28124 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices
MTC–00027805 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, against Microsoft. Fred Vogelstein, The Long From: Sudha Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 98–1232 Shadow of XP, Fortune, Nov. 12, 2001. Each To: Microsoft ATR (CKK) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, of these companies dominates a particular Date: 1/28/02 11:04am Defendant. STATE OF NEW YORK ex market that is distinct enough from Intel- Subject: LOGICAL EXPLANATION— rel.Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et compatible PCs not to be a part of this case, Freedom to Innovate al.,Plaintiffs,) v. Civil Action No. 98–1233 but related enough that Microsoft’s rivals fear Below are comments to specific issues (CKK) MICROSOFT Microsoft’s competition. For example, Sun addressed in the Court Case, http:// CORPORATION,Defendant. Microsystems dominates the market for www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm#docs COMMENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR server operating systems, but its market share Item #2: Someone else please invent a COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY is being eroded by lower-cost alternatives better operating system than Windows! Also The Association for Competitive from Linux and Windows. Why Competitors if MS Windows has monopoly, what about Technology (‘‘ACT’’) hereby submits its Are Largely Quiet on Microsoft Settlement, Intel—would they be ‘‘monopolizing’’ the comments on the Revised Proposed Final Associated Press, Nov. 15, 2001; Peter intel chip market? Judgment (‘‘RPFJ’’) that has been proposed by Burrows, Face-Off, Bus. Wk., Nov. 19, 2001, Item #3: A better operating system will most of the plaintiffs, including the United at 104. In asking for must-carry provisions for always win the user market. States, and defendant Microsoft Corporation. Java, limits on technical integration and the Item #4: How ridiculous! When Netscape ACT is a trade association representing some use of Microsoft middleware, and restrictions owned 70% of the market, was it not a 3,000 information technology (‘‘IT’’) on Microsoft’s investment in intellectual monopoly? companies, including Microsoft, on a number property, Sun seeks to maintain its Item #7: Java is very difficult to learn. of issues important to the industry. ACT’s stranglehold over the server marketplace. Training is unaffordably expensive. mission is to promote a vibrant, competitive Similarly, Oracle enjoys a privileged position Item #11: Netscape is NOT the browser IT industry and a vibrant IT marketplace in in the server database market but it, too, is innovator—give credit to the real innovator, which consumers, not the government, pick facing stiff competition from lower-priced please!!! (universities!) winners and losers. Because ACT believes alternatives that are gaining increasing favor Item #18: Microsoft has a right to ‘‘tie’’ all that, on balance, the RPFJ will be good for with reviewers and customers. As Oracle ITS products together! Integrating both the industry and consumers, it supports tries to move into different markets, such as applications makes better use of system the RPFJ. ACT also opposes the radical e-mail, where consumers expect tighter resources. proposals advanced by the remaining integration, it will be unable to maintain its Item #24, 25: As long as Windows is the plaintiffs because they would harm the high prices unless Microsoft’s capacity for operating system used, the creator of industry and serve no other purpose than to product improvement is limited. Finally, Windows, who is Microsoft, has the right to advance the interests of such Microsoft rivals Microsoft and AOL are both dominant present it anywhich way to the users as they as Sun Microsystems, Oracle, and AOL Time companies, orbiting in separate if please—basic human right of ownership! Warner. overlapping domains. Yet both companies Additional Comments: Seems to me like INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY regard themselves as being on a collision other vendors like IBM and Sun and The purpose of a Tunney Act proceeding course, as all forms of information and Netscape had nothing to complain about as is to determine whether the settlement that entertainment, including music and movies, long as THEY owned the lion’s share of the the federal government has entered into is are increasingly rendered in digital form. market. Their products were difficult to use within the reaches of the public interest. Steve Lohr, In AOL’s Suit Against Microsoft, and hard to learn. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d the Key Word Is Access, N.Y. Times, Jan. 24, Microsoft brought the computing technolgy 1448, 1460 (DC Cir. 1995) (internal quotation 2001. An internal document makes clear that to the layman’s door making it possible for marks and emphasis omitted). The RPFJ AOL is willing to take any necessary steps to the total computer illiterate people to be able easily meets that forgiving standard. Indeed, gain control of the desktop, including even to actually use the computer in effective and as shown in detail below, this conclusion is spreading false rumors about the stability of efficient ways, which would have been easily established by measuring the RPFJ Windows XP. See http:// totally impossible otherwise! against four settled principles that govern www.betanews.com/aol.html. Sudha relief in all antitrust cases, and by comparing 4 Beyond these companies’ own statements Database Administrator the RPFJ to the radical remedies that have and court filings their views are parroted by Department of Human Oncology been proposed by the States that have refused various proxies. These include organizations Telephone: 608.263.1549 to consent to the RPFJ (‘‘Litigating States’’). that were specifically formed to hobble Email:
VerDate 11
centralized information and online services. upon it. The Litigating States’ proposals enhancement ˆI of competitors. Robert H. It envisions an all- Oracle solution, advising would also weaken intellectual property Bork, The Antitrust Paradox 51, 56–89 businesses to ‘‘wage their own war on protections, setting an unnerving precedent (1978); see also National Collegiate Athletic complexity’’ by turning to Oracle for ‘‘an for any IT firm aspiring to lead its market, Ass’n v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85, 107 integrated, complete software suite.’’ AOL is and slow the pace of research and (1984). likewise promoting its ‘‘AOL anywhere’’ development in the IT field. Fourth, an It follows that any remedy must have as its strategy, which makes its popular services antitrust remedy should be easy to principal purpose the promotion of consumer and features available to consumers administer, and not be regulatory. The welfare. And, as the District Court recently anywhere, anytime through multiple Litigating States, in an effort to impose their noted, the states have the burden of platforms and mobile devices. Clearly, these concept of ‘‘competition’’ in the information establishing the efficacy of every element of companies do not believe that selling IT technology industry, would create a court- the proposed relief in achieving that products piecemeal best meets consumers’ run agency to supervise Microsoft’s every objective. Hearing Tr., Sept. 28, 2001, at 8, needs, yet that is what they are trying to force move and to judge its every action. In United States v. Microsoft, No. 98–1232 Microsoft to do. contrast, the RPFJ would create a more (D.DC). For two reasons, it is doubtful that Second, it is equally well settled that an independent, more limited supervisory body any remedy at all is needed to protect antitrust remedy should be tailored to fit the that would have full access to Microsoft consumers in this case. First, it appears that conduct that has been found illegal. Here, the information, but that would not combine the the particular conduct at issue in this case RPFJ carefully addresses each of the types of roles of prosecutor and judge. This too has never harmed consumers in any conduct that the Court of Appeals found counsels strongly in favor of the RPFJ, and meaningful sense. The government’s own illegal. It regulates the agreements that against the proposals advanced by the witness, Professor Frank Fisher of Microsoft can enter into and prevents Litigating States. MIT, testified during the trial that the Microsoft from retaliating against software or The remainder of these Comments is narrow conduct found unlawful by the Court hardware distributors. The RPFJ also gives organized as follows. Section I summarizes of Appeals had not harmed consumers at all. both computer manufacturers and consumers and explains in more detail the four When asked by plaintiffsO´ counsel whether more choices in configuring their computers, principles that are pertinent to the District that conduct had harmed consumers, Fisher and specifically enables them to turn off any Court’s determination of whether the RPFJ is replied: [O]n balance, I would think the Microsoft middleware and replace it with the within the reaches of the public interest. answer was no, up to this point. Trial Tr., middleware of their choice. And the RPFJ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460 (internal quotation Morning of Jan. 12, 1999, at 29 (Fisher), requires Microsoft to disclose technical marks and emphasis omitted). Section II United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 information and license its intellectual applies these principles to the RPFJ and, for F.Supp.2d 30 (D.DC 2000), aff’d in part, rev’d property to those whose products comparison purposes, to the proposals in part, 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir.), cert. denied, interoperate with Windows. advanced by the Litigating States. 122 S.Ct. 350 (2001). To be sure, the RPFJ in some respects goes I. THE PROPER ANALYTICAL If Microsoft’s conduct did not harm beyond the findings of illegal conduct FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING consumers even on balance it is difficult to affirmed by the Court of Appeals. ANTITRUST REMEDIES. see how any remedy is now needed to protect Unfortunate as that may be, it should not Antitrust law recognizes that competition them. But if any remedy is needed, the Court deter the Court from adopting the RPFJ. As gets its vigor from the urge to win. A desire must be careful not to risk harming the District Court for the District of Columbia to ensure that all competitors will do equally consumers by adopting remedy proposals stated in another context: If courts acting well makes robust competition impossible such as those advanced by the Litigating under the Tunney Act disapproved proposed and sets the stage for price-fixing and similar States remedies which, to paraphrase consent decrees merely because they did not behavior. Accordingly, antitrust law and Abraham Lincoln, are of the competitors, by contain the exact relief which the court antitrust remedies are designed to foster real the competitors, and for the competitors. would have imposed after a finding of competition, so that consumers and the Second, even if Microsoft’s conduct could liability, defendants would have no incentive wider economy can ultimately benefit. Thus, have harmed consumers in some way, any to consent to judgment and this element of while competitors ˆI driven by their own urge such risk has now abated. This entire case is compromise would be destroyed. The to win ˆI may try to misuse antitrust law to premised on the assertion that Microsoft consent decree would thus as a practical further their own goals, government agencies enjoys market power by virtue of the fact that matter be eliminated as an antitrust and courts should be vigilant to ensure that a high percentage of IBM-compatible PCs use enforcement tool, despite Congress’ directive their power is used in consumersO´ interests Windows as their operating system. Whether that it be preserved. rather than competitorsO´ . The case law on or not that was true when the case was tried, United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., remedies generally ˆI and antitrust remedies such knowledgeable industry observers as 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.DC 1982), aff’d sub in particular ˆI supports the goal of harnessing Sun’s president have effectively conceded nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. competition. A close reading of that case law that whatever market power Windows might 1001 (1983) (mem.). Nevertheless, the vast reveals four specific principles that promote once have given Microsoft is now virtually a majority of the RPFJ’s provisions respond to that goal, and that are dispositive here. thing of the past. For example, in his January the findings that were affirmed by the Court A.Any Remedy Must Have A Probability Of 3, 1999 interview on 60 Minutes, Scott of Appeals. Virtually all of the proposals by Benefiting Consumers, And Not Be Designed McNealy rejected Leslie Stahl’s suggestion the Litigating States, by contrast, address to Punish the Defendant Or, Worse, To that with its Java software, Sun now ha[d] a areas wholly outside the scope of this case, Enhance The Position Of the Defendant’s chance to make Windows obsolete. Instead, such as Microsoft’s corporate acquisitions, Rivals. McNealy retorted, Windows is obsolete, [and] the Office suite of programs and, of all things, Perhaps the most important principle of we have a chance to show the world that it Microsoft’s conduct of its intellectual antitrust law is that any remedy must be is. 60 Minutes (CBS Television Broadcast, property litigation. The Litigating States’ designed to benefit consumers, not just Jan. 3, 1999). McNealy elaborated this theme proposals should be rejected for that reason punish the defendant or enhance the position in a subsequent Wall Street Journal op-ed alone. of the its rivals. The law is clear that, in a piece, which appeared more than two years Third, any antitrust remedy should civil antitrust case, any injunctive remedy ago. He asserted that, because of the growth minimize ‘‘collateral damage’’ to third must be, as its name suggests, remedial rather of the Internet, [a] parties. Here, the RPFJ carefully avoids than punitive. E.g., United States v. E. I. Du few years from now, savvy managers won’t serious harm to other sectors of the Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316, 326 be buying many, if any, computers. They information technology industry. (1961); International Salt Co. v. United won’t buy or build anywhere near as much The Litigating States’ proposals, by States, 332 U.S. 392, 401 (1947); Hecht Co. software either. They’ll just rent resources contrast, would inflict enormous damage on v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329 (1944). from a service provider, primarily over the the rest of the industry. Perhaps most Moreover, as Judge Robert Bork has shown in Internet. Scott McNealy, Why We Don’t Want important, their proposals would fragment his famous book, The Antitrust Paradox, the You to Buy Our Software, Wall St. J., Sept. the Windows standard and, in turn, entire purpose of antitrust law is promotion 1, 1999, at A26. McNealy’s predictions are profoundly disrupt other businesses that rely of consumer welfare, not the protection ˆI or already being borne out. A recent article
VerDate 11
assessed the changes in the operating system words, an injunction simply forbidding the not attempt to recreate or to maintain by market. It noted that Microsoft’s main specific conduct found to detailed regulation a perfect world. Its goal markets are maturing and the entire ground Normally, of course, a settlement is is to restore competition, including legitimate under its empire is shifting. Market reached before a trial on the merits. In that competition by the dominant firm. Ford researchers expect PC sales worldwide to situation, it is clear that a reviewing court Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, drop [in 2001] and at best to stagnate in 2002. cannot expand an antitrust decree to remedy 577–78 (1972). C.The Remedy Should Avoid What is more, software is increasingly a perceived problems that lie outside the scope Or Minimize Collateral Damage To The Rest service delivered over the Internet, meaning of the complaint. That was the thrust of the Of The IT Industry. that operating systems are no longer central. Court of Appeals’ 1995 Microsoft decision, Another traditional principle[] of equity Microsoft: Extending Its Tentacles, The 56 F.3d 1448. Furthermore, any such action jurisdiction,’ Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at Economist, Oct. 20–26, 2001, at 59. Thus, by a reviewing court would most likely be 319, is that any relief imposed by a court whatever market power Microsoft now unconstitutional. Id. at 1459; see also should not inflict unnecessary harm on third possesses is rapidly being eroded, or is Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001, parties. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway already effectively gone. In short, because 1006 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). Here, Co. v. Wichita Board of Trade, 412 U.S. 800, Microsoft’s present market power is limited of course, the Court of Appeals has affirmed 824 (1973) (plurality opinion); Gilbertville at best and will be further eroded in the near some of the district court’s findings of Trucking Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 115, future, there is no need for antitrust liability. Expanding the remedy to address 130 (1962). In this case, there is a real risk remedies. See also William E. Kovacic, issues as to which liability has not been of harm to the entire IT industry as well as Designing Antitrust Remedies for Dominant proven let alone issues as to which liability consumers. As explained in the attached Firm Misconduct, 31 Conn. L. Rev. 1285, has never been alleged would clearly exceed affidavit of ACT’s president, Jonathan Zuck, 1314 (1999) (explaining that rapid the District Court’s power. (Exh. A) both consumers and IT companies technological change can indicate the be illegal is ordinarily considered derive enormous benefits from the existing instability of market power, and therefore to sufficient. Or, as the District Court recently Windows platform. For IT companies in the need for milder remedies). At a explained, the scope of any proposed remedy general, and ACT’s members in particular, minimum, any antitrust remedy must take must be carefully crafted so as to ensure that that platform is unusually valuable and into account the dramatic decline in any the enjoin[ed] conduct falls within the . . . important for at least three reasons. market power Microsoft might previously behavior which was found to be 1. Constant Improvement and Addition of have enjoyed, and be limited accordingly. anticompetitive. Hearing Tr., Sept. 28, 2001, New Features and Functionalities. One B. The Remedy Should Be No Broader at 8. reason Windows is so valuable to the IT Than Necessary To Address The Conduct Some commentators have nevertheless industry is that Microsoft has constantly That The Court Of Appeals Held Illegal. argued that the District Court is obligated to improved it. For example, as Mr. Zuck Another principle that must guide the terminate Microsoft’s dominant market explains, each new release of Windows analysis of any proposed antitrust remedy is position, which they characterize as an contains software drivers for the major new that it must be no broader than necessary to illegal monopoly. Jennifer Bjorhus, printers and other peripheral devices that address the conduct that has been found Settlement Draws Frustration From Few Tech have been released since the prior version of illegal. As with all injunctive relief, the Giants That Spoke Out, San Jose Mercury Windows. This means that developers of substantive prerequisites for obtaining an News, Nov. 3, 2001, at 20A. But this applications such as money management equitable remedy as well as the general argument rests on a misinterpretation of the software, graphics programs, etc., do not availability of injunctive relief . . . depend pertinent case law, including the Court of need to create their own drivers for these on traditional principles of equity Appeals’ decision. Contrary to this argument, devices or, worse, choose from among several jurisdiction. Grupo Mexicano de Desarollo, the law does not require that a remedy competing drivers. Affidavit N 7. S.A., Inc. v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. attempt to recreate the world as it might have Virtually everyone in the IT industry, 308, 319 (1999) (quoting 11A C. Wright, A. existed absent the violation or deprive a moreover, has a strong interest in seeing this Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and defendant of the proceeds of its business. trend continue in the future. The addition to Procedure u 2941, at 31 (2d ed. 1995)). And Instead, where a violation is found, the Windows of such new functionalities as one of these traditional principles of equity remedy, as the Court of Appeals pointed out, voice recognition, for example, will allow jurisdiction, id., is that an injunction should should be designed to unfetter’ the market software developers to add such features to be no more burdensome than necessary to from the anticompetitive conduct.’ Microsoft, their products at minimal cost. Those costs prevent a recurring violation of the law. See 253 F.3d at 103 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. will increase dramatically and consumer generally Madsen v. Womens Health Center, United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972)) benefits will be reduced if software 512 U.S. 753, 765 & n. 3 (1994), and cases (emphasis added). developers are forced to develop their own cited therein. This is as true in antitrust as That, moreover, is why the Court of voice recognition features or, worse, to port in other areas of the law. For example, in the Appeals placed heavy focus on the their programs to several competing voice- Lorain Journal case, which Robert Bork requirement that, before a court can seek to recognition programs. Id. N 8. 2.Windows’ believes is the closest to this one, the Court undo an alleged monopoly, there must be a Uniformity and Widespread Acceptance. noted that, [w]hile the decree should significant causal connection between the Uniform standards are likewise crucial to an anticipate probabilities of the future, it is allegedly illegal conduct and the existence of efficient, rapidly evolving IT sector. As Mr. equally important that it ... not impose that monopoly. The District Court recently Zuck explains, communications and Internet unnecessary restrictions. 342 U.S. at 156. The echoed this same theme when it remarked standards provide the language necessary for Court of Appeals recognized this principle that it intended to fashion an injunction that many different computers to talk or network when it instructed the District Court that any would avoid a recurrence of the violation and with one another, enabling, for example, remedy should be tailored to fit the wrong . . . eliminate its consequences. Hearing users of the World Wide Web to locate and creating the occasion for the remedy, Transcript, Sept. 28, 2001, at 9 (emphasis retrieve the information they seek. Operating Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 107, i.e., that it should added). systems perform a similar function, allowing be focused on the conduct [the court] has There is a vast difference between hardware devices and software applications found to be unlawful and should be limited unfettering or unshackling a market from to communicate with a computer. Indeed, it to provisions that are required to rectify prior anticompetitive behavior, and is Windows’ consistency that makes it so [Microsoft’s] monopoly maintenance attempting to reconstruct the market as it valuable. violation, id. at 104, 105. might have existed absent that conduct. The As the Court recognized in its Findings of Consistent with these principles, since at former is a legitimate objective of an antitrust Fact, Windows exposes a set of application least 1911 it has been the law in antitrust remedy; the latter is not. programming interfaces’ that lets software cases that ordinarily ... [an] adequate measure In the District Court’s words, attempting to interact in a consistent way with any Intel- of relief would result from restraining the reconstruct the market as it might have been compatible PC. United States v. Microsoft doing of such [illegal] acts in the future. absent the conduct at issue goes well beyond Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9, 12–13 (D.DC 1999) Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. simply eliminating the consequences of (Findings of Fact). This means that the same 1, 77 (1911) (emphasis added). In other anticompetitive conduct. Antitrust law does software will run on all Windows-based PCs
VerDate 11
and, by and large, all hardware devices can 15 hardware support, a developer must practices, and to allow AT&T to compete in be used as well. Affidavit N 10. Hence, the train personnel to identify and understand new markets. Then too, the provisions of that consumer avoids the need for time- the idiosyncrasies of each operating system decree were touted as an alternative to consuming, often expensive retraining, and under which it markets its product. These regulation. But in practice, the break-up of thus has a greater incentive to learn how to increased support costs increase prices and AT&T generated pervasive judicial use the existing system. Also, the widespread decrease consumer demand for products and participation in the telecommunications acceptance that Windows enjoys makes it services. Id. N 15. Consumers, moreover, industry. For example, between 1984 and easier to ensure that computer products (both obtain all of these benefits inexpensively. 1995, the court ruled on over 250 waiver hardware and software) work the way they Compared to the cost of a typical PC, and to requests pursuant to the consent decree. Most are supposed to, and work well with each the cost of the software typically installed on of these were necessary to allow the other. Operating system consistency usually that PC, the cost of Windows (at about 5% companies spun off from AT&T to respond to means that software will operate normally of the PC’s price) is relatively small. A low market developments that had not been even if the type of computer changes. For price, coupled with all the benefits stemming anticipated when the decree was entered. example, WordPerfect will function as from Windows’ widespread use, drives up Although 96 % of the requests were advertised on a Windows-based Dell demand by making computer products more eventually approved, the average delay prior computer or a Windows-based Compaq affordable and attractive to consumers. Id. N to approval was four years. It is not computer. Id. 16. surprising, then, that Congress put the court For these reasons, as Mr. Zuck explains, As Mr. Zuck explains, the widespread use out of the telecommunications business the cost per potential customer of developing of an inexpensive, constantly evolving when it passed the Telecommunications Act a piece of software for the Windows operating system is particularly important in of 1996. operating system is significantly lower than an industry as dynamic as the information This kind of intrusive, time-consuming the cost for the UNIX operating system. And technology industry, which constantly regulation is particularly ill-suited to a that, of course, translates into more software generates both new products and new uses rapidly- changing industry such as IT. For and lower prices for consumers. Id. N 13. for those products, and for which new example, many settlement opponents have In addition, more than any other operating developments such as the Internet can made proposals resting on a distinction system, Windows has remained compatible redraw the competitive landscape overnight. between middleware and the operating with software written for older Windows A popular operating system like Windows system. But this distinction is dubious even versions. As a result, consumers have much allows consumers and developers to act now, and is rapidly being eroded. The federal greater confidence that the software they quickly and with confidence that software courts are not equipped to draw lines in the purchase will work when they upgrade to a and hardware will work on most PCs today shifting sands of information technology. new Windows release. Hardware and in the future. And the fact that many Notwithstanding this reality, some manufacturers and developers similarly face settlement opponents have proposed ongoing consumers choose Windows adds a measure much less risk that their research and regulation of Microsoft’s conduct, or detailed of stability to a highly dynamic industry. development expenditures will be stranded if enforcement provisions envisioning ongoing For all these reasons, any remedy that Microsoft releases a new version. Id. N 14. judicial involvement in Microsoft’s resulted in the balkanization of Windows 3. Windows’ Low Cost to Consumers. The management. Some have even proposed would have a disastrous effect on the entire Windows operating system also allows the egregious private attorney general provisions developer, or other providers of support IT industry. Software developers, Internet that would simply foment litigation and services, to support end-users at minimal access providers, and others rely on the enrich plaintiff’s lawyers. All of these cost. As Mr. Zuck explains, each operating widely installed, constantly improving proposals would create the kinds of problems system not only has signature application Windows platform as the groundwork for that arose in abundance in the wake of the interfaces and user commands, it also their own products. If there were no AT&T consent decree. presents its own set of bugs and system consistent platform, software developers Other cases demonstrate the dire errors. Thus, to provide software or would have to try to port their products to consequences that can arise when courts In its consistency from one computer and various operating systems, increasing those attempt to regulate an industry under the software program to another, Windows is products’ costs substantially, or else they guise of an antitrust decree. For example, in markedly different from the UNIX operating would have to accept a much smaller market United States v. United Shoe Machinery system. That system is in reality a collection share. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 295 (D. Mass. 1953), of similar operating systems, including Sun’s This, too, would drive up prices because aff’d, 347 U.S. 521 (1954), the district court Solaris, Digital’s UNIX, HP’s HP-UX, IBM’s the cost of distributing software is tiny imposed extensive regulation on the shoe AIX and SCO’s UnixWare. See http:// compared to the cost of developing it. machinery industry over a ten-year period. www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/ Windows’ importance as a consistent The remedies were meant to end United’s defineterm?term=unix. Although different platform is illustrated by the fact that, when practice of distributing shoe machinery versions may be desirable with respect to it appeared that Microsoft might be broken through long-term leases and to make shoe many products, for most computer users such up, stock prices in the rest of the IT industry machinery available from a variety of sellers. a proliferation promises nothing but fell. Kenneth G. Elzinga, David S. Evans, To this end, the court restricted lease terms, confusion, lost time, fewer applications, and Albert L. Nichols, United States v. Microsoft: required United to offer its machines for sale higher prices. For example, a consumer who Remedy or Malady?, 9 Geo. Mason L. Rev. in addition to leasing them, and required shifts from one UNIX-based computer to 633 (2001). Likewise, any remedy such as United to charge separately for services such another UNIX- based computer may find that those proposed by the Litigating States that as repairs. Id. at 352–53. However, a 1993 the two computers use different UNIX would fragment Windows would be unlawful study concluded that the court order versions with different features, functions, because of the harm it would impose on third destroyed many efficiencies arising out of the and idiosyncrasies. Consequently, the parties. technical realities of the shoe manufacturing consumer may have to devote considerable D. The Remedy Should Be Judicially industry, impaired the quality of United’s time and expense learning how to perform Administrable, Not Regulatory. performance, and likely contributed to the the same tasks on the second UNIX- based Finally, any remedy should be judicially dramatic decline of the domestic shoe computer that she already knew how to administrable and not put the courts in the industry in the 1960s and beyond. Scott E. perform on the first platform. Worse still, the position of having to oversee product design. Masten & Edward A. Snyder, United States software applications or hardware equipment United States v. Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.: On the she purchased for and used on the first 935, 948 (DC Cir. 1998). Some have suggested Merits, 36 J.L. & Econ. 33 (1993); see also computer may be incompatible with the that the kinds of extreme remedies proposed Lino A. Graglia, Is Antitrust Obsolete?, 23 version of UNIX installed on the second by the Litigating States are in some sense Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 11, 17 (1999). For all computer. And a UNIX user obviously has alternatives to regulation. But history these reasons, judicial regulation of the IT less incentive to develop skills tailored to her suggests quite the opposite. industry, or any portion of that industry, is particular system if it is likely that she will In 1982, for example, AT&T entered into a to be avoided at all costs. use a different UNIX operating system in the consent decree designed to remedy what the Indeed, that appears to be the main future. Affidavit NN 11–12. government perceived as anticompetitive message of the DC Circuit’s earlier decision
VerDate 11
rejecting the preliminary injunction that the A. The RPFJ Is Designed To Benefit information. E.g. David Ho, Identity Theft Government sought. Microsoft, 147 F.3d at Consumers, Whereas The Litigating States’ Tops Fraud Complaints, Wash. Post, Jan. 24, 948 (Antitrust scholars have long recognized Proposals Are Designed To Benefit 2002 at E4. Because Microsoft would have the undesirability of having courts oversee Microsoft’s Competitors. almost no control over access to its code and product design, and any dampening of As noted above, the most vital principle in to its technical information under the states’ technological innovation would be at cross- designing an antitrust remedy is that it must plan, hackers and other unsavory characters purposes with antitrust law.). And the Court be designed to benefit consumers rather than would find it much easier to penetrate the of Appeals’ most recent decision is entirely competitors. Unlike the Litigating States’ most common privacy and security consistent with that message. Microsoft, 253 proposals, the RPFJ easily complies. protections. It would also be harder for F.3d at 101–07. Indeed, even Judge Jackson Consumers will benefit from the guaranteed Microsoft to control computer piracy, which has acknowledged that in this case, as in flexibility and choice provisions in the RPFJ. in the end drives up prices to consumers. By others: The less supervision by this court, the All new Microsoft operating systems, making the fruits of Microsoft’s innovations better.’ John R. Wilke, For Antitrust Judge, including Windows XP, will have to allow readily available to competitors, the Trust, or Lack of It, Really Was the Issue, end users to readily remove or re-enable Litigating States’ proposals would also harm Wall St. J., June 8, 2000, at A1. Microsoft’s middleware products such as its consumers by reducing Microsoft’s incentive II. THE RPFJ IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL Internet browser, instant messaging tools, to innovate in the future. Indeed, it is likely OF THESE PRINCIPLES, WHEREAS THE media player, and email utilities. While end that Microsoft’s research and development PROPOSALS BY THE LITIGATING STATES users can already remove Microsoft budget, which has historically been the AND OTHER CRITICS WOULD VIOLATE middleware from Windows XP, the RPFJ will largest in the industry, would be EVERY ONE OF THEM. make it easier for users to switch and substantially reduced to the 22 detriment of On balance, the RPFJ complies with these compare among competing middleware consumers. Property ownership is the four principles and is therefore in the public products, including those installed by cornerstone of a free market system; as interest. Like most settlements, it is less than computer manufacturers and those readily property rights are eroded, so is the incentive perfect. However, the purpose of this accessible over the Internet. Most to put that property to its most valuable use. proceeding is not to produce a perfect order. importantly, the RPFJ preserves the integrity Beyond these problems, the Litigating States’ The court must review the settlement that the of the Windows standard while making it proposals are patently designed to provide parties have agreed to, and enter it so long easier for other platforms to compete with specific benefits to Microsoft’s principal as the proposal falls within the reaches of the Windows. As discussed above, the network competitors, and to reinforce their dominant public interest.’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1458 effects that characterize the operating system positions in markets that are irrelevant to this (DC Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original; citations market mean that consumers and the IT litigation. This approach to remedies is omitted); see 15 U.S.C. u 16(e) (Before industry both benefit when they know that contrary to the interests of consumers and the entering any consent judgment proposed by the platform they rely on is widely used, and rest of the IT industry, and contrary to the United States under this section, the will continue to be widely used in the future. antitrust law. Benefits to AOL Time Warner. court shall determine that the entry of such Findings of Fact at 19–23; see also Affidavit Some of the Litigating States’ proposals will judgment is in the public interest.). NN 9–14. By and large, the RPFJ avoids directly benefit AOL Time Warner. For It is clear that entry of the RPFJ is in the requirements that would encourage the example, the Litigating States’ proposal to public interest. The federal government has explained at length in its Competitive Impact emergence and sale of multiple, incompatible break Microsoft’s control over the Windows Statement that the RPFJ will provide a operating systems under the Windows brand brand, and the proposed prohibition on prompt, certain and effective remedy for name. At the same time, the RPFJ protects making Microsoft middleware the default for consumers by enjoining the conduct that the Microsoft’s competitors in several ways. Most any functionality, LSPFJ u 10, unless the Court of Appeals found to be illegal, and by importantly, it forbids retaliation against OEM or other licensee can override the restoring competitive market conditions. OEMs, u III.A, requires uniform license terms setting and designate a different default or Competitive Impact Statement at 2, United for the twenty largest OEMs, u III.B, and give the end-user a neutrally presented States v. Microsoft, No. 98–1232 (D.DC Nov. prevents Microsoft from including various choice means that consumers who think they 15, 2001) (CIS). Each of the Court of Appeals’ restrictive provisions in OEM licenses, u are buying a coherent, integrated operating findings of anticompetitive conduct is III.C. Thus the RPFJ opens up the valuable system designed by Microsoft will get addressed by at least one provision of the OEM distribution channel to competitors, something quite different. proposed final judgment. See Exh. B (table addressing the Court of Appeals’ most To see how this benefits AOL, consider the showing which provisions address each substantial concerns. By increasing following scenario: AOL’s Magic Carpet finding of illegality). Indeed, the RPFJ’s competitors’ access to OEMs and by service will compete with Microsoft’s .Net provisions regarding server protocols, and its preventing Microsoft from negotiating quotas services. If Microsoft designates .Net as a enforcement provisions, extend beyond the with IAPs, the RPFJ reasonably ensures that default service in Windows, AOL can ask anticompetitive conduct found by the Court consumers will have access to whatever computer sellers to re-direct the default to of Appeals. Accordingly, any notion that the products they want. Magic Carpet. Indeed, AOL’s strategy is to do RPFJ only tells Microsoft to go forth and sin By contrast, a central thrust of the just that. Alec Klein, AOL to Offer Bounty for no more, United States v. Microsoft Corp., Litigating States’ proposals is to break Space on New PCs, Wash. Post, July 26, 2001, 159 F.R.D. 318, 334 (D.DC 1995), rev’d, 56 Microsoft’s control over the Windows brand. at A1 (In internal AOL documents, the media F.3d 1448 (DC Cir. 1995), is ludicrous. Forcing Microsoft to break up Windows into giant lays out a strategy that calls on In contrast, the Litigating States and other what a court conceives of as its component manufacturers to build into their new critics of the RPFJ have proposed a variety of parts both destroys the utility of the standard personal computers icons, pop-up notices radical remedies that they claim would be Windows platform and entangles judges in a and other consumer messages aimed at more effective than the RPFJ in restoring maze of technical regulation that they are pushing aside Microsoft by giving AOL’s own competition. However, these proposals poorly equipped to solve. If implemented, products prominent placement on PCs. It’s violate the four principles described above, the LSPFJ would result in the creation of as the latest foray in an intensifying feud and are in fact designed to benefit Microsoft’s many as 4,000 different versions of Windows, between the two technology titans over competitors. Indeed, these proposals would each requiring support not only by Microsoft consumers and supremacy on the Internet.) advantage Microsoft’s competitors in areas but also by OEMs, software developers, and Yet this hybrid product will still be marketed other than PC operating systems, which is the other IT professionals. This outcome would as a Windows system, making Microsoft only market at issue in this case. Moreover, worsen, not improve, the lot of consumers. It responsible in consumers’ eyes for programs rather than seeking to restore competition, would only serve to weaken Microsoft’s it has no control over, and giving AOL a free these proposals and others like them seek to product offerings, confuse users, drive up ride on Microsoft’s reputation and marketing. impose a court-designed, court-regulated prices, and limit software choices. Other users will be provided with a regime that is especially inappropriate for a Such remedies would also create concerns bewildering array of choices, all presented in rapidly changing area such as IT. A about privacy and security. Consumers are a neutral manner, i.e. without guidance as to principle-by-principle analysis highlights the concerned and rightly so about on-line what product best suits their needs. Yet flaws in these proposals. privacy and the security of their electronic sophisticated users who have information
VerDate 11
about middleware alternatives do not need proposals suggests that they mistakenly read internet browser or any additional neutrally presented choices to help them the Court of Appeals’ decision on liability as functionality with the basic Windows make their decisions. Less sophisticated a broad affirmance, rather than as it was in operating system. Yet, as the Court of consumers are entitled to get the brand they fact a reversal in part containing very precise, Appeals observed, [a]s a general rule, courts paid for, or at least to be told how to get that narrow holdings on liability. Indeed, the DC are properly very skeptical about claims that brand. The RPFJ’s Section III, by contrast, Circuit reversed the District Court’s findings competition has been harmed by a dominant puts Microsoft and its competitors on a level that Microsoft had committed attempted firm’s product design changes. Id. at 65. playing field, with minimal judicial monopolization and illegal tying. In perhaps the Litigating States’ most intervention. As to the remaining findings, the Court of egregious proposal, Sun CEO Scott McNealy Benefits to Sun Microsystems. Another Appeals affirmed only some of the District got a special gift he has always wanted, see Microsoft rival, Sun, would also benefit Court’s findings that Microsoft had illegally Peter Burrows, Face-Off, Bus. Wk., Nov. 19, directly from the Litigating States’ proposals. maintained its monopoly. Microsoft, 253 2001, at 104, — the ability to stop Microsoft Sun would benefit most obviously from the F.3d 34. from buying anything that could help it proposal that Microsoft include Sun’s Java The Court of Appeals held that some compete with Sun. If Microsoft wants to with every copy of Windows. LSPFJ u 13. exclusionary contracts and negotiating tactics make an acquisition, an investment, or an Apparently Sun sees no conflict between that were unlawful; that Microsoft had acted exclusive license, it must notify the plaintiff proposal and the proposal that Microsoft illegally in deceiving developers about its states’ attorneys two months in advance. make available middleware- free versions of own Java language; and that Microsoft had LSPFJ u 20. The states make this proposal Windows at reduced prices. It is hard to illegally excluded Internet Explorer from its despite the total absence of any takeover- argue that this requirement would benefit Add/ Remove facility and intermingled its related findings anywhere in this case. It was consumers, who can already get Sun’s Java Internet Explorer and operating system code. precisely this type of overreaching that the free from those web sites that use it. The The Court also emphasized that, on remand, Court of Appeals soundly rejected in 1995, federal government’s settlement with the District Court must base its relief on some when it reversed Judge Sporkin’s refusal to Microsoft will make Sun’s Java even easier clear indication of a significant causal approve the federal government’s settlement for consumers to obtain by allowing OEMs, connection between the conduct enjoined or with Microsoft and reassigned the case to a IAPs, and ISVs to provide it to their mandated and the violation found directed different district judge. Microsoft, 56 F.3d customers without fear of retaliation. But toward the remedial goal intended.’ Id. at 105 1448. Judge Sporkin had gone beyond the under the Litigating States’ proposal, all (quoting 3 Philip E. Areeda & Herbert complaint to try to force the parties to consumers would have Sun’s Java forced on Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law N 653(b), at 91– address his own concerns about vaporware. them. 92 (1996)). The Court of Appeals found that effort Benefits to IBM and Apple. The Litigating Section III of the RPFJ addresses each of inappropriate. And it is no more appropriate these holdings. As to exclusionary contracts States’ proposals also benefit IBM and Apple, for the Litigating States, at this late date, to and high-pressure negotiations, the RPFJ giving them each an Office suite. IBM wants try to drag in new issues and punish forbids Microsoft to retaliate against OEMs, u Office for Linux, and under the Litigating Microsoft for conduct that it never had a III.A; requires Microsoft to sell Windows to States’ proposal it will get its wish by chance to defend. If a claim is not made, a the twenty largest OEMs under uniform snatching Microsoft Office source code at the remedy directed to that claim is hardly license terms, u III.B; and forbids retaliation auction price. Under that proposal, Microsoft against, or exclusionary agreements with, appropriate. Id. at 1460. must maintain and support Office for the ISVs or IHVs, u III.G, u III.F. As to Java, the Another example of overreaching is buried Macintosh even if it is a money-losing RPFJ requires disclosure of information in the Litigating States’ proposals regarding proposition. And if Apple is unhappy with needed to design other software to be fully orders and sanctions, and which singles out the Office support Microsoft has to provide, compatible with Windows, u III.D, and for punishment any groundless claim it can snatch the source code at auction, and requires Microsoft to license its intellectual Microsoft makes of intellectual property have an Office all its own. LSPFJ u 14. These property to rivals, u III.I. As to Internet infringement. Again, Microsoft’s conduct in porting proposals go far beyond the scope of Explorer, the RFPJ forbids Microsoft to intellectual property litigation is no part of this case, which is the Windows operating restrict any OEM from modifying their this case. system market. computer interfaces in various ways, such as Finally, the Litigating States’ proposed ban Conversely, the federal government’s removing the Internet Explorer icon, u III.C, on retaliation against those who participated settlement with Microsoft addresses the and requires Microsoft to allow end-users to in the litigation is not grounded in any Court of Appeals’ only holding of remove access to Microsoft Middleware or to finding of illegality, even though Microsoft anticompetitive behavior involving Apple, designate a non-Microsoft middleware has been enmeshed in antitrust cases for namely the agreement that Apple would product as the default instead of the years and has presumably had ample distribute Internet Explorer exclusively. Microsoft product, u III.H. opportunity to retaliate unhindered. The Under the RPFJ, Apple, like all ISVs, is free The Court of Appeals was also quick to RPFJ retaliation ban, in contrast, is clearly to distribute and promote non-Microsoft note that much of the conduct that Microsoft aimed at the possibility that Microsoft might platform software without fear of retaliation. was accused of and even conduct that was try to punish companies that do not The states’ proposal would give a free ride to found to be anticompetitive in particular cooperate with Microsoft’s business goals. a handful of companies and would impose an settings is common in business, and is The Court of Appeals envisioned that unnecessary burden on Microsoft but would usually not anticompetitive. But the states’ Microsoft would continue its normal not benefit consumers. proposed categorical bans sweep in a host of business relations, albeit with injunctions in The states’ proposals also provide free pro-competitive conduct, in disregard of the place against specific conduct found to be source code for Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, Court of Appeals’ instruction that any anticompetitive. The RPFJ provision LSPFJ u 12, giving IBM a good browser for remedy be narrowly tailored to specific implements that vision, while the states’ the entire line of IBM computers and Apple holdings of illegality. For example, the states proposal would open the door to unfounded a leg up on its software design. But once would ban exclusive dealing across the claims of retaliation by any disgruntled again, the problem with all this generosity is board. Yet the Court of Appeals explained participant in the litigation. that its sole purpose is to benefit competitors that: ‘‘exclusive contracts are commonplace Of course, the RPFJ itself is overbroad in and harm Microsoft, not to benefit especially in the field of distribution in our some respects. consumers. competitive, market economy, and imposing Yet despite these problems with its scope, B. The RPFJ Is Narrowly Tailored To The upon a firm with market power the risk of it is clear that as a whole, the RPFJ falls Court Of Appeals’ Ruling, Whereas The an antitrust suit every time it enters into such within the reaches of the public Litigating States’ Proposals Go Well Beyond a contract, no matter how small the effect, For example, the Proposed Final Judgment It. would create an unacceptable and unjustified defines Microsoft middleware as including Another key flaw in the Litigating States’ burden upon any such firm.’’ Microsoft, 253 Outlook Express, photo and video editing proposals is that they go well beyond the F.3d at 70. software, and other products that cannot Court of Appeals’ ruling. Indeed, the Similarly, the proposed judgment reflects serve as competitive threats to Microsoft. sweeping scope of the Litigating States’ an implacable hostility to integrating an RPFJ u VI.K.1. This definition clearly
VerDate 11
overreaches. This case is about Microsoft’s installing or promoting non-Microsoft consumers and companies would suffer if the response to the emergence of middleware as products and services; IT companies will only option is to design around Microsoft a competitive threat a possible alternative thus have the option to negotiate with the products, and the option of collaborating platform for software developers that could OEM(s) of their choice for that space. By with Microsoft on entirely new projects is run on a variety of operating systems and contrast, the states’ proposal to give the excluded. thus would make software independent of OEMs the choice of which parts of Windows D. The RPFJ Attempts to Structure a Windows. Only middleware that can interest. to include on their computers and forcing Workable Compromise, Whereas the It addresses the Court of Appeals’ findings of Microsoft to accommodate those choices Litigating States Propose to Establish a Court- illegality, remedies them all, and ensures would fragment the Windows standard. As Run Ministry of Microsoft. Finally, the competitive conditions in the market for explained above and in Mr. Zuck’s affidavit, approach of the RPFJ is not unduly Intel-compatible PC operating systems. C.The such fragmentation would have disastrous regulatory. To be sure, the enforcement RPFJ Will Benefit The IT Industry, Whereas effects. Creating multiple versions of mechanism is too intrusive and could be The Litigating States’ Proposals Would Windows would slow the release of new substantially improved. However, the Impose Substantial Harm On Other IT versions of Windows and would make it substantive provisions of the RPFJ focus on Companies. The RPFJ also offers significant impossible for software developers to improving competition rather than advantages to the IT industry. Most program with confidence. Either they would micromanaging markets or product design. importantly, of course, it preserves the write only to the leanest version available, Thus, most of the injunctions tell Microsoft integrity of Windows. But it also serves the depriving consumers of the benefits of most what not to do, rather than imagining what IT industry by achieving a relatively quick of Windows’ functionality, or they would a perfect competitor might do and then resolution of this dispute. Litigation over have to write multiple versions of each attempting to enforce that vision. Not so the remedies, possibly followed by appeal and program, substantially increasing proposal by the Litigating States. They have remand or further appeal, could take years. development costs and customer confusion. proposed ongoing regulation of Microsoft’s The Supreme Court has recognized that a A stagnant, fragmented Windows would hurt conduct, including ongoing judicial government antitrust consent decree is a the entire industry. involvement in Microsoft’s management, by contract between the parties to settle their On another front, the RPFJ benefits all IT a special master who would serve as an disputes and differences, United States v. ITT providers, including Microsoft’s competitors, investigator, prosecutor, judge, and Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 235– by guaranteeing access to technical potentially even witness against Microsoft. 38 (1975); United States v. Armour & Co., 402 specifications. Microsoft would have to LSPFJ u 18. The special master would be free U.S. 673, 681–82 (1971), and normally promptly disclose technical information that to receive and act on even anonymous embodies a compromise; in exchange for the enables any Windows operating system to complaints, again a procedure that the Court saving of cost and elimination of risk, the communicate with Microsoft servers and of Appeals harshly criticized when Judge parties each give up something they might with all Microsoft middleware products. uu Sporkin used it. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1464. have won had they proceeded with the III.D, III.E. To encourage more non-Microsoft These proposals are most likely unlawful, if litigation. Armour, 402 U.S. at 681. The RPFJ middleware, the settlement forces Microsoft not unconstitutional. Id.; Microsoft, 147 F.3d. has the virtue of bringing the IT industry to license any intellectual property rights that at 954 (granting mandamus to vacate non- certain benefits and protections without the others might need to compete with Microsoft. consensual reference to a special master uncertainty and expense of protracted u III.I. And as with OEMs, Microsoft could where [t]he issue here is interpretation, not litigation, Armour, 402 U.S. at 681; not penalize any software developer, service compliance; the parties’ rights must be Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459; it will provide provider, or hardware vendor that develops determined, not merely enforced). And in all prompt, certain and effective remedies, CIS at or sells products that compete with Windows events, they would allow Microsoft’s rivals to 3. and Microsoft middleware. uu III.A, III.F. thwart competition at every turn. The RPFJ also directly helps OEMs and By contrast, as discussed above, the The Litigating States also err in proposing other IT firms. Many of the options that will Litigating States’ proposals would stifle an unduly long duration period. Any remedy benefit consumers will also benefit the innovation further by weakening or entirely in this case must be sensitive to the rapid companies they buy from. As discussed eliminating Microsoft’s intellectual property pace of technological change in the operating above, OEMs serve as an independent basis rights, thereby reducing its incentive to system market. An injunction that is for software development across different innovate. E.g. LSPFJ uu 1 (stripping down appropriate today may be completely operating systems poses a competitive threat Windows), 2(a) (mandatory licenses), 3 unsuited to tomorrow’s market. If, as The to Windows. Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 53. (mandatory licensing of predecessor Economist has written, operating systems are Similarly, the RPFJ overreaches when it versions), 4 (disclosure of APIs and technical no longer central, then there is little point in requires that Microsoft disclose information), 12 (giving away browser), 14 regulating that market. Microsoft: Extending communications protocols used to (mandatory porting), 15 (intellectual property its Tentacles, The Economist, Oct. 20–26, interoperate with Windows 2000 servers and licenses), 19(f) (intellectual property claims). 2001, at 59. The RPFJ recognizes this reality their successors. The Court of Appeals’ These provisions would not only hurt by limiting its term to five years, with the definition of the relevant market made it Windows, but also would instill in any possibility of a two-year extension. u V. Not clear that servers are not a part of that market sensible IT executive the fear that success so the Litigating States, who in their rush to and therefore, that they are not a part of this will lead to confiscation. Even if these ask for the most punitive remedies available case. Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 52–53. As proposals did not end Microsoft’s seek a ten-year term for the judgment. In an explained above, the only connection improvements to Windows, another effort to cover unforeseeable eventualities, between servers and this case is that provision would likely do so. That is the the States also define key terms such as Microsoft’s competitors in the server market Litigating States’ proposal to require middleware, browser, and technical have been highly influential with the Microsoft to notify any ISV of non-Microsoft information so broadly that the proposed Attorneys General who continue to litigate middleware of any planned action, sixty days judgment is in some ways absurd. For this case. The server protocols themselves are in advance, if the action will interfere with example, it appears that the middleware irrelevant and thus compelling disclosure is the middleware’s performance or definition would include parts of Windows both overbroad and designed to benefit compatibility with Windows, unless the 3.0, which was developed before anyone competitors rather than consumers. action is taken for good cause. LSPFJ u 5. thought of Java or Internet Explorer. Because 29 that equip their products with any After the notification, the ISV could they are unworkable, many of the Litigating Microsoft operating system will benefit from complain to Microsoft’s court-installed States’ proposals invite additional judicial guaranteed flexibility under the RPFJ. The regulators to try to block the change. involvement through complaints by twenty largest OEMs will also be entitled to The states’ broad prohibitions on exclusive competitors or others; indeed, the provisions uniform licensing terms, with some dealing and on agreements limiting for anonymous complaints invite not only flexibility for volume discounts and competition also would prohibit Microsoft involvement, but abuse. marketing allowances. OEMs will have the from entering into joint ventures with any In short, the Litigating States’ proposals ability to lease desktop space as well as space other members of the IT industry. Because IT pose an enormous risk of ongoing judicial in the boot sequence on their computers by products are so interdependent, both regulation. Not only would they require
VerDate 11
substantial modification of Microsoft’s members, and especially on independent industry is that Microsoft has constantly internal management structure, but they software vendors (ISVs) in the business of improved it. For example, each new release would require the District Court to set up its developing applications software for use by of Windows contains software drivers for the own regulatory agency, headed by the special business and consumers. major new printers and other peripheral master and potentially including a 3. I became President of ACT in 1998. devices that have been released since the substantial staff, all paid by Microsoft. Courts Since assuming leadership of ACT, I have prior version of Windows. This means that are simply not designed for this sort of been responsible for providing analysis, developers of applications such as money ongoing regulatory role, particularly in a field commentary and background information on management software, graphics programs, as far removed from their expertise as IT. At behalf of the IT industry on a broad range of etc., do not need to create their own drivers best, the Litigating States’ proposals would technology issues being debated in the public for these devices or, worse, choose from create a contentious, judicially-regulated policy arena. I have appeared on a wide among several competing drivers. regime in place of a market. At worst, they variety of television and radio programs, and 8. Virtually everyone in the IT industry, would seriously impair IT innovation, at do a large amount of writing for trade moreover, has a strong interest in seeing this everyone’s expense. publications such as PC Magazine, PC Week, trend continue in the future. The addition to CONCLUSION DBMS, the Visual Basic Programmer’s Windows of such new functionalities as For all these reasons, the RPFJ should be Journal, and Windows Tech Journal. I have voice recognition, for example, will allow adopted, and the Litigating States’ proposals coauthored several books on the subject of software developers to add such features to should be rejected. Windows application development, their products at minimal cost. Those costs Gene C. Schaerr, DC Bar No. 416368 including Visual Basic How-To. I also will increase dramatically and consumer Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP regularly speak at trade conferences in the benefits will be reduced if software 1501 K Street, NW United States and around the world on developers are forced to develop their own Washington, DC 20005 matters important to ACT’s membership. voice recognition features or, worse, to port (202) 736–8141 4. Prior to becoming President of ACT, I their programs to several competing voice- (202) 736–8711 (fax) spent more than 15 years as a professional recognition programs. Counsel for the Association for software developer. Most recently, I served as 9. Windows’ Uniformity and Widespread Competitive Technology Director of Technical Services at the Acceptance. Uniform standards are crucial to IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT Spectrum Technology Group in Washington, an efficient, rapidly evolving IT sector. COURT DC, a consulting firm specializing in client/ Communications and Internet standards FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA server, Internet and data warehouse provide the language necessary for many UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, solutions. Prior to that, in 1988, I founded different computers to talk or network with v. Civil Action No. 98–1232 ( and served as President of User Friendly, one another, enabling, for example, users of CKK) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Inc., of Washington, DC, a company the World Wide Web to locate and retrieve Defendant providing consulting and software the information they seek. Operating systems STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel.) development services to local businesses. perform a similar function, allowing Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et al.,) The company expanded into commercial hardware devices and software applications Plaintiffs, software development with Crescent to communicate with a computer. Indeed, it v. Civil Action No. 98–1233 (CKK) Software in 1992. I also set up U.S. is Windows’ consistency that makes it so MICROSOFT CORPORATION, operations for Matesys, a French software valuable. Defendant. firm that produced client/server development 10. As the District Court recognized in its DECLARATION OF JONATHAN ZUCK tools including ObjectView. At Matesys, I Findings of Fact, with Windows the January 25, 2002 was responsible for product management, operation of both the computer and the Qualifications and Scope of Testimony marketing and sales, and helped build the software is the same from computer to 1. My name is Jonathan Zuck. I am over 18 company into an $11 million business before computer. This means that the same software years of age. I reside at 3701 Upton Street it was sold to Knowledgeware. will run on all Windows-based PCs and, by NW, in Washington, DC. I am President and 5. The purpose of ACT’s Tunney Act and large, all hardware devices can be used Executive Director of the Association for comments, and of my Declaration, is to as well. Hence, the consumer avoids the need Competitive Technology (ACT). I make this provide the Court with the IT industry’s for time-consuming, often expensive declaration in my capacity as President of perspective on the Revised Proposed Final retraining, and thus has a greater incentive to ACT, which declaration is based on my Judgment (RPFJ) as well as the industry’s learn how to use the existing system. Also, personal knowledge of the facts set forth perspective on more radical proposals that the widespread acceptance that Windows herein. To my knowledge, the factual have been advanced by various groups, enjoys also makes it easier to ensure that assertions presented in this affidavit are true including the Litigating States. Specifically, computer products (both hardware and and correct. this Declaration seeks to explain the software) work the way they are supposed to, 2. ACT is a nonprofit association importance of the standard, constantly and work well with each other. Operating representing over 9,000 companies and evolving Windows platform and the heavy system consistency usually means that individuals in the information technology costs that would be imposed by the Litigating software will operate normally even if the (IT) industry. ACT members include States’ proposals or any other proposals that type of computer changes. For example, independent software developers, hardware impair Windows’ integrity. For the reasons WordPerfect will function as advertised on a developers, systems integrators and on-line explained below, ACT believes that the Windows-based Dell computer or a companies, many of whom are small and Litigating States’ proposed remedies could Windows-based Compaq computer. medium-sized businesses who depend on well be devastating to the IT industry, with 11. In its consistency from one computer Microsoft technology for their success. no corresponding benefit. In contrast, the and software program to another, Windows is Protecting the freedom to achieve, compete RPFJ will likely preserve and even strengthen markedly different from the UNIX operating and innovate, ACT is dedicated to preserving the IT industry. system. That system is in reality a collection the role of technology companies in shaping Value of Windows of similar operating systems, including Sun’s the future of the IT industry. Although their 6. In various ways, the Litigating States’ Solaris, Digital’s UNIX, HP’s HP-UX, IBM’s businesses vary, ACT members share a proposals will threaten the three features of AIX and SCO’s UnixWare. See http:// preference for market-driven solutions over the Windows operating system that make it www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/ regulated ones. Through education, advocacy so valuable to the IT industry: (1) the fact that defineterm?term=unix. Although different and collaboration, ACT gives the IT industry Microsoft constantly improves it by adding versions may be desirable with respect to a powerful voice in shaping its future. new features and functionalities; (2) its many products, for most computer users such Although Microsoft is also an ACT member, uniformity and widespread acceptance; and a proliferation promises nothing but ACT’s interest in the remedies phase of this (3) its low cost to consumers. confusion, lost time, fewer applications, and case stems primarily from the serious adverse 7. Constant Improvement and Addition of higher prices. impact the remedies proposed by the New Features and Functionalities. One 12. For example, a consumer who shifts Litigating States will have on ACT’s other reason Windows is so valuable to the IT from one UNIX-based computer to another
VerDate 11
UNIX- based computer may find that the two should avoid any remedies that would hence consumers its consistency from one computers use different UNIX versions with threaten or undermine these benefits. Windows-based PC to the next. different features, functions, and Potential Adverse Effects of the Litigating 24. Uncertainty in the IT Industry. Yet idiosyncrasies. Consequently, the consumer States’ Proposals on Consumers and the IT another major cost of the States’ proposal is may have to devote considerable time and Industry the tremendous uncertainty it would create expense learning how to perform the same 18. The RPFJ will increase consumer and, indeed, already has created in the tasks on the second UNIX- based computer choice while maintaining the integrity of the industry and the associated financial that she already knew how to perform on the Windows platform. OEMs and consumers markets. The uncertainty surrounding the first platform. Worse still, the software will be free to add whatever products they long-term implications of the proposed applications or hardware equipment she choose, even to the startup sequence, or to remedies is already causing software and purchased for and used on the first computer disable access to Microsoft middleware, but hardware developers, as well as their current may be incompatible with the version of consumers will still be able to choose and prospective clients, significant harm. I UNIX installed on the second computer. And Microsoft products and programmers will do not believe that the vast majority of the a UNIX user obviously has less incentive to still be able to invoke Windows’ full conduct remedies proposed by the Litigating develop skills tailored to her particular functionality. RFPJ u III. States will do anything but create an system if it is likely that she will use a 19. In contrast, the Litigating States’ unwieldy regulatory regime for software and different UNIX operating system in the proposals will impose tremendous costs on hardware designers. future. the IT industry, its consumers, and the public 25. A major source of uncertainty has to do 13. For these reasons, the cost per potential at large. with the future of the Windows platform. We customer of developing a piece of software 20. Balkanizing Windows. A central do not know whether, assuming that the for the Windows operating system is problem with the Litigating States’ proposals Litigating States’ proposals or similar significantly lower than the cost for the UNIX is that they would allow OEMs to create what proposals are adopted, Windows will operating system, which translates into more would amount to separate versions or flavors continue to be the standard operating system, software and lower prices for consumers. of the Windows platform. As a result, the or whether it will be viable at all. 14. In addition, more than any other proposal would set in motion a process that 26. For all these reasons, the mere fact that operating system, Windows has remained could well result in the balkanization of the Litigating States have proposed such compatible with software written for older Windows, to the detriment of IT companies extreme remedies is already creating a certain Windows versions. As a result, consumers and consumers alike. amount of paralysis among those in the IT have much greater confidence that the 21. The Litigating States’ proposals would industry who are working to improve software they purchase will work when they require Microsoft to offer stripped-down existing products and to create the products upgrade to a new Windows release. versions of Windows, with the middleware of the future. Conclusion Hardware manufacturers and developers elements removed, at reduced prices. OEMs 27. While the RPFJ is superior to the similarly face much less risk that their R&D could then either leave those elements out Litigating States’ proposals in many ways, a expenditures will be stranded if Microsoft altogether or replace them with competitors’ crucial difference is that the RPFJ would releases a new version. products. As a result, a software developer preserve the integrity of the Windows 15. Windows’ Low Cost to Consumers. The can no longer assume that particular standard. By doing so, it will preserve the Windows operating system also allows the Windows components will be readily integrity of the IT and particularly the developer, or other providers of support available to consumers. The developer must software development industry. services, to support end-users at minimal then purchase the needed feature from 28. I declare under penalty of perjury that cost. Each operating system not only has Microsoft and include it with its own the foregoing is true and correct to the best signature application interfaces and user program, or it must force the customer to of my knowledge: commands, it also presents its own set of purchase it from Microsoft. Either way, both Jonathan Zuck, President, bugs and system errors. Thus, to provide the developer and the consumer would Association for Competitive Technology software or hardware support, a developer ultimately suffer from the need for a second, Signed this the 25th day of January, 2002 must train personnel to identify and unnecessary transaction. understand the idiosyncrasies of each 22. As an example, suppose that a MTC–00027807 operating system under which it markets its company had an application that relied upon From: Shaun Savage product. These increased support costs a Windows innovation to automatically To: Microsoft ATR increase prices and decrease consumer support the display and navigation of its Date: 1/28/02 11:04am demand for products and services. HTML-based on-line help system. The Subject: Stop MS, for the comsuner sake!! 16. Consumers, moreover, obtain all of proposed remedy lets OEMs sell Windows HI these benefits inexpensively. Compared to without that support middleware, so the This is not a legal argument, it is a personal the cost of a typical PC, and to the cost of developer would have to incur the costs to experiance in dealing with MS. The the software typically installed on that PC, create, distribute, and support its own settlement is bad. It does not deal the the the cost of Windows (at about 5%) is middleware for on-line help display without problem of MS rape of the consumer and relatively small. A low price, coupled with delivering any greater value to customers. developer. all the benefits stemming from Windows’ 23. The Litigating States’ proposed remedy, MS Modis Operandi(sp) is to control the widespread use, drives up demand by moreover, actually gives OEMs an incentive access to computers and make money! This making computer products more affordable to strip down Windows before offering it to is at the expense of consumers and and attractive to consumers. consumers. That is because Microsoft shall developers. When Word98 first came out it 17. The widespread use of an inexpensive, offer each version of the Windows Operating could not write Word95 format. This constantly evolving operating system is System Product that omits such Microsoft prevented the two programs sending file back particularly important in an industry as Middleware Product(s) at a reduced price and forth. This forced the Word95 user to dynamic as the information technology (compared to the version that contains them). upgrade(spend money). industry, which constantly generates both Litigating States’ Proposed Final Judgment u MS does NOT follow standards!!! Even new products and new uses for those 1. Under the Litigating States’ mistaken when thay help define the standards they products, and for which new developments notion of Middleware, Windows itself would break the same standards they help define. such as the Internet can redraw the have been called Middleware, since it This forces developers to write new work competitive landscape overnight. A popular originated as an application running on top arounds for the ‘‘intentianl bugs/features’’. operating system like Windows allows of DOS. There can be no doubt that the This make MS products incompatiable with consumers and developers to act quickly and implementation of this concept would all other software, because these bugs are with confidence that software and hardware effectively balkanize what is now a uniform, unpublished. will work on most PCs today and in the coherent software platform. This There is a difference between API future. And the fact that many consumers balkanization would of course destroy one of (Application Programming Interface) and choose Windows adds a measure of stability the characteristics of Windows that makes it (protocols/file formats). An API requires a to a highly dynamic industry. This Court so valuable to developers of software and library that know the (protocol/file format).
