

AOL software. Causing hardware problems

and essentially taking over the computer and

not allowing other dial-up software to work

properly.

So, unless your going to be fair across the

board! Leave Microsoft alone!!! Settle, and let

Microsoft innovate!

Mike Ezekiel

Concerned IT specialist

MTC–00005240

From: Peter Shikli

To: Microsoft ATR

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24695

Date: 1/1/02 10:33am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DoJ,

Microsoft is asking those of us they feel are

partial to them to send you our requests to

be lenient with them. Please have the resolve

to finish what you started in a way that

protects us from monopolies. There can be no

doubt that Microsoft has stifled the

competition on our desktop. You will never

again have this chance to restore a level

playing field.

Sincerely,

Peter Shikli

CEO, BusinessWare

2738 Camino Capistrano,

San Clemente, CA 92672

949–369–1638 x77—

pshikli@bizware.com

www.bizware.com

Automating Online B2B Communities

Reply-To: <3—23163—02E08142–9573–

4226–979F-8BBBFBCCCBDF—

US@Newsletters.Microsoft.com> From:

‘‘Microsoft’’ <0—23163—02E08142–9573–

4226–979F-8BBBFBCCCBDF—

US@Newsletters.Microsoft.com>

To: <info@bizware.com>

Subject: DOJ Wants to Hear From YOU!

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:15:49 -0800

For nearly four years, your voice has been

instrumental in the debate over the freedom

to innovate. Tens of thousands of concerned

citizens have communicated to their public

officials about whether the Microsoft case

should be settled or further litigated. Despite

the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of

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 your voice is more important than ever.

The law (officially called the Tunney Act)

requires a public comment period between

now and January 28th after which the District

Court will determine whether the settlement

is in the ‘‘public interest.’’ Unfortunately, a

few special interests are attempting to use

this review period to derail the settlement

and prolong this litigation even in the midst

of uncertain economic times. The last thing

the American economy needs is more

litigation that benefits only a few wealthy

competitors and stifles innovation.

Don’t let these special interests defeat the

public interest.

Between now and January 28th, it is

critical that the Department of Justice hears

from you about the Microsoft settlement. 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 heard.

Email: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov . In the

Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft

Settlement.

Fax: 1–202–307–1454 or 1–202–616–9937

To find out more about the settlement and

the Tunney Act comment period, go to the

Department of Justice Website at: http://

www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm.

Thanks for taking the time to make a

difference.

MTC–00005241

From: Freund, Robert W

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:36am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

It is time to move on and make this

settlement final.

Our interests as a country will best be

served by completing the settlement in the

form contained in the Tunney Act.

I can’t imagine a more productive end to

this farce. thanks

-bob

MTC–00005242

From: Ken Partridge

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:36am

Subject: State opposition to settlement

Consumers voted with their dollars on who

would be the leader in operating systems. We

should be thanking Microsoft for

standardizing an industry. These states are

looking for a free ride in revenue. Why would

the US Justice Department support

ambulance chasers? Settle this now and let

Microsoft get back to innovation.

Ken Partridge

Chandler, AZ

MTC–00005243

From: Baraneetharan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:00am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Respected Sir,

Microsoft case should be settled , there is

no need to drag it further. The current

settlement is tough , but it is reasonable. I

feel the settlement is good foe everybody.

Thanks

Baraneetharan

MTC–00005244

From: DMcKerch@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:39am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Consumers Perspective

Microsoft has good, products and low

prices. In now way do I believe Microsoft is

trying to take advantage of the consumer.

Their actions are precisely what capitalism is

all about. Perhaps they are more aggressive

than other companies, so what, that is why

they are number one in the world. Having

everything nicely integrated makes my life

much easier. Punishing Microsoft because

their competitors whine is placing the

government in a role of subverting

capitalism. There are much better uses for

our national energies than beating up on

successful companies.

David McKercher

Farmington Hills, Michigan

MTC–00005245

From: Dolores Freund

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/1/02 10:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ,

I wish to voice my support of Microsoft’s

position in the current lawsuit. Microsoft has

fueled the growth of our economy with its

superior innovations. It is the quality and

quantity of these innovations which has

made Microsoft software the standard for

excellence that consumers have come to rely

on. Microsoft has shown an AMAZING

ability to innovate and continue to innovate.

This continuous innovation has made it very

hard for competitors to keep up. Excellence

should be applauded and encouraged, not

discouraged because it makes it so hard for

competitors to keep up. Microsoft should

NOT BE CRIPPLED. It should not be

PUNISHED for its successes. Microsoft

innovations FUEL the growth of our economy

by fueling PRODUCTIVITY for ALL

AMERICANS.

VERY Sincerely,

Dolores Freund

MTC–00005246

From: john makara

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:55am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have been following the Governments

case against Microsoft and I believe the

settlement should be enacted by both parties

in the interest of our national economy. The

tactics and market conditions that Microsoft

acted on and what fostered the governments

claims have clearly changed so much that

any anti-trust remedy aimed at changing

Microsoft’s business practices will be

inapplicable and ineffective now. Microsoft

is clearly a player in a global competitive

economy and should be allowed to exercise

business practices in a effort to promote its

products. As a consumer I have reaped the

benefits of Microsoft success by purchasing

amazingly productive software from

Microsoft in the last 10 years at prices that

have remained stable even though inflation

has reduced the actual cost to me. Even had

prices been high due to ’monopoly’ power I

still would have a choice of when and how

much software to buy.

The governments case against Microsoft

however has cost taxpayers millions of

dollars and is an example of a cost I am

FORCED to bear. It is not my choice to spend

my money this way but the choice of a few

wealthy government officials and lawyers.

MTC–00005247

From: Edwin Mizrahi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:00am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

I think the settlement is a step in the right

direction. But, I think companies should not

be forced to prove if they are in the public

interest or anti-competitive. Companies

should be allowed to profit from their work

just like individuals. If the contracts are

voluntary, and don’t violate the other parties

rights, then their practices should be allowed

24696 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

to continue. My existence and Microsoft’s

should not be based on permission. This is

not Soviet Russia, or Communist China.

America is for the rights of individuals.

Which includes having the government

protecting peoples right to their property.

This to me means being able to create

property, ( Windows 2000) and being able to

dispose of that property as they sees fit. (

Selling it bundled or under certain

conditions with other software). I think

Justice means people get what they have

earned. Microsoft has not used force or fraud

to sell its products. It has earned everything

morally. Therefore, if Netscape or Sun or

whomever doesn’t like it, they should just

accept it or get out of the business.

Sincerely,

Edwin Mizrahi

NYC

Be Seeing You..................

Edwin

personal e-mail emizrahi@yahoo.com

MTC–00005248

From: Mauro Gandini

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:07am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I agree with Microsoft

Mauro Gandini

The Outsourcing Company

Milano Italy

MTC–00005250

From: Tom Pate

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:40am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please include my comments in the public

record for the District Court to consider for

the Microsoft Settlement.

I support the settlement as is. I oppose

government/judicial action that interferes

with free-market trade. Those businesses

suing Microsoft are taking advantage of the

political system to compensate for their

failure to perform in the free market system.

I am not an employee of Microsoft. I own

no Microsoft stock directly (but probably

some through Mutual Fund investments).

MTC–00005251

From: clayton sherwood

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:27am

Subject: End

Microsoft settlement. C Sherwood

MTC–00005252

From: Gremelkin@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:30am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please continue with the settlement. No

further litigation is necessary.

Lynne Nelson

MTC–00005253

From: balbert@claritas.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:33am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Honorable Justices,

I have been a professional software

developer for fifteen years and have been

using tools developed by Microsoft and other

vendors throughout my career. I believe, that

although Microsoft has engaged in some

questionable business practices, they have

greatly benefited the software and computer

industry as a whole. Prior to the Microsoft

standards, software development was chaotic

due to the many incompatible platforms that

prevailed. Microsoft solved this very

burdensome situation by introducing DOS

and later Windows. Their development and

promotion of COM was a major achievement

in software development which allowed

components developed in different

programming languages and using both

Microsoft and non-Microsoft compilers to

communicate with one another.

I believe that Microsoft should adhere to

your recent decision and not be further

penalized for the good of everyone.

Sincerely,

Bob Albert

Director, Application Services

Development

Claritas Inc

53 Brown Rd

Ithaca, NY 14850

MTC–00005254

From: Joseph (038) Taylor Hilden

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:34am

Subject: microsoft settlement

Enough is enough . Four years of this

unnecessary waste of taxpayers money

instigated by a few competitors is enough.

Let the competitors compete in the

marketplace and save litagation for the

proper cases. The anti-trust laws are suppose

to protect the consumers but this travesty of

an investigation has been unneeded. The

public has never been reequesting this witch

hunt. Please let this case die soon. Thank

You in Advance Joseph and Carol Hilden

MTC–00005255

From: THOMAS J CLINTON

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:35am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I want to express my opinion that to

continue this litigation any further will hurt

our economy and free enterprise.

MTC–00005256

From: Hilda899@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:38am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I heartily approve of the DOJ’s settlement

with Microsoft and wish that it would take

place promptly. Too much time and federal

dollars have been spent trying to beat down

a company that has contributed a great deal

to the development of technology and wealth

in the U.S. The DOJ’s and competitors’

concern for the lowly consumer is a farce. No

consumer that I am aware of ever complained

about Microsoft’s behavior. It’s the

company’s competitors who used the

consumer argument to challenge Microsoft

because of Microsoft’s dominant leadership.

Your settlement and supervision of future

developments will keep the company in

check without destroying its initiative.

H.F. Marx, 380 Prospect Ave., Hackensack,

NJ 07601

MTC–00005257

From: Bobo462@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:39am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs,

When is this tragedy going to end? When

Microsofts competition learn its easier to

innovate and not litigate. Its amazing how the

same states and senators as there competition

are the ones who dont want to settle. This

case has never been about the publics best

interest but that of other companies such as

sun micro, orcle, aol, csco, and the list goes

on. The public was never really harmed by

Microsoft and alot of other software

companies and tech firms who associated

anything with windows became great

succsesses. I dont think we need ten different

operating systems or ten different internet

exploreres. Linux is free and I would never

use it. This company’s litigation has single

handedly destroyed the whole tech sector.

Thanks for 3 years of zero growth and a

devastated Nasdaq. I’m sure all these

Goverment Officials should be proud of what

they accomplished in the name of

competition and innovation. Maybe they

should look at how much money Microsoft

spends on research and developement. When

Phillip Morris diversified noone worried

about there other bussinesses, but sun micro

started all this litigation in this country and

abroad when Microsoft when into the server

market. What kind of company trys to hurt

another American company abroad.

Especially when our technology is one of our

greatest assets. At this rate we will fall

behind the rest of the world in technology

innovation and then it will devastate our

economy for years to come.

Please stop the madness..

Steven Woolverton

Staten Island, Nerw York

MTC–00005258

From: Geb Blum

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:38am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This is to show my support for the DOJMicrosoft settlement. We’re not going to get

anywhere getting the country moving again

by using our resources to bash and try to

destroy honest and successful US companies

like Microsoft.

Geb Blum

Tulsa, OK

MTC–00005259

From: Sean Parsons

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

I would like to express my disappointment

in the settlement against Microsoft. District

Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s demand

for expediency was at the cost of

accomplishing true justice.

The settlement codifies the legality of

Microsoft’s predatory practices. While it

forces Microsoft to share its APIs with the

competition, it also forces those who use the

APIs to share their finished code with

Microsoft. The result is that Microsoft would

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24697

see all of its competition’s trade secrets and

easily replicate them. Or, though the ruling

ensures that Microsoft competitors be

allowed to get their icons on PC desktops, the

clause only applies to companies who have

sold more than a million copies of their

software in the United States. The very

companies who need a competitive

advantage in this case can’t get it.

As if the antitrust settlement wasn’t

determined in poor enough judgement, the

civil settlement is worse. After documented

proof and testimony from various respected

professionals about how Microsoft has

gouged consumers by charging over four

times as much as what a competitive-market

would allow for similar software (generating

billions of extra dollars due to its OS

monopoly) all they have to do in return is

donate old Microsoft computers and software

to poor schools, something it needs to do

periodically anyway to keep its staff in the

latest tools. This also creates some inroads

into schools, the one market it has had some

trouble in (it only controls about 50% of that

market).

I sincerely hope that upon further reviews

of the DOJ’s decisions that someone will

attempt to correct this terrible injustice.

Sean E. Parsons

seanparsons1976@yahoo.com

MTC–00005260

From: george h byrkit

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Opinion of George Byrkit, 4755 Dexter

Pinckney Road, Dexter, MI 48130 USA: I find

that this suit was brought by a consortium

(cabal) of Microsoft’s competitors. Most of

these competitors made poor business

decisions on their own, without Microsoft’s

involvement. Then these competitors got an

overly-friendly justice department to

prosecute a very thin case, which only had

merit in a very thin area.

It is more than likely that Microsoft will

NOT be a going concern in 20 years, based

on my experience in the IT industry. To

punish them too harshly will only hasten the

end of Microsoft, but to no advantage to the

customer or to Microsoft’s competitors, as the

users will NOT necessarily adopt their

inferior product to replace that offered by

Microsoft. Judge Jackson erred in evaluating

the magnitude of the challenge offered by

Linux and other Open Source initiatives. As

such, his remedies were excessive and overzealous, not to mention recommended by a

Macintosh fanatic/fancier.

Do NOT allow the few states that are holdouts to keep this otherwise meritorious

settlement from proceeding. They are mostly

home states to Microsoft’s competitors, so are

less than impartial in this matter. Most of

those objecting to the proposed settlement

object on the grounds that ’they’ don’t get a

piece of the action. Too bad!

Regards,

George Byrkit

MTC–00005261

From: Tom Hallis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

You and Microsoft have finally reached an

agreement the seems to be acceptable by all

except those few competitors who have not

been able to compete due to their own

inabilities to satisfy the customer, and those

District Attorneys who just can not let go of

an issue that the majority of us believe

should be over.

I used to use all of the Competitors of

Microsoft in my business because they were

better. They did not keep up with my needs

so I switched to Microsoft because they

listened. For Microsoft to be penalized for

doing a better job for the consumer is a blow

to the consumer and any company who

succeeds as a result of aggressive marketing

and product development. Please do not go

backwards and get caught up in the

unpopular minority consensus put forward

by Microsoft’s competitors or those few

states’ Attorneys that can not let go for there

own personal reasons.

Best regards,

Tom Hallis, Realtor(R)

GRI, CIPS, CRLS, CLHS, CCRS

‘‘Serving the Tampa Bay Area’’

‘‘If it matters to you, it matters to Tom’’

Mail to: thallis1@tampabay.rr.com

Web Page: http://www.tomhallis.com

Office Phone: 727–367–2793 Ext 128

Office Fax: 727–367–8733

Mobile Phone: 727–215–3156

MTC–00005262

From: John Verger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

I have been following the DOJ case

concerning Microsoft for the past couple of

years. During that time I have never written

you but I feel that the time has come to voice

my opinion. I have, in the past five years,

spent approximately $2000 buying various

MS products ranging from operating systems

(98SE, 2000 Pro, XP Pro) to Flight Simulators

(2000, 2002, and multiple Air Combat) to

Office (97 and 2000). My point is that I have

continued to buy their products because of

the value, and enjoyment, I get from them.

When I go to a store I have the money to buy

any compaies product but I normally buy

MS. Not because of advertising or magazine

articles but because of my own experience

with various products. MS has what I

consider to be the best track record of any

software company in the world today. And

I spend my money where I know it gets its

best value. For example, I build my own

computers because I like working with the

various components and setting it up exactly

the way I want it. When I buy the Central

Processing Unit (CPU) I buy AMD instead of

Intel because I consider them to be the best

even though they are the smaller and less

known. I would do the same with software

if anyone out there is better than MS I will

buy them! Please settle this case so that

Microsoft can put this behind them and do

what they do best-write the best software

programs known to man.

Thank You,

John D. Verger

9500 Springdale Rd.

Austin, Texas 78754–9639

MTC–00005263

From: Jerome D. Bashinski

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ,

I am a consumer and have been a computer

user and small system designer since the

early days of PCs. One of the greatest things

that happened in our world was when

Microsoft software was selected through

choice by users as the dominant operating

system and as the final choice for office

applications such as Word, Excel, Power

Point, etc. Before that occurred, it was nearly

impossible for inter agency and cross agency

information sharing and for connection of

various system. The same thing is true with

browsers. I am tired of seeing the United

States Government in the form of the

Department of Justice taking sides between

Microsoft and its competitors in the software

market place. I have bought and will

continue to purchase very good Microsoft

software as excellent values for their cost in

place of software produced by other

publishers. For years because Microsoft has

given and continues to give the best value for

the dollar spent. And, I am one hell of a lot

better judge of that than is the US

Department of Justice, the State of California,

or Microsoft’s competitors.

The action taken by DOJ against Microsoft

isn’t just unfair, it distorted the entire idea

of a monopoly. It is literally unAmerican to

use the Government Monopoly in a such a

fashion. From my point of view the

agreement which has been accepted by

Microsoft is unfair to Microsoft. I believe, the

agreement, do to the idiocy of the

Department of Justice, the Courts, and other

branches of government will result in higher

prices, and the sniveling of competitors will

result in shoddier and higher priced products

for consumers. However, an agreement has

been forged and accepted by Microsoft.

So, Get on with the agreement as it has

been made and stop listening to whining and

complaining of Microsoft competitors and

other government units, such as the State of

California, that are trying to get additional

money for for their own political purposes.

They surely don’t care about me or the other

consumers who already chose Microsoft in a

free market place. They are concerned only

about themselves.

Jerome D. Bashinski

3114 Brackenwood Pl.

El Dorado Hills, Ca.

95762

MTC–00005264

From: Terry Myerson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:10pm

Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement

It is wonderful to see that a rational

discussion of the issues has finally taken

place between the government and Microsoft.

It would be wonderful to see the settlement

approved, and watch our capitalist system

grow on.

Terry Myerson

24698 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

4114 187th Ave SE

Issaquah, WA 98027

MTC–00005265

From: George Flake

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

I think that the harrassment of Microsoft

Corporation via the antitrust court case

should be terminated promptly. I am an

owner of Microsoft stock and feel that he

government has unfairly cost me money

because of this lawsuit. Please bring this case

to closure.

George H. Flake

17867 Amberwood Lane

South Bend, IN 46635

MTC–00005266

From: GARY STOGSDILL

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This settlement is reasonable and fair, how

much longer must this go on. Let’s get this

economy rolling we don’t need this to further

delay our wishes.

MTC–00005267

From: Dick Schwab

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Department of Justice,

The time has come to put and end to

continuing legal action against the Microsoft

Inc. and complete the proposed U.S.

Microsoft Settlement. The Department of

Justice (i.e injustice) together with the

Federal Reserve started in the year 2000 the

Tanking of the US economy buy spooking the

investment community. Now that you both

have succeeded and cost me the majority of

my life savings I wish you would get your

heads out of your butts and allow me to live

out the few years I have left with a return of

the investment community to investing in

their beliefs and not being dictated to by US

Government agencies who think playing with

the laws is a game. All of you are hired to

serve all of America not just a few special

interest groups trying to force their products

on people by using US Government actions.

In this country, the better product and better

service is what gains product acceptance and

the consumer should not be jerked around by

US Government agencies serving a few

special interest groups. Now go and do the

right thing and serve all of America’s

consumers and investors instead of serving

just a few special interest groups.

Richard Schwab

38 Howard Street

West Haven, CT 06516

rj.schwab@snet.net

MTC–00005268

From: hal gronewold

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530–0001

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

I’m relieved the Department of Justice has

finally settled its antitrust case against

Microsoft. I hope the other states will soon

see the light and sign on to this agreement.

We in Iowa believe we have benefited from

Microsoft products. Had it not been for

Microsoft’s policies the average American

would not be able to afford a PC. I hope

Microsoft will be able to get back to the

business of providing innovative software

and other products for consumers without

this distraction. Our economy depends on

high technology to keep moving it forward

and Microsoft is one of the prime stimulants.

Thank you for supporting this settlement.

I trust you will continue to make the

decisions needed for the stability and

security of our American way of life. Thank

you for your attention.

Harlan L. Gronewold

PO Box 524

Atlantic, IA 50022

712–243–2083

E-Mail halagron@metc.net

FAX 712–243–5812

MTC–00005269

From: Joseph Duffey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:50pm

Subject: the proposed mircrsoft settlement

Blank I am really flabbergasted at the lack

of concern for consumers displayed in the

proposed settlements in the matter of

Microsoft

Joseph Duffey

2801 New Mexico Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20007

jduffey@earthlink.net

MTC–00005270

From: Nancy Swaim

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:53pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Where do states rights end and state

Attorney Generals (who wannabe governors,

at the very least) end?

Let’s see if you can get politics out of this

case and end it fairly. How much ‘‘tax payer’s

money’’ has already been spent on this case?

Outrageous!

Thanks you.

Nancy Swaim

1/1/02

MTC–00005271

From: wolfgang manowski

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

The last thing the American economy

needs is more litigation that benefits only a

few wealthy competitors and stifles

innovation. Lets settle the Microsoft

Settlement now; nothing could be more ‘‘in

the publics interest’’.

Regards,

Wolfgang Manowski

25 Southridge Way

Daly City, CA 94014

4153335610 wolfm3@yahoo.com

Regards, Wolf.

MTC–00005272

From: Dave Moore

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 12:53pm

Subject: Microsofot Settlement

I believe that the current agreement is in

the best interest of all those concerned,

Thanks Dave Moore.

MTC–00005273

From: Hank Sauls

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 1:10pm

Subject: MS Settlement

Wait a minute—aren’t you supposed to

represent the public? Then why did you put

out such a STUPID agreement? Is this the

best you can do? Next time I suggest you use

lawyers that have a legit law degree and not

the ones that learned law in jail!

Nincompoops! You make a mockery of

justice! The ordor from this stinky agreement

will NOT go away. Am extrememly

disappointed with your actions. No wonder

the Senate is investigating. Thanks for selling

us all out. No wonder people loathe lawyers.

You are now part of the problem and NOT

part of the solution.

Assholes.

Sincerely, WHS

MTC–00005274

From: Claudio Vacalebre

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 1:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please Stop the litigation ang give

Microsoft the opportunity to continue

improving its products! We leverage, as IT

Providers, the Microsoft Platfom, considered

by us the best IT platform the market can

offer.

Dr.claudio

CEO & CIO dotMMS srl

Messenger: claudiov99@hotmail.com

Sito Istituzionale: www.dotmms.it

Portale dimostrativo: http://dotmms.tv

Sito Personale: http://claudio.tv

MTC–00005275

From: Helchie Charles

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 1:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I hope that the nine states who want to

create even more trouble for Microsoft are

told to go on their way. Four years is enough

time having disruptions occur to a great

American company such as Microsoft.

Our country is at war and all these states

can think of is their own agendas. Well, our

economy is trying to rebound after the worst

attacks on American soil ever. Hearing the

Attorney General of Connecticut whine about

the terms of this settlement is sad and he is

humiliating his state. They were very close

to Ground Zero and this is what he focused

on? Time to get this settled and give

Microsoft a chance to continue to raise the

level of perfection in the field of software. If

this company wants time to adjust to the

settlement then I think they should get it.

After the blistering they received at the hands

of Judge Jackson they deserve some break in

this whole mess. Now at a time when we are

all asked to ‘‘keep the economy moving’’ who

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24699

are these nine states to show us they are not

willing to do the same?

Thank you for your time.

Helen Charles

MTC–00005276

From: Flash Sheridan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 1:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Re: DOJ Wants

to Hear From YOU!

On Monday, December 31, 2001, at 02:17

PM, Microsoft wrote: Email:

microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov. In the Subject line

of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.

Please don’t believe Microsoft’s

orchestrated pseudo-grass-roots campaign.

They’re an illegal monopoly and should be

treated as such. CC:Flash Sheridan

MTC–00005277

From: Elizabeth Lester

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 1:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a citizen of California, and am in

STRONG FAVOR OF proceeding with the

Microsoft SETTLEMENT in lieu of further

litigation. Far too much effort has been spent

to demonize a company which helped spark

the pc revolution. Many technology

companies have benefitted from the success

of Microsoft, and it is undeniable that

Microsoft has created countless American

jobs. Microsoft’s philanthropic efforts have

been earnest and most generous. Great

philanthropy does not justify wrongdoing.

But what is so wrong about revolutionizing

the way we live and work and making a

profit in the process? I can think of many

other ‘‘villains’’ to attack: Osama bin Laden,

Saddam Hussein, John Walker. Did they put

personal computers in schools or money in

workers’ pockets? I don’t think so. Let’s start

attacking our real enemies, and stop biting

the hands that feed us.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth H. Lester

Fremont, California

CC:Larry Hollis,Tim Lester

MTC–00005278

From: Larry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 1:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am for proceeding with the current

settlement.

From everything I’ve read, I believe the

settlement reached between the DOJ,

Microsoft, and 9 states is fair, reasonable, and

healthy for the software industry and

consumers. Further punishment or shackles

on Microsoft would only serve to weaken

American strength in the global technology

industry.

Dr. Larry Novak

1751 Oakmount Rd.

South Euclid, Ohio 44121–4007

MTC–00005279

From: Stephen Myers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 1:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My view is that Microsoft has acted in the

publics interest to come to settlement terms

with the DOJ and nine states, even though

they could prolong litigation to receive a

more favorable outcome. I think the terms

should be accepted, and the resourses of the

government put to better use elsewhere.

Thank you

Stephen Myers

MTC–00005281

From: Mike

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 1:46pm

Subject: Microsoft

The people and the business world has had

enough. A settlement was reached and it’s

time to get on with life. Do not allow others

to derail what has taken a very long time to

settle.

MTC–00005282

From: Jim Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 2:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to urge the government to

settle this case quickly. Our economy is in

dire need for this case to be resolved as

quickly as possible. Microsoft is one of the

gems of our global economy. Our entire

world’s economy is in bad shape directly as

a result of the actions of a few misguided

individuals in the previous administration.

The Bush administration, the justice

department and the judges involved in this

case owes it to the public to resolve this case

quickly and get our economy back on track.

It is no secret and historical market data/

charts can prove that the stock market

meltdown started immediately after this case

was ruled upon by Judge Jackson. As

Microsoft’s stock started falling the rest of the

tech sector started falling thereby causing a

market meltdown. Ironically many

flourishing new competitors with low cash

and high market cap were able to compete

with Microsoft with their stock capital. Now

those companies are gone also because of

these state attorney generals and the previous

administration.

It is ironic that the competitors of

Microsoft got hurt by this case more as well

as the entire dotcom economy crased after

this case was decided upon in the lower

courts.

The government and Microsoft’s

Competitors must learn and realize from this

mistake that our software industry and the

entire IT industry is linked by a common

fabric of stability, leadership and innovation

led by Microsoft, the independent software

and hardware vendors and partners that

build high technology solutions around this

fabric.

Every day as more PCs are sold with the

standardized Windows platform, there is

secondary (trickle down) demand created for:

1. Semiconductor components that make

up a PC—Memory, processors etc.,

2. Peripherals that are attached to the PC

such as disk drives, video cards, modems,

network interfaces, etc.,

3. Software from 3rd party developers that

build solution around Windows all over the

world including bridging competitive

platforms around Windows

4. IT consulting by—EDS, Price

Waterhouse, D&T, and many many small

consulting firms all over the world

5. Servers—IBM, SUN Microsystems,

Compaq, Dell, Gateway, Sony, Fujitsu,

Unisys, Hitachi, etc., to serve web pages to

the masses that will go online after their PC

purchases

6. Advanced backoffice software to provide

infrastructure to millions of PC users

(eCommerce, B2B, B2C, etc.,)—SAP, People

Soft, Oracle, IBM, and other similar products

by many smaller companies Microsoft’s

competitors had gained just as much benefits

by Microsoft’s success as a result of this

secondary and trickle down demand until the

stock market meltdown.

Lets not forget that the Internet economy

was created by the masses that logged on to

the information highway and started the

eCommerce craze. These same masses use

Windows based PCs to participate in

eCommerce thereby generating demand for

Servers; yes the very same servers that

Microsoft’s competitors make such as Sun,

IBM, Oracle etc.,

It was extremely shortsighted and

misguided for these attorney generals to be

waging this war against Microsoft in the

name of consumers. In fact ironically, more

consumers and general public have been

economically hurt by the careless actions of

these attorney generals.

As a direct result of this DOJ case against

Microsoft, many 401k and retirement funds

have been wiped out both in the private as

well as the Goverment sector and not to

mention the millions of dollars that has been

wasted on this case to please a few wealthy,

envious and greedy executives of the tech

industry.

Lets resolve this problem right away by

accepting the settlement between Microsoft

and the goverment. Furthermore, the state

attorney generals should be scolded by the

judge for trying to derail this important

settlement.

Sincerely,

Tax Payer.

MTC–00005283

From: Robert G. Parsons

To Microsoft ATR,john.hostettler@

mail.house.gov@inetg...

Date: 1/1/02 1:55pm

Subject: Letter regarding Microsoft AntiTrust

Suit

Gentlemen,

Attached please find a letter regarding the

Microsoft AntiTrust Settlement.

Thank you for listening.

Bob Parsons

Robert G. Parsons

President

AUTOMATED OFFICE SOLUTIONS 2100

N. Cullen Ave.

Evansville, IN 47715

812–471–5005 Phone

812–471–5858 Fax rgp@aos-evv.com

www.aos-evv.com

December 31, 2001

Attorney General John Ashcroft

U.S. Dept. of Justice: 950 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

24700 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Over the years I have encountered several

instances where I believe that Microsoft had

crossed the line of overly aggressive sales and

service techniques—particularly with respect

to its technology partners. I have never been

convinced, however, that this business-savvy

attitude warranted something as severe as

this antitrust lawsuit instituted against them

by our own government. More likely than

not, should Microsoft’s aggressive attitude

have continued, market pressure would have

brought them back into a more cooperative

spirit anyway. Certainly, our government’s

threats to break the company up were a bit

over the top.

Now that the lawsuit has been settled,

however, I am sure that Microsoft will be

more likely to treat its technology partners

with a greater degree of cooperation,

helpfulness and respect. I am therefore

hopeful that the settlement will be affirmed

through this period of public comment, and

that no further federal action will be

required.

This letter is a measure of that hope. We

cannot allow the government to spend any

more of its valuable resources and time on

this. There are obviously so many other more

important matters with which to deal. The

Justice Department itself is especially busy

lately, perhaps more so than any other

agency. Our government can do great things

for America in areas such security and the

national economy now, and it should focus

instead on that.

I appreciate the opportunity to voice my

opinion in such a meaningful way. Thank

you.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Parsons, President

AUTOMATED OFFICE SOLUTIONS

2100 N. Cullen Ave.

Evansville, IN 47715

rgp@aos-evv.com 812–471–5005

cc: Representative John Hostettler

MTC–00005284

From: Tom Conrad

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 2:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Resolution

To whom it may concern:

I would like to express my opposition to

the Microsoft Anti-Trust ‘‘settlement’’. The

settlement is clearly insufficient punishment

for a corporation that controls in excess of

90% of the personal computing market and

attempts to dominate every aspect of the

consumer electronics marketplace.

As a senior software engineer for a major

defense contractor, I indirectly depend upon

Microsoft for my paycheck; however, I see

Microsoft abuse its monopoly power on an

almost daily basis. Numerous small

companies that provided excellent customer

service and superior products (Visio Inc.,

AutoMap Inc., and many others . . .) were

purchased by Microsoft in the name of

‘‘progress’’ and ‘‘innovation’’. The technology

developed by these companies was dissolved

into the ‘‘MS Monopoly’’ (a phrase that is

probably trademarked by Microsoft by now),

with Microsoft claiming credit for the

‘‘innovation’’ of the original products. As

part of the ‘‘Microsoft overhaul’’, the

products from these former companies were

usually packed with useless features (such as

promotions for other Microsoft products) and

sold at higher prices (ironically, because of

the new ‘‘features’’).

As a software developer, I’m forced to

decipher Microsoft’s pathetic documentation

in an attempt to create products that compete

with their own applications. I’ve tried using

Microsoft’s so-called ‘‘technical support’’ to

try to determine how to implement new

software, only to be told I ‘‘couldn’t’’ or

‘‘shouldn’t’’ do what I’m attempting. After

failing to receive answers from their

technical support staff after literally weeks of

waiting, I would resort to using

‘‘undocumented’’ techniques to determine

how to make my software work with their

operating systems. Naturally, Microsoft

detests those who would dare use

‘‘undocumented’’ features, although a quick

analysis of their software indicates their

internal developers use the same functions I

use. I simply can’t imagine Microsoft’s

‘‘Office 200(whatever)’’ development team

having to wait for weeks to get answers to

their questions!

In summary, in order to restore

competition into the computing marketplace,

Microsoft must be broken into at least two

divisions (operating systems and software

applications). This would allow smaller

companies to compete with Microsoft and

would give consumers limited relief from

‘‘MS Monopoly 2002’’. More importantly,

such an action would force Microsoft’s

application developers to live in the same

environment as the ‘‘rest of us’’. If you really

want to see ‘‘innovation’’, not merely ‘‘MS

Innovation 2002’’, break them up! Contrary to

Microsoft’s statements, the computing world

is very unlikely to abruptly end!

—Tom Conrad

Senior Software Engineer

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00005285

From: Kenth Astrom

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 2:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

It is my firm oppinion that DOJ should

dismiss the case against Microsoft entierly.

The charge was not just in the first case

and was politically motivated. Microsoft has

done more for this country and this economy

than any other large corporation in history,

with products which makes life easier and

are enjoyed all over the world.

Please take the only plausible action and

dismiss this case when the ruling takes place

this month.

Freedom to invent must endure, especially

in this downturn in economy!

Yours Sincerely

Kenth Astrom

Northford, CT

MTC–00005286

From: Stanley Holman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 2:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To those of you that are concerned. Please

lay off Microsoft, they have done more to

offer help to potential competitors than any

other company I can think of.

As a simple computer user, (As the vast

majority of us are), It is EXTREMELY

important that all of the programs within the

computer do not conflict with each other. No

other entity that I know of is nearly as

concerned with this aspect of the business as

Microsoft.

Bill Gates, In my opinion, did nothing

wrong except to look out for those of us that

are not computer programmers by

incorporating a working browser for free.

Additionally, he has not sent us looking for

drivers or asked us to go into our systems and

fiddle with programs, system ini files, etc.

Bill Gates is a true American hero and a

perfect example of how to become a

Millionaire. The exact opposite of (AOL

‘‘Arabs on line’’ and Time Warner) who have

many Anti American policies and employees.

Sincerely;

Stanley L. Holman

MTC–00005287

From: dave

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 2:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust non-settlement

The proposed settlement of the antitrust

action against Microsoft is unacceptable. This

settlement could be compared to citing Hitler

for not having his apparatus for killing

people up to the current safety code—no

safety valves for the pilots on the oven

burners.

David Freeman

MTC–00005289

From: kathie grimsley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 2:47pm

Subject: Microsoft

In my opinion . . . the message to

Microsoft AND it’s competitors should be

that innovative ideas are needed to keep us

moving towards the future and ensure the

best products are available. However,

designing operating systems or software

applications that are not openly compatible

stiffles innovations and limits the consumers

ability to use whatever OS and applications

best meets their needs.

In spite of already losing in the courts,

Microsoft continues to use every means

possible to stifle any competition that could

provide alternative products. ‘‘Open’’

competition would force ALL hardware and

software manufacturers to provide products

that are cross-compatible AND user friendly.

Their software continues to demand more

memory, faster processing, upgraded

programs, etc. Technical support for older

(last version) hardware and software

products is non-existant. You can no longer

buy any hardware or software that you can

expect to use for more than 6 months to a

year. What kind of resources (plastics,

metals, haz-mat substances) are being wasted

by making these products ‘‘disposable’’? How

much money must the consumers be

expected to spend just to keep a system that

is useable AND supported?

Microsoft’s latest release (Microsoft

XP)now threatens to infringe upon privacy

issues. They are not threatened by the

monetary fines assessed by the courts so far.

They have consumers by the short hairs and

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24701

will just continue their practices which will

continue to make them more money than is

imaginable.

Microsoft has the advantage of being able

to set the ‘‘standard’’. Everyone else

(consumers & competitors) are force-fed the

Mircosoft standard because there isn’t

anything else acceptable. The Microsoft

systems continue to be unreliable. Systems

crash, vital information and productivity is

lost. How is this acceptable? The old DOS

systems were VERY reliable and crosscompatible. Never any crashes, no lost

information, etc.

Part of the blame also rests with consumers

for not demanding alternative products. Alot

of consumers (individuals and

businesses)jumped on the Microsoft

bandwagon before it’s systems were timetested. Most are unwilling at this point to

make critical changes because of the expense

that would be involved.

Microsoft continues to operate in a manner

that is not conducive to a competitive

environment and will ultimately do more

harm to the consumers and the industry if

left unchecked.

Now that this has been brought to the forefront, we have the ability to force change for

the betterment of the industry and the

consumer. The message to Microsoft must be

strong ‘‘CEASE and DESIST the unfair

practices’’ they continue to use. Their

products should be openly compatible so the

consumer can decide what they want to use.

If Microsoft is truly the superior product,

they will have lost nothing and gained the

respect of the industry and the consumer. If

they are not the superior product, the

industry and the consumer wins the chance

to find or create something better.

Thank you.

MTC–00005290

From: Mike KAZEEF

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 3:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a user of Microsoft products and

would like to support the current terms of the

settlement.

I am urging DOJ to place a great dal of

weight on the value of innovation.Economic

growth and technological leadership do not

happen by themselves. They are triggered or

supported by advances in thinking and

improving the execution of business

strategies in all walks of life.

Thank you for considering the long term

well being of the US economy.

Regards

Mike Kazeef

2000 Santiago Drive

Newport Beach, CA 92660

MTC–00005291

From: TheRHogue Hogue

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 3:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

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.’’

During this public comment period, I

would like to state that the settlement is fair

for all parties and for the American people.

The current settlement is in the best

interest of our country. Given the current

recession and the terrorist assault on our

country, I ask the court to end this litigation

by accepting the settlement. 2002 is an

election year. I ask the court not to allow this

matter to, once again, cause political

mischief.

It is true that a few of Microsoft’s rivals

wish to continue litigation, and it is their

right to do so. But, the settlement isn’t

designed to help these rivals. The settlement

is for the benefit of the American people. I

ask the court to help the American people do

what they desire most...to move on in

troubled times.

Sincerely

Robert Hogue

MTC–00005292

From: Joan Ruffing

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 3:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Dear Sirs:

Please settle this conflict immediately.

Our economy is in enough difficulty at this

time. Steel mills are closing. Many industries

are fleeing to the low employment costs of

other countries. When an American industry

is thriving, why do we spend all these tax

dollars trying to destroy it?

Leave Microsoft alone and spend your time

and MY DOLLARS trying to fix our

struggling economy.

Sincerely,

Joan Ruffing, LMS

MTC–00005293

From: Mark Genung

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 3:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I have been involved in the computer

industry since 1978. It is my humble opinion

that we would not be were we are today

without industry leaders like Microsoft.

Microsoft has almost single handedly paved

the road to get technology on the desktop,

where it is today.

I have never really understood the

government trying to protect me, the

consumer, from a good company like

Microsoft. An American company that

started out with nothing, was in the right

place and the right time, made good

decisions and through the same basic

business philosophy that we preach to our

children, become one of the most successful

companies of all time. Now my government

says they have gotten to big and successful,

that that cheap operating system or browser

they provide for free can’t be good.

I know this, if it were not for Microsoft we

would still be in the dark ages with

computers, and to purchase the software that

Microsoft almost gives away it would cost

10–20 times what Microsoft charges for it.

I’m a small business man, I understand

competition, if I do my job better than my

competitor, I will survive , If I don’t, I won’t.

What message should record in history? Be

successful, but don’t be too successful? This

Microsoft story is as American as apple pie.

Don’t mess with my apple pie. Let this story

play out. Just as Microsoft got on top, they

could be just as easily tumbled by some other

innovative concepts we have not considered.

The government is trying to handle this; time

will take care of any antitrust problem on its

own.

Settle with Microsoft and let’s get on to the

things in this country that are important.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Genung

8247 Indy Court

Indianapolis, IN 46214

317–271–1000

MTC–00005294

From: leo coro

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 3:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Case

The proposal that Microsoft has put

forward is just more of the same thing that

they have been doing. Their offer of ‘‘used

computer equipment’’ and software is

ridicules. The cost of the software should be

counted value wise, at the cost of the

materials only, so its value is about $0.02 per

copy not street cost. The value of ‘‘used

computer equipment’’ is again nothing for a

Corp. of their size the upgrading of

equipment is constant, and makes a good tax

rite off so we the ones they have been robing

with their ‘‘we will do as we please ‘‘ and

no one can stop us must end or the total

industry will collapse.

Leo S. Coro

Richmond VA.

MTC–00005295

From: Jim Botts

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 3:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am 100% in favor of this settlement. It

should not of been filled in the first place.

James W. Botts

jsbotts@earthlink.net

MTC–00005296

From: Mark Josephs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 3:50pm

Subject: Comments

Dear Sir:

I have worked with computer software for

over 18 years. During this time I have seem

the growth and death of many software

companies. However, the Microsoft

monopoly has grown using illegal practices.

I have been damaged by these illegal

practices when I purchased WordPerfect for

Windows and it did not work. I was forced

to buy Microsoft Word as a word processing

tool.

The proposed settlement does not punish

Microsoft for its illegal behavior nor does it

provide any means of assuring that Microsoft

will not continue to use its vast economic,

political and technical power to continue to

extend its monopoly in the computer

hardware and software business.

Please do not accept this settlement offer.

Please impose measures that will allow

competition to again flourish and protect

consumers in the software markets.

Thanks for your time,

24702 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Joseph J. Simpson

6400 32nd Ave. NW #9

Seattle WA. 98107

MTC–00005297

From: marsha.hunter@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a concerned citizen I have watched the

Microsoft case and think it’s time to settle the

case once and for all.

Please settle this case so everyone can

move on.

MTC–00005298

From: Jesika

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I wish to voice my displeasure over the

settlement made in the Microsoft Antitrust

case. While it does address some important

points, the most egregious of Microsoft’s

actions go unmentioned. I was pleased to see

that it prohibited Microsoft from asking

OEM’s to discontinue their current practices

of pre-installing competing software and

OS’s, but this is simply not enough. The

simple fact is that consumers are being forced

to pay a Microsoft ‘‘tax’’ on every complete

system purchased. It is impossible to

purchase a complete system without

Microsoft pre-installed, even if you have no

intention of using the product.

What I’d really like to see is a true offer of

competition. I would like to see Microsoft

prohibited from requiring OEM’s to offer

their OS exclusively, or in combination with

another OS. Until I can walk into a store and

purchase a pre-built x86 PC without a

Windows operating system on it, Microsoft is

still monopolizing my options. I will not be

satisfied with the rulings against them if I am

not given an option to either purchase a

computer with out Windows, or a method of

receiving a refund for Windows if I remove

it from the system.

Thank you for considering my opinions. I

appreciate the work you have done so far on

this issue.

Sincerely,

Jesika Hurdelbrink

San Antonio, TX

MTC–00005299

From: Alex Lima

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:08pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I believe that the reached settlement is fair

enough to all. In this time of economic

uncertainty the Government should be doing

everything within their power to restore

confidence to the American people.

Microsoft is a great company to this country

and to the entire world. Lets get back on track

and show the world that the U.S. Gov. And

private industry can work together for the

better of all.

MTC–00005300

From: A&L Solutions

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let’s settle this and move on. Tax payers

have more to worry about than ever and

every minute this thing goes longer we (tax

payers) pay, pay, pay. There are more

immediate concerns to invest tax dollars in

with our economy in the trash can and

terrorists crossing our boarders freely. Settle

now and allow our country’s industry to

progress.

I use Microsoft products and although they

are not perfect, I find them to be the best

available and will continue to use them

regardless of what other programs are

available. Microsoft stands by their

technology and personally I feel this whole

long drawn out litigation is ridiculous.

I am a consumer of computer products and

do not feel that Microsoft has infringed on

my freedom to purchase any brand by any

company. Personally, I feel that Microsoft is

just another victim of attorney greed. I’d like

to see the figures on how much of the

‘‘settlement’’ winds up in attorney hands. I’m

betting I’m correct in saying that it would be

shocking.

Further litigation serves no one. Enough is

enough. Settle this now.

Thank you for allowing me to express my

opinion.

Linda Wood

MTC–00005301

From: Stehlikjf@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I urge the Government to settle this suit as

soon as possible. The agreement that was

worked out by the Government and Microsoft

seems to bring a reasonable conclusion to

this case. It is unfortunate that some others

want to continue to litigate this effort for an

extended period of time for an unknown

benefit. I believe that very little good can

come of a continued debate over the

completeness of the settlement. This whole

argument about Windows and its associated

software will be old news in another year or

two as the progress made in the operating

system software is expanding extremely fast.

Microsoft did accomplish some major

benefits for the consumer. The primary

benefit is that it made the computer usable

to a myriad of people who have little on no

technical background. Prior to Windows and

its integration, we all struggled with a DOS

based system that provided most users with

high levels of frustration. Today, we now

have 90+ year old grandmothers and

grandfathers using the Internet to say hello to

their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

It has also given them a feeling that life has

not passed them by. Hurray!

Lets us get on with the settlement. It is not

perfect and it never will be. It seems to be

reasonably fair and that is all we can ask. We

do not need more punishment.

Jim Stehlik

MTC–00005302

From: Xactman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Jan 1, 2002

I am taking the time from my New Year’s

Holiday to write you concerning the

Microsoft settlement.

I am now a database applications

developer making a very good salary. I am

self trained, having taken advantage of

numerous free training opportunities

provided by Microsoft and gaining free

access to their technologies through their

websites and publications. Microsoft has

been the only company that has provided me

this opportunity.

From my point of view, if it hadn’t been

for this accessible training availability, I

would not be in the position I am today. I

have never found Microsoft to be anything

but helpful in providing opportunities and

assistance along the way in my career

development.

Gene Stebley

1310 Santa Rita #26

Chula Vista, CA 91913

MTC–00005303

From: Michael King

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Virtually every industry in the United

States, and hence our national economy, has

benefited from the breakthrough performance

opportunities the technology sector has

enabled. This scenario has promptly made

the technology sector a fiercely competitive

industry itself. It unnerves me that in order

to compete with Microsoft, its competitors

seek political intervention as the ?killer play?

that enables one of them to leapfrog

Microsoft to victory, or at least to get a bigger

slice of the pie. These tactics undermine the

principle of hard work, and hail government

intervention as a business management

option.

Settle this case fairly, and let Microsoft do

what it has proven it does so well ? make

business, and the economy, better. And not

just the national economy; the global

economy benefits substantially from the

technology sector which Microsoft should be

allowed to participate in vigorously,

aggressively, intelligently, and passionately.

Anything else is a failure of our government

to recognize the same spirit that wins wars

wins success.

MTC–00005304

From: Bruce Gladstone

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:47pm

Subject: Settlement

I am thoroughly in agreement with the

settlement reached by Microsoft and the

Justice Department. I believe the continuing

objections by the State’s Attorneys General

are politically motivated and are not

designed to benefit consumers in the

slightest. This is especially true of Atty. Gen

Lockyear in my home state. It is no

coincidence that both Sun and Oracle are

California Corporations, both would much

rather not compete with Microsoft based

server applications and database software

and both were significant contributors to

Atty. General Lockyear.

Bruce

Bruce Gladstone email:

brucegl@pacbell.net

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24703

3937 Sumac Dr. tel: (818) 986–2950

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 fax: (818) 981–

5922

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@

inetgw,Cringely@bd...

MTC–00005305

From: robow31@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my honest opinion that spending more

taxpayers dollars in continuing the anti trust

action against Microsoft is totally uncalled

for. Without Microsoft,our country would not

be a leader of the technology is this field.

There are certainly many other places our

tax dollars could be spent to make a positive

impact on our whole way of life.

Lewis Dahl,

Retired taxpaying veteran of WW2

MTC–00005306

From: Butch Fuller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel the Microsoft settlement is in my best

interest and that of other consumers.

I feel opposition to the settlement is based

on self serving attitudes of some companies,

and is not in the best interest of consumers.

I do not own stock in microsoft or any

technology company.

Sincerely,

Clark H. Fuller, Jr.

4926 York St.

Metairie, LA 70001

ph: 504–456–2946

MTC–00005307

From: hawks-75@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

When ‘‘Human Intelligence’’ (HUMINT) is

collected by our military and other

government sources; perhaps the most

important aspect if the information lies in

‘‘Who’s Talking’’. In this case, I am a Retired,

US Navy Captain; having served as a jet

fighter pilot and ‘‘Administrator’’ for 30

years. I have commanded the TOPGUN

squadron, (Navy Fighter Weapons School),

an F-14 Squadron as well as an overseas

Shore Station. My wife of 39+ years and I

continue to vote and pay our taxes. We are

PROUD Americans who are grateful to live in

this magnificent country.

Having said all that, we appreciate that our

‘‘Opinion’’ is no more significant than any

other family’s opinion, but we welcome this

opportunity to have our opinion considered.

We are very well informed on the merits

and basis of the case against Microsoft, and

of the proposed settlement(s). We believe it’s

time to ‘‘Git on with Bidness!’’ If ‘‘Both

Sides’’ can accept the existing elements of

the proposed ‘‘Settlement’’, then we propose

DOJ MAKE IT SO! We have been worn to a

frazzle by this overly-long and drawn out

process seeking some sort of ‘‘Justice’’ at

taxpayers expense. This has been particularly

adverse for all Americans as there can be

little doubt this litigation exacerbated the

economic downturn and possibly fueled the

subsequent Recession our economy has

experienced to date.

DOJ should answer the question; . . .

‘‘What possible GOOD can be served FOR

ALL AMERICA by refusing to settle and

continuing an extended court case against

Microsoft?’’ The ‘‘Answer’’ should be

couched in terms that the ‘‘Average

American’’ can both understand, and,

perhaps more importantly, AGREE WITH on

a ‘‘Cost vs Gain’’ basis. Is there no other way

in which our tax dollars could be spent more

productively? Only DOJ can answer that.

We appreciate the complexities involved,

but strongly recommend that DOJ accept the

settlement as written and move smartly into

the future beginning early in 2002.

. GOD Bless YOU in your decision process,

and GOD Bless AMERICA! With Sincere Best

Wishes for the BEST OUTCOME;

John Monroe Smith

Virginia H. Smith

MTC–00005308

From: RRTo: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 5:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to ask the DOJ to please settle

the lawsuit with Microsoft. Since the

inception of this lawsuit it has been about

other corporations and the governments fight

against Microsoft for the benefit of these

other corporations. Myself and millions of

other people believe that Microsoft has

helped the consumer immensely. We were

given Internet Explorer free of charge as well

as other software programs.

Unfortunately, a few special interests are

attempting to use this review period to derail

the settlement and prolong this litigation.

I own 2 small business in Salem, Oregon

and we depend upon the innovation of the

Microsoft products as well as the support

they give the consumer. Please settle this

litigation, and let us and everyone else get on

with their life!

Sincerely,

Ray Reid

MTC–00005309

From: UKRbuff@webtv.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 5:07pm

Subject: Microsoft ;

In my opinion Microsoft Corp..is no

different than some one’s musical scores—

They should have the right to protect their

inventions in the electronics field just the

same—and not be infringed upon—just

because they were smarter and first on the

market with certain features that were

appealing to competitors—

If this right were to be extinguished —you

would totally allow theft of other persons

hard work and realization of fruits of their

labors.

The one thing I have noticed in my 75

years on this earth—Greed seems to take total

control——’He’s got it—I want some too’

attitude prevails...Rather than taking the bull

by the horns—inventing something that will

do the job just as well—but in a different

manner..

I fixed TV’s for a living as part of my

training to become an Empirical Eng..

(Electronic)—I couldn’t afford college—with

sick parents etc..I had to work-improve

myself as I went—and wound up Chief

Eng.in three organizations—23 of those years

of my last employment —Manufacturer of

Nuclear Measuring Equipment. as Final QC.

Eng-and Field Service Eng.

I take it personally that a person starts a

company—perhaps at the ‘‘right time’’ in

their life and time for that their products are

needed by the general public—and they work

hard-fast-efficient and do a good job—THEN

have someone else say ‘‘I want that Too’’ but

the original owners of the system they

invented naturally don’t think it right to be

forced to give up their control of their

products..that they invented....

Thank you for taking the time to read this

one small voice—against oppression of the

country’s people’s right to innovate and

follow-up with improvements of THEIR

OWN INVENTIONS——

James A.Eastham

Indianapolis, Ind.

MTC–00005310

From: MChernev@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 5:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please let the Microsoft settlement stand.

Marlene Tonkin Chernev, Fair Oaks, CA—

MChernev@aol.com

MTC–00005311

From: Robert V Robertson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 5:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please bring an end to the suit against

Microsoft. Some of their competitors are

jealous of their success and are try to go to

all lengths to hurt the company and their

shareholders. If it were not for Microsoft, we

would not have all of the ability and

knowledge that we have to conduct business

in today’s world.

It is not right to penalize a company for

their ability to provide superior products as

that is what is needed for us to provide for

the future.

Thank you for your consideration..

Robert V. Robertson

5731 Emmaus Church Road

Providence Forge, Virginia 23140

MTC–00005312

From: Andrew Suchy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 4:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Department of Justice Staff,

I have read the posted court documents

related to US vs. Microsoft, and would like

an opportunity to comment. While I do not

have training in law, I am an active software

developer, and have seen the industry evolve

for the past 12 years. With all due respect to

the legal minds that have worked to find

remedies for Microsoft’s antitrust violations

and anti competitive conduct, I deem the

measures grossly insufficient.

I do not wish to reiterate any points

already covered in the document, it is

sufficient to say that I have seen first hand

some of the complaints raised by the

plaintiff, and seen the devastating effect on

24704 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

competition and innovation. Instead, I would

like to point out why some of the remedies

will not work, and bring to your attention

how Microsoft continues anti competitive

behavior even today. First the remedies:

a. The requirement that Non-Microsoft

Middleware have at least one million copies

distributed before it is considered

‘‘competition’’ is ridiculous. In the software

business, one needs to have access to the

API’s in order to deliver a competitive

product. This is a chicken and egg problem:

one can’t get to one million copies without

having technical details (such as Section

III.D) and the ability to replace Microsoft

Middleware free of restrictions.

b. Regarding Microsoft’s restrictions on

subsection III.C.3 which require that NonMicrosoft Middleware activated during the

boot sequence look and behave the same way

as Microsoft Middleware, this clearly favors

Microsoft. If a competitor cannot distinguish

itself by the way its software appears on the

screen, or behaves during operation, than it

is doomed. Why would anyone load (or buy)

software that looks just like Microsoft’s,

when Microsoft’s version is already included

in the OS? This restriction must have been

dreamed up by Microsoft’s marketing

department.

c. The remedies regarding Middleware can

easily be avoided by Microsoft, by simply

moving functionality into the greater ‘‘OS’’.

Any feature can be hidden from competitors

by putting the functionality into proprietary

operating system components (otherwise

known as libraries). The remedies are so full

of holes, no software developer can take them

seriously. There are other concerns not

already addressed by the court papers, as

well:

a. There is no remedy for the hundreds or

thousands of businesses already killed by

predatory behavior,

b. There is no remedy for standards

subversion. In the computer industry,

standards for communication protocols,

application protocols, and internet protocols

(just to name a few) are made up by

representatives of the industry in

committees. Undue influence from a giant

like Microsoft is unavoidable. The attempted

subversion of Java is one example, the

introduction of the C# (pronounced C sharp)

programming language is another (because

software development tools are also

monopolized by Microsoft—not a well

publicized fact). There are also internet

protocols at stake, where interoperability of

software is prevented by diverging from

established standards (or evolving standards).

Doing this guarantees Microsoft that

competing products will not work, and lets

Microsoft dictate the protocol.

c. There is no remedy for other software

getting ‘‘tied’’ to the operating system. A

good example is the dispute between

Microsoft and Kodak over digital

photography software included in Windows

XP. CD writing (CD–R) software is another

recent addition. In fact, Microsoft continues

to kill competition by including software that

has nothing to do with the operating system.

As an analogy, would any of us feel

comfortable if the power company started to

include all the electric appliances we

needed, along with the electricity it sells us?

Soon, GE, Maytag, etc. would all be out of

business, and we would have nowhere else

to go get a refrigerator but the power

company. It doesn’t sound like the world I

want to live in.

None of the remedies in the settlement deal

with this problem.

I hope my comments are constructive and

help bring about a settlement more effective

than the current one.

Sincerely,

Andrew P. Suchy

CC:asuchy@cyberinnovate.com@inetgw

MTC–00005313

From: philip solar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 5:36pm

Subject: One person’s comments

I and my wife for one, Praise Microsoft for

their inovativtive policies. We would not be

able to conduct our business and be

productive if it were not for Microsoft and

their products. I for one have always felt that

there policy and pricing has been fair.

There is no question in my mind that

without this company our balance of

payments would be considerable more than

it is.

Philip Solar

Panzer2020@msn.com

MTC–00005314

From: John G. Jones

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 5:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settelment

Hi,

I would like to encourage the Government

to stop hassling Microsoft, They are a prime

example of capitalism at it best. You are

discouraging people from building a large

compaies, why not spend your time and our

Money tracing down Bin Laden or Omar. Do

you know how much money Microsoft and

Bill Gates donates to charity? Get off it and

do something useful.

John G. Jones

MTC–00005315

From: William Spurr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 5:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to stop punishing success.

Equating bigness with badness has been the

hallmark of anti-trust legislation from the

time of J. D. Rockefeller. This case, like most

of the others, has not been about the

consumers, who are supposedly protected by

anti-trust laws. It is about competitors who

can’t compete and about political favoritism.

If you have tried to use even the latest

version of Netscape (6.2) with many of the

websites that use Java (a Sun product—not a

Microsoft product), the pages don’t load

properly, even though they work fine in

Internet Explorer 5.5 and above. If this

doesn’t show that Netscape is uncompetitive,

and that it is not the choice of consumers,

what does?

Sincerely,

William A. Spurr

webmaster@crossroadspc.org

MTC–00005316

From: RBSINTL@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 6:05pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETLEMENT

Dear Mr. John Ashcroft:

I am Rafael Beltran III a hard working

Hispanic who pays taxes as most Americans

do.

I am writing to you today to request that

the case against Microsoft be settled:

a. As soon as possible before the new

elections

b. To ensure our economy gets back on

track as soon as possible The only thing

Microsoft has done wrong is to once again

put the USA ahead of other countries in the

world with the very best technology that can

be created.

We can no longer be protective of

companies that change technology every

three months and we get stuck with the bill.

When is this going to end? Please accept

Microsoft and The Justice Department terms

so we can move forward and bring our

economy where it supposed to be. Stop those

states that continue to delay the settlement

and have no common sense and no vision of

the future. These states are nothing but

protectionist states for political reasons that

have nothing to do with technology.

Thank God for Microsoft I can put food on

my family’s table. Microsoft’s technology

does not discriminate. Microsoft is good for

America. Please stop those protectionist

states that are trying to torpedo the

settlement that has been agreed upon.

If those companies that say they are being

left out continue to be protected because they

are not able to compete squarely and fairly

then they should shut down and move on to

something they are good at. Technology will

embrace what makes sense and what is

efficient, if those companies’ products were

not efficient and did not make sense then the

American public did not support them and

therefore we do not need them.

I am most confident that Microsoft will

comply all the way and at the same time

stimulate our economy and yes bring a better

life to little people like me.

Microsoft products do not discriminate and

do not see colors and origin and they way

you sound and the way you look.

Please stop harassing Microsoft.

Very Respectfully,

RAFAEL BELTRAN III

1898 Ascot Drive

Moraga, CA 94556

925–247–0777

US NAVY Reservist

MTC–00005317

From: Kirk Shaeffer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 6:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please complete the settlement process as

soon as possible. The country is in a

recession and it is not productive to continue

this Microsoft case any longer.

By prolonging this process the

advancement of technology will be slowed.

In addition, the nine individual states are

wrong not to settle this case as they appear

to be in on a MONEY GRAB of the profits of

one of America’s most successful companies.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24705

The saddest part of the Microsoft case was

that it’s competitors had complained to the

Clinton Administration until they finally

pressed the case against Microsoft. I certainly

would not act in this manner to any of my

successful business competitors!

Thank you for time in reading this email.

A response is not necessary.

Kirk Shaeffer Real Estate Analysis

Northwest

MTC–00005318

From: William Noble

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 6:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft Settlement

End this nonsense once and for all.

Microsoft has done nothing that Netscape,

Yahoo, Sun, Novell, Orcale and others have

not done. If the DOJ wants to stick up for the

‘‘consumer’’ take a long hard look at the

banking industry, insurance idustry (They

make the Mafia look legit) or maybe cable tv

markets. Great job they did going after the

cable company’s, last time. So pretty soon

we’ll have comcast and comcast to choose

from. The lawsuit agaist microsoft is wrong

and bad for consumers. The last

administration is gone, let their wrongful,

anti-consumer lawsuits go with them...

William Scott Noble

Nashua, NH

MTC–00005319

From: Richard H Rosenberg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 6:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement as proposed sounds

reasonable for all parties. In these uncertain

economic times it would be best to

concentrate on the challenging future, not the

past misdeeds of Microsoft. I think Microsoft

has learned it must deal more fairly with

competitors. Continued attention by DOJ to

Microsoft’s compliance with the settlement’s

terms is merited.

Sincerely,

Richard H. Rosenberg

2568 Indian Ridge Drive

Glenview, IL 60025–1049

MTC–00005320

From: DONALD SCHUMAN

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 6:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Department of Justice Member

From: Donald L. Schuman

I thought we had finally settled the case

against Microsoft but I now hear that 9 states

have decided to go against the settlement and

continue the case. How absurd? Let’s put this

action to bed. Enough is enough. We have far

more serious problems to worry about than

a bogus lawsuit.

Without Microsoft’s initiative in producing

quality software this country would not have

produced the gains in productivity that

helped this country over the last 7 to 10

years. Now these states want to ‘‘penalize’’

the company further because they have

created something that their competitors

could not have. Where is the sense and

reason for this action. This country was built

on innovation, hard work and creativity!!!

Now we are letting those who feel, since they

didn’t invent it, its something bad and

injurious to their company. That’s just plain

b.s. Microsoft products have always been

open and competitive. Let’s let them

continue to innovate and help us to move

forward. For those companies that are not

that creative, well maybe they should ‘‘fall by

the wayside.’’ Let us not punish the good for

those who are not as smart. I am a taxpayer

and a consumer that feels strongly that you

must not stifle creativity for the benefit of

those that are just not that bright and

creative. Go Microsoft!

Donald L. Schuman

donald.schuman@worldnet.att.net

MTC–00005321

From: AWzr1

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 7:17pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

As a Consumer I strongly believe that the

settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft is

a good deal for us and the American

economy.

In the ‘‘public interest’’ lets end this mess

and avoid any prolonged litigation. That’s as

brief and to the point as I can be.

Sincerely,

Anthony Wieleba

AWzr1@msn.com

MTC–00005322

From: Stanislav Fritz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 7:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I would like to briefly comment on the

potential settlement on the Microsoft Antitrust case. At a time when the nation, and the

state of Washington in particular, is in

economic dire straits and struggling with

change, it would seem like this settlement is

something that should go forward as quickly

as possible.

The landscape of high tech continues to

change and if the U.S. has any chance of

remaining a leader in portions of this, such

as software, biotech, and aerospace, we need

to have strong innovative companies.

If Microsoft is continually shackled by the

DOJ, private lawsuits, and uncertainty, it will

indeed falter and no other punishment will

be needed. This can do nothing but hurt the

economy and high technology.

2002 is a crucial year for all. I urge speedy

action.

I have been an executive at three software

companies. My personal experience tells me

that Microsoft is indeed an innovative

company and it acts aggressively, but not

unreasonably. I am not a Microsoft employee.

Sincerely,

Stanislav Fritz

6717 46th Avenue SW

Seattle, WA 98136

MTC–00005323

From: Ron Burk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 7:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Ron Burk, Founding Member

ronburk@hightechinfo.com

HighTechInfo.com

P.O. Box 3082

Redmond, WA 98052

(425) 869–0233

This is a comment on the proposed

government settlement in the Microsoft

antitrust action. We believe the proposed

settlement does not fall within the range of

acceptability, and is not within the reaches

of public interest.

This comment on the proposed antitrust

settlement with Microsoft argues two things:

* That the government attorneys

negotiating the settlement were unable to

judge the boundaries of their own

competence on technical matters, leading

them to assumptions that were starkly

incorrect.

* That the settlement is detrimental to

national security. That is due to the fact that,

contrary to the government’s uninformed

assumption, security software that is

centralized and kept secret is much more

vulnerable to attack than security that is

open, public and decentralized. Courts

versus Technology

Two effects must be taken into account

when assessing the technical competence

with which this settlement was arrived at

and accepted by the participants: the

accelerating complexity of technology, and

accelerating permeation of technology in

society. On the one hand, the technological

acceleration of the last few decades

guarantees that the courts must deal with

highly technical issues where government

officials have no hope of holding personal

competence. On the other hand, the

permeation of technology into society gives

its non-technical members the illusion that

they understand the technology well enough

to judge when they are, or are not, competent

to act with common sense.

For example, when powered flight first

emerged, few members of the public would

have ventured any opinion about how

airplanes work or are piloted. By the time

passenger flight was cheap and common,

however, most people formed at least some

very rudimentary level of understanding

about airplanes and flight. Thus, most people

would apply common sense to their own

limited experience of airplanes to assess that

flying closer to the ground is safer than flying

high, and that flying slower is safer than

flying fast. Unfortunately, both of these

‘‘common-sense’’ reactions are exactly

wrong, as all student pilots must be taught.

A more compelling example of

technological surprise comes when an

airplane stalls, which causes the nose of the

craft to pitch downward. It is only the most

obvious form of common sense that the nose

of the aircraft must then be immediately

pulled back up, to keep the aircraft from

diving into the ground. Unfortunately, this

‘‘common-sense’’ response is also exactly

wrong. The correct response, which must be

repeatedly drilled into new pilots so that

they can overcome their ‘‘common sense,’’ is

to push the nose even further down and

apply more power. So powerful is this

incorrect feeling of ‘‘common sense,’’ that

there have been recorded accidents caused by

passengers in small aircraft seizing the

controls and preventing the pilot from

recovering from a life-threatening stall.

24706 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Thus, we see that well-intentioned people

with a passing familiarity with some form of

technology may be incapable of judging the

boundaries of their own competence.

Moreover, technology provides many

situations where the layperson’s commonsense assessment of the correct course of

action is incorrect, or even disastrous. We

believe that this settlement provides an

example of such a disastrous application of

‘‘common sense’’ being applied outside a

party’s areas of expertise.

In the area of computers, most everyone in

government has some experience using

computers. While most non-technical

computer users hardly believe themselves to

be experts, most have enough basic

experience to feel that they at least know

what the limits of their competence is. As

with airplanes, this assumption is generally

false, and when that incorrect assumption

affects court proceedings, the results can be

as disastrous as an airplane crash.

Secrecy versus Security

One of the areas where the government’s

team clearly was incorrect in assessing the

boundaries of their own technical

competence was the controversial blanket

exemption for disclosing any information

that ‘‘would compromise the security of

antipiracy, antivirus, software licensing,

digital-rights management, encryption or

authentication systems.’’ The November 9,

2001 issue of The Wall Street Journal quotes

the government’s Mr. James as saying that

this grant was ‘‘one of those ‘duh’ issues’’,

continuing ‘‘Microsoft has security protocols.

Are we going to tell everyone how they

work? Do you want people to get access to

your credit-card information when you shop

on line?’’

Mr. James’ common-sense response to this

issue is entirely logical to the layperson—and

stupendously incorrect. Mr. James is

presumably not aware that the security

protocol used to protect almost every

Internet-based credit-card transaction is

public knowledge, has been so for years, and

has been studied extensively by large

numbers of programmers, including those

who would like nothing better than to be able

to steal credit card information.

Non-technical computer users often have

some personal experience with ‘‘passwords,’’

which tends to instill a belief that secrecy

and security are identical. Although it

contradicts the average computer user’s

‘‘common sense,’’ security experts know that

the only proven way to create security

protocols that can withstand attack for any

length of time is to make them public. Time

and time again, the history of computer

security has taught programmers that security

measures that rely on secrecy (e.g., I bet no

one will discover where my software stores

this password) have quickly fallen to

attackers. Even the security protocols

historically put forward by the government

itself were first exposed in detail, so that they

could be studied and their weaknesses

assessed before critical systems were made to

rely on them.

Furthermore, Mr. James would presumably

be astounded to learn that the main

competitor (called Apache) to Microsoft’s

web server product, not only uses publicly

documented protocols for security, but also

provides the entire source code for the server

itself. That’s right, any attackers who would

like to steal credit card information can freely

study absolutely every bit of source code that

goes into the most popular web server in use

on the Internet today. Once again, the

layperson’s ‘‘common sense’’ is confounded,

since the number of security vulnerabilities

discovered in the completely exposed

Apache web server has dwindled to a trickle,

while a steady stream of security flaws

continues to be exposed in Microsoft’s

proprietary and secretive web server. Indeed,

the most virulent attacks to date on the

government’s own computers were

implemented by exploiting security flaws in

Microsoft’s IIS web server (ironically, some

of the computers involved in the attack

belonged to Microsoft—they had neglected to

install their own innumerable security

patches on some of their own computers).

Even Microsoft is quite aware that secrecy

is not a sound basis for security, and

(eventually) learned to rely on robust,

publicly examined security protocols.

However, they still do use secrecy

extensively in order to prevent (via legal

attacks, if necessary) competitors from

creating software that is compatible with

their own. Thus, when Stac sued Microsoft

for violating their patents, Microsoft

countersued—essentially claiming that no

one could make the product in question

compatible with Microsoft software unless

they had reverse-engineered the necessary

information, which Microsoft indeed

deliberately kept secret (said secrecy offering

no security, only a way to prevent

competition).

Thus, although Microsoft incorporated a

well-known public security protocol (called

Kerberos) into Windows 2000, they

‘‘extended’’ it in order to deliberately render

it incompatible with third-party software.

Again, the goal was to prevent competition,

not to benefit customers. This is precisely the

sort of thing that any remedy should

eliminate, and precisely the sort of thing that

the government’s settlement would nanvely

accept as necessary. Microsoft was no doubt

happy to accept the government’s ignorance

about computer security and, with it, the

blanket exemption that will allow them to

continue to hold the power of life or death

over companies that need to make their

products compatible with Microsoft’s

monopoly products to survive.

The Interests of National Security

The same Wall Street Journal article

implies that thoughts of war and terrorism

influenced the settlement negotiations. Here,

too, it’s likely that the government was

unable to assess the bounds of their grasp of

the big (technical) picture.

Microsoft Passport (a so-called ‘‘single

logon’’ service) is cited as an example where

Microsoft must keep information secret. Not

only is it false that Passport’s security relies

on keeping interoperability information

secret, but Passport is ironically promising to

be one of the biggest threats to national

cybersecurity the United States has ever seen.

Because Microsoft wants Passport to be

centralized and under their control, they

essentially hope to put all of the nation’s

passwords, credit card numbers, phone

numbers, and other personal information in

a single location. As it is now, a foreign

hacker who wants to steal credit card

numbers (or blackmail a company whose

customer data he stole), must do so one

company at a time. With Passport, there will

be a single place where a hacker can affect

all customers (if Microsoft is successful at

signing everyone up, which their new

Windows XP tries very hard to do). Thus,

part of the system that the government hopes

to prop up with their settlement is a system

that could become the juiciest target for

cyber-terrorists of all time.

Customers have generally failed to

voluntarily select Microsoft’s Passport

product (despite it being free), so Microsoft

has resorted again to using its monopoly

powers to force a product on the

marketplace. They first made using Passport

a requirement for certain products, though

that still failed to force a large enough

number of customers to participate. Most

recently, windows XP is designed to nag,

cajole, and otherwise convince nanve users

that they are required to use Passport. The

government’s settlement, with its misguided

blanket exemption for security, allows

Microsoft to use their monopoly power to tie

this non-competitive product to their

operating system, and thereby force it on the

marketplace. The result is to make the nation

more vulnerable to cyber attack.

An example of why a centralized and nonopen design like Passport is so vulnerable

was provided on November 2, 2001, when a

programmer openly demonstrated a

technique for stealing any Passport user’s

complete information (including credit cards)

simply by getting the victim to open an email

message. Microsoft had to shut the Passport

service down for an extended period to effect

repairs. Customers relying on Passport were

simply out of luck for the duration of the

repairs. Imagine if everyone in the U.S. used

a single service for their passwords, and

therefore most Internet work came to a halt

every time Microsoft needed to fix a security

bug. The Internet depends on

decentralization for its robustness (it has

withstood power outages, cable cuts, and

even terrorist attack). Microsoft hopes to

force consumers to use a service that will

make much Internet use highly vulnerable to

all the problems the Internet itself has

survived.

Unfortunately, discovering a security bug

is not necessary to shut down Passport.

Because the Passport design is centralized

rather than distributed, it can easily be shut

down by any denial of service (DOS) attack.

It is currently virtually impossible to prevent

DOS attacks on the Internet (experts estimate

that several DOS attacks are in progress at

almost any given moment on the Internet). A

DOS attack may temporarily render one, or

even several web sites unusable simply by

‘‘clogging the pipes’’ near those sites, so that

all other traffic is stopped or slowed to a

devastating degree. There is virtually nothing

that can be done to prevent DOS attacks in

the current design of the Internet (more to the

point, it is a community problem, and not

something that Microsoft can affect in any

way by changing their software).

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24707

The centralized design of Passport

(Microsoft needs it centralized so that they

can control consumers’ data rather than

allowing competing companies to do so)

assures that it is completely vulnerable to

DOS attacks. Thus, the government’s

settlement is helping to prop up an anticompetitive single logon system that can be

shut down at any time by a disgruntled

teenager (often found to be the source of such

attacks) with moderately high technical

skills. Various arms of the government claim

to be highly concerned about the threat of

cyber-terrorism, yet the government proposes

to accept a settlement that will prop up a

monopoly’s plan to build the most enticing

and vulnerable cyber-terrorism target in U.S.

history.

It is our belief that Passport is one of a

great many areas of Microsoft anticompetitive activity that this settlement will

have no effect on.

Samba: Canary in a Coal Mine

Non-technical observers typically deem the

impact of any antitrust action against

Microsoft likely to be difficult to measure or

prove. Technical observers, however, can

point to any number of concrete situations

that are entirely dictated by whether or not

Microsoft can continue to abuse its monopoly

power.

Samba provides a good case in point.

Microsoft sells server software that provides

file sharing, and security management

(among other things). Microsoft has, of

course, tried to make their networking

software largely proprietary, so that they can

control who is, or is not, allowed to create

compatible software. Samba is the name of a

product that tries to allow users of nonMicrosoft operating systems to expose

services (such as file sharing) compatibly

with Microsoft networks. Thus, a company

that has both Unix and Windows computers

can run Samba on their Unix computers to

allow Windows users to easily access Unix

files.

The problem with Samba is quite simply

Microsoft’s refusal to document their

protocols. Thus, with each new release of

Windows, Microsoft changes their protocols,

and the Samba team has to tediously reverse

engineer all the changes (just one example of

the huge amount of American productivity

that is wasted nationwide on reverseengineering interfaces that Microsoft refuses

to document). Microsoft knows full well that

Samba will be able to eventually make their

software compatible (secrecy and security

being two separate things, as described

earlier), but by constantly making changes

and keeping Samba one step behind, they can

convince companies that Samba is an inferior

choice for any company that has workers

using Windows.

Any antitrust settlement that allows this

situation, in which Microsoft can use its

standard anti-competitive techniques to keep

Samba from ever catching up to ‘‘complete’’

compatibility with Windows, is a failure.

Some believe that Microsoft will also patent

their incompatibilities and then use legal

means to prevent Samba from fully

interoperating with Microsoft products. All

of which may be perfectly acceptable in a

competitive marketplace, but not in a

marketplace dominated by a single

monopoly.

We believe that this is just one example of

the many important areas that the

government-accepted settlement will allow

Microsoft to practice business as usual. An

integral part of what Samba does is password

management. Microsoft should be able to

claim to any government overseer that their

network services manage passwords, and

therefore they must (as they do now) refuse

to document their network protocols (despite

knowing full well that said protocols will

eventually be reverse-engineered, and that

that results in no compromise of security).

Astoundingly, the proposed settlement lets

the convicted company help choose the

members of its own somewhat toothless

overseeing ‘‘technical committee.’’ That fact,

combined with Microsoft’s prodigious ability

to delay and dissemble, and the settlement’s

incomprehensible restriction of terms to the

oddly defined ‘‘middleware’’ should allow

Microsoft to continue to press their anticompetitive tactics on products such as

Samba.

It is our belief that Samba is another one

of the great many areas of Microsoft anticompetitive activity that this settlement will

have no effect on.

Summary

We believe the government likely also

exceeded the bounds of their competence in

the area of economics. Another subtext of the

negotiations (and one Microsoft pressed

relentlessly in public), was that Microsoft’s

success is crucial to the economy. In fact,

Microsoft’s monopoly has consistently wiped

out small businesses and innovation of all

sorts for years, decimating what was once a

thriving sector of the economy. Another

recent Wall Street Journal article predicted

that the current lack of innovation in

technology would help prevent any

economic turnaround in that sector. We

believe that a settlement that vigorously

curtailed Microsoft’s ability to exploit its

monopoly (which is obviously not what this

proposed settlement does) would greatly

stimulate the technology sector of the

economy. We have not pressed that

particular issue here because our credentials

are in technology, not economics.

While Microsoft’s lawyers had to get their

negotiating agreements approved by a

qualified technical overseer (Bill Gates), the

government’s attorneys had no such

technical authority over them. As we have

shown, that clearly led government

negotiators to make incorrect decisions in

areas where they mistakenly believed their

own common sense was sufficient.

This antitrust action was an opportunity

for the government to force Microsoft to take

responsibility for their past flouting of the

law, and to rejuvenate an industry whose

main enemy is not the current economic

downturn, but the illegal actions of a single

monopoly. Unfortunately, the settlement

appears to be ineffectual at both penalizing

past law-breaking and preventing any future

law-breaking. The settlement appears to be

good deal for Microsoft and a few large

companies. It appears to be a very bad deal

for the nation’s security and economy.

Ron Burk

HighTechInfo.com,

www.hightechinfo.com

MTC–00005324

From: wencheng

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 7:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I believe the proposed settlement is

reasonable and fair to all parties involved.

Sincerely,

Wen-Ching Cheng

301–330–8512

MTC–00005325

From: Tom Hemmer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 7:54pm

Subject: settlement?

I want to register my dismay at the lack of

backbone that the justice department is

showing (again) in this case. I am a computer

professional that remembers the last antitrust

settlement (or should i say lack of settlement)

the previous time the justice department to

microsoft to task. My, my, how that really

helped stem the microsoft criminals!

Now once again, the justice department is

going to roll over. Is it because the party was

found innocent? no, it is because of politics

(Ashcroft is a lackey for big business). Using

the state of the economy as a reason to give

microsoft a slap on the wrist is wrong, wrong,

wrong. this is really short term thinking.

Think in the long term! But hey, a shot in

the arm for the economy would bolster Mr

Bush, Mr. Ashcroft and the republican party.

What should be Microsoft’s punishment?

why let’s subsidize their push into one of the

markets they do not dominate! As for the

people who came up with that solution, well,

Idiot school never graduated a better class!

So much for my government working for

me.

A Vietnam war era veteran (from a family

of veterans) who supports his country when

right and will not hesitate to change it when

it is wrong.

MTC–00005326

From: OrcaUSA

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 7:57pm

Subject: Fax: 1–202–307–1454 or 1–202–616–

9937

Sir I believe it is in the public’s interest

that the Microsoft case be settled without

further litigation.

Respectfully,

Donald W Seymour, MD

MTC–00005327

From: John Myles

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 8:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my opinion that Microsoft and Bill

Gates used the system to its most true

purpose—to make money.

Sure, some of the things that they did may

have been immoral, but to enter the business

arena and then cry foul when you get

knocked down is just plain stupid. Expecting

to be treated fairly is unrealistic when many

people are competing for the same dollar.

Microsoft will have its day and so will the

24708 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

next multinational business behemoth that

comes along.

MTC–00005328

From: Anthony Shipman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 8:29pm

Subject: comment on the U.S. v. Microsoft

case

A penalty is not a penalty unless it stings.

The current proposed ‘‘penalty’’ does not

sting Microsoft. The simple fact that they are

saying positive things about it, calling it

‘‘fair’’, shows that.

A real penalty that would be of great

benefit to the computer-using public would

be to require that control over the Microsoft

Office file formats be transfered to a public

standards body such as the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI). This

would include, at least, the formats for

Microsoft Word documents, Excel

spreadsheets and Powerpoint presentations.

This would make it possible for a variety

of software companies to develop office

software that interoperated with Microsoft

products. The goal is that an ANSIconforming document produced by vendor X

software would be guaranteed to be readable

by vendor Y’s software. Since it is a common

practice to e-mail documents, spread-sheets

etc. from person to person and business to

business one would expect that the formats

should be standardised and that the

standardisation process be impartial. As well

as revitalising the software industry this

remedy would also go a long way to solving

the problem of archived documents. It is well

recognised by historians and librarians that

much of the documentary material in an

electronic format produced by today’s society

is ephemeral and will not be available to

historians of the future. This is not only

because physical formats such as magnetic

tape become obsolete but also because the

file formats become obsolete. Even now, if

you have a Word document from 10 years ago

you will have great difficulty in reading it as

current versions of Word do not recognise

formats that old.

You will have to hunt around for a

software product that can convert it to a

newer format. This problem will continue to

get worse in the future. In short, since office

file formats have become an integral part of

the information infrastructure that the public

depends on in this day and age it is

important that they be under impartial,

public control rather than be subject to the

whim of Microsoft’s marketing department.

I believe that this would be the biggest step

that could be taken to level the playing field

for business software.

Anthony Shipman

Elektrichore—The muse of high

technology.

als@labyrinth.net.au

MTC–00005329

From: Kevin S. Cavanaugh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 8:46pm

Subject: Micsosoft Settlement

Dear USDOJ: I am writing to urge to

complete the settlement with Microsoft as

soon as possible. I also urge you to influence

those states now unwilling to settle with

Microsoft to ‘‘get over it’’ and agree with the

usdoj settlement terms.

I have been a Microsoft customer for nearly

20 years and I do not see Microsoft as the evil

that it is portrayed. Over the years other

companies had many opportunities to

compete effectively and to overshadow

Microsoft but did not; mostly due to their

own stupidity, not overreaching by

Microsoft.

Your continued pursuit of Microsoft is now

far more harmful to consumers than any

perceived anti-competitive behavior on the

part of Microsoft. Let’s settle this dispute and

move on.

Thank you for listening,

Kevin S. Cavanaugh

kcavan@yahoo.com

MTC–00005330

From: Pratik Chipdey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 8:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to see this case settled as early

as possible. For one, I can’t even imagine

why an icon of American economy, like

Microsoft, has been put thru such tough

lawsuit by of all the parties the US

Government.

Microsoft has done nothing but good to the

world of computers and the economy in

general. Remember the days when companies

like IBM controlled the market? If it were up

to them, computers would still have been an

esoteric tool, limited to the rich and the

powerful.

I do not believe that Microsoft has ever

stifled competition. They have consistently

come out with the very best products.

Netscape died a natural death I don’t know

of a single person who would like to use

Netscape after having used Microsoft’s

Internet Explorer. If you notice, the only

companies concerned about Microsoft are the

ones that have been sitting pretty so far due

to lack of competition. This includes

companies like Oracle, Sun and AOL (and

IBM to some extent). All of a sudden, they

have to improve their products so that they

are not killed by better products from

Microsoft.

There is nothing wrong with the survival

of the fittest. Isn’t this what capitalism is all

about?

Myself, and millions like me, who have

benefited directly or indirectly from

Microsoft, would like to request you in the

public interest to drop this lawsuit

altogether. If not that, please at least settle it

so that consumers are not harmed. We are all

comfortable with someone like Microsoft

play the leader. Hate to see it go folks like

Oracle, Sun and AOL?

Regards,

Pratik Chipdey

Little Ferry, NJ

MTC–00005331

From: hcmcdonald

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 8:52pm

Subject: Microsoft

I am a 73 year old man, and my wife and

I depend upon my computer to connect with

the world—the whole world. I am in touch

with my old workmates, my children and my

grandchildren. Also, I can find out

everything I want to know through

MSN.com. I know there are lots of smart

people that can do everything with

computers, but if it weren’t for Microsoft and

Windows, I would just be lost and not in

touch with anyone or anything. I feel

empowered by my computer, and I don’t feel

that I paid too much for anything. I love the

simple world of Microsoft. Everything works,

and I don’t have to experience the stress of

installing a new program. If something would

not work on install, I don’t know what I

would do, as I can’t understand complicated

instructions. I have many friends that feel the

same way, although some of my friends have

kids that can do everything on computers,

but they are the luck ones.

Please, don’t put Microsoft out of business,

because some of the other companies are mad

at them.

Regards, Henry

MTC–00005332

From: Robert Lippert

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 8:55pm

Subject: The Waste of Money

How can the Federal Government and

some states, continue to waste tax payers

money? What was at stake some years ago,

is now a moot point. At what expense are

you willing to continue this joke? Have the

states disclosed the total legal expenses to

their taxpayers? I bet not or at least not the

correct amounts. Microsoft will continue to

exits, its competition will continue to exist

and our tax money will continue to be

wasted!!

MTC–00005333

From: Higgs Glenda

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:34pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I think this case should be settled.

Microsoft has done so much to help older

people like me be able to use the computer.

There should never have been a suit period.

enough time and money wasted. * * *

MTC–00005334

From: EHessek@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:37pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

SUPPORTING THE 10,000 POOREST

SCHOOLS

Hi—

I am looking for information on Microsoft’s

settlement supporting the 10,000 poorest

schools. I would be interested if the court

would consider our school for this

settlement. If you could e-mail me with some

information, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you—

Kristie Hess

Children’s House of Bucks County

MTC–00005335

From: Flavien@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:38pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24709

As a consumer and an end user of

Microsoft products, I would like to be on

record as saying that I think the court case

was a waste of time, and my tax payer money

to begin with, so now that there is a

settlement I am all for that. I want this case

to be over as soon as possible. I am 100% in

favor of this settlement and do not wish to

see the case go to court again. I don’t feel that

Microsoft has taken advantage of me or

overcharged me for any of its products. I feel

that Microsoft has gotten to where it is from

a lot of hard work and some creativity, and

now that they are where they are some

jealous folks want to try and take that all

away from them. I feel that the settlement is

good for me, the industry, and the American

economy in general.

Folks over at the DOJ, there are much more

important things to worry about now.

MTC–00005336

From: JoAnn-Souvenir

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:46pm

Microsoft is and always has been a benefit

to me. I am so very against in further action

against Microsoft and or Bill Gates. I’ve been

a computer user and programmer for 22 years

and I would hate to think of a computer

world without Microsoft and Bill Gates!

Please do not prolong this litigation.

Jo Ann White

‘‘God Bless America’’

MTC–00005337

From: Phyllis Onofrietti

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This is to encourage the settlement worked

out with the USDOJ and Micrsoft to stand as

agreed. The objections of the nine states is a

shakedown inspired by the competitors of

Microsoft and the states themselves in order

to enrich their own pockets just as they did

in the tobacco settlements. Enough is enough,

dismiss the nine states objections now.

MTC–00005338

From: Stringer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:01pm

Subject: Comments on Microsoft Settlement

As both a shareholder in Microsoft and a

computer professional I am opposed to the

current settlement proposal.

The traditional remedy for an abusive

monopoly is to split up the company, and

this has usually been a win-win situation

which benefits both the shareholders of the

company and the general public. The only

losers are the egos of the small group of

people who run the monopoly.

The original judge’s proposed remedy was

primarily correct and only in error in

splitting the company into too few parts.

His remedy was an obvious solution.

For the DOJ to wimp out in the face of

Microsoft’s lobbying efforts undermines the

rule of law in the USA.

Roger Stringer

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00005340

From: ancient7qwest

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:22pm

Subject: Missing the boat

To Whom it may concern,

I am a computer professional and have

been in the field since the early 80’s. I am

president of a small company that does

computer manufacture and repair in Tucson

AZ.

1. I do not understand why the scope of the

suit against Microsoft is so limited. They are

still embedding their browser in their OS’s,

not offering ‘‘Radio Button’’ choices during

install as is offered for other components.

Please hear this next concept, if you own an

MS OS and want to see what security

patches, updates, or upgrades are available

on the OS upgrade site, you are told to come

back when you are running Internet Explorer.

It pointedly denies critical patches and

updates to users of other browsers, i.e.

Netscape or Opera. Is this not an embodiment

of anti competitive practice?

2. The Microsoft corporation has been

using the FBI as an enforcement arm to

exempt itself the effects of supply and

demand. They have re-defined the concept of

software piracy. It is not just making illegal

copies and selling them. MS considers

original, authentic software with the

hologram, etc. to be counterfeit if they are

purchased from anyone but an authorized

distributor.

Example 1: The Compaq/HP merger goes

through and the new entity has 20 thousand

copies of Windows ME with an HP logo on

it. They prefer not to distribute it with their

product and resell it to a broker who sells it

to small system builders at a substantial cost

savings. When the builder installs the os on

a system, Microsoft considers that piracy and

declares those once authentic, legal copies to

be counterfeit. This used to be called gray

marketing, now it is criminal.

Example 2: Small company goes out of

business and an auction is held. Someone

buys all the software the company had,

including Microsoft products. If he

distributes these legally purchased products

to dealers or end users, yup piracy and

counterfeiting.

Buying an OS should be like buying a car,

replacement parts should be available for 10

years. Another parallel to the automotive

world that is missing is that manufactured

products that are marketed with known

defects, that cause damage to people and

things of value should be liable to

remediation of damages. Personal and

Corporate data and production impacted by

flaws in operating systems have value based

on cost of input, availability of replacement,

and the guilty manufacturer should be

subject to punitive damages.

I have other gripes about MicroSoft’s

business practices and products and again

state that the severe limit of scope of the

work done by the DOJ almost smacks of

collusion, hopefully ignorance, but I can not

understand what kind of investigation could

miss such basic problems in a system. To

Date, every major release of an operationg

system by Microsoft has been followed by

patches, updates and indicat premature

release to meet or attempt to meet target

dates. Available for additional discussion,

Cliff Levy

President Hi-Tech Computers

520–918–8911

MTC–00005341

From: Jere Stahl

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:23pm

Subject: Settlement

Hi,

Having been a microcomputer owner since

1979 and reading many many computer

publications over the ensuing 22 years I find

it incredible that you folks cannot see what

Bill Gates is doing to the DOJ and american

public. He has done nothing to reduce his

efforts to control the computer world. In fact,

with their latest offering of XP they have

claimed even more control.

In the meantime Microsoft’s offer to give

computers to schools in reality is sowing the

same seeds that Apple did many years ago,

in that they gave schools a super deal,

knowing the kids would go home and bug

unknowing parents into buying similar

systems.

If you want to punish Microsoft and Gates

and company for thumbing their noses at you

since day 1, then I suggest you force Gates

and Balmer to retire from the company, and

never have any more contact with it.

Otherwise the control issues will become

greater and greater. If you look at many of

Microsoft’s new pricing policies you’ll see

where they are punishing their customers for

the hassle and costs you folks have put them

through.

MTC–00005342

From: Matt Johnson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530–0001

Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment

on the Microsoft settlement’s inadequacy in

improving the competitive environment in

the software industry. Some serious

shortcomings relate to:

1) Middleware

Section H.3 states ‘‘Microsoft Middleware

Product would be invoked solely for use in

interoperating with a server maintained by

Microsoft (outside the context of general Web

browsing)’’ This does nothing to limit the

company’s ability to tie customers and

restrict competition in non Web-based

networked services under .NET, as they fall

‘‘outside the context of general Web

browsing’’. Microsoft has already begun

abusing its desktop monopoly to tie

customers into .NET revenue streams and set

up a new monopoly over the network.

Part 2 of the same section states ‘‘that

designated Non-Microsoft Middleware

Product fails to implement a reasonable

technical requirement . . .’’ essentially gives

Microsoft a veto over any competitor’s

product. They can simply claim it doesn’t

meet their ‘‘technical requirements.’’

24710 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

2) Interoperability

Under the definition of terms, ‘‘B.

‘Communications Protocol’ means the set of

rules for information exchange to accomplish

predefined tasks between a Windows

Operating System Product on a client

computer and Windows 2000 Server or

products marketed as its successors running

on a server computer and connected via a

local area network or a wide area network.’’

This definition explicitly excludes the SMB/

CIFS (Samba) protocol and all of the

Microsoft Remote Procedure Calls needed by

any SMB/CIFS server to adequately

interoperate with Windows 2000. Microsoft

could claim these protocols are used by

Windows 2000 server for remote

administration and as such would not be

required to be disclosed. The Samba team

have written this up explicitly here: http://

linuxtoday.com/

newslstory.php3?ltsn=2001–11–06–005–

20–OP–MS

3) General veto on interoperability

In section J., the document specifically

protects Microsoft from having to

‘‘document, disclose or license to third

parties:

(a) portions of APIs or Documentation or

portions or layers of Communications

Protocols the disclosure of which would

compromise the security of anti-piracy, antivirus, software licensing, digital rights

management, encryption or authentication

systems, including without limitation, keys,

authorization tokens or enforcement criteria’’

Since the .NET architecture being bundled

into Windows essentially builds ‘‘anti-piracy,

anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights

management, and authentication systems’’

into all levels of the operating system, ANY

API, documentation, or communication layer

can fall into this category. This means that

Microsoft never has to disclose any API by

claiming it’s part of a security or

authorization system, giving them a complete

veto over ALL disclosure.

4) Veto against Open Source

Substantial amounts of the software that

runs the Internet is ‘‘Open Source’’, which

means it’s developed on a non-commercial

basis by nonprofit groups and volunteers.

Examples include Apache, GNU/Linux,

Samba, etc.

Under section J.2.c., Microsoft does not

need to make ANY API available to groups

that fail to meet ‘‘reasonable, objective

standards established by Microsoft for

certifying the authenticity and viability of its

business.’’ This explicitly gives them a veto

over sharing any information with open

source development projects as they are

usually undertaken on a not-for-profit basis

(and therefore would not be considered

authentic, or viable businesses).

These concerns can be met in the following

ways:

1) Middleware:

Extend middleware interoperability with a

Microsoft server to ALL contexts (both within

general Web browsing as well as other

networked services such as are those being

included under .NET).

2) Interoperability:

Require full disclosure of ALL protocols

between client and Microsoft server

(including remote administration calls)

3) General veto on interoperability:

Require Microsoft to disclose APIs relating

to ‘‘anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing,

digital rights management, encryption, or

authentication systems’’ to all.

4) Veto against Open Source:

Forbid Microsoft from discriminating

between for-profit and nonprofit groups in

API disclosure.

Sincerely,

Matthew Johnson

32753 Mono Lake lane

Fremont, CA. 94555

MattJ

MTC–00005343

From: Walt Zwierzycki

To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general@po.

state.ct.us@inet...

Date: 1/1/02 10:54pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I oppose the settlement agreed to by the

DOJ and some of the states. It does nothing

to stop Microsoft’s anti-competitive behavior

and even provides legal protection to

perpetuate some of it. I support the

recommendations of the nine other states.

MTC–00005344

From: Daniel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 10:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Antithrust Case

Renata Hesse,

Trial Attorney,

Suite 1200,

Antitrust Division,

Department of Justice,

601 D Street NW,

Washington, DC 20530

Daniel Wells,

1936 Pawnee Drive

Yukon Ok, 73099

This letter is for your consideration as part

of the public comment ordered by the court

concerning the penalty phase of the

Microsoft antitrust case.

It is not necessary for me to express why

Microsoft is guilty of ‘‘maintaining’’ a

monopoly, the court has already found this

as fact. My concern is, in light of recent

world events and an economic slowdown,

that our judicial system is in fact turning

from its role of justice to one of politics.

Justice demands that Microsoft give up its

monopoly of the Windows operating systems,

including:

Microsoft Windows 95,

Microsoft Windows 98,

Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition,

Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition,

and

Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition.

Microsoft has sufficient operating system

competition in the business market to

compete for its versions of Microsoft NT,

2000, and XP Pro, to remain a viable and

competitive company. But, unless the plug is

pulled on the Home Operation System

market while the opportunity exist,

irreparable damage will result in our nations

ability to continue being a leader in the

microcomputer mass marketing arena.

Each industry goes through a period of

time where a basic infrastructure has to grow.

At some point, basic services, become so

common place, that it remains inconsumable

to imagine them being solely owned by one

company. When that happens,

entrepreneurship and competition stagnates.

This is the case today with the consumer

computer industry. Microsoft now controls

what, how, when, and by whom, all new

computer data communications technologies,

peripheral hardware and software products

will become marketable.

Microsoft once was a great company for

America, but now has become her enemy,

becoming more and more aggressively forced

onto everything we do on computers today.

If you must play politics, then demand

justice first and foremost.

The court should order the public release

of 100% of the proprietary information,

compilation tools, and development

software, concerning the above listed

operating systems. In addition, the court

should revoke the licenses of the OS and turn

it over to the public domain, thus allowing

competition to proceed now, and not wait for

the endless appeals processes that Microsoft

lawyers will undoubtedly use otherwise.

Additionally, order Microsoft to place all of

this data on high speed servers so that is

readily available over the internet with a

bandwidth that is at least equivalent to its

current online support sites.

Lastly, demand that this be done

immediately without delay, and appoint

court officials to oversee the process,

imposing extremely heavy fines for non

compliance and order a freeze of assets if

Microsoft does not comply. Order future

monitoring of Microsoft activities, and

impose heavy fines if it regresses into future

attempts to monopolize.

Now surely, companies will spring up

selling exact copies of the current MS

products, but that market will not last, it will

be those companies that bring new

innovations, tools, and improved security to

the foreground that will get America back on

track as the industry leader. Certainly,

Microsoft will remain in the best position to

compete in an open market. This action will

give America the shot in the arm that it

needs, whereas the current proposed

penalties will result in further economic

slowdown and create the unprecedented

litigation that our economic future is to be

driven by the whims of Mr. Bill Gates.

Thank you for requesting public opinion.

Daniel Wells

MTC–00005345

From: Doug Campbell

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/1/02 11:02pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

If the previous administration spent as

much energy chasing Bin Laden as it did

chasing Bill Gates we might not be in the

mess we are in now. The proposed settlement

is probably to harsh and unnecessary, but lets

implement it and move on. Get the ‘‘outlaw’’

states on board, close this issue and let the

economy recover. Bill Gates and the other

creative minds of the computer age have

truly revolutionized the world (for the better)

created millions of jobs, huge efficiencies in

the way the world works and

communicates—he is a hero not a villan. In

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24711

my own smalll business automation has

enabled us to cut costs in half while growing

sales 20% Implement the proposed

settlement, strongarm the remaining states to

go along and move on to more important

things.

Sincerely,

Doug

Douglas A. Campbell, CIC

President & CEO

CRES Insurance Services, LLC

(800) 880–2747

MTC–00005346

From: Ann Randall

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I believe the US Government has done

more than enough to wreck a thriving

company. It has been four years of

harrassment. Please proceed with the

settlement and do what ever possible to stop

the continuous litigation so Microsoft can go

back to innovating for the rest of the world.

John Randall

161 Ashton Drive

Burr Ridge, IL 60527

MTC–00005347

From: EDWARD LANGON

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:12pm

Subject: msft settlement

to: renata b hesse,anti trust division.

i am not a attorney or a computer engineer

but i am a msft customer. i have become

disappointed again. during the past months

the state attorney general in california has

made inflammatory statements regarding this

judgment. it appears some states want it to

never end. the proposed final judgment with

strong compliance and enforcement

procedures provide a certain remedy for the

msft violations. thank you

elangon5@hotmail

MTC–00005348

From: XaNeX

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:26pm

Subject: Microsoft

As the Network Administrator . . . it is my

responsibility oversee the deployment of new

technologies to our company. My position

gives me ample freedom to implement

whatever software or hardware I see

necessary to keep the company network

running smoothly and to satisfy user

requests. Unfortunately, though my position

may give me that freedom, the current

software economy cannot.

‘‘I would dearly love to replace all

Microsoft technology in my office with Open

Source software, and if the software economy

can give me as much freedom as my job did,

I would do just that. However, the most

defeating problem is what Microsoft chooses

to keep secret—it’s network protocols, the

layout of it’s Office files, and the precise

technology needed to migrate from their

email server. . . . I am asking the court to

force Microsoft to publish these protocols in

detail. I am also urging to court to act on

future technologies as well. Microsoft is now

planning to add vast pieces of the Internet to

it’s web of interdependencies. With it’s

initiative .Net, whole portions of the web

would be cut off from non-Microsoft

technologies. We have seen a glimpse of the

monopolist’s vision of the future with the UK

and MSN portal, designed by Microsoft and

accessible only with Microsoft technology.

Ryan Stagman

MTC–00005349

From: dino

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 11:34pm

Subject: Why are you being so nice to

Microsoft

Dear Sir (or Madam),

This Linux user (look at the headers on this

e-mail) feels the DOJ is being far to nice to

Microsoft. The plan to donate computer

goodies to poor schools sounds nice, but it

is bogus—it’s just a way to drive out the

competition.

Why don’t they offer to give software from

Mac or Linux OS to the schools? This is

merely ‘‘business as usual,’’ (nod-nod, winkwink) under a different guise. Or just give the

bully what he deserves? But the bully doesn’t

seem to realize that this is the age of the

Internet—dirty games like that become

known fast, and ‘‘nod-nod, wink-wink’’—and

the payoff—become known in a hurry.

Sincerly,

Dean Moore

2435 7th Street

Boulder, CO 80304

MTC–00005350

From: Quent Cordair

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:44am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

I’m an artist in Burlingame, CA, where I

also run a small two-person art gallery. I am

in no way associated with Microsoft, nor do

I own any Microsoft stock. But over the years,

my art and my small business have much

benefited from the use of Microsoft’s

Windows products. Please leave Microsoft

alone. They’ve done no wrong to the

consumer; they’ve done nothing but help us

greatly. They’re guilty of nothing more than

continually making their products better and

cheaper for us, year after year. To punish

Microsoft is to reward the mediocrity of their

competitors, and by extension, to do harm to

me, the consumer. Morality and plain

common sense would dictate that the Justice

Department spend its time, focus and efforts,

and our hard-earned money, in defending us

against real criminals, rather than shackling

the best and most innovative, those who add

the most value to our lives. How on earth has

it come to this, that are you choosing to hurt

us, rather than help us? Let’s see if anyone

in the Justice Department has the courage

and integrity to stand up and do the right

thing at this point. It would take a true hero.

Regards,

Quent Cordair

Quent Cordair Fine Art

346 Lorton Avenue

Burlingame, CA 94010

(650) 344–1134

quent@cordair.com

MTC–00005351

From: SOster629@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:52am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the DOJ has been fiddling around

and avoiding definite action vis-a-viz the

Microsoft case. How can it be ‘in the public

interest’ to continue to delay this case? In the

unlikely event that you come up with a

solution to give Microsoft’s assets to johnnycome-lately competitors who would like to

cripple Microsoft for little reason other than

to abscond with Microsoft’s wealth, would

the world be better off without Microsoft?

You can bet your boots that the world and

the US economy will both suffer.

Sincerely,

F. Samuel Ostertag, Mesa, Arizona

MTC–00005352

From: Ellison

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Attorney General John Ashcroft:

We wish to see the Microsoft mess ended.

The Department of Justice settlement

agreement was both fair and reasonable and

it has gone far enough.

Russ & Doris Ellison

N8579 Hay Creek Road

Willard, WI 54494

Phone or Fax: 715 267–7284

e-mail: elli@badger.tds.net

MTC–00005353

From: Neal Shafto

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:09am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the companies that have

charged Microsoft and its officers with the

complaints and have cost the American Tax

system Millions on $’s on litigation should

cease and desist. The judges have dealt with

the cases before it and have reached an

agreement. Since this has been accepted by

both parties involved, I believe the case to be

completed and no further action is required.

If the system continues to do harm to the free

enterprise system that is in place in the

global economy, it will cause irreparable

damage and further the decline of the

economy. Stocks are affected by this childlike actions of a few who are jealous of the

power and business skills of Microsoft.

Please do not allow this to continue to erode

the financial system, which is in place in this

international economy. We have been

‘‘raped’’ by a few for too long and deserve

better.

I remain concerned and committed, to free

enterprise of equality for all, not for a few

who ‘‘can not’’ continue to evolve in the

system with the generation of new and better

ideals for the consumers.

Neal T. Shafto

Simcoe, Ontario

Canada

MTC–00005354

From: philip solar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:51am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

24712 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

As a consumer of Microsoft products, this

should go away. The American problem

would not be the same regarding productivity

y if it weren’t for Mr. Gates and company.

They had made me far more productive and

without there feedback. This is one terrific

company. As consumers we do that tike all

the prods. ‘Do n to profit

MTC–00005355

From: triscgd@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:59am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wish to speak out (albeit from Australia)

against the settlement proposed in the

Microsoft anti-trust case.

As has been pointed out by Robert X.

Cringely ( http://www.pbs.org/cringely/

pulpit/pulpit20011206.html), the details of

the proposal will potentially put Microsoft in

a position to target open-source software,

which is in fact the only true competition

which Microsoft faces today. It will thus end

up increasing, rather than diminishing (as is

the case’s intent) Microsoft’s market power.

In addition, organisations such as our own

require the flexibility to be able to choose

open-source software, which we know is

secure and not subject to ‘‘back-door’’

snooping by Redmond, or anyone else whom

they are ‘‘in bed with’’. A percieved ‘‘cosy

deal’’ between the US Govt and Microsoft

will drive foreign governments and

organisations away from US software and

towards software they can trust.

In short the deal is not in the best interests

of Microsoft, the US, or foreign software

users. It will not address the problems raised

in the anti-trust case.

Regards,

Graham Daniell

Helpdesk Administrator,

Department of Treasury and Finance

Western Australia

MTC–00005356

From: Chris Striker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:26am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My name is Chris Striker, and I am a

consumer interested in the case concerning

Microsoft. I want to register my disapproval

with the case, and consider it imperative that

nothing whatsoever be done to Microsoft.

Nothing less than a quick dismissal of the

entire case will be satisfactory. America

cannot afford to spend time or money

crippling companies, and I certainly don’t

want such actions performed by the

government in my name with my money. Lay

off. Let the competitors compete.

MTC–00005357

From: Robert Warren

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:30pm

Subject: Feedback on Settlement Issue

Hi DOJ,

I just thought I’d offer my thoughts as I was

invited to by an email from www.redhat.com

I’ve got to say this MS witch hunt is

absolutely appalling from my point of view.

As the centre of entrepreneurial

achievement, I would have thought Microsoft

would be something to be proud of. Why

start a company if you are not in it to become

the biggest company in the world, even if it

means other companies will suffer from your

success?

Sure, fine MS for their monopolistic

practices. I think almost everyone would

agree with this on principle. But using the

anti-monopoly laws to protect other

competitors from the success of another

company reeks of ‘tall poppy syndrome’ and

‘sour grapes’.

Honestly, telling a company they cannot

incorporate THEIR OWN product into THEIR

OWN operating system is an absolute farce.

Worse still, now I hear others calling for MS

to make a scaled-down version of THEIR

OWN product so others can use it to promote

their own products?!? You MUST be joking!!

The lesson I have learnt is ‘don’t become

too successful or even the DOJ will attack

you’. Not really what you should be about,

don’t you think??

Just my two cents...

Cheers,

Robert Warren

MTC–00005358

From: Robin Schroeder

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:07am

Subject: DOJ Input

I feel that the current settlement that was

reached between Microsoft, the federal

government, and nine states involved in

litigation is fair to all and not stifiling to

innovation. My position still remains that

companies producing inferior products are

attempting to gain via Microsoft’s loss. If

their products were superior, they would not

need to resort to such tactics. Judges in our

country have allowed attorneys to run

rampant finding loop holes in the law and

hence allowed these same individuals to

become wealthy via lawsuits. Prolonging this

litigation is, in essence, punishing a company

for being successful and innovative, and this

approach does not support the American

Dream. Where would we all be without

Windows?

MTC–00005359

From: Marc Jullien

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:42am

Subject: Support from France !!!

As Great Things must go on, Microsoft has

still to run the show accordingly to world

interest !!!

MTC–00005360

From: joanpeterson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:15am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle this matter so that our

economy can begin to improve. All this

fighting with Microsoft has placed a heavy

burden on our economy.

MTC–00005361

From: Don Clear

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:42am

Subject: Dept. of Justice/Microsoft Settlement

Please finalize the pending settlement

without further litigation. The agreement

reached between both parties is fair and will

benefit consumers.

PLEASE SETTLE NOW!

Respectfully,

Don Clear

MTC–00005362

From: Elvin Kever

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 1/2/02 10:28am

Subject: Why MicroSoft?

I for the life of me can not understand why

Microsoft gets off so easily. Think of what it

would be like if we had only one auto

manufacturer, or one kind of restaurant. If

only you would have the courage to stand up

to the crap that the lawyers from Microsoft

are dealing you. When you hear crap about

how the economy would be affected by the

disassembly of Microsoft, well Ma Bell was

broken up and look at that market. If the

software industry was given a level playing

field and hardware manufactures where

aloud to choose open source you would see

a economic boom like no other.

Regards

Kevin Power

MTC–00005363

From: Keith Godfrey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:22am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings,

Please accept the following as public

comments relating to the Proposed Final

Judgment in the current antitrust trial against

Microsoft.

Thank you,

Keith Godfrey

1) The 5 years allocated to the agreement

is a very short time. Assuming this were the

perfect agreement to ‘level the playing field’

and provide competitors the chance to fairly

compete, Microsoft will be allowed to resume

business as usual in a very short time. At a

minimum, such an agreement should be

readdressed by the court every 5 years until

it is deemed to be no longer needed.

Additionally, the agreement appears to be

less than perfect if for no other reason than

it lacks any method for redress of grievances

from past monopolistic abuses, providing

those competitors of Microsoft (those that

remain in business, which notably does not

include Netscape or Be, Inc.) with no

advantage to regain market share lost to

demonstrated illegal Microsoft business

practices.

2) Protocols and middleware interfaces,

even if released, provide Microsoft with an

inherent competitive advantage over

competitors. Not only is there the time

advantage, where Microsoft product

development based upon these protocols or

interfaces will likely be going on for weeks

or months before public release of the

interface, the interfaces are developed and

tailored specifically for Microsoft product

needs.

3) Incorporation of low cost or free

middleware with the operating system yields

a large competitive advantage to Microsoft

because many consumers are not inclined to

actively download or purchase alternative

products without a clear advantage to doing

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24713

so. Additionally, users without a technical

background (specifically, for example, my

parents and grandparents) may have no

knowledge about alternative products, have

little incentive to find them, and even if they

do, lack the confidence and minimal ability

required to download and install them

4) The agreement seems very weak given

the dominant Microsoft market position—

this agreement may have been appropriate

several years ago but now is likely to be

largely ineffective

5) The settlement seems to address only

the issues outlined in the narrow scope of the

trial, and fails to consider additional

monopolistic abuses against competitors who

were too timid to testify, those that lacked

the financial resources to testify, and those

that fell outside of the prosecutions list of top

20 witnesses. The demonstrated pattern of

abuses clearly implies the existence of

similar behavior that the penalty should

address and seek amends for.

6) The settlement does not appear to

address favorable treatment by Microsoft to

OEMs who produce operating specific

hardware. Most OEMs now include

‘WinModems’ (modems operable only

through Windows) with nearly every new

computer in place of what used to be fully

functioning modems operable under all

operating systems. Microsoft mandating the

inclusion of such hardware for favorable

pricing effectively raises the barrier to entry

for operating system competitors, as the end

users are forced to buy additional hardware

(a second modem) to use the computer in an

increasingly online world. This same

argument can be made for network interface

cards.

7) There seems to be no allowance for an

OEM to manufacture computers without

installing Windows and not incur penalties

by Microsoft. The proposed final judgment

section III, A.2 and C.4 specify that

computers can be manufactured with an

additional operating systems installed, but do

not mention manufacturing computers using

only alternative operating systems. This can

allow continuation of the ‘Microsoft tax’ to

end users when purchasing a computer when

they do not want, and will never use, the

Microsoft products installed on it.

8) Section J.1.a—there appears to be a

potentially large loophole prohibiting the

final judgment from forcing disclosure of

APIs, Documentation or (importantly)

communication protocols that compromise

the security of ‘a particular installation’ of a

series of products, including encryption,

authentication tokens and authentication

systems, when the announced direction of

the company is towards a distributed

network strategy which heavily relies on

these elements. It is technically very easy to

create a specific implementation that

disclosure of protocols or APIs might

threaten the security of and hence allow the

locking up of all these disclosures.

9) While possibly beyond consideration of

the court, an effectively homogenous network

of computers using software and operating

systems from a single manufacturer makes for

an ideal ‘breeding ground’ for computer

viruses and worms. This should be

considered a strong threat to national and

economic security. Structural remedies to

break up the monopoly held by Microsoft

seem to be the only method to resolve this

issue.

MTC–00005364

From: brian@apthand.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.

general@po.state. ct.us@inet...

Date: 1/2/02 7:47am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I’m yet another information technology

person that can not understand why

Microsoft is not being broken up. Their

monopoly status in not in dispute. The fact

that Microsoft used this status to exend its

Monopoly to other markets is not in dispute.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act has been broken

and the only effective, long-term solution is

to separate the application software (Word,

Excel) development company from the

operating system (Windows) company.

Needless to say, I oppose the current

settlement proposal. Is is not in the best

interest of the public.

Brian Blevins

brian.blevins@apthand.com

http://www.AptHand.com/

Mobile Consumer Intelligence: Home

Buying for Digerati

MTC–00005365

From: Riverhiker723@cs.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:56am

Subject: (no subject)

my opinion on the microsoft case is bill

gates should be incarcerated.

MTC–00005366

From: Cheyenne

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:56am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Reader,

Please Do Not stop good companies from

making great products! Let’s get this case

behind us and move on. This settlement is

in the best interest of the US and world

economy and everyone that uses Microsoft’s

products.

A very satisfied customer.

MTC–00005367

From: Cessna, Joel R (Wooster XJP 60C)

To: ‘MICROSOFT.ATR(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 8:03am

Subject: Microsft Case

Please settle this case ASAP! Americans

and the economy have suffered long enough.

Lets don’t forget all the positve things that

Micosoft has done for all of us including you

and everyone else on the planet!

MTC–00005368

From: ed.smallwood@twcable.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:05am

Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement, Public

Comment

It is my opinion that the US govt. should

tread lightly and issue leniant sanctions

against Microsoft. This company may have

violated the letter of some law but it (in large

measure) also brought to our world a wave

of usability and productivity the likes of

which have never been seen. I know that it’s

become popular these days to denigrate the

giant software maker, but in the interests of

fairness, I ask that you please be gentle.

Regards,

Ed Smallwood

Matthews, NC

MTC–00005369

From: Rivera William

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 8:04am

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Ruling

Dear sirs,

I am writing to inform you that I do not

agree with the settlement ruling in the

Microsoft Antitrust Case. I do not think that

the settlement is in my interest, as Microsoft

is still able to bundle software which I do not

use or need nor WANT. I respectfully request

that a different ruling be looked at and

chosen which would require Microsoft to

separate the non-necessary and unwanted

components from the operating systems

which it sells. Further, I request that this

ruling take into account software that

Microsoft is presently selling which was not

being sold when the Antitrust Case was

begun, as this software also includes

unwanted software in the programming code.

Sincerely,

William E. Rivera

wrivera@t-online.de

Unit 28043 Box #18

APO AE 09112

CC:‘attorney.general(a)po.state.ct.us’

MTC–00005370

From: Ferraro, James A

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 8:26am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the litigation favors Microsoft’s

competitors and not the general public.

James A. Ferraro

Lockheed Martin Missile & Space

Air Force Reentry Systems Programs

230 Mall Boulevard, King of Prussia, PA

19406

Phone: 610–354–2932

Fax: 610–354–5225

MTC–00005371

From: Jeff Seiler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:21am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hey Folks,

Please get this over with. Let the settlement

stand as is. I was not forced to use Microsoft

products. They are just the best for what I do.

This has gone on too long and as both a user

and a stockholder, I’m sick of it. Let the

settlement stand. . . move on to something

more important like predatory lending.

Jeff Seiler

President

S&S Benefits Consulting

219 Darien

Dundee, IL 60118

P:847–428–5353

F:847–428–9876

jseiler@ssbenefits.net

MTC–00005372

From: Boyer, Jonathan

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 8:29am

24714 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Subject: Comment on proposed settlement

I am a United States citizen exercising my

rights under the law to comment on this case.

I believe that accepting the proposed

settlement as it stands is will be a huge

mistake on the part of the US Department of

Justice and the 9 states who have also agreed

to it in principle. In essence, far from

damaging Microsoft (MS), this settlement

will actually aid them in extending their

current monopoly of the operating system

market into a segment of the market where

there is traditionally far more competition

than in the general business and home

markets.

As it stands, the market for academic

computing at all levels is far more likely to

support alternative operating systems, such

as Apple Computers’ Mac OS or the opensource Linux operating system. The proposed

settlement can only serve to erode that

competition through a means that is

essentially unfair in the sense that schools

cannot afford to turn away donated materials,

and those donated materials will be all MS.

A far more judicious version of the same

settlement would be to force MS to pay the

full dollar value of the settlement in cash to

the proposed foundation, rather than

allowing refurbished PC’s and MS software to

make up any portion of the value. This

would give the benefit of a much stronger

financial base for the foundation along with

providing for free choice in a critical market.

Even then, the remedy is on the light side,

considering the size of MS cash reserves,

which it has in large part amassed through

monopolistic practices that have often

seemed lacking in ethics.

Jonathan R. Boyer

Tek Systems / Eaton Corp.

Eastlake, OH USA

Desk: 440.954.5719

Cell: 440.725.9117

MTC–00005373

From: Lyn Norstad

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:31am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the time has come to put this

behind us, and allow the industry to go about

it’s business. As a computer user since the

late 1970s, I am convinced that this whole

‘‘ill-advised’’ action was one of the principal

causes of the economic recession we all now

face. It was . . . and still is . . . shameful

behavior on the part of a few self-serving

entities who instigated it.

Lyn Norstad

Chicago, IL

MTC–00005374

From: SSchwartz@MICROS.COM@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:33am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

You need to revise the settlement, as it is

not in the best interests of the people who

use computers. First, it needs to punish the

perpetrators, which it currently does not,

second, it needs to set an example that will

stop companies from behaving in a similar

way in the future and finally, it needs to

restore confidence that the government is for

the people and not owned by the company

with the most money, which is what people

think.

Steve Schwartz

MTC–00005375

From: jshansen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:44am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I wish to express my opinion regarding the

Microsoft Anti-trust settlement situation. My

honest opinion is that this trial has proven

the lack of integrity now in our court system.

Their should simply be a rule of law which

decides right and wrong and let justice be

served. Opinions are expressed

constitutionally through the voting processes.

Specifically, the laws which were passed in

this case are out-dated and have no bearing

upon private intellectual property. In other

words, this case should have never been

before a court.

As for the public interest, is it ever in the

public’s interest for a corporation to be forced

to spend it’s money on lawsuits and

settlements? Certainly not and even more so

when the country has fallen into recession

and a large corporation such as Microsoft is

forced to take its finances out from the

private sector and place it into the hands of

the government where it will not be used

properly. Case in point, the Tobacco

settlement. Large sums of money went to

multiple different states, many of them

claiming that it was money ear-marked for

their Education programs in an attempt to

persuade the ‘‘public’s interest’’.

Now that they have the money, it has been

spent on a multitude of wasteful programs

and in only a few cases has there been

distributions to the educational programs.

Please let the Free Market decide what

companies should be punished for hurting

the public. It is very clear that consumer

spending can make a difference.

Sincerely,

Joel Hansen

Lancaster, OH

(740) 654–0682

CC:US@Newsletters.Microsoft.com@inetgw

MTC–00005376

From: Borkholm, Clay

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 8:43am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

This e-mail concerns the Microsoft

antitrust settlement. In my estimation, it is

time to put the enormous cost and effort

behind us and look forward to the future.

Microsoft has been a phenomenal innovator

in the industry and deserves to continue to

compete effectively. In that Microsoft has, by

finding of fact, engaged in unfair business

practices, it seem appropriate to censure, fine

and monitor Microsoft against anticompetitive practices. However, additional

penalties and litigation seems wholly

unjustified. It seems that Microsoft, by their

very success, has created industry standards

in an industry lacking in such sorely needed

guidance. This is due to extraordinary growth

in the discipline, I’m sure. Because of the

lure of wealth, other companies seek any

legal means to replace the defacto standards

with their own. Litigation is one means to

this end, and has become widely accepted as

an appropriate business practice. I urge you

to see through this attempt and respond with

even-handed justice. Turn away those who

would tie up the courts in an attempt to

weaken the competition.

Thanks for your consideration,

Clay Borkholm

Chief Technology Officer

BST Consultants, Inc

MTC–00005377

From: Forrest Hawkins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:48am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Clear DayFolks,

Put me down as one who strongly believes

the Microsoft settlement should be settled.

I am not a Microsoft fan. I don’t like their

software and I don’t own their stock.

However this case should never have been

brought. It is obviously sour grapes by

competitors.

Please stop the attacks on perhaps the most

innovative company in American history.

At the same time their competitors had a

hard time, thousands, if not millions of

others have made fortunes from the

development environment provided by

Microsoft’s Windows.

Forrest Hawkins

MTC–00005378

From: John A MacNeal

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:13am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I approve of your efforts to settle the

Microsoft litigation. Please get the matter

resolved and let the competitors go compete.

The Courts and the lawyers need to get out

of the way.

MTC–00005379

From: shawnlab(a)microsoft.com

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:18am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My opinion:

Punishing Microsoft now, for activities

stopped years ago, could only benefit a few

large, powerful competitors and hurt the

economy as a whole.

Microsoft produces great software that we

all use. Crippling them will only serve the

lawyers and some politicians needing a

‘‘David and Goliath’’ slant on their next

election campaign.

MTC–00005380

From: Dave McClintock

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:27am

Subject: Microsoft’s anti-competitive

behavior

I work for a public school district in

Delaware. Recently, the high school librarian

sent me an e-mail asking me why she could

no longer access Microsoft’s Web site for

Encarta (encarta.msn.com), an online

information resource similar to an

encyclopedia. When I checked this out, I

found that I could use Internet Explorer to

bring up the Web site just fine. But when I

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24715

used Netscape Navigator, I received the

following error message: Microsoft VBScript

runtime error ‘800a000d’ Type mismatch:

‘[string: ‘‘’’’]’ /intl/bver.inc, line 8 Microsoft

has ‘‘fixed’’ this Web site to make it appear

that Netscape does not have the capability

needed for displaying this Web page. This

Web page has a Visual Basic script

embedded. Internet Explorer ‘‘understands’’

Visual Basic, but Netscape does not, hence

the error. Visual Basic is a proprietary

Microsoft technology, not an Internet

standard. Microsoft could have just as easily

used a Java script (which is an open Internet

standard), but chose not to do so in order to

make non-Microsoft browsers inoperable on

this site.

The Web is a wonderful educational

resource for our public school students.

These resources should be constructed so

that a variety of technologies will work

properly. Our public libraries used to work

on this principle—one didn’t need special

glasses, or technology, to read World Book

Encyclopedia as opposed to other

encylopedias. A student who opened World

Book could just as easily (and in a very

similar manner) get information from any

encyclopedia written by different publishers.

Microsoft’s use of Visual Basic scripts on

their Web sites is just another example of

their monopolistic behavior. Quality of

content in Encarta should be the benchmark

for how they compete with other resource

sites, not proprietary technology (especially

when open technology standards already

exist). If Encarta has better content, then

people will use it instead of other online

resources which have less quality of content.

But the only way they can use it now is to

access it via Internet Explorer.

Dave McClintock

Supervisor of Technology

Lake Forest School District

Felton, DE

302–284–3020 ext 113

MTC–00005381

From: Mark Korolevich

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:26am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I will make this short and to the point.

Microsoft makes great products that are of

great value to their consumers. Do not hinder

their ability to continue to produce these

great products. The government has already

spent too much money in litigation with

Microsoft.

Leave Microsoft alone.

Mark Korolevich

Sr. Programmer

Arrow-Magnolia

MTC–00005382

From: Guy, Brendan

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’,’

attorney.general(a)po...

Date: 1/2/02 9:45am

Subject: Microsoft ‘‘Settlement’’

This is a disgrace.

The proposed administrative remedies are

so light-handed and irrelevant as to be

laughable if the subject weren’t so serious.

Letting MS off the hook for their anticompetitive practices by allowing them to

further their monopoly is some of the most

byzantine logic yet applied, and allowing

them—retail—value—in the fine structure is

an insult to every intelligent person involved.

Microsoft is in this mess because of their

flagrant violation of the last round of

administrative remedies. They have proven

time and time again that they hold no respect

for the rules that govern corporate behaviour

in this country.

Cut them up and break them down, do

what’s needed to—change—the entrenched

culture of intimidation and bullying that has

gotten them to where they are.

Administrative remedies that ‘‘level the

playing field’’ are useless in an industry

where the playing field changes every six

months unless you change the underlying

culture that created the violations in the first

place.

Brendan Guy

Brooklyn, New York

MTC–00005383

From: Edward Chan

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 9:46am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Competition and choices are critical to a

capitalistic society like ours. I have the

choice of using and choosing Apple

Computers, Wintel platform, Linux, SUN and

even IBM. To say that Microsoft is a

monopoly or customers have little or no

choice is ludicrous. Why spent so much of

our tax dollars trying to destroy such a great

U.S. company is truly unwise and definitely

unpatriotic. Let’s face it, there are a lot of

smart people in India, China, etc. but they

don’t have Microsoft! If we choose to destroy

our great companies, impose unreasonable

fines and restrictions. . . . U.S.A will be the

loser down the road.

MTC–00005384

From: Ken Mays

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:02am

Subject: Comment

Please consider the long-term negative

impact on innovation and creativity in the

educational environment if Microsoft is

allowed to negotiate a settlement that puts

their product in the nation’s school systems.

The net effect will likely be to increase their

market share and result in yet a new

monopoly in just a few years. I add my voice

to those against this settlement. Thank you.

Ken Mays

MTC–00005385

From: Devon Bingham

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 10:03am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

I felt I should comment on the settlement

since it directly effects me. Personally I feel

that the whole lawsuit should not have been

filed in the first place, but that is another

matter. I feel that the settlement that was

reached recently is more the enough to

‘‘punish’’ Microsoft. I do like the inclusion of

money/software to the public schools. I think

this whole thing should be finished as soon

as possible, its been dragged on long enough

by the lawyers and politicians who are

looking to make a name for themselves.

Devon Bingham

IS Analyst

USD School of Medicine / University

Physicians

http://med.usd.edu <http://med.usd.edu>

http://www.upclinics.org <http://

www.upclinics.org>

MTC–00005386

From: Dan.Stern@born.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:09am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Technology winners and losers should be

determined in the marketplace, not the

courts. It’s time to settle the Microsoft case.

Let the public decide if it wants new features

bundled into their software or if they’d rather

pay several manufactures for a more

expensive and difficult to manage solution.

Who is the government protecting? Microsoft

offers outstanding products at a fair value.

Their only crime has been their success.

MTC–00005387

From: Pursley, Hank G.

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 10:19am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please end this!

Best Regards

Hank Pursley

Site Support Consultant

Marconi Managed Services

Office (714) 986–8464

Pager (888) 650–7957

henry.pursley@marconi.com

MTC–00005388

From: Lilli Sassenhagen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:29am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

It seems to me that those entities (states

and companies) trying to derail the

settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ

are interested in protecting their states or

companies from competition rather than

protecting the consumer. Microsoft’s

innovations have made my life a lot easier.

If the DOJ is interested in saving the

consumer money let them stop these

unwarranted delays of a settlement. Because

the longer the delays the higher the legal fees

for Microsoft and the government, which in

the end would be passed on to the consumer

by higher prices and higher taxes.

Sincerely,

Lilli Sassenhagen

MTC–00005389

From: bgbergmann@aep.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR,RFC822=attorney.general%po.state.ct...

Date: 1/2/02 10:38am Subject’ Proposed

Microsoft settlement harms children and

continues Microsoft’s Monopoly

Proposed Microsoft settlement harms

children and continues Microsoft’s

Monopoly I agree with the spirit of the

following and would refuse to accept the

settlement if I were a plaintiff. As a

professional computer user and United States

citizen, I urge you to do what you can to

24716 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

make sure that the settlement is not made in

its current form. Thank you.

Open K-12 Petition Letter

To: Plaintiffs in the Nationwide Settlement

Class Action Suit filling against

Microsoft’s Anti-trust practices, MDL

Docket No. 1332

From: The 1245 Petition Signers of the Open

K-12 Petition Drive project

Dear Plaintiff,

We, the 1245 signers of this letter are

petitioning you to reconsider your decision,

made on behalf of your attorneys

representing you in your class action

antitrust suit against Microsoft, to settle your

suit with Microsoft. The reason being is that

we feel the current conditions of the

settlement to be unjust, not only to you, but

to the software industry which provides

software products and services to the K-12

school system.

The reason why you have joined this class

action suit filed against Microsoft is because

of Microsoft’s antitrust behavior which has

caused you damages you are seeking to

remediate in court. The settlement you are

about to enter into with Microsoft will in

effect shutdown competition in the software

industry which serves the K-12 school

program. This outcome, that of cutting of

avenues of competition, is precisely what

you are fighting against in your suit against

Microsoft.

By entering into this current settlement

with Microsoft, the following actions will

occur. You will dismiss all your charges

against Microsoft, and agree never to pursue

them again. In return, Microsoft will spend

up wards of $500 million dollars in cash to

promote Microsoft software products and

services, and training on how to use these

Microsoft products and services, in the

nations ‘‘underprivileged’’ K-12

(kindergarten through high school) schools

over a period of 5 years. $100 million of this

is a 1 for 2 matching fund raising program.

(i.e. for every $2 dollars raised through fund

raising efforts, Microsoft will donate $1

dollar, up to $100 million dollars.) If no

further funds are raised through private

means, then the sum total would be $400

million dollars over 5 years.

Microsoft will subsidize the purchase of up

to 200,000 refurbished personal computers,

by paying for 1/3 of the cost for desktop

systems, and 1/2 the cost of laptops. These

PCs must be purchased through Microsoft

certified refurbished PC dealers. Microsoft

will provide software for these systems in the

form of several hundred thousand licenses

for various different Microsoft software

products. These will range from operating

system software, to office productivity

software, to compilers. Microsoft is given the

right to deny any wrong doing or admission

of any guilt in your case you filed against

Microsoft.

The fact that Microsoft is spending money

in this educational program for the

underprivileged K-12 schools in return for

you dropping your charges will not be

considered an admission of guilt or any

wrong doing which you state in your case.

All material which you brought forward as

evidence in your civil suit against Microsoft

will either be destroyed or placed in custody

of the attorneys representing you and/or

Microsoft and labeled as confidential. This

evidence which you brought against

Microsoft will never be used in court in any

other cases brought against Microsoft.

Copies of any legal material written by

your attorneys in regards to this case will be

kept by them under confidentiality and thus

will never be used in future cases against

Microsoft. We, the 1245 signers of this

petition, would like to inform you that we

feel this settlement to be unfair in that the

final outcome of the settlement will be a

major promotion of the use of Microsoft

software in the nations underprivileged K-12

schools. This will be done in the following

way.

A ‘‘Foundation’’ will be established which

will receive the funds of the settlement. This

foundation will be governed by a board,

made up of 5 members. Two of these

members will be appointed by Microsoft, two

will be appointed by the attorneys

representing you, and one will be appointed

by a unanimous vote of the first 4 board

members. The ‘‘Foundation’’ will create an

‘‘Education Council’’ which will take charge

of helping the board spend its funds. The

members of the ‘‘Education Council’’ will be

appointed by the board members of the

‘‘Foundation’’.

Among other responsibilities, the

‘‘Education Council’’, will be to educate the

K-12 schools on how to spend the money

they receive from the settlement. Included in

this education program will be training

material, curriculum materials, and training

on curriculum integration, provided to the

teachers of these K-12 schools. Section

IV.d(d) of the settlement stipulates that the

‘‘Education Council’’ must consult with

Microsoft on which training and curriculum

material will be used as well as how to

integrate this training material with the

curriculum. Furthermore Microsoft will

create a Microsoft certified refurbished PC

seller, and funds from this settlement can

only be spent on computers bought from

these Microsoft certified refurbished PC

sellers.

In other words, Microsoft will setup a legal

structure, though its ‘‘Foundation’’ and

‘‘Education Council’’ to ensure the funds are

spent on promoting the use of Microsoft

software in these underprivileged K-12

schools. Microsoft is also setting up a

training and education program to train the

teachers how to use Microsoft’s software

product under the control and guidance of

Microsoft. Finally, Microsoft is making sure

the schools spend the settlement funds on

purchasing used personal computers which

are configured to run Microsoft software.

There are other details in the settlement

which further promote the use of Microsoft

software products, but what’s listed above

makes up the foundation of Microsoft’s K-12

education program.

From these facts, we, the 1245 signers of

this petition, recognize Microsoft’s efforts to

use this settlement to train teachers and

students on how to use Microsoft software.

We also recognize that the ultimate goal of

this settlement is to further expand

Microsoft’s customer base through this

aggressive training program aimed at the

children of our underprivileged K-12 schools.

We find this kind of targeted training

program to be ill suited to be used as a

settlement agreement for charges of antitrust

behavior brought against Microsoft.

We, the 1245 signers of this petition,

would like for you to take one of two actions.

1. Contact your attorney, and ask him to

change the conditions of the settlement. The

settlement we propose is to have Microsoft

donate cash grants to the underprivileged K12 schools which were targeted in the

original settlement. The size of the individual

grants should be in proportion to the number

of students enrolled in the school. The

schools should then be directed to spend the

money on computer hardware, software,

networking infrastructure and Internet

connection bandwidth for systems used by

the teachers and students, as they best see fit

for themselves. We emphasize that these

funds be restricted to upgrading the IT

infrastructure just mentioned, used directly

in the classroom environment. These would

be upgrades to system used in general class

rooms, libraries, science labs, computer clubs

or which ever other teaching forum the

school has developed for the teaching of their

students. The role of the Foundation, as

created in the settlement agreement, should

expend its efforts to ensure this funding

policy be enforced. Furthermore, in order to

ensure that Microsoft has no part in directing

how the settlement funds be spent, the

Foundation created to manage the settlement

funds should be made up of people from our

leading science and education institutions.

Examples of the people who should be

sought to sit on the blue ribbon board of this

foundation would be the head of the National

Science Foundation, the head of the National

Academy of Sciences, the Presidential

Science Adviser, directors of our national

laboratories, presidents of our renown

universities, heads of teachers unions, the

Secretary of Education, the Secretary of

Commerce or other people who have great

knowledge of both education, its

advancement and the free and open market

system upon which the strength of this

country is founded. The task of forming a

search committee for these board members

should be given to the Honorable Judge Motz

or someone to which he delegates this task.

2. Or opt out of the settlement. Section 5

of the settlement states that you have a right

to opt out of the settlement and preserve your

right to pursue your claim against Microsoft.

To do this, you need to send a letter to ‘‘The

Settlement Notice Administrator’’, indicating

your wish to do so. You have 150 days to

exercise your ‘‘opt-out’’ options after entry of

the Court’s order for preliminary approval of

the settlement.

We thank you for reading our petition and

listening to our concerns regarding the

settlement you are about to enter with

Microsoft. We, the 1245 signers of this

petition, are very encouraged that Microsoft

is willing to fund so handsomely a computer

education program for our underprivileged

schools. But we also want to make sure that

it is done in a fair manner that promotes an

open market place for software products and

that this settlement not be used to exclude

other software vendors from participating in

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24717

this education program. We also recognize

that in order for our country to keep its role

as a global leader, we need to ensure our

children are properly educated using the

latest technology tools. We must also ensure

that the tools which they use are ones which

they have chosen freely.

MTC–00005390

From: RWeis21634@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:40am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

I believe the reduced liability found in the

Court of Appeals ruling is both fair and just.

I also believe that rapid settlement of the suit

against Microsoft will be in the best interest

of our country, and our economy.

Thank you

Richard Weis

74 Farragut Rd.

Cincinnati, Oh. 45218

rweis21634@aol.com

MTC–00005391

From: KWMEAD

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs-Dept.of Justice

I believe strongly that the current

settlement agreed with DOJ and nine states

is very fair to all parties, especially

CONSUMERS.The freedom to innovate

should be protected for the continued benefit

of consumers and a competitive

economy.The pending objection by the nine

states and their efforts to stop the settlement

is just a ploy by less competent competitors

via their lobbyists to restrict Microsoft and

add to the costs paid by consumers for

inferior products.Consumers have not been

properly heard in this case;they would have

thrown it out long ago;it has been a waste of

taxpayers money to proceed against

Microsoft without any significant complaint

of MICROSOFT USERS and that they were

harmed in a material way !

Kenneth W. Mead

5357 Newport St.

Lisle,IL. 60532

MTC–00005392

From: Forest Majors

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:47am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft settlement is more than fair.

I say this as a consumer and as a software

professional that served the industry for

thirty years before retirement. Continued

litigation would not serve the software

industry or the consumer well. It is time to

settle and bring this litigation to term.

Forest Majors

PO Box 459

47 Clark Hill Road

Hadlyme, Connecticut 06439

(860) 526–5964

MTC–00005393

From: Ronald Kegge

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:54am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern at the U.S.

Department of Justice, Please end this

ridiculous court case now. It is a complete

waste of taxpayer money. If anything, the

current settlement is unfair to Microsoft and

only serves to benefit it’s competitors.

Allowing this case to continue will only

waste money, give Microsoft competitors

unfair advantage, and bolster the ego’s of the

state AG’s who filed the case against

Microsoft. Please stop wasting my money!

Sincerely,

Ronald Kegge

MTC–00005394

From: Laura Riera

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:56am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please settle the Microsoft case—further

litigation is only in the attorneys’ interest and

NOT in the public’s interest.

Laura Riera

PO Box 12479

San Francisco, CA

415–333–8063

——-Original Message——-

From: Microsoft [mailto:0—23163—

A43FE97C-035E-D211–8ED5–

00805FA7C50A—US@Newsletters.Micr

osoft.com] Sent: Monday, December 31,

2001 2:18 PM

To: roaringdragons@hotmail.com

Subject: DOJ Wants to Hear From YOU!

A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear

from YOU!

To cancel your subscription to this

newsletter or stop all newsletters from

microsoft.com, read the directions at the

bottom of this message. For nearly four years,

your voice has been instrumental in the

debate over the freedom to innovate. Tens of

thousands of concerned citizens have

communicated to their public officials about

whether the Microsoft case should be settled

or further litigated. Despite the aggressive

lobbying efforts of a few of 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 your voice is more important than ever.

The law (officially called the Tunney Act)

requires a public comment period between

now and January 28th after which the District

Court will determine whether the settlement

is in the ‘‘public interest.’’ Unfortunately, a

few special interests are attempting to use

this review period to derail the settlement

and prolong this litigation even in the midst

of uncertain economic times. The last thing

the American economy needs is more

litigation that benefits only a few wealthy

competitors and stifles innovation.

Don’t let these special interests defeat the

public interest.

Between now and January 28th, it is

critical that the Department of Justice hears

from you about the Microsoft settlement. 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 heard.

Email: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov . In the

Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft

Settlement.

Fax: 1–202–307–1454 or 1–202–616–9937

To find out more about the settlement and

the Tunney Act comment period, go to the

Department of Justice Website at:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/mssettle.htm.

Thanks for taking the time to make a

difference.

MTC–00005395

From: Tom Gottshalk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 11:02am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

As a computer user and as a citizen

interested in good government which

includes equal justice under the law. I have

written to the DOJ and my elected officials

several times on the subject of our

government’s anti-trust suit against Microsoft

several times. On each of those occasions I

stressed my conviction that the search for

justice has been completely distorted by all

parties involved. I am convinced to this day

that justice has not been severed most

particularly for the party stated by the DOJ

as the injured party, namely the consumer.

Everyone involved in the case has benefited

except for the computer buying public and

the taxpayer of this country. Lawyers have

gained fees, politicians have gained in

reputation, The DOJ has gained by saying

they are protecting the public, Microsoft

stock holders have gained despite the efforts

of the US Government, and most especially

Microsoft’s competitors gained by having

their arch rival entangled in a legal briar

patch. I’m not saying I think Microsoft is

innocent of the allegations, clearly they are

not. I am saying in this case a monopoly

producing a personal computer operating

system was and still is a good thing. I am also

convinced that the only process remedy that

makes any sense for the public and for

Microsoft especially for their competitors is

the process of the open market undistorted

by any hand of the government even in the

slightest way.

For proof of the truth of the above

statement just look at the recent introduction

of Microsoft’s newest version of the Windows

Operating System, Windows XP. In their

attempt to make pirating impossible ( the real

problem in the software industry) they have

made the multiple computer home user buy

separate copied for each computer. This is as

much a marketing ploy as it is a copyright

issue. As a marketing gimmick it will

backfire and cost Microsoft tens of thousands

of sales. I predict Microsoft will be forced to

relax this requirement to gain additional

sales. And Microsoft has already had a

serious security issues with XP which will

24718 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

cost them more sales a situation that will

require MS to re-write portions of XP. In the

end the dominance of MS Windows will

falter because users will find better ways of

doing the same kinds of things they now do

on PCs. The government is on the verge of

institutionalizing the MS Windows operating

system in the interest of justice for the

consumer by strict so called process

regulations and rules. Such a mission by the

DOJ is bound to fail because regulated

products survive only because their

regulation survives.

Please consider the only possible justice

for the consumer is open markets that reward

producers of good products with sales at fair

prices and punish producers of inferior

products with no sales regardless of their

price. The DOJ should keep in mind the

consumer as an equal to the law and that in

the end exercises more power than the law.

Sincerely,

Tom Gottshalk

344 Remington Dr.

Oviedo, FL 32765

MTC–00005396

From: mt mdt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 11:15am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please allow the tentitive agreements that

Microsoft has made to be implemented and

do not levy anymore penalties against

Microsoft. I have been against this litigation

from the start and it should be dropped.

Milton Till

Milton D. Till

love ya babe

MTC–00005397

From: Jerry Bordic

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 11:16am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to conclude the Microsoft

Settlement and end more litigation.

MTC–00005398

From: John Zubac

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 11:23am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I do not feel that you have not served the

public interest litigating Microsoft. I feel that

Microsoft should not get away with their

sneaky and devious past practices. They

continue with their same practices today.

They offered a free Microsoft Certified

Professional exam for upgrading from

Windows NT 4 to Windows 2000 (Microsoft

Windows 2000 Accelerated Exam for MCP’s

Certified on Windows NT 4, Exam #070–240)

but do not give you final marks to measure

your skills in the new operating system. Is

this because they want to waste your time

and money by failing everyone on this exam,

so that they are required to take four exams

which cost $600 US. This exam is also four

hours long. These are the first things I

thought because I don’t trust anyone and

NOTHING is free in this world. I also wanted

to know my weaknesses in order to get my

employer to upgrade my education. They

need the proof. You should make Microsoft

pay to the full extent of the law. They should

finally pay for everything they have done to

ruin small businesses, control education, and

control this industry.

John Zubac, MCSE, MCP+I, MCP

CPSO

80 College Street

Toronto, Ontario

M5G2E2

MTC–00005399

From: A. Bairamian

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 11:33am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

The following is my input regarding the

DOJ settlement proposal for the Microsoft

lawsuit.

I have been in the software industry for

about 20 years. I use Microsoft products both

at my work and personally.

Microsoft is one of the greatest companies

ever created in the world. Their dominance—

achieved by hard work, innovation, and

marketing skill—is a great boon to the PC and

software industries: a common OS, and

applications that work seamlessly is very,

very important to have.

If Microsoft does no innovate and produce

quality products, it will become irrelevant

and disappear, like so many other software

and hardware manufacturers.

We the people buy Microsoft products

because we want to: unlike the government,

Microsoft cannot compel us to hand over our

money to them on pain of jail.

DOJ must not hamper Microsoft’s ability to

innovate.

DOJ must stop wasting our tax money on

a frivolous lawsuit brought on by petty and

jealous Microsoft competitors, and presided

over by a biased judge.

DOJ’s lawsuit against Microsoft triggered

the slide in the tech market which eventually

turned into a crash: average Americans lost

$billions in equity, because of DOJ

misadventures.

It is well past time to stop harassing

Microsoft, a great American asset, and settle

the suit ASAP.

A. Bairamian

Glendale, CA.

MTC–00005400

From: Karuna Karan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 11:47am

Subject: Microsoft Case

Hello

I understand this is the US government site

that accepts comments from world citizens

on the Microsoft case.

Let me first give you a background of

myself. I am an engineer and I run a small

electronic business in Hong Kong. I was

retrenched from my job six months ago and

so started this business. I am at present

working hard to meet my needs.

When I started this business six months

ago, I bought a brand new laptop which was

bundled with Windows ME operating

system. Now, everyday, my computer system

crashes on an average three times. The hard

disk had also crashed once in the last 6

months time.

This sad situation is that I have no other

alternates to help me. Microsoft has

effectively killed the growth of any good

software that answers to consumers needs

pro-actively.

I am sure millions of computers users

around the world are facing the similar

problem to mine. Microsoft has effectively

reduced productivity and efficiency all

around the world. If someone was to

calculate the amount of time and data lost

due to mal-functioning of Microsoft products,

I am sure it will run into Trillions of

USDollars.

Microsoft has to be stopped immediately !

They should also be made to return their illgotten wealth to the world citizens. PLEASE

DO IT NOW ! best wishes Karunakaran

MTC–00005401

From: Sally Sargent

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 11:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To The Department of Justice—

I would like to urge you to discontinue any

further litigation in the Microsoft case. I

believe that the actions taken against

Microsoft 2+ years ago spurred the most

devastating recession in this nation’s history

and it is time for the Government to do the

right thing and stop this direction. One could

argue the direct correlation to the economic

downturn, but I challenge you to look at the

statistical data about tech performance and

economic performance since the DOJ first

took action against Microsoft, if you are so

inclined to ‘‘argue.’’

It is beyond time for this country to heal,

from Sept. 11 and from the downturn in our

economy. In order to do this, the strongest,

most talented, most productive company in

the United States should be allowed to

perform without intervention of the

government. Microsoft’s business practices

that were once challenged no longer exist

and, in fact, the market is different and there

are many other companies who have

technology that could essentially, lock out

competition. However, I am not advocating

that the DOJ even attempt to identify these

companies. I am advocating that for profit

companies who may compete in these areas,

including Microsoft, should be smart enough

and tough enough to ensure they can

compete. Clearly, the government can only

dilute excellent performance in an industry

it knows little about. Actions against private

industries are detrimental to our country’s

economic health. Please, I urge you to end

the Microsoft case now.

If there is something you want to look at

closer, in the interest of football fans across

America, check out and do something about

the collusion that exists between network

TV, NFL football team owners, when they

black out games in the local viewing areas

that are not sold out. Who benefits? NFL

team owners. Who’s getting paid off? ??? It

is very difficult to build a local fan base if

fans cannot attend a game via TV. Who is

hurt? Local fans, local sports bars and

restaurants, local advertisers, local tv

stations, local players, local coaches. I urge

you to take this on instead. I highly doubt

this would cause a 2-year downturn in our

economy but would greatly benefit millions

of Americans while taking to task the

otherwise undetected NFL powerbase.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24719

Thanks for your time,

Sally Sargent

Seattle, WA

MTC–00005402

From: Frankhouser, Douglas—HFD

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 11:58am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To all concerned:

I would like to express my support of the

Microsoft Settlement. I believe that it will

benefit all parties concerned, especially

consumers.

Regards,

Doug Frankhouser

Conroe, Texas

dlpa-frankhouser@worldnet.att.net

<mailto:dlpafrankhouser@worldnet.att.net>

MTC–00005403

From: Mauvais Genie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:00pm

Subject: Little red Linux-hood and the big

bad Mcrosoft For years now people have

been railing against Microsoft for various

reasons. Personally, my dislike began with

Windows 3.11 over nothing important. See,

I just found it to be a little patronizing. I

wanted some little digital Toto to pull the

curtain back and show me the truth. I could

not understand why Microsoft was so

insistent that they not tell me how it works.

Here it is a decade or so later and its only

gotten worse. Enough of the Adjectives,

here’s the point. Microsoft, to their credit,

managed to create an operating system that

an intoxicated monkey could use. At the

same time, an office suite and later a web

browser, and all too soon...’.net’ which from

my perspective kinda like steering into the

skid.

As for me, there isn’t anything I can do

about it. If you create something geared for

the dumbest person you know, before you

know it everybody’s using it. Everything is

based on the lowest common denominator,

and in this case its real low. Some one with

absolutely no computer knowledge can use

Windows and their expectations will be met

because they don’t have any. The demands

they place on the operating systems and tasks

running with in it are insignificant. And

there are all too many people out there that

don’t even understand that there is a

difference between the computer itself, the

operating system, and the Internet. This

speaks volumes about the way Microsoft

blinds consumers and encourages ignorant

users.

As I said, for years now people have been

railing against Microsoft. I had my reasons

and other people had reasons I couldn’t

understand. For some it was that Microsoft

got too big too fast. Others had conspiracy

theories that I found to be absurd. But

through it all, there were those of us out

there, forced to use it at jobs, forced to

tolerate friends and family using Windows

and having to deal with them. Deal with

them in the non-descript phone calls of

’something’ being wrong and being sent files

that need to be opened with Microsoft

programs or just deleted for lack of interest.

For the most part, the fight against

Microsoft’s ’attitude’ (I guess that’s the best

word) has been something akin to poking a

polar bear with a really short stick. There

have been small gains in the Open Source

community, And keep in mind that any gain

in any technology that competes with

Microsoft to date is an impressive one which

I support completely. But these gains I

believe are exaggerated and have little impact

on the market. I don’t believe, given the

current climate, that Mr. Gates is loosing any

sleep over the Open Source community.

That said, the Open Source community

needed a bigger stick. One I had hoped they’d

found in the DoJ. I thought it was clear, that

Microsoft had gone too far in too many ways.

I mean really, even the stupidest monkey will

only go so far out on the limb. And I’m not

even really talking about from the standpoint

of legality or technology which are not as

readily visible. I’m talking about ‘corporate

arrogance’. Its a kind of arrogance that comes

from a company that knows they have you.

Like Ma Bell before the breakup: ‘‘what are

you going to do, go with another phone

company??’’ Funny now isn’t it. But think

about what long distance prices would be at

now. Think about the state cell phone

technology would be at. Think about the fact

that there would be no DSL or DHL

connections. These advances seem largely

the result of competition. As it stands now,

I can get an Internet connection through a

satellite dish and a cellphone from any

number of companies willing to give me a

phone just for signing up. I don’t even need

a home phone and the phone company

knows it.

The phone company analogy serves no

more than pointing out an example of the

good fight gone right. Where very innovative

people, given more opportunity explode onto

the scene, pushing technology forward in

some small part to fly in the face of their

oppressors. I think the fight against

Microsoft’s ‘policies‘ is a good fight. It

warrants consideration. I also believe that the

pending outcome seems to be more of a nod

to Microsoft than any sort of penalty. All this

talk of freedom is fine and has merit, but it

really isn’t my point. My point lies in the

idea of doing what is fundamentally right in

the ethical arena, to ensure that technology

has the ability to move forward in the most

efficient, beneficial way it can. If there is a

matter of National Security here, it is in the

idea of protecting the advancement of

technology, not in protecting the

advancement of Microsoft.

At this point, I would predict that a posttrial celebration party will be thrown by

Microsoft’s new spokesman....O.J. Simpson.

History will frown on this case’s outcome as

short-sighted.

Sincerely,

Jack Ware

P.S. This was typed on a Compaq Deskpro

EN computer with a sticker on it that says

‘‘Designed For Microsoft’’ in Microsoft Word

running on Microsoft Windows NT 4.0

Service Pack 6, where it was routed through

a Microsoft Exchange Server on the way out

of the LAN via a Microsoft Hotmail being fed

into Outlook. I’m at work.

Permission to reprint in part or whole,

granted to Dennis Powell and his ilk as he

feels is appropriate. Its the least I can do.

MTC–00005404

From: chuck(u)mathis Mathis

To: Microsoft ATR,chgojoe44,Fussebd,Cliff

Knudson,Rick...

Date: 1/2/02 12:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

With regards to the Tunney Act;

Dear DOJ Participants in The Microsoft

Settlement, I know you feel you have the

welfare of the common man at heart with

your decision making, regarding the

Microsoft Suit, and I say, ‘‘God bless you for

your concern.’’ But, correct me if I am wrong,

did not all tech stocks in general take a fall

upon the outset of the MS suit? And has it

not continued to plunge even further

discounting 9–11–01?

Now I am by no means a rocket scientist,

an economist or, ‘‘thank God’’, a lawyer but

I am able to see that this absurd suit against

innovative free enterprise has had a

decidedly adverse affect on my world. I

repeat, MY WORLD!!!

Now, more than ever, my beloved USA

needs strong economic factors to bolster it as

we teeter on the edge of untold disaster. In

God’s name, why would any entity tamper

with the economics of the company that

started it all as well as continues it? Look

around you. You may not personally be

affected but if you take the power hungry

glare from your stare you will see countless

others who are drastically affected by the MS

Suit and our common state of the day. Could

you sleep at night knowing that you drove

the final nail into the coffin? I think not.

Leave Microsoft intact where it can

continue to be the Flagship of our great

nations technical infrastructure. If we are to

overcome the current economic crises we

must continue to lead the way in information

and technology. If a fourth of a company is

good in your thinking then a whole company

is fortuitous beyond belief for this country.

I thank you for taking the time to read this

and I apologize if I have offended you in any

manner, but in my defense, the actions

against Microsoft that are being bandied by

the Department of Justice are an offense to

me, my country and the capitalist spirit

which has made the United States the

greatest nation in the universe.

Use your powers to be wise not vindictive.

Best regards,

Charles R. Mathis Jr.

1642 Country Lakes Dr., #A

Naperville, IL 60563

chuck—mathis@msn.com

It is the common fate of the indolent to see

their rights become a prey to the active. The

condition upon which God hath given liberty

to man is eternal vigilance; which condition

if he break, servitude is at once the

consequence of his crime and the

punishment of his guilt.

John Philpot Curran: ‘‘Speech upon the

Right of Election’’, 1790.

MTC–00005405

From: Bill Liedtke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:18pm

24720 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Subject: Microsoft/ Tunney Act Comment

To: Department of Justice

From: William P. Liedtke, Attorney 27443

Linwood Circle, North Olmsted, OH

44070 440–777–0478

Dear Sirs,

Regarding the Microsoft Settlement/

Tunney Act Comment Period, it is the

personal opinion of this writer that the

Government (State and Federal) has gone

well beyond what was necessary in the above

case. The conclusion of the Federal case

should have concluded all litigation

(including state Anti-Trust litigation).

Microsoft is the only true success story of a

large U.S. business recently, in what has been

termed a ‘‘down economy’’. Must this nation

attack each success story (when we have so

few recently). Any rule or regulation agreed

to by settlement with Microsoft must be

made mandatory upon each of its

competitors, so that none may take advantage

of a company hamstrung by Anti-Trust

litigation. .

Cordially,

William P. Liedtke, Attorney at Law

bliedtke@easyon.com

1/2/02

MTC–00005406

From: Wu, David

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:24pm

Subject: Settlement

As a software developer, I support the

settlement between DOJ and MS.

David Wu

MTC–00005407

From: Lee Behel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:25am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

For God’s sake, settle the damn thing! It

has gone on way too far already. Microsoft

should never have been put through this.

Lee Behel

MTC–00005408

From: William Pennington

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:24pm

Subject: Settle.

The case against Micrsoft is a joke.

Whatever settlement they are willing to offer,

take it.

William Pennington

President

Pacific West Builders, Inc.

7025 Longley Lane, Suite 60

Reno, NV 89511

775–852–8453 x17

775–852–1042 fax

MTC–00005409

From: Brad Nickel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:25pm

Subject: Time to move on.

Enough wasting our time and tax dollars

pursuing Microsoft because they are

successful. The whining losers that started

this process at Netscape and others, just

could not figure out how to compete

effectively, because they were morons.

Microsoft should be held up by our

government as a model of what competitive

capitalism should be.

Thanks,

Brad Nickel

717 Laurel Way

Casselberry, FL 32707

407–388–9975

MTC–00005410

From: Terry Voss

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear People,

As a software developer age 52 I have seen

the state of competition before and after

Microsoft was formed as a company.

Competition is still healthy and very

important there is much more importance

attached to created standards that help

businesses communicate with each other.

I was ill-concerned when Microsoft was

charged by our government, but now feel that

the settlement has been somewhat fair.

Thank you for allowing my opinion to be

heard.

Terry Voss

Developer/Owner

Computer Consulting

Microsoft Certified Partner

http://www.computer-consulting.com

<http://www.computerconsulting.com/>

tvoss@computer-consulting.com

2403 North Nettleton Street

Spokane WA 99205

Tel: 509–327–7202

Fax: 509–327–2303

http://www.spokaneoutdoors.com <http://

www.spokaneoutdoors.com/>

MTC–00005411

From: Small, Vincent

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please stop dragging this thing out.

There is plenty of competition in the

Software and Online Services Space. For the

most part, the states that are dissenting are

backed by companies that do not want to

compete with Microsoft. They are the real

nemesis of innovation and change.

Vincent Small

Vice President

Financial Software Systems Inc.

MTC–00005412

From: George

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:27pm

Subject: Allow Microsoft to Innovate

Allow Microsoft to continue focusing on

product innovations rather than defending

itself in the courts. I strongly suggest that the

government drops all charges against

Microsoft.

George Polychroniou

MTC–00005413

From: Clay M. Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:27pm

Subject: MS Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

I strongly support the Microsoft settlement

in its current form. Please bring this case to

a prompt conclusion. Clay M. Smith

MTC–00005414

From: Jiang, Peng

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I believe the current agreement between

Microsoft and the federal government and the

nine states represents the best interests of

consumers and the American economy.

Thanks for your time.

Peng Jiang, Ph.D.

Member of Technical Staff

SonoSite, Inc.

21919 30th Dr. SE

Bothell, WA 98021–3904

Tel. (425) 951–1337

Fax (425) 951–1201

Email peng.jiang@sonosite.com

Web www.sonosite.com

SonoSite*

Imagine What You Can Do

MTC–00005415

From: Jrloans@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:27pm

Subject: Re: microsoft settlement

Time to settle for a small amount and

everyone get back to business.

MTC–00005416

From: Smith, Georgia

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Thank you for allowing me to express my

opinion with regard to the Microsoft

Settlement. I support the courts ruling and

ask that you continue to uphold the decision.

Our economy has faced enough uncertaincy

in recent times and it is important that we

move forward and do everything possible to

strengthen our position. The last thing the

American economy needs is more litigation

that benefits only a few wealthy competitors

and stifles innovation.

Georgia B. Smith

Vice President,Federation Services

Newspaper Association of America

1921 Gallows Road, Suite 600

Vienna, VA 22182

(703) 902–1784

(703) 902–1773 fax

smitg@naa.org

MTC–00005417

From: Wayne Newcomb

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:23pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I really believe the current settlement is

harsh enough on Microsoft. I believe the

states who are still against the settlement are

looking to gain an unfair advantage, (take

advantage) of the situation and I believe if

you allow this our economy will be further

damaged by vultures who occupy places of

authority!

Wayne Newcomb

Dean of Students

Word to the World College

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24721

MTC–00005418

From: Stephen Land

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please accept this communication as my

support for the negotiated settlement

between the DOJ and Microsoft. I hope you

will not be distracted by the politics that

underlies the position of the dissenting states

and certain members of Congress.

Stephen Land

(770) 698–9500

http://www.divorceland.com <http://

www.divorceland.com/>

MTC–00005419

From: Frank Johnson

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

It is time to move on with this case, this

settlement is reasonable. there will always be

those who have an agenda that will be

disgruntled, do not allow them to hold our

economy hostage to their own interests.

Frank Johnson

MTC–00005420

From: Robert

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

Having read the proposed settlement in

detail, I believe that it is clearly in the best

interest of the government, the US consumer,

and the world economy to conclude this

matter as soon as possible by implementing

the settlement as published.

Sincerely,

Dr. Robert F. Hausman, Jr.

President

Rockridge Information Systems, Inc.

1214 Camino Carlos Rey Suite 2

Santa Fe, NM 87505

(505) 474–7404

MTC–00005421

From: Jack Warring

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I support the Microsoft settlement that has

already been agreed to by 9 states and

Microsoft. Let’s put the Microsoft case to bed

and stop wasting a lot of money on legal fees.

Thanks,

Jack

MTC–00005422

From: Mark Reed

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

TWIMC,

I am not a Microsoft employee, however I

am completely on Microsoft’s side of this

case. They have helped greatly helped our

country and should not be punished for the

success they have earned. I believe it should

not be the Governments job to play referee

between competing companies—especially in

the highly competitive Hi Tech Computer

industry. Sun Microsystems, IBM, Oracle and

the like should desist in wanting government

intervention. If they were in Microsoft’s

position—they would behave the same way.

Thank you for your time,

Mark Reed

Mark M. Reed

Senior Systems Engineer

(972) 728–8161

mreed@mh2.com

MTC–00005423

From: Dave Howland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:27pm

Subject: Gov. Meddling

Why don’t you investigate Tyson Foods

and leave Microsoft alone. You are only

hurting the stock market and the economy.

David J. Howland

MTC–00005424

From: Paul Jasper

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

To the District Court:

It is important that this case be settled

now. Microsoft is an innovative company,

without whom the Internet would not be as

good as it is. This case needs to be settled

now without further cost to the taxpayer.

Sincerely, Paul T. Jasper

Paul Jasper

tuck1@earthlink.net

MTC–00005425

From: Mike Stolper

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm

Subject: settlement

The government should look at areas that

stifle innovation rather than encourage it.

Stay away from technology. Leave Microsoft

alone.

Michael Stolper

1606 Clemson Circle

La Jolla, Ca. 92037

MTC–00005426

From: Dan Messersmith

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:04pm

Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to express my desire for you

to accept the current proposed settlement

and stop the litigation associated with

Microsoft. Our business has been and will

continue to be a Microsoft customer. Their

innovation is second to none and we want

that to continue.

Thanks,

Dan E. Messersmith, CPA

Duncan, Newman, Messersmith &

McCormick, Ltd.

Certified Public Accountants & Consultants

1700 Malvern Road

Hot Springs, Arkansas 71901

Phone: 501–624–7400

Fax: 501–623–6451

Email: dan@hscpas.com

MTC–00005427

From: Jeffrey C. Graber

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm

Subject: DOJ: I think the time has come to

settle the case against Microsoft.

The DOJ:

I think the time has come to settle the case

against Microsoft. The proposed settement is

fair for both Microsoft and consumers and in

the interest of the country I propose that the

DOJ accept the settlement.

Jeff Graber

MTC–00005428

From: Jones, Michael L

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to show my support for the

settlement currently in place. While I think

the case against Microsoft was wrong in the

first place, at least we can put this behind us

now. As a economist I am particularly

concerned about our economy. I am

especially concerned about businesses using

the anti-trust laws as a tool to harm another

company in order to gain competitive

advantage. The case brought against

Microsoft had more to do with hurting the

competition than with helping the consumer.

Please settle without further delay. If you

change anything, reduce the impact on

Microsoft.

Thanks,

Michael L. Jones

Albuquerque

MTC–00005429

From: Judy Morris

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Time has come to put this ugliness behind

us and move forward. Although harsh, I

believe the settlement terms are fair and

acceptable to the American public.

Let’s be done with this witch hunt and

move on.

Thank you,

Judy Morris

Spokane Washington

MTC–00005430

From: Michael A. Strasser

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I believe it necessary to settle the case

against Microsoft and convey to you my

desire that the Department of Justice accept

and implement the proposed agreement as it

stands now.

There are many reasons to do this at this

time, one being that it will help add a

stabilizing effect on the business community

and help bolster our national economy.

Additionally, while I don’t always agree

with how Microsoft conducts it’s business, I

felt that this was a waste of taxpayer money

and was a major part of damaging our

national economy. Sun, Oracle and Netscape

were upset because they couldn’t compete

(mainly because they were too busy fighting

with other companies and not paying

attention to their own products) and duped

the government into being their champion.

We all lost on that one!

Thank you for your time.

Michael A. Strasser

MTC–00005431

From: Prince, Lee

24722 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I would urge the government and the

USDOJ to retain the settlement reached. The

sentiments of the other nine states to

continue the warfare is not helpful to the

future of my industry.

I work in the software industry, in no way

related to Microsoft. But the uncertainty

introduced by the litigation has harmed the

industry as a whole. It needs to be stopped

for the future of our industry and ultimately

for the future of the consumer of software.

It is time for the litigation to stop and the

right to innovate be validated.

Please affirm the settlement and reject the

demands of the greedy nine state attorneysgeneral.

Lee Prince

5632 Mavis Place

Hansville, WA 98340

Lead Technical Support Analyst

ERP Backup & Recovery

(360) 638–0116 (direct)

(360) 908–1214 (cell)

Lee—Prince@bmc.com

MTC–00005432

From: Ken

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I want to express my support as a

consumer for the settlement.

Ken Weissblum

MTC–00005433

From: Philip Royalty

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please accept my opinion that I believe the

Microsoft Settlement must be settled at once.

The consumer and the American economy is

not being helped by prolonging this. Let’s get

it behind us and go on to bigger and better

things. Philip Royalty

MTC–00005434

From: JerrydeannaPHX@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Please stop the letigation the settlement is

more than fair since Microsoft was never

guilty in the first place.

The fultons

jerrydeannaPHX@aol.com

MTC–00005435

From: Jeff Aaron

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement!

Thank you for all that you have done on

behalf of the public but I believe the agreed

upon settlement is adequate and fair to all

parties involved. Please do not bring this

back for further litigation...it will only benefit

a few parties and stifle further innovation

from Microsoft. As history has shown,

innovation not litigation is beneficial to the

consumer. We as consumers are what matter

not the lawyers. Thanks again!!

Happy New Year!!

MTC–00005436

From: Shahbaz, Ali

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am happy to see Microsoft has not been

broken in to two. However, I think Microsoft

must support Java, and open system. Open

system is the key. The new Microsoft XP has

many problems with other programs.

Microsoft should not dictate its terms to the

industry.

Regards,

Ali Shahbaz, B.A.Sc.

Tel: 604–643–7372

MTC–00005437

From: Herb Biddle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Litigation

It is critical in my view that the litigation

regarding Microsoft that has consumed the

public record be settled as agreed. To do so

will only benefit the country.

H. D. Biddle

MTC–00005438

From: Buss, Bob

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

As a taxpaying citizen, it appears the

settlement is fair and reasonable. Thus, it

would seem in the best interest of all

concerned to minimize additional expenses

by ending the time period for additional

litigation.

