26208 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00016173

From: Sage Major

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello

I am a software engineer in San Diego

California. And as such I am very much

involved with computers. What I have

recently heard about the Governments choice

to settle the Anti trust case against Microsoft

is disheartening. I expected that the

government would take put the consumers

who have been harmed by Microsoft first. In

the last 5 years I have purchased 8 new

computers, each one came with a Microsoft

operating system, of those 8 I still use 3, but

only 1 is running a Microsoft OS, OS as part

of their bundling requirements I effectively

purchased 8 copies of the same software to

run on one computer. I believe that as part

of their settlement Microsoft should be

required to follow open standards prevented

by law from extending those standards in a

closed fashion. For example, the Keberos

spec, which they embraced then changed so

that their OS’’ would not inter operate

properly with other operating systems such

as Solaris and Linux. They should also be

required to open their standards for many of

their products such as the networking so that

SAMBA can be made to work properly with

windows.

Also I feel that Microsoft should be

required to open the source of the operating

systems they are no longer supporting, thus

allowing anyone to fix the problems that

Microsoft will no longer fix, I am not

suggesting that they give away their current

or previous OS (XP and 2000/ME) but rather

that they open windows 95, 98 and NT

which they no longer support.

Respectfully

Sage Major

Sage Major Software Engineer

Email: smajor@vertel.com

web: http://www.vertel.com

Phone: (858) 824–4158

Mail: 5825 Oberlin Drive suite 300

San Diego CA, 92121

MTC–00016174

From: Keith Hudson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that what is going on is shameful.

I do not see the place for politics in legal

matters.

Fact: Microsoft has hurt people. They have

hurt you and have hurt me. Was this law suit

brought forth on legit reasons? Or was it just

to find a temporary source of revenue?

I get the feeling it is like the lawsuit

brought against the tobacco companies. We

now have a legal to sell class 1 carcinogen,

which requires no licensing to purchase.

Why because people do not matter even

when the issue is cancer and death. What

matters is money (note 1). So given that

Microsoft only hurt people and no one

actually died... I expect this to end up just

the same.

I want Justice. Will I get some???

I can guess the answer...No.

Microsoft owns you.

Keith Hudson

(Registered Voter)

note1: Some people have referred that the

ill effects of lost economy/jobs to certain

areas are reason enough to maintain the

tobacco industry. I stand affirmed that the

people and economy of tobacco is smaller

then the population dying from it.

MTC–00016175

From: Chris Vargas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:40am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I’m writing to express my strong concern

that the proposed settlement with Microsoft

does not go far enough to punish Microsoft

for proven monopolistic activities. Not only

that, it actually includes wording that could

threaten other operating systems’’ existences,

thereby strengthening Microsoft’s monopoly.

In a recent column, industry expert Robert

Cringely points out that Microsoft will not

have to open its APIs to non-commercial

entities; that could easily be seen as allowing

Microsoft to lock out Linux and FreeBSD

developers from allowing access to Microsoft

servers via a tool called Samba. This same

tool allows my Macintosh to access Microsoft

servers; it could easily be locked out if this

settlement goes through. Everyone in the

computer industry knows that Microsoft

takes advantage of its monopolistic position

on a daily basis. We hoped that the remedies

would try to reign Microsoft in. These

remedies do not do so, and in fact set up the

possibility of killing off one of the best nonMicrosoft OSes currently available.

Christopher Vargas

2205 N Pollard St

Arlington VA 22207–3813

MTC–00016176

From: Miles Pickering

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft

settlement. My main objection is that the

settlement lacks sufficient enforcement

provisions and is an invitation to further

legal proceedings that could take decades to

resolve. A three person team is hardly

sufficient to monitor the activities of a multi

thousand person organization.

There are many other objections that I

have, but that is the simplest.

Thank you,

Miles Pickering

851 Florida St.

San Francisco, CA 94110

www.4by6.com

MTC–00016177

From: Robert L. Scala

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Justice Department,

I believe that the proposed Microsoft

Settlement falls short of its goal of restoring

comptition to the operating systems and

middleware markets. I have been a software

engineer for 22 years, and have watched this

nascent industry go through many changes.

One of the distressing developments is

software vendors’’ use of their products as

agents to influence customers’’ future

purchases. This is similar but not identical to

electric razors working better with

‘‘compatible’’ razor blades, thus influencing

future purchases. The difference is that while

other companies can easily produce

competing razor blades, software is so

complex that producing a compatible

product can be impossible.

I have been frustrated by the proprietary

protocols of many software products

produced by many companies over the years,

not just Microsoft. But those products were

all vulnerable to competing products that

sold both razor and blade. But with

Microsoft’s monopoly on operating systems

and office software, effective competition is

impossible. If microsoft makes a better razor,

that’s fine, as long as others can compete to

make a better blade.

The problem I see with the proposed

settlement is that in some ways it also acts

as an agent to ensure that customers purchase

more Microsoft products. This may sould like

a bit of a stretch, but the fine print may grant

Microsoft broad powers, such as certifying

the authenticity and vitality of a competitor

(III.J.2.c) before providing that competitor

with information required in other sections

of the agreement.

This settlement stinks. Like the Trojan

Horse, it looks good on the outside, but the

details make it ineffective, and give Microsoft

some powers it did not have in the first

place. It’s time that the software I buy stops

working against me. That’s what I hoped

from this agreement. The whole agreement

needs to be tightened up. In particular:

P.III.A This section should include a

prohibition against retaliation against OEMs

that supply a single non-Microsoft operating

system on their products. As a customer, I

would like the option to purchase a computer

from a major vendor with a non-Microsoft

operating system, without also purchasing

Windows.

I believe that this section misses the mark

because dual-boot machines are niche-market

items and not a threat to Microsoft’s

operating systems monopoly. It is the singleboot, non-Microsoft machines that challenge

this monopoly. P.III.J.1.a These exceptions

should be eliminated, as true security does

not depend on the obscurity of the protocols.

Secure systems, and the trust of the general

public, are better served by using only

published and well documented encryption

systems. P.III.J.2 This is the big one. This

provides Microsoft the vehicle to withhold

APIs and interoperability protocols from, for

example, vendors of free software. Since

recently Microsoft has declared Linux the

single biggest threat to Windows, it is strange

that Microsoft will be allowed to shut out

this important segment of the competitive

landscape.

I don’t see any added burden to Microsoft

if they are required to put the APIs and

interoperability protocols in the public

domain. That way their main rivals will be

able to compete fairly in their effort to

provide customers better software. And isn’t

this what the whole Settlement Agreement is

all about? I know little about antitrust law,

so I can’t comment on the details of this

antitrust case or the appropriateness of the