VerDate 11
To be interoperable the lowlevel protocols the essential facility called ‘‘source code’’. system is not viable as a product sold and file formats need to be known. This Non-programmers seem to not yet separately from the operating system. Lessig includes security protocols. MS does not understand this. Persons who work in the thought so, and this is because he lacks intovate!! they take existing ideas and Linux industry know this from experience, experience selling operating system comercialize the one method of doing that and I will try to convey this experience as components in the Linux/Unix programming idea. The only reason they can do that is that someone who has built a business from the industry. they are an monopoly. If low level formats sale of patches (for the ReiserFS filesystem) Think of Jefferson Parish, and understand and protocols are published then the ‘‘secret’’ in the only market where I had access to that software takes the fine distinctions of is in the quality in programming the kernel source code. Jefferson Parish to their extreme: application. This is where the compitition Software is unique in that ‘‘Compiler’’ *Software can be integrated in its come in. If they can do something better than technology allows consumers to effectively functioning, and yet separate in its sale, and someone else in an open playing field, that reassemble software themselves. this means separate as a product for purposes is the way to compete. An monoculture of A compiler is a computer program that of anti-trust law. (Most software products are computers is very instable. the security of MS takes a set of instructions about how to build functionally integrated with a separately sold products is terrible!! When you allow the mix a program (called ‘‘source code’’), and builds operating system.) of data and program to be exchanged between the software. Almost all software is actually *Software can be integrated in its physical systems then there is a lack of security. MS assembled by compilers not humans, and the distribution, yet separate in its sale. allows the transfer of data AND code in its work of humans is almost entirely in creating (Purchase of a CDROM holding the software data documents. VERY BAD! A way to force the source code. is often separated from purchase of a license MS to improve service/products to the You have probably never used a compiler to use, and it is often considered efficient by consumer is to allow compitition. To allow to assemble software yourself as a consumer publishers to bundle physical distribution compitition ALL (that means ALL) low level because: without bundling licensing.) protocols, file formats, and algorithms needs *you are not a Fortune 500 company with *Software can be sold and transmitted over to be in the public domain. MS will try to a staff of trained system administrators the Internet with no physical product created sneak out of doing any change in its MO, and *you probably use Windows not Linux, at all. There is only one characteristic that put paper work and beurcrat stuff, and legal and Windows does not give you access to the necessarily defines the separation of a stuff between change. Just look at the lies and essential facility known as ‘‘source code’’ software product, and that is the license. A ‘‘tricks’’ they pulled during the trial phase. that your ‘‘compiler’’ needs to reassemble license is a contract, and contractual tying is Any settlement needs to have teeth. Really your software illegal under the Clayton and Sherman acts. BIG teeth!!! *the new crusade by Linux to make the compilation process user friendly has only Yet wait, if software products are so easily I, as an consumer, can’t take legal action separable, why aren’t there far more OS just started Because you have never done it against MS, I don’t have the money, time,. . . components out there being sold? Control yourself, your intuition may tell you that it I may have a justice case the MS harmed over an essential facility is the answer. is not feasible, or that it is not feasible for a me, but I can never seek or have justice on Secret source code can be an essential large market. Beware this intuition, it is my own. facility the equal of putting a combination simply wrong. The Fortune 500 are a ‘‘The goverment is here to protect me from lock on every bolt in a car, and then things I can’t protect myself from’’ significant market for antitrust purposes, and declaring the combination to be a trade Please protect me from Microsoft! Linux is rapidly moving towards making secret. Shaun Savage asking compilers to perform reassembly a You wouldn’t allow this for a car, yet 20477 SW Tesoro CT friendly experience for average persons. traditional industry practice is that source Aloha OR 97006 It is frequently efficient to post-sale code is kept a trade secret. The crisis our [email protected] integrate software for a large part of the industry is facing, in which monopoly market, and it is getting more so with time. MTC–00027808 control is the norm in all parts of it not in This is deeply different from physical infancy, is directly caused by this industry From: Hans Reiser products such as cars, in that most persons practice of secret source code. It is not To: Microsoft ATR do not find it as effective to buy a collection necessary that the text be kept secret for Date: 1/28/02 11:03am of parts and self-assemble because they copyright protection on books to be Subject: Microsoft Settlement would have to do the work of assembly. With maintained, and it is also not necessary for If you are not able to process html format software, the computer does the work of post- software that the source be kept secret to for proper printing, or you lost the html sale assembly, and the consumer simply tells protect ownership of it. Far from it, the version I sent, please accept this email the computer to do it, goes to make some tea, underlying historical motivation of copyright (excepting this sentence) as my comment on comes back, and the job is done. and patent laws is to bring more information the proposed settlement, otherwise please For instance, the business that I own out of trade secret status. accept the html version which preceded this. (Namesys, see www.namesys.com) made its We have a widespread well-entrenched MS Settlement Reflects Deep Failure To money entirely from sales of a filesystem industry practice that keeps an essential Understand Implications of ‘‘Patching’’ (ReiserFS) that was sold separately from the facility (source code) under the control of Technology operating system (Linux) for the first few monopolists (of which Microsoft is merely The positions of the DOJ, the States, and years of our business. The revenues from this the largest), and we have almost complete even Lawrence Lessig are based on a failure were enough to support us. Paying monopolization of the software industry in to understand that something unique to the consumers such as MP3.com would take our each of its mature niches. These are cause software industry, which programmers call source code, add it to the Linux kernel source and effect. ‘‘patching’’ technology, makes software code, use a compiler, let their computer do I pray to you to not allow their products infinitely separable if an essential a few minutes of work to reassemble the continuance. Open up the operating system facility called ‘‘source code’’ is provided. No kernel, and get a better filesystem as a result source code, and go even further. Declare that disclosure of APIs, and no structuring of of it. This allowed MP3.com to save $20 software is per se separable where source APIs, can accomodate all potential products million dollars according to their estimate. code is available. Declare source code to be in the manner that disclosure of source code Others in my industry also sell filesystems an essential facility. Return copyright and plus use of patching does. Every line of separately from operating systems patent practices to their historical roots, and source code is a possible location for (www.veritas.com got its start that way, and require that information created be made insertion of new code that forms a new still makes simply enormous amounts of public if it is to be protected. product. This new code can be distributed money from doing so, there are others....). Please do not hesitate to ask me to separately from the original source code, and Notice that I say filesystem. Your intuitive comment in greater detail or respond to your post-sale added by the consumer, via what notion of what is an operating system questions in this matter. I am available for in programmers call a ‘‘patch’’. Patching probably tells you that the filesystem is part person testimony if desired. technology fundamentally changes product of the operating system. You may be tempted I have great respect for Reilly and separability, making separation dependent on to think that what is part of the operating Lawrence Lessig generally, and for their
VerDate 11
arguments in most other matters, and I hope contact disclosure provisions of the Tunney Date: 1/28/02 11:09am it is understood that I merely have an Act is one more reason to reject the Subject: Microsoft Settlement advantage in possessing ‘‘patches’’ sales settlement. Renata B. Hesse experience. Conclusion Antitrust Division As for my needs, please create the legal If you have the courage to firmly reject this U.S. Department of Justice conditions which will allow me to port settlement, if you declare software to be per 601 D Street NW ReiserFS to Windows and sell it separately se separable, and if you move aggressively to Suite 1200 from the operating system, by giving me the enforce the claim of the States while we wait Washington, DC 20530–0001 access to source code that I need to do the for a new administration, you will have January 28, 2002 port, and to sell the patch separately from the earned the admiration of the American Dear Ms. Hesse: OS. people. Some of them will even know this. The United States v. Microsoft Corporation Essential Facilites Related Citations More importantly, you will. litigation, which was brought nearly four [U.S. vs. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass’n, 166 Sincerely, years ago, should be ended with the consent U.S. 290 (1897)] is the original precedent. Hans Reiser decree by your Court. [MCI Communications v. AT&T Corp. 708 Owner/Operator of Namesys Products which formed the basis for the F.2d 1081 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. Author of ReiserFS, a significant Microsoft case in 1998 have since 891 (1983)] describes a case more recent (it component of Linux disappeared, becoming obsolete antiquities to is a persuasive rather than controlling 5918 Marden Lane be viewed with a smile and a ?remember authority). Note that the 4 part test lacks any Oakland, CA 94611 when? usually reserved for hula-hoops and component referencing the need for a market phone: +1 510–339–1044 (USA) RC Cola. Other issues at the core of the case to have been active at some point prior to the +7 095 290 6405 (I am currently in Russia) have also changed almost unidentifiably or refusal to deal, and is the better for that lack. have been sold or merged with others. Profit To The Monopolist From Tying MTC–00027809 The failed Microsoft Network is one of the The Chicago School, to which the current From: Joanne [email protected]@inetgw best examples. It was part of the case in the DOJ administration adheres, holds that there To: Microsoft ATR beginning, but has since faded from the is no incentive to monopolists to engage in Date: 1/28/02 11:08am landscape as another of Microsoft’s unsuccessful ventures. What’s lost in the tying because it believes they cannot extract Subject: Microsoft Antitrust lawsuit haze in the anti-trust argument is that more profit from forced sales of the tied Mr. Ashcroft, Microsoft has probably experienced as many product than they would from raising the Attached is a letter from me regarding the failures as successes, but instead of price of the tying product, unless business antitrust lawsuit agaist Microsoft. Please employing more attorneys to even the efficiencies exist. For this reason, they feel consider my feelings on this matter. playing field by litigation, they employed that there is no need for the Clayton Regards more developers and more R&D folks. prohibition against tying, and feel there are Joanne Turner It’s clear that Microsoft’s innovations over civil liberty reasons to avoid government 210 Manchester Street the past 25 years were not anti-competitive, intervention into markets. Their analysis Danville, CA 94506 assumes the tied product is part of a fully witnessed simply by the robust software January 27, 2002 marketplace we have today. In fact, the competitive market, and for this reason it is ≤ Attorney General John Ashcroft products and platforms Microsoft offers deeply flawed. US Department of Justice continue to make other products possible, The profit to the monopolist from engaging 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW like educational and learning programs. in tying is the difference between the market Washington, DC 20530 New products and consistently decreasing price and the marginal cost. For less than Dear Mr. Ashcroft: prices cannot be symptoms of a closed or fully competitive markets, which is to say I write today to document my support of anti-competitive marketplace. The cries of most markets, this is a non-zero amount. For the recent settlement proposed by the DOJ in ?monopolist!? against Microsoft, it turns out software, especially software sold and its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. I were an overreach. distributed over the Internet, the marginal support this settlement because its More regulation will only damage one of cost is close to zero, and the motivation for formalization will mean that Microsoft’s the most promising industries in America. I engaging in tying is extremely high. Senators attention will no longer be diverted and they hope you will sign off on the settlement Sherman and Clayton were much more can get back to the business of creating agreement between Microsoft and the Justice knowledgable about economics than the excellent products. The formalized Department and nine state attorneys general. Chicago School is paid to think (various settlement will also mean that the IT industry Sincerely, monopolists have given large funding sums will get the boost it has lacked since the Onnie Shekerjian to pro-trust law schools). Some might like to beginning of this case. This boost will 1301 East Myrna Lane think that, but for government, free choice undoubtedly affect our failing economy Tempe, Arizona 85284 expressed in the market would free us, but positively. in sad reality the government is not the only I am pleased with the terms of the MTC–00027811 means by which people organize to control settlement as it stands, and I feel that From: Guinn Unger and plunder the public. Cartels and Microsoft has made substantial strides to To: Microsoft ATR monopolies take away our freedoms as well. honor these terms. The compliance with Date: 1/28/02 11:10am The only thing worse than a government these terms will ensure that competitiveness Subject: Microsoft Settlement controlled economy is a monopoly controlled in the IT industry will be highly increased Attorney General John Ashcroft economy. thereby giving consumers greater choices. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: The Settlement As A Whole Microsoft has already agreed to give their I believe that the demands to break up I am opposed to the settlement as a whole. competitors license to their intellectual Microsoft in the beginning of the antitrust President Bush owns stock in Microsoft, and property and have also granted access to suit against it would have had an adverse he appointed to head the antitrust division at internal codes and protocols. These moves effect not only on my business but the IT the DOJ someone who is widely known to be are all pro-competition and should more than industry as a whole. Fortunately, the opposed to laws against tying. When quell the concerns of Microsoft’s opponents. settlement reached between Microsoft and someone is opposed to a law that they are It is my hope that you will see how crucial Justice Department is reasonable. To settle supposed to prosecute, they should not be formalize this settlement is to the consumer, this case is in the best interests of the allowed to settle a case their predecessor the IT industry and the economy and bring consumer and the economy. While I do started. The proposed settlement is designed this matter to an expeditious close. believe that sanctions against Microsoft are to be toothless, and to do nothing. Do not Sincerely, appropriate, we need to react rationally and allow President Bush to settle this case, and not do anything that would result in damage thereby cripple the ability of the next MTC–00027810 to the economy. administration to enforce the law. The failure From: Onnie Shekerjian Thank you. of Microsoft and the DOJ to adhere to the To: Microsoft ATR Guinn Unger, President
VerDate 11
Unger Technologies, Inc. a company, other than public utilities, for that has some added features such as a stable Microsoft Certified Partner which we have absolutely no choice. Internet explorer, the only one that benefits Compaq Solutions Alliance Partner The long term success of capitalism is the consumer. They don’t need to go out [email protected] depends on free markets, fair competition and purchase additional software to get on www.ungertech.com and freedom of choice in selecting products the web which is what most customer are 281–367–2477 and services. We don’t have any of these in now getting computer for. This settlement Education is not the filling of a pail, but this very important sector of our economy, has thankfully nullified the effort to separate the lighting of a fire.— due to the illegal practices of one company: IE form Windows. It is fair and offers William Butler Yeats Microsoft. pragmatic answers to complex problems, I believe the Courts have two choices. The such as competitors’’ worries about MTC–00027812 first is to allow Microsoft to maintain it’s interoperability of Windows and OEMs From: Frank Patitucci monopoly. If so it should be declared a irritation with Microsoft for shipping To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ public utility and regulated as such. additional software along with Windows. Date: 1/28/02 11:10am Alternatively, the company should be broken Though the settlement extends a bit beyond Subject: Microsoft Settlement up into enough parts that will encourage the scope of the original lawsuit, it does end The purpose of this email is to add my competition. This kind of remedy has proven the litigation and should, in my opinion, be voice to those opposed to the proposed to be successful in both the oil and telephone accepted. settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case. industries. Sincerely, Much stronger penalties and remedies are The proposed settlement is neither of Carlos Andrade necessary if Microsoft’s behavior is to these, and should be rejected. One last point, Carlos Andrade change. the fact that Microsoft is actively lobbying for Network Administrator The company has been convicted of the proposed settlement is cause for very MTC–00027814 committing crimes. It needs a punishment great concern. We need to remember that that matches the crime. Microsoft committed crimes and the From: carlos kennedy I am the CEO and Chairman of a private, remedies should be painful to the criminal. To: Microsoft ATR employee owned company with about $20 The current solution will send the worst Date: 1/28/02 11:13am million revenue and 200 employees. We message possible to current and future Subject: Fw: Attorney General John Ashcroft provide employee relocation services to capitalists. Letter corporations when they transfer their Sincerely, Attorney General John Ashcroft employees. I am a card carrying capitalist. I Frank M. Patitucci US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania have a degree from Stanford Graduate School Chairman, CEO Avenue, NW of Business and have served as a part time ReloAction Washington, DC 20530–0001 professor there. Our capitalist system is the January 28, 2002 most productive economic engine ever MTC–00027813 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: invented. BUT it needs to be protected and From: Carlos Andrade I am extremely pleased to hear that the guided by government (all branches) in order To: Microsoft ATR Justice Department has finally decided to end to continue to serve us and to be a model for Date: 1/28/02 11:12am its persecution of Microsoft, and agree to a the rest of the world. Subject: Microsoft Settlement settlement. Microsoft was never a monopoly; Unfortunately, Microsoft represents January 16, 2002 it simply provided the best product that capitalism at its worst. Here’s how Attorney General John Ashcroft people enjoy. Microsoft’s anti-competitive and anti- The Justice Department I hope that people will appreciate what capitalistic behavior affects my company. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft has sacrificed in order to bring an First, our company is now almost entirely Washington, DC 20530 end to this settlement. Among the many dependent on Microsoft technology to Dear Mr. Ashcroft, terms they have agreed to, Microsoft has promised to allow computer manufacturers provide our services. Frankly, when our I am writing in support of the recent to pick and choose not only what Windows computers go down we cannot do productive settlement between the Department of Justice programs they will feature, but they can also work. We are dependent on internal and web and Microsoft. I am not as acquainted with include numerous Microsoft competitive based systems to communicate with our all the details of this that I would prefer, but programs in the computers they ship. clients, to manage our vendors and to this entire lawsuit seems to have come about There are, of course many other terms in perform basic business functions. All of our simply because some of Microsoft’s the settlement that are also damaging to systems are Microsoft. And according to our competitors grew weary of trying to compete Microsoft, but I just wanted to make a brief IT staff ‘‘we have no choice’’. with Microsoft’s Free Internet Explorer. I point, as I’m sure there will be numerous Second, Microsoft limits the software we personally use IE and have done so for a emails coming in on the side of Microsoft. can purchase. At one point we had a database while. I appreciate the fact of having free Thank you for taking the time to hear me out system called Foxpro. Foxpro was purchased software with the operating system that I got on this matter. by Microsoft. We purchased an accounting with my computer. I understand that Sincerely, system called Great Plains. Great Plains was Netscape does not appreciate not being able Carlos Kennedy also purchased by Microsoft. We used to use to get my $40 or so dollars which I would 4 Marwood Court word processor, spreadsheet, e-mail and have had to pay to them to get an Internet Flat Rock, NC 28731 presentation software produced by other Explorer, because Microsoft provided it for 828–697–1203 companies that worked on the Microsoft free. This, in my opinion, is not a proper operating system. I am now told by our IT utilization of our legal system. MTC–00027815 staff that we can no longer purchase these I use Microsoft products in my business From: James D Lane products because they are not ‘‘compatible’’ and have found that their software is simply To: Microsoft ATR with our other software. What happened to better and more reliable than anyone else’s. Date: 1/28/02 11:13am the companies that produced these excellent I have used Netscape which I had received Subject: Microsoft Settlement products? ‘‘We have no choice’’. from my ISP, but I found Microsoft’s product Gentlemen; Third, we are paying more to Microsoft more user friendly and les problematic when This thing has drawn on far to long. I software than we should. How else could it came to updates. Microsoft exerted no shiver to think of going back to the good old they accumulate $35 billion in cash in the amount of influence for me to reach that days of DOS. Force an end to this now and face of the current recession? When I ask our conclusion. Simple experience has done that. don’t let the states draw this out any longer. staff what would happen if Microsoft I believe that this lawsuit was simply an Jim Lane, a Windows fan. increased tripled their licensing fees, they effort to force Microsoft to ‘‘dumb down’’ its say, ‘‘we have no choice’’. We would have to efforts and allow other, software developers MTC–00027816 pay whatever price they ask. There is no a chance at catching up. I also think that From: ACEEBO@aol.com@inetgw other product or service that we purchase as when a customer buys an operating system To: Microsoft ATR
VerDate 11
Date: 1/28/02 11:13am installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Re: Has Your Opinion Been software licensing, digital rights Renata B. Hesse Counted? management, encryption or authentication Antitrust Division THE ECONOMICS OF THIS COUNTRY systems, including without limitation, keys, U.S. Department of Justice HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY THE US authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; 601 D Street NW GOVERNMENT BRINGING AN ANTITRUST or (b) any API, interface or other information Suite 1200 SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT, WHICH related to any Microsoft product if lawfully Washington, DC 20530–0001 COMPANY HAS DONE MORE TO directed not to do so by a governmental Dear Ms. Hesse: I am writing to give my ADVANCE COMMUNICATIONS AND THE agency of competent jurisdiction. comments on the Microsoft antitrust COMPUTER INDUSTRY IN THIS COUNTRY There is a saying in the computer security settlement. I believe this settlement is THAN ANY ONE ELSE. industry: ‘‘Security by obscurity is no counter to the interests of the American FOR LORD’S SAKE, PLEASE ACCEPT THE security at all.’’ The phrasing in the above public, deleterious to the American economy, SETTLEMENT NOW BEFORE THE COURTS passage gives Microsoft leeway to obscure and inadequate given the findings of fact in AND LET’S GET ON WITH THE REAL from public scrutiny the protocols and APIs the trial. Microsoft’s anti-competitive BUSINESS OF THE COUNTRY. TOUGH that are of greatest importance to computer practices are counter to the law and spirit of COMPETITION BETWEEN COMPANIES IS security. Encryption and authentication are our free-enterprise system. These practices WHAT HAS MADE THIS COUNTRY GREAT. complicated concepts. Encryption systems inhibit competition, reduce innovation, and THOSE STATES THAT DON’T WANT TO must be subjected to extensive attacks by the thereby decrease employment and ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT SHOULD BE security community at large before they can productivity in our nation. Microsoft’s THROWN OUT OF THE UNION. THE be trusted. Furthermore, the interfaces to the monopolistic practices cause the public to PEOPLE OF THEIR STATES HAVE encryption system must also be examined by bear increased costs and deny them the BENEFITED FROM MICROSOFT AND ITS security experts before they can be trusted. products of the innovation which would CREATIVE OPERATING SYSTEMS FAR According to III J 1, Microsoft will not be otherwise be stimulated through competition. MORE THAN ANY ALLEGED UNPROVEN required to document, disclose, or license The finding of fact which confirmed that DAMAGE. this information to the vendors of security- Microsoft is a monopoly requires strict THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ALMOST related products whose security would be measures which address not only the RUINED IBM WITH THE EXPENSES OF ITS compromised by flaws in the API or protocol. practices they have engaged in in the past, ANTITRUST ACTI ON AGAINST THEM Microsoft will be the only company in but which also prevent them from engaging AND THEY HAVE GONE A LONG WAY IN possession of the information needed to in other monopolistic practices in the future. DAMAGING THE ABILITY OF MICROSOFT make security-related software secure. It is my belief that a very strong set of TO COMPETE IN THE MARKET PLACE Although I am no fan of digital rights strictures must be placed on convicted WITH THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING management systems, I must express my monopolists to insure that they are unable to THEMSELVES AGAINST SOME AN concern for copyright holders, as well. continue their illegal activities. I do not think UNWARRATED ANTITRUST ACTION.. Copyright holders will be subject to the that the proposed settlement is strong enough ALFRED C. BODY [email protected] greatest losses if any level of the digital rights to serve this function. management system is compromised. If the Sincerely, MTC–00027817 decision of to whom to document, disclose, s/Brian L. Gollum From: Scott Ventura and license the details of the digital rights Brian L. Gollum To: Microsoft ATR management system in Windows is left solely 5820 Phillips Avenue Date: 1/28/02 11:14am to Microsoft, then Microsoft could enter into Pittsburgh, PA 15217 Subject: Microsoft Settlement exclusive agreements with some copyright 412–422–8455 From: holders and not others. This would result in p.s. I agree with the problems identified in Scott Ventura an imbalance in the ability of content Dan Kegel’s analysis of the settlement
VerDate 11
current climate after the recession and 9/11, to its product, or forced the consumer to Shocks, and Muffler. NO, they provide the I feel that we need to settle this and not let purchase such things as Internet explorer, basic systems and then you buy the it drag on, so we can focus on economic word, notepad, a calculator, Paint, the basic additional or custom items that you want. recovery and fighting external enemies. TCP/IP protocols, the average person could Microsoft does that they provide the Thanks, Diana Heileman not afford these add ons and would be shut consumer with the basics and let the CC:[email protected]@inetgw out of the internet. consumer buy what they want. The problem As for Internet Explorer, that was the best is the other companies are not making MTC–00027822 thing that Microsoft ever did. It made surfing products that are better and more desirable. From: Thomas Vaught the web enjoyable. Question, did you ever try End the lawsuit now and let Microsoft go To: Microsoft ATR to use Netscape Navigator before Internet back and build and innovate so that the Date: 1/28/02 11:16am Explorer came along, I have and it sucked. envelope of information and knowledge Subject: Microsoft Settlement You had to pay around $50.00 for it, it took becomes more reliable and available to the As a software developer for over 11 years, several hours to down load and would crash average consumer, and so that these other I am very dissappointed in the Microsoft so often that trying to look up one item companies will be forced to push the settlement. It basically validates the would take hours. Microsoft came and gave envelope even further buy building better Microsoft monopoly without any you Internet Explorer, which at first had its software. If these companies would just acknoledgment of guilt or meaningful problems, but when they finally integrated worry about building better software that reparations to the industry they have into the operating system, it was fantastic, pushes the limits, they would not have to damaged. you could surf the net and really enjoy the worry about Microsoft. experience. System hangs and lockups that I believe that Microsoft has illegally MTC–00027824 obtained their monopoly and are using it to occurred often before integrating further their reach while keeping innovative disappeared. And by integrating the software From: Wilhelmina J Matern technology such as Java from reaching it saved me money, how DID this hurt me? To: Microsoft ATR consumers. I know the argument it hurt competition, my Date: 1/28/02 11:16am Please consider forcing Microsoft to ship a argument is it did not hurt competition, it Subject: mICROSOFT sETTLEMENT standards compliant version of Java with caused competition. It caused Netscape to Dear DOJ, their operating system. This will allow wake up and make a better product. At a May I beg of you either to stop this developers and consumers to benefit from the more reasonable price, this let the consumer Microsoft settlement nonsense, or just retire latests technology for writing and delivering save money by being able to buy a! better and get out of the way? applications. product at a lower cost. Microsoft did This is all making our government look Also, I believe that Microsoft should be nothing wrong. Those consumers that wanted like something we can all be thoroughly forced to ship Netscape along with Internet Netscape still continue to use it, if Netscape ashamed of. To spend this much time on Explorer so that consumers will have a wanted to keep customers, and gain Microsoft’s ‘‘unfairness’’, a company so choice of browers. customers, they should have developed a productive and worthwhile to America’s economy - and by a government so Thank you for your time and product that knocked the socks out of monopolistic and unproductive of any real consideration. Internet Explorer, but did they no, they cried benefit to the public, and towards which we Thomas E. Vaught and sued. are becoming more and more cynical in re 9844 S. Bucknell Way They gave up, because they would not take the grandstanding for self-aggrandizement Littleton, CO 80129 the time and resources to develop a better product. I, know, the argument how could that is about all we see government officials MTC–00027823 they when they did not have the money doing anymore.... we hear or see another From: [email protected]@inetgw because Microsoft was giving the product thing on this suit and we just cry out To: Microsoft ATR away, simple, build it and they will come. ‘‘oh,no!’’. While we are all thinking about an Date: 1/28/02 11:07am The consumer wants better products and if economic stimulus and instead this goes on and on and on and..... the ultimate non- Subject: Microsoft Settlement the consumer found an item better those that sequitur. Please, get it over with and move I think the remedy is fair and should end can afford will buy it. on to Marc Rich, or the dishonest Fish and the case completely. I do not feel that Is it wrong, to build your business, and to Game people trying to shut down so much Microsoft has hurt the public in any matter. protect your business. NO, it is not wrong! of our economy with lynx hairs, or the mess Ten to fifteen years ago the computer Microsoft played hard ball, yes, but how is DOI has made of Indian Trust Funds, or .. industry was in a mess. There was no that different from any other company that you can name it, we know you can. standard operating system. If you went to wants to grow, expand, and make a Please reassure us again that the federal purchase a computer at Radio Shack you difference. Netscape, AOL, Sun government sees and understands itself as would get a computer running Deskmate. If Microsystems and others are playing hard the chief impediment to justice in society you went to an Apple distributor you got the ball now, buy suing Microsoft, because of today and will not tolerate this core human Apple operating system. If you went to IBM their jealousy over the dominance Microsoft indecency in Washington any longer. And you got their OS operating system. And then has. If the companies really cared about the believe me, we’ll be pulling for you again of course you had Windows. Kids in school consumer, they would build better products with loud hurrahs soon’s we see the first learned Apple but could not go into that would blow Microsoft way. But do they inkling of it!!! businesses and run their computers. The no, the run and scream and sue Microsoft, We DO wish you all the very best, average person had to have an apple because Microsoft does not play fair. If these Rev. Dick Matern computer so their kids could do homework companies would build better products on Ft Defiance ,AZ and an IBM computer so they could work at the same caliber as Microsoft, consumers will home. go there; they will buy what they want. But MTC–00027825 Since then and thanks to Microsoft the stripping down Windows will only hurt the From: Rich Smith industry has been standardized, kids in consumer, because the costs associated with To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.’’ school can go out in the world and run buying each piece of software will be more Date: 1/28/02 11:09am computers. Employees can go home and than the average consumer can afford. But Subject: Punish Microsoft work on a computer with the same system those that can afford the software will buy Dear Sirs, they use at work. By becoming standardized, the better software. How is this any different PLEASE punish microsoft. how does this hurt consumers? Microsoft has ! from the auto industry? Yes, I know that Richard A. Smith saved the average consumer thousands of there are several companies competing Thousand Oaks, California. dollars. By their continued innovation and equally, If I went to ford to buy car should development of the operating system they they be required to give me a stripped down MTC–00027826 have added tools and recourses that would car. So that I can go to Chrysler to purchase From: Chip Witt have cost the average consumer a lot of the motor, to Bose for the stereo, to Goodyear To: Microsoft ATR money. If Microsoft charged for each addition for the tires, to Monroe Muffler for the Date: 1/28/02 11:17am
VerDate 11
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Fairborn, OH 45324 Daniel Jack To whom it may concern: Ph: (937) 878–3191 FAX: (937) 878–3197 The proposed settlement against Microsoft E-Mail: [email protected] MTC–00027829 has many flaws, but my problem with it is Web Page: www.fairborn.com From: Joanne Backs more philosophical in nature than most that To: Microsoft ATR I have heard. My understanding is that this MTC–00027828 Date: 1/28/02 11:20am judgment is supposed to be a punitive From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement measure to correct monopolistic behavior in To: Microsoft ATR My comment on the Microsoft Settlement what should have been an open market place. Date: 1/28/02 11:05am is that it should be accepted by all and the With that in mind, should not the mere threat Subject: Microsoft Settlement litigation ended! of such judgment modify Microsoft’s Please refer to the attached letter Enough is enough. behavior? concerning my support of the proposed P.S. I use Netscape Navigator on an Apple I have followed the proceedings against Microsoft settlement. imac. Microsoft fairly closly, as I am an IT (See attached file: USAG DJ 25-Jan-02.doc) Joanne Backs Professional. During the trial through today, This message and any attachments are MTC–00027830 Microsoft continues to forge ahead mightyly confidential to the ordinary user of the e-mail developing partnerships and products that address to which it was addressed and may From: Aldo Mancini forcably squeeze competitors out of any also be privileged. If you are not the To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ market they decide to pursue. It is my addressee you may not copy, forward, Date: 1/28/02 11:18am humble opinion that the proposed settlement disclose or use any part of the message or its Subject: Microsoft Settlement should take greater care to protect the attachments and if you have received this Dear Mr. Ashcroft, consumer by evening up the playing field on message in error, please notify the sender I am attaching a letter to express my which Microsoft competes. I see this immediately by return e-mail and delete it opinion regarding the lawsuit against proposed settlement as nothing more than a from your system. Microsoft. Please provide this slight public slap on the wrist. Although it Internet communications cannot be correspondence your necessary attention. is a step towards the right direction in guaranteed to be secure or error-free as Sincerely, limiting some of Microsoft’s anti-competitive information could be intercepted, corrupted, Aldo Mancini practices, it does not prevent Microsoft from lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender President & CEO finding new ways to exploit the gains they therefore does not accept liability for any Mancini Enterprises, Inc. have made in the market place as a errors or omissions in the context of this 1940–1 North Commerce Parkway monopolist. message which arise as a result of Internet Weston, FL 33326 This is much akin to closing the barn door transmission. Phone: (954)217–9113 x101 after the cow has already gotten out. More Any opinions contained in this message Fax: (954) 217–0113 must be done. are those of the author and are not given or e-mail: [email protected] Thank you for your time and the endorsed by the HSBC Group company or URL: www.mancinienterprises.com opportunity to comment. — office through which this message is sent Notice: The information contained in this CW unless otherwise clearly indicated in this communication is intended solely for the use Chip Witt, MBA message and the authority of the author to so of the individual or entity to whom it is Witt’z End Technologies bind the HSBC entity referred to is duly addressed and for others authorized to PO Box 885 verified. receive it. It may contain confidential or Cotati, CA 94931–0885 CC:[email protected]@inetgw legally privileged information. If you are not (V) 1–888–719–9277 Daniel Jack the intended recipient, you are hereby (F) 1–800–514–3098 81 Bleloch Avenue notified that any disclosure, copying, (E) [email protected] Peekskill, NY 10566 distribution, or taking any action in reliance (W) www.wittzend.com January 25, 2002 on these contents is strictly prohibited and Attorney General John Ashcroft may be unlawful. If you received this MTC–00027827 US Department of Justice communication in error, please notify us From: Fairborn Area Chamber of Commerce 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW immediately by responding to this e-mail and To: Microsoft ATR Washington, DC 20530 then delete if from your system. Mancini Date: 1/28/02 11:18am Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Enterprises, Inc. is neither liable for the Subject: Microsoft Settlement I am writing to voice my opinion of the proper and complete transmission of the Attention: Microsoft antitrust case. information contained in this communication Ms. Renata B. Hesse, I think the U.S. Department of Justice nor for any delay in its receipt. Trail Attorney, should accept the terms of the settlement, <
VerDate 11
it will sell its software, even to its OEM I developed software for the AIX unix Antitrust Division customers. The uniform pricing mechanism operating system. The size of that market and U.S. Department of Justice will give the 20 OEMs all the benefits of a the cost of unix development drove me out 601 D Street NW union with none of the hassles vis-a-vis of software development by 1995. I have Suite 1200 Microsoft. The very idea that a few of finally, starting in 2002, reentered the Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft’s most ardent competitors wanted software development arena. I am reluctantly Dear Ms. Hesse: government sanction to pillage Microsoft’s developing software for use under Windows I’ve been requested by Microsoft to send success is disturbing. 2000. Primarily because that is the largest you a letter in support of their settlement, but I am somewhat pleased that this settlement market. I will not do that because I OPPOSE THE has been accepted. It has the advantage of I am not privy to the facts with regard to SETTLEMENT. Microsoft continues its ending this sad chapter in our histor3,. the abrogation of the contract between IBM predatory and unethical business practices However, the terms of the settlement seem to and Microsoft for the development of the unabated and obviously the Department of give the government one last poke at graphical user interface for OS2. I have seen Justice has not gotten its message through to Microsoft by requiring it to release some of only from afar, via the news media, the Mr. Gates yet. I think you should continue to its venerated source code to its competitors. machinations of Microsoft in dealings with take steps to curb Microsoft’s rapacious and As a Microsoft partner, Microsoft has always companies such as Sun MicroSystems over insidious monopolistic practices which are provided to us an insight to its source code JAVA and Netscape and AOL over browsers. not only unfair restraint of trade but also to allow us to build better software products Microsoft business practices sicken me and extremely detrimental to the end consumer. without releasing its right to the ownership damage the ability of the software industry to Microsoft’s programs act more like viruses of such code. It should be to the discretion innovate. I had hoped that the federal than computer applications. Please continue of Microsoft to determine which companies, government would seek a remedy which attempting to put a stop to this monopoly. if any, need to be provided access to this would restore some balance to the industry Sincerely, valuable asset. This, however, is a topic for by separating the operating system unit from Mary A. Rocco a future letter. the application development unit. Microsoft 3217 Cheviot Vista Place, #108 For now, let’s just leave the settlement is like a black hole in our solar system. It Los Angeles, CA 90034–3546 stand as is and move on. suppresses competition to such an extent that MTC–00027834 Sincerely, the light of some new products will never be Aldo Mancini seen. From: Tennison, James CEO Microsoft’s practices will continue unless To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Mancini Enterprises, Inc. steps are taken to protect the small cap Date: 1/28/02 11:24am Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00027831 companies which would try to innovate. A case in point is the small Rachis Corporation To whom it may concern, From: T. Gray Curtis of Marlboro, MA. This startup company I would like to comment on the proposed To: Microsoft ATR develops software for the emerging settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust Case. Date: 1/28/02 11:23am interactive TV market. They provide system The first thing I would like to say is that Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement integration test and evaluation and software from day one I have been appalled that such To: Department of Justice for hardware manufacturers, application a thing as the Microsoft Anti-trust Case even From: Thomas Gray Curtis, Jr. vendors, middleware, and network operators. exists. It is immoral. 1443 Beacon Street, Apt 617 Scientific Atlantic, a set-top box My family and various relatives have been Brookline, MA manufacturer, partners with RACHIS despite using Microsoft products including MS-DOS, Subj: Comments re Microsoft Settlement efforts by Microsoft to provide software to Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000 and Internet Date: January 28, 2002 Scientific Atlantic. Microsoft appears to be Explorer for years. Had I been unhappy with Bill Gates wants to insure innovation by eyeing the media industry as an arena in Microsoft products I could have purchased Microsoft. To further this objective, Microsoft which to throw it’s weight around. Microsoft other brands such as Apple with their Apple has impaired the ability of others to innovate. has created Microsoft TV and with it’s OS, Sun with their Solaris or Red hat with A marketing genius, Gates wants to convince holding in ComCast has some influence over Linux to name a few. I have never been under everyone that empowering innovation by the deployment of the cable network the ignorant opinion that there are no other Microsoft is in everyone’s interest. Microsoft acquired by ComCast from AT&T. choices for my computing needs. Microsoft has damaged the software industry by Please keep an eye open for the Microsoft products have worked well enough and I’ve restraining trade as means of maintaining guerrilla vis a vis Rachis. been quite happy with all I could do with competitive advantage. I cannot quote you Respectfully submitted. them. specific dollar values of the impact of this Gray Curtis Microsoft is extremely successful for good restraint, but I will relate to you one reason. Microsoft products provide a full anecdotal instance which may be an MTC–00027832 range of capabilities, have great prices and illustration. From: Ellen Ryan (MSLI) wonderful availability. It is my reasoned During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s two To: Microsoft ATR opinion that Microsoft products have been a colleagues and I were developing software for Date: 1/28/02 11:24am boon to the citizens of the United States and IBM and subsequent electrical utility Subject: Microsoft Settlement the world. Microsoft’s products have only companies. The software implemented on a I came to the U.S.A 4 years ago from the offered positives to the lives of countless PC the functionality of Geo Facilities United Kingdom to work temporarily while people. Information System (GFIS) software, which my husband attends university out here. Before you think that I am a total Microsoft required a more expensive mainframe Before I came here I believed that America zealot I will inform you that I have also computer. GFIS was used by electrical had a fair & competitive economic system happily owned and used Sun products (Sun utilities to help them manage their electrical that rewarded innovation and hard work. I Solaris workstations), Silicon Graphics and grids. The new software ran on IBMs OS2 have been sorely disappointed. Leave Apple products (Macintosh I, II, Quadra 410). operating system. Over the course of several companies free to innovate. Stop using tax I also happily employ the Netscape browser years IBM, Florida Power and Light and Duke dollars to defend cases that only satisfy the on all three of my PC’s. Power probably invested on the order of one political agenda rather than protect citizens. I strongly hold that Microsoft has the million dollars in the development. Ellen. absolute right to freely pursue it’s interests in As a result of the competition between IBM the capitalist market of the United States. and Microsoft (Windows v OS2), what I refer MTC–00027833 This includes their right to bundle their to as the Microsoft Wars, viability of OS2 as From: Mary Rocco various products any way they see fit. No a ubiquitous operating system was destroyed. To: Microsoft ATR one, and certainly not our government, has The consequence of this was that the cadre Date: 1/28/02 11:25am the right to dictate what products Microsoft of developers creating applications software Subject: Microsoft Settlement—NO! can produce and must not initiate force was reduced. For a while in the early 1990s BlankRenata B. Hesse against this outstanding company. Microsoft
VerDate 11
has always providing products and services James G. Tennison Jr. MTC–00027839 in the absence of any compulsion. Moreover, MTC–00027835 From: [email protected]@inetgw Microsoft, unlike the US Government, cannot To: Microsoft ATR use force to make people buy it’s products. From: Eric Thompson Date: 1/28/02 11:27am And, since the only legitimate purpose of To: Microsoft ATR Subject: (no subject) government is to deter and punish those who Date: 1/28/02 11:24am January 28, 2002 use force, the attack on Microsoft because it Subject: Microsoft Settlement Attorney General John Ashcroft is successful completely inverts the role of Dear Honorable Justices, US Dept of Justice government. The Microsoft Anti-trust case Microsoft has twice been found guilty of 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW has once again made our government, justly serious violations of the Sherman Antitrust Washington, DC 20530 a protector of rights, instead a powerful Act, by a federal District Court and by the Dear Mr. Ashcroft, violator of rights. It is extremely United States Court of Appeals. While the I am writing to give my support to the disheartening to see such rampant Court of Appeals reversed the breakup order agreement reached between Microsoft and totalitarianism! In addition, the antitrust laws issued by the District Court, it upheld the the Dept of Justice. I did not support the being used in an attempt to lynch Microsoft trial court’s Findings of Fact and affirmed original lawsuit against Microsoft. have been called into effect not by citizen’s that Microsoft is guilty of unlawfully I do not think the case was warranted. The complaints against Microsoft’s products, but maintaining its monopoly. As I understand it, lawsuit was more political than any outrage by Microsoft’s unsuccessful competitors. the court must hold public proceedings over unethical business dealings. Bill Gates These companies seek to ‘‘win’’ in the under the Tunney Act, and these proceedings has carried the technological revolution on marketplace by resulting to force and not by must give citizens and consumer groups an his shoulders. He has enabled the average offering superior products with superior equal opportunity to participate, along with marketing. Moreover, instead of using guns person to become part of the technological Microsoft’s competitors and customers. ago. Does anyone remember what it was like themselves to force consumers to buy their Please allow consumers participation. products, these companies seek to use force before Microsoft? Bill Gates standardized Regards, computer software to enable its compatibility by proxy, with the US Government acting as Eric their agent. This is truly a despicable attempt with other software. And people bought the Eric Thompson product, because it was the best and it still to influence the market through the pure use Strategic Renewables Group of force. They are employing the very corrupt is. 4834 Hart Drive Bill Gates has agreed to any number of anti-trust laws, applied by a government on San Diego, CA 92116 a mistaken crusade to eliminate the infidel (a terms demanded from the Dept of Justice. 619–521–0444 office/mobile Microsoft has agreed to share its source codes hugely successful Microsoft), to ‘‘win’’ in the 619–521–0515 fax marketplace. This is an unconscionable and books pertaining to Windows, that [email protected] Windows use to communicate with other injustice! This should be the illegal activity www.StrategicRenewables.com which is attacked by a just government. programs; Microsoft has agreed to a three Shame! The Anti-trust laws used by their MTC–00027836 person technical committee to monitor future compliance; Microsoft has agreed to willing governmental accomplices were From: Larry Mull contractual restrictions and intellectual unjust at their inception and remain so today. To: Microsoft ATR property right. They represent non-objective law. Laws that Date: 1/28/02 11:27am This is more than fair. should not and must not exits. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Give your approval to this agreement. Individual rights, which also apply to the DEADLINE:In times of a struggling Allow us to get back to work. Honestly, I do American businessmen of Microsoft, are not economy, I find it confusing that we’re still not agree government intervention on granted by our government. Just government arguing against Microsoft. It’s time for this technology and its innovation. it only serves serves only to protect the rights of it’s settlement to be accepted and let’s move on. citizens. Microsoft has an inalienable right to Or maybe it’s about states trying to increase as a hindrance. Microsoft’s dominance on it’s products (bundled as they desire) and their revenues and attorneys building a computer and technology is due to profits. retirement. Sheez. At one time no on thought superiority of its products and its marketing Many smart people in the United States the Japanese could compete in the domestic skills. Justice Department have created a case automobile market. Who’s going to be the Sincerely, against Microsoft based on the subjective Japanese when it comes to software in 10 to Marc Hui egalitarian premise that big is bad. They 20 years? MTC–00027840 punish success for being success. They have If we continue, we will prove where From: Your Name erred in that they never sought to fully businesses should not be in the future. understand the legal premises they employ. To: Microsoft ATR To find out whether they are just. They relied MTC–00027837 Date: 1/28/02 11:28am instead on a history of precedence generated From: Carey Gifford Subject: Microsoft Settlement by a wholly mistaken initial premise. That To: Microsoft ATR Dear Ms. Hesse, premise is that force can and should be used Date: 1/28/02 11:27am I am writing in regard to the proposed to do good. That force should be used to Subject: Microsoft Settlement settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust case. I elicit an egalitarian ideal. As if the alleged I oppose the proposed Microsoft feel that there are tremendous problems with good of society trumps the rights of innocent Settlement for the reason that it is not in the the proposal and support the open letter individuals. Actually, our government is best interest of the public at large, nor in the written by Dan Kegel. There you will find my employing a Marxist socialist concept. The interest of the future evolution of electronic signature along with many many other group has rights superior to those of the technology. people who are also concerned by this individual. Carey J. Gifford proposal. Let us place reason firmly in it’s seat. [email protected] I also support Dan Kegel’s essay regarding Leave Microsoft alone to create even better Alpharetta, Georgia the problems and difficulties that the and more successful products for the free proposed settlement will create. I hope that American capitalist consumer. Drop this MTC–00027838 the Department of Justice will seriously unjust case immediately! No punishment is From: [email protected]@inetgw reconsider the problems with the plan and due Microsoft. With a great flourish of To: Microsoft ATR work to revise it so that it will be of benefit marketing skill, Microsoft has brought the Date: 1/28/02 11:27am to computer users. computer to the world and changed history. Subject: Settlement If Microsoft is not reined in and given more All of you persecutors should feel the guilt To Whom it May Concern: stringent guidelines to follow, they will of your brutish and totally unjust quest to I support Microsoft’s point of view. Please continue to create products which don’t work destroy the good because it is good. register me as a supporter of microsoft. and there won’t be any alternatives available. Thank you for letting me defend the rights Joan Peven Smith I am glad that there are alternative operating of American businessmen. Miami, FL systems available currently, but they deserve
VerDate 11
just as much access to the market as them further their use of their monopoly to The government bureaucracy is in no way Microsoft has. spread their influence in various industries. qualified to judge the effects of legislation on Thank you for your time and consideration Thanks. the citizens and their economy and has of this matter. Jef already caused a great deal of damage to the Sincerely, private sector with its extensive meddling. John D. Brosan MTC–00027843 Lawsuits and legislation targetted against From: [email protected]@inetgw legitimate enterprises like tobacco companies MTC–00027841 To: Microsoft ATR (as disgusting as cigarettes are), gun From: James R. McCartney Date: 1/28/02 11:29am manufacturers, Microsoft, and many others To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement. are not the role of our government. Date: 1/28/02 11:27am In this litigation and all such endeavors the Continued abuse of legislative and Subject: MS v DOJ United States Government has become the executive power is only going to continue to I am against the proposed settlement with ENEMY of the Business Community. If they erode the faith of the citizens in our Microsoft. It does not do enough to punish were concerned about the Economy AND the government and cause more divisiveness and the software company or ensure changes in health of the business community in the discontent that is already out there. Un- behavior in the future. Netscape was replaced United States they would act like foreign neccessary governmental interference and as the dominant web browser by Internet governments and support and in some cases gross fiscal irresponsibility have damaged Explorer(IE) because IE was free. Microsoft provide financial support as well instead of this country greatly. In the latter half of the has already been found liable for misusing hampering and stifling business and research twentieth century our culture has gone a long it’s operating system monopoly to make this and development. Please allow Microsoft and ways toward becoming a ‘‘third-world’’ happen. IE is now used by most Internet all other businesses compete without country due, in large part, to out-of-control users because it is free and supplied with government interference and do not allow actions by our legislature and the government Windows and Macintosh by default. No other yourselves to be manipulated by competitors bureaucracy. We have a long way to go still, browser has a chance to gain market share constantly complaining, they are only but I shudder to think about the future my because of this. looking for a government sponsored ‘‘Leg- children may have to deal with. Please re- Now that IE has become the leader, it has Up’’ think your position on the role of government stopped using Netscape’s ‘‘plug-in’’ Jerry Purcell and let’s get back to the basics of running the technology for enabling helper applications 106 Cedar Drive government, not running the people and to open alternate Internet content. Active X New Britain, PA 18901–5229 industry in it. is the new proprietary solution and give 215–230–1911 Sincerely; Microsoft an advantage in writing helper CC:[email protected]@inetgw Bob Petolillo applications for IE. Even if they are required CC:[email protected]@inetgw to release the API(Application Programmer’s MTC–00027844 Interface) for Active X, it still gives them the From: Nathan Stratton Treadway MTC–00027846 advantage. They have the code first and they To: Microsoft ATR From: Sheldon Robinson have the ‘‘real code.’’ I would not be Date: 1/28/02 11:29am To: Microsoft ATR surprised, nor should anyone, if they release Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 11:22am to other vendors an inferior subset of the API. January 27, 2002 Subject: Microsoft Settlement This will give Windows Media Player, Word, Renata B. Hesse I don’t feel particularly verbose today, but Outlook, and Messenger a lead on other Antitrust Division I’ve written and read much on the reasons current market leaders like Real Player, U.S. Department of Justice Microsoft must be broken into a minimum of Adobe Acrobat, Eudora, and AOL Instant 601 D Street NE two companies. Messenger. Suite 1200 Microsoft owns the OS which is fine. Microsoft has also dropped support for Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft also makes applications for their Java in it’s latest operating system, XP. This I think the current proposed settlement OS which is not fine. Why? Microsoft does is hardly in the consumers best interest, as with Micrsoft is a bad idea and should be not fairly publish the specification of the a large quantity of useful programs are abandonded. interface to their OS. When Microsoft builds written in this platform independent It has many faults, but to pick one: my an application and another company builds language. This can only be Microsoft’s business is dependent on using Samba to a competing application, Microsoft is attempt at punishing Sun Microsystems and allow our Unix machines to inter-operate guaranteed to build the better application no one can stop them from doing this. They with our Windows machines on our network. because they have intimate knowledge of the should work with Sun to make a good The proposed settlement does nothing to OS. Microsoft knows how the optimize their version of Java for Windows. The solution protect the rights of non-commercial projects applications in ways their competitor cannot proposed by the Justice Department seems like Samba, and the millions of users of such know. like a giveaway. It is notable that it comes projects, against Microsoft’s actions. Any settlement which stops short of right after the executive branch has become Thank you. breaking Microsoft into an OS company and Republican. I would like to see a more Nathan Stratton Treadway an applications company is in my view and objective resolution to the illegal behavior by Ray Ontko & Co. the view of many others a lost settlement. Microsoft. Thank you... 822 E Main St. Sheldon James McCartney Richmond, IN 47374 2668 East Hardy Lane MTC–00027847 Fayetteville AR 72703 MTC–00027845 From: Davis, Mark From: Bob Petolillo To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ MTC–00027842 To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 11:31am From: Jef Pearlman Date: 1/28/02 11:35am Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Officials of the Department of Justice, Date: 1/28/02 11:28am It’s time for the government to back off of As a private citizen and long time user of Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Against) private lawsuits against businesses and to products produced by both Microsoft and its I’m just emailing to add my vote to those stop legislating private commerce as much as competitors, I support the proposed against the current proposed settlement. it is. settlement that has been worked out by the Hopefully I have reached you in time. Plenty The role of government should be to DOJ and Microsoft. I feel that additional of others have emailed their reasons, so I provide NECCESSARY regulation of private punitive measures would be unfair to both won’t spend any time rehashing the commerce. Microsoft and, more importantly, to arguments here, except to say that I believe We have gone WAY BEYOND that role in consumers using Microsoft products, and so that the current settlement in no way trying to legislate equality and/or fairness I urge adoption of the settlement as it exists. punishes Microsoft, and in some ways helps into private industry. Thank you.
VerDate 11
Mark F. Davis instance. To do so reinforces Microsoft’s Mark R. Gallagher, AICP 1110 Manzanita Dr. monopoly position. 999 Grand Ave. #4 Pacifica, CA 94044 Regards, St. Paul, Mn 55105 (650) 355–8064 Don Briggs 1530 Lockhart Gulch Road MTC–00027852 MTC–00027848 Scotts Valley, CA 95066 From: Tim Egbert From: Harold kline To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00027851 Date: 1/28/02 11:23am Date: 1/28/02 11:32am From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Attention: Renata B. Hesse Dear Sirs and Madams: Date: 1/28/02 11:34am Antitrust Division It is time to put to rest the Microsoft Case. Subject: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice This ill-advised litigation was likely the Dear Sir or Madame, 601 D Street NW cause of the present recession our country is I am a consultant working in the Intelligent Suite 1200 enduring, and its continuation is only going Transportation Systems area of Washington, DC 20530–0001 to prolong the economic troubles. Transportation Planning. As such, I January 28, 2002 While the Tunney Act fails to satisfy frequently make recommendations to clients Sirs and Madams: Microsoft’s most vocal critics— the of all types, public and private, about I oppose the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) competitors and their greedy lawyers—it software acquisition and use. in United States vs. Microsoft because it (1) provides a fair solution to the alleged This experience has given me a great deal does not adequately address the issues raised monopolistic practices of Microsoft, and it of exposure to software vendors (particularly in Judge Jackson’s findings of fact and benefits the country as a whole to get this Microsoft) and to the various methods they conclusions of law, (2) will not remedy the behind us and move on. Dragging on this employ in marketing their products and past illegal monopolistic behavior of battle will only pad the pockets of the competing with other producers. I also have Microsoft, (3) will not prevent Microsoft from lawyers, and a few special interest parties. a background in economics (B.A. University committing future monopolistic abuses, (4) Many consumers, including myself, do not of Minnesota) and am a certified planner will ratify many of Microsoft’s practices that agree that Microsoft did anything wrong. (AICP). have been adjudicated as unlawful, and (5) Without the Windows technology and the My concerns stem from the continuing will allow Microsoft to continue such innovations that that company continues to trend of Microsoft’s alterations to licensing practices under the cloak of final judgment. develop, the personal computer industry policies and the fact that often times no Microsoft has been adjudicated to be a wouldn’t be half as strong as it is today. Any additional value is offered to the consumer, monopoly and to have acted illegally in continuation of the litigation against even though a greater revenue stream is many particulars, which rulings have been Microsoft only smears the entire industry and generated for Microsoft. This, coupled with upheld on appeal. It has become evident that keeps the economy from recovering. a practice of intentionally making newer to this day, Microsoft does not believe it has Please bring this farce to an end. versions of products incompatible with done anything wrong and is using all means Harold Kline previous versions, causes a situation of at its disposal to avoid any real consequences Kansas City, MO ‘‘forced’’ upgrades for consumers. This is for its illegal actions. The Justice Department MTC–00027849 particularly troubling for small public and the Court have a duty to promote a entities, such as para-transit providers, From: [email protected]@inetgw remedy that is effective and consistent with whose mission is to provide mobility to To: Microsoft ATR previous findings in this case. handicapped persons, often on very limited Date: 1/28/02 11:32am I believe that Microsoft has shown that it budgets. Subject: Microsoft Settlement will not negotiate in good faith to promote an This is relevant to the settlement at hand Dear Attorney General Renata Hesse: effective and just settlement of this case. It for two reasons: The provisions of the Microsoft agreement therefore behooves the Justice department are tough, but I believe the terms-which have (1) The Settlement does not address the and the Federal Court not to insist on a met or gone beyond the findings of the Court separation of applications from operating negotiated settlement, to fashion a truly of Appeals ruling-are reasonable and fair to systems in any meaningful way. Thus effective remedy, and to seek to impose such all parties involved. This settlement Microsoft is able to build in version a remedy on Microsoft within the proper represents the best opportunity for a great incompatibilities and tie them to the powers of the judicial system. There is no company like Microsoft (whom has changed operating system itself. In the transportation good reason to continue to negotiate with this the lives of millions of people for the better) community, we have a joke: ‘‘If Microsoft intransigent and adjudicated wrongdoer. and the industry to move forward. Microsoft made cars, every time you changed your tires Rather than restate all the well reasoned has helped so many people work and live you’d have to build all new roads.’’ Although arguments against the PFJ, I have added my more efficiently and effectively. It is time to exaggerated, this illustrates the point of a name to the ‘‘open letter’’ submitted this day move forward and approve this settlement monopolist manipulating product to ‘‘force’’ by Dan Kegel as set forth on his web site at: which is in the best interest of the people of secondary purchases. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ this country. (2) The Settlement does not address past remedy2.html. Thank you. harm. Under the current proposal, a three- Yours truly, Jennifer M. Freeman person oversight team would be established Timothy P. Egbert, J.D., Ph.D. 833 Trailing Ridge Road to assure that Microsoft does not further 4388 Inverary Dr. Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417 abuse monopolist power. Although debate Salt Lake City, UT 84124 201–891–6040 can be had on whether this mechanism 801–274–0476 would even be effective in that role, my CC:Tim Egbert,Attorney General MTC–00027850 concern is more that there is no provision for MTC–00027853 From: Don Briggs punative action against Microsoft or To: Microsoft ATR compensation to those harmed by the abuse. From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 11:32am An analogy would be a person convicted of To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement bank robbery and simply assigning them a Date: 1/28/02 11:35am Dear US DOJ, parole officer to assure that they didn’t rob Subject: Microsoft Settlement One outcome of the Microsoft settlement the same bank again. 2056 E Golf Avenue should be that, when submitting information For these reasons, I belive that the Tempe, AZ 85282 electronically to government agencies, one proposed Settlement is not in the best January 27, 2002 should never be required to submit interests of the public and should not be Attorney General John Ashcroft documents in Microsoft proprietary formats. agreed to. US Department of Justice Government agencies should never require Thank you for your consideration in this 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW text documents in Microsoft Word format, for matter, Washington, DC 20530
VerDate 11
Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 24, 2002 The last three years of litigation against Dear Sirs/Madams, Ms. Renata Hesse Microsoft has been unjustified. The original I’m writing to express my opposition to the Trial Attorney intent of the lawsuit was to protect consumer settlement being proposed between some of Suite 1200 by breaking up a monopoly and stop the States and MicroSoft. Antitrust Division infringement on consumer rights. Microsoft Microsoft has been convicted, and that Department of Justice has consistently delivered high quality goods conviction upheld on appeal, of violating 601 D. Street, NW at normal prices, which goes against several parts of the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Washington, DC 20530. standards definition of a monopoly and has The settlement in its current form does Reference: Tunney Act comments in United never infringed on my rights. nothing to repair the damage that has already States of America v. Microsoft In fact I think their innovation has been done to the software industry. It also Corporation, Civil Action No. 98–1232 standardized the technology industry making does nothing to prevent them from (CKK) and State of New York v. it easier for users around the world to continuing to abuse their monopoly position. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. operate. That is why I disagree with some of Furthermore it does nothing to place 98-1233 (CKK). the terms of the settlement because they give monetary damages on their past abuses, nor [email protected] Microsoft’s interfaces and protocols away. does it establish any framework to punish the With copies to: Interested Parties This is a violation of Microsoft’s intellectual abuses that they will most assuredly commit From: Ronald R. Cooke property rights. in the future. There is no reason that Cultural Economist and Industry Analyst I request that your office finalize the Microsoft should be allowed to keep all of The Settlement Proposed By The Justice settlement as soon as possible and ignore the their ill gotten gains or continue to abuse Department Overlooks Reality nine states that are holding this thing up. their monopoly with anti-competitive Consumers within the Information Systems They are obviously not concerned with the practices. Please consider some of the many industry have expressed their skepticism public’s bets interests. Thank you. suggestions already sent in by industry about the settlement proposed by the Justice Sincerely, luminaries that would restore competition Department. In a poll of readers, for example, Joel O’Connell and innovation to the software industry. ZDNet asked: ‘‘Did Microsoft get off easy in cc: Representative Jeff Flake Thank you. the DOJ settlement?’’ Seventy four percent of Roy Barling, MCSE the respondents said ‘‘Yes’’. To quote MTC–00027854 columnist David Coursey, ‘‘Nobody is From: Michael Martin MTC–00027857 precisely sure what it means, but the total To: Microsoft Settlement From: Tony DeCicco effect seems little more than a hand slap .... Date: 1/28/02 11:29am To: Microsoft ATR Prohibitions that exist in one section seem to Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 11:37am be rendered meaningless by another’’] Michael Martin Subject: microsoft settlement Consumer and industry respondents to the 6712 Riviera Drive Anthony DeCicco CPA / ABV Tunney review process will probably North Richland Hills, TX 76180–8120 7710 Cumberland Road contend that the proposed remedy does not January 28, 2002 Largo, FL 33777 effectively end the anticompetitive practices, Microsoft Settlement January 25, 2002 will not materially deprive the wrongdoer of U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division Attorney General John Ashcroft the fruits of the wrongdoing, and will do 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania virtually nothing to ensure that the illegality Washington, DC 20530 Avenue, NW does not recur. The terms of the settlement Dear Microsoft Settlement: Washington, DC 20530–0001 are much too vague to be of much use. They The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Dear Mr. Ashcroft: can be manipulated and rendered ineffective dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a It is high time for this antitrust suit through the legal process. The enforcement serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech between Microsoft and the Department of mechanism is inadequate. And finally, there industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Justice to come to an end. is no clear cut way to prohibit monopolistic wasteful spending accompanying it, to be For three years now, people in both the IT behavior. over. Consumers will indeed see competition industry and many average people who There is a more fundamental issue, in the marketplace, rather than the depend on Microsoft products, have waited however, that has not been adequately courtroom. And the investors who propel our for this case to be settled. addressed by the process of law. It can be economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Unfortunately seeing this case put to rest expressed as a simple question: How much Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the could mean a severe change in the way unconstrained power do we want one single federal government should not have broken Microsoft does business. company to have? As the Enron debacle has up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Opening up its code to the competition and demonstrated, this is not an idle question. companies like Microsoft can get back into allowing computer manufacturers broader Unrestrained corporate behavior can severely the business of innovating and creating better freedoms in how they configure Windows damage consumer rights. Microsoft has products for consumers, and not wasting will mean a serious loss of control over its demonstrated that it can dominate the valuable resources on litigation. Competition product for Microsoft, and they will have to thinking of the PC Culture that it so zealously means creating better goods and offering carefully rethink their business strategy. nourishes. It has an overwhelming influence superior services to consumers. With But they obviously feel capable of doing so over the press—and therefore—the opinions government out of the business of stifling if they have agreed to the settlement, so I can of an uncritical public. Within the progress and tying the hands of corporations, see no reason not to move forward on this information systems industry, Microsoft is consumers—rather than bureaucrats and issue. Let’s put an end to this case at the acknowledged to have indisputable judges—will once again pick the winners and federal level and move on once and for all. economic, political and cultural power. losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the Sincerely, Comments by members of congress suggest high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Anthony De Cicco CPA / ABV this company also has a growing influence be encouraged to create new and competitive over the legislative process. products and technologies. MTC–00027858 Given its announced strategic plans, it Thank you for this opportunity to share my From: Ronald R. Cooke should be obvious this company wants more. views. To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Much more. Microsoft wants to wield the Sincerely, Date: 1/28/02 11:39am same kind of influence over the Michael R. Martin Subject: Tunney Act Comments: Microsoft entertainment and communication industries Settlement that it does over the computer industry. It MTC–00027856 Unfortunatley, the e-mail I sent last week currently has aggressive initiatives to From: Barling, Roy lost the footnotes. dominate the services and content of the To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ This attachment should include them. Internet and is pressing forward with plans Date: 1/28/02 11:30am Ron Cooke that will Quotation from: ‘‘MS settlement
VerDate 11
reads like a fairy tale’’. David Coursey, two thirds of America’s GDP. Enterprise The complaints against Microsoft are far ZDNet, November 5, 2001. consumers spend money that belongs to the more numerous than those covered by this effectively manage the access, distribution Enterprise. They buy products, property or narrowly defined legal action. If the court and use of networked consumer services for their employer or their business. wishes to impose a meaningful settlement on entertainment. Mobile and location Broadly defined, Enterprise consumers Microsoft, it will have to consider both the technologies will be used to penetrate include any entity defined by the standard concerns of this specific case and the additional consumer services..Net will drive industrial classification codes: i.e. insurers, underlying intent of the Sherman Act. There the consumer to Microsoft approved content manufacturers, retailers, hospitals, is case law and there is the reality of dealing and services. If these initiatives are educational institutions, government with an overwhelming marketing machine successful, this single company will be in a agencies, personal service businesses and so that is essentially able to set its own agenda. position to dictate how we create, store, edit, on. Enterprise consumption accounts for This reality puts the court in a quandary. access, distribute and use all kinds of approximately one third of America’s GDP. If the court is to be forthright in its desire to electronic information. Worldwide. Across Both segments of America’s consumer protect the consumer, it must provide three industries. population must be protected from substantial relief for both personal and The reality of this situation raises a number Microsoft’s assertive marketing power. We Enterprise consumption. It will have to deal of questions. Given its growing political and must not leave either group of technology with both the specific and the ambiguous. It economic power, why do we believe that buyers in the position that they will be forced must certainly expand the interpretation of Microsoft will feel compelled to abide by the to chose key products and services from one the Sherman Act. And finally, the court will proposed settlement terms? Will they modify vendor, good or not, on terms and prices they have to make its findings with the knowledge Microsoft’s business strategy? Product plan? can not evade. that this settlement will have a bearing on Will they prevent Microsoft from using One of the more glaring problems with the future actions against AOL/Time Warner. integration, bundling and tying as weapons proposed Microsoft settlement is that while 2 The announcement of non-existent to lock out competitors in three industries? Federal and State authorities have properly products was an issue in the Justice Will the proposed behavior monitoring reacted to personal consumer complaints, Department’s case against IBM. It puzzles me process guarantee the delivery of reliable they have failed to deal in a meaningful way why Justice chose not to pursue this issue in products? Improve consumer security? with the problems of the Enterprise its development of a case against Microsoft. Prevent the abuse of corporate power? Ensure consumer. Industry wide issues include: 3 The National Academy of Sciences has open markets? Encourage competitive Enterprise networks have become recommended the creation of laws that innovation? incredibly expensive and difficult to would establish vendor liability for security It would appear that the answer to all of maintain. breaches that are the result of vulnerable these questions is a resounding ‘‘NO’’. If that Existing PC operating systems are hard to software products. manage and very costly to own. is true, then how can any reasonable person Microsoft The Company Internet and Intranet security problems claim that the proposed settlement serves the Microsoft’s corporate culture is driven by have become so bad that they threaten public interest? the mantra of revenue growth, institutional electronic commerce and the viability of Who Is The Consumer? power and market control. Software is Enterprise operations. Consumers have the right to expect that developed to gain market share or to There are multiple industry reports that our federal institutions will deliver a address these issues in great detail. It is demolish competition. Software defects and settlement that has an immediate, substantial worthy to note that excessive information chronic insecurity have been and permanent impact on the restoration of system costs have been calculated in the $ institutionalized as components of the competition within the information systems billions per year and that industry product plan. Microsoft does not have to be industry. publications continue to report on the related driven by consumer wants and needs. But, who is the consumer? management and operating problems. It is Microsoft is free to be driven by whatever Media and political personalities also clear that these impediments will strategy protects its revenues and extends its frequently project the image that all continue to plague the Enterprise consumer power into additional markets. Microsoft has ‘‘consumers’’ are deficient, clueless and because there is no effective competition for been able to adopt competitive software vulnerable. It is an image favored by self the architectural concepts promoted by the concepts within its Windows architecture, proclaimed consumer protection groups. dominant vendor. thereby rendering the competitive software Consumers are easily victimized and thus In this legal action however, Microsoft’s irrelevant. Examples include the considered in need of protection. Hence in alleged disregard of consumer needs was incorporation of the Internet Explorer the Microsoft anti-trust case, both the Justice never pursued. There appear to be several browser into the Windows user interface in Department and the presiding Judge were reasons: some political, some practical, and order to destroy Netscape’s Navigator and the concerned that the ‘‘consumer’’ had been some due to the inherent obsolescence of the inclusion of ‘‘Java like’’ features in the victimized by excessive software prices and Sherman Antitrust Law. But the issues company’s .Net strategy, a ploy that will a lack of choice. This somewhat ill-defined remain: eventually render Java redundant within the person had been forced to purchase Microsoft If PC operating system development has Windows environment. software through a captive retail channel and been paralyzed by the domination of a single When faced with standards based may have been overcharged. vendor, has the consumer been harmed? And competition, Microsoft has frequently been In reality, this image of the ‘‘consumer’’ is if the products are defective, what is the accused of using an ‘‘embrace, extend, misleading. If we want to reach a settlement burden of liability? extinguish’’ strategy to render the standard that protects both personal and institutional If network systems design has been useless. Microsoft’s version may even flaunt rights, we must first agree on a definition for primarily driven by the product plan and the concept of ‘‘open standard’’ by restricting the word ‘‘consumer’’ that incorporates all business model of a single vendor, has the Windows clients from working with any classes of buyers. For the purposes of this consumer been harmed? And if the platform other than a Windows server. settlement agreement, therefore, we must underlying system design was dysfunctional, Microsoft has convinced a wide range of consider two broad classifications of the what is the burden of liability? technologists, journalists, legislators and concept ‘‘consumer’’. There are personal If a vendor, in order to deflect competition, consumers that it has the exclusive wisdom consumers and there are Enterprise announces products that do not exist, or to provide software innovation. consumers. products that never make it to market, has This—of course—is absolute nonsense. Personal consumers engage in personal the consumer been harmed? And if the Microsoft is not the only company that consumption. This happens when people consumer was mislead, at what point does understands the fundamentals of software make purchases for themselves, their this constitute consumer fraud? What is the technology. Were it not for the company’s families, their friends or anyone (or thing) associated liability?2 monopoly control over the market, else that commands their interest. They use If consumer security and safety have been consumers would be able to purchase a far their own money. Typical purchases include jeopardized by deficient systems architecture superior PC operating system. Other vendors food, clothing, housing, vehicles and so on. and defective products, what is the vendor’s have developed, and are marketing, Personal consumption accounts for roughly liability?3 embedded operating systems with better
VerDate 11
technology and excellent reliability. lots of fun. The Internet era was a wild ride. systems market5. For the purposes of this Enterprise users have embraced a variety of But going forward, Enterprise and personal specific settlement, however, we must focus alternative server operating systems because consumers must have cost effective software our attention on the restoration of they have superior reliability and a lower that is reliable, predictable, useful, secure, competition and innovation within the PC cost of ownership. There are certainly easy to manage and open. market. Going forward, we also need to alternative ways to build consumer friendly Will a court imposed settlement provide ensure consumer choice in the markets for Internet, e-mail, word processing, the key? set top boxes, entertainment devices and spreadsheet, graphics and data base Alternative Remedies communication appliances, as well as applications. And there are many companies Nine States’’, along with the District of network based content and services. As that develop software for the cell phone, Columbia, have presented an alternative discussed above, Microsoft’s announced PDA, set top box, in-home server and game proposal of remedy that would, if strategy is to tie its software products to its markets. Unfortunately, few alternatives can implemented, partially correct these services and content businesses. If Microsoft effectively compete against Microsoft’s deficiencies. This proposal has credibility is successful with these initiatives, this marketing power. This company continues to because it directly addresses the findings of company will have greatly extended its use integration as a predatory weapon. this specific case and establishes remedies marketing power and will be in a position to Competing products, services and content that are consistent with prior court tests that monopolize segments of the entertainment will be hobbled—and thus less desirable. judged the validity of relief from infractions and communications industries. Management has a vision. Microsoft plans of the Sherman Antitrust Law. For a period of seven years, therefore, to dominate the computer game, cell phone 1. Microsoft would have to offer a stripped Microsoft should be prohibited from selling and PDA/HPC (Personal Digital Assistant/ version of Windows. any embedded systems software products, Handheld PC) markets, will force its way into Although much thought must go into the including CE, its derivatives and any the cable business and fully intends to be a implementation methodology of this comparable products. If there is to be any leading provider of Internet services. These recommendation, it could have the effect of credible competition for Microsoft’s existing are key revenue growth strategies. The reducing consumer costs by encouraging the monopoly over PC operating system company’s XP operating system is important development of alternative personal architectures, it is most likely to come from because it drives Microsoft’s largest revenue computing appliances with competitive the manufacturers of network attached stream and the future of the company’s .Net applications software. It would also have the appliances. Over time, the embedded strategy. The Stinger cell phone and Pocket effect of making it more difficult for software within products will increase in PC HPC OS launches open up new recurring Microsoft to exclude competition by tying its sophistication. There is no reason why these mobile network revenue opportunities. The operating systems to its applications, content system architectures can not be used to XBox game platform opens a strategic path to and services. provide the consumer with the whole range 2. Microsoft must support Java. the convergence of entertainment and of PC applications. Enterprise consumers have espoused Java computing in the home. The company is Microsoft would be compelled to establish as a highly useful programming language. actively tying its computer and a separate company for its CE, Stinger, XBox, Because it is an interpreted, object oriented, communication software product strategy to PocketPC, set top box and all other currently platform independent language, Java can be its Internet services and content strategy. The active embedded systems product efforts used to reduce the cost of developing, Internet gives Microsoft a virtually unlimited deploying and supporting networked within 8 months of signing a settlement marketplace that can be molded to the applications. Despite the obvious benefits to agreement. Microsoft would not be allowed company’s operating philosophy. Hailstorm the consumer, Microsoft wants to kill Java by to own any part of the company or its stock and Passport fit perfectly into this scenario. making it irrelevant within a Microsoft for a period of 7 years. Any funding for the Network clients using Microsoft software will controlled programming environment. newly spun-off company must come from be tightly integrated with Microsoft Forcing Microsoft to give its full support to sources in which Microsoft has no financial application and content servers. Java would give the Enterprise consumer and interest. Five years after the spin-off, This is, after all, what convergence is all applications software developer incremental Microsoft would be allowed to start a new about. choice in the selection of development embedded software development effort that Unfortunately for the consumer, environments. could be offered for sale no sooner than management’s vision has a potential 3. Microsoft would be compelled to make seven years after signing the settlement downside. Microsoft will be able to demand Office available for all popular operating agreement. access to all of the software we use, modify systems. Consumers have been forced to Placing restrictions on Microsoft’s it with or without our knowledge, and make accept either Apple or Microsoft PC embedded systems efforts will reduce the copies of our files. This company will be in operating systems as a defacto prerequisite company’s ability to dominate the related a position to monitor our use of the Internet, for using the company’s Office suite. If Office communication and entertainment markets. our political philosophy, our purchase were made available for all popular non- Microsoft would be encouraged to establish behavior, and our friendships. Microsoft operating systems, consumers partnerships with the existing content and Will Microsoft actually do this? Will a would have a wider choice of operating service companies as well as the hacker be able to do the same thing? Does the system environments. In addition, this manufacturers of embedded hardware and consumer really want to be this vulnerable? recommendation would encourage the software products. These markets can then We can understand that Microsoft’s development of competitive PC operating evolve in ways that are not tied to a single business model is driven by the visceral systems, presumably based on architectures company’s business strategy and revenue desire to absolutely dominate all high that could deliver superior reliability, plan. volume software applications. We can also function and security. 5. Place Microsoft under Court Supervision understand that the company’s prospects for Given a carefully constructed court It is difficult to imagine how the proposed revenue and profit growth are interdependent approved implementation and supervision settlement terms will prevent Microsoft from with the accumulation of power over the methodology, these recommendations would engaging in anti-competitive behavior. One consumer’s use of computing technology be most helpful to the restoration of would have to assume that Microsoft is within the computer, communication and competition within the PC and network immune from the temptations of corporate entertainment industries. appliance software industries. However, if power. It would be helpful, therefore, if It is time, however, to ask one simple we want to preserve an open and competitive Microsoft were placed under the supervision question: Does this ubiquity serve the public market, and if we want to be vigilant in our of the court. A methodology must be interest? On the one hand we acknowledge support of acceptable corporate behavior, developed that permits complaints of Microsoft’s accomplishments, the intensity of then we should consider three additional wrongdoing to be reviewed in a prompt and its vigorous pursuit of new markets and its recommendations. fair manner. Fines and restrictions, where right to function as an independent business. 4. Restrict Microsoft from the Embedded necessary and justifiable, should be imposed But on the other hand, the court must fashion Systems market. by the court after a hearing process. a remedy that incorporates genuine There are a number of reasons to restrict 5 A more detailed discussion of the basis protection for the consumer. The PC era was Microsoft’s participation in the embedded for the recommendations and comments
VerDate 11
presented in this document may be found in last 75 years, the telephone, teletype, electric, further harm that may occur in the future my book: ‘‘CyberCarnage: Everything We water, radio, entertainment, and television (which will require the Court to consider Own Is Obsolete’’ industries have been characterized by the issues and questions not necessarily Court supervision should reduce the need evolution of increased concentration based documented within the scope of this case). for further Justice Department action and on a company dominated list of defacto Either way, the court’s determination will could be used to establish the parameters for standards. Within the public services be sent to the Supreme Court for resolution. pending civil actions. The intention is that industries, regulation has been used to Conclusion Microsoft could engage in any permitted ensure that these standards are beneficial to Since the proposed Justice Department business practice, strategy and tactic it the public interest. There are additional settlement provides only limited relief for a wished, so long as the court agrees that its examples of industrial standards that have very narrowly defined case, it will fail to actions are lawful. The period of supervision been promoted for the benefit of all potential provide the public policy guidelines that are should be continued until the court, by its players. When RCA set the defacto standards so desperately needed to protect the own determination, believes that supervision for color television, for example, multiple consumer from the abuse of corporate is no longer justified. industry participants were able to adopt them authority. It does nothing to relieve the 6. Insist on a Code of Conduct for their individual benefit. increasing concentration of political, If we assume that we do not want our Dominant players set the rules of economic and marketing power that is now larger corporations to be driven solely by the competition and corporate existence. All occurring within the computer, mantra of revenue and profit growth, then industries are vulnerable. Airlines, banking, communication and entertainment any company that achieves a dominate insurance, manufacturing, retailing—it does industries. position within any single industry has an not matter. The potential for domination— We are thus faced with two realities. On obligation to adjust its behavior to operate in whether by marketing power, financial the one hand there is the reality of the the public interest. The usual mechanism is strength, or technology—exists. specifics of this case and the proposed through the imposition of government And if 21st century industries tend to settlement remedies. On the other hand, regulation. Absent this solution, the gravitate toward single standards established there is the reality of the need to maintain alternative is to insist that the dominant by one dominant player, then we need to ask open and competitive markets for the company have a set of enforceable standards multiple questions: products, services and content. A really good against which it is possible to judge ?What is an open and competitive market? settlement will bridge these two realities. individual employee conduct. ?What is the basis for determining As for the Sherman Act? Corporate Under court supervision, Microsoft should economic concentration? governance is out of control. Unfortunately, be compelled to adopt a Code of Conduct. ?What is market domination? we all know that Congress will not act until Specific sections should address this ?Should a company be allowed to use it’s company’s relationship with competitors, domination of one market to leverage its it is politically expedient to do so. Failure to suppliers, consumers, and partners. A customer base into the domination of other act implies acceptance of the status quo. methodology must be developed that permits markets? Competition will fade. Corporate power and complaints of wrongdoing to be reviewed in ? If the consumer is forced to purchase influence will be concentrated. More Enron’s a prompt and fair manner. Fines and defective and/or dysfunctional products will happen. By the time congress acts, if at restrictions, where necessary and justifiable, because there is no viable alternative, what all, it may be too late to impose meaningful should be imposed against individual is the dominant company’s implied liability? reform. employees. ?What are consumer rights? (How can they So it is up to our court system, and perhaps It would appear that these be measured?) the Commissions of the European Union, to recommendations can be implemented in a ?At what point does the power of the both make and execute the guidelines we fair and equitable manner. The objective is dominant player jeopardize consumer rights? need to protect the consumer. We want our not to unduly punish Microsoft. The Third ?What is a fair penalty for jeopardizing corporations, including Microsoft, to be and Fourth Waves of computing are history. consumer rights? successful. We expect them to grow their We must look forward, not backward. If a market is dominated by a single revenues and profits. We want them to Punishment is less desirable than the company, at what point does this imply that pursue new business opportunities. But we creation of a competitive, needs driven, it must assume a fiduciary responsibility to also want them to operate within open and marketing environment for the consumer. It act in the public interest? And what are the competitive markets so that consumers have would appear that all six recommendations, guidelines for corporate behavior? How will an opportunity to purchase the products, if implemented as a whole, would have a they be enforced? services and content they want, at a price minimal impact on Microsoft’s existing ?How much political and economic power they can afford, and on terms that make them revenues and profits. There would be little do we want a single company to accumulate practical. That means that our legal system interference with the company’s PC and within a specific market? must guard against the potential abuse of server software business. Over the next 5 to ?And finally; What is the mechanism for corporate power and the inherent problems 7 years, the net effect is that Microsoft would restructuring competition? of market domination. In this settlement, we not grow as fast and it would have to look Obviously, there are many more questions are asking the court to define those to industry partners for some products that need to be addressed if the Sherman Act guidelines in a way that protects consumers compliment its .Net strategy. is to be rendered relevant to the realities of from the potential of future abuse. For the consumer, however, the restoration 21st Century Corporations. The purpose of Is that too large a task? Too sweeping a of competition within the PC industry will be this more limited discussion, however, is to challenge? Too far from the specifics of this enormously beneficial. New innovation can demonstrate the deficiencies of the Sherman case? I think not. It is the reality of 21st take the form of products that are easier to Act when considering the specific parameters century technology and market structures. manage, more reliable, more secure, and less of this settlement. Neither the Sherman Act, Convergence, after all, implies consolidation. costly to own. nor the proposed settlement, address the And consolidation breeds domination. The Sherman Antitrust Law realities of existing market structures, MTC–00027859 As a piece of legislation, the Sherman emerging technologies, defacto standards, the Antitrust Law appears to be obsolete. The issues of convergence or the use of 21st From: Bill Horne Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was designed century corporate power. Since the Sherman To: Microsoft ATR to deal with the political and monopoly Act currently provides inadequate guidelines Date: 1/28/02 11:39am power of (frequently interlocking) trusts. for establishing what will be— essentially— Subject: Microsoft Settlement Specific companies had pricing, availability, public policy, then the court has two choices: I believe that the proposed DOJ settlement distribution and product power over the ? Interpret the law within the narrow with Microsoft is wrong and will further consumer. Relief came in the form specific confines of this case using legal precedent eliminate lawful competition with this restrictions to business practices and (which essentially will let Microsoft off the criminal corporation. Do please consider monetary punishment. hook); or changing the settlement to help struggling The Sherman Antitrust Law does not Broaden the interpretation of the Sherman Operating Systems developers as well a address the defacto standards issue. Over the Act in order to protect the consumer from browzer developers.
VerDate 11
Bill Horne To: Microsoft ATR predatory or anti-competitive business ‘‘Five minutes after any agreement is Date: 1/28/02 11:38am practices, and I think any comments signed with Microsoft, they’ll be thinking of Subject: Microsoft Settlement submitted through ‘‘Americans for how to violate the agreement. They’re Dear Sir/Madam: Technology Leadership’’ (there is a form to predators. They crush their competition. I am writing in support of the settlement fill out on their web site) should be viewed They crush new ideas. They stifle agreement entered into by Microsoft, the in light of their being solicited by an innovation. That’s what they do.’’— Dept. of Justice, and nine states. intensive campaign funded by Microsoft Massachusetts Attorney General It’s best for everyone involved to proceed Corp. (through a front organization) Thomas F. Reilly with the provisions agreed to and get on with presenting the Microsoft position only in MTC–00027860 business. favorable terms. Sincerely, Thank you for your interest in fairness. From: Jack Mark McGee Carol Hansell, To: Microsoft ATR Sammamish, WA Administrative Assistant Date: 1/28/02 11:37am Association of Boards of Certification Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00027863 208—5th Street, Ames, IA 50010–6259 2601 NE Jack London #14 From: Guthrie Chamberlain Phone (515) 232–3623 / Fax (515) 232– Corvallis, OR 97330 To: Microsoft ATR 3778 January 24, 2002 Date: 1/28/02 11:38am http://www.abccert.org Attorney General John Ashcroft Subject: Microsoft Settlement US Department of Justice Dear Mr. Ashcroft MTC–00027865 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW I am writing today to voice my opinion on From: Adam Wunn Washington, DC 20530 the Microsoft Antitrust case. As an owner of To: Microsoft ATR Dear Mr. Ashcroft: a business that is part of the IT industry I feel Date: 1/28/02 11:39am I am sending this email to show my this case has been dragging on for too long Subject: Microsoft Settlement support for the settlement reached in the and it has hurt not only Microsoft, the entire The settlement is a bad idea. It allows Microsoft antitrust case. The settlement IT industry and indeed the entire economy. Microsoft to just go about is business of should make it easier for other companies to The government has no rights meddling in squashing everyone else. Look at the areas work with Microsoft and its products. I find the affairs of independent business unless it they now control! They want more and they it weird that the suit was brought in the first is truly hurting consumers through unfair are now being rewarded with a slap on the place, since companies that wanted more practices. This is certainly not the case with hand. America needs Microsoft stopped from business in this industry could get it by Microsoft who has facilitated computing ruining competition in the computing making their products better. I think technology to benefit the majority of the landscape. Microsoft has proven duplicitous innovation, by the whole technology industry world’s population. Productivity and and has displayed their outright blatant lying including Microsoft, should be encouraged, creativity has been stifled and it is now nature over and over again. not stifled. showing in the marketplace. Our economy Save the taxpayer some money and do the I work in the computer printer segment of the computer technology. Compatibility of has grown so much in the past two decades, job right this time, otherwise we will just our printers with popular software is due mainly to Microsoft and other key revisit this in a few years. Microsoft has important to our business. It could be of companies providing innovative products to shown a propensity to skirt the rules or some considerable benefit to our partners, the the general consumer. follow them long enough to make it pretty computer industry, and us in general, that I have firsthand experience dealing with window dressing. Fix the problem, make the settlement will allow us to have the open Microsoft, as I work as a Systems Integrator, they do the time for the crime. creating and installing networks. Their access to Microsoft’s copyright software code MTC–00027866 for the internal interfaces of the widely used products have made our business and the From: psewell psewelll Windows programs. majority of our clients run smoothly and To: Microsoft ATR Industry standards are the lifeblood of more efficient. As Microsoft experienced peripheral products, such as our printers. problems due to these lawsuits, so have we Date: 1/28/02 11:40am Microsoft has greatly helped the industry by and it has affected the entire economy. I feel Subject: The way I see the Microsoft setting an affordable, easy to use standard part of the recession that we are now settlement that a wide range of people around the world experiencing is due to these lawsuits. I ask Sir: have chosen to adopt out of the multitude of that you please take the public’s concern into How does one go about expressing their systems available. consideration and help put an end to the opinion, about something that there Other terms in the settlement, such as lawsuits. Additionally, I hope that remaining government said is in their best interest of changes to Microsoft’s ability to exercise its nine states can come to quick settlements, there citizens of our wonderful USA. contract rights will help the industry, without further scrutiny from the Here are my thoughts on this settlement including Microsoft’s rivals, such as AOL government. concerning Microsoft Company , which I Time Warner. AOL will be able to work with Sincerely, believe is the first true all American USA computer manufacturers to remove Guthrie Chamberlain company.. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Windows President www.eagletgi.com First allow me to say up front here, I Messenger and replace them with AOL’s own [email protected] started reading the court documents about Netscape Navigator and AOL Internet Phone: 740.373.9729 x101 the terms of the settlement and was very troubled by the findings and ground rules Messenger, AIM. So, in terms of the MTC–00027864 American computer industry as a whole, the laid down for Microsoft. It reads like more settlement’s requirements of increased From: Carol Hansell money out of the public pockets and nothing openness, flexibility and disclosure from To: Microsoft ATR to protect our best interest. in the software or Microsoft should lead to greater Date: 1/28/02 11:39am computer world. experimentation and innovation. Microsoft Subject: Microsoft’s campaign for comments I feel that the agreement isn’t really in the should benefit too, from the end of the FYI: ‘‘Americans for Technology consumers best interest nor is it in distractions to its business focus and costs of Leadership’’ phoned our (small) office 3 Microsoft’s best interest, this is my opinion. litigation. times plus sent us a brochure in the mail The decree reads like a very confusing The settlement is, in my opinion, in the soliciting comments in support of their judgment. which. in the end I believe will public interest. position on the Microsoft case (that the put software & computers out of reach for the Sincerely, November agreement be accepted as the final average everyday American citizen, Jack Kolb word). Only by carefully checking their web Now mind you. I said average citizen, not site does one find out that they are funded those who are already at the bottom or top, MTC–00027861 by Microsoft Corp. (a ‘‘Founding Member’’). of the food chain. [no disrespect meant there] From: Mark McGee Personally I do *not* support allowing Why do I say this. Because you have took a
VerDate 11
company in the name of some folks greed new frontier the west ...... in the earlier years. MTC–00027868 and put a price tag on everything which has We can never revert back, even thought some From: Steven White to do with technology , which, technology of us think that is what it will take to get our To: Microsoft ATR has no price tag, nor is mankind a third of house in order . it Takes honesty & Date: 1/28/02 11:42am the way ready for this wonderful new world compassion for mankind to put our house in Subject: Microsoft Settlement of technology. I hope and pray you order, if we are lucky as a nation. Since today is the deadline for public understand this statement. this could destroy I would also like to suggest that we change comments, I thought I would add one parting generations of children now, and those to be some of those outdated Sherman act laws, shot to the email I sent some weeks ago and born. they are a great guide to follow , but horrible the hand-written note I sent yesterday by fax. I wonder in today’s world, does any one to use against companies in today’s world, I assume that a lot of people more really care about the citizens of our nation or those standards where for that time period in knowledgeable than I have explained the humanity. Maybe the green god rules in total. our history, we also need to remove a lot of details of why the settlement is too weak to Heaven help us. There will never be a business tax shelters and start making them stop Microsoft from stifling innovation standard set for software. that is the way I see pay there fair share, restore checks and (unless it’s their own) and driving other it at this time from the decree being handed balances, not when someone thinks a companies out of business. I have seen pages down.. company are person is to large are to big. of it in mainstream newspapers and I have shelf’s full of useless software which also, we need to allow those who build there computer publications, and I have gotten a doesn’t work on my computers. I purchase own companies from there pockets not the clear explanation from my own state attorney software & hardware from those who only tax payers pockets. a little more legal lead general. You must have seen those also. Let seek profit, and no perfection in there way. Sometimes we will need to allow a me just make one non-technical point. software to work with any OS system. let the company to be a monopoly [ this is one of Don’t be swayed by the marketing-type buyer be truly aware of what this will those instances] with guidance’s. By those arguments I hear. Some people say that this eventually lead to with software for the whom we tax payers, pay as our watch dogs whole affair is just Microsoft competitors consumer. to protect us an our country from being jealous of Microsoft’s success and unable to Or even Companies at there total own risk compete with them, and looking to the we will take your cash and bed... you the devoured. Does that make sense. No two babies are birth the same way, I had to throw government to help them. That is not correct. consumer. The internet will all but be As the findings of fact told, the issue is that destroyed by those who would benefit from that in, It must be said. No I do not own any stock in Microsoft. Microsoft will not LET other companies it, in the name of greed and jealousy by a compete. Their way of ‘‘competing’’ is not to few. Who only have there interest at hand, Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinions. God bless you and our Nation. make a better product, it is to drive so sorry but this is how I see it from the competitors out of business. That’s why they beginning of this to continued law suits PL Sewell http://www.sewellsports.com have things like the contracts with computer against Microsoft. Allow me to state that I makers that prohibit computer makers from have no axe to grind with anyone nor do I MTC–00027867 even talking about competing products, let work for Microsoft. alone selling them. You might make a I choose on my own to use Microsoft’s From: Pindel, Dave To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ settlement that says to Microsoft, ‘‘No, no no, products because their software was the only you mustn’t do that any more,’’ but they will software that actually works for me being a Date: 1/28/02 11:48am Subject: Microsoft Settlement find a way around that. They might not make lay person, and I didn’t need a PhD to use the contracts any more, but they will use David L. Pindel Microsoft’s software, they supported there subtle strong-arm tactics, or will find Instructor of Biology software, with out charging outrageous fees something that follows the letter of the law Division of Biology and Chemistry to fix there product if something went wrong but not the intent of the settlement. There Corning Community College with there software, which was a rare thing must be someting structural that forces them for such a large software company. to take 1 Academic Drive to behave, not just what amounts to a responsibly for there products... Nor did they Corning, NY 14830 scolding. tease me with there browser like Netscape (607) 962–9536 And also don’t be fooled by the ‘‘freedom did [my very first browser] offer me the bare January 27, 2002 to innovate’’ arguments where Microsoft says bones files, in order for there browser to work Attorney General John Ashcroft that a settlement prevents them from I had to spend hard earn funds at that time US Department of Justice ‘‘innovating’’ and puts the government into to get it to work for me [ very complicated] 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW the software design business. That is not the to enjoy using what my and a lot of other Washington, DC 20530 point. The point is that Microsoft stops folks tax dollars have already paid for, the Dear Mr. Ashcroft: others from innovating and that is what Internet. I appreciate the opportunity to comment prevents the computer industry from being I hope you understand what I am trying my on the settlement agreement reached between all it can be. Microsoft’s tactics starve other best to get across to you here. I think this Microsoft and the Justice Department in the companies from the money they could use to issue should be rethought and support antitrust litigation. Please do not forego the offer better products. The BE-OS is a perfect Microsoft more then what it isn’t doing now opportunity to settle this case now. The example. Microsoft’s contracts prevented BE- in my opinion, my sixty three years could be settlement provides benefits for the economy OS from being sold by computer makers. wrong , but I don’t think so. which can be taken advantage of now rather This deprived BE of money it could have This isn’t a phone company or a light than taking the risk of litigation. The used to improve its product so more people company, etc.. we cannot continue to destroy remedies awarded by a Court may not be as would want to buy it. BE went bankrupt. companies because someone thinks that they advantageous to the public. And finally don’t be swayed by arguments are to wealthy or that they want part of the Microsoft has agreed to eliminate a number that what is good for Microsoft is good for action, the phone company is a good of alleged barriers to competition by America. Bringing Microsoft to heel will not example...... this company Microsoft is part adjusting its pricing policies, eliminating cripple the economy or have some of the very back bone of our nation the new restrictions in its distribution contracts with catastrophic consequences. frontier of the twenty-first century. they are third parties, and allowing competition from I have four computers at home and none a American Global Company with major non-Microsoft software within Windows of them run any Microsoft software. I have assets here in the mother land, supply jobs systems. These changes will help the to struggle a bit with them, but I get by just to the best and brightest of our youth to move computer industry as well as provide greater fine. With more money going to other forward in the 21st century...who sets good choice of products for consumers. companies, it will get only better. standards on how a company should treat Sincerely, Thank you. those who work for them fairly...... this is David Pindel Steven White Wonderful...... this is something we can not 418 Sunset Drive #14A City of Bloomington destroy in the name of greed.....you know like Coming, NY 14830 2215 W Old Shakopee Rd when we first started out as a raw nation, an MTC–0002786/—0002 Bloomington MN 55431–3096
VerDate 11
USA To: Microsoft ATR technical requirement’’ (ActiveX) consistent 952–563–4882 (voice) Date: 1/28/02 11:43am with Windows. Once it is in writing, ActiveX 952–563–4672 (fax) Subject: Microsoft Settlement support will be a minimum for all programs [email protected] To whom it may concern: to meet. That will be anti-competitive by For heavens sake, PLEASE, adopt the terms requiring programs to be a proprietary MTC–00027869 of the agreement with Microsoft and let the Microsoft ActiveX control as a ‘‘reasonable From: Gary Enos country get on with living and move this technical requirement’’ to allow OEM installs To: Microsoft ATR industry forward!! when some software firms would prefer to Date: 1/28/02 11:44am Thank you! use only Java. Studying constitutions and Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, court decisions is part of my background and To whom it may concern, Mrs. H. Crowell I have seen innocuous clauses gain I have watched the case against Microsoft unexpected importance. and believe the actions to date to be an MTC–00027871 Section III.H.3.2 could be such a clause atrocity of justice. The actions taken against From: Bryan Campbell causing OEMs to leave Microsoft programs in Microsoft have been of questionable To: Microsoft ATR place. That Microsoft has broad latitude to substance and lacking a justified agenda. The Date: 1/28/02 11:43am override OEM software choices makes this negative affects on the technology sector and Subject: Microsoft Settlement Judgement contrary to the public interest. the de-valuation of one of America’s greatest Bryan Campbell Section III.C of the Judgment, indeed, seeks assets ‘‘Microsoft’’ has been hard to justify. [email protected] to leave open such options. Generally, as Microsoft has influenced the growth of the 28 January 2001 Microsoft does not give tech support to 0EM computer and compute environments more Ms. Renata Hesse built systems, there is not a strong business than any company in history. Many Trial Attorney reason for Microsoft to so closely govern the companies and manufacturers have benefited Suite 1200 initial boot. Buyer recourse is to an OEM, from the open development and utility of the Antitrust Division which bears the costs of more technical Windows operating system and Microsoft Department of Justice support phone calls if it deploys a confusing certifications. The continued attack on A Cornerstone Technology for the Twenty- initial boot or a confusing configuration. Microsoft is un-productive and a challenge to First Century Microsoft costs do not raise due to some the innovative spirit and freedom to grow ‘‘Home users who buy new PCs don’t have inept OEM ideas so OEMs can certainly be that is typified by American business. much choice in operating systems. Once left to their own ideas on finalizing systems. The marketplace has demanded close Windows XP ships, nearly all computers will OEMs carry the financial burden of integration of OS and functionality. be sold with it installed.’’ ‘‘When your six- manufacturing and selling what they build so Integration of form and function is not a month-old version of MusicMatch Jukebox OEMs need the freedom to install programs wrong doing and Microsoft should be doesn’t work, you may decide just to live that make those systems most attractive to commended for all they have accomplished with WMP [Windows Media Player].’’ The buyers. If an OEM markets PCs that and brought to America’s technical New Windows, PC Magazine 30 October misbehave, a Web or other review will dominance. UNIX manufacturers have been 2001 quickly make that news and the market will imbedding programs in the OS for years; http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s% react leading that OEM to fix its error without MacOS contains many imbedded functions. 253D1590%2526a%253D15591,00.asp reflecting on Windows itself. Microsoft Microsoft has done nothing wrong and has This phase of the antitrust trial concerning paternalism is unnecessary. Not to say that it acted responsibly to meet the needs of the Microsoft products is occurring at one of the can not protect the reputation of its product, market and the installed base of PC users/ most trying times in the history of the United only that in ensuring Windows works as manufacturers. Microsoft is strong because States. The due deliberation given it (going expected Microsoft does not also stifle non- they develop superior products in response on as does all business) says much about the Microsoft programs because those developers to demand. They must be allowed to resolve of the nation and its allies. Personal choose to use their own vision on the continue pushing the envelop and to have Computers are vital to the world economy Windows Operating System. the freedom to innovate. The States which have failed to support the which means even in this dire time the 1a. The revised settlement gives Microsoft DOJ decision are wrong. It is wrong for AOL/ United States needs to ensure the vitality of far too much competitive advantage because Time Warner and Netscape to pursue or be the whole Personal Computer industry which Section III.H.3.1 and its preamble let the permitted to pursue continued challenges is a mainstay for the engine of the world Windows Operating System select Microsoft against Microsoft. There is not value in the economy in this new century. Security is best programs to connect to a Microsoft server. pursuit, only further devaluation of a great served by having a strong economy that has That leaves the door wide open to Microsoft company and the harm to many investors the means to lift up the world into a new specifying, for example, only Internet and the technology industry as a whole. prosperity as was done after World War II. Explorer may be used to update Windows so AOL and MSN both offer messaging. AOL, At question in this case is the unfettered people wishing to use other browsers still Compuserve, ATT and other services are access to the next generation of the common need be familiar with Internet Explorer. offered as part of the Online services load of infrastructure. Microsoft Operating Systems People using the Lynx browser perhaps Windows 98, ME, 2000 and XP systems. The have become the cornerstone for running a because of reduced vision or Opera’s browser users have complete freedom to select ISP, myriad of Personal Computers world-wide! due to physical disability would have no way Browser, and email client. The fact that These Operating Systems take a place beside to visit Microsoft Web sites or to update Explorer, Outlook express, and MSN are raods and highways, electricity, and the Windows. This settlement may allow options to the OS load is perfectly telephone system, as infrastructure services discrimination and or infringe upon the acceptable. These are also superior that are fundamental to everyday life in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and applications. modern society. Care must thus be observed perhaps other codes if a secondary route is Please take action to prevent further legal with the newest Microsoft system, Windows, only left to people with disabilities. (Plus challenge and wasted energy to defend to see that it remains a platform any company their Personal Computers are painstaking Microsoft’s freedom to innovate. The DOJ has or individual may build on and garner the configured to allow independent operation decided; lets get on with re-building the US full benefits of any innovation. which a central authority is unlikely to be economy and re-vitalizing the technology 1. The Revised Proposed Final Judgement able to clone no matter how strong its sector of this great country. gives Microsoft too much influence over how motivation!) From a wider perspective, this Regards, other developers can implement their clause gives Microsoft too much latitude to Gary Enos programs. Section III.H allows OEM installs disregard individual choice. 6842 West Sherri Drive of non-Microsoft products. That clause is Other vendors will be reluctant to write Macedonia, Ohio 44056 made too narrow by Section III.H.3.2, which similar programs knowing reasonable states Windows may invoke a Microsoft earnings from the work is unlikely as MTC–00027870 product (Section III.H paragraph 2) if another possible customers will not use a program From: Roz Crowell product does not meet a ‘‘reasonable since Windows may by-pass it at critical
VerDate 11
times when customers need be most familiar 0,1294,48756,00.html shows a patch which Computers adapt to the person. For browsing with their programs to ensure successful closes many security holes in Microsoft the first thing I did on purchasing Web access outcomes. Moreover, the Court of Appeals Outlook is very seldom downloaded as a in 1995 was Search for a suitable browser Ruling on page 30 (using the Adobe PDF percentage of estimated Outlook users. And and found NCSA Mosaic 2.1 highly usable. rendering) notes having two browsers on that a tiny test group had little success Please see http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/ systems is unpalatable to OEMs as some installing the patch. (Having run desktop SDG/Software/mosaic-w/releaseinfo/2.1/ customers will phone the support line asking systems for 23 years, I’m fully familiar with WBook—60. html for its one key commands which browser to run. OEMs seek to limit instructions for software I found those for the which were enough for keyboard Web such costly calls so OEMs will not configure patch process involved. Not complex, just a navigation, at that time. By mid-1996 the systems with two similar programs to avoid process needing diligence to complete.) All Web was more complex and Opera Software customer confusion. Because OEMs carry the software firms try to make updates easy, yet http://www.opera.com had a browser that burden of product support they need to be customers, especially the majority not has since filled the bill. Being able to find able to configure systems to best suit the interested in the technology itself, are and run commercial software is huge a cost individual buying a system. Windows is a fatigued by frequent updates. By having the saving, too. On the Web site for the White most adaptable Operating System allowing Operating System supply fewer components House, ‘‘Fulfilling America’s Promise to buyers to run Personal Computers in a (where they become outdated with Americans with Disabilities’’ http:// personalized fashion, giving OEMs an option unfortunate speed) OEMs will be able to www.whitehouse.gov/news/ to begin the personalization process would relieve buyers of some extra setup chores, freedominitiative/freedominitiative.html says be one way to make using a new Personal making them more immediately productive! adaptive technology to make Personal Computer easier. Conversely, if via Section For retail sales OEMs could provide CDs Computers usable by people with a disability III.H.3.1 Windows ignores buyer chosen (which stores could also update) with new costs $2000 to $20,000 a system. In software to increase ease of use by using only versions of programs. comparison Opera and this macro program one browser buyers will of necessity run Returning to the comparison with the (to program commands or often used phrases Internet Explorer to be able to update phone system where interoperability to run by typing one or two keys) http:// Windows. Some violations the Court of (meaning seamless operation between www.macros.com together cost $65, showing Appeals upheld deal with promoting components from diverse manufactures) that great software can reduce some expense exclusive use of Internet Explorer, no part of reigns supreme the idea that only Microsoft of making computers usable by people with any settlement should allow for any similar programs (besides when self-updating) be a disability. Such a large saving is rare, yet eventuality. Microsoft must be encouraged to allowed to access Microsoft servers is as it illuminates the power of software. quickly implement open standards so any inefficient as calling the phone company for The malleable nature of software is the vital point as that versatility lower costs. browser can interact the same way with any customer service merely to be told to call Every program does not have to use the exact server. The guiding goal should be the back on handset it built. Possible problems same approach to accomplish any task. Most example of the telephone system which at with other browsers using Microsoft servers programs even have a few ways to do any one one time only allowed equipment built by probably stem from Microsoft placing task. Some macro programs carefully guide the phone company to be connected to the proprietary functions in its own Internet you through macro building, the one I run Explorer browser (please see http:// system. By the early 1980s, equipment built also does direct building which is less work by any manufacturer was allowed to connect www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s% for me. Neither approach is more correct, the to the telephone system something that 253D1470%2526a%253D4804,00.asp) and best solution is the one most suited to the helped the greatly expanded types of then using those function on Microsoft interest and skill level of the person telephone services available now. Plus at that servers. The public interest is only served by performing the task. With Microsoft moving time telephone companies stopped requiring universal Web access as exemplified in to place more full programs in the Operating that handsets be wired into the system by continental telephone systems where those System the best feature of software, its their employees as telephone sockets were responsible for the system do not limit malleable nature, will be lost. fitted with jacks that allow easy connection customer choice. lb. My 23 years of We risk reaching a point where people of handsets. Having seen other technologies experience with desktop class computers only know how run a few programs by rote become much easier for customers to handle (then called ‘‘micros’’) stems from my being as they service the computer instead of alone it would be most unfortunate to go a person who is physically disabled (having computers serving the individual. In an backwards against that trend by letting Cerebral Palsy entails lack of fine motor enlightened age of reduced regulation it is Personal Computers appear to be devices that control, unsteady and shaky movements, and very strange to see Microsoft regulating the only a central authority can setup. difficulty in moving). That familiarity with Personal Computer industry. Because many Car dealers offer customers many options, keyboards began in about 1961 with I began clauses in the Proposed Judgement give although the supply chain for assembly is using a headwand to type on a typewriter. Microsoft ways around prohibitions, long with an involved manufacturing My first ‘‘micro’’ computer in 1978 enabled especially Section III.H.3 using the word process. Since car dealers let customers pick me to complete a Bachelor of Arts in History ‘notwithstanding’’ (meaning despite stated items such as seat color likewise 0EMs can by 1982. Even a computer did not speed up limits Microsoft may have its way), it is no have options for Web players, browsers, and my typing though (a photo at http:// over statement to say Microsoft may now other preferred software components. (Dell www.opera.com/press/guides/operapower regulate its industry. With it being able to Computer buyers custom configure hardware suggests how I work) so the whole Degree still influence many aspects of OEM systems for new systems http://www.zdnet.com/ took seven years to finish, letting me to all customers will largely see Windows in the anchordesk/stories/story/ the reading (and much more) related to the form Microsoft wants, placing it at the center 0,10738,2834200,00.html fifth paragraph, History, Political Economy, and Economics of the Personal Computer letting Microsoft doing the same with some Web ‘‘plug-in’’ courses for the Degree. A background regulate industry affairs. When a monopoly software merely extends an existing concept.) enabling me to place this case in a broader impedes the free flow of products that is at Yes the finishing stages of Personal Computer perspective than is often done, with the skill odds with the nominal workings of a assemble will change to yield widespread to look at all factors and sides before writing capitalist economy and its open markets. benefit as new systems have the newest an analysis. 1c. Technology plays its best role in versions of programs installed. Vital to note also is the wide power of economic growth when it is deployed in a Customers satisfaction should go up given software to do amazing things! It is software manner that does not favor or give special less need to update new systems with the which transforms the diverse components status to any party (which is separate from most recent versions of programs helping within desktop computers into cohesive financial returns due product creators). lower or hold steady OEMs costs by reducing wholes able to a universe of tasks. If you do Applying that concept to Operating Systems phone calls to support on what to do when not want to, or cannot hold down two keys for Personal Computers is illuminating. DOS an update causes a malfunction. Microsoft at once solutions abound! A two key began in 1981 as a system with the bare benefits by having some updates done before command can be programmed on to one key essentials to run a computer, some might say customers receive systems. A 3 Dec 2001 or software ‘holds’’ modifier keys like Shift so bare that it was like selling an engine with article at http://www.wired.com/news/print/ on till another key is typed. Personal no spark plugs.