Thank you!

Bob Buss

Senior Manager

Wipfli Ullrich Bertelson LLP

469 Security Blvd.

P.O. Box 12237

Green Bay, WI 54307–2237

(920) 662–2851(Telephone)

(920) 662–0024(Fax)

bbuss@wipfli.com

www.wipfli.com

MTC–00005439

From: David Chester Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear US Dept of Justice:

I am firmly of the opinion that the whole

lawsuit against Microsoft was a huge waste

of taxpayers’ money. I find the settlement

overall to be oppressive to Microsoft, but I

would be satisfied to accept it to end the

controversy. I am a user of Microsoft

products, and greatly appreciate the order

and consistency that Microsoft has brought to

the computer world in general. Their

leadership has always kept the consumer in

mind.

David Chester Smith

Metairie, LA

dsmith@accesscom.net

MTC–00005440

From: Greg Taylor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I was totally opposed in the beginning to

this lawsuit as I view it as a very biased

action to afford competitors of Microsoft a

competitive advantage. This is totally

contrary to a free market society. All of the

other states that haven’t signed on to this

settlement should be forced to sign on. I

think that this lawsuit serves to stifle and

restrict innovation and private investment.

Gregory A. Taylor

MTC–00005441

From: FreeH1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

I think the DOJ/Gov have better things to

do ,, What a joke ,, If it was not for Microsoft

we would be 10 years behind. When you buy

a new PC, windows /XP are the cheapest

thing on the PC, I do not use all of

Microsoft’s soft ware i use what i like ,, DOJ

should be looking at ENRON,,,,,,

Howard & Elaine Freeman

MTC–00005443

From: PAUL M. MCKINLEY

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We urge you to settle the Microsoft case;

no more litigation in the matter.

Paul & Layne McKinley

MTC–00005444

From: Tucker Cheadle

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

The Microsoft case has gone on long

enough. By way of background the Wall

Street Journal reported that this case was

instigated by Sun Microsystems and Oracle

who were worried that Microsoft would

develop products in their areas. They spent

$3,000,000 on a mock trial for Joel Klein’s

benefit, made all of their lawyers and

engineers available to the government and

then Joel Klein agreed to pursue the case.

The original allegations have long been

dismissed, ie., the browser, or lost and the

government is left with a monopoly finding

and no ability to break up the company.

Yet, Sun and Oracle go on and on and on.

In an unrelated civil case Sun and Oracle are

opposing a settlement with over 100

plaintiffs and Microsoft...and neither Sun nor

Oracle are or ever have been parties in the

case. And, they prevailed on Governor Davis

to join them on behalf of California. Most

interestingly, among the chief complaints of

Sun and Oracle were the Windows desk top

system. Although Windows has been out for

some 9 years, neither Sun nor Oracle have

ever created their own desk top system. They

could have done it years ago, or even now,

but they do not do so. Rather, they have

embraced the Windows platform and have

extended it in their own ways.

It is long time to move on. The settlement

is reasonable and should be approved.

MTC–00005445

From: Willner, David

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24723

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

As a long-time PC user, I ask that the

settlement agreed to by the DOJ and

Microsoft be accepted and that the objections

raised by the dissenting States be rejected.

The integration of services Microsoft

provides (operating system, productivity

applications and internet browser) continue

to be of highest importance to me. Requiring

Microsoft to disable such integration and

manage these services through separate

companies would be a major technological

step backward, offering consumers only a

false sense of product choice while adding

significantly to the complexity of PC setup.

Thank you for your attention to this

comment.

David Willner

This message and attachments, if any,

contain information that may be confidential

and privileged. Unless you are the addressee

(or authorized to receive for the addressee),

you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone

the message or any information contained in

the message or its attachments. If you have

received the message in error, please advise

the sender by reply e-mail to

<mailto:dwillner@gowebway.com>

dwillner@gowebway.com and delete the

message. Thank you very much.

CC:David Willner (dfwillner@yahoo.com)

MTC–00005446

From: Jim McChesney

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

010202 1127

I support settlement of this spurious and

frivolous lawsuit under the terms of the

Tunney Act. Let us put a stop to this

egregious nonsense and allow Microsoft to

get on with its innovative and profitable

business.

Sincerely,

JPM

James P. McChesney

Parker College of Chiropractic

2500 Walnut Hill Lane

Dallas, Texas 75229

Attn.: C.I.R.A. Ste. 238 South

EMail: jmcchsny@parkercc.edu

VOICE: 1.800.438.6932 Ext. 7130

972.438.6932 Ext. 7130

FAX: 214.902.2446

WHB

MTC–00005447

From: Kathleen Jane Dunlap

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the Justice Department,

I strongly urge settlement of the Justice

Deparment’s case against Microsoft. This case

should be closed and no continuance or

extensions of the case by individual states

should be considered or allowed.

Kathleen J. Dunlap

General Manager

Dunlap Consulting Int’l

Dunlap Consulting International, LLC

Niue Tourism Office

959 Thornhill Road

Lexington, Va 24450

540–463–7092

540–463–7182–fax

dunlapkj@yahoo.com

MTC–00005448

From: Marwan Shouery

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think it is totally wrong to punish

Microsoft for being the most successful

company ever. Microsoft should be the one

who decides what to put in its software

packages and no one else.

M Shouery

MTC–00005449

From: Kaplansky, Lazar (ECCS)

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam,

I strongly believe that the settlement is

reasonable and fair to all parties involved.

The settlement is good for the consumers and

American economy and should be approved.

The nine states that do not want to settle are

not looking after ‘public interest’; all they

want is to confiscate as much money as they

can from the Microsoft. That should not be

allowed to happen.

Thank you and Best Regards,

Lazar Kaplansky

22 Garwood rd.

Fair Lawn, NJ 07410

email: Lkaplansky@exchange.ml.com

<mailto:Lkaplansky@exchange.ml.com>

MTC–00005450

From: Dr. J. Rumpakis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

You have reached a settlement, now stick

to it! The nine states that are holdouts are

acting like children who didn’t get their way

on the playground. Let’s all get back to

business, Lord knows the country sure needs

it. Thank you for your time in this matter.

Regards,

John

John M. B. Rumpakis, O.D., F.A.A.O

Chairman & CEO

Practice Resource Management, Inc.

www.PracticeResourceMgmt.com

MTC–00005452

From: Paul N. Norton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:32pm

Subject: Re: Settlemnt Issue

It is my opinion that the issue has been

fairly judged and the settlement does allow

Microsoft to continue in their intention to

provide great software. It also does allow for

a choice and it forces their products to

succeed only if they are reliable and more

beneficial to those of their competitors.

Paul N. Norton 1/2/2002

MTC–00005453

From: Dcstacks@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern

I am in favor of the settlement of the

lawsuit. It is time to get back to the business

of innovation.

Thank you for your time.

Pray for America

Peace,

Deborah Stachowiak

MTC–00005454

From: Steve Ross

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft

I think the DOJ has invested way to much

time and tax dollars trying to destroy a

successful technology contributor. Microsoft

has lead the US, in many ways others

haven’t, couldn’t or wouldn’t.

Leave Microsoft alone.

Steve Ross

President

MTC–00005455

From: Evelyn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please proceed with settlement. It is in the

best interests of customer to settle now

without further litigation.

Gordon R. Phillips @

phillund@earthlink.net

MTC–00005456

From: Ray (038) Debbie Reaume

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We live in a capitalist society. Those who

make great products will drive up demand.

Those who don’t create great products fall by

the wayside. Please settle this Microsoft

lawsuit now.

Sincerely,

Raymond and Deborah Reaume

MTC–00005457

From: Timothy N. Tangredi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Justice Department:

I wanted to share with you my two cents

about the pending Microsoft settlement.

Microsoft needs some oversight as you have

proposed to limit any strong-arm sales

tactics. Technology is moving rapidly and the

operating system will be radically different in

just a few short years. Further restrictions on

Microsoft will only serve, in my opinion, to

move this industry into a fragmented state

with foreign firms taking the lead given

strong government support. I liken the

situation to that of Boeing and Airbus. The

US needs to maintain its superiority in the

high technology arena.

The nine States protesting the settlement

are needlessly wasting taxpayer dollars as the

ends suggested do not justify the purported

crime.

Please accept the settlement and let

Microsoft get back to what it does best—

making great software at great prices.

Sincerely,

Tim Tangredi

Dais-Analytic Corporation

24724 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

11552 Prosperous Drive

Odessa, FL 33556

727.375.8484 Ext 305

707.924.2352 FAX

http://www.daisanalytic.com

Privileged/Confidential Information is

contained in this message. If you are not the

addressee indicated in this message (or

responsible for delivery of the message to

such person), you may not copy or deliver

this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this

message and kindly notify the sender by

reply email. Please advise immediately if you

or your employer do not consent to Internet

email for messages of this kind. Opinions,

conclusions and other information in this

message that do not relate to the official

business of my firm shall be understood as

neither given nor endorsed by it.

MTC–00005458

From: Kecia Bruce

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The Microsoft settlement is in the public

interest. Our economy does NOT need more

litigation that benefits a few special interests,

and harms consumers.

MTC–00005459

From: Mike Gallop

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Case

To Whom it may concern,

As an investor and U.S. citizen, I think it’s

high time that the U.S. Gov. stopped

spending our tax money on the pursuit of one

of the most successful companies in the U.S.

at the behest of a small group of well funded

special interests. Former and current U.S.

officials have been paid to lobby against the

settlement, these are the only voices of

dissention, most people, myself included,

only to want this witch hunt to end. Let the

market sort it out, not results purchased by

special interests. Our enemies are outside our

borders, we don’t need to be torn apart from

within.

MTC–00005460

From: George J. Popovich, Jr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

All things considered, it would be in the

best interest of all consumers to settle the

Microsoft case per the agreement already

reached between Microsoft and the DOJ.

MTC–00005461

From: Ken Shelton

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I feel that as long as I have the option to

use any software with the windows platform

that Microsoft can add all of their software

to the platform for all I care.

Example. I use CompuServe as my internet

provider and not msn. I use the office

program which is an add-on simply because

it is more universal. But I use Quicken and

Quick Books instead of Money for my

financial program and I use TD Waterhouse

for use as a financial tool. Anyone has the

ability to use a software program from any

other source.

If they decide that there is a better program

out their. Just as I feel that Quicken is a better

program than money and is a more universal

program. Unix is a platform that is winning

a lot of support and so is the Macintosh

platform and they seem to thrive.

I am a business man and I guarantee you

that in a competitive market we stay on our

toes to keep our position and improve our

position. Many companies have set up easier

access to the product I sell but it is my

responsibility to viably compete against them

not the court system.

Ken Shelton

Ken Shelton Agency

MTC–00005462

From: MEDFACTOR@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm

Subject: I like MS products and pricing

Mark Colbert, President

Medical Factoring Concepts, Inc.

2848 East Bell Rd #200

Phoenix AZ 85032

MTC–00005463

From: GideonZik@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm

Subject: Fair settlement.

The Microsoft settelment is more then

fair,and should be accepted.

Bernard Anker

MTC–00005464

From: Bobby (038) Nancy Johnson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm

Subject: MicroSoft Settlement

I strongly object to any further prosecution

of Microsoft. You are destroying our

economy. If you remember, when Janet Reno

and Company brought charges against

Microsoft, our economy went down hill and

continues to decline. Of course, I’m sure all

personnel in the Justice Department will

deny this.

Why not do a little research and determine

how many school retirement systems have

went broke because of the legal actions

against Microsoft?

I’m just wondering what kind of operating

systems that the billions of computers will

use, if you are successful and bankrupt

Microsoft. I know that is what is going on.

Companies like Sun and Oracle have been

instrumental in getting you to press more and

more charges against Microsoft.

Thank you,

Bobby J. Johnson

210 La Luz Ln

Ruidoso, NM 88345–7809

505–258–1159

MTC–00005465

From: bob dollar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Get off Microsoft’s back.

Settle this thing, for the sake of the

consumers and the US ecomomy. What

would we have if we didn’t have Microsoft.

Bob Dollar

MTC–00005466

From: Rob Green

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am happy with the Microsoft settlement

as proposed by the federal government. I am

very, very unhappy with the continued

persistence of the states that have not joined.

Please work to accept the federal

governments proposal.

Thanks,

Rob Green

MTC–00005467

From: Svlgolfer@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Gentlemen

Settle this matter NOW so we can all work

toward moving our nation and the economy

forward. I feel this case has reached the point

that any presumed gains does not justify the

effort and expense.

James H Carr

MTC–00005468

From: Calvin Guthridge

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Ladies & Gentlemen:

I think it is ridicules dragging out the

Microsoft anti trust case. Microsoft should be

praised instead of hounded by a bunch of

poor losers. I think Enron should be more

worthy of attention than Microsoft.

Calvin Guthridge

6543 West Cameron

Tulsa, OK 74127

MTC–00005469

From: Mr. G

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Civil Action No. 98–1232

My name is Gerard Gambino 3812 Quentin

Ave Boynton Beach Florida 33436 phone

561–742–0978

I feel the settlement agreed upon by the

parties is more then fair to both sides and

this matter should be put to rest for the good

of the economy, tax payers and computer

enthusiasts.

Thank you

MTC–00005470

From: Papaioannou, Michael G.

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam,

I think that the settlement is reasonable

and fair. This issue has to be put to rest.

Sincerely,

Michael Papaioannou

MTC–00005471

From: Anthony York

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:36am

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24725

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please! Now is the time to get this matter

behind us once and for all. For many of us

who are not legal scholars—and for many

who are—this whole lawsuit never made

much sense to begin with. Whatever the

merits of the case, those who want to punish

Microsoft have never made a case that is

convincing to the public at large. Now that

we have finally have some progress, for God’s

sake don’t go backwards and start this thing

all over again.

Sincerely,

Anthony D. York

Professor Emeritus of Englishand

Comparative Literature

Univ. of Cincinnati

MTC–00005472

From: D. Alexander

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: microsoft case

I think the USDOJ should get out of the

way of business, microsoft does not have

monopoly (Linux, Apple, Sun etc). You’re

only hurting millions of taxpayers and their

investments.

Doug R. Alexander

www.douglasalexander.com

MTC–00005473

From: Kecia Bruce

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft settlement is in the public

interest, PLEASE settle it. Our economy does

NOT need more litigation that benefits a few

special interests, and harms consumers. I

want Microsoft to keep developing

innovative products!

MTC–00005474

From: jdfain@tmch.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the settlement that Microsoft

has proposed is adequate and fair.

I have always believed that Microsoft has

done more for the computer industry and the

consumer than any other computer vendor in

the world. This has never been an issue with

the consumer. This battle has been about

what the DOJ thinks is good for the consumer

without polling the consumer. Anti-trust law

suits should be brought about because of

what has happened to the consumer. Not

what happened to Microsoft’s competition.

Joe Fain SR

jdfain@tmch.com

<mailto:jdfain@tmch.com>

337–266–2113

MTC–00005475

From: Graham Flood

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi,

Please see these comments from a

consumer perspective rather than an

employee.

‘‘I have used MS software for many years

(before I was a MS employee). I am very open

to new technologies and software but the

reality is that if you want to get your job done

quickly an easily then MS software usually

provides the answer. I use an Apple Mac (as

I work on the Macintosh team) much more

than a Windows PC and I think MS have

done a great job with Mac software and have

really spurred on Mac sales. I use many other

types of software other than MS software

only if it is any good. If I buy a PC or MAC

that has pre-installed software and it doesn’t

do what I want I don’t use it or remove it,

I then go and get better stuff if its there.

Anyway I think for the economy sake and

for thousands that work in the industry you

should put a lid on this ASAP so we can all

get on with much more important things.

Why should a company be punished just

because they are successful, in this business

you don’t get anywhere by lying down.’’

thanks

Graham

MTC–00005476

From: Steven Lombard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the government should accept the

settlement and forego further litigation,

which, I believe, is not in the public interest.

Please, do NOT pursue the litigation further.

Sincerely,

Steve Lombard

P.O. Box 356

Laie, HI 96762

MTC–00005477

From: Lorraine Storeno

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is appalling to see how Micrrosoft has

been singled out with all the anti-trusts suits

when that company has done so much for the

computer industry.

I have been using a computer since 1987

and can remember how difficut it was to use

a computer and download every morning the

DOS and etc. After Microsoft came along

with Windows, I was so relieved and enjoyed

computer use. It was so useful.

Our American has always recognized the

leaders of our industry in whatever catagory

they excelled. Please don’t criple this

nation’s innovative technology and make

them humbled to the weakest link in the

chain. We need leaders, not sniviling

whiners who want the government to protect

them from advancement of the technology.

Let up on Microsoft. It has been a shame

how ignorance has prevailed.

L. Storeno

MTC–00005478

From: Michael Gambro

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think this litigation has gone on long

enough. I strongly support the proposed

settlement. I think the 9 dissenting states are

not at all interested in protecting consumers

but rather are interested in protecting

businesses in their states who compete with

Microsoft. Meanwhile, technology and

business applications are continuously

evolving and changing, such that this

litigation is even less relevant now than it

was when it was first brought. Enough is

enough. I do not want my tax dollars spent

on this anymore. Very few consumers believe

they have been harmed by Microsoft. Rather,

they believe that Microsoft has created

tremendous efficiencies for consumers and

businesses. I strongly believe this, based on

my experience working at home and at work.

Let’s focus on maintaining our competitive

edge in the rapidly changing, global

technological and business landscape. This

can be done by settling the litigation now,

and let the businesses work on developing

better products as opposed to more creative

litigation strategies.

Michael S. Gambro

Partner

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft

100 Maiden Lane

New York NY 10038

(212) 504–6825

Fax:(212) 993–2666

Fax:(212) 504–6666

email: michael.gambro@cwt.com

MTC–00005479

From: Gregory Guzman-Moss

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Government should get off Microsoft’s

back. This settlement is about Netscape’s

inability to compete in the marketplace. Stop

punishing successful entrepeneurs and

corporations.

Greg Moss

MTC–00005480

From: wyatt to

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

I feel that the Microsoft case should be

quickly settled. Why are we trying to

hamstring one of the country’s most

productive corporate citizens? Because of

Microsoft, our country is the leader in the

computer software industry. It is in

America’s best interest to get this corporate

witch hunt out of the way and concentrate

on rebuilding our country and our economy.

Sincerely,

Wyatt To

MTC–00005481

From: Sullivan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To DOJ:

Please end the Microsoft litigation as

quickly as possible, minimizing fines and

damages against Microsoft.

If you hurt Microsoft, you hurt the US

economy, and all of us voters and taxpayers.

Dr. Daniel T. Sullivan

Mrs. Susan M. Sullivan

61 Frontenac Dr.

St. LOuis, MO 63131

MTC–00005482

From: WALKER, CHARLES B (HP–USA, ex1)

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: This settlement is tough, but

24726 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

reasonable and fair to all parties

involved.

This settlement is tough, but reasonable

and fair to all parties involved. It is doing

what is best for the consumer.

Charles Walker

MTC–00005483

From: MARVIN KALLSEN

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I hope this settlement can be finalized

quickly so our economic system can function

as it should without undue government

influence. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t

understand how the objecting states have any

‘‘basis’’ or ‘‘standing’’ in this issue anyway.

Marvin Kallsen

MTC–00005484

From: metamorphous

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough already.

Microsoft has done everything you asked.

Microsoft is still innovating. Do you want to

stifle innovation and creativity? I am an

inventor in a non tech industry. I am a senior

citizen spending much of my cash reserves

to develop a better process and product. This

process will eventually revolutionize an

entire industry. Will you make me pay a

penalty too. Finish this and stop spending

more taxpayer money. You will never satisfy

everybody so do the right thing.

Alfred Niederman

MTC–00005485

From: RONLOMCMIL@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my opinion that the Microsoft suit

should be settled in an expeditious manner.

This has taken much too long and has cost

the taxpayers excessively. It has also taken

many dollars from the pockets of the senior

citizens of this country who are the major

stockholders. As a widow on a fixed income,

I can tell you it has been costly for me and

the suit has caused the tech stocks to all

suffer.

Sincerely,

Lois L. McMillan

MTC–00005486

From: Jon Missert

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am sending this email to urge you to

settle the Microsoft anti-trust suit. I would

also ask you to urge the states not currently

supporting the settlement to join those who

have to resolve this as soon as possible.

There are many investors, mostly

individuals, that would benefit tremendously

from a resolution to this matter. The suit has

accomplished its goal, prices continue to

drop, and products continue to improve. The

computing public is now safe and it is time

to move on and let Microsoft get back to

doing what it does best—making good

products and increasing its share price.

Jon Missert

MTC–00005487

From: William R. Michelman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear DOJ:

I am writing to express my support for the

pending Microsoft settlement. In my opinion,

the lawsuit against Microsoft was ill

conceived and, without coincidence, it

coincides with the start of the downturn in

our economy. Without Microsoft we would

all be in a computer age Tower of Babel,

because Microsoft brought a stable format to

the computer industry that allowed it to

develop to the point it is at today, and to

where it will be tomorrow. I am still waiting

for the testimony of a single consumer who

can show he or she had to pay a higher price

for a computer or for software as a result of

anything that Microsoft did. If it was not for

politically connected whiners like Sun

Microsystems and other companies trying to

take market share from Microsoft, there

would not have been such a misplaced use

of the antitrust statute. I support this

settlement, not because I think that Microsoft

actually harmed consumers, but because

anything that gets the case over with without

doing unnecessary harm to Microsoft is a

good idea. In my opinion, the states that are

refusing to go along with the settlement are

just like gold diggers.

They need money and they see the lawsuit

as a means to that end.

WR Michelman

Tacoma, WA

MTC–00005488

From: OHIOHOTDOG@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ:

This email is to support the Microsoft

Settlement.

1. It is fair. If any of the competitor’s of MS

really want to do a service to the country all

they need to do is develop an OS that is

better and/or cheaper than Windows

Systems.

2. Stop this endless expensive litigation

now.

John T. Frankfurth

MTC–00005489

From: Grahame

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The last thing the American economy

needs is more litigation that benefits only a

few wealthy competitors and stifles

innovation.

MTC–00005490

From: Lenny Woods

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Feedback

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to send a short note of feedback

regarding the Microsoft decision. I believe

the decision that stands should be accepted

by all states and I’m happy to see that

Microsoft will have sanctions against them

without destroying their ability to produce

innovative and exciting technology.

Regards,

Leonard M. Woods

MTC–00005491

From: Doug Klappenbach

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the proposed settlement

between DOJ and Microsoft is fair. I feel that

the 9 States that refused to join the

Settlement Agreement are driven by special

interests of companies competitive to

Microsoft and are both i.) delaying the

completion of the case and ii.) tiring to

impose remedies that benefit companies in

business competing with Microsoft. This will

not result in benefit to the consumer.

Doug Klappenbach

MTC–00005492

From: Matthew Foldenauer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The government should stay out of

Microsoft’s business. Evidently, only a

certain amount of success is tolerated in this

country. When a government attempts to

create an artificially level playing field, they

inevitably do more harm than good. Keep

government out of the way of free enterprise.

Matthew Foldenauer,

griffinmo@hotmail.com

MTC–00005493

From: Potter, Bob Ext.1411

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm

Subject: Please, I’m begging you—Get Off

MS’s back—for the good of the

economy!!!

Regards—Bob

Bob Potter

Information Technology Department

Potterb@co.monterey.ca.us

(831) 796–1411

MTC–00005494

From: Dan Plastina

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Shutdown the Microsoft competitors

from further harming a great american

company Microsoft is a good company.

Microsoft does good things for people.

Software and PCs have never (ever!) so

affordable and great.

This case is now so obviously about

Microsoft competitors wanting to slow

Microsoft down.

I do not believe that the US Court system

should kill one company for the sake of the

other STRIVING and BILLION DOLLAR

competitors. Let them spend R&D money

instead of lawyer fees (and corporate

espionage). Yes, Microsoft is big. Past

contractual behaviors may not have been fair,

but the proposed consent decree does

address those issues and will do what it is

supposed to do—Reinstate a competitive

environment by cleaning up the playing

field, not by knowing out of the ring one of

our great companies.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24727

MTC–00005495

From: Bruschi, Gene

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Comments on the Mircosoft

Antitrust Case

My name is Gene Bruschi

(gene.bruschi@wxsms.com) and I appreciate

the opportunity to express my views on the

Microsoft anti-trust case. This settlement is

tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties.

Please do not allow the interest of a few

special groups to delay the settlement of this

case.

MTC–00005496

From: Howard (038) Connie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm

Subject: Settlement

Let us not use this phase of the settlement

process for the 9 states to try to gain more

concessions from Microsoft. The DOJ

settlement is fair,lets get on with better

things.

Howard Simpson

380 Dolphin Ave NE

Ocean Shores, Wa 98569

360 289 3635

MTC–00005497

From: PAULS401@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

It has been judicated, let’s move on. States

which did not accept the settlement offer are

nothing more than opportunists and have

only self interest objectives.

MTC–00005498

From: Dkbul@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My wife and I fully support the final

settlement of this case without any further

litigation or legislation.

D.K. & B.E. Bullard

1116 Woodstock Lane

West Chester, PA 19382

MTC–00005499

From: Al Kulp

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust settlement

Please get this over with. Microsoft’s

monopoly power is limited to their ability to

produce better software than competitors,

including open-source. The software industry

can and will change quickly based on the

product’s merits. Microsoft has developed

good software that consumers and businesses

want. Alternatives are available. Let the

market decide.

Al Kulp

Anaheim Union High School District

MTC–00005500

From: MailittoLinda@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern: Please know

that I oppose any future litigation against

Microsoft. I thought the government settled

the case against Microsoft, but apparently

The Tunney act says the states can sue also

if they disagree with the govt. decision. I urge

everyone contemplating suit to forget that.

We need to end this and soon. We need to

get our economy growing again, that’s

earnings, profits on production, not law suits.

Thankyou.

Sincerely,

Linda Jackson

Chicago

MTC–00005501

From: Josh R. Mitts

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear the DOJ,

I just wanted to say that I am in full

support of the settlement and hope things

proceed. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Josh R. Mitts

jmitts@treasureonthenet.com

MTC–00005502

From: George Gowland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: U.S. Justice Department Anti Trust

Division

The U.S. Department has a chance to make

amends for the Clinton-Reno version of a

Justice Department in the case of the

Microsoft settlement. There was so much

wrong in the handling and subsequent trial

that it would take more than this letter to

detail the unfair practices by the government.

It is time to move on. Microsoft is one of the

World’s premier companies representing all

that is best about the United States and

entrepreneurship. Bill Gates and his wife

have through their charitable foundations

shown what separates them from the moronic

politicians who have pressed this witch hunt.

The present attorney general of California,

the State I reside in has chosen to lead the

other State malcontents in continuing this

vendetta. He did not have the courtesy to

reply to my written objections. Settle the case

and lets get back to work increasing the

country’s technological lead.

George and Patricia Gowland

MTC–00005503

From: Miguel F. Sarria

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm

Subject: FINAL JUDGMENT

I believe that to maintain justice, all parts

of the FINAL JUDGMENT should be

applicable to all players in the technology

industry. But this should not hinder the R&D

of the technology industry. If we see that

such rules become RED TAPE and slow the

progress of R&D of Operating systems,

software in general and hardware, the courts

should allow for deregulation

Miguel F. Sarria

Miguel F. Sarria, IS Manager

Alliance for Transportation Research

Institute / University of New Mexico 1001

University Blvd SE, Suite 103, Albuquerque,

NM 87106–4342, USA Phone (505) 246–6442

Fax (505) 246–6001—Email:

msarria@unm.edu, Web Sites:

www.unm.edu/atr and www.trex-center.org

NOTICE—This communication may

contain confidential and privileged

information that is for the sole use of the

intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or

distribution of, or reliance on this message by

unintended recipients is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message in error,

please notify us immediately by replying to

the message and deleting it from your

computer.

MTC–00005504

From: Hugh Solaas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please let this prosecution of one of our

great American companies end. Our economy

and stock market has been hurt by this insane

prosecution. It is very much ‘‘in the public

interest’’ to let this settlement stand and to

move on.

Thank you for the consideration,

Hugh Solaas

Hansville, WA

MTC–00005505

From: Bremner PA (Phillip) at Aera

To: ’Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a programmer with 10 years

experience. Currently I am working as a SAP

ABAP programmer for Aera Energy in

Bakersfield, CA. The government’s case

against Microsoft has been driven from the

wrong position. This case has done nothing

except strength Microsoft’s competitors at the

expense of the consumer and the software

development industry. This is and has been

a farce.

Please stop the insanity... let the world

continue in a path that lets technology grow.

Get out of the way!

Thank You.

Philip Bremner—ABAP Programming

Analyst

Aera Energy LLC—SAP Support

Location: 1B06 Voice: 661–665–5589

Pager: 661–337–1963 Schedule: B

Email: PABremner@AeraEnergy.com

<mailto:PABremner@AeraEnergy.com>

PBremner@bak.rr.com

MTC–00005506

From: Gil

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm

Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement

Stop the persecution of Microsoft. Bill

Gates gave the world what they wanted when

nobody else cared to, and is reaping the

rewards of those efforts. As for all those

whiners—let them eat their sour grapes!

MTC–00005507

From: Luby, Thomas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

With all due respect leave Microsoft alone.

Drop all charges and back out quietly. Antitrust cases are supposed to be about

consumers that are harmed. I have seen no

evidence about any consumers being harmed.

24728 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Only competitors being pissed off because

Microsoft is good at what they do. Please

don’t punish success.

Sincerely,

Thomas F. Luby

Thomas@Luby.com

678–560–1180—Home

404–579–6170—Cell

MTC–00005508

From: Jef Gazley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm

Subject: Dear Sir;

Dear Sir;

I really feel that Microsoft has done

nothing criminal and that the government

should get their hands out of it- both state

and federal.Jef We believe better health

begins with better Mental Health.

Jef Gazley M.S.

http://www.asktheinternettherapist.com

MTC–00005509

From: Planter26@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm

Subject: settlement

Settlement would be good for consumers

and stock holders.

MTC–00005510

From: Fullilove, Doug

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir:

I think the settlement offer by Microsoft is

more than fair. Everyone should accept this

generous offer and let Microsoft get on with

creating jobs. In my opinion the suit was

ridiculous, and never should have been

brought. I am better off because of Microsoft

Products. Microsoft has never hurt me in any

way.

Sincerely,

Douglas

Fullilove

MTC–00005511

From: GK2043@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

PLEASE SETTLE THE MS CASE ASAP,

DO NOT TAKE ANY FURTHER ASCTION

AGAINS MS.

SINCERELY; GREGORY t. KERN

MTC–00005512

From: grossklas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm

Subject: proposed settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I believe the settlement is not only unfair

to Microsoft but that the whole proceedings

against Microsoft are illegal. Given the

understanding of the Founders of our

country, and, as laid out in the Federalist

Papers and the documents of the Federal

Convention of 1787, there is nothing in the

U.S. Constitution which gives the Federal

Government any authority whatsoever to take

any action against this company.

However, if Microsoft is willing to settle

for this restriction on its rights then this

agreement should be allowed to proceed.

William P. Grossklas

PERSONAL INFO:

William P. Grossklas, Sr.

609 Spring Road

Elmhurst, IL 60126

Phone: 630 530 2973

Fax: 630 530 2976

MTC–00005513

From: Paul Kay

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to comment on the proposed

DOJ settlement with Microsoft. I believe the

settlement is fair to all concerned and I

would like the settlement to proceed. I do not

understand why the 9 states are allowed to

pursue their case separately. The suits

against Microsoft by the states are ridiculous.

The US Government found a way to settle the

case and the states should agree to the same

terms.

Thank you.

Paul Kay

MTC–00005514

From: Kevin White

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

Subject: enough already

The amount of time and money spent on

trying to dismantle Microsoft should be an

embarrassment to the DOJ. It is obvious that

the states that either have prominent

Microsoft competitors, or are just trying to

put themselves in the news, are continuing

the witch hunt to further their own agenda.

I am in the medical industry and see the

tremendous abuses of power by J&J and Tyco,

yet never a sign of the DOJ. Too busy chasing

its tail. Enough is enough. Let Microsoft

continue to produce products that benefit

consumers. Look at other industries with the

same scrutiny.

K. White

Oregon

MTC–00005515

From: John Crean

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I think it’s time to put all of this baloney

behind us.

The only thing Microsoft is guilty of is

putting great products on the market at fair

prices.

John Crean

Oneonta NY

MTC–00005516

From: Bud Aaron

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern—please get this

behind us. We really need to get on with

business as a small developer and we need

stability more than any other single thing in

my view.

Bud

Bud Aaron

http://www.checkmaster.com

760–757–6635

MTC–00005517

From: Jim S. Craft

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Case should be Settled

I think that the Microsoft case should be

settled as decided. I think that the case was

weak, since Microsoft is not a monopoly

(look at the palm pilot, Epoc, Apple, etc.).

This case was never in the interest of the

people, as Microsoft has become the largest

software manufacturer by selling their

product for less than the competition with

more features. The monopoly laws were

meant to keep companies from charging more

for inferior products, and that is not what

Microsoft has done.

I say that the government should stay out

of free enterprise and allow for companies to

compete. If Microsoft were making a bad

product and making huge profits, it would be

a different ball game. Until then we should

be happy with the way things are now.

Jim Craft

Battle Creek, MI

MTC–00005518

From: dennis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the Microsoft settlement is in the

best public interest as it now stands, and

object to any changes.

dennis g bouscal

209 e sierra ave

spokane, wa 99208

509.468.0177

dennis@bouscal.net

MTC–00005519

From: Benjamin Strong

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the proposed settlement

between Microsoft and the Justice Dept. is

seriously deficient and will not protect the

rights of the American people, computer

users all over the world and Microsoft

competitors. I believe the position of the nine

dissenting states is reasonable and well

founded. One of my prime objections to the

proposed settlement is there is far too much

reliance on Mr. Gates and his company to be

‘‘good citizens’’. His past record rebuts this.

Mr. Gates has always taken the position that

‘‘What is good for Microsoft is good for the

industry and the Country’’. He has given

ample proof that he is not to be trusted.

I hope and wish that the DOJ will

reconsider its position and give serious

consideration to adopting the position of the

dissenting States. Thank you.

Benjamin R. Strong

6550 Chardonnay

Pensacola, FL 32504

ben@strongb.com

Phone: 850–494–9857

Fax: 850–477–3133

MTC–00005520

From: James Mosimann

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24729

Subject: settlement

Thanks for the just settlement, and the

DOJ’s moving on this. The economy needs

entrepreneurs at this time of slowdown.

James Mosimann

5 Balmoral Court

Rockville, MD 20850

MTC–00005521

From: Nicholas Cloyd

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

January 2, 2002

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530–0001

RE: Microsoft Settlement

On November 6, 2001, the United States

and Microsoft tentatively agreed to the entry

of a revised proposed Final Judgment <http:/

/www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm>

to resolve the United States’ civil antitrust

case against Microsoft. Please settle this case

as currently proposed, Tunney Act (Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. ? 16).

This settlement is in the best interest of our

nation, free enterprise and the American

people.

Business and People, (time, intellect,

money and testimony) have all had due

process. Thankyou for providing such and

now please settle this case.

Yours Sincerely,

Nicholas K Cloyd

cloydn@wwdb.org

MTC–00005522

From: Caroline.Cacas@ey.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I urge you to please settle the Microsoft

case and not allow further litigation.

Thanks

Caroline

MTC–00005523

From: M.G. (q)Ravi(q) Ravichandran

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

I have been following this case since it

started. As a consumer, I believe this case

had more to do with competitors complaints

rather than consumer interest. Regardless of

that, I am happy to see that DOJ and

Microsoft reached a settlement. In spite of the

fact that this settlement is harsh on

Microsoft, I believe it is time to close the case

and move on.

Thanks

M.G. Ravichandran

Northville, MI

MTC–00005524

From: Tom_Smarsh@cargill.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern!

As a user of Microsoft products, I feel there

is a fine line between being an aggressive

marketer of your products and breaking antitrust laws. Seems to me both the U.S.

Government and competitors yell foul when

a company like Microsoft grows and becomes

successful in marketing great products that

fill the need of many consumers worldwide.

How is Microsoft any different than Wal-Mart

in marketing and pricing practices? When

Wal-Mart comes into a new market their

buying clout puts many grocery stores, filling

stations, tire dealers, clothing stores, lawn &

garden stores, and other stores out of

business. If a law was definitely broken by

Microsoft, fine them appropriately, make

them dedicate free resources to what the U.S.

Government is currently paying to have

done, and let’s get on to better things that

strengthen our Country. . . .

Have a Sterling Day !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom Smarsh

Office Phone = 316–291–2936

Cell Phone = 316–393–3808

Office E-Mail= Smarsh,Tom J./wich

Internet E-Mail= Tom_Smarsh@cargill.com

MTC–00005525

From: John Wagner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I think that the Microsoft suits should be

settled as it determined by the courts.

Hurting Microsoft more now will hurt the

overall economy.

John L. Wagner

780 Norfolk Drive

Carson City, NV 89703

MTC–00005526

From: Jack McDaniel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 11:38am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please don’t drag out this settlement any

longer. The settlement reached is fair and

equitable. Our economy needs stabilizing,

not more conflict brought on by competitors

interests.

Jack McDaniel

POB 1409

4705 240th St SE

Bothell WA 98041–1409

(425) 486–9205

MTC–00005527

From: Regan, Kevin

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

Please understand that anymore time and

money spent on the MS case is

counterproductive and futile. The freedom to

innovate is what made this country strong,

the freedom to sue is what has reduced this

country to a bunch of babies. Get off MS

back. Spend the money on real enemies. Tell

Oracle to go and make a product sell it and

quit whining.

Kevin P. Regan

Kinko’s—National Business Development

Manager

IKON—The Way Business Gets

Communicated

Toll Free: 800–804–0315

Direct-In-Dial: 425–803–5206

Personal Fax: 425–803–5237

Business Cell: 206–799–3788 U.S.A.

MTC–00005528

From: Nikisher, Michael

To: ‘’Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

It is time to settle this case and move on.

Michael Nikisher

Round Rock, TX

MTC–00005529

From: James Bratsanos

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Please allow the agreed upon settlement to

stand. This issue has taken far to long to

resolve and I for one thing the settlement is

fair. Let’s start spending our taxpayer money

on other more pressing matters!

Thanks

James Bratsanos

MTC–00005530

From: John Victor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft case

I strongly urge the DoJ to settle with

Microsoft. It is in the best interest of

consumers and our economy to end this

lengthy lawsuit.

Sincerely,

John Victor

MTC–00005531

From: Charles Jaffe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

DROP THE LAWSUIT.

Charles Jaffe, CPA

MTC–00005532

From: Loy, Betty D.

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

II very much support the DOJ setlement. As

a consumer I don’t believe it is in the best

interest of consumers and taxpayers to

continue to harass Microsoft. In my opinion

they are doing what an innovative provider

should be doing and I don’t think they

should be penalized for that. I thought the

decision not to break up Microsoft was a wise

one and I urge you to not overturn this

decision. Our economy is too fragile at this

point to continue litigation against a

company that is doing so much for the USA

and its people.

MTC–00005533

From: RAY2001@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Let’s stop beating the dead horse. Microsoft

is one company America should be proud of.

Stop the persecution and get on with life.

Why punish a company that has brought us

so much good? I would question the motives

of their competitors agenda. Let’s use the

gov’t to get rid of all of my competition.

Microsoft’s good works and good products

24730 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

speak volumes for their case. Get it over with

now!

MTC–00005534

From: H20br@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: MicroSoft Settlement

To whom is concerned:

I believe that NOTHING should be done to

Microsoft. When you can find a company

that does as much as Microsoft does for our

CHILDREN, whom I believe is OUR FUTURE,

that we should be saying THANK YOU. This

country is based on the right to enjoy

FREEDOM. It seems to me that the

companies that oppose what Microsoft did by

not including their product, need to quit the

whining and get busy developing a better

product and put it in their own software. By

finding Microsoft guilty of not allowing other

companies in the Microsoft products is

ludicrous. Make GM put a Chrysler body on

their frame and have it powered by Ford. I

know, Toyota would file a lawsuit against

you! LET MICROSOFT do what they do best,

and leave them alone! I will bet that you are

reading this thru Microsoft products and

therefore are guilty as Microsoft for not

giving the other companies the opportunity.

I WANT MY MICROSOFT.

Thank YOU . . . Bill Roland

MTC–00005535

From: TINNELLFIBRE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

DEAR SIR,

AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN AND USER

OF MICROSOFT PRODUCTS I FEEL IT IS

TIME TO ‘‘LAY OFF’’ MICROSOFT AND

FOCUS ON IMPORTANT ISSUES. MY

FEELING IS THERE A LOT OF STATE

ATTY. GENERALS THAT WANT TO MAKE

A NAME FOR THEMSELVES AND SOME

WINDFALL MONEY FOR THEIR STATES.

THIS IS NOT IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC

INTEREST.

ALSO MICROSOFT HAS COMPETITORS

THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE MICROSOFT

LOOSE SOME COMPLETIVE EDGE

THROUGH GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.

THIS IS NOT GOVERNMENTS JOB IN MY

OPINION. MY VOTE GOES FOR DROPPING

ANY PENDING ISSUES AGAINST

MICROSOFT AND MOVE ON. ALSO I HAVE

NO SIGNIFICANT DIRECT INVESTMENT IN

MICROSOFT THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY

THE GOVERNMENT DECISION ONE WAY

OR THE OTHER.

HAPPY NEW YEAR AND BEST REGARDS,

WILLIAM R. TINNELL

ORANGE, CA 92869

MTC–00005536

From: Allen Benas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Good Day:

It seems to me your efforts can be much

better applied to our current national

problems with terrorists instead of further

attacking a company who’s products have

revolutionized the nation and the world,

employs thousands of highly paid employees

including every minority there is and donates

tens of millions of dollars to numerous

charities, in an effort to enhance the life

styles of the disadvantaged. All this, while

companies like AOL/Time Warner are

allowed to create the largest communications

monopoly in the history of the world, right

under your noses. Isn’t it about time we

realize that enough is enough, and look upon

Microsoft as an overall fine and upstanding

national citizen, facing with stiff

competition, that is simply trying to remain

successful?

Yours truly,

Allen Benas

P.O. Box 69

Clayton, NY 13624

MTC–00005537

From: Bobjytte@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle this now as worked out in the

courts.

MTC–00005538

From: Uskup, Ergin

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a citizen and also as the Chief

Information Officer of a $ Billion company

would like for you to know that I support

strongly the DOJ settlement terms of

Microsoft conflict. I think Microsoft has been

attacked by their competitors who Seem to be

unable to compete fairly in the open

technology market place. Microsoft products

are essential to corporation ( to ours ) and to

consumer. The integration they provide

between their products improves our

productivity & saves us time & money. Both

the corporate Information Technology world

and consumer will be worse off if this

conflict does not get settled ASAP and along

the lines of DOJ agreement.

It is hard enough to cover all aspects of

technology in the corporate or consumer

world (security, inter operability etc) within

the current environment where Microsoft

provides integrated products. The

competitors of Microsoft should spend their

money on R & D instead of in legal fees and

work hard. It is not that hard to hire lawyers

or get in front of senate committees and

complain. Let them roll their sleeves & get to

work. In the mean time let us go forward

without unnecessarily further complicating

the technology environment.

I would be happy to provide additional

views if you wish. Thanks

MTC–00005539

From: Betty Seymour

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This country is based on feedom. Let’s

settle this so we don’t waste any more paper,

money and breath on it, and can go back to

accomplishing the inovation that Microsoft

was born to carry on. What a waste of steam.

MTC–00005540

From: Rahl, Francis R.

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: Public Comment

I believe the proposed settlement to be

sufficient and am hopeful the matter can be

put to rest.

Francis R. Rahl, Jr.

27 S. Stricker St.

Baltimore, MD 21223

410–765–7828

MTC–00005541

From: Faye, Judy

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the proposed settlement is in

the best interest of all concerned and should

stand as is.

Judith R. Faye

Senior Application Consultant II

USinternetworking, Inc.

612 Wheelers Farm Road

Milford, CT 06468

Telephone: 203–701–3838

E-mail: judy.faye@usi.net

MTC–00005542

From: B42241@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Jan. 2, 2002

As a Microsoft stockholder I firmly urge

you to settle as soon as possible.

Best Regards, Beth Scott

<A HREF=‘‘http://www.campnapa.com/

’’>http://www.campnapa.com/</A>

MTC–00005543

From: ECLAUSNER@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We are aware that DOJ lawyers deliberately

prolong law suits to help their brothers in the

civilian community line their pockets.

Settlement of this matter has been delayed

long enough.

MTC–00005544

From: CJyourDJ@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It’s time to bring this whole affair to a close

based on the previously agreed settlement.

As a professional, my work has become so

much more efficient than in years past

because of the advances in computer

science—much of it developed by microsoft.

It’s time to get the rest of the states on board

and everyone back to productive work

C. J. Lehane

MTC–00005545

From: Anthony D’Attomo-Home Office

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

DEAR SIR:

I am the Chief Financial Officer for a

national company. I have worked with

computer people my entire career, and in

fact, I now have over 20 IT professionals

reporting to me. If you have not realized it

already, they can be a most unusual breed of

people. In the case of Microsoft, the feelings

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24731

become intense and personal. For those that

do not like Bill Gates, it is as if he ran over

the family dog. The only analogy I can make

is if you had some deep hatred for the

President of Ford, and therefore refused to

buy a Ford automobile for that reason alone

The PC came about when I first started my

career in 1979. I have operated the original

type that wrote files to a tape player, all the

way up to the amazingly powerful clusters

that exist today. I can tell you that clearly

computing owes Microsoft everything. What

I can do in this companies network could not

be accomplished without what Microsoft did

with its software. No matter how a person

feels about Mr. Gates, we cannot overlook

this simple fact.

The rocks being thrown by other software

makes is nothing but sour grapes. They got

beat, and they do not like it. I can tell you

for example in the Apple vision for the world

20 years ago, it was use Apple software and

hardware, or you use nothing at all. Thank

god we were not being led by that group.

The bottom line is that Microsoft made

computing what it is today, and they

continue to provide the best product. I can

tell you that XP is beautiful as are all of the

Microsoft products. If someone makes

something better, we will buy it, and run it

under XP. As far as operating systems like

XP, 2000, 98 and 95, they fact that they

provide a standard for us to run our desktops

and networking is imperative to keeping this

process on track. Imagine that if every time

you bought an appliance for your home each

device required its own particular power

source. You would have a mess on your

hands. In computing the desktop operating

system is like the electricity in your home,

a standard is imperative.

As far as my two cents, I am glad that you

are near settlement. I would rather see my tax

dollars spent chasing a real problem, and not

one generated by software vendors who

failed to deliver a good product and now

stand behind the government to get them

back into the game. The protraction of this

debate is also upsetting the stock market and

the financial stability of the nation. Dragging

this out hurts everyone, and helps no one. By

the way, if you want to understand a true

monopolistically aggressive company, check

out AOL. They better fit the pattern that you

are looking for

Anthony D’Attomo CPA

MTC–00005546

From: james—flynn@urscorp.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the settlement agreement is fair

and is in the public interest. It was negotiated

by experts over an extended period of time

and should be acceptable to all parties.

Regards,

Jim Flynn

Senior Hydrogeologist

james—flynn@urscorp.com

URS Corporation

1501 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1400

Seattle, Washington 98101

206–438–2700 (Reception)

206–438–2113 (My direct line)

206–438–2699 (FAX)

MTC–00005547

From: Rdso@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle this suit quickly. It was an unjust

litigation at the beginning, brought by

competitors to bring down a successful

company. We must reinforce the business

climate in this period of economic

uncertainty. Ardis Ostrom

MTC–00005548

From: Mauiti@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I feel that enough is enough. Let’s get this

hole thing over with. Microsoft and the

government have come to a settlement, let’s

get on with business. Let the other states cry

all they want. They just want there own

company’s in there state to profit like

Microsoft has. They don’t want to have put

out the money nor the time they just want

it given to them. Sorry but I disagree. I hope

they lose big time.

Bob Kassner JR.

MTC–00005549

From: B.J. Fornadley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Why doesn’t the Fed. press the States to

accept the settlement that was fair to all.

It’s is only politics by those senate and

house members who are ‘‘friends of SUN and

Oracle CEO’s etc’’ that are keeping this thing

going!

Quit wasting the tax payers money!

MTC–00005550

From: Annabel Wayne

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm

Subject: Lawsuit against Microsoft

I am very concerned that the suit that you

have against Microsoft, stops the innovations

that one company single handedly has given

to the world. Because of Microsoft, I have

become a better teacher, using their software

which came on my computer to enhance my

lessons. If I had had to purchase another

program, I would not have known what to

do, let alone where to get another program in

a small town. When my programs came on

my computer, I did not feel that Microsoft

was pushed down my throat. I am sure that

milliions like myself were very glad to have

their programs already installed on our

computers.

Annabel Wayne

MTC–00005551

From: Prakash Puram

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Federal Govt’s settlement of the

Microsoft case is a fair and just one.

Microsoft’s competitors are attempting to

unduly influence the settlement to gain an

unfair competitive advantage for personal

benefit. In a market economy, demand and

supply forces should be allowed to work over

a period of time. I am a small software

company that works with Microsoft and find

them to be incredibly cooperative and

encouraging of my company’s product

development work. They have rightfully

earned their place in US Businesses as a

crown jewel and the U.S. Govt. should not

pay any heed to the 9 States attempting to

derail the settlement on the table.

The U.S. Economy as a whole will benefit

dramatically from the innovation and

increased productivity to be release by

Microsoft if it is rightfully allowed to

continue operating its business with all due

freedom accorded by the U.S. commercial

and trade laws. The stock market will surge

higher, the recession will end, businesses

will return to a growth mode, and many

unrealized benefits will come to fruition the

moment the DOJ and the United States close

this case without much further legal

proceedings. Competitors are trying to

leverage their government elected officials

unfairly to benefit their personal agendas and

I am not willing to put up with this.

I spent most of my working career with

IBM and saw how the DOJ shackled IBM’s

innovation when it too was dubbed a

monopoly. After a decade of dragging IBM

thru relentless battering, the United States

Govt. unwittingly was the main factor in

destroying that company’s competitive

advantage in the marketplace and they

passed on the power not to other American

firms, but sadly to Fujitsu, Hitachi, NEC, and

other Japanese firms. The very basis for

assaulting IBM became moot since with or

without the DOJ’s help, Microsoft rose to

leadership thus clearly verifying the fact that

innovation and market forces are ultimately

the most invincible arbiters of winners and

losers. If Microsoft doesn’t continue to

innovate or provide value for money, within

days or weeks corporate America and the

individual consumers will cast away

Microsoft for better products and services

from other companies.

Please end the legal wrangling now and

take conscientious decisions to return

America, Microsoft and the entire software

industry to focusing on their work—not on

legal proceedings. To not close this case

immediately bodes bad tidings for the US

Economy in 2002 and beyond and we just

cannot afford that. Sun, WordPerfect, Palm

Novell, AOL, Netscape are all losers because

they have bad unproven products. The brand

name and the market share of Microsoft is

hard-earned and should be preserved not

destroyed.

Please end the litigation now and ratify the

Microsoft—DOJ Settlement without further

delay.

Prakash Puram, CEO, iXmatch Inc.

612–840–6979

http://www.ixmatch.com

iXmatch—For Mission-Critical Matching

MTC–00005552

From: Emilie Hernandez

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Please allow Microsoft to settle this case as

soon as possible. The proposal is very fair

and benefits many individuals. The economy

24732 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

is so uncertain at this time, the government

could better use the money it is wasting on

this suit.

Emilie Hernandez

hernandez@fergwell.com

<mailto:hernandez@fergwell.com>

503.226.1444

MTC–00005553

From: Mister Thorne

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

Please advise as to when the 60-day period

for comment on the proposed settlement

expires.

Thank you

Mister Thorne

MTC–00005554

From: Chris Holt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi,

Here’s what I think:

Enough already! Settle. It really IS for the

benefit of consumers and other companies.

Sure Microsoft competes hard with

companies like Oracle, AOL, etc. but what

many people don’t understand fully is how

many THOUSANDS of small companies out

there THRIVE off of Microsoft’s innovations

and technology. The companies who

continue to complain about Microsoft like

Oracle, AOL, SUN, etc. would only LOVE to

be in Microsoft’s situation and are simply

using the government to attempt to get ahead

because they cannot compete on there own

merits.

Thanks you for the opportunity to write,

Chris Holt

Salinas, CA 93907

MTC–00005555

From: Bob McConnell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: I think the Microsoft settlement

should go through, dont delay it

I think the Microsoft settlement should go

through, dont delay it

Bob McConnell

MTC–00005556

From: Murray Oldman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the settlement between

Microsoft, the Federal Government and nine

States should be adopted with no further

modifications.

Cordially,

M. M. Oldman

murf5@prodigy.net

MTC–00005557

From: John/Sharon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We (a family of three, voting age

consumers—owners of four active computers

at the moment) definitely feel that the

settlement of the Microsoft case is in the best

interest of the consumer. Each of our

computers uses a Microsoft operating system.

Two use Windows 98 and two use Microsoft

2000. In addition to the operating system we

also use the Microsoft Office 2000

Professional in our computers. At one time

we had a computer with a different operating

system. It was a nightmare, the support for

the consumer was poor, and ultimately it was

removed from the computer and replaced

with a Microsoft product.

We each believe that this whole Microsoft

suit was ridiculous. Microsoft has hired the

employees who develop their software. Their

employees seem to be well treated and

content to remain with Microsoft...and to try

to hurt this company for their foresightedness

is ridiculous. When it comes to customer

support, Microsoft is the best. They stand far

above many other companies in this aspect.

What I see happening if this suit is not

settled is: continued uncertainty for

Microsoft, which if I were running the

company would definitely result in a delay

in further development (not good for the

consumer); increased costs to Microsoft

which would be passed along to the

consumer (again not good for the consumer);

possibly some gain for CEO’s of other

software companies in terms of financial

gain. This would not benefit the consumer

either. We have always been very pleased

with Microsoft and will continue to remain

loyal to them.

The other ‘cry baby’ companies who are

unable, or unwilling, to compete in the

marketplace will never gain our support in

terms of buying their products or any other

means. What they have attempted to do

through a legal suit does not have our

support. The states that are holding out and

the companies who desire to continue this

suit are definitely NOT putting the best

interest of the consumer at the front of their

decision.

Sincerely,

Sharon, John & Greg Nawalanic

MTC–00005558

From: GKohn@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

I SUPPORT THE SETTLEMENT. I

CONSIDER INNOVATION TO BE A KEY

ELEMENT TO THE

PROSPERITY OF OUR NATION.

GEOFFREY KOHN

MTC–00005559

From: Paul A. Kittle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

010202 @ 12:30 PM EST—

Dear DOJ—

I am an active computer user as well as an

active supporter/user of Microsoft’s software.

Even though I do not agree with the origins

of the suit against Microsoft, I am certainly

willing to support that the DOJ + 9 state

settlement is suitable since Microsoft itself

acknowledges it is suitable. The idea that this

whole event would continue for another year,

maybe longer, just so several state AG’s can

keep their name in the paper seems to me to

be nonsense.

Many of the complaints about the software

produced by Microsoft are completely

unreasonable, in that anyone who can read

can alter the Desktop, change browsers, add

software, and/or choose to use or not to use

items included with any given version of

Windows. For instance, I use many of the

included features, but I do not use their

included diagnostics, I use Norton as an

alternative. I do not use Microsoft Visio, I use

Smart Draw, etc. Microsoft does not require

you to use each subsection, they provide it

just as my car provides a radio with a tape

drive, even though I only use CDs. The list

goes on and on.

Please settle this completely and finally

and get on to doing something worthwhile—

go find Osama, for instance. Microsoft is

NOT a national or international threat.

Thank you.

Regards,

Paul A. Kittle

foamman@aquafoam.com

http://www.aquafoam.com

Phone—610–804–0100

Fax—909–257–8266 (NEW)

MTC–00005560

From: Tony Kennedy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ;

We are now entering a new year and one

would hope with the most recent disasters in

New York and the deficit spending that is

occurring in rebuilding New York and the

National economy related to the after effects

of 9/11 that someone would be wise enough

to finally settle the Microsoft anti trust

litigation. It seems that everyone is interested

in penalizing one of the greatest companies

in the world, a company that has single

handedly had the greatest impact on

businesses becoming more efficient which

has lead to the USA once again be seen as

the ultimate world leader in some many

industries where we have halted the

advances that other non USA countries were

making at the USA cost.

I urge you to settle this case so this great

Nation can turn it’s attention to more

important issues!

Regards,

Anthony J Kennedy

Vice President Finance & Administration—

North America

MTC–00005561

From: Murray Powell

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have been opposed to this litigation from

the beginning. Now that a settlement has

been reached it is time to close this affair. To

delay this settlement only benefits the few

special interests along with the government

bureaucrats and attorneys who are feeding off

of this legalized boondoggle.

MTC–00005562

From: Hawley@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24733

Does not seem to be significant enough to

disrupt the monopoly...

MTC–00005563

From: Annabel Wayne

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am very concerned that the suit that you

have against Microsoft, stops the innovations

that one company single handedly has given

to the world. Because of Microsoft, I have

become a better teacher, using their software

which came on my computer to enhance my

lessons. If I had had to purchase another

program, I would not have known what to

do, let alone where to get another program in

a small town. When my programs came on

my computer, I did not feel that Microsoft

was pushed down my throat. I am sure that

milliions like myself were very glad to have

their programs already installed on our

computers.

Annabel Wayne

MTC–00005564

From: Bill Beyer

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing as a concerned citizen

regarding the Microsoft Antitrust Case. Over

the past several years the Microsoft Antitrust

Case has been litigated on both the State and

Federal level. Recently the Federal

government and 9 states have reached an

agreement with Microsoft.

I believe coming to settlement with

Microsoft is good for consumers, the industry

and most importantly the American

economy. Now is NOT the time to continue

litigation on this case. Doing so only benefits

the lawyers and a handful of wealthy

competitors. More importantly prolonged

litigation on this case negatively affects

consumers, the industry and the American

economy.

Please settle this case now as I believe it

is in the people’s best interests.

Bill Beyer,

707 West 4th St. #25,

Long Beach, CA 90802

MTC–00005565

From: lawrence price

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm

Subject: Mricrosoft Settlement

I am pleased that a settlement has been

reached and approve of the tentative

settlement. Any further litigation would be

against the best interests of the American

consumer.

MTC–00005566

From: John.Walentia

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Gentlemen:

It is time for this to end. We need to move

on. Accept the settlement...review

Microsoft’s actions over the next few years.

If they step out of line by exceeding the terms

of the settlement then they should be

punished, but whatever the government does

it is time to move on.

Thank You.

John R. Walentia

MTC–00005567

From: Warren Dunlap

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:59pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I am in favor of the settlement as currently

agreed upon. I think it is fair to both parties

and is in line with the antitrust laws of the

United States. Trying to read more into the

laws than is there runs the risk of dampening

the incentive to innovate, a building block

which has led this country to its leadership

position in new technology.

MTC–00005568

From: Leslie, Jon

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

It is my opinion that no action should be

taken against Microsoft. No action should’ve

ever been taken against Microsoft. They are

being punished for being good at what they

do. Giving away the MS Internet Explorer

software was questionable, but they still do

not charge for it. Plus, LINUX is an entirely

free OS and no one is up in arms about that.

Microsoft deserves no punishment. They

have already been punished enough. Please

do not interfere with the Free Market System.

Best Regards,

Jon Leslie

Jon Leslie

Sr. Project Manager

Tibersoft Corporation

One Research Drive

Suite 300A

Westborough, MA 01581

main # (888) 888–1969

direct # (508) 621–2320

fax # (508) 898–1820

< http://www.tibersoft.com <http://

www.tibersoft.com/> >

MTC–00005569

From: The Computer Help Desk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please Settle This Issue A.S.A.P.

Thank-you,

Ronald D Whobrey

528 North Ingram Street

Henderson, Kentucky 42420

270–827–0784

MTC–00005570

From: Anderson, Mark (MLIG)

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern:

I think it is time for the suit against

Microsoft to be dropped. It is a waste of

taxpayer money, government resources, and

time. The general public doesn’t want it

anyway. Most people want Microsoft to

continue to operate as is, since a healthy

Microsoft is able to develop and market new

and better products that enhance our

productivity and happiness.

In business, the strongest, most aggressive,

and savvy are the survivors. If I want to buy

a luxury car, it is going to be a Lincoln or

a Cadillac and not a Dussenberg or a Cord.

The only Packards around are HewlettPackards. Yes, it is a shame to see companies

fold or sell out, but it is survival of the fittest

and it is ridiculous to punish Microsoft for

being the most fit. If they pressured hardware

manufacturers to bundle their products that’s

OK with me. The computer makers didn’t

have to go along because there are other

operating systems out there. If they want to

include WIndows with their PCs, then the

price to pay is including Explorer. They can

choose not to, but they are smart enough not

to do so.

Accept the settlement and close the book

on this case.

Mark Anderson

(609) 627–3823

Manderson@na2.us.ml.com

MTC–00005571

From: Jerry Robinson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement!

Justice Department,

Please accept the Agreed Settlement with

Microsoft ASAP!!

Tks, Jerry D. Robinson

665 Wren Drive

Casselberry, Fl 32707

MTC–00005572

From: B Duensing

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please pass the tunney act and close the

microsoft issue once and for all. Your efforts

will be much better spent elsewhere than

involving yourselves in to private business

issues.

MTC–00005573

From: IOFZ@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm

Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settlement

Jan.2nd 2001

Mr. Gates & Associates have performed

superbly for the whole world, in the use of

their products and only envy and jealousy

collectively from other manufacturers has

caused the Government to take an

unnecessary action against them, to the

detriment of world wide users. So what if

individuals of Microsoft benefitted

financially; their earned money will come

around again and so benefit the Country.

Why can’t Government leave them alone and

let them progress unhindered, producing

products for the benefit of mankind.

Drop the case against Microsoft.

A.E. IOFZ@AOL.COM

MTC–00005574

From: PBHansan@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

settle it now and let he company continue

to make money for itself and shareholders as

well as be the leader in software. less

intrusion in the marketplace please

24734 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00005575

From: Tony Meier

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Let’s be done with this!

MTC–00005576

From: BargBobbo@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Leave Microsoft alone! Why penalize a

company for developing a great

product.You’re undermining the very thing

that has made this country great.

Bargbobbo@aol.com

MTC–00005577

From: Laura Hemler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement—yes!

Please approve the Microsoft settlement.

This is costing the gov’t too much money and

punishing a great company. The competitors

are just sore losers and the states are just

trying to extort money from Microsoft.

MTC–00005578

From: David Chen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir:

I am a consumer of the computer hardware

and software, the recently agreement of the

government and Microsoft was in process,

the settlement will be good for the general

users, companies and for the economy,

especially after the 911 events, we need

reboot the economy to all the states, the

settlement is one of the best things we are

doing right now. It will help the users,

companies even government of the states

back to our economy and inspire the

confidence of the consumers.

I would like to see the settlement to be

proceed successfully and hope everybody

have a good starting for business. Good keep

bless America!

A consumer—David Chen

MTC–00005579

From: Patrick Clemins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft/DOJ Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

As a consumer, I am happy to see an end

to the Microsoft/DOJ legal battle. Microsoft,

I believe has done their best to make quality

products over the years and listen to the

consumer so as to include features that the

consumers want. The end of the legal battle

is welcomed as now, Microsoft can now

dedicate their efforts to producing software,

instead of using resources to fight, what has

been in my opinion, a ridiculous lawsuit.

Microsoft is NOT the industry leader because

of anti-competitive measures, but because

they put out better software. I used to use the

competitions products, but as I and other

consumers discovered, as the years went by,

Microsoft’s product got better, and the

competition’s didn’t, so we switched.

Microsoft should be allowed to market the

best they have to offer and the government

should let the consumer decide what to buy.

Respectfully,

Patrick John Clemins

MTC–00005580

From: Peter Cline

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am requesting that you approve the most

recent settlement decision offered by the

Justice Department and not further litigate

this matter. It has gone on long enough and

I believe the proposed settlement does

enough to more than protect the consumer.

Further litigation would only damage the

consumer and the economy which is

completely unnecessary.

Sincerely,

Peter W. Cline, CFP

MTC–00005581

From: HYLER, BUCK

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am in total agreement with the proposal

settlement.

I hope the Judge will not be inclined to

give any consideration to the special interest

groups that are trying to derail this for their

own benefit.

BV Hyler

MTC–00005582

From: Nick A. Corcodilos

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

For years we have watched this ludicrous

attack on Microsoft—and we heard the

complainants demand justice from the courts

and the government. Now, the government

has worked out a reasonable settlement with

Microsoft, and some of the complainants

once again reveal their intent—not to resolve

anything, but to turn this into a permanent

battle, wasting taxpayer’s and Microsoft’s

time and money. The courts are not the place

for competitors of Microsoft to make their

case—they need to make it to the consumer

and the market. Please don’t encourage them

to continue this unproductive legal battle.

As a consumer, I consider the settlement

fair and, more important, necessary to all

parties involved. I urge the District Court to

approve it. For what it’s worth, I never saw

any benefit to the consumer (including

businesses that use Microsoft products)

behind this attack. Competition in our free

market is complex. Few survive. And that’s

as it should be. The states and companies

that have agreed to the settlement are to be

commended. The rest should go back to the

drawing board and develop better products.

Let’s get this over with, finally. Perhaps those

hold-outs ought to be charged the

‘‘consumer’’ costs of this protracted

litigation—as a consumer I believe Microsoft

has been hampered from innovating while it

has dealt with this battle.

Respectfully,

Nick Corcodilos

ASK THE HEADHUNTER

web: http://www.asktheheadhunter.com

tel: (908) 236–8440 (NJ)

email: northbridge@sprintmail.com

MTC–00005583

From: Craig Stewart

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I urge you to accept the current settlement.

Justice has been done. All parties have been

duly served.

Microsoft along with its many competitors,

must be able to serve the consuming public.

It serves no useful purpose to continue to

pursue Microsoft. Only the attorneys stand to

benefit, not the consumer.

Sincerely,

Craig W. Stewart

206–729–0807

MTC–00005584

From: DeBona, Dave

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

The events of the past few years have

brought to light many things, few of which

have been earth shattering, enlightening or

consumer friendly. So it was with great

pleasure that I heard of the settlement. As a

professional who deals with not only

Microsoft but other industry players and as

a ‘‘home user’’ I was thrilled to hear this

action was coming to an end. I was also

happy to hear that Microsoft as a company

would not be ‘‘dismembered’’ as so many of

Microsoft’s competitors had hoped for.

I think this decision by the DOJ shows a

committed and honest concern and fairness

for both the consumers, Microsoft, and their

competitors. The cost of this trial and the

resultant ebb and flow in the economy has

put more strain on the industry than those

practices Microsoft had been accused of. The

sad fact of the matter is that Microsoft

dominates because there are few alternatives

worth chasing. I liken this to grocery stores.

There are often times 1, 2 or even 3 within

a few miles of a home. However, usually only

1 place gets shopped consistently. The only

time a change occurs is when one store has

‘‘better’’ products or better pricing, i.e.

something compelling to make me change. Of

course this is simplified, but to the average

consumer, simple is understandable and

desired.

It’s sad to see companies such as Oracle,

Sun, and especially AOL screaming about the

practices and policies of Microsoft. Oracle

has dominated the database world for a long

time, their product has been somewhat slow

to adopt new standards and upgrade

performance. They consistently lose ground

to Microsoft and IBM in this area. Sun has

always dominated the Web server market,

again, being somewhat slow to react and

upgrade. They too face increased competition

from many hardware vendors, due largely in

part to Microsoft’s NT operating systems and

the performance/value proposition they

provide. And AOL, I can’t say much good

about AOL, so I won’t. Suffice it to say, they

are certainly in the pot calling the kettle back

category. So as you can see, I’m very happy

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24735

that this case if finally coming to an end and

I thank the DOJ and the new administration

for putting emphasis where it belongs. I

would also urge the DOJ to do whatever it

can to put an end to the other 9 states who

possibly feel the need to file their own cases

in light of not accepting this settlement.

Those 9 states attorney general’s should be

ashamed of themselves. They play politics

while spending their states money, not too

mention pressuring Microsoft to continue

spending legal dollars on this. Of course this

will eventually translate into passed on cost

to the consumer. But of course, the 9 states

AG’s don’t seem to care about anything other

than their own political interests.

I would very much appreciate information

on where I can write these 9 states AG’s.

Thank you for your Time.

David DeBona

Technical Consultant, eCommerce

Victoria’s Secret Direct-The Limited, Inc.

eMail

Work: <ddebona@vscat.com>

Home: ddebona@columbus.rr.com

<mailto:ddebona@columbus.rr.com>

Phone

Work: 614–337–5258

Home: 614–478–9177

Cell: 614–582–6072

6145826072@myvzw.com

<mailto:6145826072@myvzw.com>

Pager: 614–520–4005

MTC–00005585

From: Landguy2k1@cs.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern:

As a Microsoft user and share holder, I felt

the lawsuit at the time was a bogus political

ploy on the part of the Clinton

Administration to punish Microsoft for not

putting enough of my retirement money into

the coffers of the Democratic Machinery. I

also feel anything the new DOJ can do to

make this thing go away is a good thing. The

settlement is adequate. The DOJ needs to

keep its focus on kicking people out of this

country who come over here with the sole

intent on killing Americans.

Mike Madden

Gulfport, MS

MTC–00005586

From: Houlihan, Kelly P.

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Can this be over? We all know the

computer industry is so fast paced that

Microsoft could be gone by next year if you

try holding them down.

Kelly Houlihan

Construction Supt.

Oakland

510–773–6353

510–835–2492 fax

MTC–00005587

From: Svenski50@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Department of Justice:

As a consumer in the software market

place I want to express my opinion regarding

the Tunney Act. I believe it is fair,

reasonable, in the publics best interest and

should not be further litigated.

Lary Simpson

MTC–00005588

From: Ron Black

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen—

I wish to express my approval of the

proposed settlement with Microsoft

Corporation. I believe this is a fair and

reasonable settlement and is in the best

interest of the consumers of Microsoft

products and the technology industry in

general.

Sincerely,

Ronald R. Black

PO Box 682

Peru, NY 12972

MTC–00005589

From: JPEO826@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Settlement

I feel that the DOJ settlement is sufficient

and should be final. It is my belief that

Microsoft should be allowed to innovate

without government interference.

John Peoples

MTC–00005590

From: rdmtscott@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm

For the sake of the Nation lets end this

lawyers fee management effort to delay

progress.

Richard McGregor

MTC–00005591

From: Edwin McClannan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle this suit now. Microsoft should not

used as a test bed for social law engineering.

Investor confidence and world-wide

investors have had their confidence shaken

by the manner in which the Clinton Justice

Department handled and choose American

Corporations for litagition. It is apparent that

campain contributions could have prevented

this injustice against Microsoft in the first

place. This corporation has paid their taxes

and has provided untold wealth of many

Americans, either in the form of jobs in

manufacture, development or on computers.

Microsoft has managed to make our lives a

little better. No Democrat Social Agenda

should ever be allowed to wrangle cash from

corporations for spending of people by

intimidation or changing the law as we go to

secure funds for frivilious social spending.

Edwin L. McClannan

Jumper74@yahoo.com

MTC–00005592

From: Joseph Sabrin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

It is important that our government spend

time and money on creating jobs rather than

going after a company that has created over

1 Million new jobs in the USA.

Regards,

Joe Sabrin

eHire

40 Fulton St.—19th Floor

New York, New York 10038

212–513–7160

jsabrin@ehire.com

www.ehire.com

MTC–00005593

From: Gary Evans

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft has continued to provide the

products I need to deal with my

responsibilities and get my work done faster.

In an effort to create a better product they

have bundled other products into the code of

their operating systems. I love this! For me,

the consumer, I can choose to pay the price

Microsoft wants me to pay and get a FULL

featured operating system—that continues to

have more features (programs) added to it in

each release—or I can choose Linux for free

and find pretty much everything I need for

free. It’s ALL about my choice. Microsoft is

out to get their operating system to as many

people as they can. So how would you do it?

GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT...A

GOOD PRODUCT (which means integrated

the different programs into the operating

system...it’s convenient for me).

Thanks for listening,

Gary

MTC–00005594

From: Cheryl Schuh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

If the voice of the people still has any

meaning in this country, then please hear

mine.

Stop further litigation against Microsoft.

The settlement is fair and just so let it be.

Given the current state of our economy

further litigation seems rather senseless and

destructive. Even though I do not reside in

Washington state, I can see how the hit that

the airlines industry has taken since 9/11hurt

the state through the Boeing company.

Microsoft is a major industry in that state,

let’s let them get on with business under the

the current settlement and help to bring

strength back to our economy.

‘‘Justice for all’’ should include the big and

the small companies, the rich and the poor,

give the American Dream back to Microsoft.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Schuh

MTC–00005595

From: Count Curtis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Stop the nonsense

It is time to drop the case.

1.Many of the attackers of Microsoft appear

to be motivated only by their own selfinterest. Most of the state Attorneys General

have reportedly received support, monetary

24736 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

and otherwise, from various competitors of

Microsoft. From the numerous press

conferences it seems that the AGs are in this

for their own self-interest—headlines and

hob-knobbing with the rich and famous.

2.The competitors appear to be sore-losers.

From a consumer point-of-view they are

guilty of far worse than they charge Microsoft

with. An example is Netscape. Once I

installed their product only to find that it had

insinuated itself as the default system and

made the original browsers unusable. It took

me several days to repair the damage caused

by Netscape.

3.The president of Sun makes

pronouncements that seem libelous. As a

user of a personal computer I do not want to

be forced to waste time and money to obtain

features that should be part of the operating

system. If the silly proposals by the states

AGs were implemented, I would have to

spend a lot more money and time buying,

installing, and resolving inconsistencies.

Why don’t you charge the states Attorneys

General and their corporate accomplices with

racketeering? It certainly looks to me like that

is what they are doing. They are not helping

the consumer only themselves.

Sincerely,

E. C. Curtis

MTC–00005596

From: kenboyer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wanted to drop a note to say that I

support the proposed settlement between the

federal government, the nine states, and

microsoft. I feel that the current enviroment

is competitive, and that any more draconian

steps against microsoft would serve only to

help their competitors and not help the

consumer.

ken boyer

MTC–00005597

From: Deborah Mangiamele

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Like millions of Americans, the computer

has become part of my everyday life. Thanks

to innovations from Microsoft, my skills

continue to improve and I continue to

learn—right at home. With continual online

updates, tech support and user-friendly style

of troubleshooting, I’ve been encouraged me

to expand my computer horizons. Microsoft

must continue to develop technology that

compliments our world without sanctions or

restrictions. I believe the settlement is a fair

answer at this point.

My wishes for a healthy, peaceful and

prosperous 2002!

Sincerely,

Deborah Mangiamele

Rochester, New York

MTC–00005598

From: Phillip Wertheimer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have been a Microsoft customer for 15

years. In my opinion, it is in the best interest

on the consumer public and the tax payers

of America that we settle this now and move

one. Back in the old days of operating

systems we had many choices. But when

someone wanted to write a software

application that had to decide what operating

system they would write the program for.

Now they have only two choices Mac or

Windows operating system. We are seeing

more products come to market now.

Phillip Wertheimer

Intersea Fisheries West

Tel: 206–285–5630

Fax: 206–283–7627

MTC–00005599

From: Brian Frink

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement is Fair

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am writing to express my total support for

the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust

matter. As a consumer and taxpayer, I view

this settlement as fair and logical.

Brian Frink

16 Premier Ct.

Chico, CA 95928

MTC–00005600

From: Jchance007@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

please

no more delays. i agree with the present

settlement as is between the usdoj and

microsoft. we as a nation have to get on in

life after 9/11/01. microsoft as a major

company can only help the united states.

please let microsoft do there work and

research to better help our society

sincerely yours

jeffrey a. chance

MTC–00005601

From: MADuniho@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To add to the views of others about the

proposed settlement, I will just say that I

think that in the fast moving world of

computers and the internet, Microsoft hasn’t

long to ‘‘live’’ anyway, and you had better

settle this case before there is not a

significant company left to deal with. I also

think that Microsoft’s competitors are

ridiculous to have pushed this suit in the

first place, expecially given how the

landscape is and also has been shifting so

quickly.

MTC–00005602

From: Michael C. Moll

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am for this settlement. Please consider

this during this final process.

Mike Moll

MTC–00005603

From: Elena Luisa Garella

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm

Subject: TUNNEY ACT PUBLIC

COMMENT— MS SETTLEMENT

It is ESSENTIAL to the development of the

American computer industry and to the rule

of law that the Windows monopoly be

dismantled and more importantly that

Microsoft—and all who admire it— learn that

laws are there to be obeyed, and the judicial

system is the final word. The district court

and the Court of Appeals found egregious

and repeated violations of the law. This

settlement appears to reward Microsoft for its

intransigence and fails— in my opinion— to

do anything to repair the damage done to the

consumers.

HAVE YOU USED A WINDOWS

PRODUCT LATELY? Windows OS and many

MS products are unwieldy, subject to

crashes, and generally inferior to Macintosh

and other non-MS products such as real

networks, true JAVA, etc.. . AND YET MS

HAS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE

MARKET due to their predatory practices.

The settlement will not revive the

competition and will simply ensure the

continued dominance of second rate

products and the insufferable Microsoft

arrogance.

PLEASE STOP THIS SETTLEMENT AND

PURSUE LEGAL REMEDIES IN DISTRICT

COURT! Why is MS pushing this settlement

so hard? Because they know that it is vastly

favorable to them than the result that would

be obtained in Court— and you can’t tell me

that the result in Court would not be more

favorable to consumers in the long run.

Elena Garella,

Seattle, Washington

MTC–00005604

From: Enrique C. Perez

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm

Subject: Microsoft’ settlement

I want to show my support to the Court

settlement and for that reason I’m sending

this e-mail.

Have a nice day!

MTC–00005605

From: Hoffman, Bob

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I strongly believe that the settlement

agreement between Microsoft and the

Department of Justice is both fair and

reasonable. In my opinion, the agreement

more than adequately addresses all issues

raised during the trial. Furthermore, I feel

that a quick resolution to these proceedings

would be beneficial to consumers and

taxpayers alike. During this long process, it

has seemed to me, that the concern has been

for the interests of a select few corporate

entities, and that very little attention has

been paid to the harm, or lack thereof, to

consumers and taxpayers caused by

Microsoft’s practices. This action against

Microsoft, the long proceeding associated

with it, and the deplorable behavior of Judge

Jackson have caused more harm to

consumers and taxpayers than Microsoft ever

has.

Robert Hoffman

Flushing, New York

rhoffman1@nyc.rr.com

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24737

MTC–00005606

From: Don Carlson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm

Subject: For Microsoft settlement

Dear DOJ,

I am writing to let my voice be heard that

the settlement with Microsoft should be

done. The cost and disruption of business

spurred by the interests of a few greedy

competitors and their state attorney generals

is disgusting. Please stop this insanity and

get on with life. Microsoft is a great company

with fantastic products. I use their products

as well as other software companies and find

theirs is the best and most reliable at a

reasonable price. Thanks for taking the time

to read this and please lets get this over now.

Sincerely, Don Carlson

MTC–00005607

From: Russ East

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm

Subject: Settlement

Please accept the settlement as it is.

Microsoft has done so much for the economy

and for humanity! Before home computers I

would have had to work outside my home in

a hospital or doctor’s office. Because of

Microsoft I now work at home where I am

available to my children at any time. We

have products other than Microsoft on our

computer and certainly don’t feel forced to

only use Microsoft products. America was

built on ingenuity and it should not be

squelched. thank you. criss east

MTC–00005608

From: Mark Gabrielle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm

Subject: Settle and get on—this is nuts to

begin with

Microsoft offers a superior product and

should not be penalized for it, its one of the

few global business that a US company is

dominant (other countries encourage and

even support, sometimes US does the

opposite and pushes to break them upsometimes this is right and sometimes it is

not, in this case I support Microsoft). Yes, Mr

Gates is a character, probably not a good

public defender of Microsoft, but he has

made his company into something that many

other companies wish they could.

MTC–00005609

From: Robert Beene

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear

Department of Justice,

First, let me thank you for your efforts with

the case regarding Microsoft. As an employee

of Microsoft, I have watched the case with

great interest and I firmly believe both

Microsoft and the Department of Justice want

the same thing—Happy Consumers who are

not being taken advantage of and a company

that competes fairly.

I wanted to take this moment to voice my

opinion in that the settlement proposed to

bring the case to settlement is a very just and

reasonable proposal. I believe the proposed

changes will positively impact consumers

and make positive changes in the way that

Microsoft does business that will not hamper

Microsoft’s ability to innovate and will also

allow competitors to continue to compete

with Microsoft and vice versa.

Thank you again for the time you have

spent working on this issue and for the

proposed settlement.

Sincerely,

Rob Beene, MCSD

MTC–00005610

From: CThomp8789@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the Microsoft settlement is good

for consumers, the industry, and the

economy. It is time to move on.

Clayton K. Thompson

2420 Winnetka Dr.

Rockford, IL 61108

MTC–00005611

From: JKIRKPATRICK@PILLSBURY.

COM@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We have had enough litigation on this

matter. It is time for the settlement to be

consumated.

James S. Kirkpatrick

P. O. Box 1715

Dension, TX 75021–1715

The information contained in this message

is private and confidential information which

may also be subject to the attorney-client

privilege and work product doctrine. This

information is intended only for the

individual or entity named above. If the

reader of this message is not the intended

recipient, you are hereby notified that any

use, dissemination, distribution or copy of

this message is strictly prohibited. If you

have received this message in error, please

notify the sender by return e-mail and

destroy all copies of the message. Thank you.

MTC–00005612

From: Jim Jones

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The existing settlement is in the public’s

best interest and should be enacted to finally

resolve this dispute. The state attorney’s

general who do not believe in this settlement

are not acting in the publics best interest.

Sincerely,

Jim Jones

MTC–00005613

From: JWD321@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please tell the DOJ to move on to important

subjects like terrorism, etc., and leave

Microsoft alone.

MTC–00005614

From: GMontgo465@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Comments

It is my considered opinion that the

proposed settlement IS in the public interest

as well as in the interest of the market and

all investors in the market and NOT just the

Microsoft investors or Microsoft itself. The

settlement has been too long in coming and

the conclusion has been delayed for one

inane reason after another. If ‘‘interest

groups’’ would stop debating what ‘‘their

interests’’ dictate we might be able to put this

one behind us and get on with our struggles

in this unusual economy where all software

companies proceed to gain market share by

virtue of their ‘‘products’’ and not try and

stifle the progress of superior products in the

marketplace.

We are where we are in the overall world

economy because of our free market/free

enterprise system. That system should not be

thwarted for ‘‘special interest’’ reasons

advanced by the so called special interest

groups. Let’s get on with it and get it DONE,

once and for all.

Thank you.

George C. Montgomery

MTC–00005615

From: ACNAPT@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm

Subject: (no subject)

Further pursuit of the Microsoft case makes

absolutely no sense. Accept the settlement

and get along with the nation’s business.

With the political and economic issues at

stake in the world today it is absurd to divert

our energies from what is really important.

Paul F. Teryl

7450 NW 4th Street

Apt 206

Plantation, Florida 33317

MTC–00005616

From: Rich Hoffman

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the DOJ:

I believe the settlement is fair and

reasonable. It is time for the parties to move

on.

Rich Hoffman

Vice President—Taxes

Outsourcing Solutions Inc.

390 South Woods Mill Rd., Suite 350

Chesterfield, MO 63017

T: 314–514–2607

F: 314–576–7949

E: rich.hoffman@osi.to

<mailto:rich.hoffman@osi.to>

Outsourcing services are primarily

performed by OSI Outsourcing Services, Inc.;

collection services are primarily performed

by OSI Collection Services, Inc.; letter series

collection services are primarily performed

by North Shore Agency, Inc. and Transworld

Systems Inc.; portfolio services are performed

by OSI Portfolio Services, Inc.

This message (including any attachments)

contains confidential information intended

for a specific individual and purpose, and is

protected by law. If you are not the intended

recipient, you should delete this message and

are hereby notified that any disclosure,

copying, or distribution of this message, or

the taking of any action based on it, is strictly

prohibited.

24738 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00005617

From: chris.higgins@horizon.ie@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm

Subject: RE: Microsoft Judgement—

comments

Hi,

The proposed settlement of the Microsoft

anti-trust case doesn’t solve the underlying

issue—Microsoft’s ability to, and intent to

control its market place. It also fails to

provide any remedy to the rest of the

industry for the years that Microsoft abused

its position.

Most of the people I talk to are not seeking

punishment for Microsoft, but rather a

balancing of the playing field. A change in

the rules which promotes competition and

allows other vendors (the existing vendors,

and new startups) to compete in an open and

fair way with Microsoft. Then let the

consumer choose which product(s) they

want. The issue that exists is that with its

current position, Microsoft can smother any

sector of the industry by ’integrating’ that

sectors technologies it’s operating systems

In the early nineties, there were loads of

independent vendors of TCP/IP software for

windows (Microsoft didn’t include it with

Windows—and you had to pay extra for it).

Loads of companies made money by adding

value to Windows, by solving problems for

users.. Microsoft eliminated that entire

market by bundling TCP/IP with windows.

The same has happened with the office

productivity suites— Lotus/Corel have all

faded into insignificance because they cannot

compete in a market where Microsoft not

only owns the operating system—but through

that forces people to use it’s propietary file

formats..

The same happened again with the WWW

browser market—Netscape has died a

horrible death because of Microsoft’s abuse of

it’s position.

Microsoft are currently attempting to

eliminate their competitors in the WWW

server market space by bundling IIS as part

of NT—and they have clearly set their sights

on controlling the internet with their

promises for .NET technology. When does

enough become enough ? Will we all have to

wait for total global meltdown—when there

is only Microsoft left ? Or will we go on

forever—promising ourselves that it’s really

isn’t that bad, and it’s a sign of a healty

industry ? The playing field needs to be level,

and kept that way. To fix the problems of old,

Microsoft needs to make full details of it’s

file-formats public. It also needs to make full

details of it’s network protocols public.

No-one is suggesting that any intellectual

property that microsoft owns should be given

away—but how a sequence of bits can

translate into intellectual property is beyond

me.

Microsoft keeps it’s implementations that it

uses in it’s operating systems—but in the

case of new technologies—it should release

the source code for a reference

implementation—one that fully adheres to

the standards.

It’s up to other people to innovate, but the

underlying data format should be available to

all. Why is my data stored in a format to

which only Microsoft own the key? Is that

protecting the consumer or Microsoft..

If you doubt that statement—try (using any

non-microsoft software) to extract your email

in a usable format from a Microsoft outlook

.pst file... If you succeed—please let me know

as I have 19Mb of email I can no-longer get

access to because I haven’t paid for my

software license to microsoft for the exchange

server. People worry about not being able to

get access to information in the future—there

are loads of us being denied access to our

own information *now*.

Based on the current proposed settlement,

Microsoft seems to be exempted from

publishing authentication system

information. What is there to prevent

Microsoft from adding a password field to the

start of every file format—and claim that the

format is now an integral part of the

authentication system? Alas, the settlement

needs to be clear, concise and needs to define

the environment for all technology

companies to operate without the

monopolistic approach of Microsoft.

Many thanks for your time and efforts

reading this far,

Rgds,

Chris

CC:Chris Higgins

MTC–00005618

From: Gary Gromet

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm

Subject: approval needed

Acceptance of the settlement is in the best

interest of the consumers. Obviously, the

competition does not like it because it will

allow Microsoft to continue to cut into their

profits by forcing them to lower prices. No

where in the entire litigation morass has

anyone shown how the consumer has

suffered. All that is repeatedly shown is the

suffering of Microsoft’s competition in that

their profits are down. The anti-trust efforts

against Microsoft are analogous to the fairy

tale of the emperor without any clothes.

The competition that Microsoft faces

cannot compete successfully, so they say it

is Microsoft’s fault when in reality it is there

own inability to do their own job correctly

that prevents their own success. Like many

Americans, they won?t accept responsibility

for their own mistakes.

All the government anti-trust attorneys

could then concentrate their efforts on

ending the petroleum monopoly which is the

cause of artificially inflated prices for energy.

The price of petroleum does not take into

account the cost of production only the

stranglehold of production exercised by

petroleum exporting countries.

Discount Health Foods

www.DiscountHealthFoods.net

858 N.Krome Ave.

Homestead, FL 33030, USA

Tel: 305–247–8487

Fax: 708–575–6632

I use Hotmail because all incoming and

outgoing e-mail is screened for viruses by

Symantec (Norton Anti-Virus)

MTC–00005619

From: GLee361504@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm

Subject: (no subject)

A company must have the freedom to

innovate. I want to see this case settled

ASAP. I am in favor of Microsoft’s position.

G. Lee

MTC–00005620

From: Joe935

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It’s time this case was settled. The

government should not be penalizing

Businesses that do well. They do well

because the people buy their products and

that means the people want them.

The government would better spend their

time going after the real menace in this

country, DRUGS.

Joe Calderone

MTC–00005621

From: GOHAMILTON@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm

Subject: MY REPLY RE. MICROSOFT ANTI

TRUST LAWSUIT FIASCO

AS A GOP CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR

/ US SENATE FROM MICHIGAN IN 2002, I

HAVE ALWAYS OPPOSED STRONGLY THE

DOJ AS WELL AS MY OWN STATE’S

ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE ILL

ADVISED STUPID LAWSUIT AGAIINST A

LEADING AMERICAN JOB PROVIDER SUCH

AS THE MICROSOFT CORP. WHEN

ELECTED AS THE NEXT GOVERNOR OF

MICHIGAN I WILL CUT THE BUDGET OF

THE STATE A.G. OFFICE AND GET RID OFF

THE SOCIALIST LAWYERS IN THAT

DEPARTMENT.

SINCERELY AND HAPPY NEW YEAR,

ED H-A-M-I-L-T-O-N

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR

GOVERNOR ’02

GOHAMILTON@AOL.COM

(248) 643–0403 OR (248) 701—3670—

CELL PHONE

MTC–00005622

From: L. Scott Masi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it May Concern:

I am writing today as a taxpayer and as a

computer professional. I must say that I am

appalled at the waste of time and money by

the US government regarding their continued

pursuit of Microsoft.

I think that we all should look at the

overall benefits from Microsoft products. The

computer industry has benefited greatly over

the past number of years due to the fact that

Microsoft has taken a leadership role in the

development and deployment of useful tools

for each and every consumer. Without the

leadership that Microsoft provides, there

would be far too many standards and

applications that probably could not and

would not interact with one another in an

appreciable way.

Please lets just accept the agreement on the

table and allow Microsoft to continue to

innovate and produce the high-quality

software that every computer user has

become accustomed to using. The proposed

remedy, to which Microsoft has agreed,

should allow many more companies to have

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24739

access to the parts of the Windows operating

environment so that they, too, may be able

to develop robust, useful applications. Why

continue to try to destroy one of the best

examples of corporate success in America’s

history.

I applaud the management team at

Microsoft for helping virtually every

computer user in the world today. OK, there

may be a few apple hold-outs, but whose

programs are used by the overwhelming

majority of personal computer users in the

world? Microsoft! Whose programs are the

glue that holds together countless production

applications and environments? Microsoft!

Let the nay-sayers try to imagine for just one

moment how difficult their jobs would be

without the standards and programs

provided by Microsoft.

So, as far as I am concerned, I think that

the government (courts) should approve the

agreement, and let Microsoft continue to

provide me, and all of the other computer

users in the world, with the fine software

products that we have come to expect from

them.

Sincerely,

L. Scott Masi

Senior Analyst

215–345–0997

MTC–00005623

From: Arthur Tuber

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm

Subject: Anti Trust Suit

This lawsuit has infuriated me from day

one. It strikes me that the government is

against ingenuity and success. It also appears

Clinton was angry about not receiving a

contribution for his 1996 re-election

campaign, eventually leading to this

unnecessary law suit.

Enough is enough. All phony charges

should be dropped, allowing Microsoft to

continue improving their software for the

benefit of ALL our people.

Sincerely,

Art Tuber

MTC–00005624

From: Ringering@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm

Subject: Microsoft

I have been a long time supporter of

Microsoft and I am against any further action

against the company. I believe it has been

wrongly prosecuted and that the company

and country have suffered on account of this

action. I am a strong advocate for competition

in the marketplace. However, I disagree that

the government should try to ‘‘level the

playing field’’ in favor of those companies

that are unable to compete without the

government intervention.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Ringering

MTC–00005625

From: ESKIMOPUP@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft suit is hurting our country.

A few competitors should not be able to

destroy the greatest company in the history

of technology. Settling the suit will help us

get out of a recession. There are more

important things going on now. Get this suit

settled now! It should NEVER have been filed

against Microsoft.

MTC–00005626

From: LEGAC2@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to urge the Department of

Justice to proceed as quickly as possible with

the positive settlement of this case. I feel this

whole litigation was politically motivated

and that Microsoft, the corporation, has taken

the brunt because they were innovators and

leader in a new economic field which did not

contain all the restraints and laws normally

in place in a more established field. Our

economy suffered because of this litigation.

Consumers have expressed many times their

disagreement with the government that they

have suffered damage. Microsoft has

supplied a whole new way to communicate

and consumers have agreed. With the

election of a new President and the events of

September 11, it is time to let this go and

work on positive ways to support the people

of the United States.

Judith R. Petersen,

Public Citizen and Voter in the State of

Washington

MTC–00005627

From: Mike

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir:

Please do not impose any more harm upon

Microsoft than was placed upon its

customers. That is to say, if you can quantify

how much less the consumers should have

paid for their Windows software, that should

be the damages.

I, for one, would gladly pay again for the

use of this software. As the browser was free,

as are many updates from Msft, there would

be no harm there. I have both Netscape and

IE on my computer and I never use Netscape

unless I have to.

Microsoft’s rivals should not control our

courts in their deliberations or punishments

meted out. The proposed settlement is fair to

all sides, and the States should follow the

lead of the Federal Government.

Mike Stoddard

Tampa, Florida

MTC–00005628

From: Robert Andersen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

As a consumer and tax payer I urge you not

to mess up, keep Microsoft whole. We have

something that works lets keep it that way.

If other suppliers are better let them come

forward without government (state or federal)

intervention. In a free nation the best will

win.

R. B. Andersen

Oceanside, CA

MTC–00005629

From: Krupoff, Marty

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: microsoft settlemet

I think you should settle with Microsoft

based on the latest agreement sannounced in

the newspaper.

MTC–00005630

From: Tzadik8402@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it may Concern:

My wife and I believe that the Microsoft

settlement is a good one.We hope that the

nine states opposing the settlement be

convinced of that as well. It truly is a

wonderful company and I believe they really

have the best interest of the consumers of

their products. If it were not for this company

and what products they have created in the

last 18 years we would not be where we are

today!!!

Please settle this case as soon as possible!!

Please convince the nine states that it is best

to settle. I believe that the Microsoft company

has been humbled to some extent by this case

will be more attentive to the needs of the

consumer, business piers and all the users of

their products globally!

Theodore & Shelley Gruber

18132 Meandering Way

Dallas,TX

75252

MTC–00005631

From: Bud (038) Nell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This case reminds me of the time that our

goverment was looking out for the consumer

and broke up the Bell Telephone system.

HA!! What a laugh!! Talk about killing

innovation as this country went from the best

and cheapest telephone system in the world

to one of the most expensive and shoody.

Butt out!!!

LAD in Texas

MTC–00005632

From: Dickon Smart-Gill

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir / Madam,

I would like to voice my opinion on the

United States vs Microsoft case number 98–

1233

After reviewing the documents, in

particular http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/

f9500/9549.htm I am in support of the

current settlement agreement. I believe that

the action taken by the United States is fair

to both Microsoft and the consumer.

Dickon Smart-Gill

MTC–00005633

From: Deptula,Elaine(NXI)

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

The settlement is fair to all so let’s be done

with it. It is about time that we get on with

America’s business and settle this lawsuit. It

seems like there are certain groups that want

to keep this going just for the joy of it... it

24740 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

is important to our economy that we get this

behind us. We have a lot to do and are

wasting time with this effort.

Elaine Deptula

Director, External Contracts

PH: 312–822–1284

Fax: 312–817–2272

Elaine.deptula@cna.com

MTC–00005634

From: Jeffrey A. Schmatz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm

Subject: A Small Business Owners

Perspective

I challenge anyone from the DOJ to come

to my office, sit across from my desk and tell

me how Microsoft has hurt my business. I

have a choice everytime I go to the store.....if

they have the best product I buy it....if they

don’t I buy another. That is called the

American way. This action was a huge waste

of the taxpayer’s money and as a taxpayer I

am pissed off. Why don’t you go after some

real criminals?

Jeffrey Schmatz

JS Media LLC

112 West Hawk Avenue

McAllen, Texas 78504–1802

956–682–2766

956–682–9472 (fax)

work jschmatz@jsmedia.net

home JeffreySchmatz@aol.com

MTC–00005635

From: Kirk Conklin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The last thing the American economy

needs is more litigation that benefits only a

few wealthy competitors and stifles

innovation. This sums up what I as a

consumer think about this attack on free

enterprise. Put the Clinton era of political

attacks and payoffs behind us and let

innovation thrive.

Kirk Conklin

MTC–00005636

From: Penny Woods

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm

Go along with government settlement and

don’t prolong agony any further. Took years

to resolve this far and country needs to move

on.

MTC–00005637

From: joseph harrison

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my view the Microsoft Settlement

known as the Tunney Act is fair and

reasonable. I believe after four years of

litigation it is time to move on and stop

wasting the tax payers money on a case that

should have been settled years ago. The nine

states that don’t want to settle are not

thinking about consumers. They are only

concerned with the competitors of Microsoft.

The Anti-Trust law was not established to

even the playing field between competitors,

it’s purpose was to keep prices competitive.

I think Microsoft has kept the prices of it’s

products competitive. The competitors of

Microsoft should stop whining. If they came

up with a better product for a lower price,

people would buy that product regardless of

whether Microsoft Windows was loaded into

the computer at the factory or not.

Joe Harrison

7320 E. Patricia

Port Orchard, WA 98366

MTC–00005638

From: Viken

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Support Microsoft. Thank you.

MTC–00005639

From: Richard Jackson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

Please accept this mailing as a request that

The Department encourage a hasty settlement

in this captioned case involving Microsoft’s

anti-trust violations. M/S has already lost a

bundle and the consumer is the big loser so

far.

Let these folks out in Washington state get

on with what they do best,,,,help business

and individuals save money and time. While

I personally think Microsoft should fight to

win, if they think this is a fair settlement, so

be it; let it be done.

Thanks for your consideration of my plea.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Jackson

3425 Crosswinds

Alexander City, AL 35010

MTC–00005640

From: HankAsh@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

It is our opinion that the recent settlement

reached in the Microsoft case should be

allowed to stand, so that this litigation can

be brought to an end.

Thank you.

Henry and Dian Ash

3766 E. Lake Drive

Land O Lakes, FL 34639

MTC–00005641

From: Jim Rubino

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm

Subject: settlement

I believe the Microsoft settlement should

proceed without further delay.

Jim Rubino

2521 W. Marion Ave. #311

Punta Gorda, FL. 33950

941–575–1340

jrubino@sunline.net

and during trial phase

jrrubino@home.com

MTC–00005642

From: TomKohl@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

This trial has wasted enough time and

money for both this country and Microsoft.

Please see that it is brought to a speedy close.

I feel the settlement agreed upon is fair for

all concerned. thank you,

Thomas D. Kohl

MTC–00005643

From: DKingN7KGX@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Dear sirs

With the economy as it is and the

harrasement of those that would like to see

the eventual demise of Microsoft, i think that

a quick and fair settlement of this case.

Microsoft is not doing anything that any

other big business is doing or has done.

Thank you

Dean King

MTC–00005644

From: Sam George

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I urge you to please consider settling the

Microsoft case as it stands. I believe (as a

consumer) that this is the best course of

action.

MTC–00005645

From: Jim Hurst

To: ‘microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I support the proposed settlement, lets get

on with business and stop waisting taxpayer

money. Thank you.

James R.Hurst

MTC–00005646

From: Buttinzki@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Case

Dear Sirs,

In my humble opinion, Microsoft’s Bill

Gates has been truthful and forthcoming, and

a champion of leadership in spite of the

intolerable scrutiny his business has

undergone these past four years. Mr. Gates

has singularly propelled the information age,

and I daresay that his attackers are not only

motivated by petty jealousy and greed, but

were it not for Mr. Gates and Microsoft, his

detractors and defamers, some of them,

would still be in the technological dark ages.

Mr. Gates has behaved in an exemplary

fashion with the Department of Justice, and

were it you or I or most anyone, can you not

imagine feeling the most callous disregard for

this nation, can you not imagine just walking

away from it all? Mr. Gates continues,

however to show us the spirit that built

Microsoft, and appears, unimaginably,

undaunted.

For God’s sake, please don’t break Bill

Gate’s spirit.

Tim Rummell

MTC–00005647

From: db—design@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24741

Please leave Microsoft alone and alow

them to continue to developing sepurior

Window and business applications. If the

competition can not keep up that is their

fault. Microsoft should not be punished for

be able develop great products.

Richard Power

DB Design Consultants

MTC–00005648

From: engler@csi.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlemnt

This DOJ should settle the Microsoft case

as soon as possible. There is a hatred of

successful business people in this country as

reflected by the consistent anti-trust cases

against successful businesses.

This form of bigotry must stop.

Sincerely,

Edward L. Engler

857 Berick Dr.

St. Louis, MO 63132

MTC–00005649

From: Giacomo Zardetto

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

The settlement with Microsoft must stand,

let’s get this over and done with. Litigation

of our government and a industry leader can

only give America a NEGATIVE

CONCLUSION. Lets move forward and

support the innovators, the leaders of our

private enterprise, providers of jobs,

providers of taxes, they are the whole

purpose of our Capitalist Society. Without

capital creators there are no taxes, without

taxes there is no government.

World affairs, current national

circumstances show us that the time for

bickering amongst ourselves is BAD POLICY.

UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.

Team players is what we should be, private

enterprise and government. Do you think that

if Microsoft would be a company from any

other country in the world, that ‘‘said’’

country would be trying to weaken or destroy

it as it is, as it stands today?

Please conclude the settlement and lets

move our country forward, we’ve got bigger

problems to deal with than to harm a

company for being good at what they do.

Giacomo Zardetto

Orcas Island, WA

zardetto@rockisland.com

MTC–00005650

From: Ervin, Craig (INV-EDH)

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the settlement is fair.. No more

litigation so be sought!

Craig Ervin

MTC–00005651

From: Laurence Lewitt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

It’s time to stop the harassing. Settle and

be done with it.

MTC–00005652

From: Ronald Merrell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 11:37am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe very strongly that the remaining

states should be required to accept the

settlement agreed to by the Justice

Department. In my judgement, the Justice

Department’s initial handling of the case was

overly influenced by Microsoft competitors

and was a major factor in bringing about the

current recession. It is important to the

economy that the Justice Department insist

on the current proposal agreed to by the

Justice Department and Microsoft.

Ronald D. Merrell

Ph.D. Business Administration

Ronald D. Merrell, Ph.D.

Dean of the Graduate School

MTC–00005653

From: CHARLES SPENCE

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

TO WHOM IT MAYCONCERN,

REFERENCE THE MICROSOFT JUSTICE

DEPT. SETTLEMENT.

THIS SETTLEMENT IS MORE THAN FAIR

ESPECIALLY SINCE THE SUIT SHOULD

HAVE NEVER BEEN BROUGHT. THIS SUIT

WAS A CLINTON JUSTICE DEPT. PAY OFF

TO SOME OF MICROSOFT COMPETITORS

FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

CLINTONS AND THE DEMOCRATIC

NATIONAL COMMITTEE. IF IT IS A CRIME

TO DEVELOP A BETTER PRODUCT AND

BRING IT TO THE CONSUMER AT A

LOWER COST THEN WE BETTER RETHINK

OUR WAY OF LIFE. THIS CONCEPT IS

WHAT HAS GIVEN AMERICANS THE BEST

WAY OF LIFE ON THIS EARTH.

CHARLES E. SPENCE

2500 EVANS DR.

PLANO, TX 75075

MTC–00005654

From: RSteve2259@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Ladies and Gentlemen

I believe that the setllement is a good thing

for the country. Approve it. Certainly the

antitrust laws mean well and are needed but

this settlement goes far enough.

Thanks for your diligence but lets move on.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Stevenson

MTC–00005655

From: Ted Ahre

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:05pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Please add my name to the list of citizens

who believe that the proposed settlement

with Microsoft is more than fair to the nation.

This obvious effort to stifle a successful

corporation’s success should end here.

Theodore R. Ahre, CPA

Oregon

MTC–00005656

From: Debbie McMillen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

This case should be settled and closure

obtained ASAP. The settlement is reasonable

and fair. It’s good and is needed for

consumers, the industry, and our economy.

This case should not be allowed to go

through more litigation that benefits only a

few wealthy competitors, stifles innovation,

and only hurts the American economy even

further.

Deb McMillen

Microsoft Consulting Services

469–222–1961

debmc@microsoft.com

MTC–00005657

From: King Tam

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft case should be settled now.

The settlement is good for consumers, the

industry and the American economy.

MTC–00005658

From: Joel Klopfenstein

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I personally believe that Microsoft did

make some bad decisions in the past, and

they are no doubt a Monopoly, but in some

respects the consumer did come out ahead as

far as a multipurpose mainstream Operating

System that could do everything you needed

it too. But the price could (and should) be a

lot cheaper for mainstream use, I think it

should cost as much as any other software

package (around 30–50$). The settlement that

Microsoft will not effect the average

consumer, and home schools are not allowed

in the settlement as well. I think the

consumer was hurt in the pocket book, and

therefore the prices should be mandated

cheaper, or even have a version that is less

scaled down just the O.S. nothing more, no

fluff, for a reasonable price 29.99.

Joel Klopfenstein

MTC–00005659

From: WUTS, PETER G (091)SUP/0200(093)

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:50pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

First of all I would like to say that the

government should not have been involved

in suing Microsoft in the first place. This is

a country that supports free enterprise and

innovation—-no government intervention

should be involved. The settlement that is

proposed should go through so that the

company can get back to the work that has

helped propel the tech revolution of the 90’s.

Peter Wuts

MTC–00005660

From: Marie Robinette

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please note that taking all things into

consideration, what in the competitive field

has remained the same since this antitrust

suit was first brough to bear? VERY VERY

24742 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

LITTLE!... Note also that those companies

that sought relief are engaged in their own

interests— creating monopolies in their own

arenas—meanwhile, Microsoft continues to

innovate and through immeasurable

community service in all locations around

the world still strives to make lives of others

improved through technology—see the entire

package that is Microsoft—not just what the

competition is whining about!

Have a happy and prosperous New Year!!!

Marie Robinette, MCSE

Back Office Support

EMail: marierob@microsoft.com

Hours: 9:00 am—6:00 pm (Mon—Fri)

<<Picture (Metafile)>>

Work Hard—Do your best—Keep your

word—

Never get too big for your britches—Trust

in God—

Have no fear—and Never forget a friend.

—-Harry S. Truman

MTC–00005661

From: shabels

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:50pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Please honor the integrity and intelligence

of our best businessperson in the US and get

off Bill Gates back. Let him go to work for

us as he always has.

Best,

Sharron Belson

MTC–00005662

From: JS8522@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It’s my opinion that the Microsoft

settlement benefits both me and the public

interest. I strongly support the settlement and

request that DOJ take action to end this

controversy and allow all parties to get on

with business.

James E. Shrader

401 South Miller

Wenatchee, WA

98801

MTC–00005663

From: Tim L Norris

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to express my desire that the

Department of Justice (DOJ) conclude the

Microsoft case as agreed to in the recent

settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft. I

am increasingly concerned that certain

companies are using the legal system as a

vehicle to reduce the competitiveness of

Microsoft in order to improve their own

position in the marketplace . Under the guise

of increasing competition, these companies

are attempting to thwart their competition, in

this case, Microsoft. It is shameful conduct

and the DOJ should publically denounce

these attempts to abuse our legal system for

parochial ends. Let these companies compete

in the free and open marketplace that

characterizes our American system of

capitalism and end this abuse of our judicial

system.

Sincerely,

Tim L Norris 310–647–0803

tlnorris@west.raytheon.com

Raytheon Systems Company, Airborne EO

Bldg E1, MS E123

2000 E. El Segundo Blvd

El Segundo, CA 90245

MTC–00005664

From: Rocky859@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: (no subject)

if msft has the best product on the market

...let the other companies compete....don’t

have a bully fight for those who can’t

compete... i thought that america was free

rnterprise

george saunders

MTC–00005665

From: Yazen@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

As a consumer, I am in support of

concluding the governments case against

Microsoft and allowing Microsoft to stay

intact as one corporation, who have in the

past served their customers with efficient,

cost effective software products, making our

business and personal lives easier and more

productive. To shun a company for

innovation is not only counter productive, it

is harmful to the consumer sector and the

economy as a whole. The time is ripe for the

government to settle with Microsoft and end

litigation. Thank you for your time and effort

to this matter.

Yazen Alhassan

Alexandria, VA

MTC–00005666

From: andrew minkin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The next generation of all technology

adoption by the masses depends on the end

of this case.

Microsoft can narrow the digital divide.

The settlement offering to help schools is the

best way to do this. I do not think that

consumers have been hurt, but if there is any

group that needs to benefit from a paying of

Microsoft’s debt to society, it is the

underprivileged. Do not make any settlement

a victory for another company or law firm,

but a victory for the betterment of the people

who need it the most.

MTC–00005667

From: Kelly Chen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I fully support the settlement. And I

beleive the settlement would definitely help

to stimulate the slow economy.

Regards

Lai Yuen Leung

Ming Chu Chen

MTC–00005668

From: Bentleyboys@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: (no subject)

The Country needs to put this behind them

and get on with more pressing matters.

Windows XP is a marvelous piece of

technology for $99. Maybe someday we can

deal with why you can buy an inkjet printer

for $99 that takes $85 worth of ink cartridges

to keep it working. Roy Magnuson

MTC–00005669

From: Bcd268@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please get this over with and let the public

carry on with their daily activities. The

settlement is just and should be implemented

immediately. With AOL and Time Warner

merging, one can hardly say that Microsoft is

a monopoly. I use AOL, when I purchased

my computer, there were several software

options to choose from, including MSN. Our

economy is suffering enough, let’s get this

settled and start anew. Thank you for the

opportunity to voice my opinion.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Dion

MTC–00005670

From: Jim Earley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please terminate this exercise in futility. To

prolong this any longer will only further

unsettle a recessive economy. We consumers

will be just fine without additional

‘‘protection’’.

Jim Earley

Premier Magnetics

20381 Barents Sea Circle

Lake Forest, CA 92630

jim—e@premiermag.com

www.premiermag.com

MTC–00005671

From: Mark G Filler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough, already! Wrap this up now!

Mark G. Filler

mfiller@filler.com

MTC–00005672

From: Donald J. Helsel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed Microsoft settlement seems

fair to all parties concerned. This cases

should be settled now as further legal efforts

offer no real benefit to the everyday citizen

and would be a further waste of tax payer

money.

Don Helsel

donhelsel@earthlink.net

MTC–00005673

From: Jack

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: Mlicrosoft Settlement

I have been a user of Microsoft Products for

over 10 years. I see no reason why there

should be any delay in settlement.

The law suits brought against Microsoft are

instigated by competitors that have been

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24743

unable to keep up with Microsoft Research

and Development and are turning to the law

instead of the open market. Microsoft has

been the reason for the widespread use of the

computer by millions—their approach to

marketing as compared to Apple is the reason

for their success. There is no reason for

Microsoft to be punished further. Settle the

case and let the free market survive.

John K. Jouett

2134 N. Stoney Beach Lane

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

MTC–00005674

From: Walt Sweyer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Get off their backs!!!!

MTC–00005675

From: IFJUDGE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am urging you to consider the proposed

Microsoft Settlement to truly be in the best

interests of the general public. Our current

economic situation in the U.S.A. should lead

the Court to take the steps necessary to

resolve this matter, to avoid protracted

litigation, and to allow the economy to move

forward.

Thank you! ISABEL FLEISHER New

London, NH

MTC–00005676

From: Sfin5259@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Enough is enough. How many times must

one party defend itself against the same

charge?? If the states not accepting the

settlement were party to the suit in the first

place, then they should not have the option

to continue for another ruling that suits their

interests. Does‘nt this border into double

jeopardy territory?? The states not accepting

the negotiated ruling should be dropped from

all compensatory releif. This is the case in

other types of litigation.

MTC–00005677

From: RMcamis858@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I’m very much concerned with waste of

taxpayers money in the Government

continuing to pursue the Microsoft antitrust

suit. I believe that it’s time to get on with

more important things, such as taking care of

our more serious problems, such as the New

York terrorism situation, and the pursuit of

those responsible. Microsoft has continued to

lead the world in innovations in various

software fields, and we certainly wouldn’t be

where we’re at today without Microsoft’s

many, many contributions. Plus the

contributions Microsoft has made to our

learning institutions. Let the other cry baby

companies do their own research, there is

nothing to stop them. So, enough already, let

Microsoft get on with their business.

Ron McAmis

1835 Truckee Way

Salinas, CA 93906–2125

MTC–00005679

From: McGregor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I’m writing to urge you to accept the

settlement proposed by the government in

it’s litigation against Microsoft Corporation.

Further litigation by the states is an egregious

ploy designed to wring competative

advantage for corporations residing in those

states as well as to line the state’s public

coffers. As the owner of a business with over

30 branch locations and 400 employees, I can

assure you that we could not do our job half

as well today if not for Microsoft products

and services. They’re reasonably priced, they

work and they work well together. I’m an

agnostic when it comes to which operating

system, word processor or accounting

package we use. Unix, IBM, MAC, we’ve

tried them all. We use Microsoft products

because they deliver, period.

Continuing litigation to prop up dying

companies like Novell, or companies like

Sun that are trapped between open standards

and cheaper Wintel systems serves no one

except the corporate interests of those

companies.

End the litigation. Kick out the states.

Settle with Microsoft.

David McGregor

I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food

chain to be a vegetarian.

Phone: (801) 944–6333 Cell: (801) 502–

7544

MTC–00005680

From: TEHSHEEL@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sir: I am grad the settlement had been

reached between microsoft and your

department. I think this settlement is fair and

good for the comsumers and our country.

Thank you!

MTC–00005681

From: bob(u)patti1

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

What company in the history of the United

States has given back more to world

communities? Mr. Gates has and is

continuing to return Millions of dollars to

benefit people all over the world. Most of his

resources go to benefit people who have a

real need. I believe the recent settlement

agreements are fair and provide a real benefit

to young Americans.

Don’t let the overzealous competitors and

their over paid lobbyist and government

friends stand in the way of a TRUE

AMERICAN FRIEND in helping to provide

the world with improved technology. Mr.

Gates is a businessman who has compassion

for his industry and the people it serves.

Settle this and let Microsoft get back to

what it does best.....develop products that

help improve the quality of life for

Americans and the rest of the World.

Thank You,

Bob and Patti Turner

MTC–00005682

From: The Third Millennium

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the judge in the case should accept

the settlement worked out with DOJ and

MSFT. This is obvious to any clear and open

minded public citizen!!

Clearly special interests with political

motivations in 9 states (Just look which 9

states are dragging their feet!) are objecting to

final settlement disregarding the interests of

the public and tech industry as a whole.

Let’s get on with it—the longer things are

dragged out the worse it is for the economy

and a recovery!!!

Accept the DOJ and MSFT settlement they

negotiated!!

Bill Breseman—a concerned citizen

MTC–00005683

From: QORG@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

If Microsoft had not progressed the way it

did, we would still be limited to 640K

memory on our computers and, heaven

forbid, the OS2 operating system. Their

innovation is what paved the way for

increased capacity on the PC platform, for

both disk and for memory. Without it, the

Internet would be used only by the

government, E-business would be

nonexistent, and AOL wouldn’t exist to

pressure the suit.

AOL does not allow access of their system

by other Internet providers (buddy chats,

etc.) Shouldn’t this be viewed as unfair

practices?? Thanks for listening to the

electronic side of my reasons to back

Microsoft. Economically, their suit caused

the bubble burst in the NASDAQ. How many

billions did that cost consumers??

Thanks,

Amy Cottrell

MIS Director, Retired

MTC–00005684

From: Howard Todd

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings,

I am writing to register my support for the

proposed settlement between Microsoft and

the US Government. It is time to put this case

behind us, for the benefit of consumers and

the US economy. Please do not let a few

states acting on behalf of Microsoft’s

competitors delay or derail the fair resolution

of this case.

Thanks you,

Howard Todd

21464 President Point Rd.

Kingston, WA 98346

howard@wendertodd.com

MTC–00005686

From: gene—

wedge@notes.teradyne.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

24744 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Dear People,

As a long-time customer of Microsoft

products I have followed the progress of the

DOJ legal actions against the company.

Having read the current proposed settlement

I believe that it correctly limits the

company’s ability to engage in

anticompatitive marketing practices while

allowing Microsoft to continue to develop

innovatively integrated products. Please

register my support for the settlement in the

public record.

Thank you,

Gene Wedge

Oak Park, CA

MTC–00005687

From: Holly Simmenroth

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settllement

I hereby take this opportunity to thank the

Federal Government and States for

negotiating a tough but reasonable settlement

in the Microsoft case. I know this is in the

best interests of the consumer, the industry

and the American Economy in general. I trust

the Department of Justice will forward my

position, as a consumer, to the District Court

as encouragement to conclude these

proceedings as quickly as possible.

Truly Yours,

Henrietta Simmenroth e-mail:

holly@goes.com

MTC–00005688

From: Jeff Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

End this process. The proposed settlement

is in the best interests of all of us.

Jeff Smith 513 791 5074

MTC–00005689

From: James Muir

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am so glad the trail period is over and

even though I feel the whole mess was a

political interference with Business. Spurred

by competitors who found it easier to

compete through their State representives

and the political arena than the market place

the situation of Microsofts monopoly has

gone on far to long. I feel in no way damaged

by Microsofts efforts in Technology neither

financially nor by lack of innovation in the

market place. They deliver superior products

for very reasonable prices and they provide

great jobs and support their community and

the rest of the U.S. charity needs. BOTTOM

LINE: I think the Government and Microsoft

resolutions are tough, adequate, and

sufficient. Lets get on to the next big

problem. Thank you. Jim Muir

James Muir

jmuirbrkr@earthlink.net

MTC–00005690

From: Phillip Kirby

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it may concern;

I feel that Microsoft has proven there

commitment to innovate many times, and

continues their innovations today. They are

a revolutionary company, who has not only

made great software but made the world the

technologically advanced society that it is

now in 2002! Without there groundbreaking

software, I truly believe computers would not

be used nearly as much as they are today! I

feel that the settlement if very fair for both

Microsoft, consumers, and our American

Economy!

Phillip Kirby:

mt—man40@hotmail.com

MTC–00005691

From: RLFiala@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

TO THE DOJ,

It is my opinion that this case against

Microsoft should be settled as quickly as

possible and that Microsoft should be

allowed to get back to doing what it does

best—creating and exploring new

technologies to benefit our civilization now

and in the future.

Rhoda Fiala

MTC–00005692

From: Patty MacDuffie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Proposed settlement is terrific! Go for it!

Patty MacDuffie

MTC–00005693

From: Robert Van Winkle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please let this chapter close without

additional litigation. The economy has

suffered enough already and will only

continue to suffer as this continues to go on.

This whole process has been a senseless

act driven for the benefit of the few such as

Sun, AOL and Oracle and not the people. I

have yet to see any evidence in this whole

process that people were harmed in any way.

Robert Van Winkle

MTC–00005694

From: Janell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please stop all further action against

Microsoft—the current settlement is fair.

Phil Stover

MTC–00005695

From: Jay Cull

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that this settlement is fair and

should be approved

MTC–00005696

From: Lepianka, Tamara

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe we have wasted enough time and

money on this case. A settlement is in the

best interest of all involved and the current

agreement seems reasonable. I am

disappointed that not all states accepted the

settlement and continue to drag out an issue

that will only continue to cost their states

money. Especially at a time when funds

would be better spent bolstering the

economy, assisting families and reducing

debt instead of throwing their state funds at

an issue that has ceased to interest even the

Information Technology industry, much less

the general population. The case needs to be

put to rest on ALL sides. I only hope that our

judicial system exerts as much effort

prosecuting foreign terrorists as it does in

protecting? us from American companies.

Tamara W. Lepianka

Elizabethtown, KY

lepianka@infi.net

‘‘MMS <hilliard.com>’’ made the following

annotations on 01/02/02 12:53:22

MTC–00005697

From: Chuck Newton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to put the Microsoft issue behind

us, and the actions of various State Attorneys

General fail to support the public interest in

this matter. Suitable penalties have been

adjudged on Microsoft, and further action at

the state level on a matter which is

predominately a matter of federal jurisdiction

will do nothing to further the cause of

consumers or government. By delay, it has

just the opposite effect. My suspicion is that,

like the tobacco settlement, the interest of the

states is more for financial benefit than for

consumer protection. These actions should

be repudiated by the Justice Department, and

a final settlement pursued with all due haste.

Charles G. Newton, Jr.

30 Bunker Hill Lane

East Greenwich RI 02818

MTC–00005698

From: scott cuddihy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The USDOJ needs to end/settle this

situation asap.

I believe the USDOJ has been manipulated

by competing businesses that could not win

in the marketplace.

The consumer has a much easier and less

expensive time with their computing needs

today; then ever in history, thanks to

Microsoft products. The purpose of anti-trust

law is to protect the consumer who has not

been harmed. Please pressure the 13 states

attorneys general to stop their farce, their

motivation is to benefit their own political

careers, not aid the unharmed consumer.

Thank you,

Scott Cuddihy

MTC–00005699

From: Dennis Hardman

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft settlement is fair. Further

litigation is NOT in the public interest.

Dennis Hardman

6210 88th Ave West

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24745

University Place, WA 98467

MTC–00005700

From: DonaldF342@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm

Subject: Industry and Government

A Great Nation-built upon Industry doing

its thang, and Government doing it’s. It is

only when one or the other tries to interfere

in the others’ areas of expertise that the

trouble begins. keep it a great nation. Back off

this stupid Microsoft Vendetta. Go find

Osama Bin Laden.

D.Fitzpatrick

627 NW 47 Avenue

Deerfield Beach, FL

33442

MTC–00005701

From: Jane Larkin

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Do you think it’s a coincidence that it was

when the DOJ first started persecuting

Microsoft that the stock market started to

crater? Please recognize that it is the health

of companies like Microsoft that drive a

prosperous economy. Let entrepreneurs be

entrepreneurs—and for all our sakes stay out

of the way.

MTC–00005702

From: stu96

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm

Subject: lawsuit

its time to end this charade called a

monopoly and get on with business the law

suit was filed because of companies that

couldnt compete if they had been given the

keys to the barn.

MTC–00005703

From: Ryan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The government should end its case

against Microsoft Corporation. I am a re-entry

student in my 40s and having Microsoft

products has increase my chances to be reemployed.

Thank you

Ryan F Peters

351 Lone Tree Road

Oroville, California 95965

MTC–00005704

From: Steve n’ Gwen Secor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm

Subject: MicroSoft settlement

My concern is . . . Will the further action

against Microsoft help ‘‘fix’’ the problem or

just creat more caos?

Steve Secor

MTC–00005705

From: Mule887@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern: I would like to

show my support for a settlement of the

Microsoft case without further litigation.

Nine states have already approved the offer

which I believe is in the best interests of

consumers.

Let the free enterprise system work.

William Marvin, Hooksett, NH

MTC–00005706

From: Chuck Schulien

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

This case reminds me of the injustice the

government did to the tobacco industry. For

years our government has been making

money off of tobacco with all the taxing, then

you turnaround and sue them for billions!

Now it seems that the States that missed out

on the Tobacco settlement are jumping to get

a piece of the Microsoft pie.

I never smoked a cigarette in my life. I

would be glad to give the $300.00 back that

the State of Illinois gave me, if the

government would back off and stick to the

business providing a safe place to live.

People have a choice, they do not have to buy

computers or cigarettes! We do however need

a safe place to raise our families.

Chuck Schulien

8421 Parkdale Drive

North Richland Hills, TX 76180

817–514–1936

MTC–00005707

From: Roy Carlton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:50pm

Subject: Microsoft

What the DOJ and the states have done to

Microsoft borders on criminal acts. Microsoft

has made my life as an accountant so much

more easy. In addition, Microsoft has created

more millionaire business owners who have

spun off new products based on the

Microsoft line of products. It’s disgusting

what the Federal and State Governments

have done to a highly successful corporation.

It’s too bad we cannot sue former AG Janet

Reno and President Bill Clinton for the

damage this anti-trust action has done to the

stock market.

Roy E. Carlton

6524 Gray Fox Curve

Chanhassen, MN 55317

MTC–00005708

From: Limitup16@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please get the Microsoft settlement settled.

This has dragged on for long enough without

any benefit whatsoever for the consumer. The

consumer has any number of choices. . . .

Microsoft has done more for the economy

than many government programs.

James W. Toole

1114 Baltimore Dr

Orlando FL 32810

MTC–00005709

From: MHarme5683@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm

Subject: Freedom to Innovate.

To Whom it May Concern:

Please end all the litigation in reference to

Microsoft. In the interest of the American

economy and the right of Microsoft to

continue on without further litigation is in

every ones best interest. As a stockholder of

Microsoft it truly aggravates me that all those

states have entered into the litigation against

Microsoft. I think they are trying to get a

monetary settlement from the company

without ever investing a penny in the

company. If you can explain to me the

damage that Microsoft has done to those

individual states perhaps it would be easier

to understand. I think we would be

technologically behind if not for innovative

companies like Microsoft. Stop paying all the

lawyers and allow the company pay a

dividend to the people that have invested in

the company. Thanks for hearing me.

Mary Harmening

MTC–00005710

From: LMi3280257@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm

Subject: Approval

Approve this settlement and let’s get this

thing behind us!

Luana Miller,

San Rafael, CA

MTC–00005711

From: TJ Robinson, CPA

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please stop this insane slide into a total

depression by keeping one of the countries

best companies doing what it does best. I

have met no one that has been harmed by

anything Microsoft has done if you exclude

the competition. Things are cheaper, faster,

and better.

MTC–00005712

From: PAUL G. BRUNNER

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I THINK IT IS TIME FOR GREEDY MONEY

HUNGARY STATES TO ALLOW THE

AMERICAN SYSTEM OF FREE ENTERPRISE

WORK, THANK GOD FOR MICROSOFT, WE

NEED MORE INOVATIVE BUSINESS

INSTEAD OF USING THE COURT SYSTEM

TO SLOW DOWN PROGRESS ENOUGH IS

ENOUGH , I AM FED UPWITH THE COSTLY

LAW SUITS THAT ACCOMPLISH VERY

LITTLE EXCEPT SLOW DOWN THE

COMPETITIVE SPIRIT, THERE ARE BETTER

WAYS TO USE OUR COURT SYSTEM. I

WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD MY

COMPUTOR IF IT WEREN’T FOR

MICROSOFT

SINCERELY

PAUL G. BRUNNER

MTC–00005713

From: Charles Roberts

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the honorable members of the court:

The revised proposed Final Judgement

against Microsoft seems to me to be too harsh

on Microsoft, however Microsoft has agreed

to it and says they think it is fair. Therefore

I urge you to impose the revised proposed

Final Judgement and close the proceedings

24746 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

for good. I am a computer user and have been

for more than nineteen years. Microsoft

products have been very good for me.

Charles E Roberts

628 N. Glenn Ave.

Springfield, MO 65801

MTC–00005714

From: Andy Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Case

It is important to America for the DOJ to

settle the Microsoft litigation NOW. Thank

you.

Andy Smith

Houlihan Smith & Company, Inc.

312–499–5910 Direct Phone

312–499–5901 Fax

www.houlihansmith.com

MTC–00005715

From: SabineMcManus@aol.com

@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The Justice Department should leave

Microsoft alone. The case against Microsoft is

a pathetic embarrassment. We should be

praising people like Bill Gates/Microsoft not

suing him. Every time a company gets too

successful, the government cracks down. I

don’t think Microsoft is a monopoly, and

think that the only ‘‘true monopoly’’ is a

government generated one. Obviously,

Microsoft does not fall into this category. We

are lucky to have entrepreneurs such as Bill

Gates who create so much good for our

society in the form technological

advancement, jobs, and charitable

organizations.

Sabine

Sabine McManus and Associates

Healthcare Search Consultants

433 North Camden Drive, Suite 600

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Tel: 310–205–2006

SabineMcManus@aol.com

MTC–00005716

From: Mr1031@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm

Subject: Seattle area guy

I have resented seeing our court system

miss used. Sure it is legal but is it right? I

don’t think it is.

This is no different from some business

person using their influence to get a piece of

real estate down zoned in order to drive out

his competition. I feel the high tech industry

should be allowed to innovate and grow and

let the public decided what is best by what

they choose to purchase. Any regulation the

courts will establish today will likely be

irrelevant in a year or more just because their

is no way any group of legislators or judges

can KNOW the future. If they could they

would be in a different business. The public

is watching and has a keen sense of FAIR and

knows why the remanning states are holding

out. Just like the guy who holds out selling

his property to a developer who is

assembling real estate for a project. He does

it because he wants to gamble the developer

will pay him the highest price for his

property. Have you ever noticed when you

see a large new project with one remaining

old structure niche into the site? That is how

those nine states holding out should find

themselves. Maybe those states should be

allowed to increase their state sales tax on

any Microsoft products. . . . The buyer could

buy mail order and skip them. These states

will not join the others and settle until they

feel they would get less. Right now their

bottom side is covered and they only stand

to appear as heroes if they get more for their

state. That is a miss use of the courts.

Ron

MTC–00005717

From: Binney, Peter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Attn US Dept of Justice,

Please accept this note from a constituent

as a vote in favor of expeditious settlement

of the Microsoft Anti-trust litigation. I think

the settlement is more than fair to me (as a

consumer of software products, I don’t think

I was harmed to begin with) and we need to

put this behind us.

Thanks

Pete Binney

508–339–9213

Mansfield, MA 02048

MTC–00005718

From: Scott, Vivian

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm

Subject: settlement

It is my feeling that this law suit has gone

on long enough, cost the tax payers plenty of

money and, in fact, probably shouldn’t have

happened at all.

Settle it and be done with it.

I would also like to know why the Mac has

not been brought in to this mix. At least on

the PC you have a choice for start up

programs (and have always had a choice once

they were written) whereas on the Mac it is

limited to their operating system only.

Doesn’t that effectively cut the competitors

out of the picture entirely. Isn’t that what this

is all about, the competition feeling they

aren’t able to compete?

Last I don’t think the states should get

anything. Talk about jumping on the band

wagon. What consumers are they talking

about getting taken advantage of. When I

bought my computer I inquired about the

cost when buying an operating system

separately it was noticeably more then to buy

as a package. I believe this is a fairly common

practice in many venues. Again, settle and be

done with it.

MTC–00005719

From: Deborah Merklin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

U.S. Dept. of Justice

Washington, DC

I vote that the U.S. Department of Justice

do all that it can to expedite the Settlement

as outlined in the Tunney Act.

Deborah Budz-Merklin

dbudzmerklin@earthlink.net

Fax—(815) 550–5169

MTC–00005720

From: H S

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough foot dragging. Let’s put an end to

this settlement, and the sooner the better.

I think that DOJ should have other more

revelant issues to pursue. Yes, Microsoft is

powerful, but let consumers vote on that with

their dollars. If they don’t want to use

Microsoft, that is their choice. Computers

have always been about choice. If I don’t like

Microsoft, there is always an alternative.

MTC–00005721

From: winsonmc@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am very much in support of the freedom

to innovate, as a basic American freedom.

Now that the court of appeals has rendered

a decision, I feel it should be upheld and this

issue brought to an end, so that the

consumer, the people, can get on with their

lives. In most fields, automobiles, appliances,

etc. the parts of the different manufacturers

are not interchangeable, why should they be

in computers. This is what drives innovation

and invention, so to the better innovator goes

the spoils.

Sincerely,

I.C.McLendon M.D.

MTC–00005722

From: Ueli Jucker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

IT IS PAST THE TIME TO FINISH THIS

SETTLEMENT FOR THE HOLE COUNTRY.

UELI JUCKER

MTC–00005723

From: Matt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I don’t want my hard earned tax money

wasted any more! Settle this. Microsoft has

done more our economy and has virtually

created the software industry. We should end

this and end it now!

Matt Fangman

MTC–00005724

From: Peter Kraushar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:57pm

Subject: Microsot Settlement

To DOJ,

I would like to see this Microsoft litigation

settled once and for all. I’m in favor of the

recent settlement and want no further

litigation. Further litigation benifits only a

few wealthy people and hurts the US

economy. Thank You,

Mike Kraushar (503) 469–0270

Northwest Scape Website Design Inc.

NetBizDomains Inc.

12614 NW Barnes Rd. #4

Portland, OR 97229

MTC–00005725

From: Bill (038) Robin

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24747

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my opinion, the proposed settlement

with Microsoft is more than fair and

adequate. Microsoft has done nothing to

harm me in anyway, and I have never

requested any assistance from my elected

officials in protecting me from something

that I simply do not need protection from.

This whole mess is nothing more than a

trumped up case by some of Microsoft’s

competitors because they would rather spend

their time and resources fighting Microsoft

rather than developing a better ‘‘mouse’’! The

actions by the states to tag along is simply

a carry over from the tobacco cases in hopes

of adding a lot of cash to their coffers. I

wonder if all this would be taking place if

Microsoft were located in Utah? I truly do not

understand the concern about integrated

software applications. As a software user, I

demand integrated applications that are

designed to work together which is exactly

what Microsoft has produced. Let’s get on

with the many more important things that

our country needs to be worrying about and

stop this senseless flow of money to a bunch

of high paid lawyers and politicians..it has

really been and continues to be stupid!!!!

Thank you,

Bill Johnson

MTC–00005726

From: John Hall

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:57pm

Subject: settlement

Tell Bill to keep fighting and keep a stiff

upper lip!

I’m on his side as a small stock holder!

John R. Hall

MTC–00005727

From: Ron Huxtable

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please leave Microsoft alone. They’ve done

more for the U.S. economy that all of their

competitors put together, through jobs

creation, charitable gifts, formation of new

companies ’living’ off of the success of

Microsoft products due to worldwide

consumer acceptance, and on and on. The

consumer will only be adversely affected by

further government intervention—innovation

and prices will go up.

Thank you for your consideration—

Ron Huxtable

MTC–00005728

From: Fritz Turton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:57pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Prosecute the guilty, not the successful.

The government has extracted its pound of

flesh, Clinton is a bad memory, go chase the

Arabs!!! Fred Turton

MTC–00005729

From: Eric—Koach@Dell.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

If you are asking for opinions, mine is quite

simple. Drop the suit and allow the free

enterprise system that founded this country

to take care of this situation.

Regards,

Eric Koach

Global Enterprise Account Manager

Dell Computer Corporation

Office 281.361.7384

Mobile 281.352.5121

Mail to eric—koach@dell.com

www.dell.com

MTC–00005730

From: BHall36071@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like my opinion counted. I think

the settlement should go through, as it is

currently proposed, and not delayed any

longer. The only parties benefiting from this

continued arguing are the competitors, not

the consumers. The consumers are already

benefiting from the innovation of Microsoft

and don’t need any further benefits. The

consumers have choices, and Microsoft is not

causing the consumers harm by innovating in

the industry. We appear to be an ungrateful

nation and we appear to try to kill the goose

that laid the golden egg. Stop this nonsense

and let Microsoft continue to innovate, and

settle this lawsuit against them. Settle the

suit as the settlement negotiations now stand,

and put this behind us. It will be best for the

nation and the economy.

H. William Hall

1125 N. 26th St.

Tacoma, WA., 98403

MTC–00005731

From: Barton L. Hinkle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I strongly urge acceptance of the Microsoft

Settlement as it has been developed,

provisions of which have been accepted as

fair and reasonable by the Justice Department

and which have been agreed to by Microsoft.

In my opinion, further haggling about

specific items is not in the best interests of

consumers.

MTC–00005732

From: Khushcpa@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: waste of money

Your tackling of the microsoft issue is a

total waste of money and is tacitly unfair .

to tear down the most influential company in

the world and the one that has made the

united states a poweful country is absurd.

spend your time and money doing something

constructive instead of destroying the bastion

of capitalism.

Khush Bodhan CPA

MTC–00005733

From: Ellen ching

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the reviced proposed Final

Judgment is tough but fair. I will definitely

like to see this case closed for good.

Prolonging this case creates more harm than

good; it is a drain to tax payer and the

economy.

MTC–00005734

From: ROBERT K RODEN

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Representative of the Dept of Justice,

Perhaps Microsoft does have a dominant

position in the computer software market

place. That is precisely why I invested in that

company. The technology and ease of use

offered by microsoft and my computer maker

is what this market place is looking for.

Microsoft is not a monopoly in the market

place. They have competition. (Unlike my

local telephone company, cable company,

etc. etc.) Computer users and consumers are

smart enough to find alternate browser

software. I get several discs in the mail

(unsolicited as well) from different ISPs that

use Netscape, Microsoft, etc. You plug it in

and it does the work. Or, the keyword system

allows users to find free downloads of about

any type that works within my microsoft

system and they are not microsoft product.

Now that my government has dragged

Microsoft through the mud and they have

offered a settlement, I think you should take

it and stop wasting the resources of a

company that brings more efficiency of

technology to the U.S than any other

company in the world.

Sincerely,

Robert K. Roden

4281 Heritage Drive

Hudsonville, MI 49426

MTC–00005735

From: Paul

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please don’t delay the settlement any

longer. Microsoft has been a good company;

they provide quality support and have the

customer’s best interest in mind. Any good

businessperson knows the most important

rules of how to increase sales. Number one

is to have a quality product that you believe

in and number two is keep the customer

satisfied. Microsoft does both very well.

MTC–00005736

From: Brian L. Dontje

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle this case now. You were wrong to

have filed it or pursued it.

Brian L. Dontje

President

UDS Green Industry Software, Inc.

brian@udsgis.com

MTC–00005737

From: Sherri Starr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please, please settle this...your attack on

Microsoft was unfair and unnecessary to the

company and the public. The settlement

reached is more than fair and this matter

should be put to an end. It is amazing that

24748 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

you could spend more trying to kill Microsoft

than you could spend in getting Bin Laden

and his groups. I had hoped that a more

reasonable and honest voice had taken over

the DOJ.

Sherri Starr

Gleneden Beach, Oregon

MTC–00005738

From: Craig Fischer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi DOJ,

I am an employee of Microsoft Corporation

in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Although I believe the lawsuit is based on

assertions that were trumped up by our

competitors and are baseless, I am in favor

of this settlement. This will hopefully get the

government monkey off our backs so we can

continue to be the best U.S. company ever

and the best worldwide!

Sincerely,

Craig J. Fischer

MTC–00005739

From: SFILLPMR@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

USDOJ, microsoft has violated no law’s—

I as a consumer am glad to see this all come

to a final resolution. Scott J. Fillmore

MTC–00005740

From: Mike Holmes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen of the DOJ:

As a citizen, taxpayer and voter as well as

a small business owner, I am voicing my

opinion regarding the Microsoft Case and the

Proposed Settlements, etc.

I am a staunch supporter of free enterprise

and sound business practices. Moreover, I am

also a believer in providing products that are

of value to consumers and making an honest

profit from such enterprise.

In my opinion, and I consider it an

‘‘informed’’ opinion, Microsoft has been

wrongly harassed in this entire issue. In

addition to developing a business profile that

makes a profit by serving the consumer needs

as well as investing in providers and

competitors, the key executives at Microsoft

have followed the American Business Profile

in an admirable fashion.

While some in Federal and State

Government feel that business should be notfor-profit and service the common good

without regard to profitability, I live in the

real world. Microsoft has continued to create

systems that make it easier for me to work

as well as providing a common platform for

non-Microsoft programs to run on my

computer.

My desire is that the DOJ and various state

governments spend time and money

pursuing the drug dealers and the child

pornographers that are dramatically

damaging our country’s most valuable

resources, our youth. Leave Microsoft alone.

Cheer Bill Gates and his execs for generating

taxable revenues, providing jobs, giving to

charity and helping to make the world of

computers easier for us 50 year-old dinosaurs

to use in everyday business applications.

If you notice, this e-mail is sent from a

non-Microsoft connections, using Netscape

as my browser. I use WIndows XP and Office

2000 in my everyday work!

Sincerely,

Michael P. Holmes

12671 West 116th St.

Overland Park, KS 66210

913–498–2626

MTC–00005741

From: Mahalle@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: settlement

Settlement is best for the economy. The

downtern started with gonernment action

against Microsoft. Experience has shown that

breaking up companies is not for the best.

Telephone was broken up and then the parts

started merging. Competition must not be

stifled but creativity should not be punished.

MTC–00005742

From: optimal

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I do believe that the settlement entered on

Nov 6, 2001 is fair and is in the public

interest.

Thanks,

Mike Sarieh

MTC–00005743

From: Dr. James F. Gaines

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Ma’am: Drop the case against

microsoft. As a comsumer I’m confident that

after comparison shopping in the computer

stores Microsoft has excellent products at fair

prices. Give it up and use my tax dollars for

something constructive. The consumers have

been trteated fairly by Microsoft.

James F. Gaines, DVM, MS

MTC–00005744

From: belize bound

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:59pm

All govt, states, officials leave microsoft

alone!!! govern and leave microsoft alone.

thank you,

MTC–00005745

From: ArnoldfS@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:00pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

It is time that the DOJ accepts a just

settelment with Microsoft and concentrates

on other more urgent matters affecting our

country; ie. war and terrorism.

Microsoft is being used by the AJ’s of the

nine states to further their private political

ambitions—with DOJ’s blessings, it seems.

‘‘Cease and desist’’ are terms DOJ should be

familiar with even when they are addressed

to the DOJ itself.

Arnoldfs@aol.com

CC:MSFIN@microsoft.com@inetgw

MTC–00005746

From: Frank Griffin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am happy to hear there is resolution of

this matter at hand. It has been, and is, my

belief that Microsoft competitors have used

the Federal and State Attorneys General as a

tool to attempt to whip up on Microsoft.

There are certainly more important matters

for the Attorneys General, both state and

federal to deal with than this matter. Thank

you for bringing this matter to an end.

Frank Griffin

MTC–00005747

From: Robert Cunningham

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am greatly concerned that the lawsuit

against Microsoft was brought in the first

place. Microsoft has brought this nation some

of the finest software that can be found

resulting in a more efficient, economical use

of the computer. This has had a tremendous

positive impact on the economy of this

country. I agree that Microsoft is a tenacious

competitor but strongly disagree that it

represents any type of monopoly. Any and all

software manufacturers have the right and

the opportunity to create software and market

it to the public in any manner they desire.

To even suggest that Microsoft has

PROHIBITED them from doing so is

ludicrous.

I believe the terms of the settlement are

excessive and should have never reached this

state, but in the interests of trying to prevent

the continued harrassment by those with less

tenacity and to get this economy back on

track, the settlement should be accepted and

this entire socialistic venture should be

closed with embarrassment to all who

participated in promoting this undemocratic,

unjustified action.

Robert E. Cunningham, Sr.

321 Cypress Street

Destin, FL 32541

cunningham1148@home.com

MTC–00005748

From: J1ws@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:00pm

Subject: (no subject)

I have had the opportunity to review the

settlement reached with Microsoft and the

department of Justice. There is no question

in my mind that this agreement is in the best

interest of the consumer and meets the needs

of creating a level field of competition. It is

apparent that the competition will never be

satisfied and will lobby until they simply can

no longer succeed. Lets get on with business,

Microsoft is being penalized enough as well

as the consumer. Jim Smallman

MTC–00005749

From: Jimmy Boyle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:59pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs:

I think it is time to end this ordeal. It has

been clear tome that this suit by the Justice

department was a political move prompted

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24749

by the competition of Microsoft. The

settlement assures the completion that they

will have a chance to compete with

Microsoft. If their products succeed then that

will be fine. But if their products do not

succeed you will hear from them again

saying Microsoft has done some naughty and

they want protection and maybe even some

money to support their egos.

Sincerely,

Jimmy Boyle

MTC–00005750

From: Linda Simoneau

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to support a settlement of

Microsoft. It seems ludicrous at this point in

time that we would consider further litigating

this matter. I feel that Microsoft should have

the authority to innovate their products

without fear of litigation. It seems that there

are many more important issues in the

United States that need legal attention and

this is certainly not one of them.

I would urge the legislature to work

towards a swift settlement of this matter.

Very Truly Yours,

Linda Simoneau

MTC–00005751

From: W R Hutchison

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm

Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement

Gentlemen—

I am in favor of settling this matter as soon

as possible.

W.R. Hutchison

MTC–00005752

From: userln6304@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Innovation has made the US the greatest

country in the history of the world.The

action in the Microsoft case should be

summarily dropped.

Userln6304@aol.com.

MTC–00005753

From: Lien Louis-rp2957

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam

I have been working in the computer

related field for twenty years. The

competition in this high tech area is very

high. Only good quality products with good

service can survive in such highly

competitive business. Microsoft gained its

market share by providing good products to

the public. Without good product, Microsoft

will not survive. I always believe free

innovation and competition is the best way

to ensure that consumers will get the benefit

of good products and service. There is no

need from government to continue wasting

tax payers’ money in arguing what majority

of the people have agreed.

Government should spend its energy in

creating better job environment for American

people. I believe the Microsoft settlement is

good for the consumers, the industry and the

American economy. Let’s focus on improving

our current economy environment that

everyone will benefit from it. I support the

settlement between Microsoft and federal

government and nine states.

Sincerely,

Louis Lien

MTC–00005754

From: Cipolla Art-XTSS05

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I find it annoying that that a few Microsoft

competitors are trying to hold up the

settlement. These companies such as Sun are

thinking about nothing other than

themselves. Microsoft and Dell are two of the

only companies that want to commoditize

the market segments that they serve. They are

willing to operate off small margins and

make the software or hardware widely

available. Most of their competitors talk the

standards game but implement nothing but

proprietary software and hardware.

The current settlement is more than fair for

the competitors. Don’t further disrupt the

market by considering additional measures

driven by Microsoft competitors.

Regards,

Arthur F Cipolla

MTC–00005755

From: James Reilly

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Madam or Sirs:

I have been very interested and am very

pleased with the Federal Government’s

Decision to an agreement and settlement with

Microsoft Corporation. The interest of our

country and our economy are best served by

this settlement, and affording both parties to

move forward without additional legal

hassels.

The importance of integrated software and

the attractiveness of packaging this into

products that enhance the user’s familiarity

and productivity is most important. I think

these aims are well served by the settlement,

also.

James S. Reilly MD

Chairman, Department of Surgery

DuPont Hospital for Children

Nemours Children’s Clinic

Willmington, Delaware

MTC–00005756

From: RooRoo469@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi my opinion of the Microsoft Settlement

is it is WAY TOO WEAK. Microsoft is a total

monopoly and has all the parallels of

companies of the robber baron days. They

choose companies they feel threaten their

monopoly and crush them with ‘‘free’’

software giveaways and upgrades. They

insert pieces of code to make competitor’s

software run unpredictably, and do not

release API’s to competitors in a fair fashion.

They set all their own ‘‘standards’’ and

ignore the rest of the industry. I think a good

start would have been splitting Microsoft into

at least two parts and imposing some REAL

restrictions, not the current restrictions that

will do nothing to stop Microsoft’s anticompetitive ways. I could go on and on but

suffice to say the settlement is far from what

is actually needed to preserve free enterprise

in the USA. Microsoft’s ‘‘Freedom to

Innovate’’ defense is a farce.

Thank you,

Andrew Fox

MTC–00005757

From: Colin Samuelson II

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I urge you to settle the Microsoft Case. The

settlement is good the American economy,

and the indusry in general. Cease the

litigation and let’s move on.

MTC–00005758

From: Jay Atherton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/1/02 9:04pm

Subject: settlement

I see no harm about Microsoft and it’s

performance in the marketplace. Without

them, this industry would have been 10 years

behind everyone else. I support them

completely.

Jay Atherton

MTC–00005759

From: Schott, Jim

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I wholeheartedly support the settlement

agreement reached between the DOJ, the nine

states and Microsoft. The time has come to

bring resolution to this drawn-out affair and

stop the squandering of taxpayer dollars. It is

blatantly obvious that Microsoft’s

competitors are pressing a handful of states

for continued litigation, not ‘‘injured’’

consumers. The reality is that consumers

have benefited greatly from Microsoft’s

innovation and the industry’s

standardization on Windows as the preferred

operating system. The speed and ease of use

of personal computers have increased

exponentially while the cost to consumers

has plummeted. THIS IS A GOOD THING!

The remedies proposed in the DOJ settlement

are tough but fair to all parties. Please do not

allow a few of Microsoft’s competitors to

misuse the legal system to compensate for

what they could not achieve in the free

marketplace.

Thank you!

Jim Schott

14921 SE 65th Street

Bellevue, WA 98006

MTC–00005760

From: Fred Infortunio

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle this and let Microsoft Get Back to

Work.

This is a fast moving industry and a quick

completion of this matter will serve all.

The restrictions put in place along with the

oversight seem to be fair. the continuing

24750 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

oversight will provide the direction for future

fairness. How far do we have to go to hobble

one of the greater engines of our society?

Fred Infortunio, MBA, PE

LCMS

Phone: 856–810–9074

Fax: 856–810–9073

E-Mail Address: LCMS@jersey.net

God Bless America

MTC–00005761

From: Raj Jhanwar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft Settlement is good for

customers and should be a good foundation

for long term.

Raj

MTC–00005762

From: Howard Chu

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

RE: The Microsoft case should be settled—

the earlier the better

DOJ has / had spent enough. These $$$$$

/ time they spent can be used to do

something better.

Let MS spend her $$$$$ / time to bring us

software. Why on Earth DOJ forces MS to

spend her $$$$$ / time just playing around

with DOJ?

Let’s STOP all these.

Thank you.

B. Rgds.

Howard Chu

–/hc

MTC–00005763

From: Phillip Rubin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This has gone on way too long.

As a consumer and small business owner,

Microsoft has made a lot of very good things

possible. They take care of their customers

better than nearlly every other technology

company, and certainly better than the

telecommunications companies. The

settlement offer is reasonable and the states

should not impede it further.

Please get this resolved once and for all.

MTC–00005764

From: Art and terry jones

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Dept. of Justice:

I strongly support your settlement of the

Microsoft antitrust case. This settlement is

good for the country’s economy and also

provides sufficient control of Microsoft’s

corporate behavior. Any further attempt by

the 9 remaining states to extend the penalties

in this case is not in the best interests of the

nation. Instead, these attempts seem to

originate with Microsoft’s competitors rather

than with consumers. I thank you for your

hard work in trying to provide a final

settlement so we can get on with business as

usual. I trust this settlement will allow the

U.S. high-tech industry to continue to

prosper in the global market.

Sincerely,

Arthur Jones

MTC–00005765

From: Charles Mc Grath

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Justice

To the D.O.J.

Please give microsoft a chance to survive

in such a gloomy economy ,and the stock

holders a chance to make a profit.

Thank You

Charles Mc Grath

MTC–00005766

From: Robert Alberts

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement agreement is more than fair

for both the States and the consumers.

Bob Alberts

MTC–00005767

From: Patrick Settle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Trial

Greetings,

I have attached my Comments on the

Microsoft Anti-trust Trial, to this email in

Rich Text Format (RTF). I have also included

the text of the document in this email below.

If additional information in is needed

please let me know.

Patrick Settle

IT Manager

5221 42nd Street NW Apt. B

Washington, DC 20015

202–321–7370

hyrcan@speakeasy.net (personal email)

psettle@worldwatch.org (work email)

Comments:

Patrick Settle

5221 42nd Street NW Apt. B

Washington, DC 20015

Friday, December 28, 2001

Renata Hesse

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530

Greetings,

As an Information Technology

professional, and user of Microsoft products,

with over six years of professional experience

in the computer industry, I have seen the

negative impacts to the computer industry

brought upon it by Microsoft. Their unethical

business practices which allowed them to

evolve into a monopoly, and their current

attempts to maintain that monopoly has

stifled a great deal of technology innovations,

along with damaging business opportunities

for other companies.

I cannot see how the settlement that is

proposed even pretends to remedy the

antitrust violations for which Microsoft has

been found culpable. Microsoft has already

been found in violation, and this is the

penalty phase of the case, but the settlement

contains no penalties and actually advances

Microsoft’s operating system monopoly.

A just penalty, would at barest minimum

include three additional features:

* Any remedy seeking to prevent an

extension of Microsoft’s monopoly must

place Microsoft products as extra-cost

options in the purchase of new computers, so

that the user who does not wish to purchase

them is not forced to do so. This means that

for the price differential between a new

computer with Microsoft software and one

without, a computer seller must offer the

software without the computer (which would

prevent computer makers from saying that

the difference in price is only a few dollars).

Only then could competition come to exist in

a meaningful way.

* The specifications of Microsoft’s present

and future document file formats must be

made public, so that documents created in

Microsoft applications may be read by

programs from other makers, on Microsoft’s

or other operating systems. This is in

addition to opening the Windows application

program interface (API, the set of ‘‘hooks’’

that allow other parties to write applications

for Windows operating systems), which is

already part of the proposed settlement.

* Any Microsoft networking protocols must

be published in full and approved by an

independent network protocol body. This

would prevent Microsoft from seizing de

facto control of the Internet.

As the judge has suggested the national

interest is at issue here, therefore it is crucial

that Microsoft’s operating system monopoly

not be extended. Allowing Microsoft’s

Monopoly to stand, and in fact increase,

weakens our national security by the creation

of an information monoculture. As Paul A

Strassmann states, ‘‘Info-terrorists and

criminals will continue to take advantage of

the ever-growing proliferation of flaws in the

gigantic Microsoft system, consisting of

hundreds of millions of lines of failure-prone

code.’’ In closing, the outcome of this case

will affect us not only to day but the future

of information technology, and the nation. A

thorough and though out penalty is far more

important to the health of the nation than is

a hasty one.

Thank you for you time.

Patrick Settle

5221 42nd Street NW Apt.B

Washington, DC 20015

202–321–7370

hyrcan@speakeasy.net

MTC–00005768

From: GMCSJERRY@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm

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 agree that settlement is good for

the industry and the American economy. The

last thing the American economy needs is

more litigation that benefits only a few

wealthy Microsoft competitors and stifles

innovation.

Don’t let these special interests defeat the

public interest. Enough is enough!

s/Jerry S. Strunk

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24751

649 Rainbow Blvd.

Lady Lake, FL 32159

MTC–00005769

From: Jeff Albers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I understand that the DOJ is required to

offer a period of public comment regarding

the proposed Microsoft settlement, prior to

the final determination of whether or not the

settlement is in the ‘‘public interest’’. As a

U.S. citizen, a consumer, a financial

professional, and as a private investor, I

wholeheartedly support the proposed

settlement of this case. Although I have no

affiliation or financial dependence on

Microsoft, I believe that this case has been a

drag on our U.S. economy and as such has

done nothing but exacerbate recessionary

pressures. I believe that the people of the

United States are anxious to recover and

move on from the current economic recession

and the events of this past year. The

Microsoft settlement would aid in this

recovery with the removal of the ‘‘black

cloud’’ hanging over the technology side of

our economy.

I believe that Microsoft has gotten the

message regarding their competitive business

conduct, and have already paid a very high

price. The only benefactors of a continuation

of the suit are a few competitors of

Microsoft.... Certainly not the general public

or the U.S. economy. I hope that the DOJ and

the handful of states will not be influenced

by a few self serving special interest groups

and will finalize this settlement, as it is in

the best ‘‘public interest’’.

Thank you for your time.

Jeff C. Albers, CFP, CLU, ChFC

ALBERS & COMPANY, INC.

950 Pacific Ave., Suite 620

Tacoma, WA 98402

Phone: 253–596–0601

Fax: 253–572–1499

www.alberscompany.com

MTC–00005770

From: CaryBisset@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the settlement terms as described

by Microsoft and the US government and the

9 states in accord is the right choice for the

consumer and business interests.

Microsoft continues to innovate,

commoditize services and support and

partners with thousands of software

developers, resellers and other small,

medium and large businesses which ensures

fair competition and enhances each of those

businesses bottom line. Microsoft is the best

business partner I’ve ever had.....and as a

consumer I am thankful there is a prevalent

way to communicate with any person I want

via the internet and office applications that

Microsoft has built in the last 25 years!

Carol Luber

215–640–0960

1835 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

MTC–00005771

From: Daniel L Christie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm

Subject: micorsoft settlement

We feel it is vital to thee economy and to

the stockholders that the settlement already

made be finalized. Micorsoft is an important

part of our life savings, we are 88, and 92

years old and have already lost over 20%of

our retirement money. We do not wish to

lose any more. Further micorsoft is the key

leader to rebuilding the economy of not only

the U.S. but the entire globle welbeing.

Lets get it over.

Dan Christie & Betty Christie

MTC–00005772

From: LAST

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough is enough. lets drop the litigation

and let microsoft get back to what it does

best.......innovative products and an industry

standard.

Dr. Richard Laban

Harrisburg PA

MTC–00005773

From: A415A@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe Microsoft has suffered enought at

the expense of the government and its

competitors. I believe the US government and

State’s government should back off and give

Microsoft a fair settlement and allow them to

go back to providing the public with the good

software and services they are known for. In

my opinion the government’s interferance

has already cost us, the general public, a

great deal in lost services of Microsoft.

Microsoft should be rewarded, not penalized,

for the great work and services they have

provided us in the past at a very reasonable

price

Sincerely yours

George Ellis

Civil Engineer

MTC–00005774

From: Ron B

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel the proposed settlement in the

Microsoft action is appropriate as is and

should be finalized. I have never felt

financially harmed by any of the marketing

statagies of Microsoft in the past. It’s time to

move on and let free enterprise work for our

betterment.

Sincerely,

Ron Berich

MTC–00005775

From: Donald Baudrand

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have followed the Microsoft litigation

closely. It is time for me to express my

opinion: Microsoft has contributed greatly to

the technology that makes computers useful,

and even essential. I compare their

contribution to that of Henry Ford’s

development of the production line that lead

to automation, making the US an

international power economically. Microsoft

has done as much or more. The people who

consider Microsoft a monopoly are primarily

its competitors, of which there are many. I

have studied constitutional law, history, and

present related laws. I believe Microsoft has

done little, if anything, wrong, legally or

morally. It would be a blow to the advance

of technology to find Microsoft guilty of any

wrong doing.

Donald W. Baudrand

Consultant

MTC–00005776

From: Ed Largaespada

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think is time to settle this case as

proposed by Microsoft to DOJ (and a few

States). Microsoft brought to the market an

innovative product. It should not be

penalized for the economic success and the

market dominance that, once again, only

reflect the good products introduced to the

American and World Market.

Thanks for your attention to this matter

and please feel free to contact me:

Ed Largaespada

8261 SW 128 Street, #109

Miami, FL 33156

(305) 259–9345

MTC–00005777

From: mark—hoffman@

notes.teradyne.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Re: Public comment

I am a professional user of computers with

little personal interest in the settlement of the

Microsoft case. I am not an expert on law or

on this case. I do believe that Microsoft is

effectively a monopoly and is not serving the

general public well. Also, they seem to have

not changed their ways since the suit was

first brought.

I don’t think that the proposed settlement

sufficiently addresses the problems that make

it difficult for competitors to offer users a

choice. As I see it the issues are It should be

easier for other companies to integrate their

products into the OS. It should be easier to

get bugs acknowledged and fixed. Security

should be a higher priority and better.

It would be a great help if the application

part of Microsoft were split off from the OS

part. The application part would be on equal

footing with other application companies to

get information and bug fixes from the OS

part of Microsoft. The companies could

negotiate with eachother about what SW

parts would be better off in the OS and pay

royalties or whether it would be better to just

provide the hooks for whatever SW would be

inserted. The government might have to help

set up a standards committee for this.

The alternative would be for Microsoft to

make its code available and to give

appropriately timed warnings when it would

change. I think that this would be harder to

control and slow innovation down.

24752 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

These comments are mine, personally, and

don’t represent the views of my employer.

Mark S. Hoffman

Burlington MA

MTC–00005778

From: Mike

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir:

Please do not impose any more harm upon

Microsoft than was placed upon its

customers. That is to say, if you can quantify

how much less the consumers should have

paid for their Windows software, that should

be the damages.

I, for one, would gladly pay again for the

use of this software. As the browser was free,

as are many updates from Msft, there would

be no harm there. I have both Netscape and

IE on my computer and I never use Netscape

unless I have to.

Mike Stoddard

Tampa, Florida

MTC–00005779

From: Pedro Ferreira

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I consider the settlement correct and fair.

Pedro Chaves Ferreira

MTC–00005780

From: retredmed@cchat.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It seems to me that the government has

forgotten that in these United States one is

supposed to be able to attain their highest

goals. It seems to me that those who have

complained about Microsoft are nothing

more than entities that envy their position.

Its too bad they didn’t have the brain power

to come up with the innovations that

Microsoft has.

I feel that any settlement should never

have been. Microsoft has made it possible for

the average person to have massive

computing power. However, if Microsoft is

willing to settle something that should never

have been, then I have no problem. From

what I can see the settlement is fair to all but

Microsoft.

R.E. Lee

MTC–00005781

From: Rebard@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm

Subject: Microsoft

Please settle this conflict with Microsoft as

quickly as possible. Microsoft has built a

much needed base for all computing where

many products can work together, in no way

has it hurt consumers.

Thank you for your attention.

Barbara V. Rebard,

Redding Calif.

MTC–00005782

From: Josh Moultray

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

A quick response to the Microsoft

settlement:

It should finally be over, whatever the

resolution. Since the DOJ and Microsoft have

agreed I think it is in the best interests of all

consumers that the case be finished and that

Microsoft again focus its energy on

innovation rather than litigation.

If this were a vote, I would cast a Yes, agree

to the settlement.

Thanks,

Josh Moultray

Site Technology Coordinator

The Jewish Day School of Metropolitan

Seattle

JMoultray@JDS.org

<mailto:JMoultray@JDS.org>

425–460–0235

MTC–00005783

From: Philip Szanto

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is vital to our countrys economic well

being that a Microsoft Settlement allowing

the company the freedom to continue to

prosper is concluded. Microsoft is an

American success story producing a product

consumed by the world. It would be a terrible

tragedy if a shortsided decision hurt the

company so that leadership in computer

software went overseas!!

MTC–00005784

From: Jeff Welbourne

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm

Settle, and let this company continue to

provide the technology that has done so

much for our country, the world and their

industry.

MTC–00005785

From: Tiger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

From: David Beers

9220 Clarewood No. 1004

Houston, Tx 77036

As regards the Microsoft Settlement, It is

in my opinion fair and equitable to all

parties.

MTC–00005786

From: janell peyton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the case needs to be settled and has

been going on for too long.

Janell Peyton

MTC–00005787

From: Sarah Del Degan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to bring closure to this nonsense.

Too many tax payer dollars have already

been spent to support the outcrys of a few

competitors that see their future threatened

by a more innovative company in Microsoft.

The state of the economy and confidence

of the people are in no position to receive

more negative news about a company that

has literally created the software industry,

which has provided tens of thousands of jobs

in this country. It’s time to move on.

The Del Degans

MTC–00005788

From: Werner Glass

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm

Subject: Settlement

Keep the ability to innovate alive in

America. Settle with MS so they can get on

with developing better software.

Werner Glass

MTC–00005789

From: Funair, Joe

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

This is to notify you that I am concerned

over the potential of the case against

Microsoft dragging out and severely retarding

the economic recovery underway. Microsoft

has become a major constituent part of our

economy and directly impacts the economies

of many nations throughout the world. The

economic problems that were brought about

by this unfair and punishing case against

Microsoft has done much damage to the

world economy. It must be brought to a swift

and fair conclusion so we all can move on

in a predictable and orderly progression.

Please do not punish Microsoft for being

successful—It is Un-American and UnFair!

Joseph D. Funair

Titan Systems Corporation

Systems and Imagery Division

Director, Business Development

321–727–0660 x2244

jfunair@titan.com

MTC–00005790

From: Steve GOODRICH

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:09pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

I urge you to approve and conclude the

pending settlement of the Microsoft antitrust

case. The perceived antitrust problems have

been addressed, to the extent possible

considering the nature of the technology

industry, by the settlement agreement. I do

not believe that any benefit to consumers (as

opposed to lawyers, judges, and Microsoft

competitors) will be realized from continuing

this case.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Steven C. Goodrich

5535 E. Elmwood

Mesa AZ 85205

email: sgoodrich@teramarstaffing.com

MTC–00005791

From: jamesmunro@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please add my name to the list of those

who support the proposed settlement and

wish to see an end to the litigation which,

I believe, has been instrumental in the

general business recession that had its

beginning in April of 2000. As Microsoft goes

so does not go the business of the United

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24753

States, but Microsoft is a giant, no worse and

perhaps not much better than its critics.

Microsoft is big enough to count as a DowJones index component, and bad business in

general is made worse when Microsoft

flounders. I believe that time is now of the

essence whereby the company can begin to

concentrate on its business at hand and

perhaps lead us to a recovery.

Very truly yours,

/s/James S Munro, Jr.

84 Summer Street

Nahant, MA 01908

MTC–00005792

From: Billy Hurt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:14pm

Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement

I do not believe that further litigation by

those refusing to accept the DOJ agreement

with Microsoft is in the best interests of the

public, the American economy or the

investor’s in MSFT. We saw state’s greed

dominate the ‘‘settlement’’ of the case against

the tobacco companies. Much of the money

that went to the states will never see it’s way

into those avenues that serve the general

public’s interest. Will we see a similar thing

with the states that are now pursuing further

punitive measures against Microsoft?

Please accept and enforce the settlement

arrived at between the DOJ and Microsoft.

Billy G. Hurt

bghurt1@apex.net

MTC–00005793

From: chuck soyars

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Leave Microsoft alone. We (the consumer)

benefit by microsoft’s position. If a company

ever gets to the point antitrust laws are

designed to prevent, in a free market

economy, competitors would pop up to

challenge their position making antitrust

laws unneccessary. I also believe them to be

unconstitutional, but thats another argument.

A small business owner

Chuck Soyars

MTC–00005794

From: Martell Lindsay

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

HOW CAN ANY ONE CONTEND THAT

THE CONSUMER WAS OVER CHARGED.

GOOD GRIEF—JUST LOOK AT THE

PRICING. I CONSIDER THE MICROSOFT

OPERATING SYSTEM ONE OF THE BEST

VALUES I HAVE EVER RECEIVED!

Martell Lindsay

101 Leaview Lane

Chagrin Falls, OH 44022

MTC–00005795

From: Gary Allen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

This matter needs to be settled. No one but

the Attornies are gaining a thing from this

suit. Microsoft has done a world of good in

creating these operating systems and has

done no more wrong than the others would

have done to Microsoft if they would have

been the leaders. The only thing this is doing

for the American people is to make software

& hardware prices skyrocket for us

consumers. Just as it has done for the price

of cigarettes. Put a stop to it.

Thank You.

