23654 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

United States v. Microsoft Corporation;

Public Comments

Pursuant to section 16(b) of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalty Act

(‘‘Tunney Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), the

United States hereby publishes the

Tunney Act public comments it

received on the Revised Proposed Final

Judgment in United States v. Microsoft

Corp., Civil Action No. 98–1232,

pending in the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia. The

United States has previously published

in the Federal Register a complete list

of the names (as provided in the

comment) of all individuals or entities

submitting public comments; the

number of pages of each comment; a

unique tracking number assigned to

each comment so that each comment

may be located on the Department of

Justice’s website; and an index to the

comments organized by six categories

based primarily on the level of detail of

the comment. The United States has

also previously published its response

to the comments and a description of

the process by which interested

individuals and entities may access or

obtain copies of the comments is being

published concurrently with this list.

In addition to the publication in the

Federal Register of the comments, the

list of names of individuals submitting

comments, the index and the United

States’ response to the comments,

electronic copies of all comments are

available on the Department of Justice’s

website at www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/mscomments.htm. Interested persons may

also request a copy of the one or more

CD–ROMs containing the full text of the

comments by contacting the Department

of Justice in Washington, DC at

Antitrust Documents Group, 325 7th

Street NW., Ste. 215 North, Washington,

DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 514–2481,

Fax: (202) 514–3763. The United States

will provide free of charge one copy of

this CD–ROM or set of CD–ROMs to

each individual person and five copies

to each library or other institution that

requests it. The United States will

provide, at cost, additional copies above

these limits to individuals or

institutions upon request. The United

States has filed the comments on CD–

ROM with the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the District of

Columbia.

MTC–00000001

From: Bud

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:15am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

The DOJ has sold the public down the river

by not breaking up Microsoft. Breaking the

company up would not have lessened its

assets only its MONOPOLY POWER. The

DOJ has partnered with George W. Bush to

repay Bill Gates for his generous campaign

contributions to him and the GOP party.

There is nowhere the public can turn

anymore now that our Justice Department has

sold out to politics. There is no other

explanation the public will believe.

You’ve made your bed with Bill, now sleep

in it. A monetary fine means nothing to the

world’s richest man—losing his power over

the industry does. As you attempt to settle

with him, he is already targeting LINUX for

the Internet market—he has learned nothing,

except whom to contribute to for favors. You

people can spin it anyway you like, we, the

public, see it for what it really is. There is

no longer equality under the law, there is no

longer equal enforcement of the law, the law

is Dubya.

Harold VanSickle

Lewisburg, PA

MTC–i

MTC–00000002

From: Jordan, Bill

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’

Date: 11/16/01 11:20am

Subject: Microsoft

I very much support the overturn of Judge

Jackson’s ill-advised court ruling and the

softening of the government’s approach to

Microsoft. Gates and his company have built

without question the premier operating

system and peripherals in the world. Would

any of us want to depend on other products?

I wouldn’t and suspect that most people

would line up on my side. Why do we try

to penalize successful companies who pay

more and more taxes as they become more

successful?

Believe me, if any of Microsoft’s

competitors had built the same so-called

monopoly, they would be screaming like

banshees if the government or anyone else

tried to break them into pieces. We operate

by the golden rule; whoever has the gold

rules. That would be Microsoft. Leave them

alone and let them continue to make great

products, make lots of money, and pay lots

of taxes so the Department of Justice, among

others, can exist.

Thanks for the opportunity to give my

opinion. I love America and our capitalistic

system. There will always be big guys and

little guys, and no amount of governmental

intervention will ever make things even. I

want to be president of my company, but

maybe I don’t have what it takes to get to the

top. Microsoft has what it takes and has

proved it in the marketplace. Why hasn’t

Netscape, Linux, etc., etc. been able to do the

same? Because they’re not as good.

Thanks,

MTC–2

MTC–00000003

From: David Reid

To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov’

Date: 11/16/01 11:24am

Subject: against

I have reviewed the available details of the

proposed settlement with Microsoft and find,

in my opinion, that is does little to serve the

public interest. What it does is serve Bill

Gates and company with a vaguely worded

settlement that delivers a light tap on the

wrist, complete with a side wink. It appears

to me to be just one more case of Republicans

serving their corporate support base at the

expense of those who actually VOTE.

David W Reid

Intelligent Business Automation, Inc.

847–921–8521 fax 630–214–3723

david@reid-iba.com

MTC–3

MTC–00000004

From: Kenneth Jarvis

To: Microsoft Case—Comments

Date: 11/16/01 11:26am

Subject: Windows WITHOUT Internet

Explorer—Make they give us a CHOICE.

Currently, MSoft has access to EVERY

computer in the world because they FORCE

us to have Internet Explorer on our

computers. With this access their Monopoly

will ONLY GET STRONGER.

I am a candidate for the Nevada Assembly

District 18 and am going to introduce a bill

that will require Any Software Company that

sells software IN NEVADA to have Support

IN NEVADA. Microsoft’s claim that they

HAVE to hook Internet Explorer onto

Windows is FALSE. If they were forced to

provide 2 versions of windows one WITH IE

and one WITHOUT IE we would have a

choice.

As it is ALL computers that run Windows

are FORCED to have IE available, taking up

valuable Disk space if we choose to run

another browser.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ken Jarvis

6420 E. Tropicana, #105

Las Vegas, NV 89122–75 16

EMail—lvken7@peoplepc.com

Phone—702–454–0509

CC: Kevin Clarke

MTC–4

MTC–00000005

From: Bill McGaw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:26am

Subject: Microsoft

As a consumer, the settlement is a sell out

to big money. I hope the judge sees this and

listens to the states that disagree with the

Feds. Bill McGaw

MTC–5

MTC–00000006

From: Don Williston

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:27am

Subject: settlement

My comments about the Microsoft

settlement:

1. Unlike Standard Oil and American

Tobacco, whose products were static in

design, Microsoft’s product is dynamic,

constantly striving to be adequate.

2. The error in the action against Microsoft

is not that Microsoft was innocent, it is that

the laws protecting Microsoft’s product(s) are

not proper for the intellectual property