VerDate 11
Other vendors began selling software to unwise to make people work hard for million Windows client licenses (including perform such essential tasks. In 1991 security. corporate updates) now ship yearly, with Microsoft released DOS 5 which later with Despite such hard work the second article, declining computer prices making it more DOS 6 were the first more complete versions, ‘‘Internet Explorer Violates Basic Security ‘‘enticing’’ to buy new systems than to try (http://www.nukesoft.co.uk/msdos/ Principles,’’ on the above link says that how upgrading old ones http://www5.zdnet.com/ dosversions.htm) less requiring third party Javascript runs in Internet Explorer makes it zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5100875,00.html. software to enable computer features of that vulnerable. Malevolent Web sites can ‘‘hijack With Windows put on many new systems the day. browsing sessions,’’ steal items like credit monopoly is self-renewing as the equipment Notable these implementations left room card numbers from browser cookies or read it runs on is continually updated. For entities for improvement and customer choice. sensitive information from files on running Windows there is not one large unit Although by 1993 the engine definitely computers. No patch existed when the article or factory to age and be replace by equipment included spark plugs demanding customers went to the Web on 10 Jan 2002. Disabling from competitors at one moment in time. seeking their view of complete computing Javascript is the only way to seal the gap for Interesting too, is that buyers of the were free to buy software offering a full of now. And that makes the Web very difficult Operating System pay for the equipment its range options in areas like memory- to use since many sites employ Javascript to runs on, relieving Microsoft of paying for management from a number of vendors. What exchange information with browsers and to equipment to maintain the monopoly. Low Microsoft added to DOS are functions have Web page pieces properly placed. An costs to Microsoft, with no decisive point in virtually fundamental to the workings of an expanded Operating System makes it the product cycle to switch vendors due to Operating System, yet there was no wide difficult for people to decide what browser continual buying means the Operating attempt to exclude other vendors from those best serves their interests because Internet System monopoly is durable and long lasting. markets. Windows 95 had improved Explorer asserts itself in Windows. Development of this point stems from the memory-management so third party software And it seems silly, at first glance, to seek Court of Appeals note that Joseph for it all but vanished, which is natural other programs when the Operating System Schumpeter saw only temporary monopolies because the Operating System should be able maker provides software in a persistent in technology. The ruling (page 12) cites to handle a basic computer resource like manner to do things. That persistent hampers Schumpeter’s idea of product improvement memory itself. competitors from fulfilling the browser or causing many firms to dominant a market in To understand the impact of combinations other functions. Brett Glass notes that sequence. A dynamic technology market a careful review of whether another product Internet Explorer at time runs despite efforts would appear difficult to dominant for long, brings a finishing touch to an Operating of computer owners to have Windows launch as another firm will improve the given item System does help. Optional utility software a non-Microsoft browser when a third such that buyers flock to for a few years till to check Operating System integrity and program requests browser functions. Such a third firm replaces it and so on. That works better memory-management refine the behavior is anticompetitive because it will when a given item has no dependances on it. Operating System, increasing its ability to cause some users to surrender and use If changing the one item, however, demands perform without incident. Those items Microsoft products to get their jobs done that other things must be changed too represent more intensive development of instead of toiling to have Windows always product improvement has difficulty what the Operating System is meant to do, use the browser they want. Usually Microsoft unseating the first monopoly. make Personal Computers ready and able to says bundling will not inhibit customer Schumpeter’s theory does not apply to run programs the owner needs. A built-in choice of software that does not seem to Personal Computers Operating Systems browser, media player or the like expands the reflect real world experience. Worse than because Schumpeter could not be expected to Operating System without increasing the being anticompetitive is that people are led foresee the huge network effect in this arena. integrity of that software. Expansion adds to to using software which is not secure. Producing a better Operating System in the Operating System without polishing it. Bringing the discipline of the market is the isolation will not enable buyers to adopt it. When such tying occurs the Operating best way to let customers choose great and When Microsoft began with MS-DOS and System can become more difficult to secure software uninfluenced by the first early Windows it did not face a dominant maintain, unlike the customer benefits blush of tying. rival ‘‘with a massive an installed base and derived from intensive development. 2. How Microsoft dominance and now as vast an existing array of applications’’ Problems with an expanding Operating monopoly in desktop class computer (Court of Appeals ruling page 23). Instead of System are illustrated by the security holes Operating Systems functions demonstrates being temporary deep support makes the Internet Explorer lends Windows. Two surprising durability. A product primarily Windows monopoly most resilient. articles on http://www.extremetech.com/ sold on new computers each edition of the 2a. Remedies to antitrust activities need to article/0,,s%3D25124&a%3D21033,00.asp Operating System has a fresh plateau to reflect the strength of the Microsoft explain matters. ‘‘Microsoft Releases IE maintain its dominance. Not depending on monopoly. It is very durable so the company ‘Mega-Patch’’’ notes that a combined patch static plants or structures to provide goods or is much, much more likely to be able to now closes various Internet Explorer holes services in a certain locality means this damage other firms than anything in a (one even lets someone take over your monopoly is unlikely to weaken due to age, judgment disrupting it. Windows is as much computer, details on http:// obsolescence, or outside encroachment. Not a cornerstone of personal computing as are www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/12/ having to finance and maintain fixed assets plumbing and electricity to a building. 13/011213hnbackdoor.xml). Yet it is not to manufacture tangible products means Buyers require Windows to be able to run the always clear the browser must be updated to Microsoft is able to quickly apply resources programs that form their daily activities and version 5.5 before the patch will install, thus to new challenges without the lag and will purchase the Operating System in a after download some people gave up. Brett expense of having to retool manufacturing basic or its present expanded form. Any Glass writes further in the article that plants to build new kinds of products. Which discomfort experienced by Microsoft is a stopping is bad, the patch is essential since is not to say software development is necessary of result of allowing the free Microsoft nearly always has Internet Explorer instantaneous or that Microsoft has no costs market to again operate. Bumps in the new run, (to view email sent in the style Web only that the expenses are not structural, not open market road are just the expected pages) ‘‘unbidden,’’ even if computer binding it to one course for any time span. opposite reaction to benefits from antitrust ‘‘owners’’ act ‘‘to make another browser the With little to hinder it Microsoft can quickly activities. In specifying what Microsoft must default’’. That means owners using another respond to meet emerging market trends not do its ability to employ its own browser must still maintain Internet Explorer making the monopoly durable. interpretations of matters needs to be because Microsoft expanded the Operating What sustains the Operating Systems considered to achieve the desired result. The System to include its own product. That monopoly is fascinating. Increasing yearly firm managed to sidestep the 1994 Consent means just not using Internet Explorer does sales of systems licensed to run Microsoft Decree http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f000/ not avoid security problems in Windows. Operating Systems created a huge installed 0047.htm (page nine, paragraph three) item Extra software in the Operating System base of systems with the hardware that Microsoft not require notification of any brings extra problems. This is a particular specification derived from the first IBM New System line sold with no Microsoft bad time for compromised security so it is Personal Computer in 1981. About 100 Operating System. In a most innovative
VerDate 11
fashion, Microsoft had a contest in early 2001 ‘‘drivers’’ with their Operating System, but OS3.9 is the AWeb browser for buyers to try to have system builders inform Microsoft of these seldom drive all features on out as v3.4SE Special Edition has some systems shipped without Windows. Builder components making these ‘‘drivers’’ features disabled so if folks wish to keep employees gained more valuable prizes for unattractive substitutes. Components makers using it they need to buy a full version. telling Microsoft of higher numbers of non- over time have sold many items in their Limited versions let prospective buyers try a Windows system sales. Microsoft wanted to product category making it difficult for product without damaging potential sales. see that Enterprise licenses are not distributors of other Operating Systems to Notable these test versions can be removed misunderstood as covering new systems, a timely develop ‘‘drivers’’ to suit specific from systems if customers so wish. Probably necessary thing noted in, ‘‘Microsoft offers components. A tiny part of the remedy the instances of Operating System and PC builders prizes to be finks’’ http:// should prohibit Microsoft from in any way browser bundling presented at the original www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/05/ deterring or interfering with components District Court hearing allowed the browser to 02/010502hnsitelicense.xml makers possible writing ‘‘drivers’’ for other be removed from the Operating System, as Letters to Enterprise license holders could Operating Systems. well. What Microsoft did in binding Internet of accomplished the same result without 3. Pricing is the one area where, at a Explorer to Windows was atypical since garnering builder sales information which is glance, the Operating System monopoly is other programs can always be removed. private between seller and buyer! Instead, not readily discerned. The price is usually Apple Computer could not create and tie the what Microsoft did went against the idea of not high compared to other Personal two products together, for instance, being the 1994 Decree with a method to gain details Computer components so previously cost under contract to Microsoft for its MacOS on builder sales by using a voluntary entry was not an issue. Point 2 of this submission Internet Explorer to be the default browser on to contest which seems to get around the notes Windows sales are now about 100 Apple systems. point Microsoft not require such information, million unit a year. Over an approximate That the Internet Explorer experience can except perhaps to dissuade clients running three year mainstream life of an Operating be duplicated on Apple’s MacOS without non-Microsoft server Operating Systems (‘‘Be System total sales do perhaps yield a placing that Microsoft browser in the Apple a Microsoft Stoolie, Win a Chair’’ http:// monopoly like profit. Especially as Microsoft Operating System shows the browser is a news.cnet.com/news/0–1278–210–5816847– has low fixed costs. A humble suggestion to product category, not Operating System 1.html). Though it is unknown if Microsoft the Court is to investigate the cost of plumbing like memory-management that used information from the contest to producing software in a very high volume to wholly depends CPU and Operating System influence software usage it is seen that discover how price per unit relates to interaction. That the product category exists Microsoft cuts close to prohibited actions in production cost. Another item to account for is illustrated by its functions. Unlike most pursuing its goals, for this case all is Microsoft having no direct enduser support computer programs a browser is meant to requirements must be exacting to prevent costs when builders put Windows on show on a local system information that is sidesteps. Nor can the anticompetitive systems. Not facing that cost could let a formatted into Web pages on remote ingredient of the contest be ignored as it lower price yield unexpected returns. computers. A browser would quickly become clearly made known Microsoft’s concern over Annoyance, too, is a reason Microsoft has boring without a connection to the Web to systems selling without Windows. Because unremarkable prices. In software provide fresh and new information. A builders must be able to put Windows on development ‘‘the-state-of-the-art’’ produces browser is part newspaper, radio, and TV for desktop computers to retain buyers, system good programs which seldom run as well as computers that only really shines because of builders (particularly less known firms) common, everyday devices. The science, or its outside connection while other programs could take pause and decide not to risk art, of software is young so somewhat less deal what they create. Separating the browser relations with Microsoft by selling relatively reliability is reasonable. That means to sell from other software is that it does not create few (if more expensive) server systems many units a year prices cannot be what it displays. Even most computer games without Windows. All system software and maximized to the same extent, for example, create files to allow games to be resumed at hardware suppliers can be replaced except as can prices for ad space in the sole a later time. for Microsoft because only it licenses newspaper for given area. Annoyances is Demonstrating a possible market for Windows which brings together all the even the name of a popular Web site http:/ browser is difficult because once a firm with products from other suppliers into a cohesive /www.annoyances.org for dealing with market power uses its builder distribution unit that can be sold. Windows so what have been moderate prices network to distribute its browser with no Such complete dependence on a single were a trade-off to keep buyers. Of Windows regard to cost by not charging for it buying supplier for the only product with no 98 a prominent writer said one reason to a second browser seems odd. NetMechanic substitute would make builders wary of spend the $90 is that 98 crashed less than http://www.netmechanic.com though, is a offending Microsoft since it is the only firm Windows 95 http://content.techweb.com/ firm in business to make Web sites work in in the Personal Computer industry that can winmag/library/1998/0701/ana0001.htm a variety of browsers, and different types of put other firms out of business by halting 4. Bundling is a pivotal matter here making computers, demonstrating not everyone access to merely one product. The Court of understanding it important. Bundling is prefers the Web as presented by Windows Appeals ruling on page 16 says customers common to enhance the value of new kinds through Internet Explorer. Tastes do change. will not change Operating Systems due to the of products, movie rentals included with One noted computer commentator recently cost of new programs and training for them VCR purchases when that product was new wrote (20 Dec 2001) he now uses Opera’s which is a burden while other Operating to spur customer interest, a process now style of having a number of Web pages open Systems offer fewer programs. happening with DVD players, are fine within the browser’s one window (called Also, each hardware component requires a examples of the more frequent kind of MDI), instead of one program for each Web piece of software referred to as a ‘‘driver’’ to bundling. When Personal Computers first pages as Internet Explorer does producing a mediate communications between a became fast enough to display usable ‘‘blizzard’’ of separate programs http:// component and the Operating System the graphics on monitors writers of programs to www.scotfinnie.com/newsletter/18.htm. ‘‘driver’’ is written for. Component makers do charts and graphs arranged to have makers If the playing field was more level, with no write Windows ‘‘drivers’’ almost exclusively of the new, fast graphic boards for systems firm having market power using its very so system builders lack options for any bundle those programs with new boards to special access to computer distribution, there simple substitution. Thus relations with increase sales of both products! All is reason to think buyers would seek Microsoft are a prime concern leading temporary arrangements to boast new browsers that suited their individual builders to stay attuned to what Microsoft product recognition. preference instead of just happening to use wishes. Yes, another Operating System can Similar to this Operating System and what ships with the computer. Equally be used, yet it demands a seldom seen deep browser packaging, ‘‘AWeb-II 3.4 Packaged important is that other types of computers do commitment. Lack of ‘‘drivers’’ deters buyers with Amiga OS3.9’’ http:// access the Web so a proprietary specification from trying another Operating System on browserwatch.internet.com/news/story/ of how to interact with browsers is new computers, adding to why buyers stick news-20001229–1.html Amiga is a neat, anticompetitive since it favors one type of to Windows despite frequently new niche computer and Operating System with computer. Microsoft’s main focus is the purchases. Linux distributors do provide some loyal supporters. Bundled with Amiga Personal Computer, making it less interested
VerDate 11
in the advancement of other computers to 5a. Judgment needs to last a long time so www.w3.org). Customers will also need to protect its principal area of business. That is market can develop products and just get use adapt and choose a Web browser that best natural for Microsoft to do, yet it is bad for to being fully open (so participants in meets their usage requirements, the usual customers as possible choice for computers markets related to Personal Computers have way of choosing products. And the 12-year will not have the options as the kind no reason to act in anticipation of its end). period approximately doubles the time Microsoft caters to. An example is on http:/ Allowing time for those notions to be Microsoft hindered usual market forces /www5.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/ entrenched so OEMs will react strongly to through special distribution requirements. 0,5859,5101802,00.html noting that unusual demands instead of merely Thus, 12 years is reasonable recompense to Microsoft’s PDA named the Pocket PC does accepting them so Microsoft regains its that market. not support Apple’s Mac computers. Not a position. Restored Microsoft ‘‘plug-in’’ support big item, yet it is another way to make That is a big concern given Microsoft’s (dropped in August 2001 http:// Windows look better. Microsoft is so fiercely habit is to disparage what other firms make, news.cnet.com/news/0–1005–200– competitive it should not be left to handle a ‘‘Novell sues Microsoft over ad campaign’’ 6881773.html) is a fine part of a remedy as cross-platform standard better formulated by http://news.com.com/2100–1001– it reinvigorates the browser market without an industrial association. 273775.html while a later review found the steering it in any direction. Requiring (I must now apologize to the Court as time Novell progressing quite well, 17 Dec 2001 Microsoft to publish its source code for is now very short to finish the filing and I ‘‘Not Just Another NOS—NetWare 6 includes Internet Explorer would merely develop still type slowly so I need to work in point impressive Web tools, file and print services’’ copies with strengths and weaknesses similar form, I hope you will excuse me.) http://www.eweek.com/article/0, to the original. Leaving them dependent on These 4 columns note that open standards 3658,s%253D708%2526a%25 Microsoft for core code development, not greatly reduce costs for buyer and much 3D20078,00.asp. creating an open market. Browsers do not improve the number and quality of available Unfortunately such ads and the blocking of relate to the booting of computers so showing choices. ‘‘Standards can put you in control’’ 3rd party browsers from some Microsoft Web source code is currently unneeded. So long http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/ sites occurred while Microsoft negotiated this as a browser is not commingled in the stories/main/0,14179,2837626,00.html Proposed judgment suggesting Microsoft may Operating System it is just another program Open Standards Vital, PC’s Founding not be serious about this process. It was soon making for easy substitution. Both ActiveX Fathers Say’’ seen that the browsers dealt well with the and ‘‘plug-ins’’ have strengths and drawbacks http://www.extremetech.com/article/ Microsoft sites, ‘‘MSN.com shuts out non- with no clear winner. ActiveX deeply ties 0,3396,s%253D201%2526a% Microsoft browsers’’ into Windows, which is troubling if security 253D11568,00.asp, http://news.com.com/2100–1023– breaks down. Meanwhile, Microsoft has ‘‘Why we should hail IBM’s ode to open 274944.html, ‘‘Parts of MSN Still Off-Limits doubts about ‘‘plug-ins.’’ Such issues are source—the Purple Book’’ to Amaya, Opera Users’’ exactly the type best left to customer choice. http://zdnet.com.com/2100–1107– http://browserwatch.internet.com/news/ More importantly, ensured ‘‘plug-in’’ 503981.html and ‘‘Group builds onto wall of stories2001/news-20011101–1.html, support only produces a level playing field Web standards’’ http://news.com.com/2100– ‘‘Microsoft backpedals on MSN browser since all browsers have good access to helper 1023–802022.html. The W3C stands for Web block’’ programs leaving it to market forces to open standards with interoperability between http://news.com.com/2100–1023– determine what browsers succeed. This point all software, Microsoft should be urged its 274980.html. Perhaps 1 remedy could have is forward looking as it leaves the market lead. Microsoft mostly deal in the benefits of its open with minimal or no market distortion 5. The most effective remedy to administer own products in ads and not supposed flaws making it very much in the public interest. with most ease is that Microsoft only sell in what other firms produce, generally 6. Varied point2: Using ActiveX on the Windows with the basic plumbing to run leaving buyers to decide what suits them Windows Update site does not exclude computers for the 1st 30 months of a best. people from general access to the Web as the judgment. That will be called disruptive, yet 5b. To give independent developers the Court of Appeals ruled. The anticompetitive it is the best way to remind everyone opportunity to write a browser based on its element is that only Microsoft knows how to Windows is the means to let many code, Netscape Communications made its have browsers run ActiveX meaning that companies run programs on Personal source code available through http:// users must maintain Internet Explorer to be- Computers, not just Microsoft, and not as 2nd www.Mozilla.org. As a result the able to reach the Update site which is a class players. If that is not done Microsoft specification for Netscape style ‘‘plug-ins,’’ crucial, must reach site for anyone running will have decreasing reason to accommodate which add functions as helpers to browsers, a Windows Operating System! Above this other firms on Windows as those firms will is now commonly known. This specification filing shows it is a long and somewhat not much add to Windows’’ popularity. Plus allows any company developing a browser to difficult process to keep Internet Explorer that will encourage Microsoft to have enough run ‘‘plug-ins’’ in its browser application. current and secure. Also the Court of Appeals Windows’’ APIs so any browser runs all Because Microsoft now has such a wide ruling (page 30–1) says Microsoft twice browser functions in Windows instead of the lead in browser usage, its support of ‘‘plug- acknowledged two browser icons can be APIs being limited to Internet Explorer. ins’’ in all its browsers is critical to such confusing. Running two browsers would be During that 30 months programs now in helpers being created both in ActiveX and confusing as well, the easiest course for most Windows will sell at prices as determined ‘‘plug-in’’ style. To give market forces the people is to only run Internet Explorer. It from sources like the Web. After 30 months chance to establish a market for browsers, thus has a very distinct advantage over other such programs and basic Windows most stay Microsoft shall include ‘‘plug-in’’ support in browsers. Yet Microsoft must ensure the available for 10 years. And Microsoft may all its browser for 12 years. That period will integrity of its products so of course it may then sell 2 other Windows versions with begin on the first day of the first month after have Windows invoke a single purpose client prices reflecting having some extra programs Microsoft demonstrates restored internal that would check and service only Microsoft in 1 version, and all extra programs in the ‘‘plug-in’’ support in all current (or future) software. Such a client would have limited, 2nd version; as well as direct Microsoft browsers from by Microsoft, its subsidiaries specialized usage likely only for connecting support being of 1 contact for setup (only or successors. Menu and other means that to Microsoft servers, it will not be anti- good if used in 1st 35 days after buying) that exist to modify program options in Windows competitive because it will not effect may go on for a time after the contact began, could turn off ‘‘plug-in’’ support. If it perceptions of programs from other vendors. and a 2nd 6 months starting from a later becomes apparent ‘‘plug-ins’’ fall out of That differs from the present wording of contact within 15 months of system common usage Microsoft may be allowed to Section III.H.3.1 and its preamble which purchase. Simple reason for Microsoft end its support early. gives Microsoft programs special rights users support is that it be responsible for any full A 12-year time period is necessary since could see as making it better than similar programs put in with Windows, that is only many Web sites are built to mainly support products from other vendors. creating a consequence for Microsoft’s action Internet Explorer and many Web designers 6a. Relating to Microsoft Passport: If which is fundamental to a well running will require time to become accustomed to Microsoft wants customers to create a basic market economy. using an open standard (likely from http:// account (using an existing e-mail address)
VerDate 11
before providing product assistance that WE CONSUMERS NEED TO WIN ONE mechanism to make it easy for computer account should only be for dealing with EVERY NOW AND THEN. companies, consumers and software Microsoft, and not for dealing with other W.H. HUBBARD, developers to promote non-Microsoft firms over the Web. Privacy and security 7700–1 S. ARAGON BLVD. software within Windows. Microsoft seemed concerns of individuals deem that each SUNRISE, FL. 33322 to be generous when settling the case. Let’s person be able to make their own decision on end litigation now so that Microsoft can go whether to create an account to deal with MTC–0027875 back to work. We, the American people, need Microsoft alone or a process for giving out From: Rick Spiewak a company like Microsoft to stay strong, so information to third parties. Having 2 kinds To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of they can continue to create innovative of accounts means Microsoft will not be able Justice products, well paying jobs, and help to unduly leverage the Operating System Date: 1/28/02 11:39am strengthen the tech sector of the economy. monopoly into the de facto identification and Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, information dispersal process for the Web. Rick Spiewak Gary G. Hill That will also much decrease the possibility 37 Berkeley Rd. (661) 723–6035 that newcomers to PCs would erroneously Framingham, ma 01701 (661) 723–6180—Fax think only Microsoft provides software for January 28, 2002 [email protected] this class of computers. A central repository Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Gary G. Hill for all personal information will be probably Justice , Director of Finance a target for thieves trying to steal credit card Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department City of Lancaster number to commit fraud and perhaps where of Justice: Lancaster Redevelopment Agency malevolent forces will go for personal The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? 44933 No. Fern Avenue information in efforts to build false identities. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Lancaster, CA 93534 Signing in to a creation like Microsoft serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech (661) 723–6035 Passport is not something to be done while industry. It is time for this trial, and the (661) 723–6180—Fax people are trying to setup another product. It wasteful spending accompanying it, to be [email protected] must be considered on its own drawbacks or over so that companies like Microsoft can get MTC–00027877 merits, and then perhaps entered into. back into the business of innovating and Thank you for this opportunity. creating better products for consumers, and From: Bill Baker Sincerely, not wasting valuable resources on litigation. To: Microsoft ATR Bryan Campbell Thank you for this opportunity to share my Date: 1/28/02 11:46am Subject: Microsoft settlement MTC–00027872 views. Sincerely, Please settle this suit now and let Microsoft From: Bradley G Leonard Rick Spiewak get on with its business. To: Microsoft ATR Thank you, Date: 1/28/02 11:44am MTC–00027876 Bill Baker Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Gary Hill 2051 Morningside Drive I, Bradley G. Leonard, am a U.S. citizen To: Microsoft ATR Mount Dora, Florida 32757 who disagrees with the proposed settlement. Date: 1/28/02 11:45am MTC–00027878 It is a bad idea. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Support From: Don Campbell Gary G. Hill MTC–00027873 To: Microsoft ATR 44024 Countryside Drive ? Lancaster, CA From: Garrett Williams Date: 1/28/02 11:47am 93536 To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 26, 2002 Date: 1/28/02 11:40am The current settlement of the Microsoft Attorney General John Ashcroft Subject: Microsoft Settlement case is a travesty. Since becoming a To whom it may concern, US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania monopoly, Microsoft has almost I strongly encourage a fair and appropriate Avenue, NW continuously ignored antitrust law against settlement concerning Microsoft and their Washington, DC 20530–0001 anticompetitive behavior. When caught and anti-trust violations. The company in Dear Mr. Ashcroft: tried, they deny the obvious. After agreeing question has abused it’s position and created As an elected member of the Antelope to cease the anticompetitive behavior they an unfair market place to which they are the Valley Health Care District representing carry on as before. dominate player. In order to right this 450,000 people, I am writing this letter as in They have shown negligible effort at situation the government must truly punish support of the settlement in the case against compliance and continue to operate against Microsoft for their unethical behavior. This Microsoft. I believe that this whole suit was consumer interest and consumer choice. If means creating opportunities for other a waste of time and money. Only in America anything, they have extended this approach companies that have suffered at the expense do we focus on tearing down success, and beyond their traditional software market into of Microsoft’s business practices. Proposals destroying a product line the works. There other markets of Internet and media such as the education solution only increases are choices out there, but none of them work commerce. Microsoft’s market share and shows that the as well as the Microsoft products. I do not think that a remedy which falls current presidential administration is There are more pressing issues that are of short of structurally modifying the company oblivious to the current problem. Microsoft is concern to me in this country such as the will work. Microsoft will go on as usual and a monopoly and that is definitely not energy crisis here in California. The state has destroy more companies. In so doing they beneficial to the economy. In order to lost $22 billion dollars resulting in will continue to chant the false mantra that increase competition steps must be taken to consumers getting gauged. In addition, the they are ‘‘innovating’’ and being punished for thoroughly punish Microsoft and give price of gas has risen 20 cents per gallon, just that. They should be broken up, Windows businesses such as Apple Computer, Java, in the last week. The Department of Justice code should be opened up to the competition and a host of others a fair chance. should have taken a strong NO to the rash of and they should not be allowed to leverage Thank you, oil company mergers this past decade; we their current monopoly into new ones. garrett williams can live without a home computer, but must Don Campbell have gasoline (real public transit has not MTC–00027874 arrived yet) MTC–00027879 From: Violet L Hubbard Microsoft did not get off as easy, as its From: Tom Skinner To: Microsoft ATR opponents would have people think. They To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 11:44am agreed to terms beyond what was required in Date: 1/28/02 11:47am Subject: microsoft setlement the suit. They also agreed to design future Subject: Microsoft Settlement AS A SENIOR CITIZEN, I FEEL THAT THE versions of Windows, starting with an January 27, 2002 SETTLEMENT IS AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE. interim release of XP, to provide a Attorney General John Ashcroft
VerDate 11
US Department of Justice To: Microsoft ATR I am in favor of the terms of the settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Date: 1/28/02 11:51am and hope you will consider an end to this Washington, DC 20530 Subject: Microsoft Settlement expensive litigation and allow all parties to Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Whomever it may concern, move on. The antitrust suit against Microsoft has My JOB is dependant on the hard work Thank you, been settled. This agreement was arrived at Microsoft has done to create products, Jane Quirk after extensive negotiations with a court- support, and certifications! appointed mediator. The whole process took I depend on being able to go home to a MTC–00027884 three years, which I believe is long enough, computer that is similar to the one I use at From: Caghan, Susan if not too long. This settlement has profound work, being able to keep all my tasks and To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ implications for all software publishers, the appointments with me on the road in my Date: 1/28/02 11:51am Subject: Microsoft rest of the IT industry, and consumers. handheld computer, and using the internet in Settlement New government regulations will be an easy and efficient method. Microsoft has http://www.primepro.com imposed on the IT sector. The proposed jumped through hoops to make sure I can do January 28, 2002 agreement requires major changes in how all of that without learning several new Attorney General John Ashcroft Microsoft develops and markets its products, operating systems, buying several browsers, US Department of Justice while allowing competitors the possibility of and having compatibility problems with my 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW suing the company if it does not comply with handheld computer. Washington, DC 20530–0001 these new rules. The settlement is in the best Consider a world where your missile Dear Mr. Ashcroft: interests of the state, the economy and our defenses are running on a LINUX computer I believe that the antitrust suit against nation as a whole. whose core operating software is partially Microsoft has been detrimental both to the The recession has had a devastating effect written by a 12year old in Russia... and it has economy and to the IT community. This suit on budgets at both the state and federal a fatal bug! You can’t exactly goto a single was an attempt by Microsoft competitors to levels. It is important to allow the IT industry company and demand a fix overnight like use the legal system to manipulate a market the ability to concentrate solely on its you can Microsoft. for their own gain. It is time to let us in the Don’t make a mistake by hurting the one business at hand. The original agreement technology industries get back to the work; company that has driven innovation as well reached by the Justice Department is to do our part in moving our economy as created and supported hundreds of beneficial to the industry and the economy forward. thousands of jobs WORLDWIDE. at this point. The settlement needs to be The antitrust suit has had a negative, Thank you for your time. agreed upon by all members of the federal trickle-down consequence, that if not Nicholas VanderPyle government, permitting us to continue being stopped, will lead to spiraling business Boeing a leader in the technological market at home downturns both of companies that partner Fort Walton Beach, FL and around the world. with Microsoft as well businesses that use (850)302–4553 Microsoft products. The settlement Sincerely,
VerDate 11
future versions of Windows, to provide a their inability to offer competing software Subject: Microsoft Settlement mechanism to make it easier for computer within the Windows system. I wish to register my strenuous objections companies, consumers and software Microsoft has agreed to uniform pricing to the proposed settlement to the Microsoft developers to promote non-Microsoft guidelines as well as less restrictive licensing Antitrust case. software within Windows. agreements with distributors. Microsoft has Of all the provisions which I find most Let’s end the distraction and go back to also agreed to open its operating systems to objectionable are those related to so-called business. Microsoft can go back to reviving competing software applications. ‘‘middleware.’’ The proposed settlement its company and the technical sector. I believe that Microsoft’s actions more than provides Microsoft with more control over Government can work on bringing us out of adequately answer the complaints, and software to be included with Windows then this recession. Microsoft should be allowed to get back to they have today. If the settlement is Sincerely, business. Please implement the settlement as approved, they will be permitted to Robert Marmelstein soon as the law allows. Thank you for your discriminate in ways which before the consideration and attention. settlement would almost certainly generate MTC–00027887 Sincerely, antitrust scrutiny. This proposed settlement From: RandyRotter (MSN) Edward Goodrich does not open the door to middleware development, it slams it shut. To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00027889 Date: 1/28/02 11:53am This settlement does not promote Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw competition; it institutionalizes the Microsoft This whole jihad against Microsoft by To: Microsoft ATR monopoly. To approve it would not be in the varied government officials at the behest of Date: 1/28/02 11:50am public interest. Microsoft’s competitors has been ill advised, Subject: Microsoft Settlement Mitch Stone corrupt and unproductive. It has harmed the Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division [email protected] 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 company, harmed our international MTC–00027892 leadership in technology, harmed how young Washington, DC 20530–0001 people view a career in technology, harmed Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: From: Thomas Hahn the consumer with legal fees added to Please put a stop to the economically- To: Microsoft ATR product cost, and introduced the attempt to draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This Date: 1/28/02 11:55am have technical elegance determined by has gone on long enough. Microsoft has Subject: Microsoft Settlement states’’ attorney generals. already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer Gentlemen: Do not let the zealots and the cynics icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case I would like to add my voice to those who determine the fate of Microsoft’s ability to against Microsoft is little more than feel that this is a just settlement and should delivery complex solutions. Look at the ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft go forward without further delay. Thanks. strides being made in China with wireless competitors, with not a nickel going to those Thomas Hahn and you will see what can happen quickly if supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the computer user. MTC–00027893 we weaken our own ability to provide large This is just another method for states to get From: Bob Frazier scale solutions. I am old enough to have free money, and a terrible precedent for the To: Microsoft ATR learned to drive in a beautiful 1960 Buick future, not only in terms of computer Date: 1/28/02 11:55am convertible. Within a few years I watched the technology, but all sorts of innovations in the Subject: Microsoft / AOL Settlement automobile industry’s abilty to product a most dynamic industry the world has ever Sir; decent car greatly decline relative to our seen. I am completely in agreement with the DoJ competitors and saw the takeover of our main Please put a stop to this travesty of justice settlement worked out between Microsoft industrial hallmark by foriegn companies. now. Thank you. and AOL. It satisfies the ruling of the Court We have had to wait for Microsoft to create Sincerely, of Appeals and represents the best an American world competitive flagship Ken Lindsay opportunity for this industry to move ahead. company to again provide the ability to 6272 209th. rd. Sincerely, command domestic and world markets. Live Oak,, FL 32060 Robert D. Frazier Because this case is about the fragility of 19 Applewood Lane intellectual property, the old rules do not MTC–00027890 Temple, NH 03084 always apply and should not be allowed to From: Doug Grinbergs push an American success story into To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00027894 mediocrity. Date: 1/28/02 11:53am From: [email protected]@inetgw Randall Rotter Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR 9013 Nisqually Way NE With respect to the proposed Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 11:55am Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 settlement, I would like to offer these brief Subject: Microsoft Settlement (206) 855–9625 comments: Dear Sir/Madam: I just wanted to comment on the Microsoft MTC–00027888 To the great disadvantage of its customers, as well as users and manufacturers of matter with respect to ‘‘pending’’ matters in From: Edward Goodrich competing systems, I believe that it would the courts. I feel as a consumer that Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR effectively leave the monopoly intact; well- has been a strong American company and has Date: 1/28/02 11:52am funded, highly-paid, highly-motivated helped to ‘‘standardize’’ the disparate Subject: Microft Settelment Microsoft lawyers will easily avoid the vague software in the PC industry over the last 10 Attorney General John Ashcroft settlement rules and the giant will continue years. Competitors such as AOL (who BTW US Department of Justice largely unchecked. Public meetings are appear one again to be against 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW essential to a democratic process and there ‘‘standardization’’ ) are not happy with a Washington, DC 20530 should be public hearings nationwide to ‘‘large systems integrator’’ concept, which by Dear Mr. Ashcroft: afford citizens the opportunity to speak out default in the software industry goes to the I understand that the Department of Justice on this important matter. Most Aggressive Company ..in this case is presently accepting public comment on its Doug Grinbergs Microsoft. Most Microsoft products I agreement with Microsoft to settle the [email protected] purchase are ‘‘fairly priced’’. In fact SUN’s antitrust litigation. I wholeheartedly support PO Box 17455 compilers and tools were once ‘‘way more the agreement. Microsoft was just being Boulder, CO 80308 USA expensive’’ than Microsoft products, but punished by the last administration for its thanks to the ‘‘Microsoft Trial’’ their SUN success, and that’s not fair. Microsoft’s MTC–00027891 product line ‘‘price’’ has improved competitors complained that they were From: Mitch Stone ‘‘considerably’’ for consumers. Microsofts’’ frozen out of competition by Microsoft’s To: Microsoft ATR has always been in the $100–500 range...I licensing and pricing practices as well as by Date: 1/28/02 11:55am was mystified as to why ‘‘consumers were
VerDate 11
hurt’’ as SUN claimed. (they were probably of the bases and I feel that it is just a political Please put a stop to the economically- jealous of volume) standoff at this point. draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This However aggressive Microsoft has been, it The terms of the settlement make apparent has gone on long enough. Microsoft has HAS helped to achieve standardization, to me the intense lobbying efforts of already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer which the PC industry needed to ‘‘get off the Microsoft’s competition as they will be icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case ground’’ and bring ‘‘mass market’’ consumer granted new rights to configure Windows so against Microsoft is little more than awareness to many things, PC desktop, that non-Microsoft products can be promoted ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft Common Operating Environment, Office more easily and also be given interfaces that competitors, with not a nickel going to those tools, etc all of which operate ‘‘together’’ are internal to Windows’’ operating system supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the with a forward vision that DOES include products. computer user. many growth opportunities for smaller Even though these concessions do not This is just another method for states to get competitors. I know of many small vendors actually protect consumers and just help free money, and a terrible precedent for the who ‘‘need’’ standardization that Microsoft Microsoft’s competitors that were unable to future, not only in terms of computer provides as a ‘‘defacto large systems be innovative on their own, I urge your office technology, but all sorts of innovations in the integrator’’ for consumers. AOL, who makes to finalize the settlement. It is in the best most dynamic industry the world has ever only a Browser (purchased for $10B from interests of our economy, IT sector, and seen. Netscape) and its AOL instant messenger are public for the case to end and our country Please put a stop to this travesty of justice only TWO products. This is not enough to to move on. Thank you. now. Thank you. ‘‘standardize an industry’’ and consumers Sincerely, Sincerely, like myself (who are also software John Odonnell Curtis Stauffer developers) are aware of this and keep 1600 Univ. Dr. E. Microsoft in the ‘‘lead role’’ by spending our MTC–00027896 College Station, TX 77840 consumer dollars for ‘‘better From: [email protected]@inetgw integration’’...what in fact comsumers vote To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00027898 for with their $$$. Date: 1/28/02 11:56am From: Anthony, Kelly K. When AOL makes products that ‘‘hit all Subject: MicroSoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR bases’’ as far as ‘‘developers need’’ I’ll buy Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002, 09:55 Date: 1/28/02 11:57am more AOL products...right now they have a Sirs: Subject: Microsoft Settlement limited product line...who’s fault is that????? Regarding the MicroSoft Settlement Dear Ms. Hesse: If $10Billion were spent in the right place it ‘‘Proposed Final Judgment’’, I am in extreme I am wriing in support of the proposed may not have happen as it did. opposition. settlement agreement with Microsoft that If they (AOL) want to be a ‘‘large systems I am in complete agreement with the would provide technology funds, computers integrator’’ in ‘‘consumers minds’’ they they amendments proposed by Dan Kegel (ref: and software to schools in low-income should compete by trying to ‘‘bring together’’ www.kegel.com/remedy) in his essay to be communities. lots of smaller companies as Microsoft has submitted to the DOJ, entitled ‘‘On the Wisconsin schools would benefit from the done well as a platform and help consumers Proposed Final Judgement in the United technology funds. Our state falls below the ‘‘see this’’ instead of just complaining and States vs Microsoft’’. national average in the percentage of fourth trying to do this ‘‘via other means’’...thinking It has been my professional observation through eighth grade students in schools that the browser is the ‘‘only thing’’ that over the last 20 years that Microsoft provided have computers available in all classrooms. consumers ‘‘see’’ ...in fact alot more goes on useful innovative products SOLELY when As a future teacher, I am learning about teh in terms of data, binaries and libraries that there was string and significant competition. benefits of technology in the classroom. make an ‘‘integrated product’’ which It is my strong belief that should the PFJ However, many schools do not have the microsoft has been far ‘‘better at doing’’ than be approved, the result will be an funds or equipment to give the students these AOL and their ‘‘vision’’. end of comments. extraordinary loss of innovation in experiences. I think teachers and students +vfg commercially available software within the should be given the opportunities technolgy Vince F. Golubic United States; a significant erosion of respect can give. Software Developer & Consumer for the US laws and regulations thus Computers are important educational tools Allen, Texas established, mainly among commercial and in schools. No student or teacher should be CC:[email protected]@inetgw independent software developers in other denied this opportunity. THe proposed nations less tolerant of large corporate Settlement is very positive and would benefit MTC–00027895 monopolies; and a significant increase in students, teachers, schools, and communities From: James E. Strang litigation in the Federal courts to challenge that need the technology funding most. To: Microsoft ATR the consequences of the PFJ. Thank you. Date: 1/28/02 11:58am NB: this note represents ONLY my Sincerely, Subject: Letter PERSONAL OPINION, and should not be Kelly Anthony Please see attached letter regarding construed as representing any official Microsoft. position of Storage Technology Corporation. MTC–00027899 James E. Strang Jeff Hayas From: Steve Anderson Campbell Company Senior SW Engineer, Storage Technology To: Microsoft ATR (p): (206)763–5000 Corporation Date: 1/28/02 11:57am (f): (206) 763–6700 Email: jeff—[email protected] Subject: The proposed settlement in the e-mail: [email protected] Phone: 303–661–8691 (w), 303–938–8933 Microsoft antitrust case does not go far CC: [email protected]@inetgw (h) enough 575 S Michigan Street Postal: POB 1378; Boulder CO 80306–1378 Dear Sirs, Seattle, WA 98108 Proverb: ‘‘Be well, stay in touch, and do The only way to level the playing field January 27, 2002 good work.’’ after the years of abuse by Microsoft is to let Attorney General John Ashcroft the competition have access to the source US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania MTP–00027897 code. Avenue, NW From: [email protected]@inetgw Microsoft should be compelled to make Washington, DC 20530–0001 To: Microsoft ATR available a license to any interested party for Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Date: 1/28/02 11:53am the source code for all versions of I am writing in full support of the recent Subject: Microsoft Settlement Windows(R) for a reasonable fee, perhaps settlement between Microsoft and the US Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division $1,000,000. Department of Justice. It is time that this 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Thank you. foolishness comes to a prompt end. More Washington, DC 20530–0001 Steve Anderson than enough time has been used to cover all Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: Phone 480–315–8577
VerDate 11
FAX 508–300–0337 To: Microsoft ATR too simple example is that the latest [email protected] Date: 1/28/02 12:00pm Windows OS supports ZIP files as virtual www.eosgroup.com Subject: Microsoft folders, saving users from having to acquire I have been in the business since 1964. I another piece of software to open ZIP files. MTC–00027900 saw the creation of Microsoft and have seen Many such pieces of software are free or From: [email protected]@inetgw their business practices over the years. shareware, but shareware is a valid marketing To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft exists only because of their model and its developers deserving of Date: 1/28/02 11:59am dishonest and immoral business practices. protection as anyone else. The greatest Subject: Microsoft settlement They have never produced even on product example of this would probably be Netscape. 205 Sweetwater Trace that could have succeded in an open market. Perhaps what is needed is some kind of Roswell, Georgia 30076 Les Dunaway patent protection. Once someone else has January 12, 2002 made an add-on for Windows to perform a Attorney General John Ashcroft MTC–00027903 certain task, Microsoft (and perhaps others) US Department of Justice From: jane wellens cannot add that feature to Windows without 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR paying some kind of royalty. Nothing else Washington, DC 20530 Date: 1/28/02 12:00pm strikes me as a reasonable long term solution Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Subject: Microsoft Settlement to this problem. As an experienced software I am writing you today to express my I am a shareholder of Msft stock and think developer, I don’t generally believe in the opinion in regards to the Microsoft this is time to put an end to the trials and concept of patenting software, but in this settlement. I feel this debate has gone on long settle this at once so we can all get back to particular case, it appears an ideal solution. enough, and I feel after three years of business. This is very disruptive to the Sincerely, litigation enough resources and time have business climate that is dealing with a whole Alonzo Gariepy been wasted on this issue. It is time to focus new set of issues themselves since 9/11. Jane (ex microsoft software developer) our attention on more pressing concerns WellensGet more from the Web. FREE MSN [email protected] facing us today. Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com I am a believer in free enterprise, and I do MTC–00027905 not think Microsoft should be penalized for MTC–00027904 From: Shu Jan Lin doing its job well. That is the goal of every From: Alonzo Gariepy To: Microsoft ATR American worker. This settlement finally To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 12:01pm ends three years of litigation and will allow Date: 1/28/02 12:00pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft to continue designing and Subject: Microsoft Settlement Shu-Jan Grace Lin marketing their innovative software, while no To Whom it May Concern: 204 Christopher Lane longer focusing on litigation. This settlement Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing Ithaca, NY 14850–1715 was reached after extensive negotiations, and to comment on the proposed settlement of January 28, 2002 Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case. Attorney General John Ashcroft well beyond the original terms of the lawsuit, An important point to be made regarding the US Department of Justice just for the sake of ending it. For example, large amount of comment that you have 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft will now be required to share received regarding this case is that the many Washington, DC 20530–0001 information regarding the nature of the points made must be taken very seriously, Dear Mr. Ashcroft: internal workings of its Windows operating although some are not as well presented in I am writing to support the recent system, allowing them to place their these emails as they might be with more time settlement between the US Department of programs on it. Personally I consider this or by other people. I doubt that any quick Justice and Microsoft. I think the lawsuit has akin to charging the consumer for e-mails resolution to this case will do justice to the gone on for way too long now and is because the post office is losing many issues raised; the answers are not becoming a waste of taxpayer dollars. The money...paying a competitor because they obvious and the exact solutions are not aren’t smart enough to compete. government interferes with free enterprise necessarily ones that have been considered During these difficult times, one of our too much and should start facilitating by the DOJ up to this point. highest priorities should be to stimulate our business instead of hindering it. Microsoft continues to roll over software businesses so as to strengthen our lagging I care about what is fair for the public and companies by incorporating into Windows economy. Please support this settlement. I think that although very harsh, the features that have been developed by other Sincerely, settlement is in the best interests of the companies as their main product. One Victoria Barkan public. Microsoft will make some continually comes back to this issue of what concessions that include disclosing interfaces MTC–00027901 Microsoft should be allowed to make part of internal to Windows’’ operating system From: Gordon Slipko Sr. its Windows product. What is needed is products, granting computer makers broad To: Microsoft ATR some philosophical (and eventually legal) new rights to configure Windows, and Date: 1/28/02 12:00pm foundation for the consideration of this issue. forming three-person team to monitor Subject: microsoft settlement Despite work on such products as Wine (a settlement compliance. I as an american can not beleive that you linux Windows emulator) Microsoft has a I hope that your office does what is best keep harassing a company that has changed defacto monopoly. Ironically, the hardware for the American public, not what is best for America for the better. It hasn’t hurt anyone, involved is one of the most diversely politicians, lawmakers, or big business that but today in our justice system we allow manufactured devices in history. One of the can’t win in the market. Please make the right everyone to sue everyone. Its all about money reasons this continues to be so is that choice and finalize this settlement. Thank money mnoey, 1st it was one lawsuit, then Microsoft puts a huge amount of work into you. another,now everyone wants to get in on the making sure that Windows will run on all the Sincerely, different PCs that are manufactured with pie,because they know microsoft has the MTC–00027906 money and until they get their hands on it their huge diversity of devices, and Microsoft this will just keep continuing. LETS GET ON includes a great number of drivers for all From: Thomas Winzig WITH OUR OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE these devices. To: Microsoft ATR WORLD TODAY AND LEAVE MICROSOFT Regardless of whether one can ever forsee Date: 1/28/02 12:02pm ALONE. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. THANK an alternative to Windows, the problem is Subject: Microsoft Settlement YOU ROSE MARIE SLIPKO thank u and that every time Microsoft adds a feature to The problem with the Microsoft settlement please confirm this email, have a nice day Windows, that feature becomes part of its is that it leaves them intact. If you want to gordon monopoly. The marginal cost for the really open up the computer industry to consumer is perceived as zero, and the newcomers, and punish Microsoft for their MTC–00027902 originator of the feature in some other illegal activities, you should break them up From: Les Dunaway company can no longer compete. A perhaps into five or more groups. An operating
VerDate 11
system company; an applications company; Bainbridge Island, WA 98110–4349 not unfairly torpedoed during the public an internet services company; a hardware (206) 842–5154 comment period. company; a gaming/entertainment company. January 28, 2002 This settlement was not proposed by If you are not willing or able to do that, then Attorney General John Ashcroft Microsoft merely as a way of extracting itself consider the following: US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania from this litigation. The settlement contains FAIR OEM CONTRACTS Avenue, NW a number of substantial changes in Force Microsoft’s OEM licensing deals to Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft’s business practices and the be fair. They killed Be, Inc. and many other Dear Mr. Ashcroft: proposal has met the preliminary approval of companies that offer choices to consumers I am writing you today to express my a court- appointed settlement mediator. The with these OEM deals. Specifically, Be was opinion in regards to the Microsoft most significant concession in my opinion is unable to deliver it’s well-regarded OS via settlement issue. I support Microsoft and I Microsoft’s agreement to grant broad new new PC’s, because the OEM’s would not support the settlement that was reached in rights to computer makers to configure (could not) bundle it on their new PC’s, due November. I believe it will serve in the best Windows operating systems so as to promote to Microsoft’s contracts. Be even offered to public interest to end this costly litigation competition from non- Microsoft software give their OS to OEM’s for FREE to try and battle. programs. Both competitors and consumers break into the market. Only Hitachi risked This settlement is fair and reasonable. should applaud these moves. the wrath of Microsoft, and even then, they Microsoft has agreed to all terms and Please don’t allow all of the hard work put were not able to show the installation of conditions, including: disclosing information in reaching this settlement to have been a BeOS to the end-user (due to Microsoft’s about certain internal interfaces included in waste of time. Thank you for your license restrictions). Windows and designing future versions of consideration. Microsoft should be forced to come up Windows to make it easier to install non- Sincerely, with a fair contract for an OEM which does Microsoft software. A technical oversight Charles Faulkner not provide a BARRIER TO ENTRY for other committee has been created to monitor OS companies, and which is the same for all Microsoft compliance. MTC–00027911 OEM’s. During these difficult times, one of our From: Decker F Wong-Godfrey DISTRIBUTE (BUT NOT NECESSARILY highest priorities should be to boost our To: Microsoft ATR ‘‘OPEN’’) WINDOWS SOURCE CODE lagging economy. Restricting Microsoft will Date: 1/28/02 12:01pm Force Microsoft to sell their operating not accomplish this end. Please support this Subject: Microsoft Settlement systems with the source code. I’m not talking settlement so this company can get back to Dear Sir or Madame, about Open Sourcing their OS—just provide the business of creating innovative software, I am writing as a concerned citizen about the source code with the copy of Windows which will benefit all of us. Thank you for the proposed settlement with Microsoft. As a that was purchased. The source code license your time. professional in the industry, and as a general would restrict distributing the source code, Sincerely, computer user, I do not believe that the but would NOT restrict developers and Stephanie Mathisen proposed settlement is in the public interest consumers from being able to create MTC–00027908 for a number of reasons. These are a few: applications that integrate with Windows just * The PFJ doesn’t take into account From: Chris as well as Microsoft’s applications. It would Windows-compatible competing operating To: Microsoft ATR also allow developers and consumers to do systems Date: 1/28/02 12:03pm things like: create patches to remove MSIE * Microsoft increases the Applications Subject: Microsoft Settlement entirely; find and fix bugs in security before Barrier to Entry by using restrictive license It is apparent that Microsoft violated the Microsoft can, etc. But the primary purpose terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet law and the spirit of the law regarding is to allow third parties to be able to develop the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even antitrust regulation. The Bush competing applications that integrate well contributes to this part of the Applications administration’s settlement proposal is Barrier to Entry. with Windows. totally INADEQUATE. It does not do enough COMPLETELY DETAIL ALL MS OFFICE to eliminate Microsoft’s monopoly and force * The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly DOCUMENT FORMATS changes in the software market. Narrow Definitions and Provisions Force Microsoft to release the full * The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft documentation and all related source code MTC–00027909 publish its secret APIs, but it defines ‘‘API’’ for their Office document formats. Microsoft From: fred tenore so narrowly that many important APIs are has used the full force of its monopoly to get To: Microsoft ATR not covered. people hooked on Office products. Now that Date: 1/28/02 12:04pm * Microsoft currently uses restrictive Office has a monopoly on the production Subject: Microsoft licensing terms to keep Windows apps from suite market, the barrier to entry is I don’t side with Microsft,they will do it running on competing operating systems. maintained because new office suites cannot again Now how is it he came by windows. * Microsoft has in the past inserted adequately read/write the MS Office now how is it microsoft wound up in court, intentional incompatibilities in its documents. If the full documentation and are you goiung to let it happen again. So applications to keep them from running on source code for those document formats was attack! repeat attack! Fred Tenore competing operating systems. released (and required to be updated for each * The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate new version of these formats), then third MTC–00027910 against any OEM that ships Personal parties could provide read/write abilities in From: Charles Faulkner Computers containing a competing Operating their competing office suites, and consumers To: Microsoft ATR System but no Microsoft operating system. would have a choice. As it is now, most Date: 1/28/02 12:06pm * The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate people HAVE to use Office, because their Subject: Microsoft Settlement against small OEMs— including regional friends and co-workers do, and they must be Charles Faulkner ‘‘white box’’ OEMs which are historically the able to share documents with them. 647 Brookfield Avenue most willing to install competing operating Thomas Winzig Brookfield, MO 64628–1206 systems—who ship competing software. 8187 Sully Dr. January 25, 2002 * The PFJ as currently written appears to Orlando, FL 32818 Attorney General John Ashcroft lack an effective enforcement mechanism. 407–293–7087 US Department of Justice Thank you, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Decker F. Wong-Godfrey MTC–00027907 Washington, DC 20530 1006 S 312th St #233 From: Mikal Mathisen Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Federal Way, WA 98003 To: Microsoft ATR In this era of bad economic times, the news Date: 1/28/02 12:04pm of a proposed settlement between the federal MTC–00027912 Subject: Microsoft Settlement government and Microsoft was most From: Simon Lewis 11753 Sunrise Drive NE welcome. I just hope that the settlement is To: Microsoft ATR
VerDate 11
Date: 1/28/02 12:05pm issues with applications developed using serves to erode in their favor one of the few Subject: Settlement Comment non-Microsoft tools. In other words, remaining fields where they do not currently I do not agree to the terms of the pending Microsoft is saying ‘‘Buy our development have a monopolistic grip. Additionally, the settlement. I believe in the market place and tools if you want your applications to run as amorphous nature of this part of the competition, by requiring Microsoft to release well as possible on our operating systems’’. agreement leaves schools vulnerable to all of its API’s. That way, companies can The critical distinction is between the onerous license agreements in a few years. innovate new products because they will Operating System and the Application Thank you for consideration of these know how to make them work on the domains. A forward looking option is to comments. monopoly platform, rather than having to ask enforce transparency on the operating Joseph Haefeli Microsoft’s permission. No-one owns the system; that they publish all the Director of Computer Resources English language, and no company should be specifications, functions, and procedure calls College of Performing & Visual Arts allowed by *unlawful* conduct) to build a available to any application. This will ensure University of Northern Colorado monopoly on what is essentially a computer as level a playing field as possible, so that MTC–00027916 language. any application developer will be able to utilize any feature of the system as effectively From: Kimberly Brosan MTC–00027913 as a Microsoft application developer. To: Microsoft ATR From: William Trueman With regard to counter arguments that this Date: 1/28/02 11:22am To: Microsoft ATR will compromise intellectual property or Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 12:07pm corporate secrets, their copyright will still be Dear Ms. Hesse, Subject: Microsoft Settlement protected under U.S Law. They will have the I am writing in regard to the proposed I wanted to comment on the microsoft remedy of the courts for any perceived settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust case. I settlement that has been reached. Microsoft violation of their rights, and they will be feel that there are tremendous problems with needs to be punished more that this treated as any other author with regard to the the proposal and support the open letter settlement proposes for its anticompetitive, fruits of their labor. written by Dan Kegel. There you will find my anti-innovative practices. Due to its While some remedy is necessary, in my signature along with many many other people who are also concerned by this monopoly there has been a squash on opinion, to balance this market influence, I proposal. Operating Systems competition due to the disagree that the firm should be broken up. I also support Dan Kegel’s essay regarding inability for other superior OSes to compete It is a complex and possibly intractible the problems and difficulties that the with Microsoft Windows. These operating problem with which you are faced. The proposed settlement will create. I hope that systems such as Macintosh OS, need to be advantages Microsoft has provided to all of the Department of Justice will seriously given a chance. This settlement does not us in developing, standardizing ,and reconsider the problems with the plan and provide enough to resolve the problem of the popularizing personal computer technology work to revise it so that it will be of benefit Microsoft monopoly and its ranging effects cannot be discounted. But some enforcement to computer users. on competition. of checks and balances must be found a If Microsoft is not reined in and given more Will Trueman reasonable course. The current proposal may stringent guidelines to follow, they will Macintosh and Windows user and owner be unenforcable and may provide continue to create products which don’t work opportunities for Microsoft to avoid MTC–00027914 and there won’t be any alternatives available. compliance or exempt itself from the I am glad that there are alternative operating From: [email protected]@inetgw provisions. systems available currently, but they deserve To: Microsoft ATR I encourage you to hold open hearings and just as much access to the market as Date: 1/28/02 12:07pm permit input from any interested party, not Microsoft has. Subject: Microsoft Settlement only the competitors and the plaintiffs in the Thank you for your time and consideration Renata B. Hesse case. Provide a forum for robust discussion of this matter. Antitrust Division of opportunities for cooperative change. Sincerely, United States Department of Justice Microsoft isn’t going anywhere; decisions Kimberly A. Brosan 601 D Street NW of this magnitude deserve open dialog, Suite 1200 consideration of many differing perspectives, MTC–00027917 Washington, DC 20530–0001 and careful deliberation. From: Brubaker, Tony Ms. Hesse, Thank you for taking the time to consider To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ As an educator and working professional these comments. If you have any questions Date: 1/28/02 12:07pm in the Computer Industry I thank you for the please contact me at your convenience. Subject: Microsoft Settlement opportunity to express my concerns Sincerely, Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally, regarding the Microsoft Settlement. While Alan M. Ford I am writing to express concern regarding unqualified to speak on the legal merits, my Instructor the proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement. opinion on the affects on the computer Computer Science & Information Systems The settlement does not adequately resolve industry may be of some value. American University the damage caused by Microsoft’s Microsoft has always been an aggressive 4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW monopolistic practices and does not provide marketer of their technology and vision of the Washington DC 20016–8116 adequate guarantees that Microsoft will not computer in business and home. While I phone: 202.885.2283 continue to engage in monopolistic practices. respect their right to do so, I disapprove of fax: 202.885.1479 Even though the courts have determined some of their tactics and the long term email: [email protected] that Microsoft violated the U.S. anti-trust consequences of their clear and pervasive laws, the proposed settlement would allow MTC–00027915 market monopoly. Netscape was only one of Microsoft to retain the profits from its illegal their most visible victims. Do not forget From: Joseph Haefeli practices and does nothing to provide WordPerfect or Lotus 1–2–3, both overcome, To: Microsoft ATR remedies for the many companies that were in part, by their inability to operate as Date: 1/28/02 11:56am negatively impacted or put out of business by effectively on Microsoft operating systems as Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft’s illegal activities. their Microsoft analogs, Word and Excel. To Whom it May Concern: Furthermore, Microsoft is essentially being Because Microsoft has developed this After reading about the Microsoft antitrust asked to police itself, so there is no assurance strategy of supporting their internal settlement, I must comment that I do not feel that Microsoft will not continue to engage in developers, the marketplace is less able to it is in the best interest of the US or the US illegal practices. Microsoft can largely carry provide innovative new alternatives. The school systems to give Microsoft yet another on as it had before, and the government is most recent example is the decision by opportunity to practice their bombastic, therefore implicitly endorsing Microsoft’s Microsoft to not support the developing destructive practices. Giving Microsoft the monopoly. standards for JAVA programming, thus opportunity to further their power via their I ask you to reconsider the proposed ensuring another round of incompatibility so-called giving of technology to schools just settlement and find another solution that
VerDate 11
addresses the issues that are mentioned Respectfully, Date: 1/28/02 12:08pm above. Thank you very much. Tim Spink Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, Box 5778 Dear Judge, Anthony Brubaker 140 Bay State Road I would like to express my concern about 13 Viburnum Court Boston, MA 02215 the case against Microsoft. Microsoft has Lafayette Hill, PA 19444 become a monopoly on the operating system MTC–00027920 on computers. Microsoft needs competition MTC–00027918 From: T Bird so that we the American people can receive From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR the best products. In the case, the PFJ will To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 12:09pm allow Microsoft to continue as a monopoly Date: 1/28/02 11:56am Subject: Microsoft Settlement which is not right! Thank you for your Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, consideration. Dear Mr. Ashcroft, I am objecting to the proposed final Respectfully, That Microsoft has maintained a very settlement that the DOJ and MS have agreed Sarah Kleinknecht strong position in the IT marketplace is a upon behind closed doors. Not only does this 184 Earhart Hall given. That Microsoft has done so unfairly is go against the findings by the U.S. Court of West Lafayette, IN 47906 not. Microsoft has always maintained its Appeals but, in facts allows MS to go (765) 495–6126 position of strength through business unpunished for past wrong doings. CC:[email protected]@inetgw strategies that simply make good sense. I am In addition the Proposed Final Judgment not so sure that these strategies warrant this permits Microsoft to continue its predatory MTC–00027923 federal lawsuit. practices at the expense of other companies. From: Mark J Antlitz That the lawsuit suddenly collapsed into a Thus, my main argument encompasses the To: Microsoft ATR settlement rather makes my point. Even preservation of healthy competition and the Date: 1/28/02 12:11pm though the terms of the settlement are promotion of diversity with in the business Subject: Microsoft Settlement certainly not favorable to Microsoft, it has the sector. For a single entity, such as MS, to In my opinion the government is bullying advantage of ending the suit. That Microsoft control 80 to 90 percent of the market for PC Microsoft. Our taxes would be much better will be forced into a position of greater operating systems, e-mail readers, and office spent going after companies such as Enron cooperation with its OEMs and third party productivity software (which undoubtedly and friends. It is quite clear to me as well as software developers is good. However, that can spread viruses) is clearly a significant any other educated individual that our they will be forced to give up some more of risk to security. To then allow that monopoly government as well as corporate America its source code is not. Since both sides have to actively attempt to drive out its remaining wreaks with corruption. It is time to focus on agreed to these terms suggests that the competition would hardly be in the public this very real problem and stop attacking the settlement will be more constructive than the interest. innocent in an effort to hide the guilty. suit would have been. Therefore, I submit to you in all fairness Sincerely, I am writing to add my own support to the that the Proposed Final Judgment will not Mark Antlitz settlement. I am hopeful that any additional solve the Microsoft issue. [email protected] court action on this matter will be ALL THE BEST, unnecessary. DR. JIMENEZ MTC–00027924 Sincerely, 1786 LE BEC Court From: Stephen Yoakum Ray Collins LODI, CA To: Microsoft ATR Senior LAN Administrator Date: 1/28/02 12:10pm Computer Sciences Corporation MTC–00027921 Subject: Microsoft settlement From: Justin Jones let it go cut some slack, Accept the offer MTC–00027919 To: Microsoft ATR of Microsofts pack further litagation will only From: Tim Spink Date: 1/28/02 12:09pm enhance the position of a very few. To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 12:08pm Dear Mr. Ashcroft, MTC–00027925 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Today I write to encourage the Department From: david levitt Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly, As a of Justice to accept the Microsoft antitrust To: Microsoft ATR management student at Boston University, settlement. This issue has been festering in Date: 1/28/02 12:12pm the settlement between that US Justice the courts for over three years now and it is Subject: Microsoft Settlement Department and Microsoft (PFJ) disturbs me. time to put an end to it. A settlement is The proposed settlement will not end To begin with, the PFJ still allows available and the terms are fair, and I for one abusive, anti competitive acts by Microsoft. Microsoft to operate as a monopoly through would like to see the government accept it. Any suitable remedy should include as a its Windows operating system. In addition to In order to put this issue behind them minimal subset: Public disclosure of all file, giving permission to Microsoft to continue Microsoft has agreed to many terms. They disk, network protocol and other data breaking anti-trust laws, PFJ does nothing to have agreed to design future versions of interchange formats used by Microsoft punish the company of its monopolistic Windows to be more compatible to non- operating systems and programs. This practices from years past. Microsoft software. They have also agreed to information to be sufficient to allow seamless Microsoft has routinely used monopolistic change several aspects of the way that they translation to and from Microsoft file formats, strategies to gain a larger market share with do business with computer makers. Microsoft and seamless interoperation with Microsoft little regard to competitive practices has even agreed to terms that extend well software. defended in the American legal system. Not beyond the products and procedures that Full disclosure of all Application only has superior software been either were actually at issue in the suit. Microsoft Programming Interfaces. Microsoft absorbed or destroyed by the company, but has given a lot to be able to put this issue applications forbidden to use interfaces the chance of other companies moving behind them, I would like to see the unavailable to independant software competition further in the industry has been government accept it. developers. effectively terminated by Microsoft and this Microsoft and the technology industry No software discounts other than quantity settlement. In fact, the PFJ does little to need to move forward. The only way to move purchased. Uniform, publiclly available price enforce the weak restrictions demanded of forward is to put this issue in the past. Please schedules. Microsoft product licences to be Microsoft. accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. made transferrable and vendable, the same To sum up, I’m deeply concerned the Sincerely, way physical products are treated [e.g. recent settlement does not regulate Justin Jones textbooks, novels and other common Microsoft’s monopolistic tactics, nor does it publications]. punish the company’s disregard for MTC–00027922 No penalties may be asesed by Microsoft established law. I request that you do your From: Sarah E Kleinknecht against computer manufacturers, software best to overturn this settlement. To: Microsoft ATR developers or end users for using non-
VerDate 11
Microsoft software or supplying it as an CC:Microsoft ATR MTC–00027930 option. MTC–00027929 From: Raj Computer manufacturers to have free reign To: Microsoft ATR to sell the hardware and software that they From: David Taber—DOTnet Consulting Date: 1/28/02 12:13pm deem approriate, including systems without To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement an installed operating system, or systems Date: 1/28/02 12:13pm Judge Kollar-Kotally, operable with multiple operating systems. Subject: Microsoft settlement citizen/ I wish to express my personal perspective Microsoft software installations are not competitor input on Microsoft vs. U.S permitted to disable currently functional I understand that there is still time to As an 8th grader in Rantoul, Illinois I have software. Microsoft to be forbidden to submit public comment/ recommendations concluded and noticed many disturbing announce products prior to 90 days before on the Microsoft antitrust settlement. views of Microsoft’s control of the software shipment to customers. Summary: industry or as we would say monopoly. I Any group monitoring terms of the * The software industry is so complex, and really don’t think its fair Microsoft is a settlement to have the right and duty to Microsoft so dominant, that administrative monopoly because of the prices it sets on provide public disclosure. and procedural remedies will be a complete software. $200 on software program which I David Levitt waste of time for the government and know it would be about $50 if there was 19 Doral Lane Microsoft itself. There are too many competition. Bay Shore, NY loopholes and back- doors to ever regulate I have learned in school about the Sherman the company as structured. MTC–00027926 Anti-Trust Act was too weak or very * Splitting the company up would work to ineffective because of big companies bribing From: Terri Tenore an extent, but over the long run would high officials which I think that Microsoft is To: Microsoft ATR simply create two or more monopolies, rather doing. I might not have any proof but I know Date: 1/28/02 12:13pm than one big one. that Microsoft is at least violating some part Subject: microsoft * Perversely, the industry actually prospers of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which I think I don’t side with Microsoft, how do you when there is a near-monopoly to drive de is really wrong. If we let one company do this think he came up windows, why is it facto standardization. The software industry then slowly more and more companies will Microsoft was in court! ‘‘they will do it does *not* thrive on the chaos of small start doing this in other industries. again’’. attack repeat attack players. So the industry would be best if Although I like the stuff Microsoft makes Fred Tenore there were a quasi monopolist that didn’t do the thing is that they set the prices to MTC–00027927 economic harm. high.We all know that there are many more * The only way to actually neutralize a From: caos vida companies competent enough to make such monopoly in the software industry is to software if given a chance. That way people To: Microsoft ATR fundamentally alter the economics of the Date: 1/28/02 12:12pm will have more variety. Microsoft is just monopolist. With the incentive gone, the taking it easy with coming out with not so Subject: Microsoft Settlement behavior and damage to the industry would I very much feel that Microsoft has too late and just adding a few adjustments to fade away. much control of the market and this needs to their software at their own price and pace * The operating systems market for Intel- be corrected. I belive that linux and any other they would like to set it at. If there are more based PCs is brain-dead: it exists, but it does operating system should have an fair chance companies the quality of the product will not function in any meaningful sense. So to gain access to our computing world and become better and that way many companies there is an opportunity to neutralize the bad be able to coexist. This is no different than will join in to make the best quickly. The effects of the Microsoft monopoly. the AT&T breakup and the soloution to that prices will be low and the people will be * The government can use the argument of worked very well I think in retrospect. content. eminent domain to declare the PC OS kevin j brennan Thank you ‘‘marketplace’’ as property that will be taken rd#2 box 148 Sincerely Yours, frankford de. 19945 over in the public interest. The government Yashua Bhatti then grants this ‘‘marketplace’’ as a dead- MTC–00027928 zone in which only Microsoft can be a MTC–00027931 From: Roger Mullan commercial supplier. The government pays From: Bob Petolillo To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft one dollar a year, and the fees paid To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 12:12pm by PC vendors for their operating systems Date: 1/28/02 12:14pm Subject: Microsoft is an essential part of the goes to the US treasury. (An alternate form Subject: Microsoft Settlement recovering IT industry of this recommendation is just to put Please see the attached letter concerning To whom it may concern Windows into pure open source, where many the lawsuit against Microsoft. I am a computer programmer and I feel that vendors can work to make the system more Bob Petolillo a whole and strong Microsoft , as an industry secure and reliable while no vendor can Enterprise Data Solutions leader, is an essential part of the recovering charge for the product.) 148 Basil Court IT industry. Some of Microsoft’s tactics may * Microsoft thus has an incentive to keep Lawrenceville, GA 30043–6126 be less than honorable but that is business , their OS innovations going (to make their Attorney General John Ashcroft the software and standards they produce are applications business prosper, but they get US Department of Justice essential to millions of people’s business and no monopoly profits from the OS. They also 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW social lives. I appeal to you to, please not have little power over the PC vendors or Washington, DC 20530–0001 allow any group or individual , to threaten application vendors. January 26, 2002 the evolution of the IT industry and the Now that I’ve written the ‘‘summary,’’ I’ll Dear Mr. Ashcroft: progress that Microsoft is making in all spare you the details. As a member of the IT industry, I welcome aspects of there newly innovated standards Regards, and good luck. an end to the Microsoft anti-trust case. This and software. David O. Taber case has had a debilitating effect on the IT Any breakup of Microsoft would put the DOTnet Consulting industry and the economy in general. If fair industry back, at least 10 years and who 555 Bryant Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 competition is the desired end to the knows how long it would take to voice: +1–650–326–3405 (rolls to government’s actions, competition is not recover,affecting the work and recreation of voicemail) encouraged by draining the energy of one millions. page: [email protected] (keep your competitor. You do not get a better race by I trust you will take these facts into message just one line ! !) hobbling the favorite. Howsoever, a means to account, when making your judgment. fax: +1–650–326–1475 end this case exists in the proposed Yours truly mail: [email protected] settlement agreement before you now for Roger K Mullan ICQ: 138661538 consideration. It should be adopted and this IT Consultant www.D-O-Tnet.com case resolved. The settlement fairly deals
VerDate 11
with the positions of all the parties. will inhibit anti-competitive behavior. I find Neal Lindsay Microsoft, by its terms, will remain one sole it curious that certain opponent’s of Network Manager corporation, but will take certain actions to Microsoft reject the settlement and refuse to dilute its monopolistic influences in its sign on to it. It is unfortunate; they should MTC–00027934 industry. Microsoft will now configure its not be allowed to derail the process. From: O B Windows platforms to invite the use of non- I am a small business owner in South To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft software. It will no longer Mississippi who specializes in computer Date: 1/28/02 12:15pm contractually constrain computer networking and software support. It is my Subject: Microsoft Settlement manufacturers to the nearly exclusive use of steadfast belief that the free market should be Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, Microsoft products in licensing agreements. allowed to determine which products are I am filing my objection to the Proposed It will submit itself to ongoing review by a bought and sold by professionals in the Final Judgment in the Microsoft case. In the new federal oversight committee. It has industry. Microsoft offers superior products last several weeks, close friends and relatives committed itself to a completely new method and this is why they possess the market share have brought this proposed settlement to my of doing business entailing an active effort to they do. This lawsuit has not only affected attention and in all honestly I dont like what foster competition. Microsoft deserves to my business but also my investments in the I see. I cant possibly imagine the Department continue to thrive. It is an elemental force in market. It is my hope that the government of Justice throwing out court findings that perhaps our nation’s most important will accept the settlement in as timely a indicts Microsoft for all illegal activities both industry. Please support this settlement. manner as possible so our industry can begin past and present. First and foremost the Sincerely, to heal from this unnecessary intrusion into Proposed Final Judgment grants MS a Robert Petolillo the free market. government mandated monopoly that Sincerely, threatens to destroy any and all serious MTC–00027932 Kevin McDaniel Microsoft competitors. Im all for free From: Kevin McDaniel President enterprise and what it symbolizes. To strike To: Microsoft ATR Cc: Senator Trent Lott a huge blow against the spirit of free Date: 1/28/02 12:11pm 415 Security Square, Gulfport MS 39507 enterprise, one need not look any further Subject: Microsoft Settlement 228–314–1100 than to allow MS to monopolize every sector, Distiguished Gentlemen, whether it is the gaming industry or the Please accept my attached letter of opinion MTC–00027933 software industry, by eradicating most if not for your consideration on the current From: Neal Lindsay all competitors. By all means diversity is one Microsoft Settlemt Case. I am hopeful my To: Microsoft ATR essential ingredient in maintaining a healthy opinions will be mirrored in policy by the Date: 1/28/02 12:15pm industry and more importantly a thriving party and administration I so adamantly Subject: Microsoft Settlement economy. support. To Whom it might concern: I submit to the Court that the Proposed Respectfully, I am a network administrator for a small Final Judgment does not solve the Microsoft Kevin McDaniel engineering company, and I have been issue. President working with computers for half of my life— Respectfully, Arrival Technologies Inc. usually on Microsoft operating systems. I ERLIN JIMENEZ 415 Security Square have had the chance to use other operating 1786 LE BEC COURT Gulfport, MS 39507 systems (such as various Unices and Linux) LODI, CA 95240 228–314–1100 ext. 101 and many have signifigant advanced features MTC–00027935 228–323–1166 cell that Windows (even XP) has not come close 228–897–1109 fax to. Microsoft has the money to implement From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR [email protected] such advanced features, but it does not have Date: 1/28/02 12:16pm Arrival Technologies, Inc. to because its customers are locked into its Subject: Re:Moicrosoft Settlement Your Single Source for Business Technology operating system. This is probably the single I favor having al lof the states settlle the January 16,2002 largest problem plaguing the computer world Microsoft cases in the manner thant has Attorney General John Ashcroft right now, and this case has the opportunity alreadyh been done by the other states. It is U.S. Department of Justice to force Microsoft to open up and let in any time to bring these actions to a conclusion. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW companies brave enough to challenge it. That Sincerely. Washington, DC 20530 being said, I do not believe that the proposed Robert D Roach Jr Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Microsoft settlement goes far enough. The I suspect the Justice Department offered to idea of making Microsoft open up its APIs is MTC–00027936 settle its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft a good one, but it is weakened by the From: Bev due to your taking over as head of the agency. restrictions placed upon it. For example, any To: Microsoft ATR As a reasonable man you probably recognize scrutiny of Microsoft’s code is bound to Date: 1/28/02 12:16pm the Clinton Administration’s antitrust suit reveal security holes (Microsoft software is Subject: antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, and their intended break- traditionally full of them). Microsoft would Microsoft is a creative, tough company up of the company, jeopardized software almost certainly use this as an excuse to not which may, or may not, have had some anti- innovation and standardization. This open up more than a token amount of what trust practices in the past, but it is time to scenario would seriously hinder the United would be needed for a company to compete move on. The company has worked hard to States’’ competitive edge and is why the with them. develop products that people need and use. settlement should be finalized without This case is complicated from both a legal Just because some other companies are further ado. standpoint and a computer technology unable or unwilling to work as hard and If one accepts the premise that Microsoft is standpoint—to the point that almost noone creatively, they should not be allowed to a monopoly, which I do not, the settlement can understand the proposed settlement. You succeed by bringing Microsoft down. This will cure the problem. The settlement speaks are not likely to find an impartial voice in all company has done much for the economy for itself: 1) Microsoft has agreed not to of these public comments—everyone has a and needs to be allowed to move on past this retaliate against computer makers who ship stake in the outcome. But please, don’t let lawsuit. Please find in favor of the Microsoft software that competes with anything in its Microsoft off with just a slap on the wrist. settlement as presented. Windows operating system; 2) Microsoft has They have continued to violate anti-trust Thank you, agreed not to retaliate against the software laws even as they were in trial for breaking Bev and Morris Crump developers who make or promote the those same laws. They need some sort of 6105 284th Street NW software that competes with Microsoft. While serious penalty AND need to take steps to Stanwood, WA 98292 these are only two tenets of the 22 pages of reverse their ill-gained market shares in the settlement, they alone should make many different markets. MTC–00027937 Microsoft’s competitors happy because they Thank you. From: George J. Papanicolaou
VerDate 11
To: Microsoft ATR systems, and have all features available in the HAPPENED TO BE AN EASEY TARGET. I Date: 1/28/02 12:15pm Windows client. AM SURE IF YOU Subject: Microsoft Settlement 4) In order to give more choices to LOOK AROUND YOU CAN FIND SOME To Whom it May Concern: consumers, either Microsoft should create a REAL PROBLEMS IE ARTHUR ANDERSEN, Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing Linux version of their Office and Browser ENRON, ETC. to comment on the proposed settlement of software or should license their software SINCERLY the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case. and/or ‘‘look and feel’’ to anyone wishing to JC BOATRIGHT The proposed penalty for Microsoft’s produce software for the Linux system. This 1345 FALKENBURG RD violations is entirely prospective and the would keep Microsoft from keeping offices TAMPA, FL 33619 predictability of the penalty to effect a and homeowners away from alternative 813 657 2663 sufficient diminishment of Microsoft’s operating systems. Microsoft used to offer MTC–00027941 anticompetitive behavior is completely Word for Unix systems with far fewer users inadequate, including being overly complex than Linux. It cannot argue that as a company From: Page, Nathan (N.L.) and to vague, especially in light of published with monopoly powers and rich coffers that To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Date: 1/28/02 12:30pm comments by Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer it isn’t feasible. Subject: Microsoft Settlement after Microsoft’s conviction that he does not As someone who has been using computers I agree with Microsoft. even know what a monopoly is. Furthermore, and programming them for seventeen years, Microsoft has failed to live up to previous I have seen little innovation from Microsoft. MTC–00027942 agreements. In addition, Microsoft did not The advances in the field have been due to From: u V report its extensive lobbying of Congress or smaller players that have been crushed by a White House meeting last summer between To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft. Currently, Microsoft has Date: 1/28/02 12:21pm its chief executive, Steve Ballmer, and Vice monopoly powers and is seems less President Dick Cheney. This is a violation of Subject: Microsoft Settlement concerned with innovation, reliability, and Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, the Tunney Act itself. security, than with market domination and What would make the settlement fair? Your honor, I am stating my objection to extension. Our national security and the Final Settlement agreed upon between Divide the company into Applications and economic competitiveness requires a stronger System Software entities with a firewall the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I action than has been proposed by the Justice wanted to point out several underlying flaws between them. Had politics not interfered, Department. this approach was the only logical choice. attributed to the Proposed Final Judgment. Regards, One noticeable flaw encompasses an inept Failing this reasonable approach, other George J. Papanicolaou, PhD. remedies, although half-measures are enforcement device implementing required. MTC–00027938 restrictions. The settlement in other words 1) Open up all Windows APIs to all closely monitors and screens all of Microsofts From: Fred Tenore business activities. This close scrutiny interested parties with thorough To: Microsoft ATR documentation and standardization. insures MS complies with all restrictions Date: 1/28/02 12:16pm entailed in the agreement. Exorbitant penalties would be made if either Subject: Microsoft A three man compliance team will oversee the APIs are not fully documented or if non- I don’t side with and don’t trust Microsoft. and insure that Microsoft comply with the open APIs are used by Microsoft. They will do it again, so attack! repeat attack! stated rules and regulations. Yet, this three- 2) Open up all Microsoft Document Frederick Tenore man oversight committee will be composed Standards and publish them immediately of the following: one appointee from the because market dominance has created a MTC–00027939 Justice Department, one appointee from defacto standard for such files. In addition, From: Adam Christian Smith Microsoft, and another appointee chosen by the use of a non-Microsoft standards board, To: Microsoft ATR the two existing members. In turn, Microsoft modeled on the W3 organization for web site Date: 1/28/02 12:19pm will control half of the oversight team. documents, could insure that office as well Subject: Microsoft Settlement Also, in the likelihood of any enforcement as other documents generated by Microsoft I would just like to add my two cents on proceeding, all findings by the oversight applications would be fully usable, readable, how I personally have seen Microsoft quell, committee will not be allowed into court. and alterable by other programs. This would steal, or destroy creativity in the The sole purpose of the committee is to allow some competition in the office suite programming and software market using inform the Justice Department of all industry and hopefully prevent the use of proprietary language. Secondly, they are infractions by Microsoft. Subsequently the ‘‘Microsoft only’’ codes in browser or office dirty as hell. They leverage there power and Justice Depart will launch its own apps that prevent others from having a choice when questioned, they act like they can1t investigation into the matter and commence in selecting an office suite. Also, features that ‘‘innovate’’ if they are restricted in any way. litigation to halt all infractions. When all is allow a user to assign the opening of Truth be told, Microsoft has never said and done, the oversight committee is programs with other apps through a central ‘‘innovated’’ a thing in their history. It has all just window dressing, who will not strictly registry would be useful, allowing an been direct copies, cheap rip-offs of other oversee Microsofts business moves? individual to easily bypass Microsoft platforms, or buyouts of small companies In my opinion, the Proposed Final Products and Services. again putting them in the position to Judgment does not provide appropriate 3) Microsoft should be required to produce dominate a market. restrictions against Microsoft. What Office Software for the Macintosh system as Thanks, reassurance do we have against Microsofts long as Apple remains in business. It should Adam illegal and illicit activities? I can assure you not be able to again threaten Apple with MTC–00027940 that the Proposed Final Judgment does not canceling further Mac Office development. In effectively nor sufficiently address the addition, Microsoft must be required to make From: jerldon question. In conclusion, I submit your honor the Mac Office Suite with the same features To: Microsoft ATR my objection to the final settlement in the and document transparency as the Windows Date: 1/28/02 12:20pm Microsoft case. version. They must also not hobble the Subject: Fwd: [MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT] Sincerely, software in any way to make the Windows DEAR SIR Dr. Cesar Ortiz version appear faster. As Mac Office is a I AM A CONCERNED CITIZEN WHO 285 Glennwood Ave. profitable venture for Microsoft, failing to BELIEVES THAT THE CLINTON Daly City, CA 94015 manufacture it would be indicative of a ADMINSTRATION STARTED THIS 650–758–2658 monopoly threatening a small rival. ANTITRUST STUFF AGAINST MICROSOFT In addition, software which can interact SIMPLE TO ALLOW THEIR ATTORNEY MTC–00027943 with Microsoft server products, such as FRIENDS TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY IN From: Jean Peterson Outlook, should be made available for the LEGAL FEES AND HAd nothing to do with To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@ Mac, including subsequent operating microsoft being A MONOPOLY. THEY JUST inetgw,[email protected]...