Gary F. Allen

30741

garya807@mindspring.com

MTC–00005796

From: Maryln Pedgrift

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm

Subject: Gentlemen:

Gentlemen:

My wish for Microsoft is no more

litigation. I believe they have concluded it

fairly already.

Best wishes for a better year.

Maryln@primeline.com

MTC–00005797

From: Darrell C. Brett

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Let’s get this settled and get the tech

economy moving again—What Microsft has

agreed to is more than enough and the justice

dept needs to expedite closure to this matter.

Darrell

Brett Portland OR

MTC–00005798

From: Cam Taylor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm

Subject: MS settlement

Please end this litigation promptly. No

further litigation is needed! The settlement

reached between the Federal Government

and the nine states and Microsoft is tough,

reasonable, and fair to all parties involved. It

seems most consumers agree the settlement

is good for the computer/software industry,

the American Economy, and us! So, please

end this litigation promptly!

Thank you,

Cam Taylor,

ctaylor@ee.net

MTC–00005799

From: Ruud de Jonge

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm

Subject: Please sign the settlement

It’s crucial fot the future of competition

and the IT industry that this settlement is

confirmed.

Regards,

Ruud de Jonge

IT Professional

The Netherlands

MSN Foto’s is de eenvoudigste manier om

je foto’s te delen en af te drukken: http://

photos.msn.nl/Support/WorldWide.aspx

MTC–00005800

From: Ben Goodwin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have been using Microsoft products for

the past 15 years. I continue to believe that

the value, support, and productivity gains

represent a tremendous value proposition to

me as a consumer.

My own view is that much of the furor over

Microsoft has been generated by their

competitors, who having failed to win in the

competitive market, look to the judicial

system to provide relief. Let the market and

the consumers decide on value and when

you do—Microsoft wins—hands down. Ben

Goodwin

MTC–00005801

From: Barry Woodard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm

The government should settle this case

against Microsoft. Enough money has been

spent, and I think the settlement will allow

all parties to ‘‘get back to business’’.

Barry Woodard

San Francisco

MTC–00005802

From: Tinsleyl@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I want DOJ to know that the whole attempt

by the antitrust Judge to attack Microsoft

from the bench the way he did when he did

not even understand computers and what

makes them effecient was a gross miscarriage

of justice for a judge to act as that one did.

However, it is time to settle but I do not

agree with the few states who want to drag

the settlement out. The case needs to be

settled now! To drag it out reeks of the same

miscarriage of justice that that judge

committed and it is certainly not in the best

interests of the American public.

Jim Tinsley

MTC–00005803

From: rick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern

I think the Microsoft case should be

setteled immediately. The settelement agreed

to by the states and the DOJ is reasonable.

Any further litigation or other government

involvement will simply result in unwise use

of both Microsoft and Government resources

and contribute to further delay in enabling

software to contribute to productivity

improvements for the US economy.

Richard Bjorklund

MTC–00005804

From: David Griffith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a software engineer and have operated

in many facets of the software and

networking world for the past 5 years.

Somewhat new to the industry, I came into

this with a non-bias opinion and have been

able to formulate one based on experience.

I don’t see Microsoft as a monopoly.

Contrary, I think that most software vendors

lack the inoventention of Microsoft due to

the lack of vision. Many software vendors are

more concerned about producing mass

software in a cookie cutter fashion and treat

24754 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

the software industry like a manufacturing

one. The downside, is we are not an

assembly line and software produced like it

is comes out looking like it.

I respect Microsoft ability to adjust to

growing market trends, changes, and

expansion. Most companies lack the ability

to do that as well. Cisco, Macintosh,

producers of Linux and Unix are all guilty of

producing products that constantly look and

operate the same as their predicessors. I used

to own a Mac and I don’t see much that has

changed over the years, other than the fact

that they have tried to simulate what

Microsoft has done in order to stay

competitive. Linux vendors are just as guilty

of copy-catting. On the topic of government

involvement, is one issue I have strong

oppinions. The consumer is currently getting

a better deal with more feature rich

applications from every software vender

including Microsoft, than ever before.

Government intervention on this matter only

slows that process and hurts the consumer.

Any action government takes to change the

way software is delivered will only mean

dollars costs to the consumer.

Microsoft does not use competitors

technology advancements to advance their

own or use their dollars in a way that

constitutes unfair competition. They just

deliver quality and quantitative software. I

hope that my opinion matters and that

government will realize the impact of their

involvement and resolve this matter

completely.

Thanks,

David Griffith

MTC–00005806

From: Roland Pohlman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:17pm

Subject: Leave Micorsoft Alone

Please let micorsoft to inovate and dream.

They have helped the world with all of there

inovations. Do not punish them because they

have helped everyone in so my ways. What

would our world be without micorsoft?

Please let micorsoft to inovate and dream.

They have helped the world with all of there

inovations. Do not punish them because they

have helped everyone in so my ways. What

would our world be without micorsoft?

MTC–00005807

From: MORGIK@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm

Subject: (no subject)

Gentlemen:

The fact that our country is the beneficiary

of a Company like Microsoft who researched,

invested to be a leader in the software

industry, makes me wonder what interest

those belligerent states are pursuing. I have

an idea, but I am not certain. I, as an old

computer software user hope some

reasonable people will do something with

those out of touch states.

Thank you.

Mihail

MTC–00005808

From: John Reilly

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs and Madams,

I would like to endorse the Microsoft

Settlement as a fair compromise. Microsoft is

in the position that it is because it provides

the products that customers want. While I

believe that they did do some inappropriate

things, a larger remedy would not be

beneficial to anyone. The software/hardware

market changes so quickly that companies

need to be innovative and fast. Microsoft’s

competitors only have themselves to blame

for the failure of their expensive, proprietary

solutions.

Thank you for your consideration of this

email.

Regards,

John P. Reilly

President

Dynamic Applications, Inc.

MTC–00005809

From: JeffressR@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

After reading the documents and having

read and followed the lawsuit and

judgements thus far we think it is time to

finally settel this mess. To take this case

further is not productive to Microsoft, the

government, the competitors, and especially

to the consumers. In this economic climate

we need to encourage business and

compitition not stiffle it with further law

suits and pettiness.

Sincerely,

Bob and Rosalie Jeffress

jeffressr@aol.com

MTC–00005810

From: CHARLANNE DIVITO

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:17pm

Subject: settlement

Please put me down as in favor of the

settlement presently on the table for this

mess.

Charlanne Divito Valley Village, CA

MTC–00005811

From: Jaking300@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I think that Microsoft has done a great deal

for the American people as well as for the

entire world. They are not perfect, and they

have been censored for any infractions they

might have committed. However, we like

their products—plain and simple. They have

spent millions of dollars to make their

products conform to our needs—and for the

most part they do. Their products have

allowed us to have an industry standard that

has made all our lives much easier. It’s time

to stop punishing the company that has made

all this possible. They have been given

guidelines to follow and are living up to

those guidelines, from what I can tell.

If we weaken Microsoft because we are

vindictive or greedy, we have weakened our

own economy. It’s time to wrap this phase of

our history up and let Microsoft move on.

Secretaries, office managers, and many others

will thank you.

Judith King

South Carolina

MTC–00005812

From: Ramerth, Douglas L.

To: ‘Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ,

I want Microsoft to organize and conduct

business that benefits America’s

technological growth. Do not impair

Microsoft’s ability to develop and market any

product, including operating systems,

internet software, professional and enterprise

development software.

I write software using Microsoft products

in the course of my work. I think Microsoft

products are far easier to use and far better

integrated than any other programming

software. As a result, it is much easier to

create better software at far less cost. Other

companies that utilize the Microsoft

development environment, such as Compaq

Visual Fortran, enable programmers to

quickly expand skills to other programming

languages.

I’m a self taught Visual Basic and Visual

Fortran programmer. I’m developing a

Windows application with Office integration

for cooling flow analysis of gas turbine

engines. It consists of a customized database,

viewers for drawings, drawing annotation of

flow circuits, test data reduction, plotting test

data and engine performance analysis.

I’ve developed prototype software and

demonstrated a 300 percent productivity

improvement over existing software

processes. In some instances the productivity

improvement approaches 1000 percent.

Moreover, I’m writting the sofware in a

fraction of the time it would take to create

similar engineering software for a Unix

workstation.

I’m recommending to my management that

Honeywell develop more engineering

software using Microsoft development tools.

Furthermore, I’m recommending Windows

operating system upgrades. I’m an engineer at

Honeywell Engines & Systems, a

manufacturer of gas turbine engines. Our

industry is highly competitive with product

development cycles four years long and very

costly. We must have higher productivity to

stay in business. I solely credit Microsoft for

enabling me to achieve high levels of

engineering design and analysis productivity.

Thank you for soliciting my opinion,

Doug Ramerth, Dept 93–320, M/S 503–249

Senior Aerospace Engineer

Honeywell Engines and Systems

111 South 34th Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85034

(602)–231–2057

MTC–00005813

From: KStutz1054@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It’s time to wind it up and let them get on

with their business.

Ken Stutzman

MTC–00005814

From: Patel, Thakor G., MD

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24755

Subject: Microsoft

I believe it is time to stop this charade and

let Microsoft be what they are. It is one thing

to say that they violated some regulation and

another thing to stop the innovation and

stifle the progress. I have not heard form the

DOJ or others as to what Microsoft has done

for the world in terms of simplyfying the life

of average, non sophisticated computer users.

The competitors and complainers had a

chance, but they could not integrate all the

software that is there and want to ride the

train at Microsoft’s expense. It is time to

dispense of the case and as far as the States

are concerned they are looking for free

money on behalf of their states.

Microsoft has been able to simplify the use

of computers and add the ability to track

appointments, calenders, addresses, Excel,

Word, Power Point such that even the

secretaries are not needed. If you look at the

benefits to the world and Americans in

particular, life is simpler because of

Microsoft and no other company. Please

dispense this case in favor of the people of

the United States and do not misrepresent

them.

T.G.Patel, MD

MTC–00005815

From: Chicklarge@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm

Subject: justis dept

I think the settlement is just. Please don’t

kill the horse because the rider can’t ride.

Breaking up Ma Bell did not benefit the

consumer and more sever punishment of

Microsoft will not benefit the consumer.

MTC–00005816

From: BJL1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm

Subject: Settlement

I, strongly support the Microsoft position

and fear if this continued action prevails we

will be seeing another AT&T debacle that has

created weakness and a large group of

floundering companies. I, also believe this

just another carryover action of the Clinton

Administration that to this date does not

understand business, and the benefits

resulting for both employees, and supporting

Companies.

B.J.O’Bryan

MTC–00005817

From: CohenHM@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

enuf already give microsoft a break and

let’s move on they’re innovative and creative

don’t cramp their style we need their

contribution now

MTC–00005818

From: Daniel Ness

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To continue using the gun of government

to attack a business (Microsoft) that has

changed the world and added billions to the

economy—at the behest, and benefit, of it’s

competitors (Sun, Oracle, et al) violates every

tenet of our nation. Although the

‘‘settlement’’ reached between the

government and Microsoft offends my

Constitutional senses, it is far better than

continuing the unconstitutional abuse of

government power that preceded it.

Consumers (you know, those folks that antitrust laws were created to protect) aren’t

harmed by better and cheaper products, but

ARE harmed by competitors that use the

courts instead of innovation to defeat their

rivals. Cease acting as agents for the

competition and start acting as agents for the

consumer by ending this attack on Microsoft.

Daniel A. Ness

mailto:daness@monticellosys.com

Monticello Systems

‘‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of

Improvement’’

www.monticellosys.com

MTC–00005819

From: Mike LaCon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Microsoft Settlement.

I feel the settlement to not break up

Microsoft is not only fair, it is the only

reasonable settlement that is beneficial to the

consumer. Any breakup would cause more

harm to the consumer through higher costs

and less innovation. Please do not breakup

MSFT as this would also be very harmful to

the economy and it would send a very anticapitalism message by communicating to the

world that success in this country is will not

be rewarded.

Sincerely,

Michael LaCon, R.Ph.

mlacon@gis.net

MTC–00005820

From: Stashuman@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

NINE STATES SETTLED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOJ

DECISION....THE REMAINDER OF THE

STATES ARE HOLDING OUT AND IT IS

EVIDENT THAT IT IS NOW A MONEY

ISSUE! THIS ACTION WAS REALLY

BROUGHT ON BY MICROSOFTS’

COMPETITORS, RATHER THAN THE

CONSUMER. I STILL WOULD LIKE TO

KNOW HOW ANY OF US WERE HARMED,

SINCE WINDOWS USUALLY IS INSTALLED

IN THE COMPUTER WHEN PURCHASED.

GREED AND ENVY CERTAINLY PLAY A

PART OF THIS SETTLEMENT....THE JUDGE

SHOULD RULE THAT THE SETTLEMENT IS

FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND THAT THE

STATES SHOULD NOT BAND TOGETHER

(COLLUSION) AGAINST MICROSOFT FOR

PERSONAL GAIN.... WHY SHOULD 9

STATES BENEFIT FROM SOMETHING

THAT THE OTHER 41 DO NOT?????

IT APPEARS THAT THE CLINTON

ADMINISTRATION WAS LISTENING TO

THE WRONG PEOPLE ........THE

CONSUMER WAS NOT HARMED!!!!

THANK YOU FOR READING MY

THOUGHTS

STAN PRAGER

4860 MT. ROSE WAY

ROSEVILLE, CA. 95747

(STASHUMAN@AOL.COM)

MTC–00005821

From: Mike Rausch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let’s put this behind us and get on with

business. Please settle this.

Mike

MTC–00005822

From: Rhonda Hostetler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am sending this email to voice my

support for the Microsoft settlement and to

express my desire for the government to end

its intervention into Microsoft’s business

practices as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Rhonda Hostetler

12216 201st Court NE

Woodinville, WA 98072

MTC–00005823

From: tom stephenson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let’s get this settlement under way NOW!

The states that do not agree should be forced

out of their suits by court actions because all

they have in mind is cashing in at taxpayer’s

ultimate expense. You are urged to force

these settlements because of an age old

truism—Corporations can not pay taxes!

They simply pass them along to the

consumers in higher prices for the products

they sell!

TOM STEPHENSON

MTC–00005824

From: Kenneth Nicholson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We are totally opposed to any further

litigation against Microsoft. We believe that

the current offer by Microsoft is more than

fair and equitable, should be accepted and

the case closed. This case has gone on long

enough causing undue hardship on many by

a group of selfish litigants spurred on their

own selfish interests! We urgently request

that all further litigation be immediately

discontinued.

Kenneth B. & Isolde

S. Nicholson

11315 Cloverdale Court, S.W.,

Lakewood, WA 98499–1233

MTC–00005825

From: Hammerslag@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I consider the settlement approved by the

DOJ and nine states eminently fair, especially

to the consumer.

I’m a user of Microsoft software and over

the years found Microsoft’s product and

service to be excellent and of very reasonable

cost.. I could easily switch to a competitor

24756 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

(like Apple Computer), but my choice is

Microsoft.

I think that the charges like ‘‘bundling’’ are

ridiculous. I have yet to be charged for any

of the ‘‘bundled’’ products I don’t want. Lots

of companies, like automobile companies

‘‘bundle’’ and the consumer generally

benefits. High time we (the US Government

and certain state prosecutors) quit harassing

innovating companies like Microsoft, who

through their inventiveness have done so

much for our economy. In the end. I, the

consumer, have to pay for all the Government

plaintives, court costs, lawyers and the

expenses Microsoft has to incur. .

Jake Hammerslag

27011 Calle Esperanza

San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

e-mail: hammerslag@aol.com

MTC–00005826

From: Marv W. Mortenson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: UnJust Settlement!

The Government should not force any

business that is more successful than others

and force them to do less than there

competitors—i.e.: Coca Cola puts one bottle

of Pepsi in each of there six packs—I’m not

interested in what is fair but am interested

in equitable treatment for all—Bill Gates built

an intelligent Corporation with hired Brains

that went out and did what most Americans

are attempting to do is build a better mouse

trap—and you the Government and our Tax

Dollars are penalizing success—Microsoft is

not America’s Enemy—Bill Gates is not a

Criminal—Admit you the Government made

a mistake and stop this non-sense.

Regards,

Marvin W Mortenson,

Citizen

MTC–00005827

From: CLEEF

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:17pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

IT IS TIME FOR THIS MIS-GUIDED

EFFORT TO BE BROUGHT TO A CLOSE AT

BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL.

HAS THE DOJ LEARNED NOTHING FROM

THEIR EFFORTS TO EXTORT MONEY

FROM LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES AND THE

RESULTANT FAILURE OF ANY REAL

EFFORT TO REDRESS THE SUPPOSEDLY

INJURED PARTIES. DO NOT LET THE

TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

CONTINUE TO LINE THEIR POCKETS AT

THE TAXPAYER’S EXPENSE.

MTC–00005828

From: stan guilkey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm

Subject: DOJ

To Whom It May Concern:

Get the bureaucrats off of Microsoft’s back.

They have provided a good product at a

lower cost over the years. Settle the case and

accept what they are offering for the schools

in the form of computers.

Sincerely,

Stan Guilkey

765 644–4469

MTC–00005829

From: Paul Larmon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settelment

DOJ,

I am against any additional legal action

with Microsoft. You should settle this case

right now.

Paul Larmon

MTC–00005830

From: Ike

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm

Subject: Proposed Settlement

Settlement is fair and equitable—let’s move

on!!

MTC–00005831

From: SistoKid1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm

Subject: settle the case now

the best, like cream, will rise to the top. if

msft windows was no good the public would

have opted for apples system. but for some

reason windows was better or at least the

marketing was so most of the new pc’s have

windows. save a percentage of their gross

income to support the other systems, give

money to the wtc relief fund and settle the

case.

MTC–00005832

From: MRourke555@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

I hope the US Justice deptmartment will

bring the Microsoft ordeal to a speedy end.

It seems we have a number of people only

interested in lawsuits as opposed to getting

rid of barriers to business in our country.

Microsoft is providing leadership,

employment, innovation, and most of all a

committment to America through grant

programs. I just had dinner with an

incredible young woman who has gone

through college and post graduate degrees all

with the help of the Gates foundation. Lets

not penalize success. It is the American

dream.

Mark Rourke

U.S. Citizen

MTC–00005833

From: Gerald Meyer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

For goodness sake, settle up. There is more

than enough anguish in the World without

prolonging this fiasco. Surely the Country’s

patience is at an end, don’t you think?

Sincerely,

Gerald Meyer

MTC–00005834

From: Ganesh, C P

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I as a shareholder of Microsoft and as a

general public feel strongly that the

settlement arrived at should be confirmed by

the Department of Justice to allow the

company to regain its lost glory and to

contribute effectively to the economic

development specially after the post

September 11, 2001 era. I am sure Bill Gates

will achieve this given the right support!

Chatapuram P. Ganesh.

MTC–00005835

From: Gordpenn@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ:

This is to express my concern about the

continuing resistance to settlement of the

Microsoft case. This has gone on long enough

and we need to let Microsoft get back to their

business. As a computer user and as a

financial investor I believe the Government is

correct in its settlement proposal.

Gordon Pennington

MTC–00005836

From: BJPDavis@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

A settlement in this case should force

Microsoft to desist in its practices which

eliminate the competitive nature of our free

market system. Instead, the settlement is

actually a $1 billion dollar promotion of

Microsoft software products targeted at the K12 education system. Microsoft has been

found to engage in monopolistic practices

with respect to hardware vendors,

discouraging them from allowing the

installation of competitive products in

systems preloaded with a Microsoft operating

system. Microsoft has provided a mediocre

product, restricted consumer choice,

overcharged for unneed features, and

prevented consumers from removing the

unwanted portions of the system. I oppose

the settlement because it is completely biased

toward the introduction of Microsoft software

products to our underprivileged K-12

schools, and because it provides for basically

no other alternatives than the use of

Microsoft software products. This is basically

a $400 promotion of Microsoft products.

Further analysis of the settlement shows the

mismatch between complaint and settlement.

Class plaintiffs claimed (among other issues)

that consumers had been overcharged for

Windows, yet the settlement proposal returns

nothing to those consumers and merely

entrenches the Microsoft monopoly further.

While we support Microsoft’s stated goal of

helping underprivileged schools, that goal is

best accomplished by giving schools

unrestricted grants for use as they need, not

‘‘donations’’ biased toward the use of

Microsoft products.

Thank you for your consideration.

Barbara J. Davis

6575 Sunburst Drive

Portage MI 49024

616–327–5894

BJPDavis@aol.com

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00005837

From: Bob(u)Dawna Robinson

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24757

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ,

I and the majority of the people in the

world, would like for this case to end asap.

This has drug out far too long as it is. Send

a message to the businesses of the world that

the government is not going to punish a

company that has produced a better product

just so their competition can catch up with

them. With the way other countries dominate

so many other markets, America should be

proud of the success story of Microsoft. But

instead we punish MS and do everything in

the goverment’s power to put road blocks in

their way. By interfering with future

development of MS products our goverment

opens the door for foreign countries to take

over this market also. How would the US

goverment like it if a Japanese company held

the influence MS has on the industry?

The government should get out of this and

let the strongest company determine who is

successful.

Bob Robinson

MTC–00005838

From: George Thomas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

DOJ:

Please settle the case NOW! Special

interests such as AOL are using this for their

own special interest purposes. I think that as

Microsoft goes the rest of the economy will

follow. Lets get the economy back where it

belongs.

Thank you

George A Thomas

512 14th st

Bellingham WA

MTC–00005839

From: Ruben Odom jr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have my opinion short and sweet: I

believe that the view that Microsoft has

engaged in anti competitive activity is true

only because the computer industry has

failed to show any motivation what so ever

to compete with Microsoft in any form what

so ever. I don’t think anything out side of

what the has already been ruled on by the

supreme court is necessary. But in a desire

to see that the playing field be leveled for

companies desiring to enter into the OS

competition is necessary. I think the current

revision allows entry of a company that

already has an established reputation—like

Sun Micro Systems or AOL–Time Warner.

These companies with the improved

marketing ability of an operating system can

and will pose a significant threat to

Microsoft. I sincerely know that it is wrong

and in turn illegal to cause MS to be forced

to turn over any source code or be forced to

develop any software for any platform that

already has plenty of proprietary software

ported to it (ie. Linux and Corel). I also know

that it is illegal to force MS to support any

Middleware company that has enough

internet presence and advertising ability to

market it’s own product instead of being

carried by MS to undermine its future

operations.

In short, I feel that the 9 rouge states are

acting in the interest of lazy free software

proponents that want to undermine the

software industry, its tough quality

standards, and ability to reach the masses

with innovative technology to fuel an

economy. Their communist view of free

software equaling greater understanding is

equal to communism: a very nice dream. It

is a common fact that programmers and end

user’s prefer to use someone else’s hard work

instead of being concerned with the details.

Another parallel between communism and

the free software movement is the fact that

they have a demonstrated tendency to keep

potential threats of any magnitude from the

masses in order to save face and govern over

people. This communist open source threat

needs to continue to be checked by our

present justice system by allowing the

current revision, as of the date of this email,

to stand and reject the request of the 9 rouge

states.

Thanks for hearing me out

Ruben A. Odom Jr.

aron37@msn.com

614–239–8561

2034 Prince George Drive

Apt. G

Columbus, OH 43209

MTC–00005840

From: Doris Justice

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In the best interest of consumers like me,

the general public, the American economy,

and american business ability to innovate, it

is my opinion that the Microsoft Settlement

should be approved. This case should have

never brought originally. Good ole american

free enterprise should have prevailed.

Doris H. Justice

MTC–00005841

From: Peterson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is in the best interest of the American

people that Microsoft case be settled. DOJ has

dragged it on too long to the detriment of

costing the American taxpayer millions of

dollars and also the millions depleted from

the Microsoft Co. THIS IS A FREE

ENTERPRISE COUNTRY, I PRAY.

Chuck Peterson,

350 Climbing Way,

Wimberley, TX 78676

MTC–00005842

From: Lloyd Smiley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: Settlement Now with Microsoft

Monday, July 02, 2001

Very Much Needed Resolution with

Microsoft

The Federal Appeals Court decided against

the breakup of Microsoft Corporation into

two companies. A breakup would have

destroyed the vital and highly valuable

synergistic and innovative abilities of

Microsoft. I firmly believe that prosecution of

Microsoft by the U.S. Department of Justice

has caused tremendous damage to our

economy and may be ascribed in large

measure to our current financial struggle,

started in March 2000.

As an independent consultant my work has

been involved in computers from the punch

card era in the 1950’s until now; have been

involved with Microsoft software from 1982.

My experience with computers includes

writing and many presentations, order

processing, optimization in logistical systems

and operation of distribution centers and

levels of employment in manufacturing, rail

car and OTR truck fleet management,

investments with screens and transactions,

operations and financial analyses and

controls, engineering, budgets. IBM, Intel and

Microsoft have been the most important

developers of useful hardware and software

in the accelerated progress experienced in

this country over the past 20 years.

Antitrust Prosecutor Joel Klein, Attorney

David Boies, U.S. Attorney General Janet

Reno, Attorney Generals from 18 states and

executives from competing firms of Sun,

IBM, AOL/Netscape, Apple and Oracle have

through their use of biased Judge Penfield

Jackson significantly caused the slowdown of

this country???s economy, started in March

2000. We trust the Department of Justice

Assistant Attorney General Charles James

and new judge will continue to use good

judgment and common sense in the final

phase in fairly and promptly resolving the

antitrust problems related to Microsoft.

Microsoft’s practices in the market have

been aggressive but cannot to my knowledge

be described as unfair to customers in

developing the Windows operating system

and in combination with the Internet

Explorer. The development of the software

was done in the open in competition with

Lotus, Netscape, IBM, AT&T Unix, Sun,

Apple and Oracle. These alternative software

operating systems and applications have

been run by me in parallel on the same

computers and have through critical

comparisons decided in favor of Microsoft

(Unix v. DOS/Windows, Lotus Office Suite v.

MS Office, Netscape/Communicator v.

Internet Explorer). Price was not an

important factor. Obviously, Microsoft has

temporarily won the competition in

Windows operating systems but has lost the

browser competition to the 33 million AOL/

Netscape subscribers. Linux and Unix have

made recent strides forward with IBM and

Sun in competing with Microsoft in

operating systems. The latest IBM servers are

now delivered with the Linus Operating

System and not Microsoft NT or Windows

Professional. Why should the Department of

Justice and District Court aid and abet

Microsoft competitors that do not need help?

I encourage that Microsoft be allowed to

continue to compete and innovate, to keep

our economy moving forward without

oppressive state and federal restrictions and

regulations, without further excessive fines

and harassment from the attorneys general

and eager attorneys looking for ways to

perpetuate this litigation. I favor an early

settlement to allow Microsoft and this

economy to move forward. The settlement

24758 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

with the federal government needs to include

a finality and closure with states attorney

generals and all attorneys related to this

litigation. This avoidable costly matter

should be settled at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Smiley, Management Consultant,

MIT 1951

Retired Professional Engineer (10 states)

Retired Certified Statewide General

Contractor

4830 East Coventry Drive

Vero Beach, Florida 32967–7301

Telephone 561–564–9825

E-mail: Lloyd_Smiley@Hotmail.com

MTC–00005843

From: Fran Combar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft settlement should be

approved as is, let’s get this problem resolved

so the country can move on! Thanks

George Carlin—Imponderable:

Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults

enjoy adultery?

Fran Combar

Bridgewater, NY

MTC–00005844

From: PNTXJACK@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

i overwhelmingly support any reasonable

end to the litigation against microsoft. the

litigation was an embarrassment when

initiated, and it will continue to be an

embarrassment until it is terminated. this

notwithstanding the findings of the trial

court. this is a new age, and a new industry.

crybabies and losers do not deserve the

support of the federal government in their

tantrums. if i had to, i could probably count

in months the productivity i have saved by

having microsoft as ‘the choice’ of operating

system. rather than having to study, compare,

assess, and choose from many, then hope that

my choice was competitive if not the best.

jack nissen

MTC–00005845

From: Mary Anderson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm

Subject: Microsrt Settlement

It is about time to put this behind us as a

country. As a consumer, I find this has hurt

me more by tecnology waiting in the wings

for a settlement to happen. That is not in the

best interest of our country. That is the

bottom line. This lawsuit has done more to

hurt me as a consumer both financially with

the tech stocks in such a decline, and with

freedom to innitiate and innovate. Finding a

way to finish it fast is in my best interest and

that of our country. I have personally never

been ‘‘hurt‘‘ by microsft anyway, but this

court case has hurt me finacially and that is

very personal. Do Something soon! We need

to support our comapnies that can foster in

some new growth and jobs not discourage

companies so that they do not srive to

become larger and world class leading

companies.

Thank you,

Mary Anderson

Gig Harbor, Wa 98332

MTC–00005846

From: Thomas Nugent

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm

For my two cents, I recommend that the

current settlement with Microsoft be

implemented without further inhibitions

placed on a company that has added

enormous value to the U.S. economy. Why

on earth we would penalize a company that

gives things away while turning a blind eye

to the monopolistic OPEC cartel is beyond

me but I think there must be some semblance

of reason regarding the Microsoft case. Let’s

get this darn thing behind America and move

on to more important matters.

Tom Nugent

MTC–00005847

From: Wes Harris

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to make my viewpoint known

concerning the microsoft case. I would like

to see this case settled as soon as possible.

I do not think ongoing litigation in this case

is good for our country. It is only good for

the attorneys. Please do not let the special

interest groups opposed to a final settlement

derail the process. The DOJ and Microsoft

have both spent enough time and resources

on this issue and it needed to be settled now.

Thank you.

Wes Harris

1014 Bayou Vista Dr

Deer Park, Texas 77536

832–309–8059

MTC–00005848

From: Sam Biggs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I firmly believe that the Microsoft

Settlement as currently proposed and agreed

upon between Microsoft, the U.S.

Government and various consenting states

should ratified by the courts without change

and finalized. Perpetuating this litigation is

a waste of taxpayer dollars and government

resources. Additionally, the millions of

dollars spent litigating this issue by Microsoft

and other parties has benefited (and will

benefit) no one other than attorneys.

Those opposed to the Microsoft Settlement

include principally Microsoft competitors

and a few states, led by California, who

apparently are looking for their own personal

benefit rather than for the good of the

taxpayers and consumers. Opposition by

Microsoft competitors should be read for

what it is, a strategy to use the courts to gain

a competitive advantage which should be

restricted to the marketplace. As for

California, this state believes it is its own

imperial nation and should have everything

its own way. I know. I live in this state.

California believes, as do many of its

residents, that they can sue anybody for

anything regardless of the merits and the

impact. The governor of this state unilaterally

spent the entire state surplus of over $6

billion on purchasing electricity to give away

to its residents. This money was spent

without approval of the legislature or the

voters of the state. Now we are facing a state

deficit and tax increases. California should

drop this litigation and the additional waste

of taxpayer dollars, just as did New York, and

get on to better things. I strongly urege the

courts to uphold the current settlement and

put this matter to bed.

MTC–00005849

From: Fred

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen;

From what I have read I don?t see that

Microsoft has committed any crime with its

business practices.

Our country was founded on free

enterprise and competition. Just because they

are the largest and best operating system on

the net, I don’t feel they should be chastised

for protecting their products.

Sincerely

Fred Eastland

1219 Pawnee Trail

Carrollton, Texas 75007

MTC–00005850

From: Gerald Gaumer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a concerned citizen, I was very much

upset with the manner in which Microsoft

was ‘‘dragged’’ down by the prosecutions of

the Clinton Administration and his

appointed members of the Justice

Department.

If one reviews the history of our financial

markets, there is a direct correlation between

the Federal findings of March, 2000 and the

subsequent declines of our publicly held

corporations, with special attention to those

in the high tech sector. Microsoft, though

some of its actions may be interpreted as

unfair, also must be viewed as a true

innovator, willing and able to make the

tremendous investment necessary to

radically economize the manners in which

we transact business or communicate with

each other. Sunn, Oracle and others may cry

‘‘wolf, wolf, wolf ...,’’ but there is no small

amount of envy mixed in with such cries, as

they vie for position in a competitive

marketplace. So enough—let’s put this matter

behind us, let’s get on with rebuilding our

economy, get on with innovation and move

forward in the grandest way possible. If some

states wish not to be a part of the proposed

settlement, then let that be their fate, stewing

about old business as the rest of us venture

forth.

Sincerely,

Gerald W. Gaumer

ggaumer@earthlink.net

Marietta, GA

MTC–00005851

From: pkedoman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please, guys. The ability to compete and

win is what makes the ease with which I sent

this e-mail possible. Let’s not hamper that

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24759

ability in such a way that there is no

incentive to do research and development or

create new products. Let’s end this thing and

get on with what’s important.

Patrick L. Doman

MTC–00005852

From: Mike McDaniel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is clear to me that Microsoft is being

damaged by the government and we the

taxpayers and consumers of this great nation

are basically being damaged by both.

Microsoft must pass the costs of litigation on

to the consumers, and the government must

collect sufficient taxes to pay for the

expensive litigation. In the end, it is the

general public that is the most damaged.

Microsoft has basically helped the world in

many ways and for that I’m grateful. Just

because they are on top, there are many that

wish to tear them down.

This is wrong.

MTC–00005853

From: rbroberg@[158.188.130.124]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm

Subject: Publish MS File Formats and

Network Specifications

I am writing to you on behalf of computer

programmers who write and support software

for computer operating systems such as

Linux, BSD, Solaris, and other Unix OSes.

The difficulty with the MS monopoly is not

that they control 95% of the desktop market,

but that it is increasingly difficult to develop

systems that interoperate with the MS

networks. It is this ‘‘lock in’’ that perpetuates

the MS market share and decreases the

ability for third parties to challenge MS in a

particular software domain.

I believe that the most effective remedy is

not one that addresses past wrong-doings—

from a market perspective that damage is

done. The most effective remedy is one that

increases competition in the future. Microsoft

should be required to publish the file formats

of its application software and the protocols

of its network services. Microsoft has claimed

that (due to market share) its software create

the ‘‘de facto’’ standards. It should now make

those standards available to all programmers.

This single requirement would greatly

increase the ability of software companies to

create products that would interoperate and

compete with current and future Microsoft

offerings.

Thank You

Ronald Broberg

Software Engineer

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems

719–277–4124

ronald.broberg@lmco.com

MTC–00005854

From: Dan Vaughan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am an average small business owner.

Please allow Microsoft the opportunity to

continue to innovate and build new products

for the software industry. I could go on and

on with details for this note but I am sure you

have many to read.

Thank you.

Dan Vaughan

Knight Products Company, Inc.

www.kpcsupplies.com

(800)262–4116

MTC–00005855

From: michael c putnam

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:00pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sir:

I believe that the Microsoft anti trust

settlement should be concluded with the

current agreement that is now proposed

between the US Government and the majority

of States. Microsoft has been bullied enough

for political and competitors gain and

pleasure. I think that Microsoft is a vital and

important US Corporation that should be

supported by the US people and US

Government and not disassembled or

destroyed for self serving gain of a few. Bill

Gates is an American Hero and Microsoft

Corporation has helped many people and the

US economy enormously. No thanks to the

US Government is required. Microsoft has

done this on there own just like any other

Corporation could have or could do it. Unless

the Government takes away the incentive or

freedom to innovate, which would be a

shame! The idea that Microsoft should be

ordered to sell or offer a striped version of

the Windows Operating System is ridiculous

and absurd.

Michael Putnam

MTC–00005856

From: Romano, Joe

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 12:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

No further litigation. The company (any

company) should have the right to further

enhance their product to keep it as

competitive as is practical in the free market.

One can find many examples of true

competition without legislation (rental car

companies, retailers in any niche, etc.) The

savvy shopper will let competition thrive.

MTC–00005857

From: jackmilazzo@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:00pm

Subject: let’s move on

a settlement has been reached. . .let it take

effect and let the companies compete in an

open market.

MTC–00005858

From: Jeff Waranch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLENMENT

I WANT TO STRONGLY SUPPORT THAT

THE STATES SETTLE WITH MICROSOFT.

SINCE COMPETITION CAN’T COMPETE

WITH MICROSOFT THEY ARE FORCED TO

TRY TO GET THE GOVERNMENT TO

COMPETE FOR THEM. MICROSOFT IS

GREAT AND CONTINUALLY STRIVES TO

GIVE THE PUBLIC ‘‘MORE’’ AT A FAIR

PRICE. WHY SHOULD MICROSOFT BE

REQUIRED TO HELP THEIR COMPETITION.

IF THE PUBLIC DOESN’T LIKE PART OF

MICROSOFT’S PROGRAM, THEY DON’T

HAVE TO BUY IT.

MTC–00005859

From: RIOPATTON@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm

Subject: (no subject)

As a senior citizen, former Fortune 500

employee, and Microsoft shareholder I

support the recent rulings and believe the

future potential litigation should be stopped.

MTC–00005860

From: Cgrow947@cs.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please do everything within your power to

insure that the US government’s antitrust

case against Microsoft is settled under the

legislation currently proposed. The terms of

the proposed settlement appear fair. It is in

both Microsoft’s customers’ and

shareholders’ best interest to move on at this

point. Millions have already been wasted on

showy court proceedings. Microsoft’s

monopoly will be restricted by effective

innovations on the part of its competitors. I

increasingly have the feeling that Microsoft’s

competitors are leaning on the government to

level what appears to them to be an uneven

playing field. This is not the case. Microsoft’s

products are simply better and very

affordable. Microsoft’s strongest competitor is

currently itself. When this ceases to be true,

the apparent monopoly will begin to

dissipate. I do not think our capitalistic

system has ever seen this phenomena fail.

Who would have expected Microsoft to win

out over mighty IBM in the operating systems

arena 20 years ago?

As a result of the tragic events of

September 11, the United States and the

Department of Justice have many new

opportunities for both its attention and its

financial resources. The pursuit of Microsoft

is one area in which we need to call a halt.

We should divert those funds to help insure

the safety of US citizens.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Grow

Keswick, VA

MTC–00005861

From: Bpjd1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Department of Justice

Re: Microsoft Settlement.

I do believe that this settlement is tough,

but reasonable and fair to all parties

involved. I also, agree that this settlement is

good for the consumers, the industry and the

American economy. I really think it’s a

shame that a few aggressive lobbying groups,

plus a few politician has caused such turmoil

in the economy over the past few years. I also

believe because of this law suit it has hurt

the aggresses of Microsoft as far as new

product, that would have help the economy

of this Country plus the World economy.

This settlement is tough, but reasonable and

fair.

Sincerely,

24760 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Bruce P. Day

11709 Redwood Dr. E.

Brandywine, MD 20613

Bruce

MTC–00005862

From: Thompson, Margie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm

Subject: MicroSoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

I believe the settlement will provide a fair

and equitable decision and benefit the

consumer. This has gone on long enough.

Sincerely,

Margie Thompson

e-mail address mailto:thompsm@eaglehome.com

MTC–00005863

From: Sean Cope

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I would like to voice my opinion that the

Microsoft anti-trust case should not proceed

with further litigation. As a consumer and an

IT professional, I think that this case should

be settled in a swift, decisive manner and

should not be prolonged for any reason.

Thank you for taking the times to read my

words,

Sean Cope

MTC–00005864

From: Jkueneman@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

dear sirs:

please complete the microsoft settlement as

soon as possible and get on with more

important doj business.

sincerely,

jack kueneman

MTC–00005865

From: Bob Luhrs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wish to express my opinion that the

settlement seems fair to me, and long

overdue. The issues are or have been mainly

corrected, serious, major market share

competitors have emerged in both operating

system and office software. The company is

in a far different position today with Linux

and many other options available to

consumers. At this point the choice really is

theirs, even free in the case of Linux.

Abuses which have existed have been

corrected, and I feel it’s time to move on.

There are lots of competitors not offering

anything better but paying for legal action

versus doing their own hard work to create

better software. I work here, I know. Most of

the resulting software is a labor of love,

people even die or have to take early

retirement due to burnout. The effort is quite

a hard one to get what looks like simple

software. Let the others do this and see what

they come up with, that would give us real

competition.

Thanks,

Bob Luhrs

MTC–00005866

From: Willie Wiginton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm

Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement

The recent agreement to settle between the

Federal Government and nine states is a fair

and equitable settlement to all parties

involved. It is time to get this issue resolved

and for all of us to move on to running our

business. I urge you to accept this agreement

and let’s get on with the critical issues

currently at hand and facing this country.

HD Wiginton

MTC–00005867

From: G G

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Settle the case with Microsoft. Let’s move

on with this and not waste another penny of

my tax dollars deliberating it. Microsoft

makes good software, and I’m intelligent

enought to decide on my own what software

I do or do not want to buy, regardless if there

is an icon on the screen or not.

MTC–00005868

From: Kim Alexander

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Although I may not agree that the Tunney

Act, should move forward, I would agree that

this case needs to be resolved. Since

Microsoft has shown a willingness to accept

this agreement, I would do the same and

hope the DOJ does likewise.

Please pass the Tunney Act.

Kim Alexander

MTC–00005869

From: Steve Stephens

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

It is in the public interest to let the Tunney

Act pass as is.

Regards,

Steve Stephens

MTC–00005870

From: Alex Milman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I demand to stop harassment of the best

American company—Microsoft—the pride of

the whole world! How is it that the

government of the USA is trying to destroy

the best we have in this country? With

Democrats in administration with their

fantastic hatred towards business it was

expected. They managed to drive country

into recession even during technological

revolution. Actually all the fruits of this

revolution are gone. The hope is that new

Republican administration will turn the

country around, despite democratic majority

in the Senate, where they are trying to make

thing even worse than they are now.

Hold on!!!

MTC–00005871

From: Crsnot@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It’s about time that this legal nightmare be

put behind us and to allow Microsoft to go

on with the business that it does best to

create jobs in a time when the national

economy is faltering and to generate

additional income for its stockholders and for

the economy in general.

In my view a protracted litigationn benefits

only the voracious legal profession involved

in this sordid affair and the hungry for

publicity attorneys general of the states that

are still holding out.

Charles Notara

A Concerned Citizen

MTC–00005872

From: dl123

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

In the past I used IBM OS2, Mac and

LINUX OS systems. None were as easy,

cheap or stable as Microsoft. There was

always one serious draw-back, whereas

Microsoft is the most positive.

The problem with Microsoft products is

they are boring; they work almost all the

time. That is why I play around with LINUX.

but it requires technical expertise. Others

must have felt the same or there would be a

greater abundance of them.

Dieter Louis

dl123@home.com

MTC–00005873

From: Werner Grob

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

With respect to the settlement you have

negotiated, it is my opinion that the

settlement, as proposed, is in my best

interest.

Thank you

Werner Grob

Key Biscayne, FL

MTC–00005874

From: Anthony W Strano

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair

and should be implemented. Microsoft has

made the PC the effective consumer tool that

it is today. The bundling of innovations into

its windows operating system is a benefit to

the consumer. The whole reason for the suit

against Microsoft by other competitors is that

they are not good enough to compete, so they

enlisted the state and federal governing

bodies to try and destroy Microsoft. Years

ago, the then Secretary of Defense, Charles

Wilson, said what is good for General Motors

is good for the country. I believe that is true

today for Microsoft. Let’s let them get on with

their great work in improving the life of

consumers.

Anthony Strano

MTC–00005875

From: Larry Enoksen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24761

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I use Microsoft Software. I think they have

reduced havoc in the industry by

standardization and this is a real plus.

However, because they have won a victory

over firms competing in the development of

products, they now are threatening anyone

using their software to be able to prove

licensing requirements have been met.

Frankly, I believe I am in compliance and I

encourage others to be as well, but I am

offended by the intimidating letters sent by

Microsoft, probably the same tactics used

against others.

I believe this is the same tactic they have

used on other firms to quash innovation,

force competitors to litigate into financial

ruin, and has allowed them to usurp

technology developed by others.

I can’t imagine how many firms will be

forced into litigation over licensing issues.

How many of those will Microsoft put out of

business?

I was previously in favor of the settlement,

but now feel the public is having the

opportunity to see Microsoft management for

the ’government outside of Government’ that

it has become.

Microsoft should be reorganized to allow a

competitive market at all levels including

Operating Systems, Software design, and

development of new technology.

Have a Great Day!

Larry C Enoksen, EA, Notary

VP Operations, Tax Mam, Inc/Tax Services

Group

larry@taxmam.com

http://www.taxmam.com

http://www.cupertino-optimists.org

MTC–00005876

From: Keith(a)redplane

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to let you know my thoughts

on the Microsoft Settlement. I am strongly

opposed to changing the settlement that has

been worked out with the Federal

Government and nine states. This is a more

than fair settlement and will make a

difference. The Microsoft competitors that

have made so much noise about the

settlement and the case should themselves be

penalized. They are using this whole issue to

make up for their inadequacies—the public

doesn’t want their products, so they cry to

the government about the industry leader’s

supposed unfair practices.

I am concerned that if the government

messes with the proposed settlement, the end

result may be that the public will get less.

Microsoft has made every effort to work with

the government and should not be required

to start over just because competitors are not

talented enough to come up with successful

products that sell.

Thank you.

Keith A. Tobias

P.O. Box 666

La Ca?ada Flintridge, CA 91011

email: ktobias@redplane.com

Tel: (818) 790–6040

Fax: (818) 790–6002

MTC–00005877

From: jhuff

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I just want to urge you to accept the

Microsoft settlement. The public certainly

hasn’t been hurt by Microsoft. Have been

using computers since 1983 and have found

them vastly improved due to Microsoft. I had

such faith in Microsoft that I bought its stock.

Sold some at a loss.

Can’t understand that when a company

does well and helps the public, the

government wants to penalize that company.

I also feel that the technology of computers

and other communication devices is

changing so rapidly that companies

fortunates will ebe and tide with their ability

to keep up with changes. These companies

shouldn’t have to spend their time and

treasure defending themselves against the

government also. The competition is stiff

without that.

I do not work for Microsoft and have no

connection with them other than I still own

a small of amount of stock. (at a loss which

I will sell when I have gains to offset it). I

do, however, use their products and find

them outstanding, especially Microsoft

Publisher. I use it to do my church’s

newsletter each month and for other

purposes.

Thank you for your consideration.

Joyce Lofmark

38 Brookhouse Drive

Marblehead, MA 01945

MTC–00005878

From: Paul Wuthrich

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The US Government should leave

Microsoft alone and focus on the issues that

really affect Americans and our security—

like foreign and domestic terrorists! Why

does the govt. have to destroy a great US

company? Janet Reno should have spent our

tax money on something that benefited the

public. Instead, they tried to dismantle a

company that provides great products and

improves business.

Microsoft is a great company with a

product that enhances business. If the

competition had a comparable product,

people would buy it! Instead they want the

govt. to step in and help them try to compete

with Microsoft. Sun Microsystems and the

rest of the ilk should be ashamed.

Paul Wuthrich

MTC–00005879

From: Bev and Scott Milne

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm

Subject: MicroSoft Anti-Trust Problem

I thought that Anti-Trust suit is used when

its believe the company is hurting the

consumer. The Clinton administration (the

worst in our history) hurt the consumer by

charging Microsoft in the first place. The

stock dropped so much that billons of dollars

was lost in 401(k)’s, but we don’t hear much

about that do we. And then that nut case

Reno held a press conference stating that

consumer will be protected now because of

the action they (JD) took. And of course Orin

Hatch jumped on the band wagon because

Oracle is located in Utah. Along with Reno,

Hatch wanted Microsoft to share industrial

secrets with Oracle and other companies so

that competition will be a on level playing

field. That pure BS. If Oracle and others want

to be better then MS, invent a better mouse

trap. This whole lawsuit, including the

states, is a typical democrat approach, in this

case redistribute industrial secerts like they

do with everyones money to those who don’t

deserve it.

Sincerely,

A. Scott Milne

1227 143 Ave SE

Bellevue, WA 98007

MTC–00005880

From: Ray McCoy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wish to comment on the proposed

Microsoft Settlement. I believe that the

Microsoft settlement is fair to consummers

and the industry and that we need to move

beyond this issue.

It is obvious that Microsoft’s competitors

are trying to use the Federal and State

Attorney’s General to unfairly stiffle

Microsoft. These companies should expend

their efforts on developing software

applications that compete with Microsoft

rather than using their own and taxpayer

dollars to attempt to hurt Microsoft. Let the

marketplace decide who’s products are best.

Sincerely,

Ray McCoy

Marketing Manager

Infostat Systems, Inc.

916 649 3244 Ext 203

mailto:rmccoy@infostatsystems.com

MTC–00005881

From: Ken Klinger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Enough. Let the litigation end. Ken Klinger

MTC–00005882

From: Mark Hester

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm

Subject: MicroSoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am in favor of the settlement as it stands

for the DOJ V. Microsoft case.

At this point it appears that the interests

and states that are fighting the settlement are

doing so in an attempt to gain an unmerited

windfall for themselves and their business

interests. MicroSoft has continued to place

resources at risk inorder to create markets

and expand their business; neither of which

will happen if they do not have the interest

of the consumer at heart. The recent XBOX

launch is an excellent example. MS has

introduced an innovative OPTION for the

public. Has SUN had this opportunity? Yes.

Has MS’s Windows Operating system limited

SUN, or NetScape (AOL), in their creation of

new products? No. But their focus on MS and

this lawsuit has. MicroSoft’s dominance in

the operating system market is overrated by

the opponents of the settlement. The

24762 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

opportunity to compete is available to all that

want to spend their resources on creative

solutions instead of wasting the people’s time

and money trying to gain an unfair windfall.

Let the settlement stand and let’s get on

with business.

Respectfully,

John Mark Hester

CEO RedRock Solutions, Inc.

Madison, Alabama

256.656.7879

MTC–00005883

From: Stan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This case should be settled immediately, as

it has been going on too long, and the

ultimate cost for it is bourn by the taxpayer.

A company should have the right to put what

it wants in its products and software.

Why would anyone want to stifle

innovation. That is what made this country

great and should be allowed to continue.

Thank you.

Stanley R. Kneppar

8109 Hibiscus Circle

Tamarac, Florida 33321–2134

(954) 720–0413

kneppar@mediaine.net

MTC–00005884

From: Capt. Ronald L. Pouch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm

Subject: ms antitrust

This case has become a battle of who’s has

the best lawyer. It is lawyer welfare. So I paid

too much for MS software what else is new.

I paid too much for my car , my groceries etc.

My goodness settle this case!!! Leave MS

alone. Did we sue GM when they started

putting their own radios and AC’s in their

cars instead of making us buy after market

from motorola etc. Enough with this case and

all the money being wasted by various

governments and MS.

MTC–00005885

From: Chris Averkiou

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

January 2, 2002

Dear Sirs at the DOJ:

The purpose of this email is to provide

Tunney Act public comment on the

Microsoft Settlement. The parties to the

litigation have reached a settlement ending

litigation. It is in the public interest to settle

the lawsuit and allow the parties to return to

work, directing resources on more important

matters. Microsoft contributes valuable

services to the United States economy as a

whole, the public interest is best served by

eliminating uncertainty to the software

industry caused by pending antitrust

litigation. The Court of Appeals has already

ruled on the legal issues, settlement based on

its decision is a simple matter.

Please include my comments in the public

record.

Yours,

Chris Averkiou

7100 Louisiana NE, H204

Albuquerque, NM 87109

MTC–00005886

From: Jeff Leite

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a voting resident of Florida and a

software developer I find that the Microsoft

settlement has gone far beyond what is fair

and reasonable. I think this case has been

ridiculous from the start as it hinders my

freedom to innovate and create quality

applications. Because a couple companies

who make unworthy products feel they can’t

compete with quality Microsoft products we

have had to endure this law suit. I personally

have informed my Attorney General who is

one of the non-technical bureaucrats who are

still involving my state in this ridiculous law

suit that my votes in the future will be sure

to rely on the outcome of this law suit. I

respectfully request that you accept

Microsoft’s offer.

Jeff Leite

Jacksonville, FL

MTC–00005887

From: Andrew Dobson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please finalize the Microsoft settlement (as

currently proposed) as quickly as possible

and stop pursuing this ill-advised

prosecution. While Microsoft clearly has a

monopoly on desktop operating systems, I

believe such monopolies are both necessary

and commonplace in information

technologies; that such monopolies will be

short-lived; and that the governments’

position on this case is detremental to the

interests both of consumers and of the

country.

Andrew Dobson

Arlington VA

MTC–00005888

From: cm

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough is enough. Microsoft has improved

Windows to a point where it is a better value

than it ever was. They are not the best at

everything. Other companies have been able

to compete againt MS in their specific areas.

Only then the companies sat on their laurels

and got lazy was MS able to make a better

product and outsell them.

Isn’t that what America is about?

Chris Medley

5509G Langley Way

Bolling AFB, DC 20336

MTC–00005889

From: Priby@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:05pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement;

I support the government’s case which

settled the issue. I do not support further

lifigastion, be it by other states or

individuals.

Otto Pribram

MTC–00005890

From: John P. Sullivan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

For nearly four years Microsoft has been

beaten up on. The Microsoft case should be

settled without further litigation.

The settlement reached 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.

John P. Sullivan

2809 Irwin Road

Huntsville, AL 35801

MTC–00005891

From: Stephen Quinn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle this case! It has been going on

too long.

Stephen Quinn

US Taxpayer

MTC–00005892

From: Thorbz@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:05pm

Subject: (no subject)

I think the settlement is fair and if all

penalties in this country are turned into

benefits for our school system, what better

win/win situation can you ask for?

LT

MTC–00005893

From: JDarrjr@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

TO: Dept of Justice

It is high time for the lawsuit again

Microsoft to be settled, compensation paid by

whatever means is agreed upon. The

remaining few states that are disrupting this

settlement simply have their own agenda to

service, and has little to do with any original

complaint, valid or not. Bill Gates and other

Microsoft executives have done more for the

entire ‘‘world’’ by producing the excellent

computer systems over the years, and not one

of the litigants would have even had a

business if it weren’t for these wonderful

products . . . especially NETSCAPE which

most people refuse to use and whose

software was probably produced using all the

latest Microsoft software.

Settle the damn lawsuit !! America needs

to focus it’s Justice Department on the

prosecution of the criminals being rounded

up in our worldwide ‘‘War on Terror’’.

Sincerely,

John Darr

4451 Pinyon Tree Ln

Irvine, CA 92612–2215

MTC–00005894

From: JTAPPOUNI@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm

Subject: DOJ Settlement

I am against the government in the

Microsoft case.My support is behind

Microsoft 100%. Julie Tappouni 1/2/02

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24763

MTC–00005895

From: Norm Johnson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that Microsoft is a fine company

and has a very good product and is not in

violation of any laws.

I believe they should be able to improve on

their product as they see fit, i use it all the

time and look forward to improvments they

make to the browser and email clients.

Thank You

Norman Johnson

1001 Heather Lane

Moore, OK 73160

MTC–00005896

From: George McLennon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Let’s get this thing settled once and for all.

No matter what legal issues come along there

is always some Attorney that will bend, twist

and almost break the law just to make a buck.

Why don’t we settle this as the Fed has

already set forth.

It’s time to get off Microsoft and get on the

back of some of these so called special

interest Attorneys whose only special interest

is their own wallet.

Respectfully,

George McLennon

MTC–00005897

From: RABaehr@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear sirs: I would hope that the proposed

settlement between Microsoft and the

Department of Justice and the 9 states that

signed on will be approved. There was never

any evidence of harm to consumers from

Microsoft’s behavior. The litigation was

funded and promoted by Microsoft’s

competitors- Sun, Oracle, and AOL, among

others. I hold stock in stock in several of

these companies, as well as Microsoft, and

have been upset that this is how these

companies chose to compete with Microsoftthrough the courts, rather than the

marketplace. It is not the government’s role

to reward whiny competitors. Microsoft is

certainly an aggressive competitor, and the

terms of the proposed settlement suggest that

the company’s behavior needs to be

monitored given its share of the operating

system market. But expanding the

capabilities of a software product is in

consumers’ interest. It is far easier , more

efficient, and much cheaper for consumers to

buy a broadened Windows, than many pieces

of far more expensive software. Competition

exists for Windows. Linux was not even a

factor when this suit was framed, but now it

is growing in importance. Sun’s Java also

offers a way to bypass Windows, as do

internet only computers. This is a rapidly

changing dynamic market. It doesn’t need the

heavy regulatory hand of government to

reorder the pieces. Richard Baehr, Chicago,

Il. .

MTC–00005898

From: Don Thompson (CDDG-TRAINING

(038) CERTIFICATION)

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

While I think regulation is a necessary tool

to ensure fairness and equity in commerce as

stated in the Constitution, I feel the

governement has succumbed to the interests

of several corporations attempting to gain

competitive advantage through litigation.

When I read the information leading up to

the Anti-Trust laws, the predominant theme

is ‘‘harm to the consumer’’. Further, there is

substance to expanding that to include

damage to ‘‘the competive nature of

business’’, however, I cannot see any merit to

the claims that the corporations attempting to

bring about this lawsuit have been damaged

in that sense. Nor can I find ‘‘harm to the

consumer’’ in any of may daily activities

associating with the people the DOJ is

attempting to ‘‘protect’’.

I urge you to cease the nonsensical

litigation against Microsoft and any company

for that matter, that would produce

substantial harm to the economy. If you

continue to pursue the litigation and bring

about substantial repression of the companies

productivity and innovation, I would then

recommend a Anti-trust suit against those

who cause the resulting harm to the

consumer. . . .

Thank you for your time.

Don Thompson

6703 50th Place NE

Marysville WA 98270

MTC–00005899

From: RLWATSON77@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I hope you will go ahead with the

settlement that has been offered to Microsoft.

It appears to be practical and fair to all. We

do not need more litigation on this matter.

Sincerely,

Rosemary Watson

MTC–00005900

From: Kurt Buecheler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft is a world class company that

competes vigorously, but no more vigorously

than its competitors that are complaining

about Microsoft. Microsoft has simply

delivered a better consumer value

proposition and customers have responded

by adopting the product as the best way to

enhance their abilities and lives.

For consumers, the PC has delivered a

huge platform upon which innovation occurs

at a rapid pace and delivers new functions

and vastly improve the way we live and work

and play. The PC standard embodies

AMERICAN VALUES of empowerment and

access to information. The PC is a low cost

solution that continues to be available to

more and more people.

In the process of consumer empowerment,

the PC has created a huge market, many

wonderful companies, increased productivity

and a large tax base. If anything, the federal

and state governments of the US should be

considering how they can assist MSFT to

continue to establish computing standards in

the USA rather than somewhere else or under

the heavy influence of other super powers

such as the EU.

The settlement will be tough on MSFT, but

should be accepted by both sides and become

a closed issue. The important issue to the

American people is the quality of their lives.

(strong economy, safety, employment) The

PC industry advancing creates employment

and a strong economy and may even help

with advancing security as a smart device

that can greatly enhance the capabilities of

security workers.

Please drop further litigation and focus on

building the economy and security of the

USA.

Sincerely

Kurt Buecheler

Microsoft employee and proud American

MTC–00005901

From: Morris Allen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:31pm

Subject: Microsoft

To whom it may concern:

While I have not always been pleased with

Microsoft’s actions, I believe the government

should not interfere with their Operating

Systems. I have been working in this industry

since 1980 and has seen the development of

computers, first hand. I do not believe our

computer capabilities would be as advanced

as they are today, without Microsoft. If you

look at what it cost consumers and Microsoft

to advance to the computers Operating

Systems of today, it is a fraction of what the

Government spent with IBM, on their

programs. In any case, Microsoft has the right

to protect their investment. It shouldn’t

matter that their product is made up of ‘‘0

and 1’s’’.

Respectfully,

Morris Allen

Vidcom Center/VidcomNet, Inc.

MTC–00005902

From: Patricia Swift

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Tunney Act seems fair to me. The

settlement is in the public interest. It would

NOT be in the public interest to drag this out.

Let’s get it settled, and then everybody can

devote themselves to productive work

instead of more litigation.

Sincerely,

Patricia Swift

Creswell, Oregon

MTC–00005903

From: Mark Spain

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

enough is enough. settle case as soon as

possible. It’s in the best interest of the

majority.

MTC–00005904

From: MASails@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Ladies and

24764 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Gentlemen:

I am one taxpayer who would appreciate

the Federal District Court’s holding to the

settlement agreement reached in late 2001

with Microsoft.

The longer this suit is prolonged, the more

out-of-date and obsolete become the

complaints against the software company.

I’m sure that neither Microsoft nor their

lawsuit-armed competitors are operating

from selfless motives, but refereeing them at

the taxpayers’ expense is wasting my money.

I also believe that, having redirected

Microsoft’s behavior somewhat, the courts

should leave the business organizations to

fight it out in the marketplace.

Marcia Andrews

Pineland, FL

MTC–00005905

From: Joe E. Mayfield

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I want to go on record as one firmly

opposed to the DOJ’s action against Microsoft

in the first Place.

I believe that it was , pure and simple a

witch hunt by the Clinton Administration. I

believe that this suit was a major factor in the

loss value in the Technology stock market. I

has cost thousands of average U.S. citizens

hundreds of thousands of dollars much of

which was in retirement programs.

The Millions of dollars that it cost

taxpayers to bring this suit was a total waste

and could have been better spent tracking

down and destroying the Terrorists which

were attacking Americans and American

interests all over the world.

MTC–00005906

From: Phinnt@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

This case has dragged on for three (3) plus

years and the present settlement should be

IT. We and the Justice Dept. have got way

more important issues to work on than let

special interest groups continue to WASTE

taxpayer’s money on this beaten down

hoss..Period. . .Period. . .Period. . .END

OF REPORT

Best of Health and regards,

Phinn W. Townsend

MTC–00005907

From: Chris Worley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sir/Ma’am,

I find the proposed Microsoft antitrust

settlement to be just short of an apology to

Microsoft.

It will do nothing to stop their

anticompetitive behavior. It will do nothing

to spur competition in the software industry.

It gives Microsoft carte blanche to continue

to run roughshod over consumers and

competition.

The media has well documented that every

key provision in this settlement has an ‘‘opt

out’’ for Microsoft.

The one I’m most concerned with is the

‘‘security’’ ‘‘opt out’’ in the ‘‘open protocols’’

section. . .

‘‘Security’’ has become a buzzword

associated with terrorist acts, allowing

Microsoft to portray competing vendor’s

software compatibility with authentication

software as an act of treason. It’s just not so.

‘‘Security through obscurity’’ has never

stopped hackers with ill intent, it only keeps

those being attacked ‘‘in the dark’’. It’s much

like human viri: we want to know what can

infect us, how to keep from getting infected,

how to detect the infection, and how to stop

the infection (even if it can’t be stopped).

This information is key to our longevity. For

example, the recent anthrax terrorist acts

have shown that public information is

critical to detection and cure, and the lack of

information led to unnecessary infection (of

postal workers) and panic among the

uninfected, and did nothing to stop the

perpetrator.

Software viri/worms require the same

publicity to protect and inform the

population.

I’m afraid Microsoft has negotiated this

loophole in the settlement with ill-intent in

mind: stopping compatible products from

competing under the guise of stopping

terrorism.

For example, a software package called

‘‘Samba’’ competes with Microsoft NT file

servers: file servers compatible with the

protocols that provide you with your

‘‘network neighborhood’’. If Microsoft can

hide the authentication protocol, then the

competing file server software can’t compete:

if you have to have an NT server to

authenticate users, then you might as well

use that server to serve files and not use

Samba at all. For Samba to compete, it must

be able to perform all the necessary protocols

for Microsoft’s network file services. This

settlement is a ruse. It’s a trap. And, the DOJ

seems overly willing to fall for it, to the

detriment of competition and consumers.

Chris Worley

Salt Lake City, Utah

MTC–00005908

From: JDurliat@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

ladies/gentlemen: please accept this

communication as my congratulations on

settling the microsoft case. usually these case

are instigated by competitors simply wanting

a government given advantage. the settlement

seems reasonable. please try to get the

remaining state to endorse the settlement so

everyone can get-on with business.

very truly yours,

jack durliat

MTC–00005909

From: Mike Denholtz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:09pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

My opinion:

If the DOJ can settle then it should all be

settled. Enough is enough.

Leave MS alone.

Thanks,

Mike

MTC–00005910

From: LSchoenber@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm

Subject: MIRCOSOFT SETTLEMENT

Hi Sir,

I feel it should be settled now because we

have 50 states and only 9 states do not agree.

I always believe in majority. Microsoft did

great job for deaf while other companies did

not recognize the deaf’s needs. Dont destroy

it. I do not believe that Microsoft is

monopoly because Microsoft did not make

the customers suffer.

Thank you

Larry Schoenberg

MTC–00005911

From: Marilyn139@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm

Subject: (no subject)

..I BELIEVE THAT A COMPANY LIKE

MICROSOFT MUST REALIZE THEIR

PROBLEMS (OTHERWISE THEY WOULD

NOT BE AS SUCCESSFUL AS IT IS) IT IS

TIME FOR ALL THEIR FINANCIAL

SETTLEMENTS TO BE ACCEPTED AND LET

THEM GET ON WITH THER R&D FROM

WHICH THEY BECAME SO SUCCESSFUL

MTC–00005912

From: Robert Wallace

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As the owner of a small business that relies

heavily, though certainly not exclusively, on

Microsoft products, I want to express my

displeasure with the continued harassment of

Microsoft by the Justice Department and

opportunistic Attorneys General from various

states. I don’t believe the DOJ claims or the

settlement extracted from Microsoft were fair,

but the DOJ and the company did agree and

I believe the matter should be closed and the

blood sucking by the states should be

stopped. Robert C. Wallace, Bellevue, WA.

R.C. Wallace, CEO,

Wallace Properties, Inc.,

PO Box 4184,

Bellevue, WA. 98009–4184;

Phone (425) 455 9976; Fax (425) 646 3374;

rwallace@wallaceproperties.com

MTC–00005913

From: John Bradley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing about the settlement that has

been reached in the Microsoft anti-trust case.

I believe that this settlement is fair to all

parties involved and it is a good agreement

for consumers. I urge that the settlement be

executed by the DOJ.

Sincerely,

John Bradley

MTC–00005914

From: Joseph Chauvin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: To Whom it may Concern,

To Whom it may Concern,

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24765

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 nine 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.

Sincerely,

Joseph W. Chauvin

MTC–00005915

From: Doc Gibson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

D.O.J.

This note is to let you know that as a

consumer I support the current settlement

being considered to end the litigation against

Microsoft. I have watched as this litigation

has unfolded and believe it is time to put a

stop to it.

The money and political influence that has

been pouted into the issue has for the most

part been wasted effort, and has done little

or nothing to improve the consumer’s ability

to access new technology and improvements

to computer operating systems.

Please end the litigation and the appeals

process as soon as possible. Accept the

settlement that is currently on the table.

Sincerely, ‘‘Doc’’ Gibson

‘‘Doc’’ Gibson, CSAC, CPS, CCGC

CEO/Program Director

New Alternatives for Teens & Families

P.O. Box # 2547, Prescott AZ 86302

(888) 209–8573 Office

(928) 445–4375 FAX

docgibs@mindspring.com

MTC–00005916

From: DonaldSass@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft has done more good for the US

economy and for keeping US technology in

the forefront over the past twenty years than

have all of Microsoft’s competitors combined.

DOJ should be more concerned with

determining how US satellite technology got

into Chinese hands during the Clinton

administration, and less concerned with

determining how Microsoft became the

foremost software company in the world. DOJ

should use it’s resources to investigate

Loral’s relationships with the

Chinese government during the past ten

years.

In other words, DOJ should lay off

Microsoft and investigate Loral instead.

Donald Sass

MTC–00005917

From: Pvb959@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I personally have used Microsoft products

since 3/98. I like Microsoft. Their service and

support is terrific. I’ve never had any poor

experiences, every question answered,

everything to my satisfaction. I need

Microsoft. I don’t want anything the DOJ may

do to effect their business negatively. This

country needs Microsoft and all the new

good things in the pipeline now, and in the

future. I’m of the opinion that the

marketplace will decide whats good or bad

for this country. We don’t need more

government interference in our lives. Let’s

get this settlement overwith and get on with

things.

Peter von Blanckensee

2400 E. Baseline Ave. #143

Apache Junction AZ 85219

MTC–00005918

From: ROGER MACON

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm

Subject: MicroSoft

I think you need to leave them alone so

they can continue doing exactly what they

have been doing which has been a great

advancement for the entire world, the techno

industry and has forced cohesive integrated

growth.

Roger Macon

MTC–00005919

From: David Pharr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

I am a long time Microsoft supporter and

would like to express my support for the

proposed Microsoft settlement. I believe this

proposed settlement provides significant

benefit to the general public and is in the best

interest of the U.S. economy. This case has

dragged on for too long as it currently stands

and I would like to see the settlement

accepted and the case concluded.

MTC–00005920

From: Bernard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think it is high time this was over!

Me, a user of computers and much

software has not suffered from anything

Microsoft has done.

Neither have any of my Companies.

However, all of us have paid and have

suffered, over these unnecessary lawsuits,

instigated by a few so called competitors. If

these so called competitors need our

Government to survive in business, they

should get out.

Enough is enough.

End it now, please.

Bernard Hollin

MTC–00005921

From: The Campbells

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I urge you to approve the Microsoft

Settlement. I and all of my family and friends

appreciate Microsoft’s contribution to the

computer world, and can’t imagine a world

without Windows operating system. And

Internet Explorer is much better than

Netscape.

So please approve the Microsoft

Settlement.

Stephen Campbell

79 Manilla Dr.

Draper, UT 84020

(801) 495–3032

stevec@stevec.org

MTC–00005922

From: FRANKEROUSE

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I am a Microsoft Windows user and have

had no problems using other software. I was

not in favor of the Microsoft litigation and

now that there is an agreement with nine

states and the Federal Govt. I can see no good

reason to have other selfish interest groups

drag this issue on into the future. Surely it

won’t help the best interests of the American

public to drag this on in these times of

economic uncertainty, especially if it serves

the interests of a few States wherein

Microsoft’s competitors reside.

Please take action to end this issue

immediately.

Frank Rouse

Yakima, WA.

MTC–00005923

From: Schober, Larry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

It is time to settle the Microsoft case and

move on to more pressing problems. You are

doing the consumer a disservice, and the

nation as well, by pursuing this case. Please

settle the case promptly.

MTC–00005924

From: Dick Reed

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please confirm the proposed Microsoft

Settlement. The stock market decline of

2000–2001 started with the Clinton

administration attack on Microsoft. It

contributed to the current economic

recession. It is now long past due to allow

the U.S. economy and financial markets to

get back to normal. Any further litigation

24766 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

intended to benefit competitors such as Sun

Microsystems, Oracle, and Apple would be

inappropriate and counterproductive.

Regards,

Richard A. Reed

319 Robin Way

Richardson, TX 75080

972–231–6689

MTC–00005925

From: Ronald S. Frantz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I believe that the Microsoft settlement is

fair to all parties. I also do not believe that

the suit should have been brought by the

Justice Department.

Any further delay would be harmful to

Microsoft and very unfair.

Sincerely yours,

Ronald S. Frantz

East Aurora, New York

MTC–00005926

From: Joyce Harness

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:23pm

Subject: MSFT

Please get this case settled. I believe the

settlement that was reached was fair and

equitable and the case should end with that.

Thank you.

Joyce Harness

3015 NW 73rd

Seattle, WA 98117

206–784–9126

MTC–00005927

From: Don Harikian

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please accept my comments on the

Microsoft Settlement.

I am a business user and consumer of

Microsoft products so my comments are from

that perspective and are my own opinion. I

have been in the business world long enough

to see the evolution of many computer

software products.

I have always gravitated to the products

that provided the most efficiency and

reduction in work as possible. I was

delighted to install Framework on my

computer because it itegrated features that I

used most often. I must say that over those

years Microsoft products ended up always

providing the most efficiency for the price as

any other product I have used on my desk

top computer. For this reason I have always

been confused by the theme of the antitrust

case that Microsoft has harmed consumers. It

seems that they have harmed competitors

only because they provide, as I said, a better

product for less cost. Microsoft is not the

only software that our company uses, any

software that adds value for a reasonable cost

is on my desktop.

This brings me to my second point of

confusion about the case in that it implies

that I do not have a choice, as a consumer/

user, about what software I use on my desk

top just because Microsoft has an icon on it.

I have never had any problem loading other

software that adds value to my computer.

My third point is the question about

proprietary software. I am not speaking as a

lawyer but the company that has the

ingenuity and know-how to bring unique

products to the market should not be

required to allow other companies to pirate

and capitalize on that through access to their

detailed programs. The DOJ should respect

and honor this concept rather than allowing

the ‘‘world’’ to have access to American

ingenuity.

Fourth, I have followed this case since its

inception and talked to many others in the

business world and also home use consumers

and have yet to find one person that said they

have been harmed or have paid to much for

Microsoft products. All have said that the

company provides the best value for the

buck. Our data processing people were

ecstatic with NT products when they came

out. They provided a low cost alternative. I

am still wondering who has been harmed.

Perhaps competitors with an inferior product

at a higher price? Please do not construe my

comments as just loyalty to Microsoft

because as I said I have many of Microsoft

competitor’s products on my computer.

In summary, even though I am confused

about the basic elements of this case, the

settlement should be completed as it stands

to get this whole thing behind us. The U.S.

economy has suffered because of it and we

must get on with innovation. I agree with

Microsofts position on their statement of

‘‘Freedom to Innovate’’. I urge the dissenting

states to end this as quickly as possible, it has

already gone to far! I also encourage the DOJ

to bring as much influence on those states to

end this.

Thank you for the opportunity to express

my opinion. That is why America is the

greatest!

Regards,

Don Harikian

MTC–00005928

From: howard schiffman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:23pm

Subject: As a small business deeply involved

on the Internet

As a small business deeply involved on the

Internet since 1996, we have been closely

following the Microsoft case in the news

reports. We feel confident the governments

proposed settlement in this case is fair to all

parties concerned. Today, more than ever, we

are facing serious economic times. Let’s get

on with business, and increase our profits

and build a much stronger economy!

Sincerely,

Howard Schiffman

Chief Operating Officer

MTC–00005929

From: Linda Heinkel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm

Subject: Tunney Act

Please finalize this situation as soon as

possible. It is not in the public’s best interest

to allow lobbying special interest groups to

delay this any longer.

Linda Heinkel

lheinkel@udnet.net

MTC–00005930

From: Pats413@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm

Subject: end the suit..

The economy needs the case against

Microsoft stopped! I am a consumer and a

stock holder as are millions of other

Americans. This case is continuing to

undermine the entire high tech sector.

Consumers have recouped their money by

the low prices Microsoft charges for their

software. States should be satisfied and end

their suits.

MTC–00005931

From: Roy Leban

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I work for Microsoft, so you might think

I’m biased about the Microsoft suit. I’m not.

I thought it was stupid long before I joined

Microsoft. Why is it stupid? A few reasons

...

1. Microsoft has a monopoly on ‘‘Windows

operating systems’’. Well, of course it does!

In fact, it has 100% of the market, by

definition. General Motors has a monopoly

on Chevrolets, but nobody’s complaining.

Apple has 100% of the market for Macintosh

operating system computers (both hardware

and software!).

2. Microsoft has ‘‘bundled’’ things into the

operating system that were previously

available as extra components. Well, of

course it does! This is how operating systems

and practically all products are developed.

Let’s take web browsers: The Macintosh OS

ships with a browser. Solaris ships with a

browser. Linux has a browser. No operating

system could ship today without a browser.

What would you lose if you couldn’t add

anything to the operating system that had

been available separately? A short list in

Windows includes the file manager, long

filenames, file search, integrated printer

drivers, even ethernet/internet drivers. All

those things used to ship as separate

products.

If we applied the same rule to cars, your

car wouldn’t come with a radio, seat belts,

cruise control, fuel injection, a center rear

brake light or even a roof. Given all the things

that have been bundled into cars, it is

impossible to start a new car company

today—much harder than it is to start a new

computer company. You could even say that

the car companies have colluded with each

other to add those features to block

competition (with the help of their

accomplices, the DOT and the USTA).

Following this logic, we should force all the

car companies to unbundle almost everything

so that new car companies wouldn’t have

such a high barrier to entry. Of course, the

average car would cost $100,000 this way

and consumers would have to basically

assemble their own cars, but that’s the price

you pay for better competition.

3. Internet Explorer is much more than a

browser—it’s an integration of the web into

the OS. Any application can use this feature

and many do. Rather than inhibiting

competition, the integration of IE encourages

it because companies can build web and/or

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24767

browser functionality into their applications

without having to write it themselves.

4. This suit has never been about

monopoly power or what’s good for

consumers. It’s about some jealous

competitors who missed the boat for various

reasons. But, given that the suit wasn’t tossed

out and that much of the judiciary and public

don’t understand enough about the situation,

I think the proposed settlement is reasonable.

Although some of it will be burdensome for

Microsoft, it doesn’t prevent Microsoft from

doing what it does best—responding to

customer needs and building better software.

Thank you for listening.

Roy Leban

RoyLeban@microsoft.com

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are my own,

not my employer’s

MTC–00005932

From: LnTDevita@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:23pm

Subject: Let’s move forward

Please put an end to this litigation. As a

concerned citizen and consumer, I would

like to move forward in strengethening our

economy in the face of global competition

and global economic decline. Our country is

stronger, smarter and better equipped to

address the future because of innnovators

like Microsoft. Please build a system where

they are able to do what they do best . . .

bring quality products to consumers. We the

consumers have benefitted by the technology

brought to us by Microsoft. Please allow

them, and us, to get back to the business at

hand: building a stronger America, made up

of strong companies and empowered citizens.

Thank you,

Louis deVita,

Sammamish, Washington

MTC–00005933

From: pstaley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please add my name to those who think the

Microsoft Settlement is fair.

Perry L.Staley

411 Orchard Street

Ironton, Ohio

45638–1166

MTC–00005934

From: bob fleming

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:24pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I WISH TO PROTEST THE DOJ’S

HANDLING OF THE ABOVE SUBJECT. YOU

HAVE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF

TAXPAYER FUNDS CHASING AFTER A

COMPANY THAT HAS DONE NOTHING

MORE THAN TO GIVE ITS CUSTOMERS

THE BEST POSSIBLE PRODUCT AND

SERVICE! YOU HAVE WASTED ENOUGH

OF OUR MONEY,CLOSE THIS CASE!

ROBERT FLEMING

MTC–00005935

From: Manjogthru@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I cannot understant why the settlement

with Microsoft cannot be finalized. Let’s

settle with Microsoft and get on with our

lives. In difficult times like this we do not

need to waste more time and money fighting

a company that has done so much for all of

us.

If you must fight someone, then go after the

9 states who are unwilling to settle. We all

know why they want Microsoft punished and

broken up. Put an end to this entire fiasco.

Carl Hanson

3703 Mc Cormick St. S.E.

Olympia, WA 98501

MTC–00005936

From: RANDMOREILLY@aol.

com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Case Settlement

I add my voice to the many who believe

the settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case

is fair to all. It is time to close this chapter

and move on! In these unsettled times the

country can ill afford such continuing

litigation. The Microsoft competition should

be satisfied at the outcome agreed to by the

DOJ and the majority of the states. The

opposing states’ arguments against approval

of this agreement are not persuasive. I

earnestly request the settlement approved

earlier be upheld. Let us all return to more

productive activity.

Sincerely submitted.

Robert W. O’Reilly

MTC–00005937

From: W7326@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to give you my input on the

Microsoft situation. This case should never

have happened in the first place. It has taken

months to try to settle and cost millions of

dollars and an enormous amount of time that

could have been used better elsewhere. It is

time for this to be over. My vote is to settle

this case and to do it as quickly as possible.

Microsoft has been the leader in software

ever since it started and has given the public

many different ways to learn, communicate,

entertain themselves, and make life easier

and more interesting.

Doris Wolfe

MTC–00005938

From: Egarner123@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ:

I am responding to the email that Microsoft

sent advising me to let the DOJ know my

opinion regarding the settlement. I think the

settlement stinks to high heaven. In the past,

I have been pro-Microsoft (years ago as an IT

professional, I choose MS Windows 3.0 over

the Mac, OS2, and UNIX clients—I took a

professional blow for being so controversial).

Presently, in my opinion, Microsoft is not

serving the best needs of the public nor the

stockholders.

As I understand the settlement, Microsoft

is proposing to push its IT solution upon the

upcoming generations through education.

This is not a fine but an investment. More

stringent punitive judgments need to be

assessed. I suggest the following:

—billions should be awarded to alternative

operating systems and office suites that

promote a more open system—pre

Windows XP version source code (client

only), should be made available—to the

public—Microsoft should lose its Windows

trademark, any interested party should be

able to license their own version of

Windows.

The fact that Microsoft is behaving in a

monopolistic manor during this controversial

time, is a further indication of the company’s

contempt for the judicial proceedings and the

public’s welfare at-large. I urge the DOJ to

continue negotiations with the public’s

interest as its guiding light.

Sincerely,

Edward Garner

IT Professional

MTC–00005939

From: Xue-Ling Han

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It’s fair and enough. Please have everyone

go back to work.

MTC–00005940

From: Trey Bailey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I feel that any legislation that breaks a

company, Microsoft or any other, is going

beyond the place of government. Please let

the agreed settlement continue.

Glynn (Trey) Bailey

Programming Department Manager

Wellsco Inc.

(870) 236–1080

This holiday season, as we laugh and eat

and shop and enjoy friends and family, our

soldiers are in Afghanistan risking everything

for us. Some of them won’t come back. The

rest will never be the same. Every one of

them volunteered. They think we’re worth it.

Let’s prove them right.

Scot Adams (Creator of Dilbert)

MTC–00005941

From: SCHOTTLER@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR,MSFIN@

microsoft.com@inetgw

Date: 1/2/02 1:24pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I hope this is worth sending. I do not have

much faith that it will be read or added to

your files. Our government is not known for

getting things right except when we go to

war.

THE SETTLEMENT IS TOTALLY FAIR

AND PROPER AND SHOULD BE APPROVED

A.S.A.P.

James R. Schoettler

MTC–00005942

From: Steve Paylor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Dear Sir/Madam,

24768 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

This is to state my opinion concerning the

DOJ/Microsoft settlement. First, I believe that

the attack on Microsoft by the DOJ was very

much politically motivated. I believe that the

DOJ, under Janet Reno, was a political tool

used by the Clinton administration to ‘‘pay

back’’ those who did not adequately give

support to the DNC or Clinton. Second, I

believe that in this case, the DOJ took sides

in an ideological struggle between left wing

socialists and free market capitalists.

Third, I believe that the case unfairly sided

with Microsoft’s competitors who are jealous

of Microsoft’s success. Microsoft should be

completely free to include or exclude any

and all features in their software products. If

that makes it difficult for competitors to

compete, that is tough. This is part of the free

market system and it is the competitor’s

problem to solve not the DOJ’s.

Finally, I believe that Microsoft did employ

some anti-competitive business practices. I

believe that the settlement adequately

punishes them for that misbehavior and it

also provides much social good.

Steve Paylor

San Diego, California

MTC–00005943

From: Jhkober@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ, I think you should settle the

Microsoft Case as agreed. States should

follow your lead. Lets but this to bed now.

Our country needs it’s attention on building

a strong American Economy. Microsoft is a

great company and has made other company

great as well because of their standards of

competition.

Thank you. James H. Kober 70 E 10th St.

New York, New York.

MTC–00005944

From: David Gam

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Isn’t it time to put an end to the

persecution of Microsoft because of their

success? Is this what we do to successful

American enterprise? Does the economy have

to be burdened by the whining of losers? The

industry, the country and the world owes a

debt to Microsoft for the contributions it has

made that is unparalled. It in fact, virtually

created the new industry that has brought

prosperity beyond imagining. For this, do we

penalize American enterprise? Because

Microsoft accomplished what none of the

whiners could, should we then listen to cries

of ‘‘foul’’? Let’s put an end to this travesty.

Sincerely,

David B. Gam

MTC–00005945

From: Bob Pap

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the Microsoft Settlement

needs to be done as proposed. I believe that

it would be in the people of the United States

interest that Microsoft put 10% of its R&D

into developing a special version of Windows

that is bullet proof and not released to

anyone but government agencies and

contractors. This is vital to the security of our

national infrastructure. The people at Sun

and Oracle now need to be investigated for

their anti-trust activities in the same way as

Microsoft. Note: their product is much more

expensive and they refuse to license any

patents to government contractors for

enhanced development. Also, require any

files and view of any Americans computer

that Microsoft has on file to be deleted from

their file if Americans opt out.

I believe that any state that does not want

the settlement should be required to have a

vote of confidence or no confidence in the

law enforcement and prosecuters over the

Web by people in the state. This should be

published in a web listing. I bet Microsoft

would cut costs and save us more money if

DOJ had a running talley.

Bob Pap

Accurate Automation

7001 Shallowford Road

Chattanooga, TN 37421

423–894–4646 rmpap@accurateautomation.com

MTC–00005946

From: Les Herrman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear sirs:

After extensively reading over the

proposed settlement in the Microsoft case, I

feel that the proposal is more than sufficient

remedy in the case. Having been a computer

user for over 10 years, I feel that no company

has done more for the home personal

computer industry than Microsoft. The

inovations and ease of use of their operating

system has made it very easy for new

computer users to accomplish complicated

tasks using their computers. Also the

standardization of Operating System to

Windows has helped to make it much easier

for companies etc. to train employees to use

the computers at their businesses.

I totally abhor the few companies that

scream running to the DOJ to fight for them

because they can not compete on their own

merits. IE Sun, Netscape, AOL, and others

mentioned in the Microsoft suit. Just because

they can not come up with a compteing

product that is as easy to use as Microsoft

they go screaming foul and anti-trust and

monopoly to the government.

I therefore urge you to settle this case with

the current propsed settlement. The

continuation of litigation in this case agains

Microsoft will do nothing more than hurt the

consumer and waste tax dollars that could be

better spent somewhere else.

Les Herrman

19008 East 37th Terrace

Independence, Missouri 64057

MTC–00005947

From: Brian K. Rineberg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In the year’s past you have shown no

genuine concern for the ‘‘CONSUMER’’. This

latest settlement further amplifies the general

consensus within the DOJ and individual

states Attorney General. That is to stifle the

consumers actual wants and needs. This

latest settlement does nothing to ‘‘HELP’’ the

consumer, it just gives OEM manufacturers

the opportunity to provide an onslaught of

advertising to unsuspecting consumers.

I am often called in to ‘‘clean up’’ a messy

OEM installation of an operating system

containing links, icons and registry settings

the consumer had no idea was to be included

on their new computer. These advertisements

are an intrusion and should be disallowed in

all cases. If an OEM manufacturer develops

a contract with an ISP for example, the ISP

can simply provide software in the form

distributable media such as a compact disc.

This will save the consumer both time and

money by allowing them to simply discard

the unwanted inclusions. There is just one

question needed to be answered. What gives

‘‘ANY’’ solution provider the ‘‘RIGHT’’ to

include anything a consumer does not

specifically ask for? The answer is quite

simple. They have no right, no matter what

licensing agreement they have with the

manufacturer of the in question operating

system.

I am insulted by the inclusion of the word

‘‘consumer’’ interjected into this battle

between competitor’s. Lawyers and State

Attorneys General have no idea what is best

for the consumer. They have only the best

interest of the competitor or campaign

supporter providing the question. When I

purchase a corkscrew, I get a corkscrew,

nothing more.

Brian Rineberg

San Marcos, CA

MTC–00005948

From: JR

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi,

Thank you for accepting feedback on the

Microsoft case. I am a software developer

with 13 years of experience. The most

important thing to me is to be able to deliver

quality software solutions to my customers in

a timely manner. This has been getting easier

and easier to do as Microsoft has continued

to improve their products. Any effort to

inhibit Microsoft will hurt my business, the

business of my customers and ultimately it

will impact our economy.

Product by product, I know first hand that

one guy with one computer can compete

with Microsoft. This makes the monopoly

charge against them seem silly. Microsoft has

been able to aggressively produce great

products that people want. I do wish they

would price and sell all their products

separately. This would disarm those claiming

there is a monopoly. However, even under

that scenario, Microsoft would still sell more

product than anyone else because as a rule

their products are easier to use and are more

robust than their competition.

I believe the persecution on Microsoft is

primarily instigated by those who wish to

have the ‘‘monopoly’’ for themselves. I have

used all the products from those competitors

and I can say without hesitation that their

products are harder to use and are

significantly more costly. Until they improve

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24769

their products they do not deserve the market

share that Microsoft has. Please let our

industry compete. There are thousands of

businesses spending millions of dollars in

this industry and I can assure you that they

are very careful before committing real

money on products. The best products have

always floated to the top. Please do not try

to manage that process.

Thanks—JR

John Richardson

MTC–00005949

From: Gayle Rivera

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

We believe that the Microsoft case should

be settled and not continued to drag on.

Sincerely,

Ben & Gayle Rivera

1925 Willow Avenue

West Sacramento, CA 95691

MTC–00005950

From: Loyce Reid

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm

Subject: Tunney Act

I believe the settlement to be fair and we

should get this settled and move on. I am a

consumer and have no special interests.

Loyce Reid

loycere@earthlink.net

MTC–00005951

From: David Hogan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sir:

It is time that the Government stop

spending our tax dollars for such a frivolous

case against Microsoft. Please settle this case

now and move on to problems that are real

problems. This case is not one that the

American people want to continue with.

Regards:

David Hogan

MTC–00005952

From: bryce holmes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It’s time to settle the Microsoft case. The

settlement that has been worked out between

the federal government and Microsoft is fair.

Consumers should be the focus of antitrust

cases, rather than competitors. Microsoft has

been hobbled long enough.

Bryce Holmes

MTC–00005953

From: Ed Seits

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is way past time to end this litigation.

You should not cave to a few wealthy

competitors who are trying to stifle

innovation by attacking the company that has

done more for advancing the use of computer

technology by the average consumer than any

other enterprise in modern history. Microsoft

should be lauded for its contributions to

improving our quality of life—rather than

being crucified for being successful! You

should respond to your responsibility to

serve the interests of America’s citizens by

settling this case NOW!

Thank you for considering my comments.

Ed Seits

Carmichael, CA

MTC–00005954

From: Knobler Al M NSSC

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The purpose of this e-mail is to express my

desire to settle the microsoft restraint of trade

issue under the federal government’s

comprehensive agreement. There are

significantly more pressing matters that

require the focus of the federal government

than Microsoft’s past practices. A recent

example would be prosecution of terrorists.

Enough already with Microsoft.

Alan Knobler

MTC–00005955

From: Jeff Kehl

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the Justice Department,

I am writing to express my support of the

proposed settlement with Microsoft. I feel

that it is in the best interest of all parties,

Microsoft, federal and state governments and

individuals. I believe that weakening a

corporation such as Microsoft would be a big

mistake. It is one of the leading companies

in the world and the US Government, and to

a slightly lesser extent, the state governments

shouldn’t attempt to harm this company. The

economy needs to have strong companies

such as Microsoft to lead the way to a more

connected and compatible computing

environment.

I would appreciate your doing everything

to bring this settlement to fruition and allow

Microsoft to be able to concentrate 100% of

its energies on producing products and

operating systems that increase productivity

and benefit all end users.

Cordially,

Jeffrey T. Kehl

MTC–00005956

From: Allen Anderson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ: As a user of Microsoft products

for the past eight to ten years I could never

really understand the concern for the

customer about Microsoft products, their

instalation, costs, etc. that have been the

emphasis of all the suits against the

company. I have found their pricing

satisfactory and their service excellent.

Obviously the remaining states in the legal

proceedings against have a axe to grind in

that the companies in their states did not

measure up to the expertise of Microsoft and

they hope to damage Microsoft by their

actions. I am not an attorney but rather a

retired banker and can only hope that the

Department of Justice will give both sides an

equal opportunity to prove their case.

Sincerely,

Allen D. Anderson

MTC–00005957

From: Sam Steinhauser

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I have been using Microsoft products for 12

years now in my home and business. The

waste of tax dollars to continue pursuing this

countries own software company which has

set the standard in technology for the world

is beyond belief. I’m sure Microsoft’s

practices may have been questionable, but

what major corporation in this country when

put under the magnifying glass would be

sparkling clean? None!

I started out in 1988 with my first PC made

by Apple. I was completely racked over the

coals by Apple and their lack of support.

Since 1988 I have lost thousands in products

I purchased only to be replaced in a few

months with newer technology. The

technology business is dog eat dog. I paid $80

for a speech recognition program only to find

it would not work with a newer computer

and operating system in less than a year.

Then I realized Microsoft had the same

program. Microsoft’s program was free and

worked with most all systems. Most software

companies will not give you phone support

anymore. I have spent hours with Microsoft’s

Technical Representatives for free on

numerous occasions.

I wanted to move from a text based internet

connection to the current more graphical

used interface. I had several choices,

Netscape, Eudora, ect. For free I could use

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and that’s what

I choose. Therein lies the problem. Microsoft

put a hurt on Netscape, Netscape cried to the

government and this mess started. What a

waste of tax dollar resources! Why can’t we

be proud of having the biggest and most

innovative software corporation in this

country instead of spending millions to stifle

them? Would it be better for the US economy

to have Microsoft in France or Japan? How

many of these people caring the sword for

Microsoft spend 150+ hours in front of a PC

every month? How many work for a

competitor of Microsoft. How many have

used Microsoft products for more than a

decade. It is an embarrassment for this

country to spend this kind of money and

time trying to crush one of it’s very own

companies that sets a world wide standard

for technology and offers unparalleled

support for it’s own products and then drive

down a street in one of the Great United

State’s cities to see homeless people pushing

shopping carts and rummaging through

garbage cans. Please stop this action against

Microsoft now.

Sam Steinhauser

sam@iglou.com

MTC–00005958

From: Sightsaver@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm

Subject: DOJ settlement

It is high time that we put this case behind

us. Clearly the DOJ has better things to do

post 9/11 than pursue this politically

24770 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

motivated witchunt of a great and valuable

Amercan co. I think the proposed settlement

is very much in the national interest.

Sincerely,

Leslie D. Grosinger MD

MTC–00005959

From: Ohmeryhew@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It seems to me to be a just settlement.Lets

not have a small number of states hold this

settlement up. Lets put this behind us and get

back to much more important things.Such as

airport securety,war on terrorism and doing

away with UBL.

MTC–00005961

From: Charles Schneider

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I support it

MTC–00005963

From: Gates, Tom

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Sir or Madam,

I my humble opinion, Microsoft action

should be dismissed. As a consumer who has

had a computer since 1983, I have benefited

from constantly decreasing prices and

increased functionality. I owe a lot of those

positive trends to Microsoft. Further, I think

you should give the company some kind of

AWARD for good corporate citizenship

instead of what you are currently trying to

do.

Thank you.

Tom Gates

Any message forwarded from a source

outside Dain, Goldman or First Boston is the

opinion of that source and cannot be

guaranteed to be accurate.

Tom Gates

First Vice President

RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc

509–574–5542 or 800–323–8870

409 N 2nd St

PO Box 485 Yakima, WA 98907

thomas.g.gates@rbcdain.com

Fax 509–454–0933

MTC–00005964

From: Larry Glaser

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ

Please settle thjs suit ASAP. The current

findings are fair.

L. Glaser

MTC–00005965

From: MsLillieB@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm

Subject: Re:MS settlement

I am against the government pursuing this

any further and I feel all action should stop

at once. Why can’t the government stay out

of business and let free enterprise survive by

it’s self? My tax dollars are being ill spent

and I would like to see a stop to it.

MTC–00005966

From: Mehta, Prakash

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

My name is Prakash Mehta, I am CFO for

Information Management Company located

in Fairfax VA, our company has 250

employees and revenue of $ 19.0 million

I am in favor of DOJ & Microsoft

settlement, we have to move forward in this

economy time instead of fighting, settlement

reach by DOJ & other state is fair and its best

interest of small company specific to those

employed in Information Management

industry. Changing new rules hurts Software

developer preparing product on based of

Microsoft Operating system

Please considered our inputs

Prakash Mehta 703–352–8340

MTC–00005967

From: MesirowEsq@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The settlement is good for the country. Let

progress happen!

John Mesirow

MTC–00005968

From: SBacinoS@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm

Subject: object

Dear Sir:

I object that United States antitrust cases

against Microsoft. I support Microsoft

settlement.

Sincerely,

Simone Bacino

MTC–00005969

From: Gareth Larsen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

In response to the Government’s position

with regard to the Tunney Act I would like

to add my comments concerning Microsoft.

I am appalled at the action taken by the

Government with regards to Microsoft.

I have used their products since the time

of Windows 3.1. I do not know who has been

harmed by Microsoft’s practices and actions.

I purchase and use a great deal of their

software both in my home and in my

business. I cannot recall one instance when

they have failed to provide excellent product

support when I have needed it, almost all of

it free of charge. I certainly have never been

harmed! I feel that their prices have been

extremely fair. Why is the Government trying

to destroy one of the most innovative

companies in the world?

I strongly urge the Department of Justice to

conclude this matter and reach final

settlement without further delay.

Respectfully,

Gareth L. Larsen

Senlar Resources

glarsen@senlar.com

MTC–00005970

From: jdahl@pipeline.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

While I am not an employee of Microsoft

nor a friend of Mr. Gates, I must sincerely

urge you to complete the settlement of the

Microsoft case as quickly as possible. It

appears to me that the current settlement is

both fair and just and it is long past time for

this issue to be put to bed. Microsoft has

certainly given more than it has gotten over

its corporate history, and, after all, this

country IS all about success. Microsoft is

successful, and because they are, we are ALL

successful. Please use the resources that you

have been using to pursue Microsoft to

pursue anyone and everything involved with

bin Laden/Al Qaeda /Sept 11, et. al. And put

the Microsoft issue to rest!!!

Respectully,

James K. Dahl

3815 South Kalispell Street

Aurora, CO 80013–2703

voice: 303.693.9869

fax: 303.617.0308

email: jdahl@pipeline.com

MTC–00005971

From: Chris McQueeny

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing this email to convey waht I

hope will be the opinion of the public on the

Microsoft Settlement. While this aggrement is

a tough one, it is in the best interest of not

only the economy, but the consumer base

that it be passed. I feel that protracted

litigation will only further hinder the

progress Microsoft is making in the modern

world. I hope my opinion has helped the

Department of Justice settle this case.

Sincerely,

Chris McQueeny

MTC–00005972

From: Lenora Lawrence

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:28pm

Subject: Dear DOJ,

Dear DOJ,

Enough is enough—Leave Microsoft alone.

One of the best run and most sucessful

companies in the US and THE

GOVERNMENT wants to destroy the

company. The United States of America

should incourage free interprise not distroy

it. A concerned citizen.

Yours,

Lenora Lawrence

elytisranch@hotmail.com

MTC–00005973

From: Jsimsaug@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:28pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I am urging a final settlement on the issues.

Litigation is timely and costly and quite

frankly a waste of good taxpayers monies.

This case has gone on far too long. I urge a

final settlement!

Jeanne Sims

GS Consulting Services, Inc.

Phone: 817.430.9520

Fax: 817.430.9507

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24771

Cell: 817.999.9887

MTC–00005974

From: flapolecat@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Gentlemen (and Ladies):

I wish to comment on the settlement. It is

in the best interest of the country, the

government and in particular small business

people such as me, to stop this exercise.

There will always be the ‘‘have’s and the

have not and there will always be some one

who feels that they have been wronged. If

you, in your infinite wisdom, tell me that I

can not innovate because it may offend my

neighbor, I will stop, and America will stop.

It is reasonable to rectify a problem once

identified but not to make it retroactive to

when the problem did not exist. As new

things emerge, new problems will be the

result. I, personally, did not fully understand

the problem. I understand the concern of the

competition and the urge to ‘‘protect’’ their

turf, but a law suit when the only crime was

to be smarter than those before us?

Playing this game only hurts the people

who work for, invest in, and use Microsoft

products. I find they are a very responsible

provider of free support and very competitive

in their pricing. I recently purchased a

Quicken 2002 program. It would not load

properly in my machine and the literature

said ‘‘there may be a charge of 95 cents a

minute for technical advice. I sent the

program back. If it were Microsoft, there

would be ‘‘fixes’’ on the Internet. When you

are good there are many who will be jealous

but allowing them the use of the ‘‘law’’ to

satisfy their hurt feelings is dangerous for our

country.

I am 66 years old and have worked for

private industry and the government (NASA)

for most of those years. I am presently retired

and find a lot of enjoyment using my

computer(s). I use a multitude of programs

and usually rate them by the amount of

support they offer. Some are good and the

rest go by the way side. Please consider all

the implications in your decision.

Thank you

Fred Budukiewicz

325 Inlet Ave.

Merritt Island, FL 32953

MTC–00005975

From: Ginny Caughey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a software developer and partner in

a small software company located in North

Carolina that develops software for

municipalities and business all over the US

and Canada. I am also a Compuserve

subscriber as well as a AOL–Time Warner

RoadRunner subscriber for Internet access.

As you may imagine, the current legal

proceedings against Microsoft interest me

professionally as well as personally very

much.

I am very satisfied with the terms of the

Microsoft settlement, as is my state’s attorney

general. I do not use some of Microsoft’s

competitors’ products because I find them

INFERIOR, not merely because Microsoft

provides competing products. I do use some

products that compete directly with

Microsoft’s because I find them better suited

for my purposes. And I purchase Microsoft

products instead of using free products from

other sources when that is the best business

choice for my clients. I do not believe that

it is in my best interests as a consumer or as

a software developer for a minority of state

attorneys general to pursue this matter

further in hopes of providing an unfair

competitive advantage to some of their

constituents. If they truly want to help AOL

or Sun Microsystems, for example, they

could advise them to provide better products

and services! Competition is the engine that

results in the best products and services for

me and my clients, and the current terms of

the settltement ensure that competition for

all parties is possible. I hope that the Court

will agree with me that this matter should be

ended with the current settlement.

Sincerely,

Ginny Caughey

Vice President

Carolina Software, Inc.

Wilmington NC

MTC–00005976

From: Arthur Whitson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ,

The Microsoft Settlement is fair and just.

There is no reason for delaying any longer.

Free enterprises must continue to be free to

compete. If a company wins in the

marketplace by consumers buying it’s

products: The people have the right to

choose!!!

I am a resident of Manatee County Florida.

Art Whitson

MTC–00005977

From: Wes Green

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Litigation is the cancer of America that

robs from the economy and lines the pockets

of opportunists. Microsoft has offered a fair

structured settlement to benefit the people

and silence its critics. However, a number of

states refuse to approve the settlement due to

their inability to make a stand in the face of

the lobbyists of the self serving technological

companies within their own borders. I

implore the government to approve the

agreement for what it is; a mutual

compromise for all involved.

Move forward on stopping the corporate

takeovers that have robbed competition from

America. Attack the AOL’s and Oracle’s that

use their power and political clout to destroy

the American dream. Until the US

Government acts equally against all many of

the people will just agree that the

government is nothing more than a puppet

for the lobbyists lining the politicians

pockets.

MTC–00005978

From: Mrtea@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Mr. Attorney General Ashcroft:

Please get this case settled and get rid of

the 9 renegade states who are prolonging the

agony for some political purpose.

Rick Trenkmann

Chicago

MTC–00005979

From: Tony Tidball

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm

Subject: I feel the settlement re Microsoft is

a fair settlement.

I feel the settlement re Microsoft is a fair

settlement.

MTC–00005980

From: Sheila Milligan

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello!

I’m a consumer of Microsoft products/

technology. I have to tell you how

disappointed I am at the personal vendetta

that the DOJ is carrying out against Microsoft

for a few insiders in the technology industry.

Seems that the DOJ has nothing better to

do with my money as a taxpayer. But they

have all the money in the world to spend on

a useless lawsuit. Why don’t you invest this

money in something we can use—like

upgrading our education system,

rehabilitating real criminals or public

education of self responsibility?

You have Chevron and Texaco merging to

create yet another monopoly. Of course you

wouldn’t even consider thinking that

taxpayers paying smokers to live like

millionaires because of their bad habits are

bad. Good to know that our States Attorney

Generals prefer smokers to great products in

winning state money from you. How blind

the DOJ is to real consumer issues and how

blind the DOJ is to technology. What a great

laugh you provided the entire technology

industry with the technology trial by lawyers

that know nothing about technology. But

now the lawyers know how to turn on a

computer—that makes for smart business.

Good to know.

Thanks for the vent—I’m so disappointed

in the system and yes I only see it from my

side—I’m a very happy consumer of

Microsoft products. Go Bill—Keep up these

great products, programs and support. At

least someone thinks about the consumers.

Sheila K. Milligan-Trounson

Owner

Milligan Events

733 North 14th Street

Boise, ID 83702

MTC–00005981

From: Jhilge1032@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This settlement as set forth by the

government should be approved. It is time to

stop the legal proceedings and let the

companies help the public through their

innovative developments.

24772 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

The appeals by other companies who want

to be able give the public inferior products

at the same or greater cost should be denied.

A. Hilgendorf

Bloomfield, MI

MTC–00005982

From: Marcella Fenske

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm

Subject: innovate now, get this over with,

please.

MTC–00005983

From: Kathurban@cs.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please abide by the court decision and DO

NOT allow continued law suites to re try this

issue with Microsoft. Microsoft has helped

the world in general and our economy does

not need to have the same anti trust issues

re visited. I believe in the anti-trust laws but

this Microsoft issue was decided and should

be put to rest.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Urban

Atlanta, GA

MTC–00005984

From: Ingham, Richard

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern at the Justice

Dept.:

Please support this settlement and bring an

end to this case. Continued litigation benefits

only competitors, who should not be able to

win in the courtroom what they cannot win

in the marketplace.

Sincerely,

Richard Ingham

CIS Development

Mailcode: N03–2A

Phone: 508–549–6357

Fax: 508–549–6698

mail to: ringham@foxboro.com

MTC–00005985

From: Dusza, Michael E

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear USDOJ:

I am pleased with the settlement in the

Microsoft case and do not want to see it go

any further.

I am also a very modest Microsoft

shareholder (100 shares).

I can see no further benefit to the

consumers of the world by dragging this case.

Please concentrate your efforts to locate

and punish those who would destroy the

fabric and being of our wonderful country...

including the United States Department of

Justice.

Thank you.

Michael W Dusza, Technical Consultant

Mellon Investor Services LLC

105 Challenger Road

Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660

(201) 373–7302

mdusza@melloninvestor.com

MTC–00005986

From: Ted Rickel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm

I believe that it has been and still is wrong

for the U. S. Dept. of Justice to have any court

cases against Microsoft. Microsoft has done

nothing wrong. And the U. S. Dept. of Justice

should never have brought a suit against

Microsoft in the first place. All of this

litigation is a waste of my tax dollars. The U.

S. Dept. of Justice should use those dollars

to fight terrorists and illegal immigration.

Thank you.

Ted

01–02–02

MTC–00005988

From: Frank Fujioka

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I have used Microsoft products for the past

9 years. I consider them to be an important

part of my computer work. Considering the

time, money and personnel required to

produce the software, I believe that the prices

of their products are extremely reasonable.

I have used other competitive products and

find them to be inferior and I do not consider

Microsoft to be a monopoly. It is simply the

best product on the market.

Frank Fujioka

4636 S Rhodie Ln

Freeland, WA 98249

MTC–00005989

From: PMcCombie@Herc.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sir:

I wanted to voice my opinion of the

proposed Microsoft settlement. I feel that it

is in my best interest, as a consumer, to allow

the current settlement to be approved.

Professionally, as an IT support

representative for a multinational corporation

(Hercules, Inc.), the commonality of

Microsoft software has allowed me to provide

better support in a more timely fashion to my

customers. If the proposed remedies are

extended, that will have a severe negative

impact on both my professional and personal

life.

Sincerely,

Patrick J. McCombie

MTC–00005990

From: MarvinLaw@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

After so many years of litigation, I feel the

settlement finally negotiated with Microsoft,

the government and several States is, in fact,

in the best interests of all concerned parties,

as well as the technology industry and the

general public who are theoretically the

purported beneficiaries of this litigation and

settlement.

I feel the Settlement as negotiated, should

be approved and the litigation ended. The

marketplace, as usual, will then sort out the

surviving competitors based upon their

products and prices.

Thank you for your consideration.

Marvin Srulowitz, Esq.

MTC–00005991

From: gordon hill

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

As a spouse, parent, business person and

American citizen I am concerned about the

fairness with which we are treated. From

what I see, I believe the Microsoft settlement

is going more in favor of the rich and

powerful than toward an equitable

resolution. Microsoft has used their position

to directly influence this outcome, which is

their responsibility to employees, customers

and shareholders ( I am the latter two);

however, I am convinced they also abuse

their position through intimidation both

direct and indirect.

Their direct bullying can be seen in the

restrictive practices they have used in forcing

their distributors to favor their products.

Their indirect (covert) actions are evidenced

by their avoiding adherence to standards they

supposedly support by adding features which

make the use thereof non compliant with the

standard; e.g., their JAVA ‘extras’. This is not

a plea to punish them, rather one to

encourage the Department of Justice to be

enthusiastic in encouraging fair play.

Thank you,

Gordon Hill, Explainer

creative explaining services

8620–15th Lane N.,

St. Petersburg, FL 33702

http://www.explainer.com

727.576.4028

MTC–00005992

From: gppatnude@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the Microsoft Settlement has

wasted millions of taxpayer dollars as well as

millions in funds from Microsoft as well.

While all this was going on, untold illegal

copies were made and sold, further

undermining the economy of the US and the

technological leadership of American hightech companies. This has only served to

increase the cost of software development

and protection. This whole process should

have been expedited in order to permit

Microsoft to get back to ‘‘normal business

operations’’ years earlier.

Microsoft is the leader in software

technology and should not be punished

because they are good at what they do. The

built their market share based on the ability

to deliver solid and reliable technology. In

reality, Microsoft is the injured party and

should be reimbursed for the legal costs

required to defend their position.

MTC–00005993

From: Sam DeNardo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:28pm

Subject: Microsoft

Hi,

It is plain to see that Microsoft’s Windows

operating system has won the race in getting

people to use to use it. I know this fact has

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24773

not been lost to anyone with common sense.

Imagine the mess the DOJ would be in today

without a ‘‘universal computer language’’.

The Judges on the bench use Windows ???

The United States is currently facing a crisis

of epic proportions. It would be insane for

the DOJ and all other US law enforcement

agencies to try and communicate effectively

without a ‘‘universal computer language’’.

Let’s face it you would not want our leaders

at the DOJ, the Senate, and the Congress

speaking in French, German, Spanish, Italian,

and Greek on a daily basis to conduct

business. Let’s slap Microsoft on the wrist for

anything they did wrong in getting where

they are, but let us get on with declaring an

Official ‘‘universal computer language’’ like

we did with the English Language.

Thank you

Sam

MTC–00005994

From: HLeeW1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm

Subject: Settlement

DOJ,

I think it is time to settle this costly law

suit with Microsoft and let every one get on

with life. DOJ has made it’s point and can

still keep a check on Microsoft. We have

more important things to get done in

America. Settle now and get it over with.

Lee Wallace

MTC–00005995

From: IreneD8454@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please stop wasting government money

and finalize the settlement. There are better

things to do to protect consumers and to

make life better for our citizens than to

continue litigation that nobody but special

interests seem to desire.

Irene Dowdy

MTC–00005996

From: manuel reyes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm

Subject: DOJ get off Microsofts’ Back

To the demos in the Doj, get off the

Microsolts’ back. Clinton and his lap dogs

have blackmail the people of this country.

Manuel D. Reyes

2892 Rockford Falls Drive North

Jacksonville, Florida 32224–4878

MTC–00005997

From: CrisKell@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

Why doesn’t the DOJ quit tormenting

Microsoft and move on. The states are

claiming that the consumer was ’shortchanged’ by Microsoft. It seems to me that if

the consumer didn’t like the Windows OS,

they could vote with their feet. You can’t

make somone buy what they don’t want to

buy. This is all triggered by whining

competitors who can’t make the grade on

their two feet.

I should think the fact that Microsoft is

maintaining its workforce when layoffs in all

sectors are a problem would be reason

enough to support their success rather than

try to stifle it.

Shame on the whiners!! Please stand up for

one of our great American Companies—

MICROSOFT!!

Christine M. Kellstrom

1 Cromwell Drive

Morristown, NJ 07960

973–898–6751

CrisKell@AOL.com

MTC–00005998

From: ESanmiguel@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:32pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear sir or Madam: there are other

companies that truly have monopolies and

provide the worst service to consumers and

yet DOJ does not go after them; for intance

telephone companies, like sprint. Hence

compare to telephone companies microsoft

should be let go fordward. As to true

monopolies go after them instead.

Thanks.

MTC–00005999

From: Marcella Fenske

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:32pm

let microsoft act like a businness with no

further delay, government, take a hike.......

MTC–00006000

From: Maines, Roy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings,

I would like to share my opinion regarding

the settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case.

I would like to applaude the efforts of the

Justice Department under the Bush

Administration. The settlement that has been

proposed is reasonable and fair to all parties.

It is time to put this case behind us and move

on. I believe that it is crucial to the US

economy, to settle this case and move on

with the business at hand. The never ending

stream of lawsuits filed against Microsoft by

it’s competitors is designed to derail one of

our Nations most successful companies.

Microsoft is clearly a key player in the US

Technology industry as a leader in a number

of key areas and as a partner to thousands of

smaller companies who depend on Microsoft

innovations as the basis of their business.

If your taking count, I am all for the

settlement. It’s time we move on!

Kind Regards,

Roy Maines

Senior Systems Analyst

Perot Systems Corp.

MTC–00006001

From: Larry Shirley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

It is time to put the Microsoft issue to bed.

If the DOJ had spent as much time, money

and energy following up on terrorist leads

(i.e. the Minnesota debacle; tips from foreign

intelligence agencies, etc., etc.) in this

country as they have trying to punish an

outstanding, innovative company like

Microsoft, the national tragedy that occurred

on 9–11–01 could have been avoided.

The DOJ and FBI must share a great deal

of blame for the failure to detect the longrange planning required to pull off a terrorist

attack like this on our country. Shame on

those who did not act on information they

had months or even years before the attack.

Instead of following up on obvious leads/

indications, you were out to destroy one of

the most beneficial American companies of

the last half of the 20th Century.

Sincerely,

Larry D. Shirley

Mountain Home, AR 72653

P.S. Question: What are you going to do

about the ENRON debacle?? Where were you

when the top brass of this corporation were

running it into the ground?? You need to get

your priorities straight.

MTC–00006002

From: David Hodgson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

I want to express my concern about the

settlement with Microsoft. I don’t believe that

this settlement does anything to fix the

problem of the anti-trust practices of

Microsoft. It leaves the door wide open for

them to continue the same practices and

actually makes them legal with a court

ruling. It also does nothing to help those

companies that have been damaged by

Microsoft, nor does it help the consumers

that have been overcharged by Microsoft.

Please take another look at what Microsoft

has done and at what this settlement will do

to fix the problem. I don’t think that breaking

up the company is the answer (one big

Microsoft, or two small Microsofts, it’s still

the same), but this settlement does not bring

justice.

Thank you for your time.

David Hodgson

dhodgson@sacog.org

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00006003

From: Edward Gioffre

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:31pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To Whom it may concern,

My opinion on this matter is that we shoud

move on. Lets end this useless Antitrust

litigation, and focus on our economy. This

has been a waiste of my tax dollars from the

very begining. Those competitors are just

jelouse of Microsoft’s success, they should

try to innovate instead of litigate.

Microsoft Corp., one of the most powerfull

software technology companies in the world,

and its an American corporation! Lets keep

leadership companies here in the states, not

overseas.

Ed Gioffre

MTC–00006004

From: Fern

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

24774 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

I believe it is in the best interest of

consumers for the DOJ to act quickly and go

ahead with the terms of the comprehensive

settlement reached by the federal government

and nine states.

Additional litigation is a total waste of the

taxpayers’ money.

A concerned citizen,

Fern Price

CC:msfin@microsoft.com@inetgw

MTC–00006005

From: hwfascher

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

It seems that Microsoft is willing to accept

the offered settlement, so lets get this behind

us so everyone can get on with what they do

best. Develop new and better software.

Sincerely,

Harvey

MTC–00006006

From: dale nichols

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm

Dear Attorney-General,

I am writing about the Microsoft anti-trust

case and the refusal of some nine states to

accept the settlement already accepted by the

other states involved.

I was totally shocked by the gloating Ms

Reno when she announced that a blow for

the consumer had been struck against this

evil giant. This blow costs those she was

protecting literally millions of dollars in the

various retirement funds throughout the

country as well as millions to all investors.

There is a direct relation between this

lawsuit and the tumble of the stock market

that followed. I and many others believed

that this attack on Microsoft was politically

motivated by the Clinton administration and

hoped that justice would prevail once a new

administration took office. We need to put an

end to this economic persecution by what

appears to be self-serving interests of the

competitors of Microsoft. After the many

hours the government and the taxpayer

money that has been spent on this politically

motivated attack on one of America’s most

consumer friendly companies. (Microsoft has

kept the costs of software at an affordable

level.)

And after a hard won settlement has been

reached that both sides have agreed to WHY?

are a few states trying to continue this attack?

It is my opinion that the state of California

for one has rejected this settlement because

of the pressure the political leaders of that

state are feeling from the competitors of

Microsoft that are resident in that state. Sort

of a warning to outside companies don’t be

too successful or else.

Giving competitors a foot up by punishing

an aggressive hard working company only

warns other companies that success doesn’t

have to come through hard work and new

ideas, if you are losing a race blame the

winner...its their fault for your lack of

progress in the market place. Please set a tone

that says we are not fooled by these pretenses

that Microsoft is successful because of hard

work and that we respect that. Stop the ongoing persecution and make the agreed upon

settlement the final chapter. Lets all get back

to work for a better climate for business in

America.

Sincerely,

Dale Nichols

MTC–00006007

From: RoseMHern@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This entire proceeding has been nothing

more than a ‘‘witchhunt’’ conducted by our

government on behalf of PR-powerful

corporations. It has done nothing to protect

the consumer, nor to advance technology and

has only managed to dwindle the hardearned investments of people like myself

who trust the innovations developed at

Microsoft. It’s time we settle and get it over

with—and it is time the DOJ reign in the

renegade states who still want to operate in

the dark ages.

Rose M. Hern?ndez

MTC–00006008

From: WIrwin5597@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:33pm

Subject: (no subject)

I find the amount of time and money my

government (my elected officials) have spent

litigating this issue to be totally irresponsible.

Accept the settlement and stop any further

litigation. Can you imagine a world that did

not have Bill Gates and Microsoft??

MTC–00006009

From: Tony P. Krvaric

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Give it a rest already! As an american and

a Microsoft shareholder I’d like to see this

witch-hunt end once and for all. It saddens

me to see that there’s actually a limit to how

successful a company can become before all

the lawyers and politicians start to go after

it. Microsoft needs to be able to compete and

increase the functionality of their products

and services. In my opinion, the company is

more vulnerable today than at any other

point in time, due to the rapid adoption of

the Internet.

New operating systems and software can be

spread very quickly and reach mass

adoptation if it’s the right product. My

Microsoft products have been increasing in

functionality while prices have stayed the

same or decreased. I’d say that’s a benefit to

all consumers.

In addition, there are enormous cost

savings when many individuals and

corporations use the same software—imagine

if we had 8 operating systems and 16 word

processing or spreadsheet programs on the

market. It’d be chaos.

In addition, Microsoft’s products

continually will awards for being great

software. That does not mean they’re prefect,

only that they’re the best out there. If

someone offers me a better product at the

same or lower price, I’d naturally consider it.

I am sick and tired of listening to whining

babies like Larry Ellison of Oracle and Scott

McNealy of Sun Microsystems. They should

spend less time on the legal circuit whining

and more time hunkering down and coming

out with superior products.

As a republican I’m particularly disgusted

with Sen. Orrin Hatch’s stand on the issue

when it’s so obvious he’s not reflecting the

US as a whole, but instead looking to protect

Novell from competition—it’s unamerican!

Thanks for considering my opinion. Warm

Regards,

Tony P. Krvaric

San Diego, Calif.

MTC–00006010

From: Perry Herman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Dear DOJ:

It fascinates me that while corporations

like AOL/Time Warner use their economic

might to control the Internet Provider Service

market and while other media giants

continue to increase their monopolistic

control over the airwaves/cable/satellite, a

handful of state’s attorney generals have

decided to tirelessly pursue the Microsoft

issue. They continue to rally on behalf of

Netscape (which, despite its vociferous

opposition to huge monopolies, sold out to

a huge monopoly) and the billionaires who

control Sun and Oracle. In the meantime,

middle class share holders like me continue

to suffer economic harm. I guess state

governments feel it’s their duty to continue

fighting for a handful of Silicon Valley

billionaires.

I want this anti-trust matter resolved now.

My retirement depends on it.

Thank you,

Perry Herman

MTC–00006012

From: MPavlow@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

January 2, 2002

This case has gone on long enough. It is

time to settle the Microsoft case for the good

of the public and the economy.

Marlene Pavlow

MTC–00006013

From: Ikoti@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement as

earlier proposed between the company and

the Dept. of Justice. Continued litigation is

not in the best interest of the consumer,

competition, or free trade. Such action is

only in the interest of those companies that

are competitors of Microsoft and are not able

to compete on a level playing field. They

desire the courts to offer them an unfair

advantage in the marketplace.

In the best interests of the country, and the

consumers in general, settle the case and let’s

move on. The questions addressed in the

original case have long been overcome by

events.

John J Higgins

Boise, ID

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24775

MTC–00006014

From: jay@bonzi.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft has had to endure the wrath of

a government lawsuit waged on behalf of its

competitors and I call on the Justice

Department to put a quick end to this

unnecessary and harmful court action.

Microsoft has made significant contributions

to our nation’s economy, to technological

innovation and—most importantly—to the

quality of life for American consumers. For

the past twenty-five years, no company has

done more for consumers and our national

economy than Microsoft. Microsoft is one of

our most globally competitive companies and

we should be bolstering its competitive

position not poisoning its roots.

The Justice Department has spent millions

of dollars on this case and never produced

a single consumer who’d been harmed by

Microsoft. The Government failed to prove

that consumers have been adversely affected

by Microsoft’s business practices. On the

other hand, what we have seen is that the

economy and technological innovation have

been adversely affected by the government’s

business practices. It’s time for the Bush

Administration to move to settle this case

and to lift the burden the Department of

Justice has placed on the high technology

industry.

Look, the antitrust laws were written to

deal with industries with high market entry

barriers and long-lasting market dominance—

i.e. that would use their power to harm

consumers. The government and the court

have been unable to find a harmed consumer.

Besides, in the high tech industry, innovation

and its resulting constantly changing

marketplace renders any possible market

power obsolete.

Can’t you seed that this case is one of the

most significant factors that will influence

the future health of our economy? I am

convinced that it is in the best interest of

consumers and the U.S. economy for this

case to be resolved as quickly as possible.

The U.S. economy needs a boost, not

continued litigation... and we need the

creative team at Microsoft to keep doing their

great work.

Jay Bonzi

MTC–00006015

From: Barry Behrman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Nobody has done it better than Microsoft

for the individual consumer! ‘‘User Friendly’’

Those are the words that matter most and the

other jealous nerds are not at all concerned

with this. Bill Gates built the better mouse

trap and it is entirely up to them to come up

with a competitive operating system. It is

quite obvious that they can not and that their

answer is to screw it up for the rest of us so

they can sell inferior products that do not

work well with other systems and force us to

hire technicians to keep the systems running.

Thank you!

Q-Master Billiards

MTC–00006016

From: WiltonWood@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would recommend settling the case, and

get back to business!!

MTC–00006017

From: Tom.Luther@flextronics.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm

Subject: end the embarrassment of DOJ, quit

while you’re behind

I’d like to thank the ruling political class

for making a mockery of the Constitution,

and dragging the DoJ through the mud. So

called anti-trust legislation is impossibly

broad and famous for the political process

used to select victims. Microsoft is only the

latest example of what is wrong with the DoJ,

DC, and the anti-trust laws that cripple the

economy.

Microsoft now pays millions annually in

homage to its (now acknowledged) master in

DC. The trolls have their pound of flesh, they

will crawl beneath their bridges and wait for

the next kill. Perhaps it will not be so large

or so arrogant as Microsoft. But there are no

lack of companies who fail to see the

‘‘success trap’’ embedded in our legal system.

It doesn’t pay to succeed too well in America.

And it’s particularly poor practice to not

even pay lip service, much less direct graft,

to the DC mob. Microsoft made all these

mistakes.

The ultimate irony of the ‘‘settlement’’ is

that Microsoft has secured a monopoly on

public school children. Institutionalizing a

monopoly is a comic and fitting end to the

litigation. I suggest that the DoJ quit now, lest

the settlement be expanded to ‘‘force’’

Microsoft to supply software to all

government organizations (possibly to be

later expanded to include all government

suppliers and contractors) throughout the

US.

Tom Luther

411 Cutler Street

Raleigh, NC 27603–1921

919.821.5521

luthert@asme.org

MTC–00006018

From: Ted Rickel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:35pm

I believe that it has been and still is wrong

for the U.S. Dept. of Justice to have any court

cases against Microsoft, Microsoft has done

nothing wrong. And the U.S. Dept. of Justice

should never have brought a suit against

Microsoft in the first place. All of this

litigation is a waste of my tax dollars. The

U.S. Dept. of Justice should use those dollars

to fight terrorists and illegal immigration.

Thank you

Ted

01–02–02

MTC–00006019

From: Randy (038) Marinelle Szenasy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please let the Microsoft Settlement go

through immediately in its original, without

any further disruption from special interest

groups individual state governments, who are

trying to make money from it.

Consumers across this nation want the

settlement to go through as is, and also want

this constant attempts to derail it stopped

once and for all. Please do this

immediately!!!

Thank you,

Marinelle K. Szenasy

Hobbs, New Mexico

MTC–00006020

From: Laura Dodds

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

How can world computer services progress

if the MAJOR innovator in the world is

continually restricted from giving complete

services to the world. I URGE that Microsoft

be allowed to continue their outstanding

record of innovation without any further

legal constraint. Let’s make the new century

the best in communications with MIcrosoft

leading the way for everyone!!!

MTC–00006021

From: Scott McNairy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is important to realize that the remaining

9 states in the DOJ case that are seeking very

radical resolutions that lie outside of the

scope of what Microsoft has been found

guilty of are all homes to competing firms

products, ironic isn’t it—given that

Monopolies don’t have competitors. The

court should stick to the already harsh

resolution that the DOJ has ratified.

Scott McNairy

MTC–00006022

From: Vic and Gigi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

It is my sincere desire the the ‘‘United

States Department of Justice’’, and/or, the

States that have not yet agreed to settle this

Microsoft debacle, do so now, without

anymore delay and in my opinion,

unjustified litigation! Any more delay in an

attempt to punish, an already punished

Microsoft, would only serve to further

weaken an already weakened economy.

Sincerely,

Victor Scaturo

MTC–00006023

From: LYONCLAN@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I urge the District Court to accept the above

subject...it’s fair!

Richard Lyon

600 South The Strand

Oceanside, CA 92054

MTC–00006024

From: Richardson, David M

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

24776 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

It is time to settle and end the persecution

of Microsoft and the free enterprise system.

Thank you,

David Richardson

david.m.richardson@turner.com

MTC–00006025

From: JBATES1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Government Officials

You have wasted enough of puplic monies

pursuing this antitrust action. You only hurt

our American economy by prolonging this

action. You are wrong, get over it , and get

going to building our economy!

John Bates,

New York

MTC–00006026

From: Tom Byrne

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Although I would like to see the Microsoft

suit go the US Supreme Court where I am

confident that the District Court’s verdict

would be vacated, the Federal government

and Microsoft have finally reached agreement

on settling the matter. Therefore, this

settlement should be accepted by the court.

From its very beginnings this suit was ill

conceived, politically motivated, and

underwritten by Microsoft competitors.

While certain Microsoft contracting practices

deserved judicial scrutiny, the essence of the

suit missed the underlying technical issue by

a country mile. The battle is really about

something called a Virtual Machine (VM), an

internal part of the operating system that the

Internet browser relies on and that an end

user never really sees.

The VM is the software component in the

browser that allows ‘‘Java’’ to work. Java is

the much-ballyhooed technology that Sun

Microsystems touts as the lingua franca of the

Internet that will eliminate the need for

robust operating systems. Obviously, the Sun

and Netscape folks support this approach

and Microsoft does not. Microsoft perceives

Java as merely another programming

language, albeit well suited to the Internet,

and has already ‘‘enhanced and embraced’’ it

by creating J++ (now C#). Of course, it should

also be noted that the entire stable of

Microsoft languages are being upgraded to

exploit the Internet.

The Microsoft .Net based languages

leverage the Windows operating systems (95,

98, NT, 2000, XP) thereby creating

performance and functionality advantages

that a stand-alone language could never

achieve. Herein lies what the battle is really

all about. Should Microsoft’s be allowed to

exploit the operating system advantages that

it has spend billions of dollars to develop in

order to make the best VM that it can, or

should the government create a separate

Internet/Java industry by edict? Further,

should Microsoft be constrained from further

enhancing operating systems functionality? It

should be noted that significant technical

arguments about specific functionalities

being stand-alone, incorporated into an

operating system, or leveraged have gone on

for decades with each approach having its

ebb and flow as technology advances. Java,

the mantra from the ‘‘open standards folks’’

(i.e., Microsoft competitors), is pursuing the

very desirable goal of creating an

environment that would allow any program

to run on any computer without any

modification. This pursuit is not new.

Over the past three decades there have

been several attempts to achieve this goal. In

fact, about a dozen years ago, some of the

folks who are now working on Java also

worked on another attempt named ‘‘X

Windows’’. X Windows attempted to

compete with Microsoft Windows and

Macintosh Windows, but it failed to gain

market share because Microsoft and Apple

continually improved their product faster

than X Windows could catch up with the

functionality of the previous version. This

time out, the Federal government—perhaps

as an unwitting ally—tried to stop, or at least

slow down, Microsoft’s progress so that the

Java technology could catch up; a very bad

move and one which probably contributed to

the technology meltdown.

The Federal government’s rationale for

initiating the suit was its interest in ‘‘leveling

the playing field’’. However, Sun

Microsystems is a major league player in its

own right ($18 billion in 2001 revenues). In

fact, when one considers the financial and

marketing muscle of its partners, and the

AOL/Time Warner consortium, these forces

actually dwarf Microsoft. The government

took sides in a technology battle best left to

our free market economy. Now that

agreement has been reached, it is time to end

this charade.

MTC–00006027

From: OSHAExpert@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I throughly support the Microsoft

Settlement. The Justice Dept. should have

never brought this suit in the first place. The

only thing that has been accomplished by

this suit is to slow down the technolgical

revolution and advancement in this country.

You ought to be ashamed.

Charles Klein

719 Broad Bay Cove

Newport News, Va 23602

757–877–4771

MTC–00006028

From: Jeff Miller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I’m writing to express my support for the

currently proposed settlement in the

Microsoft Antitrust case. As the case

progressed, it has been my feeling that many

of the central issues that caused this case are

not supported by facts.

I purchased my first PC in 1990. At the

time, it was a middle of the road system, and

cost about $2,500. It did not include any

application programs that I needed. I had to

purchase Lotus 1–2–3 or Microsoft Excel

separately, and the cost for either program

was around $600. The PC itself was powered

by a 286 CPU, had 1 megabyte of RAM, and

a 20 megabyte hard drive.

Today, I can purchase a PC with a Pentium

III or 4 CPU, 256 megabytes of RAM, a 20

gigabyte hard drive, and a CD-ROM drive that

comes with an application suite like

Microsoft Office for less than $1,000. Such a

PC would simply dwarf my original PC in

terms of computing power and functionality.

This has occurred because Microsoft has

led the way in creating an operating system

that is the standard for personal computing.

The marketplace has chosen Windows

because it has drastically lowered all costs

associated with PC’s. Microsoft has been

knocked for bundling functionality into

Windows. Doing so has continued the trend

of lowering PC costs. And while there is no

doubt that such bundling has adversely

affected some competitors, in my mind there

is no doubt that it has greatly benefited

consumers who can now afford computers

that were out of reach ten years ago.

In summary, while I think prosecution of

this case was unwarranted and any solution

is unnecessary, given the current status of

this case, the proposed settlement seems the

best resolution possible.

Sincerely,

Jeff Miller

Redmond, WA

(not employed by Microsoft or connected

with Microsoft in any way)

MTC–00006029

From: Bob O’Rear

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement proposed by Microsoft is

more than fair; it is generous, and should be

accepted as proposed. Those opposed to this

settlement are primarily competitors wishing

to use the government rather than their own

resources to compete with Microsoft.

I am a former employee of Microsoft (I left

8 years ago) but I still know that Microsoft’s

intentions are honorable. They achieved their

greatness through intelligence and extremely

hard work, not unfair competition. They

provide great products to end users at fair

prices. This settlement is in the best interests

of end users everywhere.

Thank You,

Robert O’Rear

9001 NE 26th St.

Clyde Hill, WA 98004

MTC–00006030

From: Prather, David

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

PLEASE DROP THIS CASE. THERE IS NO

PURPOSE SERVED TO CONTINUE

DRAGGING THIS OUT. I’M SURE

MICROSOFT KNOWS THEY WILL BE

WATCHED CLOSELY ON FUTURE

BUSINESS. I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY DID

ANYTHING WRONG ORIGINALLY. I

BELIEVE THE BULLY ADMINISTRATION IN

OFFICE AT THE TIME THIS STARTED WAS

SCARED BY ONE PERSON DEVELOPING AS

MUCH POWER AND WEALTH AS HAS

OCCURRED, AND WANTED TO WRANGLE

CONTROL OF WHAT EVER PART OF IT

THEY COULD. I CERTAINLY BELIEVE AND

HOPE THAT THE CURRENT

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24777

ADMINISTRATION IS OF MUCH WISER

UNDERSTANDING ABOUT OUR

FREEDOMS AND BUSINESS, AND WOULD

ENDORSE DROPPING THIS ALSO.

REGARDS,

DAVID C. PRATHER

706–849–6811

MTC–00006031

From: charles eisner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the settlement is fair and

prolonging the litigation will benefit no one

with the exception of some attorneys. Special

interest groups have had more than sufficient

time to be heard.

Charles Eisner

34 Currier Way

Cheshire, CT 06410

MTC–00006032

From: castlepk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen

It is time for both the government & other

businesses to get on with life. There is no

better way to settle the problem that we as

consumers may have with Microsoft than to

let us deal with them one on one in the

marketplace. There is no amount of laws &

legislation that any of you can pass that will

do the job that we can do with our

checkbooks. IF the other businesses truly

have a product that is better than what

Microsoft has given us than they should

provide it to us. If not they should get out

of the way & let the business that does have

the product supply it to us.

Rick Blackford

Castle Park Mortgage

MTC–00006033

From: MrGwiz@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ:

I support Microsoft and their methods of

doing business in the marketplace. I see no

advantage to continue this witch-hunt by the

DOJ on a solid American company that has

shown it can supply the necessary software

and competitive prices to the entire world to

make it easier for us to communicate.

Finalize the settlement and stop wasting

taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits by

Microsoft’s competitors.

James E. Gwiazdowski

611 Golfview Drive

Ballwin, MO 63011

MTC–00006034

From: Christophe Poncy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Bonjour,

I’m a french developer and i am very

happy to give you my opinion; i can speak

english very well, but i prefer to continue

with my native language to insist on the

importance of Microsoft .NET technologies

for the future in all over the world; and

consequently very good for me, for french

economy, and for the world’s economic

growth... Well, faut il soutenir Microsoft?

Oui, car dans l’utilisation du Framework

.NET, donc dans la plateforme de

dı`veloppement de Microsoft, les gains en

terme de temps de dı`veloppement et

performance sont ı`normes!! Oui, car le

Framework nous permet de dı`velopper et de

concevoir des applications non pas limitı`es

? seulement Windows pour PC, mais

ı`galement pour le web, le Wap, les

PocketPC... Oui, car nous allons pouvoir

dı`velopper des Services Web XML, et relier

ainsi les applications, les services et des

pı`riphı`riques de fa?on trAs simple, quels que

soient les languages de dı`veloppements

utilisı`s, quels que soit la plate-forme ciblı`e.

Il me semble qu’il n’y pas de limites ?

l’innovation gr?ace ? cette technologie.

Enfin oui, car cette technologie donne un

nouveau sens ? ma vie professionnelle. Je

suis vraiment enthousiaste! J’ai 30 ans, mais

j’ai l’impression de revivre mes 15 ans! Oui,

ı`galement pour la richesse que va provoquer

l’arrivı`e de cette technologie, et pas

seulement pour les usa. Je suis sYr que la

France, et le este du monde profiteront de

cette avancı`e technologique pour crı`er de la

richesse, et poursuivre leur

dı`veloppement...et par voie de consı`quence,

maintenir la croissance mondiale!

Regards,

Christophe Poncy, from France.

My adress: 57 rue de la marine, 47520, LE

PASSAGE, France.

MTC–00006035

From: Mike Jonson

To: ‘microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement should be

adopted. The complaints of Microsoft’s

competitors should not drive the

governments policies. Anti-trust policy

should be based on what is good for the

country, not the protection of competitors

from competition. I own Microsoft stock, but

that does not change my view of the above.

It is very destructive to allow businesses such

as Sun Microsystems and Oracle use the

government to protect their market shares.

MTC–00006036

From: baldeagle1@mcleodusa.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

I am from Iowa, one of the States that has

been causing many of the problems. I believe

that if the public didn’t want to purchase

Microsoft’s products they wouldn’t.

Microsoft was more inventive than all of

their competators, now they want to punish

them. I don’t understand. They belt a better

mouse trap. Somebody will come up with

something new, lets not punish people for

being innovative.

Sincerely,

David Day

805 Jerome St.

Marshalltown, Ia 50158

MTC–00006037

From: angela Viesse

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom this may concern:

Regarding the Microsoft Settlement, I

realize that a few special interests are

attempting to use the current review period

to derail the settlement and prolong this

litigation even in the midst of uncertain

economic times. The last thing the American

and the global economies need is more

litigation that benefits only a few wealthy

competitors and stifles innovation. Please

don?t let these special interests defeat the

public interest, and promptly resolve the

settlement.

Regards,

Angela Viesse

MTC–00006038

From: BRIAN RAWSON

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:39pm

Subject: I believe it is imperative that we

honor the existing settlement.

As an IT professional and consumer, I

believe it is imperative that we honor the

existing settlement. It is fair to all parties and

good for the US economy.

Brian Rawson

MTC–00006039

From: Alice Rhea

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair

and in the best interest of all concerned. I

have used Microsoft products for many years

and feel that my life has been enriched by

their innovation. The economy of our region

has benefited tremendously from having

Microsoft located here. I hope the matter can

be concluded swiftly, and the US Justice

Department resources can be directed at

other issues. Neither I nor any member of my

family has ever been affiliated with

Microsoft.

Respectfully submitted,

Alice Rhea

PO Box 1798

Snoqualmie WA 98065

425–831–6103

amrhea@nwlink.com

MTC–00006040

From: WPLPOWELL@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:38pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement.

Dear DOJ,

I am not a Microsoft shareholder. I am a

Microsoft customer. I believe it is time to get

the Microsoft lawsuit behind us and take no

further action to reduce the incentive to be

creative in the development of new tools.

Innovation should be rewarded and not

penalized.

Thanks.

J. C. Powell

MTC–00006041

From: DBrandt881@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:38pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

24778 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

it’s time to settle....dragging this on any

longer is detrimental to the investing public

and to the users of microsoft software and

other internet software users....common sense

and economic sense virtually screams,

settle....it’s time.

MTC–00006042

From: Rob

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think it is in the best interest of the

United States to settle the Microsoft case

immediately. I feel this case has hurt the

economy and the millions of retirement

accounts that hold Microsoft stock. The

country has more important issues then to let

this case drag on. In my opinion this legal

case and a judge who has little knowledge of

the hi tech industry should have been settled

months ago. I do find it interesting that the

settlement requires Microsoft to give away

hundreds of millions of dollars of there

products. Isn’t this why Microsoft was sued

in the first place.

Robert Leiser

2212 Sullivan Trail

Easton Pa

18040–7901

MTC–00006043

From: Fred.A.Underwood@

bankofamerica.com@ inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Department of Justice wants to hear

from the Consummer on this ongoing issue.

In my view, the world is a much better place

because of the advances Microsoft has made

over the past few years. Do they profit

handsomely from it? Of course, but as critics

ignore, these profits are plowed back into

research and development for even better

progress and products for the future. In fact

over the past 12 month period between

September 30, 2001 and September 30, 2000,

over $4.4 billion was expended on R&D by

Microsoft, to make better products to make

my life easier. If you want a compare and

contrast, how about Drug Companies that

have a similar Research & Development and

profitability models. Lets take a look at

Merck whom has plowed $2.4 billion into

R&D over the same 12 month period. Yet for

a 1 month supply of 40 mg Zocor (30 tablets),

its about the same price as a copy of

Windows XP. So Why aren’t you going after

all the Drug companies that are apparently

‘‘Gouging’’ consumers at this rate on a

monthly basis? You think there aren’t sales

reps out there that are pushing Zocor on

Doctors becasue of Merck/Medco’s clout?

In regards to the proposed settlement to

fund R&D for underpriveleged Schools. If the

DOJ and states can make this go away with

such a common sense solution, than by all

means do it! I could care less If I get my

$10.00 check in the mail at some

undetermined point in the future to repay me

for the ‘‘Harm’’ and ‘‘Unjust Pricing’’ that I

have incurred. If you keep listenining to all

of Microsoft’s competitors that are dragging

you down their arcane path, then you are all

fools. They have no interest in the consumer,

they only have an interest (as would any

management team or executive) in their

business and to building Shareholder Value.

If they can do that with the governments

help, than they would be fools for not taking

the handout!

MTC–00006044

From: Roy E. Williams, Ph.D.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

SETTLE THE CASE! Let Microsoft and the

Government get on with their business

(Microsoft: developing more products and

Government: protecting us from maniacs like

UBL, not people like Bill Gates). Further

litigation will only hurt American business,

especially entrepreneurs, who are hesitant

about getting into a business where the

potential for liability lawsuits is SO great

(and now, even from our own Government).

Government regulation is already bad enough

with respect to businesses without us having

to worry about additional potential lawsuits.

Sincerely,

Roy E. Williams, Ph.D.

901–53–244

MTC–00006045

From: William R. Cwynar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:39pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

January 2, 2002

To Whom it May Concern; It is in the best

interest of the economy to settle this case

promptly. The economy started to recede

about the same time this case was brought

forth. Companies need to be free to innovate

or our system can’t survive. Let us get on

with it, and get the greedy government out

of Microsoft’s pocket.

Thank you,

Ann cwynar

MTC–00006046

From: EnvAudits@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is about time to bring the microsoft case

to a conclusion in line with the settlement

already agreed to by the presiding judge and

Microsoft. This case has cost the government

as well as Microsoft millions of dollars to no

good purpose. If it were not for Microsoft this

country would probably not be the

technological leader of the world as we are

now. Why try to murder a highly successful

American company which has benefited this

country so much, in order to please some

disgruntled competitors and feed some

greedy state Attorneys General who hope to

make a pile of money for their state treasuries

and a name for themselves personally. Please

stick to the agreement that has already been

reached and conclude this matter as early as

possible.

Thanks.

James A. and Leona C. Hazen

1192 Montevideo Road

Jacksonville, Florida 32216

MTC–00006047

From: davidhenryart

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm

Subject: microsoft statement

Dear Sirs,

I am in favor of a speedy settlement with

Microsoft.

MTC–00006048

From: Mark Cody

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:39pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Good morning, Please don’t penalize

Microsoft for giving the people the product

they want. I have been a computer user since

the early 80’s with the Commodore VIC20. As

technology advanced and new computers

entered the market, compatibility became an

issue. UNIX, Commodore, Apple, and DOS

didn’t talk to each other and their files were

not compatible. As time moved forward

UNIX and DOS were the only operating

systems that remained backwards compatible

with their own OS. This was great advantage

for business and personal computing.

When you decided you needed to buy a

more powerful computer to run your new

software, you could still use the old

computer for more mundane chores. Now

you have 2 computers that can operate

together. Commodor and Apple oh the other

hand were not backwards compatible, so you

had to throw the old one out along with all

of the software, or at least have 2 computers

independent of each other, unable to share

files or printers. Over the years Microsoft has

kept it’s platform backwards compatible and

has allowed users to upgrade software and

hardware as they see fit.

This is a significant difference between

Apple and Sun. I believe the PEOPLE have

selected Microsoft as their Operating System

of choice because Microsoft provided the

user the features they wanted most, low cost

and backwards compatibility. Microsoft has

always operated from an open platform,

allowing anyone to create hardware to run on

their OS, while Sun requires only Sun

certified hardware be used in their systems.

Why is Microsoft so popular? Why did the

others fail? IBM, Initial deployment of DOS,

high cost of hardware. Microsoft, secondary

deployment of DOS on low cost IBM clones.

Apple, High cost, not backwards compatible.

Commodor, not backwards compatible, few

business applications. Sun, high cost of

hardware, no GUI. IBM, initial deployment of

Windows NT as OS2, created a roadblock for

second party software development. Sun,

Solaris running X-windows and Microsoft

office, High cost. Microsoft has consistently

given the user the features they wanted at a

price they could afford, isn’t that what makes

America great?

Thank you,

Mark Cody

markwcody@hotmail.com

503–649–9532

MTC–00006049

From: Wyskiel, Matt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ: Stop picking on Microsoft. They

make a bunch of great products that work

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24779

together well, and they charge a reasonable

price for those products. This whole case

against them has been an unnecessary waste

of time and money. End it ASAP. Signed very

satisfied Microsoft consumer.

Matt Wyskiel

MTC–00006050

From: Paul A. Kempf

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a US citizen and stockholder of

Microsoft I would like to express my support

for the comprehensive agreement reached by

the federal government and nine states with

Microsoft, which addresses the reduced

liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling.

Although tough, this settlement seems

reasonable and fair to all parties involved. As

both a consumer and stockholder I feel the

agree that the proposed settlement is good for

consumers, the industry and the American

economy.

Thank you for your consideration of my

opinion and concern of this matter.

MTC–00006051

From: Kenn D. Young

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like for ‘‘my’’ Federal Gov’t to

approve the Tunney Act and stop harassing

Microsoft. Microsoft competition started all

of this because they were unable to compete

in a free market place. Accept the settlement

and keep our government out of the business

sector as much as possible.

Thank you,

Kenneth D. Young

MTC–00006052

From: Smith, Stephen R.

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am concerned that Microsoft not be

further hampered in settling the antitrust

case, by competitors who have an interest in

dragging out the proceedings through legal

maneuvering. Let’s get this case settled and

go on with some remedies that will allow

innovation and completition to rule the

market and not bickering over whodunit.

Stephen R. Smith, M.S. Senior Chemist

TVA Power Service Center G2 Coal Lab

North Side Chickamauga Res

Chattanooga, TN 37415

Phone: (423) 697–4061 Fax: (423) 697–

4059

CC:’wsmith(a)microsoft.com’

MTC–00006053

From: Latus, Vincent

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am in favor of the settlement. Let’s finish

this and move on.

Thank you,

H. Vincent Latus

Network Administrator

Nothnagle Realtors

585–442–1800

MTC–00006054

From: Bill Thacker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing you today to voice my strong

support for the proposed settlement between

Microsoft and the Department of Justice

(including the nine consenting States).

Needless, ongoing litigation is being

proposed by the remaining nine dissenting

States and the District of Columbia. Such

action would be pointless and would benefit

no one with the exception of a few Microsoft

competitors, which have been lobbying hard

for such action over the last few years. In

addition to promoting competition, the

proposed settlement is in the best interest of

consumers and the economy.

Sincerely,

Bill Thacker

MTC–00006055

From: VanderPyle, Nicholas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft has my support!!

Without their certifications, support

systems, developer kits, extensive FREE addins to windows, beta testing, free email and

messaging systems, and MUCH more.. I’d be

lost.

There’s no way Apple or Linux could ever

provide such wide, useful, directed services.

I, and thousands of other people would be

out of a job if Microsoft is severely punished.

Let them settle with GIVING money,

products, support, and training to the

educational facilities. I bet you’re reading

this email through Exchange, Outlook, or

Internet Explorer.

Nicholas VanderPyle

Systems Analyst

home: (850) 862–7365

work: (850) 302–4553

email: vanderpyle@hotmail.com

MTC–00006056

From: BRIGEBRITE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm

Subject: Settlement

The 9 remaining states need to listen to the

consuming public not Microsofts’whining

rivialing competitors.Settle this nonsense

now.

MTC–00006057

From: LarrimoreJ@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

This Microsoft suit has been a distraction

and an inconvenience for me for more than

three years. Enough is enough. The court has

proposed a settlement which allows the DOJ

to save face while punishing Microsoft. Let’s

get on with it and then maybe we can return

to some semblance of normalcy.

James R. Larrimore

205 Vernon Avenue

Glen Burnie MD 21061

CC:LarrimoreJ@aol.com@inetgw

MTC–00006058

From: thebirdsalls

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Wrap up this miserable attack on genius

and innovation.

Richard Birdsall

1896 Peachtree Ave.

The Villages, FL 32162–7557

352 259 9870

Cheers, richard

MTC–00006059

From: Roy E. Truman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm

Subject: microsoft settlement.

It is time to get this behind us. finalize the

settlement and get on to more important

things throughout the United States. Please

don’t waste any more time on this, and add

my comments to the other ones on the way

to you. Thanks.

Yours Truly,

Roy E. Truman. PO. Box 70.

Indore, WV 25111

MTC–00006060

From: GolferJim@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This is James G. Nussbaum, a retired CPA

residing at 23537 East Otero Drive, Aurora,

CO 80016 with the e-mail address of

golferjim@aol.com I strongly urge you to

proceed with settlement of the Microsoft case

for the good of the nations economy, as I

believe the matter has dragged on for far too

long. We need to get on with the welfare of

our nations people and not be hung up on

the demands of a few outspoken competitors

and state attorney generals seeking more than

they deserve. Let competition prevail unless

there is a clear case of harm to the consumer.

I haven’t seen one bit of proof that I or my

family have been harmed. To the contrary, I

believe we have benefited from Microsoft’s

contribution to the marketplace and the

competition that does exist.

Thank you

James G. Nussbaum

MTC–00006061

From: GBauer4966@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm

Subject: Microsoft

Leave them alone and quit your efforts to

weaken them.

G Bauer

MTC–00006062

From: Howard Woodruff

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:43pm

Subject: Microsoft

It’s time to stop these nonsense actions

against Microsoft and get on with important

issues. Free enterprise is alive and well, leave

it that way.

MTC–00006063

From: Keith Shepard

To: Microsoft ATR

24780 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Date: 1/2/02 1:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments

As for me (note I do not now nor have I

ever worked for or contracted to Microsoft or

it’s subsidiaries) I think that this whole

lawsuit is frivolous and specifically targeted

by greed and jealousy types. Finally, can’t we

all agree to find a more common enemy

rather than defeat each others dreams and

aspirations for the future? SO...... lets just

settle and get on with life.

MTC–00006064

From: Teisan, George

To: ‘microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ,

I cannot tell you how irritating it is to me

that we continue to waste time and money

in the relentless pursuit of Microsoft. When

will the madness end? Microsoft has done

this country a great service by making the

personal computer easy to use and, along

with AOL, brought the internet into millions

of homes.

Unfortunately, a few insidious 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. The settlement that federal

government and nine states finally reached

with Microsoft to address the reduced

liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling

is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties

involved.

I overwhelmingly agree that settlement is

good for them, the industry and the

American economy.

Thank You,

George Teisan

Scottsdale, Arizona USA

MTC–00006065

From: Alan Copeland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Finish this case and let a great software

company and a great American company get

back to business!

MTC–00006066

From: LDellBill2@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Court of Appeals:

Go with the agreement which is fair and

end the litigation!!!!!

Sincrely,

William A. Hardwicke

MTC–00006067

From: Kathryn Ischinger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm

Please leave Microsoft alone. It’s a great

company that is great for the information age

and the economy.

MTC–00006068

From: Donald V Atkinson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm

To whom it might concern:

We want to voice our support for Microsoft

in the impending decision. This has dragged

on long enough. Let’s get it over with and

let’s get on with business.

Don Atkinson

MTC–00006069

From: Nancy W Alexander

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I approve of the settlement!

Nancy Alexander, Administrative Assistant

Presbyterian Campus Ministry at Virginia

Tech

305 Washington St., SW

Blacksburg, VA 24060–4745

540/552–2473; 540/552–0119 (fax)

cooperh@bev.net

MTC–00006070

From: BROWN1st@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:43pm

Subject: Settlement

I feel a settlement should be reached

immediately- or the charges against MSFT

dropped. It is my opinion the case was a

mean-spirited liberal attempt for Bill Clinton

and Janet Reno to get at Bill Gates for being

such a strong contributor to the Republican

Party. I think it was unnecessary and

unfounded. I am a public educator by

profession. I also hold Msft. stock and I think

the case cost me money- in the downfall of

said stock as well as the entire market.

Lyle F. Hoover

246 Montclair

Tulsa, Ok. 74104

MTC–00006071

From: HUFFTMA@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Suit

The Justice Department settlement is as far

as this case should go. The States are merely

being pawns of other High Tech companies

and the State Attorney Generals are playing

politics for personal gain.

Tom Huff

MTC–00006072

From: Springer, Martin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir, enough with the lawyers. In my

opinion Microsoft did nothing wrong to

begin with. The federal and state

governments need to direct their efforts in an

area that would benefit the people, not shake

down one of the few honest employers in this

country. If you want to do something of value

get into health care or frozen retirement

plans.

Martin Springer J. D.

Manager, Export Sales

PMI Nutrition International, Inc.

Mulberry, FL 33860

Phone: 1–863–425–5544

Fax: 1–863–425–8959

Email: Martin.Springer@Pmi

Nutrition.Com

MTC–00006073

From: Robert Sobon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

189 Old Ashley Loop

Pawleys Island, SC 29585

January 2, 2002

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice,

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530–0001

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

As a resident of South Carolina, I am

concerned about further Capitol Hill

involvement in the Microsoft antitrust case.

It is clear that Microsoft has agreed to a fair

and reasonable settlement; the settlement

should be final, and further federal action

against the company represents nothing short

of anti-business posturing by the government.

As you know, the economy is in a

recession. Microsoft is a major contributor to

the nation’s economy, and it is imperative

that the company is allowed to innovate in

the software industry. Any further action

would be negative for the consumer and the

IT industry.

I appreciate your support in ending this

legal action, and putting this case behind us.

Sincerely,

Robert Sobon

cc: Senator Strom Thurmond

MTC–00006074

From: Robert Dikman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough is enough! Microsoft should not

have been nor certainly should now be

continued to be punished for bringing a

better product to market. This case needs to

be settled now.

MTC–00006075

From: BRUNO13@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:45pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

It is about time we allowed Microsoft to get

on with the business they know best. How

many hours of time have been wasted by

people at Microsoft, defending their position,

when they could have been working on ways

to make life easier for us in the coming years.

It is obvious now that the government, in it’s

infinite wisdom, knows it should have left

AT&T to do it’s business. Now after the

breakup, we are seeing ‘‘Baby’’ bells wanting

to merge in order to survive. Is that what the

government is looking for here?

Neil Bersin

MTC–00006076

From: ENalebuff@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the settlement between the Justice

Department and Microsoft is fair and should

not be changed.

Do not punish this company which has

brought so much to us that use computers.

Edward A. Nalebuff, M.D.

Newton, MA

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24781

MTC–00006077

From: lloyd olson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm

Subject: Fair agreement

Dear sirs,

I think the agreement is fair

Lloyd Olson

MTC–00006078

From: Egmeng@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Please settle this case and allow the

computer industry to move on. The action

against microsoft has stalled progress for all

of us that depend on technology. Wherever

I go in the world, I know that I can find some

standard software that works with other

software by finding Microsoft products.

Otherwise nothing works with anything else.

The fact that Microsoft was allowed to put

programs together with operating systems is

the reason why we consumers were able to

use computers as the industry developed,

rather than needing programmers to operate

unrelated programs.

eric meng

MTC–00006079

From: HEADDAWG@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:45pm

Subject: Enough is Enough!

Let’s stop all this and get on with our lives.

Microsoft did all of us a service. Let it be.

Walter Glenn

MTC–00006080

From: David Fladebo

To: ’Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Even though this case has been going on

for years, I still find it hard to believe that

the US Govt. insists on this competitor

inspired and left-wing driven vendetta

against Microsoft. Supposedly, this action

was taken against MS to protect consumers,

but I to this day have not been able to figure

out how the consumer experienced any net

harm. In fact, I believe inovation and

competition driven by MS has offered the

consumer an overwhelmingly positive

benefit. Also, many economists feel that

much of the poor performance of the

economy in 2001 was caused by the litigation

and earlier findings of this action against MS,

further harming the consumers that this

action was purported to ‘‘protect’’. Stop the

litigation against Microsoft now!

Further, I would like to also suggest that

the court make this settlement binding for all

50 States, in order to free MS (and our

economy) from this harmful legal action

against Microsoft.

Sincerely,

Dave Fladebo

Clear Lake, MN

MTC–00006081

From: Earl Hackett

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have read the settlement documents

posted on the internet. Assuming the

documentation of the API functions and the

communication protocols is sufficiently

complete, accurate, and inclusive I find the

settlement to be satisfactory.

However, the most common form of

communication between computer users is

by file exchange. Although the settlement

requires the disclosure of all communication

protocols, I did not see any mention of

disclosure of file format definitions or

specifications. The data contained in a

document produced in Microsoft Word or

Excel should be accessible to programs

produced by other software vendors.

As for API documentation, my experience

has shown that Microsoft documentation of

their system API call and the interface with

many of their programming languages is

incomplete. Omission of critical details from

their documentation often has required many

days of research to determine the precise

operating characteristics of a command

needed to achieve proper system operation.

These omissions may be simple oversight on

the part of Microsoft, but they have occurred

more frequently than in my past experience

with systems from IBM, DEC, and others.

Earl T. Hackett, Jr.

Research Associate

Tyvek(R) for Medical Packaging

Phone: 302 999–5031

FAX: 302 999–3788

Mobile: 302 540–9321

MTC–00006082

From: Sachtjen, Robert

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please stop wasting our tax dollars and

settle the Microsoft case. I have used

Microsoft products since the inception of the

company and never did I feel that I was

gouged on the price of any of their products

nor do I think that they took undo advantage

of what was clearly a leading edge advantage

in the software industry. Shouldn’t the

Federal Government of the United States be

trying to strengthen our companies to

compete in a GLOBAL economy instead of

hamstring them?

Enough is enough. Aren’t there any

terrorists for the justice department to go

after and prosecute? The justice department

did such a great job in the breakup of AT&T,

I cry every time I get my phone bills, one

from my local carrier, one from my long

distance provider, one from my Internet

provider. Nice job! Now it only costs me

about 10 time for phone service compared to

the pre AT&T breakup days. Somebody in the

justice department should be doing jail time

for that monumental screw up.

You guys should ask for public comments

more often, but I suppose your afraid of what

you will get back.

Robert A. Sachtjen

Director New Business Development

SunGard Investor Accounting Systems

595 East Swedesford Road—Suite 3000

Wayne, PA 19087

Phone 610–975–3031

Fax 610–975–3231

US Cell Phone 610–804–3479

UK Cell Phone 07946–601372

From the US dial 011–44–7946–601372

MTC–00006083

From: BRUCEGRACE

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:45pm

Subject: Settlement

The Microsoft case has been run through

and over just about every meaningful

scenario possible. In the past five years I am

sure that every person or organization has

been heard on the subject of Microsoft’s

business practices. So lets just settle this case

by accepting the settlement that has been

agreed to by both parties. Waiting any longer

just makes the Lawyers on both sides richer

and accomplishes nothing when it comes to

protecting the consumer. The nine States that

have decided to continue this case are only

being prodded on by special interest groups

and companies within their borders that have

lost to a superior marketing organization, and

their Attorneys Generals are after votes more

than anything. Just for the record I still

believe Microsoft has been more of a positive

for the new ‘‘E-Commerce’’ than a negative,

and the fact that they have been as successful

has they have been is a testament to our free

market system. So please, let our free market

system work and settle this now.

Regards

Bruce Jackson

MTC–00006084

From: Aerocenter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to comment on the case as

follows: As a consumer, I have not been hurt

by Microsoft practices. The standards they

have established enable someone who is not

an expert to learn procedures quickly and

accurately. As a small business owner, I am

able to buy affordable programs which allow

my business to compete with much larger

entities on a level field. We cannot afford

secretarial and graphics staff, yet we can

appear large and efficient to our customers

because we have excellent, affordable

software. I acutely remember before

Microsoft became central to computing. The

programs were not compatable with each

other. Printers may or may not work. Nothing

was standard.

It is my impression that those companies

which did not have the foresight or technical

ability to expand are now trying to bring

down the major company that did. MS did

replace many competitors. That is our free

market system. Netscape browser was free

the first time I learned about it. Then they got

the idea for an IPO. I wondered how a

company which gave away their program

could justify an IPO. I was told they had

some server software and government

contracts. Soon they were charging for

Netscape Browser. After the IPO was

successful, the stock price blossomed, for a

time. Then the market discovered they did

not have unique technology. The market

reacted. Stock price plummeted. Now

Netscape wants to lay the blame. In any case,

the consumer, represented by me, did not

suffer harm. On the contrary, we have

24782 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

benefited from the greatest technology

advance in my lifetime (62 years).

I urge the court to reject the politics of this

case, and look at the effect on the consumer.

We have not overpaid, we have not been

duped, we have been enabled, and Microsoft

has done the best job of any company to

make sure anyone who has the ambition can

learn the programs.

Karen R. Sandberg

Owner

AEROCENTER

Aircraft Supply and Avionics

Pierce County Airport

16923B Meridian East

Puyallup, WA 98375–6224

1–800–331–4375

On-Line Ordering at:

http://www.aerocenter.com

Or send us e-mail at: info@aerocenter.com

MTC–00006085

From: Terry Kahler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

In my opinion, the Microsoft case should

be settled now, rather than pursue further

litigation. Every time the government tries to

help the consumer, they actually do the

opposite. Breaking up Ma Bell wasn’t the best

move in the world. Microsoft is a dominant

software company, and they got that way by

good business practices. They made a better

product, and when a competitor would come

up with an innovation, they would buy them

out if they could. No one is forcing anyone

to use Microsoft products, and if the

competitors don’t want to be bought out, they

shouldn’t sell.

Dragging on the litigation process serves no

one, except the attorneys. I would urge you

to settle this immediately, and as a taxpayer,

I would like to think that the government

actually cares about my best interests....

Thank you....

Terry Kahler

MTC–00006086

From: Matthew Whitcomb

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to complete the process and move

forward. The dragging out of the process has

hurt the economy and cost the taxpayers too

much money, especially in the midst of an

economic downturn.

MTC–00006087

From: Sheri

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Isn’t it finally time to quit screwing around

with the ridiculous intrusion of government

into a innovative company????

Please continue with this agreement to

settle this litigation.

MTC–00006088

From: A (038) J STEWART

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm

Subject: MISCROSOFT SETTLEMENT

DEAR SIR/MADAM

THE TIME IS LONG OVERDUE FOR

FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS TO

GET OFF OF MICROSOFT’S BACK.

MICROSOFT HAS IMPROVED THE

QUALITY OF LIFE OF ALMOST

EVERYONNE ON THIS PLANET. LAWYERS

AND BUREAUCRATS SHOULD SPEND

THEIR TIME WORKING ON REAL ISSUES

LIKE CRIME, DRUGS,AND GOVERNMENT

WASTE

THANKS YOU FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION

MTC–00006089

From: John Shepherd (038) Joe West

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm

Subject: Microsoft’s Settlement

Dear Sirs:

The power to innovate is upmost in our

culture—Microsoft’s present settlement is fair

to all concerned!

John Shepherd

Hobbs, New Mexico 88240

MTC–00006090

From: Allin DuBuc

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Department of Justice

My opinion in the ongoing Microsoft

Settlement

I have strongly disagreed with the entire

case the Department of Justice brought

against Microsoft, from the very beginning. I

am in favor of ending all litigation as soon

as possible with minimal cost to Microsoft.

Any continued attempts by the states or

Microsoft’s competitors to harm Microsoft

with penalties or fines is of no value to me.

Please end this as soon as possible, let

Microsoft get back to the business of software

development, and leave me the power to buy

Microsoft products or not, as I wish!

Thank you for hearing my opinion.

Allin DuBuc

Allin DuBuc

Quixotic Design

4976 ROYAL AVE SPC 247

Las Vegas, NV 89103–5008

(702)876–4833

mailto:allindubuc@LVCM.com

MTC–00006091

From: David MacVean

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a US Citizen and a Microsoft

shareholder. This entire prosecution has been

a waste of time and money. As Microsoft has

been prosecuted, American Online-Time

Warner has certainly represented a more

powerful ‘‘monopoly.’’

Please facilitate the accepted settlement,

and let the market run the economy instead

of attornies.

Dave MacVean

For Personal Use Only.The information

and data in this report were obtained from

sources considered reliable. Their accuracy

or completeness is not guaranteed, and the

giving of the same is not deemed an offer of

solicitation on our part with respect to the

sale or purchase of any securities or

commodities.

MTC–00006092

From: Phil Kuyper

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

End this thing as agreed—-no more

bullshit!

Phil Kuyper

phil@ajhanson.com

A.J. Hanson & Co.

PH: 206–763–8550

FX: 206–762–6246

MTC–00006093

From: M Kam

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm

Subject: Microsoft

Please end this legal disaster. Since April

1, 2000 when settlement talks failed,

Microsoft and US economy went on a tail

spin impacting the global economy as well.

As a consumer, I believe that Microsoft

products have had a huge impact on

productivity and prosperity. I used to pay

thousands for custom software that now

Microsoft offers for that $100. It is silly to

take a self made and one of the most

successful companies in the world and try to

break their back just because some

incompetent competitors needs government

protection. Need not to remind you that

Microsoft itself was a small fish in a huge

pond. They managed and succeeded. This is

not China or Russia it is a free enterprise

society. Enough senseless damage to our life

savings, pension plans and the national and

global economy.

Thank you.

MTC–00006094

From: Brice10273@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The purpose of my email is to let you know

that I think the settlement reached with

Microsoft is fair to me the consumer and I

would like to see it accepted. To prolong the

process with further litigation and/or adding

more remedies would not be good for me, the

taxpayers, or business. I feel we should go

with the settlemnt terms as negotiated

between Microsoft and the Department of

Justice and be done with it.

Thank you for your attention to this

important matter.

Barbara Rice

MTC–00006095

From: Kay Barnett

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement/Tunney Act

I understand the justice department is still

reviewing the Microsoft settlement and

wished to express my opinion. I think

Microsoft probably did abuse their

positioning in the software industry, but they

also were the major contributor to the fact

that a software industry even exists. The

Tunney Act seems logical and appropriate,

and I think it should stand as the final

resolution to this entire situation. Our

country is struggling to emerge from a

recession and from the devastation of

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24783

September 11th. Let’s put our focus, our

energies and our resources to work

addressing these problems instead of the

continuation of an issue that has already

been resolved. Further litigation can only

benefit a select few, and will cost extensive

tax dollars that can certainly be better

utilized to benefit the majority of our citizens

and our country.

