28700 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00029649

Wayne Stringer

1270 205th St

Fort Seott, KS 66701

January 26, 2002

Attorney Renata Hesse

Department of Justice, Antitrust Arty

601 D Street NW, Suite 1200

Washington. DC 20530

Dear Attorney Hesse.

I strongly encourage your support in

accepting the proposed settlement in the

Microsoft antitrust suit ‘‘Microsoft. has

simply provided a product that meets a

market demand at a price the consumer is

willing to pay. If anything, their competitors

have used similar tactics to grow their own

business—in a sense. keeping the

marketplace fair.

The unfairness lies in Microsoft’s

competitors using the marts to accomplish

what they couldn’t do in the marketplace.

??’s Larry Ellison has very publicly decreed

their he will unseat Microsoft as the number

one player in the software industry, and he

will do anything to accomplish that goal I

sincerely object to this move to replace the

free market system with court manipulation.

With all due respect. I hope you object as

welt.

I encourage yore full acceptance and

approval of the settlement. I truly believe it

addresses all involved and allows Microsoft

and the industry to move forward on a

positive, note.

Sincerely,

Wayne Stringer

January 27, 2002, 11:40 pm

Antitrust Division

U.S. Dept. of Justice

601 D Street NW, Suite 1200

Washington DC, 20530–001

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to exercise my right under the

Tunney Act to voice my strong disapproval

of the current proposed settlement of the

Microsoft anti-trust trial. The proposed

settlement is both weak and lacking strong

enforcement provisions, and is likely to have

zero (or worse) effect on competition within

the computer industry, with continued and

increased harm to consumers in the form of

fewer options in the software market and

continued increases in the price of the

Microsoft software consumers are forced to

buy.

Microsoft was convicted of abuse of

monopoly power by one Federal judge, and

the judgment was largely upheld by another

seven Federal justices. In evaluating any

proposed settlement, keep repeating one

Important Phrase over and over: ‘‘Microsoft

is guilty.’’

The seven justices of the appeals court

ruled that any actions taken against Microsoft

(a) must restore competition to the affected

market, (b) must deprive Microsoft of the

‘‘fruits of its illegal conduct,’’ and (c) must

prevent Microsoft from engaging in similar

tactics in the future. The proposed settlement

fails on every one of these.

(A) Restore Competition

Among the many flaws in the proposed

settlement is the complete disregard for the

Open Source software movement, which

poses the single greatest competitive threat to

Microsoft’s monopoly.

Most organizations writing Open Source

software are not-for-profit groups, many

without a formal organization status at all.

Section III(J)(2) contains strong language

against non-for-profits, to say nothing of the

even less-formal groups of people working on

projects.

Section III(D) also contains provisions

which exclude all but commercially-oriented

concerns.

To restore competition the settlement must

make allowances for Open Source

organizations—whether formal not-for-profit

organizations or informal, loosely associated

groups of developers—to gain access to the

same information and privileges afforded

commercial concerns.

(B) Deprivation of Ill-Gotten Gains

Nowhere in the proposed settlement is

there any provision to deprive Microsoft of

the gains deriving from their illegal conduct.

Go back to the Important Phrase: ‘‘Microsoft

is guilty.’’ In most systems of justice, we

punish the guilty. But the current proposal

offers nothing in the way of punishment,

only changes in future behavior.

Currently Microsoft has cash holdings in

excess of US$40 billion, and increases that by

more than US$1 billion each month. A

monetary fine large enough to have an impact

on them would be a minimum of US$5

billion.

Even a fine that large would be a minimal

punishment. Microsoft’s cash stockpile is

used, frequently and repeatedly, to bludgeon

competitors, buy or force their way into new

markets, or simply purchase customers, with

the long-term intent to lock people and

organizations into proprietary software on

which they can set the price. Taking a

‘‘mere’’ US$5 billion from their stockpile will

have zero effect on this practice.

For that reason, Microsoft’s cash stockpile

must be further reduced. In addition to the

monetary fine, Microsoft should be forced to

pay shareholders a cash dividend in any

quarter in which they post a profit and hold

cash reserves in excess of US$10 billion. The

dividend should be substantial enough to

lower Microsoft’s cash holdings by US$1

billion, or 10%, whichever is greater.

(C) Prevention of Future Illegal Conduct

The current proposed settlement allows

Microsoft to effectively choose two of the

three individuals who would provide

oversight of Microsoft’s conduct and resolve

disputes. The proposed settlement also

requires the committee to work in secret, and

individuals serving on the committee would

be barred from making public or testifying

about anything they learn.

This structure virtually guarantees that

Microsoft will be ‘‘overseen’’ by a do-nothing

committee with virtually zero desire or

ability to either correct Microsoft abuses, or

even call attention to them.

Instead of the current proposal, a fiveperson committee should be selected.

Microsoft may appoint one person, but will

have no influence over any of the other four.

For the four, two should be appointed by the

Federal court of jurisdiction, one should be

appointed by the U.S. Department of Justice,

and one should be appointed by the U.S.

Senate. At least two of the appointees should

have technical experience and be competent

to evaluate technical proposals and

arguments by themselves, without the filters

which assistants would bring.

These are hardly the only thoughtful and

reasonable suggestions you will no doubt

receive regarding the proposed settlement of

this anti-trust case. And these are hardly the

only suggestions which should be adopted if

the settlement is to prove effective. But all of

them are essential to that aim, and adopt

them you must,

Thank you for your time and the

opportunity to comment.

Respectfully,

Michael A. Alderete

569 Haight Street

San Francisco, CA 94117

(415) 861–5758

michael@alderete.com

MTC–00029652

Ms. Renata Hesse

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Ms. Hesse:

I am writing in supp ort of the consent

decree for the Microsoft settlement. Microsoft

has show itself to be an innovator and a

company whose products make lives better

for he average American. This lawsuit is bad

for consumers and ba?? for the economy.

By supper ting the consent degree, you will

put an end to a lawsuit theft has become

more political than substantive. The Bush

administration priorities have been

amazingly out of step and out of touch with

the American public Hopefully they will at

least get this one right and settle the suit. The

I maybe we can all move on to a healthy

economy and a healthy debate concerning

the future of our nation.

Thank you.

Sincerely

Tim Allison Executive Board Member

CA Democratic Party

Title for identification purposes only. This

letter reflects the solely the opin on of the

signer.

MTC–00029653

January 25, 2002

Renata hesse

Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Ms. Hesse,

The Microsoft Lawsuit Is Bad for Business

and Bad for Consumers.

For many, the idea of attacking one of the

most successful companies in American

history, and its CEO Bill Gates, sounds like

fun. But the Department of Justice’s pursuit

of Microsoft is no laughing matter, having

cost American taxpayers well over $35

million in litigation so far and the meter is

still running.

The reality is that this lawsuit does nothing

to benefit consummers. It does however

benefit Microsoft’s competitors, who after

spending millions of dollars lobbying the

Department of Justice to file this suit want a

return on their investment. Also, it benefits

the lawyers who have made a fortune on both