VerDate 11
Date: 1/28/02 12:21pm think that this was the purpose of antitrust of the OS is tantamount to what, in other Subject: Judgement efforts. But, the judges have ruled, so the best contexts, is called ‘‘dumping’’. It is as if If I understand the Judgement correctly, thing to do is get the settlement approved Toyota started selling its cars for $3,000 Microsoft is to receive no ‘‘punishment’’ at and move on. instead of $19,000 to drive Ford Motor out all for it’s illegal activities. They are only Duane E. Matthews of business. This is exactly what Microsoft instructed to stop performing them. This is 7817 SE 75th Place does and has done many many times. They a problem. Perhaps the Government or the Mercer Island, WA 98040–5501 can do it because they are rich enough and Court feels that Microsoft has already because the incremental cost of software is suffered some penalties because of the MTC–00027947 almost zero, brutally different from an interruption of business and other From: Peter McDonald automobile. This case may have been about interference because of this litigation. To: Microsoft ATR web browsers, but people in the computer However, in other cases where, for instance, Date: 1/28/02 12:25pm field have seen Microsoft use the same tactic a criminal’s punishment is limited to Subject: Microsoft PFJ Comments. (give away software to kill the competition) something already done (i.e. ‘‘time served’’), To whom it may concern, many times. sentence is still passed for the record and
VerDate 11
industry to move forward. The rulings are To: Microsoft ATR ‘‘Windows XP Can Secure Music’’ fair to all parties involved. Date: 1/28/02 12:26pm http://www.wired.com/news/technology/ It is also my opinion that Microsoft is one Subject: Microsoft Settlement 0,1282,41614,00.html of a few American corporations that truly has To Whom It May Concern: Microsoft has already included encryption the ‘‘consumers’’ best interest at heart. I can’t I am writing to comment on the Proposed services in Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 say that for many other corporations. Final Judgment (PFJ) of the United States v. (see http://www.microsoft.com/ Respectfully, Microsoft antitrust case. I believe that the PFJ windows2000/downloads/servicepacks/sp2/ Wendy C. Hawkins does very little to discourage Microsoft from def ault.asp). 8838 E. Sunnyside Drive continuing its anticompetitive practices, and Given Microsoft’s past actions, including Scottsdale, AZ 85260 fails to restore balance to the markets which integration of Internet Explorer with the 480/314–8586 have been seriously damaged by those Windows OS, and more recently integration practices in the past. of Windows Media Player with WindowsXP MTC–00027950 Specific Failures of the Proposed Final (see http://news.com.com/2100–1040– From: judythw(a)earthlink.net Judgment: 256387.html?legacy=cnet), there is every To: Microsoft ATR 1. Section III.J.2 reason to assume that Microsoft will integrate Date: 1/28/02 12:25pm Section III.D requires Microsoft to licence current and future installations of ‘‘anti- Subject: Microsoft Settlement ‘‘the APIs and related Documentation that are piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital Sirs: used by Microsoft Middleware to rights management, encryption or I ask you to please not allow Microsoft to interoperate with a Windows Operating authentication systems’’ into the Operating continue its monopoly operation. I ask for System Product’’ to ‘‘ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, System. Thus many key APIs, such those freedom to choose. We are trying to preserve and OEMs’’. However, section III.J.2 dealing with basic network communication, our freedoms now. Please help. essentially gives Microsoft the freedom to file/disk access, and even simple multimedia Judyth O. Weaver, Ph.D. choose which ISVs, IHVs, etc. may receive capabilities could be claimed as exceptions 73 Montford Avenue this information by allowing Microsoft to under section III.D.1. Again, this would serve Mill Valley, California 94941 require that any licensee ‘‘(a) has no history to keep the ‘‘applications barrier to entry’’ 415–388–3151 of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful artificially high. MTC–00027951 violation of intellectual property rights, (b) 3. General Remedies and Penalties has a reasonable business need for the API, Microsoft has been found guilty of From: Bock, David Documentation or Communications Protocol maintaining their monopoly status through To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ for a planned or shipping product, (c) meets illegal means. They should not be allowed to Date: 1/28/02 12:27pm reasonable, objective standards established maintain the profits earned by doing so. The Subject: Microsoft Settlement by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity PFJ basically codifies the current status quo Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally: and viability of its business, (d) agrees to into law, and neither punishes Microsoft for I am writing to comment on the Proposed submit, at its own expense, any computer their past infractions nor prevents them from Final Judgement with Microsoft. As one program using such APIs, Documentation or similar actions in the future. Strong involved in the software industry, I Communication Protocols to third-party structural and financial remedies and/or appreciate the contributions of Microsoft. verification, approved by Microsoft?’’ penalties are necessary to restore balance to However, their dominance of operating This gives Microsoft the ability to keep the a horribly damaged marketplace. systems has given them extraordinary market ‘‘applications barrier to entry’’ artificially The Proposed Final Judgment is power, which they have used ruthlessly to high. There are no restrictions on what completely unacceptable as a resolution to crush competitors and forestall innovation in Microsoft may consider ‘‘authenticity and the U.S. v. Microsoft case. Please consider the interests of consumers. The PFJ needs to viability of [the licensee’s] business’’ or even stronger, more effective remedies. be materially strengthened to level the a ‘‘reasonable business need’’. It could be playing field. The sanctions must be strong Thank you, used to keep start-up or open source software and the disincentives to further monopolistic (signed) projects from gaining access to APIs crucial behavior clear. Do not allow Microsoft to Aaron Kamlay to their success; in fact, it could allow play on complexity, market uncertainty or Nashville, TN 37212 Microsoft to restrict such projects from promises of different behavior in the future. information to which they had prior access MTC–00027954 The company’s culture is one of ruthless via the MSDN. (See, for example, Jeremy From: v g competition at a time when they should be White’s analysis of the impact of section To: Microsoft ATR providing support rather than destruction. III.J.2 on the open source Wine project at Date: 1/28/02 12:26pm They now operate a utility, are enjoying http://www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/ Subject: Microsoft Settlement monopolistic returns on capital and are utilizing their financial strength to maintain tunneywine.html.) Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, a monopoly position. 2. Section III.D.1 With all due respect, I object to the (PFJ) The consumer is served by the Section III.D.1. exempts Microsoft from the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft standardization that Microsoft’s success has requirement to ‘‘document, disclose or case. There are numerous flaws in the final brought. But the consumer is also vulnerable license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs proposal, which undoubtedly gives Microsoft to the abuse of monopoly power. The public or Documentation or portions or layers of absolute, power to continually abuse their interest requires that the Federal government Communications Protocols the disclosure of existing monopoly position. Based on my either sanction and restrain the monopolist which would compromise the security of a review, the proposed settlement overlooks or eliminate the monopoly position. particular installation or group of one thing. This one defect contains a faulty It’s that simple. installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, mechanism to implement appropriate Sincerely yours, software licensing, digital rights restrictions. As stated in the settlement, David Bock management, encryption or authentication Microsoft will be closely monitored to EVP and CFP systems?’’ comply with all restrictions encompassed Pedestal Inc. It has been reported by a variety of news with in the stated agreement. agencies that Microsoft has plans to include A three man compliance team will oversee MTC–00027952 digital rights management, authentication, and insure that Microsoft comply with the From: [email protected]@inetgw and other related security features in future stated rules and regulations. Taking a closer To: Microsoft ATR versions of Windows. See for example, look however, this three-man oversight team Date: 1/28/02 12:26pm The Register, Mar 23 2001, will be composed of the following: one Subject: microsoft settlement ‘‘MS plans ‘‘Secure PC’’ that won’t copy appointee from the Justice Department, one Please settle with microsoft. pirated audio files’’ appointee from Microsoft, and another http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/ appointee chosen by the two existing MTC–00027953 17851.html members. In turn, Microsoft will control half From: Aaron S Kamlay Wired News, Feb 13 2001, of the oversight team. Also, in the likelihood
VerDate 11
of any enforcement proceeding, all findings increased to 5 Billion dollars, a sum that will MTC–00027960 by the oversight committee will not be teach a lesson and one that Microsoft can From:[email protected]@ allowed into court. The sole purpose of the afford. inetgw committee is to inform the Justice Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR Department of all infractions by Microsoft. Louis R. de Alvare Date: 1/28/02 12:26pm Subsequently the Justice Depart will MTC–00027957 Subject: Microsoft Settlement launch its own investigation into the matter Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division and commence litigation to halt all From: Nolan Lameka 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 infractions. When all is said and done, the To: Microsoft ATR Washington, DC 20530–0001 oversight committee is just window dressing, Date: 1/28/02 12:28pm Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: who will not strictly oversee Microsofts Subject: Microsoft settlement Please put a stop to the economically- business moves? In my opinion, the Proposed I believe the microsoft settlement is as fair draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This Final Judgment does not provide sufficient as it can be . Personally I think the has gone on long enough. and appropriate restrictions or penalties government had no business interfering in Microsoft has already agreed to hide its against Microsoft. What reassurance do we business on the side of microsofts’’ Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the have against Microsofts illegal and illicit competitors. fact is, this case against Microsoft is little activities? I can assure you that the Proposed Leave Microsoft alone or at least don’t be more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Final Judgment does not effectively nor a tool of AOL, Oracle, and SUNW. Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel sufficiently address the question. Therefore I Nolan A Lameka going to those supposedly harmed by submit to the court my objection to the [email protected] Microsoft: the computer user. Proposed Final Judgment. This is just another method for states to get MTC–00027958 Respectfully, free money, and a terrible precedent for the Mrs. Alsida Ortiz From: jonathon future, not only in terms of computer 285 Glennwood Ave To: Microsoft ATR technology, but all sorts of innovations in the Daly City, CA 94015 Date: 1/28/02 12:23pm most dynamic industry the world has ever Subject: Microsoft Settlement seen. MTC–00027955 Count this as one vote against the proposed Please put a stop to this travesty of justice From: [email protected]@inetgw Microsoft/DOJ settlement. I feel this now. Thank you. To: Microsoft ATR agreement is a bad idea and would not be in Sincerely, Date: 1/28/02 12:26pm the interest of computer users. Concrete steps Harold Anderson Subject: Microsoft settlement should be taken to stop bad business P. O. Box 118 Consumer interests have been well served practices. Reason needs to prevail. Falls of Rough, KY 40119 and it is time to end this costly litigation Jonathon Vreeland against Microsoft now. www.spork.nyc.ny.us MTC–00027961 Helene K. d’Esterhazy email: [email protected] From: Ken Valero, Sr. To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00027956 MTC–00027959 Date: 1/28/02 12:29pm From: Classic de Sign From: Freddy Thomas Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR As a Macintosh user I feel that Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 12:31pm Date: 1/28/02 12:29pm did nothing wrong. I believe what we have Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement. here is envy of Microsoft’s competition in Dear Ms. Hesse: 18203 Max Middleburg Road that they did develop the idea first. Bill Gates I am the owner of a small interior design Maxville, FL 32234 had the foresight and ambition to move firm and would like to comment on the January 27, 2002 ahead when he did. After all is this not the settlement with Microsoft. Attorney General John Ashcroft land of opportunity and free enterprise. The I believe that there is undue haste in US Department of Justice competition was asleep at the switch and reaching a settlement for what has been a 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Gates seized the moment. carefully executed pattern of illegal behavior Washington, DC 20530 Bill Gates and Microsoft should be praised by Microsoft. Microsoft controlled the Dear Mr. Ashcroft: for advancing the technical knowledge of application market so tightly in the I am writing to express my opinion of the computers that we are all benefiting from. Macintosh operationg system that it not only recent settlement between the US department So, my feeling is that the Federal drove out competitors like WordPerfect but of Justice and Microsoft. I think the lawsuits Government should get off the back of all used its applications as hostage to obtain have dragged on for far too long now and businesses both big and small so that we can concesions from Apple Computer, Inc. have been a waste of taxpayer dollars. I am make progress. It is about time that all The pattern of illegal behavior forced a proponent of free enterprise and the entrepreneurs are recognized as the people Apple to offer the Microsoft, Internet government’s interference with Microsoft is that make this country as great as it is and Explorer to be the supported application by ridiculous. make the economy strong. Apple. If this would not have happened, The only criticism of Microsoft could be Ken Valero, Sr. there would have been no Office, Word or that their marketing tactics are a bit heavy- President K V Associates, LLC Excel. Futhermore, those us who used handed, but that is hardly an antitrust Netscape still found that the presence of violation. The terms of the settlement are MTC–00027962 Microsoft codes in the office applications to harsh against Microsoft and should appease From: Liz crash the Netscape browser. The choice for all competition. Microsoft will be disclosing To: Microsoft ATR us was the applications or the Netscape interfaces that are internal to Windows Date: 1/28/02 12:30pm browser. The same type of illegal tactics got operating system products. They will also be Subject: Greetings, its media player dominance after finding that granting computer makers broad new rights Greetings, they copied code from QuickTime. This issue to configure Windows so that competitors I feel that the current settlement does not was closed when Microsoft gave money to can more easily promote their own products. adequately address Microsoft’s nearly Apple to drop the suit. The patter of illegal These concessions and more should appease complete monopoly in the United States’’ tactics by Microsoft is quite large and all parties involved in dispute. computer industry. It also fails to restore pervasive and I find the current proposed I urge your office to do what is right for the competition to the United States’’ software settlement to be insufficiently punitive to public and our economy and finalize the industry. Please consider rethinking the punish or to encourage Microsoft to change settlement. settlement. its ways. Thank you. Thanks, I strongly suggest that the monetary Sincerely, Liz Loveland settlement be cash and that the sum be Homer Thomas Somerville, Massachusetts
VerDate 11
MTC–00027963 what I believe ranks among the most MTC–00027965 From: Mark A. Montgomery dangerous threats to the future of the world From: Don Monk To: Microsoft ATR in our time; the ability of innovative To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 12:29pm technology to be conceived, hatched, and Date: 1/28/02 12:28pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement. reach maturity. I fear that if the proposed Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case C/O Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division, settlement is adopted, and the EU and Please see attachment. U.S. Department of Justice, Congress also fail to restore liberty within 12 Fortune Cove 601 D. Street NW. Suite 1200, global IT markets, that our creative scientific Brevard, NC 28712–9101 Washington, DC 20530–0001 genius will fail to meet the significant January 27, 2002 To: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly challenges lying directly in our collective Attorney General John Ashcroft My name is Mark Montgomery. My path. United States Department of Justice, 950 background includes being an entrepreneur Therefore, from my perspective, the world Pennsylvania Avenue, NW and management consultant who was also an simply cannot afford to allow the proposed Washington, DC 20530–0001 early booster to Microsoft dating back to settlement to stand. It would be more Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: 1981. Since that time, my consulting favorable to risk having an appeal overturned I am writing in regards to the settlement assignments have numbered in the hundreds, on technical grounds, and allow the political reached in the antitrust case between the U.S including dozens of small businesses in process to work (or not), than to suffer the Government and Microsoft in November of networked industries and recently stamp of approval from the very entity 2001. I am asking you to support the specifically within the IT industry cluster. charged to defend and protect us against agreement. I do not believe any further I converted our business consulting firm in illegal predatory practices. A portion of the measures are necessary. 1995 into an independent tech incubator and still untold story of modern predatory As you know, the settlement requires lab. My only business partner joined our firm strategy, generally speaking, is just how Microsoft to promote competition from other in 1997 after working for Microsoft for 17 successful preventative efforts have become computer makers. For example, Microsoft years. I myself trained with Microsoft with respect to the invisible potential must license its Windows operating system products to become an NT network competition, and that topic is certainly not to other computer makers and to grant them administrator, programmer, and analyst who limited to Microsoft. Indeed Microsoft is a rights to configure Windows to meet other has tested every major public technology nascent latecomer in that regard when system specifications. Furthermore, Microsoft produced during the period of this compared to the more historically entrenched Microsoft has been required to design further case, watching in amazement and sometimes vertical industry leaders, revealing another versions of Windows in a manner that would horror at the pace of justice when compared glimpse of why justice must be served in this make it easier for competitors to promote to the environment in question. case. non-Microsoft software within Windows. It is I am writing today primarily because I submit to you that a just conclusion to my opinion that this legislation is sufficient. circumstances in this case may allow me to this case is entirely possible, but a negotiated Microsoft was not dealt with lightly, and I see more potential areas of damage than settlement that provides justice may not be. believe that further litigation would be less others. As any of us who have worked in Thank you for your consideration of my of a productive and more of a vindictive predatory environments know all too well, it views, and God’s speed in your work. nature. is rarely what we see that threatens our Mark A. Montgomery I am satisfied that Microsoft has been justly system, but rather what we cannot. In this Founder/CEO dealt with in the antitrust case. Further case, I do not believe that any human is Global Web Interactive Network LLC litigation would no doubt lead to restrictions capable of identifying even a small portion of and obligations on products and technologies the damage being done to consumers, much MTC–00027964 that did not fall within the scope of the case. less society, including of course eventually From: Raymond.Fairbanks;@ Microsoft has paid its dues to society; now Microsoft and their investors. LibertyMutual.com@inetgw I ask you to let them get back to business. I I would like to explain some of our To: Microsoft ATR appreciate your taking time to consider my attempts to work with Microsoft at every Date: 1/28/02 12:30pm views on the issue. level, and the extreme financial stress, Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, disappointment and embarrassment a few of January 28, 2002 Donald W. Monk their executive actions have caused us and Attorney General John Ashcroft, US Justice others, but the topic today is on the proposed Department MTC–00027966 settlement pursuant to the Tunney Act. I 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC From: I Y have carefully studied the proposed 20530–0001 To: Microsoft ATR settlement as well as every document filed in Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Date: 1/28/02 12:32pm this case since the beginning of the trial. In I’m glad that a settlement was reached in Subject: Microsoft Settlement the early stages of the case, I provided the antitrust case between Microsoft, the Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, analysis for the members of our global digital government and nine states. However, I don’t I am opposed to such a preposterous network. feel there should have been any litigation in solution in regards to the Proposed Final In addition, I may have been the first to the first place. Free enterprise should manage Judgment in the Microsoft case. Based on publicly label Microsoft a threat to the global itself. past findings the Court of Appeals has found economy, one of the most difficult Not only has Microsoft agreed to make Microsoft guilty of violating all rules of the declarations of my career that may also sweeping changes so that to computer anti trust laws. partially account for our failure in attracting manufacturers can configure Windows in Yet the PFJ (Proposed Final Judgment), the external funding to our ventures. order to promote competitor software Department of Justice throws out these For me, this case represents a test of the programs that compete with programs findings, indicting Microsoft on all charges of very credibility of the U.S. justice system. included in Windows. They’ve also agreed to business wrongdoing. More importantly, the Although the case history has been difficult, not enter into any agreements forcing other PFJ allows Microsoft to continue with its and I have not always agreed with the rulings companies to distribute or promote any monopolistic practices. I strongly believe you or conduct of the court, the system credibility Windows technology exclusively or in a will receive similar appeals entailing the was from my view in a recovery phase until fixed percentage, except for a few exceptions numerous errors apparent in the final the USDOJ agreed to settle as proposed. The where there isn’t any competition anyway. settlement. To make a long story short, the agreement of the USDOJ to settle on the It is obvious to me that Microsoft is PFJ does not effectively break up Microsoft. proposed grounds is where the system broke cooperating so they can go back to business But in fact, permits Microsoft to leverage its down entirely. I’ll leave it to others to and help revive the technology sector of the current monopoly position and expand its speculate and/or determine why. economy. No more action should be taken at business into several other technologies The proposed settlement is a disgrace and the federal level at all. markets. In the past most monopolies were an insult to those of us who risked everything Sincerely, either broken up or carefully regulated. Why we had, and often lost, to speak out against Raymond Fairbanks not Microsoft?
VerDate 11
Severe reprimands by the DoJ do not Sincerely, Faith Hill drastically alter Microsofts existing operation Victor Mieres 66 Hobson St. methodologies. Time and time again as Boston, MA history will show, Microsoft will abuse its MTC–00027969 monopoly position. Breaking up Microsofts From: jorge godoy MTC–00027972 business into several parts just might be the To: Microsoft ATR From: Johan L Lotter best antidote to prevent MS from even doing Date: 1/28/02 12:31pm To: Microsoft ATR more damage to the industry. Therefore I Subject: Microsoft Setlement Date: 1/28/02 12:34pm submit to you that the Proposed Final I’m faxing my opinion today. Subject: Microsoft Judgment does not solve the Microsoft issue. Sincerely We attach a letter pertaining to the Respectfully, Jorge Godoy Settlement. Sincerely, Johan L Lotter Dr. Joseph Ortiz MTC–00027970 Lotter Actuarial Partners Inc. 1001 Vine Street Consulting Actuaries and Project Managers Paso Robles, CA 93446 From: Robert Sartin 915 Broadway To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00027967 New York, NY 10010 Date: 1/28/02 12:33pm TEL (212) 529–8600 From: Steve Hill Subject: Microsoft Settlement FAX (212) 529–6297 To: Microsoft ATR I am against the current proposed [email protected] Date: 1/28/02 12:31pm settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft Web: Iotteract.com Subject: Microsoft Settlement case. January 28, 2002 Dear Judge, I have been programming professionally for Attorney General John Ashcroft As a high school student, I look forward to 20 years. In reviewing the terms of the US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania working with computers. However, settlement, I am unable to see how the terms Avenue, NW Microsoft’s recent tactics and monopolistic will in any meaningful way improve the Washington, DC 20530–0001 tendenencies will hurt competition in the competitiveness of the current environment. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: computer industry. This will cause the The disclosures required by Microsoft are too I have followed the case against Microsoft quality of computer related software and weak and the exemptions too great. It will be for the past three years, watched media operating systems to suffer. The recent trivial for Microsoft to continue to keep coverage from both sides, and I have settelement between the justice department secret important information and use it for concluded that Microsoft, in whatever strong- and Microsoft will allow this to continue. unfair competitive advantage. The proposed arm tactics they used, should never have Please overturn this settlement. settlement will perpetuate an environment in been punished like this. This is a slap in the Stephen Hill which Microsoft can, and based on past face to one of the most, if not the most, 66 Hobson St. experience will, withold critical information successful companies in history. Brighton, MA from developers who are perceived to be In my opinion, the Department of Justice competing with Microsoft. Lack of access to MTC–00027968 such information, generally available for has no right to seek further legal injunctions From: Victor Mieres other platforms and specifically available to against Microsoft. The settlement Microsoft To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Microsoft and partner teams working on has proposed, benefits the competition far Justice similar applications, will prevent a developer more than it should. The best thing for this Date: 1/28/02 12:26pm from producing competitive products. company, the economy, and the general Subject: Microsoft Settlement Continued tight bundling and coupling of public is to settle this case, so that Microsoft Victor Mieres Microsoft’s chosen solutions will prevent can get back doing what it does best, 3914 Caney Creek Rd new entries into the market of better fulfilling the computing needs of users. Austin, TX 78732 technology at lower prices. Windows is incredible; there may never be a January 28, 2002 Consumers will continue to be forced to product quite like it. I can see how the have- Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of purchase and use the solutions provided by nots want to have a big piece of the haves. Justice Microsoft. The price we pay will be higher The settlement certainly gives the have-nots Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department due to the lack of credible competitive what they want without handing over of Justice: alternatives. Technical innovation will be Microsoft. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? decreased because it will not be necessary for I believe that Microsoft is entitled to this dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a competitiveness. Any settlement in this case settlement in every way. It appears to be serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech must include provisions that will create a reasonable to Microsoft and more than fair to industry. It is high time for this trial, and the truly competitive environment, including the competition. Approving this settlement wasteful spending accompanying it, to be competitors in the commercial and free can do so much good for the economy, which over. Consumers will indeed see competition software marketplace, and offer a variety of has been weakened by stresses on our in the marketplace, rather than the choices to consumers. country. I passionately urge you to agree to courtroom. And the investors who propel our Regards, settle this case. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Robert Sartin Sincerely, Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the 10412 Ember Glen Drive Johan Lotter federal government should not have broken Austin, TX 78726 President up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, MTC–00027973 companies like Microsoft can get back into MTC–00027971 the business of innovating and creating better From: Faith A Hill From: Travis Cramer products for consumers, and not wasting To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR valuable resources on litigation. Competition Date: 1/28/02 12:33pm Date: 1/28/02 12:34pm means creating better goods and offering Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With Dear Judge, To Whom It May Concern: government out of the business of stifling As a young person, I would like to see I am writing to address the issue progress and tying the hands of corporations, growing oppurtunities in computer choices surrounding Microsoft, and their abuse of consumers—rather than bureaucrats and in my future. Microsoft is a wonderful antitrust laws. In my opinion, Microsoft judges—will once again pick the winners and company staffed by wonderful people, but should not be able to abuse these laws. First losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the they are guilty of anti-competitive violations. of all, abusing law is illegal, so the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will They should be punished according to US corporation is breaking law. Second, the size be encouraged to create new and competitive laws. If this is accomplished, it will provide of Microsoft is the closest thing to a products and technologies. a better and more competive market for me monopoly. They have unbelievable power, Thank you for this opportunity to share my to enter. and they are making it extremely difficult for views. Thank you, any competition to exist. Our government set
VerDate 11
our economy up in such a way to prevent Earl G. Harpor well that the truth behind window’s is monopolies from forming. Microsoft is 1430 Regency Drive Apple’s Mac OS. To quote a friend of mine’s violating these laws, and that must be Ft. Collins, CO son when he first saw window’s 95, ‘‘It looks stopped. Microsoft must be kept under the THE HOUSE OF HARPERS just like the Mac’s we use at school! He law, punishment of some sort is necessary. INDJC turned said Huh! And walked away. If it’s Thank you for your time on this matter. Numbers 6: 24–26 & Rev. 14:2 that clear to a child, what’s wrong with the Sincerely, adults in public, political and corporate MTC–00027976 Travis Cramer America?! 1247 W 30th St., Apt. 110 From: iBradley I never have nor will I ever like microsoft! Los Angeles, CA 90007 To: Microsoft ATR I believe there is at the heart of this company, Date: 1/28/02 12:34pm something very WRONG and DARK and MTC–00027974 Subject: microsoft settlement definitely not GODLY! I believe their motives From: T Mac Dear Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division are based and rooted in pure corrupt business To: Microsoft ATR U.S. Department of Justice and appointed practices. The only shining light of Good Date: 1/28/02 12:35pm Judge; within the Black on Black existence that is Subject: Microsoft Settlement I’ll get right to the point, microsoft is about microsoft, is the Macintosh Design Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, as unamerican and anti-competitive and Department! There is a saying, ‘‘Sometimes I wanted to state my objection and the error consumer as ever there was a corporation. you have to go through hell to get to existent in the Proposed Final Judgment. They’ve lied under oath, they’ve lied to their Heaven.’’ The only thing you’ll find on the There are several apparent flaws with in the customers and they’ve lied to corporate other side of microsoft is pure darkness. final proposal favoring Microsoft. Based on investors. Their total motivation for any and microsoft should be hit hard and deep, hit my assessment the proposed settlement does everything they do or will ever do is about where it will hurt the most and that being in not dish out any due justice or punishment GREED, cash flow and bill gates, at whatever REAL CASH outlays in the amount of 33 on the side of Microsoft. At the same time no the cost to the consumer and customer. billion dollars. This amount would be for all devices are in place to ensure MS compliance They’ve proven that microsoft suppressed the States involved in the lawsuit, the to the stated rules enclosed in the settlement. technology by using their power and consumers hurt by microsoft’s Monopolistic Although being closely monitored, influence to intimidate. USB technology practices, Corporate businesses, some should Microsoft will not have any direct developed by intel corporation for one. If go to ‘‘Homeland Security Initiative and supervision to reassure the company Apple hadn’t built USB into the iMac when finally 7 billion dollars set aside through a complies with the stated agreement. A three- it was first introduced and now has become Private Organization and distributed for use man compliance team overseeing Microsoft a standard for add-ons, I believe it would still in Private and Public Schools who need it for remain in alignment to the stated rules and be suppressed today. microsoft has never use where they feel it is best used and on regulations. This three-man oversight team been honest with those who’ve purchased whatever OS or Computer (Apple) they deem will be composed of the following: one their OS! window’s has never run or operated appropriate for the benefit of their Teachers appointee from the Justice Department, one as they’ve claimed. It’s not nor has it ever and Students! If microsoft isn’t reprimanded appointee from Microsoft, and another been or ever will be secure or stable! xp their severely for their illegal activities through appointee chosen by the two existing latest release has been heralded to be the REAL CASH outlays that are made payable members. In turn, Microsoft will control half most ‘‘Stable and Secure OS they’ve ever within one year of settlement, and hits them of the oversight team. All findings by this produced! It’s better then previous, and that where it hurts! They will never stop doing committee will not be allowed into court. much is somewhat true. But it’s far from what they do! BREAK the LAW! NOBODY IS The sole purpose for such a committee is to stable or secure. It has failed to live up to it’s ABOVE THE LAW! (The Enron disaster is inform the Justice Department of all claims. The in-store sales say it all to well, evidence enough for that!) microsoft will just infractions committed by Microsoft. It’s selling far below previous releases, this keep pushing the envelope of illegal activity, Subsequently the Justice Depart will launch is a good sign that the consumer is finally simply because they think they can! This its own investigation into the matter and seeing microsoft with ‘‘Eyes wide open time they can’t be ALLOWED to get off with commence litigation to halt all infractions. instead of Eyes wide shut! But even so it’s a slap on the hand, even if those in power When all is said and done, the oversight to late for those who’ve bought into the lies say ‘‘It could be damaging to the economy!’’ committee is just window dressing. In turn, and are now victims of false marketing and That argument doesn’t hold any water who will not strictly oversee Microsofts advertising hype. The countless virus attacks anymore! Not after the events of September business moves? In my opinion, the Proposed and hacks to their online service and severs, 11th and the resulting effects on the economy Final Judgment does not provide sufficient prove their statements of ‘‘Stable and Secure thus far. In closing; I don’t hold any respect and appropriate restrictions or penalties are rendered mute. for bill gates or steve balmer, nor should against Microsoft. What reassurance do we I’m not nor have I, nor will I ever be an anyone! They haven’t earned it as have against Microsofts illegal and illicit owner of anything with windows as an OS. individuals or a company, nor do they activities? I can assure you that the Proposed I don’t support anything wintel! (that’s a PC deserve it! They’re not nor is microsoft a Final Judgment does not effectively address running an intel processor with window’s OS Good example of Good Business or Corporate the question. I object to the Proposed Final by microsoft) 95% of the computer market ethics for the youth to look up to and learn Judgment. worldwide uses microsoft window’s. 51% or from! microsoft has done everything wrong Respectfully, above in my estimations would be from a moral and ethical perspective. Thank Janice Ortiz considered a MONOPOLY! microsoft’s .Net, you. 1001 Vine St. licensing of software (taking away ownership Take Care; Paso Robles, CA 93446 and replacing with leasing) and Passport Bradley R Johnson initiatives is a clear attempt at Corporate MTC–00027975 slavery and an invasion of our personal MTC–00027977 From: earl g harper privacy! These initiatives are DRONE driven! From: A. W. Dalgleish co. To: Microsoft ATR USE microsoft TECHNOLOGY, AND ONLY To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 12:34pm microsoft! Where’s the consumer’s Date: 1/28/02 12:34pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement FREEDOM of CHOICE here? It’s already been Subject: Microsoft settlement Gentlemen: proven what bill gates said when he saw East Aurora, NY 14052 It is time to stop the harrasement of Apples Mac OS with GUI (Graphic User 11738 Liberia Road Microsoft by dragging out the legal battle. Interface). His words go something like this: January 28, 2002 This will not benefit them or us tax bill, I want it! paul, That’s stealing bill! bill, Attorney General John Ashcroft payers...only add bragging rights to some I don’t care! I want it, this is what I WANT! US Department of Justice politcal hacks...and the special interest window’s is about 98% similar to the Mac 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW groups.. Enough is enough..let’s get on with OS. If you’re familiar with the Mac OS and Washington, DC 20530 business and let Microsoft do the same. you saw window’s or use it, you know all to Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
VerDate 11
I am writing you today to inform you of my intact, which is, I believe, wise. It also gives package called Persuasion. It is now a opinion in regards to the Microsoft Microsoft’s competitors a chance to work discontinued product because Aldus could settlement issue. I support the settlement that with Microsoft as well as compete directly. not justify continuing marketing and was reached in November, and I oppose any For example, Microsoft has agreed to provide developing the product in the face of further action against Microsoft at the federal its competitors with source code integral to PowerPoint being given away free by level. the Windows operating system so that they Microsoft with MS Office. This is classic This settlement is fair and will be will be able to operate within the Microsoft predatory pricing killing off a product which sufficient to deal with the original issues of framework. Microsoft also plans to reformat was superior in every respect. this lawsuit. Microsoft has agreed to all terms upcoming versions of Windows so that the A more recent case is the free bundling of and conditions of this agreement. Under this operating system will support non-Microsoft Internet Explorer and Internet Information agreement, Microsoft must share more software. Server with desktop and Server OS to the information with other companies regarding Microsoft’s competitors are not going to detriment of competitors such as Netscape certain internal interfaces included within gain any greater advantage by continuing and many other smaller but genuinely Windows and any protocols implemented in litigation. In fact, it is quite possible that they innovative companies. a recent scandal was will end up doing America more harm than Windows operating system products. the attempt by Microsoft to block access to good. I ask you to support the finalization of Microsoft has also agreed to be monitored by their Web sites by non—MS browsers on the the settlement. a technical oversight committee for grounds that they were not ‘‘standards’’ compliance. Sincerely, Robert Blake Jr compliant. This was strongly contested by Microsoft has done so much to contribute suppliers such as Opera Software and to our daily lives, in the office and at home. MTC–00027979 Microsoft had to grudgingly relent. but this To stifle or restrict this company would be attempt is only the tip of an iceberg in which a huge injustice to consumers and will do From: peter kloss (BITS) To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ MS try to persuade us that their browser is nothing to stimulate our lagging economy. I Date: 1/28/02 12:34pm the standard by brute force. This must also urge you to support this settlement so Subject: Microsoft Settlement be seen in the context that both browser and Microsoft’s resources and talent can be fully The following is the personal opinion of server are notorious security risks, in part devoted to designing their innovative Peter B Kloss and is not the opinion in any due to the insecure architecture inherent in software, rather than litigation. Thank you for shape or form of his employers, the BBSRC operating systems and applications supplied your time. (Biotechnology and Bioscience IT Services) by Microsoft. Sincerely, Dear Sir Furthermore it is also true that Microsoft James Jaremka (Microsoft shareholder and I do not know whether non US nationals devote more attention to adding features to registered Republican) are allowed to comment on this case. their products in an attempt to crush MTC–00027978 however, what happens in this case will have competing products than they do to fixing an enormous influence on what happens From: Bob Blake long existing problems, for example, Excel elsewhere, so I hope I am permitted to To: Microsoft ATR still has a number of arithmetic bugs which comment. Date: 1/28/02 12:37pm have existed from before version 4 which I am concerned that the settlement will not have never been fixed. Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT do what it is intended to do, that is, restrict 13 Ethel Avenue Even now, Microsoft are attempting to the predatory behaviour of Microsoft. The extend their grip in other areas to the Peabody, MA 01960 nature of the exception clauses in the current January 27,2002 detriment of consumer and business choice: agreement makes it possible for MS to In the area of network validation of personal Attorney General John Ashcroft continue to do whatever they want without US Department of Justice credentials with the proprietry ‘‘Passport’’ hindrance. I think this is a bad thing to do authentication system In the area of video 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW and a bad message to give. Washington, DC 20530 streaming delivery with bundling of It is important that while Microsoft have ‘‘Windows Media Player’’ to the detriment of Dear Mr. Ashcroft: this overarching dominant postion that the Three years ago, Microsoft was brought to Real Inc’s Real Player and Apple computer’s interests of the public and consumer are Quicktime (a genuine standard) trial for antitrust violations. I have been of properly protected. This is particularly in the the opinion from the start that this has been In the area of on-line music delivery by area of choice—Microsoft have continually attempting to corner the market with a false case. Federal antitrust laws are stifling complained that restrictions on them will windows specific server and delivery in a global market. Microsoft has never inhibit ‘‘innovation’’ and choice. however, technologies In the area of home automation presented a threat to the consumer by using history teaches us that Microsoft have hardly and device control with embedded OS its market dominance to raise prices or to ever innovated and have acted in a way to products I have not even touched on offer a shoddy product. Microsoft would restrict choice for OEMs, business customers never have been so successful if the and consumers like to their advantage. Microsoft’s attitude towards OEMS, consumer had not been satisfied with its Let us take innovation: It is true that most competing OS suppliers etc .. actions. Now Microsoft’s competitors are OS and application ‘‘innovations’’ have been This kind of behaviour is structural in a upset because they are unable to pry either bought in or copied from third parties: provenly monopolistic company. Remedies consumers away from Microsoft. They DOS—bought from a third party must be strong to correct this behaviour and instigated the case in the first place, and now Windows (the concept)—from Xerox and I urge the DOJ to rethink its compromises to they are seeking to overturn the settlement Apple ensure that restrictions and punishments are and bring additional litigation against Excel—bought in from a third party appropriate to yield better behaviour. To be Microsoft. Windows 95 GUI details—copied from truthful, with the current huge market I do not believe it is necessary to bring Apple in many places (eg the keyboard short penetration of MS products, restrictions will additional litigation against Microsoft. By cuts) not hurt the company for a long time to doing so, these states are essentially crippling Explorer, Web Browsing—copied the come. When they do, it will becuase America. Foreign competitors are not subject concept from NCSA, Netscape etc genuinely innovative and superior products to the same laws that American businesses Additional features in windows XP such as have taken a hold. are, and all this infighting is making the CD burning, camera connection and video The fact is that in many areas where American market vulnerable to foreign editing—a straight copy of advanced features Microsoft have obtained an almost complete interests. in Apple’s MacOS grip of the market they exhibit genuine Putting reins on Microsoft’s behavior is the As for choice: In most respects Microsoft’s monopolistic behaviour— such as many same as encouraging foreign competitors to leveraging of their position has restricted price increases forced on business users step in. The settlement should be finalized as choice by squeezing out competitors and through less favourable bulk licensing soon as possible, for the good of the competing products. schemes recently introduced. It is only a economy, the industry, and the consumer. A loss strongly felt personally was that matter of time before this is attempted in The settlement allows Microsoft to remain Aldus once made an excellent presentation other areas.
VerDate 11
Microsoft has been legally proved to be a MTC–00027982 computer makers and consumers can easily monopoly and to have abused its position— From: Marty Leisner promote non-Microsoft software within please treat it as such with remedies that bite. To: Microsoft ATR Windows. Finally, Microsoft has agreed not Thank you for listening to me Date: 1/28/02 12:35pm to enter into agreements with other with kind regards, Peter Kloss Subject: Microsoft Settlement companies to promote any Windows technology exclusively. All these will be MTC–00027980 I wish to comment on the Proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement via the enforced by a new federal government From: [email protected]@inetgw Tunney Act. I’m a professional software commission. To: Microsoft ATR developer with Xerox Corporation. I have The most impressive aspect of the Date: 1/28/02 12:36pm been developing software for over 20 years. settlement is that it even applies to Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement I have seen the industry change over 20 products that were not at issue in the lawsuit. Renata B. Hesse years—while the hardware has improved by This agreement is fair and reasonable, and it Antitrust Division orders of magnitude, software is a mixed will clearly prevent future anticompetitive U.S. Department of Justice bag—some chores are harder to accomplish behavior. We must accept this settlement and 601 D Street NW (and sometimes take longer) than 20 years allow the IT industry to concentrate on Suite 1200 ago. One thing that has changed is the growth business as soon as possible. Washington, DC 20530–000 of the computer industry and the PC on every Sincerely, 2002–01–28 desk. Almost every PC runs microsoft Karl Heimberger Dear Renata B. Hesse: software. I’ve been following the Microsoft- MTC–00027984 I do not believe that the proposed DOJ debacle with interest for years. I develop Microsoft settlement is appropriate. I believe free software. I try to use products which From: [email protected]@inetgw there are numerous problems, however, I will work and which I can customize—it turns To: Microsoft ATR only comment on a couple of items here. out I try not to use microsoft products. I do Date: 1/28/02 12:37pm Without any requirement that Microsoft not want to live in a world where I have to Subject: Microsoft Settlement provide detailed data file documentation on use microsoft products to interact with other Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division its application files (for example, the internal people. I have no problem if microsoft 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 format of a .DOC file) there is no hope for defines file formats and networking Washington, DC 20530–0001 inter operability between Microsoft and other standards, as long as they are public and Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: potential software suppliers. correct. The proposed settlement does not Please put a stop to the economically- The same applies to Microsoft’s operating appear to address this. As a free software draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This system interface. Without proper developer software developer, am I entitled has gone on long enough. Microsoft has documentation of the interface, all the to rights as a third party? Software is a new already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer interface, and a constraint that Microsoft may and unique creation. I think its important to icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case not use undocumented interfaces, other have a resolution of this case which actually against Microsoft is little more than software developers will never be able to encourages competiting products (both free ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft produce software that is competitive and will and commercial). Dan Kegel’s critque is well competitors, with not a nickel going to those not be independent of changes made, thought out. I endorse it and urge you to read supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the perhaps deliberately, to the os interface that it: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ computer user. This is just another method are detrimental to the proper functioning of remedy2.html for states to get free money, and a terrible applications. I also endorse Ralph Nader and James precedent for the future, not only in terms of May thanks for your time. Love’s views as: http://www.cptech.org/at/ computer technology, but all sorts of Regards, ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html innovations in the most dynamic industry David Beausang Thank you, the world has ever seen. Martin Leisner Please put a stop to this travesty of justice MTC–00027981 332 Shaftsbury Road now. Thank you. From: Joe Brady Rochester, New York 14610 Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR Free Software Writer/User Joseph Pemberton Date: 1/28/02 12:36pm 609 Danbridge Drive MTC–00027983 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Hixson, TN 37343 January 28, 2002 From: [email protected]@inetgw Attorney General John Ashcroft To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00027985 US Department of Justice Date: 1/28/02 12:39pm From: John W. Manhollan Washington, DC 20530 Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Dear Mr. Ashcroft, I am forwarding this letter, since I strongly Date: 1/28/02 12:46pm This lawsuit against Microsoft has proven concur with it’s premise. Subject: Microsoft Settlement to be more contentious than most would have thank you To Whom It May Concern: anticipated. Its effects have been felt in a Karl Heimberger [[email protected]] I believe that the proposed settlement is slowing down of consumer purchases of 1 VAN DYKE PLACE problematic for two reasons: computer products due in part to an STONY BROOK, NEW YORK 11790 1. The settlement furthers Microsoft’s increased sense of anxiety on the part of the January 24, 2002 strangle hold on the desktop platform by buying public. Attorney General John Ashcroft seeding into thousands of locations where It is for this reason that the settlement US Department of Justice, impressionable youngsters will have access recently negotiated between Microsoft and 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to only the Windows environment and the government is good. While I am not too Washington, DC 20530 thereby influence their future purchases. familiar with the specific terms of the Dear Mr. Ashcroft, 2. The settlement only benefits a small settlement, other than that it mandates This letter is in support of the settlement number of the individuals who would have changes in the way Microsoft licenses its with Microsoft. We must stop wasting money been harmed by Microsoft’s blatant disregard software to OEMs, among other things, since on unnecessary litigation and concentrate our of the results caused by its business strategy. both sides have agreed, then the public resources on matters that actually need more America’s school children of today were not litigation is at long last at an end. action. Let’s move forward, not backward. the consumers affected by Microsoft’s I am writing to express my support of this This settlement allows us to go forward practices. settlement, along with my hope that any and end the waste. Microsoft has agreed not Thank you for your time and interest in my further federal action will be unnecessary. to retaliate against computer makers who comments. Sincerely, ship software that competes with anything in Sincerely, Joseph Brady Windows. Plus, Microsoft has agreed to John W. Manhollan, Technology President design future versions of Windows so that Coordinator
VerDate 11
West Middlesex Area School District I hope you will use your office and influence Laura Akers 3591 Sharon Road to see it settled soon. By the terms of the Oregon Research Institute West Middlesex, PA 16159 proposed settlement plan, Microsoft will [email protected] v: 724.528.2002 x122 endeavor to actively undermine its own f: 724.528.0380 predominance in the IT industry. It has MTC–00027991 The directions said, ‘‘Requires Windows 98 agreed to surrender its past practice of From: Jeanette Gonzales or better.’’ So I bought a Macintosh. demanding exclusive domain over software To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 12:45pm MTC–00027986 in its Windows platforms. It has even agreed to render its Windows platforms in Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Fred Nugen configurations that invite the use of non- Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft software. It has agreed to open its I’m writing to you as a Supporter the Free Date: 1/28/02 12:42pm technology to exploitation by its competitors. Market. Recently it was brought to my Subject: Microsoft Settlement It has, in fact, agreed to facilitate attention that over the past 3 years every As a United States citizen, I urge you to competition. federal court that has reviewed the Microsoft withdraw your consent to the revised These and other concessions validate antitrust case has found that Microsoft proposed Final Judgment settlement in the Microsoft’s claim to desire an open and fair repeatedly and aggressively violated U.S. United States v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust playing field in the industry. Microsoft antitrust laws and was liable for its illegal case. The limitations and punishments deserves this settlement and so does the conduct. It was also surprising to know that imposed upon Microsoft do not sufficiently country. the Justice Department had announced that it restore the competitive conditions previailing Sincerely, had cut a back-room deal (the Proposed Final prior to Microsoft’s unlawful conduct. The Thomas Allbee Judgement) with Microsoft that granted Settlement only prevents Microsoft from Microsoft a government mandated monopoly future monopolistic practices; it does not MTC–00027989 that threatened to destroy any and all serious punish Microsoft for previous unlawful From: O M Microsoft competitors. How can this be behavior. The advantages of immediacy and To: Microsoft ATR allowed to happen? Why here, in a free certainty of the proposed Final Judgment are Date: 1/28/02 12:43pm capitalist country, is it permitted to allow a not sufficient cause for abandonment of Subject: Microsoft Settlement company like Microsoft infringe the rights of pursuit of further litigation. Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, consumers and competitors everywhere. Men I urge you to pursue litigation of the issue I oppose the Proposed Final Judgment in have gone before us, seen the issue, and have of remedy, whether as set forth in the Final relations to the Microsoft case. As one can made a way so that the rights of consumers Judgement entered by the District Court on plainly see, Microsoft continues to violate and other competitors were protected. So June 7, 2000, or as one of the other remedy business practices. The Proposed Final why now is there an exception to the rule to proposals described in the Competitive Judgment does not punish Microsoft for its let Microsoft be allowed to abuse antitrust Impact Statement, section (V) Alternatives to past violations to the anti-trust laws. laws? the Proposed Final Judgement. With out a doubt, Microsoft is guilty of Sure the name Microsoft has prestige, and Fred Nugen breaking several anti-trust laws. Under the people trust in the company’s quality, 407 W 18th #207 final settlement, Microsoft is permitted to however no good can ever come of a Austin, TX 78701 retain most if not all profits gained through monopoly. That is why the Tunney Act 512.478.9617 their illicit activities. Subsequently, the PFJ passed by Congress is so vital because it MTC–00027987 will not compensate parties injured or ensures that all antitrust settlements From: Altes, James harmed through Microsofts egregious proposed by the Justice Department are not To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ misdeeds. ‘‘contrary to the public interest.’’ Date: 1/28/02 12:44pm In addition, the PFJ will not take into Believe me, the public interest wants to see Subject: Microsoft Settlement account all Microsoft gains made through its the Microsoft Industry put to a stop before it It is my opinion that his is not a good idea, illegal maneuverings. With all due respect, completely wipes out all of its competitors— will only increase Monoply status of the final settlement is basically other defenders and leaders of the free world. MicroSoft. acknowledging the acceptance of Microsofts Sincerely, James Altes anti-competitive behavior. What kind of Jeanette Gonzales Electronic Publishing Specialist message does this send out to the public? I [email protected] can assure you that the message is clear and The American National Red Cross MTC–00027992 202.639.3236 simple. [email protected] The PFJ encourages big corporations to From: [email protected]@inetgw Together, we can save a life engage in monopolistic and predatory To: Microsoft ATR conduct, which in turn is detrimental to the Date: 1/28/02 12:46pm MTC–00027988 technology industry at large. With all due Subject: Microsoft comments From: Thomas Allbee respect your honor, I am outraged at such a My inputs on the Microsoft matter. To: Microsoft ATR preposterous proposal that only helps I am a patent attorney, and I take my Date: 1/28/02 12:42pm Microsoft to remain intact and continue with responsibilities very seriously, of course. I Subject: Microsoft Settlement its unethical practices. In conclusion I submit have seen several cases of hackers Thomas Allbee to you my objection to this Proposed Final penetrating Microsoft systems, such as at a 16870 SW Camino Drive Judgment. law firm I was associated with until recently. Tigard, Oregon 97224 Respectfully, While most attacks seemed to be intent on 503–624–9431 Dr. Marylin Ortiz corrupting files, there were some attacks that January 28, 2002 1001 Vine St. I am convinced could have and may have Attorney General John Ashcroft Paso Robles, CA 93446 resulted in data being taken. US Department of Justice I am unwilling to expose my clients to 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MTC–00027990 such risks, especially since I believe the Washington, DC 20530 From: Laura Akers Microsoft XP OS has the capability of Dear Mr. Ashcroft, To: Microsoft ATR allowing ?someone?, such as at Microsoft, to I am sending you this brief letter in hopes Date: 1/28/02 12:43pm copy data off your system with no indication of adding my sentiments to those millions Subject: Microsoft Settlement to the owner. I am changing to Linux, and I who would like to see an end to the I oppose the current settlement with find that most companies that offer software Microsoft case. This litigation has stymied an Microsoft as not acknowledging and packages that run on Microsoft OS systems entire industry and contributed to our supporting the ability of other organizations, are discontinuing support for other than general economic malaise. There is no further such as those staffed by volunteers, to Microsoft systems (the exception is Apple, reason to prolong the resolution of this case. compete. which depends on Microsoft investment and
VerDate 11
help for their existence). In fact, since Apple increase in the technology industry. The 1001 Vine Street has a Linux-type system and IS supported, it company will design future versions of its Paso Robles, CA 93446 appears that the decision by these companies Windows operating system so that computer not to support other Linux-type systems has makers can promote non-Microsoft software MTC–00027996 no legitimate purpose. The companies I refer within Windows. Microsoft has also agreed From: C. Scott Ananian to that are moving to Microsoft-Apple not to retaliate against computer makers that To: Microsoft ATR support only are Adobe, the Acrobat product, ship software that competes with anything in Date: 1/28/02 12:50pm and the various companies that make .TIFF Windows. This settlement was reached after Subject: Microsoft Settlement. readers. I need both .PDF (Adobe Acrobat) many long and costly hours of litigation, and I am a graduate student at MIT, and author and .TIFF for my patent work, and I find that extensive negotiations. It is fair and and maintainer of many commonly-used to have them I must use an OS from reasonable, and k should be finalized as soon ‘‘open source’’ applications[*]. I have also Microsoft. Even Mapquest, where I have been as possible. contributed code to the Linux kernel that is getting map data, gives very unsatisfactory Settling now will benefit consumers and used by millions of people every day. I wish results on other than Internet Explorer. By the industry, and this was what the to express my dissatisfaction with the terms unsatisfactory, I mean the results on other government sought from the beginning. The of the DOJ/Microsoft settlement. It does not, than Internet Explorer are such as to indicate American economy needs a boost right now, in my opinion, serve the public interest and sabotage of the Microsoft competitors. and stopping this litigation is a great step in provide remedy for the anti-competitive I feel I must not expose my clients to the the right direction. actions of the monopolist. In particular, I hazards of a Microsoft system, but I find that Sincerely, urge a closer examination of how the terms Microsoft, directly or through companies that Dolly Waters of the proposed settlement impact *non- depend on Microsoft, is poisoning all profit* competitive entities; as a case study competing systems. I hear even WordPerfect, MTC–00027994 you might want to examine the Apache a clearly superior word processor, is ?on the From: Henning Dalgaard Jeppesen TACDk foundation (www.apache.org), which ropes? due to Microsoft’s tactics. To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ produces the *only* web server which is a I would like to sue Microsoft. Can you Date: 1/28/02 12:47pm real competitive threat to Microsoft at this provide any help? Subject: Microsoft Settlement I don’t agree time. The terms of the agreement, by letting Marion E. Cavanaugh, patent attorney Microsoft decide what constitutes a ‘‘real 720 Promontory Point Lane MTC–00027995 business’’, threaten to exclude independent Suite 2203 From: c c developers and non-profits like the Apache Foster City, CA 94404–4025 To: Microsoft ATR foundation from the disclosures (API and 800.954.2277 Date: 1/28/02 12:49pm otherwise) which the settlement hopes will 650.578.0692 Subject: Microsoft Settlement place a check on Microsoft. In this way, 650.533.4363 (cell) Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally- Microsoft may actually be able to edge out its 650.572.2370 (fax) I am stating my objection to the Proposed last remaining competition from the CC:[email protected]@inetgw Final Judgment. Most honorable one, I marketplace —- certainly not the result the implore you to see the true facts in the matter DOJ intends, and certainly not in the public MTC–00027993 and judge accordingly. In the past week it has interest. As an independent developer who From: Dolly Waters been brought to my attention an interesting has written (for example) a competitive To: Microsoft ATR development in the case involving the reimplementation of Microsoft’s PPTP Date: 1/28/02 12:45pm Department of Justice and Microsoft. A Final protocol *without benefit of any information Subject: Microsoft settlement Please read. Settlement has been reached between the two from Microsoft* and who would almost THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL MESSAGE AND parties, which will supposedly end the certainly *not* qualify for API disclosure ANY ATTACHMENT IS CONFIDENTIAL never-ending fiasco. Yet astoundingly however Microsoft decides to define ‘‘viable AND MAY CONTAIN ATTORNEY enough based on my understanding and the business’’, I have a personal interest in seeing PRIVILEGED INFORMATION INTENDED information provided to me, the Proposed this settlement loophole closed. And on ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL Final Judgment would overturn findings by behalf of the many people who have used my OR INDIVIDUALS NAMED ABOVE. the U.S. Court of Appeals indicts Microsoft software, I can state definitively that there is If the reader is not the intended recipient, on violating antitrust laws. After further a public interest in allowing developers like or the employee or agent responsible to review of the proposed settlement I find it myself to compete with Microsoft. deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hard to believe the Justice Department would Thank you. hereby notified that any dissemination, withdraw their charges against Microsoft. In C. Scott Ananian distribution or copying of this fact, based on the assessments made on the 305 Memorial Drive communication is strictly prohibited. If you proposal, Microsoft will go scotch free from Cambridge, MA 02139 have received this communication in error, any charges of wrong doing in the matter. [*] More correctly called ‘‘free software’’, please reply to the sender to notify us of the How can this be? There are several glaring with the ‘‘free’’ referring to freedom, not to error and delete the original message. Thank flaws in the PFJ. However, non-so more price. In fact you are allowed to charge You. apparent than allowing an absentee landlord whatever you like for ‘‘free software’’, Dolly Waters to govern Microsoft. With all due respect, the provided you do not restrict the purchaser’s 43 Webster Avenue final settlement provides no security to ability to make use of it in various specified Manhasset, NY 11030 restrict MS from breaking any laws in the ways. January 25, 2002 future. In my humble yet accurate opinion, Attorney General John Ashcroft the future governing body, implementing MTC–00027997 US Department of Justice certain rules or regulations and forcing MS to From: Tom Gardner 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW adhere by them, will not be stringent nor To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Washington, DC 20530 forceful enough to make any dramatic Date: 1/28/02 12:45pm Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I did not agree with the changes. Similarly, I am not convinced that Subject: Microsoft Relief federal government’s decision to sue these stiff penalties applied to MS will To whom it may concern: Microsoft, and I am glad to see the two sides ensure the security and future growth of It appears to me that a great deal of have reached a settlement. Microsoft is a other companies, A stiffer penalty and a Microsoft’s market power comes from its strong and successful company because it whole new framework of laws must be policy of leasing its software and then using develops the best products for the industry, established to justly punish MS. The the copyright laws to enforce anticompetitive and k is time to start spending the Proposed Final Judgment abstains from such requirements. May I suggest that Microsoft be government’s money on more important justification and order. Therefore I object to required to sell its software and thereby issues than trying to hinder this company’s the stated Proposed Final Judgment. relinquish relevent copyright rights, much as success. Microsoft has agreed to change its Sincerely, a book seller relinquishes such rights upon business operations so that competition will Dr. Romeo Ortiz sale of a book. Customers, such as PC
VerDate 11
manufacturers, would then be free to alter embracing and extending technology in ways established by Microsoft for certifying the Micorosoft products to provide additional that force consumers to use and upgrade only authenticity and viability of its business.’’ value to the end using consumer. its products (e.g., their extensions to the The PFJ states ‘‘Microsoft shall begin Microsoft will argue that any such Kerberos security protocols), by selectively complying with the revised proposed Final alterations to the software will then make the incorporating technology that in some cases Judgment as it was in full force and effect product not maintainable and thereby void it has appropriated from competitors into its starting on December 16, 2001.’’ I believe a its warranty. While in the limit this is indeed operating system (e.g., Stac Electronics disk court interested in ensuring consumers’’ possible, it practice most alterations would compression and Mosaic browser-based choice would agree that Microsoft’s actions have little impact upon maintainability. technology), and by adding code into their since the release of the PFJ on November 6, Microsoft should therefore be also required to operating systems and middleware that 2001 with respect to their .NET initiative, maintain any altered product unless and unfairly targets competitors products (e.g, the their attempts through orchestrated ‘‘grass until it can show beyond reasonable doubt DR/DOS code added to Windows 3.1 and the roots’’ campaigns to influence the outcome of that such maintenance is an unreasonable way in which consumers were steered away the court and legislative inquiries into their commericial endeavor. from Kodak applications for digital activities, the security of their existing I have participated in the computer photography in the just released Windows products in maintaining consumers privacy industry since 1968 and have at various XP) that they actively work against consumer and Microsoft’s lack of ability to protect that companies been involved in the selling of choice. trust, and their attempts to advance their hardware and software to PC manufacturers The PFJ does not ensure ‘‘computer monopolies into other markets (e.g., gaming and PC end users. I testified for the people manufacturers have contractual and devices and multimedia) demonstrate that in US vs. IBM on software interface economic freedom to make decisions about Microsoft’s is already flaunting the intent of manipulation as an anti-competitive tactic. distributing and supporting non-Microsoft the PFJ just as it has in the past flaunted the The opinions expressed above are mine middleware products without fear of intent of other consent decrees. alone, and not necessarily those of any coercion or retaliation by Microsoft’’ because Jonathan Doughty service provider enabling the transmission of it specifically allows Microsoft to enforce this email. ‘‘any provision of any license with any OEM MTC–00028000 Thomas E. Gardner or any intellectual property right that is not From: Robert G. Prickett (650) 941–5324 inconsistent with’’ the PFJ. One can already To: Microsoft ATR [email protected] find examples of a variety of Microsoft End Date: 1/28/02 12:49pm MTC–00027998 User Licensing Agreements (EULA) in which Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft has forced consumers and OEMs to This vendetta by jealous competitors has From: Cherry accept agreements that effectively tie use of got to be stopped. I have watched over the To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft products to its middleware and years and only commented to friends how Date: 1/28/02 12:48pm operating systems and restrict the consumers Microsoft is being attacked by companies Subject: Microsoft right to substitute competitive technology. who want the U. S. Government to make I would like to see this suit finalized as The PFJ does not ensure ‘‘that computer soon as possible. their businesses flourish without working manufacturers have the freedom to configure Sincerely, hard for it. the personal computers they sell to feature Cherry S. Garrison Call the dogs off. They have treed enough and promote non-Microsoft middleware, and Pendleton, South Carolina ghosts. ensuring that developers of these alternatives Robert G. Prickett MTC–00027999 to Microsoft products are able to feature MTC–00028001 From: Jonathan Doughty those products on personal computers, by To: Microsoft ATR prohibiting Microsoft from restricting From: Douglas Lewan Date: 1/28/02 12:50pm computer manufacturers’’ ability to install To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement and feature non-Microsoft middleware and Date: 1/28/02 12:52pm TO: competing operating systems in a variety of Subject: Microsoft Settlement Renata B. Hesse ways on the desktop and elsewhere.’’ Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division Microsoft has already demonstrated they Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice have no intent to adhere to this restriction by U.S. Department of Justice 601 D Street NW insisting, prior to the release of Windows XP, 601 D Street NW Suite 1200 that their own products be given equal Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530–0001 display on the desktop to competitive Washington, DC 20530–0001 FROM: alternatives. 2002 January 28 Jonathan Doughty Finally, Microsoft has shown by its Douglas Lewan 9701 Rhapsody Drive behavior of rushing products to market to 10 Fredwood Pl. Vienna, VA, 22181 further extend its monopolies, while Matawan, NJ 07747 I urge you to reject the Proposed Final continually delaying and extending the trials Please accept the following comments Judgement (PFJ) and replace it with one that that might restrict that behavior, that it has regarding the Revised Proposed Final is simpler to test Microsoft’s adherence to, no intention of modifying the past behaviors Judgement published by the DOJ at http:// allows for the full range of competitors to with which it has so successfully eliminated www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm . Microsoft’s practices including explicitly competition and restricted consumer choice. I agree with the obvious implied spirit of addressing open source alternatives, and The PFJ is riddled with loopholes, more even the Final Judgement. However, I believe it better protects consumers from being the than the 1994 consent decree that Microsoft fails to truly attain that spirit in practice in continuing victims of Microsoft’s flaunted the intent of, while at the same time several ways, the most important of which I monopolistic practices. providing cover for Microsoft to browbeat discuss below. The PFJ does not, as stated in the competitors with the very language that is Sections III.D and III.E regarding Competitive Impact Statement provide supposed to protect those competitors. For scheduling the publication of APIs and ‘‘prompt, certain and effective remedies for example, the PFJ’s wording explicitly protocols: consumers.’’ Nor will the PFJ ‘‘eliminate excludes Microsoft from having to deal with These two sections fail to meet the spirit Microsoft’s illegal practices, prevent the one consumer alternative that Microsoft of the Final Judgement in two important recurrence of the same or similar practices, has recently shown the most fear of, the open ways. and restore the competitive threat that source movement, by explicitly allowing First, the schedules based on delays of 9 middleware products posed prior to Microsoft to condition the release of and 12 months respectively would place Microsoft’s unlawful undertakings’’ as also documentation of its APIs and publication of those APIs and protocols about stipulated in that statement. communications protocols based on halfway Microsoft’s own development and Microsoft has shown by past and current Microsoft’s own judgement that the third deployment cycle. Vendors who could monopolist behavior, by its tactics of party ‘‘meets reasonable, objective standards benefit from using those APIs and protocols
VerDate 11
would thus only be able to deploy products During the past few years I have followed stifling competition. If Section III.D is to have with them as Microsoft has new products the DoJ case against Microsoft and the the effect of fairly documenting these looming on the horizon. difficulty with getting an agreement for interfaces to stop the tying, the section Second, the publication mechanisms settlement of the case. In the technology quoted above should read: specified in those two sections remain far too arena this has been deleterious to business ‘‘Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, closed to foster competition outside of and the consumer. I believe it is time to get IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, via the Microsoft Microsoft controlled circles. this item cleared and get on with the Developer Network (‘‘MSDN’’) or similar Publication of APIs as specified in III.D business of computing and technology. mechanisms...’’ would be only to a select audience and only Sincerely, 2) Section III.E states ‘‘Microsoft shall by the purchase of the MSDN (currently at a Kermit Holman make available for use by third parties, for cost of between $1000 and $3000). That holman—ka@msn.com the sole purpose of interoperating with a publication should be entirely public, Windows Operating System Product, on MTC–00028003 possibly through a recognized standards reasonable and non-discriminatory terms body like ISO, ANSI or the IEEE. From: Ralph Green, Jr. (consistent with Section III.I), any Otherwise Microsoft will continue to wield To: Microsoft ATR Communications Protocol’’ essential absolute control over those APIs Date: 1/28/02 12:51pm This is a similar failure to number 1, but and their use. Subject: Microsoft Settlement more serious. These communications Similar arguments apply to the publication Introduction protocols need to be documented so that any of protocols. As a software engineer with 25 years competing operating system may use them. With regard to protocols and experience developing software, mostly for Microsoft’s monopoly does not currently ‘‘interoperating with a Windows Operating personal computers, I would like to comment extend to the server market. If Microsoft were System Product’’ it should be recognized that on the Proposed Final Judgement in United to gain a server monopoly by the quality of all file formats used by Windows Operating Stated vs. Microsoft. their product offering, that is fine. If they System Products fall under the umbrella of I believe that The Federal Government is gain it by tying the server market to their ‘‘protocol’’. Interoperability must be attempting to achieve a remedy that infringes current monopoly, that is the same kind of explicitly recognized to cover any data as little as possible on the market, while improper behavior that brought about this case. This judgement should not encourage produced by any program on any medium trying to stop illegal conduct. I applaud that that improper behavior and so this section I that might be used by any other program for attempt and think that was just what you quote should be changed to read: a specific purpose. The current phrasing is should have been trying to do. I think, ‘‘Microsoft shall make available for use by far too weak and vague to allow interoperable however, that the Proposed Final Judgement fails to stop the illegal conduct and should third parties, on reasonable and non- alternatives to the likes of Word, Project, discriminatory terms (consistent with Section be rejected in its present form. Visio, etc., all important Windows Operating III.I), any Communications Protocol’’ I am not looking for the federal government System Products. 3) Section III.G.2 states ‘‘on the condition to pick winners and losers in the Section III.J further weakens sections III.D that the IAP or ICP refrain from distributing, marketplace. I want my federal government and III.E. promoting or using any software that only to ensure that fair competition will let Section III.J has several flaws. competes with Microsoft Middleware.’’ First, in it the Department of Justice and the marketplace decide the winners. At the This is too narrowly drawn and to use a the nine plaintiff states sanction a policy of very least, any part of this agreement should metaphor, confuses the cart with the horse. /security through obscurity/, an mechanism be neutral in its effect on further entrenching The illegal conduct was the attempt to known to be flawed. It is far more secure to Microsoft’s monopoly. And since this preserve the monopoly on operating systems. allow public scrutiny of security mechanisms agreement is supposed to be a remedy for Middleware was the tool used to preserve the to reveal the most egregious holes before illegal conduct, it should lean slightly to the monopoly. Microsoft should not discriminate commitment, implementation and use. effect of opening the market in order to against businesses that encourage the use of Consider the work regarding DES, AES, remedy past wrongs. Then, and only then, other Middleware, but they should not Kerberos, etc.; even the theory behind RSA the free and fair market can benefit the discriminate against businesses that was published and widely discussed long consumer. encourage other operating systems, either. If before practical implementations were made. As your own Competitive Impact statement the phrase ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ were The possibilities and implications of says ‘‘The District Court held that Microsoft replaced with ‘‘Microsoft Platform Software’’, vulnerabilities in the field under such engaged in a series of illegal anticompetitive this would have meaning. With the phrase policies are far worse that under published acts to protect and maintain its personal ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ in place, an IAP security mechanisms. Among other things, computer operating system monopoly, in encouraging the use of Linux, BSD or other fixes become nearly impossible: (1) backward violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and competitive operating systems could be compatibility is necessary, difficult and analogous state laws.’’ discriminated against. counter-productive leading to a false of Failures of the Proposed Final Judgement 4) Section III.H.2(second 2) states ‘‘(e.g., a security and (2) deployments of such fixes 1) Section III.D states Microsoft shall requirement to be able to host a particular can never be expected to be complete. disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and ActiveX control)’’ This is a terrible example Second, by not publishing secure aspects OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating and significantly lessens the likely intent of of application protocols (authentication and with a Windows Operating System Product, this paragraph. Hosting ActiveX controls is authorization), third party software can never via the Microsoft Developer Network not a technical requirement. It is an reach the point where it /can/ use the (‘‘MSDN’’) or similar mechanisms...’’ implementation using a proprietary method. functional application protocols intended by The problem here is that Microsoft, as a A reasonable technical requirement should section III.E. monopolist, is setting standards for the not necessitate the use of Microsoft All in all, sections III.D, III.E and III.J create industry. For a competitor to arise, development tools. The only slightly at best a documentary opening of Microsoft interoperability must be possible. Restricting reasonable point here is that ActiveX has products with (1) consequences for Microsoft this API information for the sole purpose of been around long enough that there are a few and (2) no improved opportunities for the interoperating with a Windows Operating alternative tools. I am not sure whether it is rest of the software industry. System Product only entrenches the possible to build ActiveX controls Thank you for taking my comments under monopoly. There is no legitimate purpose withoutout the use of Microsoft development consideration. served by restricting this interoperability to tools. If it is not, ActiveX should definitely Douglas Lewan only Windows Operating Systems. For go as an example. example, a competing middleware product 5) Section IV.B.9 states ‘‘prohibiting MTC–00028002 may ask for these APIs so they can make their disclosure of any information obtained in the From: Kermit Holman product compatible with both Microsoft course of performing his or her duties as a To: Microsoft ATR Operating System Product and its member of the TC or as a person assisting the Date: 1/28/02 12:51pm competitors. Microsoft could refuse and thus TC to anyone other than Microsoft, the Subject: Microsoft Settlement their product tying would have succeeded in Plaintiffs, or the Court.’’
VerDate 11
As worded, the TCs will not even be able and see if the judgement leads to a free To me, the market is for ‘‘personal to communicate important information to market. If the judgement is a reasonable one, computing devices’’ not just Intel-based PCs. their staff or other TCs. There is also no I would join in protesting actions against It should have included Apple and Palm as reason to protect information about improper Microsoft. well. For this reason I think the case has been business practices by Microsoft. This should 2. The failures of this judgement mean that fundamentally flawed from the start and I be amended to read ‘‘prohibiting disclosure the illegal and unsportmanlike conduct of think it’s whole reason for being is too. I of any proprietary information obtained in Microsoft will likely continue. Because the don’t think there would be a case if it weren’t the course of performing his or her duties as people who may see the evidence, i.e. the for competitors in other markets (Oracle, a member of the TC or as a person assisting TCs, must keep silent, we will have to wait AOL, SUN) where Microsoft cannot remotely the TC to anyone other than other TC, the TC until great harm is done before we will be considered a monopoly (more like a staff, Microsoft, the Plaintiffs, or the Court.’’ realize it. struggling underdog!) playing protectionist 6) Section IV.B.10 states ‘‘No member of 3. That means real competition is less politics. Not one of those companies has ever the TC shall make any public statements likely to get its foot in the door and offer real made even the slightest indication of intent relating to the TC’s activities.’’ chice to the public. This is what really drives to create a full-featured desktop operating This sentence should go. The purpose of me. I think that if Microsoft wins a fair fight system for Intel-based personal computers. the TC is to apply pressure to Microsoft to in the marketplace, then we are all better off. Their only intent in their friend of the stay within the law. Secrecy does not serve When they use their monopoly position to court activity is to get back at Microsoft for that purpose. A better clause would read keep entrants out of the market, I think competing with THEM in their near- ‘‘The TC shall make quarterly public everyone but Microsoft loses. I wish monopoly franchises. reports. These shall be available on a web Microsoft was prepared to fight a fair fight, If you look at it from that perspective then pages provided by Microsoft. Microsoft may but their history tells me they won’t. they are even more anti-competitive than fufill this requirement by hosting the web I really do think kudos are in order on this Microsoft and certainly more opportunistic. pages or paying for their hosting elsewhere, attempt at a Final Judgement. It is better than The bottom line: Settle this. It was never as long as the web pages are generally I expected in many ways. The breaking up of in the public interest. You’ve already spent available.’’ the company, as proposed at one time was too much of my tax dollars playing too great a punishment and I am glad to see 7) Section IV.C.3.h states ‘‘maintaining a marionette for billion dollar Microsoft that solution is gone. In spite of my optimism record of all complaints received and action competitors. at what I first heard about this agreement, a taken by Microsoft with respect to each such Mike Byrns complaint.’’ careful reading leads me to say that this The purpose of this judgement is to end the proposed judgement is not good enough. MTC–00028005 Because of the significant failures I addressed illegal practices of the past. Light must be From: Paul Staudenmeier above, this agreement will not serve to undo shed on questionable practices and credit To: Microsoft ATR any past wrongs and I strongly believe it will should be given to improvements in Date: 1/28/02 12:54pm only make things worse. With a few changes, behavior. These records should be easily Subject: Microsoft settlement it could serve the public interest and not accessible to all and the best way to do this unnecessarily impinge on the rights of a great 692 Raven Road is the change this sentence to read American corporation. If the only choices are Wayne, PA 19087–2329 ‘‘maintaining and publishing on a public to take the Proposed Final Judgement as is, January 25, 2002 website at the expense of Microsoft a record or reject it, I say you must reject it. Attorney General John Ashcroft of all complaints received and action taken Respectfully submitted on January 28, 2002 US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania by Microsoft with respect to each such Ralph Green, Jr. Avenue, NW complaint.’’ Washington, DC 20530–0001 8) Section IV.D.3.c states ‘‘Microsoft shall MTC–00028003—0005 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: have 30 days after receiving a complaint to MTC–00028004 I am writing in full support of the recent attempt to resolve it or reject it, then settlement between the US Department of promptly advise the TC of the nature of the From: Mike Byrns Justice and Microsoft in the antitrust case. complaint and its disposition.’’ and will To: Microsoft ATR Firstly, I do not agree with a lawsuit being There is no feedback mechanism here to Date: 1/28/02 12:54pm brought against Microsoft in the first place. ensure that complaints are actually resolved. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft is not a monopoly, as they have The complaintant should also be notified by Which of Microsoft’s competitors has even never tried to deliver poor quality goods at Microsoft. If the resolution is unsatisfactory, expressed an interest in undertaking the inflated prices. They have at times employed then the complaintant would be prepared to gargantuan task that is writing a desktop tough marketing tactics, but that is by no operating system that could compete with take appropriate action. This should read means a crime in our capitalist society. In Windows XP? I think we must discount the ‘‘Microsoft shall have 30 days after receiving fact, I would say it is often the only way to tiny startups like Be, Inc. since they are no a complaint to attempt to resolve it or reject be successful, let alone survive, in our free more positioned to compete with Microsoft it, and will then promptly advise the TC and enterprise system. Microsoft spent huge anymore than Tucker or Rosen Motors was the complaintant of the nature of the positioned to compete with GM. Both had amounts of time and money to develop complaint and its disposition. superior, innovative products but were just excellent products and services. But rather 9) Section IV.D.4.d states ‘‘No work not realistically positioned to compete with than being allowed to enjoy the fruits of their product, findings or recommendations by the GM. Face it, there is just as much barrier to labor, Microsoft is now forced in one term of TC may be admitted in any enforcement entry into any major market as there is into the settlement to disclose interfaces that are proceeding before the Court for any purpose, desktop operating systems if you are not internal to Windows’’ operating system and no member of the TC shall testify by already a megacorp. products. This seems to violate their deposition, in court or before any other I think the whole scope of the ‘‘market’’ intellectual property rights. I hope the tribunal regarding any matter related to this that Microsoft has been found to be settlement goes through anyway because I Final Judgment.’’ monopolizing has been carefully crafted to think our IT sector and economy cannot This is completely unreasonable if the make them the the only player. That scope afford further litigation. We need our issue is a further proceeding involving this makes Intel a monopolist in that market too strongest assets innovating and trying to matter. If the TC finds out about illegal and by the same token Apple a monopolist grow. I know many others echo my opinion behavior, they should have a duty to report in the Motorola-based PC market. Look at that I work and live with. I hope your office it and stand behind their claims. some of the dirty tricks Intel has pulled vs. takes a firm stance against those who want Conclusions AMD and how Apple displayed undeniable to drag the suit on still longer, and instead The final judgement as it now stands will market control in the Motorola-based PC strongly supports the implementation of the only make things worse for the following market— it allowed Mac clone vendors to settlement. reasons. exist and then immediately when Jobs came Sincerely, 1. After this suit is ended, there will be on board, it canceled all their licenses and Paul Staudenmeier tremendous pressure to leave Microsoft alone put them all out of business. cc: Senator Rick Santorum
VerDate 11
MTC–00028006 variety of corns. We would be faced with the third parties can interface with Windows From: bob becker unacceptable risk that some single disease, should be identical to that required by U.S. To: Microsoft ATR might wipe out an enormous portion of our patent office. In the case of patents, if you Date: 1/28/02 12:54pm food supply. Having only one kind of don’t publicly disclose enough information Subject: Microsoft Settlement operating system or one kind of browser so that anyone skilled in the art can replicate To Whom it May Concern: would make it terribly easier for saboteurs to your invention (interface with it in this case), The proposed remedy for the Microsoft bring the entire Internet to its knees. your patent is invalidated. anti-trust case is a bad idea. It does nothing For one entity, such as Microsoft, to Because it is a monopoly, a Microsoft to ensure that Microsoft won’t continue to control 80 to 90 percent of the market for PC copyright has the same effect as a patent, in force its standards and use of its products by operating systems, Internet browsers, e-mail preventing other people from entering the market. Forcing Microsoft to come up with a every possible means. readers, and office productivity software is version of Office that would run on Linix as Bob Becker clearly a significant security risk. To then nine states who refused the DOJ settlement CC:[email protected]@inetgw allow that monopoly to actively attempt to drive out its remaining competition would are requesting, still doesn’t solve the MTC–00028007 hardly be in the public interest. Diversity is problem. The real dollars are spent buying From: James Houston the key in producing economic prosperity the Office product not in buying the To: Microsoft ATR and improving the society as a whole. Windows operating system. So you save Date: 1/28/02 12:55pm It’s now up to you, Judge Kollar-Kotally, to $200-$300 by using Linix instead of Subject: Microsoft Settlement decide whether the proposed settlement Windows XP, you still have to fork over $500-$1000 to get Microso ft’s Office for I hope you can settle this suit ASAP. It has between Microsoft and the DoJ is a correct Linix. gone on to long and continued litigation is and just solution. However from where I sit, In addition, there should be an anti- harmful to our economy, due to the it contains too many loopholes to drastically churning provision in the remedy. We are all disruptions in the software industry. effect Microsoft’s behavior, much less bring familiar with churning in the stock market Microsoft is guilty of only trying to put the about a certain kind of diversity which where your broker buys and sells stocks best product on the market. I’ve been a would enhance our security. solely for the purpose of gaining software user for over 20 years now and have Kind Regards, commissions. This is exactly what Microsoft never felt I was forced to use only a Microsoft Eddie Ortiz does when it brings out a new version of version of a program. I have tried several 601 Kilpatrick Street Windows and forces everyone to upgrade. To others over the years and have always Vallejo, CA 94589 prevent this, the court should allow only two returned to Microsoft versions, because they MTC–00028009 versions of Windows to be copywrighted at are better. Would you want to be forced to any one time, a business version and a buy a KIA vs: a Toyota?. Netscape was a big From: [email protected]@inetgw consumer version. When a new version is thing. I tried it for two years and the To: Microsoft ATR brought out, all previous versions would switched back to MSN. I use earthlink as my Date: 1/28/02 12:56pm revert to the public domain. browser and not MSN’s browser. This was a Subject: Microsoft Settlement One of the benefits of allowing a monopoly conscious decision and executed in a free I agree with it because it is for the best is the standardization that it can bring. With market. I did not fell forced to use MSN’s interest of the American people who use Microsoft having so many different versions browser. Did breaking up AT&T really help Microsoft products. of Windows the standardization is gone. This us? We don’t know where we are getting our Juanita L. Lizano is true both from an operator standpoint and long distance service most of the time. And CC:[email protected]@inetgw from a software standpoint as many programs rates for LD phone service?? You could write MTC–00028010 will only run on one version of Windows. another book about that. Why don’t you Finally let me detail two instances of fraud devote your efforts to clarifying the up and From: Richard Griest on Microsoft’s part. The first envolves the down fluctuations of the oil and gas market? To: Microsoft ATR removing of spelling check from the Internet That would be something the consumer Date: 1/28/02 12:59pm Explorer 5 browser with Outlook Express. would really be interested in. These state Subject: Microsoft Settlement When I downloaded I.E. 5 for free circa 4/ attorney generals are just looking for political The Honorable Colleen Kollar Kotelly 28/99 it came with Outlook Express 5 version headlines so they can be considered for state U.S. District Judge 5.00.2314.1300 for Windows 95. Under the governors jobs. What is the average consumer RE: U.S. DOJ /Microsoft Settlement tools menu the spelling check was a very really going to get out of a settlement Your Honor: useful feature for catching errors in you penalizing Microsoft? Look at the Ag’S track The remedy proposed by the Department of email. Recently I purchased a Dell Inspiron records. How many governors were Justice (DOJ) brings to mind the Oct. 22nd 3800 laptop that came with Windows 2000 previously AG’s? statement of the SEC chairman Harvey Pitt, and Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 which Please give us a break and end this ‘‘the SEC would henceforth be a kindler and has the spelling check feature disabled. Microsoft ‘‘witch hunt’’ now. gentler place for accountants. We all know In any other business this would be called James M. Houston what a disaster this attitude has resulted in, bait and switch. Just to call up and ask the [email protected] the Enron scandal. That DOJ would accept software support people at Dell about a CC:Diane Feinstein,Barbara Boxer the settlement it has, shows that either they Microsoft problem like this they want $29 for don’t understand the impact software has in each question asked. Microsoft refers you to MTC–00028008 a modern economy or they don’t understand the OEM you bought the computer from. From: v d the way that Microsoft exerts a negative Now that they have browser dominance To: Microsoft ATR influence as a monopolist. This settlement is Microsoft wants you to fork over $500 for Date: 1/28/02 12:55pm definitely not in the public interest. I use Office to get the spell checker you used to get Subject: Microsoft Settlement software everyday on my job, as a controls for free. And with a Justice Department that Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, I oppose the engineer, in factory automation. Over the ‘‘hears no evil’’, ‘‘sees no evil’’ and ‘‘speaks proposed resolution in the MS case, better past two decades I have seen the software get no evil’’ they get away with it. know as the Proposed Final Judgment. Over more complex by an order of magnitude, The second instance of fraud involves the and above the usual economic risks requiring faster and faster computers just removal of QBasic from Windows 200 0. If presented by an unchecked monopolist— break even, with little increase in a person goes to a car showroom and sees an rising prices and monochromatic innovation accomplishment. Increasingly you spend engine listed on the sticker, buys the car and the nations computer infrastructure will be more time getting your operating systems and then subsequently finds out it has no engine, increasingly vulnerable to attack if a single interfaces to work than you do actually he would have little trouble in sending that software system predominates. writing the ladder logic that controls the dealer to jail. Yet when Microsoft does the Obviously I am referring to Microsoft. motions and cycles of the factory equipment. same thing the DOJ just looks the other way. Suppose that 80 or 90percent of the Personally, I feel the disclosure The contents of the help file is the sofware world’s grain supply came from a single requirements required by Microsoft so that equivalent to an automobile window sticker.