Kay L. Barnett

13704—117th Ave NE

Kirkland WA 98034

MTC–00006096

From: James O’Brien

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The continued opposition of nine States’

attorneys general to the Microsoft settlement

is irrational. The notion that companies such

as IBM, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Intel,

Computer Associates, Hewlett-Packard, Dell,

Compaq, etc. cannot compete with Microsoft

without further government protection is

absurd. Microsoft makes great products that

work well, and they are very affordable,

especially for a small business such as my

own. Frankly, I think the inflated egos of

individuals such as the CEO’s of Oracle and

Sun Microsystems are part of the problem.

Microsoft is one of the bright spots in our

sick economy, exactly because it is

innovative and competitive, which always

benefits consumers.

Sincerely,

James E. O’Brien

770 Brookside Road

Maitland, FL 32751

January 2, 2002

MTC–00006097

From: Jeff Ronne/The Boaphile

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle this case would you?

Thank you,

Jeff

Jeff Ronne

The Boaphile

PO Box 394

Cannon Falls, MN 55009

(507) 263–2621

Email: The—Boaphile@theboaphile.com

Web Sites!!!

http://www.boaphileplastics.com

http://www.theboaphile.com

http://www.theratcafe.com

http://www.bengalshak.com

MTC–00006098

From: Elmer Houghten

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sir/Madam:

My comment regarding the proposed

settlement of the Microsoft case is that it does

appear to be a fair agreement based on the

facts and considering the costs and time of

further litigation. I therefor highly

recommend the settlement be accepted.

Elmer Houghten

CPA 5962 E. Viewmont Circle,

Mesa, AZ.

MTC–00006099

From: JKVINCE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Department of Justice

Washington, DC

Gentlemen:

I believe the Microsoft Settlement is

reasonable and fair to all parties. This

Settlement should not be allowed to become

derailed. It is not in the best interests of all

Americans to allow litigation to be

prolonged, using more of the American

public’s tax dollars. I want our national

resources and energies to be better spent for

current and future purposes than for

continuance of litigation that has been

reasonably settled.

Yours truly,

Janet K. Vincent

1446 N. W. Springdale Pl.

Shoreline, WA 98177

MTC–00006100

From: Karlyn Eckman

To: Microsoft ATR,RFC-822=www.usdoj.gov/

atr/cases/ms-s...

Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm

Subject: Microsoft products

Re: Comments from a Consumer

Concerning Microsoft Products I have just

purchased my ninth computer, containing

the Windows XP operating system. I did this

reluctantly, because I dislike Microsoft

products and resent the dominance that

Microsoft commands on consumer and

professional computing.

I am an independent consultant, but am

forced to purchase Microsoft systems because

it is used within the United Nations system

(my primary contractor). Microsoft software

does not easily allow a user to utilise files or

software written in Apple, Linux or other

formats. Microsoft’s dominance means that I,

as a professional and a home computer user,

have very little choice in which operating

sytem or software I can purchase. I

personally find Microsoft to be manipulative,

greedy and unresponsive to the wide-ranging

needs of the average American and even

international computer user. What arrogance

for Microsoft to think that it can produce

software for the masses, regardless of need,

preference and priority!?!

Dr. Karlyn Eckman

Consultant in International Forestry.

MTC–00006101

From: CHARLES PEACOCK

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm

Subject: MICOROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I FOR ONE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS

SETTLED IN FAVOR OF MICROSOFT. I

HAVE NEVER HAD PROBLEMS WITH

MICROSOFT’S COMPETITOR’S PROGRAM

SOFTWARE DUE TO THE MICROSOFT

OPERATING SYSTEM. IN FACT THIS OS

ENHANCES PROGRAM SOFTWARE. I

DON’T THINK IT REDUCES COMPETITION,

JUST MAKES SOFTWARE COMPANIES BE

SURE THAT THEIR SOFTWARE IS

COMPATIBLE WITH MS OS. IT WOULD BE

A REAL MESS IF EACH PROGRAM

SOFTWARE PURCHASED NEEDED IT’S

OWN OPERATING SYSTEM.

CHARLES PEACOCK

9817 BRINGIER CT.

GRANBURY, TX 76049

TEL 817–573–7029

EMAIL CDPEAK52@ITEXAS.NET

MTC–00006102

From: downtown denise

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the Honorable Members of the

Department of Justice:

As a citizen of the United States, I request

that you fully and comprehensively settle all

antitrust actions against Microsoft

Corporation as quickly as possible, and close

this matter immediately. Continued litigation

catering to a few special interests prolongs

litigation and derails any general settlement

agreement. This is not in the best interest of

citizens of the United States.

As a technical consumer, Microsoft has not

damaged me in any manner. I was not

‘‘forced’’ to purchase any of their products.

I gladly purchsed their products for superior

performance—as is my right as a consumer—

to stay on the leading edge technology wise.

Please do not delay settling this matter. In

light of today’s global situation, we must

focus on coming together cohesively as a

nation, even if it means overriding a few

special interests. Catering to special interests

plays directly in to Osama Bin Laden’s

dictate to strike at America’s economic heart.

We simply cannot let this happen, but more

particularly, WE CANNOT DO THIS TO

OURSELVES!!!

We cannot afford to cater to the few at the

expense of the many. The majority of

Americans like Microsoft products and

appreciate the fact that this company has

rocketed us into the 21st century both

hardware and software capability in

caparison to any other nation at this time. Do

an accounting of the nations that bootleg this

US technology illegally! If it were not quality,

they wouldn’t be stealing it!

Please do not prohibit or limit companies

that create benefit (jobs) for America. Please

settle this litigation quickly, close the matter,

so we may focus (and allow Microsoft to

focus) on the important things affecting our

consumers, and our nation.

Best Regards,

Denise Rickard

Dallas, Texas, USA

214–508–5004

MTC–00006103

From: Annfucci@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm

Subject: Justice Department Ruling

The Justice Department has made a ruling,

which in my opinion has been very fair to

all parties concerned......The complaints by

the remaining States are very bias.

Competitors are the ones pushing for more

punishment....not the consumers. I truly

believe the competitors are trying to break

Microsoft, so that their own Companies can

become more successful!!!! Enough is

enough, and I think that the Justice

Department has made a fair ruling and so let

it stand!!!

24784 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00006104

From: Glenn Leedy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:18pm

Subject: MicroSoft Settlement Agreement

Dear sirs:

Please make your judgments are based on

whether the customer is damaged and not the

MicroSoft’s competition. There is no clear

argument for such damages by MicroSoft. I

bring over 30 years of experience in the

computer industry and as the owner of much

intellectual property I say without hesitation

that MicroSoft has brought more benefits in

terms of low cost widely available computer

products than would remotely possible

without them.

MicroSoft has been attached by the SUNs

of the industry simply because they have

been very effective competitors, but

MicroSoft has served the best interest of the

consumer and industrial user. I know this to

be true from personal experience. I encourage

you to let the settlement stand. We need to

clear the uncertainty from the air.

Best regards,

Glenn Leedy

President

Elm Technology Corporation

MTC–00006105

From: William E. Endelman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I urge the Department of Justice to

implement the Microsoft settlement. The

objections I believe comes from other special

interests, and not as a result of the customer

interests. As a user of Microsoft products, I

receive high value from excellent products.

There are choices available that are fully

compatible, some of which I use for database

work, photo editing and other things.

I could provide a long list of other

industries an companies that truly act as

monopolies, ignoring customer service,

competition, and fair pricing for their

services/ products. Microsoft is not on my

list! Please stop wasting my tax dollars and

putting a cloud on the economy.

Respectfully,

William E. Endelman, AIA, Principal

Endelman & Associates PLLC

Accessibility Consulting / ADA—FHA

Compliance

901 E. Denny Way,

Suite 201,

Seattle, WA 98122

mailto:bill@endelman.com—http://

www.endelman.com

(206) 324–6462—Fax: (206 )324–6469

MTC–00006106

From: VHSchiller@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Please don’t get in the way of companies

that try to foster innovation. Keep you hands

off Microsoft. Without the standards they

have introduced and maintained at a

reasonable costs to consumers the computer

market would be a fragmented mess.

Also... When the government goes after

companies that take risks to innovate it

scares me. Why should I make investments

in technologies and innovations in my

company when there is a threat that the

Government will just pull the rug out

someday?

Keep America a technology leader.

Hopefully you can undo the damage you’ve

already done.

MTC–00006107

From: Patty Mackne

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I support the resolution of the Microsoft

case the government has negiotiated with the

them. There has been too much money and

time spent on this situation to the detriment

of our economy, when so many other

important matters are present in our nation.

Patricia Mackne

8923 Turkey Hill Rd.

La Plata, MD 20646

MTC–00006108

From: Robert B. Heenan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The settlement is fair to customers,

competitors & Microsoft. Let’s get on with it

& stop spending tax payers money.

R.B.Heenan

1111 Pine Lake Drive,

Hartsville, SC 29550

MTC–00006109

From: Al Hillman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This settlement should end this business

once and for all. It is a shame that a company

is accused of being terrible in business just

because they are successful. I purchase and

use Microsoft products and am reasonably

satisfied. If another vendor offers better

products at lower cost I will not hesitate to

try them.

Today Microsoft is on top, however, they

will remain there only if they invest in

development for products that will be needed

in the future. There is nothing from stopping

any other company from building better

products. I have always thought that this is

the American way.

Thank you,

Al Hillman

MTC–00006110

From: Sirvaco@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is incumbent upon you to finalize the

Microsoft settlement as it now stands. It is

time to let this matter alone so Microsoft can

give full attention to doing the fine works it

is noted for and help in getting the economy

headed in the right directioin.

I also believe the only reason these suits

are continuing is for the sole reason of getting

Microsoft to part with it reserve of assets and

cash. Only the lawyers will benefit from

further pursuit of litigation. Certainly not the

American buying public.

W.E. Sirvatka

CC:RFC-822=Finflash1–2–

02.UM.A.1154.142@commpartners....

MTC–00006111

From: The Mikester

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

If one looks closely at the complaints

against Microsoft, one sees poor competition

using the unfair influence of government to

control the legitimate competition and allow

them to market inferior products. Looking at

the Senate, the government is an extremely

poor judge of what fairness is. They are quite

good at pointing out the actions of the

Complaint Filers in the Government Lawsuit.

I use mostly Microsoft Programs simply

because they work the best. Where the

Microsoft Programs do not perform the way

I want, I use programs that do. So, not to date

myself, but ‘‘where’s the beef’’?

Michael H. Ohl

508 Hilldale Drive

Bath, PA 18014

CC:MSFIN@Microsoft.com@inetgw

MTC–00006112

From: Curtforslund@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

As a retired attorney and a former chief

deputy state attorney general (with no

connections to any party involved) I have

followed this litigation closely. The

settlement that has been reached is

appropriate for all. The staste attorneys

general never had any business becoming

involved in this lititgation in the first place,

and I have no doubt that for most of them,

the motivation was solely political. From the

outset the states were bit players, hanging on

at the fringe, and for a few of them to now

try to block this settlement is not in the

public interest.

Curtis D. Forslund

MTC–00006113

From: Daniel Wolbert

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Sirs,

I find that any continued government

involvement with Microsoft will result in the

consumer paying the price. The price will be

a reduction of services available to the

average consumer and also higher prices for

services. It looks like the government would

have learned its lesson from the tobacco

settlements—not one penny, of the

settlements, has come from any tobacco

grower or cigarette manufacturer it is paid by

the consumer and the same thing will

happen if Microsoft is ordered to pay any

settlement no matter what amount.

The whole thing comes down to greed and

jealousy. Microsoft is a pie everyone would

like to have a piece of, so the government

allows competing companies and states to

sue to get a piece of it for nothing. There is

absolutely no doubt that Microsoft has done

more to further the availability of computers

and software for the average consumer than

all the others combined. I guess that is the

core issue here, Microsoft has always

provided a vastly superior product at a

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24785

completive price, and the competitors would

rather cry foul than get to work and develop

a suitable product themselves.

As a long time computer user I salute

Microsoft and their ability to provide

software that works and actually anticipates

my needs before I do. They also provide

totally free support and updates for their

products—all the others might or might not,

usually not. I would purchase Microsoft

products at any cost. Microsoft could charge

more for their products, but they have always

made their products available to the average

consumer.

The final point is that this country was

built on innovation and hard work, and to

penalize Microsoft for working harder and

being better at their job than the others is

ridiculous. Let the ones filing the law suits

get to work and get out of the courtroom.

Thank you.

MTC–00006114

From: Burden, Douglas

To: ’Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:43pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

Bottom line—enough already! While

Microsoft wouldn’t be confused for a band of

Franciscan monks, the current settlement

seems a sufficient chastening. Let’s stop the

whining and move forward.

Doug Burden

MTC–00006115

From: GHarris160@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

During this period of public comment on

the Microsoft Settlement, I would like to

have my voice heard. It is absolutely

ridiculous to continue to pursue this matter

any further. The economy and the stock

market are in enough trouble without any

additional litigation on this matter. Microsoft

has served the public extremely well with its

technology and its products. The public

should not have to suffer the expense and

trouble of further litigation. The states who

have not gotten onboard with this settlement

should be ashamed of themselves. This

includes my own state of California, who I

am ashamed of for not joining the settlement.

Sincerely,

George Harris

MTC–00006116

From: Edward Enders

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:50pm

Subject: microsoft Settlement

I would just like to say that I think that the

government gets nervous when a company

get’s as big as Microsoft. I also think you

guy’s at DOJ have went about this all wrong.

You should have worked with Microsoft and

used there position to your advantage, not

just go after them in court. Microsoft is a

good company and has done alot of good

with it’s wealth as opposed to many other

companies similar in size. You guys should

stop wasting the tax payers’ money and get

back to work on more important issues.

MTC–00006117

From: Jpf251@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

This action should be concluded as is and

let MS continue to innovate. MS is the best

thing that has happened to the industry since

its inception.

Thank you

John

MTC–00006118

From: sstrzelec@tycoint.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to voice my displeasure with

the way competitors of Microsoft are using

US government to achieve their goal of

destroying one of the most successful and

enormously beneficial to consumer company.

These competing companies over long years

were not able to deliver better product,

product which for me an average customer

would provide compelling evidence to use it.

Microsoft through its effort do deliver ready

to use package of different application,

provided me with an easy to use and cost

effecting product. Through its relentless

effort to provide product that customer can

use easily, Microsoft became leading

provider of operating system which become

the standard. Having this standard provided

enormous saving in software production and

training for others companies which in turn

provided customers with big savings. I

consider effort of Federal and State officials

to punish Microsoft as ill guided and should

be stopped to prevent further waste of

taxpayers money and to prevent some

bureaucratic fixes that will cause software

compatibility problems and eventually lead

to more expensive products. Standard is

critical and it can be established either by

government (which will not happen in my

lifetime) or strong leading company as

Microsoft.

Sincerely,

Stanley Strzelec

sstrzelec@tycoint.com

MTC–00006119

From: Srsusa@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:51pm

Subject: (no subject)

DOJ

Please leave Microsoft alone and don’t

penalize their success; this is America. More

than enough taxpayer money has been spent

on this case. The high technology landscape

will look completely different in the next 5

to 7 years.

Sincerely,

Regis L. Roderick

MTC–00006120

From: SUSAN.ROBERTS

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please do whatever it takes to get this issue

settled ASAP. Why do you allow special

interest groups to continue to hold up these

efforts. Thank you for you impending

actions.

Susan Roberts

Prudential Locations Projects Dept

MTC–00006121

From: RCNIPP@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:52pm

Subject: (no subject)

PLEASE DON’T MAKE ANOTHER

MISTAKE WITH MICROSOFT LIKE YOU

DID WITH AT&T.

THANK YOU.

R.C.NIPP

MTC–00006122

From: Kimberly Bowen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please support passage of the Tunney Act.

It’s time to settle this expensive investigation

fairly, which I believe the Tunney Act will

do. As a Microsoft shareholder and

Washington State resident, I feel that

prolonged persecution of Microsoft will hurt

the economy of my state as well as my

personal financial well-being and that of my

community. Thank you.

Kimberly Bowen

Bowen Consulting

bowen@raincity.com

CC:Kimberly Bowen

MTC–00006123

From: Joyce Cuyar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello

I think the Microsft settlement is fair and

in the best interest of the consumer as well

as our country. Too much time and money

has been spent on this already by all sides

involved. This time and money could be put

to better use in reviving the economy and

getting the USA back up on it’s feet. Enough

is enough. Let’s get this issue behind us and

move on.

Joyce Cuyar . Owner

Pro-Search Prof. Recruiting

PO Box 372 . Jackson Center. PA . 16133

Email: cuyar@staffing.net

http://www.pro-search.net

MTC–00006124

From: Paul Deignan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let’s put an end to this litagation now.

This has dragged on long enough.

MTC–00006125

From: rmontemorra@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm

Subject: Microsoft

Microsoft has been punished enough. They

have seen the stock price slip nearly 50%,

which in turn has punished the public that

the Gov’t wants to protect. I believe that you

can tie the fall in the Nasdaq to the fall in

Microsofts price and the ruling by Judge

Jackson. Neither the DOJ or the States are

24786 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

doing the public any favors. Let the

settlement happen and lets move on.

MTC–00006126

From: Grace D VerHoeven

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:52pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I believe the settlement proposed in the

above issue is fair and reasonable, and that

further litigation in this matter should be

stopped. Let’s stop the nitpicking because

some firms are jealous of Microsoft’s

ingenuity and success and concentrate our

funds on issues more important to our

nation’s security.

MTC–00006127

From: Bradford Augustine

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to settle this case. I am tired of

my taxpayer dollars spent on this matter. I

believe that the settlement agreement while

not perfect is sufficient to protect consumers

as well as not stifle advances in technology.

Please settle this matter now.

Sincerely,

Bradford G. Augustine

MadronaReal Estate Services, LLC

500 Union Street Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98101–4052

www.MadronaRealEstate.com

MTC–00006128

From: Kent Fiedor

To: ’Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am For the settlement of the Microsoft

Case. I never agreed that is should have

happened in the first place. The government

spent too much money trying to punish a

successful company whose products have

reinvented and improved the office.

Kent Fiedor

Business Analyst

iCorp.com

KentFiedor@icorptech.com

MTC–00006129

From: Burke, Mr. Brian (Computer Research

Supp)

To: ’Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am in support of the Microsoft/Justice

Department Settlement. Please end this

wasteful litigation and help the country’s

recovery and move on.

Thanks

Brian Burke

Purdue Pharma—444 Saw Mill River Rd,

Ardsley, NY, 10502

burkebr1@pharma.com

MTC–00006130

From: Doreen Power

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I strongly support the settlement of the

anti-trust suite against Microsoft. It is way

beyond time to settle this dispute and invest

our taxpayer dollars in more worthy causes

such as the sagging economy and antiterrorism efforts.

Thank you,

Doreen Power

Sammamish, WA

MTC–00006131

From: sdbjla@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We are completely in favor of the

settlement. This case should be ended.

Sincerely,

S. Bragin

MTC–00006132

From: James Robinson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Dear Dept of Justice,

I personally know that I have never been

overcharged or harmed by Microsoft. I have

benefited immensely by their products

because of there ease of use and the

conformity all there products have with one

another. This conformity has increased my

ability to compete in the market place

because I am able to learn different

application programs more quickly than by

using competing software. As a consumer, I

have always had alternatives to using

Microsoft products. I could have purchased

an Apple computer or product using a Unix

based system. There is competition out there.

I chose Microsoft because it was the superior

product. If that should change in the future,

I will gravitate to the better product. I

personally feel that Microsoft is being

unjustly punished. The harm that is talked

about is perceived harm, not actual harm.

You are going to punish a company on my

behalf for the harm they caused me? No harm

has come to me, only benefit.

Has anyone ever calculated the benefit to

our economy that has been gained because

Microsoft software is easy to learn and be

productive with? I can easily train people at

my company to use a PC, and access the

internet, because of the user friendly features

of Microsoft’s products. When I compare the

time required to train employees on our old

computer system, verses the time required to

train someone on a Windows based PC, I find

that I can train someone to use windows in

about a quarter of the time. This time adds

up to considerable savings to our company

because employees become productive more

quickly. This increase in production and

savings in training is solely do to the

Microsoft corporation. What other American

corporation has had such a positively huge

impact on our economy. Don’t punish a

corporation for doing what we do best in this

capitalist economy: being innovative, making

money and positively benefiting our

economy and standard of living.

Thank you Microsoft!

Sincerely,

James M. Robinson

5153 W. Wikieup Ln.

Glendale, AZ 85308

MTC–00006133

From: Bradford West

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement is fair. It recognizes that

Microsoft was wrong and it requires

Microsoft to pay damages. Microsoft’s ability

to add features to its products should not be

restricted, and Microsoft should not be

broken up into multiple operating units,

unless financial market forces (unrelated to

government intervention) so dictate. The

quality of the product and its ability to

multitask and integrate with other products

should be dictated by the consumer and not

by any government. I require a fullyintegrated product to run my business. I

believe that Microsoft products have enabled

me to be more productive year over year, and

my productivity increases as the

functionality and integration of features

increases. A government break-up or

restriction on Microsoft’s ability to provide

better, more fully-integrated products would

be harmful to me and to the productivity of

the workforce in America and beyond.

Microsoft’s products or marketing should

not impede the ability of its competitors to

innovate and provide consumers with quality

choices. Additionally, Microsoft should

provide enough information to competitors to

allow competitors to make products that

function within the Windows environment.

To the extent Microsoft did not in the past

comply with those requirements, the

settlement fairly punishes Microsoft for its

non-compliance. Microsoft competes fairly in

the cases of which I am aware. I use several

products that compete with Microsoft

products, such as Quicken, which competes

with Money, and I judge Microsoft against its

competition in each purchase I make. The

key is that I, not the government, chose the

product I want to use. Any government

restriction on my choice, or my ability to

choose as a result of a break-up of Microsoft

or restriction on innovation, is wrong. Such

a restriction is anti-capitalist, anti-free

market, and anti-American.

Bradford D. West, PLC

731 Via Lombardy

Winter Park, FL 32789

bradfordwest@cfl.rr.com

http://www.lawyers.com/westplc

MTC–00006134

From: Ollie Fick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I urge you to settle this case according to

the terms already worked out with Microsoft.

I and millions of other citizens are owners of

Microsoft stock and are tired of the drag this

case has put on the company’s stock. Any

benefits that may have resulted from this case

have already been written into the agreement.

Further delay of the settlement cannot

possibly result in significant additional

benefits.

Thank you.

MTC–00006135

From: janrog@home.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24787

I believe it is of extreme importance to

dispense with any continuing litigation with

regard to the alleged anti-trust practices being

made against the Microsoft Corporation. In

view of the fact that Microsoft has agreed to

a settlement to end this case I strongly state

that this settlement should be accepted and

put into place. Our economy does not need

any further negative events and the

conclusion of this case will be viewed as a

positive influence and will help the US and

World economies to begin a rebound from

current depressed levels. I believe that those

not in support of this agreement use only self

centered, selfish reasons and that their

reasons are directly contrary to what is just

and correct for the American economy. This

is America which has been built upon free

enterprise and we cannot allow continuing

efforts to stifle the strengths we have in this

country.

Sincerely,

Roger L. Nauta

janrog@home.com

MTC–00006136

From: Bob Balke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

As a consumer, I appreciate the greater

usability of Microsoft software. If I don’t

want to use Explorer, I’ll get Netscape. But

I appreciate the fact that I don’t have to get

Netscape or Real Network in order to have a

PC that performs the tasks that I want to

accomplish. For some reason, Microsoft is

being penalized for building a great product

and then making the product better over the

years. For my money, the consumer is the

largest beneficiary of Microsoft’s upgrades.

But if you have sufficient manpower, please

focus on an industry that openly fixes prices,

provides the worst customer service and

blames all of its problems on others. Of

course I’m referring to the airline industry.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Balke

MTC–00006137

From: Ceebar612@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm

Subject: (no subject)

Personally, I think it ridiculous to keep this

up with a company which has contributed so

much. It reminds me of oil and the

Rockefellers (I am 80 and a half) and what

good did that do. Stop the action. It is costly

and un-American. Like the Rockefellers, the

Gates give back to their country.

Sincerely,

Caroline B. Taylor

MTC–00006138

From: Betty Sherman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Why are these ‘‘holdouts’’ holding out for

more? The DOJ has spent more on going after

this one man, who has done so much good

for so many people, than they had spent,

prior to Sept. 11, going after one man who

has perpetrated so much evil in the world.

Do these individual Atty Gen’ls of those

holdout states set themselves up to know

more than the U.S. DOJ? Get this thing settled

and get on with other matters.

Thank you.

Betty Sherman retired RDH

1932 Mahan Avenue

Richland, WA 99352

MTC–00006139

From: JOE ROSENTHAL

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the Microsoft Settlement as

offered by MIcrosoft is fair and should be

accepted.

Joe Rosenthal

4712 Meadowview Blvd.

Sarasota, FL 34233

MTC–00006140

From: Texpop@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm

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 process.

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.

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!

MTC–00006141

From: BMarrow630@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I favor the microsoft settlement to which

the Justice Dept and MS have agreed.

Robert Marrow

56 Rye Rd.

Rye NY 10580

bmarrow630@aol.com

MTC–00006142

From: Hoffman, Matt

To: ’microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

please get it done already. more than

enough money has been wasted on this suit

that never should have been brought. Suits

like this impair our freedom.

MTC–00006143

From: john zimmerman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Pls settle this issue asap according to the

terms released several months ago. The

lawsuit against Microsoft was ill-conceived

from the very beginning. In any other

country, Microsoft would be considered a

national treasure and Bill Gates’ birthday

would be a holiday. As a serious computer

user, I would like to see as much

functionality as possible bundled into the

Windows operating system. I do not enjoy

spending serious money on poorly

functioning ancillary software like firewalls,

virus protection, cd burning, faxing, music,

etc. Usually, the functions within windows

are good enough for me; they work reliably;

and they have no incremental cost. Those

who want enhanced functions and

complexity are always free to buy them. The

universality of Windows is also a great asset.

I can currently use almost any desktop

computer in the world without spending a

day or more learning a new software system.

Again, please divert your resources from the

irrelevant Microsoft case to issues that are

much more important to America-security

and terrorism.

John E. Zimmerman

6417 Deerings Lane

Norcross, GA 30092

MTC–00006144

From: JDay31932@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

I believe that the US government &

Microsoft need to complete the settlement of

this case without further litigation. The

agreement reached by the parties is equitable

to all involved. I cringe when I think what

our computer and cyberspace landscape

would look like if it wasn’t for Microsoft’s

forward thinking and marketing strategies.

The PC environment is quite manageable

because of Microsoft.

Respectfully,

John Day

MTC–00006145

From: Sasan Nikoomanesh

To: ’Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern;

First of all, thank you for soliciting and

taking into consideration public opinion

regarding the above settlement. It makes me

proud to live and be part of the best

democracy in the world.

To maintain a true democracy, government

needs to act as an independent moderator

24788 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

and enforce the law to protect its citizens. In

my opinion, this case has been drag for so

long that it has lost its purpose. Millions of

dollars of taxes have been spent prosecuting

a business, and millions more have been

spent by Microsoft defending its business

practices. This money on both sides can be

put to better use.

I believe that the current penalties levied

by the court are fair and should be executed

promptly. The sooner this case is settling, the

sooner the consumer and the government can

focus on more important matters.

Respectfully,

Sasan Nikoomanesh

A concerned citizen 310–575–7046

MTC–00006146

From: Charles Fisher

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:56pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

DOJ,

You have your settlement now it’s time to

get off their backs. I am sick and tired of

hearing about people and companies being

punished because they thought of something

first. I don’t know Bill Gates or anyone else

at Microsoft. It won’t matter a thing to me if

they make another billion or lose all they

have. They earned all they have by their

brains and brawn. . . . Get off their backs.

...

Charles Fisher

Tampa, Fl.

MTC–00006147

From: USSSLATER@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please get off Microsoft’s back and let them

get back to doing what they do best—making

jobs for a lot of people and making life better

for even more people.

Gordon Lattey

ussslater@aol.com

MTC–00006148

From: Jim Holland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:55pm

To whom it may concern:

Get off Microsofts’ back. Now.

Jim Holland

MTC–00006149

From: Erickson, John

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

Regarding the proposed Microsoft

settlement, I believe it is fair. We are seeing

a few state attorney general and lobbyists

trying to make a name for themselves (or the

companies they represent). The software

environment has changed so dramatically

since this case was brought to trial, that many

of the issues are not relevant.

Regards,

John A. Erickson

30601 Harristown Road

Grand Rapids, MN. 55744

MTC–00006150

From: Gene Robinson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle this case as proposed. I, as a

consumer, have never felt harmed by

Microsoft’s practices. In fact, I couldn’t even

begin to run my business without Microsoft’s

products. Thank you for consideration of

these comments.

Best regards,

Guy E. Robinson,

Lincoln, Nebraska

MTC–00006151

From: Geoffrey Feldman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:56pm

Subject: I favor a settlement that is as

favorable to Microsoft as possible.

I am a professional software engineer who

has never believed the Microsoft anti-trust

prosecution should have even begun. I have

followed this case, including its technical

merits and I find it chilling that the

government ever interfered.

I believe that Microsoft’s competitors failed

through their own incompetence. By this, I

mean specific technical mistakes and product

quality failures which lead me away from

Microsofts’ competitors in recommending

products to my consulting clients.

Microsofts’ actions and behaviors have

benefited me as a consumer of software and

as someone who profits from enhancing and

developing software. The action of the

government has caused me harm by

interfering with a process that was never

illegal. The actions of Microsoft are no more

anti-competitive than similar actions

undertaken by Sun Micrososystems, Compaq,

Apple, IBM, AOL and Netscape.

I think the government should settle this

case and do so in a way as favorable as

possible to Microsoft. I think the government

should avoid similar cases in the future and

allow the marketplace to make these

decisions in the future. Please do not

interfere with the operations of Microsoft,

you only interfere with legitimate commerce

and my way of earning a living as a computer

programming consultant. I have no direct

interest in Microsoft. I am not an employee

nor even a shareholder.

Geoffrey Feldman

geoff@seabasecns.com

617–429–8966

1541 Middlesex St. #8

Lowell, MA 01851

MTC–00006152

From: David Williams

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

The action against Microsoft has in no way

and will in no way benefit those persons who

use the Microsoft products and any

settlement the negatively impacts the

company will only worsen the situation.

I am a periodontist and have used

computers in my office since 1983. In the

past I was forced to deal with those

companies that are responsible for bringing

this suite against Microsoft. The cost of using

their software compared to Microsoft’s is

easily three to four times greater. I don’t view

Microsoft as some monopolistic giant, but

more as a friend who has made in possible

for to have the hardware and software for the

systems we have today at an affordable price,

whereas before I felt I was being robbed by

the likes of Apple and Sun.

In my view, there should have been no

judgement against Microsoft and they should

be left to do business as usual.

Sincerely,

David S. Williams DDS,MSD

MTC–00006153

From: Byron Stavrou

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm

Subject: Settlement

Gentlemen:

I thought this was pretty much settled!

While I believe Microsoft could be faulted for

some of its practices, the extent to which this

is being prosecuted is unconscionable. The

recalcitrant States and the vestiges of of

vindictiveness within the DOJ, and more

squarely in the Senate, are the height of

malicious prosecution.

You are allowing the above self-interested

parties, (to some extent driven by the states

which are competitors of Microsoft), to

tamper with a company who is one of the

main engines of this economy. We are in

enough of an economic downturn right now.

Let us not penalize a company that can help

us out of our economic rut. Please stop the

further pursuit of this case.

Byron Stavrou

Prudential, DeHOFF REALTORS

821 South Main Street

North Canton, OH 44720

E-Mail <mailto:: ByronG@msn.com>

mailto:: ByronG@msn.com

MTC–00006154

From: HBra42731@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wish to lend my support to the Tunney

act, for the final settlement of issues related

to Microsoft. It is high time that the

government stops harrassing Microsoft, a

company responsible for thousands of jobs

and technical inovation benefiting

millions.’To delay further is a total waste of

time.

Herbert A. Brauner

110 Sleepy Hollow Dr.

San Anselmo, CA 94960

MTC–00006155

From: CRL0@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a long time user of Microsoft products

and believe the settlement should be in favor

of Microsoft. I am a retired Federal employee

and currently have a home based business,

using many of Microsoft products. I do not

see a need for other companies of lesser

quality products to have a say in what is

good for me. I may be reached at this E-mail

address of CRLO@aol.com@inetgw

Creola Loyd

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24789

MTC–00006156

From: Tlpcook57@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm

Subject: Some testimony

I would like to see my government stop

wasting taxpayer money going after

Microsoft. Let free enterprise work. My new

(then) computer came with the Microsoft

search engine along with AOL. Netscape,

Msn, Yahoo and several others all bundled

on the machine. Hooray I had a choice. Quit

persecuting MSFT and use the money to go

after Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein.

MTC–00006157

From: Bernie Friedenson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Congratulations on a prompt, fair and

equitable settlement! The case has been a

burden on the computer industry, the

economy, and the whole country.

Bernard Friedenson

MTC–00006158

From: nacpa

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I support the proposed settlement with

Microsoft as it now stands. I am confident

that the marketplace for innovation and

competition is healthy and needs no further

action by the government to protect the

public’s interests.

I believe those opposing the current

settlement are doing so to try and effect

changes that will serve their own, not the

public’s, interests.

Thank you,

Cynthia Wallace Liss

PO Box 753

McLean, VA 22101

nacpa@cox.rr.com

MTC–00006159

From: Lou(038)Anne Salem

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I think the agreement for the microsoft

settlement is fair to all parties involved.

Thank You

L J Salem Jr.

MTC–00006160

From: James D. Miller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the Attorney General:

As a consumer I find it difficult to

understand why a few states and special

interest groups can continue to keep this

settlement agreement form completion. The

Federal Government must put this to rest

immediately. We’ve all suffered financially

as the result of this competitor led suit and

it’s time it stopped. This is a country where

the majority rules and that’s exactly what

needs to happen here. Tell those who want

to continue this for their own selfish interests

to get in line and stop holding this up and

let’s get on with it.

James D. Miller.

MTC–00006161

From: Warren Dewar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I understand, under the Tunney Act, there

is a period of time within which the public

is allowed to comment to the District Court

regarding the proposed settlement of the

antitrust case against Microsoft Corporation.

I wish to express my strong support for the

proposed settlement. In my opinion, this case

was ill-advised from the start, and was an

obvious attempt by Microsoft’s competitors

to strengthen their position at the expense of

the world’s most innovative company.

Microsoft is clearly committed to a

nonproprietary Internet, as opposed to the

nation’s cable companies, which can design

their broadband networks to control what

kind of content and applications may be

carried. There is little reason to vilify a

company with a strong and powerful interest

in a strategy that may well reinforce

competition on the Internet, especially when

few of Microsoft’s competitors have adopted

such a similarly pro-Internet strategy. Thus,

rather than adopting a remedy that is focused

exclusively on the ‘last war,’ a proper remedy

to the current antitrust case should be

sufficient to steer Microsoft towards its

benign strategy, while assuring an adequate

response if it fails to follow this procompetitive lead.

Sincerely,

Warren L. Dewar II

137 Buchanan Street, San Francisco, CA

94102

MTC–00006162

From: Brian Olson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm

Subject: Hurt Microsoft, hurt the country.

If you insist on a witch hunt why are you

not going after Steve Case from AOL?

AOL blocks photos coming from other E

Mail sources. AOL stands in the way of

Instent messages to all ESPs, MSFT does not.

This is about money for other companies

not the people of our Country. Apple price

for price is a computer I, as a Computer

teacher feels like running for the door when

I see one.

It has the worse mouse, lousy graphics, is

difficult to navigate. I find it difficult to

believe the people against MST have ever

used a home computer.

The Government must have determined

that the American People are stupid, that

they buy Windows because Bill Gates secret

organization of Storm Troupers sneaks into

homes and forces prospective buyers to

purchase Windows.

Forget the Hype that Apple Computers do

not hang up. In 10 years of teaching

computers, I have seen Jobs little miracle

hang up three times to every once for

Windows.

I hate to think this, but is the case against

Gates fueled by his lack of bribing legislators,

or is it just that legislators and judges are a

lot less inteligent then I ever thought they

were.

BRIAN

PS Who designed the Graphics for Apple!

MTC–00006163

From: Frank Scott

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I believe the DOJ should proceed with its

proposed setllement of the Microsoft case.

Frank Scott

Scott American Corporation

Box 88

West Redding CT 06896–0088 USA

Phone and fax: 203 938 2955

e-mail: frank@scottamerican.com

website: www.scottamerican.com

MTC–00006164

From: DChick7070@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the Microsoft case should be

settled post haste. The economy is not good

and another company going down the drain

is not what we need. I also believe in the old

American way that who ever builds the best

mouse trap wins.

D.R. Chick

MTC–00006165

From: Captain Brett

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Madam/Sir:

I think Microsoft Corp. has acted in good

faith and given up many of its legal rights in

order to bring to an end the anti-innovation

anti-trust suit brought by the Justice

Department and some states on behalf of

special corporate interests. The settlement

reached by Microsoft and Justice appears to

be in the second best interest of the public—

the first would have been to leave Microsoft

alone and allow them to continue to develop

great software and give American consumers

free computer tools—and as a computer user

I hope the Justice Department will second

this settlement in earnest.

Happy New Year.

Brett Jiu

711 W 171st St Apt 8

New York, NY 10032

MTC–00006166

From: Richard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

With the terrible events of 9/11 still at the

forefront of our collective minds, please do

whatever is necessary to bring ALL parties on

board for a comprehensive settlement of the

microsoft case. It is terribly distracting to

have a sterling domestic company dogged by

years of litigation. The Federal government’s

settlement is more than fair to all parties;

please do something to bring the states who

have opted to continue litigating into the

fold. We need to put this behind us. America

needs you to resolve this matter. We are all

ready to move on, to get back to work, to

keep America at the leading edge of

technological supremacy.

Richard Hetherington

24790 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00006167

From: C.M. HOOPER

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft has contributed greatly to

information technology and our new

economy. Microsoft has been and is endorsed

each time an individual or organization

purchases its products and services. These

are voluntary transactions and, as an

individual, I believe Microsoft has given me

full value for the price of its products that I

use. Microsoft’s competitors are cry babies

and the state attorneys general who have

sued Microsoft are no better than the worst

of tort lawyers. It’s time to let Microsoft get

back to developing new information

technology. Although unfair to Microsoft, it’s

time to settle the case now before the federal

government.

Clay Hooper

HC 63 Box 19

Hamilton TX 76531

MTC–00006168

From: Robert/Shirley Girard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We wish to be counted among those who

vehemently are against further litigation,

with regard to Microsoft, which is costly and

time consuming and unnecessary. Please

settle this issue as expeditiously as possible.

There are many more crucial situations in

our world today. We thank you!!!!!!!

Shirley & Robert GIrard

Kingston, WA

MTC–00006169

From: Ray Petrone

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Congratulations on the long-awaited

settlement with Microsoft. It was long

overdue. It is most unfortunate that nine

states continue to waste far more time on this

matter than can possibly be justified. With

situations like the one at Enron

commonplace they would be wise to spread

their attention in places where millions of

people are likely to benefit more from the

outcome. Enough is enough. Please move

forward with the settlement as agreed to by

Microsoft.

Although as a shareholder in Microsoft I

think that even that settlement goes too far

I am willing to lend my voice to the voices

of compromise in order to move to far more

important matters for our economy, our

nation and the general welfare of the people

of this country.

Respectfully,

Raymond Petrone, P.E.

MTC–00006170

From: Toney Herlevic

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Dear DOJ,

Please settle this case against Microsoft as

soon as possible. This case should never have

occurred. It should not be the purview of

Government to protect stupid people. I am an

average computer user and somehow have

managed to put four browsers on my desktop

with no help from the Government. The

government should stay out of this

marketplace and let the marketplace settle

these disputes. Please accept the settlements

as soon as possible and get off Microsoft’s

back!

Toney Herlevic

El Cajon, CA

MTC–00006171

From: Funds, Karl—Karl

To: ’Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Any case against Microsoft has become

way to muddied to make any clear sense of

the issues involved. Fine them and let’s get

this over with. Too many have a personal

stake in the case for any real resolution, so

just end it quickly.

Karl Funds

Funds Hays Graphic Design

2901 W. Busch Blvd., Suite 406

Tampa Florida 33618

kfunds@fundshays.com

www.fundshays.com

MTC–00006172

From: CMSEH@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Department of Justice,

The Microsoft Case must be settled! It is

only correct that the case should be settled

because it will improve the economy and as

a user of Microsoft since 1976 in my work

in the public schools of Milwaukee, I have

found it the best of all worlds.

Sincerely,

Carol M. Schaeve; Retired Reading

Specialist from Milw. Ghettos;

I retired at 721⁄2. Now I am 76 and still

using Microsoft 2000 in writing the

genealogy of my four ancestors who came to

America in 1845 and 1854. Hurrah for this

country; keep it sound and settle Microsoft.

MTC–00006173

From: Kar Ip

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

For nearly four years, the public’s voice

and interests have 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 an agreement with

Microsoft to address the reduced liability

found in the Court of Appeals ruling.

My opinion is that this agreement is

comprehensive and tough, but reasonable

and fair to all parties involved. As a

consumer, I overwhelmingly agree that

settlement is good for the consumers, the

industry and the American economy.

Unfortunately, a few special interests are

attempting 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. I will not let these

special interests defeat the public interest.

Sincerely

Kar W Ip

Private Citizen

80–55 Bell Blvd,

Queens Village, NY 11427

MTC–00006174

From: Ellen Page

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

If you have the interest of the consumer,

and not special interest groups, in mind, then

you will settle the Microsoft issue now.

It confounds me that the Department of

Justice would practice Draconian justice with

a company that has so improved the quality

of life for Americans. Sure, it is big. Sure, it

is successful. Do you want to discourage

growth and innovation in the entrepreneurial

sector? It also provides jobs for thousands,

who in turn spend money and enhance the

economy.

I do part company with Bill Gates when he

uses his influence to change immigration

laws. We have home grown talent to fill the

jobs made available by the hi-tech industry.

Respectfully submitted,

Ellen Page

MTC–00006175

From: MoonDoctor@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern

Even though I feel that the Microsoft

Corporation is being penalized more than I

think is reasonable, I realize that it’s not

going to get much better under current

conditions. For this reason, I strongly

recommend that the existing terms of the

settlement be set up and enacted as a final

solution.

Jack Haug

PO Box 1104

Sanford, NC 27331

MTC–00006176

From: William P. Crumpacker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm

Subject: Settlement

Let us ‘‘move on’’ and judiciously allow

the settlemet to proceed. If the opponents

desire to harm Microsoft, let them attempt to

do so in the marketplace, NOT the courts.

Sincerely,

William P. Crumpacker

1654 Hanson St.

Ft. Myers FL 33901

MTC–00006177

From: Mac Goelst

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

L.S.,

It is my opinion that it is in the best

interest of all concerned if the lawsuit against

Microsoft is settled ASAP, because:

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24791

—In spite of the anti competitive behaviors

Microsoft engaged in according to the court

rulings issued so far, we as a company feel

that we have only benefited from

Microsoft’s strength and dominant position

by getting more software for ever lower

prices. This in turn has benefited our

customers (such as you, since we are a

UNICOR partner), because it has allowed

us to keep our pricing stable.

—Software innovation by Microsoft and

others drives a lot of growth, and the

sooner we get back and focus on that the

better off we’ll all be.

—The remedies proposed are fair, and any

further tinkering, especially in the

direction of a breakup of Microsoft will be

tremendously hurtful.

Sincerely,

Mac A. Goelst

President/ CEO

Goelst USA, LLC

915 Bridge Street

Winston-Salem, NC 27101

email: mgoelst@goelst.net

MTC–00006178

From: Bernard Rohde

To: ’microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the proposed settlement is fair to

all parties and the general public at large.

Lets get the deal done and move on with rebuilding our economy. Surely the Justice

Department has better things to do with its

time like chasing terrorists instead of

hampering the free enterprise system.

Bernard Rohde

430 Martel Lane

Coppell, TX 75019

MTC–00006179

From: Robert Gadd, III

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

In my judgment the whole market.

particularly NASDAQ crashed after the

Department of Justice and some states went

after Microsoft. The domino effect took it

from there.

My request is for you all to back off and

drop all proceedings.

Robert F. Gadd, III

MTC–00006180

From: JAdams314@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

Let’s get on with the business of business

and that is to let the economy function as it

always has, and not be heavy-handed in

regulating, or micromanaging every situation.

The government settled, the states should

settle and get on with it. No one would want

to think that with Europe united and creating

a formidable economic threat to the rest of

the world and with China getting its act

together finally, that we need very strong

companies to handle the world business

climate. Microsoft is a leader.

Sincerely yours,

John Adams

MTC–00006181

From: michael bricker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:00pm

Subject: I hope you will use some sense in

the Microsoft case.

I hope you will use some sense in the

Microsoft case. They have invented a new

language for all computer users to use. And

have offered it to the public for a fair price.

What if Japan or some one elle had invented

this item. How maney dollars would we be

exporting to them???

MTC–00006182

From: cewagner@hotmail.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

The current Microsoft settle seems to be

fair. Please don’t let the Microsoft

competitiors do more unfair damage to a

company that has been the industry leader

for the last decade.

Charles E. Wagner Jr.

25 Newberry St.

Bridgewater, NJ 08807

MTC–00006183

From: YLPATH@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir, I believe that Microsoft settlement

is good for the economy of USA

Sincerely,

Yat-sun Leung

MTC–00006184

From: flora@businessaspects.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Dept. of Justice,

As a very concerned citizen, kindly allow

me to voice my opinion that is is time to

settle fully with Microsoft and let this

company and our great nation get on with

fulfilling our needs for advanced technology,

which Microsoft has shown, countless times,

does so ably.

Let’s get on with a bright future, shall we?

Settle with Microsoft now.

Thanks for your time.

Flora Gabriel, BSL, JD

flora@businessaspects.com

MTC–00006185

From: MFGRANDE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear USDOJ:

I think it is preposterous that the US

Government has continued it’s attack against

free enterprise and Microsoft. Didn’t the

government learn anything from Ken Stars

and that waste of our tax dollars? Call off the

attack dogs and let capitalism live.

Time to move on to more pressing issues

facing us today and let the lawyers find other

revenue streams.

Mario Grande

mfgrande@aol.com

MTC–00006186

From: Simon Litvak

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi,

I would like to express my opinion on

Microsoft case. Microsoft case should be

settled without any further delays.

Continuation of this case is harmful to

industry, American economy and American

consumers. Statements that Microsoft

harmed consumers by building a lot of

features inside Windows OS, not to mention

overcharging them (we are really

undercharged by Oracle and Sun, aren’t we?)

are ridiculous. When I need small software

utility to do my job, I have to pay 25%—

100% of what MS Windows OS cost. What

do you think consumers would say if they

have to pay for browser, e-mail and a bunch

of utilities and accessories which are

provided as a part of MS Windows?

As a USA Federal and CA state taxpayer

I see my money used in this case against my

will. Last statement is also correct for

millions and millions Americans.

Thanks,

Simon Litvak

Programmer/Analyst

UC Berkeley

MTC–00006187

From: Robert A. Hicks

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

For the record, my wife and I are small

stockholders in Microsoft, but we were not

supportive of the government’s position from

day one. Please accept Microsoft’s settlement

offer, cut your losses, and go after real

violators. =====

Robert A. Hicks, Executive Director

Tallahassee Comets, Inc.

2001 TWO-TIME TEAM CAMP USA

CHAMPIONS

WWW.COMETSGET.NET

MTC–00006188

From: Dave Garvie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft case should be settled.

Please end these court proceedings and let

Microsoft get on with their business.

Thank you,

Dave GARVIE.

MTC–00006189

From: Everett Joline

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir

I would like to voice my support for the

settlement that MS and the DOJ have agreed

to. Naturally there are competitors that

would like to shoot down this agreement to

stifle MS competition in their product areas,

however, it is definitely to the benefit of

consumers to put this dispute behind us and

get on with getting the economy back on

track.

Thanks for your attention,

24792 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Everett S. Joline

MTC–00006190

From: jdcoussens@hotmail.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlment

I agree that the case against Microsoft is

bogus, Microsoft is a giant because it’s

serving its customer better than the others,

other products that are better will eventually

rise to the top, without the government’s

involvment.

Jerry Coussens

4440 Cheyenne Ave

Davenport, Iowa

MTC–00006191

From: Bjoart519@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

My feeling is that the proposed settlement

in the Microsoft problem, is more than fair,

and Microsoft should not be penalized

further. Though an octogenerian, having the

whole computer revolution occur in my

lifetime, and being no expert, I do feel that

the Microsoft organization has been a large

factor in my being able to use and enjoy my

computer, and all the things I can do with

it.

Sincerely,

Arthur W. Powell

1304 Monarch Circle

Naples, FL 34116

MTC–00006192

From: Wade Wilken

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Please record me as in favor of the

proposed settlement for the Microsoft case.

Thanks and regards,

Wade Wilken Jr.

MTC–00006193

From: JLPWINGS@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm

Subject: Micrsoft Settlement

If the goverment and various states are so

eager to be involved in private business may

a suggest a better target than Microsoft? Try

the baseball industry. The state of Minnesota

should look for ways of keeping baseball

rather than prolong litigation against

Microsoft.

The settlement as of this date is fair. The

litigation has hurt more people than it has

helped. Let the settlement stand and let’s

move on.

James L. Peterson

Microsoft User and Stockholder

MTC–00006194

From: Masciovecchio, Philip (P.J.)

To: ’Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is truly a shame that our Government is

still trying to penalize Microsoft. There are

obviously other issues that I feel are more

important than the one on hand. Mi

crosoft is a company that started with

virtually nothing and has reached (deserved)

the opportunity to capitalize on its

achievements. I wonder if all those other

companies that are competitors of Microsoft’s

were in the same position, would they feel

like they were monopolizing the market. I

doubt very much.

Microsoft should use it resources on

making this world a better place through its

current business, instead of spending it

trying to defend itself in court, due to a few

competitors who cannot meet what Microsoft

has achieved.

I for one, would like to see this case put

to rest once and for all. It is a shame our

government is wasting so much time,

resources, energy, and my taxes trying to

penalize a company that should not even

have to defend itself.

Regards,

Philip J. Masciovecchio

e-mail pmasciov@visteon.com

MTC–00006195

From: FoxxMulderr@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please move ahead with the current

settlement that has been reached. Let’s move

on and let the company continue it’s

innovation to the technology industry.

David Rabinowitz

MTC–00006196

From: Betty Gotuaco

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:03pm

Subject: SETTLEMENT

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I feel that the US Department of Justice has

done enough to prosecute Microsoft about

the anti-trust concerns of the government.

Please leave them alone. Microsoft is doing

this great country a service, not like the

Department of Justice Anti-Trust Group.

Thank You,

Betty Liang Gotuaco

MTC–00006197

From: Becke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

I support Microsoft and urge the DOJ to

follow through on the settlement as

reasonable and fair to all parties. The

dissenting states have business’ making their

homes in those states that would be helped

if you were to disallow this settlement to go

through.

I use a Windows product starting only 3

years ago... This system has allowed me to

become computer efficient and I now use

Microsoft Windows in my small business.

I completely support Microsoft and wish

the previous administration and justice

department had spent as much time on

terrorism as they did attacking Microsoft.

B. Elliot

Texas

MTC–00006198

From: Larry Seltzer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have disapproved of the case against

Microsoft from the beginning, and would

prefer that it be dropped completely. But as

the settlement agreement eliminates the most

stupid provisions of the original judgment, I

urge its adoption so that the industry and the

nation can move on and put this episode

behind us.

Larry Seltzer

127 Parker Ave

Maplewood, NJ 07040

larry@larryseltzer.com

MTC–00006199

From: Doug Brennan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle now. This has gone on to long

and consumer’s freedoms or pocketbooks are

not being effected.

Thanks,

Doug

MTC–00006200

From: RMKM8818@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We want the case settled as agreed and no

further action taken.

MTC–00006201

From: CMDOC@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:04pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please try to get this settled and let the

company move forward with innovation and

improvements to their product. The

additions they have made over the years to

the various Windows operating systems have

been phenomenal and have given us (the

consumers and users) much greater value for

our money along with greater ease of use.

Most of the objections are from competitors

who would have us all buying separate

products by the dozens to do the things that

Microsoft has included with each new

upgrade of their software. Thank Goodness

for Microsoft and the foresight and

innovation they have had in the past.

C. M. House, MD,

Captain MC USN

MTC–00006202

From: LORETTES2@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm

Subject: Settlement

For justice’s sake: Settle this case. Stop the

litigation. Way too much time and taxpayers’

money has been spent on this.

Lorette Schneider

A concerned taxpayer

MTC–00006203

From: Alcornwd@cs.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement is FAIR.

Dear Sir:

I strongly believe the Microsoft settlement

is fair. Other wealthy competitors (i.e., Sun

Microsystems) are trying to torpedo the

settlement for their grudges and monetary

gains. Please don’t let the settlement be

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24793

decided by big businesses (competitors) that

have an ‘‘agenda.’’ As a consumer, I think

Microsoft’s many contributions have been

good for the general public.

Warren D. Alcorn

Sausalito, CA

MTC–00006204

From: Scott Harrison

To: ’microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear elected officials and lawmakers,

Please settle the Microsoft DOJ case, do not

delay you are not acting on behalf of the

consumer if you do not accept the settlement

and move on. The proposed remedies are

more than fair. The proposed DOJ settlement

is the route that is most expedient and fair

for all involved.

Microsoft is not a bad company, they are

being punished for being successful and

giving us consumers what we ask for, much

of this suit is being driven by their

competition not consumers. Microsoft is one

of the very few companies that actually

listens to the average consumers feedback.

They may not get it right the first time but

they listen and keep on trying until it is what

we ask them to create. What we have now

with Windows is want consumers have asked

them to produce. Software companies should

be forced to compete on the technical merit

of their products as voted on by consumer

dollars not via the Justice system and

litigation.

The individual states should not be free to

peruse additional remedies and measures,

this seems wrong and also like double

jeopardy. This is wrong that the individual

states can choose to continue this matter on

their own. If the case has been settled why

does litigation continue, by any party?

The consumer is paying for this litigation,

even in the end if Microsoft were to pay all

legal bills—Microsoft should not have to pay

for the government legal bills—the states and

federal govenrment has still wasted time and

money on this rather than putting those same

resources to better use. This entire matter is

a huge waste and gross misallocation of

resources.

Please listen to consumers not competitors.

I as a consumer want you to take the

settlement, stop further persecution of

Microsoft, restrict the states from being able

to peruse this matter further, and stop

wasting time and money on this.

It is terrible that we have spent more

money tracking down and persecuting

Microsoft than we have tracking the worst

United States public enemies. Respectfully

submitted to microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov on 1/2/

2002

Scott Harrison

410 Forest Place SW,

Issaquah, WA. 98027

MTC–00006205

From: Herke, Mark

To: ’microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement

is fair. If it fails and Microsoft is broken up,

this would affect the quality of their products

since there would be less integration between

the operating system and office software. I

believe Microsoft should have an equal right

to create software that runs on their operating

system. I use Microsoft products extensively

in my job and would not like to see my job

become more difficult with the break-up of

Microsoft.

Thank you,

Mark Herke

MTC–00006206

From: Thomas Branley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle the Microsoft case. It would be

good for the economy and the American

people. Four years is long enough.

MTC–00006207

From: PoppaOR@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm

Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement

It is my opinion that the US governments

settlement with Microsoft is a reasonable

agreement. When each of the worlds

infrastructures where began; such as the

railroads, telephones, air transportation, etc.,

it was done with the gov. support, by just a

few competitors. This makes the large capital

outlay potentially profitable for the infant

industry innovators and creates a standard

that is easily understood and used by the

public.

The difference between an academian and

a entrepreneur is: The academian basks in his

understanding of ideas and ideals. The

entrepreneur takes his understanding and

creates a product that the public will use.

US citizen and entrepreneur for 35 years,

GERALD VEENKER

MTC–00006208

From: Andersen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a part time administrator of computer

systems for the past 20 years in a small

Construction company (2001 sales of $80

million) I am appalled by the suit against

Microsoft. I say part time because we do not

have a full time IT staff and computers are

a small part of my involvement here. Nobody

seems to remember what data processing was

like in the pre-PC days but I can assure you

that our business has benefitted greatly from

companies like Microsoft and the open

architecture of the PC. We could not

maintain our systems no a part time basis

without Microsoft.

We spent many dollars during the days of

mainframes and minis for systems that didn’t

work well, required a lot of maintenance and

left us vulnerable to gouging on both the

hardware and software sides of computing.

Microsoft has delivered a more stable

platform for a fraction of what our previous

systems cost.

It wasn’t that many years ago that the cost

of word processing software was offered to

my company for $50,000. (single user, 1982),

adding a dumb terminal (workstation) cost

$20,000 and adding 28megs to my hard drive

cost $25,000 (this was a terrible scam because

the space actually existed on the drive that

I owned but it had to be software enabled).

In the early days of PCs, we spent

countless thousands on software that didn’t

work well from Microsoft’s competitors and

eventually migrated to Microsoft’s Office

products because they were feature rich and

did work better than their competition’s.

We do not exclusively use Microsoft

products—our network product is provided

by Novell as is our e-mail. Our accounting

software is from Timberline and the interface

issues between these products and MS has

been minimal.

Do not hold to the belief that you are

championing my cause by pursuing an action

against Microsoft but rather please

understand that you are probably going to

negatively impact my business by your

ignorance of reality. If the DOJ wants to go

after somebody, they should look at

companies like Apple who, to their own

peril, has kept their architecture closed or for

the countless failed software companies that

never delivered on their promises.

This is not to say that we never have issues

with Microsoft software but rather to say that

they are manageable without Government

intervention. A good analogy would be the

United States Government. It is not without

issues but considering the competition,

where else would you go.

Tom Andersen

tea@bbeinc.com

MTC–00006209

From: Terry Green

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I strongly support the Microsoft settlement!

It is time to move forward and not add

additional burden to our National economy.

Any additional action negating this

settlement would only serve special interests

(wealthy special interests) and not be of any

benefit to the general public. Why do we

attempt to tear apart the very structure of our

economy when it is the very worst time to

do so? As a member of the ‘‘very common

general public’’ I gain nothing from this

fiasco. I don’t see where any of this lawsuit

benefits me as the public.

I don’t view Microsoft as any different then

any other ‘‘large corporate giant’’ such as

General Electric monopoly or any of the

telephone monopolies. Just look what

happened when the telephone companies

were broken up. Not only did the cost of

service escalate, but new long distance

services were created adding to the cost, and

now where are they headed? Why, they are

being reacquired by the very companies the

government broke up, recreating the very

same so called ‘‘monopoly’’ situation as

before the breakups. The caveat, however, is

that the ‘‘very common general public’’ is

now paying significantly more for telephone

service. Who benefited? Why BIG BUSINESS

of course; with the governments assistance!

Let’s get on with what life’s problems we’re

suffering through right now. Examine the

events of 9/11, the economy in the pits, costs

escalating everywhere, unemployment, and

so much more. Settle this thing with

Microsoft and move forward with handling

24794 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

the ‘‘real problems’’ in this Country—

Employment & Economy!!!

MTC–00006210

From: Tom Field

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; GET IT OVER

WITH. NO MORE LITIGATION. The

settlement is fair for all parties. Tom Field,

Marlboro, NJ

MTC–00006211

From: Bill Rigby

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my opinion, the proposed settlement

between Microsoft and the DOJ is appropriate

and is in the public’s interest.The changes

proposed by the disagreeing states are

Draconian and are being offered at the urging

of Microsoft’s competitors who are trying to

do through the legal system what the they

cannot do through competitive action.

Bill Rigby

wfr760@mindspring.com

MTC–00006212

From: John Vittone

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm

Subject: Gentlemen,

Gentlemen, Enough is enough!!! I

vehemently oppose any further litigation in

this matter. Please settle the case as approved

by the court. I want this matter settled now

without further litigation.

John F. Vittone

1503 Seagate Ln

Houston, TX 77062

MTC–00006213

From: Michael Banyacki

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement / 1–02–02 /

10:58AM—PST

Dear Sir and or Madam:

I feel Microsoft has been raked over the

coals by companies that just were not smart

enough to see the big picture. Myself and

thousands of other Consumers did not see the

wrong that MicroSoft was accused of, yet

they were gracious enough to try and be

amicable for the failures of others.

I say, Enough is Enough and should stand

for settlement, but there are those greedy,

inconsiderate States, like California that just

don’t care about the Consumer, but cater to

the interest of political donors!

What Microsoft had done was to be smarter

in their approach than other companies and

gave the Consumer the best of all the world

software by integrating their software.

Microsoft and its leader Bill Gates, is a prince

among consumers because he and they try to

give the public what it really wants in terms

of coordinated software, making it easier for

the consumer to understand the software and

easing business and personal functions that

are conducive to a working environment.

My VOTE is for MICROSOFT 100%

percent and for staying on track with the

settlement that other states have already

accepted.....

CW4 Michael E. Banyacki (Ret.)

24992 Spadra Lane

Mission Viejo, CA 92691

E-mail: meb-1@worldnet.att.net

MTC–00006214

From: Kelly, Michael (Alexandria DJ 705)

To: ’Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

it is clearly in the interest of the people of

the U.S. to block further litigation against

microsoft. Microsoft, our most impotant

innovator of technology has been in the

penalty box too long. If this persists we will

forfeit our most important lead in what will

surely be a technical world. Without

microsoft leading the way, we will slip

further into a mediocre-albeit politically

correct-future.

MTC–00006215

From: Bill Stortz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It’s fair, so settle the action!!

MTC–00006216

From: GfWeis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

First let me say that I don’t really believe

that Microsoft has a monopoly—anyone

(including Sun or Oracle) is free to build a

competing product—if it’s better, people will

use it—if it isn’t, they wont. A perfect

example is Netscape—while it was better, I

used it—when it became inferior, I switched.

Maybe the DOJ should spend a little more

time going after the real criminals—just look

at the millions that MS has added to the US

Treasury in terms of taxes—not only in what

it pays, but also in terms of what their

employees (and no I’m not a MS employee)

pay.

Just my thoughts...

Gordon F. Weis

http://yyyZ.Net

mailto:Gfw@yyyZ.Net

MTC–00006217

From: HLW125@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlemenrt

It’s a good finish to what should not have

happened. Just a bunch of states turning into

ambulance chasers. It does show the power

that (thank goodness he is gone) Mr. Clinton

had.

HLW

MTC–00006218

From: Hay2lee@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Will you please move on with this—

Microsoft has done more good than harm. I

am tired of you wasting tax money for the

other whiny companies that won’t use their

money to take Microsoft to court.

Finish this already and let Microsoft

provide the public with the software they

need!

Sue Argumedo

Tucson Arizona

MTC–00006219

From: KERMITFL@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs:

I’ve been following this case since it started

several years ago. Now that it is nearing the

end, I’m all in favor of settling the matter as

presently proposed. It’s past time to move

ahead instead of clogging up the progress of

innovation and imagination in the arena of

developing software. The few should abide

by the wishes of the many!

Most Sincerely,

George B Moore

3350 1st Ave No Ste 117

St Petersburg FL 33713

MTC–00006220

From: virginia ladda

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs,

I believe that everything that can be done

to expediate the settlement with microsoft

should be done. It is my belief and the belief

of several friends that the problems with

microsoft is doing nothing but hurting the

technology sector and therefore the economy.

Sincerely,

Virginia Napier Ladda

MTC–00006221

From: Anderson, Ken

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My company is a long time software

developer and user. We wrote and sold our

first programs in 1981 under the company

name of Tecnomics. Initially they were

written in TRS–DOS for Radio Shack

hardware. Later we spent many of thousands

to rewrite it using Pascal which was

supposed to have been a universal language.

We finally wrote it for MS DOS which was

a standard for a good long period and saved

us from having to constantly rewrite our

programs. I was delighted that this happened

and have been very happy with Microsoft’s

efforts to provide a standard by being the

biggest and the best. I think having a

standard develop in this way rather than by

government decree is best.

I would like for Microsoft to continue to be

able to strive to be the biggest and the best.

That is what all of us in business try to do.

I do not think they should be punished for

this. I understand the concern about

monopoly but I don’t think the situation in

the volatile software business is anything at

all like the conditions that existing when the

law was written.

I think they are being punished for being

successful and because some states see them

as a big source of funds. I really don’t think

anyone can show damages. In fact, I could

personally show you some advantages that

have accrued to my company from the

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24795

constant improvement in functionality that

MS has brought about. We continually strive

for improved efficiency and most MS

programs have helped us do this. I would be

glad to testify to this point.

Ken Anderson, President

Anderson & Associates, Inc.

100 Ardmore St.

Blacksburg, VA 24060

anderson@andassoc.com

http://www.andassoc.com

MTC–00006222

From: Jerry Howard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm

Subject: Microsoft

Please accept the current settlement and let

everyone get on with their work. Microsoft

should be left alone.

Regards,

Jerry D. Howard

MTC–00006223

From: Doug

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm

Subject: Settlement

I believe that the Microsoft suit should be

settled quickly and with terms favorable to

Microsoft. With out the technology that they

have provided the PC would not be where it

is today. They did not, in my opinion, act as

a monopoly.

Sincerely,

Douglas Gilmore

MTC–00006224

From: Tony

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It’s time to settle in favor of Microsoft for

all the wonderful and innovative techniques

developed that have moved our nation and

the world forward. They (Microsoft) deserves

our thanks and appreciation for their

contribution towards the advancement of

mankind. One of their competitors (Netscape)

has openly criticized Microsoft while they

themselves were guilty of infringing on

Microsoft’s browser. Please allow Microsoft

to proceed with their innovation in our free

and competitive market.

MTC–00006225

From: Don Davis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Just a word to weigh in with my view of

the MS settlement. I am surprised that MS

was willing to pay anything. I suggest USDOJ

and the states take the offer and run. It is not

good that we project the impression that we

punish success in this country. We have the

premier technology company in the world

whose accomplishments and contributions to

the tech leadership of the US is

unquestioned, and what do we do. . . it

would appear that we wanted to destroy it!!!!

MTC–00006226

From: J (038) S Pinson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:03pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Please settle the Microsoft harassment. I

believe the whole thing came about because

of some jealous competitors—let them go out

& compete. Competition is the American

way, it’s healthy. What a bunch of cry babies!

Sincerely,

Shelah Pinson

jpin@dslextreme.com

Anza, CA 92539

MTC–00006227

From: James Prevallet

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This settlement is reasonable and fair to all

parties involved. As a consumer, I agree that

settlement is good for me, the industry and

the American economy. Please don’t lot

special interest groups defeat the public

interest.

Best of,

James Prevallet

http://www.mp3.cm/JamesPrevallet

MTC–00006228

From: Bev

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm

Subject: Lawsuit

In my opinion this very costly litigation,

for not only Microsoft, but for we the

taxpayers of this country appears to be

almost a vendetta. When one considers the

huge impact Microsoft has made on the

economic development of this country, the

thousands and thousands of jobs (and most

are high paying jobs) this company has

created, it makes me wish there were more

entrepreneurs like Mr. Gates to establish even

larger and more successful enterprises in this

country. It seems envy and jealousy over Mr.

Gates’ success is in large part responsible for

the millions being spent on litigation. In my

opinion, the Government should just plain

‘‘lay off’’!!!!!!!

MTC–00006229

From: Tom Wolf (Adelphia)

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To DOJ:

You need to settle your differences with

Microsoft, and the settlement, which we were

led to believe was made, should be ratified.

We users need to have Microsoft get on with

giving us innovative new programs and

services. There’s plenty of competition out

there. I use Netscape as well as Explorer; I

use Word Perfect even though I have Word.

Your drawn-out litigation and your many

delays have cost us taxpayers millions,

Microsoft stockholders billions, and users

inconvenience and delay in receiving new

product from Microsoft. Get on with it!

Thomas P. Wolf

33 Spring Trail

Fairfield, PA 17320

MTC–00006230

From: Scottie Gound

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

Get off Microsoft’s back. We computer

users want, need Microsoft and her products.

We have a decent settlement now. Enough is

enough. Drop this lawsuit and tell the states

and the money hunting cooperations to leave

it be.

A Windows XP user

Scottie Gound

MTC–00006231

From: Hi There

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:09pm

Subject: Settle!

This matter should have been resolved a

long time ago! Too much money has been

wasted paying attorneys congress-folks, etc.

to prolong this matter when in the long run

I don’t see a more fair settlement to all

parties!

MTC–00006232

From: Liz Gjersee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:09pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

This lawsuit needs to end. I am not even

a shareholder of this company but to

continue to drag this thing out is ridiculous.

The courts have ruled and the states should

abide by the settlement. My guess the main

reason for the nine states not to settle is to

protect business interests in their own states.

Thanks,

Brian Gjersee,

Arlington WA 98223

MTC–00006233

From: Madelyne Duncan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:10pm

Settle the case. The economy was hurt

when the government began to interfere with

Microsoft.

M. Duncan

MTC–00006234

From: Joyce Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Settlement agreed to by the Federal

government is fair to all, including the

public.

Joyce Smith,

Citizen

MTC–00006235

From: hugh gardner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:09pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

We have followed this folly far too long,

everyone in our retired group agrees.!!!

Microsoft should be set free to innovate and

bring new products to the market.!!! this

country owes a great deal to mr. gates and

microsoft for moving us from the stone

age.. . . the small minded few, with a

political agenda I suspect, are holding up

progress, the cost to us, the american tax

payer, is huge. the cost to our nation in tax

revenue, both foreign and domestic is huge.

I see others, like AOL-time warner, getting

away with far worse, however they are

politically correct and therefore above the

law, apparently.

24796 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

thank-you,

H. Gardner,

4917 n. vista drive

bonneylake, wa 98390

hgbj@hotmail.com

MTC–00006236

From: JacHovis@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement.

I feel that the government was wrong in

indicting Microsoft in the first place. It was

just a vendetta against big business by the

Clinton administration. Microsoft never hurt

anyone. Most computer users want it on their

computers. I know I do!! What hurt the

public was the Justice Depts’ indictment of

Microsoft which caused the stock price to

drop, costing the consumer BILLIONS of

dollars. This also helped to start the stock

market’s downfall, costing the consumer

TRILLIONS of dollars.

Now tell me, who hurt who!! Let’s get

behind our great corporations, & support

them, rather than trying to legislate their

destruction. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Jack Hovis

MTC–00006237

From: Supersams@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This issue has gone on long enough. The

settlement needs to be implemented with

haste and get moving. Microsoft has not

necessarily been perfect but this has gone on

as a vendetta by Microsoft’s competitors as a

way to bite the hand that has fed them.

Microsoft has been instrumental in the

development of the computer industry. Good

for consumers and good for industry. In a free

enterprise environment each company has

the same opportunity to develop products.

Obviously, the first to market have an edge

over later entries. While Apple was

squabbling amongst themselves Microsoft

continued to produce a product which has

become a standard.

Over half of the original states have settled.

The rest need to as well. What happens if all

the remaining, except one, settle. Does this

continue? Let’s move along.

Sam Weirbach

MTC–00006238

From: Gil Roundy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm

Subject: Settlement

It is in the public interest to get this behind

us pleawse approve the agreement and let us

get going again

Gil & Shurlene Roundy

MTC–00006239

From: doug bergenske

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:10pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Sirs,

I think that this settlement should be

adopted and be the last of the Gov.

harassment of Microsoft!!

Doug Bergenske

MTC–00006240

From: John Chamness

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:11pm

Subject: Settlement

As consumers and user of various software

products we fel the settlement offer between

the U.S. Government and Microsoft is fair to

all parties involved, especially the consumer.

Please finalize the settlement.

John and Dawn Chamness

MTC–00006241

From: GCoen@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Litigation

Dear USDOJ,

It’s time to focus on matters of greater

importance to all Americans. Settle the

Microsoft matter, please, so we can all ‘‘get

on with getting on’’. The prosecution of

Microsoft, in my opinion, was a politically

motivated matter, and not one that benefited

any one, including consumers. Say what you

will, but Microsoft has done more to facilitate

positive economic and communicative

momentum in the world than any of it’s

competitors. That Microsoft was able to be

creative and build market share should be

commended, not condemned.

Settle the blasted suit!

Donna Coen

559 Old Squaw Pass Road

Evergreen, CO 80439

MTC–00006242

From: Jon Honhart

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:11pm

Subject: DO nothing

Leave MS alone, they have done nothing

wrong, should really look into AOL, Oracle,

and Sun.

Jon

MTC–00006243

From: Clayton Harrington

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the Settlement should be affirmed.

I think the litigation should be terminated. I

think it is time for both DOJ and Microsoft

to move on with their other respective

business requirements.

MTC–00006244

From: James Rhoads

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my considered judgment that a very

few individuals, companies and/or states, for

personal gain, are trying to remove Microsoft

from the software field by arguing against the

settlement of the governments law suit.

Because of this fact and others I strongly

support the settlement of this matter without

delay.

Thank you very much for the opportunity

to express my opinion regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

James Rhoads

Oldham County Road Y

Box 42

Channing, Texas 79018

(806) 534–2398

MTC–00006245

From: Larry Thompson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs,

The proposed settlement is more than fair

to the plaintiffs. The settlement should stand

as is. I am a user, reseller, and educator and

can honestly state I have never seen any of

the abuses cited by competitors. I do not feel

their voice (despite many thousands in

campaign cash) should have any stronger

input than mine. I believe this settlement is

fair to all parties involved, and needs to be

finished. The sooner the better.

Larry Thompson

MTC–00006246

From: Andy Howe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I just wanted to send a quick note to share

my views on the proposed Microsoft

settlement.

I believe that the settlement is fair to the

consumers. They will have more choice in

how their operating systems are configured,

and the OEMs will be on equal footing when

it comes to getting the best prices on

Windows licenses from Microsoft.

It is my belief that the remaining states are

simply opposing the deal because a) they

want to drag this out and continue to try to

put Microsoft in a bad light, and b) they want

to help Microsoft’s competitors. As I

understand them, the antitrust laws are not

here to protect your competitors, they are

here to protect the consumers. Most

consumers do not care if Microsoft has 8

different versions of Windows, they just want

one, and they want it to have a lot of good

features in it. The settlement will ensure that

there will be more versions available for

those who do care. It is time to end this case

and let the high tech industry get back to

business. I implore you to accept this

settlement for the good of the consumers as

well as the good of the high tech industry.

Thank you,

Andy Howe

MTC–00006247

From: ATignanell@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:12pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

DEAR SIRS/M’S:

I URGE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSED

MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT. THE

SETTLEMENT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST

OF CONSUMERS AND BUSINESS PEOPLE

SUCH AS ME. I RECENTLY PURCHASED A

NEW DESKTOP COMPUTER AND IT CAME

WITH MICROSOFT XP. MICROSOFT

PRODUCTS ARE USER FRIENDLY AND ARE

REASONABLY PRICED. THERE DOES NOT

APPEAR TO BE ANY ADVANTAGE EXCEPT

TO POSSIBLY MICROSOFTS

COMPETITORS TO DERAIL THE

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24797

SETTLEMENT. HAVEN’T THE TRIAL

LAWYERS MADE ENOUGH???

VERY TRULY YOURS

A. ANDREW TIGNANELLI

ATTORNEY AT LAW

131 SURREY LANE

HARLEYSVILLE, PA 19438

MTC–00006248

From: Earl Johnston

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the battle against Microsoft has

been carried much to far for too long. I think

an immediate settlement is in the best

interests of the country.

Sincerely,

Earl Johnston

MTC–00006249

From: Javier

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:12pm

Subject: Free commerce

My opinion about the Microsoft case:

I believe that Microsoft should be left

alone. Microsoft happens to be a Company

with lots of ideas for the consumer to use, so

what if they are bigger than others , let them

do business other companies do their own

little things to have a larger market share, so

MS does to just in a larger scale they are

committed to do better and better. Bottom

line the consumer wins. So what if Bill Gates

is the richest man, somebody is going to be

and what the DOJ is going to sued him or her

because is doing good? This is what USA is

about, FREE ENTERPRISE.

From a citizen of the USA

Javier Arana.

MTC–00006250

From: Mark Taylor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:13pm

Subject: Settlement

The microsoft settlement as currently

defined is adequate. Please turn all efforts,

energies and resources used in pursuing

Microsoft to the War on Terrorism.

MTC–00006251

From: Alvina A. Ballinger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,

I have from day one, believed that this is

an unjust action by the Department of Justice

in pursuing Microsoft. I believe Janet Reno

did irreparable harm to the company and to

the stock holders over a trumped up suit. I

also believe if Bill Gates would have

contributed heavily to the DNC it wouldn’t

happened!

I respectfully add my voices to those who

have asked you to drop the government suit

against Microsoft.

You’re are doing a great job in your office,

keep it up!

Alvina A. Ballinger

Bremerton, WA

MTC–00006252

From: Robert Einhorn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please drop any and all litigation against

the Microsoft Corporation. It only serves to

further drag the already slow economy and

the charges are baseless to begin with. We

live in a free economy and the government

should not interfere in business unless a

clear monopoly is apparent, which is not the

case in this instance.

Thank You,

Robert Einhorn

1546 Willow Lane

Crete, IL 60417

MTC–00006253

From: Brad Rush

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Get it over with. Settle! The suit never

should have been filed. Let it go. Get back to

governing—let free enterprise get back to

growing.

Thanks.

Brad Rush

MTC–00006254

From: Andrew Chadick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:14pm

Subject: Microsoft and DOJ

This is a post I placed on the MSNBC

website and my feelings on the issue haven’t

changed. Please read through the full post.

Note, there are responses to my post

included.

Subject:From:Host:Date:

Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)

Andrew Chadick

ip85.c207.blkl.bel.nwlink.com

Wed Nov 10 13:32:28

Microsoft entered the market place as a

company with a desire to grow and be

number one. This much has never been in

question. Microsoft developed a piece of

software that allows other programs to run

with in the same program. This again has

never been in question. Who owns the OS?

The company that wrote it? The American

People? Our Government? Who gets to say

what is and can be run on an OS? The answer

is simple. Microsoft created a program which

has been purchased by millions of people.

The program, whether flawed, perfect, or

usable, is not even a question to be asked, the

only thing in play here is ownership.

Microsoft owns the rights to the OS they

wrote. Period. What runs in the software is

completely up to Microsoft, and if a person

does not like that attitude, they should

purchase something else. No one has forced

the Microsoft product to become the standard

by which all others are measured. And there

are many options when choosing a platform

to run software. Netscape created a program.

Its compatibility with another program is not

Microsoft’s concern. Netscape should create

their own OS if they are not happy running

as a parasite on Microsoft’s program. That is

what ‘‘FREE? enterprise is all about! You

create something, market it, and if it is

purchased... GREAT, if not, go back to the

drawing board and start over. The United

States is great because of some rudimentary

principals, and our justice department needs

to revise the word ‘‘justice’’ in their title.

People choose. That’s freedom. Microsoft is

a vendor, if no one buys the product they

will go under just like any other company,

if you like the software, buy it, and support

the company, if not, buy something else and

support it, and if neither option is to your

liking make something of your own. End of

Story. Microsoft made it to where they are

because of a simple transaction, people

bought the program. Microsoft made the

product great by making it expandable,

making it allow other programs to run on it.

Microsoft in this way is gracious to those of

us who program and create programs, and in

general, we are grateful to be supported by

this company. If we don’t like it, we can go

else where. I speak for myself when I say

this, but I know there are many that believe

as I do.

Message thread: u Microsoft Monopoly?!

(NOT)—Andrew Chadick Wed Nov 10

13:32:28 u Amen. Count me in. Microsoft

earned #1.—Don’t like it? Build something

better! Wed Nov 10 13:55:41 u Re: Microsoft

Monopoly?! (NOT)—MICORSOFT

SUPORTER Wed Nov 10 14:04:13 u Re:

Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)—Vinny Tafuro

Wed Nov 10 17:07:37

subject:From:Host:Date: Amen. Count me

in. Microsoft earned #1.Don’t like it? Build

something better! proxy.uoeap.ucsb.eduWed

Nov 10 13:55:41

I too can’t believe the socialist (?)

tendencies of the self-appointed Injustice

Department. They are complete airheads

regarding technology and the American

marketplace. The last thing I want to see is

the federal government determining what

kind of operating system I can buy. The fact

is that all these whiners can strip their

machines of everything with Microsoft on it,

and replace it with their darling little

‘‘boutique geek’’ software (Linux, etc.). The

reason most of us don’t is that we PREFER

and WILL PAY FOR a well integrated OS/

Office Suite/Browser package at the

REASONABLE PRICES Microsoft charges. In

case everyone has forgotten, we already had

an era where there was an abundance of

incompatible system software tools. The

general public wasn’t buying then and they

sure as hell wouldn’t buy it now! So lay off

of Microsoft. I LOVE what they have done for

the average Joe. On Wed Nov 10 13:32:28,

Andrew Chadick wrote:

Microsoft entered the market place as a

company with a desire to grow and be

number one. This much has never been in

question. Microsoft developed a piece of

software that allows other programs to run

with in the same program. This again has

never been in question. Who owns the OS?

The company that wrote it? The American

People? Our Government? Who gets to say

what is and can be run on an OS? The answer

is simple. Microsoft created a program which

has been purchased by millions of people.

The program, whether flawed, perfect, or

usable, is not even a question to be asked, the

only thing in play here is ownership.

Microsoft owns the rights to the OS they

wrote. Period. What runs in the software is

completely up to Microsoft, and if a person

does not like that attitude, they should

purchase something else. No one has forced

24798 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

the Microsoft product to become the standard

by which all others are measured. And there

are many options when choosing a platform

to run software. Netscape created a program.

Its compatibility with another program is not

Mic roSoft’s concern. Netscape should create

their own OS if they are not happy running

as a parasite on Microsoft’s program. That is

what ‘‘FREE’’enterprise is all about! You

create something, market it, and if it is

purchased... GREAT, if not, go back to the

drawing board and start over. The United

States is great because of some rudimentary

principals, and our justice department needs

to revise the word ‘‘justice’’ in their title.

People choose. That’s freedom. Microsoft is

a vendor, if no one buys the product they

will go under just like any other company,

if you like the software, buy it, and support

the company, if not, buy something else and

support it, and if neither option is to your

liking make something of your own. End of

Story. Microsoft made it to where they are

because of a simple transaction, people

bought the program. Microsoft made the

product great by making expandable, making

it allow other programs to run on it.

Microsoft in this way is gracious to those of

us who program and create programs, and in

general, we are grateful to be supported by

this company. If we don’t like it, we can go

else where. I speak for myself when I say

this, but I know there are many that believe

as I do.

Message thread: u Microsoft Monopoly?!

(NOT)—Andrew Chadick Wed Nov 10

13:32:28 u Amen. Count me in. Microsoft

earned #1. Don’t like it? Build something

better! Wed Nov 10 13:55:41 u Re: Microsoft

Monopoly?! (NOT)—MICORSOFT

SUPORTER Wed Nov 10 14:04:13 u Re:

Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)—Vinny Tafuro

Wed Nov 10 17:07:37

Subject:From:Host:Date: Re: Microsoft

Monopoly?! (NOT)Vinny Tafuro

242836hfc121.tampabay.rr.comWed Nov 10

17:07:37

Microsoft made the product great by

making expandable, making it allow other

programs to run on it. Microsoft in this way

is gracious to those of us who program and

create programs, and in general, we are

grateful to be supported by this company. If

we don’t like it, we can go else where. I speak

for myself when I say this, but I know there

are many that believe as I do. There are many

others like you out there. I for one was an

avid Netscape user until 1996. The year that

Microsoft & Netscape released their newest

and finest browsers. I remember this like it

was yesterday and it is the biggest reason I

am a Microsoft supporter. In a 2 day period

(at that time I was still using a modem) I

downloaded Netscape Communicator 4.0 and

Internet explorer 4.0, in that order. The first

night was Netscape (my favorite browser at

the time). It was great (new features etc) . The

next night I downloaded IE 4.0 and rebooted

my PC .... I haven’t used Netscape for my

own pleasure since! Now for those who think

I haven’t looked back, you are wrong, I am

a web developer and am constantly using

Netscape to make sure my pages look right

in both browsers. I even have the latest

version, and the truth is that Netscape has

not added anything new since 96, Microsoft

is the company that has pushed with all their

effort to better their browser not

Netscape.Netscape has watched their market

share drop from their own lack of a

innovation, not because Microsoft is a

monopoly. Microsoft has plenty to worry

about when it comes to competition and have

this lawsuit over them is detrimental to all

of the other companies that think this will

help them. Competition is very alive .... What

if Adobe sat back and stopped innovating

after creating PhotoShop 3.0? Microsoft today

would be the leader there too (this is just an

example). But Adobe hasn’t .... Microsoft and

Adobe both have graphics suits yet everyone

knows that Adobe’s is the preferred program

(even myself). This is only because Adobe

INNOVATES, they are adding features to

keep ahead of the game just like Microsoft.

A fundamental problem with the situation is

the lack of innovation by both Netscape & its

parent company AOL, now with AOL’s

business concept behind Netscape we are

now seeing problems. AOL I will agree is the

absolute BEST way to get a beginner on the

internet (and that is how they built their

business), however they have a fundamental

problem with their model... there is no room

to grow! AOL is now paying the price for this

by losing customers who have learned over

time (imagine that) that the internet is much

more than AOL. AOL’s problem comes from

that fact that they themselves haven’t given

their users a way to grow, AOL is AOL is

AOL .... weather you are a beginner, novice

or advanced user, and that is NOT how you

keep customers. The other companies out

there that are backing the Government in this

case are doing so simply to avoid innovation.

Message thread: u Microsoft Monopoly?!

(NOT)—Andrew Chadick Wed Nov 10

13:32:28 u Amen. Count me in. Microsoft

earned #1.—Don’t like it? Build something

better! Wed Nov 10 13:55:41 u Re: Microsoft

Monopoly?! (NOT)—MICORSOFT

SUPORTER Wed Nov 10 14:04:13 u Re:

Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)—Vinny Tafuro

Wed Nov 10 17:07:37

Subject:From:Host:Date: Very Good

ReadingTed

lcust5.tnt2.birmingham.al.da.uu.netWed Nov

10 17:34:50

You should repost this at top every day.

Imagine the progress that has been lost tring

to settle this, and many other wastfull ‘Justice

Probes’

Subject:From:Host:Date: Re:

Monopoly?!Meebert 208.7.142.140Thu Nov

11 08:09:24

Absolutely right.just because we don’t

LIKE Bill Gates, or just because Hhis

competitors have no chance is not enough

reason to steal his life’s work out from under

him and pass it around like yesterday’s

bread. If this all happens, Americans are far

more stupid than I had thought. Why not dig

your own grave? You do it to MS, next it will

happen to you. To you, the simple owner of

the corner store. If it happens to me, I’m

moving to another country where at least

even though the truth sucks, it’s still the

truth. Bert

Subject:From:Host:Date: the whole thing

is ridiculous.Meebert 208.7.142.140Thu Nov

11 08:04:45

Take a large company, tear it down and cut

it up and give it to the vultures of it’s

competitors because it has the best product.

Windows is not bug free, but last I’ve seen,

neither is CDE or Linux, or Xwindows or

Solaris. MS is on top because they made a

product that was not only easy to use, but

functional and backward compatible. This is

a huge undertaking, and none of their

competitors even remotely compared. Giving

away windows source code is unbelieably

stupid and unfair. MS spent billions in

research, over 15 years of work, time and

effort to create what we all use. and now,

because they are a ‘‘huge’’ company, they are

being punished, all their wok being taken

away, by a government that just loves to push

people around. This whole fight is about Sun

and Netscape whining about MS putting out

a superior product. Netscape Navigator was

better. But MS has more coders, better

coders, and in the end, they won. I’m a web

developer, I used to love Netscape, until I

noticed that Netscape could not do half of

what IE can do. Now I use IE because

Netscape cannot function as a viable web

browser, not to mention it is far far more

buggy. This is very typical of our current

society. If we don’t like what we see, we cry,

we sue, we whine, and kick our feet like

children, and Big daddy government will

come and save us from the evil money

makers.This is incentive for anyone out here

to know that you better not be successful, if

you are successful too much, your success

will be confiscated. Bert

Subject:From:Host:Date: Is MS a

Monopoly? Yes, but...Roy Wells

pixsv159.isi.comThu Nov 11 08:48:28

Microsoft holds monopoly power.

However, how has the company used it?

Because of DOS, then Windows, computers

are cheaper, software is cheaper and

alternatives in hardware and applications are

all cheaper. So who has the Microsoft

Monopoly hurt? Netscape? Last I checked,

the reason Netscape is not doing so well is

that MS had a superior product that was

cheaper (free) so Netscape went to the

courts.Who else? Novell? So Novell went to

Sen. Hatch. SO, let’s break up Microsoft.

Computers can then increase in price, the

loss of a standard OS will mean fewer option

available under applications (since not

everyone will want to port their applications

to all the different OS platforms) and

hardware (same problem) and so. Breaking

up the Monopoly will success—at a cost to

the user.

Message thread: u Is MS a Monopoly? Yes,

but...—Roy Wells Thu Nov 11 08:48:28

Subject:From:Host:Date: True AmericanTed

exch.paragon-eng.netThu Nov 11 09:05:13

So many times when I here how the

‘Justice’ dept. is mistreating a true American

that climbed up from just a suitcase .... I

would tell them were to get off, shut down

and move out. The ‘Justice’ dept. is killing

the ‘American Spirit’

Subject:

From:Host:

Date: Re: Monopoly?!User

12.24.246.81Thu Nov 11 09:05:39

If this all happens, Americans are far more

stupid than I had thought. Well, it’s not

really Joe Q. Public that’s prosecuting

Microsoft. It’s a combination or blood-thirsty

lawyers and a government that decided it’s

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24799

time to push their weight around again.

That’s not to say there aren’t a lot of people

that are leeching onto the anti-MS

bandwagon. These people are:1) Cronic

whiners and complainersand/or2) Lemings

Message thread: u Monopoly?!—Andrew

Chadick Thu Nov 11 08:04:28 Re:

Monopoly?!—Meebert Thu Nov 11 08:09:24 u

True American—Ted Thu Nov 11 09:05:13 u

Re: Monopoly?!—User Thu Nov 11 09:05:39

MTC–00006255

From: Wachs, James S.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:16pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I FULLY AND COMPLETELY SUPPORT

THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ANTITRUST

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MICROSOFT.

TOO PROLONG THIS CONTROVERSY MAY

BENEFIT CERTAIN SPECIAL INTEREST

GROUPS, BUT IT WILL NOT HELP A

SAGGING ECONOMY, THE STOCK

MARKET DOWNTURN, OR, THE PUBLIC IN

GENERAL.

JAMES S. WACHS, ESQ.

NOTICE: The information contained in this

electronic mail transmission is intended by

Frost Brown Todd LLC for the use of the

named individual or entity to which it is

directed and may contain information that is

privileged or otherwise confidential. It is not

intended for transmission to, or receipt by,

anyone other than the named addressee (or

a person authorized to deliver it to the named

addressee). It should not be copied or

forwarded to any unauthorized persons. If

you have received this electronic mail

transmission in error, please delete it from

your system without copying or forwarding

it, and notify the sender of the error by reply

email or by calling Frost Brown Todd LLC at

(513) 651–6800 (collect), so that our address

record can be corrected.

MTC–00006256

From: harperj@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ back off. Technology is global, moves

rapidly and chances of the DOJ ability to

make a timely decision with full indication

of future ramifications are as likely as

catching sunlight in a bottle.

1. Your IBM decision was ill-advised and

unforseen results.

2. Your ATT decision led to unforseen

results. The global market will reward the

quickest and the fastest. If Microsoft gets too

rich or too monopolistic, it will not remain

that way for long. The global technology

market will crush a fat microsoft faster than

the DOJ can.

MTC–00006257

From: KKH1296@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:15pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I support the microsoft settlement. I feel it

is reasonable and fair to all involved and also

in the best interest of the public.

Kathleen Huey

Spring Mills, PA

MTC–00006258

From: hmcarim@mmm.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:16pm

Subject: microsoft settlement.

I agree that Microsoft’s terms of the

settlement reached with certain states should

be accepted by all the others as well. States

that continue to hold out and want further

litigation are holding back innovation and

depriving the public of needed new products

. Eventually the consumer pays for the

protracted litigation.

Microsoft has accepted a fair settlement

that rectifies the alleged wrongs and should

now be free to pursue innovative new

product introductions.

Hatim Carim

MTC–00006259

From: MJBorza@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please exercise good judgement and release

Microsoft from all pending law suits. Our

country is stronger because of their

innovative efforts. You should not have been

involved. Please investigate the money trail

of the politicians/lawyers who were

advocates of the lawsuit to expose their true

motives!

Michael Jay Borza

MTC–00006260

From: AJ Chwick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:13pm

Subject: Microsoft’s Settlement

As one who is involved in the computer

industry, I feel that the Microsoft Proposed

Settlement serves only Microsoft’s goals and

gains. To have Microsoft give free software to

schools, etc. entrenches their poorly designed

software further into the fabric of our

systems. Simply put, the proposed settlement

fixes nothing and it gives Microsoft a better

footing in the industry, while hurting all of

their competitors.

Sincerely,

Alan Chwick, CFO

TCM Integrated Systems, Inc.

365 S Bayview Avenue, Suite # 202

Freeport, NY 11520–5316

(516)–868–7820

MTC–00006261

From: Mark Orzech

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:20pm

Subject: Settlement with Microsoft Corp

Please continue forward with the current

settlement that has been negotiated with the

Microsoft Corporation! These proceedings

have already wasted vast amounts of public

funds and caused considerable damage to the

nation’s economy, especially the technology

sector, by excessively restricting a great

company’s freedom to sell its own products.

I urge you to stop catering to Microsoft’s

weaker competitors, who have misused

government power to drag down their

stronger rival rather than improving the

quality and marketing of their own products.

Thank you for your attention.

Mark Orzech

739 Henson Court

Marina, CA 93933

MTC–00006262

From: Alina G. Silvestre

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

US DOJ,

We support the proposed settlement to the

above case and encourage the close of this

case as quickly as you deem possible.

Microsoft is good for us, the consumers, who

want ease of use and access to tecknology to

use in our every day lives. It is good for the

USA and for jobs.

Please do not delay and put an end to the

embarassing government interference over

the last few years.

Thank you

Alina & Raul Silvestre

Wesrlake Village, Ca.

MTC–00006263

From: Stuart Brace

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:16pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Justice Department

The time to settle is now. When the Justice

Department spent more to persecute

Microsoft than it did to stop terrorism under

eight years of Bill Clinton you can see what

happened on 9/11/2001. The waste of tax

payer money must come to an end. Supply

our soldiers with money for better equipment

not feed federal judges ego with more days

in court. Settle now!

Stuart Brace

CC:Pryce.Oh15@mail.house.gov@inetgw

MTC–00006264

From: Peenbeen@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please do not allow the special interests of

a few wealthy competitors derail the

Microsoft settlement any longer. This is not

in the best interest of the Public who owe a

great deal to Microsoft and the many

innovations it has brought to our society.

MTC–00006265

From: Pfbarth@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Department of Justice:

Please don’t let the special interests defeat

the public interest in concluding the

Microsoft case. The settlement is fair, just

and equitable and will serve the United

States in the very best way providing for the

needs of both parties. I fully support the

settlement and pray the Judge will proceed

to finalize the case based on the settlement

terms Microsoft and the Federal Government

have agreed to. Any other finding may well

jeopardize the stock market and cause further

harm to the investing public for no added

gain for anyone. It would seem that our

Country has suffered enough without any

further negative action against Microsoft.

I again plead that the settlement be

finalized as earlier agreed to by the

Government and Microsoft.

24800 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Thank you for considering my view and

position on this critical matter.

Very Sincerely,

Paul F. Barth, PE

2505 Townhill Dr.

Troy, MI 48084

248–644–1411

pfbarth@aol.com

MTC–00006266

From: John Nez

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Case / Investigate the

Macintosh consumer injustice

John Nez

5209 36th Avenue NE

Seattle, WA 98105

nez@jps.net

re: Microsoft Case / Investigate Macintosh

consumer injustice

Dear Sirs,

Concerning the ongoing Microsoft case...

I1d like to add an insight of my own which

I have yet to find voiced anywhere else in

this long painful case.

I am dependent on using a Macintosh

computer system with a Macintosh OS for

my work. I am more or less forced to use this

platform by the fact that the majority of the

graphic arts publishing profession uses the

Macintosh platform, of which I am a member.

Without getting too technical, I must point

out to you that the Macintosh OS one has no

included utilities to run disk defragging, disk

cleaning, disk maintenance and disk

reconfigurement.

Please note that without these extra disk

utilities, my Macintosh OS and computer

would soon become INOPERABLE! I, as a

consumer, am forced to spend another $90 to

purchase the Norton Disk Utility... just to

keep the Macintosh OS working. Otherwise

it would be permanently inoperable!

The Microsoft Windows operating systems

all come with these crucial utilities included

at NO EXTRA COST! In reality, the

Macintosh OS in fact costs the consumer

almost twice what the Microsoft OS costs!

Also, the Macintosh computer itself is more

than twice the cost of equivalent windows

based hardware.

So you tell me which company is harming

the consumer! Why not launch an

investigation into the true harm which I am

forced to pay by using a Macintosh system!

Microsoft should be thanked for inventing

America1s computer revolution which has

changed the world and given our economy a

new vision for the next century.

I suppose that the government feels

compelled to reward companies that fail, like

Chrysler with billions in bailouts... but

punishes hard work, innovation and success

in the case of Microsoft! Get real!

Best,

John Nez

MTC–00006267

From: JBSpires@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:21pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

This settlement is in the public interest.

Pleas approve it! Don’t let a few special

interests 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.

Regards,

Jeremiah B Spires

1105 Voight St

Houston, TX 77009

MTC–00006268

From: beverly wakeland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft Settlement:

It is time the Government and the nine

states stop the nonsense and settle. THIS

COUNTRY HAS THE FREEDOM TO

INNOVATE Only competitors are delaying

the settlement.

MTC–00006269

From: Robert B. Ardis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a consumer who has used Microsoft

software products for at least the last ten

years, I have no problem with the anti-trust

settlement. When I have used Microsoft

products, I have used them because they

served my needs better than anything offered

by Microsoft competitors and I have never

found Microsoft’s retail prices to be anything

other than fair. What business state attorney

generals have attempting to pursue this

litigation further completely escapes me.

Certainly they are not doing so in response

to any demands received from members of

the consuming public.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert B. Ardis

25 Young Court

Chester, NJ 07930

rbardis@worldnet.att.net

MTC–00006270

From: michael govern

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:22pm

Why did the States pay ( taxpayers money)

a witness $500,000 to testify against

Microsoft?

MTC–00006271

From: CEG1934@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As an MS stockholder & user, must agree

with the dissenting States that the penalties

are inadequate in relationship to Microsoft’s

past practices. Why the company was not

split between Operating System (DOS/

Windows) software & User Productivity

(Word, Excel, etc. ) software is

incomprehsible to me. In the absence of

corrective action on that magnitude, suggest

the penalty include:

1) explicit ban on ‘‘exclusivity’’ as OpSys

provided by hardware vendors

2) release of new OpSys specs to outside/

3rd-party software suppliers & ‘‘in-house’’

User Productivity @ the same time

3) cash penalties (no ‘‘software/hardware

donations’’) to be used by school districts to

expand computer facilities MS tries to

characterize its past practices as the natural

cocomitant of ‘‘innovation’’. Except for a few

pioneers, all software developers have been

innovative & derivative & MS is no

exception. NOT all software developers went

to restrictive MARKETING techniques to

accomplish their goals. MS has been a major

contributor to the realm of personal

computing. Certainly no penalty should

jeopardize the basic ability of MS to continue

that contribution. Alternately, they should

not be let off lightly for past transgressions,

nor be allowed to finesse a penalty with their

plan to ‘‘seed’’ computers to school districts.

Thanks for allowing an opportunity to

contribute on this issue.

Carl E. Gallagher

35 Galilee Lane #4

San Francisco, CA 94115

415/567–7978

CEG1934@aol.com

MTC–00006272

From: John Cook

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:17pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Department of Justice: I favor the Microsoft

settlement proposed by the DOJ. John L. Cook

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile

device: Click Here

MTC–00006273

From: James E. Hinsch Jr.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Justice Department has done a terrible

thing in bringing suit against Microsoft. This

never served the public interest (certainly not

mine). The current settlement is unfair to

Microsoft. They have already had to pay

heavy legal fees. Let business conduct

business and let consumers vote with their

wallets.

MTC–00006274

From: Ziad Elias

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough litigation. Support the proposed

settlement. Microsoft competitors are trying

to take unfair advantage.

MTC–00006275

From: JLShatto@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:22pm

Subject: (no subject)

As a US citizen I feel that the settlement

with Microsoft I a good and honorable thing

for all parties concerned. Its time that we put

all this to rest and go on with our business.

Those few that want to challenge the

settlement are just looking for more ways to

line their pockets and do not have the best

interest of the citizens in mind. Lets get it

done and put to rest, Microsolf has done alot

for all of us and I think that they need to be

recognized and given a chance to continue

with their excellant work.

John Shatto

13526 68th Dr SE

Snohomish, Wa. 98296

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24801

MTC–00006276

From: Scott Payne

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

I think this much publicized case has been

an extreme waste of taxpayers’ money and

should end as soon as possible (years ago).

Noone even remembers why Jim Barksdale

felt compelled to drag the government into an

attack on Microsoft’s ability to develop

integrated products that consumers typically

prefer.

Most consumers never had (or will ever

have) an interest in installing and connecting

different pieces of software together onto

their PCs. This is a ridiculous approach to

ensuring products work seemlessly—relying

on the consumer to become a software

integration product specialist.

People are not expected to buy cars with

separate parts they can put together

themselves to ensure they get the best price

on every component. They simply buy a car

with an engine, air conditioning, radio,

computer(s), etc that all work together. In the

event something breaks, they take the car to

one location to have it repaired. The same

holds true for PCs and software.

Consumers like to know they can obtain

support from a single source, versus having

some ‘‘hobbiest’’ tell them they need to

download a patch off the Internet to resolve

a software compatibility problem or bug.

Most PC users don’t know or care how to fix

software problems—just make it work

together!

Bottom line... Let Microsoft integrate all

my software needs into a single source

solution. I can assure you there are millions

of PC and Internet users out there who really

have no desire to become Linux gurus or web

developers... They simply want to e-mail

friends and send videos of the kids to

relatives...

Regards,

Scott Payne

Germantown, TN

MTC–00006277

From: David Lake

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement should stand as negotiated,

and Justice should do everything possible to

force the other nine recalcitrant states to also

accept it. The point has been made; Microsoft

will make amends, and will not repeat the

behavior that led to the lawsuit. Neither the

public nor the whiney competitors have been

harmed, other than by their own inability to

innovate and prosper. Microsoft offers a good

product at a reasonable price.

David Lake

MTC–00006278

From: Dale Stoughton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:23pm

Settle the Microsoft problem and lets get

along with business.

Dale Stoughton

Wake Forest, NC

MTC–00006279

From: Iris Berman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:22pm

Subject: Micrsoft Settlement

I feel that this is a just settlement and

would like to see it done.

irisberman@yahoo.com

MTC–00006280

From: Marcus P. Hogue

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement:

DOJ:

As a citizen of many years now (76)

including 4 of my youth growing up in

battlefield conditions (17 to 21) as a sailor

almost around the world twice, I thought this

question had been recently resolved. As a tax

payer, I see it as a battle to punish the winner

by the unhappy losers with little benefit to

the taxpayers.

When we shot at the enemy with our best

aim and 16’’ explosive projectiles and

missed, it did not mean we had done enough.

Let it go.

M. P. Hogue

MTC–00006281

From: OCONNORTM@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This is the time for the DOJ to implement

the fair and just aggreement negotiated with

the parties. Act now.

Tim O’Connor

MTC–00006282

From: Bob Long

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:25pm

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. STOP WASTING

TAXPAYER MONEY.

Sincerely,

Robert Longariello

Taxpayer and Citizen

Laguna Niguel, California

blongari@home.com

MTC–00006283

From: Bruce W Worthel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 11:23am

Subject: The Microsoft Monoply

To Whom It May Concern

I must protest your you action in regards

to the ‘‘Guilty’’ verdict handed down to

Microsoft.

It seems that your view of guilty means

that Microsoft gets government help to

increase their monopoly, not losen it. What

gives? Worse than doing nothing in regards

of their business habits, you have actually

gone out of your way to injure the same

companies that Microsoft was trying to drive

out of business.

You need to adjust your view of right and

wrong.

Sincerely,

Bruce Worthel

MTC–00006284

From: Arthur Sorensen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:24pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I think the settlement should focus on the

new operating system. In particular, does that

system effectively cut out competitors such

as Real Networks. The new MS system

includes a default audio and video capability

that is functionally the same as Real

Networks. Every time you turn on the

computer you get the MS audio system, even

if you had switched over to Real only

yesterday. Enough people will take the

default to eventually kill Real.

I like competition, but that’s killer

competition.

Arthur Sorensen

98 First Avenue

Atlantic Highlands, NJ 07716

MTC–00006285

From: Beverley Dawson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the settlement with Microsoft

is as fair as can be reached under the

circumstances. The competitors just need to

understand totally what capitalism means.

Microsoft should never have been in court in

the first place. I am not a Microsoft stock

holder, but I do believe that have helped our

nation as much as any single corporation can.

It’s time to get on with life and forget about

the suing Microsoft.

Thank you,

Beverley Nichols-Dawson

Houston, Texas

MTC–00006286

From: DON SHERRILL

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:22pm

Subject: consider this

From 1990 to 2000, this country had what

many consider it’s greatest decade of

technological advance. As in my previous email to House Rep. Sue Myrick of N.C., one

should look at these gains in technology and

productivity, and realize that Microsoft’s

products had more to do with this than any

other entity (except possibly the internet

itself, which may or may not be an entity?).

Please leave this company alone and let the

free hand of economics take care of the issues

of which you are concerned. Given time to

work under the laws of free trade, Microsoft

and Intel will eventually be replaced by other

dominant companies, just as U.S. Steel and

Bethlehem Steel, Ford and GM., Exxon and

Mobil, IBM and Digital Equipment, etc. were

replaced in dominance by others, and by the

developing trends of our global economy.

Besides, this country needs all the

employment taxes, sales taxes, property

taxes, and income taxes that Microsoft pays.

There are too many other companies posting

losses (no taxes) with poor products in bad

markets.

Don Sherrill

Executive VP

SteelFab Inc.

24802 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00006287

From: clandres@mindspring.

com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Trial—Comment

Microsoft has had a profound effect on our

businesses and our lives. There are few

people who don’t use Microsoft products,

and for the most part those products are

innovative and useful. The company is to be

commended for the good it has done.

One of the problems with the industry is

that there are extremely severe barriers to

entry in the largest segment of the computer

industry, PC’s. Microsoft has taken effective

steps toward keeping consumers faced with

only one choice for PC operating system,

Windows. One choice-robbing step Microsoft

has taken is that PC’s are shipped with

Windows pre-installed. The pre-installation

of Windows, while a convenience to the

purchaser, has the effect of eliminating

choice when a consumer purchases a

computer. Pre-installation has also given

Microsoft enormous power over the

computer manufacturers to the effect that the

manufacturers do almost anything Microsoft

wants because if even a well known

manufacurer, like IBM or Gateway were to

ship machines without Windows they would

be at a competitive disadvantage with

consumers and distributors. In fact, in 1998

I was attempting to install a competitor to

windows (OS/2) on a Gateway computer and

the technicians at Gateway weren’t! even

allowed to discuss it with me for fear of

losing favor with Microsoft!

Some of the manufacturers now ship server

type computers with Linux when requested,

but that doesn’t remove the barrier to entry

that pre-installation has created.

I’d like to see Microsoft required to

terminate agreements that result in Windows

Operating System pre-installed on computers

and not allowed to enter into new preinstallation agreements. It seems to me that

if we had to choose the operating system

when we buy the machine the barrier that

exists from pre-installation would go away. I

suspect that most people would still choose

Windows, but there would be knowledge of

what it costs and alternative operating

systems would then have a chance. Since it

is now pre-installed and the price of the

computer includes the price for Windows,

the consumer has no way of knowing how

much is being paid for Windows and how

much for the computer.

Chuck Landress

2664 James Road

Douglasville GA 30135

MTC–00006288

From: MARLEINED@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

I would like to have my voice and opinion

heard in the Microsoft Settlement case.

I think all that has been settled now is fair.

We do not need any more litigation in this

case, it needs to end now.

Marleine Dunn.

MTC–00006289

From: Dana Beck

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a web designer with a small business,

I call myself part of the ‘‘public,’’ and I have

only one request of the Justice Department:

please leave Microsoft alone.

I find it ironic that the justice Department

is investigating Microsoft, since, in my

opinion, theirs is one of the increasinlgy few

companies that seems to give a hoot about

producing quality products for the end user.

They could, no doubt, put out sorry rotten

software and still get it to sell, but they don’t;

on the contrary, their products are always top

notch. Let it be said that they do a great job

of serving a population with a wide diversity

of needs.

I might also mention that Microsoft is the

only company whose Tech Support has been

able to answer any question I have posed in

the over 30 years I have been in computing.

I call that exceptional service in the ‘‘public

interest.’’

Dana L. Beck

www.becktechwebs.com

MTC–00006290

From: James McHale

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:24pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I Think the settlement is just and this

should end.

James McHale

208–05 39th Ave.

Bayside, NY 1361

MTC–00006291

From: Doug Penny

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

dragging this ridiculous lawsuit on and on

is bad for the economy and worse for your

already tarnished badly tarnished image.

Settle this mess!

DC Penny

Englewood, Ohio

MTC–00006292

From: Sharon Stokes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I personally do not approve of the

government interferance with microsoft...in

my opinion this company has done nothing

but inprove the lives of consumers

worldwide..we have the right to compete in

this country and be inovative..but with the

government stepping into the market place

and destroying the competion between

companies...how do we expect to remain

world leaders in anything if we smother

ourselves and don’t incourage companies to

compete amoung themselves to provide

better products how do we expect to remain

on top and to encourage our gererations

comming up to to have the desire to be

winners....thank you sharon stokes

MTC–00006293

From: Kyle L. Patton

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:18pm

Subject: Microsft Settlement

The proposed settlement in the anti-trust

case against Microsoft should be accepted

despite the fact that the lawsuit should have

never been filed in the firstplace. It is time

to move forward. Persecuting a business for

developing better products than their

competitors is not a practice the Government

should engage in.

Kyle L. Patton

Monroe Shine

502–423–0311

502–339–7103 Fax

MTC–00006294

From: Stan Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please do whatever you can to finalize the

DOJ settlement with Microsoft. It seems very

fair to all parties concerned and we need to

get on with the business of the nation and

drastically reduce the continual urge to

litigate.

Sincerely,

Stanford Smith

3204 W. Joliet Ct.

Mequon, WI 53092

MTC–00006295

From: BECK, JOHN

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I’m writing for the first time to you on this.

It is time to finalize the proposed settlement

and let Microsoft get on with business. I

remember when a word processing , graphics

presentation, and spreadsheet software came

from three different companies. You had to

learn each with their own idiosyncrasies.

Microsoft put everything into one suite and

made software easy to use and cheaper for

the layman.

Additionally, I am embarrassed that my

own government chose to penalize a

company for being successful. Anti- trust

laws are meant to protect the consumer, not

competitors. What Microsoft gave the

consumer was more workable and cheaper

software than what was available. To say that

giving a free browser hurt the consumer is

quite a stretch.

Settle!

John F. Beck

MTC–00006296

From: Dorothy A Boothe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:24pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Our thoughts are shared by EVERYONE we

talk to about the Microsoft Lawsuit. . It is not

right for the Federal Government to interfere

in any private industry unless it is harmful

to the consumers. Isn’t it interesting that the

consumer is not suing Microsoft!! The

companies that are suing Microsoft are trying

to steal their business and the states that are

suing Microsoft are trying to steal Microsoft’s

money, thereby weakening their ability to

operate. Let’s stop this persecution and let

the brains at Microsoft get back on track and

create new products for the consumers at a

reasonable price. Quit fogging up their brains

with lawsuits. All of this has cost them over

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24803

a billion dollars. Isn’t that more than

enough??

A lot of companies in this country are

merging, creating monopolies: IE - the

railroads and nobody seems to care,

especially the Government! This is not being

impartial. Judge Jackson who did represent

the Government didn’t even have the

decency to go through these proceedings

without name calling.

For the sake of our economy stop these

proceedings now! This Microsoft lawsuit

tipped the stock market into a recession.

Check the stock market records. This hurt all

of us!!

RONALD & DOROTHY BOOTHE

MTC–00006297

From: steve(u)silesky

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:26pm

Subject: Msft

This is a good settlement. Let us finish this

thing and get the economy going again.

Steve Silesky

MTC–00006298

From: George R Hardesty

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please allow the existing proposed

settlement be the final settlement. Our

Country should be and should have been

prosecuting real enemies instead of the

corporation that has contributed so much to

our greatness.

George Hardesty

MTC–00006299

From: Joe (038) Micki Wilder

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:24pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement.

The settlement is fair to all consumers.

There are only a few special interest

groups(the nine States) that are not looking

out for all the people in the United States.

These nine states have been against any

proposed settlement only to drag down the

economy and the good that this

administration is trying to accomplish.The

delays only hold the economy, business and

the people down. It is time to let this great

Microsoft Company lead this nation out of

this recession and restore trust in our free

enterprise system and our Justice Dept.

Sincerely

Mr. & Mrs. A.J. Wilder of Boca Raton,

Florida

MTC–00006300

From: Wilma Edgin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:23pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I would like to comment on the proposed

settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case.

I feel that this settlement should be taken

and this put to rest. It has been a long drawn

out affair trying to put down a company that

has developed and distributed many helpful

aspects of the internet world and they

shoould be able to continue with this without

further delays and penalties. Freedom

inovate is the American way and should not

be punished.

Wilma Edgin

MTC–00006301

From: Gary A. Bartholomew

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:26pm

Subject: microsoft problem

This article from Mr. Mossberg says

everything.

Consumers lose in proposed Justice

Department settlement with Microsoft Posted

on December 31, 2001

By WALTER S. MOSSBERG

It has been a terrific year for Microsoft, but

average consumers of its products haven’t

fared so well.

Microsoft made major progress in its goal

of using its Windows operating system to

push its other products and services at the

expense of its competitors. Consumers are

the losers. software giant was under the

breakup, having been found judge of

violating antitrust threw out the breakup

order lower-court judge, although his

findings. The seven unanimously that

Microsoft was the antitrust laws by into its

Windows to freeze out other the court said

Microsoft Windows in a way that ability of

users to companies’ products it was OK to

add features weren’t added mainly to

When 2001 started, the threat of a courtordered guilty by a federal district laws in

multiple ways. In June, an appeals court and

harshly criticized the it upheld the legal core

of appeals judges ruled a monopoly that had

violated integrating its Web browser

operating system in an effort browsers.

Expressed in plain English, shouldn’t be

allowed to design limits consumer choice—

the discover and easily use other and

services. The court said to Windows, as long

as they maintain Microsoft’s monopoly.

company went on to launch Windows

XP—that into the operating crucial to

extending next battleground: it added these

features

allows users to easily authenticate their to

order prints of photos features work only

with Internet services, or that pay Microsoft

for Competing services, better-established or

more popular integrated into Windows XP

in are less likely to turn more breathtaking

online competition. It Windows XP a feature

whereby automatically add across the Web,

without the These Microsoft-imposed Tags,

would have led those of its partners. feature

only after it was sparked a massive right to

try again.

behavior, you’d expect the adversely.

Instead, it has antitrust case in a way that

conduct unfettered.

Despite this decision, the a new version of

Windows continued to integrate tightly

system new features that are Microsoft’s

monopoly onto the Internet-based services.

And in a way that hinders consumer choice.

For instance, Windows XP perform instant

messaging, to identities across the Web and

on their hard disks. But these Microsoft’s

own proprietary services owned by

companies inclusion in Windows XP.

including those than Microsoft’s, aren’t the

same smooth way, so users to them.

Microsoft attempted an even attack on

consumer choice and tried to integrate into

the built-in Web browser would links to

millions of sites permission of the owners.

links, called browser Smart users to

Microsoft’s sites and

The company dropped the discussed in

this column and outcry. But it reserved the

Given this unrepentant Justice Department to

react proposed to settle the would leave this

sort of October, now pending judge, does bar

some But much of it pertains with the

hapless makers of position to defy Microsoft.

It except indirectly; it’s Microsoft’s

competitors or the past, not the future

It doesn’t touch the

Windows XP to extend its

building new features or Windows?

Nothing, per se. I who assert that feature that

other separately. A more useful The problem

is the

Windows XP contains a instant messaging.

But that about which service a use the

America Online the built-in Windows do so,

just as I can use e-mail program with Instead,

Microsoft has wired

it common in a free one of their products

to AOL use its online made by its Warner

Wall Street Journal run publications and Web

The settlement reached in before yet

another federal offensive Microsoft behavior.

to the company’s relations PCs, which aren’t

in any isn’t about consumer choice, more

about placating partners. And it’s all about

battle in Internet services. company’s ability

to use monopoly to these new areas. What’s

wrong with Microsoft gateways to services

into have never agreed with critics

Windows shouldn’t contain any companies

want to sell Windows is good for consumers.

way these features are designed. It’s great, for

example, that built-in interface for doing

interface should be neutral consumer wants.

If I prefer to instant-messaging service with

interface, I should be able to the built-in

browser and non-Microsoft services. the

interface to its own service. So what, some

might ask? Isn’t market for companies to use

cross-promote another? Doesn’t service to

boost the movies Brothers studios? Doesn’t

The ads and plugs for its sister

other companies aren’t and when you’re a

different rules, as the

Justice Department bad for consumers. It

isn’t consumer choice. It nettlesome case out

of shouldn’t try to destroy or require the

software choice in its dominant

Unfortunately, in 2001, that’s not

Gary A. Bartholomew

Bartholomew Photography Inc.

433 E. Golf Road.

DesPlaines IL. 60016

Voice 847 635 0799

Fax 847 824 8473

sites?

The difference is that these court-certified

monopolies, monopoly, you have to follow

appeals court said.

So, in my view, the proposed settlement

with Microsoft is about preserving or

enhancing seems to be about getting the the

government’s hair.

Our government and courts run Microsoft.

But they should monopoly to expand

consumer operating system. what happened.

MTC–00006302

From: lee sulander

To: Microsoft ATR

24804 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Date: 1/2/02 2:26pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

The people have spoken. The nine states

and the DOJ have agreed to a fair, responsible

settlement. Do not let the dissenting states

ruin a ‘‘good’’ responsible company like

Microsoft. They are practicing class envy and

are looking out for their own selfish interests

and ignoring the good for everyone decision.

Yours sincerely,

L. Sulander

MTC–00006303

From: D3FUZZY@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:27pm

Subject: Settlement For Microsoft

I have been watching the proceedings of

continuous litigation involving the Microsoft

case over the past several years and I now

believe that settlement is in the best interests

of the consumers, as well as, the country.

Debra Masnik,

Springfield, VA

MTC–00006304

From: Donald Nelson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time that the government stop and

settle this ill-conceived law suit against

microsoft. The beneficiaries of Microsoft are

Microsoft but mostly the computer using

public. If companies better financed etc, than

Microsoft were unable to compete then that

is their problem NOT Microsofts’.

In my opinion this hi-tech lawsuit did

much to lead to the collapse of the hi-tech

industry. This effort was conceived on

political grounds to protect other hi-tech

operations from competition.

STOP the lawsuits!!!!! This is only

enriching trial attorneys.

Donald Nelson

MTC–00006305

From: Don Sackman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:27pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Department Of Justice:

It is in the interest of the economy and jobs

that this issue be settled immediately.

Dragging it out with further litigation serves

only a select few. It is high time that the

country and industry get back to furthering

our future through Technological

Development and Innovation.

Don Sackman

MTC–00006306

From: Steve Parker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ:

While I am no particular fan of Microsoft

and some of the techniques they have used,

I do not believe that most of their actions are

illegal. You have successfully focused on a

few that are and I believe have come up with

a fair compromise.

In my job, that of an independent

consultant, I work with technology and

Microsoft products daily. Competition is

good and it is there now. Let the market make

the bigger adjustments. If Microsoft does not

clean up their products, and improve their

service and support, the public will start to

move elsewhere. In fact, I believe this has

already started. This is heart of the free

market or free enterprise system. Once

government gets too involved, the economy,

the consumer, and everyone starts to pay big

time! So push this agreement through! It is

good and it is fair! And none of the rest of

it should ever have been a consideration.

Because it has been, our economy—

particularly the technology industry, as

reflected in the NASDAQ—has already paid

enough!!!

Thanks!

Steve Parker

rsparker@ameritech.net

MTC–00006307

From: Donnie Wilemon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This entire thing has gotten totally out of

control. Too many people are trying to make

careers out of attacking this fine company at

every turn. I am sickened by the number of

people and competitors who choose to abuse

the legal system rather than competing in the

market place.

Everyone has grown weary of this—no one

cares anymore but Sun, Oracle, Apple and

certain state’s Attorneys General who smell

another tobacco settlement cash horde

(regardless of the true facts of the case).

Microsoft should not be forced to fund the

state’s ’general fund’, nor should, for

instance, Apple’s poor marketing and

product plans be paid-for with Microsoft’s

hard-earned profits.

Microsoft has made some concessions and

very generous offers for settlement. Let’s be

reasonable—tell the professional litigators

and unethical competitors to find another

company to abuse and move on with their

lives.

Enough damage has been done—accept the

settlement now.

Donnie Wilemon

dbwilemon@hotmail.com

MTC–00006308

From: pig lut

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:28pm

Subject: re: Microsoft

i feel you should drop the case and focus

on bigger issues: world terrorism and internal

terrorism.

many people are out for bill gates and this

is a waste of your time as well as mine and

taxpayer dollars. if gates’ competitors have a

problem with him, let them settle it between

themselves, not the US settling it for them.

thank you.

happy holidays!

noel

MTC–00006309

From: Howard Jones

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Just finish the case with the agreed

settlement and let Microsoft get back to its

prime focus on making great software at

reasonable prices for the masses.

As a consumer, I make choices with my

wallet and I make them carefully. As a

consultant in the technology industry I have

exposure to many operating systems and

software applications and therefore am very

familiar with the offerings from Microsoft’s

competitors. Using my knowledge and my

wallet I chose to purchase Microsoft products

for my own and my family’s use. I have never

felt overcharged... on the contrary, I feel that

the products offer far superior value

compared with other offerings. For some

reason my all-knowing government chooses

to call this phenomenon a monopoly and has

wasted years and countless taxpayer $ on

pursuing that folly. Then Microsoft has the

misfortune to have Judge Jackson head the

proceedings—a man whom I’m sure is very

intelligent on certain matters but who has

absolutely no clue about the technology

industry and what is or isn’t good for

consumers. The entire process was a farce

and an insult to the intelligence of the

American people. For Microsoft to have to

make any retribution for past business

practices is nothing more than an extortion

crime perpetrated by the US government and

the attorneys general for the states that chose

to be involved. Our government is supposed

to protect and serve the American people.

The lawsuit did neither although seemed to

derive from the misguided impression that

Americans needed to be protected from

Microsoft. If Americans felt that way they

would not have bought the products and

would have accomplished what the DOJ had

no business trying to do in the first place.

Apparently the judicial branch of our

government no longer believes in capitalism

and feels that they need to interfere with an

otherwise very efficient process. Leave the

interfering for companies and industries that

are price fixing and inflating prices and truly

hurting consumers—the energy industry is a

great example—as our nation was going into

recession the energy producers were

recording record profits and consumers were

paying record prices at the pumps and to

heat their homes. Now there is an industry

that should be forced to pay something back.

Leave Microsoft alone!

Howard Jones

Simsbury, CT

MTC–00006310

From: Vito Corcia

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:28pm

Subject: MicroSoft Settlement

Please settle this matter now. There never

has been any problem dealing with MicroSoft

in the past.

MicroSoft products function best in

computers. Both of the terminals in this

office contain fully licensed MicroSoft

products and there has never been a crash in

the last seven years.

VEETZ...

http://home.earthlink.net/veetz

MTC–00006311

From: Michael Hale

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:27pm

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24805

Subject: MS SETTLEMENT Dear Sir:

I do not believe that the resourcefulness,

ingenuity, creativity, that Microsoft has

brought to our world in the services and

products they have provided should be

rewarded by punishing them.

Do you think this will encourage more

inventions? Do you think they will care more

about what the market wants?

I think you should stop going after the

people who are doing good for us.

Michael Hale

MTC–00006312

From: TXBILL37@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Most Americans that use the Microsoft

windows never agreed with the Government

Lawsuit. It was only a long term Clinton,

Gore and Reno diversion from other daily

problems they caused. The lawsuit and

settlement should have never taken place.

Without Microsoft windows, America and

the governments would still be in the dark

ages on the Internet. The complete lawsuit

should be dropped, but the settlement we

Americans must agree to and accept for the

sake of the Democrats.

CC:TXBILL37@aol.com@inetgw

MTC–00006313

From: FORTIERSLS@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:30pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

For being learned people, you don’t seem

to be able to stop stumbling over your own

words. Why don’t you just grow up and get

this pain in the derriere done and over with?

Thank you

MTC–00006314

From: Evelyn M Taris

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:30pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

The Justice department should disregard

the remaining 9 states that seek free

settlement from microsoft. Our economy has

hit bottom now. We need to rebuild our

economy not keep taking away. I say let the

settlement be final and if the additional 9

states including Florida, where I live, cannot

settle then disregard them . They are just

looking for additonal funds for themselves

and hurting the economy, which has been hit

very hard this past two years. We all need to

start building our lives again not taking away,

we had enough of taking for the past two

years. Microsoft has been hit hard enough for

the past four years, let there be peace so our

economy can start to grow as it should

Evelyn Taris

MTC–00006315

From: Bernard Segebade

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:30pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I think enough time has been spent on this

case. with our country & our economy in the

shape its in, its time to settle this issue & get

on with our every day business of getting our

country back on solid ground.

MTC–00006316

From: Ron arky

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:32pm

Subject: Lawsuit

AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED THE

SETTLEMENT SHOULD STAND, LETS GET

THE NATION AND THE STOCK MARKET

MOVING FORWARD AGAIN.

Respectfully

Ron Keller

MTC–00006317

From: RCarey312@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:29pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I AM WRITING YOU IN REGARDS TO

THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT. IN MY

OPINION THEIR SHOULD NEVER HAVE

BEEN A LAWSUIT TO BEGIN WITH. IT

SEEMS THAT THE CLINTON

ADMINISTRATION [ JANET RENO ]

WOULD DO ANY THING TO OBTAIN

MONEY.

THIS TO ME IS GOVERNMENT

EXTORTION.

WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF A

RECESSION COMING ON, FURTHER

LITIGATION AGAINST MICROSOFT IS THE

LAST THING OUR ECONOMY NEEDS.

IF IT CONTINUES , WHAT INDUSTRIES

IS THE NEXT TARGET? IF YOU HAVE

NONE MAY I SUGGEST THE THE LEGAL

INGUSTRIES.

REGARDS .

RAYMOND A. CAREY

MTC–00006318

From: Donald A. Fife

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:32pm

Subject: Microsoft statment

I think the whole thing has been going on

far to long. That it should be settled now.

And in the manner the government and the

nine states agreed on.

Thank you

Donald A. Fife

MTC–00006319

From: McKay and Linda Snow

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:30pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I haven’t offered my comments on this

settlement before but I want to go on record

as stating that were it not for Microsoft and

their innovative creations in Computers and

the Internet, I dare to say that America and

the world would not be using computers to

the extent they are and I personally would

not be able to understand and facilitate the

abilities and usability of my computer if it

did not have the integrated software that

Microsoft has made and marketed. I am

grateful for their advances in computer

software. It has opened up the world. If I had

to deal with many software protocols and

programs that may or may not work together,

I doubt I would use this instrument.

Microsoft is to be commended, not punished

for their critical progress in this field. It is

plain to me that those that have continued to

press for more monetary awards and punitive

measures against Microsoft are doing so out

of pure greed and jealousy. For them to say,

’give us all your software programs because

we deserve them and you don’t; and by the

way, make sure that we are successful in

using them and jeopardize and minimize

your own business in the process’ seems to

fly directly in the face of American ingenuity

and independent capitalism. I am extremely

disgusted with this protracted DOJ

punishment of a company that has built

America in ways no one else could have

done.

Sincerely,

Linda P. Snow

Bellevue, Washington

MTC–00006320

From: John Peters

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:31pm

MTC–00006321

From: John Hughes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:31pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am not a microsoft stock holder, but do

use their product on my computer. I have no

complaints with the way they market their

programs. I have been using various spread

sheets, word processing and other programs

of both microsoft and others. I do not write

computer programs, but certainly enjoy the

user friendly programs that microsoft has

provided.

It would be better if the law suit were

settled and allow microsoft to continue to

improve the product that they make for the

public.

John Hughes

3303 Nottingham St.

Houston, Texas 77005

Ph. 713–667–1666

Mob. 713–248–9417

e-mail jahughes00@msn.com

alt e johnh@sabinegas.com

MTC–00006322

From: Jim Logan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I firmly believe that any continuation of

the lawsuits against Microsoft will have an

adverse affect on our nation’s economic

recovery. The settlement that has been

reached is fair. It is time to accept the

proposed settlement, move forward and

resolve this issue without further litigation.

Jim Logan

Logan Productions, Inc.

8035 N. Port Washington Road

Fox Point, Wisconsin 53217

Phone: 414–352–9691

Facsimile: 414–352–4993

<mailto:jim@loganproductions.com>

mailto:jim@loganproductions.com

<http://www.loganproductions.com/>

http://www.loganproductions.com/

MTC–00006323

From: Huey Guo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sir/Madam,

24806 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Please free the general public from

Microsoft’s monopoly! Besides the

government, there is no one to stop Microsoft

from their immoral (though legally, only after

their attorneys’ twisting of law

interpretations) manipulation of the

computer world. Indeed, there may be

competitors lobbying for a fairer market. Yet,

there is simply no one powerful enough to

stop Microsoft from their wrongdoings,

except the Department of Justice, our only

and last hope. This is an example of my

freedom to choose being violated: I have been

receiving propaganda e-mails from the socalled ‘‘Freedom to Innovate Network’’

(MSFin@Microsoft.Com) for years (not by my

own free will, though). Even though I tried

many times to ‘‘unsubscribe’’ from their web

site (at http://www.freetoinnovate.com/—

utilities/unsubscribe.asp), they never let me

unsubscribe. Microsoft has organized an email/fax compaign to influence what DOJ

hears against those forceless individuals like

me. I am not with any party in the letigation

nor have any stake in the law suit. My only

hope is for DOJ to hear my opinion.

Sincerely,

Huey Guo

PS. I am not an Apple user. I have been

using PC’s for the last 15+ years and have

sufferred a lot from using Microsoft products,

because I have no alternative.

MTC–00006324

From: Bob McDermott

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:31pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please get the government off microsoft’s

back!!!!!!!!!

MTC–00006325

From: Nick Dolyak

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:32pm

Subject: MICROSOFT CASE

Let’s get this case behind us and move on

to more important things. Enough is enough.

NICHOLAS P DOLYAK

nickdolyak@earthlink.net

MTC–00006326

From: Ron Beck

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:29pm

Subject: ‘‘Microsoft Setlement’’

Gentlemen,

Please settle the Microsoft case. It has gone

on too long and the current settlement is

more than adequate. Prolonging it any longer

is not good for the entire industry.

Thank you.

Ronald Beck

reallibra25@hotmail.com

MTC–00006327

From: Plefka, Bob

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm

Subject: Mircrosoft Settlement

It is my sincere hope that the settlement

with Microsoft be moved forward quickly. As

a consumer (both personal and business user)

I feel that Microsoft has been acting

appropriately and in the interest of the

Consumer and Economy. I have not

witnessed any concern of anti-trust or

monopolistic behaviors and feel that I can

choose other vendors than Microsoft for key

applications should I choose.

I support Microsoft’s settlement and hope

the matters are resolved quickly to allow us

all to get back to important work needing

efforts.

Robert R. Plefka

1375 Jasper Drive

Ambler, Pa 19002

MTC–00006328

From: mortgagelender@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings:

As a consumer, I would like to see more

competition with other browsers and

software choices. The grip Microsoft has is

anti competitive as its software is frought

with errors. Its philosophy is to ‘‘shove it out

the door’’ and handle complaints afterwards.

This is the result of a Monopoly and a

manufacturers arrogance with consumers

having no recourse, ‘‘Let them Eat Cake’’.

Nuff’ said.

M. Morrow

MTC–00006329

From: John Richeson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs,

I am the owner of a business in Tampa, FL

called Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc. I

started out by myself and today have over 45

employees and clean some of the areas tallest

buildings. As a user of Microsoft products for

over 15 years, I can speak from experience as

a day to day small business user as to the

effect this company has had on our business.

I can honestly say that our business has

reached the success it has today because of

the usage of some of the great products that

Microsoft has implemented and continues to

improve upon. This is not to mention the

prosperity that we have gained due to

ownership of Microsoft stock via mutual

funds and other investments.

The government needs to keep its hands

out of this company as much as possible. Do

not stifle this company’s progress. It has

benefited not only America but the entire

world. For example, think about where our

military would be today if they did not have

the benefit of Windows and all its associated

products. I am continually amazed that

Windows XP cost less that $200. It is an

amazing product that I think is worth $2,000.

and for which I would gladly pay that

amount.

Microsoft simply makes a great product. If

they do not, then we use another competing

product. For example, I use Intuit’s

QuickBooks because Microsoft Money is just

not as good yet. But Microsoft continues to

improve Money. Soon I think it will be better

than QuickBooks. Then I will immediately

switch. I am looking forward to that day

because Intuit does not seem to care about

simple user issues they have had for years.

Let me put it this way....Intuit is stifling our

business because their QuickBooks products

is weak in certain areas. Microsoft, on the

other hand, has the resources and R & D to

improve a product tremendously. We all

need this.

Please settle these frivolous and wasteful

lawsuits and allow them to do what they do

best. It is very beneficial to the end

consumer. It will continue to help America

remain the worlds leaders in technology and

efficiency.

John Richeson

President

MTC–00006330

From: Qpbay@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:34pm

Subject: The Microsoft Settlement

I would expect that the Judicial

Department will proceed with the current

agreement on the Microsoft lawsuit and

accept what has already been agreed upon.

In addition, I would hope our legal system

will maintain and be a major stimulus to

support our free enterprise that exists in this

nation. The government should support the

free enterprise efforts that have been so

important to make this a sound and

prosperous nation on this issue.

Where would we, consumers and our

nation, be today without the Microsoft

organization’s important products that we

select to purchase and use?

Thank you.

Clifford E. Rowden

Bay Village, OH 44140

MTC–00006331

From: GrampsNorm@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would hope this case can be settled, it

would be one step toward getting our

economy back on track.

Norm Thomassen

MTC–00006332

From: Tutuandpal@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:34pm

Subject: Lay off.

Don’t you think it’s about time you guys

laid off of Microsoft? I think the Clinton DOJ

with Janet Reno were part of a terrorist

organization, and you are just carrying on

where they left off.

Why would a government attack one of its

own most successful companies? Name

another country that would do that. This is

equivalent to using an American airline to

attack the WTC. Why would ’Justice’ be so

unjust? Is this the first salvo whereby the trial

lawyers, like a sinister pack of roving hyenas

will attempt to lay waste the great industries

of the USA, for their own personal monetary

gain? Is this not terrorism in one form? What

is more un-American than this?

None of you seem to know what the hell

you’re talking about since I’ve not found a

clear and concise explanation for what

Microsoft has done wrong. All that bundling

gobbledygook on which you fervently frown

is nothing but horseshit. Now really!... If I

went to the local market and bought butter,

and the management had agreed to give

everyone who bought butter, a loaf of bread

to go with the butter..............That would be

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24807

wrong?........ Where does this hurt the

consumer?

Call off your dogs. Do something

constructive, rather than destructive like the

OSBL Taliban.

Sincerely,

Earle J. Baird

MTC–00006333

From: Korry Pearl

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:35pm

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. Settle Now. It time to move

forward. Settle this now.

Sincerely,

Korry I. Pearl

Senior Accountant

SigmaTek Corporation

MTC–00006334

From: GERRY WEST

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please accept current proposed settlement.

Over time, MicroSoft products, while a

virtual monopoly, have provided

standardized technology which is timeefficient for multiple users. And, at mass

retailing, prices even for a monopoly, are

more affordable.

Regards,

Gerry West

gwest@njwresearch.com

MTC–00006335

From: Craig McClure

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a member of the software development

community, I have seen Microsoft emerge as

a huge force in shaping the quality of

software products produced over the last

twenty years. To say that they engage in

unfair competitive practices is to say that

excellence is an unfair advantage. They have

managed to capture the greatest market share

in mature areas of the software industry:

operating systems, networking, word

processing and spreadsheets. These were

markets dominated by other companies who

seemed to have a stranglehold on their

market segment, but in each case, Microsoft

prevailed with a superior product.

To punish this brilliance is to destroy the

last vestige of free enterprise in our society.

Craig McClure

CreativeWare, Inc.

MTC–00006336

From: J C and Betty Choate

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

According to the best that I can figure, the

stock market started going down very shortly

after the litigation was begun against

Microsoft. I think the entire country has paid

a huge price for this messy business.

I well remember the frustration I used to

experience, trying to learn new and different

programs, and trying to get programs to work

together, BEFORE WINDOWS WAS PUT ON

THE MARKET. Microsoft has done a

tremendous thing for the world by removing

some of these major problems from the

computer scene. I think the harrassment the

company has undergone has been a poor way

to express appreciation for all that has been

done.

Personally, I think the settlement that has

been made should stand, and let Microsoft

and the country go back to life before

litigation. It was much more productive.

Betty Choate

708 Burton Drive

Winona, MS 38967

MTC–00006337

From: Howard Haworth

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:35pm

Subject: Tunney Act

Settle the Microsoft case. We have had

enough foolishness already!

MTC–00006338

From: PolPrncsVel@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I believe the microsoft settlement is fair &

just & should be implemented.

It is time to move on to other matters.

Sincerely,

Velora H. Upstone

Rockford, Il 61114

MTC–00006339

From: Jim Hanke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

To whom it may concern,

There are a few vocal anti-Microsoft groups

that are the key players in the whole

controversy.

If we could turn back the hands of time.

Back to before Microsoft, before IBM and a

young kid named Bill Gates started talking in

1974, how would this world be? There are a

hundred thousand companies of various

sizes that would not even exist. Our world

would be very different. We take things for

granted that we have in our lives. Things we

can’t live without now. All of these would

either not exist or would be so large they

would not be practical. The advent of the

home PC drove the market to make faster

CPU’s and faster RAM and smaller

components. These components are used in

everything in our lives today. Cell phones,

microwaves, Digital TV, DVD players for our

TV’s, all the nifty electronics in our cars; all

of this because the personal computer was a

technology so many people loved.

Microsoft made the PC practical. We

should thank Microsoft for helping make us

all more productive and creating secondary

and tertiary companies. Most all of these

companies are happy to have Microsoft be

the driving force behind the advances in the

PC industry.

Yes, there are a few folks out there that are

anti-Microsoft. They are very vocal. The

silent majority are going to be the ones that

really end up paying the price.

I feel Microsoft has learned a lesson about

how it markets its products. Microsoft has

spent a lot of money and time defending

itself and I believe their marketing strategy

has changed significantly. Make sure

Microsoft keeps the market open as you have

already. Stop spending billions of dollars to

fight Microsoft. There are a lot of other places

our tax dollars, yours and mine, can be better

spent. Use the money to buy computers for

schools. Teach them Unix if you like. Spend

money on child welfare, better schools, antidrug campaigns, stop smoking campaigns, fix

our roads, improve airport security, the list

is endless. With the money you could save

by just accepting the proposal by Microsoft

that is currently in process (I don’t know

what it is, but I am sure it is reasonable at

this point) you could give every person that

died in the World Trade Center tragedy

thousands and thousands of dollars.

Find a better way to spend our tax dollars

and your time than fighting an entrepreneur

that has done more for this country than

anyone since Henry Ford.

Thank you for reading and taking time to

take my letter to heart.

James (Jim) Hanke

11405—146th Ave SE

Renton, WA 98059

MTC–00006340

From: William Allen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:13pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

As a teacher who uses a lot of software in

teaching and research, I am satisfied that the

settlement reached between the government

and Microsoft is in my best interest as a

consumer of software.

William Allen

wallen@astate.edu

http://www.clt.astate.edu/wallen

MTC–00006341

From: JRSONPETER@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:35pm

Subject: Cosumer Comment

Microsoft:

Without Microsoft, computer operations

would still be in the dark ages and millions

of users would not be able to take advantage

of this powerful tool.

James R. Peterson

MTC–00006342

From: don blades

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

This has been too long and drawn out and

has cost us, (we the people) too many tax

dollars chasing a dead horse. Settle the d—

- thing.

MTC–00006343

From: JnJRanch

To: Microsoft Corpordation

Date: 1/2/02 2:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am in favor of the Micrsoft settlement

NOW. The DOJ has interferred too long

Jeanne Jacobs

24808 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

762 Sandstone Ln.

Camano Is. WA 98282

MTC–00006344

From: Rojji@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:36pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

My view is that the settlement of this case

is in the public interest; Let us move on. If

MSFT is a monopoly, so be it, just as so many

other companies in the world of business.

MTC–00006345

From: Hiperfprof@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have over 30 years experience in the

Information Technology industry and have

been upset by the government’s actions

against Microsoft since the beginning. If

Microsoft had not brought some sanity to the

entire personal computing industry, we

would have had chaos. Their leadership has

been a tremendous asset for our industry and

our country.

I would be most pleased if I never heard

another word about the government trying to

penalize or breakup Microsoft.

R. L. Adams

MTC–00006346

From: Thomas J. Fabish

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:36pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Sir,

My opinion on the entire Microsoft

prosecution is that no positive historical

grounds exit supporting the antitrust action

against Microsoft. My argument consists of

the single observation that no previous

antitrust action has benefited the public

interest including Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T

and most recently, Microsoft. That is, the

price of the goods or services offered by the

accused invariably increased following

government antitrust action. Moreover, the

continuing action by individual States

against Microsoft following the high court’s

decision to end prosecution seems based

upon transparent motives of simple greed for

settlement dollars, the acquisition of

individual fame, or a crude attempt to aid

local business that may compete with

Microsoft in a product line.

I conclude that prolonged litigation against

Microsoft Corporation benefits only selected

groups with goals not at all determined by

perceived good for the general consumer.

Hence, I hope to see the legal crusade ended

and so enable the considerable ongoing

expenditure of public and private funds to

find more useful applications.

Thank you for your consideration,

Dr. Thomas J. Fabish

e-mail; tjfabish@adelphia.net or

tjfabish@earthlink.net

MTC–00006347

From: Wayne/Eileen Grove

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:37pm

Subject: Microsoft

It is time to get this litigation behind us.

Wayne & Eileen Grove

MTC–00006348

From: GMbah

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ needs to settle this matter now. Slap

Microsoft in the wrist if it must and let’s

move on. Personally I think Microsoft has

done a lot of good and in my view has not

harmed the public.

Thank you,

Godfrey

MTC–00006349

From: MarlDuffin@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is important to settle this lawsuit in the

best interests of all the parties involved. The

Department of Justice has worked out a

settlement with Microsoft and that should be

the basis to decide the law suit and end the

case.

Marlene Quayle Duffin

21241 Canyon View Dr.

Saratoga, CA 95070

MTC–00006350

From: Thomas Garson

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov,

attorney.general(a)po.st...

Date: 1/2/02 2:38pm

Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement

Dear Representative of the Public Interest,

I believe the settlement that the U.S. Justice

Department and Microsoft have concocted is

a travesty of justice. As an information

technology professional for over 20 years, I

am quite familiar with the monopolistic, and

often illegal, machinations perpetrated by

Microsoft in order to achieve their current

position of ascendancy, often while offering

an inferior product. I wholely support the

findings of Judge Jackson as being more than

reasonable. If anyone in the judicial system

has gained a true insight into the modus

operandi of Microsoft, it is Judge Jackson. In

light of the contempt that Microsoft openly

displayed of that court, Judge Jackson was

remarkedly restrained.

Any lesser penalties imposed on Microsoft,

or any other company showing such

contempt for the rule of law, must be

considered a complete abdication by the

government of its responsibility to enforce

the right of the people of the United States

to a fair and open marketplace.

Sincerely,

Thomas Garson,

Owner,

Aural Technology, Ashland, Or.

tgarson@auraltek.com

MTC–00006351

From: Richard Barnes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm

Subject: TUNNEY ACT

Microsoft settlement: I doubt that any

business (competitors or otherwise) could

endure the kind of scrutiny that Microsoft

has had to endure. In the big picture is this

kind of stuff good for America? I do not

believe it is! I for one want all this to be over

and finished. As Americans we have much

bigger problems and we need not only the

Microsoft but all those that would be

Microsofts.

Please stop the bleeding and move on!

One very disgruntled American.

Remember 911!!!

MTC–00006352

From: E. STANFIELD

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We all hope you all will use your heads

and get this settlement approved and end the

competetors’ bickering and attempting to

feather their own nests by keeping out

competition so that they can make more

money the easy way!

MTC–00006353

From: Buzz Marsh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a constant user of computers and

needed software I feel enough is enough.

Microsoft has done nothing that successful

business has not done during U.S. history

and because they have done a better job it is

not reasonable they should be punished at

all, let alone still more.

The goverment sometimes mixes in where

they have no business. This is one of those

times.

Freeman A. Marsh

MTC–00006354

From: Davidfreed@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

to whom it may concern:

please settle this case ASAP. there should

be no split-up of Microsoft.

david freed

3055 washington street

miami, fl 33133

MTC–00006355

From: Bradley Bobbs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm

Subject: leave Microsoft alone already!

Please stop harassing Microsoft finally and

stop wasting taxpayers’ money on this

nonsense. Please go after some criminals,

instead of companies running a perfectly

legal business!

Sincerely,

Dr. Bradley Bobbs

6862 Hayvenhurst Ave.

van Nuys, CA 91406

MTC–00006356

From: DaveRaab@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This has been going on for to long and FAR

to much money spent on this. Many more

companies have benefited from Microsoft

then been hurt by them. The United States

economy and business needs to be done with

this case and move on!!

I DO NOT WANT MY TAX DOLLARS

SPENT PROLONGING THIS CASE!

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24809

MTC–00006357

From: Sample, Michael

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

Get on with it! I am sick of competitors

using the DOJ to get a successful company

that they themselves can’t defeat in the

market place. Secondly, I am sick of

publicity-seeking state AGs doing the same

thing either on behalf of those competitors or

simply for their own political enrichment.

The settlement is reasonable and there is no

reason to continue to drag out

this process.

Michael Sample

Houston, Texas

MTC–00006358

From: Dle0312@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I commend the Department of Justice for

their decision to settle with Microsoft. It

makes sense, as the government should not

be curtailing advancements in technology,

nor disciplining a company who has found

a better mouse trap. It would seem to me that

these other companies who challenged

Microsoft should try to make a better

product, rather than ask that the proprietary

knowledge be deseminated to them so that

they can use it against Microsoft. I would

hope that the DOJ would be able to settle

down the states remaining who have decided

not to accept the judge- ment between

Microsoft and the DOJ.

Donald L. Ensenbach

10601 South 41st Place

Phoenix, AZ. 85044–1331

MTC–00006359

From: NeilHaas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:40pm

Subject: MICROSOFT

Microsoft has been damaged enough, let

the present agreement be enough. The states

need to get out of the business of killing off

businesses.

I’ve been in business over 38 yrs and don’t

want the government causing me to lose just

because Oracle and Netscape want to use the

government for their own gain.

Neil G. Haas

MTC–00006360

From: JnJRanch

To: Microsoft Corpordation

Date: 1/2/02 2:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am in favor of the settlement reached

btween the Federal government, nine states

and Microsoft. Further arguing can only hurt

the nation, and the economy as a whole.

Jeanne Jacobs

762 Sandstone Ln.

Camano Is. WA 98282

MTC–00006361

From: Mccartyml@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This case should never have been filed.

However at this juncture the proposed

settlement is the best of a bad bargain and

DOJ should wrap this up ASAP under the

settlement proposed.

M.L. McCarty

1911 E. Pole Star Pl.

Tucson, AZ 85737

MTC–00006362

From: BeausBoss2@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:43pm

Subject: re: Settlement

Dear Justice Department:

Please allow the MicroSoft Company the

ability to conduct their business and their

affairs by stimulating our economy. Allow

them to be a competitor that will help

stimulate other companies to grow and

thrive. Allow the court settlement to be

OVER, and allow MicroSoft to move forward.

Enough is enough. Let 2002 be a new year

for MicroSoft, for the American people, and

for the business community.

Sincerely yours,

Elyse Reitzin

beausboss2@aol.com

MTC–00006363

From: RPainley@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:43pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

We wish to support the current settlement

plans regarding the Microsoft case. Please

give this your best attention.

Raymond and Merle Painley

MTC–00006364

From: John Garrison, Sr.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Request further action in the subject case

be discontinued. The last thing the economy

needs is more failing competitors to use

government to stifle a creative American

corporation. A corporation that bet the farm

to innovate while competitors tagged along

until they found they were falling further and

further behind. Then they turned to

government to save them. Definitely not what

made this country great.

Respectfully:

John Garrison, Sr.

mailto:johng@sun-usa.com

MTC–00006365

From: Ted Pierce

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It Concerns:

I am 100% FOR the litigation against

Microsoft to be finalized. In my opinion the

suit should never have been brought in the

first place. We as tax payers foot the bill for

the litigation. We as consumers foot the bill

when any settlement is imposed. Any

thinking person knows that ‘‘the cost of

doing business’’ is passed directly to the

consumer, the investor or both. The worst

case is that a company goes out of business

because of Government tyranny.

So, settle with Microsoft and let them get

on with life, so we consumers and taxpayers

can see an end to money being wasted (by

Government) and so we can continue to get

the fine flow of products we have become

accustomed to. The fact that we are in a

recession should mean that government gets

off everyone’s back, not further complicate

and harass business.

Ted Pierce

Folsom, CA 95630

MTC–00006366

From: James Hawley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft litigation has taken a

number of years and not it seems that there

is a potential settlement. Derailing this

settlement now would benefit no one except

for attorney fee genereated. If that is the goal

of the Justice Department then this case

should by all means continue. I believe,

however, that is not the Justice Department’s

goal to increase revenue for attormey fees.

The climate has changed considerably in the

last few years and all the issues originally

being contested are not even an issue any

longer. The last thing this country needs at

this time is to draw cases such as this one

into more legal rambling to no one’s benefit.

Penalizing one of the Major success stories of

the 20th century for the benefit of a few

should make no sense. I see this as a

‘‘revenue enhancement’’ program for the

states and a few companys with no real

issues left to resolve.

We have much bigger and important issues

that have a signifigant impact on the

American Society. This case should have

never even been brought to this point in the

first place.

Jim Hawley

MTC–00006367

From: Richard Stevenson

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

Please settle this litigation now. What has

been agreed to is fair for all parties.

Sincerely

Richard Stevenson

MTC–00006368

From: RJBKKKID@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it may Concern,

Isn’t it high time we put this litigation to

rest and move on. It would appear that a few

of the more vocal die hard Microsoft

competitors ( and their lobbyists) continue to

beat this to death. Would be interesting to

know if they would welcome equal scrutiny?

Enough already!

Russ Jones

MTC–00006369

From: Ray Garland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

I am a Microsoft shareholder and a

consumer who uses their products. I urge the

24810 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Federal government to resolve this case as

promptly as possible by settling on the result

already reached by the court. The nine states

which are withholding approval of the

settlement and who want to expand the reach

of the case are wrong. So much of the reasons

for the initial suit are so outmoded and

irrelevant today that delaying a conclusion to

this matter risks harming not only a good

company but further damaging the US

economy.

Ray Garland

MTC–00006370

From: Bounderdon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my opinion, the proposed settlement

between the Justice Department and

Microsoft is reasonable and fair. To pursue

this witch hunt further will serve no useful

purpose and will only contribute further to

our weakened economy. Let’s get on with it

and get this matter behind us.

Donald R. Low

216 Derecho Way

Tracy, CA 95376

MTC–00006371

From: AVespa8911@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:45pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Enough is enough...I do not think for one

minute our economy was ever hurt by any

action Microsoft took. Their competitors are

cry babies...they should have concentrated on

making a better mouse trap than MS had.

LET IT GO...In the best interest of all

concerned. It’s just a bunch of sour grapes

with states trying to add to their coffers in

a very spurious way. A.A. Vespa

MTC–00006372

From: Michael Greene

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:47pm

Subject: Case Settlement

Dear Sir:

This case has gone on long enough. Let’s

settle this case NOW, for the good of the

country!

Michael J. Greene

MTC–00006373

From: Mike Doyle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:44pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Department of Justice Official,

The Microsoft case has gone way too long

and has not been positive for technology,

innovation, our economy or consumers. I am

a consumer and I have never been harmed by

Microsoft in any way. Quite the contrary,

Microsoft’s products allow me to do things

never before possible. Please accept the

settlement and end this process so American

and global firms can compete based on

technology and acceptance of their products

in the marketplace. The government’s role in

technology and innovation must never

impact personal choice in any way. Hi Tech

business moves too fast for government

intervention. Let businesses compete without

government involvement and we will all be

better off. When Microsoft products stop

being the best I can buy I will stop buying

them and I don’t need you telling me when

this dynamic occurs.

Mike Doyle

MTC–00006374

From: D.J.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:47pm

Subject: settlement

I would let competition take its own

course. Microsoft should be completely freed

from all recourse and certainly have no

remediation. The Linus’s of the world will

either win or loose. Sun Micro, should not

cry over their spilt milk. Any Attys Gen

should stick to investigating physical crimes

against us, the general public and forget

business. If they were shrewd in business,

they would not be Attys Gen, but be Bill

Gates

MTC–00006376

From: Arthur Laube

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It seems to me that Bill Gates did us—i.e.,

those who use computers—a great service by

encouraging or even demanding that several

programs be packaged together with the MS

Windows program.

Most of us do not want to buy a computer

and then have to install several programs

inorder to get started. Anymore than we

would want to buy an automobile and then

have to but and install four tires. It is obvious

that Bill Clinton/Janet Reno’s Department of

Justice decided that Bill Gates was too big for

his britches and needed to be taken down a

peg or two. And since he had not paid his

dues to them they attempted to make an

example of him. Get off his back.

Arthur H. Laube

23 Clover Dr.

Chapel Hill, NC 27517

MTC–00006377

From: Swank, Jeff

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I, for one, am still attempting to understand

the issues. The government should allow the

marketplace decide the fate of MS or any

other company. The software today is less

expensive and provides more functionality

then ever before. Please allow the free

enterprise system to work. This is just the

IBM case of old, by the time all of the appeals

are processed, the case will not matter.

Thanks

Jeff Swank

Vice President

TMI Systems Design Corp

50 South Third Ave West

Dickinson ND 58601

jswank@tmisystems.com

MTC–00006378

From: Perfilio@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:46pm

Subject: (no subject)

The settlement reached by DOJ and 9 states

is fair. Get off Microsoft’s back already.

MTC–00006379

From: GinnyAKK@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

I am writing this letter in hopes that my

opinion regarding the lengthy prosecution/

persecution of Microsoft be regarded and that

it be ended as quickly as possible without

further penalties and unreasonable costs to

Microsoft. We are an entrepreneurial and

competitive society and Microsoft, among

others, has been persecuted for behaving in

this spirit.

Very truly yours,

Virginia Koplowitz

Atlanta, Georgia

MTC–00006380

From: Luther Moon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the Department of Justice,

This letter is to talk to you about and to

express my feelings of the Government’s

involvement with, and the handling of, the

Antitrust case against Microsoft Corporation.

To begin with, I do not feel that this action

is being levied against Microsoft on behalf of

the American consumer. Fact is, it was then,

and is now, the consumer that decided what

or which product they wanted and liked best.

It was this very freedom of choice by the

consumer, and freedom of enterprise for

American Businesses, which has made

Microsoft? and America, the great company

and the great country they are today.

It has been the great innovators like the

John Rockefellers, JP Morgans, Andrew

Carnegies, Henry Fords, and the Bill Gates of

our time that has made this Country the great

success it enjoys today and, it was this

freedom to innovate, that encouraged them to

get up every morning and forge ahead with

their ideas and ideals. What might happen to

this nation, and its great Corporations, if this

freedom to express and freedom to innovate

continues to get trampled on?

It appears to me that the consumer can

only be hurt and made to suffer the

consequence of higher prices and less quality

of product should the Government begin the

dictatorial regulation of and dictating to a

company what it can or cannot supply to, or

for the benefit of, the consumer. Is it possible

that the American Consumer is smarter than

he or she is being given credit for?

It has been due to this freedom of

innovation from Microsoft that every

American consumer, can today, afford to

have a computer in their home. It is also a

computer in every home that has spurred an

economic growth in this country

unparalleled by any nation in the world,

until the Government decided to intervene.

It wasn’t until the dictatorial intervention

of our Government into the innovative

business of one of this Nations greatest

Companies that this Country’s economy,

overnight, started a downslide into economic

collapse, unparalleled in the history of this

great country. The economic destruction of

resources that has ensued has been

devastating to the American people. What,

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24811

with all this ‘‘Consumer protection’’ levied

against the consumer in the guise of

protecting the consumer, I’m just not sure I

can afford, or surely don’t need, anymore of

this kind of consumer protection. I feel that

I have received far better value and

protection from Microsoft than I have in the

protectionist interference from our

Government (I don’t know about you, but

there is no longer any retirement left in my

retirement funds).

This should be the business of business

and not the interference of Government to

dictate to the consumer what he or she can

or cannot have and at what price we must

pay for it. As a consumer and a Citizen of this

Great Land, I feel that I, and I alone, should

decide what is served on my plate and how

it is prepared.

I have Windows on my computer, not

because someone else decided for me what

I should use and not because Microsoft

decided for me what I should use. I decided

which was best for me from the many choices

that were, and still are, available on the

market today. And yes, there are choices out

there. I’m sorry, but I am being made to feel

that because of the wishes of a mere handful,

it is the masses that must pay? and this is just

not right. It must not be right.

In closing, I would like to say I am a smallbusiness owner and I depend on Microsoft to

keep things running for me, for which they

obviously have done quite well. If the

Federal government pursues three more years

of litigation in this matter, it would not only

hurt Microsoft, but millions of home

computer users and businesses across the

country. I urge you to please put these

lawsuits to rest before our economy

deteriorates any further. By intervening in

business, you would only be discouraging

competition by creating fear on the part of

other companies wanting to enter the market.

Bill Gates made some excellent business

decisions, and he, along with the American

Consumer, is now being punished for it. His

company has done so much for the economy,

and now the government is just wasting more

of our money picking on this company.

Respectfully,

Luther Moon

MTC–00006381

From: Leonard BRADLEY

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement by Microsoft is

fair and adequate.!!!

Sincerely,

Leonard G Bradley

60402 N 435 PR., N.E.

Benton City, WA 99320

MTC–00006382

From: Bernard D. Dunn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

The suit against Microsoft was unfair as

well as unjust. It was a prefabrication of the

Clinton Administration. Microsoft should be

absolved of all wrong doing and allowed to

operate as before.

What the suit has done is send a message

to all forward looking companies that

progress is frowned upon. Without the

progress made in computer by Bill Gates and

Microsoft home computers would be as yet

unheard of and I would not be sitting here

sending this E-mail Clinton and Reno should

be put on trial for interfering with private

enterprise and industrial initiative. This is

just another example of the Clinton

administration being vindictive because they

did not get the support they wanted from Bill

Gates and Microsoft.

B. D. Dunn

MTC–00006383

From: Vogel, Alan

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to see the Microsoft case

settled as soon as possible. The settlement

should be consistent across all states and it

should be based within the same rules

applied to the nine states that have already

signed off. The need to accomplish this is

even more urgent during this time of

worldwide economic and political turmoil. It

has taken us nearly four years to get to this

point and to drag it on further is

unacceptable.

Respectfully

Alan J. Vogel

MTC–00006384

From: David W. Workman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

The Microsoft antitrust case should never

have been started. Please, please accept the

current settlement offer and get this thing

finished. You are just in the way. Market

forces, in the case of software, are fully

capable of ruining any company that gets too

far from the user’s needs. Government may

have a legitimate antitrust roll in some

industries, but software is not one of them.

We the users can put anyone, including

Microsoft, out of business before a

government agency can write all the reports

defining what might be the problem. I am a

long-time software developer and have seen

the mighty come and go with no government

intervention. Government only makes things

worse. If we need you, we’ll call you. Stop

listening to Microsoft’s competitors who

spend their time whining to government

agencies rather than building superior

products. And, ignore those state government

agencies that only see this as a possible

revenue source. This isn’t tobacco. Stop

government extortion.

Thank you,

David W. Workman

Thomasville, NC

CC:MSFIN@Microsoft.com@inetgw

MTC–00006385

From: Jim Peebles

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Just adding my own thoughts, but isn’t

enough enough yet? With the global economy

in such precarious position, why are we

wasting such time and resources on

continuing this litigation? We ALL need to

get back to work! Let’s just settle the thing,

close the books on this entire thing, and get

back to doing what America does best...

innovating and creating jobs!!

Thanks,

Jim

MTC–00006386

From: Art Hicks

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to call a halt to the senseless

litigation in the Microsoft case. The longer it

goes on the more consumers lose. Let the

hold-out states outlaw Microsoft products in

their states if they want to and see how long

their consumers will put up with them.

Arthur Hicks

Lancaster, Virginia

MTC–00006387

From: Kealele@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

Please free Microsoft’s hands so that the

incredible innovation they offer may

proceed. To single out this one company for

prosecution/persecution is ludicrous in light

of what goes on on a daily basis with a great

many powerful and well-entrenched

American businesses. Especially in light of

the new terrorist attacks which have been

unleashed upon the world in recent months,

it would seem sensible for America to

support her technology companies in their

endeavors now more than ever before.

Sincerely,

Lyn Gianni,

Santa Barbara, California

MTC–00006388

From: Joan Amino

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I think the government should let

Microsoft get on with business and quit this

litigation that is just making the public upset

with the court system. I would not buy any

other product BUT MICROSOFT no matter

how cheap the competitor is just because of

this litigation. LET MICROSOFT GET BACK

TO BUSINESS!!!

Joan Amino

1642 Los Molinos Way

Sacramento CA 95864

jacatmom@onemain.com

MTC–00006389

From: Ted Palfini

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Get on with it. The settlement should be

completed as soon as possible. Although

Microsoft is aggressive they do provide a

quality product at a reasonable price to the

consumer. The lawyers are the only ones

winning in this if the case is not settled

quickly. I am tired of the lawyers always

winning. The resources of Microsoft and the

competitors should be focused on better

products and product development not

24812 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

defense and attack in the courtroom/legal

system.

Ted Palfini

MTC–00006390

From: DANP2011@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As an individual American, I never totally

understood why the government filed an

action against Microsoft. I’m sure somewhere

there is some small violation as there would

be with any business if you also really pried

into their business or had competitor’s cry

foul because something made by Microsoft

was better than what they had available.

Technology and other business areas have

changed rapidly over the past years.

Everyone was able to grow and expand due

to technological advances. Microsoft was one

of them and was also the provider of software

that made the changes happen.

So as I see it, the creator of the Microsoft

software made it better for everyone else and

improved their produce at the same time to

make it again better the everyone. This is

how our society works, isn’t it? Did the

government file an antitrust action against

refrigerator makers when they ‘‘bundled’’ the

freezer with their product? Can you now buy

a refrigerator without a freezer? Or how about

all the ADD-ONS with automobiles! Maybe I

don’t want a battery, wanting to hand crank

the car to start. I use Microsoft software! Do

you? Did the government in any way use

Microsoft software to prepare the action filed

against them?

Basically, I don’t think it is right to impede

with Microsoft and their developments.

Without their developments over the years,

where would we be? Without their

developments in the future, where will we

be? Leave innovation alone and be thankful

someone developed it and will continue to

develop more in the future.

Dan Pierron

901 Howard Lane

Vandalia, Ohio 45377

MTC–00006391

From: Rowe261@cs.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I believe that the current settlement, signed

by nine states, is fair and equitable to all

parties concerned. More importantly, a

continuation of litigation only lines the

pockets of lawyers, and tends to reduce

innovation and entrepreurship, which helps

to drive our economy. Let’s settle it NOW!

Sincerely,

William N. Rowe

MTC–00006392

From: peter sabean

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing as a concerned citizen

regarding the Microsoft settlement that is

being reviewed. I strongly believe the recent

settlement reached between Microsoft, the

Justice Department and nine States is

absolutely in the public interest. It is evident

that the remaining states are motivated either

by home-state relationships with Microsoft

competitors or by an ‘‘attack the deep

pockets’’ attitude.

Peter Sabean

Sabean Design

MTC–00006393

From: Roger Bultot

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Let the Microsoft settlement stay as is.

Enough is enough.

Roger A. Bultot

440 Undercliff Ave.

Edgewater, NJ 07020

MTC–00006394

From: Popedo711@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm

Subject: Settlement

It is hoped that those people in official

capacity positions realize that our economy

started slipping around the time President

Clinton’s jealous liberal Government paid

team members first attacked Microsoft.

Damage is felt by every voter and tax payer

in our United States. Let the current

settlement stand and get back to free

enterprise practices that built our great

nation in the first place.

Thank you in advance for listening to one

little self employed renovation contractor in

Macon, Georgia USA.

Howard A Wilcox, Jr.

Voter, tax payer, Christian, husband,

parent, step parent, grandparent.

MTC–00006395

From: JoeZiem@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Why is it the people who have been using

Microsoft programs successfully for many

years have to suffer because the DOJ and

some Big-cash companies want to punish a

creative and efficient organization?

Certainly Clinton and his cronies seem to

have benefited from this chaos in the form of

surreptitious contributions. But the average

guy wanting to use MS products in the future

is going to pay more. Maybe only a few

bucks, but more nevertheless. Microsoft’s

Competition? They’re getting a free ride

instead of making better products users

would prefer.

The Red Cross and the United Fund appear

to have robbed money from contributors to

the 911 disaster and are pocketing vast

administrative fees from their gifts, but DOJ

also appears to be on vacation in this regard.

It would be nice if you were concerned

about the People of America instead of all the

special interests that slide gifts to everybody

they can to help their clients.

Don’t punish Microsoft!

J. Ziemian

MTC–00006396

From: Gay Abarbanell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:51pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I applaud the settlement. Let Microsoft get

back to doing what it does so well. As a long

time computer user I think the compatibility

that Microsoft has brought to the industry is

a Godsend.

Sincerely,

Gay Abarbanell, CFP?

National Planning Corp.

5625 Green Valley Cir. #103,

Culver City, CA 90230

gay.abarbanell@natplan.com

MTC–00006397

From: Ron Towers

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to make some comments

regarding the harassment Microsoft has to

endure due to the fact a few competitors have

not been able to compete. Our country is

great because of free enterprise and

competition in the market place. Microsoft,

in my opinion, has never hurt the

consumer!!! only helped the industry as a

whole. I cannot believe that because they

(Microsoft) can produce better products than

there competitors that this is against the law.

