27484 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00024449

From: Keith B. Bassett

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case

Hello,

I am writing to address the possible

settlement of the US vs Microsoft case.

Simply put, the current remedy worries me.

If we subscribe to a strictly behavioral

punishment for a company which has been

proven a monopoly, then how can we design

it so that the changing face of technology

doesn’t allow Microsoft to sidestep it?

Because of the volatile nature of the field of

technology, and because of Microsoft’s

proven habit of undermining or purchasing

competitors, how can any behavioral

punishment forsee the direction that the

company will move? Microsoft has shown

great ingenuity in getting around this sort of

punishment in the past, and the current

remedy doesn’t appear to be properly drawn

to prevent Microsoft from doing so again.

I still subscribe to the idea that a structural

remedy would be the best course of action.

A dissolution of the company into parts that

could compete with each other would seem

to produce the greatest economic good for the

largest number of consumers and companies.

Microsoft would produce better products

without the stranglehold on the oem market

that they currently hold. Oems would have

the option of going with several varieties or

flavors of the current Microsoft offerings,

which would cause serious competition and

improvement in the OS offerings. Bugs

would be fixed quickly, and the basic solidity

of the OS offerings would increase at a

similar rate, as the companies struggled for

position. File formats might still be a weapon

against competitors, but without one clear

leader, the level of interoperability would be

a serious selling point. Currently the Office

offerings import all documents perfectly, but

cannot export to other formats without major

problems, even ostensibly ‘‘open’’ formats.

However, it appears that the structural

remedies have been discarded in favor of

action which will be perceived as less

drastic. Perhaps some appropriate remedies

include the dissolution of the current OEM

preload aggrements, with a prohibition of

future ones. The Microsoft office suite data

file formats could be placed into the public

domain, with future format changes coming

under review from an independent open

standards body. The .NET formats,

interconnects and standards could be placed

under the overview of an independent open

standards body, as could the Microsoft

networking protocols.

A drastic, but effective solution would be

the seizure and relicensing of the core source

code for the range of Microsoft’s OSes. If they

were relicensed under an open source license

they would remain available regardless of the

changes made to them. This, while extreme,

would allow for the use of the code by the

entire marketplace and increase competition

in other areas, forcing Microsoft to compete

elsewhere. These solutions may seem

extreme, but they depend upon the fact that

Microsoft has a proven monopoly which was

obtained by illegal means. If they did not

have a monopoly or if it was retained legally

these rules would not apply.

If an effective long term remedy is not

obtained, then Microsoft will have been

given implicit permission to continue their

current and former business practices. In fact

it will be an endorsement of them and will

endanger what little remaining commercial

competition they have. I don’t know what

this will mean for other big companies in the

information business, but it certainly gives

them a frightening level of control of the

American public’s access to those companies

and to information in general.

Thanks for your time, I know that this was

a simple and general letter, but I wanted to

let you know what the general public was

feeling.

Keith B. Bassett

MTC–00024450

From: James M. Moe

To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I do not agree.

Microsoft is a monopoly as found in the

original judgment. While not a bad thing in

itself, Microsoft has persistently abused its

position to the detriment of the computer and

software industries. Further it is

contemptuous of the prevailing laws and

openly continues its abusive practices.

MTC–00024451

From: Dankovits, Kris

To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’

Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I disagree with the Microsoft settlement. It

is a foolish move, designed to help only

Microsoft.

Kris Dankovits

MTC–00024452

From: Ryan Lucier

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think Microsoft develops O.K products,

but getting rid of competition is not a good

practice.

MTC–00024453

From: Don Ramier

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

I would like to have my comment entered

into the Federal Register as required by the

provisions of the Tunney Act (Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act) with respect to

the proposed ‘‘settlement’’ of the Microsoft

Corporation anti-trust case.

Since Microsoft has shown absolutely no

remorse or change in business attitudes

following the 1995 anti-trust decision

rendered against it, and has been found to be

in contempt of court regarding subsequent

violations, business activities, business

strategies, and programs, I hope and pray that

the Federal Government will deny the

validity of this settlement on many grounds,

including and not limited to the one

mentioned above.

This provisions of this settlement are

unenforceable. The penalties cannot be

enforced, monitored, or even imposed upon

the Microsoft Corporation.

I never wanted to have a browser supplied

by Microsoft Corporation with their operating

system forcibly imposed on my property, my

Personal Computer, called Internet Explorer.

I use Netscape, a competitor of Microsoft’s.

My computer fails to operate properly due to

malicious engineering by the operating

system (Windows) when I respond that I

don’t want to use Internet Explorer as my

default browser. How can I be sure that the

I.E. code is to blame? How can the provisions

of this settlement be enforced? Computer

programming can be ‘‘transparent to the

user’’ and can cause lingering damage, and

even crippling effects on the property of

people like myself, if I don’t answer the

questions the way the code interprets I

should. How can situations like this be

monitored by the U.S. Government, or by

anybody else, for that matter? This is just one

of many examples I could use to describe the

performance (or lack thereof) of my property,

my Personal Computer, when maimed by any

number of versions of the Windows operating

system. I am a technical writer by trade, and

it is my job to document highly technical

programming code of sophisticated software

applications. Over the last twenty years, I

have been employed by the International

Business Machines Corporation (IBM), the

Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) and

three smaller software development

corporations. I have been very well trained to

know what the code is supposed to do, and

what the code is NOT supposed to do (the

actions and mistaken actions of programming

code).

In these twenty years of computer related

technical writing experience, I have seen the

emergence of the operating system named

DOS (short for Disk Operating System) that

Microsoft created for delivery on the IBM PC,

the evolution of DOS to Windows, and, over

time, the gradual, yet perceivable,

encroachment of the Windows operating

environment on my ability to perform my

specified tasks within the framework needed.

Jumps from versions of operating systems

affected the performance of other

applications that should not have been

affected and this caused much delay in the

delivering of my services to my employers in

a timely manner.

How can the U.S. Government hope to

understand, much less enforce, the terms of

this proposed settlement on the intricacies of

the Windows operating environment and the

thousands upon thousands of lines of code?

It is inconceivable to me that the U.S.

Government, in all it’s might and glory,

cannot see that this settlement is just a cop

out and is not justice, but an appeasement to

the monolithic Microsoft Corporation.

For these and other reasons, I hereby voice

my concern over the terms of the proposed

settlement and ask that remedial steps be

taken to truly and justly dismantle the

monopolistic Microsoft Corporation by force

of law.

Sincerely,

Don A. Ramier, III

Documentation Specialist

Geobot, Inc.

Memphis, Tennessee