VerDate 11
The help file for Windows 2000 clearly only in terms of computer technology, but all Please put a stop to the economically- shows that QBasic is included as part of the sorts of innovations in the most dynamic draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This product. industry the world has ever seen. has gone on long enough. When you inquire the Microsoft knowldge Please put a stop to this travesty of justice Microsoft has already agreed to hide its base as to why QBasic isn’t on your CD rom now. Thank you. Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the it suggests copying it from an NT CD rom. In Sincerely, fact is, this case against Microsoft is little as much as not all people with Windows Don Stevens more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other 2000 have legally purchased Windows NT, 5511 20th Street Lubbock, TX 79407–2005 Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel Microsoft is clearly guilty of conspiracy to get going to those supposedly harmed by people to violate the copyright act by making MTC–00028012 Microsoft: the computer user. This is just these suggestions. From: LJ Sweet another method for states to get free money, In as much as DOJ’s knowledge of To: Microsoft ATR and a terrible precedent for the future, not computers seems limited, let me elaborate on Date: 1/28/02 12:58pm only in terms of computer technology, but all the significance of leaving out QBasic. A Subject: Law suit sorts of innovations in the most dynamic computer operating system such as Windows Stop meddling in the competition between industry the world has ever seen. 2000 can do nothing towards solving competitors. This is not for the government Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you. problems, which is the reason most to decide this should be settled by the Sincerely, computers are purchased. Without QBasic or consumer let them use the soft wear that Carol Morrell some other additional software your works the best and costs the least. Let AOL computer is a $3000 piece of junk. Deleting 1412 Glen Echo Drive and netscape make a better product. Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 QBasic is another example of Microsoft’s bait Stop whining. and switch. QBasic was part of Windows NT, Drop the law suits MTC–00028015 and it says right on the Windows 2000 boot up screen ‘‘based on Windows NT’’ Yet MTC–00028013 From: [email protected]@inetgw QBasic is gone. What Microsoft is doing here To: Microsoft ATR From: E G Date: 1/28/02 12:56pm is described in the Wall Street Journal article To: Microsoft ATR ‘‘Technology Grows Up’’ by Walter S. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 12:59pm Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division Mossberg 10/25/01 pg B1 ‘‘On the software Subject: Microsoft Settlement side a similar consolidation and drying up of 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, innovation and competition has taken place Washington, DC 20530–0001 I object to the so-called Proposed Final ....There are two main reasons for the demise Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: Judgment in the Microsoft case. of boxed software. First, Microsoft has Please put a stop to the economically- As every one knows, Microsoft continues become a brutal monopolist in the key draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This to violate anti-trust laws set in place many software categories squeezaing out has gone on long enough. years ago. The Proposed Final Judgment goes competitors.’’ (pardon the spelling mistakes, Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the Microsoft took my spell checker away) So against all logic. Previously the US Court, has fact is, this case against Microsoft is little now you have to purchase Microsoft’s Visual found Microsoft guilty of breaking the anti- more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other C boxed software if you want to write some trust laws. However, under the proposed Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel code to solve even the simplest of problems, final settlement, MS is permitted to retain going to those supposedly harmed by like you can on a programable calculator. most of its profits gained through their illegal Microsoft: the computer user. This is just Let me close by saying that it took activities. Subsequently, the PFJ will not another method for states to get free money, extraordinary effort to locate the address to compensate parties injured by the Microsoft and a terrible precedent for the future, not send these comments to even though I have debacle. only in terms of computer technology, but all been looking for months. I contacted Sun, Moving forward, the PFJ does not take into account all Microsoft gains made through its sorts of innovations in the most dynamic several attorney generals offices, and my industry the world has ever seen. local newspaper’s office. I find it significant illegal maneuverings. The final settlement basically acknowledges the acceptance of Please put a stop to this travesty of justice that neither www.pcmag.com now now. Thank you. Sincerely, Carol Morrell www.pcworld.com felt comfortable posting Microsofts anti-competitive behavior. What kind of message does this send out to the 1412 Glen Echo Drive Huntingdon Valley, PA the address on their web sites. 19006 This kind of fear only a monopolist public? Do you think the public will be in commands. Something needs to be done. favor of such a move? MTC–00028016 I can assure you that the message is clear Sincerely, From: Joseph Lin and simple. The Proposed Final Judgment Richard M. Griest To: Microsoft ATR encourages big corporations to engage in Nashville, TN Date: 1/28/02 1:00pm monopolistic and predatory conduct, which CC:[email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement in turn is detrimental to the technology MTC–00028011 Judge Kollar-Kotally, industry at large. With all due respect your I feel the Microsoft settlement before you From: [email protected]@inetgw honor, I am outraged at such a preposterous has serious flaws, and I urge you to reject it. To: Microsoft ATR proposal that only helps Microsoft to remain Every court has agreed that Microsoft has Date: 1/28/02 12:56pm intact and continue with its unethical used its monopoly powers to reap unjust Subject: Microsoft Settlement practices. I submit to you my objection to this profits, yet the company is now being Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division Proposed Final Judgment. allowed to retain those. 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Respectfully, Furthermore, there is no provision to Washington, DC 20530–0001 Gigi Ortiz ensure that their anti-competitive won’t Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: Please put a stop 601 Kilpatrick Street continue. to the economically-draining witch-hunt Vallejo, CA 94589 Respectfully, against Microsoft. This has gone on long Joe Lin enough. Microsoft has already agreed to hide MTC–00028014 its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028017 the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little To: Microsoft ATR From: Adrian M. Fitzpatrick more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Date: 1/28/02 12:56pm To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:01pm going to those supposedly harmed by Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft: the computer user. This is just 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 I urge you to accept the Microsoft another method for states to get free money, Washington, DC 20530–0001 Settlement as it now is in the best interest of and a terrible precedent for the future, not Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: the public to do so. I think to drag this out
VerDate 11
longer will just cost more in litigation fees CC:’Tom Jones’,’Kevin Gregory’,’Home’’ Online, and even better for Compaq. It was which will ultimately be paid for by the worth HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MTC–00028020 consumer. Thank You DOLLARS IN INCREMENTAL PROFIT to our From: Don Parry business unit. The deal, in a nutshell, MTC–00028018 To: Microsoft ATR involved Compaq heavily promoting the AOL From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:02pm service, in exchance for AOL giving Compaq To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement a large revenue share. Date: 1/28/02 12:58pm To whom it may concern, my wife Carolyn Microsoft heard about this forming Subject: Microsoft Settlement and I wholeheartedly support the Microsoft relationship. They contacted us and asked Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division settlement as presently constituted. Thank that we work with them instead of AOL, to 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 You, promote their new online service code- Washington, DC 20530–0001 Donald S. Parry named Marvel (now known as MSN, the Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: Carolyn S. Parry Microsoft Network). We responded the we Please put a stop to the economically- 1178 Wood Duck Hollow would be happy to work with them, but we draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This Jacksonville, Fl., 32259–2932 would expect them to pay us in a similar has gone on long enough. Microsoft has 904–287–7720 fashion to how AOL was to pay us. already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer [email protected] Their response? I’ll paraphrase: We are icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case MTC–00028021 Microsoft. We own the customer, not you, against Microsoft is little more than Compaq. You Compaq have three choices: ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft From: N B 1) Do the deal with Microsoft. We will pay competitors, with not a nickel going to those To: Microsoft ATR you NOTHING, but we’ll have a closer supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the Date: 1/28/02 1:03pm relationship, with various intangible benefits computer user. This is just another method Subject: Microsoft Settlement (wink wink lower price on the OS, etc.) for states to get free money, and a terrible Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, 2) Cancel the deal and do it with nobody. precedent for the future, not only in terms of I am object to the final settlement in the We Microsoft are OK with that. MS court case. Not only does this go against computer technology, but all sorts of 3) Do the deal with AOL. WARNING: IF the findings by the U.S. Court of Appeals but, innovations in the most dynamic industry YOU PURSUE THIS OPTION, WE WILL PUT in facts allows MS to go unpunished for past the world has ever seen. YOU OUT OF BUSINESS. wrong doings. Please put a stop to this travesty of justice Our team at Compaq reviewed the The Proposed Final Judgment allows MS to now. Thank you. situation, and concluded that Microsoft must continue its predatory practices. My main Sincerely, be bluffing. They couldn’t do it, because it argument entails the preservation of healthy Dr.Philip Sekar would be such a blatant violation of anti-trust competition. The way to accomplish such a Box 29729 laws. task is by promoting diversity with in the Thornton, CO 80229–0729 We decided to proceed with the deal. business sector. For a single entity, such as Shortly afterward, Microsoft sent us a letter MTC–00028019 MS, to control 80 to 90 percent of the market for PC operating systems, e-mail readers, and telling us that we were in violation of their From: Brian Gregory (EWU) office productivity software (which Windows Licence agreement, and we could To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ undoubtedly can spread viruses) is clearly a no longer sell PCs with Windows installed. Date: 1/28/02 1:01pm significant risk to security. To then allow that THEY WERE PUTTING US OUT OF Subject: Microsoft settlement monopoly to actively attempt to drive out its BUSINESS!!! I am an electrical engineer working at a remaining competition would hardly be in Needless to say, we ended up having to telecom research division in Boulder, CO. I the public interest. redo the deal with AOL, dramatically am in favor of ruling as strongly as possible Therefore, I submit to you that the watering it down and making it effectively —against— Microsoft in the current case. The Proposed Final Judgment will not solve the into a nothing deal: no real benefit to AOL, only step I’d not advocate is breaking the Microsoft issue. no real benefit to Compaq. company up. I find Microsoft’s behavior in ALL THE BEST, If this kind of behavior is not a flagrant the matters being investigated if not illegal— Bernie Bonefacio abuse of monopoly power, I don’t know what which I’m not qualified to judge— 951 2nd Ave is. reprehensible, immoral and absolutely un- San Mateo, CA 94401 I would be glad to discuss this further with American. They’re every bit as manipulative anyone from the DOJ. and predatory while hiding behind a panoply MTC–00028022 Please contact me at your earliest of legalisms as the worst stories of turn-of- From: Rhodes, Vaughn convenience. the-century rail barons ever boasted. To: Microsoft ATR Thank you, Microsoft is clearly an abusive company and Date: 1/28/02 1:04pm Vaughn Rhodes near-monopoly. If Microsoft is not reined in, Subject: Microsoft Settlement Formerly Strategic Planning Manager (and it could continue to foster and force upon an Dear DOJ, Product Manger) at Compaq unsuspecting public, mediocre products that I am the former product manager at Computer in Houston, TX have not been properly subjected to the Compaq Computer Corporation who was 650–938–8587 (home) scrutiny and competition of open markets. responsible for the Compaq/AOL deal in 650–279–6221 (cell) The result will be a country ill prepared to 1995. I worked for Rod Schrock at the time, [email protected] (work email cope with the 21st-century information age; who worked for John Rose. You used several address) prone to computer virus infection and poor of my email messages in your case against [email protected] (home email address) software reliability. Microsoft. Name: Vaughn Rhodes. MTC–00028023 Punish Microsoft! Share with them some of I HIGHLY object to the proposed our pain, please. settlement with Microsoft. I’ll go a step From: Michael McLay Sincerely, further: I have a hard time believing that it To: Microsoft ATR Brian Gregory is even being proposed. It is a gross Date: 1/28/02 1:05pm Boulder, CO miscarriage of justice. I know because I was Subject: Microsoft Settlement 303.664.1085 at the heart of the project at Compaq that The comments on the Microsoft Settlement brian—[email protected] resulted in Microsoft sending a letter of by Dan Kegel [1] highlight many reasons for P.S.: Some history termination to Compaq. handing down a swift and harsh punishment In this case, the DoJ was accepting public Let me provide some background for you. for Microsoft. There should be no negociating input until Jan 28th on the DoJ vs Microsoft In 1995, I was placed in charge of defining this settlement. They are at the mercy of the case. The DoJ theoretically must weigh Compaq’s consumer online strategy. I court and should suffer the conseqences of public opinion before making their final proposed a relationship with America their actions. The following suggestion on the decision. Online, one which was great for America nature of the punishment has not been
VerDate 11
proposed in any discussions I have seen to Subject: Microsoft Settlement or hope that by running up a huge total fine date. A Better Settlement Proposal they might gain public sympathy and again I am concerned that the settlement talks Microsoft was found guilty of violating escape punishment. On the contrary, delay of with Microsoft have ignored the assignment antitrust law. Microsoft has never abided by payment should be met by freezing of their of a financial penalty. Antitrust law allows any previous findings or judgements beyond assets and forced collection. There can be no for treble damages so the court has ample the narrowest definition of the letter. During fear of enforcing the law—after all, there is power to punish violators. An effective the various legal proceedings, Microsoft nothing that Microsoft makes that is essential settlement must include a stiff financial continuously demonstrated its contempt for to the economy. To the contrary, the penalty that is proportionate to the profits the law and its process. The proposed economy has suffered long enough at the that Microsoft gained through their violations settlement is, more than anything else, a hands of Microsoft, and Microsoft needs to of the law. The abuse of monopoly power has license for Microsoft to continue and extend learn how to become a proper citizen. The resulted in many billions of dollars in its abusive behavior at the expense of the hard way, if necessary. windfall profits to the company. A fine of consumer and the industry. Accepting the Bart Locanthi $20–30 billion would send a message that settlement as is would be an outrage. There [email protected] Microsoft will understand. It isn’t excessive must be punishment for previous crimes. Beaverton, OR There must be compensation for the vast (it would be less than a year’s profits) and MTC–00028025 wouldn’t do excessive harm to the company’s quantity of parties injured by these crimes. financial health (they have the cash to pay There must be consequence for continued, From: Jay Chell the fine immediately). Anything less will be renewed, and new anti-competitive To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ a simple slap on the hands which they will behaviors. And, there must be a mechanism Date: 1/28/02 1:05pm ignore. to deter Microsoft from dragging out process, Subject: Microsoft Monopoly Settlement Awarding this money directly to those who as has been their habit and intent, to outlast I disagree with the current settlement plan. where damaged by the abuses of Microsoft is competitors, judges, and public attention. It will leave the fox in charge of the hen not practical. Not everyone registers the It is with these points in mind that I house. This settlement will cause the DOJ to purchase of the products involved and even suggest the following: visit this issue again when things once again if the fine were distributed the resulting 1) Require that Microsoft make public all get out of hand. award would only be a few dollars per file formats and APIs, past, present, and jay chell person. A straight distribution of the fine future, without charge, to anyone who asks. Manager, Delegated Financial Audits would have no lasting outcome. There can be no squirm room here, no hiding phone: 562–989–4455 The judgement could leverage the fine behind a supposed need for Microsoft to fax: 562–989–5192 against Microsoft to strengthen the safeguard internal secrets. Microsoft has e-mail: [email protected] punishment and benefit those who were always used file formats and APIs as MTC–00028026 harmed. This can be done by using the weapons to injure customers and From: Kenneth Olafson money to set up a foundation to fund open competitors, and any loss of business advantage from this requirement would be a To: Microsoft ATR source software projects. This would result in Date: 1/28/02 1:06pm minimal and fair compensation to the world a just solution that helps those who were Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit at large. damaged directly by Microsoft. Open source January 28, 2002 2) Implement a penalty schedule to force software is freely available to everyone, so Renata Hesse compliance of Item 1. For each file format or everyone benefits equally. Open source Trial Attorney API not already published, a clock would software is also the one potential Antitrust Division start at the first request for it, and a fine ‘‘competitor’’ that Microsoft still fears. A Department of Justice imposed for every week said item it not made $20B trust fund that assigns matching grants 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 publicly available. This fine would increase to those who are willing to work for the Washington, DC 20530 geometrically: a weekly fine would start at public good would benefit everyone equally Since the filing of the Microsoft lawsuit by and potentially help restore competition to $100,000 and be doubled and collected each the Clinton Administration Department of the software world. There are many open week. The total cost of delay for four weeks Justice, I have tracked the case. I believe it source organizations set up to help fund open would thus be $1,500,000, and for eight was wrong to file the lawsuit and I am source developers. Organizations such as the weeks it would be $25,500,000. The fines and relieved that it is finally over. We do have Free Software Foundation [2] and the Python penalty schedules for information requests the unfortunate situation with some renegade Software Foundations [3] would be able to would be independent—by dragging its feet, Attorney General’s around the country, make significant progress in projects that Microsoft could wind up paying several fines however. Please take the settlement and close otherwise only make progress through the at varying penalty levels at the same time. the case We need to move forward with our voluntary efforts of motivated and highly This geometric increase is essential, as it technology investments and with new ideas skilled software developers. Imagine the good addresses the important issue of time, which and technology. We need this case behind us. that would be had by funding 20 such Microsoft has always used as an ally. Any Sincerely, organizations with a $1B trust fund. This notion of these fines being ruinous is easily F. Kenneth Olafson remedy will do much to help restore the dispelled by two points: Utah Coalition for Accountable market balance, but it will not be sufficient 1) all fines can be avoided by immediately Government if Microsoft continues to control the complying with information requests, and definition of standards. 2) this is punishment, after all—Microsoft MTC–00028027 The punishment must also require has no business asking for mercy, having From: DJMaytag Microsoft to participate in the development always acted with brutality and bad faith in To: Microsoft ATR and use of open and well documented their dealings. Date: 1/28/02 l:13pm standards. The Kerberose abuse is evidence Information may not be witheld for reasons Subject: Microsoft Settlement of their intentions to subvert competition. of presentability. Or, rather, if Microsoft cares I have to take objection to this: The punishment must prevent them from to polish its presentation, or disentangle it ‘‘59. The primary channel through which further harming the market though the abuse from, say, strategic business information, Microsoft distributes its operating systems is of standards and secret interface definitions. there would be a known cost for delaying its preinstallation on new PCs by OEMs. [1] http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ publication. Again, there can be no excuse Because a PC can perform virtually no useful [2] http://www.fsf.org/ for non-compliance. Penalties must be tasks without an operating system, OEMs [3] http://www.python.org/psf/ exacted with the extreme prejudice justified consider it a commercial necessity to by judicial findings and Microsoft’s historical preinstall an operating system on nearly all MTC–00028024 refusal to comply with the law. of the PCs they sell. And because there is no From: Bart Locanthi It is important that fines be collected as viable competitive alternative to the To: Microsoft ATR they are incurred. There should be no Windows operating system for Intel-based Date: 1/28/02 1:06pm incentive for Microsoft to delay compliance, computers, OEMs consider it a commercial
VerDate 11
necessity to preinstall Windows on nearly all a result, there are few reference points for time, the Microsoft boot manager appears— of their PCs. Both OEMs and Microsoft thinking of life with more than one breed of but the BeOS is nowhere in sight. It seems recognize that OEMs have no commercially operating system and applications. the OEM interpreted Microsoft’s licensing viable substitute for Windows, and that they Microsoft made sure that an alternative OS provisions to mean that the boot manager cannot preinstall Windows on their PCs such as Be’s, Linux, or FreeBSD couldn’t be could not be modified to display non without a license from Microsoft. For loaded next to Windows by PC OEMs. As a -Microsoft systems. Furthermore, the icon for example:’’ result, people have no data other than the the BeOS launcher—a program that lets the Look at today’s PCs and try to buy a PC Microsoft experience. They’re told that some user shut down Windows and launch the from Dell, HP with both Windows and Linux of the remedies would make the Windows BeOS—doesn’t appear on the Windows factory installed. You can’t. You can get system riskier and that applications might desktop; again, the license agreement Linux in some places, mostly WinMe, but not not work as well. We have something that prohibits the display of ‘‘unapproved’’ icons. both. The reason is MS plays a clever game. works, the jack-booted thugs at the Justice To boot the ‘‘loaded’’ BeOS, the customer To use a boot loader, if you’re a Windows Department want to make it less than what must read the documentation, fish a floppy licensee, you must use the MS loader. Then, it is today, so why should I be in favor of from the box and finish the installation. if you read the MS Boot Manager license, you breaking up Microsoft? Setting aside the Clever. can only use it to load MS OSs, DOS, caricature, the point remains: Microsoft’s One suspects that Linux suffers from the WindowsXX, Windows 2000. Otherwise you monopoly practices are the very reason why same fealty to Microsoft’s licensing strictures. lose your Windows license. This explains we haven’t experienced what a truly Linux is the culmination of 30 years of why you cannot buy a dual boot Windows competitive situation might be like. This is development by the Unix community. Surely and a competing OS loaded at the factory. If why the poll is so revealing of a certain kind an OEM can’t complain about Linux’s quality and when the DOJ wins their case for good of science in manipulating the political or its price: It’s good, and it’s free. If and winning means Dell or Compaq can situation around the suit. Microsoft licensees are as free to choose as install competing OS at the factory, MS will A Crack in the Wall Microsoft claims they are, why isn’t Linux have to compete on merits. Today, they abuse By Jean-Louis Gass,e factory installed on *any* PC? If you their monopoly. See http://www.befaqs.com/ You’re the CEO of a PC OEM, delivering randomly purchase 1,000 PC clones, how mirror/classic-be/developers/bmessage/ some great news to Wall Street: ‘‘In an effort many have any OS other than Windows issue01.html for the full article: to offer greater variety and performance to loaded at the factory? Zero. But what about Manufacturing Consent the customer, our factory now installs three all these announcements from companies by Jean-Louis Gass,e operating systems on the hard disk— such as IBM, Dell, and others? A few URLs Perhaps I should call this column Windows, Linux, and the BeOS. The reaction are supplied here for your convenience: ‘‘Manufacturing Public Opinion,’’ rather than has been spectacular. Customers love having
VerDate 11
distribution we enjoy, we’ll get the attention be ‘‘fined’’ by Microsoft—that is, lose their delete the system(s) they didn’t want to keep, of third parties, and the marketplace will fix Windows rebate. If you pay the maximum this was the real thing, freedom of choice— these shortcomings. OEM price for Windows, or close to it, you without waste. The PC magazines loved the This puts statements by senior Microsoft won’t be afraid to load Linux or the BeOS on move, we reaped all the Best Of... awards and executive Paul Maritz in perspective. In your customers’’ hard drives, especially if generated good will and oodles of free reaction to my claim that Be wants to co-exist you don’t have to account to Wall Street for publicity. with Microsoft, Mr. Maritz said (as quoted by your actions. If, on the other hand, your Ah, another thing, the CEO continued. The Joseph Nocera in Fortune Magazine): exposure is measured in millions of dollars company lost $50 million dollars this quarter ‘‘[Gassee is] articulating his strategy for entry per quarter, and you are the CEO of a because Microsoft fined us for offering other into the operating system marketplace. But publicly traded company, you’ll load operating systems. Their contract with us on the other hand, I know that Be has built Windows and nothing but Windows on the gives them the right to increase the price we a full-featured operating system, so what I PCs you sell. More precisely, you might load effectively pay for Windows if we offer other believe he’s doing here is outlining his Linux as the OS engine on hardware other operating systems. Microsoft even invoked an strategy about how he will initially co-exist than PC servers. In any event, this represents obscure—and confidential—clause in their with Windows and, over time, attract more only a preliminary look at the returns—it’s licensing agreement and grumbled that we applications to his platform.’’ too early to draw definite conclusions. had no right to use their boot manager, or any Mr. Nocera interpreted Mr. Maritz’s Now, let’s turn to the customer in the title DOS code, to load other operating systems. interpretation thus: ‘‘In other words, Gassee’s of this column. We hear that the Windows It’s OK for the customer to install a boot spiel is little more than a trick intended to monopoly is good for customers—it’s a manager him/herself, but you, the PC OEM lull Microsoft. But Microsoft isn’t so easily standard, there’s no confusion, users can rely shouldn’t. As a result, they claim we fooled! Microsoft will never ignore a on a trusted foundation for their work, and shouldn’t offer the of out-of-the-box potential threat to its Windows fortress, no so on. But how can this be if there are so experience I mentioned earlier. Some matter how slight. The software giant may be many obstacles placed in the way of a customer assembly is required. At this stage, in the middle of an antitrust trial, but—as customer’s even seeing that (s)he has some the CEO has lost his audience—and his job. Andy Grove says—only the paranoid (limited) choices? I’ll take one example of As I said at the beginning, this is a survive...’’ what I mean by choices. One overseas OEM concoction. But testimony is sometimes [The entire article, part of a court house announced with great fanfare that it would tastier than what amateur columnists can diary, can be found at
VerDate 11
http://www.djmaytag.com/303/ <- The TB- monopoly powers to harm the public). The ultimately imposes will be well-considered 303 re-release page PFJ’s terms are simply too generous to the and carefully crafted. I cannot know what the Fortune cookie: Time is nature’s way of Defendant and provide few rehabilitative exact terms of Your Honor’s ultimate remedy making sure that everything doesn’t happen provisions and little if any punishment. will be, but I do know one thing: The PFJ at once. Right now, being the de facto monopoly in comes nowhere near constituting an adequate desktop operating systems, Microsoft simply remedy for Microsoft’s sustained and MTC–00028028 has no competition. The same could be said egregious monopolistic conduct in the case at From: Patterson of Microsoft’s network operating system (at hand. To: Microsoft ATR least for the Intel platform). Similarly, For the above reasons, as well as those Date: 1/28/02 1:08pm Microsoft is the de facto monopoly in voiced by others, I respectfully implore Your Subject: Microsoft Settlement desktop application software suites (i.e., its Honor NOT to approve the PFJ in the U.S. VIA E-MAIL Office suite comprised of word processor, vs. Microsoft Corp. case. The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly spreadsheet, presentations, database, Respectfully yours, United States District Court for the District of personal information manager, etc., in Bob Patterson Washington, DC various combinations and price levels). The c/o United States Department of Justice situation will only get worse and Microsoft’s MTC–00028029 Washington, DC monopoly become even greater if the powers From: James VanAlstine Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly: that be allow Microsoft to implement its .Net To: Microsoft ATR For the following reasons, I feel compelled and web services strategies. And that is what Date: 1/28/02 1:08pm to add my voice to those arguing AGAINST the PFJ allows: Microsoft will make some Subject: Kill Microsoft Your Honor approving of the Proposed Final minor— mainly cosmetic concessions—to its Throughout its existence, Microsoft has Judgment (the ‘‘PFJ’’) entered into by the desktop operating system, but the PFJ leaves been stealing and bastardizing the best ideas United States of America and several of the Microsoft’s monopolistic business practices of true information technology innovators. It States as plaintiffs and the Microsoft Corp. as virtually untouched. With all due respect, repeatedly, and still, uses its size and defendant (the ‘‘Defendant’’ or ‘‘Microsoft’’) Your Honor should also review and take into aggressive nature to suppress competition in the antitrust case known as U.S. vs. consideration the Defendant’s past conduct ans stifle real innovation. Microsoft Corp. Judge Thomas Penfield when the U.S. entered into a settlement with Only an aggressive break-up, heavy fines, Jackson found Microsoft guilty of being a it and tried to rehabilitate positively its and constant future watch-dogging of this monopoly and of abusing its monopoly business practices: Microsoft flouted the monster monopoly will allow the best and powers, among other things, and he ordered spirit (if not the actual provisions) of brightest of technology innovators to thrive that Microsoft be broken up into a number of previous formal or informal settlements with and keep the US at the top of the world’s separate companies, as well as other the U.S. and never really changed its high-tech economy. remedies. On appeal, the U.S. Court of wrongful business practices. Out of Shamefully, the Bush-era Justice Appeals for the DC Circuit, in a 7–0 decision, Microsoft’s failures to rehabilitate its Department has lost what little spine the overturned several of Judge Jackson’s rulings business practices arose the current antitrust Clinton era Justice Department had and is and vacated his proposed remedies, but the litigation. Looking at the situation from now offering Microsoft a sugar coated Court of Appeals let one of Judge Jackson’s another angle, Microsoft had its opportunity settlement. core rulings stand: Microsoft possesses to ‘‘go straight’’ and consciously did not. (For It’s a shame we will one day all be sorry monopoly power and unlawfully used that some reason, analogies to the criminal side for. power to protect its monopoly. Both of jurisprudence keep coming unbidden to Microsoft’s request to the Court of Appeals mind.) The Defendant was on probation, if MTC–00028030 for a rehearing and its petition to the United you will, and then proceeded to openly From: Tom Laming States Supreme Court for certiorari have been violate probation. To add insult to injury, the To: Microsoft ATR denied, so nothing changes the fact that Defendant as probationer is unrepentant Date: 1/28/02 1:07pm Microsoft is a monopoly and used its about its continued wrongful behavior and Subject: Microsoft Settlement monopoly power unlawfully. Now the violation of probation. Has the Defendant Please see the attached letter. question arises: What are the proper remedies slowed its openly-stated monopolistic Thank you, in the case in question? The quick answer is strategies? No! Microsoft rushed to market Tom Laming that the proper remedies are NOT those set it’s newest desktop operating system, P.O. Box 918 forth in the PFJ. Notwithstanding The Windows XP, and is rushing to market its Shawnee Mission, KS 66201–0918 Honorable Attorney General’s pre- software that implements its .Net strategy. In January 15, 2002 nomination pledge not to go ‘‘too easy’’ on so doing, the Defendant apparently hopes Attorney General John Ashcroft Microsoft, the U.S. (and some of the States) that it can ‘‘beat the system’’ by relying upon US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania and the Defendant have entered into a and cynically utilizing the slow pace of our Avenue, NW ‘‘sweetheart deal’’ by entering into the PFJ. great system of justice. Washington, DC 20530–0001 Numerous financial analysts and computer Now is not the time to go easy on the Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: industry experts agree that, under the terms Defendant, Your Honor. This is NOT a case I am writing to voice my support for of the PFJ, the Defendant would conduct of a first offender, Your Honor, where some settling the Microsoft case. Like many ‘‘business as usual’’ should Your Honor leniency may be in order. Just as I am people, I feel that the matter has run its approve the PFJ. Too often, we forget the confident that Your Honor would NOT go course, and should be resolved as quickly as purpose of remedies. Sure, there should be a easy on an unrepetenant repeat criminal possible at this point. While I understand rehabilitative component— i.e., the remedies offender, Your Honor should NOT go easy on why people working in the information to be applied should mandate or at least the Defendant. In truth, however, the only technology sector want different programs encourage the wrong-doer to reform its competition Microsoft has is its own internal and operating systems to choose from, wrongful ways. But that fails to see the forest divisions. The network operating systems average consumers like myself are more for the trees. There should also be a punitive division vs. the desktop operating system interested in products that integrate component—i.e., the remedies applied division vs. the application suite division vs. seamlessly. Continued legal action against should also mete out a punishment for the the network operating system support Microsoft inhibits their ability to develop injurious conduct that the wrong-doer software, etc., etc. A break-up of Microsoft is products that integrate simply enough for engaged in, if only BECAUSE there was, in a perfect remedy in that regard. A break-up consumers to use without hassle. fact, wrongful conduct and concomitant of Microsoft along product lines provides an Please settle the antitrust case against harm. appropriate remedy with both rehabilitative Microsoft as soon as possible. As a consumer, In the situation before Your Honor, there AND punitive components. I am sure that I support their products and would them to is no doubt that Microsoft, the defendant, is Your Honor is considering all possible be able to focus on developing their business in the wrong (it is a monopoly) and has options in fashioning an appropriate remedy. again. engaged in wrongful conduct (it used its I am also sure that any remedy Your Honor Sincerely,
VerDate 11
Tom Laming develop duplicate solutions for many future, not only in terms of computer competing platforms. This reduced software technology, but all sorts of innovations in the MTC–00028031 cost and allows us provide additional most dynamic industry the world has ever From: Steven White features which are a great benefit to our seen. To: Microsoft ATR customers. I urge you to end this debacle immediately Date: 1/28/02 1:09pm I am outraged at the unjust prosecution of Mike Kasson Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft. The complaint against Microsoft CC:[email protected]@inetgw I was just reviewing a few things for any originated not with individual consumers, or MTC–00028034 final comments I could make on the final with Microsoft’s partners, but with comment day, and I came across the point Microsoft’s unsuccessful competitors. Failed From: Donald C. Glegg that the proposed settlement does not restrict businesses must not be allowed to set the To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft’s ability to modify, alter, or refuse rules for the markets in which they failed. Date: 1/28/02 1:11pm to support computer industry standards. Microsoft is being punished, not because it Subject: Microsoft I would like to add one thing to that. did something evil, but because it was too I use the microsoft programs all the time You may have heard of the ‘‘Halloween good, too successful, produced too much and they are made so us older guys can Document’’ where a Microsoft staff person value for its customers. This is a disgraceful understand and use them. outlines ways to squash the open source inversion of the principal of justice. A Please don’t keep picking on them. I for movement (LINUX). One way suggested was successful business and its products are no one am for them 100%!!!!!! to use standards slightly altered to threat to anyone. Thanks!!!! Microsoft’s advantage, which would, because The government is punishing Microsoft for Donald C. Glegg of Microsoft’s monopoly position, make them producing better products at cheaper prices 406 N. Coffman Street the de-facto standards. (Bill Gates wrote once than its competitors. Instead of being Park Hills, Mo 63601 persecuted for this, they should be in a Microsoft annual report that ‘‘the way to MTC–00028035 make money is to set de-facto standards.’’) congratulated, thanked, and honored. The This would drive the open source software only people who do not like this are From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR out of existence because, for all practical Microsoft’s envious unsuccessful competitors, who are not able to produce Date: 1/28/02 1:10pm purposes, competing software must work products as good and as useful as Microsoft. Subject: Microsoft Settlement with Windows based software. This action against Microsoft is impeding Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division Now whenever the question of competition progress in the high tech industry. Instead of 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 comes up, Microsoft likes to point to LINUX focusing on producing the best products for Washington, DC 20530–0001 and say that they have competition. But the the cheapest prices for consumers, Microsoft Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: proposed settlement makes it legal for them must use their resources to defend Please put a stop to the economically- to do just what they have outlined as a themselves and avoid destruction at the draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This method for getting rid of one of their hands of our own government. In addition, has gone on long enough. Microsoft has competitors. Does that make sense? software developers must waste effort already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer Remember that a lot of people are forced developing duplicate solutions because of the icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case to use Windows. The common reply to this uncertainty associated with this unjust action against Microsoft is little more than is that ‘‘no one is holding a gun to their against Microsoft. Will the government, at a ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft heads.’’ Of course not, but the effect is the whim, decide that Microsoft does not have a competitors, with not a nickel going to those same. Almost everyone buying a computer is right to exist? Will the government arbitrarily supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the going to want or need Windows because of decide to stop Microsoft from adding features computer user. This is just another method the need to interact with other computers to its products, or discontinue products for states to get free money, and a terrible that use Windows. Thus no computer maker certain products? Unknown. precedent for the future, not only in terms of can be in business without selling Windows. It is disgraceful that at a time when computer technology, but all sorts of If standards are twisted so that Windows terrorists are trying to destroy our country innovations in the most dynamic industry and a competing program are mutually from the outside that our own government is the world has ever seen. exclusive choices, the choice will have to be attempting to destroy our country from the Please put a stop to this travesty of justice Windows. That is unfair and anti- inside but attacking and persecuting one of now. Thank you. competitive. our greatest and most productive companies. Sincerely, We must look to the future. The computer Microsoft has a fundamental right to exist Kathlyn Messina industry should be based on an underlying and control its own property. Our 6870 Manasota Key Road foundation of public standards. government’s job is to protect these rights, Englewood, FL 34223 Thank you. not to take them away! Steven White Tony Biz MTC–00028036 City of Bloomington 6130 Buena Vista Avenue From: Chris Brown 2215 W Old Shakopee Rd Oakland, CA 94618 To: Microsoft ATR Bloomington MN 55431–3096 CC:Tony Date: 1/28/02 1:14pm USA Subject: Microsoft Settlement 952–563–4882 (voice) MTC–00028033 19414 46th Avenue Northeast 952–563–4672 (fax) From: Husker Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 [email protected] To: Microsoft ATR January 25, 2002 Date: 1/28/02 1:08pm Attorney General John Ashcroft MTC–00028032 Subject: Microsoft Settlement. US Department of Justice From: Tony Biz DOJ, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR The Microsoft witch-hunt has gone on long Washington, DC 20530–0001 Date: 1/28/02 1:11pm enough. This is nothing more than a scam in Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Subject: Microsoft Settlement which states hope to obtain money without I am writing to encourage the Department To whom it may concern, officially raising taxes. Microsoft has already of Justice to accept the Microsoft antitrust I am an independent software developer. I agreed to hide its IEx icon from the desktop settlement. This case has been stretched out develop software products based on the The case against Microsoft is just ?welfare? over three years; it needs to be settled. Now Microsoft platform. Microsoft’s operating for Netscape and other Microsoft that there is a settlement available and the systems, web browser, and other products competitors, with not a nickel going to those terms are fair, I think that the government have become defacto standards in the supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the needs to accept it. computer industry. This allows us to target computer user All of the major issues in the suit have our products to one platform and reach a This is just another method for states to get been dealt with. Microsoft has agreed to give broad customer base, instead of having to free money, and a terrible precedent for the computer makers the flexibility to install and
VerDate 11
promote any software that they see fit. and will agree to end this case soon. I believe Respectfully, Microsoft has also agreed to release part of that revisiting the case is continuing to have Connie Deal the Windows intellectual property to its a negative effect on our economy and slowing 19691 N. 66th Ave. competitors in order for them to develop its recovery. For the benefit of Wisconsin and Glendale, AZ 85308 software that is more compatible as well. To the country as a whole, I ask you to leave the 623–572–2622 settle the suit, Microsoft has agreed to a long settlement be and go on with the business of MTC–00028041 list of concessions. This list is fair and the country. should be accepted. Sincerely, From: Tejas Naik Microsoft, the industry, and the William Stone To: Microsoft ATR government all need to move on. Please cc: Representative Mark Green Date: 1/28/02 1:13pm Subject: Comments accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. MTC–00028039 Sincerely I believe Microsoft should be broken up. Jesse C. Brown From: Thomas Canfield This will spur a wave of innovation in IT To: Microsoft ATR industry and offer consumers choice. It’s in MTC–00028037 Date: 1/28/02 1:16pm the interest of consumers/developers. While, From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: 718 Saco Court there may be a proposal of settling a case To: Microsoft ATR 718 Saco Court without breaking up Microsoft, I’m highly Date: 1/28/02 1:10pm Saint Augustine, FL 32086 skeptical that Microsoft which gave such a Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 24, 2002 hard time to DOJ will execute the settlement Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division Attorney General John Ashcroft right. The only way to be assured is to 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 US Department of Justice breakup. Washington, DC 20530–0001 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thanks Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: Washington, DC 20530 Tejas Please put a stop to the economically- Dear Mr. Ashcroft: MTC–00028042 draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This The IT industry and the economy have has gone on long enough. Microsoft has been affected enough by the suit brought From: Tony Christopher against Microsoft by the Department of already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer To: Microsoft ATR Justice. The litigations have wasted time and icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case Date: 1/28/02 1:17pm tax dollars and it is time this matter is against Microsoft is little more than Subject: Microsoft Settlement resolved. I am of the opinion that Microsoft ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft To DOJ reviewers; has done more than they should have in the competitors, with not a nickel going to those I believe that the settlement the US first place with regards to the settlement. supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the government has made with Microsoft is a Microsoft has in part, been responsible for computer user. This is just another method travesty that will allow MS to continue with the stabilization of the economy in the 90’s for states to get free money, and a terrible its self benefiting, conquer-all strategies and and I feel that they should be allowed to precedent for the future, not only in terms of tactics. And, over the near future, continue with their business. uncontrolled, Microsoft will create more computer technology, but all sorts of Microsoft has agreed to conditions that will injustice that it has in the Internet Browser innovations in the most dynamic industry allow for more competition in the IT industry situation. The data for my argument comes the world has ever seen. that will in turn benefit the economy and the from looking at the emerging area of Please put a stop to this travesty of justice consumer. In order to do this Microsoft will standards for personal identity on the now. Thank you. give competitors the ability to make software Internet. Sincerely, that is compatible with Windows, and they I work in the area of virtual community Kathlyn Messina will not retaliate against them. Also, they technologies and services—see bio link 6870 Manasota Key Road will be monitored by a three person technical below. I believe that collaboration/ Englewood, FL 34223 committee that will make sure Microsoft connections among people, worldwide, is MTC–00028038 adheres to the terms of the settlement and it will also help settle disputes. Clearly one of the most powerful, forthcoming From: William Stone Microsoft has done more than what they benefits of computer-communications To: Microsoft ATR should have to settle this and so should the technologies. I have researched and learned Date: 1/28/02 1:14pm Department of Justice. a good deal about the importance of Subject: Microsoft Antitrust case settlement The country’s economy and its citizens ‘‘identity’’ on the net. Microsoft’s Passport Please see attached letter. will benefit from ending this whole mess. system, distributed through their pervasive William w. Stone Microsoft should be allowed to return to Windows OS, could become a major mal- 82 River Drive business as usual. Thank-you. influence in the emergence of holistic Appleton, WI 54915 Sincerely, identity services. Here is the data: January 28, 2002 Thomas Canfield Gartner Group has recently completed a Attorney General John Ashcroft study of 2100 users of online/web services; US Department of Justice MTC–00028040 the study focuses on consumer web identity 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW From: [email protected]@inetgw and privacy issues— http:// Washington, DC 20530 To: Microsoft ATR techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/ Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Date: 1/28/02 1:15pm main/0,14179,2830912,00.html Summary: I am writing as a retired American who is Subject: Microsoft Settlement ‘‘Despite consumers’’ apathy and distrust, in support of Microsoft. I feel the settlement Your Honor, identity services will succeed because they reached between Microsoft and the I’m writing to voice my objections to the will be embedded into Windows XP and the Department of Justice was fair and proposed settlement in the United States vs. Internet services that consumers will use. reasonable. There is no reason to drag it out Microsoft case. Microsoft has profited greatly Accordingly, Gartner predicts that 40 million further. from its anti-trust violations, and this online U.S. consumers automatically I believe the terms of the Microsoft settlement would allow the company to keep enrolled in identity services will use them to antitrust settlement of November 2nd were all of those ill-gotten benefits. Furthermore, access an average of three Web sites each reasonable and weft thought out. They the settlement doesn’t prevent Microsoft from month by the end of 2003. ‘‘ require significant changes in how Microsoft wielding its monopoly power again in the This data substantiates that consumers will develops and markets its product. Certainly, future. The proposed settlement only serves lose in the future (versus the econometric other computer makers will now find it to expand Microsoft’s monopoly by allowing models likely used in the trial to show how easier to work with other software them to increase their presence in perhaps consumers have been harmed in the past) if companies’’ software that directly competes the only market segment they don’t already Microsoft maintains as one business both the with Microsoft’s Windows system. I’m sure dominate—the education market. I ask you to operating system and the application you have looked at this matter thoroughly reject the proposed final judgment. software & Services businesses. One of the
VerDate 11
conclusions that can be drawn from Gartner’s all Internet transactions through its .NET put our economy back on track; allowing one study/data is that Microsoft’s monopoly will initiative and the accompanying C# of our major companies to get back to work result in consumers putting up with the weak programming language that is designed to kill is one way to do this. I urge you to give your privacy-control that will result with Java, JREE, and other non-Microsoft Web support to this measure. Passport—whereas the data shows that interaction tools. Sincerely, consumers want strong privacy-control. If If it is the DoJ’s intent to help Microsoft kill Robert L. Butler off all competitors; to in effect become the Microsoft were to be two companies where MTC–00028046 the web services were split out from the sole controller of all Internet standards, then WindowsOS business more competitive the current proposed settlement should be From: richard sonnier dynamics could prevail in the coming allowed to stand. If the DoJ wants to foster To: Microsoft ATR generation of net services i.e., Passport would computer industry competition and Date: 1/28/02 1:13pm have to compete with the Java innovation, the proposed settlement will be Subject: [Fwd: Microsoft kills Real World/ authentication/identity offerings—consumers withdrawn, and Microsoft will be penalized Great Plains Classic] would have more choice and more privacy- harshly enough for its past lawbreaking that Reaf World Classic is a ‘‘COBOL’’ control alternatives would likely be available. its management will not be tempted to break accounting running on many platforms Unix/ I want to go on record as being strongly the law in the future. As a U.S. citizen who Ibm Aix / Dos and many others (i.e. any os against the weak terms of the antitrust is employed in the IT industry, I would which has Mico Focus Cobol). settlement with Microsoft. They will cause rather see competition than have one Great Plains Bought Real World. more injustice and harm in the future than company control our entire computing Micro soft bought Great Plains in 2001. they have in the past if we do not take the infrastructure. I think you will find that my Microsoft scrapping Classic accounting current judgment against them to mete out opinion is shared by almost all people in this package. business who do not work directly or remedies that will protect the Internet Microsoft only option to 20,000 customers indirectly for Microsoft. It is sad that the industrial and consumer participants from is you must at extrem expense convert to United States Department of Justice is not the force of this conquering gorilla. windows based packages? protecting citizens’’ interests, but has A.J. Christopher Richard L. Sonnier Jr. decided to ‘‘lay down’’ for a major corporate Gulf Central Systems These views reflect my own personal campaign contributor. Apparently the SEC 800 Mire Street beliefs and do not represent those of my did pretty much the same thing for Enron, Houma, La. 70364 employer. though. 985–851–6674 Anthony J. Christopher I wish I knew a way to root out this 800–367–3094 (WORK) Community Practice Manager corruption, but it’s hard when both the [email protected] Mongoose Technologies, Inc. people who make the laws and the people www.MongooseTech.com who enforce them are for sale to the highest MTC–00028047 Bio: www.MongooseTech.com/ bidder. Poor America. I fear for our future. From: [email protected]@inetgw RealCommunities/Tony.html Robin Miller To: Microsoft ATR E-mail: 206 52nd Ave. W. Date: 1/28/02 1:19pm [email protected] Bradenton FL 34207 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Phone-Voice Mail: 650–224–4567 phone 941–704–0779 Dear Atty Gen. Ashcroft: CC:Tony Christopher My wife and I are extremely pleased that MTC–00028045 MTC–00028043 the settlement agreement which has been From: Robert L. Butler reached between Microsoft and the US From: Donna Rogers To: Microsoft ATR Justice Department. It is my understanding To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 1:16pm that the agreement is currently undergoing a Date: 1/28/02 1:15pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement sixty day period in which the public is Subject: Microsoft Settlement Robert L. Butler encouraged to provide input on the matter. Judge Kollar-Kotally, 99 Woodland Avenue Let me say that we fully support this I urge you to reject the proposed final Summit, NJ 07901–2001 settlement because it is good for the country, judgment in the U.S. vs. Microsoft case. January 28, 2002 the economy and technological innovation. Every court has found that Microsoft violated Attorney General John Ashcroft Microsoft has accomplished so much and antitrust laws, making billions of dollars in US Department of Justice has contributed greatly to the success of this the process. This proposed settlement would 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW great country of ours. allow the company to keep virtually all of Washington, DC 20530–0001 Please STOP the litigation, enough is those illegal profits! There is also no BY E-MAIL enough. Our legal system is running rampant provision that would prevent Microsoft from Dear Mr. Ashcroft: and is destroying our Free Enterprise System continuing its anti-competitive behavior. In I am writing to give my support to the which has made our country great. fact, the monopoly is validated and furthered agreement reached between Microsoft and My wife and I plead with you to stop the under the PFJ through the dissemination of the Department of Justice. I did not support litigation and settle the matter. Microsoft software to our schools. And the initial lawsuit. This suit was brought Thank you for your consideration, Microsoft cannot be allowed to essentially more out of political and professional enmity Frank & Francesca Nuovo police itself. than any supposed damage to the consumer, 730 Woodcrest Lane Please vote against the PFJ in the interest the necessary basis for antitrust action. Bill Monterey, Ca 93940 of the public. Gates produced a better product, the Sincerely, standardization of computer software. MTC–00028049 Donna Rogers Granted, Microsoft was aggressive, and at From: Bernard Rogers 3522 Pine Ridge Way times heavy- handed. To: Microsoft ATR San Jose, CA 95127 Microsoft has been chastened though. Both Date: 1/28/02 1:20pm 408.729.7468 parties agreed to a settlement that is, for the Subject: Microsoft Settlement CC:[email protected]@inetgw most part, fair. Microsoft has agreed to open Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally, the company up more to third party I’m a concerned citizen requesting that you MTC–00028044 innovation, has agreed to a uniform price list, reject the proposed final judgment in the From: Robin (Roblimo) Miller has agreed to a technical oversight Microsoft antitrust case. The public would To: Microsoft ATR committee, and has agreed to interface not be served by the slap on the wrist, as Date: 1/28/02 1:14pm disclosure. Microsoft is obviously trying to Microsoft would lack any deterrent from Subject: Microsoft Settlement meet the demands of the Department of repeating its offenses. A problem just starting to rear its head in Justice. The proposed final judgment also fails to regards to Microsoft’s desktop monopoly is It is time to move forward. We have more address the issue of bolting software to its the company’s curent attempt to extend it to important things to worry about. We need to operating system that first led to this suit. It
VerDate 11
will thus be free to repeat the antitrust grant computer makers broad new rights to as well, Microsoft’s actions over the last few violations that have earned it billions of configure Windows so as to promote non- years are very distressing. dollars a year. Microsoft software programs that compete I have read the Proposed Final Judgement, Respectfully, with with programs included within and I want to say this: the Proposed Final Mr. Bernard Rogers Windows. In my opinion, no more federal Judgement will allow many exclusionary 3522 Pine Ridge Way litigation against Microsoft is acceptaable practices to persist. So, I don’t support this San Jose, CA 95127 beyond this agreement. judgement. (unfortunately, due to time (408) 729–7468 Sincerely, constraints, I cannont enumerate all of the CC:[email protected]@inetgw William R. Park ways in which this judgement is flawed—if you are looking for more specific complaints, MTC–00028050 MTC–00028052 please refer to: http://www.kegel.com/ From: Bill (038) Carol Roberts From: Catherine Brett remedy/remedy2.html To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR I consider the summary of the problems Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm with the Proposed Final Judgement on this Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement web-site to be excellent. ) Thank you for considering the attached Please let the present settlement Please work to fix this judgement. If you letter. stand.There has been more than enough leave any loopholes in this judgement, there W. S. Roberts, Jr. debate on the subject. is much precedent to show that Microsoft *will* exploit these loopholes to maintain its 2113 Primrose Lane MTC–00028053 Martinsville NJ 08836–2220 illegal monololy. Home: 732–469–0824 From: Christine Rogers Regards, Fax: 732–469–0639 To: Microsoft ATR Kevin D. Clark Cell: 732–245–8049 Date: 1/28/02 1:26pm kevin—d—[email protected] Subject: Microsoft Settlement E-mail: [email protected] MTC–00028055 January 28, 2002 Your Honor, Microsoft must be forced to play by the Attorney General John Ashcroft From: [email protected]@inetgw same rules as everyone else, and the US Department of Justice To: Microsoft ATR proposed final judgment before your court 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm fails to accomplish that. I ask you to reject Washington, DC 20530–0001 Subject: Microsoft Settlement it. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Let Microsoft do what they do best and let For years, strong-arm tactics on Microsoft’s I am writing because I am in support of s quit spending tax payer dollars to beat the part have cut down promising high tech ending the antitrust lawsuit against subject over the head. Microsoft may have companies and hurt innovation here in Microsoft. Microsoft’s ability to operate created a monopoly but was there anyone Silicon Valley. The courts have ruled against under normal conditions remains smart enough to come up with the better Microsoft—now let’s bring about a solution product. compromised as long as the litigation that actually causes them to cease their anti- continues, and settling the case according to competitive activities! MTC–00028056 the terms agreed upon in November would be I am also concerned that Microsoft’s From: [email protected]@inetgw the quickest and fairest way to move on. monopoly would only be broadened by the To: Microsoft ATR The settlement is a reasonable conclusion giving of its software to schools. It costs the Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm to the case and will foster market growth for company virtually nothing to do so, yet the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft’s competitors, while still assuring harm to competitors like Apple is enormous. Mocrosoft is largely responsible for the the security of Windows. Easing restrictions Please vote against the PFJ. greatest technology advance the world has on computer makers who license Windows Christine Rogers ever seen. MS produces good products at will ultimately enable those companies to 3522 Pine Ridge Way ever-lower prices. Competitions is alive and offer a broader selection of programs from San Jose, CA 95127 well in the industry—others need to just competing developers. Given that, it seems as 408.729.7468 make their contribution and let the market though the Department of Justice’s goal CC:[email protected]@inetgw buy it or not. The Department of Justice would be achieved. (under President Clinton) and the various I am urging you to settle what has already MTC–00028054 states Attorneys General are after money and been too long a case. The public and From: Kevin Clark power—let them show what they can Microsoft are ready to put the matter behind To: Microsoft ATR produce. So far I havn t seen what they them, and the government should be as well. Date: 1/28/02 1:26pm contribute. They have not protected the Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft Settlement public at all rather they inhibit industry William S. Roberts, Jr. From: Kevin D. Clark advancement. And of course they want 2113 Primrose Lane 191 Mitchell Road millions. (Is there any other thought for these Martinsville, NJ 08836 Nottingham, N.H. 03290 guys?) Let them earn it in an honest way: To: Renata B. Hesse MTC–00028051 hard work and imagination. End the suit Antitrust Division immediately by taking the least intrusive From: [email protected]@inetgw U.S. Department of Justice road out. Microsoft should grow or fail by To: Microsoft ATR 601 D Street NW how it treats the American consumer and not Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm Suite 1200 by dictates by government employees. In fact Subject: Microsoft Settlement Washington, DC 20530–0001 the failed government employees should be 8 Ramblewood Drive Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment forced to relinquish their own pay for all the Longview, TX 75605 on the proposed Microsoft settlement. harm they ve done to innovation and to the January 28, 2002 I am a professional software engineer, with American public. Attorney General John Ashcroft 10+ years of experience in industry. During US Department of Justice these 10+ years, I have seen Microsoft grow MTC–00028057 Wahington, DC 20530–0001 to dominate the computer software market. From: [email protected]@inetgw Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Microsoft has achieved this dominance To: Microsoft ATR Thanks for the effort and direction that you through anti-competitive practices, and I Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm and your departments are taking. My family have seen many novel and innovative Subject: Microsoft Settlement and I approve of the leadership and wisdom technologies crushed by Microsoft, all in the Microsoft has done more to stimulate the that the Bush administration is taking. name of furthering Microsoft’s iron grip over economy has provided more jobs and It is my understanding that Microsoft and the software market. As someone who is both contributed more to education than any other the government have settled an antitrust passionate about working in this field, and as company or individual anywhere. To say lawsuit in which Microsoft has agreed to someone who tries to innovate in this field nothing of what they have done for
VerDate 11
technology. This country was built on Subject: Microsoft Settlement Stop persecuting innovative firm competition and he epitomizes competition. Microsoft has been has helped the US & MTC–00028067 other countries to emerge into world leading MTC–00028058 companies. Netscape & CEO James Barksdale From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw was bundling features years ago & was upset To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR with Microsoft turning the tables on them Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm Date: 1/28/02 1:17pm when Mr. Barksdale conceded engaging in in Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement simular practices & stating He didn t recall. I believe the ruling was fair and serves the With the current state of the economy we Soon after Netscape merged with another best interest of both Microsoft and the need Microsoft concentrating on business company. Who was calling the kettle black? government. without the distractions of this suit which During the 1940 s U.S. Steel went through MTC–00028068 should have been settled long ago. similar litigation & settled with- out killing the company as Judge T.P. Jackson was trying From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028059 to do to Microsoft. Who incidentally was not To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw qualified to make this decision. I believe this Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm To: Microsoft ATR company has suffered and paid more than Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:17pm their share through unreasonable and I am very satisfied with the settlement and Subject: Microsoft Settlement excessive charges. The US has encouraged find no use in any continuing litigation. I feel The lack of credibility of the Attorneys innovation competition & development of that the litigation could have been handled General opposing the Governments technologies. This built our country and in a much better way and that it was settlement is strictly a play for publicity and made us strong to prevent any Bleeding motivated by special interests. In any case grubbing for money and should not be Hearts to damage and hurt us such as the Ben litigation should end. thank you. Susan Bates permitted to proceed farther. I believe the Laden’s. If anyone was wielding a club in MTC–00028069 Government s acceptance of the existing these negotations it was Apple not Microsoft. settlement is imperative. Thank you for Will AOL be next? What about the merger From: N M listening. R. H. Ewald between AOL and Time Warner? This To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 1:26pm MTC–00028060 changed the competition land-scape in one of the most competitive industry in the world. Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw I think it is time to reflect and close the Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, To: Microsoft ATR litigation against Microsoft before the I hereby submit my objection to the Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm Bleeding Hearts close one of our leading Proposed Final Judgement agreed upon Subject: Microsoft Settlement companies in our nation. between the Department of Justice and please settle with mr. gates perposal so we Microsoft. I understand that there are several the tax payer are not burdened any further MTC–00028063 underlying errors attributed to the Proposed Final Judgment. MTC–00028061 From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR One noticeable flaw encompasses an inept From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm enforcement device implementing To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement restrictions. The settlement in other words Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm The settlement (proposed)is still canted closely monitors and screens all of Microsofts Subject: Microsoft Settlement toward the government. I believe that the business activities. This close scrutiny I am writing to urge you to support the millions of $$ spent on this investigation far insures MS complies with all restrictions proposed Microsoft settlement and end this surpasses the $$ value to the consumer. What entailed in the agreement. controversy’s tenure in the federal arena. The Microsoft did/is doing is just plain good A three man compliance team will oversee United States Government has in past business sense and I don t think they should and insure that Microsoft comply with the administrations provided its citizens with be codemned for that. stated rules and regulations. Yet, this three- ample evidence of what results when Thanks!! man oversight committee will be composed overzealous and uninformed public of the following: one appointee from the representatives take regulation of successful MTC–00028064 Justice Department, one appointee from private industry to extremes in the mistaken From: t—[email protected]@inetgw Microsoft, and another appointee chosen by belief that action against private industry will To: Microsoft ATR the two existing members. In turn, Microsoft always end in providing a public benefit. Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm will control half of the oversight team. Past government actions against AT&T have Subject: Microsoft Settlement In the likelihood of any enforcement broken a national treasure Bell Telephone It is time to end this law suit. The people proceedings, all findings by the oversight Laboratories and increased prices while did not suffer from Microsoft integrating the committee will not be allowed into court. decreasing efficiency and customer service in browser or in essence offering it free. In fact The sole purpose of the committee is to the process. . Microsoft must still contend the only suffering on the part of the people inform the Justice Department of all with several states lawsuits but I believe it s was the amount of tax payer money spent by infractions by Microsoft. In addition the time and best for all parties to get beyond this the government on the case. The settlement Justice Depart will launch its own ridiculous activity and allow everyone to that is there now is in the best interest of the investigation into the matter and commence return to the business at hand. The American people and the technology litigation to halt all infractions. When all is settlement will compel Microsoft to open its industry. said and done, the oversight committee is systems to competitors software and use. A just window dressing, who will not strictly committee has been provided in the MTC–00028065 oversee Microsofts business moves? settlement to monitor Microsoft s future From: [email protected]@inetgw In my opinion, the Proposed Final business practices to assure compliance with To: Microsoft ATR Judgment does not provide appropriate the settlement s terms. I believe that for the Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm restrictions against Microsoft. What sake of our national economy and the Subject: Microsoft Settlement reassurance do we have against Microsofts continued success of this vital industry this I think the settlement reached with illegal and illicit activities? I can assure you matter should be settled. As a citizen I feel Microsoft on Nov. 3rd should be agreed to that the Proposed Final Judgment does not my technological future will be enhanced by and bring this lengthy antitrust case to an effectively nor sufficiently address the innovations which work and that is what end. question. In conclusion, I submit your honor Microsoft is all about. my objection to the Proposed Final Judgment MTC–00028066 in the Microsoft case. MTC–00028062 From: [email protected]@inetgw Sincerely, From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR Adorabell Bonefacio To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm 951 2nd Ave Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement San Mateo, CA 94401
VerDate 11
MTC–00028070 Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm I think it was pure BS to go after Microsoft From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement and spend all of the taxpayer s money for To: Microsoft ATR Let freedom win out here and get this what amounted to a political witch hunt. Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm fiasco over with. Why don t you people look into the health insurance companies who are not willing to Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028075 I am amazed by the statements that provide coverage for people who need it. But Microsoft (MS) has cost the consumer since From: [email protected]@inetgw they are glad to take the premiums! To: Microsoft ATR I am convinced that I have saved at least 60% MTC–00028082 over what I would have paid without the Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm their operating system. I remember the days Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw that the people around me made fun of MS I feel that the proposed settlement between To: Microsoft ATR the Justice Department and Microsoft is fair. Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm due to the fact that the included OS support I see no reason to drag this settlement out any Subject: Microsoft Settlement was so rudimentary. MS has designed better longer. The settlement should be agreed to. The built-in support over the years and now the litigation has taken enough time and money. same people say it is too good and is driving MTC–00028076 Now it is time to go after the gas and Oil other people out of business. (Browsers have From: [email protected]@inetgw companies. been in all operating systems for decades!!) To: Microsoft ATR True competitors are having a hard time Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm MTC–00028083 coming up with something better to sell. This Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw is hard on them but does not increase the A bunch of jealous idiots trying to destroy To: Microsoft ATR cost to the consumer. If they have a better Microsoft will do wonders for China India Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm gidget I have the choice of using the built- etc. I m not from the US and you fools are Subject: Microsoft Settlement in capability or buying theirs. A really good going to really regret losing control of this It is time to put this case to bed. It is the choice. I can go on and on but I will only say industry. You can t attack the foundation to job of the courts to protect the consumer not one more thing. Given a specific function it 25% of your economy without noticing an competators. From the start this case has is always cheaper to have one designer impact downturn layoffs recession mean been all about vicious compititors fighting selling to 10 million vs 10 designers selling anything to you. with each other and then attempting to get to 1 million apiece. Since it takes the same the Federal and State courts to settle the fight number of people to design the function and MTC–00028077 for them. The consumer never was harmed each is sold to 1/10th the number of From: [email protected]@inetgw by Micorosoft s actions but rather was aided consumers the cost to the consumer is 10x To: Microsoft ATR by having interconnected working program the one designer scenario. We have the battle Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm with the operating program making the total of lower cost to the consumer vs more jobs Subject: Microsoft Settlement computer operation more user friendly. If for designers!! I strongly support the agreement reached you want to take a shot at a company that Sincerely with Microsoft. Let s roll em! has harmed and taken advantage of the Roger Bagwell HW/SW Engineer consumer go after AOL Just change the MTC–00028078 MTC–00028071 payment method. I do not think that From: leigh—[email protected]@inetgw Microsoft should be allowed to give From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR equipment and Micorosoft software to the To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm schools because this would give Microsoft an Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement advantage over Apple. If they have done Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft is a wonderful example of wrong make them buy Apples computers and NetScape should spend less time American enterprise and achievement. They Apple compatable software. You might also complaining and a lot more time designing deserve the thanks of all Americans who care give the schools the right to chose Apple or a program that will make them competitive about our economy and global IBM compatable and make Mirosoft pay for in the market. There has been enough tax- competitiveness. It makes no sense to try to it. If the court has been unable to prove a payers Dollars wasted on this already and the take away through the legal system what monopoly that has harmed the consumer Court has handed down a JUST ruling so lets Microsoft has assembled through their own than the case should be thrown out and AOL get on with the more important things—- hard work. Oracle and the rest of the cry babys should Like Enron for instance. Please leave them alone and maybe thank have to pay the court costs. As a taxpayer I Sincerely Robert J Reist them for doing such a good job! do not think that it is my responsiblity to pay it. MTC–00028072 MTC–00028079 From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028084 To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR From: sandford moser Date: 1/28/02 1:17pm Date: 1/28/02 1:17pm To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:27pm the witch hunt has gone far enough. let THE FEDS LET US DOWN MICROSOFT Subject: Microsoft Settlement microsoft serve the public and its NEEDS TO BE SEVERELY RESTRICTED IN Dear Ms. Hesse: shareholders and get out of its way. THE FUTURE AND PUNISHED FOR I would like to go on record as saying that PREVIOUS ANTI-COMPETETIVE ACTIONS the Microsoft settlement should be accepted MTC–00028073 right away. I feel that delaying it, only makes From: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028080 everything more costly to the public. Court To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw costs increase. The cost to Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm To: Microsoft ATR increases. It becomes a lose, lose situation Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm rather than a win, win situation. Consumer choices not government Subject: Microsoft Settlement Thank you for the opportunity to respond. management of innovation are the best There has been enough court cases. It s Sincerely yours, marketplace regulators. New regulations and time to settle. This settlement sounds just Sanford Moser unnecessary lawsuits against technology fine. Don t keep beating a dead horse.. 21700 Greenfield Rd. companies will stifle innovation and result in Suite 271 MTC–00028081 consumers paying higher prices. Oak Park, MI 48237 From: [email protected]@inetgw 248–968–4700 MTC–00028074 To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm MTC–00028085 To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw
VerDate 11
To: Microsoft ATR mony. Netcape & AOL can be downloaded on Chris Waterson Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm any computer free. 437 Hoffman Ave. Subject: Microsoft Settlement please settle San Francisco, CA 94114 with mr. gates perposal MTC–00028092 415–642–3522 so we the tax payer are not burdened any From: [email protected]@ CC:[email protected]@inetgw further inetgw To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028094 MTC–00028086 Date: 1/28/02 1:27pm From: Robert A. Gerhardt, RFC From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR The ‘‘case’’ against Microsoft was, is and Date: 1/28/02 1:28pm Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm shall forever be a sham. The ‘‘problem’’ is Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement that Gates and Microsoft got lucky and their Attorney General John Ashcroft I clearly want the court to accept the competitors didn’t. MS was in the right place US Dept. of Justice settlement. It s fair and the litigation has gone at the right time and did the right things... 950 Pennsylvania Boulevard NW on to long. the bozo’s who are suing them didn’t luck Washington DC 20530 MTC–00028087 out. Let the market decide if Microsoft is a January 28, 2002 company that the public wants to do Dear Mr. Ashcroft, From: [email protected]@inetgw business with. Microsoft does not ‘‘own’’ the I am writing as an investor and as one who To: Microsoft ATR market any more than it owns the souls of helps other people invest in the American Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm it’s dustomers. People choose Microsoft capitalistic system. I note the country has Subject: Microsoft Settlement products becasue, despite MS’s faults, the had extraordinary difficulties financing the When free enterprise and beaurocratic elements collide history reveals that the products are what it’s customers want and high tech companies who are our hope in forces and energies of free enterprise and need and are reasonably priced. improving productivity. This all started industry offers the only viable alternative for Let the government do what it does best— about the time that the competitors to progress. The Microsoft senario is a nothing!! Microsoft goaded the government into storybook example of industrial leadership Dimitri Emelianoff starting a federal lawsuit. The investing leading the way to beneficial development CC:[email protected]@ public worried that the leading innovator in for enterprises both large and small in the inetgw computer generated productivity improvements was going to be attacked and scope of macroeconomics. HOORAY FOR MTC–00028093 THE SETTLEMENT!! wounded by the government, why wouldn’t From: Chris Waterson the same happen to others in the industry? MTC–00028088 To: Microsoft ATR This was a major contributor to the failing From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:28pm confidence by the investing public. To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement I have read about a reasonable settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, that has been negotiated between Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement I work for Netscape Communications and the government. I understand that it is Give it up quit beating a dead horse.Too Corportation, on the Netscape browser under public review at this time. Let me add much money has been spent already. product. And I am tired of reading my voice to the millions of shareholders that Microsoft will just pass the cost to the uninformed columns in newspapers and depend on the American capitalistic system purchaser to defend thier position of free answering uninformed questions from to continue to improve productivity, profits interprise. friends about ‘how Microsoft won the and expand. I believe that the government browser war ‘‘fair and square’’’. Let’s not has had its opportunity to make its point. MTC–00028089 forget that this is not about the situation —as Microsoft has made good faith adjustments in From: [email protected]@inetgw it is today—, it’s about —what Microsoft did its operations and has agreed to share To: Microsoft ATR that was against the rule of law—. Microsoft ‘‘secrets’’ with their competitors, something Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm has repeatedly flouted the law of the land, the competitors had sought from the outset. Subject: Microsoft Settlement and for this, they deserve to be punished. It is time to lift this cloud of intimidation WHERE WOULD WE BE WITH OUT The settlement fails to terminate the from the technology community and allow MICROSOFT. I CAN OTHER THINGS A LOT Microsoft monopoly, which they have proven our economy to expand once again. I would WORSE THAN MICROSOFT. MY VOTE FOR time and again to use aggressively and hope that the tragedy of Sept. 11th would BILL GATES illegally to expand into other markets. What help all of us including the government MTC–00028090 guarantee do we have that Microsoft will not refocus on our nation’s priorities. It is time continue to ‘‘bolt’’ new products on to their to move ahead with improving our people’s From: [email protected]@inetgw operating system in the name of To: Microsoft ATR living conditions and maintaining our ‘‘innovation’’, crushing other fledgeling Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm economic leadership of the world. businesses along the way? How will future Subject: Microsoft Settlement Most Sincerely, innovators protect themselves from I believe that the Federal Government and Robert A. Gerhardt Microsoft’s entry into a market? all other State governments should now leave RG/tes Under this settlement, Microsoft will be Microsoft alone. The court has made it s MTC–00028095 decision and now we should move on to only marginally penalized for its illegal more important things. Just because the behavior. Microsoft —broke the law——every From: Dirk Valcke competition is jealous that they did not court that has reviewed this case has To: Microsoft ATR invent the same things as those working for agreed—but yet it will be allowed to retain Date: 1/28/02 1:28pm Microsoft is no reason that they should have the profit from its plunder! Subject: Microsoft Settlement any right to capitalize on the hard work of I realize that my viewpoint in this matter Dear Sir or Madam: another. I say move on there are more is far from objective, but I hope that you’ll As a consultant in the computer industry important problems to plague this country. realize that the fate of consumers, I come in contact with many people in many Deal with them. entrepreneurs, companies, and even different organizations. industries rest in your hands right now. These organizations range from first class MTC–00028091 Microsoft has proven time and again that Financial Institutions to small enterprises From: das474—[email protected]@inetgw they have no regard for the law. They are a with only a few employees. For all these To: Microsoft ATR threat to innovation in an industry that has organizations and especially for the Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm powered the economy for the last ten years, thousands, even millions of small and mid- Subject: Microsoft Settlement and is likely to be a significant economic sized companies Microsoft* provided an easy Leave well enough alone. this is only going force for the next fifty years. to use, cheap, out-of-the-box usable to cost people that use computers more Yours, computing environment.
VerDate 11
As you probably know and experienced inetgw I THINK THAT THEIR SHOULD BE NO yourself, even a child can install and use the To: Microsoft ATR MORE LITIGATION IN THE MICROSOFT Windows* and Office* platforms. To find a Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm CASE. THE STATES SHOULD APPROVE platform that is as easy to use and that keeps Subject: Microsoft Settlement THE SETTLEMENT. the whole computing experience affordable This attack on Microsoft was the cause of MTC–00028105 we can only look at Apple*. The giants in the our current tech recession. If Microsoft industry, especially SUN, could take some competitors cannot not do better then From: [email protected]@inetgw lessons in user-friendliness, ease of use and Netscape and think Java is the key to the To: Microsoft ATR low-cost from both Apple* and Microsoft*. future they deserve to lose in the Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm The initiative of the Linux* group seems to marketplace. Subject: Microsoft Settlement go in the right direction, but the product is I endorse the settlement between Microsoft not yet at the level we are used to (user MTC–00028100 and US Government. I am hoping for a Final interface, ease of use, support). From: [email protected]@inetgw Judgment. When I consider the enormous number of To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028106 companies and people, who earn their living Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm by building on an ever-evaluating platform, From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR persons that study these new versions and I am not speaking on behalf of Purdue implement ever more complex and at the Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm University. However as the IT manager for Subject: Microsoft Settlement same time ever easier to use software, I am the Purdue University School of Education I amazed. When I try to imagine the number Please consider ending the legal activity have found Microsoft to be a friend of against Microsoft. Microsoft has offered a of people that use these inexpensive, easy Education. Microsoft has been a friend to obtainable systems, at work, at school and very large settlement which should be Education for many years even while other approved in the interest of allowing home, I am amazed. When trying to imagine companies which have a reputation for being even the very Internet that allowed me to technology to advance. Microsoft was never education friendly have taken advantage of a monopoly (as is my garbage service & city send you this message, without the low- Education over-priced their products and sewer/garbage service). It is unfortunate that priced, easy to use computers, I wonder if it given Education little or nothing. Unlike the Clinton Administration Justice would have been possible!! other companies that have been hostile Department originally started this The inexpensive computers and software towards education and ignorant of our needs unsupportable suit. Thank you for listening. are a result of volume. The volume is the Microsoft has delivered quality products for result of popularity. Popularity is the result MTC–00028107 cheap and in many cases for FREE! This of content and happy users! I hope you long-term commitment demonstrates to me From: [email protected]@inetgw advice and ruling will allow current and To: Microsoft ATR future enterprises to work on even more that Microsoft cares for students and educators. The fact that the vast majority of Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm mind blowing and fantastic applications and Subject: Microsoft Settlement systems. That it will allow the customers/ our students *prefer* Microsoft products to other products and operating systems This settlement is very fair. the only people users to benefit from ever more features and that seem to be complaining are microsofts’ possibilities. demonstrates this. I urge you to allow the settlement and resolution of the Microsoft competitors and people that think operating With kind regards, systems should be free and not be considered Dirk Valcke—Director. case. Please allow what I consider to be one of our countrys’ National Treasures the intellectual property. This company is one of Advanced Computer Technologies the great success stories of the 20th century. Valcke bvba ? Kortrijk Office freedom to continue supporting and inspiring the work of Education. don’t punish them further for this success. Min. A. De Clercklaan, 35 nobody that I know complains about 8500 Kortrijk ? Belgium Thank you and best wishes. —Robert Evans microsoft. they like their products and find Valcke bvba ? Brussels Office them easy to use. stop wasting all this money Marktstraat, 46 BUS 8 MTC–00028101 on this court case. it’s ridiculous. 1210 Brussels ? Belgium From: NATHAN S MORRIS MTC–00028108 MTC–00028096 To: Microsoft ATR From: holly—[email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:30pm From: arlen- To: Microsoft ATR [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm To: Microsoft ATR ——major penalties,no breakup—— Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm NATHAN While I disagreed with the government s Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028102 antitrust case in the first place I am pleased Microsoft should not have been charged in with the settlement insofar as it brings the the first place. Our leaders tend to encourage From: ben—[email protected]@inetgw case to a close. less than the best from people. To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm MTC–00028109 MTC–00028097 Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw Microsoft is the engine of our economy To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR train. Leave them along and let them pull all Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm of us forward. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028103 This entire Microsoft case has done more Please leave Microsoft alone. Together we harm than good. Not only has it wasted time can fight political corruption in this country. From: [email protected]@inetgw and money but it has also been run at the Thank you a proud citizen To: Microsoft ATR expense of pursuing various attacks by the Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm Al-Qaeda organization. MTC–00028098 Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw I donot feel that Microsoft should be MTC–00028110 To: Microsoft ATR allowed to proceed with its products From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm uninhibited by government or less successful To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement competitors Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm Please settle the suit and then leave Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028104 Microsoft alone to offer new technology to Windows XP came installed when I the world markets. From: [email protected]@inetgw purchased my new computer. I’m very To: Microsoft ATR disappointed with this highly praised MTC–00028099 Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm Operating system. I can’t run my printer as From: [email protected]@ Subject: Microsoft Settlement I did with Windows 95 and it can’t be fixed.
VerDate 11
Microsoft should be made to remedy my The settlement protects the public while MTC–00028117 situation. ensuring competition and innovation. The From: [email protected]@inetgw key features include an onsite committee to MTC–00028111 To: Microsoft ATR ensure Microsoft s compliance the ability for Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm From: will consumers to delete Microsoft programs from Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR their operating systems the ability for Quick and fast settlement is beneficial to Date: 1/28/02 1:33pm computer manufacturers to add programs to Subject: in regards to the microsoft anti-trust the economy as a whole. The current PC s with Windows and forcing Microsoft to settlement has already posed good restriction case disclose the technical information necessary I used to be a consultant on Microsoft on Microsoft on anti-trust related issues. to competitors so their software will run products right up until about 4 years ago smoothly on Windows. MTC–00028118 when I switched from consulting on systems integration and started doing development Sincerely From: [email protected]@inetgw work on a variety of other platforms. I’ve Eric W. Spak To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm known a lot of the folks at Microsoft over the MTC–00028113 years and been a part of various Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement initiatives. As the years have passed, I’ve From: [email protected]@inetgw The governments’ actions are threatening become increasingly concerned with the To: Microsoft ATR the safety liberty and prosperity of the United level of quality of Microsoft products and the Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm States and its citizens. Subject: Microsoft Settlement direct effects they have on our world. Not MTC–00028119 just consumers, or businesses, or I think this is a fair and just settlement. governments, or the Internet, but Don t think any changes should be made From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR —everything—. The reason they have this MTC–00028114 affect on —everything— is because they Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm outsell other operating system providers in a From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement variety of business spaces. This ability they To: Microsoft ATR Accept the Settlement The proposed have comes less from radical product Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm settlement already helps the rivals of superiority, but mostly from their absolutely Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft by placing significant restrictions amazing business and marketing skills. I I believe the settlement as it stands now on Microsoft. Hopefully no more time or think these business and marketing moves between the government and Microsoft is fair money will be spent on unnecessary that Microsoft has made have become and just. I believe the government has been objections by a few state governments that increasingly Machiovellian—the ends exemplary in it s conduct during the are holding out. absolutely justifies the means in the Microsoft case. The nine remaining states MTC–00028120 Microsoft juggernaut’s mind (sorry for the should end their suits in this case and join From: [email protected]@inetgw personification here). Reading through the the Federal government in ending this long To: Microsoft ATR findings and my experiences in the Microsoft running case. Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm world and my friends’’ lives, I believed as the They are only wasting the tax payers Subject: Microsoft Settlement courts did that Microsoft is guilty of abusing money. For AOL to bring it s suit against In today’s highly competitive environment their monopoly. Microsoft on behalf of Netscape is pure folly Reading through the settlement most of Microsoft’s practices should not be on AOL s part. The case has pretty much judged within a legal framework but rather recommendation, I’m appalled. I think it been decided on. They are only try to delay does nothing to curb Microsoft’s business should be seen as aggressive marketing it. For what purpose? Who knows. In my practices. Such extreme cases confuse people and marketing juggernaut which clearly lacks personal opinion I don t believe Microsoft moral sense. I think it actually furthers and rather than spending time effort and ever did anything wrong. But since it has resources to find ways to become more Microsoft’s monopoly in the future without already been ruled against that s OK. We instilling any moral and ethical guidelines. competitive the rely upon a legal system to should move on from there. I am absolutely against this settlement and get them out of the hook. In my opinion the End this case now before it does more I think it’s ridiculous that it’s even being end result of such extreme legal actions is harm than good. considered by anyone. It’s not an issues of that the consumer does not enjoy the best Thank you for listening. good vs. evil, it’s an issue of fixing the future possible products at the best possible price so that consumers aren’t continually hurt by MTC–00028115 that come out of competition in so many the continual immoral practices of a other markets. From: [email protected]@inetgw behemoth company. To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028121 Thank you for your time, Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm /will From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement whatever it is, you can find it at http:// To: Microsoft ATR www.bluesock.org/willg/ except Will—you This case has gone on long enough and Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm can only see him in real life. needs to be settled to get the economy going. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Nine states settled and the nine states Microsoft where would we be with out MTC–00028112 holding out should settle also. Netscape is a you? You are the brain behind todays From: [email protected]@inetgw sore loser because people like Internet technologies and we are for you To: Microsoft ATR Explorer better. That’s competition on which MTC–00028122 Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm this country thrives. I have both in my Subject: Microsoft Settlement computer but like Internet Explorer better. From: [email protected]@inetgw I strongly support the settlement reached AOL also has no business bringing a new suit To: Microsoft ATR between Microsoft and the Federal against Microsoft. It should be thrown out. I Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm Government. The few state attorneys general don’t like AOL either. If anyone tries to Subject: Microsoft Settlement who have not signed on appear to be more monopolize the internet it s AOL. I wish that I had the time to write a interested in the political benefits of response that would reflect my complete MTC–00028116 opposing big business than in the public disgust on the attack of Microsoft by our welfare. Government must not penalize From: [email protected]@inetgw government’s abusive use of power and businesses merely because they are To: Microsoft ATR influence. Simply I want this government’s successful or large. Innovation should not be Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm action against Microsoft only for the benefit discouraged by reducing competitiveness. Subject: Microsoft Settlement of Microsoft’s unsuccessful competitors to Competition is essential to developing the Have you people ever read The Law by come to an end. technology that our country s economy Frederic Bastiat? It is not the legitimate role We need to get on with the economy and depends on. of government to manipulate the free market. tremendous prosperity that we enjoyed
VerDate 11
before this government’s overzealous our ball to the house. Would software still be of technology that is critical to America bureaucrats and these cry baby spoiled brats as economical and work? I think not! maintaining its leadership role in computer from Sun Microystems Oracle and Netscape applications. MTC–00028126 helped take this country into recession. MTC–00028132 Accept the settlement and get on with life!!! From: [email protected]@inetgw How stupid! Take the most productive and To: Microsoft ATR From: Jim AA Wright successful company in the world and try to Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm To: Microsoft ATR destroy it! What a bunch of idiots!! I said this Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:31pm as nice as I could with this much anger!!! Please move forth on the Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement You should hear the way I really feel about settlement. This case has slowed down the I think it is time to settle this Microsoft it!! evolution of technology. thing and quit wasting Government money on it. I don’t think anyone knows how many MTC–00028123 MTC–00028127 businesses have been started to carry on and From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw supplement Microsoft. I think it is time they To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR were allowed to continue without the threat Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm of a law suit hanging over them. They have Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement caused no real harm to anyone, but there are Please put a stop to the economically In my opinion the suit against Microsoft those that would like to line there pockets at draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This should never have been filed by the DOJ to Microsofts expense. has gone on long enough. Microsoft has begin with. It is time to stop it and the Jim A Wright already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer settlement should be approved and the Court [email protected] icon from the desktop the fact is this case should force all states and persons to abide by it. Let’s stop allowing the incapable ones MTC–00028133 against Microsoft is little more than welfare to enter a field about which they are not From: [email protected]@ for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors sufficiently informed and capable by inetgw with not a nickel going to those supposedly screaming false accusations. End user To: Microsoft ATR harmed by Microsoft the computer user. I do consumers have been greatly harmed by the Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm not feel I have been harmed. This is just suit already and in fact will continue to be Subject: Microsoft Settlement another method for states to get free money harmed by the suit and the limitations and I believe it is in the best interest of America and a terrible precedent for the future not regulations imposed by the settlement. to accept the settlement and move on. The only in terms of computer technology but all However better that we at least stop further settlement despite it’s prejudice toward sorts of innovations in the most dynamic blood-letting and force the competitors to Microsoft will help our economy. I don’t industry the world has ever seen. Please put find their place in the market on the merit think the competitors have suffered from a stop to this travesty of justice now. of their products and not on the basis of Microsoft exclusion.I think they don’t have Thank you politics. the expertise to compete. If there was a MTC–00028124 system that was as user friendly as windows MTC–00028128 it would have been just as successful. At any From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw rate Microsoft is willing to share their To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR technology with competitors so accept it and Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm move forward. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely I fully support the current settlement and Keep the government out of Microsoft’s Gwen Fisk believe that further litigations against business! This is as stupid as saying Henry Owner of Full House Exterminators Microsoft should be stopped. It is obvious Ford had an unfair advantage in selling cars. that Microsoft’s competitors Oracle and Sun Microsoft built the better mouse trap and is MTC–00028134 System are doing everything they can to ruin being punished for it THIS IS UNAMERICAN From: [email protected]@inetgw the company. Our government should not be To: Microsoft ATR influenced by this. Enough already. A fair MTC–00028129 Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm settlement was achieved. Federal government From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement should discourage the remaining states from To: Microsoft ATR I believe this settlement is fair to everyone further litigation. Microsoft one of the most Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm and allows for continued technology growth. successful American companies should be Subject: Microsoft Settlement allowed to continue its efforts in innovation. Bogus charge the company has done more MTC–00028135 Our fragile economy needs this and for the consumer then could be expected of From: [email protected]@inetgw consumers are benefiting from innovation. any company To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm MTC–00028125 MTC–00028130 Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw let consumers determine the demand and To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR thus the supply for products. the govt should Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm have a hands off policy in the free market Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement place. It is time for the government to get out of I do not understand the whole problem or the free enterprise systems way! Microsoft lack of. I have had three different computers MTC–00028136 has made life easier for everyone. I could in the past five years and Netscape and From: [email protected]@inetgw have any program that I chose. Noone has Compuserve were all loaded in them I To: Microsoft ATR forced me to use Microsoft Products. I use presently use both Netscape and Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 1:31pm them because they work and are economical. Explorer. LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE if it Subject: microsoft settlement What’s wrong with that? Since when did was not for them we would not have the ease TO WHOM IT CONCERNS, making money become against the law? They of use that we enjoy today. IT SEEMS TO ME THERE ARE MORE give more to charity than the U.S. IMPORTANT THINGS TO BE DONE IN THIS Government. MTC–00028131 COUNTRY, BESIDES RIDE MICROSOFT Give me a break and do something worth From: tom—[email protected]@inetgw WITH EVERY WHIM OF THE PEOPLE WHO while. We have become a nation of wannabes To: Microsoft ATR WANT TO SUE. I THINK THERE SHOULD rather than a nation of doers. The justice Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm BE A SETTLEMENT AND GET ON WITH system needs to mind its own business and Subject: Microsoft Settlement WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THIS it has plenty to mind! What if Microsoft said Further action against Microsoft is COUNTRY. THERE ARE PLENTY OF enough. You can have it and we quit and take unwarranted and will stifle the development CROOKS OUT THERE TO GET IF THAT IS
VerDate 11
WHAT YOU WANT.I THINK YOU ARE MTC–00028142 so we can get on with technology BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE. GO FIND From: Michele Stouffer advancement. THE REAL CROOKS To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028145 SINCERELY Date: 1/28/02 1:31pm HOPE GUZZO Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Lee Liaw To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028137 I do not believe the settlement offered by the Bush administration and other states is in Date: 1/28/02 1:31pm From: [email protected]@inetgw the public interest. I believe more needs to Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR be done to curb Microsoft’s monopoly and Thank you for letting us ordinary citizens Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm invigorate competition and real innovation in comment on this lawsuit. I am confused by Subject: Microsoft Settlement the operating system and office product many of the charges that have been made in Please allow the ruling on Microsoft to software markets. this lawsuit. However, the one issue that stand. We need strong companies to flourish I am a technical training course developer seems to get a lot of attention, and affects the in our economy without undue government in Silicon Valley, and use Microsoft’s people, is the charge that Microsoft has hurt interference. Free enterprise is one of the products not because I believe that they are the end-user. As an ordinary citizen, I can basic principles of liberty and we need the superior, but because there is no real choice. categorically state that I have not been hurt jobs and technology companies like They have become an inferior defacto one bit by Microsoft. My family uses their Microsoft provide. standard. One would think that with all software products, along with a bunch of MTC–00028138 Microsoft’s resources and the number of other companies’’ software products, and I years their products have been around, that have not experienced any problems. In fact, From: [email protected]@inetgw the products would be robust and elegant. I feel that the other companies are benefiting To: Microsoft ATR But the fact is, a week doesn’t go by that because I am buying their products. That is Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm either Word or PowerPoint or even the what is confusing. I don’t see the ordinary Subject: Microsoft Settlement Windows operating system either freezes up citizen being hurt. In fact, I see them as This is a terrible miscarriage of justice. or totally crashes. Over ten years of using benefiting from all this technology. Microsoft should not be held to this ridicule. their products has added up to countless When I read the allegations, I am deeply They are the creature of this soft ware and hours of lost productivity. bothered at the charges and statements made should be governed by the consumers and I believe that consumers would greatly by the attorney generals of the 18 States. not by the government. Microsoft and their benefit if Microsoft were forced to spend Then I read what Microsoft’s competitor have operating system are vary big and yes their some of their resources on improving their to say, and that makes me outraged, because is a reason for that. It’s because they made products (by having to compete) instead of it clearly shows that these companies are a produce that was needed. They were is the bribing the States to do their dirty work. The right place at the right time and created a protecting their monopoly. way I interpret it, is that they are not very demand for their produce because people Michele Stouffer astute business people, and they need some wanted it and it was a good product. Now MTC–00028143 help, so they pay-off their Congressmen to do that they are successful they are being From: [email protected]@inetgw their dirty work for them. This is what really penalized for it. Of course others are going To: Microsoft ATR outrages me. to complain about it that’s because others are Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm Furthermore, I read the remaining 9 States trying to get a piece of the action and get it Subject: Microsoft Settlement are extending this lawsuit. In my opinion it any way they can. The actions brought Dear Antitrust Bureaucrats: First I regard sounds like greed! The companies that are in against Microsoft is also an action against the DOJs intrusion into Microsoft’s business to be those 9 States are again bribing their attorney free enterprise of the United States of America. an American Travesty. Now that DOJ has generals. My analysis, as an ordinary citizen, sucked millions of dollars out of the is that these companies are not very astute MTC–00028139 Microsoft pot who will be next? Can’t you business people. If they can’t make a good From: [email protected]@inetgw folks at DOJ understand that you have NOT product that people will buy, then they don’t To: Microsoft ATR done consumers a favor in that they deserve to be in business. If they are not Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm [consumers] will ultimately pay for your astute business people, I don’t want them Subject: Microsoft Settlement meddling due to increased costs to produce representing my country when the go I think Microsoft is doing a fine job and the Microsoft products? Why can’t you overseas and sell to foreign countries. I don’t should be exonerated. The competitors are government (of by and for the people... yeah feel like a proud American when I read that envious and want the government to control right) types understand that simple concept? these companies are bribing their the competition in their favor. They can’t win Furthermore I DO like many products Congressmen to do their dirty work. It people complain if they give their software produced by Microsoft. However if I want a reminds of the government corruption that I away or price it too high. If there wasn’t a choice of operating systems there are others read about in other countries. I certainly market for it nobody would buy it. The only out there and I DO use them. There are other hope that our government does not stoop that ones who seem to have a problem with them browser products out there such as Opera low that we allow our businessmen to is their competitors. Leave them alone and let which I am using right now.... It is better than corrupt us through bribery and collusion. them keep innovating. the Microsoft browser so I use it. You folks I may only be a common ordinary citizen at DOJ DID NOT DO ME ANY FAVORS by with not much influence as these large MTC–00028140 getting into Microsoft’s business and sucking businesses, but I wish to exercise my From: [email protected]@inetgw out millions of dollars THE COST OF Constitutional right to freedom of expression To: Microsoft ATR WHICH MUST ULTIMATELY BE BORNE BY and certainly hope that you will consider my Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm ME THE CONSUMER. You see... not comments. Subject: Microsoft Settlement everyone in America is dumb to what is Thank you. The currently negotiated settlement is going on here.... Lee Liaw sufficient. Any further action should be Sincerely suspended. Jeff Bayer MTC–00028147 BayerMedia From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028141 To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028144 Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm To: Microsoft ATR Please bring the lengthy anti-trust case to Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm an end. It would be in the best interest of the Please! Please! Get OFF Microsoft’s Back! Subject: Microsoft Settlement technology industry consumers and the Stop Your SILLY castigation this productive I request that the settlement that was economy. There was a settlement on Nov.3 Company! agreed upon be allowed to be implemented 2001 with the federal government an a
VerDate 11
number of state attorney generals please helps troubleshoot problems with other MTC–00028156 endorse this settlement. Microsoft OSs. Windows 3.1 and 95 didn’t From: [email protected]@inetgw Thank-you. carry the same command lines as the newer To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely OSs thus they had less failures. No company Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm Pam & Phil Mehling should be allowed to dominate a market such Subject: Microsoft Settlement as Microsoft. This is America and it should MTC–00028148 As a long-time Microsoft user I find the be an equal opportunity for all computer company’s settlement offer to be eminently From: [email protected]@inetgw manufacturers. After all computers in this fair and straightforward. Not only does it To: Microsoft ATR country run a mass majority of business both provide much-needed support to Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm in the work place and now more so in the users the world over it answers and pretty Subject: Microsoft Settlement private homes of Americans. This should much solves the complaints that Microsoft Do leave Microsoft alone they are the give all companies the opportunity to competitors have been talking about since the leaders in technology in the world. Without develop hardware & software that is beginning of this whole controversy. For the Microsofts ideas we would loose our edge. compatible. For that reason alone companies good of all it’s time to move forward. Please like Gateway Compaq Packard-Bell & Apple/ MTC–00028150 accept this settlement offer. MacIntosh aren’t very successful in the From: [email protected]@inetgw computer MTC–00028157 To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028153 From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm I believe the entire trial has been a mistake To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement for America and the economy. I use Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm I have been a fan of Microsoft and Bill windows-based computers my mother and Subject: Microsoft Settlement Gates through all of this mess. We as sister use apples and my son uses Linux. MS I think this case should end immediately. Americans should be grateful for companies is being punished for providing consumers All citizens have benefitted from Microsoft and men like Mr. Gates. If Microsoft hadn’t with an easy to use and affordable operating products. Bill Gates is brilliant and developed the technology some other system. Having said that I believe the surrounds himself with brilliant people and company in another nation would have. All settlement reached actually goes beyond the has done nothing wrong. We only wish we these companies crying and complaining finding of the Court of Appeals. So I will be were as smart. To force Microsoft to house a about Microsoft where were they in the early able to support them exactly as written. Tech Committee to enforce his compliance days? Thats right let someone else do the with the settlement and then demand he MTC–00028151 research and development and then cry like fund it is insane. In America we are suppose a baby that you got screwed. In my opinion From: [email protected]@inetgw to be able to succeed without government Microsoft didn’t do anything that someone To: Microsoft ATR punishment for doing well. The government Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm else could have done if they had been willing should never have been involved in the first to take the Bull By The Horns spend some Subject: Microsoft Settlement place. CEOs of competitors have thrown money and take a risk. I have no ill feelings PLEASE END THE ANTI-TRUST CASE money in the right place to bring about this for Microsoft whatsoever and feel THEY if AGAINST MICROSOFT. suit in the first place. That is obvious to anyone has been treated unfairly and unjust. THANK-YOU everyone. To even entertain a forced breakup H&K MEHLING of Microsoft just simply isn’t the American MTC–00028158 MTC–00028152 way. Someone somewhere forgot that theory. From: [email protected]@inetgw Maybe the competitors should do better work From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR instead of trying to bring down those that are Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm To: Microsoft ATR smarter than them. This is just the opinion Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement of a simple public high school teacher who Every section of this settlement which Subject: Microsoft Settlement only wishes to have been so brilliant. Leave addresses practices which Microsoft has The Microsoft operating systems starting Microsoft alone. from Windows 98 to the current XP have traditionally used to eliminate the possibility filters & command lines written within that MTC–00028154 of competition seems to be dependent on causes non Microsoft software programs to From: [email protected]@inetgw definitions of terms such as Non-Microsoft stall or crash. The error message in the Close To: Microsoft ATR Middleware Product and Windows Operating Program box is usually Not Responding. No Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm System Product which are still vague enough matter how much Ram is being used or what Subject: Microsoft Settlement to be disputable when Microsoft next feels the processor speed is this message appears. I wish the government and states would threatened. Enforcement is by a Technical My company builds computer systems just drop this nonsense and quit trying to Committee whose paychecks come from installs hardware & software and hurt the free enterprise system and economy Microsoft who are employed in Microsoft troubleshoots many PC problems. It has been also control the freedom of companies to arranged offices with Microsoft provided my experience that the bulk of my succeed and make better products in very resources on Microsoft’s corporate campus in troubleshooting calls have been non competitive market. If they think for a minuet Redmond Washington. Microsoft software problems. Usually on the that the whole government finding was fair Even if these controls turn out to be new systems that someone has purchased and just I think NOT! AOL and other sufficient to stop Microsoft’s enforcement of will have Windows 98 NT ME 2000 & XP as companies point the accusing finger at it’s desktop monopoly we’ll be back in this the operating system. Common problems are Microsoft for being a monopoly its just a ploy discussion 5 years from now when they the driver files located in these operating to take a successful company down so they expire. This settlement insures that no other systems. To fix the problem a mass majority can eat up the whole market. Microsoft has company can use the anti-competitive tactics of the time I have to uninstall either the never overcharged the consumer for that Microsoft has taught the industry the hardware or software and then reinstall it innovative products. This kind of legal dog hard way against Microsoft themselves. To with the disk provided by the manufacturer. and pony show put on by the states and me this seems unfair as these other Ninety-nine percent of the time the first federal government wasting the tax payers companies have already been affected by uninstallation/reinstallation works. money has got to stop. Microsofts past abuses even though most of There have been times when I had to do these other companies have not proven as this two or three times and keep rebooting MTC–00028155 untrustworthy in this regard as Microsoft. the computer to get it to accept the files from From: [email protected]@inetgw This settlement does not actually have any the manufacturer instead of the files To: Microsoft ATR effect whatsoever on Microsoft’s existing provided by the Windows operating system. Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm monopoly. In my opinion this settlement is I currently have Windows 98-Second Edition Subject: Microsoft Settlement an insult to the DOJ and to computer users on my home PC and find that system actually I AGREE WITH THE SETTLEMENT in general that we could so easily be fooled
VerDate 11
again. Microsoft will continue to buy all Subject: Microsoft’ settlement that couldn’t compete take their lumps and competition which can be bought and to find The parties opposed to the settlement are address their own business failures. creative ways to kill all competition that they beyond children having temper tantrums Microsofts success will only enhance third can’t buy. Thank you for listening. :-) they are morally obscene. The settlement is world countries not only by their business more than generous and cessation of the endeavors but also in the area of its MTC–00028159 conflict will benefit America at large philanthropy. From: [email protected]@inetgw individual citizens our economy and the To: Microsoft ATR well-being of people all around the globe. If MTC–00028167 Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm I were an enemy of the United States I would From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft’settlement be cheering the efforts of the opposition as To: Microsoft ATR I believe this settlement is not fair. Because there can be no greater harm done to our Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm I believe this suit should never have been nation than to indulge in continuous Subject: Microsoft’ settlement brought in the first place. I have seen unremitting illogical energy draining costly Although Microsoft Microsoft’ firsthand the problems deregulation brought distractions from the productive and creative stockholders and the American consumer are in the telephone industry and I believe it is efforts of paradigm-shifting companies like losers including the public school system. wrong and rather unAmerican to penalize Microsoft. The motives of those opposing the With attorneys politicians and special companys for doing well such as microsoft is settlement are transparent they are clearly interest groups reaping personal gain at the being penalized. nothing more than cheap gold diggers. expense of the consumer Let the settlement The message this sends to the citizens is stand before the rest of the world assumes that if you form a company and do very well MTC–00028163 tech leader ship. the government will step in and force you to From: [email protected]@inetgw give up some of your assets and redistribute To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028168 your wealth among some of the less wealthy Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm From: [email protected]@ companys. This is the tenents of Carl Marx. Subject: Microsoft’ settlement inetgw We all know what that is called. This has no I agree with this settlement only to the To: Microsoft ATR place in a democracy. This message says extent that it ends a long and expensive Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm Only do moderately well with your company litigation process. The entire suite was Subject: Microsoft’ settlement if you make too much money we will step economically and Constitutionally unsound I strongly endorse the settlement. It is in and redistribute your wealth to others that but it has now grown to the point that balanced in its approach and it achieves as are less wealthy. Our country needs to take government money would be better spent on much fairness as is possible given the another look at our undemocratic monopoly other perhaps less intrusive projects. The fact complexity of the issues and variety of laws. that the government is seeking to exert such interests demanding to be served. obscene control over the high-tech industry MTC–00028169 MTC–00028160 is frightening but the prospect of millions of From: [email protected]@inetgw taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize a From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR longer trial is even more frightening. To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm Subject: Microsoft’settlement MTC–00028164 Subject: Microsoft’ settlement Is there a limit to the potential of From: [email protected]@inetgw As a user of Microsoft products over the capitalism? Is there a cap on the American To: Microsoft ATR years I am very disappointed in DOJs actions success story? If Microsoft makes a product Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm against Microsoft and the $35 Million it spent that is only compatible with other Microsoft Subject: Microsoft’ settlement to cripple the IT industry. Although I do not products then so be it. Anyone that wishes gentlemen: it is my belief that an equitable agree with some provisions of the settlement to compete against Microsoft’ should be able solution in the microsoft law suit has been I find the fact of the settlement and resulting to do so without restriction. That is what free reached and should be allowed to stand as closure to be better for the economy than enterprise is all about. As long as the is. further it does not appear in anyone’s best further harassment of MS and it’s chilling products that Microsoft creates is not a health interest to squander court time and resources effect on entrepreneurial spirit. Let’s get on hazard etc. they should be able to do as they on expensive lawyers. with the task of building a better world please. If the public gets fed up they have the sincerely through information technology. DOJ owes option to choose another brand. Don’t get me c.l.bass Microsoft an apology that will never be wrong I don’t like the idea of a giant issued but let’s not drag them any further corporation taking advantage of their position MTC–00028165 from doing what they do best....creating the in the market to wield their unlimited capital From: [email protected]@inetgw best software/systems in the world. and public appeal to take advantage of the To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028170 consumer. However lets not put an end to Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm freedom of enterprise and let’s not put a cap Subject: Microsoft’ settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw on the potential of success in America. I’m not an expert in the technology field. To: Microsoft ATR I’ve followed the news reports involving Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm MTC–00028161 Microsoft. I think that this is a case of envy. Subject: Microsoft’ settlement From: T.J. Mather Microsoft was built by hardwork and genius. the government needs to stay out of it all To: Microsoft ATR Competitors have built off of the work of together. if microsoft wants to give the Date: 1/28/02 2:09pm Microsoft. I think the settlement is unfair to consumer something free this is their right. Subject: Microsoft’ settlement Microsoft. They are being penalized for being MTC–00028171 I am opposed to the proposed innovators. I only wish I had their talent Microsoft’settlement. I agree with the genius & understanding of computers & From: [email protected]@inetgw problems identified in Dan Kegel’s analysis technology. To: Microsoft ATR on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/ Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm remedy/remedy2.html MTC–00028166 Subject: Microsoft’ settlement Sincerely, From: [email protected]@inetgw I have reviewed the JD/Microsoft’ Thomas J Mather To: Microsoft ATR settlement and I am happy to see that both 155 West 15th Street, Apt #4C Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm sides in this action have finally come to a New York, NY 10011 Subject: Microsoft’ settlement satisfactory agreement. The forces of open We are a global economy. We should allow competition are essential to build new MTC–00028162 Microsoft a leader in the worlds technology. Also as technology advances the From: [email protected]@inetgw communication field and a strong American integration issues have to bring us all to a To: Microsoft ATR company to continue to operate without systems solution that is open standards based Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm government interference. Let the cry babies and therefore competitive in cost. Challenges
VerDate 11
to this agreement by competitors are products. No one is tied to the company with MTC–00028181 obviously being done for one reason and that a cord. If someone doesn t want to buy the From: [email protected]@ is to erode the Microsoft market position. product he/she doesn t have to buy it. The inetgw These have to be evaluated for what they are government should stay out of these things To: Microsoft ATR and nothing more! and not punish success. If the government Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm MTC–00028172 officials are jealous of Bill Gates success they Subject: Microsoft Settlement should learn to live with it! There is no crime gentlepersons From: [email protected]@inetgw and was no crime! To: Microsoft ATR After careful and through review of the Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm MTC–00028177 settlement details I wish to express my agreement that it represents a fair and Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw Henry Ford changed the world as far as To: Microsoft ATR equtible resolution of most of the issues automobiles are concerned. Bill Gates Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm involved. The intense global technological changed the world as far as computers are Subject: Microsoft Settlement competition is enough for our U.S. concerned. I think he should receive a Hero As an end-user comsumer I feel that this companies to have to deal without further medal. Final Judgement is as good as likely to be. I selfinflicting judicial wounds that can only recommend acceptance of this judgement. hamper our countries continued leadership MTC–00028173 in these areas. From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028178 yours truly To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw Mr. J. Podesta Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028183 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm It would be beneficial to allow the Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw settlement that forty one states agreed to I am very much in favor of Microsoft. This To: Microsoft ATR accept be finalized so that the future of is a country of free enterprise. No more tax Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm Microsoft isn t clouded by litigation for years money on this case. Subject: Microsoft Settlement to come both here and abroad. If our Government spent as much $ and MTC–00028179 MTC–00028174 time going after Osama Bin Laden rather then From: [email protected]@inetgw Bill Gates we would not be mourning our From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR loved ones. To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm MTC–00028184 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement Although I do not always agree with the From: [email protected]@inetgw I believe that the settlement agreed to by To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft and the Justice Dept. is quite fair way Microsoft does business I also have to admit that they have done more than Sun Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm and equitable to all parties involved. I do not Subject: Microsoft Settlement believe there is anything to be ained by Netscape AOL and others to advance the wide spread use of PCs. As far as using I am appalled that AOL is trying to sue further litigation in fact it will do great harm Microsoft after the settlement that has been to the American public. software from a company other than Microsoft I find it very easy to install the reached which was too tough on Microsoft in MTC–00028175 software. I have little or no problems with the my opinion. Where would the millions on From: [email protected]@inetgw installation or use of non-Microsoft software. AOL customers have come from without To: Microsoft ATR I know that Netscape AOL and Sun seem to Microsoft??? We all owe a debt of gratitude Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm think that Microsoft has harmed their to them rather than envy at a job well done Subject: Microsoft Settlement businesses but I have used Netscape in the that benefits us all AOL in particular! Please The Anti Trust case over Microsoft should past and let me say that Netscape hurt stop this injustice at once. themselves. As far as Sun AOL Apple and have never even started. It is apparent the MTC–00028185 only reason why it started was because others are concerned if they were so NetScape and AOL paid off people to bring concerned about the general population I did From: [email protected]@inetgw the case because they knew they couldn t bet not sense it in their products or their To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft in the marketplace. Who would business practices. Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm really want to have to pay for an Internet In closing I will restate that I do not always Subject: Microsoft Settlement Browser when they get one for free? This new agree with Microsoft but if not for them and We’ve already wasted hundreds of millions case AOL has brought is because they are the IBM compatable PC I would not be using of dollars of taxpayers money -the courts fuming that MSN is getting bigger and bigger a PC today. Before we go to far down the road have ruled & the settlement was accepted by pieces of the market. It is called capitalism of penalties against Microsoft we need to the justice department. Let s get on with the live with it and stop trying to bring your rival explore the true intent of the other more important things in our life like the down with cheap tricks or file for chapter 11 companies. If their products and services are national and homeland security. good then people will buy them if not—why and close down. In capitalism whoever is MTC–00028186 selling the better product for a cheaper price force their products and services on us. wins and AOL and Netscape needs to realize From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028180 that and stop complaining to the government. To: Microsoft ATR What President Bush is doing by trying to From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm keep out of the private business sector is a To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement smart descision. Business don t need more Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm the cost of this case is too high. it has government control and this how recession Subject: Microsoft Settlement stopped technology advance and should be we are going through shows what happens This law suit was none other than to settled now when the government does try to control. intimidate a company that was making too much money and certain persons being MTC–00028187 MTC–00028176 envious. Also because they didn t give large From:[email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw political contributions had to be punished. To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR Rediculous to have even instituted the law Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm suit against Microsoft. People were and are Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement able to purchase other products. Microsoft Settle this suit. Government should not The government should have never entered makes things easier. I am strickly against the have filed in the first place. Free markets are in the suit. Microsoft is a great company. It suit. Clinton should be the one on trial these the best regulators and protectors of employs many people and it provides great days not Microsoft. consumers!