Maybe if the others spent more time working

hard in development and marketing instead

of attacking their competitors they would far

better in the marketplace. I too have many

competitors to contend with. However I

never take them to court about how they beat

me out on this job or that. I just think that

if our government condones these types of

cases by awarding settlements, let alone

letting these types of case even get this far

is very sad. Too many attorneys needing

work that is why everyone is suing everyone

these days. So sad

Respectfully,

Ron Towers

MTC–00006398

From: Verlon Bradley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to get off Microsoft’s back. The

competitive enterprise system will sort out

the market.

I am a ‘‘consumer’’ user of many Microsoft

products and do not feel that I have been

overcharged or damaged in any way by

Microsoft and their business practices. The

notion that they should not have included

the Explorer with Windows is stupid. I

would not have wanted an ‘‘incomplete’’

operating system without and internet

explorer. If Microsoft had not developed

Windows and The Internet Explorer and

made it available at a reasonable price, the

internet would not have developed into the

powerful tool it is today. If Netscape didn’t

like the way they bundled it, they could

invent their own operating system. Nobody

was forced to buy Microsoft products. Give

them freedom to innovate and allow them to

profit from their hard work and ingenuity!

Surely the Justice Department has better

things to do than harass the Microsoft

company. Talk about strong-arm tactics—

take a look at Jessie Jackson’s protection

racket as he coerces companies to contribute

to the Rainbow Push Coalition which should

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24813

not be tax exempt. By intimidating Toyota

into a $250,000,000 donation, the consumer

will have to pay higher prices for autos. Just

one of many examples of heavy handed

dealing with an organization which is

wrongfully afforded tax exempt status.—

Much greater wrong than anything Microsoft

may have done!

Stop listening to Microsoft’s competitors.

Tell them to just go back to the shop and

work harder. Tell the liberal leaning states to

get on board and lets get back to letting the

competitive enterprise system enable the

USA to continue to lead the industrialized

world!

Thank You for Your Consideration,

Henry V. Bradley

Orange, TX 77630

MTC–00006399

From: JDomani@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:52pm

Subject: Litigation Settlement

As an interested citizen I believe it is time

to end this continuing saga by finalizing the

proposed settlement that is on the table. I

cannot think either party can come up with

a new issue to be considered. The continuing

uncertainty is not in the best interest of a

public who is trying very hard to support the

recovery of the economy. Microsoft has been

a key innovative player and driver of the

economy in the past and it is almost certain

they will continue to be so in the future.

There are too many other serious concerns

facing our society in the business arena as

well as our private lives to continue to debate

this issue.

Thanks for the opportunity to comments.

Best Regards,

Jim Lindsey

MTC–00006400

From: Silvio Krvaric / CIR

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

This letter is to express my APPROVAL OF

THE SETTLEMENT with Microsoft. Though

I am not an antitrust lawyer, I studied the

subject extensively in law school and

considered going into antitrust practice.

From my reading of the law and Microsoft’s

alleged violations, this settlement is already

too harsh on Microsoft and too generous to

the government. I suggest that DOJ and the

court accept the settlement and allow

Microsoft to continue the stellar innovation

in the computer industry that it has exhibited

over the last couple of decades. I have no

concerns about its competitors, and would

accept penalties on Microsoft only if there

was some consumer harm alleged (which

there was manifestly not).

In sum, I approve of the settlement and

urge the court to accept it.

Sincerely,

Silvio Krvaric

Associate Counsel

CIR

1233 20th Street, NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036

MTC–00006401

From: Boomport Inc.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern.

Microsoft has done all of us a great favor.

I can write programs that run on 90% of all

the desktops in the world. Microsoft doesn’t

always have the best idea’s but they usually

do it better then anyone else. I stopped using

netscape when Microsoft released version 3.

Microsofts was already better at all the things

I wanted it to do. Stop trying to say they are

hurting me! At least admit that you guys are

sueing on behalf of Microsoft haters like Sun,

Netscape, Novell. Anyone of those guys

would do worse if they had the chance. I

never saw a Novell server that made it easier

to expand and modify it than NT does. Isn’t

it true that the more software that can be

developed on a platform the better it is for

people? Thats why windows are on most of

the desktops. I have used unix and is sucks.

Why don’t a pay 3 times the price and run

a Sun computer with hardly any software. I

personally love it when they add things to

the OS. I just can’t see how I am being hurt

in any of this!!!!!! Since of course you are

only filing this lawsuit to protect me the

consumer RIGHT.

Jerrald Nelson. Software developer for 10

years.

MTC–00006402

From: Delmolino@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We agree with the settlement offered

Microsoft from the DOJ. Please settle this

issue with Microsoft. We feel we as a people

have benefited greatly from Microsoft and

their innovations. We back Microsoft and

hope they can get on with business soon.

Thank you.

C. M. Delmolino

MTC–00006403

From: Thom Cook

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have been a member of the computer

industry for 20 years, with experience in

using both Microsoft and non-Microsoft

products. Microsoft has done GOOD THINGS

for the computer world, and because their

products are good, they have won a large (but

not monopolistic) share of design ‘‘wins’’.

With no difficulty at all, any of the

competing operating systems can be installed

on any PC. These competitors aren’t

inconsequential: IBM and Sun (to name only

the behemoths) aren’t small companies with

limited resources.

It is a pity that the DOJ saw fit to pursue

this ‘witchhunt’ in the first place. I doubt that

other industries in the U.S. are subjected to

such arbitrary harassment. It is time to end

this horrific example of unwarranted

government meddling (with no imperative

from the people of the country).

If special interests can cause the DOJ to

prosecute a case, perhaps Microsoft could

convince the DOJ to protect Microsoft’s

copyrights from the millions and millions of

software pirates both here and abroad that

regularly disregard U.S. and international

copyright laws by copying and reselling

Microsoft products without permission or

payment.

Please serve the people.

Thom Cook

Buffalo Computer Graphics

Buffalo, New York

MTC–00006404

From: ray@ec.rockwell.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

All,

I think the settlement is more than fair, as

many states have found. This matter should

be put to rest quickly. Many people feel that

Microsoft is being singled out and taken to

task for what all its competitor’s do. This is

hardly a position I can support, because of

improvements in productivity that Microsoft

has brought about and the countless jobs it

has helped create. In another vain, if Colgate

started packaging a promotional mouthwash

along with its toothpaste, would that

constitute unfair competition against Scope?

I think not. So why single out packaging

Microsoft Browser with Windows as unfair

competition? Of course, the issue here is

‘‘settlement’’, which is different from finding

who is at fault. If Microsoft is broken up into

pieces as settlement, I doubt if that will help

Sun or Oracle or AOL to flourish. All these

companies are limited by their power of

innovation.

Sincerely

Debes Ray

MTC–00006405

From: CMSarge@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to get on with business. Nine

states plus the DOJ have come to an

agreement, which will allow the American

economy to move forward. Most consumers

and businesses would benefit by looking

ahead instead of back. Let’s not allow special

interests to defeat the settlement. This has

taken almost four years, clearly, enough is

enough!

MTC–00006406

From: Jeff Paulin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ,

We are comfortable with the current

settlement regarding Microsoft. We do not

feel any further delays or litigation is in

anyone’s best interest. Please do all you can

to bring this case to a timely close.

Thank you

Jeff & Tracie Paulin

Laguna Niguel, Ca.

(949) 365–9092

MTC–00006407

From: Charlie Hyde

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

It is about time! I’m pleased to hear that

there is finally a settlement in sight!

24814 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

I never thought that Microsoft should be

penalized for making a better product than its

competitors nor for selling its superior

products at a lower cost.

Let’s get this over with so that we can all

move forward!

Charles Hyde

3202 Armagosa Way

Jamul, CA 91935

MTC–00006408

From: Skillgerry@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear US Government:

This is all much too much ado about

nothing much. This is America where

success is supposed to be rewarded, not

throttled. Why don’t you concentrate on the

real bad guys in our society rather than

attempting to disrupt foundations of our

capitalism. Microsoft is tough and likely

deserves a strong slap or two, but get it

settled without destroying them. Remember,

there is little liberty and justice without a

strong economic America. Our real secret to

freedom is our great economic success;

without successes our liberties are incredibly

threatened.

Success is often despised by those not as

capable or fortunate enough to step up to the

bar. There is not reason enough for

government to impinge on Microsoft’s

successes, other than where they have clearly

exceeded legal, ethical and moral grounds.

Sincerely,

Gerry Weinberg

Kennesaw, Georgia

MTC–00006409

From: ACOU@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:56pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I support the settlement proposed by the

Appeals Court. Let’s get on with things that

are far more important. We should not be

looking to punish successful companies who

have moved our country ahead.

A.L. Course

119 Tuscany Way

Danville CA 94506

MTC–00006410

From: Bryan Sapp

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the settlement agreed to by

Microsoft, the DOJ and some states is fair to

both sides and in the best interest of the

public. Please, don’t allow special interests to

destroy what has been accomplished.

Bryan Sapp

MTC–00006411

From: ScubaNark@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

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.

MTC–00006412

From: Carolyn Mustin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a concerned taxpayer and American

citizen, my husband and I strongly urge you

to settle the Microsoft case. The settlement

that has been proposed seems strong, but

reasonable and fair to all parties involved. In

my opinion, putting this case behind us will

be in the best interest of all Americans, and

is vital to a healthy future for our economy.

Thank you very much,

Carolyn & Tom Mustin

16 Fawnwood Court

Greensboro, NC 27407

(336) 852—4643

carolynmustin@mindspring.com

MTC–00006413

From: Nadine Heppell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:54pm

Subject: Enough Already

My concern as a taxpayer and consumer let

things stand and go on to bigger and better

fish such as terrorism abroad and at home’

Reg & Nadine Heppell.

MTC–00006414

From: JERRY M MARTIN

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:55pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

this country of ours needs this case

finished. ever since the money hungry states

went after microsoft our country, our

markets, and our economy has been going

downhill. we have had enough. get your new

found money somewhere else and let’s all

tend to our own business. shall we next sue

walmart, citibank, the new york yankees, etc.

etc. etc. for being the dominant force in their

fields? this case needs a settlement now.

thank you.

jerry martin

21 edgewater alley

isle of palms, s.c. 29451

MTC–00006415

From: Robert Gibson

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

The settlement has drawn on too long and

is destabilizing to an industry that is already

suffering economic hardship due in part to

this intervention into the industry by the

government. The arduous delays and

inability to find a remedy makes it painfully

clear that the government is way out of it’s

depth and doesn’t really know what it is

doing. Justice cannot possibly ‘‘be seen to be

done’’ when the government resorts to asking

for a remedy from direct competitors of

Microsoft, where competitors indulge in

spending Microsoft’s money only to

expanding there own market space. Such a

precedent would permit a judge to fine a

Pastor for speeding by ordering him to by

beer for all at the local saloon. If a crime has

been committed against the state then the

state should receive compensation and like

everyone else Microsoft’s competitors must

seek there own damages in a civil court

themselves. Any attempt to do otherwise

breaks the most fundamental tenants of the

judicial system.

But isn’t it true that one of Microsoft

competitors, one instituted by the

government, cannot seek such damages as

they first set the precedent of giving software

away for free to gain a clear monopoly 90%

of the browser market and when Microsoft

responded with similar tactics, the

government then, declared these same tactics

illegal.

Robert John Gibson

Senior Systems Eng, B Eng, NNCDE

Network Engineering

Ph 919 905 4915 ESN 355

MTC–00006416

From: User735515@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:55pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I feel the microsoft product has allowed me

to stay competitive in business. I am glad

someone initiated this software and

continues to improve it. we have been in

business for ourselves 47 years as a small

family business. These innovations have

allowed us to be competitive at reasonable

prices. In addition as we get older the

software allows us to produce with less

effort. I have already written my states

attorney asking him not to sue but I was

ignored.

Thank you for your consideration

DON HOLMES

Acme Signs Inc.

728 Baltimore Pike unit 132

Bel Air MD.

MTC–00006417

From: Richard Montgomery

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:56pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The economy needs a settlement of this

case. Work this out and get on to more

important issues like getting people back to

work!!!!!!!! The stock market is also suffering

from your continued inability to settle this

case. Get it done!!

Tax payer

MTC–00006418

From: Alex—Young@paramount.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

This email is to endorse the DOJ’s

proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. I believe that it is in the public’s

interest to see this case come to a quick and

appropriate resolution as soon as possible.

While Microsoft may have been exceedingly

aggressive in its practices at times, they are

a shining example of how an American

company can position itself as a world

leader. Let’s settle this case once and for all.

Thank you,

Alexander Young

MTC–00006419

From: Coldrod32@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24815

Dear US Government:

Its about time to settle this microsoft case.

It seems to me, after reviewing the

settlement, that this is harsh enough.

Competitors are just trying to do the same

thing Microsoft is accused of doing. Let them

meet in the marketplace and we all will be

better off. That does sound like the American

way. State government does not have a place

in this dispute.

Best Wishes for a speedy settlement

Ronald O. Daly

MTC–00006420

From: rbwall

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Case

I truly believe that the suit against

Microsoft should never have been filed! Just

think where this world would be without the

software from this great company. I am

almost 67 years old and I think computers are

wonderful as long as they have Microsoft

Office in them. I have used Microsoft for

years now and would not change. Microsoft

is so user friendly and compatible for all my

needs. I think consideration should be given

to a company that has been foremost in

bringing the computer to everyone.

Please do not make more charges against

them. Leave them free to develop more

programs for us, the public. With out

Microsoft we would still be in the dark ages!

Betty W. Wall

Educational Diagnostician

MTC–00006421

From: Vance Holloway

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing this in regards the Microsoft

anti-trust suit and impending settlement.

This case has never been about consumers.

There probably has never been a company in

the history of the United States that has done

more for consumers than has Microsoft.

Twenty years ago there were a few thousand

people who had access to a computer and

could use one. Today there are hundreds of

millions of people with computers that can

operate not only theirs, but 90% of the other

computers they are exposed to. This came

about due to the vision of Microsoft.

Twenty five years ago the lowest cost

computer cost tens of thousands of dollars,

today the lowest cost computer cost less than

$500. This came about due to the vision of

Microsoft and Intel.

No, this case is, and always has been about

Microsofts competitors. They did not have

the vision to do what Microsoft has done,

even though they were on the same playing

field as Microsoft. Now, since Microsoft was

successful, these competitors want the

government to step in and bring Microsoft

down to their level. This would be very

harmful to consumers.

MTC–00006422

From: JoelMagyar@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

It’s time to settle this case on the terms

agreed to by Microsoft and the US Gov’t.!!!

Forget thr nine states.

Joel Magyar

2115 SW 53rd Ter

Cape Coral, FL 33914

MTC–00006423

From: Gerald Hamilton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm

Subject: Accept The Settlement

Dear Sirs,

Enough is enough! Please accept the DOJ

settlement in total so that the high tech

portion of the economy can begin to rebound.

Few if any are winning from this legal

entanglement. Among those few with the

loudest voices, the competitors and the

attorneys seem to be the only parties who

will gain from a prolonged argument. The

losers, however, continue to be the American

people and the continued loss of our hardearned investments in the markets. Microsoft

has been a standard bearer with its consistent

growth in revenues and profits. Its stock has

been the gold standard in the industry. Please

simply cease the bickering and end this mess

by accepting the settlement.

God Bless America.

MTC–00006424

From: Theeinigs@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement reached between the Justice

Department, nine states and Microsoft should

move forward. This is a fair settlement and

further litigation will only prolong an already

overdue agreement. I do NOT favor further

action on the part of the Justice Department.

Thank you,

Richard G. Einig

MTC–00006425

From: Samuel Soh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm

Subject: Regarding to Microsoft

Dea Sirs,

Thanks for Microsoft to bring the computer

to user friendly atmosphere, without

Microsoft Windows—Our hightech will not

be here as of today! coparing the benefit that

Windows brought to all of us at the cost less

than a lousy movie (Annualize)!

Only the jealous eye and stupidity of the

greedy beings will ever think of panelize the

giver of the modern high tech.

God Bless America that we have Microsoft

in this country, it make the comuter so easy

to use! It transfer the computer power to all

ordinary people, the benefit to the whole

human beings and the society will be judged

by the history.

We really do not want to see, thirty years

from now, the history state : ‘‘ Some people

through their personal hate of success, some

how use the name of ‘‘FOR THE PEOPLE’’ to

manupilated American legal system and

destroied one of the best company that

attributes so much in the modernization to

our current civilization achievement.’’

Why we want to kill the best running

company in America or better in the whole

World? Is this that we American suppose to

do? I do not get it!

Sam

MTC–00006426

From: Fixedintime@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to end this long sad story of

attract on one of the nations key firms.

The United States and the world are better

today, because of the innovations of

Microsoft—people are enriched in both their

knowledge base and in their bank accounts

because of this company.

In a world that moves fast, the rewards go

to the most creative and fastest, Microsoft

wins. Those people and companies who

don’t like Microsoft or their products, there

are other choices available.

Let those who have a better ideal, come

forth. It is not the business of the United

States to hinder, stop or interfere with a

productive, creative and great world class

company that offers and continues to offer

better, faster, and lower cost programing for

consumers who want to purchase such items.

Get this action in the past, close the book on

this sorry effort to interfere with a good

company doing their job—and in turn,

improve the completeness of the nation.

Legal statements aside, this is another

example of the law going down a wrong way,

and hurting the nation and people involved.

Sincerely,

John J. Overleese

425 822 3643

MTC–00006427

From: Frank A. Nemia

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm

Subject: Micrsoft settlement

Gentlemen/Madam....It is certainly in the

‘‘public interest’’ of all to end this

unfortunate litigation in accordane with the

settlement proposed...To continue this

litigation during these uncertain times layers

insecurity and negativeizes the marketplace

to everyones’ detriment...Frank Nemia

Frank Nemia

Coughlin & Gerhart, L.L.P.

(607)723–9511

MTC–00006428

From: Chris Wilkins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Continued pursuit of Microsoft and it’s

business practicies hurts me as a network

administrator and my career and a computer

professional. They’ve made compromises

while companies like Sun and AOL/Time

continue similar practices without

punishment. This is not a valuable use of my

tax dollar and I would like you to stop.

Microsoft is good for the world and

especially this country. We should be

thankful they are not based out of Moscow.

Sincerely,

Chris Wilkins

MTC–00006429

From: Clayton Murphy

To: Microsoft ATR

24816 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm

Subject: Gentlemen:

Gentlemen:

I am opposed to the break up of Microsoft.

They have introduced a number of very fine

products for both consumer and business

use. What was done to AT&T has hurt the

communications field and this should not be

allowed to happen to Microsoft. However, I

do not feel that the proposed partnership

with AOL is in our best interest. Having

previously used the services of both groups,

I have not been pleased with their services.

Clayton Murphy

MTC–00006430

From: Rlstockman@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle this suit NOW Stop jerking MS

around, drop it and leave them alone. What

you are doing is not in my interest or in the

interest of computer users, any where. This

is a political mess instituted by the Clinton

jerkoffs. DROP IT and Move On.....Go after

Tyson Foods if you feel compelled to justify

your existance.

Robert L. Stockman

75 Simpson Dr.

Kennesaw GA 30144

a long time computer user (1956) and an

independent voter.....

MTC–00006431

From: lbstuart@webtv.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I think it would be in the best interest of

everyone that this item be settled. In an

economic time as this No more ‘‘dragging

your feet’’ on this issue. Would you feel that

people who work hard give up their

knowledge to those who want to ride the ‘‘

coattails’’ of others.

NO MORE LAW SUITS! End this thing!

Sincerely,

LB Stuart & family

MTC–00006432

From: PRMahan@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Microsoft has been a significant contributor

to the technology innovation that has

propelled the American economy forward in

recent years. Yes, Microsoft has been a very

good competitor and has managed to

outperform some of it’s competition. As a

result Microsoft and it’s stockholders have

been able to make a profit on their at risk

investments. Isn’t that what a free market

economy is all about? Why should Microsoft

be punished so severely simply because it

has been successful? Does the Department Of

Justice want to handicap all successful

Companies like a horse race so that their

success is reduced to the lowest common

denominator, i.e., the speed of the slowest

horse in the race? What does this do for the

US economy? Slow it down so that the US

economy cannot even compete in the world

economy? Doesn’t this undermine the basis

of competition and free enterprise? Does this

mean that the making of a profit is a dirty

word?

Microsoft may have abused it’s leadership

at some levels, although I seriously doubt

that its abusive conduct has been any greater

than most of its competition. Nevertheless an

agreement has been reached with Microsoft

that significantly reduces and handicaps its

competitive advantage. The agreement is

more than fair—lets move and see what

Microsoft’s competitors can do to improve

their competitiveness now that the weight

has been added to the leading horse.

Sincerely,

Patrick R. Mahan

MTC–00006433

From: Dick Williams

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough already! Stop the litigation. The

companies run by Larry Ellison and Scott

McNealy can’t compete with the quality of

Microsoft’s products.

The various states that still want to litigate

don’t have a case. Does anyone think that any

money they manage to squeeze out of

Microsoft will make it into the pockets of the

consumers they profess to represent?

The U.S. economy needs all the help that

it can get and so do I.

MTC–00006434

From: Mark Miller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

As a citizen and active taxpayer I would

like to express my opinion regarding the

antitrust settlement currently being

considered. I am very glad that the DOJ has

finally reached a settlement with Microsoft—

I would have honestly preferred the case

dropped altogether but since that does not

appear to be an option I will take what I can

get. Please do not let this settlement get

derailed—it is critical in a country such as

ours with the economy the way it is that

successful companies be helped—not

hindered by our government.

Mark Miller

MTC–00006435

From: Bob Waggoner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:53pm

Subject: microsoftsettlement

To whom it may concern at the dept. of

justice;

Why in the hell don’t you leave microsoft

alone and let them run their business the way

they want to. This company has done

nothing but GOOD for the computer industry.

I think it all boils down to the fact that the

companies that brought suit against microsoft

can’t run their companies as effecient as

microsoft can, so they concocted this bullshit

case to try to take down microsoft. Just leave

bill gates alone. I get tired of the govt always

putting their nose where it doesn’t belong.

Please consider this when making your

decision, just leave the man

alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Thank You,

Robert Waggoner

rwaggoner@plix.com

GO GET THEM, BILL

MTC–00006436

From: randall wright

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm

Subject: Dear Sirs:

Dear Sirs:

It seems there are a few people and

companies that don’t like success. I believed

from the beginning that the federal

government had absolutely no buisiness in

the lawsuit with Microsoft. The settlement

has already gone too far in what it is asking

from Microsoft and still other competitors

and special interest groups won’t let go of the

bone. Please let this end. I respect the Bush

administration’s prompt action on this matter

and I trust that Microsoft will now be

allowed to carry out its generous penalty and

get on with business. The company has had

enough and so has our country.

Thank you,

Randall and Margueritte Wright

1913 VanDyk Rd

Everson, WA 98247

MTC–00006437

From: Mark

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm

Subject: Enough against Microsoft!

The litigation against Microsoft has been

promoted long enough by competitors of

Microsoft who want an unfair crutch in

selling their own products. Windows was the

overwhelming choice of the people because

it is an OPEN ARCHITECTURE SYSTEM

(unlike MAC OS); and is no more of a

monopoly than JVC is for having developed

VHS. Please top interfering with free

competition. To do so ALWAYS does more

harm than good.

Sincerely,

Mark Olson

markeao@yahoo.com

San Francisco

MTC–00006438

From: Efdpvb@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

LET’S GET THIS OVER WITH.THERE ARE

LOTS MORE CRITICAL ISSUES FACING

OUR GOVERNMENT THAN THE

MICROSOFT CASE. TIME AND

TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES WILL RESOLVE

ANY ALLEGED COMPETITVE

DIFFERENCES

EUGENE F.DUNN

MTC–00006439

From: Walter Stoewe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm

Subject: MS Settlement

Microsoft is the most ingenious and

generous business in the nation. We MS

users are fed up with the continuing pursuit

of this great company!

If you were really serious about going after

large monopolies you would have busted the

DeBeers Diamond empire a long time ago.

This is not about monopolies, this is about

outright greed of the less successful

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24817

competitors and the trial lawyers smelling

blood.

Let the billion dollar Microsoft settlement

stand, as it is the best deal for our kids’

education !!!

Walter Stoewe

Powhatan, VA 23139

MTC–00006440

From: MICGOETZ@cs.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Government should not have to bail out

companies because they cannot make it. That

is not what government is all about. If we

continue this way, socialism is just around

the corner.

Companies like Microsoft that have a

competetive edge, talent and technical

expertise should not be held liable for being

industrious, inventive and innovative.

Companies that feel their business was

hurt, should not have gone into the business

in the 1st place if they could not keep up.

MTC–00006441

From: John Wagenseil

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:00pm

Subject: Re: My opinion

Dear Sirs,

Leave Mr. Gates alone.

It is all sour grapes. If I wanted to compete

with Ford or Chevy, would I have a chance?

No. Can I get another local phone company,

or cable company? No. But I don’t hear a lot

of people complaining about these

‘‘monopolies’’. Bill’s on top and everybody is

jealous.

Not one of Mr. Gates distracters care about

me, the buyer. They just want to beat Bill in

some ‘‘I am as good as you are’’ frenzy, or

the various States just want the business on

there home turf.

I have a friend who owns a Microbrew, and

he has to use Distributors to get his beer to

market. Now these guys have a monopoly.

They sometimes just tell him flat they are not

paying him. But I don’t see a lot of the States

jumping on these guys, or the building

permit business, and on and on. But boy, the

old States jumped on old evil Bill. Get real.

I don’t care which of these guys has more

billions, I just want everything to be

compatible. With the way things were,

everything had to be compatible with one

standard. I am afraid that soon you will have

to be worrying about whether the Software

you buy runs on your machine or not. I don’t

care which system is the main one as a user,

but they should be compatible. Gates

wouldn’t be where he is if Apple had gone

for compatibility. Gates say OK, you

wouldn’t settle on a standard, then I will

make a standard. It’s all sour grapes.

The Netscape leader was on a PBS show

one time where he avowed he wanted to bury

Mr. Gates. Come on, the guy was worth some

20 Billion at the time and he was mad at

Gates, grow up. They all want to be Bill, to

beat Bill, cause after all, they are better than

Bill. Come on, grow up.

J P Morgan couldn’t have gone down on

the foundry floor and done anything in the

Steel mill, but he sure knew how to tell the

Bessemer process was a money maker

(sounds like DOS to me), and that the guy he

hired from Europe was the best in the

business. They were mad at Morgan for his

money and position too. It is all sour grapes.

I am 59 years old, male, in the US

Merchant Marine, and not a real good

computer person.

Leave Bill alone.

Respectfully,

Jww

MTC–00006442

From: Chuck Bell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft has its market share because they

offer the best product for a very fair price. If

Microsoft had been prevented from

competing with Novell when Microsoft

integrated networking software into the

operating system, we would still be paying

Novell $2,000 per computer for networking

software. The high cost of the networking

software would still be holding the market

beck, not allowing the hardware prices to

drop also. If Microsoft had been prevented

from competing with Novell we would not

have a public internet today because small

companies and individuals could not afford

local area networks. Yes, it is true Microsoft’s

competition hurt Novell’s and other

company’s profit margin. But it is not true

that Microsoft’s competition has ever harmed

consumers.

Despite the fact that harm to the consumer

was never adequately addressed in the

lawsuit Microsoft is willing to make

concessions. They can do this because they

can compete on the value of their products.

Microsoft was the driving force in the

super charged economy of the 90?s. The

inexpensive products, packed with new

features, they brought to consumers and

businesses allowed an explosion in

productivity.

For the sake of consumers worldwide and

the U.S. economy, stop pandering to the

existing monopolies and allow Microsoft to

compete with them!

Thank you for hearing my comments.

Chuck Bell

Duvall, Washington

bellchuck@hotmail.com

MTC–00006443

From: Rosalinda S. Castiglioni

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm

Subject: Mcirosoft Settlement

I believe that it is in the public’s best

interest to settle the case against Microsoft.

The public is well aware of the fact that

Microsoft has greatly contributed to the

growth of our economy not only nationally

but globally as well. To prolong the litigation

process is only counterproductive. It is time

Microsoft should be left to continue making

innovations and move forward to achieve

even greater heights and consequently

contributing to our worldwide economy.

Rosalinda S. Castilgioni, PhD

MTC–00006444

From: Walden A. Lange

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:01pm

Subject: End the Microsoft Investigations

January 2, 2002

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

The U.S. Government and the Justice

Department have had ample time to take

whatever actions it deemed necessary with

regard to its lengthy investigation of

Microsoft Corporation’s business practices. It

is now time to end all ongoing procedures,

declare all investigations closed and final,

and let Microsoft lead the United States out

of it’s two year economic slump. In my view

the slump started with the initial

Government lawsuit and it should now be

ended. ‘‘Let’s Roll’’ with the economy and go

find some other corporation to investigate. I

strongly suggest ENRON CORPORATION!!!

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Walden A. Lange

MTC–00006445

From: John U. McDole, Jr.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To The U.S. Department of Justice

‘‘Enough already’’ is my comment to the

attempt to beat Microsoft into the dirt. I don’t

care for Microsoft or Bill Gates but in this

country every one has the right to make

money. Perhaps the means were not totally

honorable but what big corporation is?

Trying to break up this company is nothing

short of ’sour grapes’ by its competitors. Let

this ’witch hunt’ die, here and now. Too

much of the publics funds have been wasted

in this attempt to stifle this successful

enterprise. This is about as useful to our

country as the Bill Clinton debacle that

wasted more money than anyone will ever

know. Spending public funds in futile

attempts at grandstanding is just playing

politics at its worst.

John McDole

Birmingham, Alabama

MTC–00006446

From: Jean Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settelment

I think it is time to let this rest. Let the

settlement stand as it is to everyone’s benefit

that we have this thing settled

now.Thankyou for listening to me.

Sincerely

Jean N. Smith

MTC–00006447

From: timewarpp@earthlink.net

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 1/2/02 3:03pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I wanted express my opinon on the

microsoft settlement. I use Microsoft

products and do not feel cheated by the

company. I do however feel cheated by me

goverment. I am sick of the politics!!!!!!!!!Get

it setted without putting Microsoft through

more litigation.

MTC–00006448

From: Loney3@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:02pm

24818 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Subject: Settlement Of Microsoft Lawsuit

I am in agreement with the proposals in the

current settlement to the Microsoft Lawsuit.

Thomas H. Loney

MTC–00006449

From: David J. Gilman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This case was ridiculous from the start. It

was a move (brilliant one might say) by

Microsoft competitors to leverage a Microsoft

weakness (hubris) since they couldn’t

compete with them in the marketplace. This

case should be settled, sealed and put to rest

quickly so that the hindsight of history can

begin to show how ludicrous and illconceived the case always was. The DOJ, and

associated states, have been victims of a

massive confidence ‘‘game’’ perpetuated by

Microsoft’s competitors. Consumers were

never harmed. Corporate customers were

never harmed. Egos were harmed.

djg

MTC–00006450

From: Mark Consuegra

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:03pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am writing you to encourage your

department to settle the existing antitrust

action with Microsoft. I believe the case was

already politically and competitively driven,

rather than by the best interests of business

and consumer customers of Microsoft.

As the CEO of an independent software

ISV that needs to work with Microsoft, I hope

my comments have particular relevance. I

have worked with many large corporate

partners and believe that Microsoft competes

fairly and effectively.

More importantly, I believe the emergence

of a strong platform for the PC industry has

created a tremendous amount of value, jobs

and productivity for our country, and for me,

over the past 15 years. This has been

engendered by Microsoft’s contributions to

the industry.

I hope your efforts and the court will

consider a speedy resolution of this case,

especially at a time where many of us would

like to see growth and leadership in our

industry—one we hope our country will

remain the leader in.

Respectfully,

Mark Consuegra

CEO, Wonderhorse Inc.

551 N 34th Street

Seattle, WA 98103

MTC–00006451

From: Tommy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is about time that this issue be settled

once and for all. It is my opinion that the law

suits to date have been frivolous and without

true standing as far as I am concerned.

Without Microsoft, I, and many many others,

would have no idea how to use a computer

with a degree of expertise. Their products are

for the betterment of this nation, as well as

others. The case needs to be settled now and

to the benefit of Microsoft. Why are they

being spotlighted any ways? Go away and

fight for what is truly meaningful in this life

we live.

SETTLE!!! NOW!!! NO PENALTIES

EITHER!!!!

Thomas S. Czop

MTC–00006452

From: ErnieLevy@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It’s time to end this Microsoft issue. At this

point I think the issue has changed to who

is going to win and how much. This is at

great expense to tax payers and stockholders.

Enough is enough let’s get on with American

competition the way it was intended to be

not with all this government intervention. If

the corporations doing all the crying would

apply those resources to product

development and marketing they might be

able to improve market share. They won’t do

it in the courts they will only hurt taxpayers

and stockholders.

Where would the PC be today if not for

Microsoft? One thing is for sure we can’t

count on justice and fair play not after what

we saw from the Supreme Court a year ago

in the decision for Bush!

Ernie Levy

64209 E Greenbelt Lane

Tucson AZ 85739

520 825 9629

MTC–00006453

From: Richard Shouse

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I favor the current Microsoft Settlement.

Please, leave Microsoft alone, and let us get

on with the work.

MTC–00006454

From: SCraig4420@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think this case should be settled as agreed

between Microsoft and the DOJ. All the states

should be required to accept said settlement

and not be allowed to continue their suits.

Sonny Craig

MTC–00006455

From: Goers, Ronald

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ Folks,

I cannot believe that this silly case has

gotten as far as it has. Janet Reno should be

hog-tied and whipped with wet spaghetti for

her part in the gross mishandling of this case.

If the complaint had been brought on by

consumers, I might think differently, but let’s

face it; this case was concocted by

Microsoft’s competitors. Unfortunately, the

folks at SUN Microsystems, and the rest of

those who complained are a whiney lot. Too

bad they have inferior platforms and software

that prevent them from effectively competing

in a free marketplace. I wonder why they

blame their inadequacies on Microsoft?

Maybe instead of wasting money on slick

lawyers, they could be spending their time

and money inventing something people will

want to buy and use. It strikes me as odd that

on one hand Microsoft is said to be a

monopoly, but on the other hand Time

Warner isn’t... doesn’t that seem strange to

you also??? (Think ‘‘having your cake, and

eating it too’’) And, why isn’t Apple under

fire? They have both a hardware and software

monopoly going!

This case reminds me of a recent Nature

program I was watching. The setting was an

Alaskan river, where there were several

grizzly bears fishing for king salmon. There

was one big old male bear who filled his

belly by stealing fish from all the other bears.

The narrator of the program noted that this

particular bear had used this method of

‘‘fishing’’ for many years. Those who would

have Microsoft punished for advancing

technology in a way no other company has

been able to do should be ashamed of

themselves. I assure you had the shoe been

on the other foot, those who brought this suit

to the DOJ would have failed to see any

wrongdoing in their own practices. And

rightly so, since there is no law against

creating technology (in this case, an OS)

which drove our economy to levels of

prosperity never before imagined. Take away

Microsoft, and hundreds of thousands of jobs

would not exist—and that just from those

who write software and build hardware

based on MS innovation. Add to that, those

who rely on computers running a Microsoft

OS to run a business... and to that those who

actually work for Microsoft... and those who

run MS computers at home... and Palm

devices which rely on MS platforms for

synchronizing... and it’s not hard to see the

negative impact it would have on our

economy. The Microsoft Operating Systems

are one of the key reasons this country has

seen such great prosperity in recent years.

Lastly, lest anyone gets the idea I work for

(or draw any sort of income) from

Microsoft—I don’t. In fact, I don’t even like

their browser! I regularly use—believe it or

not—Netscape 4.7!!! Still, I can’t support

throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Even though I don’t particularly like the MS

browser, nor the way it gets packaged with

their OS—I accept it as part of the package.

If I don’t want to use the browser, I simply

don’t use it, and install another one in it’s

place. Simple, isn’t it? No suit, no jumping

up and down crying ‘‘monopoly’’, no sweat!

In summary; My advise on this whole issue

is to drop it completely and stop wasting

taxpayer’s money. If that is not an option,

then I would like to see Time Warner sued

by the DOJ for refusing to run cable the extra

2 miles down my street to connect it to my

house. Maybe they’re under the delusion that

I would be using Microsoft’s browser on their

Time Warner ‘‘RoadRunner’’ network...

Warmest regards,

ron

Ronald L. Goers

Associate Engineer

SP/SIPT/ISET/IQ Engineering

800 Phillips Road, MS: 0111–30N,

Webster, NY 14580

(585) 422–5331 (Intelnet: 8*222–5331)

Http://photo.scan.mc.xerox.com/ (Xerox

Internal Only)

CC:MSFIN@Microsoft.com@inetgw,Adam

Stein

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24819

MTC–00006456

From: Jon Lane

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 3:03pm

Subject: Micorsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

The goal to limit the monopolistic

practices of Microsoft has been met with this

settlement. Competitors now have the

opportunity to compete and earn their share

of the market by offering products that

perform better or are priced better than

Microsoft’s. To dilute the settlement, which

seems to be the goal of Microsoft’s detractors,

would provide market share welfare to their

competitors where it is not warranted. The

Justice Department has created an

atmosphere that fosters competition, let’s

retain that ruling.

J. W. Lane

MTC–00006457

From: PKreh4933@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:05pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I would like to express my approval of the

settlement which has been made with

Microsoft. Please rule in favor of it as it will

be in the best interests of the public, and this

debate and hassle has gone on long enough.

Microsoft has done so much for all of us—

let them be done with all this confusion and

get on with making computers and programs

that will further benefit us!

Sincerely,

Phyllis Krehbiel

2015 N. 71st

K.C., KS 66109

MTC–00006458

From: JBerset@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:07pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I believe it is time to settle the Microsoft

case now. We have enough problems with

the economy and others, we do not need to

continue this case any longer.

Thank you.

Jacqueline H. Balthaser

MTC–00006459

From: JXCOONS@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft /DOJ/ States disagreement

has gone on long enough. The points that

were part of the original issue are history and

I thought were resolved in the trial and

subsequent appeal ruling, it is time to move

on. As a consumer of Microsoft products, I

think the settlement agreement reached

between the DOJ and Microsoft is fair. I want

to see accessory products bundled. It is

confusing for a layman to sort through

various software products that are available.

I like to have the starting software provided.

Occasionally when I find a product that I like

better than one supplied by Microsoft, I

simply replace the Microsoft project.

I would urge the DOJ and the court to let

the settlement stand and move ahead.

Thank you,

James C. Coons

MTC–00006460

From: RAY NEUBAUER

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:05pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I BELIEVE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

SHOULD DO ALL POSSIBLE TO

CONCLUDE THE MICROSOFT

SETTLEMENT. AS A CONSUMER AND

USER OF MICROSOFT SOFTWARE AND

MSN I BELIEVE I AND ALL OTHERS LIKE

ME WOULD BE BEST SERVED BY ENDING

THIS SITUATION. I BELIEVE MICROSOFT

HAS BEEN MORE THAN GENEROUS AND

COMPLIANT IN ACCEPTING THE TERMS

OF THE AGREEMENT.

A.R. NEUBAUER JR.

93 CARAVAN PLACE

SAN RAMON CA 94583

MTC–00006461

From: WilbrettRE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement is more than fair, it is time

to put this to bed and get it out of the courts.

It should have never gotten to this point in

the first place. You are stiffiling the very

thing that has made this country great and a

leader in technolgy.

MTC–00006462

From: Uebe, Joanne

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 3:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

For nearly four years the Microsoft case has

been going on and on and on, and despite the

aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of its

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. I think this settlement is

tough enough, but reasonable and fair to all

parties concerned. Please settle this case once

and for all— for the good of everyone—

consumers and Country alike. I don’t think

the nine states who are opposing this

settlement should be given more

consideration than those nine states who

agree with the settlement.

Again, nearly four years of these hearings

is ENOUGH! Settlement is needed for the

good of all of us!

MTC–00006463

From: BJA

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I feel that the settlement that has been

proposed for the Microsoft case is a fair one.

To continue litigation in this matter would,

I think, cause unnecessary and prolonged

unrest in the technology industry, especially

during these uncertain economic times. I

hope the Justice Department can let this

matter be settled and discontinue any further

costly litigation.

Thank You.

Beverly Arnold

St. Louis, MO 63042

arnoldbj@yahoo.com

MTC–00006464

From: GGEJE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my opinion the Tunney Act and the

agreed upon settlement are in the public

interest and that it is now time for this matter

to pass into history.

Thank you,

George G. Edwards, MD

MTC–00006465

From: B(038)B Cody

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:06pm

Subject: microsoft

I don’t agree that Microsoft is a monoply.

If you want to chastise monoply then I

suggest you look to the biggest monoply of

all—the Washington government. Why not

break up that? All Microsoft is guilty of is

being successful. Hurting them hurts the

whole economy and we don’t need that now

or anytime.

Sincerely

R Cody

MTC–00006466

From: stanley t leung

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:04pm

To Whom It May Concern:

Settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case

would be good for the national economy, but

also restore a sense of fairness to the

American markets.

Stanley T. Leung, JD, MBA

Medical Scholars Program

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

506 South Mathews Avenue

Urbana, Illinois 61801

Email: stl4@columbia.edu

Ph#: (217) 352–1133 Pager#: 800–702–3646

MTC–00006467

From: Ken Abeles

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Sir,

I believe that the settlement is fair to all

parties and that it is not in the government’s

interest to delay this decision. I use Microsoft

products and will continue to use them. Let

them innovate so as to best serve the public.

Regards,

Kenneth Abeles

MTC–00006468

From: William Franklin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:04pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

According to our Constitution—Justice

should be fair and prompt. Prolonging

litigation would not apply to being prompt.

As it appears our present Tax system needs

to be fair and correction should be prompt.

Abolish the I. R. S. and promptly give us a

fair Tax.

MTC–00006469

From: Mokhtar Hamada

To: Microsoft ATR,lobna gaber

Date: 1/2/02 3:04pm

24820 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ,

I support Microsoft on the settlement with

the U.S. DOJ as approved by federal court.

Please stop certain state Attorneys General

from making mockery of the federal court’s

decision. Microsoft has been doing a good,

honest business all along. As a consumer, I

find Microsoft to be innovative and worthy

of my support.

Mokhtar Hamada, D.Sc.

Retired Chem Engineer

St. Louis County, MO 63011

Keep Safe, be Cool, have Fun !

MTC–00006470

From: Edward Klements

To: Microsoft ATR,KlementsSr. ed

Date: 1/2/02 3:05pm

Subject: Justice

To: United States Dept. Of Justice,

Please stop wasting the taxpayers money

on this Microsoft suit. I have been buying

their products since 1996 and have always

obtained an excellent product at a fair price.

In my opinion a company is not a threat or

a monopoly when it behaves like Microsoft.

If the DOJ wants to do some good for the

american public, then take the drug

companies to task. They affect me adversely

to the tune of $350 a month, if you want to

make an example of monopolistic abuse,

you’ve got it with the ‘‘DRUGGIES’’.

Edward Klements

Homosassa Fl.

34446

MTC–00006471

From: Michelle Galaz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

January 2, 2002

Your Honor:

My hope is that the courts will settle this

law suit between Microsoft the the Justice

Department. Microsoft has been a leader in

the software industry for years through hard

work, dedicated employees, excellent

marketing skills, brilliant leaders, and hugh

risks. They were lucky that the risks paid off

and rewarded.

Please don’t punish Microsoft because they

happen to be the first and best in this new

age of technology. The recent rash of dot.com

businesses showed that this entire field is

still evolving. Unfortunately many dot.coms

failed. These failed businesses did not make

it for various reasons, inexperienced

management, inability to turn a profit,

obscure ideas, risky ventures, and many

other reasons. Microsoft took many of these

same risks in the beginning. They also could

have failed but a little bit of luck along with

briliance not a violation of the Sherman act

made them suceed.

As Darwin proved in his theories with

nature only the strongest survive. Microsoft

has become the strongest and they have

survived not through illegal practices but

through hard work and risk.

I do not work for Microsoft nor do any of

my immediate relatives. I do not say these

things for an immediate financial payoff. I

say these things because Microsoft is good for

Washington State and good for the Nation. I

believe that our Nations current financial

crisis can be linked directly to the original

court ruling Spring 1999.

Thank you for the opportunity to express

my opinions.

Sincerely,

Michelle Galaz

9608 Dekoven Dr SW

Lakewood Washington

253–589–1580

Michelle Galaz

galmila@yahoo.com

MTC–00006472

From: Eastmeyr@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:08pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I think it is time to conclude the litigation

in reference to

E. Steinmeyer

MTC–00006473

From: RAYDOTMAN@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is our opinion that the government

would do well to keep out of Microsoft’s

affairs. In fact the government should keep

out of business affairs as much as is possible.

The government has better things to do than

to persecute Microsoft which offers excellent

products. I recall with chagrin the breakup of

AT&T. Telephone service has not been the

same since. Please add our voices to this

protest. We want Microsoft left alone!!

Sincerely,

Helen and Ray Richard

MTC–00006474

From: chris.jensen@gm.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern,

It is my opinion that this case against

Microsoft should be settled. The American

economy is literaly under attack! We need to

help American companies such as

Microsoft—not hurt them because their

competitors are sore loosers. Microsoft has an

continues to offer consumers and business a

great product at a fair market price. The

American consumers do not need any action

taken against them.

Chris Jensen

ePD Web Team

General Motors

MTC–00006475

From: Spragens, Joy (WASHINGTON—WK

OFFICE WK 749)

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 3:11pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement.

In fact I believe the suit was ill-founded as

no consumer has been hurt by Microsoft; to

the contrary; Microsoft has helped the

consumer both technologically and

financially. Computers and peripherals are

now compatible and speak to each other. I

believe we owe much of the economic

prosperity of the last decade to Microsoft and

its innovations which have allowed for

higher productivity and made computers

easy for the layman to use (including my 72

year old mother). I want to see the US remain

open to innovation and not stifle it. I do not

want to see innovative people and companies

move abroad seeking that freedom if it is

threatened here. Our antitrust laws as I

understand them were drawn to protect the

consumer not the competitor. The laws in

Europe are the other way around and we can

easily see how much it has stifled innovation

there.

Sincerely,

Joy Fowler Spragens

MTC–00006476

From: MJT4148@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm

Subject: Anti Trust Settlement

PLEASE ACCEPT THE PENDING

SETTLEMENT

Marvin J. Tibbetts

3900 Rosehill Ave.

Apt. 402A

Cincinnati, Ohio

MTC–00006477

From: Wsicketc@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The US economy has enjoyed the past ten

years’ successes mostly because Microsoft

has bourght unprecedented economies to

ALL Americans—private and public. The

original lawsuit by the Government was

obviously undertaken because Bill Gates

refused to contribute heavily to Mr. Clinton.

Enough of chasing successful people. Settle

as it now is proposed.

William L. Sickenberger

Reston, VA

MTC–00006478

From: RichDenney@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:08pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

PLEASE GET THIS WITCH HUNT OVER.

MICROSOFT HAS PROBABLY DONE MORE

TOWARDS MAKING THE PC BOTH

AFFORDABLE AND USABLE TO TO YOUR

AVERAGE AMERICAN. THAN ANY OTHER

ENTITY.

IF YOU WANT TO HELP US CONSUMERS

THEN GET AFTER THE OIL COS. THE

UTILITIES AND ESPECIALLY THE

NATURAL GAS COMPANIES. THEY RAPED

ALL OF LAST WINTER AND CONSIDERING

THE CURRENT COLD SNAP OVER THE

SOUTH WE ARE PROBABLY IN FOR

ANOTHER RAPE THIS WINTER.

THANK YOU

RICHARD I DENNEY

881 DEBONAIR DR

MOBILE AL 36695

(251) 633–5088

MTC–00006479

From: The1stBA@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let this just be SETTLED without further

ado, thank you.

Barbara Ann Wilcoxson, a shareholder.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24821

MTC–00006480

From: Carolyn Braswell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please encourage the states to settle this

ASAP. This has been one of the reasons for

economic recession and we do not need any

more of it!

Eddie & Carolyn Braswell

MTC–00006481

From: KTyler5757@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Your Honor I think the ‘‘settlement’’

reached by the various States involved is

only a slap on the wrist. Bill Gates is very

happy with it, because he knows Microsoft

got off almost scott free. Microsoft is a bully

and will continue to be unless the Court does

something to stop it. Please put some teeth

into this case and prevent Microsoft from

running over the top of everyone.

Kent G. Tyler

MTC–00006482

From: RGRANT9@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle this case. No further litigation.

We need this to end now! I have a cable

company, telephone company and garbage

company that are more of a monopoly than

Microsoft.

Rob Grant

Mukiteo, WA

MTC–00006483

From: The Fennertys

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please recommend approval of the

Microsoft Settlement. I believe it to be in the

best interests of the consumer as well as

bsiness. We need to be actively developing

new products in order to be competitive in

this extraordinary global economy. Thank

you for the opportunity to comment.

Francis E. Fennerty

Tucson, Arizona

fennerty@the river.com

MTC–00006484

From: Hlbry@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The DO settlement is fair even if a bit

severe. Please say NO to those states that are

looking for more. Thanks

Harry Bryant

Riddle Village

511 Arlington

Media, PA 19063–6007

Tel. 610–565–2057

MTC–00006485

From: Dorothy Lau

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I strongly urge that the Microsoft

Settlement remain intact as agreed upon by

the federal government and the nine states in

the Court of Appeals ruling.

The nation needs to attend to the fiscal

problems that now exist with the economy.

There is nothing to be gained by prolonging

the Microsoft Settlement.

Dorothy D. Lau

MTC–00006486

From: Raelbrook@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:11pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I SUPPORT THE RECENT SETTLEMENT

BETWEEN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

AND MICROSOFT.

I FEEL IT IS TIME THE JUSTICE

DEPARTMENT LOOKED INTO THE EFFECT

THAT ITS ATTACK ON MICROSOFT WAS

RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGING THE

WHOLE HI-TECH INDUSTRY LEADING TO

AN OVERALL DECLINE IN THE US

ECONOMY. HAD MICROSOFT BEEN A

JAPAN BASED ENTITY I BELIEVE THEY

WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO TARGETED.

RESPECTFULLY,

GRAHAM RAEL-BROOK

MTC–00006487

From: Peter Ahking

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:13pm

Subject: microsoft Settlement

Dear sir/Madame:

I beleive the agreement is just and fair

I strongly urge that the dept of Justice settle

the anti-trust case with Microsoft.

Regards,

Peter Ahking

MTC–00006488

From: FBrand1433@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:11pm

Subject: (no subject)

Leave Microsoft alone. End the settlement

now. Where would you be without Bill Gates

anyway

Bill and Fran Brandenburg

MTC–00006489

From: Farrelljr@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please recommend approval of the current

settlement agreement with Microsoft. I think

the proposed settlement is fair for me as a

consumer and fair to the Government’s

position.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

John L. Farrell, Jr.

Tulsa, Oklahoma

farrelljr@aol.com

MTC–00006490

From: BILL DAVIDSON

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:12pm

Subject: Microsoft case

If 9 states and the Appeals Court have

approved Microsoft’s generous settlement

offer, then I would urge the DOJ to persuade

the dissenting states to drop their suits.

Microsoft is the epitome of the ‘‘American

Dream’’. It appears that many of the objecting

states are catering to local constituents that

are either jealous of Microsoft’s

accomplishments or do not have the ability

to create a better operating system and

package of products for consumers.

Microsoft and the Gates Foundation are

among industries most generous contributors

to many humanitarian and educational

causes.

Please make every effort to stop these

jealous attacks on one of America’s great

companies. Their energies are better spent

creating new and exciting products rather

than defending frivolous lawsuits.

Yours very truly,

Jean and Bill Davidson

MTC–00006491

From: seung lyu

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:11pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I believe that the Microsoft anti-trust

settlement is reasonable and fair to all parties

involved.

Sk

MTC–00006492

From: ronald t moore

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:12pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please settle this witch hunt. Bill Gates has

done more for this country in the form of

charity than many who are in his position of

power. If the money were spent to fight

terrorism during the Clinton administration

instead of trying to take it to Microsoft,

September 11th, might not have the

significance that it does. Close the chapter on

this disgraceful injustice and move on to

important matters.

Ronald Moore

Indianola WA.

CC:microsoft@msn.com@inetgw

MTC–00006493

From: JOANZICHT@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:12pm

Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement

I feel strongly that the proposed settlement

is in the best interest of consumers, the

economy and the industry. Let’s get it settled

and get on with our lives.

Joan Zicht

MTC–00006494

From: sanderson@lvdi.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm

I believe it’s in the best interest of all

parties to settle this issue as is.

J.W. Sanderson

MTC–00006495

From: Bob Ulmer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT!

I am in total favor of the Microsoft

Settlement! The Microsoft Corp. has been a

good company for and to America! I ask

where would America be today without

Microsoft? The only reason the Department

of Justice is in litigation now with Microsoft

is greed and jealousy of other competitors! I

24822 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

say the American way is to let the

competitors build a better product if they

want more market share! What happened to

the free market place that is supposed to exist

in America? What does Microsoft bring to the

table for America? Jobs, High wages,

Philanthropy, A quality product, High

customer satisfaction, Innovation,It creates a

large tax base for the government of America!

Why cut off the nose of America to spite her

face!

MICROSOFT IS GOOD FOR AMERICA!

Bob Ulmer

3959 Normandy Drive

Owensboro, KY 42303

MTC–00006496

From: Richard Horlacher

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Keep the current settlement terms as they

now are. Do not change them.

Richard D. Horlacher

MTC–00006497

From: joseph davis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

MTC–00006498

From: Joe Weber

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In regards to the proposed settlement of the

litigation by the Government vs. Microsoft—

it is time (it has been for some time now )

to get on with the settlement without further

delay! The compromises reached over the

course of the year appear to be reasonable for

all concerned, not least of whom are the U.S.

citizens, who want to see fairness applied to

the entrepreneurial spirit which drives our

free economic society.

Enough is enough! It’s time to get on with

the further economic development of this

great country, not take a giant step backward

in our private enterprise system. Let’s

continue to reward innovation, not stifle it!

Allow the proposed settlement to happen,

and quickly!

Joe Weber

web.vu@pdq.net

MTC–00006499

From: B. Newman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:13pm

Subject: Microsoft

I think it is about time that this is settled.

Time to get off Microsoft’s back and let them

do their job.

You are playing with innocent people’s

lives! After all isn’t the biggest monoply in

the world the U.S. government??? What

happened to free enterprise and the

American dream?

Brenda K. Newman

Sequim, WA 98382

MTC–00006500

From: Robert Gibson

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 3:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The best remedy would be to limit

copyright on software to 5 years and then

enforce making that code public. Technology

is changing at a far more rapid pace today

than when copyright laws were first written

but those laws have not been updated to

reflect this. Today five years spans a software

technologies life cycle providing sufficient

time gain the vast majority of potential profit.

Making code public at the end of 5 years

would ensure that significant new

development would have to be produced to

maintain a competitive position. I would be

surprised if Bill Gates would oppose such a

move as he has always advocated a fast

moving innovative industry, whereas his

opponents have advocated open code which

they would gain after 5 years. This remedy

serves both interests without threatening

either to the advantage of the public and the

industry while aligning copyright laws with

contemporary times.

Thank you

Robert John Gibson

Senior Systems Eng, B Eng, NNCDE

Network Engineering

Ph 919 905 4915 ESN 355

MTC–00006501

From: jlcharlton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Both Jack and I were dismayed and

infuriated at the amusement and smiles on

their faces when we saw Janet Reno and the

lead prosecutor in the antitrust case against

Microsoft on television announcing that they

had won a case that should never have been

filed. It is a given that any one of us who has

computing experience knew the moment the

lawsuit was filed that the technology had

moved far beyond what was the subject of the

litigation. The DOJ needs to settle the case

now and let this country move on and

continue to be innovative and successful in

business. The companies whining over a loss

of business should get busy and work at

winning as Microsoft did and continues to

do.

Thanks for letting our opinion be

expressed.

Linda and Jack Charlton

MTC–00006502

From: JOHN (038) Mary McLauchlin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement.

The fight with Microsoft has been going on

much too long. Let’s somehow get it settled

and over with. In doing so, the one thing that

should never happen is for Microsoft to be

forced to reveal their secrets to anyone. As

for Judge Jackson who ruled on his bias, I and

many of my friends do not understand why

he is still in office.

John McLauchlin

91 Apple Blossom Ln.

Sequim, WA 98382

MTC–00006503

From: DugEaglEye@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:15pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I agree with the tentative settlement. As far

as I am concerned the US Dept. of Justice got

more of a settlement than the Government

should have. Even government bureaucrats

should be able to figure out that if you put

Microsoft out of business, then Japanese

computer companies will fill the void, and

US companies will loose yet another

industry. We once had a steel industry,

didn’t we?

MTC–00006504

From: Carter Cherry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement between DOJ and

Microsoft is a fair solution in the interest of

all consumers. Prompt settlement with the

proposed DOJ-Microsoft agreed upon terms

should be sought by all parties.

Cordially,

Carter M. Cherry

11665 Walnut Spring Court

Cupertino, CA 95014

MTC–00006505

From: H. William Koster, Jr.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the Microsoft settlement is fair as

it now stands; any further action byu the DOJ

or the States would be unjust.

MTC–00006506

From: frank

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Greetings: I wish to go on record as a user

of Microsoft products and an independent

Microsoft shareholder that ENOUGH IS

ENOUGH !!! It is time to get this unwarranted and frivolous,stupid attack on

America’s business ended. You all know the

reasons behind this litigation so I need not

rehash them here. It is in the best interests

of the United States to end the un-warranted

attack, so please do so immediately.

Frank Wills

8258 Level hill Rd.

Junction, IL 62954

P.S. Possible strongly letter to follow!!!

MTC–00006507

From: tanis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Subject: Here’s a profound question. Can you

answer?

Fw: Question from Philly radio call-in

show.....

Without Casting Stones, It is a legit.

question.

Two men, both billionaires.

One develops relatively cheap software

and gives hundreds of millions of dollars to

charity.

The other sponsors terrorism.

That being the case, why is it that the US

government has spent more money chasing

down Bill Gates over the past ten years than

Osama bin Laden?

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24823

MTC–00006508

From: Jack Reece

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

If there has ever been a time when the

Department of Justice needed to make a

judgment for the benefit of the the consumer,

the technology industry, and the country as

a whole, it is now. A judgment that is more

than fair has been agreed to by Microsoft and

most of the plaintiff states. And yet, there are

specific states, companies and individuals

who are seeking further action for selfish

reasons.

This country, more than ever, needs an

immediate resolution to this problem. Let’s

not be held hostage any longer by self-serving

individuals.

Jack D. Reece

419 Chesterwoods Court

High Point, NC 27262

336–841–7810

MTC–00006509

From: Panchanadam Swaminathan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello:

I am very anxious to see that the case

against is settled as announced. It is time that

we all get on with exciting and interesting

new technology development which

Microsoft has been doing during the past

decade. It is highly detrimental to the

progress of technology to stop Microsoft from

developing new and exciting technology

affordable to common people.

I look forward to seeing the case settled as

son as possible.

P. swaminathan, Ph.D.

Technical Manager

MTC–00006510

From: BudPorter@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

January 2, 2002

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a consumer and avid user of a PC. I

feel that Microsoft over the years has

provided me with valuable bundled tools to

surf the Internet and do other tasks on the

PC. I used the Internet before the Worldwide

Web became popular. We would not have or

continue to have the convenience of using

the WWW with innovations that can be used

by the average American if the American

government continues its attack on

Microsoft! Microsoft products have always

been a bargain both in cost and utilitarian

value! If litigation continues, the only

winners will be LAWYERS AND PRIVATE

INTERESTS. An example is the ludicrous

tobacco settlement!!! It is a cash cow for

lawyers and state treasuries. I feel that the

current recession started with Clinton’s

attack on Microsoft years ago! Remember that

the CONSUMER COMES FIRST! THAT IS

ME!!!! TOO MUCH OF OUR GROSS

NATIONAL PRODUCT IS BEING WASTED

ON LITIGATION...CLASS ACTION SUITS

ONLY BENEFIT THE LAWYERS AND

OTHER PRIVATE INTERESTS. MONETARY

REWARDS ARE ONLY PEANUTS TO THE

AVERAGE CONSUMER LIKE ME!

(UNLESS YOU SPILL A CUP OF

MCDONALDS COFFEE ON YOUR

CROTCH!!! AND FIND A CROOKED

LAWYER AND SYMPATHETIC JURY!)

SETTLE WITH MICROSOFT NOW!!!!

Let American business get back on track!

LLOYD PORTER

MTC–00006511

From: Whelkids@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:18pm

Subject: Micrdsoft Settlement

Rather than have this matter tied up in the

courts and the resultant uncertainty, I believe

that the settlement should be approved. Let’s

get it settled—Move ON!

John W. Whelan

MTC–00006512

From: christopher fish

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a software developer who has worked

with microsoft products for the last 7 years.

Either in supporting users or in creating

software. I strongly support the break up of

microsoft and wanted to go down on record

as doing so.

I also wanted to know if you have

addressed these two issues yet.

1) Microsoft’s design of the Visual C++

compiler and it’s wizards makes it very

difficult to create C++ code that can be

compiled to run on more then one operating

system. This design flaw has the effect of

eliminating competing operating systems,

because if you want to get inter-operability

under windows the best compiler to use (

and one of the only two ) is Microsoft’s visual

C++. The problem is that the compilers

wizards create projects that don’t even have

the C++ standard ‘‘main’’ operator in them.

This makes it impossible to change compilers

and since Microsoft’s compiler does not

readily support compilations for other

operating systems it makes compiling your

application for other operating systems

extremely difficult, thus effectively

punishing developers who what to try and

write code that can run on more then one

operating system.

2) Microsoft’s implementation of unicode

is off in some of it’s higher numbers so as to

cause corruption in languages that use

characters above and including Russian. This

would seem to be something that was very

intentionally done as it is the type of mistake

that would be hard to make and not notice.

It certainly has the effect of requiring anyone

who does not use Internet explorer to have

to download special components ( which of

coarse had to be written at the coast of

Microsoft’s competitors ) so that you can

view web pages that were created with

Microsoft outlook.

MTC–00006513

From: Brian Craze

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

To whom it may concern,

Concerning the proposed settlement

between the DOJ and Microsoft, I believe it

is in the best interest to accept this settlement

and move on. The settlement appears to be

fair, reasonable and good for the consumer.

Regards,

Brian Craze

Manager, Electronic Imaging Division (EID)

A.G. Heinze, Inc.

Voice: 480–813–7786 Fax: 480–813–7237

E-mail: brianc@agh.com Web:

www.AGHeinze.com

MTC–00006514

From: Kevin Williams

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:18pm

Subject: Re: Microsoft

2 January 2002

Leave Microsoft alone. This is a company

that innovates and though they ‘‘dominate’’

their segment of the computer industry, they

have helped all of the world progress to the

point that computers are usable and

affordable for all people.

Kevin Williams

MTC–00006515

From: Sesusainc@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm

Subject: Freedom

I am concerned that hold out States are

more interested in money than settlement.

What would happen if Microsoft stated that

no shipment or sale of Windows, etc., would

be sold in these States until situation is

cleared? Customers in these States would

really put up quite a howl I am sure. They

should remember, one doesn’t buy because

they are forced to, they buy because of value

they get for the money.

My opinion only,

Alan L. MacLachlan

S.E.S.USA INC.

6527NE 192nd PL

Kenmore, WA 98028–3457

Tel: (425) 485–3801

FAX: (425) 486–1626

E-mail: sesusainc@AOL.com

MTC–00006516

From: Dr. Tucker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I strongly urge that the Settlement

proposed be allowed to go forward. I believe

it is in the best interest of all concerned and

further litigation would be self-serving to the

legal profession only. They (legal profession)

have already had their ‘‘pound of flesh’’:

Respectfully,

GRT

MTC–00006517

From: Dave Foshee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This issue should be resolved now.

If there is to be a settlement (and I feel that

this case should never have been brought in

the first place) let it happen now.

Dave Foshee

General Manager

Adelphia—Carlsbad

24824 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

5720 El Camino Real

Carlsbad, CA 92008

760–438–7741 Ext 604

760–438–8461 Fax

619–890–4088 Mobile

dave.foshee@adelphia.com

MTC–00006518

From: Barbara Kellogg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs

Let’s settle this thing and quit wasting time

and money dragging this thing out longer

while the remaining states see if they can get

just a little more.

Sincerely

Barbara J. Kellogg

MTC–00006519

From: Don650@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a user of Microsoft software in business

and at home, I have found there products,

pricing and availability to be very satisfactory

to me and I urge the doj to leave them alone

and instead, concentrate on protecting our

homeland against real dangers. Microsoft is

not one of them. Thank you

Donald F. Tomisak

MTC–00006520

From: Henry Spie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:26pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The time has come to finish this case. I

personally thought that the suit filed by the

government was wrong to start off with. I feel

that the whole case was a waste of

taxpayers(of which I am one), money.

My first computer was a256 processor with

20 mgz speed Packard bell computer. It had

about 60 megs of memory and 1 meg for the

mother board for about 2400 dollars. Now I

have a cpu which has 1gig for speed and 40

gigs for memory and it cost less than 1700

dollars. I basically went from a yugo type

computer to a Cadillac type for less money.

Monopolies work the opposite way. (Less for

more).The case should be settled once and

for all.

Henry Spiechowicz

Chesterfield Michigan

henry002@ameritech.net

MTC–00006521

From: Jerry Herr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:19pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I think that the revised final judgement

should be accepted by all parties..and the

states that are holding out should be stoped

from any further action against Microsoft....

Thanks for asking....

Jerry Herr,

Park Ridge, IL 60068 ...

email ....gvhparkridge@yahoo.com

MTC–00006522

From: JIM TIERNAN

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is way past time to settle something that

should not have been investegated in the first

place. Microsoft’s competiters are trying to

get the gov. to do something they couldn’t do.

Drive them out of business. We the

consumer, are just fine with microsoft. If

Microsoft wants to give me somthing for free

in their softwar bundle then I am all for it.

The settlement that was negotiated was

MORE than fair. As a matter a fact it was to

harsh and never should have been in the first

place. The states are always crying that they

don’t have enough money in their budgets,

well try spending it for something worth

while. They have spect along with the

feduarl gov. more money than we spent

getting Binladen. That is a shame. Bill gates

is not the bad guy here. It is hard for me to

express my anger with all governments on

this subjetct in an e-mail. Feel free to call

mae at 1–870–258–3557.

Jim Teiernan

Owner

Springhill Industries, Inc.

MTC–00006523

From: Steve Anderson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

Our company sells software and computer

systems and networks to banks in 32 states.

Our software will run on a variety of

platforms. We use a combination of Windows

and Unix. We can now add Linux to the

mix—it is an OPEN market.

The original intent behind the government

watching out for monopolies has been turned

into the current relentless persecution of

Microsoft trying to retro ancient laws into a

newer economy. We choose to use Microsoft

operating systems because they have the best

value and functionality. The bundling of

products make life easier for every single

user and systems administrator on the planet.

As soon as a company can create a better

operating system for under $200.00, we will

buy it. Microsoft DOES NOT have a true

monopoly.

Microsoft software is DIRT CHEAP.

Anyone who says differently has never

created software themselves, or they are just

jealous. STOP listening to these whining

competitors of Microsoft. Let them

INNOVATE. Microsoft has done nothing but

create jobs and create new businesses and

create excellent software for the money.

Please admit when you are wrong and get

onto a new project. You are causing the

taxpayers millions of dollars for what? Did

you ever try to make computer speakers and

scanners work with Windows Version 3.1? If

you did, then you would not try so hard to

make Microsoft change their bundling of

software. The real joke is when you tried to

break them up. What a nightmare that would

have been for every computer user in the

country.

PLEASE move on with your lives and let

Microsoft do the same.

Sincerely,

Steve Anderson

President & CEO

SPARAK Financial Systems, LLC

2701 12th Ave SW

Fargo, ND 58104

Sales: 800.659.9121

Phone: 701.293.7198

Fax: 701.293.9654

www.sparak.com

steve@sparak.com

MTC–00006524

From: Catherine Sasso

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe Microsoft’s proposed settlement is

acceptable. I don’t want to see any more

litigation by anyone because I believe it

would only be beneficial to Microsoft’s

competitors and that being an unfair way for

the competitors to gain market share. I

personally am delighted with Microsoft’s

products; thought them fairly priced.

Without the innovations produced by

Microsoft, I’d still be struggling to learn how

to use a computer. They certainly should be

encouraged to invent more, so all our

computing would be easier for all.

sassocat@hotmail.com

Very truly yours,

Catherine Sasso

MTC–00006525

From: LGa1582997@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm

Subject: DOJ

The attack on Microsoft was akin to the

deregulation of the Bell System, that one took

us back at least twenty years and I don’t

believe we’ve caught up as of now. Without

Microsoft I don’t believe I could have

afforded to purchase the PC I did back in

1992, nor could I have up graded three times

since then. Back in 92 I wanted to start

writing about my WW II experiences with the

1st Marine Division and would not have

started had I not been able to write my

memories one at a time and then with the

computer bring them all together into a

comprehensive story.

Thanks Microsoft keep up the good fight

for affordable soft ware and PC’s

Leo Garcia

938 Lurline Drive

Foster City, Ca. 94404

e-mail LGa1582997@aol.com

MTC–00006526

From: bill lakenan jr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:20pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

please accept the settlement in place and

move forward. i believe the setlement is fair.

thanx for your time

bill lakenan

ARC, Incorporated

PO Box 10161

Knoxville, TN 37939

office) 865.584.3044

fax) 520.447.7873

MTC–00006527

From: Jim Turcott

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Settlement Review Board Members,

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24825

This registered voter strongly opposes

further litigation of the Microsoft company

lawsuit. The MSFT organization has already

been unjustly punished considering the

enormous positive contributions they have

provided to this country and the world at

large. I can’t begin to imagine where our

business would be today without their

software tools .

Most of my business friends and associates

agree (with me) that anything less than a

quick closure on the settlement would be a

further travesty of justice, and a complete

waste of taxpayers’ dollars.

We truly appreciate the opportunity to

voice an opinion on this matter. It’s as

American as the right for companies like

Microsoft to develop and build upon their

innovations without government intervention

stifling their progress.

Respectfully Yours,

James L. Turcott

Vice President Engineering

PDS ENGINEERING

Ph: (206) 767–2773

Fax: (206) 763–4128

E-m: jturcott@pdstech.com

http://www.pdseng.com

MTC–00006528

From: Jeff Erwin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:21pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Concerning the ongoing Microsoft antitrust negotiations, I am finding it harder and

harder to watch Microsoft competitors use

nine State District Attorneys seeking

publicity and glory to get the courts to beat

Microsoft to death. It is appalling that our

system can be used this way, and I hope the

system can react to the obvious and reshape

the anti-trust laws so they can’t be used as

a competitive weapon in the future.

The latest ‘negotiations’ by the nine

objecting States shows clearly that they have

no interest in the case itself, they are only

interested in appeasing the competition

located in their states and continuing to keep

themselves in the public spotlight. The fact

that they are now demanding that the

Microsoft Office suite of applications be

ported to non-Windows operating systems

shows that they have little understanding of

the markets, and no concern for anti-trust

laws. The application side of Microsoft’s

business has never been an issue in this case,

including it now as a part of the remedies

shows their true colors. Their demand that

Microsoft offer a stripped-down version of

Windows shows that the nine States have no

understanding of the market, the developer

issues and the consumer. If there are several

different versions of the same Windows

release out in the market, the increased

burden on companies supplying software to

the Windows market is huge. The test issues

become much larger, the development

tradeoffs impact the levels of functionality

the consumer ultimately gets, and all of this

will result in higher product costs to the

consumer to pay for the additional

development and testing needed to make

sure an application works on all the different

stripped versions.

Please stop this lunacy. Make decisions

based on the consumer, not the competition.

Do not let the court system be used and

abused in this way. Do not let this country’s

greatest business success story be torn apart

by the greedy needs of a few. While Microsoft

has been found guilty of monopolistic

behavior, it does not deserve this treatment.

Jeff Erwin

MTC–00006529

From: Carol Stephenson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This settlement should go forward as

quickly as possible. This country needs to be

engaging in positive economic activities;

prolonging this settlement is clearly a

negative. Let’s get this behind us.

Carol Stephenson

Grosse Pointe, MI

MTC–00006530

From: APress1932@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is now time to bring the Microsoft

Settlement to closure. Do not, repeat, do not

string this uncalled for suit out any longer.

Judge, tell the lawyers to go home, and do

some public service work and stop trying to

ruin an outstanding company and the

livelihood of those working for it.

Ancil R Pressley

523 Valhalla Dr

Columbia, SC 29229–3320

MTC–00006531

From: Rick Moe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

Your settlement with Microsoft is just.

Thank you. It is now essential that you help

Microsoft get back to work. The economy was

hurt by this case. It is crucial that the

computer industry stop laboring under a

cloud of doubt. Planners need to know that

the rug will not be pulled from under them

as they begin major software projects. Since

the DOJ case started, the industry has been

damaged. I am very hopeful that this low

productivity epoch is now over.

Thank you. Again, please help with the

healing.

Richard N. Moe

Software Developer

3077 Lydia Court

Roseville MN 55113

MTC–00006532

From: JMcg654550@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:23pm

Subject: Anti-trust settlement

I urge you to close out once and for all the

attack on Microsoft. I am an older consumer

and I can tell you unequivocally that I have

benefited enormously from the products put

out by Microsoft. My first computer cost

more that $4500 and was difficult to use.

Although I would be considered ‘‘computer

illiterate’’ I can tell you that there is a lot I

can do on my PC thanks to Microsoft’s

Windows and other innovations.

Incidentally, my son uses an Apple at home

and at his business so there is plenty of

competition. There is also rival operating

systems and software that is quite simple to

download.

Sincerely,

Jim McGrath

MTC–00006533

From: Jean and Warren Doremus

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear sirs/madams:

One of the better pieces of news of the year

just past was the announcement that the US

Department of Justice and nine states’

attorneys-general had reached a settlement in

the long, drawn out Microsoft case. The fact

that other states which had been suing the

software maker decided not to join in the

settlement was both disappointing and

deplorable.

We believe millions of Americans join us

in the belief that the agreement reached by

the federal government and the nine states

was fair, just, equitable, reasonable, sensible

and in the best interests of all parties

concerned. There comes a time when

common sense should take precedence over

endless and mindless miss-use of the legal

system. The remaining plaintiffs in what is

now clearly an unjustified battle against

corporate preeminence appear to be more

interested in demonstrating clout in the

public arena than in serving the public

interest.

These opposing states have had their day

in court, at the same time the other plaintiffs

did. They are now becoming a renegade

minority, clearly out of step with the vast

majority of the American populace.

Cannot some court step in here and put an

end to this so that the nation’s economy has

a chance to improve without this cloud

hanging over it? We think so. We urge the U

S Attorney-General’s office take whatever

legal steps are necessary and to use its full

powers of persuasion to make it happen.

Sincerely,

Warren & Jean Doremus

MTC–00006534

From: the ole trapper

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have firmly believed all along, that these

detractors of Microsoft in the settlement

phase of this action, have no right to deny

anyone of building a better mousetrap. Look

as the past history of many of our industries,

and you will find that someone was ahead of

the competition all along. I say ‘‘Enough is

enough’’ and let Microsoft continue with

their innovations.

Nelson Cross

36 Key Lime Dr.

Jensen Beach, FL 34957

‘‘the ole trapper’’ aka NELSON CROSS

MTC–00006535

From: Johanna Seth

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the currently proposed

settlement is a fair and just decision. I do not

24826 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

want this settlement to go back to court for

further argument. Microsoft’s penalties are

fair and will benefit consumers. Further

argument, prolonging the settlement, is a

threat to our national economy and should

not be undertaken.

Johanna Seth

14860–16 Summerlin Woods

Fort Myers, FL 33919.

MTC–00006536

From: bfoertsch@omninow.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft has been a powerful influence on

American technology. As the CEO of a

previous software company that failed due to

too many operating systems to support I

applaud MSFT’s continued support of the

burgeoning industry. The justice department

should spend our tax dollars chasing the

Chinese and other pirating nations who steal

our technology and our revenues rather than

belittle a company who provides America

with a tremendous technological advantage.

Sincerely

Bryan Foertsch

MTC–00006538

From: MikeMayer1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

We are a user and developer of

applications for the MS Windows Operation

Systems (OS). We are concerned that our

business may be damaged by a judgement

that may restrict MS ability to develop state

of the art applications and operation systems

and to price their products competitively.

Any judgement should not be centered

around any damage settlement based on the

consumer because the consumer has not be

injured by MS. The states and the consumers

should not be given any cash. MS has

provided lower cost products that have saved

us and the consumer money. This may not

be appreciated by their competitors, but that

is just tough (this is a free country).

In our opinion, the judgement should

centered around making the MS operating

systems more open so that all developers and

users have an equal opportunity to develop

applications for the MS operation systems

and use their existing applications. Not to

restrict what features or applications MS can

bundle with their operating systems.

Also, the judgement should require MS to

allow users to use and purchase the older MS

operation systems for eternity or at least 10

years. Upgrading to new MS operating

systems should not be required when a new

computer is purchased.

Thank you,

Mike Mayer, President

Sima Engineering, Inc.

MTC–00006540

From: santilli

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:24pm

Subject: Microsoftr settlement hearing 01–

28–02

I agree that Microsoft settlement is good for

states, the industry and the American

economy. Get this settlement done!!!

R.E. Santillie

736 Skyview Rd.

Mount Shasta, CA 96067

530–926–4328

santilli@snowcrest.net

MTC–00006541

From: Alyrpal@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:25pm

Subject: It’s time to stop trying to destroy

Microsoft Co.

Please stop this abusive use of the judicial

system to destroy a free enterprise company.

The states that will not accept the settlement

are not working in the public interest in my

opinion. I ask you as a citizen and computer

user to put an end to this costly and time

consuming process and proceed to new areas

of public monopoly. Thank you for listening

to me on this subject.

Albert S. Greenberg

617 Cliff Drive

Aptos CA. 95003

831–684–2430 Ph.

831–684–2436 Fax

MTC–00006542

From: Nancy Reid

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:25pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I urge Congressional support of the Tunney

Act.

MTC–00006543

From: Lowell Dunn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:00pm

Subject: MSFT settlement.

Dear Sirs;

Thank you for taking the time to read my

opinions and thoughts. Please settle this case

and lets take all the time and the money that

this case has taken from the United States,

the people , the company and go on with our

lives. The terms of the settlement are very

just and fair and in the end there will be good

taken out of this. Microsoft will be watched

and will not be allowed to practice unfair

business practices.

Please do not allow nine states to cost our

government, people and the future any more

time and money. Living in the Northeast

during these trying times there are more

important things in life to worry about.

Thank you,

Kathleen Dunn.

20 Henderson Court

Pompton Lakes, New Jersey 07442

MTC–00006544

From: Robert Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement!!

As a long term citizen and one who is

concerned about the future of my country, I

would like to take this time to congratulate

you in the DOJ for your decision to settle the

subject case. However I would also like to

inform you that based on the technical

understanding of the ‘‘software’’ world, there

should never have been a case in the first

place. Only a Janet Reno under pressure from

the Massachusetts political fascist from that

state would yield to such idiocy. Let this be

a lesson to the slope head people in

Washington that there is nothing to be gained

by picking sides in a technical economic

fight, we are all losers when that occurs.

Sincerely;

Robert E. Smith

1850 Hillyard Drive

Clarkston, WA 99403–3034

MTC–00006545

From: LGALLISON@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I agree that a settlement as soon as possible

is in the best interest for the state’s economy

and the public interest. As one of

Washington State’s recently unemployed, I

can see the economic uncertainty first hand.

The number of jobs, particularly in the high

tech area has shrunken considerably.

I am concerned about my investments, as

well.

Leanne Gallison

lgallison@aol.com

MTC–00006546

From: Onalee@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a business person and US citizen, I feel

the whole idea of Microsoft charged in this

matter is ABSURD—I think that Bill Gates

should stop selling all Microsoft products in

the USA for while and see what happens to

business and industry—I’ll bet a settelement

much better (for Microsoft) would be reached

by the DOJ in a BIG HURRY! Settle this—it

is a huge waste of taxpayers money and

time!!!

Onalee Israel

226a Benes Road

Brooksville, FL 34604

onalee@aol.com

MTC–00006547

From: MCPHERS@Nationwide.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

For years Microsoft has set the standard for

the rest of the technology industry to follow.

Their sustained excellence has created

opportunities for consumers, of all economic

strata, to access and leverage PC technology

as well as the internet. As a result of this

excellence, consumers and American

business have embraced Microsoft products

as the industry standard. It seems the only

factions reluctant to do so are Microsoft’s

direct competitors, as well as legislators

beholden to these special interest groups.

The U.S. Department of Justice has agreed

to a settlement, that, by all accounts, will

further extend technological benefits to

groups that were heretofore somewhat

limited in their ability to access these

benefits. It’s my understanding the settlement

also requires Microsoft release ‘‘trade

secrets’’ to its’ competitors. Still, there are

those who feel that the settlement is

inequitable. My feeling is that those opposed

will not be satisfied until the company is

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24827

broken up. Only under such conditions will

these underperformers be able to compete in

the marketplace and that, of course, is their

ultimate goal, to turn a profit. Since they

can’t do it under the American system of

business, they will try to do so by crying

‘‘foul’’.

Make no mistake, those in support of

extending this action have only their own

self-interests at heart and they are asking

taxpayers to foot the bill for their attempts to

realize these interests. I for one am tired of

it. This ‘‘suit’’ has gone on long enough. The

cost to the parties involved far exceeds any

benefit consumers will ever receive. I urge

you to put an end to these proceedings as

well as this pattern of catering to the lowest

common denominator. Your failure to do so

runs contra to everything our country was

founded on.

The above commentary is personal in

nature and in no way represents the views of

Nationwide Insurance or any of it’s affiliates.

Sincerely,

Scott J. McPherson

MTC–00006548

From: Tom Dunn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Public Comment:

While I do not consider myself any friend

of Microsoft or their predatory business

practices that have often run counter to

consumer interests, I also do not consider

myself an advocate of our increasingly

litigious society. Particularly regarding the

obscenely inflated legal fees that both sides

charge. The consumer is invariably the loser

and the lawyers the hands down winners.

In regard to Microsoft, as this email alleges,

this complex settlement is tough on the

company, but acceptable, and favorable to

Microsoft’s continuing service to their

customers. This seems fair to all concerned.

Especially if the Tunney Act will bring an

end to expensive litigation. My question is

will the settlement involve some sort of

Consent Decree that will permit oversight of

the companies operations over a period of

time? Merely as a form of insurance for

consumer interest. I recently came across a

letter to the editor I wrote several years ago

about Microsoft’s suing a small used

bookstore in this area for selling

unauthorized software. In that letter, I

mentioned seeing originally packaged

software for resale there, which was perfectly

legal. I also mentioned how all previous

versions of a Microsoft mysteriously

disappeared simultaneously from all area

stores. Manufacturer buy back was the only

explanation, probably at a better retailer rate

of return than previous versions would

command. While there may not be anything

technically illegal about such practices, they

certainly favor Microsoft’s bottom line over

public consumer interest. I would like to see

such practices (among others) discouraged by

the settlement with at least as much

vehemence as the company would pursue it’s

interests.

Thank you,

Thomas F. Dunn Jr.

1993 S. Buena Vista Drive

Apache Junction, Arizona 85220–7567

email: tdunnsprint@earthlink.net

(480) 982–5640

MTC–00006549

From: FORETEN@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:28pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am in agreement with Microsoft. It’s time

to settle this lawsuit. It’s starting to look like

the IBM suite that took over ten years.

Michael J. Bonfield

MTC–00006550

From: CJGX@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:27pm

Subject: MSN Settlement

The technology area is changing so quickly

that the original charges are not relevant

today. Drop the case and stop spending our

tax $$$. There is plenty of competition.

Chuck

MTC–00006551

From: Bob (038) Lucy Andre

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

I have been a user of personal computers

since they became popular in the 1980’s.

During this time I have witnessed the

progression of the software from my time in

the Air Force and also from working in the

U.S. Govt.

I have followed the case against Microsoft

since its beginning and feel that the current

settlement is fair to me as a consumer of

software products.

Please settle this case as soon as possible

in order that we can get this behind us for

the consumers good, the good of the industry

and for the good of the United States as a

Country.

Thank You,

Robert B. Andre,

2920 Cedarwood Lane,

Dunkirk Md. 20754

MTC–00006552

From: GREGRUFFA@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:29pm

Subject: MicroSoft Comment

To whom it may concern at the DOJ,

We are small group of users of Microsoft

products for more than 15 years. We have

been reading many recent newspaper

accounts regarding the case against

Microsoft. Although the competition is

purple with rage because they can’t come up

with better products, they are green with

envy at the continued march forward into

technology advancements that Microsoft has

made for the world to use.

Of course, factor of fairness is always

important, but they were not fair when they

hired government officials to pose the

exaggerated charges to block their successes.

While many of those very same companies

benefit from the new markets and innovative

ideas, they want to use the Microsoft ideas

in their markets against them. When they fail,

they cry.

Microsoft has had products and software

stolen, pirated and then slandered. Yes, I

think Microsoft should be given a clean slate

with the warnings regarding their marketing

strategies. Monopoly? I would look closer at

AOL.

Thank You,

Gregory Ruffa

MTC–00006553

From: Steven Groubert

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In the interest of fair play, please allow the

settlement to proceed as agreed.

All the best,

Steven Groubert

MTC–00006554

From: Paul McConnell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I understand that the proposed settlement

of the Microsoft litigation is now in a public

comment period as required by the Tunney

Act. As a taxpayer, I strongly urge you to

settle this absurd lawsuit as soon as possible

and quit wasting the public’s money. In my

opinion, the suit was originally brought as a

political payoff to Microsoft’s competitors. I

use Microsoft products everyday and could

not be near as productive as I am without

them. As a consumer of their products, I

certainly do not feel in any way abused by

their alleged ‘‘predatory practices’’.

The courts should also shut down the

grandstanding state attorney generals that

had to stick their nose into something they

had no business pursuing. Why don’t they

just stick with tobacco litigation and other

forms of legal extortion.

Paul McConnell

(407) 876–7249

Paul@McConnellCompany.com

MTC–00006555

From: Manny Bellmore

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a resident of the State of Maryland

and a US citizen. I depend on computers to

earn a living and run a small business. I am

an interested citizen with respect to the

proposed settlement between Microsoft, the

Department of Justice and several of the

states.

In my opinion, the proposed settlement is

in the best interest of myself and many other

consumers. I am delighted that the State of

Maryland (my home state) is one of the states

that support the proposed settlement.

Thank you for taking public comment into

consideration.

Sincerely,

Mandell Bellmore

3609 Woodvalley Drive

Baltimore, MD 212081733

Phone (410) 486–1092

E-Mail bmb600@home.com

MTC–00006556

From: Norman Pawlan

To: Microsoft ATR

24828 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Date: 1/2/02 3:29pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

We are of the opinion that Microsoft has

offered a satisfactory settlement.

We expressed the same opinion by Email

to the Calif. Attorney General, but he

evidently felt that it was to his POLITICAL

advantage to pursue Microsoft.

We are non professional computer users.

We have received several Microsoft items at

no charge, or postage only, or full rebate.

How bad is that? Monopoly?

I am a volunteer reader/tutor at a poor

school in a tough neighborhood of Los

Angeles. Microsoft’s offer of computers and

equipment to schools such as the one where

I work would be a WONDERFUL tool in

helping these deprived children to ‘‘catch

up’’ with the rest of Los Angeles.

Most of the classrooms have ONE old

computer for 20 to 30 students.

Norman Pawlan

June Pawlan

2222 Avenue of Stars

Los Angeles, CA. 90067–5655

MTC–00006557

From: Kit Welsch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

DOJ,

PLEASE STOP PROSECUTING

MICROSOFT AND START PROSECUTING

THE REAL MONOPOLISTS, OPEC.

WE SHOULD INITIATE THE FORMATION

OF THE ORGANIZATION OF PETROLEUM

IMPORTING STATES (OPIC) TO DENY

GOODS TO OPEC COUNTRIES. THIS

WOULD MAKE A BIGGER DIFFERENCE TO

THE CONSUMER AND THE ECONOMY

THAN PURSUING MICROSOFT.

I CREDIT MICROSOFT FOR MUCH OF

THE BOOM TIMES OF THE 90’S BECAUSE

THEY, MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE,

CAUSED AN OVERALL INCREASE IN

PRODUCTIVITY. OIL PRICE DECLINES

ALSO CONTRIBUTED MUCH TO THE LOW

INFLATION.

THE SAME COULD BE TRUE AGAIN IF

WE COULD BUST UP OPEC, NOT

MICROSOFT. LEAVE THEM ALONE AND

THEY WILL DISCOVER NEW WAYS TO

INCREASE OUR PRODUCTIVITY.

I, FOR ONE, BUY MICROSOFT

PRODUCTS BECAUSE I KNOW THEY WILL

WORK TOGETHER.

PLEASE DON’T BREAK THEM UP SO

THEIR PRODUCTS WILL NO LONGER

WORK TOGETHER.

SINCERELY,

HARRY W. WELSCH, JR.

(KIT WELSCH)

BOX 1820

ANNA MARIA, FL 34216

941–778–5230 VOICE

941–778–7229 FAX

MTC–00006558

From: Bob Deneen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm

Subject: Quit and Fair Settlement

To: US Department of Justice

Re: Microsoft

Date: 1/02/02

This entire case has been a sham and a

black eye on American justice, let alone the

concept of free enterprise. When the courts

attempt to solve business issues between

competitors—without consideration of

consumers—our country is in serious trouble.

I am a computer user since 1980—before

Windows and PCs and before Microsoft

solved the major obstacle to easier and userfriendly operation of personal computers.

IBM was smart to incorporate it as a

universal operating system. Microsoft later

enhanced the value and benefits to users

with Windows—and with Internet Explorer

to mimic Windows. Why would a user not

want these systems to be compatible and

user-friendly?

If the Justice Department finds Microsoft

guilty, will this mean that I can demand that

Ford put a General Motors engine in my next

car? Why can’t I demand different raisins in

my cereal? Yet, with Microsoft, the user

always has the option to remove or change

or ignore features or additions? I don’t

understand your reasoning?

Please explain to the public exactly what

Microsoft did wrong. Other than enrage its

competitors with its arrogant attitude,

consumers have not been harmed. If

arrogance is a crime, when will law suits be

brought against attorneys, judges, and

politicians?

No system has improved or challenged

Windows or Internet Explorer as being better!

Exactly how did Microsoft’s harm

consumers? Answer: Not at all

What prevented competitors from

countering with better solutions? Answer:

Nothing.

How did this evolve? Answer: Political

influence and money.

Why are the state attorneys general making

claims? Answer: Pure greed.

Historians will link this case to the start of

the current recession. The ‘‘terrorism’’ within

our justice system is a greater than any threat

from outside of our nation. The only

settlement that will do our country and

consumers good is to throw this case out of

court.

Sincerely,

Robert N. Deneen

Independent and private citizen,

unaffiliated with any organization.

(I hope it is not now a crime to speak

freely?)

MTC–00006559

From: heroldra@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:32pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I strongly support the proposed settlement

as is. Enough is enough. Too much money

and resources have already been wasted on

this ilconceived effort to stifle true

competition in the marketplace. Litigation

aids only trial attournies and seldom if ever

benefits the buying public.

MTC–00006560

From: Joe Cerrato

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Alright already! Settle this case regarding

Microsoft. Your efforts to prosecute this

company for trying to do what business does,

to wit: make money is getting ridiculous.

Furthermore it has put a damper on the stock

market. As Microsoft goes, so goes the

market.

Joe Cerrato

Texarkana, Texas

MTC–00006561

From: Lewis Stepp

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

2477 Fairgrove Court

Cincinnati, OH 45244

January 2, 2002

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530–0001

Dear Ms. Hesse:

I am writing you to submit comments

about the antitrust settlement against

Microsoft (United States v. Microsoft Corp.,

Civil No. 98–1232) pursuant to the Tunney

Act. I am a retired US citizen and a software

user whose only links with Microsoft are 400

shares of stock in my IRA retirement account.

Before retirement, I was an information

technology consultant for Computer Sciences

Corporation and Spherion Corporation.

I appreciate the excellent operating system

and office software that Microsoft has created

and how their products have contribution to

jobs in the information technology sector and

to increased efficiency throughout the

business sector. Microsoft was not known as

a monopolist when they introduced the

Windows operating system. Indeed, they had

some formidable competitors and they ‘‘bet

the company’’ on development and

marketing of an innovative new operating

system and other office software. They won

the market because they offered ‘‘world

class’’ software at an affordable price with

consumer benefits and features that no one

else matched. For several years, I was a

subscriber to the Microsoft Developer

Network (MSDN) which, as a systems

consultant, provided me with lower cost

software and better training than was

available from any other software vendor.

Microsoft customers and stockholders have

been the beneficiaries of Microsoft’s success.

Microsoft competitors and some of their

customers may have suffered, but that is the

nature of our enterprise system. It is not

something for which Microsoft should now

be punished. Indeed, Microsoft is deserving

of public respect for developing and

providing a low cost ‘‘standard’’ operating

system that has enabled large numbers of

software developers to bring significant

networking and productivity improvements

to our lives and to our economy.

In a recent meeting of the Senate Judicial

Committee, the court rulings were

interpreted to say that Microsoft ‘‘did in fact

violate anti-trust laws and did hurt the

market place’’. It may be true that Microsoft

was an ‘‘overzealous competitor’’ who, in a

very competitive situation, did harm its

competitors to an extent that violated some

laws, but it is obvious to most software users

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24829

that they did not hurt the software market

place. Indeed, Microsoft’s development of an

advanced and broadly accepted PC operating

system brought swift changes to the software

market and grew the market. The

improvements that they brought to PC

operating systems are remarkable compared

to the much less friendly and text oriented

PC operating systems previously introduced

by IBM and others. As a result, almost

everyone today is able to be a computer and

software user.

Based on a misguided interpretation of the

court rulings, a member of the Senate Judicial

Committee stated that Microsoft actions

resulted in the effective destruction of

Netscape and Java. Yet Netscape was sold to

AOL for billions of dollars and Java is still

a popular programming language supported

by many major vendors such as Borland and

Sun. A version of the Netscape browser was

always available for free. In its formation

years, Netscape developed many competitors

who also offered their products for free.

Every operating system eventually included

a free browser. It is reasonable for the court

and public to question if there ever was a

true browser market. The district judge in the

Microsoft case said that there was no

evidence that Java would be successful as an

alternative ‘‘platform’’ to the Windows

operating system. Indeed, time may prove

that Java was a flawed concept. The prophecy

of competitors should not be considered fact.

The Judicial Committee questioned if the

settlement was in the public interest.

Certainly the public wants to see this case

settled. The current district judge asked the

parties to work night and day to reach a

settlement. Mr. James, from the Justice

department, has indicated that the settlement

goes beyond the court rulings to include

other restraints on Microsoft that would not

prevail in a court decision since they were

not considered in the trial. These include

restraints on server operating systems for

which Microsoft does not possess monopoly

power. Only Microsoft competitors, not the

public, want more.

The Justice Department and Microsoft have

reached a fair settlement in this case.

Microsoft needs to move forward and to

continue serving its customers and

stockholders. There is no justification for the

courts to continue to investigate and punish

Microsoft when there are other companies

and market place problems that need greater

attention in our legal system, such as the

Enron debacle.

The court made a wise decision not to

dismantle Microsoft. According to a recent

Wall Street Journal article, the U.S. Postal

Service revenues are more than those of

Microsoft, McDonald’s and Coca Cola

combined. No one wants to dismantle the

U.S. Postal Service simply because it

operates as a monopoly or protects its

monopoly. We need a universal standard

operating system for our computers in much

the same way that we need a universal

standard mail service for our homes and

business. I hope that this case can conclude

without destruction of one of the most

innovative and successful American

companies. We only wish that the US Postal

Service was equally innovative and efficient.

Sincerely,

Lewis Stepp

CC:senator—

dewine_dewine.senate.gov@inetgw

MTC–00006562

From: Bgallusa@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

In my opinion de current basically agreed

settlement is already more harsh than

Microsoft deserves. As a long term Microsoft

customer I think that the computer industry

would have been in a poor shape without

their standardizing and market domination

effort. All de main Microsoft competitors that

lobbyed for this lawsuit had or have in their

marketing strategy as the main goal to

dominate the market. All have failed because

of poor products, greed and poor marketing.

Only Microsoft has delivered a good product

for a rather low price and that’s the main

reason of their succes.

I like to request you to get this bad (for the

development of the IT market) and painful

(the enormous amounts for this legal case

and the waste of time of all involved)

situation resolved and to accept Microsoft’s

settlement.

Sincerely,

Ben Gall

900 Warrior Road

Malvern, PA 19355

tel. 610–889–0244

MTC–00006563

From: doczell@prodigy.net

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 1/2/02 3:32pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To: Department of Justice

Recommend that settlement be concluded

with Microsoft Corp. in accordance with

existing terms. This process has gone on long

enough. Microsoft is one to the premier

companies in the land and should be

congratulated for their achievements rather

that being condemned.It is in the public

interest public interest to settle the litigation

as soon as possible so that American can

keep ‘‘on rolling’’.

MTC–00006564

From: TJohn66242@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm

Subject: Settlemeant

The settlement is fair and prolonging it

only helps trial lawyers and not the

American people or U.S.A.

Sincerely,

John E. Traber

MTC–00006565

From: THIESENTO@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:32pm

Subject: Settlement

Gentlemen,

As a retired teacher I’ve been very

interested in the progress of the trial and I

believe the settlement which has been

reached will benefit all the children of the

United States. I hope that you agree and bring

this trial to a speedy and equitable solution.

Sincerely,

Tom Thiesen

MTC–00006566

From: Glenord77@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a consumer of computers and computer

softwear, I wish to comment on the Microsoft

issue. I have never had any problem

obtaining the computer or softwear that I

wished to purchase. Regardless of brand

name, I have had no problem buying the

products that best serve my purposes in the

computer field.

I suggest to anyone who does have

difficulties in this area to shop around a bit

and he/she will readily find the product

needed to do the best job for them.

I strongly believe that 99.99% of the

alledged problems with Microsoft is

politically and financially motivated rather

than a problem with the marketing of a

product itself. Therefore, in my opinion,

settlement hearing is unnecessary and the

whole case should be dismissed so that

everyone can get back to the business of

making better things for us consumers to buy.

Stop wasting our money and enriching the

lawyer hawks hovering about this issue.

Ed Arnold

2820 Boulder Ave.

Billings Mt 59102

MTC–00006567

From: James Scheil

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm

Subject: Settlement

Please settle the Microsoft case as is and

as soon as possible.

Thank You,

Ken & Charline Scheil

MTC–00006568

From: ELCEL@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm

Subject: (no subject)

I am in favor of Microsoft in the settlement.

Why stand in the way of innovation and

creativity. Other companies have the same

opportunity as Microsoft—why should they

be penalized?

MTC–00006569

From: rketover1@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I belive the settlement currently on the

table is fair and reasonable to all parties.

While no one will walk away ‘‘pain free’’, the

settlement should be accepted by the the

invovled litigants.

Richard Ketover

Boca Raton, FL

MTC–00006570

From: Jim Rejzek

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Setlement

To whom it may concern,

It is time to close this litigation against

Microsoft. The settlement reached appears

24830 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

fair, although I have concerns as to why the

government would even take on Microsoft to

begin with, but that is now another story. The

events of 9 11 should put this case into

perspective as to where our interests (the

peoples) and efforts should lay. Thank you.

J.G.Rejzek

San Antonio

MTC–00006571

From: Bob Ballard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It’s time to stop this constant pounding of

Microsoft. This is my first appeal to the

government to conclude it’s participation in

a troubling national debate about one of the

most successful technologies we Americans

lead the world with Microsoft, IBM and

many other USA companies. I’m a Microsoft

home user after retiring from forty years and

many different companies in the computer

industry. I never worked for Microsoft, but

I’ve been a user of their software in business

and at home for twenty years.

Sure it’s been tough migrating Microsoft

Operating Systems through the years, but it’s

been tough with IBM also. I was with a

computer company which was a direct

competitor of IBM in the 1960’s. After all the

complaining, litigations and negative

national attention IBM came out on top. I

never worked for IBM either, but they

succeeded because they served their

customers well with the best products and

services money can buy and they are still the

world leader. Good for us Americans. As far

as us Microsoft’s customers like me who just

bought a new Dell PC and laptop with

Microsoft’s new XP Home OS preinstalled,

we’re on a ‘‘roll’’ with Microsoft and many

other company products which came with

my new PC purchases. Good for us

Americans again.

Bob Ballard

MTC–00006572

From: Fred Boyd

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern:

I wish to express my support for the

proposed settlement agreement in the

Microsoft case. Prompt resolution of this case

is in the best interest of the consumers of

Microsoft products.

Fred Boyd

MTC–00006573

From: DOWGUY99@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir:

I think the Microsoft suit should be settled

asap. It has gone on long enough. Fine the

company for past actions and lets get this

behind us. The current recession, war, and

mass layoffs are clear indicators that the

government needs to take every action

possible to help get the economy moving

again. A quick settlement would be good for

the economy and the stock market.

CC:upham@us.ibm.com@inetgw

MTC–00006574

From: Mike Fisher

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

Just who has Microsoft harmed? Certainly

not the personal computer using public.

Microsoft is the guiding software operating

system that enabled the affordable personal

computer worldwide to even exist. I believe

the Anti-trust case that was brought by the

Justice Depart- ment during the Clinton

Administration that was influenced by

Microsoft competitors close to Bill Clinton

who was repaying campaign contributors.

And at the same time ‘‘shaking down’’

Microsoft for donations.

This should never happen in the United

States.

Regards,

Mike Fisher

P.O. Box 216395

Sacramento, CA 95821

MTC–00006575

From: Gwd96@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:34pm

Subject: Mirosoft Settlement

I have been asked to voice my opinion on

the above subject.....

I guess I don’t understand why our

government (the DOJ) wants to stick their

nose into a company that is not only one of

the most successful in the history of business

but also a company whose products and

services have changed the world—FOR THE

BETTER!

Why doesn’t the DOJ go out and locate all

the drug dealers, murderers and other

criminals in the US and stay out of the way

of innovative companies like Mircosoft!

MTC–00006576

From: jim pauline

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 2:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Come on, enough is enough. The states

think they can get another win fall like they

did with tabaco, but let’s face it, mMicrosoft

has done more for the economy in the last

10 years than any other american company.

Let’s get the settlement over.

Thank You,

jim pauline

MTC–00006577

From: joseph bria

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:34pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Enough is Enough. I dont believe the

Market would have held up the way it did

if it not were for Microsolf. This settlement

is more then fair and should be settled as

soon as possible.

MTC–00006578

From: Turnbull

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle this case! Further legal battles

are helping only the attorneys and doing

nothing for the consumer and costing the

taxpayers money. SETTLE!!!

D. L. Turnbull

MTC–00006579

From: Don (038) Mary Felice

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a recently retired Software Engineer

who has been in the computer industry since

1960. I am amazed at the fact that the

government has continued with this suit

against Microsoft. MS has not harmed users.

Competitors have a problem with MS

because they have not built ‘‘a better

mousetrap’’. MS has introduced standards

that make the user’s life so much easier. Does

anyone remember how difficult it was to

install a product pre MS? MS came from

behind with a Word Processor and then made

better innovations so that they outstripped

WordPerfect just as WordPerfect had

outstripped Word Star previously. This is the

American way. MS did not have the first

Internet Browser but they built a better

product. Why are they being penalized for

that? Can you even begin to calculate how

the economy has advanced because of MS?

Can you even begin to calculate how many

new jobs there in the entire computer

industry because of MS. Would there be such

a proliferation of PCs in homes and offices

if MS had not been in the game.

The government’s job is to protect

consumers not competitors. Let Sun, AOL

and they rest of them make a better product.

Then they will not have to worry about MS.

It should not be the government’s job to help

the competition.

Mary Felice

mrif44@peganet.com

MTC–00006580

From: WendReil@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wish to express my belief that the Justice

Department should allow Microsoft to

proceed with the settlement as currently

arranged. Capitalism depends upon the

government intervening as little as possible

in the affairs of American business, it needs

to protect workers, the environment and our

nation. These are not the issues with the

settlement. The settlement should proceed.

American businesses should be encouraged

to innovate.

I have no affiliation to Microsoft.

Thank you,

Wendy Reilly

wendreil@aol.com

MTC–00006581

From: Sean Butler-Lee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear sir/madam,

I’m contacting you to express my opinion

on the proposed settlement relating to the

ongoing antitrust case against Microsoft.

I feel that the proposed settlement is both

fair and just, and allows Microsoft to

continue to drive the computing market

forward into new technologies without

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24831

restricting OEM partners and suchlike to

limiting and excessive licensing contracts. It

also allows third-party developers the

opportunity to create products with extensive

interaction with the Windows operating

system and the functionality of said, without

having to work out for themselves the

complex and confusing code structures of the

protocols and standards employed by

Windows. It also avoids forcing Microsoft

into a situation where they are no longer able

to develop products which integrate fully

with Windows by giving the end user full

control over what they install, together with

allowing the end user to disable any

functionality which they find unnecessary or

excessive.

In all, I feel this settlement is fair to both

parties concerned.

Yours faithfully,

Sean Butler-Lee

MTC–00006582

From: Ed Hepner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:37pm

Subject: Microsoft dragging on litigation

Please wind up this misidrected anti-trust

lawsuit against Microsoft. The consumer has

benefitted from Microsoft Innovation through

lower prices and greater choices. I am one of

them.

Ed Hepner,

Newport Beach, California

MTC–00006583

From: CAROL J. TODD

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Troubles

Just get over it. Let Microsoft alone. The

government has greater worries now.

Carol Todd

cjtodd@juno.com

MTC–00006584

From: Michel Laureano

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Yo he cre?do en la tecnolog?a de Microsoft,

sus productos me han brindado trabajo,

conocimientos, superaci?n profesional y

personal; A mi familia y a mi sociedad le

hacen falta compa??as como Microsoft, en

todo el mundo es un ejemplo de alta calidad.

A nuestras escuelas, estudiantes y

empresas las ha apoyado.

Es el momento de apoyar y ayudar para

que Microsoft Corporation sea la Compa??a

de todos en el mundo entero.

Si otras compa??as siguen el ejemplo de mi

familia y mi sociedad que son apoyados por

las tecnolog?as de Microsoft Corporation,

entonces tendremos un mundo diferente e

inteligente.

Gracias.

Atentamente,

Michel Hamlet Laureano Luna

Ciudad de Mı ̆≤xico, Mı ̆≤xico.

Tel. 52763819

MTC–00006585

From: Jack Ray

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen and Ladies of Congress.

Enough is enough is enough.

The settlement that has been rendered

between all parties, except for a few states,

is fair and reasonable.

When the Justice Department got the

Judicial System to impose penalties on

Microsoft, it commenced the recession that

the country is now experiencing. It provided

and changed the ‘‘wheels of justice’’ to what

has become a ‘‘vindictive wheel of

destruction’’. This event coupled with the

simultaneous actions of Mr. Greenspan

raising the economies interest rates at the

same time to head off an ‘‘Imaginary Inflation

Rate’’. He said he was doing this so the

country’s economy will come in for a ‘‘So

Called Soft Landing’’, however created the

‘‘window of destruction’’ for the economy,

jobs for people, and havoc among Americans

whose life savings disappeared and

industries laying off hundreds of thousands

of people.

What a Christmas present the American

People got as the country moved into the

CY2000, still continued into CY 2001, and it

is still upon us in CY 2002. Partisan elected

people of Congress are not affected but the

lower and middle class of Americans are

suffering while you are bickering. I

recommend the punishment stop against

Microsoft and be initiated against the oil

companies who manage to control

monopolize and control gas and diesel prices

at the pumps every time a middle eastern

country burps.

Now that is Monopolistic. Settle this case

and let us get the country back on the road

of innovation Freedom without corruption.

The American People can make their choice

at the ballot box or at the Cash Registers. Get

people back to work or the economy is going

to ‘‘tank’’.

Jack Ray

hawkmsl@earthlink.net

Huntsville Alabama

MTC–00006586

From: Michael Shaw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it may concern:

When one hears politicians speak of

’public interest’ one wonders whether or not

we are speaking of the same ‘public.’ It seems

that some regard the only public as those

who reside in the government supplied

housing within the beltways. Another view is

that the ‘interest’ means the money paid on

principal...or in the case of many in

Congress, the money paid for ‘principle.’

Regardless, the continued barrage of

litigation directed toward Microsoft is an

affront to me and anyone who has really

thought this issue through. Microsoft has

done more to propel the economy of the USA

than any company in history. The fact that

Mr. Gate, et al, have built a better mousetrap

and that the PEOPLE of the USA buy their

product as opposed to other products, is part

of what we like to think is the ‘Free

Enterprise System.’

Please stop spending our tax dollars on a

process penalizing a company for excellence

and achievement.

By the way, I don’t own any stock in

Microsoft, I am not employed by Microsoft,

nor have I ever received any monetary benefit

from Microsoft. But like millions of people

Worldwide, I have benefited from their

products immeasurably and I am grateful for

their continued dedication on the cutting

edge of our collective futures. Keep up the

great work Microsoft.

Respectfully

Michael Shaw

mshaw6@gte.net

MTC–00006587

From: Sandi Boston

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:37pm

Subject: Settle with Microsoft

Please settle with Microsoft so we have no

more litigation. I think the economy has been

hurt enough by the DOJ’s suit against

Microsoft. Enough is enough....

Sandra M. Boston

A registered voter from Ohio

MTC–00006588

From: Buecheler, Eric

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 3:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough is enough....Get on with the

settlement—the last thing we at this time in

our country’s history is to prolong this case

any longer. Get it over with and start focusing

on all the other problems this country has

since Sept 11.

Thank you

Eric Buecheler

Navigation Technologies

408–617–5059

MTC–00006589

From: JWongCCIM@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir:

The proposed settlement with Microsoft is

fair and should be accepted. It is time for

America and the software-tech industry to get

back to business.

Thank you.

Jason Wong, CCIM

Crestline Properties, L.C.

3441 E. Speedway Blvd.

Tucson, AZ 85716

520–326–3151 Telephone

520–795–3411 Fax

MTC–00006590

From: Cole Rowland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:38pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I urge you approve the proposed settlement

of the Microsoft case. I am an individual who

uses Microsoft products and while they

occasionally have a bug, I think that the

company does a fine job. In this very

uncertain economic time, it is very important

to settle this case and allow one of the few

strong companies in the computer industry to

get on with its business.

Cole Rowland

711 Mariner

Austin, TX 78734

24832 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00006591

From: Earl Faylor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my very strong opinion that the

Microsoft case has had very little to do with

the consumer. The consumer has enjoyed the

wonderful accomplishments and innovations

from Microsoft, and the computing world

owes this company a great deal of thanks and

praise. I want this to be settled now; I want

this to end now; I want Microsoft to be free

to continue developing all of its products

because it is a great benefit to me, the

consumer. I have not been harmed; I have

benefitted greatly. Microsoft’s competitors

are the problem. They have cried and whined

to every politician that would listen, and it

is time for that to stop. Please leave this

amazing company alone. Yes, place your

curbs and restrictions on them, and then let

them do what they do best. Get them out of

court and back into the laboratory of research

and development.

Competitors may have been harmed

because they lost the competition for certain

products. That is the nature of competition.

Some win and some lose. The consumer has

not been hurt by Microsoft; the consumer has

been hurt by the anti-trust proceedings. Stop,

stop, stop. I want to think about computing

and the next steps that Microsoft will lead us

to take for the best interests of computing. I

do not want to think about the next sour

grapes complaint by the competition. The

sour grapes is because Microsoft is better at

competing and producing great products.

This is not to be regulated by the

government. This is regulated by me the

consumer that buys the better products. This

is the regulation that governs business, and

it works if everyone simply continues

competing. I have been buying the better

products, and that is what I will keep doing.

I am the consumer, and I have not been hurt.

Let me repeat this one final time: I am the

consumer and I have not been hurt.

Yours truly,

Earl Faylor

4604 South 170th Street

SeaTac, WA 98188

206–248–8870

MTC–00006592

From: Paul Fieberg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please stop wasting our money and your

credibility by continuing to attack a

profitable company that provides jobs, useful

technology and makes a meaningful

difference in the way we live. Haven’t you

been listening to what the people want?

Move on to the important things, please.

Continued Success,

Paul H. Fieberg

MTC–00006593

From: MOLITUO@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ:

I want to say so much, perhaps too much!

Instead I shall offer a number of sentences,

keeping them as brief as possible:

(1) As a consumer, I want all

manufacturers of the products I purchase to

enjoy the freedom to make those products

better for me, without the jeopardy of Big

Brother Interference!

(2) As a reader of multiple articles on this

endless government harassment of Microsoft,

I have concluded simply that a number of

companies [all of whom share some specific

monopolistic piece of the pie] turned to

Government Officials to hamper and hammer

Microsoft when this cadre of companies

decided they could not defeat Microsoft in a

marketplace controlled by the long-standing

principles of the American Economic

System! Like a child who decides not to slug

it out with his nasty classmate; but to go

home to summon his ‘‘big’’ brother to do the

fighting for him!

(3) As a past student of some psychology

courses, I think that Jealousy has had too

much to do with this legal pursuit of a

premier company. The multibillionaires in

control of the ‘‘offended corporations’’ are

envious of the astounding success of the

richest! Even the Federal and State

Governments fall prey to the venom of

jealousy seeing what a well-organized and

truly innovative Corporation can achieve;

while these governmental entities prove

largely feckless to their tasks and reckless

with taxpayers’ money in the process!

(4) In view of Judge Jackson’s relentless

pursuit of Microsoft and his self-declared

antagonism for its officers, it bedazzles me

that the Court of Appeals would uphold his

Findings as unprejudiced and valid! The fact

that he may have declared his belligerence

toward Microsoft only subsequent to Court

Proceedings cannot distract a thoughtful

individual from the fact that those belligerent

statements revealed his mindset and opinion

throughout the entire course of this legal

saga!

(5) By upholding the Jackson Findings, the

Court of Appeals covered the ‘‘behind’’ of the

Judiciary System; but, in its attempt to

protect the Honor of that System, it failed to

do true Justice! Could the Judges not see -or

did they see but pretend not to see- that

hostile statements made by Judges against

Principals in their Courts display for the

world not a ‘‘new prejudice’’ against a

defendant just now judged to be guilty?

Simple chronology cannot be invoked to

defend a long-standing, vindictive attitude

and mindset that dishonor the very Judiciary

System the Court of Appeals tried so hard to

protect. Despite obvious partiality on the part

of the Trial Judge -obvious at least to

ordinary laypeople—virtually all his

condemnatory Findings were upheld!

(6) The slap on Judge Jackson’s hand did

not achieve Justice! The Jackson Findings

were mortally flawed through and through by

the prejudices of a judge who is paid to be

unprejudiced! The rejection of a split-up of

Microsoft as a remedy was too obvious,

really, even to have taken up the Appeal

Court’s time! Judge Jackson had wrongly

escalated his proceedings far beyond the

scope of the suit itself. As a matter of fact,

the essence of the case against Microsoft, ie.

the bundling, was found by the Court of

Appeals in Microsoft’s favor! How can a man

accused of murder be declared guilty of

murder if he is shown to be an adulterer?

How can a company accused of illegal

bundling -and the finding of illegal bundling

is subsequently overruled- be required to pay

damages because it had bad business

manners?

(7) We are faced now with a New World

of Commerce! Competition is no longer

valued as the arbiter of corporate success or

failure. Now Government and the Judiciary

are to be given carte-blanche to police and to

punish those corporations that have the

temerity to be TOO SUCCESSFUL FOR

THEIR COMPETITORS’ LIKING!

Thank you.

Nicholas S. Molinari

31 Whitman Street

Brick, NJ 08724–2448

732–458–8485

molituo@aol.com

MTC–00006594

From: jpagency

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough is enough, accept the settlement

and let us all get along with our jobs and

businesses. Frankly, without Microsoft we

could not run our business.

Thank you.

Joel Polin

MTC–00006595

From: AndyLolos1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:40pm

Subject: (no subject)

I think that the settlement is more than

enough, when really no harm was done to the

consumers.

Andy Lolos

MTC–00006596

From: Pat Huber

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:38pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

i believe we should resolve this debate by

accepting this settlement and moving

forward. too many people, including political

leaders, are spending way too much time

rehashing these issues. let’s mvoe forward,

and start trying to resolve more important

issues, such as tax reduction stimulus

package, finding bin laden and friends, and

reviving the economy.

sincerely,

pat huber

MTC–00006597

From: GSta227586@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle case now and stop the wasting of any

more money....

Gordon Stanley

MTC–00006598

From: TERRY READER

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:43pm

Subject: Stop the Lawyer’s extortion Salary

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24833

DOJ,

It’ time to put the Microsoft suit to bed.

This is another one of the ‘‘ make Lawyers

rich schemes’’ with no real justification for

punishing a solid company that produces a

product that people want and competitors are

not able to compete with technically or in the

open market. Call a halt to this stupid suit.

Save me money, I’m tired of seeing my hard

earned tax money going to some greedy

lawyer.

Charles T. Reader, Jr.

Scottsdale, Arizona

480–951–3267

MTC–00006599

From: SuKramer@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel that it is vital that the Microsoft

settlement is in the public interest and

continued litigation is not only extravagant

but only in the interest in some competitors.

Microsoft has been instrumental in leading

the world into the future. Let them continue

to lead us there.

Delores S. Kramer

MTC–00006600

From: melvin johnson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:43pm

Subject: settlement

i think the settlement is fine. keep the gov.

out of company affairs.

thank you

melvin

MTC–00006601

From: Mandy Aguilar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

To whom it may concern:

I’m for the settlement.

Thanks,

Armando Aguilar

MTC–00006602

From: HalTwotubbs@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:43pm

Subject: microsoftsettlement

let them alone. msft has done more to

simplify doing business on the pc than any

other tech co. could ever dream possible. A

lot of sore losermen here just looking to gore

people to perhaps make the cliton adm. look

like they did something worthwhile. damn i

think i mispelled clinton. o well

MTC–00006603

From: Jim (038) Diana Brager

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ:

The time has come to end the case against

Microsoft. I have been using Microsoft

products for years now, and for the life of me,

I can not see one single area where I, as a

consumer, have been injured by the practices

undertaken by Microsoft over the many

years. Your suit leaders say I have been, but

you are WRONG! Microsoft has met the

needs I have had when it comes to all of their

products. From games to business software

products.

Further more, it is so obvious that the

national economy went into the tank at the

exact time the DOJ undertook the case against

Microsoft, on behalf of Microsoft’s

competitors. This economy must be allowed

to go forward, and DOJ’s repeated attempts to

harm Microsoft must end.

DOJ’s Clinton era antics of helping AOL, et

al, should have ended when Clinton left

office. Cease the case and let’s get back to

allowing the American people get back to

what’s important .... moving forward!

James Brager

6502 W Wahalla Ln

Glendale, AZ 85308

MTC–00006604

From: GStier@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ:

I would like you to settle this lawsuit now.

NO MORE ONGOING LITIGATION. Lets

move on.

Gary S

MTC–00006605

From: TREAGE1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I support the settlement reached between

the Fed. Government and Microsoft. We

should not be subject to a group of

competitors who haven’t been able to come

up with a better operating system, or we’d be

using it. Tearing down the strong for

improvement of the weak is not the right

direction.

At the same time I support the settlement,

I don’t want to be denied the use of a

superior software product to that of

Microsoft. If that means a ruling, or law,

requiring openness by Microsoft to their

codes, so be it. If Microsoft, at some future

date, has violated this openness, that is the

time to put their feet to the fire, by order,

after hearings and findings that don’t drag

out forever. We need to have the greatest

flexibility in using our computers to enhance

communications and knowledge.

Thomas R. Eggert

MTC–00006606

From: JHill47733@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:45pm

Subject: (no subject)

Please settle the Microsoft case now as

agreed to. Thanks for your attention to this.

Jack Hill

phone 262–827–0206.

MTC–00006607

From: JCWJHW@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Justice Dept.,

This litigation with you and Microsoft has

gone a way too long and it’s time to settle and

move on as our country suffers economically.

You cannot allow a few GREEDY companies

and some states to drag this case only to

benefit them. I believe the settlement for

Microsoft to help with our kids education is

the best option. Please settle this and move

on. I am tired of hearing this case and paying

my tax dollars for it. Our country needs to

move on!

Sincerely,

Joy Ward

MTC–00006608

From: Ntreonis@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:45pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

A final settlement and putting and end to

the ongoing litigation should be done as soon

as possible................

Nathalie Treonis

MTC–00006609

From: bleak

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:45pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Ok, enough is enough. I am retired off of

MSFT stock not gvt. welfare. Lets get this

state and federal suit over with. Look at what

this has done to the economy.

Robert L. Bleakley

MTC–00006610

From: FAN1957

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:44pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am sending this email to voice my

opinion concerning the lawsuit against the

Microsoft company. I think that is high time

that this suit be settled in a fair way.

Certainly our Justice Dept and all the states

which are climbing aboard this frivols

lawsuit have a better way of spending their

time. This is costing our Country way too

much of the taxpayers money and should

have been settled many months ago. Stop

wasting more and more of my tax dollars.

There are certainly more deserving criminals

out there where you should be spending

more of your time.

MTC–00006611

From: Ed Lehan

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 3:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Department of Justice,

I feel that it is important to get the

Microsoft litigation behind us here in the

USA. I for one want the proposed settlement

to be accepted so that progress will not be

stymied any longer. It is in our best interest

to begin focusing on growth and not on the

interests of a small group in penalizing

success.

Thank you for your consideration of my

opinion.

Sincerely,

Ed

Edward A. Lehan, Jr., CLU, ChFC

Executive Vice President and Profit Center

Manager

Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc.

Tel. No. 860 665 8402

Fax. No. 860 667 6560

E-mail elehan@bbhartford.com

24834 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00006612

From: Galehnhard@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:45pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I am in total agreement with the Microsoft

Settlement I feel it is now time to accept

things as they are and get down to business.

Enough of the courts, lawyers and arguments.

George Lehnhard

galehnhard@aol.com

MTC–00006613

From: VETTE8693@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:45pm

Subject: Microsoft

Dear Sir’s;

If it hadn’t been for microsoft I wouldn’t

be a computer user.

John C. Meskimen

2221 University St.

Gautier Miss 39 39553

MTC–00006614

From: Paul W. Ogle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:46pm

Subject: Proposed Settlement

I wish to comment on the proposed

Microsoft Settlement.

I have been involved in computer

technology all my adult life. I wrote my first

computer program in 1963, and subsequently

started two successful computer ‘‘OEM’’

companies. Now I am retired, but I still

maintain daily interest in the industry.

I believe strongly that the proposed

settlement should be adopted by the court. It

is a fair, balanced and forward-looking

solution to the myriad of issues that have

been explored by the lawsuits. Further, it

seems clear to me that those who seek to

obstruct this settlement have competitive or

other special interests that drive their

actions, and they do not, at all, seek the

broad best interest.

The parties have agreed. I urge the Court

to accept their agreement.

Sincerely,

Paul Ogle

13445 South Baird Road,

Conifer, CO 80433

MTC–00006615

From: Curtis E. Granberry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to settle this dispute and quit

feeding the trial attorneys. Accept this

settlement and get on with more important

business.

MTC–00006616

From: Shiaw Su

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a taxpayer and citizen, I want to express

my strongest displeasure and disappointment

of State government effort in trying to destroy

the MOST SUCCESSFUL company in the

world. Microsoft is the envy of the high-tech

industry, especially in the software area,

worldwide. The existence of Microsoft in the

last 26 years is the reason that USA is able

to maintain its superior competitive age in

the high-tech industry of world market.

In any country, a company like Microsoft

would be treated as national symbol that

every citizen can be proud of. According to

the public polls, majority of citizens like me,

opposes the government action which is

abusing the public trust and wasting the

taxpayer money. I am very disturbed and

puzzled by the actions taken by some State

Attorney Generals. The only conclusion I can

make is either those Attorney Generals are

very naive and don’t understand the latest

fast-moving new technology at all, or they are

simply pursuing a political solution for

special interest groups. However, they should

be reminded that their actions may be

AGAINST OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS and

only benefiting the special interest groups.

Please also pay a special attention to any

potentially adverse impact to our overall

national economy if their ill-advised plans

are ever taken place. Thanks for your

listening.

Sincerely yours,

Shiaw Y. Su

MTC–00006617

From: Mark Dale

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:46pm

Subject: Re: Microsoft Litigation

To whom it may concern:

Leave Microsoft intact. The present

economic conditions do not merit discipline

at this time.

Warm Regards,

Mark

MTC–00006618

From: Dave Conger

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 3:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to voice my support for the

decision to settle the Microsoft anti-trust

case. To litigate the issue further, in my

opinion, only benefits Microsoft’s

competitors...not the public as a whole.

Further litigation will only add to the

economic uncertainty of the technology

sector and please the leadership of the

companies that are lobbying so aggressively

against the Microsoft settlement.

I have been amazed at the power that

Microsoft’s competitors seem to have over

the state Attorney’s General. I honestly

believe this has been an abuse of our legal

system by these companies that are simply

trying to get a competitive edge over

Microsoft. As a member of the information

technology profession, I feel I have some

credibility on the subject. While Microsoft

certainly has some quirks and problems with

some of their products, they have still done

more for the growth of technology in our

country than any other company, without

question. The tools they provide to

professionals like myself, for a fraction of the

cost that is demanded by their competitors,

help professionals to move their employers

forward technologically. Microsoft provides

many resources, tools, and libraries of

technical information for free or at a minimal

cost. For example, their database and email

servers are priced lower than the

competition, and under most circumstances

outperform the competition’s products.

Microsoft has succeeded because they

provide good products at prices the public

can afford.

Please don’t listen to the relentless efforts

of Microsoft’s competition to prolong

litigation on the anti-trust case. They are

simply out to destroy Microsoft to benefit

themselves financially. If the DOJ wants to

protect consumers, focus on correcting any

wrongs Microsoft has made, and let the free

market (not the court room) determine which

company has the best products.

Regards,

Dave Conger

13720 117th Ave NE

Kirkland, WA 98034

425–821–3250

MTC–00006619

From: George C. Tunis III

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:47pm

Subject: Microsoft case

This email is to communicate my opinion

on the Microsoft case. I am a small business

owner that, simply put, could not exist

without the products Microsoft makes. I love

the fact that the products are well integrated

and all work together. I don’t have a systems

department, so I rely on the seamless

integration of the Microsoft products to get

me through.

I was appalled by the governments action

to try to break up Microsoft. The products are

great and getting better, and they work. For

what you get, the idea that somehow you

could get more for less is ridiculous. I buy

plenty of non Microsoft software and what I

have found is that the average price of a

‘‘function’’ is about $149. If you broke up

Microsoft, and then made me buy all the

functionality from other vendors....my cost

would be like $2000 as compared to the low

price for the integrated products from

Microsoft. From my view point, all the

government has done is to try to reduce what

I get from Microsoft....which only hurts me.

Please just leave well enough alone. Our

nation needs to pull together, stop the stupid

bickering and get on with business. Please

settle the case ASAP and get to more

important matters. From My perspective

Microsoft is doing a great job at a fair

price....believe me when I feel ‘‘harmed’’ I

will let you know.

George C. Tunis III

Tunis Works, LLC

5711 Waterside dr.

Berlin, MD 21811

voice (410) 641 1601

fax (410) 641 1983

tunisworks@msn.com

MTC–00006620

From: BUZZ WHITTLE

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:47pm

Subject: Leave this alone.

Competition has removed the need for any

more action against Microsoft. Everyone

should get over it and move on. Any move

at this time to ‘‘change the world’’ will only

cause problems in the computer world. I

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24835

cannot imagine the world without a complete

Microsoft

MTC–00006621

From: Lynn Lockler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am in favor of the proposed settlement.

I also believe the remaining stated should

accept the settlement agreed to by the US

Department of Justice and the other states.

L. S. Lockler

4729 Redstart

Houston, TX 77035

MTC–00006622

From: John Dominick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:48pm

Subject: settlement

Settle this matter and let the economy start

moving forward again.

MTC–00006623

From: Yosh Shimono

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom this may concern:

This is stupid! At a time when the nation

has suffered the worst homeland attack of its

existence; when the economy has seen the

largest monetary decline in history; and

when ALL Americans, including corporate

America, should be thinking of how they can

contribute to the mediation of this crisis; we

find only the individual ‘‘small citizen’’

actually doing something positive in that

regard. Corporate America, local government,

including those who run them, and those

who owe their wealth to the ‘‘small citizen’’,

are thinking only of how to benefit

themselves from this crisis regardless of the

cost to the common citizenry. One such

mercenary scavenging crime is in regards to

the Microsoft Settlement. Let the settlement

stand! Let us go forward with all diligence

and put all our energies on recovery, and

prove to the world that we are not the Great

Ogre that seems to be the consensus in third

world nations, but rather the best nation that

humanity has ever produced!

Yosh Shimono

Small citizen

MTC–00006624

From: Avers, Christine E.

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 3:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Enough is enough! I want to see this over

with. Microsoft has been a positive force not

only in our economy but also in innovation

and exploitation of computer usage and the

internet. The company has given much to it’s

employees and this country. Let’s not destroy

that! Let’s not destroy the potential for better

things to come as a result of the settlement.

Chris Avers

Supply Planning Manager

Specialty Panels

(770) 221–2568

ceavers@gapac.com

MTC–00006625

From: HDubrow@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:49pm

Subject: States not agreeing with settlement

Don’t like the result? Sue again. This seems

to be the attitude of the states not willing to

go along with the settlement accepted by the

DOJ and the remainder of the states. I suspect

that most of the public is just tired of hearing

about this lawsuit and the way it has

progressed. Let it be over and have microsoft

contribute to the education of children in the

computer age as agreed.

MTC–00006626

From: Doug Brown

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This has gone on long enough! Please get

this settled for once and for all. It is time for

all of us to get on with the rest of our lives.

I believe that the agreed upon settlement is

fair and just and should be implemented

ASAP.

MTC–00006627

From: GEORGE PORZUC

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement comment

To whom it may concern,

The settlement with Microsoft is in the

public interest. The American economy

needs this settlement. (It should not have

been brought in the first place) We do not

need more litigation. This would only stifles

innovation.

Please don???t let special interests defeat

the public interest.

Sincerely,

George Porzuc

5951 Price Road

Milford, Ohio 45150

CC:MSFIN@Microsoft.com@inetgw

MTC–00006628

From: Doug Brown

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle it now! Lest get on with the rest of

our lives.

MTC–00006629

From: John Fris

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My comments regarding the Microsoft

settlement go against having had to settle

anything to begin with. I still feel that this

whole case was put forward by unhappy

competitors who should have put their time

and effort into coming out with new and

improved products. If anyone looks at

Microsoft’s track record of innovation, it is

hard to believe that there could be many

gripes about pricing or unfair competition. In

my business and virtually all others,

innovation and pricing are what put

companies on top. To limit this natural

occurance would make no sense. Please don’t

give in to unhappy competitors in this or any

other case and stop the American free

enterprise system. Thank you.

John Fris

Fris Office Outfitters, Inc.

616–396–2341

MTC–00006630

From: Carnes Chapin P GS-13 AFOTEC/TSS

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 3:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle the case now. Stop listening to the

competitors who are unable to win in the

market place and therefore want the

government to protect them. No marketplace

is as open as the software marketplace—as

witnessed by the fact that the consumer is

paying less every year for products that

continually improve. Only a bureaucrat who

has no concept of how business works would

believe that Microsoft has a monopoly in the

software marketplace.

Patrick Carnes

Software Consumer

MTC–00006631

From: BDAYCPA@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Justice Department,

I highly recomend that you settle the

Microsoft case as was propsed several

months ago.

As the economy has changed, the

technology field evolves, palm pilots and

digital phones prices are very alluring, there

is ample competititors to Palm Pilot.

Look no further than what happened to the

Office Depot & Staples merger that the

government said would reduce competition.

Office Depot is only a portion of it’s old self,

Office Max is teetering on bankruptcy, and

the market value of all three have decreased

by billions of dollars!

Let the market determine who they prefer.

Please quickly settle this matter and let’s

move on.

Sincerely

Brian Day

MTC–00006632

From: wimlang

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle the case as planned and do

not allow AOL, Sun Microsystems and

Oracle to throw up more dust. Fair is fair.

W.G Langenberg.

MTC–00006633

From: lekasper@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Thank you for fielding feedback on the

unfortunate MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

matter.

The contribution alone achieving the

computerized advancements made possible

by MSFT is self explanatory. We have better

and quicker access to accomplishments from

the performance this technology makes

possible. Where is MSFT competition coming

from when they try to stifle the industry that

nurtured their existence? The cliche, ‘‘one

hand washes the other and they both wash

the face’’, is an understandable example of

cooperative team-work led by a leader that

has proven, continuous progress and

24836 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

profitable accomplishments. The world has

benefitted from the more advanced society

that computerization has brought about. Why

is competition interfereing with lawsuits, and

costs that will slow future progress. The

future volume cost benefits that will reduce

prices for increased availability is the

American Way.

Whining and crying is not the answer.

When the going gets tough, persistence

toward improvement should be applied to try

to catch up with the leader. That’s what

competition is, the motivator to offer a better

mouse trap.

This greed, envy or ego should be put away

because it has already gone too far. This is

a race which encourages the leader to try

harder, and, should also encourage the lesser

to work harder and smarter. Who else has

made the investment MSFT continues to

plow back into the industry? Please bring this

interruption to a halt by settling the batteling

waste of time and expense. It is long overdue this settlement be finalized and buried.

Thank you and good luck in bringing

MTC–00006634

From: Brad Newell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm

Subject: settlement

Let’s get on with life. Let the market place

take care of itself. Seems to me that the big

crunch in hi-tech started with the assinine

assault by the US government on Microsoft.

How much damage has been done to the

various retirement funds in the country?

Enough!!

Brad Newell

141 Jackson Lane

Port Ludlow, WA 98365

(360) 437–9151

wendigo@olympus.net

MTC–00006635

From: smouse

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:53pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

I believe that the settlement is fair and just

and that there should not be any further

litigation. Leave Microsoft alone and let the

company and the industry get on with its

business.

Sincerely,

Sandy Adler

Safram Sphynx

www.bestweb.net/smouse

MTC–00006636

From: Adda Gogoris

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm

Subject: (no subject)

pls let the settlement stand and let’s go on

with things that matter like killing America’s

enemies.

MTC–00006637

From: ALFAZUBER

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

THIS WAS A REASONABLE

COMPROMISE.THE MARKET SHOULD

HANDLE THEIR OPPRESSIVE TACTICS.

THE COMPETITORS SHOULD BE ABLE TO

FIGHT THIS OUT WITHOUT THE

GOVERNMENT HOLDING THEIR HANDS.

WF ZUBER M.D.

MTC–00006638

From: W A Fahrbach

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To me, the settlement appears fair and just.

In todays technical environment why should

the courts crush a leader?

William A. Fahrbach

P.O. Box 128

Troutville, VA 24175

MTC–00006639

From: Robert Holladay

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT STOP

CATERING TO MICROSOFT’S

COMPETITORS AND GET THIS CASE

SETTLED !!!!!

DR. BOB HOLLADAY

NAPLES, FL 34108

MTC–00006640

From: HARRY A DINGWALL

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We feel that it is in the best interests of

both our country and its economy for all

parties involved to accept the terms which

have been agreed upon by the majority of the

complainants.

Donna E. and Harry A. Dingwall, D.V.M.

MTC–00006641

From: Pat Monahan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:53pm

Subject: Micrtosoft Settlement

I am not a Microsoft supporter but I find

it utterly ridiculous that this case has gone

on and on and on. Just when I think the DOJ

already judged on the subject another month

or years is added to the case. It seems to me

that the Microsoft competitors are

complaining the loudest and expect the

government to help them out when they

should be out there competing. The sooner

this case is closed the better off we and the

econmy will be. You must see that the

competitors of MIcrosoft are trying to

discredit your decesion. Don’t let them do it.

If you alter your decision, what will the

american public think of the judicial system?

If I were MIcrosoft, I’d move to Canada or

some other country. They would more than

welcome me.

MTC–00006643

From: SACKFAMILY@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I strongly support the settlement reached

between the Justice Department and

Microsort. It seems fair and allows both

parties to get on to other more pressing

business.The states that have not agreed with

this settlement have very narrow vested

interests and are motivated by interests other

then fair play.Every time I see Attorney

General Blumenthal I think he needs to be

investigated for his interests in this matter.

Do the right thing for this economy and move

on.

MTC–00006644

From: MReese6232@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

We find the terms of the settlement

announced by the US Government and

Microsoft to be just and fair. Whatever unjust

policies were perpetuated by Microsoft in the

past are well addressed in the settlement so

as not to be repeated. We feel any further

judicial proceedings against Microsoft will

only cost the public as a whole in the long

run.

Sincerely,

Mark and Barbara Reese

MTC–00006645

From: Robert Lee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle this now as agreed to by Microsoft

and DOJ. The hell with the individual states

injecting their own agenda to drag this out.

I’m still convinced that the public did not

benefit in this anti trust case; just a bunch of

lawyers screwing up the system to increase

their billable hours.

Robert Lee

MTC–00006646

From: Carl Classen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Folks—

I hope that the Department of Justice and

the States will settle the antitrust litigation

with Microsoft. The lenght of this process,

especilly after such a problematic trial with

a judge who was proven to be less than fair,

casts a pall over the potential economic

rebound America needs and the software

advantage we need to maintain. Linus is a

good alternative to Microsoft and AOL Time

Warner is certainly a worthy competitor in

content and access.

Thank you for consdiering my comments.

Sincerely,

Carl Classen personal: carl—

classen@hotmail.com

work: cclassen@ecamden.cc

MTC–00006647

From: Apollo12pe@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This situation is, in my opinion, much to

do about nothing except an attempt by a few

to get the Government to help their business

because they can’t offer products that are in

any way superior to those of Microsoft. The

buying public is not stupid as the Justice

Department would have us believe. If there

are products out there that are superior to

those of Microsoft, the buying public will

respond by buying them. I chose to buy AOL

because I like their product and have found

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24837

it soperior, in my opinion, to MSN. Yes, I

have tried both.

Our progress and great economy of the past

few years is much more due to Microsoft and

their products than it is of any action of

Government !!!!!!!!!!!

Richaard L. Hanscom, Jr.

Lt. Col., USAF

239 Maravilla Drive

Riverside, CA 92507

MTC–00006648

From: Tom (038) Wilma Llewellyn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I agree with proposed settlement of the

Department of Justice vs. Microsoft Lawsuit.

Thomas D. Llewellyn

593 Vintage Dr.

Elkton, OR 97436

MTC–00006649

From: Jerry Gonzalez

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:56pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

MSFT has done plenty so..................

Get off their back!

MTC–00006650

From: Milo D. Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to end this litigation. It would

appear that the antagonists that remain are

competitors and not consumers. It also

appears that the states within which the

competitors reside are the remaining

dissenters. I operate a small consulting

business. My computers run the windows

operating system; use Internet Explorer and

Microsoft Office Professional. As a user, I am

perfectly happy. My clients, across a broad

spectrum of industry, all use the same

software tools. In fact, most of the attorneys

with whom I do business have gone from

Word Perfect to Microsoft Office because it

is necessary to better communicate and move

documents across the Internet to clients.

In my view the remaining dissenters are

millionaires, not Microsoft millionaires, who

cannot stand the heat of competition. Any

settlement greater than that proposed for

Microsoft should be equally imposed upon

the competition. Everyone will have the same

code; innovation will disappear, but

everyone will be equal. We will all lose,

especially us consumers.

Thank you,

Milo D. Smith

Milo D. Smith, President—M. D. Smith &

Associates, Inc.

18011 Third Avenue S. W., Normandy

Park, WA 98166–3733

Telephone: 206.242.1932—Facsimile:

206.242.3172

Mobile: 206–972–6552

Email: Milo-MDSI@msn.com

MTC–00006651

From: Robert A. Weller

To: microsoft.atr@usdoj@inetgw

Date: 1/2/02 3:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Monopoly/Settlement

To the Department of Justice:

I believe that the Tunney Act of 1974

provides that citizens can comment on antitrust cases.

As a technical professional, I assert that it

is beyond any doubt that Microsoft wields

effective monopoly control over several

classes of computer software crucial to our

country’s economic security. It is equally

evident that this is not in the public’s or the

government’s best interest.

Everyone’s interests, including those of

Microsoft shareholders, will be best served in

the long run if the government breaks this

monopoly by subdividing Microsoft into

companies that will have to compete in their

respective markets on the basis of price and

performance. The current settlement

proposed by Microsoft is an arrogant act of

defiance of the Court’s finding that, if

approved, will simply serve to extend the

company’s monopoly into one of the last

market niches were its dominance is not

total.

I urge you, for the good of all citizens and

for the security of the country, to end the

total dependence of our economy upon this

one company, whose past performance leaves

little doubt as to the likelihood of true reform

from within.

Robert A. Weller

1008 Green Hill Cove

Brentwood, TN 37027

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00006652

From: RAHaley9@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I’ve been a computer user since it first

started. I took class on wiring the main board

to do what you wanted it to do, with key

punch cards. That’s back in 1967,1968.

So I’ve been using computers for a while.

Every since Windows 98 took over our

computers it turned them into a piece of

junk. All they do now is crash. When you

buy a brand new computer and with in an

hour of having it, it crashes something’s

wrong. I’d love to see other programmers

build software. It has to run better than what

he’s doing. This is America and Bill Gates

doesn’t have the right to be the only one to

sell the main software for our computers.

They were in such a big hurry to get it on

the market, Bill Gates and his company

didn’t care if it worked. He just wanted it out

there by the first of the year. Trash or not.

I say give every man who thinks they can a

chance to build software for our computers

and let us be the judge if we want to buy it.

We deserve the right of choice.

Thank You

Roseann Haley from Indiana

MTC–00006653

From: Albert Silverberg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my opinion that the settlement with

Microsoft as is presently proposed is fair &

equitable to all parties. Further litigation [by

the 9 states] can only delay the recovery of

our depressed economy & will be of no

benefit to anyone

Albert H. Silverberg M.D.

MTC–00006654

From: Jrsantucci@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think this settlement should happen as

soon as possible for the best interest of the

public.

Joan Santucci

MTC–00006655

From: BHelling@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:56pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

It is time to settle the Microsoft case. We

are happy with Microsoft and all it offers.

Please don’t take that away from us.

Bonnie Helling

Bhelling@aol.com

MTC–00006657

From: BESPORT@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:57pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

To Whom It May Concern:

The ridiculous lawsuit against Microsoft is

just another idiotic attack on America’s free

enterprise system and the sooner we drop it,

the better. I thought once we got a real

President again that our Department of

Justice would become interested in justice

again...not prosecuting honest law-abiding

citizens.

Just look where we’ve gotten spending

more money prosecuting Bill Gates than we

have Osama bin Laden! (At least before 9/11).

My advice to you is to stop this ascinine

lawsuit and tell the high paid lawyers who

are trying to destory the very free enterprise

system that makes them—and the

politicians—the highest paid in the world, to

get a life. Leave Bill Gates and Microsoft

alone and all the other businesses that make

America work—cause if they don’t—you

won’t be working either!

Sincerely,

Bill Edwards

Hacked-off American

MTC–00006658

From: Skipper50@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs and Madams:

Enough already of this assault on our

economy and endless litigation. Ratify the

proposed settlement agreement with

Microsoft over the antitrust charges and get

on with it.

Sincerely,

David Siegel

1704 Bohland

St. Paul, MN 55116

MTC–00006659

From: TWAGGX5@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe it was a complete and total waste

of our time and money to sue Microsoft. We

are not socialists, or communist. When one

24838 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

person starts a huge business and employs

thousands of people, they should be

respected and valued for their contributions

to society. Instead, Bill Gates was hounded

and chased. For what purpose? What did you

accomplish? How much of my tax money did

you spend on chasing an upstanding

business man? It is ridiculous. Find

something useful to do with your time and

my money. Chase the real criminals!

Theresa Waggoner

Gulf Breeze, FL

MTC–00006660

From: Joel Brazil

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

It pains me to know that in these uncertain

economic times a few special interests are

attempting to derail the Microsoft settlement

and prolong the litigation. The last thing

America needs is more litigation that benefits

only a few wealthy Microsoft competitors

and stifles innovation.

Please resolve as soon as possible.

Joel Brazil

MTC–00006661

From: Independentlease@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:59pm

Subject: We all owe a debt of gratitude to

Microsoft.

I have been following the anti-trust suit

diligently since it first started. I think it is

time for all Americans to stand up and

PRAISE Microsoft for being the front runner

in opening the World to everyone with their

Windows operating system. I think of the

Millions of Americans in my age group (50+)

with no prior PC skills, and how Bill Gates

has changed our lives forever. He made

everything come alive for us and even the

most stupid people on the planet can now

operate a computer with very little difficulty.

After watching all this company has endured

with this frivolous lawsuit, if I were Bill

Gates, I would pack up and take the company

to a ‘‘friendly nation’’, and tell America to

‘‘kiss my ass’’. God Bless you Microsoft and

I am singing your praises.

Rosanne Wilson

Beaverton, OR

MTC–00006662

From: Jack Sperry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft and the Government’s

representatives have worked long and hard to

reach an equitable settlement agreement that

is fair and in the best interests of consumers

and citizens. I want to see that settlement

agreement stand and not be overturned, or

redirected, to further the interests of

Microsoft’s competitors. Let’s put this

dispute to rest ASAP so everyone can move

on.

Jack Sperry

MTC–00006663

From: Rik Temmink

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir, Madam,

With this message, I would like to voice

my support for the proposed settlement

between the Department of Justice and

several States and Microsoft Corporation.

Despite the concerns voiced by Microsoft’s

competitors and certain pressure groups, I

believe the proposed settlement provides

enough substance to correct Microsoft’s anticompetitive behavior, while allowing all

parties concerned to continue their regular

activities.

I believe closure is critical to the success

of the US economy, and would therefore like

the Department of Justice to support the

proposed settlement.

Rik Temmink

7045 34th Ave NE

Seattle, WA 98115

MTC–00006664

From: Russell Johnson

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 3:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Lets settle this problem!! To continue is a

Threat to the Private Enterprise System. The

settlement is fair....and should not become

Unfair!!

MTC–00006665

From: Vincil C. Bishop, Jr.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm

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.

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 interests.

Sincerely,

Vincil C. Bishop, Jr

MTC–00006666

From: Debbie .

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

Please, please, please try to settle the

Microsoft case ASAP! I firmly believe that

once this case comes to a close, people will

start to view things better, and the economy

will start to improve. It may start small, with

improvements in the stock market, or people

buying computers, but it will get better. Just

look at what happens when rumors circulate

that a settlement is in the works!

This has gone on way too long!!! Please do

your best to help everyone reach an

agreement so we can put this behind us!

Thanks.

Debbie

MTC–00006667

From: David D. Miller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let us get beyond this. The Government as

well as other parties involved have stated a

willingness to settle this once and for all.

This case has been in litigation to long and

the country and the people have more

pressing needs. Settle this case and move on.

David Doyt Miller

03029 Dowty Rd.

St. Marys, Ohio. 45885

MTC–00006668

From: Sean Callahan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe it is in the best interest of the

general public to just settle this court case.

It is in no one’s interest except the lawyers

to continue to drag this case on. Can the

Federal Government please decide on the

appropriate punishment, implement it, and

move on. This is just one man’s view. Thank

you for your time.

Sean Callahan

Gilbert, Arizona

MTC–00006669

From: WJLONE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:02pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Enough , Microsoft is responsible for grat

progress in the Real World. Let us end this

case the way the compromise specifies.

Cordially,

WJ Leeder

MTC–00006670

From: wmbryant@mindspring.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the settlement will affect some

changes within Microsoft, but the remedies

are frankly too little too late. Had these same

actions taken place 2–3 years ago I would

whole-heartedly agree with them. Now,

however, it does little good to force MS to

allow someone to easily remove an MSspecific icon when practically the whole

world is already using MS products. Who

will remove those products now?

Sincerely,

Mike Bryant

mike—bryant@mindspring.com

MTC–00006671

From: SOBILL1933@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm

Subject: Settlement

It appears to me that all charges should be

dropped, Microsoft has agreed to do what is

required, no further action should be taken.

It also should be required that all states drop

their charges. All the remaining states are

after is the money!!!!! As usual the money

grubbing lawyers see is more big money as

in the tobacco settlements. No one has

benefitted from that buy the lawyers.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24839

Please consider the present settlement as

final, eliminate further law suits by the

federal government and all states.

C.W. O’Neal

10570 Meadow Glen Way East

Escondido, Ca 92026

MTC–00006672

From: Don Brown

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I believe the case alleging that Microsoft is

a monopoly and is harming consumers is

without merit. I don’t see any way at all that

Microsoft has harmed anyone other than its

competitors. Microsoft’s competitors seem to

be the ones who are complaining most

loudly.

In fact, DOJ is ultimately harming

consumers by penalizing Microsoft. DOJ’s

actions undermine the legitimate operation of

a free economy by injecting personal politics

into the market. This type of action

ultimately will lead to cronyism which mars

so many other nation’s economies and truly

does harm consumers.

Microsoft may have hurt its competitors

using legal and illegal means. If there is some

instance where its actions with regard to a

specific competitor is illegal, then let them be

punished for that if it can be proved.

Also, if Microsoft has in fact harmed

consumers, then why aren’t I getting

remunerated? You can’t have it both ways!

Sincerely,

Don R. Brown, Ph.D.

CEO, PartNET

www.part.net

don.brown@part.net 801–581–1118

MTC–00006673

From: Ken Larsen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Department of Justice should stop

punishing Microsoft. They provide excellent

products at a low cost and continually

advance the state of the software art.

Microsoft should not be punished for

innovation and development of quality

products.

Kenneth Larsen

MTC–00006674

From: Scott R. Springman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ:

I am a concerned, voting citizen who feels

that the interests of the nation would be illserved by any delay in settlement of the

Microsoft issue. I have both Intel and Apple

(Motorola) based computer systems. I believe

that further litigation against Microsoft is

fruitless, wasteful, and counterproductive.

Please do not bow to political pressure from

special interests. Please settle now.

Sincerely;

Scott R. Springman, MD

Professor of Anesthesiology and Surgery

University of Wisconsin Medical School

Anesthesiology Department

600 Highland Ave.

Madison, WI 53792

email: srspring@facstaff.wisc.edu

Phone: 608–262–2186

Fax: 608–263–0575

UW Anesthesiology Preoperative Clinic

Web Site:

http://www.anesthesia.wisc.edu/Clinic/

Index.htm

MTC–00006675

From: Jim Holden

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel very strongly that the settlement

reached between the DOJ/states and

Microsoft is fair to all parties involved and

that further litigation is counter-productive

for both the US economy and consumers. I

am a retired IT professional having worked

in both hardware and software design using

Microsoft products and services. I have

always found Microsoft to provide superior

products and excellent support. As a

consumer, I have never felt that I have been

harmed in any way by their monopoly of the

OS market.

Although I know that the DOJ has the best

interests of the consumer in mind, I feel that

they and the dissenting states are bending to

pressure being brought by Microsoft’s

competitors. If you consider the number of

hours of development and testing time that

goes into the release of an operating system

like any of the MS Windows versions, the

selling price is ridiculously low. If they were

really abusing their monopoly powers, they

could be charging consumers much more. As

for embedding features in the operating

system, I think the consumer only benefits

from this practice. I do not know of anyone

who is complaining that their operating

system has too many features!

In the interest of fair disclosure, I should

point out that I have been a Microsoft

stockholder for nearly ten years. However, I

invested in Microsoft because I believe they

are producing superior products and not

because I would want them to take advantage

of their OS monopoly in any way.

Please end the litigation and let the

development community get on with the

business of producing better and more

innovative products for all consumers.

Sincerely,

James R. Holden

146 Brookhaven Ct

Sugar Grove, IL 60554

(630) 466–0895

MTC–00006676

From: rose sulistio

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

308 College creek Drive

Denison,Texas 75020

January 2, 2001

Renata B. Hesse

Antiiitrust Division

US Deparmnt of Justice

601 D St., NW, suite 1200

Washington DC 20530–0001

Dear madam;

This is in reference to the settlement of

Microsoft. The government has spent so

much of the tax payer’s dollars on this case

and got no where. The only people making

money on this case are big time lawyers.

Please put this case behind us and close it

immediately. Let us move on our lives and

encourage competition through better

products which the public demands. it is

without a doubt that Microsoft produces

better products than it’s competitors and the

government should be happy for that.

Lastly, I asked for your consideration in

acknowledging that we wasted so much

money in pursuing this case when there are

other important issues that the government

have to give priority on.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rose Sulistio

MTC–00006677

From: Delmolino@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:03pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

GENTLEMEN

Why anyone would continue to pursue

MIicrosoft’s settlement any further is beyond

me.Please stop wasting taxpayers money

against a company that built too good a

mousetrap. Please settle this negotiation as

soon as possible.

A CONCERNED TAXPAYER

M.F.DELMOLINO

MTC–00006678

From: gigi broad

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:04pm

Subject: Final Settlement

The matter before the courts is long over

due to be settled and let Microsoft go forward

in there business. It does no one any good to

continue to hammmer at the company. Its

time the country focuses on other things and

puts this mattter behind us.

Yours Truly

Virginia Wallace [ FIN ]

MTC–00006679

From: GailPratt@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

January 2, 2002. To whom it may convern

at the Department of Justice. From Evelyn

Gail Pratt, 6155 Plumas Street, #160, Reno,

NV 89509 USA, (775) 824–4551, a consumer

of Microsoft products. ‘‘I believe that the

settlement found in the Court of Appeals

ruling regarding Microsoft is reasonable and

fair to all parties involved’’. Please contact

me if you have any questions.

Sincerely, (gailpratt@AOL.com)

MTC–00006680

From: Susan V. Barba

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:05pm

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.

Sincerely,

Susan V. Barba

24840 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00006681

From: David Brandt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings,

I have not supported any of the actions

against Microsoft Corporation. I work in the

computer industry and see plenty

opportunities for companies to compete with

their own products if they decide to do so

instead of competing through the courts. As

for the settlement, I am in favor of it versus

more actions being proposed by the 9 States

and Microsoft’s competitors (Sun

Microsystems, AOL, Nokia, etc).

Thank you for listening.

David Brandt

5257 E. 130th Way

Thornton, CO 80241.

MTC–00006682

From: Carman B. Bahr, MD

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My personal opinion is that settlement of

the Tunney Act is in the ‘‘public interest’’.

I do believe that Microsoft has contributed

much to making the personal computer both

usable for the common people and business

purposes. Prolonging the litigation is not in

the best interest of the public.

Carman B. Bahr, MD,

Emeritus Professor of Medicine

cbb2@home.com

MTC–00006683

From: Fred Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:04pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

In a very few words!

Settle this mess!

The American consumer is not

complaining here, competitors are! If their

products were so good they wouldn?t be

afraid to compete head to head with

Microsoft. End this waste of time and money!

Fred

Fred Smith

Fax (805) 647–3439

fred@smithshome.com

sharon@smithshome.com

Sharon’s Mary Kay website is

www.marykay.com/ssmith6

Corys website is www.kruseman.com

MTC–00006684

From: RENATADE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settlement is good for consumers and in

the public’s interest. While I don’t

necessarily agree with everything MS does, I

don’t believe further litigation against them

is a necessary, or even a good thing for the

American public, especially at this time.

Renata De Angelis

MTC–00006685

From: P Huff

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

After many years of litigation against

Microsoft on Antitrust charges, a reasonable

settlement has been reached that shows that

Microsoft is working hard to address the

concerns of the department of justice and the

many states that have filed suit against

Microsoft. Please take this opportunity to

settle—continuing the suit is bad for the US

economy because it hurts the best performing

NASDAQ stock of 2001 and many companies

that rely on Microsoft to make their

businesses operate, and it’s expensive for the

people of the United States to continue to

pay for ongoing litigation. I beg you, please

settle this matter.

Polita Huff

Kirkland, Wa

MTC–00006686

From: Johnaker@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:06pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

It is hard for me to see why the settlement

should be postponed. I think it is already too

far against Microsoft. Let the markets

compete for product ownership instead of

making Microsoft pay extra for its product

success.

MTC–00006687

From: BELLEVUMEL@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:07pm

Subject: MICROSOFT

SETTLEMENT IT IS TIME TO GET A

SETLEMENT FOR MICROSOFT AND MOVE

ON. THIS LAWSUIT HAS DRUG ON TOO

LONG . THIS LAWSUIT AHS HURT MANY,

MANY AMERICANS IN THEIR

RETIREMENT PROGRAMS, INVESTMENTS

AND HAS HANDCUFFED MICROSOFT

WHILE THE DOJ WAS TRYING TO HELP

ITS COMPETITORS TO NO AVAIL.

SETTLE AND GET IT OVER.

MELVIN R MELIN

56 158TH PL NE

BELLEVUE, WA 98008

MTC–00006688

From: Joe Krantz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe it is in the best interests of the US

Government, the consumer and the

marketplace if the proposed settlement

between the DOJ, the states and Microsoft is

accepted. This matter has been under review

for a very long time and it is time to move

forward in the intersts of all.

Joe Krantz

7N085 Plymouth Court

St. Charles, IL 60175

MTC–00006689

From: Steve.Skinner@

mail.sprint.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The federal government and nine states

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.

Thanks

Steve Skinner (Consumer)

MTC–00006690

From: Bernard Gouss

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:07pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

AS A HOME COMPUTER USER,I WAS

VERY HAPPY TO SEE A REASONABLE

SETTLEMENT MADE BETWEEN OUR

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND

MICROSOFT.LETS END IT NOW!!IF IT WAS

GOOD ENOUGH FOR OUR GOVERMENT

,WHO REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE OF OUR

GREAT COUNTRY,IT CERTAINLY SHOULD

NOT BE DELAYED BY A FEW ‘‘SPECIAL

INTEREST GROUPS’’.LETS END

LITIGATION, AND START SENDING

AMERICANS BACK TO WORK .

RESPECTFULLY

BERNARD GOUSS

MTC–00006691

From: LWydock@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ Officials:

As a former and retired government

employee, It behooves me that the proposed

settlement with Microsoft has not been

implemented. Languishing the

implementation of the proposed settlement is

impeding our economy and playing into the

hands of those who want to destroy our great

country’s economy. Innovation is not a dirty

word. Those State Attorney Generals who are

dragging their feet are trying to make a name

for themselves and spotlight themselves at

the expense of those who are willing to

arbitrate.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment

on this issue.

Lawrence R. Wydock

MTC–00006692

From: LOroake@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

In my opinion as a concerned citizen, the

Microsoft case should be settled. I disagree

with the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few

of Microsoft’s competitors.

The last thing the American economy

needs is more litigation that benefits only a

few wealthy competitors and stifles

innovation. I personally feel that without

Microsoft I would not be enjoying the many

benefits that have come from that company.

I am 72 years of age, and Microsoft, in my

opinion, has given me the means by which

I am enjoying my computer. Please do the

right thing and end this litigation.

Sincerely,

Louise O’Roake, Private Citizen

MTC–00006693

From: Geoff Saunders

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wish to voice my opinion of the Microsoft

settlement during the public comment

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24841

period, as provided for under the Tunney

Act.

I support the proposed settlement that the

DOJ and Microsoft have negotiated—it is a

tough but fair compromise by both parties,

and it will achieve the government’s aim of

protecting software consumers.

After nearly four years this litigation

should end with the settlement, as

negotiated. The litigation has been disruptive

to the industry, bad for the economy,

expensive to taxpayers, damaging to

investors, and it has hobbled one of

America’s—in fact, one of the world’s—great

companies.

It is very unfortunate that Microsoft’s

competitors are aggressively lobbying for

sanctions against Microsoft that go beyond

the settlement and are in the interests only

of these competitors, not the general public.

I urge the DOJ to dismiss this self-serving

lobbying, and to ratify the settlement as it

stands.

Thank you.

Geoff Saunders

Sammamish, WA 98074

MTC–00006694

From: Donald F. Moran

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

In the interest of fairness and consumer

interests I think it would be in everyones

benefit to go ahead with the agreement

reached by Microsoft and the Department of

Justice. I think it has gone on long enough

and it is time to come to a conclusion.

Sincerely,

Donald F. Moran

MTC–00006695

From: gigi broad

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:09pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The matter before the courts needs to be

settled its long over due .Taking time from

other important issues .Microsoft is a good

company and it serves no one to continue

hammering at this issue . I am glad Henry

Ford did not have to face this or we would

still be using horse and buggies.

thank you,

virgina wallace

MTC–00006696

From: Pctrojans@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft needs the ability to innovate. It

is not in our best interest to punish success.

Please settle this quickly and fairly.

Billie Johnson

MTC–00006697

From: Bill Snell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a small business owner who depends

on the use software from Microsoft and other

vendors for the efficient operation of my

business. I support the proposed settlement

currently pending before the District Court,

which imposes tough conditions but is in the

best interests of the consuming public and

the economy.

MTC–00006699

From: TOM (038) SUE PONTIUS

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle the Microsoft litigation NOW.

prolonging this case is much too expensive

and unfair. The consumer is being hurt each

day it continues. Please.

Tom and Sue Pontius,

Mariemont, Ohio

MTC–00006700

From: Carolyn Waldo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let the innovators innovate! Let the cry

babies whine all they want!

MTC–00006701

From: Nicholas Page

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

It’s time to end this ridiculous witch hunt

against Microsoft. Some states Attorneys

General, and some state governments, will

stop at nothing to make a name for

themselves and fill their state coffers with

undeserved money. While most states and

the federal government are happy with the

settlements, the aggressive lobbying efforts of

a few of Microsofts competitors are also to

blame for prolonging this unreasonable witch

hunt. These competitors are trying to gain

from additional damage inflicted upon

Microsoft.

Let’s end this debacle now, as the

settlement is tough enough, while being

reasonable and fair to all parties involved.

Thanks,

Nicholas Page

PO Box 76

Middleton, MA 01949

MTC–00006702

From: Sally Jacobsen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Do not delay this litigation with Microsoft

any longer. The settlement terms are fair. The

only ones who will win with further

litigation will be the lawyers . . . not the

American people. Enough is enough!

Sarah E. ‘‘Sally’’ Jacobsen

sally@efn.com

MTC–00006703

From: Dean Stelow

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

I own a small software development

company and have intimate knowledge of the

software market. I believe the proposed

settlement is MORE than adequate given the

current state of the market. (In fact, I believe

the settlement goes too far in trying to restrict

software publishers from designing their

products however they see fit). There are

alternatives to Microsoft products and there

always have been. If an alternative is not

available, a new one can be created with NO

physical investment (unlike a true monopoly

like electricity/oil, in which case I can not go

out and create new petroleum fields).

Please, let it end already. If you, or any of

the other folks with sour grapes over

Microsoft’s success don’t like Windows, load

Linux, BSD, etc., etc. and don’t use their

products. Its as simple as that.

I won’t get into all of the benefits computer

users have seen over the last 10 years thanks

to a Microsoft ‘‘standard’’. I can say this . . .

if not for Windows, my parents and millions

of other folks out there would not be

computing today.

Thanks,

Dean Stelow

Nordev Inc.

dstelow@hotmail.com

920.490.0608

MTC–00006704

From: HenriPowel@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settltment

To the Honorary Members of The

Department of Justice,

We respectably submit to you our

wholehearted support for the settlement

reached in the Microsoft case. We feel it

would harm our economy further by allowing

this case to be extended any longer. In our

opinion it is a fair, but firm decision by the

Court.

Thank you.

Mr. and Mrs. Charles R. Powell

15631 Issaquah-Hobart Rd.

Issaquah, WA. 98027

MTC–00006705

From: Richard Hubbell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:12pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Those trying to oppose the proposed

settlement are using the judicial system for

political purpose. This is particularly true in

the case of the attorney general of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Thomas

Reilly. He is the worst attorney general we

have had in the 47 years I have been able to

vote. His record as a consumer advocate has

been terrible. I find it disgraceful that he is

arguing that the current settlement is not in

the consumers best interests when his real

purpose is raise campaign funds from

Microsoft’s competitors in Massachusetts

such as IBM (Lotus). Reilly is notorious for

his involvement in only high visibility cases

which promote his political career. The best

current evidence of this are the Microsoft

settlement and the sale of the Boston Red

Sox. He is appealing to local business interest

who can contribute to his campaign for

governor.

I am a Mac user who has been involved in

the technology industry all my career. While

Microsoft is aggressive in the marketplace,

the consumer has benefitted from increased

performance at lower prices whether a PC or

Mac customer. Competitors such as

IBM(Lotus) and AOL(Netscape) are not

24842 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

suffering from competition but from poor

management or governmental meddling.

Hundreds of software companies have

prospered as a result of Micosoft operating

systems and applications. The original case

was a personal vendetta by young lawyers in

the DOJ trying to make a name for

themselves, not public servants looking to

protect the consumer. The best case in point

is Klein. Do you think he ever would have

gotten his current position with out the

visibility of the Microsoft case.

Most antitrust cases brought by the DOJ

have resulted in damage to the consumer and

the industry. Just look at the IBM and ATT

cases. IBM faltered as a result of energies

drained by its prolonged battle with the DOJ

with no winner and gross damage to

stockholders and innovation in the industry.

The ATT settlement was long held up as an

example of how the government can

successfully restructure an industry but not

now. Within a very short period of time we

have seen a long distance market in shambles

with companies losing billions and a

reconsolidation of the local business into a

few, soon to be two, regional monopolies.

Prices for service particularly in the local

loop have sky rocketted and service has

declined. So much for the example the DOJ

has used for years.

It is time to move on. Industry is what

makes the US economy grow not government

and certainly not our judicial system. Most

people are alarmed at how justice in the US

has been bought. Don’t let the lobbyists buy

you through their support of nine politically

motivated attorneys general. Leave the

settlement as is and in 20 years it will be

merely a footnote in the history books.

Thank you,

Richard L. Hubbell

P.O Box 759

East Dennis, MA 02641

508 385–8876

dhubbs@medione.net

MTC–00006706

From: Tpondel@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:13pm

Subject: Settle

I wish to make my opinion known that the

DOJ and various states should settle the case

NOW.

You’ve wasted enough of my tax money on

a baseless case. Settle now. Move on.

Tony Pondel

729 Junior Terrace

Chicago, IL 60613

MTC–00006707

From: Wang, Bill

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 4:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel that the Microsoft settlement is

reasonable and justifiable. It is for the public

interest.

B. Wang

MTC–00006708

From: Ncmediagoddess@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel that what is being done to Microsoft

is a travesty and that the government should

ned this ASAP. I think that this case is

responsible for the drop in technology stocks

and the stock market as a whole.

Edwina Lee Lindsay

MTC–00006709

From: Calvin Drown

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

No more Enough is enough. The states are

looking to make a money grab like they did

with Philip Morris.

Calvin Drown

cdrown@catskill.net

MTC–00006710

From: milo ness

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am in favor of a settlement. I think it will

help the economy to improve.

Milo D. Ness

MTC–00006711

From: Dick Wolff

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:13pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Friends,

In my view, we have spent enough time

and money on the Microsoft issue. Let the

market decide whether the company is good

for us or not by where and how we spend

our money. Settle this thing and let

America’s consumers get on with their

business. If you feel the justice department

has too much money, why not look into AOL

and its predatory policies?

Truth is, just stay out of our business.

Sincerely yours,

Dick Wolff

922 W. Cedar St.

Sandpoint, Idaho 83864–1952

MTC–00006712

From: Wiitalaw@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel Microsoft Settlement should take

place immediately and ALL LITIGATION

stopped immediately.

Sincerely,

Wilma J. Wiitala

MTC–00006713

From: Randall K. Wright

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please complete these actions without any

further damage to Microsoft. I am a retired

business owner, all of my manufacturing

businesses needed to be competitive not

controlled. This is America home of free

enterprise, we have to deal with the World

on a global basis and please don’t get into

places not needing attention.

Government intervention has not worked

in the past and won’t work now. Let’s

remember the phone company, which now is

rebuilding what was broken apart. My phone

bills are three to four times as high as they

were. What did we gain? Look at the Airline

industry, even before 9,11 they were in

financial trouble. Now the power company,

after one year of meddling, my power bills

are not understandable and up twenty

percent.

You should be worrying about gas stations

which raise their gas price $ .50 on news (Not

facts) about OPEC raising prices that could

not hit that pump for months.

How about some Tort reform?

If you need to control someone, how about

the Lobbies?

How about insurance companies which

only provide service to the high profit areas

in States and let the rest of the State suffer?

In closing I think there is plenty of work

for you folks to do that will really benefit The

United States Of America and its people.

God Bless

Randy

MTC–00006714

From: Jim

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the settlement with Microsoft is

fair and is in the pubics best interest. Why

prolong this issue? Let’s get back to doing

business. There are more important issues,

not more litigation that will only benefit

special interest.

MTC–00006715

From: Thomas Henn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Dear Sir,

I’d like voice my thoughts on the MS

Settlement that now has been going on for

sometime. I respect and appreciate what the

various states have done to protect the public

from MS. At the same time we as a nation

need to move on from this. I believe MS has

punished and the original settlement on the

table is fair and just. As a tax payer, I’m not

happy that we are wasting good tax dollars

at this point. The only people benefiting are

the legal personnel.

Cordially,

Thomas J. Henn

17365 Caribou Dr

Monument, CO 80132

CC:’Henn, Thomas’

MTC–00006716

From: Joe Guarraci

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:14pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

As a stockholder can we get a refund for

legal costs by this unfair lawsuite from the

government ??

Joe Guarraci

MTC–00006717

From: Tom Lakin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:14pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs,

Just to let you know about how I feel about

the DOJ settlement with Microsoft Corp.

(MS).

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24843

First of all, I do not believe MS should

have been sued. If they created a program

that another software company could not get

into, that’s fine. Take a REAL CLOSE look at

Intuit’s Quickbooks programs. Now, there is

a real rip-off of the public. MS provides

programs that really help us at a fair price.

Not Quickbooks!!!! Quickbooks has their

system set-up so that people are forced to buy

their upgrades every year, or sooner, at more

than $300.00 EACH. I just purchased to MS

equivalent MS Money upgrade for $79.00.

GO AFTER INTUIT.

I do NOT believe MS was treated fairly. MS

should not be required to give schools, or any

else, free computers. Or anything else free.

Although I can’t see your computers, I am

sure they have MS products loaded on them.

MS set the industry standards for PC’s. They

should, in fact, be rewarded!!!!

Thank you,

Tom Lakin, EA, MBA

MTC–00006718

From: Jim Alekson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am in agreement with the terms of the

proposed Microsoft Settlement.

As a consumer of computer hardware and

software products, I applaud Microsoft for

what they have done for the world wide

computer industry throughout their growth.

Without Microsoft, the world would not be

nearly as progressively connected as it

currently is. I look forward to continued

growth in the industry and see Microsoft as

a leader in that growth.

Jim Alekson

Vice President

Milliken Development Corporation

Telephone: (604) 925–2019

Fax Line: (604) 925–4283

Cellphone: (604) 603–8160

Email: jalekson@milliken

developments.com

MTC–00006719

From: Pastorino, Ray

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 4:15pm

Subject: Tunney Act—Feedback on

Settlement

The proposed settlement should be

adopted and we should move on with our

lives. The amount of waste that goes into the

legal mechanations is incredible. If this were

the oil industry we were talking about the

Governments posture would I believe be

different. It has amazed me for several years

now how the price of oil can drop by 50%

and the drop at the consumers pump drops

by only 5%. There is a certain sort of

selectivity here that the government might

better attend to. Ray Pastorino This message

is intended for the sole use of the individual

to whom it is addressed, and may contain

information that is privileged, confidential

and exempt from disclosure under applicable

law. If you are not the addressee you are

hereby notified that you may not use, copy,

disclose, or distribute to anyone the message

or any information contained in the message.

If you have received this message in error,

please immediately advise the sender by

reply email and delete this message.

MTC–00006720

From: Patrick Conlan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Hi, I wanted to take a couple of minutes

to message you with my take on the DOJ/

Microsoft settlement. Although I’m currently

a Microsoft employee my opinions are my

own and not those of my employer.

Summary: I’m broadly in favor of the

settlement, although I worry that it might be

used by those who despise the value of

home-grown intellectual capital to attack the

assets of Microsoft, both to obtain

information ‘‘for free’’ and to prevent future

innovation.

Before joining Microsoft I worked in

Europe for a large pharmaceutical company—

we were large Microsoft customers as well as

customers of Sun, Oracle, IBM, Hyperion &

DEC. In my experience dealing with

Microsoft was far far easier that dealing with

these alternative vendors who seemed to

regard any request for information as an

opportunity to charge extortionate consulting

fees, wheras Microsoft:

1/ Published all of its bug fixes & advice

on an open and free web site

2/ Published detailed code samples & api

documentation on an open and free web site

3/ Built a foodchain of cheaper

consultancies and provided certification to

help us choose quality suppliers

4/ Had extremely professional product

support who did not try to sell us anything

5/ Gave us appropriate volume discounts

making the price of their products

compelling

It was for these resaons that we moved

from IBM’s OS/2, DEC’s Pathworks and from

Novell’s Netware to the Microsoft platform—

not any underhand behaviour, and not any

forced technical decision—they were just an

easier company to deal with, more

professional and open than our other

suppliers.

I think that this should be born in mind

when considering the remedy to correct

behaviour that existed for a short period in

time around 1995....

Thank you for your consideration

Patrick Conlan

Microsoft SQL Server Development Team

Redmond, WA

+1(425)705 7817

MTC–00006721

From: Richard Yochum

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Based on all I have read about proposed

actions relative to this case, it seems that the

States that have not agreed to a settlement are

being unduly influenced by Microsoft

competitors.

I believe Microsoft has helped to keep

prices at a reasonable level. It seems the

States and competitors want to arrange for a

‘‘playing field’’ that favors their products.

The states should bow to the lead of the

Federal gov’t and make an effort to be

profitable in their businesses without

blaming their lack of success or difficulties

on Microsoft. In today’s competittive

business world, success should be

determined in the marketplace, not the

courtroom!

MTC–00006722

From: Tom Doran

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:15pm

Subject: law suit and settlement

The last time the government got into the

picture and deregulated and broke up

companies that were efficient and profitable

the whole industry has gone to hell in a hand

basket. The telephone break up turned into

more dollars for the consumer to pay and

LESS GOOD SERVICE received by the

consumer. Plus now if you need service and

repair you need a degree to find the correct

number to call and hope that you will within

a half days time get to the correct party that

can be of any assistance. The telephone bill

is 20 pages and you need to spend a hour to

figure out who is doing or better yet NOT

DOING WHAT. The airlines are in the red

and costing taxpayers billions because of the

government deregulation. The trucking

industry has lost good reliable companies

that went out of business after the

government involvement and deregulation.

The electric utilities are the next industry to

get screwed up. Just look at what happened

in California and God help everyone else if

they keep deregulating the power companies.

We will all be sitting in the dark and freezing

our kesters off. IN CASE YOU HAVE NOT

FIGURED IT OUT, THERE IS AN OLD

SAYING IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT.

CAUSE EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT

STARTS TO FIX THAT AIN’T BROKE

ROYALLY GETS SCREWED UP. So my

advice and sentiment about Microsoft.

LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE. THEY

AIN’T BROKE AND THEY DON’T NEED NO

FIXING. The company has been innovative,

a leader in its field and a good solid

investment for those who so choose. They

will have to deal with competition as every

other company does in the market place. All

I see from this whole exercise in futility is

that a bunch of DAM LAWYERS have gotten

rich on legal fees. And a bunch of idiot

bureaucrats have spent a great deal of my

hard earned tax dollars justifying their

existence and job. The Government could

save millions by getting rid of the whole

bunch of paper pushers who have been

involved in all this litigation. FOR THOSE

WHO HAVE DIFFICULTY READING, THE

SHORT MESSAGE IS DROP THE LAW SUIT

AND LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. KAPISH.

MTC–00006723

From: William A Horan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:16pm

Subject: MICROSOFT Settlement

Dear Sirs,

I am a both an investor, and a career-long

(30+ years) Information Systems Developer/

Manager/Executive.

There is absolutely no question that the

enormous contributions made by

MICROSOFT to the area of PC operating

systems and applications development have

revolutionized the computer and information

processing industries. No other company

24844 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

could have (nor evidenced enough initiative

to have) approached the significance of

innovation produced through the persistence

and singular efforts of Bill Gates and his

crew.

As an investor, I can only applaud the

tremendous stimulus Microsoft’s growth

record provided to the stock market boom of

the nineties. Witness the dampening effects

that commenced coincident with Reno’s

assanine assault on one of the true symbols

of successful American capitalism. Sad to see

that ‘‘victim mentality’’ has now gained such

Federal sympathy in compromising

America’s competitive spirit.

I believe that the entire case was a liberal

travesty, perpetrated to pull the plug on a

booming investment climate, by a bunch of

ne’er-do-well Clinton bureaucrats supporting

Greenstein’s compulsions to wreck the

market... and a select few of America’s

business champions.

Drop the B.S. and let’s get America back to

the truly competitive style tyhat made us a

once-great nation.

Sincerely,

William A. Horan

(former) President I.S.I./ MARS Inc.

Montville, NJ 07047

MTC–00006724

From: LuckyQuads8@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:16pm

Subject: microsoft settlement to whom it may

concern,

i think it’s a shame that the doj should

have a say on how microsoft runs its

business. they did nothing illegal. drop the

case immediately. you should be putting all

your time into protecting the innocent citizen

from terrorist attacts, instead of trying to

make a name for yourself.

look what you guys are doing to medicine

by not allowing them to collectivly

bargan.

Sincerely,

michael gentile

MTC–00006725

From: HaroldW174@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:16pm

Subject: microsoft

settle the law suit . it is fair and let people

go back to work on new systems

HAROLD E.WAKE

MTC–00006726

From: Bshall@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think it’s terrible that Microsoft was

involved in this case in the first place. It’s a

free country, supposedly, and they were

smart enough to take advantage of the

freedoms we have. Why should they be

penalized. The other companies would have

done the same thing if they had been smart

enough to do it.

Betty Hall

Temecula, CA

MTC–00006727

From: Robert Taylor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement..

USGOV. DOJ:

Don’t you think it is about time you settled

this case once and for all? This case

‘‘SHOULD NEVER HAVE STARTED’’, but the

politians in the Senate (in particular) insisted

that you procede with this ‘‘INJUSTICE to

MICROSOFT’’, and you caved in. Look it has

gone on long enough, the economy is

faltering due to mistrust and fear on part of

the general public. Why don’t you do the

right thing and settle this so we can move on

in America? The last settlement I heard

sounded pretty good for everybody but Apple

Computer (they did not want to lose their

stranglehold on the education systems use of

computors. The heck with them, ‘‘Settle this

oin the basis of the court last

reccommendation, so we can start renewing

our lives here in America.

Sincerely,

Robert M. Taylor

866 Geneva Ave.

Toledo OH. 43609–3038

MTC–00006728

From: Andy Elvey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:18pm

Subject: I also support the views put forward

by Ganesh Prasad

Dear Sirs,

I would like to add my voice to that of

Ganesh Prasad (whose submission you may

have seen— if not, it is at this link— http:/

/www.linuxtoday.com/news—

story.php3?ltsn=2002–01–02–002–20-OP-MS

I believe that he has put forward a very

good case for stronger remedies in the case

of Department of Justice vs Microsoft. I am

particularly frustrated with the so-called

‘‘bootloader clause’’ , in which Microsoft has

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. Now

*that* sounds suspicious .....

I know that I am only one voice among

millions, and I’m not an American citizen

(though I —am— half-Canadian! ) . I can only

ask that the views put forward by Ganesh are

treated with the seriousness that they

deserve. I believe he has made a very

eloquent and persuasive case for strong

remedies.

Very many thanks for your time and

consideration! (And have a good 2002!)

Andy

MTC–00006729

From: Pete Rodriguez

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam,

I just want to express my opinion as to

what I see as a needless persecution of

Microsoft Corporation in the last 5 years.

Most of the arguments in regards to

Microsoft’s browser integration with the

operating system as Microsoft’s way of

closing the system to competition is

incorrect. In light of the recent viruses and

DDOS attacks, this integration and openess

have actually allowed Microsoft’s Windows

and email system to be more vulnerable.

There are enough documented APIs out there

that more rogue software can be developed.

In my opinion allowing unrestricted access to

all source code will make Microsoft more

vulnerable to future attacks on its Windows

Operating System. As to JAVA and other

middleware for the browser and server

environment, they too are susceptible to

these attacks. A new way needs to be develop

to open up the Internet and develop

applications difficult to hack and launch

DDOS attacks. Narrowly focusing on the IE

Browser and Windows as the way Microsoft

will dominate the Internet is already proven

more a liability to being hacked than a

Microsoft advantage. Please let Microsoft

improved and fixed their vulnerabilities

unhampered with more litigation whose

main argument have been proven false more

than 5 years after this antitrust cases were

filed. The argument that Browser and

Internet integration gives Microsoft an

upperhand against other application

developers does not hold water. We now

know its a double-edge sword. It actually

created more jobs and companies whose

main product is to prevent or contain these

virus attacks. It gave Microsoft a black-eye

because machines were going down because

of IE and Outlook launched viruses. Please

allow Microsoft freedom to innovate, fixed

and improve its products.

Respectfully,

Pete Rodriguez

CC:MSFIN@Microsoft.com@inetgw

MTC–00006730

From: Stuart Powell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle the Microsoft case asap. And

if this settlement does not include the

holdout States, please encourage them to join

in the settlement and let’s put this behind us.

MTC–00006731

From: Peter A. Weller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please be informed that I firmly support

the current settlement with Microsoft that

has been proposed and agreed upon

Sincerely yours

Peter A. Weller

1398 Edgewood Dr.

Holland, MI 49424

MTC–00006732

From: SandyFane@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:18pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sir,

Please settle the Microsoft case and move

on. It has been long enough.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Fane

MTC–00006733

From: Thomas A Wade

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:20pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24845

Dear Mr. Ashcroft

I do not beleive that our federal

government should ever have brought an

antitrust lawsuit against the Microsoft

Company for controlling a large portion of

the market because of their product

superiority. It does not appear to me or

anyone else I have talked to, to be a monoply.

Where wood this country be in the hi-tech

world without Microsoft. It seems really

unfair to me to punish them for being so

successful in their bussiness. Because of the

down turn in the bussiness cycle, I also

beleive, the sooner we can put this nonsense

behind us and give credit where credit is do

the better we all will be.

Thank You

Sincerely

Thomas A WadeGet

MTC–00006734

From: Jeff Erwin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:19pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

According to Tom Reilly, one of the 10

state attorneys general who have broken with

the Justice Department to offer their own

remedies in the antitrust case of the decade,

their proposed fix is designed to ‘‘end

Microsoft’s stranglehold on innovation and

competition in the personal computer

industry.’’

If you actually read the proposals, though,

a very different message comes through loud

and clear: The state AGs want to turn

Microsoft into a regulated public utility, with

about as much freedom to innovate as the

Minsk Post Office. Indeed, the proposal looks

like something Oracle, Sun Microsystems

and AOL Time Warner dreamed up to do to

Microsoft—something none of them have

managed in the marketplace. Thomas

Penfield Jackson, the judge in the antitrust

trial, was inclined to break up Microsoft and

scatter the pieces to the wind. What

Microsoft haters love to forget is that the

federal appeals court reviewing the verdict

came to very different conclusions. It

jettisoned two out of three of Judge Jackson’s

findings of liability and trimmed the third

substantially.

Justice Department litigators, anxious to

hold as much turf as they could but realistic

about the import of the unanimous appeals

court decision, subsequently negotiated a

settlement that addressed every element of

liability—and then some.

But half the state AGs, who had

piggybacked on the Justice Department case

and grown fond of their self-appointed role

as David to Bill Gates’ Goliath, apparently

saw no problem in pretending that Judge

Jackson’s verdict stood.

You think I’m exaggerating? Consider what

the AGs have proposed. They want Microsoft

to strip Windows down to its skivvies and

then sell the operating system in every

possible state of dress: with browser or

without, with media player or without, with

e-mail functionality or without, and so forth.

And they want to set the prices Microsoft

charges for this OS according to somebody’s

reckoning of how much the company spent

to create each feature.

All this in spite of the fact that the appeals

court explicitly stated that the burden of

proof was on the government to show that

the costs of integrating new features into the

operating system, as measured by a reduction

in competition, exceeded the benefits to

consumers in terms of improved

functionality.

The plan would effectively Balkanize

Windows, making it impossible for

independent software developers to use any

of the newly optional features in the

operating system without incurring the wrath

of customers who inadvertently bought the

wrong version of Windows. Remember

Microsoft’s dispute with Sun over the purity

of Microsoft’s version of Java? Microsoft

settled a private suit with Sun in January

2001 by agreeing to stop the development of

its own versions of Java. Yet the states would

require Microsoft to include Java with every

copy of Windows, effectively making it a

common carrier for Sun on the order of a

pipeline that must deliver other companies’

oil.

Then there’s the small matter of disclosing

trade secrets. The antitrust case, of course,

was about operating systems—Microsoft’s

applications software was barely mentioned.

Yet the states are demanding that Microsoft

license three other companies to produce

versions of its Office applications suite for

competing platforms. Microsoft would have

to provide the Office source code to

licensees, and much of the Windows source

code as well, since Office needs Windows

APIs.

Did I mention oversight? The Justice

Department proposal would create a

technical committee with authority to advise

the court on enforcement issues. The states

want to create a special master, who would

effectively have veto power over Microsoft’s

design and marketing decisions.

The chances are excellent that the state

AG’s horror show will never make it to

Broadway. The new judge in the case—Judge

Jackson, you’ll recall—was fired for ethical

lapses.

But thanks to the states’ initiative, the case

will drag on, and the state AGs will earn

more brownie points from Microsoft’s

competitors. Who, apart from consumers of

software and believers in a prudent,

consumer-oriented antitrust policy, could ask

for anything more? Leonard Orland is a

professor at the University of Connecticut

Law School. This was an article he wrote on

December 21st which succinctly addressed

the real issues in this case.

Jeff Erwin

General Manager

Network Management Group

Management Business Group

Microsoft Corporation

(425) 705–9400

MTC–00006735

From: Margo Jenson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:19pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Once and for all leave the most important

business in United States, Microsoft

corportion alone. It is about time they can

conduct their/our business that benefits the

US as well as all the rest of the world without

somone constantly trying to beat them down.

WE AS CUSTOMERS HAVE HAD ENOUGH

GET OFF THEIR CASE !!!!!!

Until somone can build a better mouse trap

they better shut up!

Margo Jenson

Anacortes, WA

MTC–00006736

From: Robert S. (Bob) Duggan, Jr.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs:

Let’s get past the Microsoft dialogue and

finalize the settlement. Further delay is of no

benefit to anyone, and it further delays the

upturn in the national economy.

Yours for a better economy.

Robert S. (Bob) Duggan, Jr.

r.duggan@ieee.org

1112 Mason Woods Drive

Atlanta, GA 30329

[home page] http://pages.prodigy.net/

r.duggan

[genealogy] http://

freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/duggan

MTC–00006737

From: ClioKoutz@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

Please settle with Microsoft and do not

allow litigation to continue any longer. The

consumer will be harmed if litigation

continues. I would hate to see further delays

of the shipping of free computers to the inner

city schools.

Sincerely,

Clio Koutzoumis

MTC–00006738

From: ISavliwala@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe for the good of the people and the

economy, this matter should be settled

without further ado.

I believe further prolongation would only

hurt the economy. Microsoft has been

instrumental in propelling our country

forward and I don’t think this is the time to

reverse the trend.

Mustafa N. Savliwala

MTC–00006739

From: paul—schmidt@msn.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentleman:

I strongly believe the government should

do everything possible to settle with

Microsoft. Microsoft’s contribution to

industry has been outstanding. To punish

Microsoft is unthinkable. It’s easy to compete

with Microsoft. It’s called superior

technology. Anybody can do it. For sure it

isn’t the legal system.

Thank you for hearing my thoughts.

Paul Schmidt, Jr.

paul_schmidt@msn.com

MTC–00006740

From: Georgene Majors

24846 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think that the settlement agreed to by

Microsoft and DOJ is more than fair to all

parties. I would like to see us move on, it

would benefit the end consumer and the

industry and the economy to put this behind

us. Further litigation, in my opinion, serves

no useful purpose.

Respectfully

Georgene Majors

MTC–00006741

From: RYBARCZYKT@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my feeling that the government has put

Microsoft through a legal proceeding that has

unfairly penalized them for acting properly

in our capitalistic society. The main

instigators of this proceeding were

Microsoft’s competitors. I guess they figured

that if they could not beat Microsoft in the

business arena maybe they could do it in

court. It is now time to drop the litigation

and accept the settlement offer that has been

agreed to by both Microsoft and the Federal

Government.

MTC–00006742

From: paul—mindrup@

standardandpoors.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Attention: Department of Justice,

Regarding the recent Microsoft Settlement,

I would like to state publicly that the

settlement is fair and serves the public

interest.

Considering all of the facts, this settlement

is tough but is also reasonable and fair to all

parties involved.

I beleive that this settlement is good for the

consumer and that opposition to this

settlement comes mainly from the

competitors of Microsoft.

Sincerely,

Paul Mindrup

MTC–00006743

From: Poppy1230@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Once and for all, I think it’s time the

governments, federal and state, get off the

back of Microsoft and let them continue to

do what they are best at doing and that is

innovating and coming up with new

products. I frankly don’t see them as a threat

to the consumers. It’s not that they’re the

only show in town. There are too many cry

babies in Silicon Valley.

Virgil Nerli,

Flushing, New York

MTC–00006744

From: MikeKirk1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am against the settlement. Frankly, I don’t

think Microsoft should be punished. They

have created a product which has enabled

this computer/technology revolution to

occur. For years we had microchips,

computers etc. but it was not until Microsoft

build their windows software and explorer

software that everything was able to come

together in one workable platform. Please

don’t kill the goose that laid the golden

egg!!!!

Regards,

Michael Kirk

201–678–1941

MTC–00006745

From: Eldon Loewe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

I urge you to settle the Microsoft case in

its present form; no further litigation please.

Eldon Loewe

916 NW 115th Circle

Vancouver, WA 98685

nicpapa@teleport.com

MTC–00006746

From: EVERETT WILLIAMS

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have had a computer since 1983 and like

almost everyone else have used Microsoft

windows. I have always had a choice of

browsers, all I had to do was download

whatever I wanted. I feel that the fact that

Microsoft offered their browser as part of the

windows operating system caused a far

greater and rapid use of e-mail, everyone

gained. Enough already.

E.H. Williams

MTC–00006747

From: Ernie Valenzuela

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:22pm

Subject: microsoft settlement:

Re: settlement:

I still think the government should leave

Microsoft alone,let you continue inovating

new programs and systems.

All others can do the same on their own,

I am tired of bickering and government

interference. They should look into the

failure of Congress to pass the very important

bill, on relief for the economy before we go

down like Japan.

The Stimullus package, should have been

addressed , and not the microsoft affair. Is

this a free country,? then let the other

companies do their own research, I am happy

with Microsoft as it is.

Stay Well

Ernesto Valenzuela, Captain USN Retired

MTC–00006748

From: Barry Kentrup

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:23pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear DOJ Representative,

The Microsoft settlement is needed for the

American economy to return. This suit was

a political action from the start and now is

the time to correct this error. I recommend

the following action:

1.) Throw the entire suit out!!!

2.) If #1 is not possible, make the decision

as fast and soft as possible.

Microsoft is a company which has done

wonders for our country, It is time to repay

them with your confidence vote.

Barry Kentrup

Orange, CA

Disclaimer: I own no Microsoft stock and

am in no other way affiliated with this

company. I am an honest self-respecting lawabiding citizen who knows the difference

between right and wrong.

MTC–00006749

From: Warren Uppling

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

The ‘‘settlement’’ seems to be the best for

the consumer, whom I represent. I think it is

time to get back to business. Thanks for your

time and consideration.

jwu

MTC–00006750

From: Richard Latimer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:23pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs:

I am pleased with the tentative settlement

reached with Microsoft corporation as stands.

I would like to get this matter behind us as

soon as possible so not to hinder future

breakthroughs in the world of computer

electronics.

Cordially,

Mr. Richard K. Latimer

MTC–00006751

From: Chuck Brouse

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:16pm

Subject: MS Settlement

I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement.

I for one, being a consumer and an IT

professional, enjoy and benefit from using

Microsoft products. This settlement isn’t

exactly timely, but nevertheless will end a

disagreement between the government and

Microsoft that I personally have seen as

ridiculous and a waste of the tax payers

money.

Chuck Brouse

CEB Information Systems, Inc.

9050 Iron Horse Lane, Suite 108

Baltimore, MD 21208

Bus: 410.580.9080

Fax: 410.580.9082

www.cebis.com

cbrouse@cebis.com

MTC–00006752

From: Jennie Jast

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ:

As a concerned citizen and a consumer, I

strongly support the settlement of US. vs.

Microsoft. Please stop special interests group

from derailing the settlement and wasting

taxpayers money. Settle the case NOW and

tell the 9 state attorneys to stop putting their

personal ambitions above the people of their

states!

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24847

Let the free market decide Microsoft’s fate.

Jennie Jastrzembski

Newport News, VA

MTC–00006753

From: Rices21@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

People under free economic systems

prosper, people under government controlled

systems struggle to survive. Government

intervention in the market place serves

corruption, not productivity. It is the tax

supported government that is too powerful,

not comsumer supported Microsoft. The

entire government case against Microsoft

should be dismissed.

Houston W. Rice

rices21@aol.com

MTC–00006754

From: Donald E. Olsby

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Why don’t you get off there case ?? Give

them some more time. Having to waste so

much energy looking for UNCLE SAM and

now the states has to be a drain on

production. You must realize the longer it

takes the more money they will have. They

can’t even come close to filling XBOX orders

let alone the other software products that are

in such demand. My son attends a local

community college and he says without the

help and gifts from Microsoft they would be

up creek in the information tech side of the

school and here they are gifting and UNCLE

is undercutting. You make no sense you can’t

take their brains away—-THANK GOD !!//

Don & Carol Olsby

Donald E.Olsby

CC:David Olsby

MTC–00006755

From: JWesley4X@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

I am in favor of settling the case against

Microsoft. The proposed settlement is fair to

all parties concerned and should move

forward.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Beck

MTC–00006756

From: florence howe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear sirs,

Enough is enough, End This Legal

Manovering and get on to somthing that will

benifit the masses rather than just a few.

Glenn R Howe

5137 SE Oakland Ave

Milwaukie, OR 97267

MTC–00006757

From: Deb Dub

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

This case has drug on for WAY TOO

LONG! Please make sure this reaches a

settlement soon so we can all move on. And

hopefully, the economy will be the better for

it as well. (Have you noticed that things go

better whenever a rumored settlement is

being discussed?)

And remind the states on where personal

computer technology would be if it wasn’t for

Microsoft. I’ve used Unix systems and would

NEVER want something like that at home. It’s

not user friendly at all!!!

Thanks for getting this taken care of in a

timely fashion.

Sincerely,

Debbie Wilcox

MTC–00006758

From: Art Paquette

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:25pm

Please stop stifling the innovation which

benefits our country’s economy and serves

only to dampen the recovery . . .

Settle this suit with Microsoft and let’s get

on with business . . .

A Concerned Citizen and Taxpayer . . .

Art Paquette

MTC–00006759

From: Gordon Knight

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

As an entrepreneur I believe in the freedom

to conduct business in a manner consistent

with civilized practice and the laws of the

State and Country.

I consider that Microsoft has done this, yes

there may be some sour grapes from others

not so smart or not so fast, their loss will

encourage them to try harder and move faster

in future that’s free enterprise. Its very easy

to get overly combative in the heat of battle

maybe Microsoft is guilty of that but no more.

Thanks to Microsoft products my business

runs much more efficiently today than 10

years ago. I suggest that the Government busy

themselves with criminals, tax evaders,

terrorists and suchlike and leave

entrepreneurs and business men to do what

they are best at even if its highly competitive.

Sincerely

Gordon B. Knight

MTC–00006760

From: OBJECTIVE1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle with Microsoft. The DOJ was wrong

in attacking Microsoft in the first place.

Microsoft did not do anything wrong. They

did not initiate force against others. They did

not commit fraud. They were being pursued

for offering a product (Internet Explorer) to

their customers for free. Why is that a crime?

They were being pursued for negotiating

with their customers a agreement whereby

their software would be included on newly

produced computers. Why is that a crime?

Bill Gates was targeted because he was too

successful for Washington bureaucrats.

Antitrust law is an abomination and should

be abolished. It punishes innovation and

success and makes the world less

competitive not more. It makes products

more expensive not less.

You should spend your time pursuing Bin

Laden not Bill Gates!

Logan Darrow

MTC–00006761

From: Alan Goldberg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:25pm

Subject: It’s time to settle and move on

I think it is time for all parties involved in

the Microsoft case to accept the DOJ

settlement and move on. The consumer has

not been harmed and it is only the lawyers

and weak competitors who stand to benefit

from continuing this case. History has proven

that the marketplace does more to correct

these problems then the courts.

Alan Goldberg

Kings Point, NY

MTC–00006762

From: w—engstrom

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs, Instead of being harassed by the

U. S. Government, Microsoft should be

considered as a National Treasure. Its

exported products help our economy and

expand our capabilities. I think that the court

case against Microsoft was totally unfounded.

Whatever concessions that Microsoft makes

are more than adequate, and in my opinion

should not even be necessary. While there

are those people (mainly Microsoft’s

competitors) who want to suppress

Microsoft, we believe that Microsoft provides

great products and follows up with great

support for those products.

Microsoft’s products are sometimes

released with ‘‘bugs.’’ However, Microsoft

readily provides fixes via the Internet as soon

as they realize there is a problem. Their

customer support is outstanding. As an

engineer, I recognize that few products that

hit the marketplace can be perfect, and that

it is impossible to foresee everything that can

go wrong, no matter how well you plan. In

spite of this, Microsoft does a great job and

has provided significant support to the

technology and economic health of the

industry and our country.

William Engstrom

3110 181 Avenue NE

Redmond, WA 98052–5934

PS, I haven’t seen Janet Reno or Joel Klein

producing any software or anything else of

value to the country lately. Thank God they

are no longer with the Government. The main

thing that can be said of Joel Klein is that he

successfully used the Microsoft suit as a

stepping stone to a better-paying job. But he

left a wake of destruction behind him.

MTC–00006763

From: Rich Wray

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have a small real estate investment and

management business in Southern California,

and I have been a satisfied user of Microsoft

products in my business since 1995. I also

own a small amount of their stock. During

the past several years I have followed closely

24848 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

the anti-trust trial, and, frankly, I cannot

understand the governments position against

Microsoft, their products and their business

practices. In my opinion, the only plausible

explanation is politics. It is the ugly side of

our system of government where competitors

use political contributions to gain access to

holders of public office and judges in order

to gain an advantage against a business

competitor. For me it is particularly

disapointing that the primary example of this

ugly part of politics is occuring in my home

state, where Oracle and Sun Microsystems

have teamed up with Attorney General Bill

Lockler for their respective personal gain.

I know that Microsoft products have been

greatly responsible for the increase in

productivity of individuals and business,

especially during the past seven years,

because in my business we are able to

accomplish with 3 people what required 6 or

more people in the 1980’s and early 1990’s.

The difference is profitability for myself and

better pay for my employees. We are not

technical people, so we would not be able to

take advantage of computers and the internet

without the software provided by Microsoft.

Also, as Microsoft has incorporated more into

their operating system, we have been able to

take even greater advantage of technology.

We now regularly use the internet in our

business to communicate, purchase goods

and services, and to access information, all

without the need to know how it works. I for

one do not want to revert to a world where

these capabilities are available only to the

technologically advantaged.

My son is an electrical engineer and, prior

to his graduation from college, he was not a

fan of Microsoft. Like most technology

people, he prided himself in the ability to use

linux and other software programs that a

technically-challenged person such as myself

could not use without a great deal of training.

Now that he is in the business world, he

appreciates Microsoft products because he

now understands the necessity for all people

to communicate on the internet and to use

the power of computers, which non-tecnical

people would not be able to do without

Microsoft or similar software. Sun Micro,

Oracle, AOL and others could have chosen to

develop competing technologies to challenge

Microsoft’s growing dominance, but, instead

they have chosen to use their vast resources

to fund a political challenge instead.

My understanding of anti-trust law is

limited, but I thought that the over-riding

intent was to protect the consumer. How is

the consumer protected by restricting his

ability to access the internet and other

technologies by limiting the extent to which

such abilities can be incorporated into the

operating system of their computer? Also,

how has the consumer been harmed? Anyone

who has purchased software knows that

Microsoft products are not expensive,

certainly not when compared to other

operating systems and business software. As

for Microsoft’s business practices, most of

what I have heard has centered on things like

volume discounting and controlling ‘‘shelf

space’’, that is access to the desk top. In my

opinion, these are normal business practices.

If Microsoft has a monopoly in operating

systems and even business applications, then

it is a de-facto monopoly. The consumer has

selected Microsoft products overwhelmingly

for their performance, not for lack of

alternatives. The same can be siad for AOL.

What is the point of the never-ending legal

onslaught against Microsoft other than for the

personal gain of individuals in the Federal

Justice Department (especially under

Clinton), the State’s Attorney Generals, the

aforementioned Oracle, Sun Microsystems

and AOL, and every class-action lawyer in

the United States anxiously awaiting their

turn to profit from this legal war on

Microsoft. For the consumer, what might the

award be, some discount coupon on their

next Microsoft product? Obviously, this legal

war on Microsoft is not about the consumer

at all. Its about politics.

I do not believe that Microsoft owes

anything to anyone for their success.

However, if Microsoft gives software and reconditioned computers to schools, the

schools and the children are winners. Of

course, Microsoft might also be a winner if

this means that more schools in the future

buy Microsoft instead of Apple, or more

children and their families do the same. The

only way to avoid this result is to deprive the

schools and the children of the Microsoft

products, or for Apple to improve upon their

product. Let’s bring this legal warfare to an

end. Accept the Microsoft settlement. For

those tates that choose not to do so, let them

continue their battle on their own. Maybe the

citizens of their states will become as

disgusted with the costs and the process as

am I.

Thank you.

Rich Wray

MTC–00006764

From: Kenneth Jennings

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I feel strongly that Microsoft has not done

damage to other companies. Microsoft has

been innovative and should not be penalized

for that. It is time to get this case settled

which will also be a big help to the economy.

Sincerely, Verna Jean Jennings, consumer.

MTC–00006765

From: C.W. Schumacher

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:28pm

Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I feel strongly that the proposed litigation

settlement with Microsoft should be finalized

as presented.

We’ve had enough litigation.

Respectfully,

Carl W. Schumacher

5655 Lynbrook

Houston, TX 77056

Email: cschumacher88@hotmail.com

MTC–00006766

From: Mrothberg@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let’s get the show on the road and

implement the settlement. MS is a pioneering

entrepreneurial company that has only done

great things for the Information Technology

industry. Let’s not play around anymore with

those who want to penalize MS for their

vision and and intelligence.

.......Remember the 11th of September......

Michael Rothberg

APPLIED NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC

PO Box 6380

Somerset NJ 08875–6380

(Cell) (732) 208–7323

(V) (877) 247–0377

(V) (732) 247–0377

(F) (732) 247–0139

E-mail: Mrothberg@AOL.com

MTC–00006767

From: Jim STARNES

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To The Department of Justice Officials:

I feel that Microsoft Corporation has

worked hard at reaching a fair settlement

over the last year, and all parties should be

commended on their efforts. However, when

you deal in the type of businesses that

Microsoft does, there are many competitors

that may not have fairness in mind. I hope

that the Department of Justice feels confident

in the present settlement, and does not allow

those with ‘‘special interests’’ to derail an

agreement that is in the public’s best interest.

Sincerely,

James W Starnes

jim_starnes@pgn.com

MTC–00006768

From: C Zellmer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:28pm

Subject: Micrsoft Settlement

Lets close the Microsoft case. It should be

settled for the good of the country and the

good of the Consumers. Thanks ,

C. Duane Zellmer

6061 Dundee Drive

Huntington Beach, Ca.

92647

MTC–00006769

From: Paul Sanusi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:22pm

Subject: Setle the Case with Microsoft Once

and for all

I will like to see the problem with

Microsoft resolved finally. This case is

dragging the whole economy down. I will

like to see Microsoft freed , because

unnecessary time and energy is being wasted.

Microsoft could have done more innovations

where it not for this case. The nation needs

better technological innovations . This can

not be achieved by holding the gun at

Microsoft’s head. I am suprised that the state

of California is not the other states willing to

resolve this case. California is suppose to be

an innovative state.

MTC–00006770

From: DrLehon@cs.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:29pm

Subject: (no subject)

I feel the settlement between the federal

govenment and Microsoft is sufficient. I do

not believe it is in the public interest for the

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24849

States to make additonal demands upon

Microsoft.

Thank You

Lester Lehon

MTC–00006771

From: Charles Chambers Sr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

When will the government get out of the

way of progress. I feel that the governments

persuit of Microsoft has inhibited progress

and has contributed to the economic decline

in the technology area and the economy in

general. Please move over and get out of the

way.

Charles R. Chambers

MTC–00006772

From: daley advertising

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen/Ladies,

Please do not throw any more monkey

wrenches in this action. Lets get it settled as

it stands.

Everyone seems to forget that this man

(Gates) and the Microsoft company have been

largely responsible for the development of a

system that has benefited the world and

business for the past 15 years. Before

windows, it was impossible to get one piece

of software to be compatible with another.

With the developments of windows operating

system, the WORLD has benefited greatly.

He has invented a better mouse trap and

the cry babies that oppose him and his

company will bring the entire industry back

to the stone age if you allow them to screw

up a good thing. Let the opposition be as

creative and as inventive as Microsoft and let

them compete that way.....not by having

politicians getting involved in something

they know nothing about.

Yours truly,

George F. Daley

MTC–00006773

From: SCZECINSKI@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:30pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

PLEASE LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE—

THEY HAVEN’T DONE ANYTHING

WRONG.

PLEASE LET’S GET THIS OVER WITH.

SINCERELY,

MONIQUE SZCZECINSKI

MTC–00006774

From: Elaine Ehrhardt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This comment is directed to the

Department of Justice. This is to let you know

that I feel that it is in the best interest of all

concerned that the Department of Justice goes

through with the settlement that it has

reached with Microsoft.

Thank you for your taking the time to read

this message.

Sincerely,

Elaine Mirone Ehrhardt

MTC–00006775

From: HENRY KIENZLE

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the Microsoft settlement

should proceed as it now stands. Further

litigation merely hampers progress in the

computer industry, and allows more

unscrupulous litigates to further enrich

themselves at the expense of the public

taxpayers.

This case has already dragged on far too

long, and should be brought to a swift, fair

conclusion.

MTC–00006776

From: Richard T Schroeder

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft Settlement is fair and further

litigation is a total waste of money. We

taxpayers are sick and tired of the continued

playing around and are appalled at how

much money has been wasted in the past

years on this activity. Kindly close the book

and stop the waste. I for one have worked

hard to earn my money and the Government

throwing it away on this unnecessary pursuit

is simply grandstanding. It is not the United

States money that is being wasted, it is mine

and the other millions of taxpayers. Stop this

continued abuse!

R.T. Schroeder

MTC–00006777

From: Tom Collins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

From the outset of the suit I have felt that

the charges were more political than fact

based and as a user of many of Microsoft’s

programs I have felt that the software and

services were fairly priced and technical

support was available when ever needed. As

far as a competitor’s viewpoint sour grapes

appear to be obvious. I hope the settlement

can go forward and allow the competitors to

built a better mousetrap as opposed to

destroying a well founded Capitalistic

American company.

Sincerely,

Thomas F. Collins

MTC–00006778

From: eclaggett@tt-ec.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

United States of America

Department of Justice

To Whom It May Concern

I strongly believe that the comprehensive

agreement reached between the federal

government and nine states with Microsoft to

address the reduced liability found in the

Court of Appeals ruling is fair and equitable.

I strongly believe that the settlement is

reasonable and fair to all parties involved,

and once finalized could provide a small but

much needed boost to the current economy.

I believe any further actions against

Microsoft would simply be for punitive

measures by Microsoft competitors.

The more quickly this can be settled, the

better for all parties involved!

Eric Claggett

Vice President of Operations

Tinnerman Palnut Engineered Products M

assillon, Ohio

Phone: 330.830.7521

Fax: 330.830.7505

E-Mail: eclaggett@tinnerman.com

MTC–00006779

From: Hank Flynn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

As a longtime developer of software

products for engineers I feel that the DOJ anti

trust suits have harmed Microsoft and the

marketplace. Let’s end this countrproductive

litigation and let the market place do what

it does well, sort out winners from losers,

without political interference.

Best Regards,

Hank Flynn

MTC–00006780

From: TESSTAUG@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a concerned consumer, I consider the

Microsoft settlement fair and reasonable. It’s

time to bring this litigation to a close. Put a

stop to the efforts of the special interest

groups, who apparently are unable to

compete effectively in the market place

without government assistance, and the ego

trips of the nine State Attorneys General who

are trying to extend the litigation and waste

more of the tax payer’s money.

Travis Smith

66 Old Hickory Trail

Hendersonville, NC 28739

MTC–00006781

From: Steve(u)Lieberman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

I am a proponent of the settlement reached

between Microsoft and the DOJ. Please end

this economically debilitating litigation. I

firmly believe that to continue the litigation

will unnecessarily punish Microsoft, provide

unjustifiable benefits to Microsoft

competitors and leave the consumer with less

product choice priced more expensively. In

short, I see no benefits to consumers like

myself with any further litigation against

Microsoft. Please settle immediately.

Steve Lieberman

Oceanside, CA

MTC–00006782

From: Jeff Stucky

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This antitrust suit was not started by

consumers and it has done an untold amount

of damage to our economy. The Microsoft

settlement is more than fair and needs to be

made final.

Thank You,

Jeff Stucky

24850 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00006783

From: Jon Houghton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The Microsoft settlement is both fair and

just. Let’s get on to more important issues.

It’s been tough enough for Microsoft to be as

innovative as I know they can be with all the

actions taken against them. DOJ, how about

spending more time and money on wiping

out the criminal drug traffic!

Jon Houghton

Pinecrest, FL

MTC–00006784

From: Ernie and Louise

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm

Subject: microsft judgement

Please leave the Microsoft settlement as is.

It is fair.

Ernest M. Wallent

MTC–00006785

From: FSubjack@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:34pm

Subject: Be fair to America—the Microsoft

settlement is more than fair

Let’s have an end to the badgering of a

successful Company. Yes, they are aggressive

and successful but that is what America is

about and that is exactly what makes us

successful.

Respectfully submitted.

Frank Scott

Journeys End Lane

Princeton, NJ

MTC–00006786

From: Dale Wierman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:34pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

The politically motivated litigation against

Microsoft was initially not appropriate in my

personal judgment, but that is no longer the

issue. Severe damage to the National

economy, and to the investment portfolios of

countless citizens, has been a direct

consequence of this morass initiated by

statutes not appropriate to the technology of

this era.

Our National government has a very

definitive role to combat terrorism, without

continuing action to dismantle an industrial

leader of the free world. The process and

expense of the proposed settlement action is

much more than appropriate, but should be

approved to end the endless expenditure of

both public and private time and effort.

Further, it would be most appropriate to

penalize any State that does not agree to the

terms of settlement extended by DOJ and

Microsoft, and attempts to continue the

litigation. There are significant issues of

National security that need the entire focus

and effort of the free world without the USA

dismantling our economic structure

internally!

Thank you for considering our view.

Dale L. and Jane C. Wierman

MTC–00006787

From: jackbarr@postoffice.

pacbell.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm

Subject: settlement

I believe Microsoft has a responsibility to

society to play fair and not intimidate its

competitors and potential partners. Microsoft

should have been divided into two

companies. Their attitude has not changed

and they will be even more powerful in the

years to come.

John Barry

MTC–00006788

From: Neil Bergman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:29pm

The country has wasted enuff money on

this matter. the only ones who may be hurt

by this settlement are microsoft’s

competitors. get it done with. the settlement

is fair.

MTC–00006789

From: KJGERWELL@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:34pm

Subject: (no subject)

Microsoft is an American treasure. Sure

they are big, but I thought capitalism allowed

for competition and not restrictions based on

the fact that others are not as competetive or

successful. Microsoft has given back an

enormous amount to this country in

technology, charity and good will, so I

believe that they should be allowed to

operate as they were. Creating restrictions

will only hamper their development and

research.

MTC–00006790

From: DBrandt881@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

settle...period...for msft users, msft

investors, and other internet software users’

well being....settle....

MTC–00006791

From: Bbkosty@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let it be. Let it be. There’s no point in

harassing the company that has been the

most innovative in the computer industry. I

am content with the settlement as are so

many millions of Microsoft sympathizers.

Since when is success a sin???

Yours truly,

Barbara Kosty

1133 Lagoon View Ct.

Cardiff, CA 92007

MTC–00006792

From: RBlum10036@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:36pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Stop those few from playing games! accept

that just settlement, considered judgement

and wisdom, from my generation that too

often today is ignored.

History, sometimes doesn’t get thru to the

youngsters, until too late.

God Bless

Bob Blum

MTC–00006793

From: Thomas Thon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm

Subject: MS LAWSUITS

Drop the case and move on..Japan would

have given MS a medal of honor for

accomplishing what they have...The

microsoft action was politically motivated to

get MS to start giving money to

polliticians..Blackmail, pure and

Simple..Now MS is giving money to

politicians..

MTC–00006794

From: Ron Large

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:36pm

Please settle the Microsoft suit under the

terms agreed to by various attorneys general

and Microsoft.

Microsoft’s ‘‘monopoly’’ has enabled

millions of CONSUMERS to exchange files,

share data, etc. Plus, anyone who wants to

can always buy a Mac and not use Microsoft

products. Or they can use their existing PC

but use Linux (free) and not even install

Microsoft Windows or any other Microsoft

product. I believe the suit was not in the

consumers’ interest at all. Big companies (not

as big as Microsoft) wanted this suit. They

couldn’t win in the marketplace, but they

devised a way to win in court.

I do not now nor have I ever worked for

Microsoft or any software or computer

company nor have I ever owned Microsoft

stock. I simply use a computer several hours

each day running my own small business.

Ronald J Large

Large Profits Fund Raising

400 Susana Avenue

Redondo Beach, CA 90277

MTC–00006795

From: TEX10101@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The above company has the knowledge

and ability to continue to impact the progress

of communications in our country in the

future as it has in the past and at this time,

there should be concern of stifling our

national progress thru inordinate restrictions

that can act as a detriment to that

development.

The public welfare extends to that future

development more than the public welfare in

either penalizing Microsoft too harshly in

sharing information with competitors or in

monetary penalties at this time. Overall the

public has little support for harsh penalties

and feel the major proponents are simply

those companies who are in the ‘‘me too’’

welfare line to attempt to share in the profit

of the research and development success of

Microsoft. Forsightness on the impact of

severe control Vs future US technology

potential should be the true measurement of

any legal decision

MTC–00006796

From: Dennis Aulenbacher

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:39pm

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24851

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

I am in complete support of the settlement

that has been reached between the US

Government and Microsoft Corporation. All

further actions should be completely

disallowed. The settlement is FAIR.

Dennis Aulenbacher

cai@htc.net

MTC–00006797

From: UWISSHH@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:38pm

Subject: (no subject)

This is a fair settlement the goverment

should move on , don t they have anything

else to do ?????? They should move on . Stop

picking on microsoft. !!!!!!

MTC–00006798

From: Robert Dunlap

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settelement

I encourage the Department of Justice to

finalize its settlement agreement with

Microsoft as expeditiously as possible. The

failure to finalize the settlement has and will

continue to hang over the market and will

limit the innovation that is required to

further expand the use of technology

throughout the world’s economy.

Sincerely,

Robert M. Dunlap

18655 West Bernardo Drive, #286

San Diego, CA 92127

MTC–00006799

From: George Tinker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam;

This lawsuit was a travesty of justice and

a waste of our short taxpayer funds. Who is

to gain by this? Certainly not software and

computer users like me, who are looking for

easier, faster, less troublesome connections.

Have I received more than I expected? Who

are the small parties that have been injured,

that small outfit that had an extra $1

BILLION in cash to give to the UN, AOL

Time Warner (CNN, Netscape, etc.)? I’m sure

they’re laughing all the way to the bank (hey,

we just got the Government, at Taxpayers’

expense, to kill our largest competitor.)

This was a bad lawsuit, a clever way for

AOL and Sun to kill a major competitor, it

chews up precious resources, and has

harmed consumers through stifling of

creative thought. Drop or settle. There is no

more excuse!

Regards,

George Tinker

georgewtinker@hotmail.com

MTC–00006800

From: Jacques Guenette

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough litigation !

Jacques (Jag) GuI ̆≤nette

jacques.guenette@dlgl.com

jguen99@aol.com

MTC–00006801

From: Marty Christensen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please stop the litigation against Microsoft

and leave them alone. There is no reason for

the lawsuit to be extended in way, shape or

manner. This should now be a dead issue.

Too much governmental money has already

been wasted on this and no more should be

spent.

Marty Christensen

Listen, Inc.

312–277–4236

312–207–0102 (fax)

MTC–00006802

From: Grieve, Jim

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 4:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

U.S. Department of Justice:

Please add my name to the list of

200,000,000 or so United States citizens who

are or should be tired of the unfair treatment

which has been rendered against Microsoft.

The company has led the way in ensuring

that our great country is counted as the most

technically advanced nation on the face of

the earth. It may be true that they cut a few

corners along the way, making it seem that

they were not good corporate citizens. But

whatever sins they committed pale in

comparison with the benefits that have

accrued to all of us. At this point, Microsoft

is attempting to make honest restitution for

those sins in terms of the proposed

settlement. Since they are comfortable with

the settlement, I suggest that it be ratified so

they can get back to business.

Sincerely,

James W. Grieve

441 North Ashbury Avenue

Bolingbrook, Illinois 60440

MTC–00006804

From: Peter B. Moss

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The latest roadblock set up by these

dissident states is just another money grab a

la the tobacco settlement. These states would

still be wallowing in 19th century

technology,but for Mr. Gates & Co. As a

consumer and taxpayer, I think the original

settlement is fair and just. Lets move on and

leave the whiny competitors and greedy

Attorneys General to fight some other battle.

Sincerely,

Peter B. Moss

MTC–00006805

From: Sueysch30@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:41pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I want to express my opinion that the

REVISED PROPOSED SETTLEMENT with

Microsoft should stand.

MTC–00006806

From: John Beasley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is more than fair. Resolve this matter

now. The consumer needs this matter over.

John Beasley

1524 So. 51st Kansas City Ks 66106

MTC–00006807

From: louemma@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:40pm

Subject: Settlement!

Don’t you think it time to settle this

agreement? There are so many of us, the

older generation, who know, use and like

Microsoft as it is; why change it to something

that we cannot use?

It’s time that we got this settled and settled

in the best interest of the most of it’s user’s,

not just a few dissidents! Let’s leave it alone

now as it is!

Louemma Jensen

louemma@juno.com

MTC–00006808

From: Bill Creighton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

Microsoft has paid its penalties. It is no

longer in my interest to furthur pursue this

matter or indeed the public’s.

Every business in America would like to

suceed like Microsoft

Bill Creighton

MTC–00006809

From: Charles Treadwell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

I believe the Microsoft/DOJ settlement is a

fair one and feel the case should be

completed.

Thank you,

Charles H. Treadwell, Jr

2057 Bordeaux Lane

Half Moon Bay, CA 94019–1432

MTC–00006810

From: Applestinx@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:41pm

Subject: come on!

Look at who’s going after Microsoft! Apple,

who’s guilty of almost everything they accuse

Microsoft of. If Apple or those companies

busy designing the Linux operating system

don’t have the same market penetration as

Microsoft, its because these other companies

make stuff that the market doesn’t like.

No one is stopping anyone from using

products from Microsoft’s competitors. Most

people choose Microsoft for many reasons.

Why should folks like Apple, who can’t

compete, now be subsidized by Microsoft, a

company that still has original ideas? Why do

all these second-rate companies think they

should get a share of what Microsoft has

innovated?

I paid $11.50 (w/ shipping) to get the Linux

operating system. Its so clunky & lousy, I

won’t even use it. Did Microsoft cause this

Linux OS to be crummy? NO. I can’t even

begin to tell you how horrible the Apple

computer is. Apple makes their own

24852 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

hardware & software, they have total control.

Yet they make junk, & charge more than

Microsoft does for new operating systems.

Let’s have a level playing field. Let’s

investigate all the other hardware & software

companies, too. Its politically correct to slam

Microsoft. Apple, the dirtiest little company

that ever was, points to Microsoft and cries

foul. Let’s take a good look at the whole

industry before one company unfairly gets

beaten up.

MTC–00006811

From: Andrew Amicon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ:

Isn’t enough, enough. Get the states off of

Microsoft’s back and let them get back to

running their business. The taxpayers and

Microsoft have spent enormous amounts of

money NOT TO MENTION MANAGMENT

TIME in getting through this DOJ witch hunt.

It’s time to move on so Microsoft can

innovate again and make the world more

productive! Throw the 8 state cases out of

court and force the settlement on them!

Sincerely,

Andrew R. Amicon

CEO

Medical Technology Resources, LLC

MTC–00006812

From: Jack Pike

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs

Please get this thing settled, I am from

California, but its obvious that the

government authorities here are not listening

except to those with money to donate to their

campaigns. I have no connection with

Microsoft except to be a long time user of

their software. If it were not for Microsoft I

would hate to think where we would be in

the computing world. It would be as it was

15 years ago with those yuppies in the

Silicon Valley in charge, every thing to

expensive for the common man to afford.

Settle as soon as possible and use your

influence to get the states that are so hungry

for money to settle also. They do not care

about anything but money.

Jack H Pike

MTC–00006813

From: Jeanne and Joe

To: Microsoft ATR, Lawrence A. Julian

Date: 1/2/02 4:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings:

We feel that the Microsoft case has been in

courts much more time than necessary. There

are so many more important things to work

on now. Basically it appears that the majority

of the groups opposed to a settlement

consists of business competitors who are

jealous of Microsoft’s success. They want to

control Microsoft and be involved in any new

procedures that Microsoft will be initiating.

It is not in the best interest of the public to

put such strict controls on any company

Microsoft has produced many new and

useful computer programs and it appears that

their competitors are very jealous and are

attempting to tie up the company and

prevent normal honest competition.

Sincerely,

Joseph and Janette Giubbini

MTC–00006814

From: KKHR50A@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough is enough, lets get on with other

things. The settlement is adequate.

Ed Butler

4272 NW 54 St.

Coconut Creek FL 33073

MTC–00006815

From: Dave Janne

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs: I think the time has come to put

this behind us, and move on. I think the

proposed settlement with Microsoft is fair,

and just.

Thank you

L. David Janne

President

Steuben Electronics Inc.

MTC–00006816

From: LDavis3770@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please move forward with the proposed

settlement! The country needs this to come

to an end!

MTC–00006817

From: Susan Steele

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to say that I am pleased with

the settlement and find it fair for all. In my

opinion, this long, and costly, litigation

should never have happened to begin with.

I am very displeased to see that a few are

still trying to derail this settlement. This is

a terrible waste of time and money and could

be a direct loss to consumers (who depend

on Microsoft for the best) and can only result

in more negativity that will help to cause a

further decline of our United States economy.

All of this, in my opinion, has resulted

because of a few people/companies that have

been jealous of a man who happened to be

intelligent, innovative, successful and gave

back to his country and the world with

superior products AND donations of HUGE

magnitude. And, who, by the way, has

HELPED our economy. The public, I feel, has

had far more than enough, the companies

and ‘‘complainers’’ have had far more than

their chance...it’s time to move on!

Susan Steele

email:susannsteele@hotmail.com

MTC–00006818

From: John Farr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlepeople:

I urge you to wrap up and close this case

with Microsoft. For many of us, they have

been the engine that America has run on for

the last decade. The individual states are just

trying to make political hay and reap a

windfall from a big company. This does not

help the economy or the small business that

is just trying to go about their business and

survive.

I do not work for MS now or ever. I was

in the insurance business for years and am

now a newspaper columnist and community

activist.

Thank you.

John D. Farr

J. D. Farr ‘‘Johnbbq’’

Box 490 525 Pinon Ridge

Ranchos de Taos, NM 87557

NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS:

Johnbbq@msn.com

MTC–00006819

From: rishimo@attglobal.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

Finalize the settlement as soon as possible

as my opnion is that the US govt should not

have involved itself in this whole mess to

begin with, just to satisfy. This does not look

good on the image of a free enterprise

oriented govt.

regards

a tax paying citizen

MTC–00006820

From: r(u)hodg Hodgson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have written to you before about the

Microsoft Settlement. I said that I felt that it

was a good offer and that I felt that the court

should except it and put an end to this

business. I will take this opportune moment

to say-so again. We don’t need people

causing problems right now with the what is

going on in this world right now.

Respectfully yours,

Robert Hodgson

MTC–00006821

From: Wendy Sullivan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings:

I am writing my opinion to request that the

Microsoft case be settled without further

litigation. This case has gone on long enough

and I believe a fair resolution has already

been reached by the Court of Appeals. The

ruling is good for consumers and the sooner

this settlement can be resolved the sooner

companies can return to innovating rather

than fighting in court. Our economy (which

could use a boost) would benefit by new

technology.

Sincerely,

Wendy J. Sullivan

5640 Timson Lane

Alpharetta, GA 30022

MTC–00006822

From: PvHSr@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Decisions

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24853

Leave Microsoft alone. We have gotten past

bad Clinton politics except for a few Clinton

(Democratic) followers like Connecticut’s AG

Blumenthal.

Paul W. von Hardenberg

Southbury, CT

MTC–00006823

From: rdm13d

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:45pm

Subject: Settlement

Dear Sirs:

Please get off MSN’s back. If you damage

industry leaders you damage the USA.

Robert Mitchell

MTC–00006824

From: William Lenheim

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The DOJ, agreement with Microsoft

although hard, should stand. Any additional

changes to the settlement via States, DOJ, or

other sources should be avoided at all cost.

Microsoft may not be perfect, but they have

great products and are on the cutting edge of

Software development.

Microsoft is a widely held stock and

further harm could be accrued by the smaller

stock holders should the company be broken

up or changed in any way. The best way to

sum up the matter is ‘‘Leave Microsoft

Alone’’!

By the way I would think that AOL/Time

Warner, is more of a monopoly than

Microsoft ever was.

Mr. William Lenheim

lenheimw@msn.com

MTC–00006825

From: Dr. Kathi Antolak

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:45pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sir/Ms,

I have found Microsoft’s products to be

excellent over the years—and would favor

allowing them to advance the field of

computing without government interference.

Please stop using my tax dollars against this

company that has helped to change the world

in a positive manner. Please cease and desist

from further legal actions against Microsoft.

I believe it has had a deletory effect not only

on the computing world but also on our US

economy.

You have my vote. Please get this settled

and allow the company to continue it’s

innovations.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Antolak MD

2137 NW Cascade View Drive

Bend, OR 97701

MTC–00006826

From: DGuyton@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Err... would you guys like get over it

already, and leave Microsoft alone? I know

they are the Dark Side, and a megalomonopolistic bastard, but you know what? So

are you! (i.e. the Fed Govt).

So, just leave them alone and let the public

market sort things out. At least there is a

choice in who’s / what software people buy.

Microsoft got to be big via the free market

system. Let that system sort out their future,

not legislation.

Thanks.

David Guyton

dguyton@aol.com

MTC–00006827

From: Padmaraju@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I like to add my voice to encourage you to

proceed with the proposed Microsoft

settlement, without further litigation. This

will be in the interest of not just Microsoft

but in the interest of the country as a whole,

by reducing the cost of further litigation.

There already is plenty of competition in the

software industry. There are new companies

being founded by smart people all the time.

As a not very sophisticated computer user,

perhaps one of a large majority, I definitely

like the idea of buying one product that will

allow me to navigate seemlessly through

multiple applications. A complete

unbundling of the applications will be

definitely challenging and expensive.

Thanks for reading.

Padma Raju, M.D.

Topeka, KS 60004

MTC–00006828

From: Susan Holden

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:47pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

I have been following the Microsoft

litigation for years and am delighted to hear

that you are settling this case. I think the

settlement sounds very fair. And now is not

the time to drag our greatest American

company through the mud. They need to get

back to business.

Susan Holden

Executive Producer and Chief Financial

Officer

Curious Pictures

http://www.curiouspictures.com

MTC–00006829

From: Steve Franke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:47pm

Subject: Microsoft

The continued litigation of Microsoft is

ridiculous. The States Attorneys General who

are not satisfied with the verdict in the case

are nothing more than showboating, and

trying to collect revenue for their states.

Enough is enough !!

Steve Franke

s.franke@gte.net

MTC–00006830

From: FMeyer9254@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:47pm

Subject: Settlement

I taught English in Madagascar in Aug of

2000 and fielded many questions about the

United States. One of the oddest series of

questions that were asked pertained to

whether Bill Gates was going to prison for

what he had done at Microsoft.

It took awhile to explain the difference

between civil and criminal law and I did my

best.

To the people in Madagascar , if they know

of the situation with Microsoft, the general

belief is that he must be a criminal. While

this may not be of great moment to the justice

department I believe that it is unfortunate

that the several state justice departments

wish to prosecute one of America’s great

entrepreneurs and that the US Justice Dept.

took up the case in the first place. It makes

the US look vindictive and small.

Bill Gates is not a hero like we have seen

in the last few months but he is someone

whose influence has been of benefit for our

country.

Fred Meyer

2101 E. Bethany Home Rd.

Phoenix, Az. 85016

fmeyer9254@aol.com

MTC–00006831

From: greg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:47pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

D.O.J

Let’s get this settled and move on. The only

people that prolonging this ordeal serves, are

the politicians and the lawyers. The

representatives of the nine states are not

concerned about the consumer. If they deny

this, then make them explain how I, the

consumer, will benefit from any settlement.

Competition and pricing are addressed daily

. Faster, more efficient computers are sold

each day at prices lower than the day before!

Where were these people that are so

concerned for Joe Public, when Microsoft

was perpetrating their only true offense, that

being the sales and marketing of an inferior

product that was able garner an approximate

96% share of the market ? NOW THAT’S

AMERICAN INGENUITY AT ITS

CORPORATE BEST!

Rein in Microsoft and make them play by

the rules. But don’t penalize them for

innovation, or to satisfy the whining wishes

of the Suns, Oracles, and AOL’s .

Thank You,

Greg

MTC–00006832

From: Dean E. Lybyer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough is enough. Microsoft is trying to

adhere to all of the Government’s

stipulations, is it not time for all of these

other states to stop whining and crying foul

and accept a fair settlement. I think so.

Dean E. Lybyer

(lybyerdean@hotmail.com)

MTC–00006833

From: Effie Robbins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This case has gone on long enough and

must be settled now.

24854 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

By the long delays and Judge Jackson

discussing this settlement while still in

litigation should have thrown the whole case

out as it doesn’t seem to me there was a case

anyway. It is apparent to me that other

companies wanted a free ride on the

Microsoft programs instead of going out and

building their own. There must be a fine line

in defining the two words ‘‘De-regulation and

Antitrust’’. We went through the deregulation with two major companies Pacific

Gas and Electric and American Telephone

and Telegraph and life has been a complete

hassle for the consumer ever since.

I think Microsoft should have the right to

protect and build their own programs and

they have done an exemplary job of building

a simplified program that even we seniors

can use. It is my opinion the Justice

Department is concerned for the big money

companies instead of we, the people. It seems

to me that all you have accomplished is to

destroy the peoples confidence in you and

the entire stock market because we do not

know who these suits will strike next. It is

my hope this suit needs to be dropped now.

Let the other companies build their own

programs and, if it is better, I am sure the

public will buy it.

I have written to the Honorable Bill

Lockyer about this case and it seems

apparent that he is not listening to the

consumer. While the Department of Justice

needs to represent other companies, they also

need to listen to the consumer as he is the

one who is purchasing these programs and

wants the protection and security that has

been provided by the Microsoft Corporation.

Sincerely,

Effie Robbins

MTC–00006834

From: Bob Day

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft settlement is just fine, and

my suggestion would be to impose it also on

the nine states that have so far not accepted

it.

1. Microsoft is guilty, at the most, of being

a big company that was still acting like a

small company.

2. Microsoft’s competitors are guilty, at the

least, of trying to accomplish in court what

they could not accomplish by competition in

the marketplace. They are, and always have

been, totally free to develop their own

operating systems, but have generally chosen

not to because of the high cost of entry, and

have instead chosen to ride on the back of

Microsoft, and then complain when they

didn’t like the ride.

3. Microsoft did not harm consumers.

Compaq’s VMS operating system, for

example, costs many times what Windows

XP does. And, Microsoft by making its

software development tools (Visual Basic,

Visual C++ and so on) available to third party

software developers at reasonable prices, has

done more than any other company to

encourage and promote development of

software by third parties. On the other hand,

Apple, for example, by limiting the

availability of it’s development tools and

discouraging the manufacture of clones of its

hardware, has done much to prevent

development of Apple-compatible software

by independent software development

companies. Offhand, I would say that

without Bill Gates and Microsoft, there’s a

good chance you (yes you, who is reading

this email) would not have a computer on

your desk—they would still be too expensive

for the average person or the average worker.

Except as a happy user of Microsoft

software, I have no association whatsoever

with Microsoft.

Bob Day

Portsmouth, NH

bobday@mediaone.net

MTC–00006835

From: Dorothy Winick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlememnt

I think this settlement should be made for

the good of the public.

Dorothy Winick

MTC–00006836

From: Don Cross

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

To Whom It May Concern:

While it is my strong opinion that

Microsoft takes liberties that it would not

have the luxury of taking in a completely

competitive environment, it is also my

opinion that competitors like Sun and Apple

have had their chance and do nothing with

it. Hence to do more than the proposed

agreement to affect the Microsoft business

model would hinder the interoperability of

computers and their software and in my

opinion create a more expensive business

model for all consumers. So leave the

settlement as agreed and go ask SUN and

Apple why they don’t ‘‘get competitive’’.

Donald D. Cross

6704 NW Monticello Terrace

Parkville, MO 64152

MTC–00006837

From: Lisa Matchette

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

At this time when our country is struggling

to recover from the events of September 11

and the current economic recession, it would

be wise to get this case settled and move on

toward regaining a strong economic footing.

There is no doubt that Microsoft is a very

important company in this country and that

like many of our business and industry

leaders, it plays a critical role in our

economy’s strength.

But that alone is no reason to turn a blind

eye to any company’s business practices. So,

for the past several years the DOJ has raised

issues that have made Microsoft acutely

aware that its business dealings with OEMs

and other vendors is under intense scrutiny.

All of this, I believe, has not been taken

lightly by Microsoft.

The proposed settlement appears to be

reasonable and just. I believe that it serves

the interests of the public, while still

upholding the ideals of the free market upon

which our capitalist system is based.

At some point, the government needs to

bring a fair and measured end to this case,

and I believe that point is now. The measures

outlined in the proposed settlement will

provide the necessary safeguards and

guidelines to protect the public interests

while allowing one of our country’s most

successful companies to continue

contributing to the overall well-being of the

economy. Allowing this case to drag on is

hurting consumers far more than anything

Microsoft could have done.

Thank you for considering my opinion.

MTC–00006838

From: Stephen Land

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please record me as strongly supporting the

Microsoft Settlement reached by the

Company and the DOJ. The opposition of a

few states and some members of Congress is

politically driven by competitors of

Microsoft.

Stephen Land

http://www.divorceland.com <http://

www.divorceland.com/>

MTC–00006839

From: FourmileMan@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:51pm

Subject: Microsoft is still a preditor!

To the US Dept. of Justice,

Curiously, Microsoft asked me to contact

you in it’s settlement in the Tunney Act. I

really think Microsoft is a predator and will

use any and all a means to eliminate or

dearly hurt any and all Competitors. They

have done this for many years. I know.

I started using Computers in 1980 with

Apple Computers. Then as the Companies I

worked for opted for PC’s and Microsoft S/

W, I chose PC’s and Microsoft Windows for

my Home Computer so that the working S/

W would be compatible. I soon found out

that Netscape was much easier and better

than Internet Explorer from Microsoft.

However, having I.E and Netscape on my

Computer caused problems and it was always

due to the Software in Windows and I.E. that

was deliberately causing problems on

Netscape.

Now (2001 and 2002) Microsoft Windows

XP is even more restrictive and eliminates

many Software programs. It also requires that

I register my Computers characteristics

(identifies my hardware and some Software)

as a way of preventing owners of Win XP

from using it on other Computers that they

own.

In the Past, most Software Manufactures

would allow a customer to use their S/W on

two computers if they were not used at the

same time. Example: I have a Desktop and a

Laptop which I want to be compatible, and

which I do not use at the same time. The only

other person in my home and Business

(Consulting) is my Wife and she hates

computers and will not use them. I use my

laptop mostly while I am traveling. The

exception to this is when I transfer data (not

Software) via Laplink from my laptop to my

Desktop for backup and storage reasons.

This latest Monopolistic and intrusive

action by Microsoft once again proves their

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24855

intent to control their customers and to

eliminate any other Software and Hardware

that they do not control.

I think your committee should reconsider

the Settlement with Government Controls on

their behavior for at least five years.

Sincerely,

John R. Adams

A knowledgeable Microsoft User and

Customer, and a Consultant in Electronic

Equipment and Hardware.

JADA Consulting

E-mail: j.r.adams@ieee.org

MTC–00006840

From: Edward A. Morris

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my opinion that the Microsoft

Corporation has not broken any laws by the

design of any of their software and it appears

that their competitors are the ones guilty of

a crime. Please bring about a timely and fair

judgement that will settle this suit once and

for all.

Thank You,

Edward A. Morris

MTC–00006841

From: Milian, SCMD, SCSM, Rudolph E.

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 4:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In 1999 and last year I communicated to

public officials about the Microsoft antitrust

case and its negative impact on the

advancement of technology that improves

efficiency in our daily life. For the most part,

I received a sympathetic response from them

and I want to reiterate to you that the case

should be settled and not further litigated.

The settlement that has been agreed to by

Microsoft, the Federal government and nine

states is tough, but reasonable and fair to all

parties involved. I agree that this settlement

is good for consumers, the industry and the

American economy.

This is my personal opinion and does not

necessarily reflect the opinion of the

company I work for but I am expediting

communiqui to you through this e-mail to

register my opinion.

Rudolph E. Milian, SCMD, SCSM

Woodcliff Lake, NJ

MTC–00006842

From: dewittclinton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a consumer I applaud the U.S. Court’s

proposed settlement of our goverment’s case

against Microsoft.

It seems to me to be fair to all. I expect the

Department of Justice will so inform the

District Court.

For the sake of consumers, business(worldwide) and our country I urge the District

Court to recommend accepting this

settlement.

Sincerely,

DeWitt Clinton Baker

MTC–00006843

From: andremalin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

Please let Microsoft do what it does best:

writing software.

The settlement is fair to all parties and

should be finalized without further delay.

It is time to move on and for the ‘‘poor’’

competitors to do the same: work harder.

Thank you,

Andre Malin

MTC–00006844

From: Rick Day

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Prolonging the litigation further really only

benefits the lawyers, as usual. Let market

forces rule; Microsoft has done right by this

country. Kenrick L. Day, High School Physics

teacher in Fort Smith, AR

MTC–00006845

From: designdecor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:54pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

AS A CEO OF A MAJOR CORPORATION,

I AND MANY OF MY EMPLOYEES HAVE

BEEN WATCHING THE MICROSOFT ANTITRUST CASE UNFOLD. AS THIS

JUNCTURE, I FEEL THAT IT IS

IMPERATIVE TO BRING THE ENTIRE

PROCEEDINGS TO A SWIFT AND SPEEDY

CONCLUSION. HENCEFORTH, AS A

CONCERNED CITIZEN AND BUSINESS

PERSON, I WISH TO EXPRESS THE FACT

THAT OUR ECONOMY AND ALL UNITED

STATES INDUSTRIES NEED TO GET ON

WITH GROWING. THE SETTLEMENT THAT

HAS BEEN PROPOSED SHOULD BE

EXECUTED WITH ABSOLUTELY NO

FURTHER LITIGATION.

SINCERELY,

MARY JANE LUNDSGAARD

MTC–00006846

From: Eric Johnson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft should never have been put

through this legal ordeal in the first place, as

they don’t, and never have had, a

‘‘monopoly’’ in any real, economic sense of

the term. However, a corrupt Department of

Justice, in collusion with several special

interests in the computer world, saw fit to

punish Microsoft for the made-up crime of

innovation.

Since it has come this far, and the only

choice remaining is between settlement and

further litigation, which would only cost

Microsoft and the American economy greatly,

it is clear that settlement is the lesser of the

two evils.

Settle now, and end this legal travesty.

Eric Johnson

1825 W. Berteau Ave., #2

Chicago, IL 60613

MTC–00006847

From: John K. Mielke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to voice my opinion, and

recommend that the DOJ accept the Microsoft

settlement. In fact the whole action against

Microsoft was a flagrant abuse of government

action against a company that was and still

is a positive force on the US economy. The

agressive efforts by Microsoft competitors

should tell you who started the action.

MTC–00006848

From: ROZJER

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:55pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

IT IS VITAL THAT THE SETTLLEMENT

ALREADY REACHED IS THE ONE TO

ABIDE BY.

MTC–00006849

From: DSWHIH@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft settlement addresses any

prevoius excesses in an equitable way.

It has been forged by adversaries over a

long period of time. Any litigation to prevent

implementation of this settlement will serve

only to advance the interests of Microsoft’s

competitors in an unfair way.

The nation needs a strong software

industry, including a strong Microsoft.

The settlement should be put into effect

withut further delay.

Sincerely,

David S. Wachsman

MTC–00006850

From: Steve Patchen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

An immediate settlement in the publilc

interest is absolutely valid in this prolonged

and terribly unjust case brought against one

of our strongest companies. We should be

doing everything we can to support this

innovating company, and its businesses

around the world.

For whatever my comments are worth, you

now have them. I hope they will be heeded.

Thank you.

Steve Patchen

1930 E. Las Tunas Rd.

Santa Barbara, CA 93103–1746

805.560.6004

MTC–00006851

From: Asluis@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:55pm

Subject: MS settlement

DOJ: For the good of our country and the

economy please recognize all that the

accomplishments of Microsoft have done for

everyone who uses a computer.

It is past time that we recognize the

decision of the courts and let Microsoft get

back to the business of making our computers

even more efficient. Don’t let a few

overzealous DA’s use this case to feather

their political nests.

ADAM SLUIS

asluis@AOL.com

24856 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00006852

From: PMConnaugh@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I expect the settlement already agreed

upon, will be adequate to make the point

with MS, without further damaging the

company and consequently the industry,

which is so important to the recovery of our

country’s economic health. There is a direct

correlation between the iniation of the

Attorneys General (in not even the majority

of the US)suit and the commencement of the

sharp decline of the Stock Markets. And that

includes the negative impacts on many more

companies than just MS. Hence, the

Recession...in a global scope.

For MS is Global.

I agree, if it were just MS that was

impacted, I might see a slight merit in their

claims. But in truth, MS has been the cataylst

for tremendous growth in Productivity

throughout the US and in many other parts

of the world.

I, for one appreciate the ubiquity of the

Windows capabilities and adaptabilities. So

many use this as the standard for

communication between clients and

customers, as well as internally. The MS

software automatically contained in the

Operations Systems on most computers

allows for ready use and training employees

to be productive in having the time to create

solutions to problems rather than spend so

much time creating tons of paper and doing

the many manipulations on incompatable

software were it not for the ‘‘magic’’ of the

MS-based software availability.

MS software is there, imbedded, but one

doesn’t have to use it if there is another OS

that is determined to be more fitting to

provide the necessary outputs/calculations.

Linus, for example.MS is not preventing one

from selecting other software for software OS

optimization.

Then there’s the fantastic waste of our tax

dollars being expended by both sides to

litigate this case. That is counter-productive.

Only ones rewared with this litigation are the

Lawyers.

Let’s settle this equitably and now!

Phillip M.Connaught

1409 Chancellor Circle

Bensalem, PA 19020–3676

E-Mail—pmconnaugh@aol.com

MTC–00006853

From: Guy Avey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please! Lets get of this ridiculous waste of

taxpayers money and let Microsoft get on

with their ability to develop new products.

All companies have the freedom to compete

with MS if they have the products to

compete. Being the best at what you do is not

a crime!!!!!!!!!

Lets Roll!

Guy R. Avey

110 Longcroft Road

Winchester, VA 22602–4438

MTC–00006854

From: KevinIP@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have been a longtime personal computer

user, with experience with Apple and IBMCompatable PC operating systems, and the

Internet. As such, I’ve used Microsoft’s

products as well as products from many

other software companies.

Without reservation, I can assure you that

I have personally experienced no ill effects

from purported anticompetitive behavior

from Microsoft. Quite the contrary, I feel that

the company’s products have significantly

improved my computing experience at a fair

economic cost.

I also have been a longtime investor in

technology companies and have seen several

‘‘generations’’ of computing technologies

come and go. I have personally seen no ill

effects from purported anticompetitive

behavior from Microsoft on other technology

companies. Again, to the contrary, I have

seen a lot of evidence that Microsoft’s

technological innovation coupled with their

customer focus have driven new technologies

to the consumer—along the way, creating

economic opportunities for many

competitors of Microsoft.

Because the company’s actions have

always been driven more by good business

sense, rather than just a focus on cool

technology, many of the industry pundits

have been long-critical that Microsoft stifles

innovation. This is completely backwards:

because the company chooses to deliver new

products to the consumer only as fast as they

can be consumed, the overall penetration of

personal computing technology has been

improved, not harmed.

Overall, I see the current settlement as a

fair way for both side to get on with more

productive matters and let the market place—

consumers and businesses—drive

competition in the technology industry.

Sincerely,

Kevin Patrick

Home:

1717 30th Avenue W.

Seattle, WA 98199

(206) 281–9113

kevinip@aol.com

This contact information should not be

used for marketing purposes.

MTC–00006855

From: Joseph Mannix

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear sir,

I think the proposed settlement is in the

best interest of all concerned parties.

It is time to stop bickering and move on!

Yours truly,

Joseph R. Mannix

MTC–00006856

From: GOPALLWAY@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Active Listeners:

This email is in support of Microsoft.

Microsoft has been a fair and open

competitor since the start. It has as many

competitiors and struggles as every other

company out there. COmpanies such as Sun

Microsystems and Oracle are only looking for

less competition to allow there companies to

grow faster and further. Although I feel no

agreement should have been made, due to the

fact that Microsoft is completely innocent of

any wrong dueings, I see that Microsoft Is

being a fair company and at least willing to

sacrafise alittle to end an unfair conflict upon

them. I support Microsoft and say that this

compromise should be allowed through, and

if anything, Microsoft she be unchained and

allowed to be free on the market again, not

allowing the greedy competitiors to act like

an Inquisition upon Microsoft.

Microsoft has helped out many companies

not only to grow but has also helped many

other companies to be started.

James Gusman

CEO/Owner Gettachat & Companies

www.gettachat.com

MTC–00006857

From: EJB2010@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm

Subject: SETTLEMENT

IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT

THIS LITIGATION IS SETTLED ASAP. OUR

ENCONOMY IS DEPENDENT UPON IT. I

THINK THE INTEREST THAT AGAINST IT

ARE JUST AS MUCH AT FAULT AS BEN

LADEN-THEY ARE TERRORIST. THEY ARE

MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR OWN

INTERESTS. MAKE A BETTER MOUSE

TRAP AND PEOPLE WILL BUY IT.

PLEASE SETTLE THIS ASAP. THANKING

YOU AND BEST REGARDS.

EJB2010@AOL.COM

MTC–00006858

From: George W. Surline

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

1–2–02

Gentlemen

I have reviewed the proposed settlement

and am satisfied with it in it’s present form.

I feel that any additional penalties or

restrictions imposed on the Microsoft

Corporation would be counter productive

and not in the best interests of the consumers

nor the stockholders at this time.

Very truly yours,

George W. Surline

MTC–00006859

From: Dick Koch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:58pm

Subject: Microsoft

It is an outrage what Microsoft has been

put through the last 4 years. They make the

best software and that is the bottom line. The

special interest groups are just attempting to

make up in litigation what they can not do

via their products. It’s a shame that it has

cost so many so much. Why do the best get

punished for being the best?

Dick Koch

Bank of America

Dir: 301 571 1480

Fax: 301 571 1490

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24857

MTC–00006860

From: Jack Keilson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

ladies and gentlemen, lets get on with our

lives. settle this...

MTC–00006861

From: Ed Fitzgerald

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sir:

I strongly support the current Microsoft

settlement agreement. I do not think it is in

the consumer’s interest to further delay

resolution of this case.

Edward M Fitzgerald

1357 Opal Street

San Diego CA 92109–1912

(858) 488–1187 voice

(858) 488–2336 fax

fitzgerald@msn.com

MTC–00006862

From: DotHilton@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

With the problems we have in this nation

at this time for heaven sake we don’t need

more litigation where about the only true

winners are the lawyers who charge large

fees.

Please accept this settlement as fair to all

parties and end this horrendously long case.

Thank you,

Dorothy Hilton

Springfield, Missouri

MTC–00006863

From: Brock Luno

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear persons,

I do not think that an Operating System (O/

S) needs to do anything other than run a

computer and its sub-systems. All else is

applications and should be marketed and

installed as such. I believe that Microsoft has

convinced the majortity that it must bundle

its products. I do not agree.

I specifically wish that the O/S and all

applications be seperated permanently. If tis

requires a split in the Microsoft organization,

so be it. I’m sick and tired of trying to fix

fellow workers P/Cs with glitches caused by

one Microsoft application (Outlook, Word,

Excel, etc.) stepping on the O/S and crashing

the machine(s). I can’t get or load alternatives

because the market has dried up and there

are none to speak of. the best has not won

my business, the biggest has—out of shear

dominance on the street. I do not have viable

choices.

B. Luno

CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw

MTC–00006864

From: CutshawD@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

I always believed that the government’s

lawsuit against Microsoft was politically

motivated. There wasn’t (could never be) any

evidence that consumers were harmed, only

competitors.

MS through its leadership (market share)

actually set the standards for the industry. I

have observed that excessive competition

does not necessarily benefit the consumer.

For example, the airline industry. I remember

when service was courteous, on-time and a

passenger didn’t have to wonder if they got

a fair price.

I think that the government should

abandon its lawsuit entirely. It has been

noticed that the attack on MS destroyed

millions in wealth and was the beginning of

the bear market.

In God we Trust, United We Stand!

Best Regards,

Dianne Cutshaw

Cutshaw Enterprises

PO Box 297

Florence, AL35631

Tel: 1 256 767–8483

Fax: 1 256 767–8482

Mobile: 1 256 412–1080

Email: CutshawD@aol.com

MTC–00006865

From: James H. Copenhaver

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a computer professional, I am

convinced that the sooner the case with

Microsoft is resolved, the better it will be for

all of us. I thought the basis for the case was

weak to begin with and I am really convinced

that the Clinton administration just couldn’t

stand to see anyone or anything be as

successful as Microsoft was. They wanted a

chunk of it’s money and went after it. In a

major way, I think that this case helped fuel

the crash of the economy and it’s severity in

the high tech sector by introducing doubt in

investor’s minds.

I’m not going to say that Microsoft was in

line, but I think that enough is enough.

Prohibit the behaviors they were guilty of

performing, fine them and get on with life.

The DOJ needs to worry more about

Insurance Fraud, Medicare/Medicaid Fraud,

Government Corruption and a host of other

things that have a more negative impact on

our daily lives than this.

Thanks

Jim Copenhaver

4765 Banner Elk Drive

Stone Mountain, GA 30083

MTC–00006866

From: Louis Grossman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:59pm

Subject: The feelings of a Retiree, towards the

unjust, incredibly stupid actions toward

the Microsoft miracles...

At my age of 88 6/12’s years—a 13 year

World War 2 veteran volunteer—never

having asked for any benefits, handouts,

goodies—I resent very much what I consider

unwise decisions of the Justice Department of

the USA, and of the various States who are

still blindly, and unjustly clamouring and

seeking punishments to the Miracle-makingcompany MICROSOFT.

Looking at the progress of these, our

glorious United States of America—without

the genious, pioneering research and

development of this company—which is

ALSO the mostest of the mostest in giving of

their wealth to humanity in the form of

charitable funds—and to which we should be

GRATEFUL , rather than CRITICAL, for the

new forms of communicatioins and benefits

that these miserably money-grubbing States

Governments are USING and punishing....

how blind and ungrateul they are ! ! ! I for

one, feel VERY GRATEFUL for all the

communications benefits that we (unto my

generation and beyond) have been given by

this tremendously pioneering company,

MICROSOFT—without whom we would still

be in the ‘‘DARKness’’ of the era prior to my

volunteering of the year 1940 for the security

of our U.S.A.

I say—‘‘DESIST this travesty of good sense

and of shouldl-be-gratitude!

Let these backward STATE Governments

go back to GOVERNING and minding their

own jobs!

Let’s be FAIR.’’

Louis P. and Blanche Grossman

MTC–00006867

From: Fred Stacey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is a shame to continue the Clinton-Gore

policy and punish a company for its work.

The federal goverment should investiagate

Teddy Kennedy, Tommy Dashell (current

‘‘leader’’ against progress) in the Senate and

the Democrat Party for all their activities—

especially for killing babies.

Thank you,

Fred Stacey

Louisville, KY 40242

fs77@bellsouth.net

MTC–00006868

From: Joe Reardon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to bring this case to a close. The

government and Microsoft have come to an

agreement.

That agreement should prevail over all

states that were a part of the initial class

action suit. Individual states should not be

allowed to disavow the settlement and

relitigate.

Technological advances have left the initial

actions and complaints so far behind as to

render them totally irrelevant in today’s

environment. Furthermore, it becomes

increasingly evident that those competitors

who were never able to match Microsoft’s

capabilities, and therefore Microsoft’s market

domination, are continuing to use the

government to aid them in obtaining market

advantage against the company that earned it

through innovation and marketing expertise.

The CEO of Sun Microsystems best refocus

his energies on his own company to save it

before total collapse. He is responsible to the

stockholders.

It is also obvious that competitors are using

their state governments to proceed with

further litigation. The connections are clear.

Finally, AOL is using the litigation to

prevent Microsoft’s increasing surge into the

24858 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

internet market were they presently dominate

their competition (and customers) more than

Microsoft ever did.

I urge you to end all litigation, enact the

agreed upon settlement, and cease providing

Microsoft competitors with an unfair

advantage in our free enterprise system.

Thank you.

Joe Reardon

MTC–00006869

From: Frank McDonald

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:58pm

Subject: MSFT suit

Gentlemen:

To continue the law suit against Microsoft

would be a travesty of justice. MSFT is a

crown jewel, and most countries would love

to have this firm’s HQ. The US cannot afford

to continue this law suit.

Please drop it at once.

Frank McDonald

MTC–00006870

From: JOSEPHW290@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I believe the settlement was fair and that

the states that want to carry this further in

the court system should look back on what

prompted the action in the first place—

Microsoft was unjustly tried for being a

monopoly when if I remember correctly , a

monopoly was a firm that providing a service

or product and was stopping all other firms

from providing that product or service—in

this case nowhere did I see where Microsoft

was stopping anyone from producing a

computer—or anything—as for the software,

the other companies were not smart enough

to design the same software and wanted to

get in on the act without having to face the

competition of men who had become design

experts such as the Microsoft team. The only

way the special interest group can compete

with microsoft is to destroy the company by

breaking it up. Let these other companies

come up with software as good as that which

is now being produced and the people who

have computers will use that product.

MTC–00006871

From: herb cohen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:59pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I have had the good fortune to be told how

to let you know how I feel about the courts

decision regarding Microsoft’s competitive

behaviour in the marketplace. It is my strong

belief that lesser capable competitors have

attempted to use the courts to cheat this great

inovator of its rightly earned markets and

customers. The decision of the court is more

than fair and just to microsofts competitors.

In my view the court has been too liberal and

has punished microsoft for being too

successful! This company with its

investment in research has made computers

and all that goes with this tool more useful

and increasingly less expensive to the general

public and is probably more responsible for

the ‘‘new economy’’ than any other force in

the marketplace. Huge numbers of jobs have

been created because of this company’s

success nad to do further harm to it would

not serve the public interest at al!

Sincerely yours,

Herbert L. Cohen

MTC–00006872

From: cgong@prodigy.net

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 1/2/02 4:59pm

Subject: Dear Officials,

Dear Officials,

Lets setttle the Microsoft case, so that we

can go on with business. This is taking way

too long and costing loads of $$$$$$. Also I

do not believe that Microsoft should reveal

their source code to competitors in that this

should be protected under the patent law.

However, I do see a need for companies to

work together instead of compete with one

another. This will be a big challenge...what

do you think?

Carolyn Gong

MTC–00006873

From: Monica Laugee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement should stand. No more

litigation.

Monica

MTC–00006874

From: Dale Mabe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would ask the settlement as recently

handed down and be finalized rather than

embarking on further litigation .Its in the best

interest of consumers as well as the national

economy to stop further litigation on the

case.

Thank you

Dale Mabe

POB 1327

Montreat NC 28757

MTC–00006875

From: Yates6391@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:00pm

Subject: (no subject)

I think the government came up with a fair

settlement for both the competitors and

Microsoft. The States that don’t want to

settle: it is not the people it is only the

attorneys that want to drag this on through

the courts.

Our country is going through tough times,

so lets settle this and get on with the

important things, as we all know that

Microsoft has helped the economy and many

charities, throughout the life of the company.

We need more people like Bill Gates.

Fred Yates

5526 Salish Road

Blaine Wa. 98230

MTC–00006876

From: Margaret Lindsey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Yellow StationeryThis proposed settlement

is more than fair. The public interest will

best be served by ending the litigation now.

I am an ordinary citizen and consumer, and

Microsoft has my support.

Margie Lindsey

9176 Rocky Cannon Road

Cordova, Tennessee 38018

MTC–00006877

From: Stephen Wyman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:01pm

Subject: microsoft-tunney commentary

microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

Renata B. Hesse,

Quick intro:

I’ve been a PC tech (desk side & Help Desk/

telephone), PC installer & user since 1986.

So, I’ve accumulated some technical

expertise about PCs.

In 1998 I shopped around for a home PC.

No PC OEM (Original Equipment

Manufacturer) would sell me a PC without an

Operating System (OS). No PC OEM would

sell me a PC with the LINUX OS installed.

The only OS that I could get installed on any

new PC was one of the latest versions of

Microsoft Windows (NT or 95). My wife and

I both used Windows NT at work, so that was

the option we chose.

My wife is a veteran of Microsoft’s OSs and

would not even consider buying an Apple

computer using the MAC OS. I could not

convince my wife that all the blood, sweat &

tears she spent learning Microsoft’s OSs

wouldn’t be wasted. She wouldn’t even go

down to KINKOs and lease the use of a MAC

for an hour to see how easy an Apple

computer was to own & operate (Summa

Cum Laude from Rice University and an

MBA from UT; she’s quite astute normally).

Finally we selected Gateway as the OEM,

and purchased a PC. The PC could only be

ordered with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer

(IE) as the Web browser, so that’s what we

ordered. When the PC was installed at the

house I used it to go to Gateway’s web site

and used the link (provided on Gateway’s

web site) to go to Netscape’s web site for the

purpose of downloading, then installing

Netscape’s web browser.

Successfully linked to Netscape’s site and

downloaded the browser, twice. Each time I

installed the new browser PC system errors

started to happen and escalated till finally

the ‘blue screen of death’ appeared. I had to

do a low level format (wipe out all the

software installed on the PC’s fixed disk

drive), and reload all the PCs original

software to recover the computer to

operational status. I now access the World

Wide Web via IE exclusively, because it isn’t

worth the hassle to do otherwise.

Recently my wife tried to get an upgrade

to the OSs Service Pack, so that we could get

the 128-bit encryption option used for PC

banking via the Internet. Three times my wife

ordered the software upgrade (prepaid by

credit card each time), but the upgrade never

came (it was never billed or shipped by

Microsoft).

Microsoft was only a few months from

shipping it’s new OS (Windows XP) and

couldn’t be bothered to sell an upgrade to

Windows NT 4.0’s Service Pack. The first

release of anything ‘new’ from Microsoft is

always a technical nightmare of discovering

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24859

errors that should have been fixed before the

software was brought to market. Therefore,

we quickly went to a local retail outlet and

purchased the Windows 2000 OS. ‘2000’ had

been on the market long enough to get most

of the ‘bugs’ worked out, and had the 128-

bit encryption we sought.

To sum things up:

(1) The Microsoft monopoly has been an

enormous pain in the backside to this

household of PC consumers.

(2) To have the Department of Justice, and

some of the 19 state’s Attorneys General, win

their anti-trust case against Microsoft then

just roll over and settle for no real

punishment is disappointing and seriously

aggravating!

(3) If excepted as proposed the Consent

Decree almost guarantees the anti-trust suit

will start again.

Sincerely,

Stephen Wyman

Network Specialist

TxDOT

swyman@dot.state.tx.us

MTC–00006878

From: BOBHURLEY2@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:00pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Gentlemen:

I am familiar with settlement terms worked

out between Microsoft, the Government, the

nine states ratifying. I think the settlement

terms are fair and in the public interest.

Thank You:

Robert B. Hurley

11 Chapin Circle

Myrtle Beach, SC 29572

MTC–00006879

From: ChemCraft@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:01pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

ALTHOUGH I WILL TRY TO RESPOND

WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE

SHERMAN ANTI TRUST ACT OF 1932—I

FEAR THAT A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE

PROBLEM IS THAT EVERYTHING

ORIGINATED IN 1932—THE YEAR OF MY

BIRTH—IS AGING AND RUSTING LIKE ME

AND NEEDS TO BE REFURBISHED. IN 1932

MUCH OF THE U.S. SENTIMENT WAS

ISOLATIONIST AND BUSINESSES COULD

EXPECT SOME PROTECTION FROM THE

GOVERNMENT. IN THE FREE TRADE

ECONOMY PROMOTED BY THE U.S.—OUR

INDUSTRY MUST COMPETE WITH STATE

SPONSORED INDUSTRIES OF OUR MAJOR

ECONOMIC COMPETITORS. WHEN THE

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SPENDS

FORTUNES FEEDING THE EGOS OF U,S,

COMPETITORS OF MICROSOFT—TO THE

EXTENT THAT TWENTY GREED INSPIRED

ATTORNIES GENERAL. SOUGHT TO

PARTICIPATE IN A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT

AND 9 HAVE REJECTED A PAINFULLY

CONSTRUCTED SETTLEMENT—THEY

ALSO SUPPLY AMMUNITIION TO

FOREIGN COUNTRIES WITH TOTALLY

SELF INTERESTED MOTIVES. IF THE

SHERMAN ACT ANYWHERE DEFINES THE

CONSUMER AS THE AVERAGE

INDIVIDUAL USER—THE OWNER OF A PC

OR THE EMPLOYEE WHO USES A P/C ON

HIS/HER JOB—I DEFY ANYONE TO PROVE

THAT MICROSOFT HURT THEM IN ANY

WAY. IN FACT, I BELIEVE THE

MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES OF

MICROSOFT WERE BENEFICIAL TO THE

U.S.ECONOMY AND THE INDIVIDUAL

USERS.

IF YOU READ THE COMMENTS ON

INTERNET SITES, MICROSOFT CRITICS

ARE COMPETITORS OR TECHNOCRATS

WITH UNSATISFIED EGOS BECAUSE FOR

REASONS CLEARLY STATED AS FACTS IN

THE SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT—THROUGH MUCH OF THE

WORLD WIDE GROWTH OF THE

COMPUTER INDUSTRY ANY SERIOUS

THREAT TO THE MICROSOFT

FOUNDATIONAL MONOPOLY WOULD

HAVE GREATLY CONSTRICTED INDUSTRY

GROWTH BY INCREASING THE RISK OF

PERIPHERAL DEVELOPMENT FOR AN

UNCERTAIN MARKETPLACE.

IF YOU COULD ACCDURATELY

MEASURE THE DOLLAR SIGNIFICANCE OF

MICROSOFT’S MONOPOLISTIC

LEADERSHIP N THE INDUSTRY—I

QUESTION WHETHER ANY COMPETITOR

ACTUALLY SUSTAINED ANY DAMAGE

FROM MICROSOFT CONDUCT. WHAT I

CLAIM IS THAT MICROSOFT MAXIMIZED

THE GROWTH OF THE INDUSTRY TO THE

POINT THAT ALMOST EVERY

PARTICIPANT DID BETTER THAN THEY

WOULD HAVE HAD MICROSOFT BEEN

SLUGGING IT OUT WITH SUN AND

NETSCAPE.

FRANKLY THE PACE OF DEVELOPMENT

WAS LIMITED BY THE SKILL AND

BUDGET OF USERS—NOT THE CHOICE

AND INGENUITY OF OPPORTUNITIES

OFFERED. HAD THERE BEEN A

CORNOCOPIA OF CHOICES, A LARGE

PART OF THE MARKETPLACE WOULD

HAVE DRIED UP AND DISAPPEARED UE

TO UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE

RELIABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE

ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO ADJUST TO

EXCESSIVE CHANGE.

IF THE WORLD HAD NOT

STANDARDIZED ON DOS AND

WINDOWS—THEN MICROSOFT OFFICE—

THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF

COMPUTERIZED OPERATIONS IN

BUSINESS WOULD BE MUCH LESS THAN

IT IS— AND DRAMATICALLY SO OUTSIDE

THE U.S. IF THE NETSCAPE BATTLE WITH

WINDOWS EXPLORER HAD CONTINUED—

THE NUMBER OF INTERNET USERS

WOULD BE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED

TODAY AND EVERYONE INVOLVED IN E

BUSINESS AND .COM WOUL;D HAVE

MADE A LO5T LESS MONEY.

THE RULES OF FAIR PLAY CODIFIED IN

1932 SIMPLY DON’T PROTECT THE

CONSUMER IN 2002—EITHER

INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY. EVEN

YOUR PROPOSED REMEDY COULD CAUSE

A LOT OF TROUBLE AND TURMOIL.

MILLIONS OF AMERICANS LEARN TO USE

COMPUTERS IN THEIR JOBS AND THEN

BUY ONE FOR THEIR HOME AND FAMILY

CONVENIENCE. IF YOU FORCE

MICROSOFT TO HELP MIDDLEWEAR

DEVELOPERS—YOU MAKE IT POSSIBLE

FOR EMPLOYEES TO ADD MIDDLEWEAR

TO CORPORATE COMPUTERS THAT

EVENTUALLY IF NOT IMMEDIATELY WILL

BECOME SECURITY, OPERATIONAL AND

LABOR PROBLEMS.

THINK ABOUT WHO WILL BE THE

BIGGEST VICTIM—THE AMERICAN

TAXPAYER FOOTING THE BILL FOR ALL

THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CREATING

CHAOS ON GOVERNMENT NETWORKS

SPREADING COMPETITION ON PUBLIC

PROPERTY.

SOME TECHNICAL AREAS ARE

BECOMING SO COMPLEX THAT THEY

ALMOST DEFY CONTROL AND DIRECTION

FROM PEOPLE NOT SKILLED IN THE

PARTICULAR SCIENCE.. I SUSPECT IT IS

ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GRANT THEM

JUDGEMENT BY THEIR PEERS.

HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF

MICROSOFT, I SUSPECT THE REAL USER

OF A PERSONAL COMPUITER AND THE

AVERAGE SMALL BUSINESS USER

CONSIDERS MICROSOFT A HERO AND

HAS LITTLE OR NO INTEREST IN THE

WHINING OF SUN OR NETSCAPE. AS

LONG AS MICROSOFT HAS ACCEPTED

THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, I SEE NO

VIRTUE OR REWARD IN REOPENING A

CAN OF WORMS THE GOVERNMENT

REALLY IS NOT EQUIPPED OR,CAPABLE

OF RESOLVING. IF WHAT WAS GOOD FOR

GENERAL MOTORS ,WAS EVER GOOD FOR

THE NATION, THE SENTIMENT APPLIES

IN SPADES TO BILL GATES AND

MICROSOFT.

MTC–00006880

From: Fitzgerald, Dan

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 5:01pm

Subject: comments on trial

The nine states are asking for the correct

remedy. MS has stalled enough ( 3 years ) on

this case and damaged enough businesses

and consumers. Impose the remedies the

states are currently asking for. Resources

must be put in place to scrutinize the

company’s behaviour.

Daniel Fitzgerald

dan.fitzgerald@justice.gc.ca

MTC–00006882

From: Robert Neely

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the proposed settlement is

more than adequate. I am unaware of ANY

proof that even one consumer has been

damaged by MS business practices. The

entire charge is brought by jealous

competitors who gained the attention of

congressmen.

MTC–00006883

From: Bert Rathkamp

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I can not understand why in the first place

the US government went after Microsoft.

What has Microsoft done for the user and our

country? Given us a good product that is

upgradeable. Given us a good product at a

reasonable price. Given us a product that has

stability. Given us good support. Given us the

leading role in computers world wide. Given

24860 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

us a offset in world wide trade balance.

Given us many new jobs for US citizens.

If some one really had a better product

then everyone would use it. Seem funny the

foreign cars makers with the help of the US

government invaded our shores and sent lots

of money back home with you blessing. Look

what happened to the US automobile

companies over the years under more federal

laws and law suits. Yes, DOJ you are out to

kill another industry to make sure the USA

can finish second or worse.

Just leave Microsoft alone, you have done

enough damage.

Henry Rathkamp

12 Hickory View Lane

Milford, Ohio 45150

MTC–00006884

From: Nedgam@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Prolonging this litigation will be harmful to

the economy, unfair to Microsoft, and boring

to the public. Settle now!

MTC–00006885

From: Schlag8445@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:04pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Being a small stock owner, we wish this

suit to be settled immediately. The states that

are still sueing should rethink what they are

doing to the economy. It is not the time to

be making more problems. Let the company

do its job, and get on with business. This has

been a wonderful company for the economy,

and to its shareholders.

MTC–00006886

From: Iyaz Ahmed

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi

I just wanted to send my opnion in this

case. I think its high time that all the states

sign off on the deal struck between DOJ and

MS. This is the time to bring our country

back to its glory days and stop it from moving

further down the recession road. I think the

9 other states are trying to settle more of their

private squabbles with MS . I really doubt

that they have any interest in the consumer

who actually gain a lot from the deal with

DOJ and MS.

Hope my voice would be heard. Thanks a

lot.

iyaz

MTC–00006887

From: alan malnak

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern.

I have been following the litigation

involving Microsoft since the inception of the

legal action.

The Government and nine states have

come to an agreement to resolve the case.

It is not difficult to see why several states

object to the settlement. These states are

acting on behalf of Microsoft competitors. It

is ridiculous to assume that a Company

would be forced to turn over to its

competitors source material that could, in

effect, emasculate the company. Would

someone suggest that this happen to Coca

Cola. If they gave out the recipe for its

product they would have to go out of

business.

It would not be appropriate to order a

company that has spent millions of dollars to

improve the entire computer industry to turn

over to its competitors the information.

It is interesting to note that each time a

legal action is taken against Microsoft the

effect is felt on the entire stock market. The

litigation has hurt many retired persons who

have pensions that are invested in Microsoft

stock to some degree.

Despite the fact that the Court found that

Microsoft had been guilty of something, is

the consumer complaining ? I have been

using Microsoft programs for many years and

I do not want any money. I feel that I have

the advantage of a superior company

providing me with superior products. I am

old enough to remember when the cry was

to break up the telephone company. I ask, has

your telephone service gotten any better ?

Has your telephone service gotten any

cheaper.

The final thought that I have is that I read

that Senator Lahey recently made the

statement that he wanted to review the

Microsoft settlement with the Judge. It seems

to me that here is something called the

separation of branches of the government.

What right does a Senator have to interfere

with a Court ? It would seem that the good

Senator has forgotten the branch of

government he participates in. But again,

who knows what goes on in Washington.

MTC–00006888

From: Vernon Schulthes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to get this case settled as was

proposed by the Justice Department recently.

It would seem to me that the nine states who

are opposed to the settlement should be told

that the case must be settled.

The case has had a big impact on many

companies and with the eventual settlement

being implemented it would help stabilize

the high tech market.

As a user of Microsoft products and many

other computer software I would like to see

this cased settled for the betterment of the

United States markets.

Sincerely yours,

Vernon F. Schulthes

P.O. Box 3 Eureka, IL 61530–0003

Phone 309–467–4890

e-mail vern@mtco.com

MTC–00006889

From: Bill Michel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern,

I am opposed to the proposed settlement of

the Anti- Trust Suit against Microsoft. I don’t

believe it goes far enough, and I don’t believe

that it can be adequately enforced.

Microsoft is a tremendous monopoly, and

its power, not only in the software arena, but

in the media arena are immense. I don’t think

that Microsoft’s track record lend it any

credibility when it comes to believing that

they will be faithful to the terms of the

settlement. I believe that a structural

solution, such as the separation of the

operating system and application

development components of Microsoft Corp.

makes more sense.

Yours truly,

Bill Michel

131 Ortega Ave.

Mountain View, CA

94040

CC:bmichel@alum.pomona.edu@inetgw

MTC–00006890

From: FORMLETT@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:05pm

Subject: (no subject)

It would seem that the present presented

judgement is fair and should be used to close

this case. I donot agree with the laxity of

judgements where attorneys continually

attempt to further thei fees by prolonging a

case.

W. E. Formwalt

One Jingle Shell Lane

Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29926–1958

843 681 2218

MTC–00006891

From: Bill Yerkes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Dept. of Justice,

I am an engineer, not a lawyer, but it seems

to me that it is a great day, as a Microsoft

product consumer, to finally see the

GOVERNMENT settling this case. It is finally

time to let the market players compete, and

some will win and some will lose. I just did

a count of my software, and I use Word

Perfect instead of MS Word. However, I like

the Microsoft browser better than my two

others I have bought and used. I still use

Lotus for my spread sheets although I have

Excel and others. I do not agree with the idea

that Microsoft eliminates other options. What

you have here is a bunch of lawyers out to

make big money like the OJ Simpson bunch.

Time to stop.

Agree and get on with life.

Bill Yerkes

912 Olive St.

Santa Barbara, CA 93101

email: billy443@silcom.com

MTC–00006892

From: HARCONW@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

We are at a critical time since September

11, 2001. We must go forward to show the

world that we are about building our country

up and not tearing it down. I fully agree with

President Bush that the DOJ should settle

with Microsoft. I understand that some

competing company’s would find it in their

interests to punish Microsoft further than it

has been punished, but I truely feel that this

is a time for unity, and a time to settle and

go forward.

Thank you,

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24861

Harold Weisberg

From the desk of Harold W.

MTC–00006893

From: Elliot Shell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I want to go on record as strongly opposing

severe sanctions against Microsoft. I believe,

as do many of my colleagues and business

associates, that most of Microsoft’s problems

stem from its success and creativity.

Microsoft’s long history (more than two

decades is a long time in the computer

industry) of recruiting the best and the

brightest has paid significant dividends. The

inability of Microsoft’s competitors to

effectively compete in the marketplace

largely resulted in the call for government

help in the form of the antitrust actions.

While I do understand that Microsoft has

undoubtedly been guilty of technical

violation of certain antitrust rules, I believe

that the proposed sanctions go far beyond

what is fair and appropriate. Especially in

these times of serious economic challenges,

it would be unbecoming of the United States

to unduly punish one of our most successful

and innovative businesses.

I think we should instead be encouraging

and applauding such attributes.

Elliot Shell

MTC–00006894

From: rod taber, Ph.D.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ

My main concern re the Microsoft case is

that Microsoft be prohibited from:

1. Installing dubious or extraneous

software that is impossible or difficult to

remove from a computer system. This

includes medallions that advertise or entice

the purchaser to buy or try subscriptions to

services not wanted. It very irritating to

spend hours removing third party entreaties

to CNN, Disney, etc. If I want to subscribe to

something I should make an active effort. NO

PUSH ADVERTISING!

2. Microsoft should be prohibited from

searching a user’s computer for information,

serial numbers, etc. What is on my machine

is mine. Microsoft has no business combing

my machine.

I request that if these provisions are not in

the settlement that they be added. For

example, the settlement should read:

Microsoft agrees to place any entreaties not

relevant to every user on an accessory CD so

that a user can choose to install them or not

to install them.

Microsoft also agrees to stop investigating

user machines for information relevant to

software installed on said machine.

Thank you for this opportunity to

comment. These issues are of the utmost

importance to keep Microsoft from

determining every single aspect of our

machines’ usage.

best regards,

rod taber, Ph.D. (computer science)

la vale, md 301.722.0818

MTC–00006895

From: Edward P Fischer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

As a concerned, tax paying, voting citizen

I submit my recommendation that the

settlement between the Department of

Justice, the nine States and Microsoft be

endorsed and the case brought to a

conclusion.

I believe closure to be in the public

interest, speaking as a student of history and

a member of the ’public’ .

Sincerely,

Edward Preston Fischer M.D.

900 Sunbrook Drive

Duncansville, PA 16635

email: acowboy@Charter.net

MTC–00006896

From: Benetta129@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:07pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sir or Madam

After having read as much as possible of

the litigation reports in the newspapers and

observing news reports on TV, it is my clear

opinion that the settlement now proposed is

fair, reasonable and should be confirmed by

the Federal Court.

We are disappointed that the State of

Kansas (our home state) has elected out of the

settlement agreement, and feel that their

actions are not in the best interest of the

public. Microsoft has done an outstanding

service in developing its various programs,

and, because of their operating platform

program for the computer, we all have

computers that can talk to each other, and

our work is mobile from one computer to

another. For one who, as I am, basically

ignorant of computer functions, but use a

computer daily to perform work in my

profession, Microsoft was the lifesaver and I

will be forever grateful to them for having a

product that allowed me to do my work, and

be able to communicate and share work

product with others in my profession. In the

early days you could not do that with the

systems then in operation, and I specifically

refer to Apple computers where you had to

buy only from them, and you could not

comunicate with any other brand of

computer. Talk about a monolopy! They had

one, but lost it to Microsoft. Wonder why

they are now complaining.

In any event, we believe that this litigation

should be over. As a consumer, I feel my

rights have been protected to the extreme in

this instance. We hope the court approves the

settlement, and urge you to support that

position.

Thank you for the opportunity to express

my thoughts.

Sincerely

Benjamin and Etta Farney

8597 Hauser Ct.

Lenexa, Kansas 66215

MTC–00006897

From: Loyd Corwin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

In my opinion the pending Microsoft

Settlement is fair and in the public interest.

Respectfully,

Loyd Corwin

MTC–00006898

From: Donna Mae Johnson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:07pm

Subject: microsoft settlemnent

Donna Mae Johnson

Maple Knoll Farm

340 County Road 19

Maple Plain, MN 55359–9654

(763)479–1727

Please let us small people be heard. settle

the Microsoft suit now. No more delays and

further court action. !!!!!!!

Donna Mae Johnson

MTC–00006899

From: Harry Summers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough litigation! You have a settlement.

Implement it.

MTC–00006900

From: John

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:08pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Look!! I see the score as 41–9. Even

Daschle would put this to a vote in the

Senate and end it. This fiasco needs to be put

to bed and let the DOJ get on to more serious

work. It’s time to allow this great company

to continue innovating and keep the U.S.A #1

in the world.

MTC–00006901

From: LelaOmta@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:08pm

Subject: My input

I think it is absolutely ridicules the

Government & a few of the states are draging

this out. They ought to be dealling with the

war instead of handicapping ligament

progress in the USA.

Lela Omta

MTC–00006902

From: Laurie Mitchell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:16pm

Subject: Accept the settlement

This has gone on long enough. I supported

Microsoft in the hearing phase and I still do.

It is not wrong to make a profit and to create

software faster and better than the

competition. Those that whine that life is not

fair, need to put their energies to developing

software that people actually care about. I as

a taxpayer do not care to support their cry

baby status another day. Perhaps the DOJ

should sue all of us who have a unique

product and actually make a profit doing a

great service?

Laurie Mitchell, Director

EventForce, Inc.

MTC–00006903

From: RHReece@aol.com@inetgw

24862 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time the US government and states

close the suit now in progress. Our economy

is taking a beating and our tax money can be

better utilized than harasing a company that

is doing a reasonable job. Richard Reece

(rhreece@aol.com)

MTC–00006904

From: George C.Glasemann

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement!!!

I hope that the US Government has taken

enough out of the hide of Microsoft. Without

their years of research, I doubt I would be

able to contact you in this method.

The settlement that I have read about

seems to be ‘‘enough already’’. Lets put our

Government’s money and time into fighting

FOREIGN terrorists and not our locally and

publically owned companies.

Thank you for your attention.

George C Glasemann

MTC–00006905

From: Robert Lantz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am in favor of the settlement!

MTC–00006906

From: frank morello

To: Microsoft

ATR,MSFN@microsoft.com@inetgw

Date: 1/2/02 5:09pm

Subject: Miocrosoft Settlement

As a Microsoft user and shareholder I feel

that the proposed settlement should proceed

without delay. You have attempted to derail

a thriving business at a time in our countries

history where we need more thriving

businesses, not less. Sure Microsoft’s

competitors are going to want them

punished..why?? Because they deliver

quality products that are customer friendly at

a very competitive price, and the competition

cannot come close to matching them!!! So

why not look at the companies that charge

$500–2,000 for their programs and get off

Microsoft’s case!!!

Protect the consumer, not the competitors,

Frank Morello

MTC–00006907

From: Dan Kathan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly urge a rapid settlement to this

issue. I believe it is the best interest of the

consumer and our economy.

Sincerely,

Dan kathan

MTC–00006908

From: Donna Longton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please end the travesty of the actions

against Microsoft. The settlement that has

been reached should be punitive enough for

the most vindictive of Microsoft’s

competitors. This whole fiasco, from start to

finish, has never been in the best interests of

the industry, the economy, or the consumer.

Rather, it has been about the best interests of

the aforementioned competitors. They would

like the Federal government to fight their

battles for them, rather than compete on an

even playing field.

MTC–00006909

From: Mudit Kumar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam

I have been in the technology field for over

twenty years. If I look back, we have come

a LONG way in terms of what I, as a

consumer, am able to do and use the

technology for. Microsoft has a big part in

this success for our daily quality of life. I am

sure other consumers feels the same.

It is my belief that technologies companies

must be left alone, and this settlement with

states provides proper coverage for any

potential abuse. Let the market, the

consumers and the quality of products

developed by the companies be the real judge

of true competition and the technology

innovations.

Cheers!

Mudit Kumar

Phone: (972)221–6351 (Home)

Email: muditkumar@hotmail.com

Dallas, Texas

MTC–00006910

From: art bowles

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:12pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Please, lets appaud Microsoft for providing

consumers with soft ware that made

computer use easy for the average person

using a computer. I believe that the

settlement has extended to far away from the

consumer and now we are trying to help the

competitor. Let them(the competitors) design

and make a better product and the consumer

will reward them..

Pauline Bowles

MTC–00006911

From: BARONTROLL@cs.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Litigation

DOJ:

STOP THE LITIGATION, THE ‘‘BUSINESS

OF AMERICA IS BUSINESS’’

MICHAEL WOLKOW

MTC–00006912

From: Barb Ekiss

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:12pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs,

I am a consumer PC user. I have depended

on Microsoft products for years. I urge you

to bring this case to a close now. The

additional remedies requested by the

dissenting states represent a ‘‘wish list’’ put

together by disgruntled and unsuccessful

competitors of Microsoft. These companies

represent their own special interests. They do

not represent consumers loke me.

Thank you.

MTC–00006913

From: HARRYCROWS@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:12pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

GENTLEMEN:

MY OPINION IS TO LEAVE MICROSOFT

ALONE. I THINK THIS TRIAL IS A WASTE

OF TIME AND MONEY.

HARRY CROWS

MTC–00006914

From: bojr1

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ:

Do not delay or change the settlement of

the Micorsoft Case. Microsoft has had to put

up with the likes of the original judge

(Pennel?) and his antics. He was a discrace

with his public outbursts against Microsoft—

it was very obvious early on in the case that

he should have been removed because of his

public statements that were indicative of his

prijudice. He was also a discrace to the

judicial process as well to all other judges.

Let’s not muck up the economy any more,

now. Did anyone notice that the economy

began declining with the chilling effect

becoming more apparent in the Government’s

proscecution of Micorsoft? When the original

judgement came down, the economy took a

nosedive, worsened only by the events of

September 11, 2001.

Let’s put the Microsoft people back to work

where they can continue to contribute to our

tomorrow—a prosperous tomorrow led by

Microsoft—and say ’to hell with you, Osam

bin Laden’.

Sincerely,

george umbright, Jr.

MTC–00006915

From: JOANLOWELL@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle the Microsoft case and stop

penalizing an innovative company who

personifies Capitalism and the inventive and

creative genius and spirit that made, and

continues to make, the United States a great

nation.

MTC–00006916

From: Heimlinn@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Why can’t concerned interests leave good

enough ALONE? Years ago, Microsoft had an

idea. They invested money and time to make

the idea work. It works so well that almost

all computers use it. It is the standard of the

industry. I’d rather pay the fee for the

program than have a system that doesn’t

work.

It’s no bargain if it’s cheap but doesn’t

work.

The American economic and entiprenurel

system works to reward hard work and

innovation.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24863

I do not think that Microsoft should be

crippled any further. LEAVE IT ALONE!

Yours truly,

Ernst H. Linnemann

MTC–00006917

From: SCHIMKEA@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:13pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

MICROSOFT HAS PRESENTED TO A

GROUP OF PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF THE

OPPORTUNITY TO USE A COMPUTER

WITHOUT A LOT OF EFFORT OR

KNOWLEDGE OR VERY EXPENSIVE

LESSONS THAT I FEEL THEIR

COMPETITORS ARE INTERESTED IN

PROMOTING. WHY WOULD YOU EVER

WANT TO STOP THE QUALITY OF THEIR

PRODUCTS & SERVICE? MICROSOFT

MAKES A GOOD PRODUCT THAT A

PERSON LIKE MY SELF (62 YEARS OLD)

CAN TURN ON, AND OPERATE.

TRY DOING THAT WITH SOME OF THE

OTHER COMPUTER PRODUCTS. PLEASE

DO NOT DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE THE

THINGS MICROSOFT MADE POSSIBLE. I

DON’T CARE IF THEIRS PRODUCT

CONTROLS THE MARKET. IT WORKS, IS

CHEAP AND MAKES MY LIFE MUCH

MORE SIMPLER. I REALLY WONDER HOW

WE EVER GOT ALONG WITHOUT THEM.

WHY WOULD I USE ANYTHING ELSE?

THEIR PRODUCTS ARE EASY TO

UNDERSTAND AND THEY WORK RIGHT

OUT OF THE BOX.

BEST REGARDS,

JAMES. F. SCHIMKE

SCHIMKEA@AOL.COM

206–546–4454

MTC–00006918

From: T. R. MADISON

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:14pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Wednesday, 2 January, 2002 @ 5:06PM EST

Dear Sir/Madam:

I wish to comment on the litigation now

wending its way through the Department of

Justice.

I agree that Microsoft might be considered

a monopoly, but I believe they became such

by having the best products and best

customer service available. If it hadn’t been

for Microsoft, Microsoft Windows, and the

Microsoft Internet Explorer browser, I doubt

that I would have ever become a user of a

computer nor have had access to the Internet.

When I got my first computer it came

prepackaged with the Netscape browser and

I found that just about impossible to master.

I then learned that I could download

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser...

which I did.

Finding it so much better than Netscape, I

made Microsoft’s IE my default browser. That

was my choice; no one forced me to do so!

When Windows 98 was released I upgraded

to that system and was delighted to find that

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer was included.

Had I wanted to have Netscape, I could have

downloaded that of my own free will (I did

not) and Windows 98 could operate with that

as the default browser. Microsoft did not

prevent me from using Netscape with their

Windows 98 OS if I had so chosen.

As a retired person and one who is not to

be considered wealthy, I do have an

investment in Microsoft through the

ownership of shares. To say I have been

financially hurt by this litigation would be

putting it mildly.

I sincerely hope that the Department of

Justice will find for Microsoft and absolve

them of wrongdoing. I don’t see that they

have done anything wrong; they are simply

following the capitalist system....which I

thought the United States espoused to the

fullest.

I hope you will consider my thoughts as

this litigation progresses. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mr. Toby R. Madison

7502 NW 47th Way

Gainesville, Florida 32653–1176

Telephone: (352) 337–9460

Email: tobers@prodigy.net or

tobers29@msn.com

CC:T R Madison

MTC–00006919

From: Tony Berejka

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

The extensive use of computer technology

demands that all systems communicate with

each other.

Having been around when all we had was

Fortran and only corporate IBM 360’s,

Microsoft should have been praised for

bringing forth a common computer language

and systems that benefit the user, the

consumer. Without Microsoft’s efforts, there

would have been no evolution into the

widespread use of PC’s and other small

systems. The DOJ suit should have never

been launched in the first place and is antitechnology and against the societal benefits

of computer networking.

Tony Berejka

MTC–00006920

From: Cavalier Service

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

In my opinion, Microsoft has done no

wrong. Microsoft is a successful, innovative

and aggressive company. The liberal politics

and policies of the Clinton Administration

are gone. Our government needs to leave

good, solid companies like Microsoft work

their magic. The settlement is fair to the

public and the company. Let Microsoft get

back to the business they know best, and quit

annoying them with unjustified legal

proceedings.

Daniel C. Lesseg

General Manager

Cavalier Ford, Inc.

MTC–00006921

From: BPo9194728@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Setttlement

I feel the settlement already reached by the

Justice Department is adequate.

Request your favorable considerations.

Billy Powell

MTC–00006922

From: Larry Moe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:14pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I hope the law suit against microsoft will

soon be settled. The economy will suffer

more if it isnt. We have been punished

enough through all of this, if you look back

a couple of years ago the ecomomy started to

go south the same time that the DOJ went

after them. Lets get it over with and on with

the recovery. thank you,

Larry Moe

MTC–00006923

From: Andrew Thompson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Mr./Ms.

Representative of the Department of

Justice;

I would like to see the Microsoft

Corporation settle it’s time in court close on

the Tunney Act. My decision is not based on

the fact that I am shareholder of MSFT, but

because I have used computers for years.

Both at home & at work. This is costing our

economy & country time & money. Plus

companies are afraid to update operating

systems over irrelevent discussions.

Thank you

Andrew Paul Thompson

Chicago, Illinois

MTC–00006924

From: DulaCarol@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:15pm

Subject: Gates Settlement

It is about time this comes to an end. Bill

Gates is doing the right thing in settling this

dispute. Give the guy a break—those that are

still trying to drag this on—I say to them—

Get Real! They are just jealous—let them

work their buns off like Gates and stop being

crybabies! Thanks for listening.

MTC–00006925

From: Edward-Keller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Recently a friend copied me on a memo he

sent to you about how ‘‘American’’ and

‘‘Right’’ the Microsoft Corp. activities have

been in the past. To help set the record

straight, I was forced to deal with Microsoft

while they were squelching all their

competition in the software industry during

my working years in the electronics industry.

I found them to be arrogant totally insensitive

to complaints regarding their products or

practices.

Unfortunately, the fruits of their labors

were more than evident at the last Comdex

show in Las Vegas (whoops, excuse me... The

Microsoft Show!). Only sw vendors

developing products compatible with

Microsoft were present... and others seeking

to be bought out by Microsoft. It is

unfortunate that the Justice Dept. and several

states attorneys did not get them convicted of

monopolistic practices sooner. American

industry freedom is one thing...Microsoft

activities are quite another... Consider this

24864 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

email a vote in support of your continued

pressure on this overzealous industry giant.

Ed Keller

MTC–00006926

From: ED NOSKOWSKI

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

It is time to settle the case against

Microsoft. Enough Tax payer money has been

wasted. Please bring accept the Tunney Act

Agreement and settle this case finally.

Thank you,

Ed Noskowski

MTC–00006927

From: Pdj5123@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let’s get this case settled and move on with

more pressing issues at hand.

Thanks for your consideration

Phil de Jong

MTC–00006928

From: Al Hentges

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please bring this matter to a conclusion

without further delay and waste of taxpayer

money. Enough is enough. This has gone on

far too long and should never have been an

anti trust issue in the first place. It is time

to do the right thing, ignore Microsofts

competetors, and think about the good of our

country.

Al J. Hentges

A Fed up Taxpayer

MTC–00006929

From: Louis Grossman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I, 88 6/12’s years of age, 13 of which were

spent volunteering in the world war 2

comflict, 1940–53—feel adamantly that the

past and present injustice given to a

tremendously great company, Microsoft, by

the dept. of Justice, and presently by those

few relentlessly ungrateful States—WHY?

How could ANYONE feel other than

GRATITUDE for the fine pioneering and

creatful job done by Microsoft in this brand

new field of Communications???? Would the

harrassing officials now still seeking

punishment to these ‘‘Pioneers’’ rather go

back to the ERA w/out Internet, EMails that

THEY gladly use, and would they rather go

back to the 1940 days???

No, they are USING the benefits, and are

ABUSING the creators. WHY?? I, my wife, all

my friends (users gladly of the benefits from

the computers and programs created by

Microsoft,) feel that the Dept of Justice, and

of the ‘‘still suiing unsatisfied States Govts.’’

should CEASE AND DESIST’’—and let this

fine company alone, and allow them to

continue their pioneering and creating. I have

NO personal connections to the company,

except that I use, and enjoy, the fruits of their

creativeness—the Internet is beyond my

Aged Mental Capacity, but I do use and enjoy

their EMAIL benefits. These oipinions of

mine, my wife, and my friends are Sincerely

and completely person.

Thank you

I hope you are listening????????

Louis P. and Blanche GROSSMAN

MTC–00006930

From: EES724@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:17pm

Subject: anti trust

after 5 years its time to stop this nonsense.

a deal is done now lets get on with life.

MTC–00006931

From: Michael J. Schroeder

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 5:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It would appear that some of the states,

emboldened by their win over the tobacco

industry and the huge cash this brought

them, see Microsoft’s $ 36 billion in cash

reserves as a potentially similar windfall. The

differences, of course, couldn’t be more stark.

Micosoft and other technology companies

should be viewed more like pharmaceutical

companies, all of which spend billions on

research and development of new cures,

treatments, drugs and other products that

neither individuals nor governments could or

should develop on their own. The risks taken

by the shareholders of these companies must

be weighed fairly in relation to the benefits

received by consumers as a whole.

Technology companies, particularly those

that are successful in developing new, widely

applicable products, should not be penalized

to the point of discouraging new R&D

spending and creating fear that the benefits

of that R&D will accrue, many times unfairly,

to their competitors.

Antitrust laws should protect the consumer

and not weak, poorly managed competitors.

Moreover, such laws should never be used as

a means for political shenanigans by

intransigent state lawmakers and regulators.

It’s time to move forward. Let’s settle this

once and for all, now.

Michael J. Schroeder

Microsoft Shareholder

MTC–00006932

From: Clyde and Jean

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:17pm

In april of 2000 the talks between and MS

and the government fell through and MS’s

stock price fell and kept on falling. The rest

of the market went along and the economy

followed. If further restrictions are placed on

MS is doesn’t take much imagination to

predict what it will eventually do to the

economy.

Something about this whole thing reminds

me of the old story about the goose and the

golden eggs.

Clyde Dahlin

dahlin+AEA-olynet.com

MTC–00006933

From: Doris J. Lafferty

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is a fair settlement and time to get on

with business.

MTC–00006934

From: John R. Newell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I was happy to see the settlement reached.

We don’t need our ecomomy’s engines under

attact by the governments.

Because the settlement with Microsoft was

reached between consenting parties, and the

economy needs some certainty, please let the

agreement stand and don’t help the greedy

state attornies general that want to derail it.

John Newell

MTC–00006935

From: Giuseppe Del Vecchio

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:16pm

Subject: Microsoft

To whom it may concern:

Let it be known that Microsoft is not a

trust. The company works in a way that is

best for the innovation of science and

technologies, as I understand it—it is not a

male monopoly. Rather, the said company

those all it can do to buoy innovation. This

would constitute it being a valid scientific

company.

Thank you for time and prudence in the

laws relating to trusts.

Respectively yours,

Giuseppe Del Vecchio

MTC–00006936

From: jorge godoy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:19pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

I’m writing to you in these critical times for

all of us. Just a few days ago I sold my last

fifty shares of a dot com company that I

bought at more than $30.00 a share. (sold at

$1.60 ).

I can complaint much; I have my health,

my family and my job. But I failed to

understand why a company that has done so

much, not only for the American economy

but, for individuals. Is being penalized for

innovation and give us good products like

Microsoft.

Please settle this case with Microsoft, and

find something more productive to do with

your time. America deserves it!

Jorge Godoy.

MTC–00006937

From: Eileen R McGuire

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:18pm

Subject: Stop Harassing Microsoft

USA needs innovative businesses that

make a difference to us regular citizens in a

way that we can afford to be productive

people.

Eileen McGuire

MTC–00006938

From: GOrn521735@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24865

Microsoft should be left alone.

Microsoft should be able to recover its’

economic damages that government officials

have inflicted upon the corporation.

I am ashamed that our government has

wasted taxpayer dollars to prosecute

Microsoft.

Jerry Orn

North Canton, Ohio

MTC–00006939

From: SKIPDOCK@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

Thank goodness the Microsoft case is

settled. Please do not litigate any further.

I am pleased with settlement as a

consumer.

Harriet G. Dockstader

328 West 77th St, Apt 4

New York, NY 10024–6833

MTC–00006940

From: Gracie Abraldes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:20pm

Subject: Settlement opinion

** Confidential **

The government should have never been

involved in this lawsuit. It is shame that the

government can be directed by individual

interests. The United States Government is

the only government in the world to penalize

you for being successful.

This settlement is the best thing of a wrong

situation. Since this lawsuit should have

never brought forward, at least this

settlement will end it all.

Do nothing else, this lawsuit should finish

now.

Grace Abraldes

gracie@abraldes.com

PS: As a consumer I have never felt that

Microsoft was taking advantage of me, they

were very easy to deal when I call them and

they always listen to what I wanted in the

new programs. That is more than I can say

about other companies of which the

government is doing nothing about.

Have a wonderful day

Grace

MTC–00006942

From: R. Cannefax

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My understanding is that a agreement had

been reached to between Microsoft the

Federal Government and a number of

individual States. It appears the settlement

was a fair means to resolve a problem which

I and many other still do not clearly

understand. A big portion of the computer

users throughout the world are Microsoft

software users. Microsoft developed and

continues to enhance and improve on the

basic operating system used in PCs and in

most laptops.

Why they have a competitive edge is tied

to the risk they took at the very onset of their

venture and further tied to continuous

improvement of their product, exceptional

marketing and arrangements with

manufacturers to put their software on many

new PCs. Has competition been stifled? I

think not. Those who desire to compete can

find ways to do so effectively. Those who

don’t should be allowed to quietly go out of

business. As an operator of a small search

engine, I could begin trying to make a case

with my elected officials that AOL or Yahoo!

had a competitive advantage and one of them

may be operating as a monopoly, forcing me

to not be able to compete effectively in an

open market case. Sure, I could make that

case as could a number of other smaller

search engines, but I do not feel that such an

issue is in the best interest of the general

public. The AOL product is inferior and

problem fraught, yet they have the majority

of the Internet business in respect to search

engines services, ISP services and e-mail.

All that said, I would like to make the

point that I am opposed to the Microsoft case

being reopened and drug through the courts.

We are in a time of national, if not global

financial unrest and I do not think such

action is to the benefit of the general public.

I believe the special interest groups need to

take a back seat to the current economic

conditions and let Microsoft move forward.

Realistically, could we deal with another

500,000 or more layoffs? Could it be those

who are pushing for reopening the Microsoft

case are just trying to hang on to their

positions in order to avoid what’s taking

place across the US and globally, a general

reduction in force.

I propose we let Microsoft move forward,

use their talented, highly paid staff to

produce software solutions that will make

computers even easier for my wife and her

friends to use and lets keep the cost of this

battle in check.

Please feel free to reply to this e-mail

should you have any questions, concerns or

comments.

Thank you,

Raymond Cannefax

President & COO

eCom Only, Inc.

MTC–00006943

From: lillian ingram

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sincerely hope that this affair with

Microsoft can be completed as pending. The

whole thing amounts to the competition

wanting Microsoft to share their Research

and Development advances with Netscape,

AOL and the rest of the Free Riders. Not

surprising that we had more than enough

sleazy lawyers ready to milk the cow.

Thanks for listening,

Ralph and Lillian Ingram,

E-mail leirmi@msn.com.

MTC–00006944

From: Light12ray@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:22pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

The states and individual competitors of

Microsoft are wasting my taxpayer dollars

looking out for their own special interests.

Please go ahead with the settlement and stop

the needless dollars being spent on attorney

bills rehashing once again the interests of

those individual companies and states

surrporting those companies.

Ray Osman

MTC–00006945

From: Vic Shackelford

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:22pm

Subject: microsoft setttlement

all bill gates did for me was to give me an

operating system i could understand and

afford. when one of his competitors comes

along with a better mousetrap i’ll buy it.till

then leave americas number one

entrepreneur alone. let his competitors shut

him down not the us goverment.

vic shackelford

MTC–00006946

From: Zikria Syed

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Attorney General,

Just wanted to share some thoughts on the

proposed Microsoft Settlement between the

company and the US Government. I believe

that it is a great step in the right direction

and attempts to put meaningful constraints

on the company without attempting to

destroy it. Your current policy is consistent

with the principles of free economy and

entrepreneur spirit of the United States.

Microsoft is a source of pride and stregth for

the US and a symbol of American leadership

worldwide. It is one of the most successful

companies of the current generation and has

done an unbelievable amount of good to the

american and global economy.

In conclusion, I fully sport the settlement

effort between DOJ and Microsoft.

Best Regards,

Zikria Syed

999 S. Wisteria Dr.,

Malvern, PA 19355

MTC–00006947

From: Sumner Kibbe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Secretary Ashcroft,

As one who spent five decades working in

American industry and now a retiree who

was fortunate enough to settle on the coast

of Maine, I urge your support of the

agreement reached between the United States

Government, a majority of the contesting

States and Microsoft Corporation. Prolonging

this silly and incredibly expensive litigation

can only continue to harm our Country’s

economy and further suppress future Bill

Gates from creating new jobs and a stronger

economic climate. It is indeed time to turn

our Government’s priority to punishing our

enemies and not those who practice free

enterprise. Let’s turn off the trial lawyers

‘‘feeding frenzy’’. I request that you forward

my comments to the District Court

considering this case.

Respectfully yours,

Sumner E. Kibbe

43 Horn Cove Road

Southport, Maine 04576

cc: Senator Susan M Collins Citizens for a

Sound Economy

CC:CSE Capitol Connect website

24866 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00006948

From: Dick Humphrey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Just wanted to express my concerns on

special interest groups attempting to disrupt

the settlement of the on-going law suit that

Microsoft is going through. It is time to wrap

this up and get on with it. Microsoft makes

a very good product with lots of support

services that are benefiting many personal

and business lives to make efficiencies in our

lives. They should not be stifled by

preventing them from being creative and

implementing new improvements into their

software systems that will make things easier

for the general public. Other companies

bundle services, why should Microsoft be

prevented from doing it.

I am asking for your support to get on with

this law suit and get it settled so we can get

some positive movement in the software/

computer industry.

Dick Humphrey

Littleton, CO 80122

MTC–00006949

From: JOYCE GRAUMAN

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:24pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I would like, as a interested citizen to see

this issue end. I think that Microsoft has

made amends and will honor their

agreement. The country cannot afford to

waste time. Microsoft is the glue of the

internet stocks on the market. It will hurt all

of the market, as it already has, if it is

allowed to continue. The Democrats are

determined to hold back the economy to win

elections and I am tired of lawyers trying to

make a killing and dragging this thing out.

Microsoft, when the lawsuit began, was not

considered a monopoly. Since then, instead

of destroying their good work these other

states are going to have to get over it. They

are trying for the deep pocket to balance their

budgets. How many of the states going after

Microsoft are Republicans.? I think Orin

Hatch is disgusting. I have heard that he has

a son who is a lawyer working in his state

and is involved in making a name for himself

as well. Orin Hatch needs to go. I have again

said my piece. I vote to END the states beef!

I vote independent, however this is a big

issue to me and many people....I have been

a Republican. I am pleased with George Bush

and the Justice Dept. so far. We are

Watching!!!!!!!!

Joyce Grauman

MTC–00006950

From: JEastin4@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:23pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am not sure what is settlement is actually.

I just know for sure it is an unfair charge

made in the first place. The government is on

the wrong track in trying to break up

Microsoft. Ma Bell suffered under the same

mentality and we know how bad that was.

Microsoft is no more a monopoly that many

of the large companies in this country today.

It is a good company and they sell their

products fair value. Leave them alone.

JEastin4@AOL.com

MTC–00006951

From: BunBunjr@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir:

Please stop the litigation and let the

economy get on with itself.

Jim Landfield

Tel 703–734–0840

FAX 703–790–9049

MTC–00006952

From: wally rasmussen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let us end this prolonged litigation

prompted by Micosoft’s competitors and not

in the best interest of the consumer NOW.....

Thank you,

Wally Rasmussen

14531 Cascade DR SE

Snohomish, WA 98296

MTC–00006953

From: Chris Hall

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:25pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

I am sending this to make my opinions

known regarding the antitrust settlement

regarding Microsoft. I personally feel that the

current settlement is just and fair to all

parties. I also feel that the continuation of

this only hurts not only the participants but

the economy as a whole. When you have a

trial of this magnitude unresolved it effects

the economy by the fact that no decision is

finally rendered. I personally agree taht there

has been some wrong doing by Microsoft and

that the current resolution is appropriate. To

further delay this case and to prolong it will

only add more uncertainty. My other

comment is that if they had the marketshare

and capacity to do so would they not have

also bundled their respective web browsers

in their software. In the free enterprise

system I believe that the strong should

survive and not be penalized for ingenuity

and innovation. The free market should

determine who can and will survive.

Thank you,

Mr. Chris R Hall

1310 Packerland Dr Apt A7

Green Bay, WI 54304

MTC–00006954

From: BeepaY@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to let you know how I feel

about the Microsoft antitrust case. Nine states

have already negotiated a settlement with

Microsoft and the Federal Government

should follow suit. There is no need to

continue spending money that could be

better spent in getting our economy back in

order. Put simply, letting Microsoft do their

business will help the technology industry

and the entire economy. Microsoft has done

so much for our country and pursuing futher

litigation will onlly punish their efforts.

I am retired and use computers very

regularly. Like so many Americans, I would

be lost without Microsoft. Their products are

very easy to learn and use and they’ve

brought technology into the hands of

everyday people. Bill Gates created a

virtually new industry back in the 1980’s and

today I think we owe it to him for making

the technology industry what it is today. He

and his company made some very smart

business solutions and other companies are

just jealous of their success. I urge you to

please stop this charade and allow Microsoft

to concentrate on their business. Please don’t

draw this suit out further by holding a

Judiciary hearing to investigate. Let Microsoft

get back to business and everyone else get on

with their lives.

Sincerely

Russell C. Yannello

MTC–00006955

From: Lon Warneke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please accept my request to settle in this

matter according to the Court of Appeals

ruling. I trust you will determine it is

extremely fair and thus in the ‘‘public

interest.’’ The time is right for the consumer

to realize benefit and begin to move forward.

Thank You.

MTC–00006956

From: Clayton B’Hymer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm

Subject: Microsoft

Dear Sirs,

The litigation against the Microsoft

company is unwarranted and an abuse of the

United States legal system. Microsoft became

the leading software manufacturer not

because of monopolistic tendencies, but from

offering a superior product and meeting the

customers needs. If anyone wanted to use an

alternative operating system for a personal

computer, they could and can choose from

Linux, IBM’s ill conceived OS2, or Apple.

Microsoft got to the point were they are

because their operating system is superior,

less prone to crashes and meets the needs of

the consumer. The other products listed do

not meet the higher standards of Microsoft.

I am a computer contract worker; I have used

the products listed above and Microsoft’s

Windows, although not perfect, is better.

Microsoft’s internet explorer was always

more stable and rugged than Netscape’s

products.

I am angry that my tax dollars are being

abused and wasted prosecuting a company

that gained success in the market place from

a superior product. I see this as nothing more

than an extortion attempt by lawyers, and the

state and federal government.

The settlement agreement, itself, is another

disgrace of the abuse of the law. If Microsoft

had truly been abusive to its customers,

overcharged, or exhibited Monolopolistic

behavior, then computer owner’s suffered the

lost. Instead, the state governments and the

federal government is extorting Microsoft to

provide computers and software to the public

schools. This in nothing but socialism/

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24867

communism, not Justice! Since when did

redistribution of wealth enter into

compensation of a separate class of nonlitigants.

That is my opinion. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Clayton B’Hymer

MTC–00006957

From: CataloniElectric@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:27pm

Subject: Microsoft

pleaser let microsoft alone this is a good

company and need the free to work right and

you people do not know how to run a

company like Microsoft. way do you people

wake up and see the real world . and the

world that you think is right. it take money

to do that . i do not think any for the people

that are to bring microsoft down can not do

it in the free marker so there want to do it

with the law . i think you lawer are the lone

one make money on this so the more in go

on the more money you make. Microsoft is

a good company and is the back bone for the

new world and need to run right.

MTC–00006958

From: Peter (038) Dolly van Hengel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:27pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I believe it is ludricous that we have to go

thru all this litigation that will benefit no one

other than some complainers. the economy

requires quick action and settlement to do

away with the uncertainty. Also the

consumer wants to move on. there is not

much choice anyway and so far nobody has

been harmed.

pls move on and stop the litigation

nonsence: it is costly and will bring no long

term benefit.

peter van hengel

MTC–00006959

From: rabhill

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:28pm

Subject: MSFT Settlement

RE: DOJ Settlement with Microsoft.

I, as a long term user(1980) of Apple and

PC machines with all types of software, fully

support the recent DOJ settlement.

During my latter part of career years from

1985 ish until 1995 my company favored the

use of Apple and I used same for my personal

computing. In 1998 I switched to PC’s and

windows. With this background I can

emphatically say that the Windows systems

(Software+Hardware) are vastly superior to

Apple system in Cost, Reliability and general

performance.

I categorically challenge anyone to show

me where the world would be better off

without Microsoft and their products. In the

early 80’s I recall what the world was like

when there were 10 different Word

processors, Database managers, and

Spreadsheet software, and the difficulties

with incompatible packages. The PC has

thrived because of Microsoft not in spite of

them. I was also an internet and AOL user

in the early 90’s and recall trying to get a

decent browser. AOL did not and still does

not provides a competitive service. As a

taxpayer it would be in my interests to spend

some DOJ time seriously

reviewing how AOL/Netscape attempt to

prevent competition.

Respectfully,

Richard Hill

33601 Capstan Drive

Dana Point, CA 92629

949–443–2349

rabhill@earthlink.net

MTC–00006960

From: LSeib14844@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:28pm

Subject: get it over with now and move on

to something else

leave microsoft alone and let them make

our lives fast and easier when doing business

and living our lives.

there must be something else the

governement can be doing or do you guys

like to send our money the wrong way

MTC–00006961

From: Wolf—Bock@emainc.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:29pm

Subject: MicroSoft Settlement

Sirs:

I think the settlement exonerating

MicroSoft from wrongdoing was long

overdue. In my opinion, the Department of

Justice action was never more than a witch

hunt instigated in collusion with MicroSoft

competitors who also happened to be

prominent contributors to the previous

Clinton Administration (what a surprise). I

am glad that the Bush Administration has

recognized the impropriety of the previous

regime’s actions, and has decided to close

this frivolous suit as rapidly as possible.

Sincerely yours,

Wolf Bock

22373 Enoch Road

Leonardtown, MD 20650

MTC–00006962

From: geaves

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:28pm

It is past the time for those who brought

this ill-considered suit to consider their folly

and end it for once and for all. It is a judicial

embarrassment, beginning with overaggressive government prosecutors to a

wholly biased judge. In these critical times

for our country, the Microsoft case stands out

as one of the most biased litigations in the

1990’s. That was some decade—a President

who flaunted the Constitution to Atty. Gen.

Reno who lost her moorings (if, indeed, she

ever had any).

J. Beales

MTC–00006963

From: Michael Allen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe it is in the best interest of all

concerned that the charges against Microsoft

be dropped immeadiately.

MA

MTC–00006964

From: phylliska@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I respectfully suggest that it is time for the

Government to settle the Microsoft Issue

along the lines that have been outlined by the

DOJ and accepted by Microsoft. This

settlement provides much heretofor private

Microsoft information to competitors and

others while permitting continued

innovation by Microsoft.

Microsoft’s products allow all of us—

whether technology-oriented or gray-haired

grammies—to access the wonder provided by

the company’s technology made simple for

public use. The fact that so many prefer

Microsoft software means that we all are able

to communicate with each other without

having to have special connections, etc. This

is a Benefit which all of us are able to enjoy.

I live in Microsoft country [not too far from

its Redmond facilities]. The State of

Washington is suffering one of the highest

levels of unemployment in the United States.

We need the stability of a healthy Microsoft.

And our Counry and around the World,

millions of ordinary citizens need the

products Microsoft has developed so that we

may enjoy instant communication, run our

businesses from our homes and visit

education and other sites on the internet.

We’d all like to be First and Best but

always, there is someone or some company

that is. Bringing down the First and Best

doesn’t provide any glory to those trying so

hard to prove that they should have been first

and best—but weren’t and aren’t. Let’s get

this long-running case finished so everyone

can go back to getting our Country out of its

malais. That takes every hand and every

thinker and innovater wherever they may be

in the United States.

Thank you for listening.

Phyllis Bergsman,

Kirkland, WA

CC:MSFIN@Microsoft.com@inetgw

MTC–00006965

From: jimsue199

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:28pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

We need Microsoft—request that DOJ play

fair with the settlement—don’t destroy

Microsoft.

Thank you

JIM BENSON

CC:Microsoft ATR

MTC–00006966

From: Patricia Schlinkmann

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:23pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

PLEASE SETTLE THE MICROSOFT

DISPUTE IN FAVOR OF MICROSOFT. IT IS

MY OPINION THEY BUILT A ‘‘BETTER

MOUSETRAP’’ AND BECAUSE OF THAT

SHOULD BE FREE TO MARKET AS THEY

SEE FIT. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD

STAY OUT OF FREE ENTERPRISE. I SEE NO

MONOPOLY.....

THANK YOU FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION.

PATRICIA H. SCHLINKMAN

3401 HIGHWAY 90 EAST,

24868 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

SCHULENBURG, TX. 78956

MTC–00006967

From: Owen Paulus

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle the Microsoft case. Continued

litigation is not a benefit to the country in the

current economic climate. The settlement

appears to be fair, and should allow the

company and its competitors to settle their

differences in the marketplace—instead of

the courts.

Thank you,

Owen Paulus

MTC–00006968

From: Michael Brothers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think that the time has come for the long

litigation against Microsoft to end.

Companies that have delivered as much

innovation as Microsoft are an asset to our

country and our economy .

Thank you,

Mike Brothers

CC:mwbrothers@webtv.net@inetgw

MTC–00006969

From: FOXAERO@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:31pm

Subject: Goverment interfearance

Less government will fix almost anything.

Frank Fox, Wilton

MTC–00006970

From: Larry Weidner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:32pm

I think the Microsoft case should be settled

without any further litigation.

L. Weidner, Consumer

MTC–00006971

From: hcmcdonald

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a 73 year old man, and my wife and

I depend upon my computer to connect with

the world—the whole world. I am in touch

with my old workmates, my children and my

grandchildren. Also, I can find out

everything I want to know through

MSN.com. I know there are lots of smart

people that can do everything with

computers, but if it weren’t for Microsoft and

Windows, I would just be lost and not in

touch with anyone or anything. I feel

empowered by my computer, and I don’t feel

that I paid too much for anything. I love the

simple world of Microsoft. Everything works,

and I don’t have to experience the stress of

installing a new program. If something would

not work on install, I don’t know what I

would do, as I can’t understand complicated

instructions. I have many friends that feel the

same way, although some of my friends have

kids that can do everything on computers,

but they are the luck ones.

Please, don’t put Microsoft out of business,

because some of the other companies are mad

at them.

Regards, Henry

MTC–00006972

From: Jim Crofoot

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:32pm

Subject: MicroSoft Settlement

I understand that you are taking public

comments concerning this subject. The

following are mine.

During the past fifteen years I have been

closely involved with five different

companies that were introducing technology

to agriculture for the benefit of producers and

the environment. Two of these companies

were developing software for this market.

Both our market surveys and the customer

proved to us that in computer software you

need to have a dominant operating system.

The consumer will chose the dominant

system because it is dominant and means the

best compatibility with those that they want

to connect. Developers must choose the

dominant system so that their product is

compatible to the greatest possible market. In

our opinion the rapid increase of technology

during the late 80’ and 90’s would not have

been achieved if during that time we had

three or five companies with similar

operating systems and market share as

Windows.

As both a consumer, user and developer I

appreciate the role of the Dept. of Justice.

However I believe most markets unless

completely regulated by government will be

driven by the products and their value. Those

completely regulated have shown little or no

innovation. From what I have read about this

case, it seems that MicroSoft requirement for

hardware maufactures to install Windows for

a better price may harmful but if this was

done though the contract as a part of volume

pricing I would say that it is beneficial.

My main comment is SETTLE THIS CASE.

The industry, the US and the world are not

being served by endless litigation.

As far as I can tell the only parties that

have or will gain from this case have been

the attorneys. Even MicroSoft competitors

have been hurt by the uncertainty of this case

and what the future holds. I have yet to hear

how the states that are parties to this case

have been damaged. I live to west of Iowa

and work with producers in both IA and NE.

I can’t see that residents of IA have been

damaged by MicroSoft. The motive for their

action appears to be something other than

advancing technology.

Thanks for your time, you know how to

reach me if you wish.

MTC–00006973

From: Lois Bailey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the Microsoft settlement as agreed

to is a good settlement.

No further litigation is necessary or

needed. No need to prolong this any longer.

This is good for the consumer and the

company even though the company might

want it better.

Thank you

L. Bailey

MTC–00006974

From: fran symms

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To follow freedom in America, please

dismiss the case against Microsoft...Our

government should NOT punish success.

Fran Symms

MTC–00006975

From: JAMES PHELAN

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:34pm

Subject: Continued harrasment of Microsoft

I would stronly recommend that the civil

actions suggested by the 9 holdout states be

terminated and Microsoft Corporation be

allowed to continue to inovate and add to our

countries prosperity and defense.

The Federal actions taken to date against

this company are a sufficient remedy for any

past corporate transgressions.

James D. Phelan

3060 6th Ave. # 30

San Diego, Calif. 92103–5854

MTC–00006976

From: RichardLCa@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Its such a shame that nine of the states and

the Federal Government have reached an

agreement on how to proceed but nine greedy

states even want more. It’s like looting a

business after they have already been broken

into.

Microsoft has done so much for the

consumer. They have built the best product.

It’s called competition. If competition is

unfair then we are nothing but a socialistic

country.

Please advise the holdout states to compete

with their products and back off attacking

(looting) Microsoft.

Sincerely,

Richard L. Carlson

MTC–00006977

From: carefree-cowboy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

January 3, 2002

Dear Sirs:

The last thing our 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 and derail the

settlement. The Microsoft case needs to be

settled NOW!

Sincerely,

Dennis Thompson

P.O. Box 5135

Carefree, AZ 85377

MTC–00006978

From: Wfrank38

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Affair

It is time to leave Microsoft alone. The

settlement seems fair to me and many of my

neighbors.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24869

Thanks,

William M Franklin

124 Arrowhead

Comanche, TX. 76442

wfrank38@cctc.net

MTC–00006979

From: Edward J. Murphy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Why is it that the DOJ has agreed to the

settlement but now certain states do not like

it? Have those statescontributed money for

the prosecution of the cases or was it all

funded by the Federal Government. Iwould

also guess that the states that are holding out

have a large present of Microsoft

competitorsin their states.In addition, the

competitors appear to be looking for the

states to make it easier for them to compete—

what happened to the FREE MARKET?

Let’s get this over with before we have

another MA BELL fiasco!

Edward J. Murphy

MTC–00006980

From: Ronald Soussa

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:36pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please end the litigation and accept the

settlement that the Federal Government has

already reached with Microsoft.

Thank you.

Ronald S. Soussa, SIOR

Delaware Hudson Realty Group, Inc.

239 New Road, Building A

Parsippany, NJ 07054–4294

Phone (973) 575–6080, Fax (973) 575–4590

rsoussa@delawarehudson.com

www.delawarehudson.com

MTC–00006981

From: JENALO@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Suit

To My Elected Officials:

I favor the reasonable settlement of the DOJ

and states lawsuits against the Microsoft

Corporation that does not breakup the

company, that allows them to continue their

innovative ideas and production of software

and does not restrict their marketing

concepts.

Thank you for your favorable actions

concerning this issue.

A Concerned Voting Citizen,

Lawrence Aloian

MTC–00006982

From: WIN B ENDERS

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement is more than fair and

should finally put this litigation to an end.

Its about time that Microsoft competitors

compete in the marketplace and not in the

courtrooms.

win enders

seabeck, wa.

MTC–00006983

From: Roy Knecht

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:36pm

Subject: Micrsoft Settlement

The settlement is overdue. Please proceed

with it.

Roy Knecht

403 san Jose Drive

Winter Haven, Florida 33884

MTC–00006984

From: Martha.Schroeder@

TJGroup.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern at the DOJ

Please settle the Microsoft suite quickly.

We consumers do not need further litigation

that stifles innovation.

It is no coincidence that the downward

spiral to the technical stockmarket came in

the wake of the decision to break up

Microsoft. Thousands of retirees pension

funds and charitable funds have suffered

terrible losses due to this decision.

Settle quickly and let innovation and

competition work freely.

Sincerely yours,

Martha Schroeder

TJ Group Americas, Inc.

15770 North Dallas Parkway Suite 403

Dallas, TX 75248

Phone: (972) 980–8032 x4474

Fax: (972) 980–-4574

martha.schroeder@tjgroup.com

MTC–00006985

From: FJAltomari@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

I would like to express my opinion about

the Department of Justice and Microsoft.

I feel that it is our government’s job to see

that innovative companies suchas Microsoft,

which has done so much for our country and

its people, be ableto continue its efforts and

not be burdened by frivolous law suits.

Frank J. Altomari

5810 Spinnaker Loop

Lady Lake, FL 32159

352–750–1111

MTC–00006986

From: Jacquelyn A. Frink

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Brian & Jacquelyn Frink

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am writing to voice my support of the

Department of Justice settlement ofthe

Microsoft matter. The settlement is fair and

reasonable for allparties. As a consumer and

taxpayer I applaud the settlement decision.

Jacquelyn A. Frink

16 Premier Ct.

Chico, CA 95928

MTC–00006987

From: Janet L. Grummitt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Who It May Concern:

Let this settlement stand. Let’s get on with

the business of making better computer

products. Microsoft can help the US remain

#1 in 2002.

Sincerely,

Janet and David Grummitt

MTC–00006988

From: Hoffman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:38pm

Subject: Settlement

Relaxed Mickey

Simply put, it was one of four policies of

the Clinton administration that killed the

spirit of free enterprise during a productove

period.

Bill Hoffman

MTC–00006989

From: Keith Nealy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement with Microsoft

only furthers their monopoly by enabling

them, as a ‘‘punishment,’’ to enter and

dominate the educational market, which is

pretty much the only one left that they don’t

control. This is a complete surrender to

Microsoft and is far from the public interest.

Their past behavior proves that without strict

enforcement and breakup they will continue

to bully and coerce competitors.

I can’t imagine many alternatives that

would be more favorable to Microsoft. Far

from punishing them for their practices, it

ensures their continuance.

I strongly object to it and consider the

government to have failed in its regulatory

responsibility in this matter.

Sincerely,

Keith Nealy

1540 Linden Street

Alameda, CA 94501–3264

MTC–00006990

From: chris tarr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 4:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit

I feel that the nine State’s currently suing

Micrososft should abandone their case for the

best interests of our country and free

enterprise.

This lawsuit has been a setback for

innovation and technology markets. I further

believe it was one of the factors leading to

us to the recession we are in now.

Do not penalize a business for being

successful.

Chris Tarr

1111 Stone Church Rd

Waterloo, NY 13165

MTC–00006991

From: Sharon Solheim

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing about the Microsoft

Settlement.

Years ago, when Microsoft stole the Norton

Speed Disk utility (renamed Defrag), and

settled out of court I thought they got what

they deserved. This settlement is another

case where they’ll be getting what they

deserve.

24870 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Ironically I think Microsoft products, as a

whole, are the foundation of business

computing and I use them often. That does

not mean that their business practices are

best for everyone.

Sincerely,

Joe Regester

610 Wallis Ave.

Delavan WI 53115

262–728–0249

MTC–00006992

From: VEstaba@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement reached by the federal

government and nine states regarding the

long litigation with Microsoft is fair and will

benefit not only Microsoft but The United

States and the whole world . Any country

would be proud with an industry which has

elevated the name og the United States for

the oustanding achievement on a field of

primary importance for the progress of all

industies probably without exception.

Respectfully,

Carmen Estaba and Victor Estaba, M.D.

MTC–00006993

From: terry benshoof

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:36pm

Subject: <no subject>

TO MY GOVERNMENT, WHILE I

APPRECIATE LOOKING OUT FOR MY BEST

INTERESTS, I DO NOT LIKE OTHERS TO

WASTE MY MONEY. MICROSOFT’S

COMPETITORS HAVE NOT SHOWN THEIR

ABILITY TO COMPETE ON A LARGER

SCALE. THEY HAVE DO HAVE THE

ABILITY TO USE OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY

FOR THEIR BENEFIT. BRING THIS TO A

CONCLUSION.

TERRY BENSHOOF

MTC–00006994

From: Ed Litizzette

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it may concern:

We are sick and tired of the ongoing

litigation between the Justice Department and

Microsoft.

Forget about it!!!! Get over it!!! I think the

taxpayers have shelled out enough of my tax

money.

Ed and Sharon Litizzette

windamer@inreach.com

www.windamere.com

MTC–00006995

From: jaymedin Medin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is the American way to be the best you

can be.This country has wasted enough

money on this.If other companies can’t

compete because their products aren’t as

good then so be it.It’s common business

practice to surround yourself with the best

people you can to do the job and this is what

Microsoft has done.I think this country had

best start paying more attention to what is

really important like the whole country is on

the brink of financial fallout and no one

wants to admit it.Put this to rest and start

taking care of the important issues.

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with

MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

MTC–00006996

From: Michael Schwartz

To: Microsoft ATR,bfoer@

antitrustinstitute.org@inetgw

Date: 1/2/02 5:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello Mr. Foer,

Please fwd this email to Mr. Hawker.

I just read an article at the following link:

http://www.eweek.com/article/

0%2C3658%2Cs%253D701%

2526a%253D20391%2C00.asp and noticed

the following quote (in-line with paragraph)

by Norman Hawker: From the perspective of

tough-remedy advocates, however, restoring

competition to the marketplace necessarily

means examining the position of competitors.

‘‘Right now, we have one single institution

that’s directing what will happen in the

future, and that’s Microsoft,’’ AAI’s Hawker

said. ‘‘Antitrust law is about protecting and

promoting competition, and you cannot have

competition without competitors.

That is an absolutely pathetic claim. This

only drives a self-fulfilling prophecy that is

aimed at ‘‘settling on mediocrity.’’ Hawker’s

statement does nothing but enstill a

‘‘bandwagon type of fear (i.e., hysteria)’’ into

the average consumer. If his statement is true,

why didn’t the MS X-Box put Sony

Playstation and Nintendo Game Cube out of

business. The introduction of the X-Box will

only make the other game companies strive

to make better products. To claim that MS

will stifle future, yet-to-be-developed

technologies is so lame. Norman would say

something like ‘‘MS can’t deploy a VOIP

network because they might succeed at it and

take away business from other companies

doing the same thing.’’ Norman seemingly

advocates a perspective that my parents

worked to enstill when raising my brother

and I, namely ‘‘Don’t compare yourself with

those who don’t excel just so that you look

better. Raise the bar and compare youself

with the top students in your classes.’’

Limiting Microsoft’s future technology

endeavors by some force of law will only

remove the incentive for other companies to

make high-quality products in the

concerened technology.

If the AAI puts their money where their

advocations lie, then: 1. AAI supporters

never use any Windows OS. They only use

Macs or Linux or Solaris or some other nonubiquitous OS. 2. AAI supporters never use

MSIE for surfing the web; rather they use

Opera or Netscape Navigator (which is now

junk since AOL took over; why don’t you sue

AOL for the crap they generate and the IEbased browser they deploy), 3. AAI

supporters never use MS Office, rather they

only use Lotus Suite, WordPerfect, or Star

Office. 4. AAI supporters never use HotMail

or MSN; I don’t even dare list the endless

‘‘other’’ competing options available on free

email and portal web sites. If any of the

above (1,2, or 3) are ‘‘false’’ from an AAI

perspective, then the AAI advocates are

solely in the witch hunt against MS for

personal gain, such as receiving AAI

contributions from any number of plaintiff

companies or states.

I am confident MS will prevail in the long

run. Although some of thier software is

buggy, at least the average consumer doesn’t

need a computer science degree to use it

effectively and it usually always works as

expected.

Regards,

Mike Schwartz

MTC–00006997

From: Paul Kapler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:39pm

Subject: Miceosoft Settlement

Please settle this action immediately.

Paul and Sharon Kapler

MTC–00006998

From: LConey5352@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:39pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I, AS HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OF

AMERICANS ARE OUTRAGED AT THE

CONDUCT OF THE CLINTON/DOJ

CONDUCT ON THIS MSFT ISSUE. I AM A

STOCK HOLDER OF MANY HIGH TECH

STOCKS AND FEEL MSFT IS BEING

UNDULY CHARGED AS A RESULT OF

CLINTON ERA POLITICS. KEEP UP THE

GOOD WORK BILL GATES AND CO. WE

ARE BEHIND YOU.

LYNN S. CONEY

ARLINGTON, WA.

MTC–00006999

From: Bill Eaton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern (and it should

concern all of us): Please let the settlement

agreed upon by the Justice Department and

the nine states stand without further

litigation. While Microsoft may have had

some questionable practices, those have been

recognized and dealt with. It concerns me

greatly that competitors who have not been

as innovative continue to try and use the

judicial system to replace and/or augment

their own marketing efforts. I have

tremendous faith in the American freeenterprise system and it’s ability to police

itself on most matters. This is not the time

in our history to be stifling creativity and

innovation in the name of a ‘‘level playing

field’’. Business rarely is that, and we cannot

afford to suppress our strongest companies

for the sake of a few. By the way, for the

record, I hold stock in some of Microsoft’s

competitors, and still feel strongly that

‘‘enough is enough’’.

Thank you.

William L. Eaton

MTC–00007000

From: DmarkBill@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to see the Microsoft case

settled.The proposed agreement seems fair

enough....and we all have plenty of other

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24871

things to do these days.The people against

the agreement seem to be vindictive... enough

is enough.....

W.F. Highland

MTC–00007001

From: Frank Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a thirty-year veteran of the information

technology industry I know how difficult it

is produce great software with broad vision

and scope that works well with the products

of thousands of hardware and software

vendors. Microsoft has done this far better

than any other vendor. No one else is close.

That is clearly terrific for consumers, and for

thousands of other vendors, though perhaps

not for Sun, Oracle, et al. It seems to me that

the Justice Department settlement is tough

but fair, and I am delighted as a citizen of

Illinois that my Attorney General is for the

settlement, just as I was pleased that he did

not support the breakup. I am amazed that

the attorneys general of the other states

believe that their proposal will be a benefit

to consumers. Confiscating Microsoft’s

intellectual property and disincenting it will

in no way to lead to consumer benefit.

Frank Smith

770 Rosewood Avenue

Winnetka, IL 60093

MTC–00007002

From: WES HAGER

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:41pm

Subject: Please leave Microsoft alone.

Please leave Microsoft alone.

MTC–00007003

From: LindaDNA@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:41pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I don’t think it’s in the public’s interest to

continue litigation of the lawsuit against

Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Corporation

has been, and will continue to be an

innovator in technology if it is allowed to

continue its business without spending undo

revenue in its defense from a few disgruntled

competitors. The public’s interest would be

better served by allowing businesses to

survive in the old free market fashion, i.e.,

innovation, development and marketing. The

best product wins, remember?

Linda Wiley

MTC–00007004

From: DrNNat@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to bring the Microsoft settlement

to an end. Finalize the settlement so users

like myself can benefit from new software

from Microsoft. They have created a user

world where everyone can talk to each other

and software can be used by all. My business

can communicate with customers who use

Microsoft spreadsheets and databases

because of the compatibility Microsoft has

provided.

Having spent 40 years in the computer

industry I have been appalled at the actions

taken by our government to impede the

progress brought to that industry by

Microsoft. Clearly directed by its arch

enemies, the imposed policies are not

intended to benefit the computer users but

rather to enhance the fortunes of the few

other very large software companies that

have tried to compete with Microsoft and

failed. Before Micrposoft the industry was a

mixture of hardware and software with no

interchangeability between either. Software

from an IBM system didnt run on a machine

made by Digital Equipment, and vice-versa.

Microsoft brought software compatibility to

the PC world and in doing so enabled mulimillions of users access to all PC’s. This

promoted an avalanche of applications which

can run on any PC because of the Operating

System flexibility provided by Microsoft.

Historically, Sun Microsystems destroyed

its major competitor, Apollo Systems, with

predatory pricing policies, so that HP had to

rescue Apollo with a takeover. Now Mr.

McNealy arrogantly uses our government as

a surrogate to try to destroy Microsoft

because he cant touch them in fair

competition. The law suit has gone too far

already. Finalize the settlement agreement

and let the industry go forward so users like

myself can get back to business and get the

best benefit possible from Microsoft’s

ingenuity and determination.

I realize this is a long message, but one

final thought. If Microsoft were located in

California the suit would never had

happened because the Silicon Valley $$ and

political pressures would have killed it long

ago. They are all jealous of Gates. They hate

him because of his success, yes, and his drive

to be the best and the richest. And thats what

this country is supposed to be about. They

just havent had his drive or his intelligence.