VerDate 11
MTC–00028188 MTC–00028194 Alexander G. Bell look at AT&T now since From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw they were told to give away the store. We all To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR are worse off than we were years ago. Let Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm Microsoft do its thing and make it better Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement without interference. I back Microsoft all the settlement is better than nothing I believe I think we should leave Microsoft way leave them alone they have a vision of you should settle this as quick as possible ... Corporation alone. Hooray to Bill Gates he is the future in using computers and let them I am not in favor of the Microsoft suit nor the a very successful man. proceed. Maybe the stock market will go up expenditures of time money and talent...look My opinion is the government should leave again it went down when they got sued at the experience with GM IBM etc. Microsoft that company alone...and let them get on remember. Thank you will have a tough world in this changing with their business. D. Atwood environment and you folks are expressing its MTC–00028195 early demise raising our cost(s) and realy not MTC–00028200 From: [email protected]@inetgw benefiting anyone! Fine the hell out of them From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR for their sophmoric tactics and get on with To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm business. Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028189 I support Microsoft in settling the law suit. Implement the agreed upon settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw without any further delays. To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028196 Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028201 Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw Please don’t allow onerous regulation and Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm To: Microsoft ATR endless lawsuits to gum up private enterprise Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm and customer choice. Thank you. Dear MS. Hesse: Please end the Subject: Microsoft Settlement government s unjustified attack on Microsoft. MTC–00028190 I have been a computer user since the days This embarrassment is a hold over from the when every computer had its own operating From: [email protected]@inetgw previous administration s abuse of the US system. Chaos ruled the field. Microsoft by To: Microsoft ATR Justice Dept. and the US justice system. I being in a fortunate position and taking Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm believe that it is in the best interest of the advatage of that position by making a Subject: Microsoft Settlement country to drop the case all together but in superior product became the standard for I think that we need to fullfill the light of the unlikeliness of that to occur the personal computers throughout the world. To settlement agreement and move on. current settlement should be allowed to punish them for being the best in what they stand. MTC–00028191 do would itself be a crime. Breaking them up Sincerely would bring chaos out of order at a time From: [email protected]@inetgw Steve Hunt when the country s economy needs order. To To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028197 punish Microfsoft with more than a warning Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm and some survaliance paid for by Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw would not be justified. The fact that AOL I feel that the microsoft settlement reached To: Microsoft ATR owns Netscape but uses Microsoft Internet on November 3 2001 is fair and reasonable Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm Explorer as its Internet Browser says volumes and no further legal action needs be taken. Subject: Microsoft Settlement about the quality of Microsofts products. And Enough is enough! Let s get off this subject MTC–00028192 it isn t American to punish the succesful nor and go on to More important things!! To is it in the interest of the United States to From: [email protected]@inetgw persue this subject further would be a waste overpunish Microsoft. Sure they did some To: Microsoft ATR of tax payers money. Too much has already wrong but they have done far more good. Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm been spent! Let the settlement stand and let Thank You Subject: Microsoft Settlement the free market system handle the future! I Michael F. Sypek The argument is clear. Was the consumer and millions of other Americans have had hurt by Microsoft bundling the browser with enough of this matter! MTC–00028202 the operating system? The answer is no. The MTC–00028198 From: [email protected]@inetgw Netscape argument is it could not compete To: Microsoft ATR because the consumer did not have a choice. From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm Netscapes claim is Microsoft circumvented To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement the consumers decision to choose. Software Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm I am against the proposed settlement. is ubiquitous in that anyone can design Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft should never have been sued the develop and sell it. Microsoft did not prevent I concur with the action taken by the Clinton Justice Dept. failed miserably and the Netscape from designing developing and Federal Government. I do not like sole source economic downturn began when Microsoft selling its browser. Netscape gave up trying suppliers of any product. It appears to me the came under attack and has not recovered to make a better browser and at that point the Microsoft was well on its way to that end. If since. consumer did choose they choose to use I could get other software to work on my Microsofts browser. The fact is Netscapes computer I would do so. Lee MTC–00028203 success depended on Microsoft selling more From: [email protected]@inetgw copies of Windows and therefore Netscape MTC–00028199 To: Microsoft ATR could have sold more copies of its browser. From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028193 Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm I strongly support this settlement and an From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement end to any further litigation against Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR Again I say I remember when Windows Corporation as it pertains to the current Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm first came out I have a copy of that program. charges. I have always felt that the charges Subject: Microsoft Settlement I am thankful for Microsoft other wise we were baseless and that Microsoft did not take Don’t let Microsoft’s competitors use the would still be using DOS. Microsoft owns advantage of the market any more than any court system to manipulate the marketplace Windows and should not have to give away other legal business would have been entitled by pressuring the court to continue this case. their codes to help other sofeware companys. to. I feel they are being punished The settlement proposed to date is fare and They invented it and should have all the considerably for actions that would not have just. rights to it. Just like Henry Ford and affected the market or consumers. Please
VerDate 11
finalize this settlement and stop bleeding MTC–00028207 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 taxpayers and shareholders. From: [email protected]@inetgw Washington, DC 20530–0001 Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: MTC–00028204 To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm Please put a stop to the economically- From: [email protected]@ Subject: Microsoft Settlement draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This inetgw Leave Microsoft alone. Let the free has gone on long enough. Microsoft has To: Microsoft ATR marketplace determine what is good for the already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm free world. Get off their back! icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case Subject: Microsoft Settlement against Microsoft is little more than I SUPPORT THE SETTLEMENT REACHED MTC–00028208 ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft BY THE GOVERNMENT AND MICROSOFT. From: [email protected]@inetgw competitors, with not a nickel going to those I DID NOT SUPPORT THE LITIGATION. LET To: Microsoft ATR supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the S LET MICROSOFT GET BACK TO DOING Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm computer user. WHAT IT DOES BEST PROVIDING US WITH Subject: Microsoft Settlement This is just another method for states to get THE WORLDS BEST COMPUTER I agree with the proposed settlement. Let free money, and a terrible precedent for the PROGRAMS. STOP HARASSING THIS Microsoft continue to operate and excel at future, not only in terms of computer GREAT COMPANY. what it does well. If you want to go after a technology, but all sorts of innovations in the SINCERELY dangerous monopoly may I suggest Walmart. most dynamic industry the world has ever ALLEN M. METZGER They have put more Mom and Pop Stores out seen. of business and destoyed the competition Please put a stop to this travesty of justice MTC–00028205 than any other corporation in America. now. Thank you. Sincerely, From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028209 To: Microsoft ATR Ramon P & Marie L Ramirez Date: 1/28/02 1:33pm From: TERRY C ANDERSON 3295 N 153rd Dr Subject: Microsoft Settlement. To: Microsoft ATR Goodyear, AZ 85338–8530 Date: 1/28/02 1:33pm Vanessa Castagliola MTC–00028211 154 Aspinwall Street Subject: Microsoft Settlement Staten Island, NY 10307 The following comments are submitted for From: harry—[email protected]@inetgw the Court’s consideration in the Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR January 26, 2002 case before it. Based on my recent experience Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm Attorney General John Ashcroft in the transfer of my Internet service from Subject: Microsoft Settlement US Department of Justice, Qwest to MSN, I am very disturbed about Lets please put politics and competitors 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW increasing Microsoft’s influence and interests aside and settle this case. Stop Washington, DC 20530–0001 hegemony in the provision of Internet tormenting the greatest success story of a Dear Mr. Ashcroft: services. The changeover of services has not company in the history of the world. Let I have taken this opportunity to write and been managed well—several errors caused Microsoft Live! Leave Microsoft Alone! express my opinion of the settlement that has frustration, lost information, and took much been reached in the Microsoft antitrust case. time to execute. I was led to believe that MTC–00028212 I believe that we need to concentrate on these difficulties occured because I was not From: Aisen, Alex M. issues of greater importance . I am pleased coming from Microsoft software but rather To: ‘‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ that a settlement has finally been reached in from Netscape. I have spent hours talking to Date: 1/28/02 1:33pm this case and that Microsoft will be able to the technical assistance people to straighten Subject: Microsoft Settlement continue doing business as a whole entity. It this out. Let me add that simply getting to a Attached please find my comments, as an is apparent to me that the people pursuing person (rather than being routed through the individual, on the proposed Microsoft this litigation are not looking for a good branches of call answering systems) is a feat! settlement. judgment in this case but rather the While I was not required to switch to MSN, Alex M. Aisen perpetuation of their own personal agendas. I was given no information on ways I could <
VerDate 11
punished in a meaningful way. The proposed More recently, I personally found that I Two recently publicized examples from settlement does neither, and should be could no longer use a popular third party e- consumer software are as follows. The EULA substantially strengthened. mail client, Eudora, with an enterprise (end user license agreement) found in the Here is my list of many of the harmful Microsoft Exchange e-mail server. Microsoft download of Microsoft’s very popular behaviors I believe Microsoft to be guilty of. had included, as an option, what I’ve read is Windows Media Player, states ‘‘Digital Rights Some of these practices may be illegal; most a proprietary security feature called ‘‘secure Management (Security). You agree that in are likely within the law. But it is clear that password authentication.’’ The enterprise order to protect the integrity of content and the only reason Microsoft has been able to get had apparently started requiring that this software protected by digital rights away with things such as I will mention is protocol be supported by the client software. management (‘‘Secure Content’’), Microsoft that they are a monopoly; their customers, be Since Eudora could not use this, I was forced may provide security related updates to the they corporate or individual, often have no to switch to a Microsoft program, Outlook OS Components that will be automatically practical choice but to play by their rules, Express. Now, Outlook Express, like Internet downloaded onto your computer. These onerous as they often are. Anticompetitive Explorer is presently a free program. And, I security related updates may disable your Activities. The activities outlined in the have insufficient technical information to ability to copy and/or play Secure Content lawsuit several years ago by Caldera determine what caused this particular and use other software on your computer. If Corporation over the computer operating incompatibility. However, I cannot help but we provide such a security update, we will system DR-DOS, wherein Microsoft was wonder if this is part of a larger strategy to use reasonable efforts to post notices on a alleged to have (and probably did) marginalize third party e-mail clients like web site explaining the update.’’ incorporate well camouflaged code in a Eudora, and whether ot not Outlook Express In other words, Microsoft reserves the right version of Windows released to software will remain free if and when the competition to automatically install software, without the developers that deliberately ‘‘broke’’ a is gone. users knowledge or permission, which may competitor’s product (DR-DOS, which at the Microsoft’s treatment of potential disable ‘‘r software’’ on the user’s computer. time competed with Microsoft’s MS-DOS) is competitors is important as well. An Microsoft’s newest operating system, an excellent example. This lawsuit was excellent example of the sort of thing they are Windows XP, incorporates an automatic settled by Microsoft for a substantial sum. capable of was recently described in the Wall update feature, which could easily be used in More recently, Microsoft has released a Street Journal, concerning Eastman Kodak. this manner. Though the putative purpose of new version of Internet Explorer, version 6, Film-based photography is now being disabling software is to enforce Microsoft’s which, unlike previous versions, is replaced by digital photography, and Kodak interpretation of digital copyright deliberately incompatible with plug-ins hoped to sell digital cameras and software, enforcement, t it is important to note that the (third party accessory software) written in the which consumers would install on their language quoted above is very general; so-called Netscape style. This deliberate Windows-based computers. However, this further, even properly intentioned disabling incompatibility may be an attempt designed was a market Microsoft wished to enter, of software could have very adverse to further hurt their competitor, Netscape either directly or through partners. So unintentional effects on an unsuspecting They have also removed support for up-to- Microsoft reportedly designed new versions computer user, as has already been reported date versions of the Java Programming of Windows to steer consumers away from in the trade press concerned the automatic language from the latest version of Windows, Kodak’s offering, and to those supported by updates that occur with XP. Windows XP. Java is a programming Microsoft. Ultimately, Microsoft backed The second example on onerous licensing language developed by Sun Microsystems, down in this particular case. But one cannot terms is this language, which speaks for that has been widely adopted by many help but wonder if, given a less powerful itself, which has been widely reported to be software developers; it has the important adversary than Kodak, or the absence of the present in the printed EULA included with virtue of being cross-platform. That is, ongoing legal activities, if the outcome might shrink-wrapped boxes of Microsoft’s popular programs written in Java can usually run on have been different. website authoring program, FrontPage: ‘‘You computer platforms other than Windows, for One additional example: the default home may not use the Software in connection with example the Macintosh, Unix, and Linux. By page on standard installations of Internet any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, removing full support that Microsoft Explorer (which is part of every copy of MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or provided in earlier versions of Windows, Windows and hence part of most PC’s sold) services, infringe any intellectual property or Microsoft is hurting both developers who is the Microsoft Network. Thus, every time other rights of these parties, violate any state, choose to use Java, and consumers such as most consumers starts Internet Explorer, the federal or international law, or promote myself who bought Java based software from web site they first see is Microsoft’s own racism, hatred or pornography.’’ these developers. Microsoft Network. Now, it is possible to At the enterprise level, I have heard, and Though I certainly cannot prove it, as a change the default home page, but most users had limited experience with myself, long time users of many Microsoft products, either will not know how, or will not bother. licensing clauses that do such things as I think is possible or even likely that the So, this simple strategy puts other vendors of forbid companies from sharing performance company has sometimes introduced or web portals at an extraordinary disadvantage. test results performed on Microsoft software. permitted ‘‘glitches’’ in their software that It has been widely reported that in pre- Thus, companies can, and sometimes are, interfere with competing products, but not release versions of Windows XP, Microsoft forbidden from sharing their experiences with Microsoft’s own. For example, in the incorporated a feature called ‘‘smart tags’’ with Microsoft products with their corporate past the Novell Corporation has produced a which would allow them to direct users of colleagues. Microsoft is even widely reported file sharing system that competed with the Internet Explorer web browser visiting to have used such language to prevent the Microsoft servers, allowing desktop PC’s to just about any third party web sites to be publication of comparative reviews of their store computer files and share printers via ‘‘directed’’ at proprietary sites run by products. centralized server computers. I have found Microsoft or its corporate partners. When Cost is an important factor as well. As that there are numerous ‘‘glitches’’ when word of this feature was reported in the news Microsoft’s monopoly in both operating using Novell file servers, that seem not to be (the Wall Street Journal), there was an outcry, systems and office productivity software has present when using Microsoft file servers. As and Microsoft disabled it. However, there is become entrenched, Microsoft uses its a user, I have no real way of knowing no reason why they could not activate it in licensing terms to effectively raise prices whether these glitches are simply bugs or the future, particularly if they feel their substantially. For example, years ago, when weaknesses in Novell’s software code, or dominant position in the market place, and there were competitors to Microsoft Office, ‘‘deliberate’’ incompatibilities hidden in the the lack of effective oversight, allows them to the licensing terms on Office allowed desktop versions of Windows by Microsoft. do so. concurrent user licensing. This is no longer And even if there is no overt action by Onerous Licensing Terms: Terms in allowed. More recently, other changes in its Microsoft, the fact that Windows software is Microsoft software licenses are often onerous, licensing terms require users to pay proprietary, and the source code generally and it seems self-evident that the only reason substantially more, oftentimes several-fold secret, can make it hard for competitors to Microsoft gets away with including them is more, for software licenses. The important produce products that interoperate with that they are a monopoly. These onerous point is, I think, that Microsoft has Windows. terms affect both consumers and businesses. substantially increased the cost of its
VerDate 11
software to enterprise consumers over the to sign up for Passport. Further, participation American economy that the court remedy years, and they often do this by changing the in Password is required to obtain technical this unfortunate situation. licensing terms, rather that ‘‘overtly’’ support from Microsoft; as everyone who has MTC–00028213 increasing the price. The effect is the same— used modem software knows, the need for the price goes up dramatically—but the technical support is inevitable. Passport is From: [email protected]@inetgw approach used by Microsoft may allow them designed as a system to electronic commerce, To: Microsoft ATR to masquerade this fact. and requires that a user provide significant Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm Finally, it is well known that Microsoft personal information. One cannot help but be Subject: Microsoft Settlement often include licensing terms and pricing concerned about the collection of such As a consumer who appreciates the strategies that pressure companies into information by a corporation with the advances in the world of technology, it is making upgrades that they otherwise would ambitions and dominance of Microsoft. difficult to understand the necessity of the not, thereby incurring substantial expenses in Again, viable competition and a robust Justices Department’s suit against Microsoft. training, dealing with incompatibilities with marketplace would be the best means of I do not even pretend to understand how other software, reduced efficiency from ensuring that Product Activation and technology works. I do understand the complex features that may not be needed, etc. Passport not be used in ways that violate marketplace and as a consumer it is Again, this is a practice that cannot reasonable user privacy. important to have access to products that can practically be regulated; rather it is essential Software Reliability: Software reliability, improve communication make it easier to that there be viable competition to Microsoft or, rather, the lack thereof, has become a access the abundance of knowledge in the to keep their licensing practices reasonable. major economic drain in this country. As world and to be able to enjoy a different Privacy. It is clear that Microsoft often uses computers become more ubiquitous, there are venue of entertainment. Consumers with its monopoly power in ways that seriously important safety concerns as well. It is little doubt indicated they were comfortable compromise privacy. The major reason important to note that the financial with the Microsoft product. It appears the Microsoft is able to do this, is that they are motivations for software vendors are not Justice Department may have had too much an effective monopoly. Several examples of necessarily to produce a reliable product. time and money on hand and needed to make such privacy invasion follow. Companies often charge fees for providing a case against some profitable company. One Several years ago, it was discovered by a technical support, and indeed, this may be a of the beauties of the US is the ability of the third party that all documents created by the substantial source of revenue. This revenue consumer to define the marketplace by what then current version of Microsoft’s stream is enhanced the more complex and works with ease affordibility and ubiquitous Office software included a unique ‘‘buggy’’ software is. Microsoft’s consumer accessibility. It appears the other companies identifier that allowed the document to be products used to come with free technical needed to improve their product with more tied to the system that first created it. support; as the company’s dominance has creativity and ingenuity rather than turning Further, it appeared that Microsoft had a increased, they have discontinued this to the Justice Department. When the database of computer registrations that may practice; they now generally charge consumer is unhappy then the Justice have allowed this identifier to be tied to the consumers for technical support after a Department should intervene. actual individual who registered or limited number of incidents that are ‘‘free’’ MTC–00028214 purchased the computer. In other words, any (or, rather, included in the price of the From: [email protected]@inetgw letter created in Word could, with access to software). Corporations are on the hook for To: Microsoft ATR MS corporate databases, be tied to the far greater fees, with large annual support Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm computer, and perhaps even the individual contracts and per incident fees. And, because Subject: Microsoft Settlement who first wrote it. When this was publicized, Microsoft’s software is proprietary, the I fully support the conditions of the Microsoft removed the ‘‘feature.’’ But, had company is usually the only feasible source Microsoft settlement. this occurred today, with their position even of technical support. The way to ensure that more entrenched, they may not have felt this commercially sold software is make as MTC–00028215 necessary. reliable as possible is by competition in the From: [email protected]@inetgw It is worth considering the privacy marketplace. To: Microsoft ATR implications of Microsoft’s latest operating (It is noteworthy that, because software is Date: 1/28/02 1:34pm system XP. XP incorporates functions that licensed and not purchased, that the usual Subject: Microsoft settlement have serious privacy implications. Consider remedies in the civil courts for ‘‘buggy’’ Laurel James two features a user encounters when first products do not generally apply to software. 14023 NE 8th St. installing or using Windows XP, Product This may grow even more true if the software Bellevue, WA 98007 Activation, and Passport. Product Activation industry, lead by Microsoft, is successful in Office # 425–378–8309 is now required of the latest consumer persuading state legislatures to pass UCITA Attorney General John Ashcroft versions of Windows and Office, and requires (Uniform Computer Information Transactions 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW that users contact Microsoft after purchasing, Act), which many feel will effectively Washington, DC 20530 but before they can use the software (to be eliminate any legal liability for bug ridden Dear Mr. Ashcroft, precise, they are given a short time of use software.) I am writing this letter today to voice my before product activation is necessary). In summary, Microsoft is a great company support of the settlement reached between During this contact, which will usually take that has produced many wonderful and the Justice Department and Microsoft. In place over the Internet, information about the useful products. However, there are many offering superior, well priced products users computer is transferred to Microsoft. ways in which Microsoft’s business practices Microsoft has made my life and my business The stated purpose of Product Activation is harm consumers, both individual and easier to operate, I have always been as an antipiracy measure, but the privacy corporate, as well as competitors. Were extremely happy with their products. implications are serious. Users have no Microsoft not a monopoly, the marketplace I believe that the enactment of the choice but to send Microsoft information would be the best policeman. But the settlement agreement will spur innovation in about their computer configuration; the company is a monopoly, and has been found the settlement process once more. The nature of the information they send is not by the court to become one through illegal settlement agreement contains many fully known, since the data sent is encrypted, means. It has demonstrated, and continues to stipulations that will benefit the technology and since Product Activation is a somewhat demonstrate, a disdain for the legal system industry. Microsoft has agreed under the mysterious and proprietary process. that should give us all pause. The solution terms of the settlement to disclose There are even more serious privacy must be to impose financial penalties, information about the internal interfaces of implications in the MS Passport system. Use restrictions on conduct, and perhaps even the Windows system. In addition to this, of Passport is not theoretically required, as is structural changes on the firm that will Microsoft has released contractual product activation, but in practical terms restore competition and bring things back in restrictions on developers who would wish most individual users will have to sign on to to balance. The proposed settlement does not to enter into multiple contracts. it. When a newly purchased computer is first even come close to meeting this end; it is This lawsuit is old and worn out, and turned on, the user is asked multiple times essential for the long-term health of the should go away as soon as possible for the
VerDate 11
good of America and the economy, and for MTC–00028221 To: Microsoft ATR us, the happy Microsoft consumers. From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement Laurel James Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm I feel it is time to drop the law suit against microsoft. This country is based on MTC–00028216 Subject: Microsoft Settlement I believe that the Nov 3rd settlement with competition and microsoft has a better From: vdrlholl@ Microsoft is fair. Microsoft products have product. Why is this wrong? I am also tired westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com@inetgw standardized the PC industry, enabled ease- with spending money on a law suit that is To: Microsoft ATR of-use, improved efficiency, created value, over with. I demand that you drop this suit Date: 1/28/02 1:33pm and reduced cost. now!!! Subject: Microsoft settlement I am against the proposed settlement. I MTC–00028222 MTC–00028225 believe the only fair solution is to split MS From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw into 2 companies. One company would be To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR operating systems. The other would be Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm applications. The operating systems company Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement would be required to publish all API’s It is my opinion that Microsoft is I have tried AOL & Netscape and don’t like (application programming interfaces) to responsible for uplifting America to the Top them as well as Internet Explorer everyone. This would also eliminate the case in Technology. This Anti-Trust Prosecution MTC–00028226 of breaking another company’s application by the Clinton Adminisration is nothing less with an upgrade without breaking Microsoft than Corruption for monetary gain. Microsoft From: [email protected]@inetgw products. should receive support from us and not To: Microsoft ATR Prosecution. This is a Common Sense Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm MTC–00028217 company paid for with honest earned money. Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw If our Nations leaders were not corrupt at the Enough already. The settlement is fair, stay To: Microsoft ATR conception of this Lawsuit Common Sense with it. Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm says it would have never happened. MTC–00028227 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsofts donations to the people of this Sirs Nation are another thing. They have given From: [email protected]@inetgw I am in support of Microsoft not only much to the good causes of our good people. To: Microsoft ATR because I am a small shareholder but I If anyone is guilty of anything it is the Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm believe in capitalism. Microsoft has grown Clinton Administation being guilty of a Subject: Microsoft Settlement through research and innovative thinking conflict of interest and Microsoft being a I believe that in the best interest of and has fielded some excellent products victim of its unethical outcome. If the truth everyone the lengthy antitrust case with which has made them the leaders in their be known and when it is the people will side Microsoft should be brought to an end. The markets. To go against them because their with Microsoft. This is an opinion based on litigation should not continue. competitors cry foul is an incrouchment of fact. MTC–00028228 the government into the free market system. Thank You Lester Hopper From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028218 6294 Southlake Drive To: Microsoft ATR From: Carl Keil Hickory NC 28601 Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:34pm MTC–00028223 Based on the issues that I have read, the Subject: Please Punish Microsoft From: [email protected]@inetgw only people who will gain from further Please uphold the spirit of the Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR harassment of Microsoft Co. will be the verdict. They were found guilty of breaking Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm competitors and attorneys. No further penalty the law. Please, don’t bend over for bill gates. Subject: Microsoft Settlement should be placed against MS. Punish Microsoft for breaking the law. Dear Sirs: MTC–00028229 Thanks, This is to express support for final Carl Keil acceptance of the settlement between From: [email protected]@inetgw Portland, OR Microsoft the Department of Justice, and the To: Microsoft ATR 503–231–0894 nine states. We urge you not to reject this Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm settlement as any delays will not serve the Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028219 interests of the American people but serve to I can’t state it strongly enough. The case From: [email protected]@inetgw further the causes of Microsoft’s competitors against Microsoft was a stupid waste of To: Microsoft ATR who continue to choose to compete in the taxpayer money! The end result was millions Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm courts instead of the marketplace. The of $$$ wasted. Because Microsoft was getting Subject: Microsoft Settlement American people are insulted by claims that its foot in EVERY door and its products were get off microsofts back!!! we have been harmed by Microsoft. In truth, EVERYWHERE the end result of this total waste of money is to FORCE Microsoft to be MTC–00028220 we have been harmed by their competitors who have stalled progress in technology and in even more places than it is now! By From: [email protected]@inetgw in the economy. These suits must not be forcing Microsoft to donate software to To: Microsoft ATR allowed to continue. Before said suits our schools the court is MAKING Microsoft do Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm country experienced unparalleled growth the very thing it got into trouble for doing! Subject: Microsoft Settlement and prosperity. Our country regained its Just DROP the whole thing and go away now I think it is wrong of the United States to dominance in technology due to the before you waste any more of MY money in do what they are proposing to do to innovation and growth of Microsoft and the another pointless chase after Microsoft. Microsoft. I think Microsoft is a upstanding many companies supporting their operating I’ll agree that there MIGHT be better things honest company. They are prosperous systems. We respectfully urge you to help out there than what Microsoft produces. but because of this and because they have many return our country towards prosperity by I have seen NOTHING that forces me to use intelligent people working there. Maybe the rejecting further lawsuits and further delays Microsoft. Did Microsoft FORCE Apple to government should help fund other in acceptance of the anti-trust settlement. charge too much for a MAC computer so that companies that aren’t as fortunate as Edward J. Barsano most people would choose to buy IBM? No. Microsoft to give them a chance to compete. CEO NeuralTick Inc. Did Microsoft FORCE IBM to hold I think their decision could hurt them in the Microchannel close to the vest and not let future. They may need Microsoft to help MTC–00028224 anyone else make Microchannel products? them, then what will they do? From: [email protected]@inetgw No. Both of these bone-headed decisions
VerDate 11
were made without Microsoft input. Did compensation should go to competitors, Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm Microsoft benefit from Apple and IBM customers, and certified professionals who Subject: Microsoft Settlement making stupid choices? You bet. So did I. have suffered. I have been watching the Microsoft case for The one GOOD thing about the case is that a long time. It is time it was over. Please let it kept a lot of lawyers busy and thinned out MTC–00028234 the settlement stand. the crowds behind the ambulances. From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028239 MTC–00028230 Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR I believe the settlement reached in the Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm Microsoft Anti-trust case is fair and Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement equitable. Stop persecuting Bill Gates and let government should stay out of microsoft The Man (Microsoft) did business and him get on with his work business.. that company provides the some people felt they were cut out of the economy with lots of jobs and taxes process. Since when is it the job of our MTC–00028235 MTC–00028240 justice system to make sure a business makes From: [email protected]@inetgw money. If you have all this time on your To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw hands and want to spend our tax dollars, Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm To: Microsoft ATR how about going after the electric and gas Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm companies. Dear Sir: America has always been the land Subject: Microsoft Settlement of the free; to grow, to live, to achieve, to No-one complained when Apple gave away MTC–00028231 invent and to prosper. On the contrary it systems to schools to get schools to buy From: [email protected]@inetgw seems to me that when someone succeeds in Apple. No-one complains about AOL blanket To: Microsoft ATR business to the point of making large ads on Time-Warner Cable. No-one suffered Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm amounts of money someone or something because of Microsoft but millions benefitted. Subject: Microsoft Settlement starts to say this is not right he has to be At least they are real—unlike Enron. Microsystems is obviously a monoply even stopped or he will have a monopoly. Leave MTC–00028241 after this decision. Therefore, if other Mr. Gates alone. He has been benevolent with monopolies were either split up or negated his profits, employed thousands and inspired From: mutka—[email protected]@inetgw why was this one treated differently? I thousands to go into the electronic field. I am To: Microsoft ATR believe that they should have been advised not as computer friendly as I would like to Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm to cease and desist their monopolistic be, but at my age, I am doing the best I can Subject: Microsoft Settlement practices. It would have been a sound with the help of my son. Spend my taxpayer Microsofts interests are compelling warning to other companies to not replicate monies and go after the Health Insurance personal computer users to use their those actions. Companies who are dictating who will get operating system. This operating system the proper care and who won’t. I have tried which is compelling me to act in ways that MTC–00028232 to buy my own health insurance and have I would otherwise not choose exceeds From: [email protected]@inetgw been refused because of my age, varicose healthy business. competition is neither fair To: Microsoft ATR veins, etc., etc. They didn’t care if I could nor just. Specifically I believe the physically Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm pay; they just didn’t want to take the risk. I and mentally disabled are marginally Subject: Microsoft Settlement am sorry I am rambling but my point is there included in this revolution of I believe the Microsoft case should be are important issues to take care of. If the communication, information and processing. settled in its entirety and all states should product is good, people will buy it. If not, Developers fear that the predators and have to abide by the Federal decision. To do they will buy something else. Frankly I am reverse engineers await on the margins of one otherwise undermines the economic system glad my computer came equipped with operating system (XP) at the ready to copy which has allowed America to be the Microsoft. It has served me well. I firmly product(s) which are too young to defend economic power that we are. believe in free enterprise. I don’t see anyone themselves. In particular, I cannot use going after China. They seem to have a Government protection and resources in a MTC–00028233 Monopoly on every item sold in the USA. capitalistic society to defend myself unless I From: [email protected]@inetgw When I find something made in the USA, I can reasonably expect my most basic To: Microsoft ATR buy it for a souvenir. Please leave Microsoft development assumptions are protected. Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm and Mr. Gates alone and go catch the bad These basic assumptions ought to have Subject: Microsoft Settlement guys. Thank you..... Microsoft preserve and create public Safe I am very upset about the Microsoft Haven operating system components that Settlement. I did not really understand how MTC–00028236 will promote software development which upset until somebody from Americans for From: [email protected]@inetgw would not have to be redesigned because the Technology Leadership called my home to To: Microsoft ATR Operating System has changed. Open harass me about how I needed to show Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm Platform operating system proponents may support for the Microsoft Settlement. I have Subject: Microsoft Settlement find this a compromise. My example is my an unlisted number I don’t even give it out The settlement should go through. own product. I continue to struggle to design to the credit card companies. Only my work Attempts by competitors of Microsoft to stop a product that is open platformed, meaning and very few others (including Microsoft) the settlement process amount to no more it should work on most operating systmens have my number at all. I am possitive that than using the American legal system for and within all browsers. My testing has my privacy has been invaded and I am not their own self-interested business needs. found I must discover software bugs that sure, but I think my civil liberties may have seem to benefit the interests of the operating been violated by the disclosure of my MTC–00028237 systems. I believe that these software bugs are personal information. The proposed From: [email protected]@inetgw not intentional but they are so numerous that settlement is stupid. It will give 3rd parties To: Microsoft ATR a manager can work slowly on them and still who did not purchase any software, were not Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm be rewarded. This is unfair to the public. affected by the lack of competition, and not Subject: Microsoft Settlement This Business market is NOT functioning forced to obtain certification from Microsoft, They have an agreement arrived by normally! This is not a model of competition to profit. While on the otherhand, all those compromise. Stop wasting T&M and proceed. with room for a better business to succeed! affected like customers, competitors, and ED This current business model is professionals forced to certify and recertify dysfunctional! I think this dysfunction works will go uncompensated. Lastly it does not MTC–00028238 in the following way. Current Law allows the provide any measures for prevention of From: [email protected]@inetgw creation of conflict between software future violations. I think that any To: Microsoft ATR applications, hardware, and operating
VerDate 11
systems when a competting business begins I consider a monopoly in the AOL / Time stated in his recent book, individual states to spend resource to point out the unfairness Warner merger. Now AOL is trying use should be excluded from the antitrust suite and fix the software bugs. Netscape as a platform to damage a perceived since they are acting for the interests of their T competitor, MSN. Try to visualize the PC own states only, not for the entire American software market before microsoft created and MTC–00028242 people. The purpose of the lawsuit is to organized it. Our ability to communicate, restore the fair competition environment in From: [email protected]@inetgw organize and interface between businesses the industry, not to punish the successful To: Microsoft ATR has been improved on a scale beyond company, rewarding the failures, or helping Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm anything we could have ever imagined prior the competitors. American is a free market Subject: Microsoft Settlement to 1980. Why... Because Microsoft and its environment. It will go against our principle to whom it my concern...this whole matter founders had a vision. This settlement if we force a company to include the product has been nothing but a joke to me...a total represents the best opportunity for Microsoft waste of money and time...with the money of a rival company. If a company chooses to and the industry to move forward, therefore do so, it must come from their own decision. and time spent on this whole debacle, all I hope it will end the litigation. parties involved could have new The government should not dictate a technologies out there for everyone to have MTC–00028245 particular company how it would run its and us...but instead what we have is a From: [email protected]@inetgw business. It should be free to run itself in its company like AOL Time Warner looking for To: Microsoft ATR own creative way as long as it follows the more money that they don t deserve(let them Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm general rules set and honored by every one. go out and do it instead of depending on Subject: Microsoft Settlement Freedom is the strength of our economy, our another company to do it for them)...i think I believe the U.S. government acted spirit and our lifestyle. that Microsoft has done a good job and has correctly to investigate Microsoft for anti- Thank you very much for your time. worked hard to get where the’re at...i will trust actions. I don’t necessarily agree with Regards. always buy and use their products...on the every part of the decision handed down. I anh. other hand i would never us or do anything admit I haven’t made time to read all the MTC–00028249 with AOL Time Warner...sounds like to me parts of the decision handed down. I am in they should be investigated for their favor of our society making market decisions From: [email protected]@inetgw aggressive business practices also...they are a for themselves in general. So the U.S. To: Microsoft ATR legal monopoly by our own government...in government should not restrict the free Date: 1/28/02 1:35pm closing its time to get back to work on newer decisions of taxpayers to buy and sell what Subject: Microsoft Settlement. technologies and get out of the court room... products they like. January 26, 2002 thank you very much... Attorney General John Ashcroft Martin C. Holgate MTC–00028246 US Department of Justice From: [email protected]@inetgw 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MTC–00028243 To: Microsoft ATR Washington, DC 20530–0001 From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm Dear Mr. Ashcroft: To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement As an active member of my community Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm Microsoft is a leader in the technology field and a firm believer in American ideals and Subject: Microsoft Settlement and needs to have the freedom to do what it constitutes, I needed to share my concern I bought a new computer in November does best. That is to improve the computer with you and the Department of Justice on 2001. The operating system was Windows XP technology for everyones use. If there are a how unnecessary and detrimental this on- but the web browser was AOL!! Ican’t few who do not wish to use this technology going lawsuit against Microsoft is for our understand why the states which are still from Microsoft they can choose to disregard people and our nation as a whole. How can pursuing the antitrust suit are being backed what has and is being made available for the our government leaders not see that this by the competitors of Microsoft. Barksdale consumer. The consumer has the ability to attack on the Microsoft corporation is an and Ellison have beene crying spilled milk decide what to use at home and at the attack on the American principles on which for years. I think the case should be settled workplace. Our government should not this nation was created ? I believe that by and put to rest so that the country can get interfer with private enterprise and the the accepting the proposed settlement is the only back to business. ideas of Microsoft or any company. The step we can take which will move us marketplace is where the decisions should be MTC–00028244 forward. This agreement will monitor made aabout who wants to use what From: John Gallant Microsoft’s future production procedures, products. This lawsuit is frivolous. allowing the technology industry will be To: Microsoft ATR Thank you. Date: 1/28/02 1:35pm allowed to concentrate on business by Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028247 creating innovative, comprehensible software Renata B. Hesse From: [email protected]@inetgw to keep our IT market evolving. Antitrust Division To: Microsoft ATR Your time and attention to this matter is U.S. Department of Justice Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm appreciated and I look forward to seeing the 601 D Street NW Subject: Microsoft Settlement end of this litigation once and for all. Suite 1200 I am in agreement with the settlement that Sincerely, Washington, DC 20530–0001 brings the lengthy anti-trust case to an end. Lisa J Deriau RE: Microsoft Settlement 10215 21st Avenue SE Dear Ms. Hesse, MTC–00028248 Everett, WA 98208 I have, as a stockholder of Microsoft, From: Phan, Anh MTC–00028250 watched the antitrust proceedings with To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ interest. It seems that the Government has Date: 1/28/02 1:34pm From: [email protected]@inetgw worked an agreement that was fair to all Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR parties and now wants to change terms and Dear Antitrust Department officer, Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm conditions relating to the settlement. I do not I have read through the settlement proposal Subject: Microsoft Settlement feel it is proper or fair that at this late date between the Justice Department and I am a registered active voter who supports this be allowed to happen. Microsoft. It sounds like it is a fair, effective the settlement in the Microsoft matter. It is I further feel that Microsoft is not way to resolve the issues within the merit of time to put this to rest and get on with responsible for individuals that create the case. I do not understand why other non- technological innovation. I hope that special products that cannot compete in the settled states and critics want to include a lot interests and competitors will not derail this marketplace because of their own of different things falling outside of the scope settlement for their own selfish and greedy shortcomings (e.g.. Netscape). I am further of the law suite and still claim they are acting motives. annoyed that my government sponsors what on behalf of consumers!!! Like judge Postner David A. Pasqualini
VerDate 11
MTC–00028251 The Department of Justice has worked hard to Microsoft the industry has been From: John R. Callahan to find the compromise between the standardized, kids in school can go out in the To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft Company and their competitors. I world and run computers. Employees can go Date: 1/28/02 1:34pm have followed this issue with interest home and work on a computer with the same Subject: Microsoft Settlement because I believe that business should be system they use at work. By becoming The proposed Microsoft-DOJ settlement is allowed to find its own market. With this standardized, how does this hurt consumers? a judicial travesty. I hereby state that I compromise now done, I hope the Microsoft has saved the average consumer strongly disagree with the proposed Department can approve the settlement and thousands of dollars. By their continued settlement and disapprove of the proposed allow business to move forward. innovation and development of the operating settlement. I am a 20+ year computer Sincerely, system they have added tools and recourses professional (as a member of the Association Audry Wood that would have cost the average consumer a lot of money. If Microsoft charged for each for Computing Machinery), former (and MTC–00028256 tenured) academic, civil servant, and current addition to its product, or forced the From: Bob (038) Cathy executive in the private sector. Feel free to consumer to purchase such things as Internet To: Microsoft ATR contact me with any questions or comments. explorer, word, notepad, a calculator, Paint, Date: 1/28/02 1:40pm I hereby place this comment in the public the basic TCP/IP protocols, the average Subject: Microsoft Settlement domain. person could not afford these add ons and ROBERT AND CATHY FRISBY (signed) would be shut out of the internet. 18523 Hottelet Circle John R. Callahan, Ph.D. As for Internet Explorer, that was the best Point Charlotte, FL 33948 [email protected] thing that Microsoft ever did. It made surfing January 21, 2002 the web enjoyable. Question, did you ever try MTC–00028252 Attorney General John Ashcroft to use Netscape Navigator before Internet From: [email protected]@inetgw US Department of Justice Explorer came along, I have and it sucked. To: Microsoft ATR Washington, DC You had to pay around $50.00 for it, it took Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm Dear Mr. Ashcroft, several hours to down load and would crash Subject: Microsoft Settlement The Department of Justice has finally so often that trying to look up one item It is time to end the government’s agreed to terms on a settlement that brings an would take hours. Microsoft came and gave encroachment on private industry. Microsoft end to the antitrust suit against Microsoft. We you Internet Explorer, which at first had its has worked well to become a leader in the are writing this letter to express support for problems, but when they finally integrated technology industry while providing an the settlement, and to ask that it is approved into the operating system, it was fantastic, exceptional product. Please end the anti-trust as soon as the public comment period is over. you could surf the net and really enjoy the lawsuit and allow Microsoft to continue The faster this settlement is approved, the experience. System hangs and lockups that business as usual. faster the economy can get back on its feet. occurred often before integrating We can’t stand to sit and watch the market disappeared. And by integrating the software MTC–00028253 fall over 200 points one day, then rebound it saved me money, how DID this hurt me? From: [email protected]@inetgw to close out the next day with gains over 120. I know the argument it hurt competition, my To: Microsoft ATR The settlement will encourage competition, argument is it did not hurt competition, it Date: 1/28/02 1:36pm which will lead to better technology at a caused competition. It caused Netscape to Subject: microsoft should pay! lower price. This hopefully we will give us wake up and make a better product. At a I strongly believe that microsoft broke the some of the stability our economy needs, and more reasonable price, this let the consumer law and will continue to break the law unless can kiss goodbye to this recession. Microsoft save money by being able to buy a better strict rules with real consequences are does have to forfeit a good deal of technology product at a lower cost. Microsoft did brought to bear against the company. to their competitors, and they will be nothing wrong. Those consumers that wanted Microsoft is a monopoly that is using that monitored by an oversight committee who Netscape still continue to use it, if Netscape monopoly to extend unfairly it’s control over makes sure they are abiding by the terms of wanted to keep customers, and gain a huge portion of the US economy. Thank that settlement, but this will certainly be customers, they should have developed a you for stopping this illegal company! worth it in the long run. product that knocked the socks out of joseph briggs Everything is now in place for an exodus Internet Explorer, but did they no, they cried from this recession. We support this and sued. They gave up, because they would MTC–00028254 settlement, and hope it is implemented as not take the time and resources to develop a From: David Nadle soon as possible. better product. I know the argument, how To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, could they when they did not have the Date: 1/28/02 1:37pm Robert & Cathy Frisby money because Microsoft was giving the Subject: Microsoft Settlement product away. Simple, build it and they will MTC–00028257 Dear Sir or Madam: come. The consumer wants better products I am pleased to have the opportunity to From: Chip and if the consumer found an item better, add my voice in support of the proposed To: Microsoft ATR those that can afford will buy it. Final Judgement. In my opinion the proposed Date: 1/28/02 1:41pm Is it wrong, to build your business, and to Final Judgement protects Microsoft’s right to Subject: Microsoft Settlement protect your business. NO, it is not wrong! define their product while protecting the I feel the remedy is fair and should end the Microsoft played hard ball, yes, but how is right of OEMs to define theirs, and this is case completely. I do not feel that Microsoft that different from any other company that good for consumers. has hurt the public in any matter. Ten to wants to grow, expand, and make a Sincerely, fifteen years ago the computer industry was difference. Netscape, AOL, Sun David L. Nadle, Ph.D. in a mess. There was no standard operating Microsystems and others are playing hard system. If you went to purchase a computer ball now, buy suing Microsoft, because of MTC–00028255 at Radio Shack you would get a computer their jealousy over the dominance Microsoft From: UPEA running Deskmate. If you went to an Apple has. If the companies really cared about the To: Microsoft ATR distributor you got the Apple operating consumer, they would build better products Date: 1/28/02 1:38pm system. If you went to IBM you got their OS that would blow Microsoft way. But do they Subject: Microsoft operating system. And then of course you no, the run and scream and sue Microsoft, Renata Hesse had Windows. Kids in school learned Apple because Microsoft does not play fair. If these Trial Attorney but could not go into businesses and run companies would build better products on Antitrust Division their computers. The average person had to the same caliber as Microsoft, consumers will Department of Justice have an apple computer so their kids could go there; they will buy what they want. But 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 do homework and an IBM computer so they stripping down Windows will only hurt the Washington, DC 20530 could work at home. Since then and thanks consumer, because the costs associated with
VerDate 11
buying each piece of software will be more worried about monopoly power forcing and this is a classic case where the three than the average consumer can afford. But consumers to pay more, Microsoft should years of litigation reflects intense lobbying on those that can afford the software will buy NOT be your target, the Cable-Satellite- behalf of the competition rather than a the better software. How is this any different Broadcast Cartel should. genuine concern for the American public. from the auto industry? Yes, I know that The settlement proposed in early The terms of the settlement go beyond there are several companies competing November of last year contains several what was originally called for when the equally, If I went to ford to buy car should restrictions and commitments to which lawsuit began. Microsoft will be forced to they be required to give me a stripped down Microsoft has agreed. In these commitments, increase relations with computer makers and car. So that I can go to Chrysler to purchase Microsoft permits computer makers to software developers, disclose technological the motor, to Bose for the stereo, to Goodyear replace access to Microsoft features with information to competitors, grant computer for the tires, to Monroe Muffler for the access to the competitor’s software. This will makers broad new rights to configure Shocks, and Muffler. NO, they provide the require that Microsoft change certain Windows, and form a three-person team to basic systems and then you buy the interfaces necessary to the Windows’’ monitor compliance with the settlement. additional or custom items that you want. operating system. However, the list doesn’t While I think that Microsoft is giving away Microsoft does that they provide the end there. Microsoft has agreed not to too much, I think there is no alternative since consumer with the basics and let the retaliate against its competitors and to ensure further litigation could be detrimental to consumer buy what they want. The problem this from happening, a three person technical Microsoft’s and our IT sector’s future. Please is the other companies are not making committee will be formed to make sure that implement the settlement and look out for products that are better and more desirable. Microsoft sticks to the terms of settlement. the best interests of the American public. End the lawsuit now and let Microsoft go As you can plainly see, Microsoft has more Sincerely, back and build and innovate so that the than paid for its previous actions. As I William Streicher envelope of information and knowledge believe Microsoft to be a respectable becomes more reliable and available to the company, I assure you that this settlement MTC–00028261 average consumer, and so that these other will more than suffice. From: Kent Compton companies will be forced to push the Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR envelope even further buy building better Robert Stevens & Date: 1/28/02 1:43pm software. If these companies would just Natalie Stevens Subject: Microsoft Settlement worry about building better software that MTC–00028259 Dear Department of Justice, pushes the limits, they would not have to I think a quick settlement with Microsoft worry about Microsoft. From: [email protected]@inetgw is in the best interest of all consumers. Thank you To: Microsoft ATR Throughout this trial I’ve gotten the feeling Gary E. Altman II Date: 1/28/02 1:40pm that a majority of the issues were in large part Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028258 due to weaknesses in Microsoft’s Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division competitors. My favorite example is Netscape From: Stevens 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 which originally paved the way to making To: Microsoft ATR Washington, DC 20530–0001 browsing the World Wide Web easy. Date: 1/28/02 1:42pm Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: Unfortunately, they became slow and Subject: Microsoft settlement Please put a stop to the economically- unresponsive to the new features I wanted so Robert & Natalie Stevens draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This I switched to Internet Explorer. Before the 1717 Joshua Court has gone on long enough. Microsoft has third version of, IE Microsoft’s product was Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer inferior. Once it was superior I made the January 28, 2002 icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case change. If someone wanted to use the Attorney General John Ashcroft against Microsoft is little more than Netscape browser it’s certainly not hard to US Department of Justice ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft find. I saw a link to it on both Time and 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW competitors, with not a nickel going to those People magazines’’ web sites just last night. Washington, DC 20530 supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the Don’t prop up bad businesses with legal Dear Mr. Ashcroft: computer user. This is just another method proceedings. The strong companies will Regarding the recent Microsoft Antitrust for states to get free money, and a terrible survive and the weak ones should be tasked settlement, the PC industry, the economy and precedent for the future, not only in terms of with changing their business models or the stock market have suffered enough from computer technology, but all sorts of perishing. this misguided lawsuit which was instigated innovations in the most dynamic industry Please settle this case so that I can focus by Microsoft’s competitors who elected to the world has ever seen. on the important things like keeping my job. compete via lobbying and courtroom tactics Please put a stop to this travesty of justice We all have more important things to focus rather than in the marketplace. I firmly now. Thank you. on. believe that litigation should come to an end. Sincerely, Sincerely, At this point, it seems ridiculous to prolong Don Williams Kent Compton this case any further. 2068 US HWY 71 907 W. Brittany Dr Microsoft is much less of a problem than Clarinda, IA 51632 Arlington Heights, IL 60004 the Cable-Satellite-Broadcast Cartel which MTC–00028260 has conspired to restrict trade by controlling MTC–00028262 what consumers will and will not be able to From: [email protected]@inetgw From: Paul Cantrell watch by forcing viewing ‘‘packages’’. Cable To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR and DBS satellite providers mandate that Date: 1/28/02 1:42pm Date: 1/28/02 1:43pm ‘‘packages’’ must be purchased if you want to Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement watch even one of the channels in the 3575 Dutch Hollow Road I am strongly opposed to the proposed final package. This lack of a la carte offerings Strykersville, NY 14145–9558 judgment of the Microsoft anti-trust case. It forces consumers to buy a multitude of Attorney General John Ashcroft is weak, and unlikely to have any substantive unwanted channels in order to see a few US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania effect on Microsoft’s conduct. desired channels. Avenue, NW The PFJ places far too much trust in Business Week (Jan 21, 2002 pg. 71) Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft’s willingness to follow the spirit as pointed out that AOL/Time Warner (and January 26, 2002 well as the letter of the settlement. When the other cable and mini-dish satellite providers) Dear Mr. Ashcroft: PFJ says in section III.J.1, for example, that are collecting $54 per month from its I am writing in support of the recent Microsoft is required to share certain subscribers while Microsoft is lucky if it sells settlement between Microsoft and the US technical details, except when those details a home PC user a $90 operating-system department of Justice. I think that would harm security—as determined by upgrade every three or four years. If you are government should stay out of free enterprise Microsoft itself!—it nullifies any real power
VerDate 11
the settlement has to force Microsoft to share antitrust settlement. A settlement is available into those members of Congress that opposes the details the company most wants to hide. and the terms are fair, I would like to see the big business. As I have stated, ‘‘There are General opinion in the software world is government accept the settlement and move market remedies for consumers who wish to that obfuscation is the enemy of security. A on. use Netscape as their browser’’. system is only secure if everyone knows how Many people think that Microsoft has In closing, if someone spends their private it works, and agrees it can’t be broken. As a gotten off easy, in fact this is not true. capital and comes up with a automobile software engineer, it is unclear to me how Microsoft has agreed to many concessions in engine that runs on water, is the government hiding any API, protocol, or documentation order to reach the settlement. The biggest going to step in and force the developer of would protect or enhance the security of any being that Microsoft agreed to release part of this new engine to share it with everyone conceivable ‘‘anti-piracy, anti-virus, software the Windows base code to its competitors. else? I hope your answer is NO, because licensing, digital rights management, This is so Microsoft’s competitors can when or if we adopt such a stand, all of the encryption or authentication systems’’. It is develop more compatible software. Microsoft values and principles for which we stand eminently clear to me, however, how has spent years and millions of dollars will have been destroyed. Microsoft could cite unspecified ‘‘security developing their products, now they are Sincerely; reasons’’ to cripple execution of the required to hand out part of their work. Terry L. Williams, Retired judgment. Section III.J.1 is a loophole, and There is a big difference between 12489 Turnberry Dr. only a loophole. So why is it present in the companies that develop new products and Jacksonville, Fl. 32225–4602= PFJ? The judgment is rife with similar companies that copy them. Unfortunately, MTC–00028265 problems. Microsoft must not be able to the government has decided to harass the ‘‘outsmart’’ any judgment in this case. The company that develops them. This issue has From: [email protected]@inetgw current settlement fails that test miserably. been drug out for over three year now; it is To: Microsoft ATR Thank you for this opportunity for public time to put an end to it. Microsoft and the Date: 1/28/02 1:46pm comment. technology industry need to move forward. It Subject: Microsoft Settlement Paul Cantrell will be virtually impossible to move forward To: [email protected] Software Engineer with this issue hanging over the industry’s Subject: Microsoft Settlement St. Paul, Minnesota head, Please accept the settlement allow the I am a software engineer employed in the MTC–00028263 industry to move on. computer graphics industry. I am not now, nor have I ever been affiliated with Microsoft From: [email protected]@inetgw Sincerely, or any of its competitors (except, of course, To: Microsoft ATR Arnie Solvang that I use products of both). The opinions Date: 1/28/02 1:44pm MTC–00028264 Subject: Fwd: Attorney General John and comments expressed are my own. I Ashcroft Letter From: Terry Williams believe the settlement proposed by the CC: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR Justice Department falls far short of what Attached is the letter we have drafted for Date: 1/28/02 1:42pm would be in the best interest of the industry you based on your comments. Please review Subject: Microsoft Settlement and of the public. I am particularly it and make changes to anything that does Renata B. Hesse concerned about the ability of Microsoft to not represent what you think. If you received Antitrust Division effectively destroy certain popular and this letter by fax, you can photocopy it onto U.S. Department of Justice widely used standards such as OpenGL and your business letterhead; if the letter was 601 D Street NW Java. emailed, just print it out on your letterhead. Suite 1200 For software developers, such as me, these Then sign and fax it to the Attorney General. Washington, DC 20530–0001 standards are valuable tools that we use to We believe that it is essential to let our For the record, I was against the original produce our products. Once they are firmly Attorney General know how important this lawsuit filed against Microsoft. As a established and widely used, we can count issue is to their constituents. The public consumer, I purchased my PC from Dell with on them to be available and supported for a comment period for this issue ends on Microsoft software installed. I made this variety of platforms and devices over a January 28th. Please send in your letter as decision based on past experience with their relatively long period of time. I consider soon as is convenient. software. My PC came with Internet Explorer these to be a kind of public asset that help When you send out the letter, please do as my browser. I have experience in using to ensure that different products can one of the following: Netscape and my personal preference is with communicate and be compatible with each * Fax a signed copy of your letter to us at Internet Explorer. As a consumer I could other in various ways. 1–800–641–2255; have made an easy change to my system and Microsoft has the ability to erode or * Email us at [email protected] gone with Netscape. The original lawsuit was destroy these standards (and the motivation to confirm that you took action. brought because someone felt that Microsoft to do so) only because of the monopoly it If you have any questions, please give us had an unfair advantage by bundling all of holds on the operating system. In a a call at 1–800–965–4376. Thank you for their software together. In my opinion, this competitive environment, no OS vendor your help in this matter. is a false premise and tends to lead us done would voluntarily drop support for widely The Attorney General’s fax and email are a slippery slope. What will happen if Lotus used and still popular standards such as noted below. 1–2–3 decides that Microsoft has an unfair these, since that would give its competitors Fax: 1–202–307–1454 or 1–202–616–9937 advantage with bundling their Excel with an important advantage in the marketplace. Email: [email protected] other products. Price and quality were my Suppose that the nation’s electrical power In the Subject line of the e-mail, type major reasons for choosing Microsoft were largely provided by a single company Microsoft Settlement. software. Because the best way for Netscape that was also in the electrical appliance For more information, please visit these to compete is to create products that compete business. This company realizes that by websites: www.microsoft.com/ with Word, Excel, Power Point and Outlook changing the standards for power freedomtoinnovate/ www.usdoj.gov/atr/ Express. I have used Netscape email in the distribution, it can make it much more cases/ms-settle.htm past and sincerely believe Outlook is a far difficult for any other company to connect to 12724 35th Place NE better product. the power grid, or to produce appliances that Lake Stevens, WA 98258 I retired on 12/31/99 from CSX will work in the vast majority of homes. I January 24, 2002 Transportation as Director of Interline believe that this is in effect what Microsoft Attorney General John Ashcroft Switching. I have a Masters Degree from would like to do and IS DOING in certain US Department of Justice Johns Hopkins with a concentration in ways. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Information Technology. I believe I fear that Microsoft next plans to target Washington, DC 20530 overturning the original lawsuit and sending Internet standards, with the aim of making it Dear Mr. Ashcroft: it back to the lower court is the correct more difficult for other software and I am writing today to encourage the approach. I believe Microsoft should be held platforms to effectively use the Internet and Department of Justice to accept the Microsoft harmless because a settlement will be giving interact with Windows platforms. For most
VerDate 11
companies, competitive market pressures Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Mr. Amor Paraso would prevent this kind of action, but I I am writing in full support of the recent 7230 Adams Road believe Microsoft has demonstrated that settlement between the US Department of Magna UT 84044 additional regulatory restrictions are required Justice and Microsoft. The antirust case has to restrain a monopoly from such practices. dragged on far too long to date and should MTC–00028270 Heber Bennion be ended as soon as possible. Microsoft is a From: Shanti Kulkarni Salt Lake City, Utah leading innovator of technology over the last To: Microsoft ATR [email protected] decade. Under British definition a monopoly Date: 1/28/02 1:49pm delivers poor quality products at inflated Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028266 rates. Microsoft has consistently innovated Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I hope From: Melbourne Anderson excellent products and sold them at fair the court will ensure that any settlement is To: Microsoft ATR prices. They have also not infringed upon my strong enough to ensure a level of Date: 1/28/02 1:46pm rights as a consumer. I am free to purchase competition which provides value to the 3908 59th Street Court NW any software I desire. public and encourages innovation. As was Gig Harbor, WA 98335 The terms of the settlement are not letting shown by the 1995 ruling, Microsoft will January 27, 2002 Microsoft off easy. They will have to simply weasel out of any agreement that does Attorney General John Ashcroft document and disclose for use by not include a strong enforcement mechanism. US Department of Justice competitors its internal interfaces and It will use any provided wiggle room to 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW protocols. They will also be agreeing to not integrate any emerging PC or Internet Washington, DC 20530 retaliate against computer makers and technology into its all-consuming operating Dear Mr. Ashcroft: software developers who develop or promote system. Given the monopoly that Windows I am writing you today to express my software that competes with Windows’’ enjoys, such integration has the effect opinion in regards to the Microsoft antitrust operating system products. These stifiling innovation by unaffiliated vendors, dispute. I support Microsoft in this dispute concessions give a huge advantage to and denying the public the value of potential and would like to see this litigation resolved. competition and violate the principles of free competition. It is in the public interest that Microsoft is a good company that has market economics. Microsoft be barred from doing so again, as contributed a great deal to our society. At any rate the settlement should be relied it did with its Internet Explorer, and is Restricting this company will not benefit since the alternative of further litigation currently doing again with Media Player. I anyone. I support the settlement reached in would be too much to bear for Microsoft, the urge the court to reject DOJ’s proposed November as a means to end this dispute. IT sector, and our nation’s economy. Please settlement, and any settlement that lacks This settlement is fair and reasonable. take the next step. Thank you. strong enforcement and heavy penalties for Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows Sincerely, failing to comply with its terms. operating system products to the 20 largest Lisa Throneberry Shanti Kulkarni, CCNP, CNE, RHCE computer makers on identical terms and Sr. Network Engineer, Deltek Systems conditions, including price. Microsoft has MTC–00028269 703–734–8606 x4590/[email protected] also agreed to design future versions of From: k l Windows to provide a mechanism to make it To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028271 easy for computer makers, consumers and Date: 1/28/02 1:47pm From: Webb, D. Clinton software developers to promote non- Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Microsoft software within Windows. Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, Date: 1/28/02 1:51pm During these difficult times, one of our I oppose such a preposterous resolution to Subject: Comments on U.S. v. Microsoft highest priorities should be to stimulate our the Microsoft case. In the last several years, Corporation settlement lagging economy. Restricting Microsoft will the U. S. Court of Appeals has found To Whom it May Concern: not accomplish this end. Please support this Microsoft guilty of violating all rules of the I am troubled by the terms of, and settlement. Thank you for your time. anti-trust laws. procedure for seeking the settlement of, the Sincerely, Yet in the framework of the PFJ, better antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Melbourne Anderson know as the Proposed Final Judgment, the Department of Justice and Microsoft MTC–00028267 DoJ throws out these findings, indicting Corporation. From: William R. Kesting Microsoft on all charges of business First, I urge the court to confirm whether To: Microsoft ATR wrongdoing. More profound and astonishing the parties have strictly adhered to the Date: 1/28/02 1:46pm is how the PFJ permits Microsoft to continue requirements of the Tunney Act. Second, I Subject: Microsoft Settlement with its monopolistic practices. I am urge the court to investigate whether Dear Sirs, completely convinced you will receive Microsoft Corporation has improperly I strongly believe that the terms-which similar sentiments entailing the various discussed details of the settlement with have met or gone beyond the findings of the loopholes apparent in the final settlement. Congress. Third, I urge the court and the Court of Appeals ruling-are reasonable and With the evidence presented, the PFJ does parties to confirm that the proposed fair to all parties involved. Please do what not even make an attempt to break up the settlement will have the pro-competitive you can to bring this matter to a close. software giant. What the PFJ permits is the effects of opening the browser market to third Sincerely, following: permitting Microsoft to leverage parties, particularly in light of (i) the William R. Kesting its current monopoly positions and expand parameters of the Sherman/Clayton antitrust President its business into several other technologies act; (ii) Netscape/AOL’s recent lawsuit Kesting Ventures Corp. markets. In the past most monopolies were against Microsoft for alleged anticompetitive either broken up or carefully regulated. Why business practices in the web browser MTC–00028268 not Microsoft? Does AT&T ring a bell? market; (iii) improper / unlawful bundling of From: Lisa Throneberry At the same time, severe reprimands by the Microsoft’s web browser and operating To: Microsoft ATR DoJ only hinder instead of instigating change system; (iv) anticompetitive original Date: 1/28/02 1:48pm with Microsofts existing operation equipment manufacturer operating system Subject: Microsoft Settlement methodologies. Time and time again as licensing practices. Lisa Throneberry history will show, Microsoft will abuse its In addition, I would like to add the 338 Knotts Circle Woodstock, GA 30188 monopoly position. Breaking up Microsofts following to the public comment process, as 770–928–8478 770–516–5059 fax business into several parts just might be the it relates to the conclusion of the Microsoft January 21, 2002 best antidote to prevent MS from even doing antitrust proceedings: Attorney General John Ashcroft more damage to the industry. In closing your As an attorney, a Windows operating US Department of Justice honor, I submit to you my disapproval of the system and Microsoft Internet Explorer 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Proposed Final Judgment. equipped computer user, and more Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, importantly, an American citizen, I am
VerDate 11
troubled by the fact that the following J 2 ‘‘(c) meets reasonable, objective 404–248–8082 summation of anyone’s chance at bringing standards established by Microsoft for Ownere/Member of Dare Computer, LLC Microsoft to justice receives this type of certifying the authenticity and viability of its 404–248–0336 response from the popular press: Quoted business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own from http://forum.fuckedcompany.com/fc/ expense, any computer program using such MTC–00028273 phparchives/search.php’search=microsoft APIs, Documentation or Communication From: Ronald K Finn Netscape sued Microsoft. I predict: Protocols to third-party verification, To: Microsoft ATR 1) It finally goes to court after a year approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure Date: 1/28/02 1:51pm 2) Microsoft appeals and tries to delay verification and compliance with Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement every court date specifications for use of the API or interface, To whom it may concern: 3) Microsoft is found guilty which specifications shall be related to It is my opinion that Microsoft has been 4) They appeal proper operation and integrity of the systems hurt enough. We owe a lot to that company 5) Two years have passed and mechanisms identified in this paragraph. for what we have today. It will serve no 6) More Microsoft products dominate the THIS ALLOWS MICROSOFT THE LEEWAY purpose to the American public to penilize market TO REFUSE TO COOPERATE WITH OPEN them further. 7) Microsoft settles with an arbitrator for SOURCE DEVEOPERS, WHOM THEY VIEW Sincerely, $10 million AS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO Ronald K. Finn, 8) Netscape is pissed THEIR MONOPOLY. 6507 Rob Road, 9) Microsoft wins The DOJ should not allow the criminal to Black Hawk SD. 57718 (you may insert any company or product define the terms, but rather specifiy that the MTC–00028274 into the above places where Netscape is) API shall be available to developers at Thank you for your consideration of this reasonable, fixed cost. From: Gary Shapiro (informal) comment. VI Definitions To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Sincerely, N. ‘‘of which at least one million copies Date: 1/28/02 1:55pm D. Clinton Webb were distributed in the United States within Subject: Microsoft Settlement Palo Alto, California the previous year.‘‘ OLE—Obj [email protected] THIS STIPULATION IS A BARRIER TO January 28, 2002 ANY STARTUP COMPANY, and is Renata B. Hesse MTC–00028272 unnecessary. Antitrust Division From: [email protected]@inetgw R.‘‘Timely Manner means at the time U.S. Department of Justice To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft first releases a beta test version of 601 D Street NW Date: 1/28/02 1:52pm a Windows Operating System Product that is Suite 1200 Subject: Microsoft Settlement distributed to 150,000 or more beta testers.‘‘ Washington DC 20530–0001 Renata B. Hesse DOES THIS MEAN THAT MICROSOFT Re: United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil Antitrust Division CAN HAVE 149,000 BETA TESTERS No. 98–1232 U.S. Department of Justice WITHOUT REVEALING API SPECIFATIONS Dear Ms. Hesse: 601 D Street NW TO OUTSIDE DEVELOPERS? Microsoft has been a valued exhibitor and Suite 1200 Please, substitute wording that promotes partner in the International Consumer Washington, DC 20530–0001 fairness. Electronics Show for several years. Bill Gates Dear Ms. Hesse: U.‘‘Windows Operating System Product? has also been a featured keynote speaker at My qualifications: means the software code (as opposed to the CES several times in the last ten years. Bachelor of Science in Computer Science source code) distributed commercially by In introducing Bill Gates to the audience the 1975 Microsoft for use with Personal Computers as last two years I used a collection of concepts Over 20 years of computer programming, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP I summarize below. I hope that in approving software installation, and computer repair Home, Windows XP Professional, and the settlement you consider some of the experience successors to the foregoing, including the sentiments expressed. Not only does My overall complaints of the content of the Personal Computer versions of the products litigation cost the business community and ‘‘Proposed Final Judgement’’ currently code named ?Longhorn? and taxpayers billions of dollars every year, but 1) No attempt to remedy the past gains in ?Blackcomb? and their successors, including additionally, long drawn-out court battles market share and capital amassed by upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. distract businesses from focusing on their Microsoft through the unfair, illegal, and The software code that comprises a core productive operations. With the U.S. anti-competetive business practices Windows Operating System Product shall be now officially in recession and in the face of employed in the intentional quest to determined by Microsoft in its sole new concerns domestically, a settlement is dominate the PC market. discretion. HERE WE GO AGAIN. LIMITING needed to provide stability for the industry 2) No attempt to remedy or control the THE REMEDY TO ONLY ONE SEGMENT OF that has driven the new economy over the proliferation of Microsoft Office, which is INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, WHILE last decade. dominant at least in part due to Microsoft’s MICROSOFT USES ITS CLOUT IN ANY Ultimately, Microsoft’s story is our nation’s API secrecy, bundling, tie-in, and EMERGING MARKET THAT IT CHOOSES story. It’s about how ideas and a small interoperability tactics. Forcing complete TO ENTER. scrappy upstart can become a world leader disclosure of the file formats used would be Please apply the restrictions more broadly. and change the face of history. Our country a minimal attempt at restoring competition to Conclusions: and Microsoft started with driven people this area. The Proposed Final Remedy is too little, pursuing a dream and providing a 3) No attempt to regulate Microsoft’s too late. If fails to properly regulate compelling benefit. Microsoft offered anyone behavior in non-desktop PC markets ( Microsoft’s business practices in the future, access to freedom by providing a simple wireless, handheld, internet services, etc. ) while wholly neglecting to apply any remedy interface to conquer the complexities of a where they have the leverage and funding for the misconduct of the past. The computer. Our founding fathers gave us amassed to date to overwhelm the comsumers and software developers and freedoms embodied in the structure and the competition in any emerging market that they even the hardware developers are NOT standard of the Constitution and the Bill of choose to enter. adequately served by this document. Rights. The American Bill of Rights are 4) The PFJ contains enough loopholes and If the Department of Justice will not becoming accepted by the world and Microsoft-friendly definitions to let this enforce the anti-monopoly law of this improving the world standard of living. So, company, famous for its past indiscretions, country, then where can we, the citizens, too, are the Microsoft standards being continue to flaunt the intent and purpose of look for remedy ? accepted and improving the lives of millions this judgement. Tom B. Younker around the world. Specific objections to the terms: 777 Riderwood Dr. In the Information Age, Microsoft gave us III Prohibited Conduct Decatur, GA 30033 access to information. Microsoft is to other
VerDate 11
corporations what our country is to the rest recent times has produced such a creative comply with the settlement. The Long Beach of the world. Both are the new kids that did mind? Has democracy actually come to this? Council of LULAC supports these proposals well. Each started as an idea. Each became Sincerely, and urges the Court to adopt them. a world standard. These standards have Bettye D. Schmollinger Anna Gallegos Brannon President, LULAC changed the world for the better. For CC:[email protected]@inetgw Council #3027 computer users, Microsoft made it simple to Long Beach Council #3027 MTC–00028276 create, edit and send documents and 3824 East La Jara Street, presentations anywhere in the world. I had From: Anna Gallegos Brannon Long Beach Ca 90805 to edit presentations recently in Egypt, To: Microsoft ATR Phone 562 633 3853 Germany and Switzerland and I was Date: 1/28/02 1:46pm Fax 562 590 6494 comfortable this year using others’’ Subject: Microsoft Settlement computers in these countries as they all used Thank you for your time and MTC–00028277 Microsoft products. consideration. From: Thane Perkins Microsoft has improved the world’s Anna Gallegos-Brannon To: Microsoft ATR standard of living. Microsoft standards President, LULAC Council #3027 Date: 1/28/02 1:47pm increase world productivity by making January 28, 2002 Subject: Microsoft Settlement computers everywhere easy to use. Without Renata B. Hess It think the settlement is a step in the right the Microsoft standard it is doubtful so many Antitrust Division direction. However, I do not think it is a big people would be comfortably using U.S. Department of Justice enought step. I am not one in favor of computers. Microsoft has not only made 601 D Street NW splitting Microsoft up or fining MS tens of many investors happy, it directly employs Suite 1200 billions of dollars. However, there are some some 40,000 exceptional people in some 60 Washington, DC 20530–0001 marketing practices that Microsoft is still countries. More, many others are employed via email ([email protected]) employing and will continue to employ because of Microsoft products. Microsoft also VIA FACSIMILE: 202/307–1454 (or 202/616– because they are successful. Unless Microsoft exports more than it sells domestically. With 9937) is additionally shackled in some way so that this positive economic activity, terrific SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement they stop doing these things, Microsoft will products, and reputation for charity, any Dear Ms. Hesse: use the power and money that they got from other country would consider itself blessed The League of Latin American Citizens— their previous illegal business practices to to have Microsoft headquartered within its Long Beach Council believes that the continue to stifle competition and ultimately borders, adding to its tax rolls and employing proposed settlement of the Microsoft hurt innovation: its citizens. antitrust case amounts to a reward for 1) Microsoft does innovate and will There is a Yiddish word, ‘‘mensch’’. It misconduct. Indeed, the settlement is so good occasionally surprise me. However, they means doer of good and applies to someone for Microsoft, that it is attempting to buy off often eye a successful idea and decide to who you know well and does good things for those who oppose it with an offer to develop a similar application. This is not bad people. I submit to you that when a company California and other states to pay their legal in an of itself. But, instead of trying to do or individual does good things of such costs—if they will step aside and let the compete with improved functionality, magnitude then they too can wear the sweetheart deal go ahead unchallenged. Microsoft uses their huge cash reserves to ‘‘mensch’’ mantle. Not only has Microsoft This astonishing offer merely confirms the worm their way into the market. If they are improved the world’s standard of living, but notion that Microsoft believes that all of its way behind the competition, they GIVE the its founder Bill Gates along with his wife errors can be wished away by money. And, new software AWAY—either by integrating it Melinda, have donated some $21 billion to it’s not the first time that Bill Gates’’ into their operating system or doing special the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for company has reached into its treasury and ‘‘deals’’ with OEMs so people get the global education and healthcare. The come up with dollars for politicians. During software free or dirt cheap. So, even if the magnitude of how Microsoft has changed the the 2000 political campaign, the company settlement stops Microsoft from making world and this generosity are so large, that spent more than $6 million on contributions exclusionary deals with OEMs, Microsoft I submit to you both Microsoft and Bill Gates to political campaigns, state parties and will out-price the competition. deserve the appellation ‘‘mensch’’. political action committees. One can only 2) Microsoft is a master of the Sincerely, assume, it hoped to generate political VAPORWARE. They can really put a damper Gary Shapiro pressure for a favorable settlement. on the sales of a competing product simply President and CEO Whatever the reason, Microsoft has by making a press announcement. I wish they Consumer Electronics Association managed to negotiate a settlement, which to would be restricted about the number of days www.ce.org a remarkable degree would make it the prior to releasing a completely new product arbiter of its own compliance—an could Microsoft announce its development. MTC–00028275 astonishing turnabout for a company that has And finally, it is 2002—a long time since From: [email protected]@inetgw repeatedly skirted U.S. antitrust law and the original suit was brought and an eternity To: Microsoft ATR found guilty by several courts of abusing its in terms of the High-Tech industry. Date: 1/28/02 1:54pm monopoly power. California Attorney Remember, this suit was brought because Subject: Microsoft Settlement General Bill Lockyer is right to resist the Microsoft had broken a previous agreement Dear Ms. Hesse: settlement and to continue to press for a with the DOJ. So, what happens if Microsoft I am a retired government employee who tough remedy that would limit Microsoft’s breaks this agreement? Will we have to wait taught software courses for the Navy. My ability to leverage its Windows monopoly nearly a decade for the next decision— students included military as well as and extend its market domination into more allowing Microsoft to do business as usual in civilians. These were the teams, made up of facets of our information age economy. the mean time? both men and women, that produced training Nine state Attorneys General and the manuals and exams for the Navy. Corporation Counsel of the District of MTC–00028278 After testing many different software Columbia chose not to support the current From: MD Dbeis programs Microsoft was chosen for a number Microsoft settlement and have offered To: Microsoft ATR of reasons; it was very computer friendly and proposals that will adequately address the Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm the company offered help desk assistance agreement’s loopholes. More specifically, Subject: Microsoft Settlement when no other company did. At that time, these proposals require that Microsoft fulfill M.D. because all of us were new to computers, both technical and licensing obligations that CS&S Computer Systems, Inc these were most compelling reasons. I do not will bring greater competition to the software 1505 W. University Dr. Suite 103 understand why our government, in this market and greater choice to consumers. In Tempe, AZ 85281 country of freedom and opportunity, insists addition, the proposals include more www.css-computers.com on the continued harrassment of this young enforceable oversight provisions and stricter 480–968–8585 man. Who’s next? What other country in penalties in the event Microsoft does not 480–968–9544 FAX
VerDate 11