MTC–00007005

From: Dennis Vetica

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:43pm

Subject: leave them alone

you guys spent more money trying get bill

gates then bin laden. two guys start a

company and do good things, create jobs, and

make it so that even I can get on a computer.

You know not that long ago, the computer

industry started, and we were #1. Then Japan

took over, and it looked pretty bad for us.

Then some companies like intel, microsoft,

came alive, and we are #1 again. I guess if

you want to give up our computer business

to foreign countries like almost every other

industy, like cars, shoes, t.v.s, radios, stereos,

dvd, vhs, cassette, hand tools, you can even

find american flags that say, made in

china.........sad, sad day you guys should be

ashamed of yourselves. Leave our companies

alone, if you would have spent that money

on economic stimulus, instead of chasing bill

gates, just think how much revenue would

have been created.thanks, dennis vetica

MTC–00007006

From: earl vanderwalker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:43pm

Subject: Fair Settlement

Its time this has been put to rest. Only the

greedy and self serving want to see this

continue. Enough is enough!!!

MTC–00007007

From: Wayne Tanaka

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:43pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please settle immediately and let the free

enterprise system dictate the economic

systems and keep litigation to a minimum.

Wayne Tanaka

201 Merchant St. Suite 2200

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813–2929

808–537–4591 ext. 208

808–537–6696 (fax)

Registered representative of and securities

offered through MML Investors Services, Inc.

Supervisory Office:

1414 Main St.

Springfield, MA 01144–1013.

(413) 737–8400

MTC–00007008

From: JAlotis@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I belive that the settlement should ‘‘stand’’

and no further litigation be allowed. From

what I have read, the settlement is a fair one

and further litigation would only benefit the

many lawyers in- volved fighting this

settlement.

Barbara Brandeis Alotis

613 Fearrington Post

Pittsboro, NC 27312

jalotis@aol.co,

MTC–00007009

From: Fred Apperson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:44pm

Subject: Microsoft and Govt.

I have been using the Netscape browser

until about a year ago. I still do not know

why the trouble between whoever and

Microsoft. Please why not get on with life

and leave them alone. I had the choice of

using what I wanted. For years I used

Netscape. I chose someone else.

Thank You

Fred Apperson

MTC–00007010

From: 73543.2341

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

Please finalize the settlement you have

reached with Microsoft. It’s fair and good for

consumers and the economy. Any additional

litigation is a complete waste of $$ and

resources and will not benefit consumers in

any way.

Thanks very much for your consideration,

Scott Schneider

MTC–00007011

From: NexToNe000@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi,

24872 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

I just want to have my input in regard to

the settlement between Microsoft Vs USDOJ.

Sure Microsoft is a Monopoly but it is a good

monopoly. They make computing easy and

give us access to the Internet. The ones that

are against Microsoft are companies that

cannot compete with them. Every software

on my computer is made by Microsoft. Why

Microsoft? Because they offer software that

are better than other companies. There are

options that other consumers can choose. I

use AOL for my Internet provider not MSN

even though their icon is on the computer.

I use Quickens instead of Microsoft Money,

etc. Like I say there are other products that

consumers can choose. If you really want to

pick a fight, I think the US government

should try a Monopoly case against the cable

industry. There are no competition there and

the rates are just getting to outrageous.

MTC–00007012

From: PIPEJOHN01@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern

The original case was about browsers.

Browsers have come and gone. In this fast

moving world , it seems if you are wasting

time and tax payer’s money. Get this over

with and quit looking for something that is

not there.

John Harris

6234 Kingshire Rd

Grand Blanc, MI 48439

Pipejohn01@aol.com

MTC–00007013

From: Frostbayne@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I dont consider Microsoft a monopoly. I am

against the antitrust lawsuits.

This is just another example of a company

jealous of the success of another.

William L Ross

Omaha, NE

MTC–00007014

From: Norm Swent

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:46pm

Subject: MIROSOFT SETTLEMENT

lET’S ALL GET ON WITH IT! A

SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED AND

AGREED TO! THIS SUIT HAS COST THE

AMERICAN PUBLIC MILLIONS OF

DOLLARS, BOTH IN ACTUAL COSTS AND

IN ITS NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE

AMERICAN ECONOMY. AS A TAXPAYER

AND CONSUMER/USER OF COMPUTER

SOFTWARE PRODUCTS, I AM OK WITH

THE AGREEMENT. SIGN OFF ON IT AND

MOVE ON!

NORM SWENT

MTC–00007015

From: Anthony C. Cherby

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please end the insanity. Settle the

Microsoft case. As an IT professional, and a

taxpayer, it really aggravates me to think of

all the money the Clinton Justice Department

wasted. The moral of the story to my way of

thinking is this: a world-class corporation

would be wiser to locate in some other

country.

State attorneys general are attorneys—soak

the plaintiff regardless of the facts. Money

talks, and makes the district safe for

reelection.

Is Microsoft an innocent victim? Of course

not. They merely are better at doing the

business of America—business.

Save the moral nonsense. Certain

governmental civil servants went after

Microsoft in order to make the reputations of

certain governmental civil servants—

themselves—apparatchiks like Joel Klein.

People like him are good at using other

peoples’ money to screw the general public.

Add David Boies to the mixture and you have

solved the mystery concerning why we have

so many lawyer jokes. Of course, other cast

members like Janet Reno and Judge Pinhead

Jackson make the people at Microsoft look

like geniuses and saints.

And then there’s Netscape. Tell you what.

Sit down at a computer and use both

Netscape and Internet Explorer to complete

the same tasks on the Internet. Then compare

the results in terms of ease of use, speed,

accuracy, etc., etc. Conclusion: Netscape is

now and forever has been an inferior

product. That is not Gates’s fault. Yet the US

Government took sides with Netscape and

other minor players, and swallowed the

nonsense that MS in some way harmed them.

How about some old fashioned capitalism?

In my opinion, the settlement is unfair to

Microsoft. They should merely have been

fined heavily. Break them up? Sophomoric

nonsense. So, please —- for the sake of all of

us who know better —-

Settle now!

Anthony C. Cherby

Medford, New Jersey

MTC–00007016

From: Dominick Lembo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:45pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT IS NOT

ONLY FAIR BUT VERY GENEROUS OF

MICROSOFT. THIS IS A COMPANY WHO

HAS BEEN A VICTIM OF A CONSPIRACY

AMONG SOME COMPETITORS WHO ALSO

MADE GENEROUS CONTRIBUTIONS TO

CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICE HOLDERS TO

INFLUENCE THEIR THINKING AND

ACTIONS. THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR IS

WRONG AND MICROSOFT HAS BEEN A

VICTIM OF A HORRIBLE CRIME.

I STRONGLY URGE THE JUSTICE

DEPARTMENT TO DROP ALL CHARGES

AGAINST MICROSOFT. IF THIS IS NOT

POSSIBLE, THEN, AT THE VERY LEAST,

THEY SHOULD PUSH STRONGLY TO GET

THIS SETTLEMENT THROUGH THE

COURTS. THE COURTS SHOULD ALSO BE

EMBARRASSED BY A JUDGE WHO

DISPLAYED SUCH OBVIOUS BIAS HE

NORMALLY WOULD BE FIRED (IF HE

WORKED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR). ONCE

AGAIN, THIS SETTLEMENT IS A VERY

FAIR OFFER FROM MICROSOFT AND

SHOULD BE ACCEPTED.

MTC–00007017

From: Sharrie Dyer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:47pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please leave Microsoft alone. I am a senior

citizen who needs a job and am worried

about the economy; meanwhile, you seem

consumed by harassing Microsoft. At my age

I realize what matters and what doesn’t. The

economy matters—harassing Microsoft does

not.

MTC–00007018

From: Paul Castle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:47pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sir or Madame:

I believe it in the best interests of the

United States to finalize the Microsoft

Settlement. I believe that the sanctions and

costs placed upon Microsoft are fair and just.

It appears that a few individuals or

companies wish for the case to go on for

purely selfish reasons that are not of benefit

to Microsoft product users. Microsoft has

developed products and fairly marketed them

in my opinion for over 20 years. I have seem

my own efficiency increase tremendously

since using Microsoft software for business

and personal purposes. The cost is

affordable, and the the company is constantly

striving to offer better products. Microsoft is

in an incredibly competitive business. The

company has tried entry into several areas

where it just has not been successful because

of stronger competition. I believe that much

of this litigation is caused by companies that

are afraid of competing with Microsoft, and

cause harm to Microsoft product users by

keeping the company distracted from product

development that helps literally everybody in

the United States.

MTC–00007019

From: JAMAW19@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:47pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Microsoft has been punished enough. I

think it is time to ‘‘move on’’. Using one of

my son’s (a U.S. Marine) favorite lines—‘‘Just

Deal with it.’’

John Weis

MTC–00007020

From: LMSUR@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Dear DOJ

I favor the current settlement with

Microsoft and don’t think the states that are

still protesting should hold up the

settlement. I like Microsoft’s position. What

a great way to help our children learn.

Larry Sur

MTC–00007021

From: Karen Wass

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 6:03pm

Subject: Microsoft

Re: The anti-trust case.....Please let the

market determine the success or failure of

Microsoft and it’s competition.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24873

We as a economic world do not have

enough information on how all of this will

shake out. The world of computer platform

design systems and function are still in the

R&D stage. Microsoft, or any other company,

should not be restricted from developing or

forced to compete with any other like

company at this time

MTC–00007022

From: Wood79T@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:49pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

SETTLE THE MICROSOFT CASE NOW!!!!

WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE THINKING OF?

ANTHONY GUADAGNO

STATEN ISLAND NY

MTC–00007023

From: Michael Schwartz

To: Microsoft ATR,bfoer@

antitrustinstitute.org@inetgw,...

Date: 1/2/02 5:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello Mr. Foer of AAI, et. al.,

NOTE TO ALL: This is a repeat sending to

for two reasons: (1) Added ‘‘DOES NOT’’ in

the second paragraph. (2) Added the author

of the article to the recipient list, (3) Added

‘‘of AAI, et. al.’’ in salutation. Please fwd this

email to Mr. Hawker of AAI.

I just read an article at the following link:

http://www.eweek.com/article/

0%2C3658%2Cs%253D701%

2526a%253D20391%2C00.asp and noticed

the following quote (in-line with paragraph)

by Norman Hawker: From the perspective of

tough-remedy advocates, however, restoring

competition to the marketplace necessarily

means examining the position of competitors.

‘‘Right now, we have one single institution

that’s directing what will happen in the

future, and that’s Microsoft,’’ AAI’s Hawker

said. ‘‘Antitrust law is about protecting and

promoting competition, and you cannot have

competition without competitors.

That is an absolutely pathetic claim. This

only drives a self-fulfilling prophecy that is

aimed at ‘‘settling on mediocrity.’’ Hawker’s

statement does nothing but enstill a

‘‘bandwagon type of fear (i.e., hysteria)’’ into

the average consumer. If his statement is true,

why didn’t the MS X-Box put Sony

Playstation and Nintendo Game Cube out of

business. The introduction of the X-Box will

only make the other game companies strive

to make better products. To claim that MS

will stifle future, yet-to-be-developed

technologies is so lame. Norman would say

something like ‘‘MS can’t deploy a VOIP

network because they might succeed at it and

take away business from other companies

doing the same thing.’’ Norman seemingly

DOES NOT advocate a perspective that my

parents worked to enstill when raising my

brother and I, namely ‘‘Don’t compare

yourself with those who don’t excel just so

that you look better. Raise the bar and

compare youself with the top students in

your classes.’’ Limiting Microsoft’s future

technology endeavors by some force of law

will only remove the incentive for other

companies to make high-quality products in

the concerened technology. If the AAI puts

their money where their advocations lie,

then: 1. AAI supporters never use any

Windows OS. They only use Macs or Linux

or Solaris or some other non-ubiquitous OS.

2. AAI supporters never use MSIE for surfing

the web; rather they use Opera or Netscape

Navigator (which is now junk since AOL took

over; why don’t you sue AOL for the crap

they generate and the IE-based browser they

deploy), 3. AAI supporters never use MS

Office, rather they only use Lotus Suite,

WordPerfect, or Star Office. 4. AAI

supporters never use HotMail or MSN; I don’t

even dare list the endless ‘‘other’’ competing

options available on free email and portal

web sites. If any of the above (1,2, or 3) are

‘‘false’’ from an AAI perspective, then the

AAI advocates are solely in the witch hunt

against MS for personal gain, such as

receiving AAI contributions from any

number of plaintiff companies or states.

I am confident MS will prevail in the long

run. Although some of thier software is

buggy, at least the average consumer doesn’t

need a computer science degree to use it

effectively and it usually always works as

expected.

Regards,

Mike Schwartz

MTC–00007024

From: rockas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the 9 states that are objecting to the

settlement should accept what the justice

department has proposed.

Thank you

MTC–00007025

From: William Hickey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:49pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

In our opinion Microsoft has been pursued

by the Clinton DOJ at the behest of AOL and

Netscape, et al, and has suffered from

restraint of legal trade. Enough is enough.

The Tunney Act settlement now proposed

should be implemented and Microsoft

allowed to come out from under the legal

cloud resume business.

The pros and cons of learned legal debate

have been given, examined and considered to

death and are no further interest to us. Get

on with it, let Microsoft get on with it and

let our country get on with it while we still

have a business where we have a lead over

the world.

William G. Hickey. Ph.D.

Joyce V. Hickey.

MTC–00007026

From: Nancy George

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ:

I am a self-employed developer

implementing IBM and Microsoft

applications. I find the prospect of punishing

Microsoft’s success the chilling result of a

politically motivated witch-hunt, spurred on

by competitors who won’t release their own

products to open systems standards.

Windows is not the only PC operating

system. IBM used to offer OS2; it was not

widely adopted because it was over-priced,

IBM spent $0 introducing OS2 to developers,

and consumers choose not to buy it. There

is the MAC and Linux. And much of the new

software being developed is WEB based.

Windows popularity is due to the fact that

it is what people want. People choose

Windows. To a great extent, the acceptance

and implementation of computers and the

resulting productivity gains our economy has

enjoyed, are a direct result of Microsoft

products. When the first PCs were

introduced, IBM did not want them to

compete with IBM business computers. So

they priced PCs out of reach of the average

person. Microsoft’s vision was to make them

affordable and drive down the cost of

computing so everyone would have a PC.

IBM is still 8 times the size of Microsoft and

could have competed in the PC market. They

choose not to.

Microsoft drives innovation. I remember a

few years ago, my project was held-up for 18

months because IBM and other vendors

wouldn’t participate in open standards

definition. Finally Microsoft got fed up, and

released a standard with the understanding

that if the broader community ever got their

act together, Microsoft would rework

Windows to conform to the open standard.

The idea of not bundling new features into

Windows is completely ridiculous. When I

started my career, multiplication and

division were SEPARATE PRODUCTS not

included in the operating system. Applying

the no bundling standard would mean the

Windows operating system could not include

multiplication and division because a third

party offered the product. And what about

graphics, e-mailing from Word, embedding or

linking documents, launching a WEB page

from a document ... the list could be pages

long!

Instead of vilifying Microsoft for improving

their products, why don’t you charge Sun

Microsystems for refusing to release Java to

an open standards board? Why not go after

AOL for refusing to allow access to their

brand of messaging ... a condition of the

merger with CNN? Why not recognize that

the lawyers fighting Microsoft are provided

by those very same competitors who want to

over-price and under-develop their own

offerings? Why not chastise IBM for spending

1/50th of what Microsoft budgets for

developer training? Settle this matter with as

little impact to Microsoft software as

possible. The remedy should affect business

practices only.

Regards

Nancy George

MTC–00007027

From: Tom Riley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We are very much in favor of the

settlement reached be finalized so that all

parties can move on.

Tom Riley, Cindy Riley, Jeff Allen

16 Central Way

Kirkland, Wa 98033

MTC–00007028

From: L Kasden

24874 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

For God sake, please settle this case and

move on. The economy stinks, we are at war,

and nobody cares about this case except for

Microsoft’s competitors who could not beat

them fair and square in the market. Please

remember, the stock markets started crashing

as soon as Judged Jackson announced his ill

advised verdict.

Thank you.

Lowell Kasden

MTC–00007029

From: Flora Donivan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have never quite understood how

Microsoft hurt consumers even before the

DOJ brought suit against the company. No

matter what programs were bundled with

Windows consumers got a bargain. I have

used Windows as long as the OS has been

around and it has been an easy and

dependable one. Windows and Microsoft

programs have brough millions if not billions

of dollars into the US to offset our balance

of payments. When the decision was

announced by the DOJ that the case was

decided against Microsoft, the entire stock

market crashed. That ought to be some sort

of indicator of how important the computer

industry and Microsoft are to our economy.

I urge settlement of this longstanding and

disruptive lawsuit.

Flora L. Donivan

MTC–00007030

From: Dan Larkin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:51pm

I’ve tried to cancel this spam for several

months. You indicate that you don’t

recognize my e-mail address, (funny !) it’s the

same one that you send the stuff on. Please

cancal my subscription.

DAN LARKIN

MTC–00007031

From: RMBNielsen@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is long since time to put this travesty of

justice behind us. This case is nothing more

than a money grab by the government, the

attorneys, and Microsoft’s compeditors! End

it. Dismiss what’s left, or throw out the whole

case!

Richard K. Nielsen

4135 Meadow Wood Drive

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762

MTC–00007032

From: jolene

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I don’t know the details of the settlement,

but I do know that MS has a quality product

that I have enjoyed using for years. Obviously

I want to continue using this product at a fair

consumer price. I have yet to find an example

of how the government has helped the

consumer with litigation. Please do not turn

this into another mess like was created when

AT&T was forced to break up. Our telephone

system hasn’t been the same since. Keep it

simple and beneficial to the average person.

Thank You,

Jolene N. Cazzola

MTC–00007033

From: Greg McGuinness

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Please put an end to the madness of this

case. It is very clear to me that the Attorney

Generals for the states that have not yet

settled are doing so for political reasons.

They are enjoying their time in the sun and

are trying to get a ‘‘tobacco’’ settlement fee

from Microsoft to justify to their constituents

that they are working hard. It’s also clear that

they must not be spending much time in

their own state since they’re constantly on

television from Washington, DC This is just

a ploy by the State AG’s to stay in the

limelight long enough to get free publicity for

their run for governor.

I’ve yet to hear any plausible or measurable

way that consumers have been harmed

except quotes from competitors (Oracle, Sun,

AOL, and IBM) that things would have been

so much better. Well, it seems better for the

competitors, not consumers. Microsoft has

done a great job bringing a quality product

that consumers want at a reasonable price.

Having worked in Information Technology

for almost 20 years, I remember the days

when IBM charged $495 for DOS, Lotus

charged $495 for 1–2–3, and Word Perfect

charged $495 for it’s product. I can now get

a great machine, preloaded with Windows, a

Word Processor, some games, AOL, and a

slew of other things from companies other

than Microsoft, for under $1000. Please don’t

punish a company for giving consumers what

they want and don’t listen to the whiners

who complain about Microsoft’s tactics. They

play fair and square and have negotiated a

fair settlement for everyone.Get more from

the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :

http://explorer.msn.com

MTC–00007034

From: Kevin N

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:52pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I think the DOJ should settle and move as

our nation has more serious problems (ie.

Terrorism), the settlement is fair and should

be implemented quickly.

thanks

Steve Chan

MTC–00007035

From: Henriette Goldstein

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel that the settlement agreed upon by

the United States and Microsoft is a very fair

settlement and we do not need more

litigation. . It is a very good settlement for the

United States and Microsoft and everyone

involved. I am sure this settlement will help

the economy and the consumers.

Sincerely,

Henriette Goldstein

MTC–00007036

From: John Knutson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Regarding the current Microsoft settlement

: This settlement is tough, but reasonable and

fair to all parties involved. We agree that this

settlement is good for us, the industry and

the American economy.

Please allow this settlement to be inacted,

unaltered, thus allowing business and

consumers to resume building and buying

America’s great leading edge technology.

Sincerely,

John Knutson and Marcia Koehler

1895 N. Placita El Zacate

Tucson, AZ 85749

(We are consumers and stockholders of

Microsoft and Sun Microsystems, among

many other technologies)

CC:John R Knutson

MTC–00007037

From: nmmr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:52pm

Subject: Court

Please stop the harrassment and continued

stupid suits against innovation...which the

Microsoft case is. Let the unsuccessful

businesses fail and let those with innovation

and new things which benefit all of us

continue. There are much more important

issues to be worked on than that. It is getting

to the place that if one is successful, they

need to be punished. That is not how

America has worked in the past.

N.M. Rademacher

nmmr@mymailstation.com

MTC–00007038

From: frank cobb

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:45pm

Subject: Micosoft Settlement

This should not have ever gone to court.

Micosoft, has done nothing wrong. If they

had given money to Clintons run then he

(Clinton) would not have gone after Bill

Gates. Sorry state that hard working people

like Bill Gates, has to go through this.......

Frank & Debbie Cobb

MTC–00007039

From: Swilson347@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I firmly believe the time for settlement of

this litigation is NOW. Agreement is fair and

acceptable to MS and nine states. Finish this

litigation and let innovation move on to

bigger and more useful products at

reasonable prices. Continued litigation only

benefits the lawyers and is detrimental to

consumers.

Scott Wilson

6227 Greeley Blvd

Springfield, VA 22152

MTC–00007040

From: Aaron Messing

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:53pm

Subject: Microsoft litigation

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24875

To whom it may concern:

I believe the anti-trust actions against

Microsoft are the most ill-advised, illconceived, waste of government resources.

The litigation is against the best interests of

the general public which have benefited from

the products directly and indirectly from the

contributions to efficiency of our economy

brought about by the desktop computer.

Millions and millions of citizens have

suffered great financial hardships directly

and indirectly from the government attacks

on Microsoft. Not only losses in the values

of pension plans and other investments but

in a great loss of momentum in our economy

in the retardation of new products. For every

single vendor that claims injury from

Microsoft there are hundreds that owe a debt

of gratitude for its open architecture and

willingness to provide opportunities for other

businesses to compliment Microsoft’s

products and run applications on their

operating systems. Microsoft has been most

successful because of its open architecture

and the contrast with Apple and IBM who

tried to keep it all for themselves is very

startling.

The consumers of the world voted for

Microsoft with their dollars spent purchasing

the products. That is economic democracy.

The litigation by the government is a reversal

of that process.

Very truly yours,

Aaron Messing

West Orange, NJ

MTC–00007041

From: William R. Hahn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:54pm

Subject: Approve the settlement with

Microsoft Gentlemen:

I fully approve the settlement between the

Federal Government, the attorney generals of

9 states and Microsoft. Let’s close this case

once and for all. It has gone on long enough

and there is nothing further to be gained by

continued litigation.

Sincerely,

William R. Hahn

Ph. 310 442–9923

FAX 310 442–6422

Mobile 310 600–6239

MTC–00007042

From: JSondhi@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:54pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am glad the DJ settled with Microsoft.

Microsoft is a good, innovative company and

needs to put this litigation behind it and

march forward. I am disappointed that there

are nine other states that have not yet settled.

Jay Sondhi

MTC–00007043

From: Robert Chrusciel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I don’t believe MSFT should have to pay

any settlement. If the company (Msft) came

up with the ideas & the knowhow, why

should we penalize them for that. If another

company came up with a similiar program

than pure competition would handle any

price problems. It is no different if I invented

a substitute for oil & wanted to charge a high

price. However, since a settlement has been

reached, I think it is VERY FAIR.

R S Chrusciel

Retired Texaco Employee (37 yrs)

13618 Lesota Ct

Cypress Tx 77429–6396

281–655–5553

MTC–00007044

From: CFSchaffstall@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:54pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

please let microsoft use their resources to

create more advancements which will aid the

users to create more jobs.this is what the

bureaucrates talk about but actually prevent

the efficient use of resources.accept the

settlement and ‘‘lets roll‘‘—thanks—charles

schaffstall

MTC–00007045

From: PRice1396@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:54pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To Whom it May Concern,

I am writing as a concerned consumer who

feels that once again the Government has

gotten involved in something that has

nothing to do with them. We hear of

monopoly on the part of Microsoft,yet I am

confused as to when it became monoploy

instead of competition between like

businesses. If other companies fail to

compete on the same level as Microsoft

because they don’t have the funds or the

management in place to do so it is not a

monopoly.It is smart business! I use to own

a heating company that was not the largest

in the area and certainly was not the smallest

however did it mean the companies who

were larger had a monopoly over us and we

over the smaller companies. I think this

whole thing is ridiculous. Why don’t you go

after Qwest,after all they are the phone

carrier for my area and I cannot choose

anyone else to provide me service because of

this.There service is horrible and I spend 2

or 3 days every other month without phone

service because they just cannot seem to find

a permanent repair to fix the problem. How

about A T & T Broadband who provides my

cable. They are the only company in my area

therefore I am stuck with them because no

one else is allowed to provide me coverage.

That is my idea of a monopoly pure and

simple.

It is time to settle this ridiculous lawsuit

that the Clinton Administration started,stop

wasting the tax payers money and be done

with it. I recommend the Courts agree with

the settlement that has been proposed.

Thank You

Patricia Rice

P.O. Box 70212

Bellevue, Wa. 98007

MTC–00007046

From: Harlene or Ernest Weiss

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:56pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I firmly believe that it is in the public

interest to settle the Microsoft Case as it is

presently structured. Any further delays

would benefit neither the Government,

States, or the general public.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Very truly yours,

Harlene R. Weiss

2616 Fairway Drive

York, PA 17402

MTC–00007047

From: jimc@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is imperative that the settlement of this

case be one that actually benefits consumers.

We have lived for so long with Microsft

piously describing everything that benefits

them as good for all of us, everything that

damamges them as bad for us that many

many people seem to equate Microsoft’s

success with America’s. But they are not the

same. I have heard many people say no one

was harmed by Microsoft’s anti-trust actions,

and today’s computers are wonderful, and

many other glowing pro-MS comments. But

how can we measure what might have been,

but is not? How can we know what has never

seen the light of day because one company

has effectively squelched all competitors?

Well, we can know a little, or at least

imagine and extrapolate. I am a user of

WordPerfect. Have been and will continue to

be until the company is finally and

completely crushed by Microsoft. It is, in my

opinion, a far more innovative, more useful,

and more intelligently designed product. It

has many loyal users, who revere its

flexibility and its ‘‘Reveal Codes’’. I suspect

there are currently other products like it all

over, which can barely see the light of day

because no one will use them, or other

products that did once exist but do no more

as they could not get out of Microsoft’s illegal

wrestling hold. It is impossible to know what

history would have been like without the

competition-strangling behaviors of

Microsoft. But I can’t help but believe we

have lost a lot of innovation, a lot of unusual

ideas, a lot of surprises. WordPerfect, a

superior product, has been crushed by

Microsoft’s illegal behavior. But there is

another issue as well....I have few

WordPerfect resources available to me, e.g.

training, user guides, etc. There is no market.

I’d like more info, more tools, more options,

but if I choose to use an alternate product,

I’m on my own. AT&T was a monopoly, the

owner of the finest phone system in the

world. The monoloply withered, and there

are hundreds of new products, prices

unimaginable in 1983, and services AT&T

would never have needed to offer. They are

the perfect example of why monopolies—

even apparently ‘‘good’’ ones—are not

allowed. No one knew about the many

products developed since divestiture, but

who is sorry that AT&T was broken up? Not

a single consumer...though they may pine for

the easy days of one phone bill, they all love

the cheaper rates and better services, the

multiple choices, the array of options.

I write HTML for a living, and think about

good pages that download quickly. I have

seen a few lines of text and a few small

images turned into a thirty MB HTML page

24876 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

by Miscrosoft Word. 30 MB that must be

stored on some server, shipped through the

Internet, downloaded across a phone line and

opened in my browser. But as Word is the

standard HTML writing tool in many

environments, I have been punished by pages

that take 100 times as long as they should to

download. This wastes everyone’s time and

resources. No matter how cheap storage,

backup, and bandwidth become, they are not

free. Nor is the extra time required to

download these products.

The computer companies, bullied, coerced,

threatened, and punished by Microsoft, ship

mediocre tools and dare anyone to use

anyting else. They will not help you if you

attempt an unstandard installation. They will

not help you if try a different OS. To get

support, you stay with what they ship. And

to do that, you forego alternatives and

become hooked into the Microsoft talons. We

have all suffered as those with different ideas

have had no place to release them, it is as if

the libraries were owned by one publisher.

That is wrong in any system, and doubly

wrong when that publisher has done their

best, as documented in the record, to prevent

anyone else from being allowed into the

library. The PC may replace the library in

some vital ways; do we really want to force

all publishers to kowtow to one? That is in

the interest of no citizen.

James C. Clark

14500 E 37 St

Independence, Mo 64055

MTC–00007048

From: Wstew1924@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:57pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I really get tired of goofy law suits. I think

it’s time for all this to get settled and go on

with business. How much do people and

States want anyway?

MTC–00007049

From: Robert Bass

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:59pm

Subject: Microsoft

DOJ,

As I watch all the crybabies and the dumb

states that’s out to make Microsoft a so called

Monopoly. I would think you let the people

of USA make a vote on this. I like Bill Gates,

I love his software and 97% of us all used

it, as I am useding it as I type this email, as

you will receive this email with Microsoft

help somewhere on somebody’s mail server.

I own a Chevrolet and nobody made me buy

it, if I wanted a Ford, I have it. Same as

Software, I want Microsoft and don’t want

Linux. The other day I was in a OfficeMax

and did not see the first software add on for

Linux.

If the DOJ would start paying people to

write software for Linux for free, Microsoft

will not make it, and look at all the Tax

dollars that go out the Window for the Irs

Take my Vote and leave Microsoft to US we

the American People we will make then are

brake them.

Thanks

Robert Bass

MTC–00007050

From: PSHSR@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle with Microsoft as soon as

possible. It is my feeling that the Justice Dept

should never have gone after Microsoft in the

first place. I have always felt that Judge was

wrong to find Micrsoft guilty of anything.

It’s a hell of a note when superior brain

power is persecuted and prosecuted by the

US government.

Peter S Hanson

MTC–00007051

From: Tom Schifanella

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time the Microsoft issue be settled as

per the recent agreement among all the

parties. The country needs a healthy

Microsoft but some of their more strident

competitors would rather drag a settlement

dispute out for as long as possible wanting

the courts to solve problems of their own

making. Please let us settle the issue so

Microsoft can continue to give the public

exciting new products.

Tom Schifanella

MTC–00007052

From: Samuel Lewis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel very strongly that the Tunney Act is

fair and in the public interest. It is my

opinion that any more litigation on the

Microsoft Settlement would be a waste of

taxpayers’ money and damaging to the spirit

of free enterprise and innovation, which is

vital to the health of the USA.

Samuel Lewis

lewissw@earthlink.net

EarthLink: It’s your Internet.

MTC–00007053

From: rick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

Janesville, WI January 2, 2002

Dear Sirs,

I am an American citizen with about 30

years in the computer industry. What

happens in the US vs. Microsoft antitrust

case affects me professionally as well as

personally, since I am a fairly heavy user of

computer software and technology. I would

like to comment on the settlement jointly

proposed by the Department of Justice and

Microsoft. To be blunt, I believe the proposal

is a dishonest one that sells out the public

interest. I will explain why, and offer some

guidelines for a fairer remedy. While the

following comments were originally written

and forwarded to you by Ganesh Prasad, an

Australian citizen, I feel Mr. Prasad’s views

are so important that they should be heard.

As an American citizen, I am asking you to

hear them.

* 1. Microsoft’s main crime (not bundling,

but the /prevention/ of bundling) has had

lasting anti-competitive effects that the

settlement should address but doesn’t *

The argument that has most often been

used against Microsoft is the ‘‘bundling’’ one,

the allegation that Microsoft bundled its

browser (and now its media player and

instant messaging software) with its

operating system. By doing so, it leveraged its

monopoly in operating systems to enter other

markets. Though this is a classic antitrust

argument, people who believe in a free

market are not convinced because the remedy

does not sound right from the standpoint of

the consumer interest. Consumers enjoy

greater convenience, not less, when extra

software is bundled with the operating

system they buy. That is why the harsher

remedy proposed by some of the states is also

wrong. Forcing Microsoft to unbundle such

software needlessly inconveniences the

consumer. It also takes away from Microsoft’s

legitimate right to decide what goes into its

products and puts the courts in the avoidable

position of having to define the scope of

technologies such as operating systems when

they are not technically qualified to do so.

The only parties that are benefitted by such

a remedy are competitors. Doesn’t this add

credibility to Microsoft’s claim that its

competitors are inefficient and require

government intervention to survive?

However, the prosecution has failed from

the start to argue this point with the right

emphasis. What Microsoft did that seriously

disadvantaged the consumer was not so

much bundling /its own/ browser with its

operating system, but preventing computer

resellers (OEMs) from offering consumers a

choice by bundling /competing/ browsers

such as Netscape Navigator. Microsoft

threatened OEMs such as Compaq with the

withdrawal of their Windows 95 license if

they dared to bundle Netscape Navigator

with the PCs they sold. Given the

overwhelming dominance of Windows 95 in

the operating system market at that time, a

withdrawal of that license could have

bankrupted even an OEM as large as Compaq.

The threat was credible and secured the

compliance of all OEMs. So certainly,

Microsoft did leverage its monopoly in

operating systems to gain entry into the

browser market, and it did so both through

the relatively benign means of bundling its

own browser, and by the decidedly illegal

means of preventing consumers from

sampling the wares of its competitors. Any

free market advocate can readily see the

consumer harm in this latter action of

Microsoft’s, but the prosecution has damaged

its own case by not emphasising this enough.

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. This is often known as the

‘‘bootloader clause’’ Microsoft abused its

monopoly in operating systems by

threatening OEMs and blocking, /at the

source/, the entry of other operating systems

into the market. Consumers have had no

opportunity to know about or sample

competing operating systems. In other words,

Microsoft abused its operating system

monopoly to maintain that monopoly, which

is another violation of antitrust law. The fact

that no OEM except IBM dared to testify

against Microsoft during the trial is itself

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24877

proof of Microsoft’s terror tactics. Their

silence speaks louder than any testimony.

Microsoft’s history is full of such anticompetition and anti-consumer actions.

Bristol Technology won a case against

Microsoft (over Microsoft’s sudden

withdrawal of support for their Unix

interoperation software Wind/U) but was

awarded a laughably poor compensation of

one dollar. Caldera had a strong case against

Microsoft (over the illegal way in which

Microsoft used Windows 3.1 to force

consumers to buy MS-DOS rather than

Caldera’s DR-DOS) but its silence was bought

through an out-of-court settlement. The

consumer has been the ultimate loser in all

these cases because Microsoft’s actions

removed competitive choice and

interoperation options.

The DoJ’s proposed settlement shows an

awareness of these abuses and aims to

prevent their recurrence, but it needs to be

far stronger and bolder. The damage to the

industry has been done systematically, over

more than a decade, and significant /network

externalities/ have been created that work to

perpetuate the Microsoft monopoly. How can

this damage be reversed by a mere forwardlooking arrangement? Consumers and

Microsoft’s competitors now face nearly

insurmountable /market/ hurdles to creating

a viable alternative computing environment,

even though /technically/ good alternatives

are available. Even if Microsoft’s abuses are

halted, the structural and systemic forces

they have created over the past decade will

continue to work in their favour. At a time

when consumers look to the government to

right these historical wrongs, the settlement

that the government proposes is inexplicably

defeatist. It resigns consumers to the status

quo! One would imagine that a prosecution

that has had its argument upheld by two

courts would have the momentum,

confidence and real power to broker a deal

that restores genuine choice to the consumer,

not step lightly around an entrenched

monopoly that was the problem to start with.

* 2. A criminal should not be allowed to

keep his ill-gotten gains * Microsoft’s

monopoly profits are the direct result of these

and other illegally anti-competitive tactics.

The antitrust case established that the

absence of competition emboldened

Microsoft into charging $89 for Windows

instead of $49. In other words, consumers

paid extra merely because of a monopoly that

was being illegally maintained. Four eminent

economists filed an /amicus curiae/ brief

during the remedies phase of the trial in

which they showed that Microsoft’s rate of

return on invested capital was 88%, while

the average in other industries was about

13%! [See www.econ.yale.edu/nordhaus/

homepage/Final%20microsoft%20brief.pdf

<http://www.econ.yale.edu/%7Enordhaus/

homepage/Final%20microsoft%20brief.pdf>]

Microsoft could never have made such huge

profits without its illegal maintenance and

extension of its monopoly, and therefore a

major part of its current wealth is /illegally

earned/. There is absolutely nothing in the

proposed settlement that addresses the issue

of these ill-gotten gains, or how these will be

reimbursed to the public from whose pockets

they came. This simple omission easily

amounts to billions of dollars, and by itself

makes the settlement a sellout of the public

interest, even without an assessment of its

other shortcomings.

* 3. Ill-gotten gains should not be allowed

to influence the outcome of this case * It is

disturbing to read that many states are

settling because they are running out of funds

to pursue the case further as they would like

to. Meanwhile, Microsoft, with its multibillion dollar war chest, has no such

constraints. They can outlast all their

opponents. The world is learning the cynical

lesson that the American justice system is a

mere extension of the free market—you get as

much justice as you can afford to pay for.

What happened to the principle (so

successfully applied in the A1 Capone case)

that criminals should not be able to use their

ill-gotten gains to pay for their legal defence?

Wouldn’t a scrupulous application of that

principle prevent the distortion we see here?

If a convicted abusive monopolist has more

funds than its prosecutors,-and that fact is

forcing them to settle, can’t the monopolist’s

funds be frozen, or can it not be made to pay

the legal costs of its prosecutors? A simple

ruling along those lines might see Microsoft

scrambling to agree to a fairer settlement, one

that will better safeguard the freedom of the

consumer.

* 4. There is no attempt at punishment for

wrongdoing * Though it has been established

that Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law,

the settlement only defines mechanisms to

prevent future wrongdoing. What about

punishment for past wrongdoing? Are

murderers let off scot free with mere

provisions to prevent future murders? What

kind of example does this set? And what

confidence does this inspire in the American

justice system? Any remedy must include

appropriate punishment.

* 5. The economy is being used as a

bogeyman to prevent punishment * 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. An end to the

Microsoft monopoly may result in some

churn, but that churn will be the ferment of

genuine innovation from the rest of the

industry. The impact on the stockmarket

from a fall in Microsoft’s share price will be

more than offset by the rising stocks of

independent software companies that can

operate without fear of a monopolist’s wrath.

A decisive curbing of Microsoft’s stifling

influence will create more confidence in the

rule of law, generate more jobs and help the

economy. Therefore, it is dishonest and selfserving on the part of the DoJ to suggest that

this settlement proposal is the best one from

the viewpoint of the economy. Moreover, the

state of the economy should not determine

whether or not a crime should be punished.

It takes a statesmanlike judge to see beyond

the petty posturing and to do the right and

wise thing.

* Guidelines for a fair remedy: *

Any remedy in a case that has been so

clear-cut in its findings must be more

assertive in its defence of consumer interests.

Regardless of specifics, such a remedy must

address the following:

1. *Recurrence:* Microsoft must not be

able to continue to abuse its monopoly the

way it has in the past.

2. *Reimbursement:* Microsoft has no

right to retain the excess profits it has earned

as a result of its illegal actions. This money

should be repaid to the consumer.

3. *Reparations:* As Microsoft is

responsible for the current uncompetitive

market in operating systems and related

applications, it must underwrite efforts to

restore competition and consumer choice.

The rest of the market should not have to pay

to recover from Microsoft’s abuses.

4. *Reference:* Microsoft must pay

punitive damages over and above its

reimbursement and reparations obligations,

to serve as a warning to deter future

monopolists. The remedy must in no case

send out a signal that a large enough violator

can get off lightly. Future tax dollars can be

saved by discouraging abuses instead of

having to prosecute them. The DoJ is

supposed to be acting on behalf of the

consumer, and they must pursue a remedy

that addresses all the above issues.

For example, a remedy that required

Microsoft, among other things, to only sell

through channels that offer at least one other

operating system, could address the

reparations issue and break the structural

forces perpetuating their monopoly (If an

OEM requires training to support another

operating system, Microsoft may be forced to

subsidise such training). The proposed

settlement goes partway towards addressing

the issue of recurrence, but does so only halfheartedly because it creates significant

exceptions and loopholes for Microsoft to

take advantage of. It completely ignores the

other three issues. An impression is created

that the DoJ is more sensitive to Microsoft’s

interests than to the interests of consumers

who have been systematically robbed of both

their choices and their money. Therefore this

proposed settlement must be rejected as not

being in the public interest. * History will be

the judge *

After the immediate tumult over this case

dies down, there will be a dispassionate

analysis of all aspects of the Microsoft

phenomenon in the computer industry, and

the roles of all players will be dissected. It

seems fairly certain that the Department of

Justice will be likened to a champion boxer

who was paid to throw his fight. Judge

Jackson will probably be faulted for his many

indiscretions, but it may be remembered that

his analysis was on the mark, and his verdict

fearless. The appeals court will probably be

remembered as being fair though it started

with a reputation for being consistently

lenient towards Microsoft. What will Judge

Kollar-Kotelly be remembered for? Will she

be known as the one who meekly accepted

an agreement that sold out the public

interest, because it was politically expedient

to do so? Or will she be remembered as the

24878 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

person who braved the prevailing political

winds to do the right thing and restore

balance to a corrupted system?

The world is watching to see what she will

do.

Regards,

Richard H. Phillips rickphil@hotpop.com

Inspired and Created from website posting

at

http://linuxtoday.com/news—

story.php3?ltsn=2002–01–02–002–20-OP-MS

by: Ganesh Prasad sashi@easy.com.au

<mailto:sashi@easy.com.au>

Copyright (c) 2002 Ganesh Prasad.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute

and/or modify this document under the

terms of the GNU Free Documentation

License, Version 1.1 or any later version

published by the Free Software Foundation;

with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover

Texts and no Back-Cover Texts.

A copy of the license is available at http:/

/www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html.

MTC–00007054

From: Paul Ermerins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 5:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to end this senseless court case

against Microsoft. The nine dissenting states

need to accept the agreement that Microsoft

and the DOJ have hammered out. It is plain

to see when reading news from a variety of

sources that these states are being pushed on

by Microsoft’s competition. If this case is

about how Microsoft has supposedly harmed

the consumer, then Microsoft’s competition

has no place in this lawsuit. Please quickly

end this mockery of court proceedings and

allow the economy to rebound and Microsoft

to do what they do best—produce software

that has not only pushed the economy and

technology-based business to prosperity, but

has also given the consumer decent operating

systems and applications.

Paul Ermerins

profpt@mindspring.com

MTC–00007055

From: jwwestlund

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it may concern:

I strongly oppose any further litigation of

Microsoft. Please let the ruling stand as it is

at present and do not pursue further

litigation.

Thank you.

J. Westlund

Eureka, CA

MTC–00007056

From: Brad Borland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madame,

I am strongly in support of the DOJ and

states settlement with MSFT, and hope that

it will be advanced with that conclusion in

mind. This settlement will benefit every

American, whether he be a consumer,

investor or beneficiary of a profit sharing or

pension plan. Lets move ahead on this one.

Brad Borland

Seattle

MTC–00007057

From: Richard Dekany

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

The proposed DOJ settlement of the

antitrust case against Microsoft, Inc. is, in my

opinion, not in the public interest. By

allowing the fundamental tool of monopoly

power to remain intact and under Microsoft’s

control, namely the ability to unfairly

exchange privileged information between it’s

operating system and productivity software

units, no real competition will be possible. I

strongly suggest that the proposed DOJ

settlement be dismissed and that Judge

Kollar-Kotelly direct the DOJ to pursue more

substantive remedy for the illegal

monopolistist actions of Microsoft, Inc.

Sincerely,

Richard Dekany

Notice: The opinions expressed herein are

entirely my own and do not necessarily

reflect the opinions of my employer.

MTC–00007058

From: RBinzley@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The punishment of microsoft for its alleged

‘‘monopoly’’ on certain softwear should NOT

be further exercised and the governmental

powers in charge of this so-called

prosecution should turn about and proclaim

microsoft absolved of any further blame or

any further prosecution for alleged

‘‘monopoly’’ and an end to the entire

incident should be proclaimed by the

governmental agencies involved. Other firms

who claim that their rights have been

impinged on should proceed forward with

their own attempts at computer softwear

innovations and get on with their own lives.

The American way is to innovate and

compete. Having Big Brother intercede is no

more than mere whining to what some

consider to be authority and usurption of

other peoples’ work in the innovative area of

computers.

MTC–00007059

From: AllenFromTN@webtv.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:02pm

Subject: MicroSoft Settlement

As a concerned citizen and consumer,

interested in the current condition of our U.

S. economy, I would like to see the proposed

Microsoft Settlement be finalized at the up

coming hearing as being in the best interest

of our country. Then the USDOJ can get on

with more important matters.

I also very much resent the fact that the

recent Clinton Administration and the DOJ

spent more of our US tax dollars on the

pursuit of Bill Gates than they did on the

pursuit of ben-Laden.

After all, what Mr. Gates and Microsoft did

was add billions to our economy and

millions of American jobs, while ben-Laden

was blowing up American Embassies and US

Ships.

Come on now, Justice Department, don’t

you have more important things to do? I urge

you to make the settlement with Microsoft

final now...

Regards,

Allen D. Rich

CC:LarRich12@aol.com@

inetgw,allenfromtn@webtv.net@ine...

MTC–00007060

From: ECAANTIQUE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:03pm

Subject: Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

Enough already with this antitrust

movement. Bill Gates has put America back

on top of race for power and given probably

over 2 million jobs to people in this country,

and all the come latelys are crying. This

needs to end and the government needs to

find other places to use the money toward

the greater good not the enhancement of a

few not so good men.

Thanks for the sound board.

Eleanor Agnelli

MTC–00007061

From: customer service

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:03pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To Dept. of Justice,

I have read about the proposed settlement

in the Microsoft case. I think it is fair and

should be allowed to proceed. It would have

an extremely deleterious effect on the

economy to break up Microsoft or to

otherwise penalize the firm. It is not

coincidence that the collapse of the stock

market started when the government started

its ill-conceived case against Microsoft and

that the stock market started to pick up when

the DOJ announced a settlement. What has

been really strange in the government’s

treatment of this case is that while claiming

Microsoft is a monopoly, the government

continued to use Windows and other

Microsoft products in almost all government

offices. There are alternatives and all the

government would need to do to reduce

Microsoft’s part of the market is for all

government offices to start using Apple

operating systems or Lynux.

Thank you for finally ending the illconceived law suite against Microsoft.

Peter Christ

Crystal Records Inc.

28818 NE Hancock Rd

Camas, WA 98607

phone 360–834–7022, fax 360–834–9680

email: peter@crystalrecords.com

MTC–00007062

From: JYudin4487@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:03pm

Subject: (no subject)

I believe the government should close the

lawsuit against Microsoft. I would like the

government to tell me what company in these

United States has done more for industry and

the public then Microsoft. Any one with any

brains knows that Microsoft’s competition

are nothing but cry babies. If the shoe was

on the other foot they would be drowning in

their own water. As a tax payer enough is

enough.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24879

Julian H. Yudin

MTC–00007063

From: Kenneth(Ken) Dean Parker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:03pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I support this!

Kenneth Dean Parker, PROBE SCIENTIFIC,

2109 Pinehurst Court,

El Cerrito, CA 94530–1879

01/02/2002.

MTC–00007064

From: Bryan Hoots

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I wish to voice my opinion that the final

judgment shall stand in the anti-trust case

against Microsoft. While I believe that this

judgment crushes the principal of capitalism

and deflates ones desire to innovate and

achieve in business, its is easier to digest that

many other settlements that have previously

been offered.

Sincerely,

Bryan R. Hoots

MTC–00007065

From: Richard Stastny

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am of the opinion that the settlement

between Microsoft Corp. and the DOJ is fair

and just. I believe that it is the best interest

of the consumer and industry to get on with

business and put this issue to rest.

Respectfully,

Richard Stastny

7109 Colada Ct.

Dallas, TX 75248

972–233–6466

rstastny@swbell.net

MTC–00007066

From: Imaxxx@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have read that there is an uncertainty

about the appropriateness of the terms of the

settlement with Microsoft and that public

feedback is desired. Although, I think the

company misbehaved, I am fully satisfied

that the settlement reached is an equitable

one and I, for one, am hopeful that is now

concluded and things can proceed

accordingly.

I am not a Microsoft employee nor am I

affiliated with the company in any way.

MTC–00007067

From: NORSKPOLE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The provisions that the hold-out states,

including my own state of California, are not

directed toward a fair and reasonable

settlement of the case against Microsoft.

Instead, they blatantly provide unfair

advantages to software companies in their

own states. A review of the provisions these

states wants against the product offering of

the companies they favor, will reveal that the

bulk of the provisions have nothing to do

with the Windows or Office programs which

are the core for any statement that Microsoft

has a monopoly which and that they have

unfairly taken advantage of that monopoly.

I am not a stockholder nor am I an

employee of Microsoft. My position against

further punishment of Microsoft is that I

firmly believe that the ability of business to

communicate using standard programs has

been a major contributor to the major growth

that occurred during the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Microsoft Office was chosen by most

businesses as a standard, against a

competition that was fragmented, with one

company providing text programs, another

providing spreadsheets, another providing

presentations. Although the competitor’s had

very good products, they were not integrated.

Microsoft had the vision to do the job right,

but is now being punished. It is my view that

the case against Microsoft has been for

political gain, and that the merits of the case

against Microsoft are weak. It has already

been established that the initial case against

Microsoft was highly prejudiced. Further

prejudice against this great contributor to

American business is not justified.

Bernard E. Nelson

1469 Blake St.

Orange, CA, 92867

MTC–00007068

From: Mike(u)Haucke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Department of Justice

From: Michael J. Haucke

I am very pleased with the (proposed)

settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit. I believe

that the public interest is best served to

finalize the settlement AS IS. We need to

move on and let competitors compete for our

business.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Haucke

7601 CTH O

Two Rivers WI 54241–9039

(920) 793–8809

MTC–00007069

From: DockHouse@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen and Ladies:

Not knowing who is in charge of all the

particulars having to do with the Microsoft

Settlement, I cannot direct this email to one

particular person. I feel that I should state my

feelings having to do with Microsoft and the

settlement they have made with the justice

department. It is a shame on the judicial

system, that they would allow special

interest groups to supersede what the

government has already agreed to. What does

the group want other then money, most of the

suing companies, and states are in need of

financial aid, due to the economy, and their

own greed? They feel Microsoft has made to

much money, and has profited by their

products. As a Microsoft user, and stock

holder, and American citizen, I am proud to

be an owner of Microsoft.

They employ many people and they take

care of their employees. Some employees are

unhappy, so they are suing, did they not

make good wage’s when employed? How

long will the government allow all these

people to keep Microsoft in bondage of law

suits? They have made proposals to settle,

but to no avail. Our country has suffered a

terrible blow to our citizens and to the

economy, by settling with Microsoft and

looking ahead, you can get on with the more

important issues of the country. This has

been going on long enough. With the lawyers

being the only winners in this suit. Thanking

you for allowing me to express my opinion.

Sincerely,

Carole Hudson

MTC–00007070

From: Dave Hoff

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:06pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Settle as negotiated—Microsoft has been

inappropriately penalized already—Don’t

reopen this thing!!!!!!!!!!

Dave Hoff, Owner

Hoffco Inc.

Wood Lake, MN.

MTC–00007071

From: William Northrup Jr.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:06pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Please leave the current microsoft

settlement in place. I don’t believe any

purpose is served by any further interference

in private enterprise in this matter.

Thank you.

William H. Northrup Jr

120 Whitehall Road

Hooksett NH 03106

billnorthrupjr@mediaone.net

603 625–8621

MTC–00007072

From: murphyjf

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: DOJ

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.

I as a consumer overwhelmingly agree that

settlement is good for consumers, the

industry and the American economy. Please

get the Microsoft Settlement completed

ASAP.

For your consideration.

John F. Murphy

2201 168th AVE. NE

Bellevue, WA 98008–2432

MTC–00007073

From: Ted Freeman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please do not stop innovation in America.

I support the freedom to innovate!!!!

24880 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Ted Freeman

MTC–00007074

From: Dino Carubia

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

Microsoft has the moral and legal right to

dispose of its property as it sees fit as long

as it does not commit fraud or physically

harm anyone. Absolutely nobody is forced to

buy Microsoft products. People are free to

also buy OS/2, Macintosh or even obtain a

free operating system (Linux) if they wish.

IBM had OS/2 as a multitasking operating

system at least 1 year prior to the release of

Windows95 and Windows NT. Microsoft

should not be punished for IBM’s

incompetence in marketing OS/2 to the

general public or to other businesses. Apple

also had a competitive advantage in being

first to market in the personal computer

market in the late 70’s and not only did they

fail in their marketing they also charge much

higher prices and insist that you must also

buy their hardware as well as their software.

The anti-trust laws are IMMORAL because

they are not objective. If the same standards

inherent in anti-trust were to be applied to

individuals (as opposed to corporations) we

would effectively be living in a totalitarian

society where anyone could be dragged into

court for the crime of being successful.

Perhaps your time in the Justice

Department would be better served catching

terrorists and real criminals instead of

harassing corporations that provide

consumers with value and thousands of

Americans with jobs.

Regards,

Dino Carubia

Regards,

Dino Carubia

MTC–00007075

From: Step Ol(00E9) Williamson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:08pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Citizens:

I am kept informed by Microsoft Company

of the developments in their case. They tell

me that a settlement, a fair if tough

settlement could be imminent if the people

of this Great Country voice their opinions in

sufficient numbers. I have been benefiting for

years from the great software this Company

has invented. Some of it is timeless and all

of it is innovative. I have many friends who

use AOL. I personally use Lotus SmartSuite.

But my all time boon has been The Microsoft

Bookshelf. I still have and use the 1992

edition. Remarkable what they have done.

Please! Let’s get this settlement passed and

working for concerned citizens. Yes I own

stock in Microsoft. I am not writing for that

reason alone. I want AOL and Lotus and

Microsoft to prosper and for all of them to

be able to innovate to the max. When

Microsoft tells me the proposed settlement is

fair, then I believe them for the same reason

I believe the material in the various editions

of the Microsoft Bookshelf—they (the people

at Microsoft) are dedicated to the truth.

Thank you for your ears and eyes and good

luck with your decision.

Step Ol Williamson stepo@erols.com

MTC–00007076

From: Matthew M

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

I can only talk from my own experience of

Microsoft software. I have found that in

general it is of poor quality compared with

the alternatives, yet the company insists on

pushing through incompatible standards

which the rest of the world is forced to adopt;

this reduces variety and choice in the

marketplace, and is certainly NOT in the

interests of consumers. While I respect that

Microsoft is a commercial entity, with the

purpose of generating profit, it still seems to

be harmful for consumers. A recent example

is Microsoft disallowing foreign browsers

from accessing their Hotmail web-based

email service. Microsoft Windows fails to

adhere to many standards, which tends to

cause problems in real environments. And

yet thier products are branded as ‘‘Standard’’,

‘‘Stable’’ and ‘‘Secure’’? Especially secure.

Since a discovery of a fatal flaw in the

security of thier ‘‘Most Secure Windows Yet’’

this should be taken with a pinch of salt. At

very least, this is a trade description

violation.

Regards,

Matthew MacLeod

MTC–00007078

From: siN.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

I am not sure any pair of eyes will ever

scan over this email, but I believe helping

Microsoft in any way I can is imperative. I

am 17 years of age, a senior in High School,

and a computer user—a Windows user, an

Intellieye User, an Xbox owner, Office User,

Natural Keyboard owner, and sidewinder

force feedback user. I am dialing up to the

internet with MSN. It may seem like they

dominate the market by my actually owning

these products, yet I actually choose to use

these products. I purchased all of the above,

despite having 98 already installed on my

computer I now use ME, yet my other system

has XP installed. Without these innovative

products being released to the general public

there would be no change, or dynamics in the

world of computing. You cannot rely on

other manufacturers producing an operating

system *half* as reliable or for lack of the use

of the word—GOOD. Microsoft buyer for life

here..keep ’em together! I am willing to

testify at will, or at any account do most

things to support Microsoft.

Contact Info is below:

Many Thanks, regards

Aidan Gray

27901 Altamont Circle

Los Altos Hills

CA, 94022

(650) 823–1294/(650) 559–9457

MTC–00007079

From: BOBDIXIEPEARCE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:09pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Congressman

In the interest of a sounder economy

PLEASE accept the newest terms to settle this

case.

Sincerely,

Robert e Pearce

5404 Via Maria,

Yorba Linda Ca. 92886

Bobdixiepearce@aol.com

MTC–00007080

From: Haymaker59@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

It is important that during this period of

slow economic growth, that government

focus its energy in a positive manner and

stop spending tax payer money to continue

its overzealous attack of Microsoft. The

public watches congresses special interest

treatment of professional baseball and fails to

understand the legal monopoly that congress

has continued to allow to thrive. Conversely,

my family and friends, as well as many stock

holders and Microsoft product users, view

your treatment of Microsoft as an unjustly

prejudiced and a targeted sham. Any validity

of the original case has long since past, as

Microsoft has updated and advanced its

systems and software. Please take this

opportunity to settle this case without any

additional penalty or damage to Microsoft,

the company is a true US success story.

Sincerely,

Stuart A. Hayman, MS

28 Macy Road

Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510

(914) 923–6119

MTC–00007081

From: PollKay85@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To The Department of Justice:

Speaking for myself as a user of software

provided by Microsoft, I am angry that time

and money has been spent pursuing

punishment of a company that has done so

much for the advance of technology in this

country. STOP spending time and money

trying to allow competitors of MSFT to have

an advantage. We would still be in the dark

ages if we had waited on the people who

want to punish MSFT to develop useable

software. Let us send commendations for

service to our country in sales in the USA

and for the export dollars they bring to

America. Allow MSFT to continue to grow

wealth for our nation, and to make progress

more easy for the rest of us.

Professionally,

Franklin J. Kay, PhD

MTC–00007082

From: Rick Lauder

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Let Microsoft do it’s business without

intervention.

MTC–00007083

From: Suite805@aol.com@inetgw

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24881

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I believe that the settlement the DOJ has

reached with Microsoft is a fair one. My

feelings are: enough is enough. Leave

Microsoft alone now. The DOJ has more

important things to be doing in light of the

terrorism activities. I have not been hurt by

Microsoft, and I don’t think you would find

a consumer who thinks they have been hurt.

The only ones that feel hurt are the

competitors. Let them make a better product

and the consumers will flock to them, as they

should.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Carol Cicero

MTC–00007084

From: Larry Guzik

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:12pm

Subject: My opinion

I have been using Microsoft products for

the last 20 years. At no time have ever felt

that I was being ripped off by them. In fact

if anything I have felt the opposite.

Considering all the functionality you can get

with a $100 investment in W2K (upgrade) for

example anybody would be crazy not to buy

it. The only people that are complaining are

Microsoft competitors and people that have

always gotten everything for free and do not

want to pay for anything. I personally think

that Microsoft has paid a heck of a lot in

unnecessary legal expenses on this issue so

far and they should not incur any more

charges of any kind.

This is my opinion.

Thank you for reading this.

Larry Guzik

Spring, Texas 77379

MTC–00007085

From: Andre Gous

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This email is sent by a concerned citizen

re the proposed settlement. I am in favor of

it, but please read on. Without reading every

word, I have reviewed the document at http:/

/www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm with

special focus on the ominous phrases of

‘‘Microsoft shall not retaliate against’’ and

‘‘Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement

with:’’ As a businessman, software developer,

US citizen, and capitalist, I believe that we

need a strong, limited government to protect

the citizens’ rights. Of course, a government

can fail to do so by shirking its tasks, but

(ironically) also by overstepping its bounds

and being overzealous. It is my opinion,

based on my observations and my political

principles, as well as some excellent

arguments which I’ve read in that regard, that

the Antitrust portion of the DOJ has done

exactly that, and then some ... inflicting

injustice, in the name of justice, a.k.a.

destroying capitalism in the name of

capitalism. As such, I find it hard to support

the proposed settlement, since I have a

problem with it on principle .... but I will

support it on the sole basis that Microsoft

Corporation considers this to be preferable to

more litigation yet. I gather that Microsoft is

faced with a ‘‘lesser of two evils’’ option, and

on that basis, I support them in their decision

to go with the settlement. For that reason, I

also urge you to go along with it.

The remainder of this email presumes that

you’re acting merely on behalf of US citizens

which are pushing you to constrict Microsoft,

and that you don’t have a personal ax to

grind. If the latter is the case, you’re acting

inappropriately. To the extent that you’re

faced with a complaint-driven democracy,

please consider my email as one complaintvote in the other direction, meaning I am

pushing for a situation where people and

companies are free to negotiate conditions for

the sale of the products which they own (e.g.,

by having created them.) I understand that

my objection strikes at the very root of your

premises in the Microsoft case, and that is

indeed my intent.

I concede that anti-trust has a legitimate

function in government, but only to the

extent that it seeks out and destroys

inappropriate monopolies and unfair

competition, where the definition of

‘‘inappropriate’’ is not based on a howl of

complaints, but on non-socialistic economic

theory, For example, I live in a county where

there’s a county-owned phone system. The

county has instituted a public transportation

system which I am taxed to fund, and which

competes with private transportation

businesses. I drive on a nationalized roads

system. My wife is a travel agent who sees

first-hand the complacency which comes

from the welfare mentality generated by

government funding for organizations like

Amtrak.

If I saw you dismantling governmentsupported or government-mandated unfair

competition, at the city, county, state and

federal level, then I’d be cheering you on,

and would consider you champions for

justice, fairness and freedom, in an exact

sense. Presumably, you chose this line of

work because you thought you could make

the world a better place. However, many of

the worst injustices in history started with

that intent. You have a grave responsibility

to look far beyond the obvious, and to seek

out valid principles of good government. (If

you tell me the address to choose, I will mail

you a complimentary copy of Ayn Rand’s

‘‘Capitalism—the unknown ideal’’.) From

every action I’ve seen you take, you’re

headed in the wrong direction. You’re

demonizing Microsoft, who should instead

be left alone or commended for all the

valuable products they’ve created.

I consider your direction as fundamentally

misguided, and I look forward to the day

when your charter limits you to dismantle

only socialist constructs, and when the next

group of ‘‘I’m whining for conditions which

I’m too lame to achieve in negotiation’’

constituents knock on your door, I want you

to be empowered enough to be able to tell

them to get lost, to take responsibility for

their position in the market, and to leave you

alone, since you have more important things

to do ... the greatest country in the history of

mankind needs you. You should be

protecting its core values, not dismantling

them.

Sincerely,

Andre Gous

CC:msfin@microsoft.com@inetgw,Pat

Newton,Sue Gous,bkk...

MTC–00007086

From: Allan B. Wilson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am in favor of the settlement as proposed.

Thanks

Allan B. Wilson

MTC–00007088

From: Linda Quick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:12pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Microsoft has done more for the United

States economy and families in the last 20

years than any other company I know not to

mention their goodwill endowments. I am in

favor of a special recognition award for the

company myself. Computers can ‘‘talk’’ to

each other, the software makes it easy for end

users and the company produces great

products that are competitively priced.

Hooray for Microsoft! I vote for no penalty.

Thank you.

Linda Quick, Connecticut

MTC–00007089

From: Woody Miraglia

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:13pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Sir or Madam:

As an IT manager at a medium-sized

company, I wanted to express my incredible

unhappiness at the proposed settlement

against Microsoft. It is amazing that my

government’s concern about economic

recovery is allowed to take precedence over

the obviously illegal actions of this arrogant

organization. When I was growing up and

made a mistake, my mom would give me a

warning first before punishing me. If I made

the same mistake again, then I would get

grounded. Well, the United States has

already given Microsoft more than its fair

share of chances, and Microsoft has laughed

them off then continued on its merry way.

And why shouldn’t they? How did they get

the perpetual ‘‘get-out-of-jail-free-card?’’ Oh...

that’s right, it must be about money.

I am very disappointed in the Justice

Department and the Attorneys General. I can

only hold out hope that my state, California,

won’t capitulate too.

A disappointed citizen,

Woody Miraglia

San Francisco, CA.

MTC–00007090

From: Mary Jo Marrese

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:14pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT SHOULD

BE PUT TO BED. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

MICROSOFT IS CAPABLE OF BIGGER AND

BETTER AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO

MOVE FORWARD.

MJMARRESE

24882 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00007091

From: BSau712@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

1/02/02

Department of Justice:

Give Microsoft a break and get on to other

business. We have heard enough and the

settlement is more than adequate.

Bill Sautter

CC:BSau712@aol.com@inetgw

MTC–00007092

From: edward clucas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:14pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Sirs: please do not further reduce my

retirement funds by acting negativly towards

microsoft in the coming decision. I remain a

loyal american and am a firm believer in the

fair market system .I am a college educated

53 year old that works in a boat yard as a

mechanic , excuse me to be politicly correct

a technition. I am very well read an am fully

aware of the case before justice.I do belive

that the effort expended on this case may

have been utilized. I remain respectfully,

Edward W. Clucas

MTC–00007093

From: Roger Barbo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

I feel that the settlement for Microsoft is

fair to all parties, and should settle this

matter. I don’t feel that after nearly four years

in working toward a solution that further

litigation is warranted. Additional court

efforts would prove more costly, be adverse

to the industry, and possibly have negative

effects on the American economy. My feeling

is to get this matter over with. I believe it is

healthy to promote innovation by companies,

which can result in advances that may not

result otherwise. Microsoft has always been

innovative, and has given us much to be

thankful for in the tech industry.

Unfortunately, others, including some of

their competition do not agree.

Thank you for allowing my input.

Roger E. Barbo

MTC–00007094

From: BESTEDARO@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:13pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I WISH TO GIVE MY COMPLETE

SUPPORT TO THE PROPOSED MICROSOFT

SETTLEMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION,

AND BELIEVE THAT IT IS FAIR AND IN

THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CONSUMER

AND THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.

R. O. BESTEDA

MTC–00007095

From: Louise Stanley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the Microsoft 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 argument that says

consumers need a choice is utterly without

merit. For those few people who don’t wish

to use Microsoft products, they are free to

remove them and install something else. The

fact that I no longer need to be a ’mechanic’

to assemble and use my computer means that

I can do more and enjoy it...

Louise Stanley

5933 Pennyroyal Drive

Pollock Pines, CA 95726–9006

530–647–9047

lstanley@bottomlinechannel.com

MTC–00007096

From: Lenore Stamper

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am an individual software consumer. I am

disgusted by those who continue to hound

Microsoft. I don’t own any of their stock so

I have no other interest than fairness. The

settlement worked out is just fine.

To me states are trying to profit at MY

EXPENSE.

Sincerely,

Lenore Stamper

10016 Regal Park Lane, #121

Dallas, TX 75230–5528

MTC–00007097

From: Elfiemon@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement.

It is time to bring this case to a close. The

proposed settlement is fair.

Elfie Monroe,

735 N 94 th St,

Seattle WA 98103

MTC–00007098

From: Larry Butler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement—Hang em

High!

I have followed this public issue rather

closely for a number of years, being an ‘‘IT

Professional’’ for a Fortune 500 company. In

my opinion, the settlement lets them off

entirely too easily given the clearly

established willful transgressions of law at

the time.

Reply-To: ‘‘Finflash1–2–02’’ Finflash1–2–

02.UM.A.1154.142@

commpartners.unitymail.net

‘‘MSFIN@ Microsoft.com’’

MSFIN@Microsoft.com ‘‘larrybutler@

boatnerd.com’’ larrybutler@boatnerd.com

DOJ wants to hear from you on MS

settlement.

A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear

from YOU!

To cancel your subscription to this

newsletter, read the directions at the bottom

of this message.

For nearly four years, your voice has been

instrumental in the debate over the freedom

to innovate. Tens of thousands of concerned

citizens have communicated to their public

officials about whether the Microsoft case

should be settled or further litigated. Despite

the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of

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 your voice is more important than ever.

The law (officially called the Tunney Act)

requires a public comment period between

now and January 28th after which the District

Court will determine whether the settlement

is in the ‘‘public interest.’’ Unfortunately, a

few special interests are attempting to use

this review period to derail the settlement

and prolong this litigation even in the midst

of uncertain economic times. The last thing

the American economy needs is more

litigation that benefits only a few wealthy

competitors and stifles innovation.

Don’t let these special interests defeat the

public interest.

Between now and January 28th, it is

critical that the Department of Justice hears

from you about the Microsoft settlement. 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 heard.

Email: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov . In the

Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft

Settlement.

Fax: 1–202–307–1454 or 1–202–616–9937

To find out more about the settlement and

the Tunney Act comment period, go to the

Department of Justice Website at: http://

www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm.

Thanks for taking the time to make a

difference.

To cancel your subscription to this

newsletter, please go to the following

website: http://www.freetoinnovate.com/—

utilities/unsubscribe.asp

MTC–00007099

From: Sam Ungle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please get off Microsoft’s back. Theirs is

the best, easiest to use and most

competitively priced software on the

market—so what’s the problem? Why don’t

you focus on something that matters—like

the war on terrorism or the economy.

MTC–00007100

From: Carlos Treyes

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24883

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:16pm

Subject: micros0ft case

I think it should be settled once and for all

since nine states have already agreed to

improve the economy this new year.

carlos treyes

Shelton, WA

MTC–00007101

From: Henry M Watanabe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:18pm

Subject: Microsolft Settlement

This has gone on long enough. Please settle

this case as you have indicated.

MTC–00007102

From: Ilze T.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:17pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Comments on Microsoft Settlement:

The DOJ should leave Microsoft and other

great innovative companies alone. Where

would we be today if Bill Gates had not

configured the Basic computer language.

Only a small elite group would work with

computers.

Why should Gates and other people/

companies with brains, guts, and innovative

ideas be punished just because their

competition did not come up with the idea

first. Microsoft has made it possible for me

and my child to be computer literate at an

affordable price. What has SunMicro done for

me? I have no idea.

If the DOJ smashes Gates and company,

why should anyone want to take a chance

and create something innovative? (Look at

Sweden) Let’s keep the American free

enterprise system just that—free.

Microsoft has not harmed the general

public. Its competitors might have been

harmed because they did not come up with

(Microsoft’s) idea first. This whole situation

sounds like the competitors are sore losers

looking for a way to get Microsoft’s brain. Let

the competitors create their own brain child,

that the general public wants. If you make

something the public wants, they will buy it.

If SunMicro can’t come up with new

innovative products for the public, tough.

If Microsoft wants to give poor schools

computers and software, go for it. How else

will these kids get to be computer literate. I

don’t see SunMicro giving any schools

anything.

Sincerely,

Ilze Tomsevics

MTC–00007103

From: Freddiwash@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Litigation

Please, no more litigation. Settle this case

now. The people have had enough of this

case. In view of what happened on

September 11th, we Have ‘‘Bigger Fish to

Fry.’’ Microsoft has been thru enough, and in

actuality, these litigators and lobbyist are

stopping the tech industry from moving

forward.

Concerned Citizen

MTC–00007104

From: TPapandrea@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have read the stip.

Settle the case. The US Govt has WASTED

enough time energy and money already. I

would not like to think of what and how my

computer would be without ‘‘Windows’’.

DOJ—go catch some criminals.

MTC–00007105

From: Jack Leary

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think that the DOJ and Microsoft sat

down and negotiated a settlement that was

amenable to not only both sides of the

lawsuit and that would also ensure that no

harm would come to consumers, but that also

appoints a neutral third party to monitor

Microsoft’s business practices. Now it is time

to let Microsoft, the government, and the

country get on with the rest of their business.

It is irresponsible to drag this out any further

than it already has. Let’s close this chapter

and get on with life.

MTC–00007106

From: ELIZABETH WIGGINS

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We should be thanking Microsoft, not

punishing.

Elizabeth B. Wiggins, CPA/ABV (Beth)

BKD-Houston

1360 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 1900

Houston, TX 77056

MTC–00007107

From: ANNA BELLE AMBROSEN

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:20pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I want to add my voice to the thousands

who feel that the settlement reached with

Microsoft should stand. I use their services

on my home computer and the system I have

access to at work, is Windows-based.

Microsoft has been singled out, in my

opinion, for undue litigation. They are one of

the reasons Americans are the most

productive workers in the world. We should

recognize the outstanding contribution they

have made to our success in recent years.

Anna Belle Ambrosen

18102 Shiloh Church Road

Beaverdam, VA 23015

abambrosen@mindspring.com

MTC–00007108

From: Fred Benson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settelment

Dear Sirs:

In my opinion the Tunney Act covering the

Microsoft settlement is fair, equitable and in

the public’s best interest. I think this law

should stand, all the litigators should go

chase other fire engines and our country

should get back to building up our economy

instead of tearing it down.

We should not attack corporations based

on the fact that they have been successful

and others can’t compete. 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

MTC–00007109

From: Gerald Mohlenbrok

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:19pm

Subject: Microsaft Settlement

It is my understanding that the DOJ vs

Microsoft case will soon be settled and

finalized. I believe it to be a fair and

equitable settlement and I urge you to take

every measure to ensure that it is finalized

in a timely fashion, and without any further

delay tactics instigated by Microsoft

competitors and their expensive legal teams.

In these uncertain economic times, any

further delay would be costly to the nation

as a whole, and would certainly not benefit

anyone other than a select few.

Thank you for considering my views.

Sincerely,

Gerald Mohlenbrok

MTC–00007110

From: James M. Brumley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

Just wanted to make my two cents heard

on the Microsoft case. It seems so unAmerican to attack an entity for being better

than the competition and winning. I thought

we were a nation of winners not whiners.

The government has been bamboozled by

special interest groups that I beleive have

caused much of the recent Tech recession.

Let’s get on with life and get the economy

running strong once again.

Thank you,

James Brumley,

Captain, Medical Service Corps

Commanding

MTC–00007111

From: ryan atchison

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Leave Microsoft alone. P.S. Microsoft is the

best software maker. And that is why

everyone buys it. That does not make them

a monopoly.

MTC–00007112

From: Ray Paul

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:21pm

Subject: DOJ Settlement

It is the opinion of this voting household

that enough of the tax payer’s money has

been spent in litigation of the anti-trust suit

against Microsoft Corp. We therefore urge

you to accept the settlement of one of the

most wasteful witchhunts of our time and let

us get on to better times. Thank you for your

consideration.

Sincerely,

Ray Paul

24884 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00007113

From: Elson Bettner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:22pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The settlement is good for all, fair for all.

Let life move ahead. I believe this whole

thing has been a waste of taxpayers’ money

from day one. Greed and jealousy have been

the plaintiffs’ motivators, they couldn’t stand

to see one man/company do so well doing

what the USA was/is/will be built on:

initiative, hard work, and FREEDOM TO

SUCCEED.

Sincerely

Elson Bettner

MTC–00007114

From: Robert W Nelson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:22pm

Subject: Microsoft

Sirs:

I am an American veteran and served my

country during early 60’s. I wore the colors

of my Country proudly. I am a life member

of the VFW. I am presently retired from the

Department of Defense. I am also employed

as a School bus driver.

As I have observed the actions of our

Federal Government over the past several

months in the anti-trust suit against

Microsoft many thoughts come to mind: Why

not go after some real Monopolys such as the

NEA and Federal school system, to name just

one?

This action by our Justice Department

leaves me with the feeling of ‘‘Being very

glad to be an American, but I’m not so proud

of it.’’

Microsoft has contributed more to our

country’s economy and well being than all

the opponents put together. Why are we

attacking them??

Sincerely,

Robert W. Nelson

MTC–00007115

From: studioelvis@hotmail.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Judgment

It’s too bad that in the United States of

America someone in the government thinks

that a private company has too much power

and takes it upon themselves to quell the

success of a forward moving inventive people

helping companies such as Microsoft.

I am a 58 year old veteran, been married

to the same lady for 35 years and my adult

children love me as I do them. Life hasn’t

been all that good to me. I was a beaten

battered unloved child, and everything

comes very hard to me. I’ve been

unemployed since August 01 and am a two

time cancer survivor.

BUT. . . . If I were Bill Gates and some

little person trying to show power tried to

stop my company. I would have taken the

billions of dollars, shut down the program

and said ‘‘You figure it out’’!

One thing for certain. Success attracts

whiners and people calling unfair and foul.

If everyone in this country were given one

million dollars, half of the people would

complain about it. . . . Please let Microsoft

continue doing what they do best. . Allowing

people like myself to at least use a computer

and keep up with the times.

Thank you,

Sincerely Cary A. Johnson

Federal Way, WA.

MTC–00007116

From: REBLOTT@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

The Microsoft settlement is fair. I support

its adoption.

Rich Blott

MTC–00007117

From: hlpowell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft Settlement in an excellent

compromise in my opinion. I have been

concerned for some time with the politics of

what appears an attempt to punish success

and reward both competitors and politicians

by splitting the spoils of a broken Microsoft.

I worked with a competitor of Microsoft for

30 years and was always impressed with

their willingness and ability to consistently

improve their products and invest in

innovative development while my company

and many others would bail out instead of

competing with Microsoft products. I

personally give Microsoft much of the credit

for the affordable personal systems that exist

today. I know for my 30 years in the industry,

that the same competitors that want to

punish Microsoft for making things

functional and affordable, making them cuts

their big markups to compete, are the greedy

companies that would have kept the price of

personal systems out of range for most of the

consumers that have benefited from the

aggressive development, investment and

pricing that Microsoft brought to the

industry.

Microsoft has provided a personal system

that no other of the greedy companies who

were mad because Microsoft was successful

with using the leverage of volume to provide

rich affordable personal systems that their

competitors had to sacrifice some margins to

compete with and many of them simple hold

grudges for the challenges they did not meet

well. I know that my employer was one of

them. Without Microsoft we would still be

using command oriented systems that the

home market couldn?t use well or afford.

Please do not punish success through

innovative, usable and affordable products

brought to us by Microsoft.

Thanks,

Harry L. Powell

MTC–00007118

From: Robert Teisch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:29pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

i think that microsoft settlement was

reasonable and proper and should be doneand-overwith and let the company go on

without being badgered, as there progress is

important to the economy and free enterprise

(simply put)

Thank you,

Dr. Robert Teisch

MTC–00007119

From: Bob Holert

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 6:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I would like to encourage you to finalize

the Microsoft Settlement as agreed to by the

nine states and the Federal government.

Additonal time and expense seeking other

remedies is not in the best interests of the

public, the states involved, the Federal

government or consumers. Those parties who

seek to continue this litigation do not have

any of the the aforementioned entities in

mind but continue to seek remedies which

are not fair to all parties.

This litigation has come at considerable

expense to the government and the economy.

The cost to US world-wide technology

leadership continues to escalate, again not in

the best interests of technology US based

leaders, employees of those companies or our

economy. Those states who choose to

continue the fight should do so at their own

risk and expense since most have business

bias or politics as the basis for their battle,

not economic fairness and reality. I hope you

would agree this country has far more

important issues to address.

I appreciate your consideration of the

opinion I have voiced and implore you to

finalize this settlement.

Best Wishes,

Bob Holert

President

Houser Martin Morris

110 110th Ave NE, Suite 503

Bellevue, WA 98004

MTC–00007120

From: RBRrat@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:24pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a veteran, patriot, taxpayer, and an

American. My family all votes and is

involved in caucus work and efforts to

improve our homes, communities and our

nation. I must recommend that you accept

the Microsoft settlement as is.

Do it immediately. The settlement will be

a benefit to the nation, it will place dollars

where they help the most, in the hands of the

people. In short it will result in people

helping people. Our nation was doing great

until those greedy companies decided to sue

Microsoft. Why? Because they thought like

communists or socialists of the past that

Microsoft had too much money and they

should be forced to give to those who had

less. Those companies and the states that

joined them in the lawsuits should have

gotten nothing. If they want to earn more

money, let them earn it the old fashioned

way, work for it or invent a better mouse

trap.

The companies and states that refused to

accept the settlement offer should get

nothing, the rest of America should refuse to

patronize their states and they should be

classed as un-American, not for trying to beg

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24885

for a buck but because of all the damage to

the American economy this past year as their

efforts resulted in devastation of the entire

computer industry because of the apparent

fear of what would happen to Microsoft.

Then when the companies and states had

a chance to help America and settle, their

greed would not let them settle. Now they

want more time, more of our dollars paying

legal costs, while the real America waits for

a good pay check and a job like they had

before the lawsuits in the first place.

Do your job, help America, enforce the

settlement.

Thanks,

Richard B. Radke

12432 Juanita Dr

NE Kirkland, WA 98034

RBRrat@aol.com

MTC–00007121

From: Lizzardden@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs: Enough is enough. The Microsoft

case has drug on for over four years, and now

nine states want to prolong matters. As a

computer user, I have been helped by

Microsoft’s inovation and creation of a

standard platform. It seems one of the few

U.S. industries that is on top of its game and

not in the hopper (must I remind you of the

US auto industry, big steel, the railroads,

Boeing, etc., etc., etc.). Let’s get on with the

settlement that DOJ and Microsoft agreed to

and stop these idiot states from trying to

remedy an issue that simply does not exist.

Yours truly,

David Hendricks

Lizzardden@AOL.com

MTC–00007122

From: Denoy, David

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 6:33pm

Subject: Let the Settlement Stand

As an IT professional who has willingly

embraced the MS paradigm BECAUSE of the

interoperability it affords me, I want this

nightmare of persecution to end! It makes for

a difficult planning/assessment and

deployment of MS technology when we don’t

know if the products are going to be gutted

and if we’ll have to uninstall versions in

order to appease a small bunch of

unsuccessful competitors who wish to retain

their high priced market shares (Sun and

Oracle). In case no one has noticed, there are

a number of market niches that MS has

wisely stayed out of, allowing other

technologies. If the world is so afflicted by

the dominance of MS, why haven’t there

been massive shifts over to Linux, if cost is

a consideration? O/S was touted as having

several superior features and yet developers

never produced the applications necessary to

make that O/S a success. We select the

products we need based on how they serve

our needs, not by publisher. When I buy a

book by a favorite author, I am not at all

concerned with who the publisher is . . . I

read the book because of the author!

MTC–00007123

From: PMounsey@markwest.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:27pm

Subject: comments on settlement

I am in favor of the settlement, and the

court should approve it as presented.

While the Court has no authority to modify

the setttlement, I am concerned that the

Court may be attempting to do just that by

suggesting that it will not approve it unless

Microsoft agrees to pay the $1 billion

education amount in cash. The $1 billion

payment—in the form of computing materials

provided to schools—will be a signficant leg

up for many poorer schools across the

country; thus, the settlement will benefit the

‘‘public’’ directly in a very real way I doubt

that requiring the $1 billion to be paid in

cash would end up having the same public

interest benefit.

Settlement is also in the public interest

because the Microsoft litigation has been a

drag on the U.S. economy since the case was

filed. Certainly there have been other factors

at play since the litigation was filed, but the

continuing litigation and the uncertainty that

it has created throughout the technology

sector have clearly been important factors in

the country’s continuing recession. It is

important to ensure that Microsoft plays by

the rules, but it is also important that the

rules be written at some point in time, which

is what this settlement does. Unfortunately,

because some states have chosen to continue

litigating against Microsoft, it is likely the

drag of the Microsoft litigation on the

economy will continue, although one would

hope to a lesser extent.

Peter Mounsey,

Denver, CO

MTC–00007124

From: Jerry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:26pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Sirs:

Please LEAVE Microsoft Alone!. I have

used their products for years, and I am totally

satisfied with them, and the assistance they

provide regarding their products when I ask

for it. I truly appreciate you looking out for

me as a consumer, but I must tell you that

Microsoft has done nothing but good things

for me, and I see no reason why another

software company could not be competitive

with them if they so choose to, other than the

fact that they have been left in the dust!

Thank you,

Gerald T. Cox

Traverse City, MI

MTC–00007125

From: Ndsieg@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

Now that the Justice Department has spent

untold millions of taxpayer dollars harassing

Microsoft and has finally reached a

settlement it is time to move on. It appears

to me that the Justice Department would have

better things to do with its time and money,

like fighting terrorists who want to destroy

America, than attempting to destroy an

innovative company like Microsoft that has

contributed mightily to the American

economic engine over the past decade.

Sincerely,

Nolan Sieg

ndsieg@aol.com

MTC–00007126

From: Flo Bradley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In regards to subject litigation, I have never

agreed that Microsoft owed anybody

anything. Microsoft does exactly what ever

other software giant does. They try to get you

to use their products. AOL does exactly that.

They have such a monopoly on accessing the

internet it is ridiculous. You can’t even get

to an internet site without having to go to an

AOL site first. They put their software in

vendors packages and when you install

software, AOL gets installed whether you

want it or not. This is true of many

companies. It’s called, marketing. I think

whatever happens with this litigation against

Microsoft that it is minor. They are what

made tech America what it is today. From

DOS to windows, it’s the American Way.

Florence Bradley

MTC–00007127

From: Richard(038)Lois Chandler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Justice Dept. With the world in a recession

and the local economy here in the Seattle

area tanked, the last thing we need is more

lidigation against MS so the trial lawyers

make a ton of money and a few states can

hope to get some free money for their

treasurers. Lets remember that the consumers

have never had a problem with MS products.

This legal suit was never about the publics

complaint with MS. They have just been too

sucsessfull for some of their compeditors.

. . . Lets get it over and start to improve the

tech sector now. . . .

R.A. Chandler

Admark1@msn.com

MTC–00007128

From: Hubert1834@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please go ahead with the goverment

settlement as soon as possible.

MTC–00007130

From: JCofoid@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Settle and let Microsoft get back to what it

does best—stimulating the economy!

Jody Cofoid

MTC–00007131

From: Linda N. Chiappetta

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:30pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I believe that the settlement should be

done as soon as possible. I believe it would

be good for the economy. I think it was no

coincidence between the decline in the stock

market and the DOJ battle last year. I think

it would hurt the consumer not to settle. I

24886 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

think Microsoft should have been praised for

being one of the first software companies.

Bill Gates is a genius in my eyes and deserves

credit for his contribution.

L. Chiappetta

6629 Raleigh St.

Hollywood, FL 33024

MTC–00007132

From: Jrutter44@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

I am happy with the settlement that has

been reached with Microsoft. I think the

public would be far worse off if there were

too many operating systems. The choice of

software would be too limited.

Thank you,

John Rutter

64 W Jeffrey Lane

Des Plaines, IL 60018

MTC–00007133

From: John Yuh-Chung Wang

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This settlement is really good for public.

Microsoft can focus again to improve its

products, which eventually benefit majority

of the public. I also foresee Microsoft’s

Windows product will continue to dominant

in the PC arena. It’s good to put some

monitoring systems in place that Microsoft

will be reminded its obligations and

responsibilities. This will greatly benefit the

public. Overall, I support the settlement and

appraise the steps taken by the department of

justice.

*Please note the new office phone number

below*

Tks ! JW

(425) 706–8556 (o)

(425) 785–8891 (c)

http://www.microsoft.com/MSpress

MTC–00007134

From: Ross Hunter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the settlement is quite reasonable

and the rest of the crazy states should get on

board and stop beating up on an American

icon.

Ross Hunter

8208 Overlake Drive W

Medina, WA 98039

MTC–00007135

From: Dan Dunaway

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:31pm

Subject: Microsoft

Dear wealth re-distributors in the

Department of Justice and in rogue states, I

do not know the details of the decisions

which have gone against MicroSoft. Nor do

I understand why you and your ilk have

attempted to punish the high-tech industry

created by Microsoft with never-ending (and

limitless) litigation (paid for by the tax

payers) which destroys rather than builds.

I do not need to know those details to

recognize criminal extortion by the Federal

Government. It is shameful that an enterprise

such as Microsoft and a businessman such as

Bill Gates, et al are being punished for their

hard work and vision, presumably so you can

loot their coffers for the benefit of society’s

dregs and non-contributors. Do you think we

can’t see what you are doing?

You people should read Ayn Rand’s novel

‘‘Atlas Shrugged’’. Your actions are merely a

cheap replay of her brilliant scenario which

truly depicts the brilliance of giants like Bill

Gates and the mean-spirited thievery by

government bureaucrats disguised as ‘‘social

justice.’’ Your actions disgust me!

Sincerely,

Daniel H. Dunaway

St. Louis, Missouri 63146

MTC–00007136

From: Shirley Adams

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:31pm

Subject: Litigation

Didn’t understand whether to send this to

you & you would forward to Rep. Kay

Granger Texas or what. I do not have her

email to info. Are they back in session? They

take more time off than schools & should use

time to help our USA hungry children than

keep up the litigation time against You.

If they helped less fortunate Americans,

like you do, it would benefit us all U.S.

citizens.

If more info needed let me know. Thanks

for your ear.

Sincerely,

Shirley Adams

MTC–00007137

From: Epbowman1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:32pm

Subject: Microsoft

Please go ahead with the settlement. The

government has spent far more money of this

case than is reasonable. The other companies

just want Microsoft broken up so they can

have more of the pie. They don’t deserve it.

Spend the money on the security of this

country and to help NYC get as far back to

normal as they can.

MTC–00007138

From: William D. Peterson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:32pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

As a home computer user, I was appalled

when Microsoft was initially directed to

split. Whatever the policies of Microwave

were, they did not hurt the consumer. In a

period of great inovative expansion, the

competition was very intense. Many

companies did well, some failed, but

Microsoft continued to offer new solutions at

afforadble prices. Isn’t that what ‘‘free

enterprise is supposed to do?’’

Therefore I was pleased to see a final

settlement that required certain chages in the

Microsoft Company poicies, but allowed the

company to continue in a way that will

provide new invations in the future.

William D. Peterson

MTC–00007139

From: CEJr48@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:34pm

Subject: (no subject)

This is a trivial issue since it only affects

people who buy a computer once every 3 or

4 years. The largest monopoly in the history

of our country that costs everyone in the US

every day of every year is the health care

business.

DO SOMETHING!

MTC–00007140

From: zigory@columbia.edu@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir:

I believe the Microsoft Settlement should

be accepted. This company, which has

enriched stockholders and raised the

productive capacity of this country and the

world, should not be punished for its

success. Ideally the whole case should be

dismissed, but at the very least I urge the

acceptance of the settlement and dropping

the harassment of a company that does so

much good. Its competitors are seeking unfair

advantage by having the government force

their limitations on Microsoft, while

Microsoft has never had any power to, nor

tried to, forcibly keep its competitors from

succeeding.

Sincerely,

Greg Zeigerson

216 Walnut Street

Garwood, NJ 07027

(908) 654–3496

CC:zigory@columbia.edu@inetgw

MTC–00007141

From: bernie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I strongly the proposed mcrosoft settlement

as it was made. The A. G’s from the states

that dont agree want a ‘‘freebie’’ like the antismokers. I’ve had and used Microsoft

products for many years and believe that the

competitors that want to smash it have no

complaints because anything that they

offered wasn’t what the users wanted.

Sincerely yours

Bernard Borow @ bernie@quiknet.com

MTC–00007142

From: Richman, David

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 6:36pm

Subject: Microsoft

It is a shame that our Government wastes

so much time, energy and money on such

frivolous matters as this. Microsoft has

created for our citizenry, both directly and

through a trickle-down effect, a virtually

immeasurable amount of wealth,

productivity, employment and cause to

pursue entrepreneurial aspirations. Limiting

Microsoft’s pursuit of providing

shareholders—and for that matter the public

at large, the full effect of the Company’s best

efforts is at best poor government. I feel that

our society should remain one that is both

Capitalistic and Democratic to its core. This

means that sometimes the labors of some give

them advantages over others. To take away

Microsoft’s ability to labor to its fullest

muddles the core of our society. We will look

back someday and realize it was a mistake.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24887

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if those that so

vocally call upon the Constitution as

justification for twisted action held those

unbendable words in higher esteem?

David Richman

d.richman@verizon.net

MTC–00007143

From: Addison Hawley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

I understand that comments on the

proposed settlement of the Department of

Justice vs Microsoft lawsuit are in order. This

being the case—Please believe that those of

us trying to get the best value out of our

computers on a daily basis for both business

and personal benefit are in wholeharted

support of bring this legal action to a close.

A solution is long over due abd even if the

proposed settlement is not in the best interest

of all (Meaning each individual) it certainly

is a compromise that is in the best interest

of the ‘‘Total Community of Operating

System Users’’. Continued delay will only

add to the untimate cost of the settlement

which in the end result will then at some

point be paid by the USERS. Enough is

enough, let’s get both the government (DOJ)

and Microsoft back to work on productive

activity aimed at the future.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,

Addison Hawley

arhawley@msn.com

MTC–00007144

From: gene schnelz

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 6:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I heartily concur with the settlement as

proposed. It is a must for our economy!

MTC–00007145

From: YANKRERE@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:36pm

Subject: (no subject)

I believe the settlement should be honored.

Yours Truly,

Jack Naparstek

yankrere@aol.com

MTC–00007146

From: LELAND C DAVIS, Jr.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:37pm

Subject: Settlement-Microsoft

To Whom it May Concern: I certainly hope

that the agreement on the the above issue that

has tentatively been agreed upon comes to

fruition. As far as I’m concerned the matter

has been debated in full and now must be

finalized. The American public deserves and

desires to end this confrontation.

LELAND ‘‘LEE’’ DAVIS. Jr.

MTC–00007147

From: ALEDTHEBO@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:39pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

The ‘‘current’’ Court of Appeals Ruling is

reasonable and fair to all parties involved

and should stand.

Edward & Alice Thebo

2 Fen Court

Savannah, GA 31411

CC:ALEDTHEBO@aol.com@inetgw

MTC–00007148

From: John Carter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To further chastize the innovative

goose[Microsoft] that has laid so many

golden eggs,instigated and promulgated by a

few worthy and not so worthy competitors

and their lobbyists,legal and otherwise,would

be,in my opinion, tantamount to a national

disaster of our cherished environment of

creativity.

John R. Carter,M.D.Get more from the Web.

FREE MSN Explorer download : http://

explorer.msn.com

MTC–00007149

From: DGabay1043@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello.

I feel that it is time for the Government to

patch things up with Microsoft. This problem

that the Government created and then put the

blame on Microsoft has done nothing but

make my stocks go under the door mat.

Please accept this settlement and lets move

forward in 2002.

Joe Bowyer

MTC–00007150

From: Larry J.Schexnaydre

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I’m of firm belief that the settlement of the

litigation against Microsoft was fair and

equitable to all parties involved any more

litigation would be very harmful to the

economy and our Country .

Larry J. Schexnaydre

160 Murray Hill Dr.

Destrehan,La.70047

MTC–00007151

From: David Felske

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm

Subject: MS settlement

I agree that settlement now is best for

consumers, industry and our economy.

Please end this litigation.

Sincerely,

David E. Felske

22532 N Sonora Lane

Sun City West,AZ 85375

MTC–00007152

From: Richard Saul

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm

Subject: settle with Microsoft

MTC–00007153

From: Hazel (038) Mike

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Just a note to say that as taxpayers we hope

that the suit against Microsoft can be settled

quickly and expeditiously. It would help not

only investor confidence in the markets, but

would send a clear message that

entrepreneurs should feel free to continue to

take business risks in this country and not

offshore.

Some states will hold out forever if it puts

more $$ in their coffers. Please lets get this

problem off our backs and get on with being

free in America.

Mike and Hazel Pearce

Silverdale WA. 98383

MTC–00007154

From: Chris Schwarz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel your should go very easy on

Microsoft and settle this case. Any further

litigation/punitive damages toward Microsoft

would only slow down the technology

growth sector and would further slow down

the world as a whole. They have been

instrumental in creating technology

innovations and developing the use of the

internet.

AOL would not be where it is today if

Microsoft had not been around.

There would not be millions of computer

users.

Libraries would not have internet

resources.

We are at a turning point in history and

only you can do the right thing. Chris

MTC–00007155

From: Wesley Lum

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I think this issue has dragged on for too

long. I hope that you are considering the

current marketplace, and view practices of

other companies such as AOL Time Warner,

in the same light—in fact, I’m more worried

about their domination of the Media industry

than Microsoft. Please allow the settlement to

go through, in today’s EXTREMELY

competetive marketplace, this trial has

already hurt Microsoft a lot. Let’s bring a

close to events from 2001.

wesley c. lum

wlum@hawaii.edu

http://www2.hawaii.edu/wlum

MTC–00007156

From: Bruno Sartirana

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

I found the Microsoft Settlement fair and

in the best interest of both consumers and the

computer industry. I hope that the States that

have not agreed yet will settle on the same

terms and stop wasting public money to the

sole benefit of special interest groups. I speak

as both a consumer and a service provider

that appreciates the innovation and low

prices only offered by Microsoft.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

24888 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Bruno Sartirana

President

Apogeo, Inc.

Software Consulting

19925 Stevens Creek Blvd.

Cupertino, CA 95014

Tel: 408–725–7504

Fax: 408–734–1657

Web: www.apogeo.com

Mail: info@apogeo.com

MTC–00007157

From: RMorris550@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:41pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs,

I think the settlement agreed on by the

justice department and nine of the states is

fair . I also think it would be good to go

ahead and settle this and move on.

Cebron R. Morris

MTC–00007158

From: JoeSapman@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs/Madams;

Please note that I support Microsoft’s

position in the antitrust case.

Joseph Sapienza

Park Ridge, IL

MTC–00007159

From: William Storey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:40pm

Subject: The Microsoft Settlement

TWIMC:

Having watched this case for years, I

thought you should know that I support the

settlement, and oppose all efforts by the

states, particularly the AG’s from Connecticut

and California (my home state), to levy

additional penalties on Microsoft.

I think the case was a farce from the start,

and nothing more than an attempt by Sun

Microsystems and others to get the

government to defeat a company they could

not beat in the free market. The sooner this

case is ended, the better.

Sincerely,

William L. Storey

MTC–00007160

From: Larry Pitts

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I want to cast my vote for the

recommended settlement of the Microsoft

company and I personally do recommend

any further litigation. Forward March.

L Pitts

MTC–00007161

From: Bridgetb@bridgetb.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

A reasonable settlement has finally been

found. After all the time and money put

towards this effort, I believe we are all at a

place where we need to settle this case and

start focusing on building a strong and safe

America for the future.

I applaud the intense push for settlement.

When pushed hard enough, it’s amazing

what both sides can do together.

Thank You,

Bridget Bakken

MTC–00007162

From: J. Cashwell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom this Concerns,

My personal opinion of the suit against

Microsoft is that it should have never

happened! As a consumer I have a choice to

buy or not to buy a company’s product. I

have a lot of Microsoft software and until

another company can prove to me that their

software is superior to Microsoft’s and easier

to integrate and use, I will continue to use

Microsoft products. Microsoft has an

overwhelming following and thus market

share because they produce and support a

superior product. I have tried the

‘‘competitions’’ software and was not

impressed when compared to Microsoft

software. If a company wants a hefty chunk

of the market and has to compete with an

industry leader then they better make a

product that is far superior and more

affordable than the industry leader’s product

until they have unseated the leader and

afterwards they had better keep the standards

up. The ‘‘bundled’’ software did not force me

to use anything I didn’t want to use. I could

install and run another companies software

if I felt the need. If anything, the bundled

software was more convenient to me as a

consumer. I believe there are a few bottoms

that need spanking for starting this mess to

begin with and Microsoft is not one of them.

It reminds me of the spoiled kid on the

playground running to Mom crying because

little Johnny is faster and smarter when

playing tag. In this case, Mom (the

government) should have never gotten

involved and should have left it up to the

kids (the companies) and their friends (the

consumers) to work it out on the playground.

This country was built to support free

enterprise and now we have a major step

towards the government having too much

control where it doesn’t belong. Give the

consumer credit! If we don’t like something,

we aren’t going to support/buy the

company’s products. I won’t even get into the

fact that there have been so many

technological advancements since this suit

started. I’m in favor of no action against

Microsoft, but since that is an unrealistic

expectation, I’m in favor of extreme leniency

in terms of a settlement with Microsoft and

therefore consider what is tabled to be the

strongest action that should be exercised

against Microsoft.

Respectfully,

Judy Cashwell

MTC–00007163

From: Malik Nash

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

The terms of the proposed settlement as

they currently exist are far too lenient to

provide an effective remedy to monopolistic

practices by Microsoft. It completely fails to

address the most egregious abuses committed

by Microsoft. It leaves intact the most serious

liabilities that competitors face when

confronted with the Microsoft monopoly:

1. The inability of PC makers to fully

customize the default appearance of the

Windows ‘‘desktop’’ as well as the

configuration of so-called ‘‘middleware’’

components.

2. The inability of independent software

developers to obtain information on

Microsoft APIs in a timely manner, and

without entering into licensing agreements

that would make it financially infeasible to

develop products that are compatible with

Windows.

3. The inability of small developers to

feature their products on the Windows

desktop. In sum, Microsoft has exercised

monopoly power not through the

configuration of its own operating system,

but rather through the domination of

distribution channels, by using a

combination of licensing arrangements,

pricing schemes and discounts that are

explicitly designed to prevent competing

products from coming to market. Now, the

Justice Department proposes to become

complicit in Microsoft’s abusive practices

and perpetuate the company’s ability to

obfuscate and evade the law, leaving

consumers and businesses with no

reasonable prospect of seeing choice restored

to the marketplace. Acceptance of the

proposed settlement would be an

unconscionable capitulation to unrestrained

greed. I urge the Justice Department to

uphold it’s trust, and create an effective

solution that will restore fair competition.

Sincerely,

Otha M. Nash

Columbia, SC

MTC–00007164

From: Ruth Lorenz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

For the good of our country and the

economy, I believe it is time to move forward

and approve the settlement agreed upon by

all parties. Let us not drag this on any longer

in the courts. We need to concentrate on

building up the economy and strengthening

our country for the future of our children and

grandchildren.

Sincerely,

R. Lorenz

MTC–00007165

From: Tony Sabbadini

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear United States Department of Justice,

Thank you for showing concern for the

American consumer with regard to the

Microsoft Anti-trust case. As a consumer,

however, I feel that by opposing the recent

settlement between Microsoft and the US

DOJ, one lengthens an already costly trial and

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24889

casts more uncertainty over our economy.

The settlement addresses the most important

issue that originally brought about the antitrust case: Microsoft’s bullying of the original

equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Under the

proposed settlement, Microsoft can no longer

punish (by raising prices) the OEMs for

offering competing software vendors’

products on the Windows Desktop. To make

sure Microsoft acquiesces, three on-site

compliance agents will monitor the company

closely. These steps have a net effect of

offering the consumer more choice.

Thankfully, the settlement does not place any

bundling restrictions on Microsoft. Although

many criticize this Microsoft practice

(primarily competitors...), bundling gives the

software customer seamless integration and a

lower total cost of ownership. If Microsoft

has done anything to benefit the software

customer, it has created a platform

universally available across the world at a

relatively low price. I urge the adoption of

the settlement.

Thank you,

Tony Sabbadini

(650) 345–9551

MTC–00007166

From: David Sanders

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen, The lawsuit was initiated far

too early in the life of a new companyMicrosoft. The company has grown rapidly

and has gained substantial marketshare but at

the same time it created vast numbers of job

and enterprise opportunities for others. And

competition was beginning to rise up against

Microsoft. If the company had been left alone

natural competitive forces probably arisen

evened the playing field. In any event enough

damage has now been done to Microsoft and

to the economy. Lets put it behind us and

wind up the affair.

David L. Samders

davidlsanders@msn.com

MTC–00007167

From: JELowell@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:43pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I believe the Microsoft antitrust suit should

be settled in its present form. We were told

the break up of Microsoft would increase

competition and improve the prospects of

other companies in the tech area. It is

interesting to note that, based on the stock

market, it has had absolutely the opposite

effect. Judge Jackson’s decision, when

announced, caused the market to go down

not up. Let’s conclude this matter now. It

will help the economy recover.

Jim Lowell

MTC–00007168

From: Patrick Halstead

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have reviewed the documents related to

the settlement, and would like to comment

that I strongly favor a settlement in the

Microsoft case.

Sincerely,

Patrick Halstead

Kirkland, WA 98033

425 739 9447

MTC–00007169

From: Gregory Markow

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gregory Markow

114 Giffords Lane

Staten Island, New York 10308

631–831–6438

To whom it may concern:

I have been employed in the Information

Technology industry for just over two

decades. Prior to Microsoft Windows and

Office becoming popular, the industry was

dominated by another company who

delivered excellent products and services. It

was a company that epitomized the ???Made

in America??? slogan even before it became

fashionable. That company was and still is a

great company. It was also the subject of an

antitrust suit before such suits were seen as

sources of income and revenue by litigants

and their representatives. That company is

named IBM and it agreed to operate under a

consent decree for its good and the good of

America.

I am also a Microsoft shareholder. I am an

expert in the industry and elected to

purchase Microsoft shares because I saw in

Microsoft a company that embodied the spirit

of American innovation and business

leadership. I admire the companies???

leadership and their commitment to

constantly providing more product

capabilities at a good value-for-dollar.

Microsoft???s products became

predominant in the industry not because of

an abuse of market share but because

Microsoft provided the best products. I

personally worked with almost all of the IBM

mainframe operating systems and products. I

also personally worked with almost all the

various Unix and PC operating systems,

development tools and desktop products.

Microsoft consistently provided products

that met or exceeded industry expectations.

I believe that the States are being motivated

by the possibility of large settlements similar

to those of the Tobacco industry. The

Microsoft competitors who are trying to

extract a harsher penalty are those who

cannot compete in the market and therefore

must resort to the government and the courts.

I was a Unix systems programmer and I must

tell you that Windows was always and is

today far easier to work with and configure

than any Sun configuration; take a look at the

cost difference between Sun administrators

and Windows 2000 administrators. You will

find that everything in the Sun Solaris

market space to be more expensive. I was

also an Oracle database designer. We used to

joke about Oracle. We said that Oracle ran on

everything but did not run well on anything.

Oracle gained market share because it had

little competition in its market space. I would

offer that the companies who are lobbying

against a Microsoft settlement are all

suffering from Gates envy. The CEO???s of

Sun and Oracle disgust me by their petty

words and actions; I am also an Oracle

shareholder. Microsoft is a great company

and it is also a monopoly. The DOJ should

apply restrictions and monitor the company

so that it cannot use its monopoly position

to gain unfair advantage. Microsoft does have

the right to compete aggressively. This is

after all, America.

It is also interesting to note that because

Microsoft is the current legal target of the

aforementioned competitors that they and the

DOJ are neglecting another monopoly

company; IBM. IBM has no competition in

the mainframe market space. Such

competition ended with the demise of

Amdahl. I would offer that both Sun and

Oracle are beginning to take note of IBM

because of the inroads that it is making into

their market share. I would also suggest that

they will shortly come crying to the DOJ and

stating that IBM is competing unfairly.

Truthfully, these are all great American

companies. It shames me to watch them fight

like children and then call their parents, the

Government, when they fairly loose.

Microsoft deserves this settlement.

America deserves this settlement. We need to

maintain our preeminent position in the

Global marketplace.

Thank you all for your hard work and

perseverance. You have made me proud,

once again, to be an American!

Gregory Markow

MTC–00007170

From: Doug Tilden—MTC Corp

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 6:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As user of Microsoft enterprise products, a

shareholder in Microsoft and an American

who is very concerned with the directions

that this case has taken, I urge that the

settlement of this case be accomplished.

MTC–00007171

From: Don Farrand

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs & Madams,

As a teacher trying to help others benefit

from the use of the computer I was very

frustrated in the 60s, 70s and 80s by the

many different languages and programs. Each

was useful in its own way—but it was

extremely difficult to pass information from

one language or program to another.

To compound the issue, each computer

manufacturer tried to differentiate itself by

issuing its own combination of default

software. It was as if each private college

tried to differentiate itself by teaching in it’s

own unique language. Each college could

produce useful work within its own people

but the useful work would not benefit many

because of the difficulty sharing with those

beyond a limited confine.

I am most impressed with Microsoft’s

attemps to provide a wide set of software that

can pass information between its parts. I also

understand how useful it is for Microsoft to

impress on computer manufacturers a set of

software standards if that manufacturer is

going to include Microsoft software.

For the good of computer users I hope that

the current antitrust case can be settled in

24890 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

such a way that Microsoft can continue its

work of making software and computers

compatible.

Don Farrand DVFarrand@Prodigy.Net

CC:Don Farrand

MTC–00007172

From: Robert Irvine

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ

I have been a customer of Microsoft

products since 1995. If it were not for their

software and help in that was given me, I

could not have started and maintained my

home business. It is time to settle this case

and do something more productive.

Sincerely,

Robert H Irvine

1014 Centre School Way

West Chester, PA 19382–7659

Phone: 610–696–7486

E—mail: Robhirvine@aol.com

MTC–00007173

From: Ron Sargent

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear sirs,

Please settle this outrageous Microsoft

lawsuit as soon as possible! Microsoft is one

of the best companys that has ever been

created in the history of the world and has

been responsible for more wealth in the

hands of the working man than any other. We

in the Pacific Northwest love our company

and want to see it proceed with new and

innovative products without any more

interference from Government! If government

is so worried about monopolys dominating

the Free Market Place then I suggest you take

a closer look at the U.S. Post Office or the

Department of Education and clean up their

acts before you attack a successful company

such as Microsoft. Long live Bill Gates! He

is my hero!

Ron Sargent

sargent@techline.com

P.O. Box 1397

Elma, Wa. 98541–1397

1–360–482–6305

MTC–00007174

From: Robert Furry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

As a concerned citizen and head of a small

company computerized Information System,

I feel that a settlement with Microsoft would

be in the best interests of the consumer. We

use Microsoft products, as well as others, to

handle our day-to-day operations. It seems

that as long as the litigation stretches out, we

are at a standstill for better and better

software products.

It will cost us not only valuable time not

spent on development, but also increased tax

dollars to litigate as well as increased costs

for future Microsoft products. We, as

consumers, are in a no win situation faced

with additional costs from both ends.

To a large extent, the federal government

has standardized on Microsoft’s Software as

the choice for word processing, operating

systems, spreadsheet applications, etc. used

in conducting its business. The decisions

formulated by government purchasing

departments to buy Microsoft products were

based on performance and price. Now, to say

Microsoft has caused harm by providing

better and cheaper products sounds more

political than pragmatic. Thank you for

considering my views.

Robert W. Furry

470 Leventry Road

Johnstown, PA 15904

MTC–00007175

From: Charles E. Rothera

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a teacher, taxpayer and member of the

USAR for 15+ years, I am not happy with the

way the Microsoft suit has been handled. I

also am sure this problem has had a negative

effect on the value of our young daughter’s

stock in Microsoft. This court battle must end

and it seems to me after reading many pages

of the complaint, that a few jelous companies

have been trying to destroy the innovative

leader that Microsoft has been to the

detriment of stockholders and consumers like

us.

Thank you for your time,

Charles Rothera

MTC–00007176

From: jabien

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:47pm

Subject: I appreciate the chance to voice my

opinion on the Microsoft case.

My feeling is that we have come t I

appreciate the chance to voice my opinion on

the Microsoft case. My feeling is that we have

come to a sad affair in this country when a

few companies in California can influence

congress and the justice department of

Clinton administration. What that was all

about anyway besides saying if you can not

compete on your own merit go and collect

flavors from local politicians. So here we are

3+years down the road, we are still going

over the same old tired ground. The cartoon

that showed the boys from California running

to big government to solve they short coming,

had it right. Personally I was never forced

into using any part of a Microsoft product I

did no want to used. I can down load any

system from the net, that I please. I know

enough about my computer that I can delete

any object on it that I find objectable. I am

certainly no computer expert. So if I can do

it, anyone can. I also find it highly laughable

that the AJ’s in the remaining states are

fighting for what they call the general public

interest. It would certainly be interesting to

see the tax payer bill that has been run up

in the name of so called consumer interest.

Personally I would like to see my taxes used

in a more responsible why. I feel right now

in this time of more important issues that

seems to be a case of much to do about

nothing other certain lawyers ego’s and let

justice turn a blind eye. Let ’s get on with

what important in the U.S. Let the Justice

department agreement with Microsoft stand

and put the tax payer dollar go towards more

important issues.John A. Bien

MTC–00007177

From: David Gayvert

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Ma’am:

I am writing to express my strong support

for the proposed settlement of the alleged

anti-trust case against Microsoft. It is clear

that the public interest will be served by

putting this most unjust lawsuit to to rest.

It is critical to note that the action against

Microsoft was not initiated in response to

any significant complaint by consumers at

large, but by Microsoft competitors who seek

to gain in the courts what they cannot in the

marketplace. It is advanced by government

officials who seek to enlarge their

reputations, and in many cases to fatten their

state treasuries at Microsoft’s expense. This

cynical approach to promoting

‘‘competition’’ in fact erodes consumer and

investor confidence in free markets and those

who excel in them. Microsoft may indeed

employ aggressive business practises, but at

the end of the day, they earned their

dominance in the industry by providing what

people want. No one held a gun to my head

when I purchased Windows 98 or MS Office,

nor have I been prevented from using

Netscape as my default web browser in lieu

of Explorer.

Real justice would require dropping

completely the federal case against Microsoft

and reimbursing it for the cost of defending

itself against this most prejudiced of actions.

As that is not a practical option, I reiterate

my support for adoption of the proposed

settlement of the case.

Sincerely,

David Gayvert

1775 Regents Park Road

Crofton, MD 21114

MTC–00007178

From: mark@webbiznz.net.nz@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel that Microsoft Has done no more than

what other companys do, Microsoft shouldn’t

be hasseled anyfuther. Without Microsoft

where would computers be. I fear that if

microsoft was broken down than this will

cause a globel effect, Inculding slowing the

growth of IT as it is today.

For any copyright laws that have been

broken by MS than Yes fine them, but leave

them alone for creating a good product. They

need the money to make it work better...

Mark Dyer

ICQ#: 2964071

Current ICQ status:

<http://web.icq.com/whitepages/

online?icq=2964071&img=21>

* Home Tel#: 03 5444322 Mobile Tel#: 027

4115426

* SMS: +27831422964071 / +64274115426

MTC–00007179

From: Charles E. Rothera

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a teacher, taxpayer and member of the

USAR for 15+ years, I am not happy with the

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24891

way the Microsoft suit has been handled. I

also am sure this problem has had a negative

effect on the value of our young daughter’s

stock in Microsoft. This court battle must end

and it seems to me after reading many pages

of the complaint, that a few jealous

companies have been trying to destroy the

innovative leader that Microsoft has been to

the detriment of stockholders and consumers

like us.

Thank you for your time,

Charles Rothera

MTC–00007180

From: Don737@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentleman,

The subject of the DOJ and Microsoft

settlement should be put to rest. It is in the

best interest of the public to do so now and

let us all get on with the business of

rebuilding this country. As a consumer I feel

it is in the best interest for all concerned to

do so. It’s time this countries justice

departments should turn their interests

towards fighting true evil and not self serving

themselves with political bandwagon type of

behavior. Get on with the businness of

business and do it now.

Captain Don Sherwood, AWA ret.

MTC–00007181

From: MBaney1056@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:50pm

Subject: Mcrosoft Settlement

I hope that the settlement agreement being

reached with Microsoft can be used as a way

to correct an unfair antitrust ruling. I have

always found Microsoft and it’s products to

be fairly priced and innovative. I have never

felt compelled to use them due to lack of

competition. I feel that Sun and others are

using unfair lobbying in a sour grapes

attempt to sway the DOJ. I believe in free and

open markets whereby the strongest survive.

Minimal goverment interference in business

keeps innovation alive. Please keep this in

mind during your negotiations so that the

next guy inventing something in his garage

can proceed without fear.

Michael J Baney

MTC–00007182

From: Z.G. Liang

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:51pm

Subject: good settlement

MTC–00007183

From: Lou Incantalupo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please conclude the settlement of the

Microsoft case ASAP to save taxpayers

additional cost of litigation.

Thank you,

Louis Incantalupo

MTC–00007184

From: Genfam@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:52pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

dear sirs please, to more litigation of

microsoft. i believe the government

settlement is just and fair. enough is enough.

phillip and barbara gendreau

MTC–00007185

From: DonBuesenSR@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:51pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

This settlement is fair to all. PLEASE NO

MORE LITIGATION ! Let us get on with our

life. consumer: Don J. Buesen

MTC–00007186

From: amedeo60@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

From A. Pozzuoli Clifton, NJ E mail,

amedeo60@juno.com Message. I feel that the

settlement is fair and balanced. Microsoft did

do the engineering and research, therefore

they should be entitiled to the rewards. Tell

the competitors to do their own homework.

MTC–00007187

From: William Wassinger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:16pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Please leave Microsoft alone.

I like the fact they bundle things in. It

makes things very easy for me. It would be

like buying a car then having to go find an

engine then a transmission and so on.

Let them do there job and you go catch

terrorists.

William R. Wassinger

Rt. 2 Box 2012

Wister, Ok 74966.

MTC–00007188

From: WRImpey@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Government Officials:

Please quickly settle the Microsoft

government lawsuit and let Microsoft get

back to their business of providing

consumers, such as myself, with outstanding

software products.

In my opinion, there never was an antitrust

problem with Microsoft—beyond the politics

of incompetence and total lack of

understanding of the dynamics of business.

Microsoft has provided consumers with

outstanding products at a fair price. That is

why their market share is high. That is also

the basis of competition in a free market

economy.

It is time to let Microsoft get back to their

business of developing excellent software

products—without government interference.

Consumers have generally benefited by

Microsoft’s aggressive stance in the

marketplace, and it time to finally resolve

this issue. Microsoft’s marketplace strength

globally is in my opinion an asset to the US,

which should not be aided by government,

but neither should its progress be impeded

through legalistic harassment.

William Impey

MTC–00007189

From: Z.G. Liang

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:55pm

Subject: good settlement

DOJ:

The settlement of the case is good, I totally

agree with the settlement. It is good for all

cosumers and the economy in the USA.

Zhiguo Liang

MTC–00007190

From: Boingram@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please do not spend more of my tax dollars

disrupting Microsoft. Settle this issue.

MTC–00007191

From: Louis Hapeshis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the setttlement was fair. This

country has much more to be concerned

about than restricting the innovation of a

comapany like Microsoft. Microsoft has

totally changed our way of life for the better,

and should be allowed to continue their

innovation for the benefit of all.

Louis G. Hapeshis, III

MTC–00007192

From: Stephen Bubanovich

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I believe that the Microsoft case should be

settled now without further litigation.

Microsoft has sufficient penalties in the

settlement and further litigation would not be

helpful to the industry, the consumer or

stockholders.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Bubanovich

Home:

16052 Baywood Lane

Granger, IN 46530

Voice: 219–277–8304

Fax: 219–247–1241

Mobile: 219–286–5258

Email: steve@bubanovich.net

MTC–00007193

From: Sylvia Sur

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I hope that the Department of Justice is

going to accept this settlement and move

away from looking at Microsoft as the enemy

to seeing Microsoft as the company that made

computing affordable and accessible to all.

I have some anti Microsoft friends who

complain about the prices of software from

companies like Quark Express, or Adobe who

own their market niches and where Microsoft

has no competitive entry products. The

competitive software sells for $600 on the

average street price.

Whereas Microsoft sells the operating

system and a whole host of applications for

less than half that. Any one of these MS

products could be sold for a lot more money.

In short, if the Microsoft haters got their

dream and managed to destroy this company,

we would all pay more for software.

24892 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

And there are no usable competitive

operating systems around. Have you looked

at Linux, or BeOS or UNIX lately for ease of

use? Most computers nowadays can be

configured easily with more than one

operating system. I do not see anyone doing

this in spite of how easy it would be to have

a machine that runs Windows and UNIX say.

The other OS are really for computer experts

to install and use. For most people, Windows

is the easiest and most capable thing there is.

Please let us honor this settlement and end

this ongoing battle with one of the great

companies in the USA. We have all suffered

a lot financial loss in our 401K plans with

what happened to the stock price of MS. The

supposed savings from this lawsuit will

never come close to restoring 1% of that loss.

Sylvia Sur

2177 Kenilworth Ave

Los Angeles, CA 90039

MTC–00007194

From: terry clear

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The entire case against Microsoft should be

dropped. Microsoft has not harmed any

person or company or state. All are free to

use Microsoft’s products or those of their

competitors. My employer uses Netscape

Navigator as the company browser.

Any person or company is free to create

and market superior products. Let them do

so. No person, company, or state has been

harmed by Microsoft. Drop the entire case.

MTC–00007195

From: Orie Kelm

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Settlement between the US

Government and Microsoft appears proper to

me. There should be no further action taken

against Microsoft. Microsoft has not harmed

me (the consumer) in its marketing policies

and I appreciate the development of an

operating system and internet browser that

works well together. I am old enough to

remember the old CPM operating system and

I do not want to go back to that wilderness

where everyone had a different system and

could not interchange information easily.

Enough is enough and no further action

should be taken.

The only people profiting from further

action are the competitors who have

pressured the politicians to harass Microsoft,

rather than developing a better system. The

Government has outlined the procedures

Microsoft must follow and has installed a

costly monitoring organization to keep

watch. That is more than enough!!

Orie Kelm

216 Timberland Cir

Kingsport, Tn 37664

MTC–00007196

From: wendy willson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:56pm

Subject: Settlement, PLEASE!!!!

To Whom It May Concern @ the DOJ;

This settlement with Microsoft IS fair and

just. Please put an end to this endless

litigation and let the FREE market operate as

it was meant to.

Sincerely,

Wendy L. Willson (a Microsoft shareholder

and, probably like you, a Microsoft-products

user!) P.S. Incidentally, with Windows XP, I

have had no problem what-so-ever using

Realnetworks’ products nor Corel

Wordperfect. I have seen no conflict or

‘‘usurping of power’’ at all. They fixed it

(those problems with Windows 98) and I can

configure my computer any way I like. Case

closed!!

MTC–00007197

From: Lloydage1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:56pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The government has alraedy done enough

damage to Microsoft and other industries, in

plain English, lay off!!! Go on sabbatical for

@ 10 years and leave the populace alone with

your greed for dollars at any cost. You’re

obtrusive enough with your par-tisan politics

and disregard for the country as it stands

now. Please, STOP!

MTC–00007198

From: Norman Leathers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:56pm

Subject: Microsoft

It is about time to get on with more

important government business than

dragging the law suite against Microsoft

though the courts any longer at great expense

to the people of this country for the benefit

of lawyers and special interest groups. At

least Microsoft has provided a standard of

quality that other firms only dream of and the

standards established by Microsoft have

made the business of operating computers

between computers much easier. If the

government wants to spend some money they

can start with all the hard things they never

want to face up to: education, health care,

retirement etc. Let Microsoft pay its fine as

established and get on with it.

MTC–00007199

From: RThom59551@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen and Ladies,

Lets settle this once and for all. Its time to

move on. The proposed settlement should be

accepted by all parties just the way it is.

Respectfully,

Robert Thompson

MTC–00007200

From: Fletch (038) Jerry Burrus

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:58pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

In our opinion Microsoft, with it’s

magnificent innovative techniques, is

responsible for the United States being the

leader in the new technical age. Please do all

you can to settle this painful excercise in

industrial jealousy. We must somehow get

this disgraceful matter behind us and laud

new techniques and innovations rather than

punish them.

Fletcher and Jerry Burrus

7332-B- Huntsmen Circle

Anchorage, Ak 99518

(907)344–5020

MTC–00007201

From: Cheridial@cs.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please let the settlement that has been

ironed out go through. I think enough time

has been wasted on this. Let settle and move

on. We need to get back to fair competition

and innovation.

Thank you,

Cheri Dial

Schaumburg, IL

MTC–00007202

From: robertmanning

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Wednesday, January 2, 2002

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to say that it is time to settle

the Microsoft affair. I believe that they have

been unfairly hit upon and it is time to settle

this affair and move on. I do think that the

settlement as proposed is fair but the sad part

is that this whole thing should never have

happened. America cannot lose its creativity

and innovation. We must not punish those

that prosper just because they have

prospered. I think that a bad thing has been

done by this whole affair and hope it will not

stop other smart people from acting on their

own inventions and bright ideas.

Sincerely,

Betty Manning

Houston, Texas

MTC–00007203

From: Kim S. Frazho

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern,

The proposed settlement in the Microsoft

case will lay to rest an issue that has been

granted too much time and money already.

It will better serve the public as well as

industry if the case is closed and we move

on to help get the country back on it feet

again. With the events of 11 September still

very fresh in our minds, let’s move past this

problem and start working on other more

important issues facing our economy,

industry and the nation. Further litigation

will only pour good money (and energy) after

bad.

Please settle the case and start fighting

those who will bring down our society rather

than one who has gone to great lengths to

make it better.

Let’s think of Microsoft as we do our

country...It isn’t perfect, but it’s better than

the rest.

Thank you for allowing me to express my

opinions, I can only hope they will do some

small good.

Kim Frazho

105 Michigan Ave.

Houghton Lake, MI 48629 989.366.6000

MTC–00007204

From: niewijk

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24893

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:58pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I would like the U.S. Department of justice

to know my opinion on the the Microsoft

case. I am a business owner myself, having

run our family business for 43 years. I know

what it is like for competitors to ‘‘cry foul’’

and spend their time chipping away at the

integrity of my business rather than

producing a ‘‘better mousetrap’’. Let’s not let

the same thing happen to the tech industry

that happened to the U.S. automakers in the

late seventies and early eighties. Let’s let the

‘‘mop flop’’ where it will in this technology

war.

PLEASE LET THE BEST COMPANIES

COMPETE!!!

LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE! IF THESE

‘‘WHINERS’’ CAN’T STAND THE HEAT,

THEY NEED TO GET OUT OF THE

KITCHEN. THANK YOU FOR THE

OPPORTUNITY.

Sincerely, David Niewiek

PARIS MOTORS INC.

GRAND RAPIDS MI 49548

6162925008

MTC–00007205

From: PPallette@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 6:59pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

DOJ: In my opinion, it is time for us to get

on with business. Microsoft should never

have been indicted in the first place. Yes,

they are tough, agressive competitors. But the

witch hunt which was begun during the

Clinton Administration was political, and

was precipitated by a couple of cry babies

named Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy. I am

a share holder in Microsoft, Oracle, and Sun

Microsystems. While Gates and Ballmer

continue to innovate and look to the future,

Ellison and McNealy wallow in self pity. One

need only look at their annual reports and

stock prices to see who’s on the right track.

Intense competition is the American way. Let

the judgement stand, counsel the nine

renegade states to get aboard with the rest of

our country, and let’s encourage the

technology industry to do what they do

best—innovate. It is an injustice to hold the

world’s economies hostage—to any degree—

to this ill-found litigation which was based

on feeble claims by Ellison and McNealy, and

carried out—but never proven—by litigators

influenced by personal agendas, and an

industry vendetta. I encourage you to close

the books on this case (no pun intended, as

I believe Steve Case was the third proponent

of this misdirected prosecution!). Thanks for

your consideration. Peter C. Pallette, 01/02/

02

CC:S.McNealy@www.sun.com@

inetgw,L.Ellison@bigip-www.u...

MTC–00007206

From: ROBERT YOUNG

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:00pm

Subject: Microsoft

As taxpayers we would like you to stop

dragging this Microsoft legal action on and

on.

Why can’t you let a company in America

be a success? All this back and forth in court

all these years and it probably makes the

difference of almost nothing to the

consumer—they don’t care about it—they

just want to have Microsoft left alone.

Microsoft does so much good, keeps so

many people employed and you just need to

stop making their lives misery and everyone

else around the company feel that their

government wants to persecute people for

their success. Find something else to do and

let Microsoft go on doing what they do best—

prove that America has the brightest brains

and ideas and can lead the world.

Robert and Linda Young

MTC–00007207

From: Kristeph@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:01pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

As a taxpayer and consumer, i urge you to

push for the agreed settlement with Microsoft

and not let the 9 rogue states continue to

waste the taxpayers money

sincerely,

Michael Smith

MTC–00007208

From: Scott Stadelhofer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please do everything possible to finish and

resolve favorably for the shareholders of

Microsoft the case against Microsoft. Too

much is at stake in the U.S. economy to delay

it any further.

Thank-you.

Scott R. Stadelhofer

sstadelhofer@maranatha.net

703–641–9177

MTC–00007209

From: Steve Cohen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:01pm

Subject: Microsoft judgement

To Whom it may Concern,

As a private citizen, and user of Microsoft

products, I’d like to express my opinion

regarding the Microsoft case. As a consumer,

I believe that Micrsoft has not harmed me

one bit. Quite the contrary, Microsoft has

been extremely beneficial to me in my

personal and professional life. To carry on

bullying this national treasure would

certainly be an injustice to the American

people. The settlement is very fair, and this

should be the end of it. Many of the

companies that started this whole mess

would not even have existed if it were not

for the inovations provided by Microsoft.

Microsoft both directly and indirectly are

responisible for the fantastic increase in US

technology and the jobs it has brought to

millions.

During this time of economic uncertainty,

we need to put this behind us (and allow

Micrsooft to do the same) so we can

concentrate on things that are more

important.

Regards,

Steve Cohen

46 Oakridge Dr.

Williamsville, NY 14221

716–689–8270

MTC–00007210

From: ANNBILAN@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the Microsoft settlement should

be finalized without further action, hearings,

or anything else. In these trying times we

need to get back to business.

Ann Bilan

P. O. Box 463

Lakewood, CA 90714

MTC–00007211

From: jsb

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:03pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern: It is time to settle

the microsoft case in the interest of the

country, the consumer, and the world.

Microsoft is providing real and badly needed

jobs to our citizens. Please settle this case

now. Thank you.

MTC–00007213

From: Bebepgh@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:03pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Sir,

I am asking the Department of Justice to get

the Microsoft issue settled as quickly as

possible. This whole thing has taken way too

long and is not only not good for Microsoft,

but not good for the economy in general. The

economy is slow enough right now and

waiting for major cases to be settled only

makes things worse.

Sincerely,

Barbara Felman

217 S. Lang Ave

Pittsburgh, PA 15208

MTC–00007214

From: Cost-Research

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft has done more for the world

economy and the way we work than any

other company in history, and now you want

to punish them. This reminds me of the old

kids game King of the Mountain. Once you

see someone on top you try to knock them

off it makes you popular, and that is what the

DOJ is trying to do. These great lawyers are

not doing this for the best of the people. They

are doing this for very selfish reasons, they

are doing this to:

1. Make a name for them self’s so that later

in private practice can say yes ‘‘I took on

Microsoft’’.

2. Help a few cry baby companies that can’t

compete in the market place and don’t

amount to a hill of beans.

3. Make money for themselves now, and

for the future.

4. Get their name publicized.

If Microsoft was as bad as some of the

lawyers are trying to make them out to be,

all the states would have joined the legal

action. As it turned out some did not join

because Microsoft is an OK company, others

walked away in mid stream, others feel they

have taken this as for as they should. How

24894 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

can you not draw any other conclusion?

What makes some state attorney generals

think that their state is better than other

states? The only reason they want to keep

legal action going is to keep their name out

there. They are not doing it for me or anyone

I know.

It is too bad that a handful of lawyers can

create this kind of mess under the protection

of our legal system umbrella. A simple vote

of all the United States attorney generals

which would have represented all the people

could have solved the problem. As it is now

just a handful of lawyers can keep this thing

going for their own benefit.

The small dollar price we all paid for being

able to work under one world wide standard

is nothing short of amazing. Anybody that

feels they been over charged for the operating

system is not in touch with reality. Before

Microsoft became Microsoft they could have

come the all the US citizens and said, for a

donation of $200.00 we will write a

universally compatible computer program

and people would have donated to get this

wonderful technology. When computers fist

started we had a number of operating

systems, none compatible with each other.

You had to buy programs and operating

systems to match, which was a nightmare.

We learned from the television industry

which today has multiple systems, none

compatible which each other. Try sending a

video camera tape or VCR tape to Europe, it

will not work. The same applies to other

parts of the world. But today you can write

and send a computer program or e-mail to

any part of the world and it works. You can

down load computer programs to and from

any part of the world and it works and the

DOJ is messing with this. Not even Netscape

browser is compatible with many downloads.

Many programmers will not even write

websites to include Netscape because it

quirky. Anyway I think we should leave

Microsoft alone and let them invent new

technologies rather than having to battle over

what they can or cannot invent.

Cost Research Corporation

2608 Second Ave. #307

Seattle, WA 98121

Phone 425–313–0506

Fax 425–557–6431

Website: www.costresearch.com

MTC–00007215

From: Jim Laurel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement proposed by the DOJ is

adequate, especially considering that the

issues behind this case are ancient history by

the standards of the technology industry. The

industry has already self-corrected.

While desktop operating systems will

always be important, they are no longer the

only way to access computing resources, as

users increasingly rely on PDAs, mobile

phones and other devices to communicate.

In these uncertain economic times, it

makes no sense at all to continue persecuting

one of the great companies the US has ever

produced. Windows is a world standard and

let’s not forget that it is also an AMERICAN

standard.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly should discourage the

dissenting States from pursuing the

expansion of sanctions against Microsoft and

put an end to this case as quickly as possible.

We do not need the ongoing uncertainty in

the tech sector.

Sincerely,

James P. Laurel

22600 NE 142nd Place

Woodinville, WA 98072

MTC–00007216

From: The Intimidator

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/3/02 7:03pm

Subject: Enough

An agreement has been made and this

should be put to rest. I still do not

understand how the government is trying to

punish a company for using good business

strageies to furthur it’s products. Put this to

rest and use the money you are wasting to

good use where it is needed.

MTC–00007217

From: Harvey I. Salwen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs or Madams:

I have been using computers since 1980

and clearly remember the chaos that existed

in those days. Every application required its

own operating system.

At one time, I had seven operating systems.

Microsoft brought order, compatibility, and

economy to PCs. It is time for you to respect

the adequate settlement that has already been

proposed and let Microsoft get back to its

business plan. Any further protractions on

your part will become a total waste of your

time and my money.

Sincerely,

Harvey I. Salwen

817 Brushtown Road

Gwynedd Valley, PA 19437

MTC–00007218

From: JackMitch@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I fully support the proposed settlement of

the Microsoft suit. Frankly, as a consumer of

computer software for 20 years, I have

welcomed Microsoft’s role in establishing

standards for the industry and providing

software products that work at prices that

have been very reasonable. I do not feel that

I have been harmed or damaged in any way

by the way Microsoft has conducted its

business.

In the early days of home computing, much

of the software was shareware that was

written and distributed by individuals or

small companies. In most cases these

programs could not be integrated with other

computer applications. As a result, it was

necessary to leave one program before

entering another. Because of the absence of

any standards, data often had to be entered

multiple times to feed the various software

applications. If the industry had remained in

this condition, home computing would never

have grown and developed into the major

industry it is today. Thus, in my view,

Microsoft’s role has been far more beneficial

than harmful. I believe it is vitally important

to the computing industry and to the U. S.

economy as a whole to bring this suit to a

conclusion.

John ‘‘Jack’’ A. Mitchell III

1897 Beach Avenue

Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233

Telephone: 904–242–8264

MTC–00007219

From: DCBLC@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please stop wasting taxpayer money, time

and effort weakening one of the strongest

industries in the USA. The net result of this

whole inquisition will be a lot of small

investors and taxpayers paying a big legal bill

with no measurable benefit to anyone except

the law firms and attorneys pursuing the

case. Please look at all the external, credible

threats to this country and not focus on

weakening one of our few strong companies.

MTC–00007220

From: Paul L. Hoon

To: Microsoft

Date: 1/2/02 7:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

In regards to the Microsoft settlement,

please take my opinion into consideration. I

sincerely believe that this settlement is about

as fair as it will ever get. I can guarantee that

I personally will never purchase anything

from those competitors that are causing all

the ‘‘ stink‘‘. I am also strictly against those

States, (including my state of California)

whose Attorneys General are helping to break

up a company that has hired thousands upon

thousands of employees, who help to operate

Microsoft which is a great company with one

of the best, if not THE best computer

operating systems. Sincerely, Paul L. Hoon

MTC–00007221

From: johnnykelly@msn.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please leave Microsoft alone. Let’s focus on

getting America stronger..not weaker. Kindest

regards, John

Kelly Minneapolis, MN

MTC–00007222

From: Lucian Robinson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:06pm

Subject: microsoft settlrmentt

Please settle this case soon as possiable.

—Lucian Robinson

—klinerkint@earthlink.net

—EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real

Internet.

MTC–00007223

From: Dad

To: ‘microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 7:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My Opinion,

After 35 years in the Hi-tech business I am

getting real tired of ‘‘want-a-be’’ companies

doing whatever is possible to destroy

Microsoft and place themselves in a position

to gain on Microsoft’s losses.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24895

The settlement should not be timeconstrained. Most of Microsoft’s objective’s

have been and continue to be in the best

interest of the consumer. They are one of the

most agressive, creative companies in the

history of Hi-Tech. They could stand to

improve their pricing and licensing policies

and related costs but should be commended

for their approach towards the integration of

multiple applications on a common platform.

This is good for the consumer.

Although Microsoft doesn’t do everything

according to the law, they have been

enormous contributors to standardization.

Those that oppose them should spend more

time ‘‘creating’’ products that contribute

towards their growth rather than spending

money looking for a quick ‘‘get-rich’’ scheme.

How pathetic it is that when one needs

someone to fail in order to allow them to

succeed.

Jim Krug Jr

MTC–00007224

From: john breyer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Mirosoft was the greatest driver for

economic growth; it made computers

available to everybody i the world helping

the US and global economy. The big

beneficiay has been the consumer while the

competition tried and continues to try to

derail such progress at the average people’

expense. It is time to settle along the

proposed terms so we can resume economic

growth. It is not in the interest of the US and

the average consumer to prolong this

litigation. John Breyer, average consumer.

MTC–00007225

From: VSRood@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Re: Settlement

I hope that you will let this settlement go

through so that the issue is over. The

economy needs resolution of the problem, so

we can get on with business. This has gone

on too long, and has probably had a lot to

do with the economy downturn.

Virginia Rood

MTC–00007226

From: etasullivan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:09pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Please settle the microsoft case. In this time

of economic uncertainty, the last thing we

want is for some states and companies to

drag out this case ... The argument that these

states and companies make that prices would

be cheaper only for microsoft dominating the

field is bogus. Microsoft has made windows

easy to use for the non tech person like me

...

Margaret sullivan.

MTC–00007227

From: Dynator@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Complaint

DOJ—January 2, 2002

If you can recall, about the time you took

Microsoft to court is when the stock market

went to hell. You’ve had enough time to

investigate their actions so now lets get into

the penalty phase. Microsoft has erred, but it

has helped the United States and the World

get into the new computer world. Without

Microsoft, it may have been another 20 years

in finding somebody to get it started. That

name might have been IBM!

Sincerely

Len Tralmer

CEO & President

Mastercraft Images

MTC–00007228

From: Frank Montuoro

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:11pm

Subject: We like

Microsoft Settlement

Frank Montuoro

MTC–00007229

From: Randle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern;

As a taxpayer, I am sick and tired of this

MY government using taxpayer funds to

harass innovative companies that offer a

quality product to consumers. The Justice

Department has spent more money over the

past few years trying to destroy Bill Gates

than they have trying to bring terrorists to

justice.

Why does government always try to punish

the businesses that work hard, create

product, and become successful? Instead,

maybe they should take a few pages from Mr.

Gates policy manual and try being

productive.

Gail Randle

Geronimo, Texas

MTC–00007230

From: Jo Berg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement:

Please consider the consumer and get this

monkey off the back of Microsoft.... they have

been the recipient of unfair and biased

influences from jealous competitors and

greedy lawyers. The proposed settlement

takes care of the situation. Please do not drag

on and on.

Joan Hawkins Berg

a satisfied Microsoft cutomer who uses

Netscape Navigator on Windows 98.

MTC–00007231

From: Skipnspud@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:12pm

Subject: Re: Vote

I very much agree that the litigation against

Microsoft should be ended immediatly I feel

that a lot of politics are involved and this

should never of gone to litigation. We live

within a few miles of Microsoft Headquarters

and it has been a great boost to the economy.

Not only here in the great Northwest but to

the whole country.

I have been a holder of Microsoft stock

since 2/25/88.

Please don’t let this drag on any longer. We

need strong companies in our country. Don’t

let jealousy rule!!!!!!!!

Signed

Martha and Edward Hammond

MTC–00007232

From: Morton M Vogel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:11pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

It is ludicrous to me as average person that

this litigation is still continuing. When the

US government is satisfied that Microsoft

will do and perform in the specified way in

the future, why should a handful be allowed

to continue to impede any finalization of this

matter. Instead of pumping money and effort

back in to the economy, the government will

continue to expend dollars (really needed

else where in the economy) as will Microsoft.

The only people who truly benefit by this

continuous ad museum litigation are the

lawyers. who deem this as their annuity.

Perhaps if limits on legal costs were invoked,

settlements will be arrived at a speedy rate.

We also see certain states trying to exercise

their muscle.

It seem to me that the last time states

refused to follow the federal government—

dire events followed—are we to relive

1861??? The time to finalize this entire matter

is NOW. Our minds, efforts and money

should be directed to getting the economy

moving forward in both the public and

private sectors.

MTC–00007233

From: c777leo@inetmail.att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

01/02/02

Ignore the special interests, get on with the

agreed settlement. I don’t own any Microsoft

stock or have any financial interest in the

company or affiliated companies.

I’m tired of whiney special interests

running this country. The nature of

computers, internet and allied industries is

such that Microsoft or any other ‘‘big names’’

may not be viable within ten years.

No one is served by prolonging this

process.

Very Truly Yours,

Stephen A. Sevenich

1241 S. Webster Ave.

Green Bay, WI 54301–3008

(920)–433–0970

MTC–00007234

From: Jar22136@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:13pm

Subject: The Injustice of the Microsoft Case

To: The Department Of Justice

I want the government to know that I feel

that the original case against microsoft is a

major injustice. I feel that competative

technology companies that are only

interested in improveing their market share

by any means possibe and government

officials who will do anything to get their

name in the news have taken advantage of

Microsoft and the justice system for their

own advantage. I believe that if all the facts

were known, that instead of Microsoft being

24896 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

dumped on, that these competative

companies and the government should be

paying penalities to Microsoft. I think that we

all owe Microsoft a great deal for being

innovative and provided a service which

helps us all. I admire Microsoft for being

willing to accept some penality just to close

out a case which had little merit in the first

place in my opinion.

Sincerely,

James Roberts

MTC–00007235

From: eric riss

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settelment

The Microsoft settlement should proceed

and this long case should finally be settled.

The last thing we need is more litigation.

Eric Riss, Ph.D.

MTC–00007236

From: Gordon (038) Dorothy Day

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:16pm

Subject: microsoft setlement

I support Microsoft 100% and feel the

government is complety wrong in trying to

destrory the company.

Gordon H. Day, Lodi, Calif

MTC–00007237

From: Marge310 Lawlor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:15pm

Subject: Settlement of Case

I was happy to hear that finally, the

Government and Microsoft had come to a

decision to settle the case against Microsoft.

I don’t know what the reason is behind some

of the states that feel that they should receive

more than they are being offered.

I feel that this was a mischievous act by the

previous administration to help Microsoft

competitors. I never really felt that there was

a case against Microsoft; since all the

information I heard about it was untrue.

Unless there was something more going on

than the government or Microsoft would talk

about. I just don’t understand and I hope that

this administration has come to a rational

conclusion and finally will end this

ridiculous lawsuit.

Thank you for your at least listening to an

individual voter.

Margaret M. Lawlor

5617 South Homan Avenue

Chicago, IL 606029

MTC–00007238

From: SENGALG@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:15pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT

SHOULD SETTLE THIS CASE AGAINST

MICROSOFT, IT HAS GONE ON FAR TOO

LONG, AND BELIEVE A SETTLEMENT IS

NECESSARY FOR THE WELFARE OF THE

COUNTRY AND THE CONSUMER..

THANK YOU

AGNES GILBERTI

MTC–00007239

From: Elaine Mintz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please let this settlement take place. It has

dragged on for too long and we are sick of

it. The problems with the dot coms all started

after Microsoft was attacked and has spiraled

downward since then. The dotcoms

collapsed and too many people are now

without work. The economy is in sad shape.

Then September 11 happened and that made

it worse. We the American people need to see

this over with and let life go on. Microsoft

has its faults but they are not guilty of all the

accusations of which they have been and

continue to be accused. The government

needs a scapegoat and they have chosen them

since they stand out like such a bright star.

Elaine Mintz

MTC–00007240

From: Charles Perrell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Government,

Please drop the case against Microsoft. And

use your influence to get the states to drop

their actions as well.

I have worked in high tech for 30 years.

Microsoft is a great contributor to the user

community and to the US economy. It is a

terrible misuse of taxpayer money to pursue

this case. This case was brought by jealous

competitors, envious industry executives,

gun-for-hire lawyers and ambitious,

overzealous government politicos.

It is bad enough, the damage this case has

already caused our economy and Microsoft,

but every day of continuance nourishes

European anti-American shakedown hacks,

who, along with those certain American

states, plot further extortion from Microsoft.

DOJ has cost consumers millions in this

case to date. Microsoft would have used the

money wasted defending itself to have

delivered more products/features at lower

prices.

I look forward to your earliest remedy by

ending the case and admonishing publicly

the hyped charges, demagoguery and witchhunt misuse of the judiciary by Microsoft

competitors (Sun, Netscape/AOL, Novell)

and their willing state and federal

accomplices (Boxer, Feinstein, Hatch, Boyes).

Thank you,

Charles Perrell

Los Altos, CA 94024

MTC–00007241

From: elisabeth evans

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:17pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Please lety the settlement stand and lets go

on to newer and more inovations. Thanks,

Elisabeth Evans

MTC–00007242

From: Dutchers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen and Ladies:

The time has come to settle the Microsoft

Anti-trust case. Prolonging now will only

bring more special interest groups out of the

woodwork who apparently can’t stand the

thought of direct competition.

You and Microsoft have reached a

settlement. Move on with it. Don’t permit a

continuing platform for a few State AGs to

pontificate that they are Saviors of the poor

competitors like little ol AOL and Netscape.

Don’t forget the consumer who will benefit

from a quick settlement.

Don Franklin

Vaughn, Wash.

MTC–00007243

From: TobolskiJ@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:18pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please stop the stupidity.... Let’s get the

settlement completed and get the show on

the road. I have followed the proceedings for

years and cannot believe you have allowed

a few destroy what is good for so many. The

only people left in the argument are those

states that feel they have high tech

companies they need to protect. Why should

politics get involved with free enterprise?

MTC–00007244

From: lee roberts

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:29pm

Subject: microsoft settllement

i wish thdeptartmant of justice would get

off of bill gates’ back. he puts out a fine

product. why don’t you go after guys like

BILL CLINTON, now there IS a crook!@!!!!

thank you very much

MTC–00007245

From: Duc Le

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Department of Justice,

I’d like to speak my opinion on the

settlement. I share the views of Microsoft that

a settlement is good for consumers, now

more than ever before. This serves the public

interests and consumers, and there is no need

to prolong this litigation that benefits only a

few wealthy competitors and stifles

innovation.

The industry and the American economy

wants a stable and healthy competition, not

lawsuits. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Hai-Duc Le

21511 73rd Place W. #1

Edmonds, WA 98026

MTC–00007246

From: Sandy Woolf

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my opinion both as a consumer and

a stockholder that it is not in the interest of

the public and the economy that the

Microsoft case should be further litigated.

Special interests within these states still

looking for more litigation have no reason not

to accept the current settlement. It’s time to

move forward and consider the public good.

Sincerely yours,

Sandra Woolf

Spring Valley NY 10977

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24897

MTC–00007247

From: H. Benjamin Loseth, D.D.S.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft and our court system has spent

enough time, money and effort on this illgotten issue. Our economy needs companies

that innovate and develop products and

services, and the people employed by them.

They support their families and pay taxes.

Settle this case and move on to the important

issues facing this country.

H. Benjamin Loseth, D.D.S.

Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858

benloseth@journey.com

MTC–00007248

From: Jim Baxter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am not a developer, nor an interested

party. I am a systems administrator working

with MS’s products daily. I have watched

this company’s tactics worsen with each

passing year.

Please do not let them off with just a slap

on the wrists again. This is one company that

has proven time and again their intention to

do whatever they want in pursuit of total

dominance of the industry. Please, break the

OS away from the applications groups.

Leave IE with the OS if you have to, the

problem isn’t IE, the core problem is that

Microsoft writes everything, the operating

system, the development tools, and the office

applications. They have a vertical monopoly

that they abuse to stifle innovation, crush

competition, and dominate every market, no

mater how small.

If only you had broken the OS and

development tools away from the

applications division years ago when you

had the chance.

Please, do something significant to them.

Jim Baxter

MTC–00007249

From: Frank Montuoro

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:21pm

Subject: Frank Montuoro

We Like Microsoft Settlement

MTC–00007250

From: Rotruck, Allen R.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the settlement reached by the

Federal Government and nine states is more

than adequate to address the ruling of the

Court of Appeals. I feel that a few

competitors have used the government to try

to bring down their competition. Enough,

please settle this and let Microsoft go on with

their business, let the competition earn their

position in the industry, don’t let the

government take away from one company

and split it up with their competition. Thank

you for your consideration.

Allen R. Rotruck, Director

Electronic Parts Co., Inc.

2620 Rhode Island St. NE

Albuquerque, NM 87110–4699

Phone 505–293–6161

FAX 505–299–3174

rotruck@electronicpartsco.com

MTC–00007251

From: Elahi, Bijan (RDM)

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 7:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a US consumer and a user of

Microsoft software. I believe Microsoft’s

innovations and good software has

contributed greatly to the productivity of the

USA and the world. I hope that the DOJ

quickly concludes the Microsoft settlement

and ends this nonsense drain on this

company’s resources.

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.

Just get it done—fast.

Bijan Elahi

425–376–1317

MTC–00007252

From: Norman Chapman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:25pm

Subject: Microsoft/Justice Dept. Settlement

Gentlemen:

My family was very pleased that the Justice

Dept. and Microsoft reached agreement on

the issues which surrounded the suit against

Microsoft more than three years ago. We are

very distressed and disturbed that several of

the competitive computer companies want to

continue this lawsuit in order to extract every

last drop of blood that they can out of

Microsoft, and at the same time feather their

own nests. They have encouraged nine of the

states attornies general to continue this

pursuit, and, unfortunately, some of these

gentlemen, including Blumenthal of

Connecticut and Miller of Iowa are not

altogether altruistic in their desire to garner

headlines for themselves.

We would urge you to do all in your power

and with your authority to bring this suit

against Microsoft to a successful conclusion

so that both Microsoft and its competitors

can return to the job of producing the quality

of products and services that we Americans

want and need.. This have been a major

distraction which has had its price, and to

allow this small group of disgruntled

organizations to continue this outrageous

pursuit is beyond reason. Especially Sun

Products & Oracle have both suffered major

losses in evaluation of their stock partially as

a result of this continued stalemate, and

bringing down Microsoft will not do a thing

to improve their lot in life. Only they can do

that by paying more attention to their own R

& D, and less to what other companies are

doing.

It has been said that ‘‘Politics is the art of

looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,

diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the

wrong remedies.’’

I am afraid that in this case this saying

applies.

Respectfully,

Norman & Isabella Chapman

CC:Norman Chapman (E-mail)

MTC–00007253

From: LMELittle@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:25pm

Subject: (no subject)

We need an engine to pull us out of this

recession. Don’t impose sanctions that will

cripple this excellent company. It appears

that the government (Justice Depaartment)

was acturlly an instrument of Microsoft’s

competitors. Even after the government

settled, the states (instruments of Microsoft’s

competitors) wants to prolong this case. Lets

move on

MTC–00007254

From: Alan R. Williams DVM

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:25pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs:

I would like to ask that the Microsoft

settlement be finished as soon as possible.

Why is it necessary to drag this out? The time

and money spent on addressing this issue is

a total waste. Isn’t there something more

important to spend our tax dollar$ on than

addressing an issue that is no longer

relevant?

Please do us all a favor and settle this

lawsuit ASAP. Let Microsoft get on with it’s

business and address some issues that have

some real relevance.

Thank you alan

Alan R. Williams DVM

Mount Vernon, WA

Home of the Tulip Festival

MTC–00007255

From: Retlaw317@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:25pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN;

The settlement is tough, but reasonable and

fair to all parties involved. Please let the

settlement stand and stop all of this useless

and unfair persecution and litigation by

greedy and profit hungry companies who are

and have been consumed by bitterness over

Microsoft’s success. Let the settlement stand!

Thank you for your attention to this E Mail.

Walter E Grauman

MTC–00007256

From: papapoet@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the DOJ—

Drop this case against MSFT, now! You

people get something else to amuse yourself

with. You and your State Attorneys General

co-conspirators have dragged this silly case

on long enough. There is a settlement. The

lawyers have had their snout in the trough

long enough. Now, go after some things that

really matter, i.e., for starters, Enron and

Arther Anderson and their White House oil,

gas, and power plotters; Cheney and his

secret oil executives cabal; the files of

previous administrations buried by Executive

24898 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Order. That ought to keep you out of the

weight room for a while.

G.D.Patterson

MTC–00007257

From: Beth Carter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:25pm

Subject: I feel that the DOJ has been unjust

to Microsoft since the beginning of their

investigation. There I feel that the DOJ

has been unjust to Microsoft since the

beginning of their investigation. There

are options if people do not want to use

Microsoft products. Bill Gates tried to

give some type of standardization to an

industry which desperately needed it

and was persecuted because a few

companies could not do what he did. My

opinion is to leave him alone.

MTC–00007258

From: jbonin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:25pm

Subject: economy

the last thing america economy needs is

more litigation

MTC–00007259

From: Tom Witte

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please do not let Microsoft get away with

their illegal actions. Please insure they are

given TIMELY, appropriate punishment.

Something that corrects the problem, not the

recent ’let us take’ education market for

punishment.

Do something you can be proud of.

Something that makes the US a better place.

Thanks

Tom Witte

MTC–00007260

From: Kim Peterson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement December 2,

2002

To Department Of Justice.

I’m very satisfied with the settlement

between Microsoft and US Department Of

Justice. The following is the main reason. As

a US citizen is my duty to try my best to

provide any information that is good for our

country.

I reviewed all documents related to the

Microsoft and US DOJ case: Including

‘‘Complaint (5/18/1998)’’, ‘‘Stipulation (11/

06/2001)’’, and ‘‘Competitive Impact

Statement (11/15/2001)’’.

In the settlement package ‘‘Stipulation’’.

Page 4 III. Prohibited Conduct.

Page 10 IV . Compliance and Enforcement

Procedures.

Page 17 V. Termination.

Page 18 VI. Definition.

Page 21 VII. Further Element.

VIII. Third Party Rights.

The Department Of Justice gave Microsoft

a very strong order, more stronger than the

competition complainted about. I’m very

happy that Microsoft agrees to this final

settlement.

Sincerely

KIM L PETERSON

MTC–00007261

From: Hans Huang

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:28pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

DEAR DOJ: Please settle the Microsoft case

and move forward,,,it is good for consumers,

good for economy, good for innovatins.....The

opposition companies such as Oracle, Sun

Micro should spen their enery writing codes

instead of law suit.... Hans Huang

EVERY DAY IS A GOOD DAY

Hans Huang, Executive QA Pgm Mgr,

APQA

IBM APSC; 3–2–31 Roppongi, Tokyo,

Japan;

Tel: 81–3–5572–2606; Fax: 81–3–5572–

2448

Internet: hch@us.ibm.com or

hhuang@jp.ibm.com

MTC–00007262

From: be(u)an

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:27pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Honorable Judges:

It appears after reading the documentation

provided that the settlement is fair and

reasonable to the consumer. It appears that

Microsoft and non-Microsoft software

products will be available to the consumers

through various means when purchasing a

computer.

I support the Settlement that has been

proposed. Anita C. Young ,168 East 54th

Street, Elmwood Park, NJ 07407

MTC–00007263

From: JBerg93591@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I have watched the proceedings against

Microsoft now for nearly four years. All

parties have had the chance to present

evidence and have their say on how

Microsoft has damaged them or helped them

in terms of antitrust concerns. Despite the

aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of

Microsoft’s competitors, the Government and

nine states have finally reached a

comprehensive agreement. The settlement is

reasonable and fair to all parties. I, as a

consumer, agree that the settlement is good

for me and I believe the agreement is also

good for the industry and the American

economy. Let’s wrap it up and move on!

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Berg

29333 SE 64th St

Issaquah, WA 98027

MTC–00007264

From: DPWPoot@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please leave Microsoft alone. Lets try and

regulate the airlines instead

MTC–00007265

From: Zsmrtfred@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Can’t you just leave Microsoft alone. Try

naming just one other company that has put

out so much software that almost everyone

can aford it. Now you are tring to stop

themfrom giving us even more for our dollar.

Fred Sparrevohn

MTC–00007266

From: berkjen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my express opinion that further

punitive action toward Microsoft would not

be of any benefit to our country’s citizens and

consumers. Microsoft and it’s products have

attributed greatly to the progress of

technology, to our country’s economy, to the

way companies do business today, to the

lifestyles of our citizens and the quality of

education of our children and college

students.

It is also my opinion that the lawsuit

against Microsoft has actually harmed our

economy. I believe further punitive measures

could actually hold back the growth of

technology and hinder the consumer in the

long run.

I appreciate this opportunity to express my

opinion on the Microsoft Settlement.

Inez M. Jensen

MTC–00007267

From: ROBERT BRUCE MASON

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:32pm

Subject: Ongoing Case Against Microsoft

I am a holder of 500 shares of Microsoft,

but I do not submit this letter as a disgruntled

stockholder, but as a concerned citizen. To

set the record straight I also own stock in 45

other companies some, such as Sun

Microsystems and AOL Time Warner, are

Microsoft competitors. To be a competitor is

one thing, but to use our political system

(read that as Federal and State Government’s)

to put down a competitor is surely a different

matter. It has to be clear to everyone involved

in this mockery of justice that states housing

Microsoft competitors are being used (that is

their Federal and State elected

representatives) by these competitors to

accomplish what they couldn’t do to

compete. I hate to see a very successful

business being persecuted because of their

success. The money being wasted on

government and private lawyers is

disgraceful and angers me both as a

stockholder and a taxpayer. We should be

more interested in having more companies

pushing technological advances and creating

employment for our citizens than tearing

down a company that has and continues to

do just that. Obviously the current Judge and

half the states believe a just punishment has

been determined, please put an end to having

private industry using the government to

accomplish what they can’t do in head-tohead competition.

Please put this case to an end, I for one am

tired of supporting lawyers.

Thank you for allowing us common

citizens a chance to express our views on this

matter. I expect that’s one of the reasons I

spent over 30 years with the Marine Corps.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24899

Semper Fidelis,

Bob Mason (rmason@cox.rr.com)

MTC–00007268

From: lyonarch@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Attorney General,

The Administration’s support of the free

enterprise system is laudable. Please

continue in that direction and support a

good-spirited Microsoft settlement. The

entire settlement options have come down to

ego v ego. Use your enlightenment, Mr. AG,

and direct your position away from

bureaucratic character assasination. Mr.

Ashcroft is a good guy, and Gates et al are

also good guys. You all deserve credit for

guiding America along a reasonable path.

Sincerely,

Lyon Hesse

US Citizen & Hi Tech Supporter

MTC–00007269

From: Jay Contorer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:30pm

Subject: settlement

Gentlemen:

My feeling is this litigation has gone far

enough. No one has ever been hurt by

Mircosoft. They have in fact done a great

service to the computer industry and to the

users by their standardization of operating

systems, creating order from the chaos that

existed in this important area of computer

use. I think it might be possible that the

litigation urged by its competitors started the

recession we are now facing. Enough is

enough. The settlement is fair and should be

finalized asap in my view.

Sincerely,

Jay Contorer

MTC–00007270

From: Karen Lonergan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I wish to voice my thoughts on the pending

Microsoft settlement with the DOJ. As

someone who has used both Microsoft and

it’s competitor’s software for years, I think

the pending settlement is more than fair, and

I encourage you to expedite this settlement

as quickly as possible. As a consumer, I have

always had a choice at which software

products I could buy, and have frequently

made that choice. I will also say, that after

using many of the competitors software, I

more frequently am choosing Microsoft,

simply because they offer superior products

for my needs. Their price is worth their

weight in gold, and I find the pricing

nominal compared to the increased

productivity that is delivered to me.

Those points aside, please settle this case

as quickly as possible. THere are much bigger

and better uses of the DOJ’s resources, than

perpetuating this case.

Regards,

Karen Lonergan

MTC–00007271

From: Jotr2@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This misguided suit has gone on way too

long. The people supporting it are only

whining and need to be shut down. There is

no way that the internet and computing in

general would ever have got off the ground

if not for Microsoft. While Microsoft may not

be everyone’s favorite solution, let the

computer elites come up with a better one

that people will buy. In other words, let them

build a better mouse trap or shut up!

MTC–00007272

From: LBASTASUKI@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:34pm

Subject: microsoft

Please stop the litigation and do not stifle

innovation. Yours is only an exercise in

futility. The lawyers are the only ones to

profit. Remember we are at war and we need

all the new technological advances that

Microsoft can invent for us to lead into the

future. thanks

MTC–00007273

From: RPatel2468@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:33pm

Subject: Settlement

Please keep the terms of the settlement and

let us move on. To tie up our own tech giant

in these times is nothing unamerican and a

step back into disharmony.

Dr ravi Patel

MTC–00007274

From: Roger McVicker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the settlement is in the best

interest of the industry, the country and the

citizens who have invested in not only

Microsoft but in other companies of the Tech

Sector which all have been effected by the

protracted litigation. Approve the settlement

and lets all get on with life and other more

pressing issues. The Government has spent

enough on this issue and there is a resolution

in place. Roger McVicker

MTC–00007275

From: Jscully369@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I thought this matter would have been

settled months ago. Get off Microsoft’s and

the stock holders back unless you want it to

go the way of Enron.

John C. Scully

2677 Park Brown Road

Harrington, DE., 19952

(302) 284–3785

MTC–00007276

From: Eric (038) Velena Jensen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please end this mess! We have a companyMicrosoft- who represents what this country

was built on. Innovation!!! They did good

and now the government has to stomp them

down. The consumer loves their products.

Please settle this case post-haste and let

American ingenuity live on.

A taxpaying voterJon ‘‘Eric’’ Jensen

409 N. Edgewwod Dr.

Coffeyville, KS 67337

(620) 251–8766

MTC–00007277

From: Ruth Hartsook

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern:

I am emailing to state my thoughts and

support regarding the Microsoft settlement. I

support this settlement and am hoping that

there will be no chance that this litigation

will be prolonged in any way. The last thing

the American economy needs is more

litigation that stifles innovation or

diminishes our chances for economic

recovery. Please understand that we, as a

society, are concerned with greater issues

than the battle against a great American

company such as Microsoft. In my work in

education I see the many contributions

Microsoft makes to our youth, and therefore

to our nation’s future and only hope. In these

troubled times I believe most in our nation

do not even recognize this settlement as an

issue, and many are questioning whether it

ever should have. Let us but this behind us.

Please let this settlement come to

completion. Let us focus collectively on real

issues for our nation’s economic growth and

genuine security.

Sincerely,

Ruth Moore Hartsook

Instructional Technology Specialist

Davidson County Schools

Lexington, NC

MTC–00007278

From: Michael Fu

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Michael Fu

6 Shadowbrook Lane

Basking Ridge, NJ 07920

Dear Sir/Madame;

After reading through the related

documents to the settlement, I’d like to share

some of my thoughts. To begin, I am a

Microsoft stock holder. I also hold shares of

some other technology companies. I bought

Microsoft because of its unqiue (monopoly

like) position in its industry. However, I also

bought Microsoft stocks because I like its

products. There are some features which

Microsoft pushed hard on its operating

system which I would rather not have. But

in general, comparing to the other services,

AOL, AT&T, Cable, Utilities, I like the

Microsoft products best.

Now, the main reason I am writing this

letter. I am in agreement for most of the

proposals except for ‘‘Java’’ and ‘‘Netscape’’

clauses. I am for Microsoft because I don’t

think these parts of the case were brought by

the right group of people. They were not for

consumer, but for the competitors of

Microsoft. The major proponents of this case

are Sun, Oracle, AOL, and former NetScape.

24900 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

I have used all of their products extensively.

Some of their products are very good, but

definitely not cost effective for the majority.

They lost their market share to Microsoft not

because of Microsoft monopoly but because

of their strategies were not accepted by the

consumer. The consumer would not want to

pay several times more for his computing

systems. By the way, on one hand these

competitors are suing Microsoft for its

monopoly, on the other, they try very hard

to be the next Microsoft! I believe strongly,

Sun, Oracle and their accomplices are not for

consumer in general. Consumers would be

hurt even worse. Also, there is no such thing

as impeding technology innovations. As we

have seen, most of the tehnologies of late 90s

were hype and doomed to fail. The few that

remain will stand regardless of Microsoft or

not. It’s the nature of capitalistic market.

Thank you for your time.

Michael

MTC–00007279

From: Everett Snelson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is imperative that a settlement is made

now. Do not hamper innovation. There is no

evidence that the public has been hurt.

Please settle now!

Everett Snelson

MTC–00007280

From: Raj Sharma

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam

I have tried to follow the Microsoft court

battle and am suprised it wasn’t thrown out

of court!

Microsoft stand accused of ‘‘bundling’’

software. However, I think that it was a great

idea. As the owner of a technical support

company, i appreicate the fact that the

majority of users cannot install, configure or

use a web browser. Micrsoft has helped the

general public by provding this service. If

Microsoft were ‘‘bundling’’ Netscape with

Windows, I would be quite upset as my peers

and I agree that Netscape is a far inferior

product. Microsoft are giving me a preinstalled web browser which integrated into

my operating system to provide me greater

functionality.

I thought the law was there to protect my

interests, obviously the Americal Judical

System has decided to join the Micrsoft

bashing campaign!

Best wishes to Microsoft

Raj Sharma

rajs@rajsharma.dyndns.org

MTC–00007281

From: john kuzminski

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:38pm

Subject: re:settlement

I am in favor of microsoft settling their suit

dianne koehler

MTC–00007282

From: EAbercromb@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think enough damage has been done to

Microsoft already. It is time to get this case

over and let all parties concerned get on with

other matters affecting our economy.

Microsoft has developed products that are

generally well liked by it’s customers and

should not be penalized for simply

developing better products than it’s

competitors.

MTC–00007283

From: Dwight (038) Jan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:39pm

Subject: Fw: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Original Message

From: Dwight & Jan

To: mocrosoft.atr@usdojgov

Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 1:53 PM

Subject: Fw: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Original Message

From: Dwight & Jan

To: department of justice

Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:11 AM

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I’m normally proud of my state of

California in the way it used to handle its

political affairs. But not anymore, with the

present Governor and Attorney General

dumb dumb Bill Lockyer, all they can think

of is the next election, forget the taxpayers

and normal way of doing business.

The settlement that was offered and

accepted by the rest of the states, except

those like California, should have been

accepted and close that door once and for all.

How can the government expect a business

like Microsoft to survive if they have to

divulge their secrets that keeps them ahead

of their competition. That is not good

common sense, let’s get back to basics and

put an end to all these political games.

The first step would be to not allow

Microsoft competitors to voice their

opinions,.since they are prejudiced. The

second step would be to listen to the

consumers since they are the ones most

affected by your decision.

I sincerely hope you can make a difference

and do the right thing. Any questions call me

at (530)533–5954 or email me.

Yours truly,

Janet Lantsberger

MTC–00007284

From: Mike Goodejohn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am sending this e-mail as a concerned

consumer in the Microsoft antitrust case.