Tel (480) 968–8585 are better and let them stop trying to use the MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant CS&S Fax (480)968–9544 Courts. Alan Sirkin Civil Action No. 98–1232 (CKK) Computer Systems STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MTC–00028281 January 28, 2002 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant Attorney General John Ashcroft From: MOHINDER AGARWAL Civil Action No. 98–1233 (CKK) DOJ, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR COMMENTS OF AOL TIME WARNER ON Washington, DC 20530 Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Subject: Microsoft TABLE OF CONTENTS The way that this lawsuit against Microsoft Dear Sir; Page has quickly degenerated into a vengeful I believe the terms-which have met or gone INTRODUCTION—1 exchange of threats of breaking the company beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals THE COURT SHOULD USE THE REMEDIAL up should give pause to any of us in the IT ruling-are reasonable and fair to all parties OBJECTIVES ESTABLISHED BY THE DC business. It should be acknowledged that involved. This settlement represents the best CIRCUIT IN THIS CASE AS THE Microsoft has not carried itself in the noblest opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to STANDARD FOR ASSESSING fashion at times, but this alone should not be move forward. WHETHER THE PFJ IS ‘‘IN THE PUBLIC cause enough to drag the company through So I support the settlement. INTEREST.’’—4 the federal courts. Furthermore, if this sort of Mohinder Agarwal II. action can be so easily brought against a MTC–00028282 AS MICROSOFT STARTS TO IMPLEMENT company like Microsoft, then other IT MOST OF THE DECREE’S PROVISIONS, companies may soon find themselves in a From: Pamela Mann THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER similar position. To: Microsoft ATR HOW—IF AT ALL—OEMS ARE For the sake of clarity, this settlement Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm RESPONDING—9 should be endorsed by all. At it stands, the Subject: Microsoft There Is No Indication That Microsoft’s terms of the settlement go beyond the scope In short, I would like to see no action Implementation Of Major Aspects Of The of the original lawsuit. They address the which tramples on the freedom to be PFJ Is Even Beginning To Promote notorious issue of Microsoft’s relationship innovative and resourceful in the business Competition Or Helping To Loosen with OEMs, and now Microsoft will have to arena. There are always victims that feel their Microsoft’s Control Over The Desktop— change the way it sets up contracts with rights have been compromised when beaten 10 other companies that distribute Windows as at the finish line. The entrepreneurial spirit B. well. Of course, its greatest advantage is it is what makes America great. The Provisions Of The PFJ Implemented By will bring to an end this cycle of negative Thank you, Microsoft Since July 11th Are Not posturing between those on the government’s Pamela Mann Showing Signs That They Will Work To side and those on Microsoft’s. My business Sr. Sales Director Restore Competition In The Browser was noticeably pinched by the lawsuit, and Mary Kay Cosmetics Market—14 I—and man), others-cannot afford to have the MTC–00028283 III. entire IT business in a wait-and-see attitude THE PFJ IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST From: Suzanne Lavine to see if Microsoft will be split up. BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EVEN To: Microsoft ATR I support this settlement, and convey my ATTEMPT TO HALT MICROSOFT’S Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm hope that this kind of litigation against an MOST INSIDIOUS PRACTICE: ITS Subject: Microsoft Settlement American company will not happen again ILLEGAL BINDING AND BUNDLING OF any time soon. Please adopt the agreed on the terms of the MIDDLEWARE APPLICATIONS WITH Sincerely, settlement. Please stop wasting tax payer’s THE WINDOWS OS—17 Mountasir Dbeis money and everyone’s efforts on something a. CEO that should be done and over with. The Court Of Appeals Explicitly Held That cc: Representative Jeff Flake MTC–00028284 Code Commingling—A Form Of Tying 1505 West University Dr. Suite 103 Unaddressed By The PFJ— Violates Microsoft From: Klain, Ronald Section 2 Of The Sherman Act—19 CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’,Klain, Ronald g. Tempe, AZ 85281 Date: 1/28/02 1:58pm Microsoft Uses A Variety Of Other Tying Product Specialist Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement- Tunney Act Comments Practices To Maintain Its Operating MTC–00028279 Renata B. Hesse System Monopoly; If The Monopoly Is From: [email protected]@inetgw Antitrust Division To Be ‘‘Terminated,’’ Such Contractual To: Microsoft ATR U.S. Department of Justice Tying Must Be Prohibited—24 Date: 1/28/02 1:56pm 601 D Street NW By Allowing Microsoft To Continue To Tie Subject: Microsoft Settlement Suite 1200 Its Middleware Applications To Dear Goverment, please dont distry such a Washington, DC 20530 Windows, Microsoft Retains One Of The great and valueble company as Microsoft. All Re: Comments of AOL Time Warner Most Valuable ‘‘Fruits’’ Of Its Illegal ‘‘nonefair-monopolist’’ accusations are result Dear Ms. Hesse: Acts—31 of their competitors and lobby. In the attached ‘‘PDF’’ file, you will find THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT Huge progress of the human civilization the Comments of my client, AOL Time FURTHER FAILS THE PUBLIC build by Microsoft. Millions worked place in Warner, on the proposed final judgment in INTEREST TEST, BECAUSE IT DOES the world. U.S. v. Microsoft. Please accept these for the NOT ACHIEVE EVEN THE LIMITED CC:[email protected]@inetgw Court’s consideration under the Tunney Act, OBJECTIVES THAT IT HOLDS OUT AS 15 U.S.C. 16. ITS AIMS—33 MTC–00028280 We will also be submitting these in ‘‘hard A From: [email protected]@inetgw copy’’ form as well. Please do not hesitate to Tile PFJ Allows Microsoft To Continue To: Microsoft ATR call me at 202–383–5317 if you have any Engaging In Discriminatory And Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm questions. Restrictive Licensing Agreements To Subject: Microsoft case settlement Sincerely, Curtail The Use Of Rival Middleware I hope the government will settle this case. Ronald A. Klain Products—34 I love the Microsoft products and own the O’Melveny & Myers B stocks. It has been one of the best American <
VerDate 11
The PFJ Does Not Ban Many Forms Of situation when a Tunney Act review is Third, even with regard to those limited Retaliation By Microsoft Against OEMs— conducted. Helpfully, a readily available and objectives that the PFJ does attempt to 42 judicially administrable measure of the achieve—i.e., the creation of ‘‘OEM D ‘‘public interest’’ is available for use in this flexibility’’ to promote desktop The PFJ Does Nothing To Remedy Microsoft’s special circumstance: the four-part test for ‘‘a competition—the proposed decree is so Illegal Campaign To Eliminate Java—45 remedies decree’’ established by the DC ridden with loopholes, exceptions and carve- E Circuit in this very litigation. United States outs as to render it ineffective. These The PFJ Includes A ‘‘Gerrymandered’’ v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 103 (DC Cir. 2001). deficiencies are highlighted when the PFJ is Definition Of Middleware—47 Applying this standard, we believe that the compared to previous remedial plans F. Court should find the PFJ to be in the ‘‘public considered in this case, including Judge The PFJ Lacks A Meaningful Enforcement interest’’ only if it (1) ‘‘unfetter[s] a market Jackson’s interim conduct remedies and the Mechanism—50 from anticompetitive conduct’’; (2) mediation proposal offered by Judge Richard THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE ‘‘terminate[s] the illegal monopoly’’; (3) Posner (which Microsoft apparently agreed to STRONGLY MILITATE IN FAVOR OF ‘‘den[ies] to the defendant the fruits of its even before it had been found liable for GATHERING EVIDENCE AND statutory violation’’; and (4) ‘‘ensure[s] that antitrust violations). TESTIMONY— EITHER IN A HEARING, there remain no practices likely to result in Finally, we believe the Court will find the OR THROUGH THE USE OF THE monopolization in the future.’’ Id. (internal remedial proposal of the litigating state RECORD FROM THE REMEDIAL quotations omitted). We believe that there are attorneys general (‘‘Litigating States’’ PROCEEDING—TO DETERMINE IF THE at least three reasons why the Court should Remedial Proposal’’ or ‘‘LSRP’’)—and the PFJ MEETS THE PUBLIC INTEREST conclude that the PFJ does not meet this test. Court’s consideration of that proposal—to be TEST—53 First, since July 11,2001 (for the browser) useful in its review of the PFJ. Most A. and December 16, 2001 (for other immediately, the LSRP provides a benchmark The Complexity And Significance Of This middleware), Microsoft has been as to what one group of antitrust enforcers Case—And The Inadequacy Of The implementing many of the PFJ’s remedial believes to be compelled by the ‘‘public CIS—All Militate In Favor Of A Heating provisions. Thus, the Court need not interest’’ in order to achieve the case’s On The PFJ—53 speculate about the impact these provisions remedial objectives. Moreover, the LSRP The Court Should Conduct A Proceeding— would have on the industry if they were put provides a helpful point of comparison for Taking Evidence And Heating in place; rather, it can seek submissions and some specific aspects of the PFJ—i.e., a way Testimony, If Necessary- To Determine review evidence on whether these critical to illustrate why particular PFJ provisions are How The PFJ’s Provisions Have provisions are beginning to work as they are ineffective, by comparison. Functioned Since Some Were Put In being implemented by Microsoft. We believe These factual findings were affirmed on that any such inquiry will reveal that the Place In 2001—56 appeal. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 51–78. In original equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) In Making Its ‘‘Public Interest’’ addition, the Court recently held that the are not exercising the flexibility that the PFJ Determination, This Court Should Take factual findings of the District Court ‘‘in ostensibly provides them, because the Into Account The Evidence That Will Be support of the liability findings’’ should be loophole-ridden PFJ gives too few rights to Adduced In The Upcoming Remedial considered ‘‘undisputed’’ for the purpose of the OEMs and does too little to protect the Proceeding—58 OEMs in the exercise of those rights. As a this proceeding. (See Transcript of January 7, CONCLUSION—61 result, there is little reason to believe that the 2002, at 31.) And third, the Court’s COMMENTS OF AOL TIME WARNER ON PFJ will prove effective in restoring consideration of the LSRP will adduce THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT competition, terminating Microsoft’s testimony and other evidence that should be Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust monopoly, or stripping Microsoft of the fruits weighed in determining whether the PFJ Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. §; 16, of its illegal acts. should be approved. Taken as a whole, a AOL Time Warner respectfully submits the How wide a ‘‘gap’’ between a hypothetical comparison of the PFJ with the Litigating following comments on the Proposed Final litigated result and the proposed settlement States’’ Remedial Proposal shows why the Judgment (‘‘PFJ’’) in the above-referenced is permissible in these circumstances is a latter, and not the former, faithfully meets the matter. question that need not be answered here remedial objectives set forth by the DC INTRODUCTION because the PFJ falls so very short of meeting Circuit and serves the ‘‘public interest’’ as The Proposed Final Judgment sets forth a an), reasonable understanding of the ‘‘public expressed in the nation’s antitrust laws. decree that is too limited in its objectives and interest,’’ given its failure to address many of I. THE COURT SHOULD USE THE too flawed in its execution to meet the Microsolf’s illegal acts and its loophole- REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES ESTABLISHED BY Tunney Act’s ‘‘public interest’’ test. It allows ridden provisions in the areas that it does THE DC CIRCUIT IN THIS CASE AS THE Microsoft to continue to bind and bundle its purport to cover. STANDARD FOR ASSESSING WHETHER middleware applications with its Windows Second, the PFJ fails to prohibit Microsoft’s THE PFJ IS ‘‘IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.’’ Operating System (‘‘OS’’)—even though tile signature anticompetitive conduct: the Passed by Congress in 1974, the Antitrust Court of Appeals found Microsoft’s actions in binding of its middleware applications to its Procedures and Penalties Act, commonly this regard to be illegal. And its patchwork monopoly operating system, and its bundling known as the ‘‘Tunney Act,’’ provides that a of constraints on Microsoft’s conduct is so of these products to further entrench its OS proposed consent decree may be entered in loophole-ridden and exception-laden as to monopoly. The factual questions that an antitrust case only if the district court render its provisions ineffective. As a result, surround these legal issues are quite determines that such entry is ‘‘in the public the PFJ is inadequate to promote competition complex, but here again, the Court has a interest.’’ See 15 U.S.C. *16(e). Given that the and protect consumers, and the Court should powerful tool to employ: the extensive Court will receive numerous submissions on refuse to find that its entry would be ‘‘in the factual findings entered by the District Court. this point, we do not provide here a public interest.’’ 15 U.S.C. * 16(e). (1) These factual findings document recitation of the Tunney Act’s provisions, or The PFJ comes before the Court in an Microsoft’s purposeful commingling of an extensive analysis of the standard of unprecedented posture for a Tunney Act middleware application code with the review under the Act. Instead, we focus on proceeding. This proposed settlement was Windows OS to harm competition, as well as just one, overriding ‘‘procedural’’ question: reached—not as the case was being filed, nor the contractual bundling of those How should the Court measure ‘‘the public as it was being tried, nor even as it was being applications with the OS, to force OEMs to interest’’ in this unique case? For reasons we appealed—but rather, after the Court of distribute Microsoft’s middleware, and to will explain below, we believe that the Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit raise distribution hurdles for middleware measure of the ‘‘public interest’’ to be unanimously affirmed a finding of illegal rivals. Given the PFJ’s failure to ban practices applied in reviewing the PFJ can be found in monopoly maintenance by Microsoft. Such that the District Court and the Court of the remedial objectives set forth by the DC circumstances surely require a more rigorous Appeals found to be at the center of Circuit in its consideration of this litigation. application of the ‘‘public interest’’ standard Microsoft’s illegal maintenance of its OS See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 103. than a case is settled before the first monopoly, the PFJ does not meet the ‘‘public First, while the Tunney Act itself does not interrogatory is even served—the usual interest’’ standard. define ‘‘public interest,’’ the case law makes
VerDate 11
clear that the Court must begin its analysis Accord American Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Department), here, there is a clear benchmark ‘‘by defining the public interest’’ in Supp. at 149.3 for the Court to use: the standard set by the accordance with the basic purpose of the This is not to say that the Court should Court of Appeals with regard to a ‘‘remedies antitrust laws, which is to’’ ‘‘preserv[e] free reject the PFJ if it finds only that it differs decree.’’ and unfettered competition as the rule of in some respects from the remedy that the Moreover, to the extent that insisting that trade.’’ United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Court would impose at the end of litigation. the PFJ meet the standard set by the Court Co., 552 F. Supp. 131,149 (D.DC 1982) For while the public is entitled to a very of Appeals would result in a more exacting (quoting Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. United robust remedy here, especially given the fact review than the review imposed in other States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958)). As a general rule, that this case has been litigated through trial Tunney Act proceedings, that would be a court has discretion to reject a proposed and affirmed on appeal with judgments appropriate in this circumstance. For while consent decree that is ineffective because it against Microsolf, a settlement clearly does the overwhelming majority of decrees fails to address or resolve the core not have to match precisely the outcome that reviewed under the Tunney Act occur in a competitive problems identified in the would have been achieved in litigation to be pre-trial where the court lacks a judicial Department of Justice’s complaint. United deemed acceptable under the tunney Act’s finding of illegality against which to measure States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, public interest test. the efficacy of the proposed settlement—this 1457–62 (DC Cir. 1995). As this Court stated Second, the four-part test established by proposed settlement was reached after an in United States v. Thomson Corp., 949 F. the DC Circuit here would give the Court a appellate affirmance of liability. Because the Supp. 907, 913 (D.DC 1996), the court has a clear and manageable standard on which to public has invested its resources and time, responsibility ‘‘to compare the complaint evaluate the proposed decree’s adequacy) and taken the risk to win a judgment of filed by the government with the proposed Use of the DC Circuit’s formulation thus liability and defend that judgment on appeal, consent decree and determine whether the avoids one of the principal bases of it has a right to expect a more rigorous decree remedies negotiated between the parties and controversy and difficulty in Tunney Act that meets a higher standard of review. Under proposed by the Justice Department clearly reviews -i.e., the lack of a judicially these circumstances, the Court’s review and effectively address the anticompetitive manageable standard for assessing the public under the Tunney Act should not be harms initially identified.’’ A court should interest and the consequent risk that judges deferential 1o the Justice Department; ‘‘hesitate’’ in the face of specific objections will inappropriately use standardless instead, the Court should apply the Court of from directly affected third parties before judgment to review an exercise of Appeals’’ four-part test and determine if the concluding that a proposed final judgment is prosecutorial discretion.5 Thus, unlike in PFJ meets that test. in the public interest. United States v. other Tunney Act cases, where a court lacks As explained in more detail below, the PFJ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1462. And it ‘‘should an appropriate benchmark on which to fails to meet the DC Circuit’s four-part test, pay ‘‘special attention’’ to the clarity of the measure the purported benefits of the because contrary to the claims of the proposed consent decree and to the adequacy settlement (and thus must be careful not to Department of Justice, it will neither of its compliance mechanisms in order to impose its judgment for that of the Justice ‘‘provide a prompt, certain and effective assure that the decree is sufficiently precise remedy for consumers,’’ nor ‘‘restore and the compliance mechanisms sufficiently 3 This approach generally comports with other competitive conditions to the market.’’ (See effective to enable the court to manage the Tunney Act cases, which conclude that an antitrust CIS at 2.) Specifically, it does not ‘‘unfetter implementation of the consent decree and remedy, including a consent decree, must’’ [the] market from anticompetitive conduct,’’ resolve any subsequent disputes.’’ Thomson ‘‘effectively pry open to competition a market that because it does not even try to stop has been closed by defendants’’ illegal restraints.’’ Microsoft’s illegal binding and bundling Corp., 949 F. Supp. at 914 (citing United Id. at 150 (quoting International Salt Co. v. United States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461–62). practices—or effectively limit Microsoft’s States, 332 U.S. 392, 401 (1947); see also 2 P. ability to coerce OEM behavior to its liking. In the context of this proceeding, Areeda & D. Turner, Antitrust Laws * 327 (1978)). tremendous guidance as to the content of the A decree ‘‘must ‘‘break up or render impotent the It does not ‘‘terminate the illegal monopoly’’ public interest test can come from the earlier monopoly power found to be in violation of the because it does not effectively promote rival decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. Act,’’ that is, it must leave the defendant without middleware, and because its provisions are In that decision, the DC Circuit wrote: the ability to resume the actions which constituted so laden with loopholes, exceptions and the antitrust violation in the first place.’’ carve-outs. It does not ‘‘deny to the defendant [A] remedies decree in an antitrust case American Tel. & Tel., 552 F. Supp. at 150 the fruits of its statutory violation,’’ because must seek to ‘‘unfetter a market from (quoting United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. it allows Microsoft to continue to leverage its anticompetitive conduct,’’ to ‘‘terminate the 563,577 (1966)). ‘‘It must also effectively foreclose OS monopoly to gain market share in other illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the the possibility that antitrust violations will occur or markets.6 And it does not ‘‘ensure that there fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure recur.’’ Id. As the Supreme Court noted in remain no practices likely to result in that there remain no practices likely to result International Salt Co., 332 U.S. at 400: monopolization in the future,’’ because it in monopolization in the future.’’ [I]t is not necessary that all of the untraveled leaves Microsoft free to exploit the OS roads to [anticompetitive conduct] be left open and Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 103 (quoting Ford that only the worn one be closed. The usual ways monopoly to gain don-finance in critical new Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 to the prohibited goals may be blocked against the markets. Failing to address the core (1972) and United States v. United Shoe proven transgressor. anticompetitive wrongs that were found at Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968)). These Additionally, ‘‘antitrust violations should be trial and upheld on appeal against Microsoft, words, in our view, form the essence of the remedied ‘‘with as little injury as possible to the and failing to meet the four-part remedial test public interest test to be applied by the Court interest of the general public’’ and to relevant established by the DC Circuit, the PFJ is in this Tunney Act proceeding. private interests.’’ /d. (quoting United States v. manifestly contrary to the public interest and First, on its face, this passage speaks of the American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106, I85 (191 I)). should be rejected. object of a ‘‘remedies decree in an antitrust While the Department of Justice urges the Court II. AS MICROSOFT STARTS TO to adopt a much more lax review, even the case,’’ without differentiating between a IMPLEMENT MOST OF THE DECREE’S government acknowledges that the Court’s ‘‘review PROVISIONS, THE COURT SHOULD decree that is achieved through negotiation of the decree is informed not merely by the and one achieved through litigation. Thus, allegations contained in the Complaint, but also by CONSIDER HOW—IF AT ALL—OEMS ARE the Court of Appeals’’ ruling would appear the extensive factual and legal record resulting from RESPONDING. to be directly controlling here, insofar as it the district and appellate court proceedings.’’ (See states the measure of adequacy for any Competitive Impact Statement (‘‘CIS’’) at 68 6 Indeed, Microsoft has actually seen its share of remedial decree, however achieved. There is (November 15, 2001).) the browser market grow since being found liable no apparent reason why the ‘‘remedies It was precisely the lack of a judicial finding of for illegal monopoly maintenance. For example, decree’’ negotiated by the Department of liability that caused Chief Justice Rehnquist to Microsoft’s share of the work browser market Justice with Microsoft should not have to question the constitutionality of the Tunney Act. increased from 69.3 percent in April 2000 (when See Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001, 1004 Judge Jackson issued his finding of liability) to 79.5 meet the standard of adequacy generally set (1982) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). This argument percent in November 2001. Over the same period, forth by the Court of Appeals in its decision.- does not apply in the present case where there has Microsoft’s share of the home browser market ’’ This is particularly true given that the been both a judicial finding of liability (at trial and increased from 75.7 percent to 81.8 percent. See passage merely ‘‘defin[es] the public interest affirmed on appeal), and there is a standard for Browser Trended Reach Report, Jupiter Media in accordance with the antitrust laws.’’ review established by an appellate court. Metrix, January 2002.
VerDate 11
As noted above, the question before the Microsoft may protest that a three- to four- Microsoft products. But no such evidence Court is whether the PFJ is ‘‘in the public month period in which parts of the PFJ will exists. No doubt, that is why countless interest.’’ 15 U.S.C. *sect; 16(e). In making have been applied is inadequate to test those industry observers and analysts have that determination, the statute indicates that remedies. And that is doubtlessly true with concluded, after examining the PFJ, that the Court may want to consider, inter alia: (1) regard to some measures of the PFJ’s ‘‘It]he changes we will see are minute. ‘‘the competitive impact’’ of the PFJ, (2) effectiveness, such as whether Microsoft’s Microsoft can control its own destiny. It can whether it results in the ‘‘termination of share of the OS market has shrunk from near do whatever it wants.’’ 10 Presumably, it alleged violations,’’ and (3) ‘‘the impact of absolute to anything less. But there are other cannot be in ‘‘the public interest’’ to settle a [the PFJ] upon the public generally and measures of the PFJ’s effectiveness that case after years and years of litigation— individuals alleging specific injury.’’ Id. should be readily discernible even in this including a finding of liability for the Fortunately, contrary to most other courts relatively short time. government at trial, affirmed unanimously on conducting Tunney Act reviews, this Court Among the questions we believe that the appeal by the Court of Appeals (See need not struggle with evaluating the court could determine, by the time of a Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 46)—for a remedial ‘‘competitive impact’’ of the PFJ in a factual hearing in March or April, would be: decree that effectuates only ‘‘minute’’ vacuum because Microsoft has been, Have the OEMs exercised (or even changes in the strategy the defendant was according to its own statements, attempted to exercise)—in any way beyond using to illegally maintain its monopoly. And implementing some provisions found in the the prevailing industry practice prior to yet, that is precisely what appears to be PFJ since last Jul)’’, and the bulk of its December 16th—the flexibilities to remove/ happening, as the effectiveness—or lack provisions since December. That means the replace icons, start menu entries, and default thereof- of parts of the PFJ are starting to be Court need not base its ‘‘public interest’’ settings for Microsoft middleware products, observed in application. While we certainly judgment on abstract legal and economic that are purportedly provided in Section agree with the Department of Justice that it analyses only; instead, the Court’s analysis III.C.1 of the PFJ? If not, why not? will only be ‘‘over time’’ that any remedy can (at least in part) be shaped by a Are non-Microsoft middleware products could ‘‘help lower the applications barrier to consideration of how Microsoft is beginning gaining .new distribution via the OEMs as a entry,’’ (see CIS at 29), that objective will to implement parts of the PFJ, and how the result of the provisions of Sections III.A. and never be achieved if the PFJ does not lead PFJ’s provisions are starting to work in III.C.2 of the PFJ, as implemented? If not, OEMs to even begin to ‘‘offer rival practice.7 We believe that such a practical why not? middleware to consumers and.., feature that review will demonstrate that the portions of Are non-Microsoft middleware products, to middleware in ways that increase the the PFJ in question show little prospect—if a greater extent than before implementation likelihood that consumers will choose to use any-that they will ‘‘unfetter the market,’’, of the PFJ, attaining the benefits of an it.’’ (Id.) That is: the pro-competitive ‘‘terminate the monopoly,’’ or ‘‘den),’’ to ‘‘automatic launch,’’ pursuant to the probative of nothing more than the Microsoft ‘‘the fruits of its violation.’’ provisions of Section III.C.3 of the PFJ? If not, compelling need for a hearing so the Court A. There Is No Indication That Microsoft’s why not? can explore how, if at all, the PFJ journey of * Is any OEM offering a dual-boot Implementation Of Major Aspects Of The PFJ a thousand miles can never be completed if— computer, as authorized by Sections III.A.2 Is Even Beginning To Promote Competition as it appears to be the case—the PFJ does not and III.C.4 of the PFJ? If not, why not? Or Helping To Loosen Microsoft’s Control create a market in which OEMs feel free to * Are there new IAP offerings being made Over The Desktop. In the joint stipulation take that all-important first step. To the at the conclusion of PC boot sequences, filed with the Court on November 6, 2001, extent that much of the CIS suggests that the pursuant to Section III.C.5 of the PFJ? If not, Microsoft stated that it would ‘‘begin goal of the remedy is to create OEM why not? complying with the [PFJ] as [if] it was in full flexibility for its own sake—i.e., to make sure Has any ISV, IHV, LAP, ICP or OEM gained force and effect starting on December 16, that OEMs have the right to choose non- any additional Windows licensing rights that Microsoft products, whether or not they 2001 .’’ (Stipulation and Revised Proposed it did not have prior to the implementation Final Judgment at 2 (November 6,2001).) exercise that right—it misses the mark. The of the PFJ, pursuant to Section III.I of the goal of this litigation is not to protect OEMs’’ While provisions with specific timetables PFJ? If not, why not? were exempted from this pledge—resulting rights, but rather to protect consumers’’ rights Has Microsoft terminated any payments to to enjoy a free and competitive market. In in an excessive delay for some of the PFJ’s OEMs that were anticompetitively competitive protections— many of the PFJ’s such a market, OEMs can be important advantaging Microsoft’s products, and that surrogates for consumers, but only if they remedial provisions were covered by it. are now forbidden, pursuant to Sections III.A Thus, with regard to many provisions of the actually offer competitive choices. Likewise, and III.B of the PFJ? to the extent that the other goal of the PFJ, the proposed decree has been ‘‘in effect’’ Based on our knowledge of industry 8 remedial proceeding is to reduce the since mid-December. developments, we believe that the answer to Microsoft’s stipulation offers the Court a applications barrier to entry, that objective is each of these questions is ‘‘no,’’ with perhaps only achieved to the extent that the OEMs unique opportunity to learn, not just how the 9 some very rare and isolated exceptions. actually distribute and promote non- PFJ would serve the public interest once Thus, despite Microsoft’s proclaimed implemented, but instead, whether the PFJ Microsoft middleware—it is not advanced by implementation of large portions of the PFJ, the unexercised presence of theoretical OEM provisions already in effect are showing signs there is scant evidence of OEMs even that they are likely to serve the public choice. attempting, let alone succeeding, to offer Thus, the determination of whether the PFJ interest. These provisions have now consumers new choices with respect to effectively been in place for 43 days—and by will be effective in promoting its purported middleware products. Even in a relatively ends—i.e., fostering OEMs in making those the time of a likely hearing or other short time frame of a few months, one would proceeding to consider this question choices and creating opportunities for expect to find numerous OEMs reaching competition—need not be left for some (presumably, in March or April), will have agreements to promote or carry multiple non- been in effect for three to four months. subsequent proceeding or for antitrust scholars in future years. It can be ascertained 9 Although Compaq and RealNetworks reached an now from the submissions that the Court is 7 If the Court finds that the submissions made to agreement in December 2001, whereby Compaq receiving, or, if those submissions are date are inadequate to assess this question, it can, would place Real’s player on its personal of course, under the Tunney Act, take whatever computers, see RealNetworks Sets Deal With inadequate, it could be resolved by the Court testimony or evidence is needed to make such a Compaq, The Los Angeles Times, December 13, determination. See 15 U.S.C. *sect; 16(f); Section 2001, it is unclear, among other things, what the 10 See Jeff O’Heir, Analysis: MS & DOJ Reach V.B, infra. terms of the agreement are, what impact it will have Agreement, P.C. Dealer, November 12, 2001 8 Some examples of PFJ provisions Microsoft has on competition and consumer choice, and whether (quoting Roland Pinto); see also Randy Barrett, MS- ostensibly been complying with since December 16, the agreement was motivated, in whole or in part, DOJ Pact Disappoints, Interactive Week, Nov. 8, 2001, include: Section III.A (anti-retaliation); by the purported ‘‘flexibility’’ of the proposed 2001 (quoting Roger Frizzell, Compaq Spokesman, Section III.B (uniform licensing); Section III.C (OEM settlement. While the Court should certainly give ‘‘Basically, we don’t feel there’s a big difference licenses); Section III.G (anticompetitive the Compaq agreement some consideration in its between where we’re standing today and where we agreements); and Section III.I (licensing of public interest review, the agreement’s mere were last week.’’); Id. (quoting Mike Griffin, ‘‘We intellectual properly). existence is already affecting the marketplace. don’t anticipate any changes at all.’’b.
VerDate 11
in a proceeding where evidence is taken and rather, theb, were in place for the launch of MIDDLEWARE APPLICATIONS WITH THE testimony is heard. See Section V.B, infra. Windows XP, which Bill Gates recently WINDOWS OS. The manner in which Microsoft is already dubbed the ‘‘best-selling release of Windows In this submission—and doubtlessly in the implementing portions of the PFJ is among ever, and one that is creating great many others the Court will receive - we the most probative considerations the Court opportunities for PC manufacturers and our identify a number of specific deficiencies in can weigh in determining how—it at all—the other partners in the industry.’’ 11 In the the PFJ. See Section IV, infra and Attachment proposed settlement will promote simplest terms, as we note above, these B. But one omission stands out above all competition in the years to come. ‘‘remedies’’ will have been in place for eight others: the failure of the PFJ to limit B. The Provisions Of The PFJ Implemented months by mid-March of 2002.12 Microsoft’s ongoing and insidious efforts to By Microsoft Since July 11th Are Not We believe that the initial evidence shows maintain its monopoly- and leverage and Showing Signs That They Will Work To that these provisions are completely entrench that monopoly—by tying its Restore Competition In The Browser Market. ineffective. We are unaware of a single OEM middleware applications to the Windows OS. In addition to the general applicability of that has used the ‘‘flexibility’’ provided to it This conduct—found illegal by the District the PFJ’s provisions, several of its provisions by Microsoft to remove Internet Explorer Court and upheld as illegal by the Court of have been in place—as they relate to the from the Start menu, or from any of its Appeals (see Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 67)—is Internet browser—since Microsoft took steps multiple promotional placements on the PC left unchecked by the PFJ. By contrast, a to implement them after the Court of desktop. Nor are we aware of any OEM that remedy to address this practice appeared in Appeals’’ decision last June. As with the has elected to use any competitor to Internet the interim conduct remedies offered by the 13 more general PFJ provisions discussed above, Explorer as a default browser, or to promote District Court, as well as the remedial the Court should examine whether these alternative browsers to Internet Explorer in proposal designed by Judge Richard Posner 14 browser- specific remedial provisions— any way. (‘‘Posner Proposal’’). The practice is also which will have been in place for eight Moreover, there is no indication—more addressed extensively in the litigating states’’ months by mid-March—have been effective than six months after Microsoft’s July 11th proposed remedy. By failing to remedy one to date. Again, we believe that the evidence announcement and four months after the first of Microsoft’s ‘‘signature’’ anticompetitive to date shows that the provisions are showing shipments of Windows XP—that Internet acts, the PFJ—even before reaching its many no sign of effectuating change in the market; Explorer’s commanding market share in the other defects—falls far short of the four-part remedial standard set by the Court of thus, the PFJ—which (with regard to browser market has fallen in any measurable Appeals, and by the same token, fails to meet browsers) does little more than codify these way. If the provisions of the PFJ are strong the public interest test established by the unilateral Microsoft actions— does not meet enough to ‘‘restore’’ competition to the Tunney Act. the ‘‘public interest’’ standard. marketplace, which DOJ claims they are (see In explaining why it did not seek to limit On July 11, 2001, in response to the CIS at 3 (‘‘[t]he requirements and Microsoft’s tying of middleware applications decision of the Court of Appeals, Microsoft prohibitions [of the PFJ] will ... restore the to Windows in the PFJ, the Justice announced a program of ‘‘greater OEM competitive threat that middleware products Department has suggested that there was no flexibility for Windows.’’ See Press Release, posed prior to Microsoft’s unlawful basis for such a remedy because of the Court Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Announces undertakings’’)), one would expect to see that Greater OEM Flexibility For Windows, July of Appeals’’ reversal of the District Court’s the market shares of Microsoft’s browser finding of liability under Section 1 of the 11, 2001. Specifically, Microsoft announced competitors have increased during this time that it would amend its OEM license Sherman Act, and the appellate court’s frame. There is simply no evidence of that. direction that the remedy here should agreements to provide that: Not only is there a dearth of evidence PC manufacturers will have the option to ‘‘focus[] on the specific practices that the suggesting that the PFJ’s provisions are going 15 remove the Start menu entries and icons that court had ruled unlawful.’’ This analysis to restore competition to the level enjoyed by fundamentally misapprehends the provide end users with access to the Internet Microsoft’s rivals prior to its illegal conduct, Explorer components of the operating but there is no evidence to suggest they are 13 system. Microsoft will include Internet affecting the market at all. We use the interim conduct remedies as a point of reference—notwithstanding the fact that they Explorer in the Add/Remove programs A remedial provision that has no market feature in Windows XP. were vacated on appeal—because the Department of impact cannot be said to be in the ‘‘public Justice stated publicly that it would ‘‘seek an order PC manufacturers will have the option to interest,’’ especially in a case like this where that is modeled after the interim conduct-related remove the Start menu entries and icons that the damage from Microsoft’s illegal campaign provisions of the Final Judgment previously provide end users with access to Internet to eliminate rival middleware has already ordered in the case.’’ See Press Release, Department Explorer from previous versions of Windows, been done. In other words, because Microsoft of Justice, Justice Department Informs Microsoft of including Windows 98, Windows 2000 and has illegally driven down the market shares Plans for Further Proceedings in the District Court, Windows Me .... Consumers will be able to of its rival middleware developers, restoring September 6, 2001; see also, John Hendren, New Judge Puts Heat on Feds, Microsoft: Quick use the Add-Remove Programs feature in competition to the marketplace requires Windows XP to remove end-user access to Settlement Urged to Aid Ailing Economy, The much more than simply eliminating the Seattle Times, September 29, 2001 (‘‘Government the Internet Explorer components of the illegal practices: only if the status quo ante lawyers have said they intended to model their operating system .... is restored would OEM freedom of choice be proposed remedy on an interim conduct order by d. These provisions mirror the browser- meaningful. And yet, the evidence suggests the previous district judge who oversaw the case, related provisions found in Sections III.C.1 that the PFJ provisions that relate to the Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson.’’). and III.H.1 of the PFJ. Indeed, they comprise browser will have no market impact, given 14 A draft of the mediation proposal, Mediator’s almost the entirety of all browser-related the practical experience with highly similar Draft #18 (April 5, 2000) (referred to herein as the remedial provisions found in the PFJ. proposals put in place by Microsoft last July. ‘‘Posner Proposal’’), is available at www.ccianet.org/legal/ms/draft18.php3. At the Thus, the question of whether the PFJ This is important evidence for the Court to fulfills the Department of Justice’s promise of time, several news reports indicated that Microsoft consider when reviewing the PFJ. had agreed to the provisions in the Posner Proposal. an effective remedy for ‘‘restor[ing] the III. THE PFJ IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC See, e.g.. Joe Wilcox, Hard to Gauge Extent. competitive threat that middleware products INTEREST BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EVEN Effectiveness of Microsoft Concessions, CNET posed prior to Microsoft’s unlawful ATTEMPT TO HALT MICROSOFT’S MOST News.com, March 30, 2000 (the ‘‘software giant has undertakings,’’ can easily be assessed—at INSIDIOUS PRACTICE: ITS ILLEGAL tentatively agreed to sweeping restrictions on how least with regard to the browser threat, which BINDING AND BUNDLING OF it does business with its partners’’). was such an extensive part of the Court of 15 See Testimony of Assistant Attorney General Charles James, Senate Judiciary Committee Appeals’’ decision—by seeing how effective 11 these unilateral Microsoft actions, taken in See GM Plans White-Collar Cuts, Financial (December 12, 2001); see also Q&A.’’ Charles James Briefs, The Washington Post, January 9, 2002, at July of 2001, have been to date. And unlike Defends The Deal, Business Week, Nov. 19, 2001 E02. (‘‘People who suggest that [the decree should have the provisions discussed above, which were 12 Given that the length of the PFJ is only 60 ordered Microsoft to sell a stripped-down version put in place only in December, it cannot be months, see Section V.A of the PFJ, an assessment of Windows] are not recognizing that the tying argued that these browser-related provisions of the effectiveness of a provision after eight months claim was eliminated from the case by the appeals have not yet been tested in the marketplace; would be highly significant. court.’’).
VerDate 11
implications of the Court of Appeals’’ ruling: Microsoft’s ‘‘commingling deters OEMs from irremovable part of Windows meant that pre- contrary to DOJ’s view, the Court of Appeals pre-installing rival browsers, thereby installing a second browser would ‘‘increase did not suggest that an anti- tying remedy reducing the rivals’’ usage share and, hence, an OEM’s product testing costs,’’ because an was inappropriate or unnecessary here; developers’’ interest in rivals’’ APIs as an OEM must test and train its support staff to indeed, much of the Court of Appeals’’ alternative to the API set exposed by answer calls related to every software decision is a strong declaration of how Microsoft’s operating system.’’ Id. at 66. product preinstalled on the machine; Microsoft’s various forms of tying violated Moreover, the Court of Appeals affirmed the moreover, pre-installing a browser in Section 2 of the Sherman Act. See, e.g., District Court’s finding that such addition to IE would to many OEMs be ‘‘a Microsoft 253 F.3d at 65–67. A remedy that commingling was done, deliberately and questionable use of the scarce and valuable truly ‘‘focused on the specific practices that intentionally, to advance Microsoft’s space on a PC’s hard drive.’’ the court had ruled unlawful’’ would have to anticompetitive aims. Id. Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 64 (citations omitted). address the tying practices that the Court of Notwithstanding these clear declarations As long as commingling is permitted, Appeals ‘‘ruled unlawful’’; the PFJ does not. by the Court of Appeals, this practice is not OEMs and other third party licensees will Because Microsoft’s various forms of prohibited by the PFJ. Such a prohibition was have no incentive to take advantage of the middleware applications tying are critical omitted despite the finding that it is illegal— tactics that it uses to maintain its illegal limited freedom provided by the PFJ and will and despite the Justice Department’s continue to use Microsoft’s middleware monopoly, they must be ended if the remedy recognition that the first remedial objective is to ‘‘terminate the monopoly.’’16 (See products at the expense of its competitors. As in a decree should be to ‘‘end the unlawful a result, commingling reduces Microsoft’s Microsoft’s Tying Strategies To Maintain conduct.’’ (See CIS at 24.) Thus, Microsoft distribution costs for its middleware Monopoly Power In Its Operating System remains free to bind its middleware applications to zero. It also raises the (‘‘Mathewson & Winter Report’’), attached applications, including the browser, to its distribution costs of rival middleware hereto as Attachment A.) Furthermore, the Windows OS 19—making it impossible for an application makers—who not only must pay opportunity to gain market share as a result OEM, or a consumer, to remove that for something that Microsoft gets for free (i.e., of such tying is one of the principal fruits of application from a PC without doing damage distribution via OEMs), but must also pay an Microsoft’s illegality, and should therefore be to that PC’s operating system. 17 added bounty to persuade OEMs to install denied to it. As a result, the failure of the Microsoft’s suggestion that competition is their applications as the second such PFJ to address Microsoft’s tying is a adequately served by allowing OEMs to pre- application on a PC. This, of course, assumes fundamental flax,,’’ that alone merits install rival middleware and to remove end- rejection of the proposed decree. user access to Microsoft middleware— that such an added payment strategy for such Importantly, we note that the legal and instead of banning commingling—is incorrect middleware would even be plausible (which economic arguments presented below are for several reasons. First, as the District Court is highly doubtful, except in rare cases) and reinforced by the empirical observations set found and the Court of Appeals affirmed, would not be defeated by Microsoft, a rival forth in Section II, supra. That is, the legal commingling of code strongly deters - and with roughly S39 billion in cash available to and economic analysis below which suggests may even prevent—OEMs and consumers deter the prospect of being outbid by other that a remedy without a ban on tying will be from using middleware products offered by middleware developers for PC access. ineffective in theory, is supported by the fact Microsoft’s competitors (because the The other way in which code commingling that such a remedy—imposed in part since Microsoft product is inextricably intertwined illegally enhances the position of Microsoft b Jul ’’, and more substantially since with the OS and is thus both easier to use middleware is by encouraging applications December—is proving to be ineffective in and harder to remove).20 Why would an OEM programmers to write their programs to practice. include a competing middleware product Microsoft’s products. (Mathewson & Winter A. The Court Of Appeals Explicitly Held that will cost money to install and use up Report at ¶¶ 14–16.) Third party developers That Code Commingling—A Form Of Tying valuable space on the hard drive when decide how to write their applications based Unaddressed By The PFJ—Violates Section 2 Microsoft’s product is already there and has upon what APIs they believe will be Of The Sherman Act. been so tightly knit with the OS that it cannot available on the broadest number of In affirming the District Court’s findings of be removed without doing damage to the OS? computers and will enable their products to fact concerning Microsoft’s practice of As the Court of Appeals noted (citing the function most smoothly. See Microsoft, 253 commingling the code for its own District Court’s holding), Microsoft’s F.3d at 55. Because the PFJ will allow middleware products with the code for the commingling has both prevented OEMs from Microsoft to continue commingling its Windows OS, the Court of Appeals made pre-installing other browsers and deterred middleware and OS code, it essentially clear that such commingling was an unlawful guarantees that Microsoft’s application act in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman consumers from using them. In particular, having the IE software code as an programming interfaces (‘‘APIs’’) are Act. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 65–67. universally available in all Windows Specifically, the Court of Appeals concluded Microsoft, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 50, ¶161 (D.DC 1999) environments (in other words, on virtually that Microsoft’s ‘‘commingling has an all PCs)—and that software developers who anticompetitive effect * . . [and] constitute[s] (‘‘Findings of Fact’’)* 19 write their applications to Microsoft’s APIs exclusionary conduct, in violation of $ 2.’’ The danger of according Microsoft this power is exacerbated—and reinforced—by the PFJ’s can write directly to the OS. This is true Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 66- 67 (emphasis definition of the Windows Operating System 18 regardless of whether or not end-user access added)* According to the appeals court, Product (‘‘Definition U’’), which states that the to the middleware product is visible. As a software code that comprises the Windows result, third party software developers 16 See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 46; 15 U.S.C. * 16(e) Operating System Product ‘‘shall be determined by (whose business interests are to develop (in a Tunney Act proceeding, the court is Microsoft in its sole discretion.’’ Thus, Microsoft authorized to consider whether the proposed can, over time, render all the protections for successful applications, not to challenge settlement results in the ‘‘termination of alleged middleware meaningless, by binding and Microsoft’s monopoly) will almost always violations’’); see also Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. at 577 commingling code, and redefining the OS to write their programs to Microsoft (a decree must ‘‘break up or render impotent the include the bound/commingled applications. middleware.21 Thus, Microsoft’s monopoly power found to be in violation of the 20 20 See, e.g.. Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d commingling practices only exacerbate the Act’’). at 49–50, ¶ 159 (‘‘Microsoft knows that the inability ‘‘applications barrier to entry’’ that already 17 See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 51, 103. to remove Internet Explorer made OEMs less encourages developers to create software that 18 In its Conclusions of Law, the District Court disposed to pre-install Navigator .... Pre-installing runs on Microsoft’s dominant OS and broadly condemned Microsoft’s decision to bind more than one product in a given category.., can interoperates with Microsoft’s middleware ‘‘Internet Explorer to Windows with.., technological significantly increase an OEM’s support costs, for shackles.’’ United States v. Microsoft, 87 F. Supp. the redundancy can lead to confusion among novice 2d at 30, 39 (D.DC 2000) (‘‘Conclusions of Law’’). users. In addition, pre-installing a second product 21 For example, a developer that creates music Specifically, the District Court denounced in a given software category can increase an OEM’s search software is far more likely to develop a Microsoft’s decision to bind Internet Explorer to the product testing costs. Finally, many OEMs see pre- program that runs on Windows Media Player than Windows OS ‘‘by placing code specific to Web installing a second application in a given software RealPlayer, knowing that the new program would browsing in the same files as code that provided category as a questionable use of the scarce and interoperate more readily with the OS if it runs on operating system functions.’’ United States v. valuable space on a PC’s hard drive.’’). Microsoft’s program and would have fewer glitches.
VerDate 11
products. (See Mathewson & Winter Report at operating system, via code commingling, be license to OEMs in a bundle that includes a ¶ 16.) prohibited. number of its middleware applications (e.g., Thus, in the end, as both the Court of Microsoft shall not, in any Windows Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Appeals and the District Court concluded Operating System Product (excluding Windows Messenger, MSN). Microsoft also here, commingling itself deters OEMs from Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE) it contractually prohibits OEMs from removing installing rival middleware. See Microsoft, distributes beginning six months after the its applications from the bundled offering. 253 F.3d at 66; Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. date of entry of this Final Judgment, Bind any As explained in the attached economic Microsoft Middleware Products to the 2d at 49–50, ¶ 159. No doubt this is why report from Professors Frank Mathewson and Windows Operating System unless Microsoft every other remedial plan contemplated in Ralph Winter, such tying is anticompetitive also has available to license, upon the written this litigation—from the Posner Proposal,22 and should fall under the purview of these request of each Covered OEM licensee or remedy proceedings for four principal to Judge Jackson’s interim remedial order,23 Third-Party Licensee that so specifies, and reasons: (1) it reinforces Microsoft’s to the proposal set forth by the Litigating Microsoft supports both directly and monopoly by increasing the applications States 24—has prominently included a ban on indirectly, an otherwise identical version of barrier to entry against OS competitors; (2) it code commingling (or, at the very least, a the Windows Operating System Product that reinforces Microsoft’s monopoly by deterring requirement that Microsoft make available a omits any combination of Microsoft direct challenges to the OS itself as the non-commingled version of Windows). Yet, Middleware Products as indicated by the platform of choice for software developers; despite that, despite the Court of Appeals’’ licensee. (3) it weakens the greatest current competitor holding, and despite the District Court’s (See Proposed Text ¶ 1 (hereinafter to Windows—prior versions of Windows; factual findings, the PFJ fails to prohibit or ‘‘States’’ Proposed Text’’), attached as Exhibit and (4) Microsoft’s more recent practice of A to Litigating States’’ Remedial Proposal limit this practice in any manner whatsoever. tying the Windows Media Player to the OS (December 7, 2001).) Microsoft has already demonstrated its creates a new variant of the applications B. Microsoft Uses A Variety Of Other Tying willingness and ability to fend off threats barrier to entry problem for potential OS Practices To Maintain Its Operating System from competing middleware products by rivals: a content-encoding barrier to entry. Monopoly; If The Monopoly Is To Be illegally commingling code with the (See Mathewson & Winter Report, passim.) ‘‘Terminated,’’ Such Contractual Tying Must Windows OS.25 As currently drafted, the PFJ First, tying anticompetitively strengthens Be Prohibited. gives the company a green light to continue Microsoft’s OS monopoly by reinforcing the The Justice Department’s insistence that applications barrier to entry against OS this anticompetitive and illegal practice. The the remedy in this case should not include competitors. (Id. at ¶¶ ;14–16.) The public interest requires that Microsoft’s a general tying prohibition because the dominance of the Windows standard in a practice of tying its middleware and government abandoned its Section 1 tying claim is logically flawed. Contrary to DOJ’s wide range of applications, including a few particularly important applications, hampers 22 See Posner Proposal * 3(9) (Microsoft is assertions, as discussed at length above, the enjoined from ‘‘tying or combining any middleware ultimate remedy in this case must entry into the operating system market product to or with a Windows operating system ‘‘terminate’’ Microsoft’s illegally maintained because an entrant has to offer both a new unless Microsoft offers a version of that operating monopoly- and that can only happen if the operating system and a full set of system without such middleware product at a remedy addresses those behaviors that applications, or hope that applications will reduced price that reasonably reflects the relative quickly develop once the new operating costs of the operating system and the excluded anticompetitively maintain the Windows monopoly. system becomes available. See Microsoft, 253 middleware.’’). F.3d at 55 (applications barrier to entry 23 The bundling, or contractual tying, of See United States v. Microsoft, 97 F. Supp. 2d stems, in part, from the fact that ‘‘most 59, 68 (D.DC 2000) (‘‘Microsoft shall not, in any Microsoft’s middleware products to its Operating System Product distributed six or more Windows OS is clearly such an developers prefer to write for operating months after the effective date of this Final anticompetitive behavior: it is the signature systems that already have a substantial Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a tactic used by Microsoft to maintain its consumer base’’). This is referred to as the Windows Operating System .... ‘‘). monopoly and fend off competitive applications barrier to entry, and the District 24 The Litigating States’’ Remedial Proposal challenges, and it has been expressly found Court found that it served to protect would prevent Microsoft from unlawfully reducing to be illegal by the Court of Appeals. See, Microsoft against an OS challenge from IBM the competitive threat from non-Microsoft e.g., Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 61 (the restriction in the 1990s. Id. (upholding District Court’s middleware products by commingling middleware finding that ‘‘IBM’s difficulty in attracting a and operating system code. The Litigating States’’ in Microsoft’s licensing agreements that Remedial Proposal would prohibit the practice of prevents OEMs from removing or larger number of software developers to write commingling altogether or, alternatively, require uninstalling IE ‘‘protects Microsoft’s for its platform seriously impeded OS/2’s Microsoft to offer, upon written request from OEMs monopoly from the competition that success’’).26 or other third part).’’ licensees, its operating system middleware might otherwise present. By engaging in tying to gain dominance in on an unbundled basis: Therefore, we conclude that the license key applications markets, Microsoft can turn 25 Note that Microsoft’s options for exploiting restriction at issue is anticompetitive.’’) the already-daunting applications barrier to technological means to advance its tying ends are (emphasis added); see also Mathewson & entry into a virtually insurmountable shield. not limited to code commingling. Code Winter Report at ¶¶ 13–33. Put another way, As the Court of Appeals explained, commingling, of course, is an extreme version of ‘‘Microsoft’s efforts to gain market share in such tying, in that it prevents OEMs and consumers various tying practices were found by the from removing applications without threatening the Court of Appeals to illegally reinforce one market (browsers) served to meet the integrity of the OS. Other examples discussed Microsoft’s OS monopoly and thus must be threat to Microsoft’s monopoly in another during trial include deliberately harming the banned in order to realize the remedial market (operating systems) by keeping rival interoperability of Netscape’s Navigator browser, mandate of the Court of Appeals and the browsers from gaining the critical mass of see, e.g., Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 31, public interest objectives of the Tunney Act. users necessary to attract developer attention ¶ 84 (finding that Microsoft executives explicitly The anticompetitive nature of tying is away from Windows as the platform for offered preferred access to APIs to Netscape as an apparent on its face: it reduces competition software development.’’ Microsoft, 253 F.3d inducement to them to not expose their own APIs); at 60. If Microsoft controls the key id. at 33, ¶ 90–91 (finding that when Netscape and consumer choice, making it less likely refused this offer, Microsoft withheld necessary for Windows consumers to acquire and use applications, it can unilaterally decide not to Windows APIs from I Netscape, delaying Netscape’s non-Microsoft middleware products for make those applications available for even Windows 95 browser launch until after the holiday reasons unrelated to the merits of those the most-promising rival operating systems. selling season); id. at 50, ¶ 160 (‘‘We will bind the products. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 60 Microsoft’s tying thus anticompetitively shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any (upholding District Court’s conclusion that advantages its position in the middleware other browser is a jolting experience.’’); and contractually restricting OEMs’’ ability to applications market and sustains its OS working aggressively to degrade the performance monopoly as well. (See Mathewson & Winter and desirability of Sun’s Java software, id. at 109– remove IE ‘‘prevented many OEMs from 110, ¶¶ 404–406 (finding that Microsoft harmed distributing browsers other than IE’’); see also development of Java class libraries and cross- Mathewson & Winter Report at * 23. 26 See Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 19–22, platform Java interfaces). Microsoft only makes Windows available for ¶¶ 36–44.
VerDate 11
Report at ¶ 66.)27 Consider, for example, Microsoft OS and middleware interfaces. (Id.) fruits of its illegal behavior, as discussed in Microsoft Office. At one point, companies Thus, Microsoft’s tying practices serve, in Section III.C, below). (See id. at ¶ 28.) such as Corel and Lotus provided the most this way too, to reinforce and entrench its Fourth, in addition to these three general popular versions of these applications. At illegal OS monopoly. ways in which Microsoft’s contractual tying that time, to compete with Microsoft’s Third, tying weakens the greatest current reinforces the OS monopoly, Microsoft’s Windows, rival operating systems needed to competitor to Windows—prior versions of more recent tying of its media player to the persuade Corel and Lotus to port their Windows. (Id. at ¶¶ 27–30.)29 Existing OS creates yet another special and highly applications to those rival systems. Now that versions of Windows provide competitive significant reinforcement of the Windows monopoly. (See Mathewson & Winter Report Microsoft has successfully leveraged constraints on Microsoft for a simple reason: at ¶ 36.) This problem results from the close Windows to obtain dominance in the Office if new versions of Windows are insufficiently connection between the media player and suite of applications, however, rival OS innovative or too expensive, consumers will providers would have to persuade Microsoft Microsoft’s proprietary media encoding choose to retain their older versions of the to port Office to rival systems. format, Windows Media Audio (‘‘WMA’’). product. Through tying, however, Microsoft If Microsoft can gain dominance with key Because Microsoft does not license the WMA weakens this source of competition in two middleware applications such as Office, format to some rival media players— MSN Messenger, and Windows Media Player, ways. First, new versions of Windows are including, most notably, the only other it can ensure that rival operating systems marketed as much for new applications as for media player with substantial market cannot meet customers’’ demands for the new OS features. Windows XP, for example, presence, Real Player—Microsoft’s media most popular applications. That is, when is being marketed in part for its inclusion of player is the only major player that can play Microsoft’s browser, Microsoft’s media new applications, such as Windows Media content encoded in Microsoft’s format. As player, and Microsoft’s instant messenger are Player 8.0—not just based on innovations Microsoft’s format becomes more and more dominant in those applications markets, and improvements to the OS itself. Second, widespread—it is currently growing in use at Microsoft may choose not to write its middleware applications such as Internet a rate ten times that of its rivals - more and applications to interoperate with a potential Explorer, Windows Media Player (with the more content will become viewable and rival OS—making it much more difficult for attendant Microsoft Digital Rights playable only via Microsoft’s media player, nascent operating systems to compete with Management), and MSN allow Microsoft to which is only distributed via Microsoft’s OS. Windows.28 Thus, Microsoft’s tying, over track consumer usage. Microsoft’s binding of In such a market, then, a rival OS would time, takes today’s very high ‘‘applications these products to Windows ‘‘thus creates a have to overcome not only today’s barrier to entry,’’ and raises it immeasurably total product that lends itself to usage and applications barrier to entry to compete with higher. (See Mathewson & Winter Report at leasing fees. By gradually reducing the price Windows—that is to say, it would have to ¶ 66.) of Windows and increasing the usage fees on persuade application writers to write their Second, bring reinforces Microsoft’s its tied applications, Microsoft can shift to a applications to interoperate with their OS— monopoly by deterring direct challenges to usage or leasing revenue model, rather than it would also have to overcome a new, even more daunting ‘‘content encoding barrier to the OS itself as the platform of choice for a revenue model based on sales. This entry’’ - i.e., it would have to persuade software developers. (Id. at ¶¶ 17–19.) A eliminates the competitive threat front owners of thousands (or perhaps even clear incentive for Microsoft to tie its Internet previous versions of Windows 30* (in millions) of pieces of multi-media content to Explorer browser with Windows was the addition to providing Microsoft with the threat that Netscape—on its own, or re-encode their content in formats that the combined with Java software—would media player used by’’ the rival OS could 29 eliminate Microsoft’s network advantages in The District Court’s Findings of Fact, 84 F. read. (Id. at ¶¶ 37–38.) This barrier to entry Supp. 2d at 25, ¶ 57, maintain that the Windows applies not only to rival PC operating the operating system by providing leasing agreement prohibits the user from middleware that would offer a competing systems, but also to evolving operating transferring the OS to another machine so that systems for handheld and mobile platform for software developers. As the ‘‘there is no legal secondary market in Microsoft District Court and Court of Appeals found, operating systems.’’ The Findings of Fact then note communications devices, since consumers v, Netscape and Java were particular threats to at ¶ 58 that there is a thriving illegal market. To ill want to access the best streaming content Microsoft’s dominance in operating systems limit this, Microsoft charges a higher price for using those devices. Thus, the currently because they potentially represented a Windows to OEMs that do not limit the number of daunting applications barrier to entry is platform/programming environment in PCs the), sell without the OS pre-installed. One raised many times higher by virtue of the might argue that the durable-goods monopoly which software applications could be tying of the Windows Media Player (and its problem is eliminated by Microsoft’s refusal to related proprietary formats) to the Windows developed without regard to the underlying allow OEMs to install (without penalty) old 31 operating system. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at OS. versions of Windows. As explained in the attached All four of these anticompetitive effects are 74. With middleware, the success of a new Mathewson & Winter Report, this is incorrect for mutually reinforcing, because of the network operating system no longer depended on the two reasons: ‘‘(i) increases in the price of the new effects operating between the applications development of new code by every version of Windows will reduce overall demand for sector and the operating system market. (Id. application developer. (See Mathewson & new PCs, as users invoke the option to keep existing at ¶¶ 31–33.) Achieving dominance in Winter Report at ¶ 19.) PCs with the old version, and (ii) there is a retail market for new versions of Windows software for applications (through tying) strengthens the If rivals develop valuable, widely installation on existing PCs. Both (i) and (ii) provide dominance of the OS, because buyers in the distributed middleware, software vendors channels through which the existing stock of OS market are more assured of available could very well begin to write most of their Windows software provides some competition for a applications. The greater dominance in the applications directly to that middleware, and new version of Windows (i.e., it increases the OS market in turn feeds back into greater the applications barrier to entry would elasticity of demand for the new version). If the price of a new version is increased, the demand for dominance in applications, since the tying disappear. By using anticompetitive tying to strategies take the form of imposing an dominate each promising field of the new version is reduced because fewer middleware, Microsoft ensures that software consumers will purchase new PCs as the price increase for Windows raises the price of the overall 31 developers face a unified field of proprietary This same theory applies to Microsoft’s package of the PC and the (mandated by Microsoft) identity-authentication application, known as new version of Windows, and because some ‘‘Passport.’’ If Microsoft can leverage its OS 27 See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 59–60 (citing District consumers who would have purchased Windows to monopoly to make Passport ubiquitous, it can Court’s finding that ‘‘Microsoft’s imposition of install on their old PCs will now refuse to do so.’’ persuade e-commerce sites to adopt Passport as the [licensing] provisions (like man’,’’ of Microsoft’s (See Mathewson & Winter Report at 12 n. 10.) sole identity-authentication standard. If that were to other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce 30 See Jeremy Bulow, ‘‘Durable-Goods happen, a nascent OS competitor would not only usage share of Netscape’s browser and, hence, Monopolists,’’ Journal of Political Economy 90(2): have to develop its own identity-authentication protect Microsoft’s operating system monopoly’’). 314–332 (explaining how leasing, rather than application; it would also have to persuade 28 This fear is not theoretical: the District Court selling, solves the monopolists’’ ‘‘problem’’ of thousands of e-commerce sites to adopt that found that Microsoft made just such a threat to competition from previously existing stocks of application for use on their web sites. Thus, Apple, with regard to Microsoft Office. See goods); id. at 330 (a durable-goods monopolist may Microsoft’s tying of Passport to the Windows OS Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 95–97, ¶¶ 345– be able to achieve the leasing result through could potentially create yet another barrier to entry 356. extending its monopoly to service contracts). in the OS market.
VerDate 11
artificial advantage relative to applications of monopoly, and deny Microsoft the fruit of its Microsoft, Attachment B.) In this Section, the dominant OS supplier. The greater illegal acts. A remedy without such a instead, we focus on six critical deficiencies Microsoft’s share across all middleware provision cannot be in the public interest.32 in remedies that (unlike tying) are applications markets, the greater the IV. THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT purportedly addressed in the PFJ: (1) the applications barrier to entry. FURTHER FAILS THE PUBLIC INTEREST PFJ’s failure to prevent Microsoft’s Thus, a remedy that does not forbid TEST, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ACHIEVE discriminatory licensing practices; (2) its Microsoft’s anticompetitive tying leaves in EVEN THE LIMITED OBJECTIVES THAT IT limited and slow-moving API disclosure place one of Microsoft’s most powerful tools HOLDS OUT AS ITS AIMS. provisions; (3) its inadequate protections for to maintain its OS dominance—and as a As demonstrated above, the PFJ fails to OEMs from retaliation; (4) its failure to result, does not ‘‘unfetter’’ the market or address Microsoft’s anticompetitive tying of promote distribution of Java; (5) its ‘‘terminate’’ the illegal monopoly. For this middleware applications to the Windows OS, ‘‘gerrymandered’’ definition of middleware; reason, the PFJ’s failure to include a ban on and consequently fails to fulfill the remedial and (6) its complete lack of an effective bundling is not in the public interest. mandate of the Court of Appeals. Yet. even enforcement mechanism. Where helpful, we C. By Allowing Microsoft To Continue To for those anticompetitive acts that the PFJ contrast the relevant provision in the Tie Its Middleware Applications To does attempt to address, it does not provide litigating states’’ proposal for comparison’s Windows, Microsoft Retains One Of The an adequate remedy for Microsoft’s illegal sake. By comparing the two proposals on a Most Valuable ‘‘Fruits’’ Of Its Illegal Acts. conduct. Indeed, the PFJ is so replete with few central issues, it should be clear why the The Court of Appeals made clear that one carefully crafted carve-outs and exceptions LSRP, and not the PFJ, addresses Microsoft necessary element of any remedy in this case that many of its provisions, though well illegal conduct in manner that both comports was to ‘‘deny to [Microsoft] the fruits of its intentioned, are rendered meaningless. The with the Court of Appeals’’ decision and violation.’’ See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 103 result is that the PFJ will do little, if serves the ‘‘public interest’’ under prevailing (quoting United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. anything, either to terminate Microsoft’s antitrust law. at 250). This is in accord with the prevailing monopoly or constrain its ability to fend off A. The PFJ Allows Microsoft To Continue doctrine in this area. See Grinnell Corp., 384 middleware threats in the future. And, as we Engaging In Discriminatory And Restrictive U.S. at 577; 2 P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, argue above, the preliminary experience with Licensing Agreements To Curtail The Use Of Antitrust Laws ¶ 325(c) (2d ed. 2000). these provisions—since the onset of their Rival Middleware Products. The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft implementation by Microsoft— provides One of the ways in which the District Court illegally maintained its OS monopoly by little reason to believe that the PFJ will be found, and the Court of Appeals upheld, that engaging in anticompetitive practices. See effective in practice. See Section II, supra. Microsoft illegally protects its operating Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 51, 66. Here, because While any conduct remedy will, of course, system monopoly from rival middleware is of the nature of its monopoly, one of the most have limitations and the potential for through discriminatory and restrictive lucrative fruits of Microsoft’s illegal behavior evasion, none of the major defects in the PFJ licensing provisions. Specifically, the Court is the ability to bundle its other software are inherent in the nature of this sort of of Appeals found that Microsoft uses its products with the OS and reap gains in those remedy. The Litigating States’’ Remedial licenses not only to reward OEMs that utilize markets as well. In this way, the PFJ’s failure Proposal provides a useful contrast on this and promote its products (and to to ban such tying clearly renders it deficient, point. Unlike the PFJ, the LSRP does not discriminate against those OEMs that wish to because without such a prohibition it will leave certain of Microsoft’s anticompetitive promote non- Microsoft products), but also to fail to prevent future violations of Section 2, acts unaddressed or leave Microsoft with the restrict the manner in which OEMs can as discussed above—and also fail to prevent ability to perpetuate its operating system distribute rivals’’ products. See Microsoft, Microsoft from reaping the benefits of the OS monopoly by illegally eliminating 253 F.3d at 61–67. monopoly that it illegally maintained. competitive threats from middleware Despite these findings, the PFJ permits Without such a prohibition, Microsoft will be developers. The Litigating States’’ Remedial Microsoft to continue to employ able to continue profiting from its Proposal prevents Microsoft from continuing discriminatory and restrictive licensing anticompetitive behavior and will have its anticompetitive practices, is designed to agreements to curtail the use of its evaded any real punishment for breaking the restore the competitive balance in the competitors’’ products. As currently law. marketplace, and seeks to ensure that structured, the PFJ allows Microsoft to For these reasons, as with the ban on code competitive threats may emerge in the future continue its use of discriminatory and commingling discussed above, every other unhindered by Microsoft’s anticompetitive restrictive licensing provisions to fend off remedial proposal considered in this conduct. As such, it fully comports with the nascent threats from middleware competitors litigation included a ban on Microsoft’s Court of Appeals’’ decision and provides this in several ways. First, the PFJ explicitly contractual tying via bundling. A formulation Court with a clear roadmap of what the allows Microsoft to provide market of such a ban was found in Judge Jackson’s public interest requires in this case. development allowances to favored OEMs; it interim conduct remedies, which—in To avoid undue length or repetition, we do likewise allows Microsoft to enter into ‘‘joint addition to the ban on binding middleware not here provide a comprehensive list of all ventures’’ with OEMs, that, in practice, are products to the OS—would also have the numerous inconsistencies, loopholes, and little more than shells for arrangements by prohibited Microsoft from ‘‘conditioning the shortcomings of the PFJ; we have included, Microsoft to shower financial rewards on granting of a Windows Operating System in Attachment B, a more complete listing for OEMs that are willing to refuse to deal with Product license ... on an OEM or other the Court’s benefit. (See A Detailed Critique Microsoft’s competitors. Given the intense licensee agreeing to license, promote, or of the Proposed Final Judgment in U.S. v. competition and low margins in the OEM distribute any other Microsoft software industry, these rewards would create a product that Microsoft distributes separately 32 We have argued elsewhere that there could be decisive competitive disadvantage for from the Windows Operating System Product alternatives to a ban on contractual tying that might, ‘‘disfavored’’ OEMs, forcing them to accede in the retail channel or through Internet over time, also prove effective. For example, if a to Microsoft’s restrictive terms. access providers, Internet content providers, remedial plan included a strong provision to permit The PFJ’s mechanisms for enabling these licensing of Windows, not just to OEMs, but to third ISVs or OEMs.’’ United States v. Microsoft, parties as well, and such a regime became anticompetitive tactics are surprisingly 97 F. Supp. 2d 59, 68 (D.DC 2000). Judge effective— so that there was active and effective explicit. Under Section III.B.3 of the PFJ, Posner’s proposal would have prohibited retail competition for bundled OS applications Microsoft is allowed to pay OEMs ‘‘market tying any middleware product with the OS offerings—then the necessity for banning development allowances’’ to promote unless Microsoft offered a version of the OS Microsoft’s contractual tying would be somewhat Windows products. Thus, OEMs that without the middleware application, and did lessened. In such an instance, Microsoft’s potential promote Microsoft products apparently can so at a reduced price. See Posner Proposal * for abusive tying could be disciplined by receive de facto cash rebates on their 3(9). The litigating states also have proposed competition from competing bundles. However, Windows shipments, while OEMs that deal absent such competition—which the PFJ does not a very similar remedial approach. (See LSRP create—a ban on contractual tying is absolutely with Microsoft’s rivals ‘‘.’,,ill pay full list at 4–6.) Thus, it is only the PFJ, among the essential to achieve the remedial objectives of this price. This preferential behavior in the various proposals, that has failed to take this case—and thus, the PFJ’s failure to include such a browser market ,,,,,as found illegal by both essential step to terminate Microsoft’s OS provision is fatal. the District Court and the Court of Appeals.
VerDate 11
See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 60–61. Microsoft differentiate their products—on its head: Thus, it is the LSRP—and not the PFJ—that should be allowed to engage in leg/t/mate under the PFJ, rivals can ‘‘compete’’ with meets the Tunney Act’s ‘‘public interest’’ pricing decisions, but those decisions should Microsoft, but they are never allowed a standard. be limited to volume-based discounts chance to bring a product to market first, to B. The PFJ Requires Microsoft To Disclose published in its price lists?33 offer a functionality before Microsoft does, or APIs Only In Certain. Narrow Circumstances. Second, under Section III.G.2 of the PFJ, to benefit from their innovations before Another key element of the government’s Microsoft may use ‘‘joint ventures’’ to escape Microsoft determines that it is ready to meet case against Microsoft was the company’s any restrictions the proposed settlement (and if history is a guide, extinguish) these withholding of the operating system’s API would place on its licensing practices. For competitive challenges. information from rivals, so as to illegally example, Microsoft may join an OEM in a Additionally, under the PFJ, Microsoft can decade the performance of rival applications. joint venture for any ‘‘new product, control the extent to which non- Microsoft In any market where Microsoft is allowed to technology or service’’ or improvement to middleware is promoted on the desktop by withhold APIs, rival software will perform any existing ‘‘product, technology or virtue of a limitation that OEMs may promote imperfectly in the Windows environment, service,’’ provided that the OEM contributes such software at the conclusion of a boot and Microsoft will illegally gain dominance. significant developer ‘‘or other resources.’’ sequence or an Internet hook-up only if they Accordingly, in order to promote competition (See PFJ at Section III.G.2.) In such an display no user interface or a user interface from rival middleware developers, it is arrangement, Microsoft can seek, and obtain, that is ‘‘of similar size and shape to the user essential that Microsoft be required to a pledge that its partner be ‘‘prohibit[ed] ... interface provided by the corresponding provide timely access to all technical from competing with the object of the joint Microsoft middleware.’’ (See PFJ at III.C.3.) information required to permit non-Microsoft venture ... for a reasonable period of time.’’ And OEMs are allowed to offer Internet middleware to achieve interoperability with (Id. at III.G.) Thus, Microsoft could enter into Access Provider (‘‘IAP’’) promotions at the Microsoft software. a ‘‘joint development’’ project for the ‘‘new end of a boot sequence, but only for their Section III.D of the PFJ imposes an product’’ of ‘‘Windows X for Preferred OEM own LAP offerings (whatever that ambiguous obligation on Microsoft to disclose to Y.’’ The OEM’s contribution could be entirely limitation means). (See id. at III.C.5.) Thus, Independent Software Vendors (‘‘ISVs’’), and in marketing and distribution. Yet, under the under the PFJ, Microsoft maintains the ability others, the APIs that Microsoft middleware language of the PFJ, it appears that Microsoft to set the parameters for competition and uses to interoperate with any Windows OS would have the ability to contractually user interface. product. However, the PFJ’s requirement for prohibit OEMs in such joint ventures from In order to promote competition from rival API disclosure is drawn much too narrowly offering products or services that compete middleware, Microsoft must be prohibited to allow non-Microsoft middleware to with Microsoft. Given Microsoft’s history of from entering into restrictive and compete fairly with Microsoft middleware. abusive and coercive behavior toward OEMs, discriminator)’’ contractual agreements with Here again, a comparison with the proposal it should not be allowed to enter into joint its licensees. Although remedial proposals of the litigating states is instructive. ventures with OEMs that result in exclusive could have been crafted to address these First, the PFJ’s disclosure requirement fails agreements. Otherwise, in no time at all, anticompetitive practices, the PFJ falls short to prevent ‘‘future monopolization,’’ because Microsoft will use the opportunity to squelch of this mark. it fails to apply to critical technologies that competition. By contrast, the Litigating States’’ Remedial Microsoft is likely to use to maintain the Third, the PFJ purports to provide OEMs Proposal would bring Microsoft’s unlawful power of its OS monopoly in the future. with the freedom and flexibility to configure behavior to an end and thus provide Because nascent threats to Microsoft’s the computers they sell in a way that does competing middleware the opportunity to monopoly operating system currently exist not discriminate against non-Microsoft receive effective distribution through the beyond the middleware platform resident on products. Under Section III.C, the PFJ important OEM channel. Under the LSRP, the same computer, any effective API ostensibly prohibits Microsoft from entering Microsoft would be required, at a minimum, disclosure requirement must apply to all into an agreement that would—among other to offer uniform and non-discriminatory technologies that could provide a things—restrict an OEM’s ability to remove license terms to OEMs and other third-party competitive platform challenge to Windows, or install desktop icons, folders and Start licensees. The LSRP would also require including wizard, desktop, preferences, menus, and modify the initial boot sequence Microsoft to permit its licensees to customize favorites, start page, first screen, or other for non-Microsoft middleware. However, the Windows to include whatever Microsoft aspect of any Middleware in that product.’’).) PFJ contains carve-out provisions that may middleware or competing middleware the Second, the PFJ creates an apparent render these prohibitions effectively licensee wishes to sell to consumers. (See exception for Microsoft’s API disclosure meaningless. Under the express terms of LSRP at 7–9.) requirement in the emerging areas of identity Section III.C. 1 of the PFJ, Microsoft may In addition, the LSRP specifically prohibits authentication and digital rights management retain control of desktop configuration by Microsoft from employing market (‘‘DRM’’)—critical applications that are also being able to prohibit OEMs from installing development allowances, including special important to the prospects of Microsoft’s or displaying icons or other shortcuts to a discounts based on joint development ‘‘future monopolization.’’ Section III.J.1.(a) non-Microsoft product or service, if Microsoft projects?34 It also gives OEMs and other appears to exempt Microsoft from disclosing does not provide the same product or service. third-party licensees the flexibility to feature any API or interface protocol ‘‘the disclosure Thus, for example, if Microsoft does not non-Microsoft products in ways that increase of which would compromise the security of... include a media player shortcut inside its the likelihood that consumers will use them, digital rights management.., or authentication ‘‘My Music’’ folder, it can forbid an OEM without providing broad exceptions that systems, including without limitation, keys, from doing the same. This turns innovation— enable Microsoft to avoid its obligations?35 authorization tokens or enforcement and the premise that OEMs be permitted to criteria.’’ This exception is written much 34 (See States’’ Proposed Text * 2(a) (‘‘Microsoft more broadly than any of the limits on 33 Less explicitly, but perhaps even more shall license, to Covered OEMs and Third-Party Microsoft behavior, and could easily be used nefariously, the same provision that authorizes Licensees, Windows Operating System Products .... to protect Microsoft’s APIs relating to DRM continuation of ‘‘market development allowances’’ pursuant to uniform license agreements with and identity authentication applications. The (i.e., III.B.3) says that Microsoft may also maintain uniform terms and conditions. Microsoft shall not employ Market Development Allowances or other implication of this is that any rival DRM or ‘‘programs ... in connection with Windows [OS] authentication software will not function as products.’’ This appears to be a carefully veiled discounts, including special discounts based on reference to Microsoft’s use of ‘‘Marketing involvement or any joint development process... ‘‘).) ,,’,’ell as Microsoft’s DRM, Passport, and .Net Development Funds’’—highly discretionary, highly 35 (See States’’ Proposed Text targeted payments to OEMs that can be yet another 2(c) (‘‘Microsoft shall not restrict (by contract or Remedial Proposal expressly provides that means of effectively rendering the list price of otherwise, including but not limited to granting or Microsoft must disclose all APIs, technical Windows economically irrelevant. While the PFJ withholding consideration) an OEM or Third-Party information, and other communications interfaces ostensibly says that these ‘‘programs’’ must have Licensee from modifying the BIOS, boot sequence, so that Microsoft software installed on one ‘‘objective criteria,’’ ‘‘neutral’’ criteria can be easily startup folder, smart folder (e.g., MyMusic or computer (including personal computers, servers, formulated that have the effect of rewarding favored MyPhotos), links, internet connection network handheld computing devices and set-top boxes) can players and punishing less cooperative OEMs, given servers, web servers, and hand-held devices. The interoperate with Microsoft platform software the small number of major OEMs in existence. PFJ does not; by contrast, the Litigating States’’ installed on another computer. (See LSRP at 11.)
VerDate 11
My Services (formerly known as Hailstorm). disclosure ‘‘carve out’’ to exempt DRM and retaliation (e.g., product disparagement) that Thus, under the PFJ, Microsoft may be able identity-authentication from the general Microsoft can imagine.38 to degrade the performance of any rivals to disclosure obligation imposed on Microsoft. In addition, under Section III.A of the PFJ, any of these services. (See LSRP at 11.) Instead, it creates a regime Microsoft may, sua sponte, terminate an These markets, however, are just as of timely, complete, and comprehensive API OEM’s Windows license after sending the important to the next stage of the industry’s disclosure that will allow competitors an OEM two notices stating that it believes the evolution as browsers were to the last stage. opportunity to challenge Microsoft’s efforts manufacturer is violating its license* There DRM solutions, for example, allow content to entrench its OS monopoly in a market need not be any adjudication or vendors to sell audio and video content over where distributed computing is the dominant determination by any independent tribunal the Internet on a ‘‘pay for play’’ basis. Since model—an opportunity that was sadly that Microsoft’s claims are correct. All that is the most prevalent use of media players in missed as the browser became critical to required are two notices; after that, Microsoft the years ahead will be in playing content Internet-related applications, due to may terminate an OEM’s license. This that is protected in this fashion, if non- Microsoft’s anticompetitive refusals to share provision means that the OEMs are, at an), Microsoft media players cannot interoperate technical information. Thus, once again, it is time, just two registered letters away from with Windows’’ DRM solution, those media the LSRP, not the PFJ, that would meet the unannounced economic calamity; after all, players will be virtually useless except for Court of Appeals’’ objectives and the public given Microsoft’s monopoly on the operating ‘‘freeware’’ content.36 Thus, if DRM is interest standard. system, termination of an OEM’s Windows exempt from API disclosures under the PFJ, C. The PFJ Does Not Ban Many Forms Of license is a death sentence for an OEM’s Microsoft can destroy the competitive market Retaliation By Microsoft Against OEMs. business. for one of the most vital forms of The District Court found, and the Court of Again, such inadequate safeguards are not middleware—media players. Appeals upheld, that in order to create a inherent in an effective non- retaliation The authentication exemption is competitive market structure in which non- protection. For instance, the Litigating potentially even more far-reaching. Most Microsoft middleware products are able to States’’ Remedial Proposal prevents experts agree that the future of computing compete effectively with Microsoft products, Microsoft from taking any action that directly lies with server-based applications that licensees, such as OEMs, must have the or indirectly adversely affects OEMs or other consumers will access from a variety of ability to distribute and promote non- third-party licensees that in any way devices. Indeed, Microsoft’s ‘‘.Net’’ and ‘‘.Net Microsoft products without fear of coercion develop, distribute, support or promote My Services’’ (formerly known as Hailstorm) or interference from Microsoft. Recognizing competing products, thereby providing the are evidence that Microsoft certainly holds the central role that OEMs play in the type of protection contemplated by the Court this belief. These services, when linked with distribution and ultimate usage of non- of Appeals. (See LSRP at 13–14.) Thus, the Microsoft’s Passport, may allow Microsoft to Microsoft middleware products, the PFJ Litigating States’’ Remedial Proposal clearly participate in a substantial share of consumer includes an anti- retaliation provision which prohibits Microsoft retaliation for any e-commerce transactions over the Interact, is intended to protect those entities that procompetitive OEM behavior and prohibits irrespective of which device is used to access support or promote non-Microsoft products. all forms of Microsoft retaliation. the Internet (cell phones, handheld According to the Department of Justice, this Importantly, the LSRP also prohibits computers, etc.). If Microsoft prevents anti-retaliation provision ‘‘broadly prohibits Microsoft from retaliating against any competition with its Passport standard, it any sort of Microsoft retaliation against an individual or entity for participating in any may be able to realize its stated goal of OEM based on the OEM’s contemplated or capacity in any phase of this litigation. charging a fee for every single e-commerce actual decision to support non-Microsoft 37 Again, it is the LSRP that meets the Court of transaction on the Internet. software.’’ (See CIS at 25.) Appeals’’ objectives for this case— not the Under the guise of security, Microsoft has Unfortunately, the PFJ does not provide the PFJ. obtained a loophole in the PFJ that undercuts broad protection from Microsoft’s retaliation D. The PFJ Does Nothing To Remedy a critical disclosure requirement. Microsoft’s that the government claims it does. Indeed, Microsoft’s Illegal Campaign To Eliminate legitimate security concerns— which, of the PFJ’s anti-retaliation provision is so Java. course, are shared by all of its major business narrow that it will do little, if anything, to Yet another aspect of the trial court’s rivals—do not require this loophole. Section protect OEMs that wish to distribute or decision that was upheld on appeal by the III.J.2 of the PFJ excludes from disclosure promote non-Microsoft products. The PFJ’s DC Circuit was the District Court’s finding rights any company with a history of anti-retaliation provision is deficient in that Microsoft’s actions in eliminating the software counterfeiting or piracy or willful numerous respects. First, it appears to create threat posed by Sun Microsystems’’ Java violation of intellectual property rights, or only a narrow range of procompetitive technology were unlawful under Section 2 of any company that does not demonstrate an activities that OEMs can engage in without the Sherman Act. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at authentic and viable business that requires being subject to Microsoft retaliation. For 74–75. The PFJ, however, omits any remedy the APIs. This means that Microsoft only has example, the PFJ prohibits retaliation for for this core abuse. Thus, unlike either the to disclose to bona fide software rivals whose OEMs that promote rival middleware, but District Court’s remedy or the remedy Judge interests in security and stability are as Meat does not appear to prohibit retaliation against Posner suggested, the PFJ does not protect as Microsoft’s. As added protection, Section OEMs that promote any other type of rival those specific products, such as Java, that III.J.l.(b) of the PFJ allows Microsoft to refrain software (which, under the PFJ’s language, actually compete with Windows today and from any disclosure simply by persuading an probably includes rivals to Passport, MS offer alternatives to Microsoft’s dominance. impartial government body, on a case-by-case Money, Windows Movie Maker, and MSN The Litigating States’’ Remedial Proposal basis, that a specific disclosure would put Messenger, just to name a few). Even if this addresses this deficiency by requiring that system security at risk. Together, these glitch were unintentional, the ambiguity Microsoft distribute Java with its platform provisions provide Microsoft with all the might still be sufficient to allow Microsoft to software for a period of ten years. (See LSRP room it needs to take legitimate security coerce OEMs into avoiding Microsoft rivals. at 17–18.) The LSRP recognizes, as did the precautions. Second, even within the scope of protected District Court and Judge Posner, that in order Once again, the litigating states’’ proposal OEM activities, the PFJ appears to bar only to ensure that rival products such as Java can provides a useful contrast. It contains no certain types of Microsoft retaliation. The PFJ compete with Microsoft, they must receive prohibits Microsoft from withholding ‘‘newly the widespread distribution that they could 36 See Brad King, Microsoft Poised for Music introduced forms of non-monetary have obtained absent Microsoft’s unlawful Domination, Wired, June 14, 2001. Consideration’’ from OEMs, but is less clear behavior. 37 As Nathan Myrhvold, Microsoft’s former chief about whether Microsoft may use already- technology officer, put it, Microsoft’s strategy is to existing forms of consideration to retaliate 38 ‘‘get a ‘‘vig,’’ or ‘‘vigorish,’’ on every transaction against OEMs. (See PFJ at III.A.) More For example, the PFJ does not appear to over the Internet that uses Microsoft’s technology.’’ foreclose a Microsoft strategy whereby OEMs would David Bank, Microsoft Moves To Rule On-Line importantly, while the PFJ prohibits be told that senior Microsoft executives and Sales, The Wall Street Journal, June 5, 1997, at B1. Microsoft retaliation via an alteration of spokespeople will opine that the product of OEM The term refers to a gambling house’s ‘‘cut’’ on all commercial agreements, it does not appear to X works better than the product of OEM Y, if OEM bets placed in the establishment. prohibit any other form of Microsoft Y refuses to install only Microsoft applications.