Even though I question why this case was

ever brought against Microsoft in the first

case, I believe that the government in its best

interest must obtain some sort of concession

from Microsoft and therefore think the

settlement proposed is fair and will finally

allow Microsoft to move forward.

As a consumer, I would like the

government to explain how I have been hurt

by Microsoft. I am an older individual and

was not exposed to a computer until 1990.

When I purchased my first computer and

wanted to access the internet, I was told I

needed to purchase a browser but later

learned that it was included in the Windows

operating system. An operating system which

is a standard for the computer industry and

makes it a more simple environment to

operate in.

Look at who is funding and spearheading

the attacks on Microsoft; Oracle and Sun

Microsystems. Why do you think they have

lobbied so much. If you can’t beat them in

a free economy then have the government go

after them. If Larry Ellison and Scott

McNeely would focus on their own

businesses and provide products that

consumers want at a reasonable cost, rather

than looking to the government to penalize

innovation, their companies would be much

better off and in a better competitive

position.

Where else in the world can I purchase an

operating system for around $75–$100 with

so many other programs and functions

included. I think the consumer wins. If

Microsoft didn’t bundle other programs in

it’s Windows operating system, how much

would the consumer have to pay for a

comparable system.

If California and Iowa want to continue

their litigation, maybe the government

should suggest a settlement to them that

would not allow Microsoft to sell any of its

products in the those two states or to any of

their residents. How long would it take for

the residents of those two states to raise the

roof on their Attorney General?

Michael L Goodejohn

20741 S.E. 3rd Way

Sammamish, WA 98074

MTC–00007285

From: Ken McSwain

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whomever it may concern:

I strongly agree that the Microsoft

Settlement is fair to all involved. I urge you

to do all in your power to put this matter

behind us and don’t let special interest

groups sabotage the agreement. I firmly

believe that this suit was a major factor in the

decline of the Stock Market beginning in

March of 2000. The resulting loss of capital

by all who hold stocks in retirement funds

are the real losers in the entire matter and the

settlement should be implemented with all

deliberate speed.

Sincerely,

Kenneth McSwain

719 Kleewood Drive

FULTON MO 65251

(573) 642–0606

MTC–00007286

From: Ellsil@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ:

The settlement that you negotoated with

Microsoft is in the best interest of our

country. The proof is that 9 of the states have

signed off and the other 9 are only trying to

make individual political gains for them

selves. The AG’S as we all know are political

animals and are just looking for votes in their

states. Don’t change the agreement.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24901

Elliot Silverman

MTC–00007287

From: AntjeElske@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am an ordinary stockholder of Microsoft

and have been following the settlement

efforts of the company. I believe that the

settlement under review is reasonable and

would like to add my support by writing this.

Best regards,

Antje E. Huck

MTC–00007288

From: Jjzipper@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:42pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

i believe that microsoft has done nothing

wrong. i believe the special interests and

competitors of microsoft have their own

interest at heart and not the general public,

who from what i can tell have gained from

the products that microsoft produces.

NO fines should be levied against a great

company and a great inovator like bill gates.

lets spend more time and money on the

terrorists and criminals.

jim zimmer

27823 184th Ct SE

KENT

WA 98042

MTC–00007289

From: Candace Brenneke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Lawsuit needs to be settled a.s.a.p. futher

delays are not necessary. This has lasted

longer then it should have already. I see no

advantage to continue for competition or

microsoft. Government intervention only cost

money and time for all parties.

Richard Brenneke

MTC–00007290

From: LAPTS@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the settlement in the Microsoft

Case should be settled as it was set by the

court.

Lois Smith

636 Lake Shore Drive

Pasadena, MD. 21122

MTC–00007291

From: Gary Louis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the present settlement should stand,

even though I think it was too punitive

towards Microsoft. I think consumers have

plenty of choices because of Microsoft and

any further litigation is a waste of time and

money and stifles creativity!

Gary Louis

Arcadia, CA 91006

garylouis@earthlink.net

MTC–00007292

From: JSerrantin@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:45pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

subject settlement is fair and should be

accepted by all parties. Special interests are

not concerned with consumers interests. End

this matter now.

MTC–00007293

From: Jeffrey Barnes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe enough time and resources have

gone into the effort spent prosecuting

Microsoft. This is the time to ratify the

settlement. Those states that are protesting

this agreement are just grandstanding for the

sake of the companyies that compete with

Microsoft. This proposed settlement is fair.

Lets get it done!

MTC–00007294

From: Klaus Meyn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:43pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

It is my expressed wish that the settlement

between the government and 9 States on one

hand and Microsoft be ratified. I view it as

fair and it is about time that we put this case

behind us. It is further my hope and wish

that the other 9 States not part of the

agreement join the government.

Although I am a resident of Redmond,

where the Microsoft headquarters are, I am

not an employee or otherwise connected with

Microsoft. I have always failed to see how the

consumers have been hurt by Microsoft’s

operation. They are a stellar corporation and

an excellent corporate neighbor.

Sincerely,

Klaus and Nancy Meyn

6305–159th Place NE

Redmond, WA 98052

MTC–00007295

From: Martin Collins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:46pm

Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement

from Orlando

To the Department of Justice:

I have followed this action, and I feel that

the nine sates that are mounting a separate

settlement effort, are on an agenda to line

their pockets with false hopes of income. It

seems that dissent will always be a part of

any settlement, and we must move forward

to quickly finish this case, and move on.

Please implement the terms of the

settlement, and minimize the expense of the

on-going litigation from Florida.

Martin Collins

MTC–00007296

From: Joe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I was pleased to note that the Department

of Justice had finally decided that there was

no profit in persecuting Microsoft any further

and has tentatively accepted a settlement

that, while still not fair to Microsoft, will at

least end the legal battles and allow them to

continue to innovate the PC industry. I

honestly feel that it is unfair that Microsoft

will be forced to allow its competitors to see

the code for their products. To me, that looks

a bit like industrial espionage, you try to see

what the competition is doing and find a way

to use it and make it better. In fact, Microsoft

got sued a few years ago by a little company

called Stac for using a similar compression

algorithm in a disk compression utility.

Thank you for finally showing some good

sense and letting this thing die.

Sincerely,

Joseph Tait

Duvall, WA

MTC–00007297

From: Jack Heeger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to urge the settlement of the

Microsoft case. As a consumer, I still fail to

see how I have been hurt by Microsoft.

Instead, I do feel that as a consumer I have

been hurt by the constant attacks on

Microsoft during the past few years by a few

competitors who apparently cannot compete

in the marketplace but instead must rely on

government to help them, and in doing so,

have stifled innovation.

Please settle this case and allow us all to

move on. Once this is settled, the high tech

industry can begin to innovate again and a

company can build a better product without

fear of being sued and consumers will reap

the benefits. The economy needs a boost. The

settlement of this case will help give that

boost.

Jack J. Heeger

15 Hall Court

Napa, CA 94558

e-mail: jheeger@pacbell.net

MTC–00007298

From: Sudeep Bharati

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Jan 2nd 2002

I fully support the US DOJ and Microsoft

settlement of the anti-trust case. It is time to

end this litigation. I don’t believe the

prolonged court proceedings will produce

any thing drastically different than the

current settlement. I think the current

settlement is fair. It will let Microsoft

innovate and also send a message to its

competitors that even companies with

dominant market share have right to improve

and innovate their products.

I recently read the penalties that are being

sought by the non-settling states and I just

cannot understand most of their demands.

These demands seem to imply that they won

on all points in the appeals court which was

not the case and they are not pursuing those

aspects any longer. I just cannot imagine how

that kind of relief can be won in the courts

given the appeals court verdict.

Thanks for the opportunity to let me give

my comments on this important subject

matter.

Sudeep Bharati

3272 165th PL NE

Bellevue WA 98008

24902 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

http://explorer.msn.com

MTC–00007299

From: RandyDlta@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:48pm

Subject: (no subject)

DOJ,

Haven’t you got more legitimate cases to

spend our taxpayers money on? Get off

Microsoft’s back. Bill Gates has done more

for this country’s economy, provided more

technical innovation, and donated more to

charity than all the democrats combined for

the past 20 years.

Larry Herbst

MTC–00007300

From: Tutbone@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir:

I want to let you know that it is my opinion

that the Microsoft Corporation should not be

punished by the government.

Thank you,

Frank Nalbone

MTC–00007301

From: McLeanNJ@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This entire process has been a waste of

time and taxpayers money. America is (or is

supposed to) be the land of opportunity.

Microsoft made a better widget. Has always

been innovative in product development, and

doesn’t deserve to be treated as it has been.

Every time the government involves

themselves in processes such as this, it is for

the sole purpose of distraction from so many

other, more critical situations existing today.

Time spent on these would be much more

appropriate. It wasn’t too long ago that the

Federal Government divided up the most

dependable, successful telephone system.

Look at that positive outcome!!. Mexico has

a better telephone system than we do. Ours

is fragmented at best. The fact that Microsoft

Corporation has been able to maintain, and

further enhance software and systems in a

poor financial market as we are experiencing

is to their credit. The Federal Government

should settle this situation and get on with

correcting problems and situations which

threaten our very existence.

MTC–00007302

From: Bob Brandenburg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Legal action against Microsoft has gone far

enough. Further action is a waste of tax

dollars and contrary to the best interests of

the national and world economy. Only self

serving parties with special interests want it

to continue. Please confirm the settlement

and let all parties concern themselves with

more productive activities.

Bob Brandenburg

13115 Pleasant Place

Nurnsville, MN 55337

MTC–00007303

From: Paul D. Weatherford

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:50pm

Subject: *Don’t just slap the hands of a

Monopolizer.’’

If the judgment passed on Microsoft had

contained an adequate penalty maybe you

would not have so many states desiring to

apply stricter standards than what were

imposed.

Their software is intrusive on the average

buyer. They control the software even after

it has been sold to the customer who should

have rights to implement for his use without

checking for Microsoft’s approval. I am

forced to take much of their software because

they control the manufacturers which

include their software without a choice

among the manufacturers. The manufacturers

are blackmailed into accepting Microsoft

software because of their monopoly of the

operating system. There is a lot of other

software out there I had rather have a choice

of, but I am forced to accept what the

manufacturer sends me because they are also

coerced to follow Microsoft’s demand or lose

the operating system used on computers

which they have monopolized in the market.

There are elements in their operating system

software that forces you to use because it is

included. There are programs from other

software manufacturers that just will not

because they have been excluded from the

possibility of competing with Microsoft. I

have used Lotus SmartSuite for a number of

years, but the advent of Windows XP

prevents me from using my old software. So,

I was forced to buy new Lotus SmartSuite

which will work on the old Windows ME

operating system. If you want the benefit of

a better operating system, you are forced to

buy new software.

I have Windows Office Professional which

I received with my new computer in March

2001, but all of my documents are under

Lotus SmartSuite. So, I had to partition my

60 Gig hard drive and put Windows XP on

one drive and Windows ME on the other.

Otherwise, Windows XP would have made a

plethora of my software obsolete. Software is

not cheap, as if Microsoft cared about the

final customer. No judgment against

Microsoft would be too harsh against such a

selfish company.

Maybe you have heard of Microsofts’

largess to our schools. They gave them old

machines—not current technology. The

schools have to do upgrades of these

computers to enable them to work for the

benefit of students in the classroom. What a

farce. No doubt they are taking a big tax

write-off for their charitable donation.

MTC–00007304

From: BOBMYRTA@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We agree that the Microsoft Settlement

should be final. Microsoft has accepted the

settlement as tough but fair. Any more

litigation is a waste of monies and only

serves greedy lawyers and companies who

want something for nothing.

Robert and Myrta Convery

1610 N Pine St

Post Falls, ID 83854

MTC–00007305

From: VLBMC@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:49pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

As a concerned citizen I have read many

news stories about the proposed settlement

with Microsoft. I think the settlement terms

are very generous and this case should be

settled. It serves no public interest to

continue to drag this out. Enough is enough,

settle and lets get on with far more important

business.

Vikki mcIlwain

MTC–00007306

From: David Bernstein

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:50pm

Subject: The Microsoft Settlement

Please, in the interests of our economy and

justice let the current agreement between

Microsoft, The Federal Government, and the

nine states stand as final. The agreement is

fine, and there need not be any further

litigation on the Microsoft settlement.

David Bernstein

Mercer Island, Washington

MTC–00007307

From: Albstein@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please finalize the suit against Microsoft

along the lines that was previously agreed to

by most of the states and the Federal

government. This has been going on too long.

A final settlement could jump start the stock

market and confidence.

Albert Steinhart—

Lake Worth, Florida

Albstein@aol.com

MTC–00007308

From: Lee Foropoulos

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:51pm

Subject: You’ll are some money wasting

bufoons

I personally am glad you have finally

settled your landmark antitrust case with

Microsoft. Maybe now you’ll can find

something more important to waste our tax

money on. Next time you take a software

vender to court why don’t you guys try and

pick one that isn’t responsible for PCs going

mainstream. DOS was weak. Netscape sucks.

And without windows you and the rest of

your outdated colleges wouldn’t even no

where to begin to check your email. Tell you

what next time you decide to attempt to

prosecute a software vender go and take some

programming classes and learn the ancient

stuff people used in the past to code in.

When your done go try out some of

Microsofts software developement tools.

Then go write a fully functioning application

using something lam like Cobol or Fortran,

without the win32 APIs and sell it ( yeah

right).

I would imagine a lot of consumers

complain about Microsoft too. Unfortunatly

the majority of these individuals went to

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24903

some wholesale club and bought what they

thought was a good deal. In fact it resembled

a computer and it had windows on it.

Unfortunantly it was obsolete and barely had

the power to run half the software

preinstalled on it including Windows

without locking up. So they blame Microsoft;

and are tremedously at error in doing so.

They should have bought a real computer.

If I was to state a negative claim against

Microsoft it would be their new method of

tech support $35 per incident. Thats their

business though in my opinion. I would

imagine they have people that don’t know

anything about PCs bugging them nonstop

every day all day. I’m sure that for $35 an

incident people are gonna be less prone to

call Microsoft and say ‘‘Hey Man!? I think I

broke the internet!!!!’’. The down side is that

even well educated Windows pros are at

some point going to find an annoying bug our

have an incident that maybe not so much

requires but would sure be nice to talk to the

software manufacturer about. But for $35 per

incident I’ll back up my data format C:\ and

start from scratch any day of the week over

calling them.

I personally think the entire tech industry

will feel your wrath tenfold anytime you toy

with Microsoft. Without Microsoft there

might as well be no tech industry. You guys

should follow old wise proverbs like ‘‘If It

Aint Broke Don’t Fix It.’’

Lee Foropoulos

stavrose@greek-fire.com

MTC–00007309

From: David Wong

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs:

I am here to voice my opinions about

Microsoft. I’ve been in the IT (Information

Technology) Industry for over 23 years. I am

here to applaud the job Microsoft has done

in standardizing the Industry. Prior to

Microsoft, you had OS/2, Apple, and dozens

of flavors of UNIX. The result was few

application software and hardware verndors

per flavor of operating system, resulting in

very over inflated prices. (Note: apple and

UNIX software and hardware is still much

more expensive then comparable PC

products.) With the advent of Windows,

application software and related hardware

prices came down significantly. Consumers

benefited more then at any other time in the

entire history of the industry. I say that

Microsoft deserves anything it can reasonably

get for accomplishing this feat.

To want to purposely break up the

Windows standard is in my opinion:

INSANE. It will mean higher prices for niche

products that support non-standard, noncritical-mass operating systems (at least until

a competitor creates another monopoly

operating system). So my opinion is that

anything you do to break the Windows

standard is BAD for the CONSUMER and

good for Microsoft competitors ONLY.

Thanks for reading my opinion ...

MTC–00007310

From: Ursula W. Foust

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Stop any further litigation. The settlement

is fair and just for both parties.

Ursula Foust

MTC–00007311

From: JHerzf8892@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement See attached.

MTC–00007311 0001

January 2, 2002

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

I am writing to urge you to quickly finalize

the settlement between Microsoft and the

Department of Justice. The settlement has

prevented Microsoft from focusing on

technology for long enough, and it is time for

the company to move on.

This settlement provides for reasonable

restrictions on Microsoft and allows for

proper government and industry oversight.

Microsoft will share access to its software

code, and provide documentation on the

internal workings of the Windows operating

system. Additionally, Microsoft will change

its marketing and licensing practices to allow

its competitors more of a chance in the

market.

In the three years since this antitrust case

began, Microsoft has been besieged by

lawyers, preventing the company from

performing its primary duty of producing

quality software. Please see that this ceases

to be the case; please finalize the settlement.

Sincerely,

John Herzfeld

MTC–00007311_0002

MTC–00007312

From: JEGBERT457@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel that Microsoft should be left alone to

conduct its business as it sees fit. This

country is a free enterprise country and just

because they are more successful, they

should not be penalized for being so good.

Had the Clinton Admn. not started picking

on Microsoft because one of Clinton’s best

friends was a powerful figure in a competing

company, none of this would have happened.

Millie Jones

MTC–00007313

From: Charles McDonald

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To DOJ:

This is a joke. Companies should have the

freedom to do business as they see fit. The

DOJ and all the plaintiffs need to get a life.

If you want to compete with Microsoft, then

get your ass off the couch and do your

homework. Bill Gates built a company with

hard work and innovations that have helped

the American people and the economy. Not

to mention all the money he has given to

charities. Back off and direct your energy

towards a company like Enron, who stole

from millions of hard working people.

Sincerely,

Charles W. McDonald

MTC–00007314

From: DAVCOMPANY@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We believe the settlement under the

Tunney Act is a fair settlement. Please put

our names on the approval list and I hope

that the Attorneys General of the States,

including ours, California, withdraw their

objections. Most people in this nation want

this matter behind us and we feel that the

only people not in favor of the settlement are

trying to bring person politics into it and

their back pockets and not interested in what

is good for the country.

Sincerely,

James R. and Eileen Davis

Diamond Bar, CA

MTC–00007315

From: Gary Harmatz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:54pm

Subject: Mircosoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

It is my firm belief that the current

settlement with Microsoft is fair and just. To

peruse this any further will be a waste of

time and tax payers’ money.

In advance, thank for what you do and

your kind attention.

Respectfully,

Gary Harmatz

MTC–00007316

From: Kaylie Utter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:48pm

Subject: It is very important to settle the

Microsoft case in my opinion. This has

dragged on far too long.

It is very important to settle the Microsoft

case in my opinion. This has dragged on far

too long. It seems that Microsoft has been

under a unique attack against its creativity in

bringing products and functionality to the

American consumer.

If Microsoft is such a monopoly, please tell

me what government granted it and how it

has hurt the public. In the early days of

computers, no two were alike. Custom

programming was the norm. Microsoft

opened a whole new world of

communications and capabilities for small

business to compete against both big and

other small business because of the

affordable and compatible computing power

put on the desktop. Mainframes were no

longer required and I hold Microsoft

responsible as much as any other

organization for that great boon to the planet.

They should be allowed to continue to serve

American and world consumers unshackled

or at least out from under the burden of

government intrusion. It’s called

competition. And that competition has

brought the greatest new age of

communication the world has ever known.

If the new definition of monopoly is being

the market leader, then perhaps you should

24904 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

consider pursuing Cisco Systems for

controlling an estimated 95% of the software

market running internet servers. Or what

about AOL-Time Warner. Are they not the

largest ISP by far. Heavens, where was the

DOJ when that happened.

Please settle and let Microsoft get on with

creativity in computing.

Kaylie Utter

Bozeman, Montana

MTC–00007317

From: patricia mcclain

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam:

I feel that the action against Mircosoft

should be finished. The issues have been

corrected. Please settle this so everyone can

benefit from the new products and ideas

developed by free enterprise.

Thank you.

Patricia McClain

MTC–00007318

From: Don Kelley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Department of Justice,

Please stop this unjust prosecution of one

of America’s finest companies (e.g.

Microsoft). Accept the settlement offer.

Don

MTC–00007319

From: Chris H.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it may concern,

I cannot stress enough the importance of

keeping the Microsoft company intact and

my disgust at their competitors for using the

government as a weapon to tear apart the

company at the expense of destroying the

industry and the public faith. Any further

action against Microsoft sets a bad

precedence in the business community at

large. The companies that have set this in

motion are using the term ‘‘Monopoly’’ to

describe Microsoft’s success and blaming

them for their own failures.

On a personal level this really hits home.

I have been trying to start my career in the

IT industry for a few months now. It’s has

been tough just trying to land an interview

let alone trying to find a company that’s

hiring entry level programmers. Microsoft is

at the top of their game and most, if not all

schools, teach their students using Microsoft

technologies. Why do they do this? Is it

because of their so-called ‘‘Monopoly’’

power? I think not. It is because Microsoft

has become the industry standard and the

base of the IT industry. Most businesses use

Microsoft technologies in their day to day

business transactions. Why is this, a

‘‘Monopoly’’ again? The answer is no!

Microsoft has consistently provided todays

companies with quality and innovative

products year after year. There are

alternatives to using Microsoft products out

there. Anyone in the IT business knows this

and most chose not to use them. Is this

choice based on the perceived, ‘‘Monopoly’’?

No, it is because what Microsoft offers is a

better product. What happens when you keep

chipping away at the foundation or base of

a building? Eventually the whole building

comes crashing down! Do this to the base,

foundation if you will, of the IT industry and

so too would the whole IT industry and the

American economy! Please do not let this

happen!

Sincerely,

Chris Higgins

psyrus7@yahoo.com

MTC–00007320

From: Donakerley@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:55pm

Subject: (no subject)

To Whom It May Concern:

My Wife And I are in agreement with the

settlement already worked out with

Microsoft. We don’t feel they were guilty of

monopoly to begin with.

MTC–00007321

From: Joseph A Coyle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The long awaited settlement of this case is

within reach. Now is not the time to let it slip

away. As a small user out here in the real

world, and from that perspective, I see

Microsoft as a benevolent dictatorship. Yes

they dominate the industry but, every time

they take on a new market, that market

improves. And for me, that’s a good thing.

Like it or not, Microsoft is the engine that

drives the industry. They are the push (and

in all too many cases the pull). Their

competitors are holding the industry back.

Through lack of imagination and energy, they

sit on ideas and innovations. Through

complacency, they fail to hear the wakeup

call until it’s too late. No wonder they are

frightened when they see Microsoft coming.

Joseph A Coyle

535 Franklin Circle

Harleysville, PA 19438–2362

E-mail: coyote@netreach.net

MTC–00007322

From: Harlan F. Hobbs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen.....

I strongly urge the DOJ and the various

State Attorneys General to settle the

Microsoft case as soon as possible. A quick

settlement will help the economy move

forward.

Thank you;

Harlan F. Hobbs

MTC–00007323

From: Shelley Blumberg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

‘‘844 Beechwood Drive, Havertown,

Pennsylvania, 19083’’

January 2, 2001

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

I am pleased that a settlement has finally

been reached in the Microsoft antitrust

dispute. This legal battle has gone on long

enough and has caused an increase in

wasteful spending in state budgets and the

misuse of American tax dollars.

Even though the settlement goes further

than what Microsoft would have liked, it

feels that settling the case now is the best

thing to do to help the industry and economy

move forward. The settlement is fair and

reasonable, and was arrived at after extensive

negotiations with a court appointed

mediator.

We have spent enough time and financial

resources on this legal battle. Microsoft needs

to stop litigating and resume innovating.

Thank you for helping to make this

settlement happen.

Sincerely,

Shelley Blumberg

cc: Senator Rick Santorum

MTC–00007324

From: Bob Jennings

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

At this critical time for our country, with

all the political and economic uncertainty, I

urge you to actively continue the settlement

efforts in this litigation.

Thank You

Robert Jennings

MTC–00007325

From: Joseph Sirianni

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:59pm

Subject: Microsoft

Let’s please settle the Microsoft case and

not subject them to further litigation.

Joe Sirianni

MTC–00007326

From: manhar nandani

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

I have read the settlement between DOJ

and Microsoft and I think its a great

settlement for everybody. We should put this

issue behind and get on with our life and let

Microsoft be the most innovative company in

the world so that everybody benefits from the

greatest software at reasonble price without

being a monopolist.

Thank you for the opportunity to express

my views.

Manhar Nandani

MTC–00007327

From: Earle Burger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:59pm

Subject: SETTLE THE CASE

Let’s settle the case and stop punishing a

company for being entrepreneurial.

Earle Burger

HR Consultant

MTC–00007328

From: LHearshman@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:59pm

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24905

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a long time stockholder of Microsoft

and I think this whole case was a farce and

a waste of time and money. I do not agree

with the settlement situation; however, to get

this whole thing ended I think it should be

done as fast as possible. Let’s get the US back

on the road to productivity and OUT OF THE

COURT SYSTEM. Stop this insanity now.

Lori Hearshman

PO Box 35834

Des Moines, IA 50315

MTC–00007329

From: Erik N. Funk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:00pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Dear Department of Justice:

Please record this citizen’s comment as one

strongly in favor of rapid, reasonable

settlement of the Microsoft saga. We’ve spent

enough non-value adding energy on the case.

Microsoft is ready to make a substantial

donation to educational institutions. . . let’s

PLEASE move on.

Thanks for your attention and interest in

better government that costs less.

Sincerely,

Erik Funk

MTC–00007330

From: Sanford Gruskin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

2 January 2002

United States Department of Justice,

In regards to the Microsoft settlement, I

would like to express my views as consumer,

senior citizen and most importantly as a U.S.

citizen during a time demanding unity not

diversity amoung our people.

I was raised in the midwestern states in a

middle class family. I was brought up to

believe in the American Way, namely built

a good product, capture market share and be

praised for success.

We seem to have developed into an

environment where success is a forbidden

word. Microsoft has developed a good

product that is user friendly—much the same

senerio as Henry Ford and the Model T. It is

within the reach of the average American

both in the skills required to use it and the

cost of the product.

Lets get on with our tecnology, allow the

case to be settled, and wait for the next best

product to take over the helm. The last thing

we need in our society at this time is more

litigation.

Sanford Gruskin

726 Mill Walk NW

Atlanta, GA 30327

MTC–00007331

From: JHerzf8892@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 7:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

See attached.

January 2, 2002

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

I am writing to urge you to quickly finalize

the settlement between Microsoft and the

Department of Justice. The settlement has

prevented Microsoft from focusing on

technology for long enough, and it is time for

the company to move on.

This settlement provides for reasonable

restrictions on Microsoft and allows for

proper government and industry oversight.

Microsoft will share access to its software

code, and provide documentation on the

internal workings of the Windows operating

system. Additionally, Microsoft will change

its marketing and licensing practices to allow

its competitors more of a chance in the

market.

In the three years since this antitrust case

began, Microsoft has been besieged by

lawyers, preventing the company from

performing its primary duty of producing

quality software. Please see that this ceases

to be the case; please finalize the settlement.

Sincerely,

John Herzfeld

MTC–00007332

From: Donald

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I do not now nor have I ever been in favor

of the government telling Microsoft how to

run its business. I think you should drop the

whole thing.

Microsoft has made a lot of money for itself

and others. It continues to make money and

has been directly responsible for untold

thousands of jobs around the world.

If you just have a need to sue, try the US

Government. They take from the public,

waste huge amounts of cash and when they

run out they just take more while giving

themselves raises and the best benefit

package in the world. All the while they

don’t make money, no, not even close, we’re

trillions in the hole. If anything you should

ask Bill Gates for advice on turning our

Country around.

Let me make one other thing clear. I do not

now, nor have I ever owned Microsoft stock.

I do however believe that our government

that’s supposed to be, ‘‘by the people, for the

people’’ has turned ‘‘on the very people who

make this country great’’. You people tried

the same thing on IBM, then Bill Gates

dropped out of school and proved your

whole case to be a farce. We have even more

choices today than we had then but you and

other people like you still cry foul. Only

when you can put your own house in order

will I even start to listen.

I’m a registered voter who does not listen

to what the politicians say, I watch what they

do and I vote every chance I get.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my

opinion.

MTC–00007333

From: Michael Becker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:01pm

Subject:

I seriously disagree with the anti-trust

agreement that you are I seriously disagree

with the anti-trust agreement that you are

making with Microsoft. I hope that you will

reconsider. Everything that can be said about

the problems with the debate has been said.

It is your responsibility to ensure a

competitive market.

Do your job, split up Microsoft. There is no

reason to go easy on them. Microsoft only

makes this country look bad.

Michael Becker

CTO Jumping Jack Web

ACM Member

Student Drexel University

MTC–00007334

From: Bruce Hoffman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I received an e-mail note from Microsoft’s

MSFIN project soliciting any comment to the

DOJ on the proposed settlement. This is the

first time I have responded to their efforts to

keep the using public informed of the issues

facing them and the plaintiffs in this suit. My

opinion is that there were some anticompetitive efforts made by Microsoft that

bordered on using their virtual monopoly

position in some software for their

suppression of potential rivals. Nevertheless,

I think their business, which is so very far

removed from a commodity business (oil,

foodstuffs, wood products, etc.), is so

transitory in nature that innovation has to be

respected and rewarded as rapidly as

possible, since another better solution could

emerge in such a short time that market share

could mean nothing in the space of a few

years. I also feel that the enactment of the

settlement will bring an end to the chill on

innovation that the prior administrations

very zealous pursuit of this company has

blown over the software industry while

waiting for a resolution.

Thank you,

Bruce C. Hoffman

17 Grandin Terrace

Annandale, NJ 08801

MTC–00007335 11

From: Don Kelley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

8013 Hauser Drive

Lenexa, Kansas 66215

January 2, 2002

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:

Considering all the issues and problems

the federal government is dealing with, I

have wondered why so much of the

government’s attention has been directed

towards Bill Gates and Microsoft. Why

punish a man and a company that has been

key in the technological revolution that

benefits so many people? Microsoft will

disclose information about certain internal

interfaces in Windows, making it much

easier for its competitors to compete. This

disclosure will make it possible for

competitors to remove certain Microsoft

programs from the Windows system and

replace them with software from a different

source. Additionally, Microsoft will change

24906 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

the coding in such a way that Windows will

not suffer any reduction in performance

when working with non-Microsoft programs.

The decision of the Department of Justice

is fair to those parties who brought the

lawsuit against Microsoft in the first place. I

support the settlement.

Sincerely,

Jana Kelley

MTC–00007336

From: Mike Ernest

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

This private citizen wants the settlement

over as quick as possible. I do agree with

Apple contention that the proposed

settlement by MS could upset what balance

exists in the educational market. This should

be watched very carefully.

Michael V. Ernest, Sr.

2014 Rockwell Avenue

Catonsville, Maryland 21228–4218

Tele: (410)–747–1437

e-mail: mveble@erols.com

MTC–00007337

From: Microchair@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Dept of Justice:

You should be ashamed of yourself using

taxpayers money to persecute Microsoft!

They, almost single handedly, are

responsible for an unprecedented boost to the

American economy in the 1990s. No one,

including the government, came to their

start-up and offered financial assistance; they

did it on their own! Now, you wish to

penalize them for their success, even though

they took ALL the initial risks and weathered

all of the growing pains of any start-up

company. Have any of you calculated how

well your retirement investments did in the

90s as a result of Microsoft’s bold

innovations? What about the quality

enhancements to your workplace? Get this

over with! Leave Microsoft alone! Let other

companies use the same innovations to try to

compete with Microsoft, just as Microsoft did

to compete with the pre-existing giants (IBM,

HP, and others).

Michael Norgard,

Plano, Texas

MTC–00007338

From: james arnstein

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:03pm

Subject: Comments on the Microsoft Case

Dear Sir,

I think that after 4 years Microsoft has paid

its dues and should return to ‘‘business as

usual.’’ It seems the 9 states that have not

agreed to settle their disputes with Microsoft

will never be satisfied with any decision

short of breaking up Microsoft in their own

petty ways. To allow a ‘‘stripped down’’

version of Windows to be available, would be

like buying a Mercedes with just the shell

and the motor and allowing some other

company to build the remaining components

of the car. The nine states are acting in their

own self interest and at the expense of the

consumer and Microsoft. They need to get on

with the ‘‘lives.’’

James Arnstein

MTC–00007339

From: McDonaldMoses@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I fully agree that the agreement reached is

fair. This litigation has gone on far too long.

It is fair to all concerned and should be

settled now.

Louis R. Mc Donald

MTC–00007340

From: Martin Runyan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to support the settlement that

has been reached between the DOJ and

Microsoft. I believe it to be a balanced and

fair solution to a difficult problem. I am also

writing to encourage a speedy conclusion to

this matter. I believe our economy will be

seriously harmed if this issue continues to

burden our technology sector with

uncertainty and doubt.

Martin E. Runyan

Nokomis, Florida

MTC–00007342

From: DSmith9336@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ folks,

I would like to express my opinion re the

case against Microsoft and the settlement you

and some states have reached. First of all, I

do not think the case was justified in the first

place. It doesn’t seem to me that Microsoft is

guilty of anything beyond trying to build

better products that would most efficiently

serve the vast bulk of computer users. The

settlement you reached with Microsoft is far

far better than your original weird ideas

about breaking up the company.

I am not a lawyer but it seems very strange

to me that state Attorneys General have

anything to say about antitrust law. The nine

non-conforming Attorney Generals should go

back to dealing with state matters. The

competitors of Microsoft who are asking for

the government to make their life easier by

punishing Microsoft should compete in the

marketplace and not by lobbying you and

Congress.

It is time to put this ill-advised venture

behind us and move on.

Sincerely,

David A. Smith

20342 Ayoub Lane

Hagerstown, MD 21742

MTC–00007343

From: Karen Bradley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

For heavens sake, please settle this dispute

with Microsoft and do not let special interest

groups derail the settlement.

Microsoft has done nothing but help the

consumer in every way. To hurt Microsoft

any more is to hurt the consumer.

Please let the settlement stand that has

been agreed to.

Sincerely

Karen Bradley

MTC–00007344

From: John M. Cantey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

SETTLE ALL CLAIMS NOW!

MTC–00007345

From: ROBERT WOLFE

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft should be allowed to do as it

pleases.

MTC–00007346

From: g-mon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement...

I feel a settlement to the DOJ’s harrasment

of Microsoft Corp. is long overdue. The nine

states ‘‘holding out’’ on the agreement are

blatantly trying to position themselves so

they can extract more ‘‘tribute’’ from MS in

the future.

MTC–00007347

From: Josef Wernli

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough is enough! There has been a time

to voice grievances in court, there has been

a time to reach a settlement and now there

is time to move on. Litigation is not for giving

competitors free entry and an edge in the

market place which instead they should earn

with a better mousetrap to the benefit of

consumers.

I urge you to use your good judgement and

powers to put a final end to this litigation

and force competition to Microsoft to come

up with better software.

Sincerely,

Josef Wernli

4825 Forest Avenue S.E.

Mercer Island, WA 98040

MTC–00007348

From: KPKELLY7@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:09pm

Subject: Microsoft

We have been shareholders of Microsoft for

many years. The government has been unfair

to Microsoft, which is the greatest company

in America. We want you to settle the lawsuit

and to have the Tunney Act to be enacted.

Kevin and Marjorie Kelly

1335 N. Astor Street, #3A

Chicago, IL 60610

MTC–00007349

From: Peggy Marvelle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:10pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

It is imperative that the government settle

this issue....it is taking up our dollars and we

have more important things to be

concentrating on! I hate to think where we

would be without the vision of Microsoft!!

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24907

Peggy & Jerry Marvelle

MTC–00007350

From: HML101@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement...

To Whom it May Concern,

I have always thought that certain

competitors of Microsoft were really trying to

make life difficult and ‘‘yes’’ it is all about

money. I also believe that it’s time to stop

this war and let Microsoft get back to doing

the things it does best—or, I should say,

better than anyone else. Some people have

hoped to hurt Microsoft—it’s time for them

to get a life and let it be. I feel that some are

jealous of the fact that Microsoft was able to

bring so much to businesses and consumers,

alike. Microsoft is really only responsible for

the millions of computors now enjoyed by so

many and their compeditors only wish they

could have done as well. Then there is also

a huge amount of funds and software donated

to many in need. Do we owe Bill Gates a

humanitarian award—‘‘YES’’...

No Settlement Required

HML

MTC–00007351

From: COettinger@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:11pm

Subject: microsoft states suit

Dear Sirs;

I am mortified by the behavior of

individual states suits, particularly the

Attorney General of Connecticut. I saw an

appearance he made on CNBC and was

amazed at the blatant arrogance of this so

called official. After the government settled

the suit, how is it possible to continue legal

harrassment of Microsoft? What is the

motive? Greed? Notoriety? Both? The legal

system is seriously flawed to permit such

continued abuse of the system. No wonder

lawyers have no respect.

Carl Oettinger M.D.

MTC–00007352

From: EST344@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:10pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement.

Not being a computer expert it is my

understanding that Microsoft’s software

enables novices like me to easily access the

information they desire via the computer and

the Internet by making all the different

systems work easily together. If the

competitor had a better product I sincerely

believe that the public would had demanded

it through the power of the marketplace.

There are a lot of large companies in the

world and they are not able to stifle

competition, if anything competition makes

one more perceptive to the needs of their

customers and bring about innovative ideas.

This is the American way of doing business.

The companies that are crying foul are not

little upstarts but major competitors. If the

public chose Microsoft’s product over theirs

they just have to go back to the drawing

board. I am tired of lawyers making a fortune

at the expense of J. Q. Public. I think this case

should be settled and that the time to do so

is NOW.

Esther Tolan

MTC–00007353

From: Cathy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel the agreement should stand & this

case should be closed...enough is

enough...freedom to innovate is what this

country is about & we need innovation now

more than ever!

Cathy L. Mills

Pleasant Prairie, WI, USA

MTC–00007354

From: twickers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:10pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

It is unnecessary to prolong this case

against Microsoft. The settlement is fair and

reasonable and it would be a waste of

taxpayer funds to continue to litigate. Those

who press to continue the litigation appear

to be competitors seeking to use the federal

government as a weapon to further their own

ends. Justice has been done and has been

seen to be done.

Patrick Harden,

Annandale, Virginia.

MTC–00007355

From: crbasswwtx@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:11pm

Subject: Settle Microsoft Suir Quickly.

From: crbasswwtx@att.net

To: microsoft.atr@usdj.gov

Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 01:00:05 +0000

Dear Sir: I am concerned about a quick

settlement of the Microsoft Case. I feel this

should never been entered into our Judicial

System. I have bought and own some ‘‘high

tech’’ stocks which have suffered because of

this lawsuit. I feel the quicker this suit is

settled our entire markets system will move

in a positive way. Hope so anyway. I feel Bill

Gates made a mistake when he bragged he

didn’t give to a PAC. Had he taken several

million to Washington DC and passed it

around among the politicians this suit would

never been filed. Our entire country has

suffered because of an attempt to strangle free

enterprise and creative development by

Microsoft.

Sincerely,

C. Edward Bass, Woodway,

TX

MTC–00007356

From: RHoover478@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I support Microsoft in this settlement.

Please complete it.

Richard S Hoover

15405 91st Ave SE

Snohomish, WA 98296

MTC–00007357

From: Steven H. Steinberg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:12pm

Subject: Microsoft case

It is time to settle this mess. The terms

which have been worked out by the Justice

Dept. and half of the States is fine. The other

states can stop representing Microsoft’s

competition and settle. It is fair and just.

Let’s move on.

Steven H. Steinberg

10005 Ivybridge Circle

Louisville, KY 40241

Steven-h@home.com

MTC–00007358

From: Collins, Ned

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 8:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The government should not kill successful

companies, leave that to the marketplace.

Settle this thing so companies can innovate,

Microsoft and their competitors, without

worry that the government will smash them

if they are too successful.

Ned Collins,

tax payer

MTC–00007359

From: Garcand@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let’s get this thing settled! Frankly I

thought the suit was ridiculous in the first

place. My opinion is that the states that

brought suit were the ones who had

companies within their boundaries that did

not have the innovative ability to keep up

with Microsoft so they compete by bringing

law suits to slow down a company that does.

With the economy the way it is this country

doesn’t need anything else to inhibit it. It is

entirely possible that these suits brought by

the Justice Department and the states played

a big part in creating the recession we are

now in. Microsoft has apparently agreed to

the proposed settlement (which is unfair to

Microsoft anyway) so lets settle it.

Consumers have not been hurt by Microsoft’s

practices but I believe they have been hurt by

this law suit.

Garnett Arcand

MTC–00007360

From: Jack Fenchel

To: Microsoft Monopoly, Attorney General

Date: 1/2/02 8:11pm

Subject: Microsoft

Constitution< Article > 1 >Section > 10,

>1, The Constitution, is very clear and

prohibits S.A.G’s, from using certain powers

by impairing Microsoft, Contracts.

>Constitution of the United States.< >Section

(10) 1, States Prohibited from exercise of

certain Powers<

Hal Stratton, a former Attorney General, of

New Mexico, says States, should think

carefully before they branch out beyond their

traditional functions. Could this be the

reason Microsoft, wants a delay?

Thank you, God Bless America,

Jack Fenchel,

185 Friendship Rd.

Beaver Falls Pa. 15010

MTC–00007361

From: Marv Norman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:15pm

24908 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe it is the public’s best interest to

settle the DOJ/Microsoft lawsuit. A few

politically motivated Attorney General’s are

pushing the case in their own interests and

a few Microsoft competitors are trying to use

the DOJ to help them compete in the market

place. This case has gone on too long and

should be settled as quickly as possible. The

DOJ should not be involved in the open

competitive market. Microsoft has developed

very significant software and the cost to the

individual consumer is very reasonable. I

personally continue to be amazed at the

power of the Windows software and the very

low price we have to pay to obtain the

product. I also have no interest in ‘‘open’’

software that anyone can change. I want to

know that I can open letters and spreadsheets

and rely upon the programs working

correctly. I also have no interest in having the

Windows operating system separated from

my internet browser. I want them to work

together and I want to be able to call one

company if there is a problem.

Please ignore Microsoft’s competitors in

this issue and also please ignore the nine

Attorney General’s who are trying to promote

themselves politically. This case has been

decided on a legal basis and the remedies

agreed upon should be implemented so that

the involved people can apply their efforts to

improving the current economic situation

rather than continuing to ‘‘waste’’ time

rehashing the same issues.

I am not a Microsoft shareholder so I have

no economic bias. I believe in the capitalistic

market place and the power of competition.

Best regards,

Marv Norman

MTC–00007362

From: Plastxdoc@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

One can look at the stock market crash and

time it from the beginning of the Justice

Department’s public attempt to dismantle

Microsoft. By the time you are done torturing

this company Aol/Time Warner will be a

larger monopoly. The local environment will

disappear with time. Please stop wasting

taxpayer’s money and allow the technology

sector to flourish. Accept the settlement.

Let’s move on.

Richard J. Greco

MTC–00007363

From: JOHN (038) SUSAN DE WOLF

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough is Enough! Please settle this suit

and let Microsoft get on with their business

and their competitors get back to developing

competitive software. The competition to

Microsoft is spending too much time

constraining Microsoft who has made

computers widely used by a large portion of

our population.

John T. DeWolf

StorrsDeWolf@worldnet.att.net

MTC–00007364

From: Jkearney19@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:16pm

Subject: re: microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to express my strong desire to

see the US government case against Microsoft

settled as quickly as possible, and in

accordance with the DOJ’s most recent

settlement. To allow the nine holdout states

to inflict any more damage on what arguably

has been the engine for the phenomenal

growth of the high tech industry would be a

travesty, and wholly unwarranted. The

marketplace is unforgiving to

undercapitalized or less innovative

companies. Virtually every industry started

out as somebody’s idea, only to be improved

upon and bettered by somebody else. This is

true of Microsoft as well. As you can see I

am using AOL to send this message. I, like

many others used to use lotus 123 but

discontinued as Microsoft excel surpassed it

in functionality. I assure you that had lotus

continued to improve as rapidly as Microsoft,

they would be dominant. Moreover, I

followed the case throughout and was

amazed at the ignorance of the trial judge. A

non user of high tech products cannot

possibly determine how easy, or difficult it

is to install other software, especially when

that software is superior. As to monopoly, I

can only imagine the chaos that would

surround multiple operating systems.

Eventually, the market would force one to be

superior. Changing systems is not as easy as

buying a different car.

For full disclosure, I own Microsoft stock

but also have owned Oracle, Cisco and other

high tech stocks, including some of the

competitors that have fueled the drive to

cripple Microsoft. Unfortunately, the overly

ambitious attorney’s generals of the holdout

states (Iowa and my home state of

Connecticut are the worst offenders) have

viewed this as an opportunity to increase

their own profiles for purely political

reasons. I find it appalling that this case

continues to drag on. Worse still is the naked

grab by the European Union’s Mario Monti to

bring the same charges to further cripple this

great company that has done so much good

for the USA.

The precedents being set here will be felt,

unfortunately, for years to come unless the

DOJ, once and for all, ends this now. I urge

you to let stand the current settlement offer

to be put into effect and tolerate no further

action against Microsoft.

Thank you very much for your

consideration in allowing this citizen to

express his views.

Sincerely,

Joseph W. Kearney

MTC–00007365

From: PoolQ@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:19pm

Subject: Microsoft suit

The last thing this country needs is more

litigation by the govt. It seems like a personal

vendatta. Let the best products prosper, and

remember that there are a zillion software

companies and start-ups.

J. Pool

MTC–00007366

From: Rosemary Brant

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:19pm

Subject: settlement

Dear Sir,

I do believe the settlement already reached

with microsoft, though tough ,is fair and

reasonable. I see no further need to debate

these issues. It is only punishing the

consumer.

Sincerely,

Rosemary Brant

New Orleans, LA

MTC–00007367

From: George G. Morano, Jr.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle this case quickly. The last

thing we need is more litigation to keep the

lawyers ‘‘fat’’ especially in these uncertain

economic times. Please get the economy

rolling by ending this case.

Margie Morano

Cincinnati, OH

MTC–00007368

From: ONEFASTED@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:20pm

Subject: Settlement

I am very satisfied with the settlement offer

made by Microsoft.

MTC–00007369

From: Keith Saville

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:20pm

Subject: Settlement

To those concerned—Lets get out of

Microsoft’s hair. Just because they have

worked hard made good money, donated a

lot of money as well computer programs,

some of you are still jealous of what they

have done and want more out of them. Give

the other states 30 days to accept or they will

lose out altogether.

I am a small entrepreneur that went out

and started a business back in 1985 and withstood all the laughs and people making fun

of me. Now those same people are jealous

and complain how I have it made. They did

not see the 16hr days I put in for about 12yrs

to get where I am.

I’m sure Bill did the same thing, and many

business places snickered at him. Now they

are upset and want a part of his prosperity

for nothing. So let him go, he earned every

penny he has made. He pays some nice taxes.

He gives to a lot of places. He’s not on drugs,

so leave him alone.

Yours truly

Keith F. Saville

Grafton, ND 58237

MTC–00007370

From: DONALD ALLEN

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I followed this case closely, with a

question in my mind at all times. I couldn’t

understand why a few States were taking the

company with the greatest brilliant minds, all

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24909

with an innovative and understanding look

into the future, to court! I know a little about

monopolies, and how they do try to eliminate

competition, but in the history of Microsoft,

how many avenues of further research into

new areas were created by their brilliance?

Many new companies exist today, due to

Microsoft.

The deciscion was as fair as the courts

could allow without admitting they were

wrong for allowing this case to begin!

Donald D. Allen

Oakdale Cal.

MTC–00007371

From: Jeanne Velie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I feel that the government is persecuting

Microsoft. If the government has so much

money to spend prosecuting Microsoft

because they think it is a monopoly, why

don’t they go after the Power and Light

Companies, Cable Companies and Municipal

Water Plants in the Midwest also??? We have

but one choice for either—and every year

their costs go up—(if public, they call for a

public hearing (of which no one shows up,

because they know it won’t matter)) they get

a raise... Why don’t they have to cut costs

like everyone else? Why is it that these kind

of companies can be the sole provider in the

area and raise rates and the government

doesn’t intervene there, but spends millions

going after a company like Microsoft???

I think if the Federal Government has that

much extra money, they should send it down

to the State and Local Governments to relieve

the little person’s tax burden and stop

spending it going after Microsoft...

A concerned citizen

MTC–00007372

From: GDPUCK@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like the chance to voice my

opinion on the DOJ vs Microsoft case. I feel

that this is a frivolous case. That the

government could have spent their money

wisely going after a real issue. I feel that

Microsoft is being picked on just because

they are the industry leaders. They should be

free to innovate because that’s supposed to be

the American way. However, the federal

government always seems to step on the toes

of progress. Bill Gates and Microsoft are what

makes computing easy for the everyday

consumer...Windows is a wonderful

thing....Just because they pack their browser

and other features is irrelevant. The

consumer can always opt to change to other

software. The consumer knows what he is

getting when he/she buys it...Stop picking on

microsoft...As far as I am concerned, The

judge that overheard the case should be

removed from the bench for making such an

ignorant decision and speaking out when he

shouldn’t have...Total incompetence....Let

Microsoft be the innovator’s that they are and

the personal computing experience will

always be great.

MTC–00007373

From: DSDuerson@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

There is absolutely no question that CA’s

continued attack on Microsoft is a political

ploy which the politicians will persue

hoping that it can be used in some way to

distract the voters from the unbelievable

fiscal mess they have gotten the State into.

As a senior citizen who has paid his dues

and has profound respect for those who ‘‘bust

their hump’’ to develop something great.

Because of their success they become the

target of specious law suits by political hacks

trying to make a name for themselves. I am

better off and so is the Country because

Microsoft had the initiative to forge ahead in

the computer industry—maybe these

protagonists would rather China or Japan had

taken this leadership role. Please press

forward with a settlement that is not a

prejudicial judgement against American

initiative.

D.S. Duerson

MTC–00007374

From: SCTWO@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle this case and allow Microsoft

to continue its innovations in the computer

software arena. We don’t need more

litigation!!! We believe this settlement is

equitable to all parties.

Shelley Cohen

MTC–00007375

From: SUN65B@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

How about getting off Microsoft’s back.

Cant the Government stand people working

hard to better us all. This type innovation is

one of the things this country is all about.

Microsoft has had to spend millions

defending themselves for this useless legal

action. This money could have been better

spent in research, education etc.

Thanks

Bob Houdek

MTC–00007376

From: Victor Oekerman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlment

To Whom it May Concern:

As a small consumer, I feel that the

settlement accepted by all parties of this date

should be unanimously accepted by all

jurisdictions and all States. If not, I feel that

further prolonging by representatives of

microsoft competitors with special intrests

and representatives of other Federal Agencies

with special interests will cost small

consumer users too much money and will

raise our operating costs too much.

Yours truly,

Victor E. Oekerman

MTC–00007377

From: GlowedCA@cs.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:25pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

It is my opinion that the proposed

settlement be finalized quickly.

Gloria Rudetsky

MTC–00007378

From: William Crowder

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:25pm

Subject: HEARINGS CONCERING

MICROSOFT

I am writing to the Department of Justice

asking that Microsoft settlement with the

majority of the states be extended to the ones

holding out for further penalties. There is

nothing to be gained from penalizing

Microsoft as the company has already agreed

to a settlement which will be beneficial to a

large segment of the country. Just because

Microsoft has been innovative, successful,

and has advanced the world of computers far

beyond what one would have realized a

decade ago, the company should not be

punished.. It has been successful and should

be allowed to continue to innovate without

interference from the U.S. government.

Microsoft and companies its size are a

stimulus to the economy creating hundreds

of jobs. I urge the Department of Justice to

settle the case without further hearings and

let a successful company continue to

innovate. Signed: William W. Crowder, PH.D.

629 NORTH STREET, LAFAYETTE, IN

47901

MTC–00007379

From: JAMES KRALIK

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:26pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern, sirs

I do not want the government interfering

with private business period. Get off of

Microsoft’s back and do your job which is to

protect us from foreign invasion NOT harass

companies which employ thousands of

people.

Please and Thank you

J.S. Kralik

MTC–00007380

From: Eugene Gordon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have been a user of Microsoft technology

for 18 years in the development of military

applications as well as for my own personal

needs. As an extensive consumer of

Microsoft products I have never once felt that

the company’s business practices were

financially detrimental to me. As a consumer

the DOJ settlement seems to me to be a fair

disposition of the issues involved. Further

penalizing Microsoft, as their competitors

and the few remaining states wish to do, is

neither in the interest of the U.S. economy

nor the consumers.

Eugene S. Gordon

E-Mail Address: ggord@msn.com

MTC–00007381

From: joanne reiss

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:25pm

24910 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please put an end to this litigation by

accepting the agreement reached by nine

states and the Federal Government. I believe

the settlement is fair and in the best interest

of consumers like myself. Microsoft has done

nothing but help the consumer by making

computing more accessible and easier to use.

Not only has this lawsuit hurt the economy

but it in no way represents fairly the opinion

of consumers. Tell the competitors to stop

whining and get on with their business.

Personally I feel that the start of this

ridiculous lawsuit was the beginning of the

spiral downward of our stock market and

economy.

Joanne Reiss

MTC–00007382

From: MTEMosey@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:27pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

PLEASE..LET US SETTLE IT ALL UP

WITH AND FOR MICROSOFT AND THE

PUBLIC..THANK YOU MOZELLE SIMS

MTC–00007383

From: D (038) J Murdach

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:28pm

Subject: Gentlemen: Please approve the

proposed settlement with Microsoft . It is

in the best interests of

Gentlemen: Please approve the proposed

settlement with Microsoft . It is in the best

interests of the country. David Murdach at

dmarly@qwest.net

MTC–00007385

From: Craig Goddard

To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 1/2/02 7:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Like I said before, my business suffered the

most when it looked like the DOJ was going

to split Microsoft into two companies.

Since the lastest good news that the

Federal Gov’t was not going to break up

Microsoft, has my company began to prosper.

I sincerely believe that my business will

really take off after the nine states settle.

Whatever it takes!!

Thank you

Craig Goddard Sr. Developer

Goddard Professional Software

Engaged in Designing and Developing Web,

Distributed & Desktop Business Solutions

cgoddard@goddard01.com

http://www.goddard01.com <http://

www.goddard01.com/>

<http://www.goddard01.com/>

MTC–00007386

From: BirdieGeo@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We agree with the settlement

George and Burdena Pasenelli

13926 212th Dr. NE

Woodinville WA 98072

MTC–00007387

From: Linda Kluthe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

It is my opinion that the Microsoft

Corporation has suffered enough from all the

harrassment that the government has done

for the past few years. In the meantime, its

competitors have laughed and gone ahead to

profit while Microsoft was diverting its

energies into fighting the litigation. Please

assist Microsoft to settle all lawsuits in the

fastest way possible, and allow them to be

free to develop new software and hardware

that will continue to keep the United States

superior in our computer technology.

Do not punish or fine Microsoft anymore.

As a consumer, I am happy with the

advanced Microsoft technology that I have

available to me. I want more advancements

from Microsoft—do not handicap them

anymore.

Sincerely, Linda Kluthe, 351 4th St.,

Scotland, SD 57059

MTC–00007388

From: Randy De Graaf

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Get on with it and settle the case for the

good of everyone. I love Their software and

quit bowing to the pressures of the others in

the industry that appartently only want BIG

GOVERNMENT to intervene every time they

can’t compete because of their own inability.

Thanks

Randy

MTC–00007389

From: romeosumadi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

As a desk top software user, I am

supportive of the DOJ’s settlement with

Microsoft. I am eager to purchase my new

desktop computer but unsure if further

litigation will render my purchase

inadequate, when future software upgrades

become necessary.

I am afraid also of the heavy handedness

of the numerous governmental regulations

that can spill over the entire software

industry, thereby limiting innovations and

my choice to purchase software that is

compatible with my existing systems that I

already use for my small private business.

Just because few states can benefit few large

corporations by their attempt to inhibit

Microsoft, as is the case in my own state of

Massachussetts, shamefully. We in the

private sector should also be heard just as

well. Our message is ‘‘litigation enriches the

few at the expense of small businesses’’ .

Sincerely,

Samer Sumadi

Search Tech Inds.

MTC–00007390

From: William Greensides

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hope that all goes well for you!!

Bill Greensides

MTC–00007391

From: Milton Mechlowitz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:31pm

Subject: Settle the case

It is about time that the case against

MICROSOFT BE SETTLED ONCE AND

FORALL so that Microsoft can go on with its

bussiness.

Milton Mechlowitz

MTC–00007392

From: Donn Davis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ & Microsoft Settlement Judge, It will

be appreciated if you will think more of our

faltering U.S. economy instead of the nine

states attorneys general who are running for

political office by using the Microsoft

Settlement as a means to obtain more media

attention. Try to give these kinds of

productive corporations, that are making

positive contributions to our exports and

balance of payments, a break, and let the

politicians muddle along in their element.

Thank you,

Donn R Davis

MTC–00007393

From: Marc Lapsley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:33pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Concerned,

Microsoft has lead us to point of no return!

With the tools given to us by microsoft, we

have enhanced the way we live and

communicate. ‘‘Let freedom ring’’ Innovation

is what has taken us to the frontiers of our

freedom. Why must we punish fore what we

cherish?

Absolute power corrupts, I agree! How

about giving me a choice in my phone and

cable TV, before you bark at the dog that

feeds you.

Marc Lapsley

Bellevue, Washington

MTC–00007394

From: BOCABD@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:33pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Stop wasting time and settle as agreed with

Microsoft; our safety and security require

your complete undivided attention during

these times that are lives are filled with fear

from terrorism, not fear from antitrust

interests.

John J. Imperial

140 S.E. Fifth Avenue

Boca Raton, Florida 33432

MTC–00007395

From: H0NDAXR600@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:35pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

To whom it may concernI feel the settlement for this case that is

currently being made is fair and just for all

parties. Please let the current ruling stand. It

is time we put this case behind us and let

businesses continue to innovate so that our

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24911

country can continue to be the great nation

that it is.

Yours Truly

Jeff Conner

MTC–00007396

From: GrahamVarmint@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let’s dispense with further litigation in this

case, and get about the business of trying to

recover from current recession. Thinking

back, it was about the time of DOJ antitrust

suit that economy showed signs of

weakening. Enough is enough...and we’ve

had enough. Thank you for consideration of

my views. Tom M. Graham

5570 Starry Rd.

Bellingham WA 98226

MTC–00007397

From: MsGee@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:36pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

i am so tired of these companies who do

not put their money or assets into R & D and

instead , want a company who has done just

that to ‘‘give’’ them their programs so that

they can either sell more computers or sell

more software that doesn’t even compare to

what microsoft produces. They don’t want to

pay out their profits in excellent salaries to

gain the workers they need to design new

programs so that they can compete in the

marketplace. I am tired, as a taxpayer, of the

government and our courts allowing this

nonsense to go on and on and we are paying

for it along with their salaries. Find the

terrorists instead. How about that as a good

job for the justice dept. or at least start to

amass the people needed to prosecute them.

Use our government funds to prosecute them

instead of Bill Gates. Most consumers would

agree with me. You all know that Bill Gates

certainly does not want your job or that of

the President or Vice President of the United

States. I believe The Justice Dept. is afraid of

Bill Gates. Can’t imagine why∼!!

He’s not interested in the kind of power

that the justice department thinks is the

ultimate power. He’s more interested in a

power (ful) computer and software. AS A

TOOL and his products have begun to change

the way the humans on the planet work. Let

this company continue to produce top

quality products. Isn’t that what American

Business is all about? Stop these other states

cold in their tracks. they are only being paid

or favors returned from the companies that

are wanting Bill Gates and his company’s

position in business. Maybe they ought to put

their money where their mouth is. What have

they done lately for humanity?

The court has already spoken. Who ARE

these people to want more than what has

already been given up.? Why don’t these poor

companies just close their doors. They’re not

doing much of anything else except whining

and crying in order to gain the courts

sympathy as well as some other company’s

sympathies.

They would be hard pressed to produce

like Microsoft, since they don’t really

reinvest their moneys in research and

development I am very firmly committed to

seeing the Anti Trust laws changed. they are

out of date, and not reasonable today. This

whole case , unfortunately for microsoft to be

put down, has been the impetus to cause this

necessary change. why doesn’t the justice

dept. and those other whining states work on

that and put some effort along with their

dollars to see that the Anti-Trust laws are

changed. Now that would really be

something........

MTC–00007398

From: TxGuy55@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

Please drop all charges against Microsoft

and allow them to continue to provide goods

and services for the general public. The

company has a long history on innovations

in technology and their competitors should

not be allowed to cry ‘‘foul’’ just because they

can’t keep up.

Sincerely,

Jay Ferguson

Dallas, Texas

MTC–00007399

From: MortMagic@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:37pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I’m in favor of the settlement arranged by

the Department of Justice and Microsoft.

Furthermore, I feel the states that are holding

out are mistaken and, in particular, that Mr.

Blumenthal from CT. is serving his own

political ambition for national notoriety.

Morton D,. Fisher

Fairfield CT

MTC–00007400

From: DHaug14491@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel that the Microsoft Settlement as it

now stands is fair to all parties & should be

settled once and for all...no further hearings

should be necessary.

Donald R Haug

2912 23 Ave So

Fargo ND 58103

drhaug14491@aol.com

MTC–00007401

From: JCH312@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ, I think the settlement with

Microsoft was unfair to Microsoft, but

Microsoft agrees and you agree I strongly feel

it should be accepted by all parties. I live in

California and this is one state that the

Atorney General will not go along with the

settlement. It is well known that he has ties

with the companies who started the

complaints with Microsoft and now is paying

a political debt. I personally feel that many

people benefited from Microsofts practices.

Many companies just started with the

intention of being purchased by a large

company like Microsoft. Is Microsoft really a

bully, I do not think so. Is there any

difference between Microsoft and the United

States? I sincerely hope all states are forced

by the DOJ to accept the settlement since you

are supposed to be the speaker for the US.

Lets get this mess over and not let politics

continue this on and on and on.

Thank you

MTC–00007402

From: CAlderson@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:38pm

Subject: Microsoft

Settle the dispute. Leave Microsoft alone.

Cheryl L Alderson

MTC–00007403

From: JanieKemp@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern: I have been

employed in the technology business for over

thirty years as a result 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 of innovation and creating technology

that is affordable to so many people.

Thanks for this opportunity to express my

opinion!

MTC–00007405

From: Jwclb@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

It is hard for me to believe that some State

Attorney Generals are still clinging to the

hope of a BIG kill in the Microsoft

Settlement. Every time I see them on TV, you

immediately know by their voice and looks

that they are after personal gratification and

notoriety rather than for the good of the

people. It is very clear that this United States

of America does not need any more

deterioration of our economy by these

companies and individuals. I thought a

settlement had been reached by the majority.

The majority should rule.

Let these Attorney Generals go after the

illegal immigrates that are still in this

country and help out our Federal

Government in getting rid of the people that

have caused us great harm.

James W. Baker

543 Silver Pass

Ocala, Fl 34472

MTC–00007406

From: Walter Barzal

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:45pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I’ve actively used a computer since 1989

and feel that Microsoft products have

provided value over the years. I think I know

when I’m being ripped-off, i.e. cable

companies and the lack of competition and

chose in that industry, and I just do not feel

like I’ve been cheated by Microsoft.

MTC–00007407

From: Jklemm1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:41pm

24912 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sir,

I believe the current settlement with

Microsoft is just and in the best interest of

the public. It is time to put this case to rest.

Microsoft should be allowed to continue its

great work.

Best regards,

John D. Klemm

MTC–00007408

From: lucianr@bellatlantic.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam:

I have followed this suit with utter

amazement. I have watched over the decades

as companies with robust R&D programs

have shrunk, withered away and died.

Microsoft is not only an important company

for our economy but an important aspect of

our national security. I had thought that with

the Berlin Wall down that government crypto

Socialism would fade away but with this law

suit it is live and well. Bell Labs is almost

dead, Motorola in the tank, and Universities

are being asked to do industrial R&D for free

while basic science is ignored. Get off

Microsoft’s case. Settle up and tell the States

to so too. Enough of this nonsense. We have

a war against terrorism to fought and an

economic war for survival after that.

Microsoft is a case of a bunch of 30-

somethings being stupid. Treat it this way

and let us get on with things.

Lucian Russell, Ph.D.

Harvard 1965

NYU 1969

Bell Labs

Former Chief Scientist of CSC’s Virginia

Technology Center

Former Director of Argonne National Labs

Advanced Computer Applications Center.

MTC–00007409

From: W. Roger Gehman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs,

Let’s bring this fiasco to a quick end.

Microsoft has contributed so very much to

the digital age we live in, and this court case

was unjustified to begin with. There are

certainly many more serious problems facing

the US and its citizens, including the war on

terrorism, and re-establishing the health of

our economy. Companies provide jobs, but

cannot operate sucessfully, when hounded

by the federal government interfering in their

day to day operations.

Warren R. Gehman

126 Park Avenue

Mount Joy, PA 17552

MTC–00007410

From: Les Speiler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:41pm

Subject: Settlement

The millions and millions of dollars that

were wasted on this suit and the ‘‘BLUE

STAINED DRESS’’ should have been spent

on trying to prevent the events of 9/11,

illness cure, etc.. There really isn’t anything

else to say except ‘‘GOD BLESS AMERICA’’

and learn from our mistakes.

Teresa D. Day

MTC–00007411

From: Steve Orr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Let’s get this issue settled Now!! To

prolong the settlement is not in the best

interests of the public. Some people are

trying to sabotage a good company that

builds products we like.

Thank you, Steve Orr

MTC–00007412

From: Richard S. Sternberg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

What unadulterated poppycock in the

Microsoft-written ‘‘alert’’ below! I certainly

hope the Court is aware that Microsoft is

placing words in the mouths of their selfcreated support groups.

I have no clients who have retained me to

represent them on this issue, and I am

speaking only for myself as a citizen, but I

am firmly of the view that the proposed

settlement will have serious and permanent

detrimental effects on computer innovation.

After proving monopoly and predatory

practices, the DOJ recognizes partisanship

and concedes the day, seeking to give Court

sanction to the most predatory example of

monopolization in U.S. history. The record

demonstrates a predatory product thief

which takes advantage of the glacial pace of

American justice to solidify its market

seizures. Worst, the effect of involving the

Courts in the process of monopolization will

to create a technique that will exceed the

imaginations of Rockefeller or the the other

robber barons’ brilliant greed. Even after the

effect of this settlement becomes apparent

with the elimination of competitors,

divestiture may be blocked by res judicata.

Sadly, Microsoft will be in a better position

than if they had won the trial on

monopolization or if DOJ had been

disbanded before it wasted millions proving

monopolization. In a mistaken moment of

national unity inspired by a terrifying

terrorist act, the DOJ seeks to end this

dispute. This resolution will cost America

far, far more than the cost of a couple of WTC

towers. I truly hope that the Court will reject

the settlement.

— Richard S. Sternberg, Esquire

Richard@MetroWashingtonLaw.com

Metropolitan Washington Law Consortium,

PLLC

Managing Principal/CEO

http://MWLC.org/

A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear

from YOU!

For nearly four years, your voice has been

instrumental in the debate over the freedom

to innovate. Tens of thousands of concerned

citizens have communicated to their public

officials about whether the Microsoft case

should be settled or further litigated. Despite

the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of

Microsofts competitors, the federal

government and nine states finally reached a

comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to

address the reduced liability found in the

Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is

tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties

involved. Consumers overwhelmingly agree

that settlement is good for them, the industry

and the American economy.

However, this settlement is not guaranteed,

and your voice is more important than ever.

The law (officially called the Tunney Act)

requires a public comment period between

now and January 28th after which the District

Court will determine whether the settlement

is in the public interest. Unfortunately, a few

special interests are attempting to use this

review period to derail the settlement and

prolong this litigation even in the midst of

uncertain economic times. The last thing the

American economy needs is more litigation

that benefits only a few wealthy competitors

and stifles innovation.

Dont let these special interests defeat the

public interest.

Between now and January 28th, it is

critical that the Department of Justice hears

from you about the Microsoft settlement. 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 heard.

Email: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov . In the

Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft

Settlement.

Fax: 1–202–307–1454 or 1–202–616–9937

To find out more about the settlement and

the Tunney Act comment period, go to the

Department of Justice Website at:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.

htm

Thanks for taking the time to make a

difference.

MTC–00007413

From: Yvonne Bamford

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern; In these

uncertain economic times, further litigation

regarding the settlement with Microsoft will

only make the lawyers wealthier & take down

a very important & needed company! Do we

need all these companies going out of

business due to prolonged & unnecessary

legal haggling???

I trust that you will act in a responsible

manner & let the settlement stand!!

Thank you,

Yvonne R. Bamford

MTC–00007414

From: GMRands@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlment

Dear sirs,

This is a comment time for consumers to

comment on the settlement of the Microsoft

case. As a tax payers we resent the huge

amounts of money being spent on this

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24913

settlement. I resent the time away from

business in difficult economic times that it

demands from Microsoft. I want it settled as

soon as possible.

Consumers need Microsoft products. We

use them and need them. Please put an end

to this case as soon as possible. Of course

competitors want to punish their

competition. Let us not fall into that trap.

Sincerely,

Marilyn and Gary Rands

15523 S. E. 46th Way

Bellevue, WA 98006

gmrands@A0l.com

MTC–00007415

From: EAnder5119@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:44pm

Subject: Microsoft

Department of Justice

I just want to express my opinion re: States

vs. Microsoft. Attorney of states suing are

only wasting time and taxpayers money.

Microsoft is entitled to innovate and profit

from their skills. The economy demands that

these frivolous lawsuits be finished. Many of

us older folks are benefited from the ease of

logging on with Microsoft. Let’s get on with

the show.

Erwin Anderson

Seattle

MTC–00007416

From: dave cannon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:45pm

Subject: DOJ

I want the DOJ to settle with Microsoft so

that Msft can continue to innovate. This will

also help to clear up a big cloud over our

economy.

MTC–00007417

From: Lowell Jacobson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

CC: jacobsonlowe11@hotmail.com@inetgw

It is clear to me and to everyone I have talk

with that the nine remaining states in the

Settlement have personal vendettas against

Microsoft. I have never seen such hatred from

the likes of Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy

and, to be honest, the Attorneys General

remaining are only supporting companies

such as Oracle and SunW, companies that

cannot beat MSFT in the market place so

they take it to the courts to do their

dirtywork. What a shame. I strongly support

MSFT in this case because I believe they are

the greatest company in America and the

world. They do a lot of good for our world

and help us to make sense out of it.

Furthermore, they provide great products at

reasonable—cheap, really—prices. I guess

that Scott and Larry are just poor losers. Is

that what American enterprise is all about.

No, I don’t think so. All I can finally say is

that if these remaining attorneys general are

my spokespersons for fairness in the market

place, we are all going to be in a lot of

trouble. Get off your ‘‘high horses’’, guys. A

vast proportion of Americans totally disagree

with you.

Lowell Jacobson

Las Vegas, Nevada and Tokyo, Japan

MTC–00007418

From: Nick Corrado

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The federal government and nine states

recently 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. As a consumer,

I feel that this settlement is good for me, the

industry and the American economy. I urge

you to abide by this settlement.

Nick Corrado

MTC–00007419

From: stephen errico

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:46pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

this settlement is good. for the good of the

country and the economy leave microsoft

alone!

MTC–00007420

From: ezrider@famrc.org

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 1/2/02 8:48pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I support the settlement and feel the

goverment has better things to do,

MTC–00007421

From: JScrna@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ,

As an American and knowledgeable

computer user, I feel the suit against

Microsoft unfounded and should be

dismissed. This issue originally began due to

MS competing with Netscape at a time when

Netscpape had a 90+% monoply in the

internet browser business and was changing

$60 dollars for the Netscape and you had to

pay a subcription. Began competing with

Netscape and gave away its browser to the

comsumer.The American consumer benefited

by reducing prices and both Netscape and

MS now give away their browsers to the

consumer.

As for as MS forcing consumers to use

Internet Explorer. Nothing could be farther

from the trueth. I used Netscape prior to IE

and used it after I obtained IE. I even paid

Netscape for their software and subscriptions

after obtaining the free IE. At no time has

Windows or IE prevented me from using

Netscape. In fact you can load both browsers

on any IBM compatible computer and run

them indepentent of eachother and run

multiple windows of each simultaneously. If

the computer consumer failed to realize this,

its not MS’s fault.

MS may be a shrewed competitor, but that

is what America is about. If you look at the

cost of computers, MS’s software and

computer software in general I cannot fathom

how anyone can say MS has hurt business or

the consumer. If you want to look into a

monoply, check Apple out. Apple never

opened their operating system to the public,

where MS did.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Smith

MTC–00007422

From: Hizosh@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlemant

I think that the settlement is fair. It is my

belief that Microsoft is in no way harmeful

to the consumer.

Thank You,

Joshua Michelman

MTC–00007423

From: Barry Stangl

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please end this case with Microsoft. A

settlement has been announced and we need

to put it behind us. Do not let it drag on.

—- Barry Stangl

—- stangl@earthlink.net

—- EarthLink: It’s your Internet.

MTC–00007424

From: NY...NY

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:50pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

It is time to settle the anti-trust case against

Microsoft. This pro-long legal procedure that

certain competitors and state justice

departments are implementing to this case

has only helped to slow down the growth of

technology innovation.

MTC–00007425

From: carson mitchell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:51pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

doj, the microsoft settlement needs to be

approved by the judge as its more than fair

for me a user of software products, all this

cost and time in court is damaging to america

as that time and money desperately needs to

be invested in keeping the global business

and software lead here in george

washington’s america so we can service our

massive debt load and keep an angel eye on

our trade deficit as it will be less likely we

will sell off to much of our great country

through our trade deficit if microsoft and the

governments can get on to more productive

work. otherwise we will lose america’s global

lead to euroupe and the euro. you’ve taken

this to far already, thanks,carson mitchell-a

very concerned american co-owner!

MTC–00007426

From: Roselma L. Quinn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:52pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please end this case, I am so tired of

hearing about it.... thank you so much,

Roselma Quinn

MTC–00007427

From: Kurt Erensoy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

In 1992, I was laid off from my job at

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. I had at

24914 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

that time, on my own initative and spending

many long hours at home after work hours,

developed for Liberty Mutual several

insurance rate-quotation applications which

served Liberty Mutual’s sales force very well

in more than a dozen states. I lost my job at

Liberty Mutual because my product was in

direct competition with the IS Department’s

mainframe software, and it felt threatened by

a PC product produced outside its realm. The

full force of the power of the IS Department

was brought to bear against me, and I was

laid off 23 days before I was eligible for full

retirement benefits—23 days before I reached

age 55.

Having had my fill of corporate ingratitude,

I started my own software company. At that

time, Microsoft’s Quick Basic was available

to me at almost no cost to develop my

applications, and during the last 10 years

Microsoft has provided to me a number of

programming tools, which gave me the

chance to prosper as a small software

developer. I owe much to Microsoft, as do my

software users who do not have the slightest

idea of the role Microsoft has played in

providing sophisticated programming

software at such a low cost to the developer.

To me, who has experienced the backlash

of producing a successful product, there are

some clear similarities between my losing my

job and the type of punishment Microsoft’s

competitors would like to mete out to

Microsoft. I was punished and Microsoft

stands to be punished solely on account of

our success. In my case, the price paid was

limited to only me and Liberty Mutual’s sale

force. In the case of Microsoft, the whole

community of PC users is at risk at paying

a price, and a heavy one it will be.

Thank you,

Kurt Erensoy

kurt@ezrater.com

EZ-RATER Systems

http://www.ezrater.com

MTC–00007428

From: Dgkolls@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please get Government out of our free

enterprise system and have Government

focus on what it needs to do for America.

Protect us from terrorism instead of trying to

persecute one of America’s finest companies.

Don Kollmansberger

MTC–00007429

From: JOHN R TKACH

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:54pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

The microsoft settlement is good for

everyone except the competitors that want

something for nothing. Good work.

John R. Tkach

MTC–00007430

From: cagmp@att.net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle the Microsoft case and move

on to catching and prosecuting the real bad

guys in this world.

Michelle Primm

Cascade Auto Group Ltd

MTC–00007431

From: Al Turner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern.

I am a big fan of Microsoft products. I have

found them to be of excellent quality and

fairly priced. Even more important is their

support. My experience with other software

has been less than satisfactory. Microsoft, on

the other hand, has been very helpful every

time I have needed assistance. Their

willingness to keep their products in use and

up-to-date, often without additional cost is

remarkable. Please do not penalize Microsoft

for building a better mousetrap!

Respectfully,

Albert C. Turner

28101 SW Mohave Terrace

Wilsonville, Oregon 97070–9257

alturner@hevanet.com

MTC–00007432

From: CBlech@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:54pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

SETTLE NOW AS IT SERVES MANY

PUBLIC INTERESTS. Litigation only serves

the attorneys and special interests. Let us

help and educate our youth with little cost

to the taxpayers. Our federal dollars should

be used for HOMELAND SECURITY !!! God

bless America and capitalism.

Let competition and innovation be the

driving forces and not special interests.

CC:MSFIN@microsoft.com@inetgw

MTC–00007434

From: lange-ho

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:54pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I strongly urge the Department of Justice to

accept the settlement offered by Microsoft for

the good of all consumers and for the good

of the economy as a whole.

Sincerely, Gary C. Lange, a concerned

citizen and consumer. 2903 N.E. 37th Place,

Yarrow Point, Wa. 98004

MTC–00007435

From: Casey Ceponis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:57pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

If Micrsoft gets away with this, and on the

present course, it seems that way, the average

citizen will not help but think he’s been

abandoned by the Megopolis of Microsoft

and their ’apparent’ influence over

Government. I believe the average guy will

apply the rule of what’s reasonable from this

and loose respect for the lawful settlement of

such issues. this will be an irreversible trend

and things such as piracy will mushroom.

Don’t reward them for clearly breaking the

law!!

Casey Ceponis

240 Hampton Ct.

Palatine, IL 60067

MTC–00007436

From: Rex Bloom

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My comments on the Microsoft Case:

If Microsoft believes that they are not a

Monopoly in the OS industry, then some

investors (or microsoft themselves) should

put up some money and invest in a new

company to develop a competing OS. (like

BEos tried to do). This new company would

create a NEW Os and then we could

determine if a monoply exists.

Rex (rex@rexbloom.net)

MTC–00007437

From: Joseph F Donahue

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:57pm

Subject: Microsoft case

This case should have been settled years

ago.

MTC–00007438

From: Barry McColeman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:58pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs:

I appreciate the chance to let my voice be

heard. I am very happy with the proposed

settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft. I

feel that this case never should have been

brought but in the interests of both parties I

feel that the proposed resolution is fair to

both sides. Thank you again for letting me

voice my opinion.

Barry McColeman

MTC–00007439

From: DANTE6249@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This has been going on long enough. Settle

the case now before you hurt our economy

further. Microsoft and the country have been

punished enough let’s it get it over for the

good of all.

MTC–00007440

From: Carmine Rizzo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the settlement was unjust.

Microsoft has been treated unfairly and

innovation will be stopped if government

activities continue. You broke up Ma-Bell

and my phone bill increased 400%. Is this

your help for Microsoft, going to give me the

same justice if so, NO Thanks!

MTC–00007441

From: TheSiys@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 8:59pm

Subject: Litigation

As a concerned citizen of the on-going

litigation, I say enough is enough. We are

choking ourselves and our country’s welfare

by the trial lawyers, who to me are the ones

benefiting from this litigation. It’s just plain

simple fact that we are killing our country’s

progress with numerous and unreasonable

lawsuits. We wasted a lot of resources and

energy to a point to being unproductive. This

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24915

is the last thing we need during this time of

economic crisis.

MTC–00007442

From: E. R.James

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

The following is a copy of an email that I

sent to our California Attorney General.

When I read in the paper that Oracle had

given him $20,000 for his election I was quite

bothered because I just don’t agree with the

states that are still out there trying to get

more from MS then already agreed to by the

DOJ. I’ll quote a little from the San Diego

Union dated 11/11/01. ‘‘But Lockyer has a

built-in bias against the software maker,

which still remains one of America’s five

most-admired companies, according to

Fortune magazine.’’

Ernie James

erjames1@home.com

Sir:

I had no intention of writing this message,

but, when I found out that you had a genuine

conflict of interest in the Microsoft case and

you are willing to spend up to and maybe

more than $4,000,000 of our money to ’get’

Microsoft, I was astounded. To think that

Oracle has bought you for a mere $20,000 is

a shock to say the least.

If the Federal Government could

reasonably settle the matter, why won’t

Oracle and Sun Microsystems?

You owe the people of California an

explanation of why you should not recuse

yourself from further action in this legal

matter.

E. R. James

MTC–00007443

From: Dennis Librandi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

Microsoft built the better mouse trap and

a few companies are crying because they did

not. I have a choice of OS to use. Settle and

move on to bigger fish like GE (GE Medical

Systems holds a gun to the head of every

hospital in the country when it comes to

their service—now that is antitrust at its

finest).

Dennis C. Librandi

3108 Blakeney Court

Clemmons, NC 27012

(336) 712–9331

MTC–00007444

From: Richard W Carr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:00pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think it’s about time to stop spending the

taxpayers money to satisfy a few whining

competitors of Microsoft. If these people

want to compete, let them write some better

software or build some better hardware, then

they too, can be sued by some of their

competitors for doing a better job.....Enough

is enough.......Richard W. Carr

MTC–00007445

From: GDBWTHU2@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:02pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement.

Department of Justice,

Please settle the Microsoft Antitrust Suit as

soon as possible. I also would like you to put

some Federal pressure on the states that are

choosing not to be a part of the settlement.

Their choice to pursue further litigation is

not what our country and it’s citizenry need.

I work for the telecommunications industry

and went through the AT&T breakup. The

industry has been in chaos ever since. If the

Microsoft settlement is not approved, then

you can expect the choice of a Microsoft

divestiture to create the same effect on the

computer industry. I implore the Justice

Department to vote for an immediate

settlement and to encourage all the states to

do the same.

Thank you for your time, and God bless

America.

Kevin Smith

GdBWthU2@aol.com

MTC–00007446

From: BigFish63@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the settlement is fair. We need to

get on with business.

Mariann Fisher

MTC–00007447

From: Bob Bernard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:02pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

We feel the settlement is fair and should

stand !

Bob & Sally Bernard

MTC–00007448

From: JOEYWAS@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

Let freedom ring and let’s get our country

back on track with more important things

than shooting another corporation in the foot!

May be they, you the Government, should go

after the alcohol companies, they seem to kill

a-lot of people every year!???

Sincerely,

Joseph John Fields

MTC–00007449

From: Ben Robinson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:04pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I firmly agree that this case should be

settled now. It’s a disgrace that any company

is penalized for being very innovative and

progressive. If you can’t compete, then get

out of the game. In sports the #1 team always

wins and this is never decided by a bunch

of money hungry lawyers.

golfbum77

MTC–00007450

From: Amelia Blyden

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: The Department of Justice

As an interested and concerned citizen, I

am pleased 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. This settlement is tough, but

reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I

agree that settlement is good for consumers,

the industry and the American economy.

Amelia E. Blyden

MTC–00007451

From: Alk1942@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

I believe it is in the best interest for our

country and for all concerned parties that

this settlement concludes at the earliest time

possible. To continue litigation, would only

serve a few select individuals and

companies. It is not in the best interest for

the american public or for business to

continue this, as it has been decided by the

courts and by several states to conclude this

antitrust suit.

Thanks, Arthur Kindred Alk1942@aol.com

MTC–00007452

From: lange-ho

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:06pm

Subject: Micresoft Settlement

I strongly urge the Department of Justice to

accept Microsoft’s proposal for the good of

the consumer and for the good of the

economy. sincerely, Gary C. Lange, a

concerned citizen.

9210 N.E. 37th Place, Yarrow Point, Wa.

98004

MTC–00007453

From: Redmund Sum

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I am very pleased with the Department of

Justice’s change of stance on the Microsoft

Antitrust case. The previous posture of the

DOJ, prior to the Appeals Court ruling was

blatantly anti-business and anti-consumer

and merely served the interest of Microsofts

competitors, and in my view, the resume of

the federal prosecutors and state attorney

generals and their lawyers.

Not a legal professional myself, I would

think that the Governments job is to make

sure that competition is possible, but not to

guarantee that any competitor, or group of

competitors, is successful, or even viable.

Success and failure should be determined by

the buying decisions of computing public.

Respectfully,

Redmund Sum

MTC–00007454

From: Jeff Williams

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I will be brief as I expect you have more

than a little bit of correspondence to review.

Please accept the proposed settlement as

being in the public interest. *Microsoft (and

24916 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

its stockholders) have already been punished

terribly. The 75% loss to shareholder value

caused by the initial judgment preceded all

of the dot com problems (perhaps even

triggered them). This loss represents tens of

billions of dollars- certainly more than any

reasonable fine.

*It seems that the only states that didn’t

join in on the settlement are those that have

significant potential upside if fines are levied

against Microsoft (Utah and California are the

most notable since Utah is the home of

Novell and California is the home of Oracle,

Sun and others). I believe it was Thomas

Jefferson who stated that a democracy will

fail as soon as its constituents realize they

can vote money in to their individual

pockets.

*The forced release of Microsoft’s source

code and other intellectual property would

be nothing less than robbery. It seems

extremely odd to me that any company

would be expected to make a product that

works with products from another company.

I don’t see Ford being forced to provide

detailed specifications of the bolts they use

to allow BMW to make replacement steering

wheels for the Taurus.

*Netscape’s success in the market place (as

demonstrated by AOL’s purchase of them for

an amount in excess of a billion dollars as

well as by number of downloads) clearly

demonstrates that innovation is possible even

when Microsoft is a dominant player in the

market. AOL has over 100 million users, their

Instant Messaging product has a considerably

higher user count that Microsoft’s product

and yet these companies still cry foul.

*Sun’s Scott McNealy has gone on record

as saying he is happy to use the legal system

for competitive advantage against Microsoft.

To allow that is to suggest that the checks

and balances we have in place are merely

window dressing for corporate agenda’s and

other politicking.

*Windows XP demonstrates clear

innovations in areas of usability (help

messages in clear English, task oriented

support, context sensitivity), stability,

recoverability (system state restore, user

migration, system file protection) as well as

the innovations with middleware. It is on the

whole of these merits—not on predatory

practices—that Microsoft receives accolades

on their product and solid market share.

Please let us move on from this- for the

sake of the stockholders, the users in general

and all of us who do not want to see the selfrighteous, indignant few demonstrate that it

is easier to litigate and lobby than to make

a better product of their own and in so doing

prevent a real innovator from continuing to

provide quality product.

Thank you in advance for what I am

certain will be a fair judgment based on all

relevant facts.

Yours truly,

Jeffrey S. Williams, MBA/TM

MTC–00007455

From: Cittidad@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:07pm

Subject: MICRSOFT SETTLEMENT

Dear sirs.

In my opinion MS should not be found

guilty of any crime. Without their enginuity

this country would be years behind where we

are now.

I feel the case should be settled without

sanctions which upset the companies

function,

Sincerely

John G Citti

MTC–00007456

From: Bmail123@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft case should be settled

without further litigation. Our economy is

suffering because of all of this.

MTC–00007457

From: Ruthanna Wolf

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I strongly think that the Microsoft

settlement was harsher than it should have

been ... but we will live with it. Please do all

you can to ensure that M/S is able to

continue their innovations in the future—as

a computer professional since 1963 I am

aware of the advantage that has been

delivered to users through their

developments.

Ruthanna Wolf

Whittier, CA

MTC–00007458

From: DALNNA@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:08pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Please settle the Microsoft suit. It has gone

on long enough. Thank you.

Dale Petty. Microsoft stockholder.

MTC–00007459

From: EPDeTray@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:08pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please hurry this settlement along. As a

small business owner for 40 years, and

having to learn and try to work through

numerous obsolete computers and programs,

including an IBM system 32 and other

languages that could only work on their own

companies hardware, talk about tying and

unfair business practices. Thank Bill Gates

and friends for getting one language adopted

so we could buy any machine and any

program we wanted too, for work or at home.

Thank You

Paul DeTray.

MTC–00007460

From: Russ Strilowich

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It’s time we all move on with this issue.

The settlement reached between the

government and Microsoft is more than fair

and for the publics welfare. To prolong this

matter any longer can only hurt all parties

involved.

Russ Strilowich

MTC–00007461

From: Mark Blackham

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please end this lawsuit by accepting the

settlement with microsoft. this is a fair and

equitable way to end the dispute. it also

allows microsoft to continue to conduct its

business. thanks.

Mark Blackham

MTC–00007462

From: Kim Newlin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe this is a very fair settlement and

now we can go on with our lives. I believe

this has been a hindrance to our economy by

holding back Microsoft. Thanks for a chance

to comment.

Kim Newlin

MTC–00007463

From: Rodney M. Wren, II

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe enough is enough. The antiMicrosoft case has gone long enough and cost

me enough money to try, both in taxes and

money paid to Microsoft for their defense.

The whole question is one of competence. No

other company has come anywhere close to

producing quality software that Microsoft

has. I have tested other operating systems

(Unix, Linux and OS2) none compare. I have

used other office products (Lotus 1–2–3,

Wordstar, Wordperfect and Star Office), again

none compare. I have used other Web

browsers (Netscape, Juno and AOL), a third

time none compare.

I believe I have made my case.

Rodney M. Wren, II

17621 S.E. 30th Avenue

Summerfield, FL 34491–7519

Land: (352) 307–9616

Cell: (352) 207–5547

Fax: (352) 245–8278

rodney@rodrox-consultant.com

CC:MSFIN@microsoft.com@inetgw

MTC–00007464

From: Norman Meyer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:10pm

Subject: To anyone concerned:

To anyone concerned:

A number of us here in St. Cloud, Mn. feel

Bill Gates is the Patron Saint of Computers.

Before Windows, if you had a computer it

was almost impossible to find someone to

assist you with a computer problem. Now,

with the majority of computer users using

Windows, help is often just a question away,

by phone or in person. And that Windows is

priced today at inflation adjusted prices, less

that when first introduced.

Those of us that help in the Computer Lab

at the Senior Center, here in St. Cloud, often

comment about life before Windows and how

much easier it is now for us because

Windows incorporates many applications

and that those applications work well

together. We say, ‘‘many cheers for

Microsoft.’’

Regards,

Norm Meyer

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24917

MTC–00007465

From: Cindy Rotblat

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Bravo! Finally a decision has been reached!

The last thing the American economy needs

is more litigation that benefits only a few

wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. I

support the the recent decision which was

handed down to Microsoft.

Cindy Rotblat

Cindy Rotblat

NIE Coordinator

The Journal-Standard

P.O. 330

Freeport, Illinois 61032

(815) 232–0141

rotblat@worldnet.att.net

MTC–00007466

From: Marlin E. Parbs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

I am writing to you in regards to whether

the Microsoft case, should be settled, or

further litigated. I think it should be settled

and be done with! 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.

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/or lawyers, and

stifles innovation. If someone out there

thinks that there is or ought to be a better

operating system or software, let them get off

their duffs and write the code for it, instead

of trying to ride the coat tails of a successful

corporation.

Don’t let these special interests defeat the

public interest.

I would venture an opinion that the 9

states that are hanging out, are more jealous

than anything else, or have other special

interests, directing their actions to prolong

the settlement. Let’s get this over and let the

economy start a recovery.

I don’t remember as a consumer, contacting

an attorney to represent me in this law suit

and they are saying that they are protecting

the consumer. I say ‘‘HOG WASH’’!! If we

didn’t like what Microsoft was doing, we

would vote with our wallets, and not buy.

I think we all out to sue Ford for not letting

us get Chevrolet equipment in our new car

or vice versa. You can imagine all the law

suits that could ensue, as they have a

monopoly on what things go in our vehicles.

What about cable internet? I have only one

choice where I live, why not multiple

choices.

Please do prove the ‘‘age old adage’’ of

‘‘Common Sense isn’t Common’’ and settle

the suit.

Thank you for listening!

Marlin E. Parbs

MTC–00007467

From: ElmorinPD@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my opinion that Microsoft has done

nothing wrong—only used smart business

practices. I think the states are wrong to

pursue the ‘‘punishment:’’ of Microsoft. I

think consumers will benefit from what

Microsoft is doing. The states are wasting our

money by pusuing action against them. It is

TIME to let go

Elaine Leib

37789 Medjool Ave]

Palm Desert, CA 92211

MTC–00007468

From: Robert Nelson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Greetings,

As a data processing professional who has

been in the field for over 30 years, I maintain

that these charges should have never been

brought against Microsoft. Their success is

due to the quality of their products, and

companies who could not meet their

excellence, such as Sun Microsystems, and

especially Oracle, have spent great sums of

money to harm Microsoft.

I dare say that if Oracle or Sun had their

e-mail exposed the way that Microsoft did,

the Microsoft ‘‘evidence’’ would look

comparatively timid.

The only purpose that damages against

Microsoft can possibly serve is to raise the

prices of their excellent software, and their

integration methods, which are much like

those in use by IBM and Sun Microsystems.

Your actions could set our endeavors back,

as well as every other company in the United

States, and cost us a great deal of money over

time.

Please do not harm Microsoft. Please do

not punish them for being the best of breed.

Bob Nelson

Adventek, Inc.

Jacksonville, Florida 32207

MTC–00007469

From: SharonTomG@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like the Microsoft Issue settled as

soon as possible. I do not think it should be

dragged on any longer. Finish it.

MTC–00007470

From: Mhm7nt@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my belief that the Microsoft case

should be settled with the federal

government and all of the states involved. It

is a tough, but good, settlement that is in the

best interests of all concerned and especially

beneficial to the consumer.

It is time to celebrate the survival of

innovation and realize the benefits to

everyone, especially future generations.

Thank you for considering my opinion.

Sincerely,

Marilyn

H. Moore

mhm7nt@aol.com

MTC–00007471

From: R0004@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:12pm

Subject: Settlement

I am tired of the department of justice

trying to ruin a great American company.

You have reached a fair settlement—its time

the attorney general tell the states to settle

their further claims. Its bad for business and

bad for America.

Richard Commerford

4744 NW 96 Drive

Coral Springs Fl 33076

MTC–00007472

From: Paul White

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I want to go on record as favoring the

Microsoft Settlement as it now stands.

Paul D. White

8761 E Briarwood Blvd

Englewood, CO 80112

01/02/02

MTC–00007473

From: Jeff Dennison

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the current settlement in the

Microsoft antitrust case is more than

adequate and should be completed and

closed as soon as possible.

Regards, Jeff Dennison

MTC–00007474

From: Gail Kroon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs: It is time that this judgment is settled

for the good of the economy and the country.

The settlement is a fair one.

Francis and Gail Kroon

MTC–00007475

From: Dr Whom

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

Please settle with Microsoft and go after

some real criminals.

Thank you, Monty Johnson

MTC–00007476

From: A(038)H van Wyk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please ensure that this issue is settled

swiftly. I do not think that prolonging matters

will serve my well in my capacity as a

consumer in these uncertain times. I urge you

to implement the settlement as it stands as

a fair and reasonable measure.

Thank you

24918 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Andre van Wyk

St. Pierre

MTC–00007477

From: Dale Caughey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

Several Attorneys Generals are acting as

agents for AOL and Sun Microsystems. They

seek to establish an uneven field tilted their

way.

Mr Ashcroft should crack his whip and

exert his influence to disrail this effort. This

is a federal matter, and states have no power

in these matters, so it would seem.

I use AOL everyday, but, let’s get on with

it. If SUN and AOL are feeling the heat, have

their AG tell them to make better products.

Dale Caughey

MTC–00007478

From: Arbo7407@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in support of the settlement.

I would appreciate ALL states and the

Federal Government stop this harassment of

an American Company. I do NOT understand

why anyone would try to hinder Microsoft

from adding free enhancements in their

operating system. It seems as though the

State and Federal Governments would rather

have the consumer pay for everything. I can

assure you that when a software designer

creates a better operating system than

Microsoft, I will be the first in line to

purchase the product.

Allen Niesyto

MTC–00007479

From: tony corrado

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:18pm

Subject: The continued persecution of

Microsoft

Will you please end this wasting of public

monies!!! enough is enough!!! Settle this and

be done with it ... Spend your time more

wisely, protecting the country from the Evil

Doers, end their money laundering, Protect

the country!!! Stop bothering Microsoft about

this, It’s gone on long enough!!! Tony

Corrado 74–19 260th st Glen Oaks, ny

11004

MTC–00007480

From: don sawhill

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:18pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs,

I believe it is important to settle the

Microsoft case in order that the company

may get back to business. If successful

businesses are dragged into court by their

less successful competitors simply because of

envy, America’s businesses will all suffer.

Please let the greedy state attorneys general

Know that they must accept the federal

decision and allow businesses to continue to

provide the best products which we

consumers will gladly purchase.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Don Sawhill

dsawhill1@earthlink.net

MTC–00007481

From: Pat and Gene Keller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough is enough. It is rediculous that this

pursuit of Microsoft is still going on. It does

nothing for anyone except lawyers and

should be stopped now!

P.A. Keller

MTC–00007482

From: rcw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:15pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please settle this now! The entire suit was

crazy to begin with.!

MTC–00007484

From: ROBERT REMINGTON

To: Microsoft

ATR,rremington@webtv.net@inetgw

Date: 1/2/02 9:20pm

Subject: The Merrimac Coup

The Merrimac Coup was described in a

recent Bridge column in the Los Angeles

Times. Basically designed as a way to

prevent escape, the US Navy sunk one of

their ships, the Merrimac, in a Spanish

harbor, preventing Spanish ships from

leaving.

The Merrimac telephone exchange was

located in Chicago on the near North Side

around Central and North Avenues. The

White Cap Company, where my father was

employed, had a main telephone number of

ME–7–2000, before 3 digit area codes, digital

ESS systems, and other telecommunications

advancements were implemented.

The White Cap Company was acquired by

Continental Can years ago, leaving most of

the White Family management in place,

providing Continental board member

privileges to Robert White, president of

White Cap. Stock & cash payments to the

family may have been invested with others

in land & other assets. I believe the IrishAmerican origin White family has been

honored in the LA Times and parent Chicago

Tribune Corporation via the Sports pages and

others in coded messages for years.

Most recently, with the changing of the

Irish football coaching guard at Notre Dame

in South Bend, Indiana, and the preceding

resume fiasco with Notre Dame’s one week

coach (former San Diego assistant coach), the

Tribune / Times editors have been working

overtime on creative writing endeavours. The

coded messages in the Bridge column may

provide a strategy for family / corporate

assets interested in repositioning themselves.

‘‘Sinking’’ the Merrimac may be a quasigovernmental or PAC investment code,

defining a ‘‘scuttle’’ of a disposable piece of

the fleet in order to keep opposing forces at

or in their ‘‘bay’’, preventing those opposing

forces from attacking other areas.

The Irish roots of Microsoft’s family and

leader, Bill Gates, may also be related to the

issues presented in this and previous

communications.

MTC–00007485

From: Dave and Nancy Haverstock, PC

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please understand that Microsoft is like the

English Language. I expect any program

valuable to my work to sync with my

Microsoft products. I use the Microsoft

operating system, Microsoft data base

systems and other programs in my

professional life. If other programs I use do

not sync with Microsoft, they might as well

be written in Greek.

Microsoft is not a monopoly or a bully.

They are the inventors of a system that works

for business in the USA. It is like living in

a strange foreign country to think that they

would be under scrutiny for their innovation

and originality. Back off!!

‘‘Mr. & Mrs. Real Estate’’

The Haverstocks

RE/MAX Integrity

4710 Village Plaza Loop #200

541–342–1210 or 888–281–6344

Fax: 686–9297 Cell: 521–0211

Homes@DaveNancy.com

www.DaveNancy.com

MTC–00007486

From: Vivian R. Maines

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Department of

Justice RE: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern:

The last thing the American economy

needs is more litigation that benefits only a

few wealthy competitors and stifles

innovation. Leave things as is! NO MORE

LITIGATION.

Plus, I’m all for freedom to innovate and

without penalty! For out of such comes the

happy consumer!!!

Vivian R. Maines

16919 S.E. 5th St.

Vancouver WA 98684

vrmaines@juno.com

CC:vrmaines@juno.com@inetgw

MTC–00007487

From: Tom Dupre

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:20pm

Subject: Microsoft

1335 East 23rd Place

Yuma, Arizona 85365

January 2, 2002

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

I am writing this letter to express my

satisfaction with the settlement that was

reached in the antitrust dispute between

Microsoft and the Department of Justice in

early November. This settlement is a little

harsh on Microsoft, but there is nothing that

can be done about that now. Let us put this

issue to rest and move on.

Microsoft has been responsible for many

positive actions, and I see no need to punish

a company that conducts itself in that way.

They have created scholarships for college

students, made computers all over the world

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24919

compatible with each other, and donated

millions upon millions of dollars to various

charities. Let us not forget that they have

completely revolutionized the technology

industry and have provided jobs to

thousands and thousands of people across

the globe. Let the settlement stand so

Microsoft can continue helping people and

the economy.

Thank you for your time and

consideration, and again, please allow the

Microsoft settlement to stand.

Sincerely,

Thomas Dupre

P.S. Thanks for standing strong on our

second amendment rights as well. As a

conservative Republican, I am proud of the

job both you and the rest of President Bush’s

administration have done and will continue

to do on behalf of our nation.

MTC–00007488

From: Verlene P. Cobb

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a long-time user of Microsoft

products. I do not support any additional

litigation and review involving the current

case against Microsoft. In my viewpoint,

Microsoft does not act as a monopoly and has

not kept other entrants out of the field. I work

at a college that requires that Netscape be

used by all employees and faculty. I access

other computers at libraries and other

locations that also use Netscape. Additional

time, review, and/or litigation does not serve

the public interest. Let’s put this behind us

and move forward.

Verlene P. Cobb

4481 Gin Plantation Drive

Snellville, GA 30039

770–860–0161

vcobb@campiongroup.com

MTC–00007489

From: Belinda K Bailey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Enough is enough ? and the current

settlement is more than enough, so just end

this now move on to deal issues that really

need attention. We’re tired of time, etc. being

wasted because of the sour grape/jealous

attitudes of all the other companies who wish

they were Microsoft.

belinda k. bailey

pisgah forest, nc 28768

MTC–00007490

From: RMINTZES@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It really is time to settle this thing. I

personally have never felt wronged by

microsoft. Every morning when I turn my

computer on to check my schedule I am

thankful that Microsoft software is there to

get me organized. I think word is the best

word processing software I have ever used

and I have used a few.

Instead of persecuting one of Americas

finest enterprises I think our geniuses in the

Justice department should be awarding

Microsoft a medal of honor for

singlehandedly providing the software that

keeps American business functioning

efficiently.

Why is it that America always punishes its

best and subsidizes its worst. If you are

sucessful the IRS taxes you to death if you

are stupid and get knocked up the

government steps in and subsidizes your

stupidity.

What are we thinking. I guess we’re not

and that’s the problem.

All I can say is three cheers for Microsoft.

If the justice dept can’t do its thing in 4 years

its time for them to fold the tent and go home

and let honest business men tend their store.

Thank you, Microsoft

MTC–00007491

From: MIKE

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Just a short note to say I think the

government has made a mess out of the

Microsoft case. First, I think Microsoft has

provided a valuable service to the consumer

bringing together a line of products that work

together. This certainly wasn’t the case in the

mid 1980’s when there were vast

incompatibilities between word processing,

spreadsheet, and other software on the

market. Microsoft’s products work together

very weel. I can import and export objects

between files, and get things done. The

consumer recognizes that and buys those

products. Second, I don’t think Microsoft did

anything wrong, and certainly not anything

that other companies have been doing for

years trying to establish and keep their

market. They are the premier business

paradigm in the US—and we’re trying to

crush it. It doesn’t make sense. Close the

case.

MTC–00007492

From: ONSKIS@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As an American citizen and business

owner I have been appalled at the

government’s prosecution of this frivilous

case. The average American has disagreed

with the government, look at the AT&T

break-up for an example of the potential

long-term harm. It appears that this break-up

could result in harm to the

telecommunications industry after all.

I oppose further prosecution of the

Microsoft case and urge settling this case. I

have voiced my opinion also to Congressman

Rick Boucher D–VA directly as well. As an

interesting fact, at a Q and A session of our

local chamber of commerce, I requested a

message to Mr. Clinton be delivered. This

was to have ‘‘hands off Microsoft’’ in the

defense of innovation. The entire Chamber of

Commerce (100+ businesses on hand)

applauded the comment and urgerd the

congressman to deliver the message.

Stacy Martin

Virginia

MTC–00007493

From: Estrohome@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:27pm

Subject: (no subject)

To whom it may concern:

The Microsoft settlement has taken place,

let it be. Since when do we kill our best

companies. Let the settlement stand and lets

go on with life.

Ronald V. Strobel

MTC–00007494

From: charles lee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:28pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THE

BICKERING AND IT IS TIME TO SETTLE

THIS CASE WITHOUT FURTHER LAWYER

WEALTH GATHERING.

CHARLES LEE

MASCOUTAH, IL 62258

MTC–00007496

From: JNDPROP@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:29pm

Subject: Response for Government

To who it may concern:

I regret that Microsoft has to settle with the

government at all. Somehow our government

has not figured out yet that Microsoft has

lead America’s productivity gains for the last

20 years. Most American companies are

aggressive in order to compete. I as a

consumer do not feel in the least bit that I

somehow have been cheated or have paid

unfair prices for the goods I have received.

I understand that standardization is a critical

element in computing and Microsoft has lead

the way for developers and computer users

around the world. I am totally satisfied and

look forward to their future innovations and

products.

What ever settlement the government feels

it must reach sould be slight and sould not

inhibit innovators for doing what they do

best... create great products and jobs and

massive commerce for this country. Please do

not loose sight of all the benefits that this

nation has enjoyed as a direct result of

Microsoft innovations and efforts to date.

Anything other than this acknowledgement

is irresponsible and dangerous to this

country’s future.

Joseph N. DeNardo

Small business Owner

M.S. Public Management and Policy

MTC–00007497

From: RICHARD LANGLOIS

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:28pm

Subject: microsoft

I would like to say that Bill Gates is getting

the short end of the situation here. Everyone

says he monopolized Microsoft. It’s not our

fault or Mr. Gates fault that he invented his

system and its better than anyone elses. I feel

that everyone should look at the donations he

has made over the years and congadulate him

on the good he has done and what he has

contributed to the technology industry

instead of this so-called negative news about

this genious. He’s a human being like us and

as far as I’m concerned he’s a very good

american citizen and the greatest inventor of

technology. There’s more important things

going on in this world that need adressed

beside this. Get everyones money back from

24920 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

ENRON who got ripped off and get the men

ivolved and put them in prison for life and

concentrate on our WAR EFFORTS

OVERSEA.

RICHARD G. LANGLOIS

MTC–00007498

From: Monte E. Rudd

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!!! Leave

Microsoft alone!!! Microsoft has done more

for the people of America, in 5 seconds, than

all municipal, county, state, and federal

government agencies have since the signing

of the United States Constitution!!! So,

BACK–OFF!!!

Monte & Barbara Rudd & Family

3685 W. 3650 S.

Hooper, Ut. 84315–9330

MTC–00007499

From: james.friar@idcchina.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

I am in favor of ending any further

litigation concerning the Microsoft case. The

terms reached seem fair and equitable to the

consumer and to Microsoft. I believe that it

is my best interest to halt any further

expenditure of tax payer money in pursuit of

any other judgments against Microsoft.

Kind Regards

James and Ethel Friar

MTC–00007500

From: Tulita Owen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sir or Madam:

I would hope that by now the DOJ

understands the nature of the suits brought

against Micrsoft. They were designed to

break a company not because of monopoly

but because someone designed and brought

to fruition an exceptional series of products.

Those creations brought out jealousy.

America has always been about building a

’better mousetrap’. Please settle this nonsense

so that Microsoft can continue to do the

things it does well. For what it is worth, I use

both Micrsoft and Apple operating systems;

each has its merits, and, as a teacher, I’m

grateful to have access to both.

Sincerely,

Tulita P. Owen

3677 Guernsey Avenue

Memphis, TN 38122

MTC–00007501

From: DELBERT BLACK

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:28pm

Subject: Settlement, Microsoft

The settlement was probably fair, but I’m

not sure that there should of been any

charges to begin with.

This nation is so much better off with what

Microsoft has done in the software area. We

as a nation should not try and stop progress,

and let a foreign nation get ahead of us. I feel

that the only thing that should of happened

was Microsoft be told to stop using certain

tactics. The thought of breaking up the

company was politically motivated, and a

lack of concern for this nation.

Thanks for taking time to read this.

Del Black

P.S. A company that has hurt a lot of

people and has a monopoly is Tyson Chicken

they have broke a lot of chicken farmers. That

is a company that should be broken up, they

have done nothing to help this country.

MTC–00007502

From: Susan Levy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

settlement is a good option. Microsoft is a

good company—they put customers #1.

Through work I was in a PUP program and

had previously purchased a Microsoft

product at the normal retail price. The Office

Package I ordered thru the pup was less than

that price but included the software I had

purchased. Microsoft refunded the product I

had purschased retail saying’’ our motto is to

keep our customers happy’’. Other

companies should learn from Microsoft.

Where would personal computers be today if

not for the integration and ease of use

Microsoft has provided.

MTC–00007503

From: Ray Stanke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My concern is NOT having a proper

standard to operate a computer properly. I

believe the 9 diehard reps that want

Microsoft’s blood are dangerous people and

vindictive. The settlement as proposed

should stand as is.

I went through the period of non-standard

computer accessories, as well as computers,

and I, as a consumer, had a difficult time to

decipher and follow what was good, what

would work with what, and so on. We should

not go back to that era. Microsoft product is

some of the best available, and while there

is some competition that may SEEM better,

in fact, the product just doesn’t come up to

the same standard that MS does.

Go with the settlement!!

Thank you!

MTC–00007504

From: Girard F. Oberrender Jr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:32pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Dear Sirs,

The present settlement is sufficiently

severe and does not need to be adjusted.

Further extension of this case, with its

historic overtones of political interference by

the federal administration on behalf of a few

corporations against a competitor, will just

exacerbate a faulty precedence in our

successful free market system.

Our present recession can be timed with

the initial decision in this case. The attack on

our country on September 11, 2001 spotlights

the necessity of focusing our energies and our

production on more fundamental and urgent

directions.

To potentially award the States choosing to

continue their litigations would emphasize

rewarding the greedy rather than the hurt.

Such an award would encourage more

Government action against successful

corporations. These corporations have taken,

within the last generation, the economic

leadership from the socialist Germans and

the state-run Japanese We must restrain the

deadening hand of government from

controlling our businesses.

Let the judgment stand and close the case.

Respectfully submitted.

Girard F. Oberrender Jr. retired engineer,

business manager and veteran.

MTC–00007506

From: Jim Albright

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please settle the Microsoft case per the last

agreement. The government clearly does not

understand how important it is to settle this

case for the technology market as a whole

and for all consumers. Standardization is

mandatory for business to interact with each

other.

Jim Albright

J Albright & Associates

Authorized NxTrend Mod Providers

Voice: (800) 349–0875

Fax: (303) 665–0843

E-mail: jim@jalbright-colorado.com

web site: www.jalbright-colorado.com

MTC–00007507

From: Howard Lucy Jew

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The recent terms of the DOJ-Microsoft

settlement are fair and just. We need to

attend to urgent matters like economic

stimulus, fight against Terrorists, and tax

relief for all taxpayers, not litigation and

nonproductive pursuits. Howard & Lucy Jew,

Houston, TX

MTC–00007509

From: KSchmitt@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:36pm

Subject: Microssoft Settlement

I want to express my support for the terms

of the settlement reached between the DOJ

and Microsoft. I have been continally

concerned that Microsoft’s competitors have

engaged in anticompetitive acts continuously

and have been consistently pursuing

Microsoft through the DOJ in unjustified and

anticompetitive ways. It is time for the DOJ

to listen to the people and not to wealthy

corporate terrorists that only pursue their

own greedy aims. I personally use Microsoft

products, want them to package increasing

content and provide integration among their

products. Their competitors would do better

to focus their activities on creating better

software products that I would feel

comfortable buying.

Karl F. Schmitt

17310 Sylvester Rd SW

Burien, WA 98166

MTC–00007510

From: MjgLeo@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:37pm

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24921

Subject: (no subject)

IT’S ABOUT TIME,,THIS MATTER BE

SETTLED,,,ONCE & FOR ALL,,,PEOPLE

WANT TO MAKE TROUBLE,,FOR CO.

THAT WORKS TO IMPROVE LIFE FOR

ALL,,,,IF YOU DON’T PAY,,YOU DON’T

PLAY,,& THATS THE WAY LIFE IS..SO

PLEASE LET THIS GREAT CO, GO ON,,IF

OTHERS CAN’T KEEP UP,,JOIN

THEM....MJGLEO@AOL.COM

MTC–00007511

From: Bruce Griffin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:37pm

Subject: microsoft settltment settlement

YES YES YES SETTLEMENT TERMS ARE

FAIR, PLEASE CONCLUDE THE MATTER.

BO GRIFFIN

MTC–00007512

From: DeaconOtt@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

I think it is time that we end this hassle.

The litigation does not need to go on any

longer.

We need to settle and get on with life.

There has been enough of late to distract us

from our every day lives.

sincerely

J.c. Otto

MTC–00007513

From: submarina

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:37pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

stop messing around with microsoft, leave

them alone. The problems we are having now

with the stock-market and the last years is all

your and clintons fault. let them go they are

helping us

MTC–00007514

From: patrick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Hello

Please expedite this extravagant attorney

parade to its inevitable conclusion ASAP.

Do you guys think for one moment our real

competitors, the Japanese, the Chinese, the

Europeans, would waste any time trying to

destroy one of their most successful

companies the way we let the parasitic

lawyers trash American firms like Microsoft?

Please stop wasting our time and money

with this show. Microsoft has helped the

world become standardized and productiive.

Go chase real criminals, like the

international drug syndicates ruining our

childrens opportunities to even use

Microsoft’s products. Go chase the importers

who are slowly destroying American

productive manufacturing jobs. Do somthing

that really helps the country, not just the

attorneys.

The ‘‘Justice’’ department just makes me

angry.

Yours Truly,

Patrick J. Driscoll P.E.

MTC–00007515

From: Paul Ondell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Department of Justice

I believe the Microsoft settlement should

be accepted. It is more than what was needed

and the States rejecting the offer are only

doing so for there own Political benefit and

not for the benefit of National Interest or in

the best Interest of the National Economy.

Paul Ondell

MTC–00007516

From: rtalarczyk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:38pm

Subject: Microsoft ....

To whom it may concern,

In my opinion punishing Microsoft can

only stymie other hitech companies in

America from doing innovative work in the

future. America should be proud of what

Microsoft has contributed to the world.

Microsoft has greatly helped America become

the leader in computer technology.

Many other competitors are envious of this

contribution both here and abroad. Lets not

destroy in what we have created. Lets move

forward , for the battle to be won will be, to

keep America the Leader in advanced of

technology.

Thank you,

Robert Talarczyk

MTC–00007517

From: Carol Leiby

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

If it were not for the standards established

by Microsoft the economy would not be

thriving as much as it is today. The progress

of our nation over the last decade is largely

due to standards made possible by the

common platform on computers. It is a waste

of time and money for states to argue their

isolated cases any further. I encourage you to

bring all of these outstanding cases to a quick

close.

Carol Leiby

MTC–00007518

From: NorCarIntl@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:40pm

Subject: (no subject)

In favor or the REDUCED liberty found in

the Court of Appeals ruling. Lets not waste

any more of our taxpayer Nonie,

NORM STORDAHL

F 1100 AVE

MARION IA 52302

MTC–00007519

From: Dale Daniels

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

NO MORE LITIGATION!!!!!

PLEASE LET’S SETTLE THIS SUIT AND

GET ON WITH OUR LIVES!! THE

COMPANIES AGAINST MICROSOFT ARE

P.O.’D BECAUSE MICROSOFT HAS A

GREAT PRODUCT AND THEY WANT TO

LATCH ON FOR A FREE RIDE. THE

MAJORITY OF PEOPLE USING

COMPUTERS AGREE!!!

I CERTAINLY WOULDN’T EVEN

CONSIDER BUYING ANY PRODUCT FROM

THE COMPANIES THAT ARE TRYING TO

GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING FROM

MICROSOFT.

HMMM...‘‘TRYING TO GET SOMETHING

FOR NOTHING’’, SOUNDS TO ME LIKE

SOME KIND OF RADICAL LEFT WING

SCHEME THAT IS JUST THE TIP OF THE

ICEBERG.

I VOTE TO ‘‘BUTT OUT AND LEAVE ’EM

ALONE’’.

DALE DANIELS

3911 WEST 36TH

KENNEWICK, WA. 99337

MTC–00007520

From: CoreyWest@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:41pm

Subject: my opinion

I think that there are far more important

things than the gov’t chasing after a

corporation that has done more for the USA,

and all people who use computers. I think

that Microsoft is up there with edision....if

not for the remarkable strides that it made in

the past decade and more, most people

would still be non computer user’s.

And I feel that the offer that was made to

give computers and software to schools was

a great offer, and should be taken.

Corrado Petrella

6 cowdrey street

yonkers ny 10701

MTC–00007521

From: Mark Murphy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The value to me, a consumer, of Microsoft

Windows products is many fold the couple

of hundred dollars cost to buy the product.

It is nuts to want to break up this company.

Please let them be.

Mark Murphy

MTC–00007522

From: Rickie Hopkins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Personally I think the goverment’s case is

a load of bull!

If it wasn’t for Microsoft, I, along with

probably several thousand others, would not

have even bought a PC. It’s because of

windows that I even bought my PC and still

have it with several upgrades. While I may

not fully understand what the whole deal

may or not be involved, then I look at the fact

that if the other software or hardware dosen’t

work well with Windows then I didn’t need

it to begin with.

While we’re at it, how the US goverment

isn’t raising HELL with AOL????????? If you

use AOL then you cannot use Internet

Explorer or Outlook Express. Personally I

have no use for AOL in any shape, form, or

fashion. I may never figure out everything on

my PC, But I will forever be A Microsoft

supporter by buying and using products that

are supported by Microsoft and Bill Gates.

24922 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Hang In There

rhopkins@midsouth.rr.com

MTC–00007523

From: ABrisolara@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:41pm

Subject: Microsoft case

It is very apparent that the efforts to

dismantle and punish Microsoft was

motivated by jealous political factors.

Microsfot has been responsible for the spread

of comput- er use through its innovative and

cost-effective products.

We strongly support Mocrosoft, and urge

that any punitive action be stopped. Have no

idea what you hear in Washington, but down

here, all I hear is how unjust it was to

endeavor to curtail Microsfot.

Hope that the Justice Department will drop

the case as is.

Sincerely,

A. Brisolara

P.O. Box 7321

Metairie, LA

70010–7321

MTC–00007524

From: Mert Urness

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We consider it to be in the best interests

of all citizens of the U.S. that the current

Microsoft judgements are totally sufficient.

We furthur believe that no future litigation is

necessary, nor should any such be

undertaken.

Respectfully yours,

Merton L. Urness

Patricia A. Urness

MTC–00007525

From: KlondikeC@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time this matter was settled and no

more Gov money wasted. The settlement is

a fair one even though it gouges Microsoft in

my opinion. It is ludicrous that we spent

more on this suit than we did on antiterrorist

activities.

MTC–00007526

From: Jeffery R. Moser

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madame,

Please do whatever is necessary to settle

the Microsoft Antitrust Case. This has gone

on long enough.

Jeff Moser

403 Patriot Place

Hillsborough, NC 27278

(919)–956–4276

MTC–00007527

From: JJPORRET@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:44pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Why don’t we get wise and stop feeding

the lawyers, and start to move forward with

innovation and new developments? That’s

the backbone of freedom, and freedom is

America. Let’s not be envious of a business

which has developed some of the most

advance technology in the history of the

world, but instead lets us praise their ability

and creativity. That’s what is making

America such a great country. Recent events

prove that the rest of the world envy our

ability to innovate and create. Microsoft,

IBM, GE, INTEL, etc., are among others, some

of the great innovators and creators of this

world.

MTC–00007528

From: BZDZ2@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:44pm

Subject: Lay off

Lets look at the accomplishments that

Microsoft has brought to this nation and their

contribution to American business our

people and the world.

LEAVE THEM ALONE. DONT PUNISH

SUCCESS.

American Business Man of Fifty Three

Years.

MTC–00007529

From: Harlas M Harris

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:44pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

To whome it may concern

Im not real smart about the ins & outs of

the legal ins & outs, but it seems to me that

if you made something & put it on the market

& people liked it, & you made a pile of money

with it that should be good for everybody,

but it seems to me some body else in the

same kind of busness is tring to infringe on

the other mans success becouse he could not

make his product as good as the other. if Im

right thinking that in a free market country

it should be up to this other guy to try &

upgrade his product, but it looks like all

these folks are tring to put microsoft out of

the running altogeather. it is my feelings that

the courts have settled this should have

ended the whole thing. I cannot see what

claim any state could have against this

company or any company unless the states

are in the computer busness. thank you for

reading this email. hopefully you will make

a fair decision for all partys sincerly harlas

m. harris

hharriswoodworker@juno.com

MTC–00007530

From: david blanks

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:47pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

miscrosoft have done no wrong leave the

company along they are only doing their job.

king david

MTC–00007531

From: David Garner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to put this case to rest. How the

U.S. Government could possibly pursue this

case in the first place is beyond me. Think

about what you are doing. Is this the reward

for being a successful company? It is blatenly

obvious that the states that have not signed

on to this deal are the states where

Microsoft’s competitors are located. It is vital

for the economy and the IT industry to get

this case behind the country.

MTC–00007532

From: Cornelius H. Kafka

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sir/Madam:

I wanted to simply go on record as

supporting the Microsoft settlement. Bringing

this to a closure was long overdue and I’m

pleased that DOJ finally brought closure.

Sincerely,

Cornelius Kafka

83 Walbridge Hill Road

Tolland, CT 06084

Cornelius H. Kafka

ckafka@acm.org

+1 (860) 872 2310

MTC–00007533

From: John Leipprandt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:47pm

Subject: Time to settle with Microsoft

This settlement program has been going on

for a long time, why not settle now? It looks

like it is fair to all involved.

Johm Leipprandt

CC:jmleip@hotmail.com@inetgw

MTC–00007534

From: Greg Bryant

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hope you guys get this Microsoft farce all

settled with what you agreed to and leave

well enough alone. It was a case only jealous

Microsoft competitors and idealistic Justice

Dept. lawyers wanted to pursue.

Enough is enough. Go with the agreed

settlement.

Greg Bryant

MTC–00007535

From: Patm378@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:50pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

The Microsoft settlement should be

accepted by the Dept.of Justice. Microsoft

should be allowed to get back to inovating

and producing soft wear without government

harassment.

MTC–00007536

From: Jan Norman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:51pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Settle with Microsoft. This case has gone

on too long and it’s time to focus our energy

on more pressing issues that matter.

Jan Norman

MTC–00007537

From: Chap Vail

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:51pm

Subject: Settlement

Give it up. Where would this country be

without Microsoft and the creative genius.

MTC–00007538

From: Butch Wulftange

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24923

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:51pm

Subject: Settlement

I am 100% for the negoiated settlement

between MSFT and the US Govt. as currently

presented.

Any further changes should not be

allowed. I believe in the free market system

and believe that any amendments to the

current settlement should benefit Microsoft.

William Wulftange

(775)853–8225

MTC–00007539

From: sue white

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:53pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

To Whom it may concern:

What the Government is telling me is down

with private enterprise. I am very

disappointed in the decision of the Supreme

Court. I feel they have overstepped their

boundaries and the Constitution. In simple

language, they are telling me as a business

owner, be careful as big brother is watching

you.

Sincerely,

Sue White

MTC–00007540

From: KANE0903@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:52pm

Subject: Re: DOJ wants to hear from you on

MS settlement

As a shareholder and a consumer of

Microsoft products, I feel that the matter

should be put behind us and move on. All

the good that Microsoft has done over the

years in providing reasonably priced software

has gone a long away in our having a strong

economy for the past ten years. If we could

get this matter behind us there is a good

chance we could rebound from the present

recession we are in. The settlement would be

very good for everyone. The issue has been

become mute due to the advancements in the

industry. To continue the litigation is to only

prolong the economic recovery. The tech

stocks look to Microsoft’s stock and respond

accordingly. So let’s just move on.

Thank You

Tom & Sandee Kane

MTC–00007541

From: PWBMalibu@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:54pm

Subject: Microsoft

Please stop this useless attack on

Microsoft. It is time to move on and allow

one of the greatest companies in the history

of the world to go about its own buisiness.

That buisiness is supplying computer users

with the finest internet and computer related

services IN THE WORLD.

Sincerely,

Phil Bailey

MTC–00007542

From: Johnrosset@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is my believe that Microsoft has paid it’s

fair share in this settlement, and that the

Department of Justice should allow Microsoft

to live by the rules of the agreement. I do not

believe that Microsoft should be broken up

into smaller companies. I do believe that

Microsoft has put out a good product for a

fair price, and they should continue to do so.

So, please let the settlement stand as it is and

lets get on with our business of making this

a better country to live in. God Bless America

Respectfully Yours

John

J. Rossetti

MTC–00007543

From: xyzlogan@juno.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

Please settle with microsoft as the

settlement now stands. I think that pursuing

this issue is a big waste of money for both

the government and microsoft. Enough is

enough.

Thanks

Lucy Logan

Tempe Arizona

MTC–00007544

From: Ispydox@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs:

I would like to express a few thoughts

regarding the current action with the

Microsoft Corporation. I live in the

Northwest, about 25 miles from Microsoft,

and have followed the action against

Microsoft. I am bewildered that so much has

been spent on this action. The time, effort

and money could have been better used for

real criminals. As stated, I am from the

Northwest and we are experiencing a tragic

response to the September 11th disaster in

the form of Corporate Layoffs. I fear that if

more pressure is put on Microsoft, it’s

employees will find themselves in the same

situation as the Boeing and the Airline

employees that are having to start over with

a new career.

Inovation is still on of our nations greatest

assets. Bill Gates may be the richest man in

the world, but he is also one of the most

creative. This creativity benefits the nation

and the world. Lets not stiffle these

opportunities. I am not very worldly, but do

wonder how many other countries have a

company that has done so much world wide,

and is so well represented in product sales

throughout the world. How many companies

in other countries are there that are being

subsidized such as Airbus? Microsoft

probably contributes more than Airbus

makes.

Microsoft has accepted the proposed

settlement. Let them move on and continuce

to benefit you and me.

Respectfully

Dennis R. McNamara

MTC–00007545

From: MMalo10677@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We are satisfied with the settlement, and

suggest it is time to move on.

The Maloney Family

58 Overlook Road

Hardy, Va 24101

MTC–00007546

From: Ron.Kasik

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I’ve observed this litigation long enough.

With the passage of time, the initial

‘‘technical arguments’’ in the case are moot.

Let’s settle this case quickly. This is not the

time to thwart innovation and put additional

strangleholds on technology advancement.

Here the US Government is involved in

litigation, yet in nearly all of its RFPs, you

require PC’s that run Microsoft SW.

Ron Kasik

Rkasik@pdq.net

(281) 251–9283

MTC–00007547

From: john Davis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:58pm

Subject: I am a consumer and I think the

Microsoft settlement is fair to the I am

a consumer and I think the Microsoft

settlement is fair to the consumer.

enough said

John W Davis

MTC–00007548

From: Drica47 A. Rashid

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:58pm

Subject: Support for the Settlement

When American industry is losing it’s

competitiveness in the world, America has in

Microsoft the best export engine there is.

Microsoft has the biggest market

capitalisatiion in the world because of its

merits and potential. The Government should

encourage Microsoft’s growth instead of

putting obstacles in its way.

Bill Gates has shown to be unselfish and

philanthropic with his fortune. He deserves

better.

MTC–00007549

From: Jamie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:00pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

With all that has happened this year it

seems more important than ever to settle this

inane case against Microsoft. The federal

government and states should be spending

their precious resources on helping the

economy recover, aiding the working poor

and unemployed and figuring out a way to

provide health insurance to the millions of

Americans who lack it.

Right now the state of Florida is cutting

budgets for education and other important

social needs while some fat cat lawyers and

glory hound politicians are wasting the

taxpayers money by trying to drag out this

case.

MTC–00007550

From: Raymond Eveland

To: Microsoft ATR

24924 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Date: 1/2/02 9:59pm

Subject: Settlement

It is about time to resolve this issue.

Microsoft has added more to this country’s

well-being than any company you can name.

The technology that they initiated changed

our lives for the better, The tactics that they

allegedly perused should not be punishable

by the political wishes of their cry baby

competitors.

End this with the least additional cost to

Microsoft and our economy.

MTC–00007551

From: Miladin Aleksic

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

Simple logic tells us that the basic

principle of Capitalizm, as we all know, is

that the fittest survives. The comprehensive

agreement reched between the federal

government, nine states and Microsoft is

reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I

agree that settlement is good for consummers,

the industry, and the American economy.

Further litigation can create more damages

and nothig else. Therefore, let Microsoft work

as it did before.

A word to Microsoft competitors—

American motto says: ‘‘Shape up or ship

out’’. It is that simple.

Thank you

MTC–00007552

From: Fred Bushnell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

II feel our Department of Justice has done

its duty in this Microsoft case. It is time to

move on. Spend my money devising clever

ways to combat terrorists—then implement

them.

I have used Microsoft products since the

1980s and feel I have received fair value for

money spent. That is a comment I cannot

make about how our minions in Washington

give away large sums to farmers as payment

not to produce.

I am a physician, MD, and estimate at best

I have been paid for two-thirds of my

professional services but do not cry to our

federal government to get involved. Do not

get involved because some businesses are

financially successful.

J. Fred Bushnell, MD

CC:Microsoft Outlook Express Team

MTC–00007553

From: BritDave@wmconnect.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sir:

After a great deal of legal expense, which

in my opinion was totally unnecessary as

these cases against Microsoft were patently

without merit, a law has been enacted which

mediates a settlement between Microsoft and

the so-called agrieved parties.

As an interested party in this dispute,

being a Microsoft user, I believe the new law

is the best result that could be expected from

this dispute—and I wish to record my vote

in support of it.

David J Willson

Las Vegas NV 89122–7222

Tel. (702) 458 1574

CC:Grandpajoe6@aol.com@inetgw

MTC–00007554

From: min zhang

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I hate to west my time when I speak to a

unqualified Microsoft technical support

personal on the phone. And I also do not like

Microsoft unqualified WINDOW product

which it often occurred as I am using it in

my career.

But Microsoft as a industry leader from

U.S., I would like to keep it to be stronger

and more compatible. The legal penalty shall

not be the mean to limit the development of

the Microsoft to go forward. The law should

provide the power to help any one who are

willing to go forward by a reasonable mean

for our technology. Otherwise our country

will lose the technical leader and that will

lead us a big slowdown on our path.

Regards,

MTC–00007555

From: Norman Meyer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:04pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Let the settlement proceed as planned. I

don’t believe Microsoft was in the wrong,

anyway. Noone sued Ford for making its own

parts to ensure the function of the car. Why

can’t Microsoft integrate the software to

insure all parts run well? All that aside, get

this over with.

Norman Meyer, Vero Beach, Fl.

MTC–00007556

From: Bill Block

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe no harm to consumers has

occurred because of Microsoft’s position in

the computer industry. On the contrary,

Microsoft is responsible for making personal

computers widely available to consumers.

I would like to see the DOJ end this case

as quickly as possible.

Bill Block

Phone: (281) 482–6849 Internet: http://

www.wtblock.com/

Cell: (713) 899–2488 E-mail:

bill@wtblock.com

NetMeeting Family Resume W. T. Block

Historian

MTC–00007557

From: BEANS

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:04pm

Subject: MICROSOFT

THE GOVERNMENTS LAWSUIT

AGAINST MICROSOFT’S WAS A SHAM

FROM THE VERY BEGINNING! WHEN

COMPUTERS FIRST STARTED TO GET

POPULAR EVERYONE SCREAMED FOR A

STANDARD OPERATING SYSTEM.

MICROSOFT CAME THROUGH! THE

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION PUSHED

THIS SUIT FOR THEIR HATE FOR

ACHIEVEMENT. YOU ARE ONLY

CREATING MORE HATE FOR THE

GOVERNMENT. AVERAGE JOE COULD

CARE LESS ABOUT MICROSOFT, IT WAS

MICROSOFT’S COMPETITION THAT WAS

PUSHING FOR THE LAWSUIT!

AS FOR THE SETTLEMENT I THINK IT’S

IRONIC THAT THE COMPANY WILL BE

GIVING AWAY COMPUTER SYSTEMS TO

SCHOOLS AND CHARITIES NOW THEIR

EVEN MORE ENTRENCHED IN THE

SYSTEM!!! I LOVE IT FRANK ROSS RUSSEL

508 W. COBBS CREEK PKWY YEADON,

PENNSYLVANIA 19018 610–622–6770

MTC–00007558

From: Jon C.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:05pm

The settlement is good for American, the

industry and the American economy.

MTC–00007559

From: Harry Bridges

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:06pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I believe the settlement of the Microsoft

case as quickly as possible is in the best

interests of consumers and the United States.

Harry T. Bridges

6718 New Hope Drive

Springfield, VA 22151

MTC–00007560

From: Clayton L. Christensen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 9:57pm

Subject: Settlement

Settlement should be accepted—No more

litigation

Sincerely

Clayton Christense, 3010 Leona Drive

Storm Lake, IA 50588

MTC–00007561

From: Kneelly@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:06pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I believe the settlement is just and should

proceed. Let’s put this issue to bed.

Yours truly, Neal Bonelli

MTC–00007562

From: clifton l/jean smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I support the proposed DOJ settlement with

Microsoft. It provides safeguards yet does not

destroy creativity and initiative. It is time

this action be put behind us in order that the

public, Microsoft employees and investors

may establish a basis for future actions with

reasonable certainty. I applaud the terms of

the proposal. Clifton L. Smith, 15 Fairway

Drive, Englewood, FL 34223

MTC–00007563

From: KingBogus@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

Enough of the politics already!! This

antitrust suit, which should never have been

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24925

brought in the first place, should be settled

immediately. You have the settlement before

you. Please unserstand that, in the interest of

fairness to Microsoft, and allowing Microsoft

to get on about it’s business, I want you to

accept the proposed settlement.

Other software companies are hoping

you’ll drag this thing out in court, thus

detracting Microsoft from progressing with

future software packages and operating

system improvements. These other

companies could not fairly compete with

Microsoft because they do not have the

innovation, foresite or expertise of Microsoft

personnel. These other companies could only

go to their homestate Attorneys General and

have them file this, the most frivilous of

lawsuits.

It is my wish that you get past this suit and

get on to more meaningful cases that will

truly protect the interests of US citizens.

With everything that’s going on in the world,

you should focus on bringing REAL terrorists

to justice and quit picking on companies that

have innovation and expertise to carry out

their business.

Sincerely,

Greg Ogden

Concerned and Angry Citizen

MTC–00007564

From: PATHBNA@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:09pm

Subject: Miscrosoft Settlement

I support the terms of the Microsoft

Settlement versus continued litigation. Do

the right thing and let’s settle this and move

on. These comments are in accordance with

the Tunney Act.

Thank you.

Patricia W. Ross

MTC–00007565

From: JOHN A. MENART

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:09pm

Subject: Microsft Settlement

Dear Sir;

I am not the least bit happy with the

settlement as it stands. Bill Gates and his

organization, need to made to answer to all

customers, not just some schools. He should

be made to provide funds in the way of U.S.

currency, that should be made available for

customers, or if too big of a logistical

problem, to school districts, to be spent as

they feel fit, so long as it directly benefits the

students. It should not be given to the already

overpaid teachers, using the excuse that

higher wages or bonuses will enable them to

teach better. The fine should also be

increased, as with the amount it is now, Bill

and his band of renegades, are laughing at the

Judicial System, as if it is a joke. We had a

very good monopoly in this country, that was

destroyed, (Western Electric/Bell System)

ever since the poor customers have been

raped. Microsoft is a monopoly that should

be destroyed for the good of the people, and

the industry. You need to re-think this

Microsoft Fiasco and hit Microsoft hard and

fast. Less only will allow the cancer/

monopoly to grow.

Respectfully,

John A. Menart

MTC–00007566

From: BERNARD MARGOLIUS

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:10pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

We support the proposed settlement as is.

The tech field should give a vote of

confidence to msft. We believe that this

company is directly responsible for the

success of most of those who are opposing

them. Success should not be penalized by

less succesfull competitors.

MTC–00007567

From: Ken Shaner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

Cease this senseless litigation against

Microsoft Corporation. It was totally

unfounded to begin with. Private

entrepreneur functions have been the

backbone of our great country since its

conception and, in spite of the typical liberal

mindset, will continue to be. The cost to the

American taxpayer of any further litigation

should be the responsibility of Janet Reno

and William J. Clinton. This could only be

a plus to their legacies.

Shaner

MTC–00007568

From: EMail94105@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It MayConcern:-

I think the courts settled the Microsoft case

and we should get on with our lives. The

states that want to delay to try to get more

are preventing our economy from recovering.

Bah to them.

Sincerely,

Eloyce C. Mailman

MTC–00007569

From: Kim Van Winkle

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Dept. of Justice:

Thank you for your decision to settle the

Microsoft case. I think this whole thing has

been very hard for consumers who rely on

Microsoft products. I am very happy this is

the end of it. Thank you again.

Kim Van Winkle

19062 21st Ave NE

Lake Forest Park, WA 98155

MTC–00007570

From: JKoz1731@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:12pm

Subject: DOJ Settlement

Dear Sirs:

It has become very important for the DOJ

and Microsoft to settle fairly and move on.

I feel that the litagation has stiffled the

advancement of the entire technological

community. Let the best company win in the

business arena. The public will buy the

products that are the best on the market at

the fairest prices.

Over the holiday I gave my wife a new

printer/scanner/copier. After spending 20

hours trying to set it up, we returned the

produce feeling that the item was defective.

But the event reminded me how cumbersome

it was to set up a computer system 15 years

ago. Microsoft and windows have made using

a computer a joy. Please don’t stiffle the

company any longer.

Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Kozy DDS

MTC–00007571

From: Miller3174@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:12pm

Subject: Waste of effort and money

If the politicians were spending their own

money—instead of the taxpayers’ —the

attach on MSFT would have ended a long

time ago. The only winners are lawyers. The

only loosers are taxpayers.

Please stop beating up on MSFT and

reallocate the same time and effort and

money to the fight against terrorists!

The risk or threat or danger to our

economy, job market, and culture is NOT

Microsoft. So get wise—stop being so shortsighted—admit that it’s over—and recognize

that your succes fighting the war on terrorism

is much more important to your careers and

the welfare of those you are supposed to

represent and a much more appropriate

allocation of taxpayer dollars. From a

taxpayer, citizen, computer user who knows

he has never been damaged or inhibited by

MSFT’s products or dominance in the

marketplace because the marketplace has

always given him the right to choose.

MTC–00007572

From: jandjbrown3@ecoisp.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:13pm

Subject: settlement

I think the proposed settlement will fail to

protect consumers from Microsoft’s

malicious business pracitices. There will

likely be less choice available to consumers,

and as a result innovation will lag behind the

pace we have seen in recent years. The

support for these assertions is demonstrated

by the lack of freedom of major Computer

Vendors (Compaq, IBM, HP, Dell, etc...) to

modify Windows Operating system

installations in any meaningful manner. For

example, Java was clearly broken in

Windows XP as a result of Microsoft business

strategies to try to stifle this thriving area in

innovation. By a) forcing Microsoft to fix

their Java problem (i.e. including a J2EE

compliant SDK in the OS) or b) Allowing

major vendors to provide this fix on their

own without potentially incurring

punishments from Microsoft—this

monopolistic attack on consumers could be

somewhat mitigated. As the proposed

settlement is currently written—the injustice

is only strengthened. I don’t imagine the

Judge will read my comments, as I

understand from Lawyers I know that most

Judges seem to look at the Tunney act as an

annoying formality, rather than an important

requirement—but in the event that someone

will read this and examine the issue in

depth—I have taken the time to submit this

comment.

Thanks,

John Brown

24926 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Computer Specialist

Washington, DC

MTC–00007573

From: Alice Mariano

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:13pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

To whom it may concern,

This Microsoft litigation have dragged on

for so long, we are so frustrated at the money

being spent for this just because a few

wealthy competitors would not give up until

they see Microsoft fails. It has been settled by

the DOJ, and that is the best news we got for

so long, and now this 9 or so states wanted

to prolong this case for more wasted money

and at the same time stock market and the

economy being affected. We think this is

merely political and the sooner this gets

settled the better for the market, the

economy, and us the consumers.

Microsoft is a huge company that have

done wonderful technological innovations

that have benefited consumers, so why

should they be punished for this? They have

also been a big donors to many schools and

many charities. It’s just unfair. Microsoft is

a great American company that have the

respect and gratitude of the world. USA as

a whole should be proud of this company

instead of pushing them backwards by

limiting their innovative ideas. There’s no

anti trust here, just anti Microsoft. It’s about

time that this government step into the right

direction, which the last Clinton

Administration failed to do. Settlement is a

must for the sake of the failing economy, and

the future of technology as a whole, and the

continued US dominance of the world’s

greatest innovations and ideas.

We hope the DOJ will stay firm in their

decision of this long awaited settlement. We

can only hope this letter will be read and

counted. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Ramon and Alice Mariano

6586 153rd Ave. S.E.

Bellevue, WA 98006

MTC–00007574

From: Hashim Salim

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:13pm

Subject: Enough is enough. To whom it may

concern.

Get it over with. Stop the dragging and the

waste of time and money.

Enough is enough.

Hashim Salim

MTC–00007575

From: Richard Hillger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:13pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

The present settlement is fair. Prolonging

the litigation only increases the costs which

are eventually borne by the public either by

higher taxes or increased prices. We never

under any circumstances get anything back

or enjoy any advantage.

Federal horsepower significantly

outperforms state horsepower—-if the Feds

are happy, the states posturing is just

window dressing to impress a gullible

constituency (and spend more money!).

I have been in the computer business for

over 30 years and have never heard anyone

complain that Microsoft has taken unfair

advantage on a personal basis. And

obviously, the benefits have been ‘‘awesome’’

as my kids would say.

On a technical basis, there might be better

ways of skinning a cat—but who cares?—if

they have merit, they will eventually surface,

and in the meantime we are enjoying a rather

marvelous electronic age. Keep the present

settlement and lets get on with business.

Richard E Hillger

MTC–00007576

From: Erik Odegard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:14pm

Subject: In Favor of the Microsoft Settlement

Dear Ms Hesse,

I support Microsoft’s right to innovate, and

I would respectfully urge you to work

towards a quick settlement of the US vs.

Microsoft case.

Sincerely,

Erik Odegard

Eriko@dslnorthwest.net

MTC–00007577

From: TGerminojr@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Setellment

I believe it is time for the Justice

Department to bring this case to a close. The

country and the industry needs to get on with

the business of developing commerce and

putting the American people back to work.

Sincerely,

T.P. Germino, Jr.

MTC–00007578

From: jane ashbrenner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the proposed settlement is in the

best interest of the public. Further litigation

of this matter would only benefit the

attorneys and not the public.

Jane Ashbrenner

MTC–00007579

From: SCMpar242@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:16pm

Subject: settle

please settle the case and go after enron.

scmpar242@AOL

MTC–00007580

From: Ken Andrews

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:18pm

Subject: Microsoft is #1.........

Microsoft is #1.........

MTC–00007581

From: CBD1@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom It

May Concern:

The Microsoft settlement was a huge

penalty to a company that has done more for

the U. S. economy and for communication

than any other in our great history. I do not

understand why some people evidently think

they should be punished more than what has

already being done to Microsoft. Our

economy started faltering when it was shown

that the government was destroying the

country’s greatest asset. Please let this fair

settlement stand which might let us come out

of this recession.

Sincerely,

Cleve B Denny

MTC–00007582

From: kowalczyk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please end this case once and for all and

let the brains in the most powerful company,

that ever existed, go forward bringing new

technologies and advances.

Thank you,

Elizabeth Kowalczyk

MTC–00007583

From: Arthur Thompson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement against Microsoft

is a truly transparent cash grab by a bunch

of government lawyers, backed up by

Microsoft’s whining competitors, trying to

make names for themselves. However, if this

will settle the case once and for all and get

the government out of the software business,

get on with it.

Arthur Thompson

Shelton, WA

MTC–00007584

From: JHarby1071@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:20pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The settlement is ok and I hope it will stop

there and not let some other issues arise due

to envy of another Company ! Microsoft

should not have to put with any more suits.

They have proved their merit

Sincerely.

J Harby

MTC–00007585

From: RNorris164@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:20pm

Subject: Microsoft

Dear sirs, Why dont you let Microsoft get

on with there business. I have a few shairs

that I am a looser , money wise. I am not

alone. Paid $115.00 to $160.a share Which

makes me a looser on quite a few shares. Sold

some for $60.& took the loss off my taxes.

Thats no way to get out of the resession.

Lets move on with america.

Russ Norris

CC:RNORRIS@aol.com@inetgw

MTC–00007586

From: JGunn99@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To use the phrase ‘‘Enough Already.’’ The

total waste of money by the government,

causing Microsoft to have to waste millions

of their money has got to stop and now! What

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24927

happened to free enterprise and competition?

This was a set back for free enterprise in the

very tough field of technology. Who ever can

build a better mouse trap deserves to win.

Every kind of business is going to win

sometime and lose sometime. So let it be

with Microsoft.

James A. Gunn jgunn99@aol.con

MTC–00007587

From: Roscoe Jackson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:22pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I, as a consumer am upset that the

Government even prosecuted Microsoft.

Because everyone knows that the

Government did the work that Microsoft’s

competitors couldn’t do. Microsoft is a

superior product and I refuse to use any

other. But now they have to share their

innovations with their competitors. Next the

Government will be telling them that they

have to share their profits, also.

MTC–00007588

From: Steve Windham

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wanted to voice my opinion on the

Microsoft Settlement.

I support Microsoft in this on-going

debacle the U.S. government (and a few

computer companies) has launched. Please

finish this farce and let business go back to

business...making money for investors and

developing products for consumers.

MTC–00007589

From: John Murphy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

We believe the agreed upon settlement

between Microsoft, the U.S. Government, and

nine states is fair and in the public interest.

Further litigation is too punitive and not

necessary. We have had many choices in

software over the past ten years, OS 2, Apple,

Linux, and others. We have chosen Microsoft

because we liked it the best and have been

very satisfied.

John & Mary Ellen Murphy

MTC–00007590

From: RSSnodgrass@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:24pm

Subject: Re: DOJ wants to hear from you on

MS settlement

To the Dept. of Justice,

I believe that it is in the best interest of the

public, Microsoft, and the country to settle

the case against Microsoft.

Robert Chapman

Nashville, TN.

MTC–00007591

From: MWHolcombe@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I believe the settlement reached with

Microsoft is fair to all parties. In fact, I think

Netscape was given more than it deserved. If

we stifle innovation in the electronic and

high tech fields, the American public will be

the real losers. I therefore urge the

Department of Justice and the contesting

states to settle this matter immediately. I

think certain lawyers in the Justice

Department held a personal bias against Bill

Gates and this vendetta has greatly damaged

our economy. We need a rapid settlement to

boost our economy and get people in the high

tech industry back to work.

Sincerely.

Betty M. Holcombe

MTC–00007592

From: BRETTYADEN@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:25pm

Subject: Please settle now

I have to say this case was wrong from the

start. Now that the economy isn’t doing that

well, we really need to settle the Tunney Act.

So, dear government please settle now, it will

help the economy. Thank You.

MTC–00007593

From: Emil Mirsepasy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:26pm

Subject: Microsoft settlment

I am in favour of the DOJ’ s settlement.

MTC–00007594

From: J Murray

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As an ordinary citizen, I’d like to express

my views on the Microsoft Settlement. The

issues which were raised and settled by the

government have ended the need for more

litigation or other remedies. With the

economy in such a terrible state and with so

many worse things going on, those 9 states

that want to pursue Microsoft to a greater

degree of punishment should find something

else to do with their time and the taxpayers’

money. The companies they are trying to

protect should put more energy into

producing something worthwhile and

creating a better U.S. rather than destroying

it by continuing litigation that simply

reduces the economic vitality of Microsoft

and the U.S.

It is truly a shame when a company that

creates innovative products, like Microsoft,

gets sued and pursued by everyone else who

can’t seem to do the same innovative things.

Those other companies’ inability to attract

and keep the best and the brightest workforce

is part of the problem. The sour grapes,

whining, and continued attacks only

continue to downgrade those companies like

Microsoft who are successful. If those other

companies had technology that could do the

job as well, they’d have had no problem

competing. They never listened to the needs

of the consumer and now complain that we

don’t want to buy what they have to sell.

The public now has access to technology

like never before and can communicate, work

and pursue a quality of life because a

company like Microsoft sought to bring better

and better innovation into the marketplace.

Moreover, Microsoft treats employees well

and through its gifts to education creates jobs

and better educated citizens. The Foundation

that Bill Gate and his wife has created has

done a great deal for education and children.

It’s too bad some of those special interests—

companies that the 9 states are protecting

couldn’t do as much. It’s time to end all this

stuff and let the innovative companies

innovate!!

After all, innovation is what has made the

United States the great country that it is.

MTC–00007595

From: Brian West

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

I BELIVE THAT THE GOVERMENT

SHOULD GET OFF THE BACK OF

MICROSOFT! THEY ARE DOING NOTHING

MORE THEN FOLLOWING THE AMERICAN

DREAM!!! MICROSOFT HAS A GOOD

PRODUCT AT A FAIR PRICE, AND I FOR

ONE LIKE THERE SOFTWARE.

LET THE AMERICAN DREAM LIVE!

BRIAN WEST

MTC–00007596

From: etmusgrove

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:26pm

Subject: MICROSOFT

The law suit against MS should be settled

right now.

It has been going on for entirely to long ,

and should never have been brought in the

first place.. If all of these other companies

are/were being hurt, why didn’t they bring

the suit? and why wasn’t it handled by a

reasonable judge, not some clown doing

someone elses dirty work.

Is this another case of the government

doing what is best for the people, like with

AT&T. All that did was make everyone in the

country pay about 5 times as much for

telephone service, and of course allow the

gov’t to collect alot more in taxes...Do what

is really best for the consumer and get this

thing settled.

Is there any single company or

orgganization that has done as much for the

american people and the economy of this

country. Settle and lets get on with the

prosparity of the country.

Earle T. Musgrove....

MTC–00007598

From: William Thompson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:29pm

Subject: Put an end to this

Dear Department of justice: Please let’s end

the litigation with Microsoft. Enough is

enough. How long does this have to last? The

lawyers are all making a lo t of money and

we have certainly had enough of this.

MTC–00007599

From: Kristen Turner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:32pm

Subject: Settlement

While it is clear that some actions by

Microsoft created diffficult conditions for

competitors within the market, the evolution

of competiing operating systems and internet

based applications, as well as the remedies

in the settlement serve the public interest.

Further penalties that could weaken

24928 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

Microsoft and provide openings for foreign

competitors to exploit are unwarranted and

unwise.

Regards

Greg Turner

MTC–00007601

From: Jean Fonner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:32pm

Subject: Gentlemen:

Gentlemen:

Please complete the Microsoft settlement

and let this Company return to its work of

developing and producing new ideas and

electronics that will help both the

government and the citizens of the world.

Thank you.

Jean B. Fonner

MTC–00007602

From: Thomas Nielsen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To The Department of Justice

(microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov) I appreciate the

chance to give feedback on the Microsoft/DOJ

settlement.

I believe the settlement is as fair as it can

be for both sides. The remedies in terms of

financial ‘punishment’ is really

unimportant—what is more important is the

independent team of ‘watch-dogs’ that will

look over Microsoft’s shoulder to ensure fair

business practices for the future.

Microsoft are creating products that we all

benefit from (what would modern life be

without computers, Windows, Word, Excel,

etc.). Look at all the industries that has

benefited from Microsoft’s success (HewlettPackard—personal printers), AOL & Netscape

was dependent on Windows’ success, etc,

etc.

It is important to the U.S. Economy that we

look forward. Let’s settle the case—put

measures in place (the independent watchdogs) to ensure that Microsoft complies with

the rules & regulations of this country— and

let Microsoft continue to create new products

that can help the economy to recover instead

of punishing one of the country’s most

successful companies.

I support the settlement that DOJ and

Microsoft reached last year.

Thomas Nielsen

431 Kirkland Ave.

Kirkland, WA

MTC–00007603

From: ODMCH@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Decision

This whole Microsoft case is nothing but

a witch hunt by the biggest witch—Reno. The

whole thing should be thrown out and let

businesses compete. Why should the courts

eleminate competition for selected few in the

computer software business when power

companies, automobile, tobacco, liquor, drug,

food, chicken and on and on have no

restrictions on growth, competition, or

advertising. Let the man run his company.

Sincerely,

Orlin D. Hall

MTC–00007604

From: Syjoan@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:36pm

Subject: settlement

The faster this situation is resolved, the

better off the country and our economy will

recover.

MTC–00007605

From: jeh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

From a consumer’s viewpoint this lawsuit

was the dumbest waste of time and money

ever by the DOJ.

While I realize it was someone else at the

helm, I don’t see why it wasn’t thrown out

once Judge Jackson’s bias was revealed. It’s

not that MS has never done anything

unethical but bundling a free browser that

happened to be better than its rival’s was not

unethical, and the crybabies who brought the

suit forward do not do business any

differently than MS.

If the schools are the beneficiary of this

travesty, PLEASE tune out Apple’s whining.

Better than 75% of the businesses in this

country use IBM-style machines, not Apple,

and it’s far better for kids to be learning

software that businesses actually use.

Jessica E Harris

1020 S 21st Street

Mesa AZ 85204

480–926–8950

MTC–00007606

From: DKlega@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:37pm

Subject: SETTLEMENT

PLEASE, PLEASE SETTLE WITH

MICROSOFT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I

FEEL THEY ARE UNFAIRLY TARGETTED

FOR THEIR INNOVATIVE APPROACH.

THEY ARE FAR AHEAD OF EVERYONE

ELSE, AND THAT IS WHY THIS

WITCHHUNT IS BEING PURSUED BY

THEIR COMPETITORS.

SINCERELY,

DORIS KLEGA

MTC–00007607

From: Chrys Steele

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Justice Department Officials:

I understand that from now until January

28th, you have a public comment period

concerning the settlement with Microsoft.

I, for one, think that the settlement is fair.

Let it stand as is and don’t drag this think

on any further.

Personnally, I think the overall computer

industry is being hurt by the inability to

settle this thing in a timely and just manner.

Let the Tunney Act settle this once and for

all, and let’s get on with the business of this

country.

Sincerely,

Crystal R. Steele

1563 Cedar Dale Ln

Lancaster, SC 29720

803.285.3483

MTC–00007608

From: Tim McCarthy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my judgment it is time to move on and

bring the Microsoft legal battles to an end.

MTC–00007609

From: Doug Hayashi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Most of my comments on this topic can be

see at:

http://www.nsxfiles.com/

pulp_letter_to_doj.htm

I wrote it a couple of years ago, but the

arguments are the same.

Remember.......companies have to add new

features to their product, or else there is no

reason for them to exist...

-Doug

MTC–00007610

From: Robert Angrisano

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a long-time user of Microsoft

technology both at home and at work. I’ve

never felt that Microsoft has ever done

anything but helped grow the computer

industry in a positive way.

Microsoft’s technology allows my business

to do thing we never could have done

without their great products and services.

I’ve never felt I was taken advantage of or

that they used their dominate position in the

market to prohibit the growth of the industry.

I receive more benefit today at a lower price

than I ever have in 27 years of business.

Please take the handcuffs off this great

American company. Stop being influenced

by a small group of well financed

competitors crying ‘‘foul’’. They had the

chance to win my business, but failed to do

so due to high prices and poor functionality.

We need more companies like Microsoft

Corporation.

Thanks

Robert Angrisano

President,

M.A.N. Resources Inc.

www.manresources.com

MTC–00007611

From: Michael A. Mehring

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am very concerned about the prolonged

investigation of Microsoft and its impact on

our economy. I a

m very concerned that Microsoft’s is being

unfairly litigated against by its competitors

through our government. As a consumer, I

am very concerned that increasing litigation

with increase the cost of software. I am

concerned that this is not a fair treatment of

a very important company to our

productivity and economy. I can’t see how

the consumer benefits by not allowing

Microsoft to integrate features. The BIGGEST

problem I have with software is lack of

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices 24929

integration. Prior to Microsoft, there was very

little software integration. I am not happy

with my tax dollars being used to litigate

against one of America’s great companies. As

a tax payer, I am very unhappy that the

government is using my money to litigate

against a very great company. Thank

you for listening.

Concerned Citizen, Consumer, Tax Payer.

Michael A. Mehring

MTC–00007612

From: CMStillie@cs.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am very happy with the settlement. It

would be a big mistake to break up Microsoft.

The great technological advances and

products offered by Microsoft are an asset to

our national economy and should NOT be

stifled by jealous or socialist critics.

Christopher Stillie

MTC–00007613

From: Alfonso Finocchiaro

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Clinton Administration spent millions

of taxpayers’ dollars to go after one of the

greatest companies of all times. It’s about

time that the settlement close this sad story

once and for all.

Alfonso Finocchiaro

MTC–00007614

From: Chuck Cable

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen: The remaining states should

settle as has the DOJ and the other states

including my home state Ohio..It is in the

public interest. In a trust, the offender raises

prices which is what Microsoft did not

do....MS has superior products that are

realistically priced and I feel that no one has

been gouged....In fact without Windows, I

don’t think we’d have an internet and no one

would be communicating and doing the

multitude of things that we all do...AND the

idea that Oracle, Sun Micro, etc. should be

compensated is ridiculous. MS is not guilty

but if it was, it would be consumers that

would be compensated—-certainly not the

sore loser companies that are crying for

dollars that MS legitimately earned with

superior products at reasonable prices...The

District Court should immediately settle in

favor of

Microsoft....

Charles V. Cable

19615 Tanbark Ln

Strongsville,

OH 44149–1431

440.238.3296

MTC–00007615

From: Jerry Stark

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My comments relating to the Tunney Act:

I speak the voice of a one person business

operating in the black only because Microsoft

products that work exceptionally well exist:

I believe that much of the consideration

afforded Microsoft was more a vendetta on

the part of its competitors and perhaps a little

jealousy. I fear a government that acts to stifle

free enterprise.

I also am in the camp of believers that the

American economy started SOUTH with the

start of the Microsoft litigation.

I hope that the government would consider

that the impediments placed on Microsoft

should also be placed on the 20 competitors.

I wonder if this action will become another

government fiasco like the one that exists as

a result of the Telecommunications Act of

1996. The telecom sector in America is

reeling. The government has a history of not

fully understanding the implications of their

actions.

Do you have any concept of the number of

businesses large and small that depend on

Microsoft? They depend on Microsoft

because of good smart business practices, not

because of unfair practices.

Will you enforce these rules to the absolute

ruin of American Industry? I caution you to

use great retraint. The American economy is

continually looking for a competitor for

Microsoft. It is the ultimate brass ring. Be

careful not to interfere with that. Be careful

not to interfere with Microsoft. Do NOT

mortally wound Microsoft.

The reality is, as an end user, I have never

felt put upon by Microsoft. I am sick of

people who can’t see that Mr. Gates and

Microsoft have done more for the American

economy than Bill Clinton and the Fed

combined. Now the government stands to

hurt that enterprise. Please be fair in your

application of these judgments. Remember,

America depends on Microsoft.

My livelihood depends on Microsoft!!!! I

use their products everyday in my consulting

business. So do my clients. So do their

clients. I bet you do too!!

Jerry Stark

Owner

Stark TECHnology Presentation Services

Richardson, TX

jlstark@swbell.net

MTC–00007616

From: AMKELL4@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It is time to end this litigation and let

Microsoft proceed with creating jobs and

technological advancement for the US

economy. The US Justice Dept. has already

wasted too much money and time on this

issue. Let’s support our American economy

and put an end to the lawyers who want to

prolong this litigation.

MTC–00007617

From: Dr. Robert Ingram. Powell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:45pm

Subject: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Stop the UADOJ/Anti-trust law terrorists

from further acts of government

institutionalized robbery of Microsoft

Corporation.

The Antitrust laws—an unenforceable,

uncompliable, unjudicable mess of

contradictions—have for decades kept

American businessmen under a silent,

growing reign of terror. Yet these laws were

created and, to this day are upheld by the

‘‘conservatives,’’ as a grim monument to their

lack of political philosophy, of economic

knowledge and of any concern with

principles. Under the Antitrust laws, a man

becomes a criminal from the momnent he

goes into business, no matter what he does.

For instance, if he charges prices which some

bureaucrats judge too high,he can be

prosecurted for monopoly or for a successful

‘‘intent to monopolize’’ if he charges prices

lower then those of his competitors, he can

be prosecuted for ‘‘unfair competition’’ or

‘‘restraint of trade’’ and if he charges the

same prices as his competitors , he can be

prosecuted for ‘‘collusion’’ or conspiracy.’’

Ther is only one difference in the legal

treatment accorded to a crominal or to a

businessman: the criminal’s rights are

protected much more securely and

objectively than the businessman’s. The

alleged purpose of the Antitrust laws was to

protect competition; that purpose was based

on the socialist fallacy that a free,

unregulated market will inevitably lead to

the establishment of coercive monopolies,

But, in fact, no coercive monopoly has ever

been or ever can be established by means of

free trade on a free market.

Every coervice monopoly was created by

government intervention into the economy:

by special privilidges, such as franchises or

subsidies, which closed the entry of

competitors into a given field, by legislative

action. (For a full demonstration of this fact,

I refer you to the works of the best

economists.). The Antitrust laws were the

classic example of a moral inversion

prevalent in the history of capitalism: an

example of teh victims, the businessmen,

takeing the blame for the evils caused by the

government, and the government using its

own guilt as justification for acquiring wider

powers, on the prestext of ‘‘correcting’’ the

evils.

[There is only one] meaning and purpose

these laws could have, whether their authors

intended it or not: the penalizing of ability

for being ability, the penalizing of success for

being success, and the sacrifice of productive

genius to the demands of envious mediocrity.

So said Ms. Ayn Rand and so say my wife

and I.

Bill Gates and his team made it to the top

using his genius and that of the brain team

he put together. He should be viewed as a

modern hero having made available software

processes that have changed the way we live,

accumulate and process knowledge.

The first step that should be take is to

abolish/repeal the Antitrust laws in their

entirety on the basis of being inimical to the

very concept upon which our Constitution

system of government is founded. Just

because some mental midgets not up to Bill

Gates standards are unable to compete in the

international marketplace is no reason to

cutoff the arms, legs and labotomize Bill

Gates such that mediocrities and

incompetents can steal a part of his company

or their earnings ‘‘sub pretexto juris’’, ‘‘sub

calore juris’’... i.e., those who cannot compete

in a free market system should not be in that

24930 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

business, and should seek other areas where

they have the level of brainpower to make it

on their own money and effort and not

parasite off of the successful.

Antitrust laws delenda est!

ROBERT INGRAM POWELL

DR. ROBERT INGRAM POWELL, Ph.D.

WEUSA@EARTHLINK.NET

760–245–2355

P.O. Box 2371

Silver Lakes Community

Helendale, California

92342 USA

MTC–00007618

From: rmangum

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settelment

Does not the Department of Justice have

anything better to do? Why waste taxpayer’s

money trying to destroy a tax paying

business?

The Federal government tried for 13 years

to put IBM out of business, and wound up

loosing. There are plenty of real crooks out

there to chase!

Roy W. Mangum

3650 Westcliff Dr

Hood River, OR 97031

rmangum@oregonvos.net

MTC–00007619

From: JIMI@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern, Please stop

wasting time & taxpayer money on this

frivolous action that would only benefit the

lawyers and the wealthy. The normal

individual cictizen wants this settled and

over with, so get it it done!

Thank You

James A. Georgakis

MTC–00007620

From: KLC3@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

Please ratify the Microsoft settlement. The

decision made by the Justice Department is

fair and satisfactory. Any prolonged litigation

will only benefit those special interests, who

wish to punish Microsoft unfairly. Please feel

free to contact me if you need any further

comments.

Thanks,

Kelly Castleberry III

MTC–00007621

From: thomas clatterbuck

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the settlement with Microsoft

should be completed promptly. I also believe

that the charges of Judge Thomas P. Jackson

were improperly charged and that many of

our current economic problems were caused

by his actions,

Prompt closure of the court will help

return our economy to normal.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

T. R. Clatterbuck

MTC–00007622

From: Tim Ambrose

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:48pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

To whom it may concern,

We support Microsoft. Please end this for

the good of the country and the world!

It is obvious that Microsoft is trying their

hardest to stop this endless persuit against

them.

Please be fair to them. I promise you the

entire country is ready.

Very sincerely yours,

Tim Ambrose

MTC–00007623

From: Marinus Overwyk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a Microsoft user I find it abhorrent that

you are using taxpayer dollars in this suit. I

believe your energies and tax monies would

be better utilized chasing terrorists, we are at

WAR!.

Mr. M. Overwyk

MTC–00007624

From: RDHIII@aol.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft is not a monopoly and should

not be judged as one. They are business

people and risk takers. It took a tremendous

amount of capital to develop Windows and

other programs. If other software

manufacturers feel captive, they are welcome

to write and support their own operating

systems. This case should be settled without

further litigation.

Russel D. Hiller III, CCIM

R. D. Hiller Co.

P.O. Box 3621

Albuquerque, NM 87190–3621

Office 505.238.4168

Fax 505.265.1635

rdhiii@aol.com

MTC–00007625

From: Steven Ramirez

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please stop the madness and let this case

be SETTLED. I don’t care if the California

attorney general is trying to further his career

at Microsoft’s expense. Enough is enough—

it’s time to MOVE ON!

Steven Ramirez

MTC–00007626

From: The Petzall’s

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:53pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I firmly believe that it is in the best interest

of technology and therefore this country, as

the leader of technological innovation, that

the Microsoft case be settled. Microsoft

should not be penalized because the

competition suffered from tunnel vision and

could not see the broader horizons available.

The comoputer industry went through

several generations of word processing

programs: Wordstar, pfs, Word perfect and

finally standardized the industry with Word.

This greatly enhances the ability of everyone

to integrate systems and reduce wasted

efforts in trying to gain compatability. If you

want to penalize someone, how about Exxon

and their unsettled case in Alaska?

MTC–00007627

From: suncitian

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:53pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

I believe the Microsoft case should be

settled not prolonged. It is important for the

consumer, the industry and the economy!!

Mrs. Joanne Casebere

11153 W. Palmeras Dr.

Sun City, AZ 85373

suncitian@msn.com

MTC–00007629

From: george corcoran

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/2/02 10:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Should Be

Enough

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Enough is enough.

Hopefully that familiar phase will catch on

with the powers that be so that Microsoft can

be left alone with this much too long court

action finally coming to an end.

If it were just the economy that would

suffer from more deliberation, that should be

enough to call an end to Microsoft’s trial. But

it is more than that.

I look on it as similar to abortion where a

life is snuffed out that might have been the

person that would have grown up to find the

cure for cancer or some other equally

important cure or innovation.

When Microsoft is made to buckle under,

excessively, and not allowed to continue to

innovate and invent as they did before all

this complaining started slowing them down,

then what wonderful creative works might

never be known? We do not need to know

the answer to that. Thus, enough is enough.

Give them some slack now. It’s over.

Sincerely,

George J. Corcoran

Commander, USNR–RET