VerDate 11
The requirement that Microsoft distribute terms of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Products’’ illegally maintained monopoly, and evade Java with its operating system and Internet and ‘‘non-Microsoft Middleware.’’ The result the practical consequence of the PFJ for many Explorer browser takes on even greater is significant because under the newly product lines. importance in light of Microsoft’s recent created definition, Microsoft may be able to To start, the PFJ’s definition of ‘‘Microsoft behavior. For example, although the Court of subvert many of the PFJ’s restrictions. Tile Middleware Products’’ appears to limit this Appeals upheld the trial court’s finding that Litigating States’’ Remedial Proposal defines category to five specifically-listed existing Microsoft targeted and destroyed middleware in a manner consistent with the products and their direct successors? This independent threats from the Java definition adopted by both the District Court makes no sense for two reasons. First, why programming language, see Microsoft, 253 and the Court of Appeals.40 It thus prevents define the most critical term in the proposed F.3d at 53–56, 60, Microsoft announced less Microsoft from using a definitional shell settlement narrowly when Microsoft has than a month later that it was dropping any game to avoid changing its unlawful already demonstrated its skill at evading support for Java from Windows XP. As The behavior. consent judgments?42 And second, why does Wall Street Journal reported at the time, The District Court and the Court of the list include certain Microsoft products, ‘‘This favors Microsoft’s new technologies, Appeals adopted the same definition of but arguably not their virtually and will inconvenience consumers .... [I]f middleware: software products that expose indistinguishable cousins: i.e., Outlook you want your Web page accessible to the their own APIs; are written to interoperate Express, but not Outlook; Windows largest number of people, you may want to with a variety of applications; and are written Messenger, but not MSN Messenger; the drop Java’’ and switch to Microsoft’s for Windows as well as multiple operating Microsoft JVM, but not MSN RunTime; competing set of products, which is under systems. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 53; see Internet Explorer, but not MSN Explorer. development and is known as NET.’’39 Thus, also Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 17– Likewise, Microsoft middleware applications notwithstanding the Court of Appeals’’ 18, ¶¶ 28–29. Thus, while the DC Circuit such as the MSN client software and Passport holding that Microsoft illegally maintained discussed browsers and the Java technologies appear to be excluded. The significance of its monopoly by requiring major independent as leading examples of middleware, these omissions cannot be overstated. For software vendors to promote Microsoft’s JVM Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 59–78, it never example, although Microsoft must allow exclusively (i.e., by requiring developers, as adopted an exclusive list limited to specific OEMs, under the PFJ, to remove end-user a practical matter, to make Microsoft’s JVM products (as the PFJ does).41 Importantly, the access to Internet Explorer, the decree’s the default in the software they developed), Court of Appeals also agreed with the District language appears to allow Microsoft to ban Microsoft is again acting illegally to Court that the appropriate category of any effort to replace MSN Explorer with a maintain—and further entrench—its ‘‘middleware’’ applications that merit competitor. This is a step backwards from the operating system monopoly against Java’s protection against Microsoft’s status quo. middleware threat. anticompetitive conduct includes .any Additionally, Section III.H.2 of the PFJ To remedy the specific and extensive application that could operate separately or explicitly limits OEM flexibility to set non- anticompetitive tactics aimed at Java, as together with other such applications to Microsoft Middleware as a default so that it found by the District Court and affirmed by create even the ‘‘nascent’’ potential for can be automatically invoked: the PFJ the Court of Appeals, Microsoft should be alternative platforms that could compete appears to allow OEMs to do so only with ordered—as outlined in the Litigating States’’ with Microsoft’s OS monopoly. Id. at 52–54, competitors of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Remedial Proposal—to distribute with its 59–60, 74. Products’’ that (1) appear in separate Top- platform software a current version of the These standard definitions of middleware Level Windows, with (2) separate end-user Java middleware. This would ensure that were also endorsed in the Posner Proposal, interfaces or trademarks. Thus, Microsoft Java receives widespread distribution, thus which, as noted above, Microsoft was might be able to avoid the PFJ’s provisions reportedly ready to accept last year. Section increasing the likelihood that it can serve as simply by embedding Microsoft middleware 2(3) of the Posner Proposal defined a viable competitive platform to Windows. with other middleware, or not branding it middleware broadly, to include any Although rivals such as Java will likely with a trademark. That means Microsoft—not ‘‘software that operates between two or more remain small players compared to the the OEMs, and certainly not the market— types of software.., and could, if ported to dominant Windows OS, their existence on would determine the scope of desktop multiple operating systems, enable software the competitive fringe is critical to provide competition and the pace of desktop products written for that middleware to be some competitive discipline to Microsoft on innovation. run on multiple operating systems.’’ pricing and coercion matters. Moreover, the Conversely, the definition of the rivals to Moreover, the substantive portion of the existence of these rivals creates a base for Microsoft Middleware Products— ‘‘non Posner Proposal, in Section 3(8)(c), explicitly future developments that might one day included not just enumerated products, but Microsoft Middleware Product’’- is also jury- provide true alternatives to Windows. also an)’’ ‘‘middleware distributed with such rigged to advantage Microsoft. Under Section E. The PFJ Includes A ‘‘Gerrymandered’’ operating system installed on one personal IV.N of the PFJ, protected middleware Definition Of Middleware. Though not computer to interoperate with any of the products are limited to those applications ‘‘of readily apparent, the effectiveness, or lack following software installed on a different which at least one million copies were thereof, of the PFJ’s restrictions on personal computer or on a server: (i) distributed in the United States within the Microsoft’s behavior heavily depends on the Microsoft applications, (ii) Microsoft previous year.’’ Thus, developers have no proposed agreement’s definition of middleware, or (iii) Microsoft client or server protection from Microsoft’s well-honed ‘‘middleware.’’ Under the proposed operating systems.’’ predatory tactics until they can obtain settlement, OEMs are protected from The PFJ departs significantly from these substantial distribution. retaliation and can promote competitive established definitions of middleware and The PFJ’s middleware definition also does alternatives to Microsoft products only in the instead adopts wholly new definitions for not explicitly include web-based services, the area of middleware. Thus, if rival software both ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Products,’’ and most important future platform challenge to falls outside of the definition of middleware, ‘‘non-Microsoft Middleware.’’ These the Windows monopoly. These web-based Microsoft can essentially use its coercive definitions include several flaws that services represent an important and growing might to prevent that software from being Microsoft may be able to use to type of middleware, and the PFJ’s failure to distributed via OEMs. Conversely, if a anticompetitively advantage its applications, explicitly cover them may allow Microsoft to Microsoft product is not classified as continue to profit from the fruits of its recreate and extend its desktop monopoly to middleware, Microsoft is permitted to use new platforms.43 coercion to force its adoption and promotion. 40 (See States’’ Proposed Text ¶ 22(w).) The PFJ adopts a new, and greatly 41 See also Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 59 (referring to 42 The PFJ does contain a generic narrowed, definition of middleware, both in browsers as exemplary of ‘‘any middleware middlewaredefinition, see Section VI.K.2, but this product, for that matter’’); id. at 74 (Java is a set of applies only to new products, and therefore does 39 John R. Wilke and Don Clark, Microsoft Pulls technologies that ‘‘is another type of middleware not capture an)’’ product now in existence. Back Its Support for Java: New Windows XP System posing a potential threat to Windows’’ position as 43 See Rebecca Buckman, Microsoft Says Its Won’t Include Software Needed to Run Programs, the ubiquitous platform for software Future Lies in Subscriptions, The Wall Street The Wall Street Journal, July 18, 2001. development’’). Journal, May 31, 2001.
VerDate 11
The newly created and narrowly crafted Second, under the Litigating States’’ which Judge Greene subjected the definitions of middleware in the PFJ pave the Remedial Proposal, the Special Master would government’s proposed consent decree with way for Microsoft to avoid many of the have the authority to identify, investigate, AT&T to intense judicial review.44 In AT&T, prohibitions on its conduct. The middleware and quickly resolve enforcement disputes. the court recognized that the proposed definitions in the LSRP, on the other hand, For example, under the States’’ proposal, the settlement not only would dispose of ‘‘what are consistent with those endorsed by the Special Master would have the power and is the largest and most complex antitrust District Court and Court of Appeals, and authority to take any and all acts necessary action brought since the enactment of the ensure that the protections from Microsoft’s to ensure Microsoft’s compliance. (See Tunney Act, but [] itself raises what may well illegal conduct are extended to Microsoft’s States’’ Proposed Text ¶ 18(b).) The Special be an unprecedented number of public competitors in critical middleware markets. Master would have the benefit of both interest questions of concern to a very large F. The PFJ Lacks A Meaningful business and technical experts. (See id. number of interested persons and Enforcement Mechanism. ¶ 18(d).) Upon receipt of a complaint, it organizations.’’ American Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 For any remedy against Microsoft to be would be required to make an initial F. Supp. at 145.45 In light of the size and the effective, it must include a strong, timely, determination of whether an investigation is complexity of the case,46 46 as well as its and meaningful enforcement mechanism. required within fourteen days. After ‘‘unfortunate history’’ and the interests of The PFJ creates an extraordinarily weak notifying Microsoft and the complainant of third parties, the court held an extensive enforcement authority—one that likely will its decision to investigate, Microsoft would hearing to address key issues raised by the be overwhelmed and co-opted by Microsoft. then have fourteen days to respond. After consent decree and the comments of More specifically, as currently drafted, there Microsoft’s response, the Special Master interested parties. Id. at 147, 152. The case are two principal problems with the PFJ’s would be required to schedule a hearing for an extensive hearing on the PFJ in this enforcement mechanism. within twenty-one days, and fifteen days proceeding is overwhelming for similar First, the proposed decree leaves all after the hearing, would be required to file reasons. enforcement to a single, three-person with the Court its factual findings and a First, this is an extremely complicated Technical Committee (‘‘TC’’). With no proposed order. (See id. ¶ 18(f).) case, to say nothing of the profound looming antitrust proceedings to put pressure Unlike the enforcement mechanism in the consequences any settlement will ultimately on Microsoft to behave, Microsoft will have PFJ, the creation of a Special Master as have on the computer and Internet every incentive to hinder the efforts of the outlined by the States would prevent industries. The economic significance of the TC. Moreover, Microsoft will have disputes over Microsoft’s compliance from computer industry is unquestioned. In such substantial insights and influence over the becoming wars of attrition that would drain an environment, expert economic analysis is TC—Microsoft will appoint at least one the system and guarantee Microsoft victory. critical to help the Court not only understand member of the TC (the first two members will The history of this case, and of antitrust the incentives that will drive Microsoft’s appoint the third); the TC will be stationed regulation in general, suggest the need for an response to any proposed settlement, but also full-time on Microsoft premises; and the TC enforcement mechanism that can ensure the assess whether the PFJ will succeed in will rely for many types of enforcement on timely resolution of any disputes and bringing the monopolist’s unlawful behavior a compliance officer hired and paid for by minimize any demand on judicial resources. to an end and promoting competition in a Microsoft. In light of all this, it would be easy The enforcement provisions contained in the market that has long been restricted. Given to imagine a situation where the TC, during the complexity of this case, the Court should Litigating States’’ Remedial Proposal the entirety of its existence, never took a not approve the PFJ without an adequate accomplish these objectives. single action critical of or hostile to hearing to consider the many- and often V. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE Microsoft, no matter what behaviors technical—objections to it that will STRONGLY MILITATE IN FAVOR OF Microsoft engaged in. doubtlessly be raised in the Tunney Act GATHERING EVIDENCE AND Second, the enforcement authority has no submissions. TESTIMONY—EITHER IN A HEARING, OR power other than the authority to investigate. Second, in temps of the impact that anb, THROUGH THE USE OF THE RECORD The TC cannot expedite claims, assess fines, proposed settlement in this case will have on FROM THE REMEDIAL PROCEEDING—TO or otherwise move quickly to redress the public, Judge Greene’s depiction of the DETERMINE IF THE PFJ MEETS THE Microsoft’s illegal behavior. If the TC finds AT&T case is, once again, more than fitting any abuse, its only recourse will be to the PUBLIC INTEREST TEST. here: ‘‘[t]his is not an ordinary antitrust courts, through mini-retrials of United States We believe, for the reasons presented case.’’ Id. at 151. Microsoft is one of our v. Microsoft. Moreover, under Section above, that the PFJ fails the Tunney Act’s nation’s largest corporations. It plays a IV.D.4.(d) of the PFJ, the TC is prohibited ‘‘public interest’’ test and should be rejected. central role in one of the country’s most from using any of its work product, findings, At the very least, however, there is ample critical and important industries, and thus in or recommendations in any court basis for the Court to conclude that a rigorous our country’s economy. Any settlement that proceedings. Thus, even if the TC eventually hearing is needed to air the objections to the refers a matter to the courts, the proceedings PFJ and resolve the doubts that the Court 44 hopefully has about the proposed decree. Similar to the case at hand, Judge Greene in ,4 will have to start from scratch. The history T& T had a well-developed factual record on which of the 1994 consent decree shows the futility While it need not be a lengthy proceeding, to base his public interest determination. In .4 T&T, of this type of approach. the Court may also want to consider the parties reached their settlement following a By contrast, the Litigating States’’ Remedial accepting evidence and taking testimony- or period of discovery, pretrial motions, and an Proposal recommends the creation of a alternatively, making use of record evidence eleven-month trial. Shortly before the evidence Special Master who is empowered and it will receive in the upcoming proceeding phase was to end, the Department of Justice and the equipped to investigate Microsoft’s behavior concerning the LSRP. The question of what defendant agreed upon, and submitted to the court, a proposed final judgment. in a manner that is prompt and resolute. The can be learned about the PFJ’s prospects for 45 Here, of course, the proposed consent decree appointment of a Special Master with effectiveness, since its partial implementation began in July (and, in other was reached after a full trial on the merits, as well defined remedial powers is essential if as an affirmance by the Court of Appeals, upholding Microsoft’s unlawful behavior is to be curbed respects, December), is especially critical, the District Court’s findings of liability against and competition restored to the marketplace. and would benefit from additional fact- Microsoft. The court also acknowledged that if Thus, the creation of a Special Master finding by the Court. approved, the proposed decree ‘‘would have provides for a mechanism that is much more A. The Complexity And Significance Of significant consequences for an unusually large effective in ensuring Microsoft’s compliance This Case—And The Inadequacy Of The CIS number of ratepayers, shareholders, bondholders, with the settlement decree, and does not -All Militate In Favor Of A Hearing On The creditors, employees and competitors,’’ and would suffer from the defects identified above in the PFJ. Of all the cases in which courts have affect ‘‘a vast and crucial sector of the economy.’’ /d. at 152. PFJ’s TC proposal. reviewed proposed consent decrees to make 46 a public interest determination under the The Senate sponsor of the Tunney Act, Senator First, unlike the TC in the PFJ, a Special Tunney, specifically cited a case’s complexity as a Master, as selected by the Court, would be Tunney Act, the case most similar to the factor militating in favor of conducting a hearing on independent. He or she would not be present action is American Tel. & Tel. Co., the adequacy of a decree. See 119 Cong. Rec. S3453 dependent on Microsoft for resources, 552 F. Supp. at 131, aff’d sub nom Maryland (daily ed. February 6, 1973) (statement of Sen. appointment, or other needs. v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983), in Tunney).
VerDate 11
addresses Microsoft’s illegal conduct in a middleware—and as a result, cannot be said justified in these circumstances,48 and could manner that is consistent with the Court of to be in the public interest. be helpful to the Court in its consideration Appeals’’ decision and prevailing antitrust At the same time—while we doubt it, of the practical effects of the PFJ. law will have far-reaching consequences on seriously—we recognize it is theoretically C. In Making Its ‘‘Public Interest’’ numerous organizations, both public and possible that there may be reasons why these Determination. This Court Should Take Into private, as well as on Microsoft, its provisions have not yet shown signs of Account The Evidence That Will Be employees, shareholders, competitors, and effectiveness, but would be effective over Adduced In The Upcoming Remedial most importantly, consumers. Thus, a time. At least, that is what Microsoft and the Proceeding. Finally, the Court should take hearing to consider the breadth and depth of Justice Department are likely to assert. If the advantage of the Tunney Act’s broad these consequences is in order before the PFJ Court is inclined to give these assertions any procedural flexibility to use the record is approved. credence, that is all the more reason for the evidence that will be amassed in the Third, a hearing should be held to require Court to conduct a proceeding—taking upcoming remedial proceeding as it make its the Justice Department to answer the many evidence and hearing testimony, if necessary- ‘‘public interest’’ determination in this questions surrounding the PFJ—raised here, to make a determination on such claims review. The Court’s Tunney Act review of the and doubtlessly elsewhere—that the based on empirical evidence, rather than PFJ in this proceeding can be substantially Competitive Impact Statement ignores or fails relying upon hypothetical contentions or assisted by the record developed in the to adequately address. Why was a new, abstract theories. Such a proceeding is forthcoming proceeding on the LSRP. As we ‘‘gerrymandered’’ definition of middleware authorized by the Tunney Act, see 15 U.S.C. have argued, the Court’s objectives in both used in the PFJ—instead of the definition * 16(f), and would be appropriate in this proceedings are the same—namely, to used by both the trial and appellate courts, instance. terminate Microsoft’s illegal conduct, prevent and in every other remedial proposal? Why Evidence and testimony from the OEMs the recurrence of such conduct, and create a was a Java- related remedy omitted, when can make clear whether they are taking market structure in which competition does that was such a key part of the case? Why advantage of the ‘‘new flexibility’’ ostensibly not simply exist in theory, but actually yields were only some forms of retaliation, for only being provided under the PFJ—and if not, real alternatives to Microsoft’s products. some procompetitive acts, prohibited? And why not. Given the OEMs’’ likely fears of Moreover, the Court’s analysis in both most importantly, why does the PFJ not retaliation from testifying in such a proceedings is guided by the49 same legal address all of the anticompetitive wrongs that proceeding—as reflected by their apparent principles. See Section I, supra. were found at trial, and upheld on appeal— (and understandable) reluctance to testify in Many of the questions the Court must including, most especially, Microsoft’s the remedial proceeding—the Court may answer in the course of reviewing the PFJ— unlawful tying? These questions are not want to consider appointing a Special Master e.g., What sort of anti-retaliation provisions answered by the CIS, as the Tunney Act to take evidence from the OEMs are needed to empower OEMs and foster real directs and the public interest demands, and confidentially.47 Likewise, evidence and competition? Must third parties be as the Court would surely desire. A full testimony from non- Microsoft middleware empowered to promote competition through review of these questions, and many others, companies can indicate how the provisions offering alternatives to the ‘‘Windows is needed by the Court before it can approve of the PFJ, after they have been in place for bundle’’ for a remedy to be effective?—will the PFJ (if it is inclined to approve the PFJ). several months, are—or are not—enabling be addressed, in whole or in part, in the Thus, in light of the specific objections them to compete with Microsoft. The same remedial proceeding. To the extent that these from third parties revealing the PFJ’s can be said for OS rivals to Microsoft. questions can only be answered by hearing numerous deficiencies—and the oddity of the The point is that while we firmly believe testimony from some of the same individuals differing remedial proposals now before the that the publicly available information and and the same sources in the remedial Court—the Court should hear oral argument reports all indicate that the PFJ’s provisions, proceeding, the Court’s reliance on that and, if necessary, take additional testimony. as implemented since December 16th (and evidence in this proceeding would result in Giving the government an opportunity to the browser-related PFJ provisions, as a more comprehensively informed review, explain the omissions in its proposed implemented since July 11th), have done streamline the Court’s resolution of the settlement, and third parties the opportunity little or nothing to promote competition, the issues, and lead to a much more efficient use to demonstrate the efficacy of the litigating Court may wish to base such a conclusion of judicial resources. states’’ proposal, will afford the Court the upon a judicially developed record that The Tunney Act itself grants the Court necessary basis on which to make its public would allow both proponents and opponents wide discretion to undertake any procedures interest determination in this important and to offer explanations and evidence in support it ‘‘may deem appropriate’’ in making its unprecedented case. of their views. Such a proceeding could be public interest determination. 1 5 U.S.C. * 1 B. The Court Should Conduct A of a more informal nature, i.e., the Court 6(0(5). This includes using evidence from Proceeding—Taking Evidence And Hearing could solicit comments from the relevant another proceeding. See American Tel. & Tel. Testimony, If Necessary—To Determine How parties and industry experts; or it could be Co., 522 F. Supp. at 136. As the court noted The PFJ’s Provisions Have Functioned Since conducted by a Special Master, as we suggest in AT&T, ‘‘[i]n a Tunney Act proceeding the Some Were Put In Place In 2001. above; or it could be a more formal, trial-type Court is not limited by the rules of evidence undertaking. All of these approaches are A second rationale for a hearing is to but may take into account facts and other authorized under the Tunney Act, which develop a factual record concerning the point considerations from many different sources.’’ grants wide discretion to the court to adopt we make in Section II, supra: namely, that Id. at 136 n. 7 (emphasis added). In that case, whatever form of proceeding it considers the Court can assess the prospects for the the court relied on a report by the Antitrust most effective. See 15 U.S.C. § 16, passim. likely effectiveness of the PFJ by seeing how Subcommittee of the House Committee on But on one point, the Act, or at least its those provisions that have been implemented the Judiciary, which had conducted an legislative history, is rather firm: ‘‘[T]he court are starting to work—or not—in practice. investigation of the matter, to fill in gaps left must obtain the necessary information to Above, we have suggested that the in the court record. Id. at 136. Ira court can make [a] determination that the proposed empirical record developed in the PC consent decree is in the public interest.’’ industry since Microsoft’s July 11, 2001 48 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535, 6538–39 (H.R. Rep. While Congress made clear, in enacting the announcement of ‘‘greater OEM flexibility for 93–1463, quoting S. Rep. 93–298, at 6–7 Tunney Act, that such hearings were to be the Windows,’’ and since Microsoft began to exception, and not the rule, see 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. (1973)) (emphasis added). Some sort of implement many of the PFJ’s remedial 6535, 6539 (quoting S. Rep. 93–298, at 7 (1973)), proceeding to examine these questions is provisions on December 16, 2001, should be this may well be one of those cases where an examined carefully by this Court as it evidentiary inquiry is called for. 47 49 determines whether the PFJ is in the ‘‘public The Court is authorized to appoint a Special This is not to say that the PFJ should be interest.’’ We also express the view that these Master to conduct inquiries as part of this Tunney rejected merely because it is not identical to the Act proceeding. See 15 U.S.C. * 16(f)(2). Making a remedy that the Court might impose in the remedial provisions have, in fact, been ineffectual in determination as to why OEMs have failed to use proceeding. See supra note 2. Conversely, promoting competition and are showing no their ‘‘new found freedoms’’—and whether they are acceptance of the PFJ would not preclude the Court signs that they will yield change in the likely to do so in the future—would seem to be a from imposing a different remedy in the proceeding competitive position of non-Microsoft task well suited to a Special Master. being pressed by the litigating states.
VerDate 11
weigh an evidentiary record compiled by the proceeding into account in conducting its Submitted on behalf of AOL Time Warner Congress, it surely can weigh an evidentiary Tunney Act review of the PFJ. Simply put, by Frank Mathewson and Ralph A. Winter record of its own creation in a related by utilizing this evidence, the Court will Charles River Associates Inc. proceeding. 50 adduce the information it needs to make its Suite 1501 The Court is currently overseeing a wide ‘‘public interest’’ determination in a manner 80 Bloor Street West range of discovery, both written and oral, in that encourages greater efficiency and avoids Toronto, Ontario M5S 2V1 the remedial proceeding. Testimony will unnecessary delay or duplication. Canada presumably be taken from a host of witnesses CONCLUSION January 28, 2002 that will establish, among other things: how The Court should refuse to find that entry MTC–00028284—0068 Microsoft deals with OEMs, including how of the PFJ is ‘‘in the public interest.’’ The PFJ TABLE OF CONTENTS various Microsoft practices limit OEM does not unfetter the market from Microsoft’s INTRODUCTION—1 51 flexibility in configuring the desktop; how dominance; it does not terminate the illegal MICROSOFT HAS MANY TECHNIQUES AT Microsoft has used the commingling of code, monopoly; it does not deny to Microsoft the ITS DISPOSAL FOR TYING and other forms of binding its middleware to fruits of its statutory violations; and it does MIDDLEWARE TO WINDOWS—2 the OS, to reinforce the applications barrier not end Microsoft’s practices that are likely ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT to entry; how Microsoft has used to result in monopolization in the future. MICROSOFT HAS SUBSTANTIAL discriminatory and anticompetitive licensing More specifically, the PFJ does not even INCENTIVES TO USE TYING TO agreements to limit the distribution and use attempt to address, let alone end, Microsoft’s SUSTAIN ITS OPERATING SYSTEM of rival products; how Microsoft’s illegal illegal binding and bundling practices that MONOPOLY, HARMING CONSUMERS conduct has worked to destroy Java; how have done so much to fortify its OS AND COMPETITION—4 Microsoft’s .Net initiative repeats the illegal monopoly and to harm desktop competition. A. As a general matter, absent legal monopoly leveraging tactics it successfully And its limited provisions are so filled with constraints, Microsoft possesses substantial used to decimate Netscape; how Microsoft’s loopholes and exceptions that they are economic incentives to integrate its concealment of APIs decades the rendered ineffective. At the very least, the products in a manner that reinforces its OS performance of non-Microsoft products and Court should refuse to approve the PFJ until monopoly—5 (1) Microsoft ties its services; and how Microsoft has manipulated after it has concluded an extensive review, applications to its operating system as a industry standards and developed including an inquiry into whether the PFJ’s way of sustaining the applications barrier proprietary standards and formats that limit provisions—as implemented by Microsoft to entry—5 the interoperability of competing products. since last year—are showing signs of (2) Microsoft ties applications to its operating This evidence, which will be presented effectively restoring competition to the system as a way of deterring direct during the Court’s remedial hearing later this marketplace. The Court could conduct an challenges to Windows’’ position as the Spring, will form the basis on which the evidentiary hearing, appoint a Special dominant platform for software Court crafts its remedy in the ongoing Master, and/or rely upon the record that will developers—7 litigation. It is our view that this evidence be adduced in the trial on the Litigating (3) Microsoft has incentives to tie to achieve will affirmatively demonstrate why the LSRP, States’’ Remedial Proposal to meet its a monopoly in complementary and not the PFJ, fulfills the mandate of the evidentiary needs. applications as insurance against possible Court of Appeals and comports with well In the end, it is the proposal of the future erosion of its OS dominance—9 settled antitrust law. By the same token, it litigating states—not the PFJ—that meets the (4) Microsoft’s operating system also has will also demonstrate why the PFJ fails to public interest standard. The Court should durable-goods qualities that create further redress Microsoft’s illegal behavior in a anti-competitive incentives for tying—12 manner consistent with tile public interest. reject the PFJ, and impose a strong, effective and forward-looking remedy that addresses (5) Microsoft’s anti-competitive tying Because many of the questions the Court incentives are mutually reinforcing and are faces in this proceeding mirror those in the Microsoft’s proven anticompetitive conduct in a manner consistent with the mandate of manifest in strategies that lack any remedial proceeding, the Court should take competitive justification—14 the record evidence from the remedial the Court of Appeals and the nation’s antitrust laws. B. Microsoft’s anti-competitive incentives are Dated: January 28, 2002 particularly powerful in the markets for 50 Although the circumstances in which the browsers and streaming media, as well as Paul T. Cappuccio AT&T court considered the subcommittee’s report the adjacent markets for content-encoding, Edward J. Weiss are different from those here, the Tunney Act digital rights management, e-commerce, AOL TIME WARNER, Inc. clearly allows this Court to rely on evidence from and convergence—15 75 Rockefeller Plaza a variety of sources. The legislative history of the C. The theorized benefits of product Act makes clear that Congress did not intend to New York, New York 10019 integration that may exist in some cases do limit the techniques a court could use to make its (212) 484–8000 not apply to the markets at issue in this public interest determination. See 1974 Respectfully submitted, U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535, 6539 (quoting S. Rep. No. 93– case—19 —? (1) The economics of software markets cast 298, at 6 (1973)) (‘‘Section 2(f) sets forth some Ronald A. Klain techniques which the court may utilize in its doubt on Microsoft’s efficiency arguments discretion in making its public interest Benjamin G. Bradshaw for integration of its own browser and determination. It is not the intent of the Committee Jessica Davidson Miller media player with the OS—20 to in any way limit the court to the techniques O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP (2) Contrary to Microsoft’s claims, issues of enumerated.’’)* Indeed, Congress anticipated that 555 13th Street, NW, Suite 500 West pricing and innovation provide further by giving trial courts wide discretion to collect Washington, DC 20004–1109 evidence that Microsoft’s tying harms the evidence and conduct procedures in the way they (202) 383–5300 marketplace and consumers—22 saw fit, courts would be able to adduce the Randall J. Boe GIVEN THE INCENTIVES, HISTORY, AND necessary information in the least complicated and Laura E. Jehl most efficient manner possible* See id. (‘‘The EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THE Committee recognizes that the court must have AOL, Inc. CONCLUSION IS THAT MICROSOFT HAS broad discretion to accommodate a balancing of 22000 AOL Way ENGAGED, AND IS ENGAGING, IN ANTI- interests... It is anticipated that the trial judge will Dulles, Virginia 20166 COMPETITIVE TYING IN ORDER TO adduce the necessary information through the least (703) 265–1000 PROTECT AND STRENGTHEN ITS complicated and least time-consuming means ATTORNEYS FOR AOL TIME WARNER, OPERATING SYSTEM MONOPOLY—24 possible.’’). INC. A. Microsoft’s options, incentives, and 51 As we note above, the OEMs appear MTC–00028284—0066 history create a strong presumption that understandably reluctant to testify in the remedial ATTACHMENT A Microsoft’s tying harms OS competition proceeding* This is all the more reason to use a MTC–00028284—0067 Special Master (or other procedural device) to and consumers—24 ascertain confidentially their views of the PFJ’s Microsoft’s Tying Strategies To Maintain B. The evidence indicates that Microsoft is provisions and the likely effectiveness of those Monopoly Power !n Its Operating System anti-competitively tying the browser and provisions. See supra note 47 and accompanying (Civil Actions No. 98–1232 and 98–1233 the media player with its operating text. CKK) system—25
VerDate 11
CONCLUSION—28 way that maintains its OS monopoly, to the code; (b) efforts by Microsoft to hinder APPENDIX: CURRICULUM VITAE OF detriment of consumers and competition. disintegration; and (c) efforts to hamper the FRANK MATHEWSON—1 MICROSOFT HAS MANY TECHNIQUES interoperability of rival applications. Basic APPENDIX: CURRICULUM VITAE OF AT ITS DISPOSAL FOR TYING integration involves providing, as part of the RALPH WINTER—1 MIDDLEWARE TO WINDOWS. OS, services previously offered as stand- INTRODUCTION Microsoft has various means of binding its alone applications. This could be done in a We have been engaged in this case as middleware products to the Windows purely modular fashion without the professional economists 1 to assess the operating system. Before describing these commingling of application code into the economic incentives and effects of practices and the ways in which Microsoft kernel of the operating system. If done in this Microsoft’s tying practices. Our specific uses them to reinforce its OS monopoly, we manner, the products can be easily removed charge is to determine whether Microsoft is explain the general concept of middleware and replaced with competing products in a tying middleware applications to its and why Microsoft’s licensing of middleware ‘‘plug and play’’ fashion. Technological operating system (‘‘OS’’) in a manner that with its OS in the Windows package efforts that hinder disintegration, however, protects and reinforces its monopoly power constitutes tying. have stronger anti-competitive overtones. in the market for operating systems. Middleware is exemplified by products These include: commingling code in a Middleware is software that runs on the OS such as Internet browsers, including manner that hampers, and perhaps even bars, platform, i.e., that calls on the basic operating Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (‘‘IE’’) and the replacement of the products or default system through application programming Netscape’s Navigator, media players, instant options; designing the OS so that Microsoft’s interfaces (‘‘APIs’’) of the OS in order to messaging, and middleware applications applications are chosen as default invoke functions of the OS, but which in turn platforms such as Java. By a strategy of tying applications; making it difficult for OEMs or contains its own published APIs that allow middleware to the OS, we mean any users to replace the icons or launch higher-level applications to run on the constraint that Microsoft’s operating system sequences; and creating utilities to ‘‘sweep’’ middleware itself.2 To execute our mandate, be bought with (or bound to) Microsoft the Windows desktop and replace non- we have reviewed the economic incentives at middleware products, or any contractual or Microsoft icons. Note that some of these play in this market, conducted interviews financial inducement to this end. Microsoft forms of tying, such as hampering rivals’’ with various software developers, and has argued that various middleware performance, entirely lack pro-efficiency studied the key documents in this case, applications, especially IE and Windows rationales, while all of them can be used in including the Proposed Final Judgment and Media Player (‘‘WMP’’), are essential inefficient, anti- competitive manners. The the Competitive Impact Statement of the U.S. components of an integrated operating remainder of this paper demonstrates that Department of Justice, the submissions made system rather than distinct products, and that Microsoft has strong incentives to engage in on behalf of Microsoft, and the Comments Of tying or bundling these products with the such anti-competitive, inefficient bundling, AOL Time Warner On The Proposed Final core operating system therefore does not and that it is doing so in a manner Judgment. constitute tying. Microsoft’s argument is detrimental to competition with the goal of Based on our analysis, we conclude that incorrect. maintaining its extant monopoly in operating Microsoft has tied its middleware Middleware products, such as browsers systems. applications to its Windows operating system and media players, are sold in separate ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT in ways that preserve and reinforce its markets. Users can obtain Navigator or MICROSOFT HAS SUBSTANTIAL monopoly power in the market for operating RealPlayer without purchasing an operating INCENTIVES TO USE TYING TO SUSTAIN systems on PCs, damaging competition and system in the same transaction. Users can ITS OPERATING SYSTEM MONOPOLY, harming consumers. The anti-competitive also obtain IE or MSN Messenger without HARMING CONSUMERS AND use of tying strategies to maintain a obtaining Windows. Until Microsoft bundled COMPETITION. monopoly in this manner is, in our WMP into Windows, users could obtain these Microsoft has maintained that its tying is understanding, a violation of Section 2 of the two products in separate transactions. efficient and that it should be allowed to Sherman Act. We conclude that market Moreover, these products are clearly sold by determine the level of integration of forces alone do not discipline Microsoft to different suppliers. The Court cannot give applications into its operating system. limit the integration of middleware code into serious weight to Microsoft’s argument that Microsoft argues that it should be free to tie its OS or the bundling of middleware once WMP, for example, is integrated into its products together in any fashion it sees fit, products with its OS to efficiency-enhancing Windows, the media player ceases to be a as this type of product integration is efficient levels. Rather, Microsoft has the ability to tie separate product: If this argument were and promotes innovation with eventual in ways that lack pro-competitive accepted, then the mere fact that Microsoft consumer benefits. These arguments justification, and in any event has incentives integrates application code into the operating generally claim to defend Microsoft’s to use tying strategies to integrate system would itself be a defense for its intellectual property, and are expressed in applications into its OS more aggressively actions. In other words, tying, as a means of terms of the general advantages of product than justified by efficiency. reinforcing a monopoly position, would integration, rather than defining specific We begin in the next section with a brief constitute its own defense. The law, we benefits to users from Microsoft’s practice of description of the tying strategies at suggest, cannot intend this. tying particular middleware products, such Microsoft’s disposal. We then demonstrate Tying involves contractual arrangements as IE or WMP, into the Windows package. through economic analysis that Microsoft has whereby Microsoft puts pressure on original Microsoft’s claim amounts to the belief that substantial incentives to tie its middleware equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) or end- market forces alone achieve the optimal products to its monopoly OS to reinforce and users to acquire Microsoft applications as a degree of product integration and separation entrench that monopoly. Given these condition of acquiring Windows. It includes without any further regulatory or legal incentives, Microsoft’s history, and the requirements that OEMs install Microsoft constraints. As a matter of economic theory, evidence in this case, we conclude that applications, rather than applications this argument fails to take note of Microsoft’s Microsoft has engaged, and is engaging, in developed by Microsoft’s rivals, and position as a dominant producer in a market anti-competitive tying, and is doing so in a prohibitions on removing or uninstalling with substantial barriers to entry. For this those applications. It also includes financial general market-forces argument to be valid, 1 Mathewson is a Professor of Economics and inducements to adopt Microsoft applications Microsoft would need to demonstrate that Director of the Institute for Policy Analysis at the when Windows is purchased and installed. competitive vigor in the market will University of Toronto and Winter is a Professor of Each of these requirements is enforced discipline Microsoft to engage only in tying Economics and Finance at the University of through Microsoft’s coercive power to harm that enhances efficiency. But such complete Toronto. Both are Senior Consultants to Charles non-adhering OEMs. reliance on market forces to achieve River Associates. Our curriculum vitae are attached as appendices to this report. Tying also involves desiring the OS so that efficiency, in turn, requires open entry, while 2 Middleware and operating systems, i.e., any Microsoft’s applications are integrated into the evidence in this case has shown that software which exposes APIs so that higher level the OS code, leaving rival applications there are significant barriers to entry in the applications run on top of the software, are together unnecessary or even dysfunctional. This type OS market. This leaves Microsoft in a referred to as platform software. of tying includes: (a) basic integration of position to exploit any strategic and anti-
VerDate 11
competitive motives to integrate. As a matter effects in the operating system: the entrant Microsoft’s incentives for anti-competitive of market reality, as we shall explain, the could not succeed without a set of tying are particularly strong in the case of evidence demonstrates that Microsoft has applications available to purchasers of its applications that might allow for the engaged in tying to an excessive degree, with operating system; yet, few software development of direct substitutes to the the sole purpose of achieving anti- developers would invest in the development monopolized operating system. A clear competitive aims in general and OS of new applications based on an operating incentive for Microsoft to tie its IE browser monopoly-preserving aims in particular. system without a large market share. This is with Windows has been the threat that With respect to the practices of tying referred to as the applications barrier to Netscape, either individually or combined middleware, Microsoft’s interests are not entry. The dominance of Windows as a with Java software, could eliminate aligned with those of competition and standard for applications leads to the Microsoft’s network advantages in the consumers: Microsoft can benefit without applications barrier to entry and growth in operating system, by providing middleware improving its product by using tying the operating system market. (which serves potentially as universal strategies to reinforce and strengthen its Microsoft is able to sustain this barrier by translation support between any application existing OS dominance. exploiting a collective action problem among and any operating system) that would A. As a general matter, absent legal buyers. When Microsoft ties by supplying the provide a competing platform for software constraints, Microsoft possesses substantial OS with an application such as IE or WMP, developers. This was a particular threat to economic incentives to integrate its products users must incur a series of costs to replace Microsoft’s dominance in operating systems in a manner that reinforces its OS monopoly. the application. These costs include because it potentially represented a platform/ Below, we set forth four theories that purchasing or downloading the substitute programming environment in which software explain why Microsoft’s practice of browser or media player, installing the applications Could be developed without integrating its applications with the application, and incurring any uncertainty regard to the underlying operating system. Windows OS helps to maintain its OS associated with the possible compromise in Middleware provides a layer of software monopoly, in a way that is detrimental to the functional integrity of the system. In an between applications and the operating consumers and competition. First, tying application market, buyers would system and can accommodate a new helps to sustain the applications barrier to collectively be better off if each incurred the operating system with a change in a single set entry, and thus serves to enhance Microsoft’s costs of purchasing from competing of code. Without middleware, the success of OS dominance. Second, tying deters direct suppliers, because doing so would ensure a new operating system would depend on the challenges to Windows’’ position as the greater competition in the future application development of new code by every dominant platform and thereby maintains or market. However, Microsoft’s tying practices application developer. This incentive also enhances Microsoft’s OS dominance. Third, preclude this result. explains Microsoft’s initiatives to develop a tying involves dynamic leveraging that Buyers’’ purchase decisions with respect to Microsoft version of Java in an attempt to permits Microsoft to achieve a monopoly in either the operating system or applications undermine the universal-translator aspect of complementary applications as insurance collectively affect the future market structure Java. because Microsoft will achieve dominance if against any possible erosion of the OS Some economists have argued that the most buyers choose Microsoft products. Once monopoly. Put another way, a monopolist, backwards compatibility of Microsoft’s Microsoft achieves dominance, network such as Microsoft which produces a pair of version of Java, i.e., the ability of all general externalities sustain this dominance so that perfectly complementary products, aims to Java applications to run on Microsoft’s the market structure becomes a monopoly as protect its full monopoly power by ensuring version, rules out the hypothesis that a result of buyers’’ previous purchase Microsoft designed its version of Java for the its future monopoly in at least one of the decisions. The impact of each buyer’s complementary products. Fourth, tying purpose of stifling the potential threat to its purchase decision on the future market dominance in operating systems. 5 This permits Microsoft to mitigate the competitive structure, however, is negligible. Moreover, constraints on its operating system monopoly argument is wrong in its static assumption buyers do not take into account the impact about compatibility. Given the history of the provided by previous releases of the OS. of their purchase decisions on other buyers. These four theories are not mutually industry, the fact that Microsoft’s initial As a result, even a small disadvantage to version of Java was universally compatible exclusive; each of them contributes to a full purchasing a competing product in the understanding of Microsoft’s anti- with Java applications does not lead one to operating system or applications markets is believe that if Microsoft dominated not just competitive conduct. And, to make matters enough to make the individual buyer prefer browsers but also Java in the future, it would worse, each of these anti-competitive results Microsoft’s product. continue to assure both compatibility of is mutually reinforcing because of the The result is that buyers’’ decisions make applications and free distribution of the pair network effects operating between the them collectively worse off. The future of middleware products. Were Microsoft to applications sector and the operating system dominance of Microsoft and the higher prices establish dominance in the potential market. faced by buyers are a result of their collective browser-Java bypass of its operating system (]) Microsoft ties its applications to its decision to purchase Microsoft’s dominance, why would it allow the bypass operating system us a way of sustaining the applications. Microsoft exploits this to be freely and effectively available? The applications harrier to entry. Microsoft has a collective action problem and pursues general incentive to engage in anti- dominance in the applications markets concerns expressed by Microsoft’s executives 4 about the risks of ‘‘commoditization’’ of the competitive tying to protect its dominance in through its tying practices. 6 operating systems against the possibility of (2) Microsoft ties applications to its operating system are well known. competitive developments in applications operating system as a way of deterring direct Middleware generally has the potential to act to varying degrees as a universal translator markets. The first means by which it challenges to Windows position as the accomplishes this is through enhancing the dominant platform for software developers. applications barrier to entry3 The dominance 5 ‘‘Microsoft’s Java virtual machine ... allowed for all programs written for the original (‘‘pure’’) Java of the Windows standard in a wide range of 4 In the economics literature, modem theories of to be run on it. Thus it preserved backward anti-competitive exclusion, including tying as applications, or in a few particularly compatibility with the original Java that ran on all exclusionary, are linked by the theme that important applications, makes entry into the operating systems. Because of that, Microsoft’s operating system market more difficult exclusionary contracts have an impact on individuals outside an individual buyer-seller actions were not anti-competitive.’’ Nicholas because an entrant has to offer both a new contract. See Dennis Carlton and Michael Waldman Economides, ‘‘The Microsoft Antitrust Case,’’ operating system and a full set of (2001) ‘‘The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade.’’ From applications, or somehow rely on the chance Create Market Power in Evolving Industries,’’ Theory to Policy, March 2001, p. 20 of working that applications ,,,,,ill quickly develop once unpublished working paper; Eric Rasmussen et al., paper version. the new operating system becomes available. (1991) ‘‘Naked Exclusion,’’ American Economic 6 In a 1995 memo to his ‘‘Executive Staff and In this way, an entrant faces a ‘‘chicken-and- Review 81 (5): 1137–1145; Michael Whinston direct reports,’’ Microsoft CEO Bill Gates stated that Netscape was ‘‘pursuing a multi-platform strategy egg’’ problem because of the indirect network (1990) ‘‘Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion,’’ American Economic Review 80(4): 837–859; and where they move the key API into the client to Philippe Aghion and Patrick Boulton (1987) commoditize the underlying operating system.’’ (5/ 3 See U.S. v. Microsoft, 84 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.DC ‘‘Contracts as a Barrier to Entry,’’ American 26’95 ‘‘The Internet Tidal Wave,’’ PI. Ex.20, p. 1999) (‘‘U.S. Findings of Fact’’), 36ndash;44. Economic Review 77(3): 388–401. MS98 0112876.3.)
VerDate 11
between an operating system and specific media player market. To take a hypothetical perfectly complementary products A and B, applications, because (as the name suggests) future contingency, if the development of a monopoly over either, or a monopoly on middleware intermediates between the middleware means that the future OS market both, allows the identical profits and results operating system and applications: it invokes turns out to be more competitive than the in the identical effects. (This theory holds in calls through an operating system’s APIs and current market, then Microsoft’s actions to a static framework that sets aside the other in turn issues its own APIs to applications. achieve dominance in the application market three theories that we discuss.) With respect To accommodate a new operating system, will leave it with dominance in one product to an OS with a set of applications that are instead of each application requiring re- of a pair of complementary products, rather virtually universally adopted by all PC users, coding for compatibility, only the ‘‘bottom than dominance in neither. Microsoft’s a monopoly over the OS alone is identical in half’’ of the middleware application must be incentive to establish dominance in key its effect and in its incentives to a monopoly reprogrammed. If twenty applications run on applications is thus strengthened by the fact over the set of applications alone or a top of a particular middleware program, for that Microsoft’s monopoly in the operating monopoly over both the OS and the set of example, compatibility with a new operating system market is not guaranteed to always be applications. That is, there is only one system could be achieved by reprogramming airtight. 8 monopoly: the economic role of tying under the middleware program instead of The gains from leveraging are especially the monopoly-insurance theory is not reprogramming each application. strong where network effects are present in creating a new monopoly, but rather Middleware thus mitigates the indirect applications markets or these markets preserving the monopoly (the monopoly network effects of the operating system—and otherwise promise large potential growth in being at least one monopoly position in the revenues for any firm that establishes early OS-applications pair). The monopoly- could potentially diminish the dominance of 9 any operating system that these network dominance. Network effects have three insurance theory thus explains the anti- implications that make Microsoft’s tying effects support. competitive use of tying to preserve a practices particularly effective in reinforcing (3) Microsoft has incentives to tie to monopoly in violation of Section 2 of the its OS dominance. First, in the early stages achieve a monopoly in complementary Sherman Act. of the market’s development, purchasers will applications as insurance against possible The monopoly-insurance theory of tying be on alert for signals of which standard will future erosion Of its OS dominance. has the effect of reinforcing Microsoft’s eventually become dominant, in order to monopoly position even if the preservation- A common response to the argument that reduce their exposure to later costs of monopolies can profit through leveraging of-monopoly requirement of Section 2 of the converting to the dominant standard. Tying Sherman Act is construed narrowly to apply into a second market is that monopoly profits a new application with the dominant can be collected only once: a tie into a only to Microsoft’s existing monopoly on Windows operating system will send strong operating systems for PCs. The reason complementary market with an increase in signals to purchasers that will help to ‘‘tip’’ the price of the tied good by a dollar will (discussed below) is that all of Microsoft’s the market toward Microsoft’s favored incentives for tying applications to Windows reduce the demand price of the first good by products, particularly given Microsoft’s a dollar. According to this response, there is are mutually reinforcing. Even if Microsoft’s history. Second, a feedback loop will cause incentive for tying were primarily to insure no incentive to leverage. In the simplest, both the tying and Microsoft’s dominance to static world in which there are no industry a monopoly in the event that the Windows steadily accelerate. As Microsoft begins to OS monopoly failed in the future (the dynamics, no uncertainty, and no variation gain a substantial share in an application in consumer demand, this ‘‘one-monopoly insurance theory), one effect of the tying is market, it will be able to engage in more overt to reduce the chance that the Windows OS theory’’ is correct. This theory, however, fails forms of tying, as customers grow to accept when there is uncertainty about the monopoly actually does fail, because of the even inconvenient results from Microsoft’s strengthening of the applications barrier to preservation of monopoly. If the initial ant/- competitive behaviors (such as poor entry. The impact is preservation, though monopoly is at some risk, then an incentive interoperability with rivals) because of the imperfect, of Microsoft’s monopoly in the for leverage arises as insurance against the reinforcing network effects. This, in turn, operating system market. loss of monopoly profits. In the event that the will accelerate the tipping toward Microsoft Microsoft’s operating system also has first monopoly fails and the second succeeds, dominance. Third, once Microsoft’s the monopolist will have preserved a dominance is established, proprietary durable-goods qualities that create further anti-competitive incentives for tying. monopoly in at least one of the markets. 7 standards and continued tying will lock in Consistent with the common response, this dominance, not just on current Part of Microsoft’s argument that it should having a monopoly in only one of the pair production but on ‘‘future applications in the be free to ‘‘innovate’’ rests on the notion that of markets is sufficient to collect the full same functional space. While all of these an important source of ‘‘competition’’ in effects promote Microsoft’s dominance in selling new versions of Windows is the monopoly profits. If either market’s 10 monopoly is uncertain, the monopolist has applications, it is the feedback effect of this existing stock of old versions of Windows. an incentive to create monopolies in both control over applications to reinforce the OS 10 markets, and thus increase the likelihood of dominance that is relevant for the matter at The District Court’s Findings of Fact maintain being able to obtain monopoly profits in at hand. Network effects or network economies that the Windows leasing agreement prohibits the user from transferring the OS to another machine least one market. refer to the positive value that any single user derives from the number of other users so that ‘‘there is no legal secondary market in If Microsoft fears for the longevity of its Microsoft operating systems’’ (¶ 57). The Findings operating system monopoly, or believes that adopting the same operating system. See U.S. of Fact then note (* 58) that there is a thriving operating systems are in a mature market Findings of Fact ¶¶ 39–42 and ¶¶ 65–66 for illegal market. To limit this, Microsoft advises with limited prospects for growth, it will application to Microsoft. For a general OEMs that Microsoft will charge a higher price for have strong incentives to make minor description of networks and positive Windows to OEMs that do not limit the number of sacrifices to Windows functionality in order feedback, see Carl Shapiro and Hal Varian PCs they sell without the OS pre-installed. One to obtain dominance in high-growth markets. (1999) Information Rules Boston: Harvard might argue that the durable goods monopoly Business School Press, pp. 173–225. problem is eliminated by Microsoft’s refusal to This is particularly true if the sacrifices (such allow OEMs to install (without penalty) old as damaging relationships with OEMs and The standard ‘‘one-monopoly’’ theory, however, tells us that when there are two versions of Windows. This is incorrect for two consumers by forcing them to accept an reasons: (i) increases in the price of the new version inferior browser or media player) have of Windows will reduce overall demand for new negligible effects on demand for Windows. 8 See U.S. Findings of Fact ¶¶ 33–35, 60–64. PCs, as users invoke the option to keep existing PCs The greater the threat to its OS dominance in 9 It may appear that any preservation-of- with the old version, and (ii) there is a retail market the future, the more incentive Microsoft has monopoly theory must Be applied narrowly to for new versions of Windows software for to establish a dominant supplier position in Microsoft’s monopoly power in operating systems. installation on existing PCs. Both (i) and (ii) provide If this were the case, then the insurance theory of channels through which the existing stock of an application market, such as the browser or tying just described would not apply, since this Windows software provides some competition for a theory explains why tying to establish dominance new version of Windows (i.e., it increases the 7 This idea is developed formally in J.P. Choi and in a new market can be profitable because of the elasticity of demand for the new version). If the C. Stefandis (2001), ‘‘Tying, Investment and the profits that can be captured in that new market, price of a new version is increased, the demand for Dynamic Leverage Theory,’’ The RAND Journal of instead of why it is profitable to protect the the new version is reduced because fewer Economics 32( 1): 52–74. monopoly in the operating systems market. Continued
VerDate 11
While it is true that the durable-goods aspect Microsoft in the position of collecting a fee because buyers in the OS market are more of the OS market (i.e., the ability of on Internet transactions serves this role. assured of available applications; the greater consumers to retain their existing versions of These products are IE, WMP, Microsoft’s dominance in the OS market in turn feeds the OS instead of buying a new version) Digital Rights Management (‘‘DRAM’’) back into greater dominance in applications, disciplines Microsoft, it only does so in the software, as well as the Net My Services since the tying strategies take the form of sense that Microsoft earns fewer profits than initiative. The Digital Rights Management imposing an artificial advantage relative to it would in a hypothetical world in which it software, with WMP, will initially support a applications of the dominant OS supplier. were to lease its OS. The claim that the OS market for music and video products. The The greater Microsoft’s share across all market is, in fact, more competitive than this combination of these middleware applications markets, the greater the hypothetical market does not weaken the applications, enabling the Microsoft e- applications barrier to entry. Greater shares claim that Microsoft’s position in the OS commerce network, will then support the in applications markets create a feedback market is dominant and that its activities are transition to Internet sales transactions of a effect of even greater dominance in the OS illegal. broad variety of products. As Microsoft market. The source of this feedback effect is Moreover, this ‘‘durable good monopolist’’ begins to shift its revenue structure from an ‘‘indirect network effect’’: the greater the feature of the market contains an incentive Windows sales to Internet transaction fees, it penetration of any operating system, the for Microsoft to engage in illegal bundling. will seek to control the key Internet access more applications will be written to it, and The strategy of leasing as a means of escaping choke points such as browsers, media consequently, the more valuable the the durable monopolist’s dilemma is well players, and digital rights management. operating system will be ‘‘to any user. Since established and has been thoroughly Tying facilitates this control. Moreover, the OS monopoly is not perfect, Microsoft analyzed by economists.11 Rather than Microsoft can directly charge usage fees for will therefore take advantage of anti- selling the product into the market in each its media player software that it cannot competitive opportunities to generally period, if the monopolist seller of a durable charge for the OS. While the durable-goods strengthen the applications barrier to entry. good can lease the product on a period-by- monopoly theory of Microsoft’s tying As a general principle, therefore, any period basis, it can retain complete control incentives can be seen most directly as a extension of Microsoft’s monopoly to a set of over the supply of the good into the market theory of the incentive to dominate important applications reinforces its in each period. This allows the monopolist applications that facilitate a leasing business monopoly in operating systems. to set monopoly prices in each period instead plan, one important impact of dominating Microsoft has a clear incentive to engage in of being constrained by the consumers’’ these applications is to preserve Microsoft’s tying in the form of hampering rival option to continue using the already- dominance in the market for operating applications and coding its own applications purchased stock (or version) of the product. systems. The impact, in other words, is a to be defaults to the detriment of consumer The monopolist who leases for a period can preservation of Microsoft’s OS monopoly. choice. This type of tying has a negligible lease both previous and current production As an empirical matter, versions of negative effect on the demand for Windows, together to achieve monopoly profits; doing Windows are converging in their and by tipping high-growth markets, could so eliminates the competitive discipline that substitutability. This convergence of versions provide Microsoft with long-term profits. would otherwise occur as past sales re-enter strengthens tile durable-good monopolist Given that the Windows source code is both current and future markets. If Microsoft incentive to tie in two ways. First, it complex and proprietary, Microsoft can could move to a business plan of leasing increases Microsoft’s incentive to escape the engage in this type of tying surreptitiously. rather than selling software, it would durable-good monopolist discipline on For example, Microsoft can alter the completely eliminate competition from old prices, since the easier it is to substitute the algorithms that set ‘‘favorites’’ in folders and versions of the software: as Microsoft leases current version of Windows with existing task bars so that Microsoft-preferred new versions of software, it could retire versions, the stronger this discipline is. applications and web sites are used more leases on old versions. This would serve to Second, there are, in principle, two ways of frequently. In addition, Microsoft can cause protect the monopoly power that Microsoft leasing to escape tile durable-good monopoly subtle performance problems for rival enjoys from its OS. Tying can allow discipline. Microsoft could rent the OS or tie applications in Windows environments. This Microsoft to implement this leasing strategy it to an application and collect the type of tying, however, is consistent only so as to avoid the durable good discipline. corresponding stream of revenues each time with anti-competitive behavior—no Specifically, tying the use of the OS to some the application is used. The converging efficiency benefits result from ham-ting rivals complementary transaction that can be substitutability of Windows’’ versions or setting Microsoft options as defaults. leased, or priced on a per-use basis—rather renders the former more difficult, increasing B. Microsoft’s anti-competitive incentives than sold—provides Microsoft with the the incentive to escape the durable-good are particularly powerful in the markets for opportunity to collect a revenue stream that discipline by tying applications. Thus, the browsers and streaming media, as well as the is immune to the competitive discipline increasing substitutability among sequential adjacent markets for content-encoding, imposed by previous versions of the OS. versions of Windows, even if later versions digital rights management, e-commerce: and The escape from the durable monopolist’s are superior, reinforces Microsoft’s incentives convergence. dilemma via leasing thus creates another to extend its monopoly to dimensions, such In markets with network effects and incentive for tying. Tying allows Microsoft to as Internet sales, in which it can charge a rig perceived similarity in product functions, move closer to the leasing outcome by 13 or rent the application. directional changes in market shares can facilitating the collection of transaction fees (5) Microsoft’s anti-competitive tying 12 ‘‘tip’’ the market toward a dominant outcome based on current usage. The set of incentives are mutually reinforcing and are because consumer expectations as to which middleware products that potentially puts manifest in strategies that lack any format will dominate are self-realizing. In competitive justification. other words, the expectation on the part of consumers will purchase new PCs as the price The incentives for anti-competitive tying consumers that a particular format will increase for Windows raises the price of the overall that we discuss are mutually reinforcing dominate leads each consumer to choose that package of the PC and the (mandated by Microsoft) because of the network effects operating format because of the rational concern that new version of Windows, and because some between the applications sector and the consumers who would have purchased Windows to other formats will not be supported— install on their old PCs will now refuse to do so. operating system market. Achieving accelerating the dominance and confirming 11 See Jeremy Bulow ‘‘Durable-Goods dominance in applications (through tying) the expectations of consumers. Consider the Monopolists,’’ Journal of Political Economy 90(2): strengthens the dominance of the OS, browser and the media player as examples. 314–332 or Jean Tirole (1988) The Theory of In the browser market, Microsoft has Industrial Organization, Cambridge: MIT Press, p. 13 The term ‘‘rig’’ or ‘‘vigorish,’’ a term used by achieved the dominance that it sought, and 81. Microsoft, refers to a gambling house’s ‘‘cut’’ on all its monopoly power in the OS continues. 12 See Jeremy Bulow (1982:330) who suggests that bets placed in the establishment. See Allen These are related: browser dominance a durable-goods monopolist may be able to achieve Myerson, Rating The Bigshots: Gates vs. reinforces OS monopoly power.14 The the leasing result through extending its monopoly Rockefeller, The New York Times, May 24, 1998, to service contracts; these are analogous in at 4 (‘‘The Gates crowd speaks ... of collecting a connection is that browser dominance principle to the application restrictions in the ‘‘vigorish’’ or ‘‘vig’.... Now Microsoft wants to matter at hand. collect a rig on Internet access too.’’). 14 See U.S. Findings of Fact ¶¶ 68–72.
VerDate 11
increases the applications barrier to entry An additional anti-competitive incentive has additional incentives to tie streaming and simultaneously removes the direct for dominating an application market is to media technologies to the OS. Indeed, the middleware threat posed by Netscape. Both secure a monopoly position in at least one greatest value for locking in the dominant of these effects in turn serve to increase the product in the application/OS pair in order streaming media and DRM formats may be demand for the Windows OS through to achieve monopoly profits even in the the rig that Microsoft hopes to collect from network effects as buyers anticipate event that the OS dominance is not Internet transactions. 17 continued dominance of Microsoft formats in sustained. This is discussed above in Section Dominating the media player format so as both the operating system and applications III.A.3. The possibility that the OS to collect a vig on transactions would markets; the two effects thus reinforce the dominance is not sustained means that the position Microsoft to collect transactions dominance of Windows OS. joint monopolist could not necessarily collect revenue that may well exceed revenues Now that Microsoft has effectively the maximum profits through the OS price available from Windows software licenses achieved dominance in browsers, and alone. Dominance of the application market alone—even if Microsoft’s dominance of the through this reinforced its dominance in would secure, or at least increase the OS market is secure. As we discussed in operating systems, the stage is set for likelihood of, monopoly profits. Section III.A.4, monopolists of durable goods applying the same tactics to markets for other This incentive is particularly relevant to recognize that past sales constitute future applications. The media player market streaming media markets. For example, the competition (here, older versions of represents an important current market in OS dominance could be at risk as consumers Windows compete with current and future which Microsoft’s anti-competitive strategies move to handheld devices for computing and versions of Windows). The monopolists face are at play. In the media player market, accessing the Internet that do not require a competitive constraint against increasing Microsoft’s first incentive for tying is to Windows OS. Presumably, however, these prices even in the absence of any significant protect its dominance in the market for customers will still wish to play music and rivals. Such monopolies naturally seek ways operating systems by deterring the see videos on such devices. To the extent that to circumvent the constraint. In the case of development of new middleware platforms. WMP and its accompanying format achieve Windows, the constraint is potentially Streaming media players will be essential for dominance for streaming media, Microsoft circumvented by the collection of the rig on Internet browsing in the future because of will maintain monopoly power in the pair of transactions. products consisting of the OS plus the media their ability to enhance Internet content What is the link between dominance in player. (Recall that the essential measure of rendering under bandwidth constraints. If operating systems, streaming media, digital monopoly in the markets for a pair of Microsoft achieves dominance in the media rights management, e-commerce, and complementary products is dominance in at player market (and as noted above, the convergence? Microsoft ,,,,’ill attempt to use least one of the products.) Thus, streaming ‘‘tipping point’’ argument suggests that a its dominance in any of these markets to media players and formats hold the potential trend to dominance can quickly translate into increase the use of Microsoft-favored for Microsoft to maintain its original a highly dominant market share), any entrant products in all of these markets. In contrast monopoly. into the operating system market would also to the potential situation where different Additionally, significant gain accrues ‘‘to have to provide a media player compatible players are strong in each market, Microsoft with the WMP format. For this reason, the Microsoft if its DRM technology dominates the related market for audio and video files. will leverage its dominance in any market to applications barrier to entry incentive is strengthen its position in all of them. especially powerful for streaming media Using encryption technology, DRM technology permits only users with licenses Microsoft’s incentive e to do this lies in the players. Rival operating systems will be many revenue streams that it currently unable to provide a functional (i.e., Windows to play the packaged file. The license has a forgoes. For example, Microsoft does not Media Audio-compatible) media player since key to unlock the encryption. Should a user currently charge web sites for the use of the Windows Media Audio format is without a license attempt to play the file, the Windows media formats. If Microsoft proprietary and Microsoft refuses to application initializes with an application establishes dominance in the media player universally license it. 15 Because that permits the user to acquire the license. market, as it translates to dominance in e- compatibility with streaming media is vital to Applications with DRM technology and commerce hosting, Microsoft will no longer future operating systems, Microsoft’s Windows Media Device Manager enable the have any constraint on fully exploiting this dominance over operating systems will be use of WMP on devices other than revenue stream. Once again, this links back ensured. The observation that Microsoft conventional desktop computers. Since to the original dominance in Microsoft’s OS. licenses the software for playing downloaded market participants will tend to limit their media, but not the software for streaming investments to the likely dominant standard, All of these applications are mutually media, suggests that Microsoft is strategically Microsoft can easily become the sole reinforcing and serve to preserve the aware of the profit-enhancing power of provider of DRM solutions. Moreover, this monopoly power that accrues from packaging retaining exclusive property rights on media will be a critical market for Microsoft, since Microsoft’s OS with complementary streaming software. users will require licenses for downloading, applications. To elaborate: with respect to other and content providers require certificates for C. The theorized benefits of product applications, an entrant into the OS market encryption. The alternatives of mutual integration that may exist in some cases do could—at least in theory- provide an OS plus interoperability or even open standards are not apply to the markets at issue in this case. a set of applications. However, even this equally plausible conceptually, but not in As a theoretical matter, of course, in many potential entry strategy is not available in the Microsoft’s interests. Microsoft thus has transactions, purchasers would prefer to buy case of the media player application, because incentives to use tying to ensure that its DRM bundles of products and services. Purchasers the use of a media player by a user depends solution remains proprietary and becomes of glass prefer to have borates included, not just on products that could be provided dominant. Microsoft can ensure this outcome drivers prefer to have steering wheels with by the new entrant, but on the proprietary by making its media player format the format their cars, and purchasers of shoes typically formats chosen by Internet sites using media of choice for both users and content prefer to have laces included. The relevant player software. In this sense, the provider providers, and tying WMP to Windows question here is whether computer selection of Microsoft’s proprietary format ensures this choice. Once again, this creates applications are similar to those examples— creates a content-encoding barrier to entry for a content- encoding barrier to entry that i.e., whether browsers and other middleware streaming media players. Again, this permits Microsoft to maintain its monopoly such as streaming media players are ‘‘mere reinforces Microsoft’s monopoly power over power in the pair: OS plus WMP as an inputs’’ into the overall ‘‘Windows the OS market.16 application. Because of the durable-goods experience.’’ nature of Microsoft’s OS monopoly, as The economics of software markets cast 15 Note that licensing at a monopoly royalty described in Section III.A.4 above, Microsoft doubt on Microsoft’s efficiency’’ arguments would have a similar effect of foreclosing competition. the browser market to induce Interne/content and 17 Microsoft has already established general 16 Microsoft’s action with respect to inducing services providers to optimize their content for its strategies for obtaining control over e-commerce media content providers to code exclusively with Internet Explorer software instead of the competing standards. Microsoft’s proprietary formatting (in Windows browser of Netscape. See U.S. Findings of Fact ¶¶ These connections are the Microsoft Passport, Media Audio) is analogous to Microsoft’s attempt in 311,328, and 337. .Net, and .Net My Services initiatives.
VerDate 11
for integration of its own browser and media legally prohibited from impairing analysis on the impact of tying, the most player with the OS. interoperability. With OEMs acting as important question is the impact on As discussed above, many forms of tying purchasing and assembly agents for end- innovation, not price. Tying harms have no efficiency justification. Contractual users, it is no more efficient for Microsoft to innovation by preserving Microsoft’s provisions limiting the acceptance of rival create OS-and-application bundles than for monopoly position, protecting it against technologies, or efforts to redesign code to multiple OEMs (or third-parties who can dynamic competition to the detriment of harm rivals’’ performance, create economic then license such bundles to OEMs) to create consumers. loss. As further discussed above, Microsoft those OS-and-application bundles desired by Microsoft argues that a single monopolist has these forms of tying at its disposal, end-users. over two products has greater incentives to incentives to use them, and a historical Forced integration of particular software innovate than two separate monopolists. If record of using them. brands does not increase value. Instead, it two complementary products are Microsoft’s claims regarding the causes an efficiency cost to the extent that monopolized separately, the argument goes, efficiencies of its contractual tying—i.e., that end-users value the product variety entailed each monopolist ignores the positive benefits it reduces consumer time costs and confusion in the variety of inputs. The value of variety that accrue to the other firm from an increase to have a set of default options provided with is lost with integration. Steering wheels in in its own pace of innovation. In the matter a personal computer ‘‘out of the box’’— cars are typically undifferentiated at hand, this theoretical efficiency would confuse the benefit to consumers of having a commodities that comprise a trivial portion argue that if Microsoft had a monopoly in browser and its media player bundled along of the value of the final product. Thus, even operating systems, while Novell had a with the OS, with the benefit of having though a consumer could replace the steering monopoly in browsers, Novell would not Microsoft’s choice of applications bundled wheel with limited effort, there is little innovate as much as possible because it with the OS. The efficiencies that come with reason to do so because a different steering would not take into consideration the providing an integrated package of an OS and wheel is unlikely to improve the performance positive effects of browser innovation on various applications are not specific to of the overall product. By contrast, operating system demand. This reasoning Microsoft’s applications. In a market where technological development in software also suggests that innovation in the industry OEMs were free to offer whichever packages applications markets means that different would be enhanced if Microsoft’s OS of software consumers desired (e.g., applications can differ substantially in what dominance were to be extended further into Microsoft Windows with RealPlayer and IE, they deliver to consumers. Loss of product still more applications markets. The key or Microsoft Windows with WMP and variety as a result of integration can be costly. point missed in this theory is that any Netscape), the market would provide those (2) Contrary to Microsoft’s claims, issues of extension of Microsoft’s OS monopoly power varieties of packages preferred by consumers. pricing and innovation provide further would dampen innovation into substitutes The market would respond fully to the evidence that Microsoft’s tying harms the for Microsoft’s OS. Enhancing the efficiencies associated with the purchase of marketplace and consumers. applications barriers only reduces the a full package of hardware, OS, and software Microsoft has argued that the extension of incentive for any firm to engage in OS or applications, and in addition, the market monopoly power across a set of applications innovation. If an application would be free to offer the variety that complementary products may produce could be open to competition—i.e., if it could consumers demanded. consumer benefits if the monopolist charges be characterized by some rivalry or Our analysis supports the hypothesis that lower prices than would be charged if competition, as an alternative to Microsoft’s Microsoft’s tying of IE and WMP and its independent monopolists were to separately integration—then unrestrained competition efforts to gain DRM dominance are not driven produce two or more complementary would strengthen rather than weaken by efficiency concerns. Although selection of products. In the latter case, each independent innovation. While Microsoft’s dominance in some defaults is necessary on each PC, there monopolist would raise prices higher than the browser market today may be a fait appear to be no engineering efficiencies to the level that would maximize the combined accompli, untying the OS and media player the integration of the choice of default into profits of all the monopolists. Thus, will lead to such greater competition in the OS. To the contrary, choice and market according to this theory, consumers benefit media player innovation. competition (and consequently, efficiency) from Microsoft’s monopoly leveraging Significantly for this case, untying would suffer when knowledgeable OEMs (who act through lower prices. also increase competition in the operating as informed agents of consumers) face This theory imagines a static world in system market. As discussed earlier in artificial barriers to playing that role, such as which innovation and entry are non-existent, Section III.A, tying protects Microsoft’s when Microsoft commingles code or makes and firms simply set prices to maximize operating system dominance by maintaining Microsoft applications difficult to profits, given unchanging demand and the applications barrier to entry and permanently remove as default settings. By unchanging technology. The practical weakening or deterring direct platform designing system software to hamper the implications of the theory for the real world challenges. If there are separate monopolists installation or operation of rival software of rapidly changing technology and potential in adjacent markets, each will have the suppliers, Microsoft reinforces the dynamic competition (as opposed to incentive to enter or sponsor entry into the applications barrier to entry; the impact is a monopoly positions that are airtight) are other’s market, leading to competitive strategic reduction in competition and a minimal. In an economic theory that pressure in both markets.18 reinforcement of Microsoft’s OS monopoly. incorporates industry dynamics, strategies GVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THE Additionally, the usual arguments made to taken by a dominant firm to eliminate a firm CONCLUSION IS THAT MICROSOFT HAS justify integration in other markets are largely in a complementary market remove a ENGAGED, AND IS ENGAGING, IN ANTI- inapplicable to software application markets. potential rival or entrant in the primary COMPETITIVE TYING IN ORDER TO It is often argued that integration occurs (i) market. In the reality of software markets, PROTECT AND STRENGTHEN ITS to reduce transaction, distribution or this anti-competitive effect clearly OPERATING SYSTEM MONOPOLY. production costs, or (ii) to increase the value overwhelms any theoretical, static price A. Microsoft’s options, incentives, and of the final product. effect: innovation and dynamic competition history create a strong presumption that The argument that transaction and thus are, and should be, the focus of the Microsoft’s tying harms OS competition and assembly costs justify integration does not Microsoft case. The driver of consumer consumers. apply to major software applications. For benefit in these markets is innovation: over The District Court’s Findings of Fact example, consumers want to purchase some the past ten years, while prices of confirm that it is Microsoft’s ‘‘corporate integrated packages of complementary applications have fluctuated only practice to pressure other firms to halt products such as functioning automobiles moderately, the performance of applications software development that either shows the because separate purchases of steering has gown dramatically. New applications, potential to weaken Microsoft’s applications wheels, engines, dashboards, seats, etc. such as browsers and media players, have would impose enormous transaction and become important sources of consumer 18 Of course, that monopolist competition will assembly costs. By contrast, software markets benefit, while improvements in existing only occur if the first monopolist is not permitted allow assembly at low cost even without applications such as financial software have to use anti- competitive tactics to foreclose the integration, provided that monopolists are yielded strong consumer benefits. In any market for unintegrated rivals.
VerDate 11
barrier to entry or competes directly with in this non-tying world would enhance the and formats. For example, Microsoft denies Microsoft’s most cherished software value of Microsoft’s operating system by a license for playing files streamed in products.’’ 19 As a historical matter, ncouraging competition in the innovation of Windows content encoding formats to its Microsoft has clearly engaged in anti- the complementary good—the browser and principal competitor, RealNetworks, thereby competitive, inefficient tying with other the media player. Greater competition and reducing the utility to consumers of applications. 20For example, Microsoft has functional value in the market for a RealNetworks’’ products. Microsoft also forbidden OEMs from changing system complementary good always benefit a firm by disadvantages rival content-encoding formats defaults so as to make non-Microsoft increasing the demand for its product. In the by designing WMP to record only in products the ‘‘default application’’ in ‘‘out of absence of anti-competitive incentives to Windows media formats. These actions have, the box’’ packages.21 While Microsoft allows reinforce barriers to entry, this strategy in the past, served to reduce consumers’’ the ‘‘installation icons’’ of competing would maximize the profits that Microsoft perceptions of rivals’’ performance—for applications to be installed on desktops ‘‘out obtains from its operating system. The fact example by deliberately making consumers’’ of the box,’’ installation icons disappear if that Microsoft does not engage in such a use of Netscape ‘‘a jolting experience’’ 25 or they are not invoked. In an even more subtle business strategy demonstrates, in the damaging MP3 quality and functionality.26 form of contractual tying, Microsoft requires absence of evidence that tying is efficient, In general, OEMs perform a screening applications that run with Windows to obtain that Microsoft is motivated by anti- function, as agents of consumers, by ensuring a certification from Microsoft. This permits competitive’’ incentives. that the software products provided out of Microsoft to monitor and perhaps discipline Microsoft openly engages in contractual the box are compatible with each other and 22 its applications rivals. While some of these tying and basic technological integration. By with the operating system? Consumers are practices differ in form from strict tying (a developing and marketing Windows XP as an aware that OEMs perform this function. certification requirement for software is not integrated package of operating system and Consumers are also aware that OEMs’’ the same as a contractual requirement that popular applications, Microsoft directly reputations are based partly on packaging OEMs use Microsoft products), the effect is ignored the findings of fact and law by U.S. high- quality software products, so that similar in that Microsoft is signaling to all courts.24 Microsoft’s history makes it likely OEMs have the incentive to choose the best other market participants that applications that Microsoft is also engaging in various software products for the price. Consumers may only run with Windows by Microsoft’s forms of OEM coercion to raise rivals’’ are in general not aware of the contractual permission. distribution costs and encourage the restrictions imposed in various contractual Microsoft’s profit incentives dictate that distribution of its own middleware products. arrangements that might explain the choice Microsoft would tie its products together Consistent with our analysis, this tying of media player, including, for example, any much more aggressively than efficiency alone generally serves the purpose of Microsoft threat not to license the Windows OS to the would suggest. With regard to the question of profitability and reinforcement of its OS OEM unless all Windows applications are the nature of competition in the media player dominance, rather than consumer benefit. included as defaults. Nor are consumers market, one of the current objects of Microsoft directly engages in anti- aware of any financial incentives offered to Microsoft’s tying, and, in particular its tying competitive tying when it prevents OEMs OEMs by Microsoft to include only Microsoft of WMP, is clear: as the District Court and end-users from removing or uninstalling applications as default options. Contractual determined, the ‘‘multimedia stream IE and WMP. Microsoft does this through tying alone will thus cause consumers to [represents] strategic grounds that Microsoft code commingling between the media player infer, for reasons unrelated to merit, that [needs] to capture.’’23 That—and not and the operating system that renders Microsoft’s applications are the optimal efficiency—is the driving force behind substitution for WMP difficult, or even products for them. Microsoft’s conduct. impossible. As suggested above, the interaction of all B. The evidence indicates that Microsoft is MTC–00028284—0095 these effects, combined with rational anti-competitively tying the browser and the expectations, can easily lead to the rapid media player with its operating system. Another example of anti-competitive tying foreclosure of competition. The force of self- In the absence of tying, Microsoft would is that Microsoft renders its own DRM realizing expectations is especially strong provide an operating system and applications technology software non-interoperable with when one firm or one format is a natural such as the browser and media player that other media players because of DRM’s focal point for consumer expectations. In were developed and offered in a modular, interaction with Window XP’s own ‘‘secure markets where any number of formats could plug-replaceable fashion. The applications audio path’’ software. While this is not tying be sustained as dominant because of self- codes for the browser and the media player in the sense of designing the operating realizing expectations (economists term this would not be commingled with the OS code, system to be incompatible with rival ‘‘the multiplicity of rational expectations but would instead communicate with the OS applications, it does involve designing an equilibria’’), a focal point property of any one through a set of well defined APIs. application—DRM—that limits the equilibrium can be important in predicting Publishing the APIs and interface protocols compatibility of rival applications in a closely related market, the market for media which equilibrium will be sustained. There could hardly be a stronger focal point than 19 players. See U.S. Findings of Fact ¶ 93. the Microsoft/Windows format for predicting 20 Microsoft has a track record of placing code for More generally, Microsoft anti- competitively undermines the functionality the likely dominant (and perhaps sole) Microsoft applications in the same files as code format. The history of the PC software providing functions for its OS in order to achieve and utility of rival streaming media players its anti-competitive ends. This includes the illegal industry is one of the dominance of Microsoft commingling of code for Microsoft’s Internet 24 ‘‘In June ... seven appeals judges ruled Explorer with the operating code and the tying of unanimously that Microsoft was a monopoly that 25 See U.S. Findings of Fact ¶ 160. with the OS. See U.S. Findings of Fact ¶¶ 161–229. had violated the antitrust laws by integrating its 26 See Ted Bridis, Technology Industry Aims to 21 See U.S. Findings of Fact ¶ 357, relating to Web browser into its Windows operating system in Render MP3 Obsolete, The Wall Street Journal, Apr. Microsoft’s attempts through tying and other means an effort to freeze out other browsers. [The Court 12, 2001, at A3. (‘‘Under Microsoft’s new to induce users to select Microsoft’s Internet of Appeals ruled that] Microsoft shouldn’t be restrictions ... MP3 music ‘‘sounds like somebody Explorer as the preferred, perhaps only, path to the allowed to design Windows in a way that limits in a phone booth underwater,’’ says P.J. McNealy, web. It is possible for consumers to incur the cost consumer choice—the ability of users to discover an analyst who researches Internet audio issues for to change defaults, but the incentives to do this are and easily use other companies’’ products and Gartner Inc .... early testers of beta versions of very small. services. [Despite this,] the company went on to Windows XP already complain that the most 22 See Steven Vaughan Nichols, Resisting the launch a new version of Windows—Windows XP— popular MP3 recording applications—which Windows XP Message, ZDNet, May 9, 2001 (‘‘I can’t that continued to integrate tightly into the operating compete with Microsoft’s format—don’t seem to help but wonder if... independent software vendors system new features that are crucial to extending function properly, apparently because of changes will have trouble getting that all-important Microsoft’s monopoly onto the next battleground: Microsoft made to how data are written on CD- signature for [their] programs .... [W]hy do I feel Internet-based services. And it added these features ROMs under Windows XP. Microsoft says that certain that giving Microsoft absolute power over all in a way that hinders consumer choice.’’ Walter S. while other software vendors’’ products may not be XP apps probably doesn’t spell good news for Mossberg, For Microsoft. 2001 Was a Good Year, ‘‘optimized’’ to run with Windows XP, those anyone in the tech business—except Microsoft?’’). But At Consumers’’ Expense, The Wall Street products should run acceptably with the operating 23 —,3 See U.S. Findings of Fact i 112. Journal, December 27, 2001. system.’’).
VerDate 11
standards27 The prediction that the Microsoft Microsoft’s dominance in these products fact, a software design organized around standard will predominate in the media reduces the possibility that a universal modular programming of the operating player market is natural, perhaps translator (middleware) between operating system and middleware applications would inescapable, for a consumer—uninformed systems and applications would threaten the achieve the efficiencies associated with about the media player market specifically— Windows monopoly. Just as with the modular programming and would allow for debating about which format to adopt. While browser, Microsoft weakens this competitive plug-and-play replacement of the software. it is arguable that strong network effects threat to operating systems by integrating the In the absence of tying, Microsoft would might yield dominance by a single firm in a potential substitutes directly into the OS. offer an operating system and middleware good or service and its complements, it is Third, tying can provide a method of applications that were distinct in the sense uncertain whether a monopoly outcome is dynamic leveraging to ensure a future of modular programming. For example, inevitable absent tying. In this context, tying monopoly. This involves a direct neither browser nor media player code would assures OS dominance and is therefore anti- counterargument to the familiar ‘‘one- be commingled with OS code: instead, both competitive. monopoly theory,’’ which states that a would communicate with the OS only Thus, Microsoft’s coercion of OEMs to monopolist cannot collect more profits through a set of published APIs. Microsoft select WMP for the ‘‘out-of-the-box’’ through a monopoly on a pair of would enhance the value of its operating experience, and to obscure the differences in complementary products (an operating system by encouraging competition in the capabilities between WMP and rival system and an application) than through a innovation of the complementary good—i.e., products, could weaken consumer awareness monopoly on either product alone. Where the the browser and the media player. This of the various functionalities available in the future entry into each product is uncertain, strategy would maximize value to consumers open market. establishing a monopoly on both products in and the profits that Microsoft obtains from its This would increase expectations of a the pair increases the chance that the operating system. The fact that Microsoft single dominant format, which in turn would monopolist will retain a monopoly on at least does not engage in such a business strategy accelerate that dominance. The dominance in one product in the future and therefore is demonstrates, in the absence of evidence that the media player market, to emphasize the positioned to collect full monopoly profits. In its tying is efficient, that Microsoft is applications-OS interaction once more, our context, the fact that the Windows motivated by anti-competitive incentives that reinforces Microsoft’s dominance in monopoly over operating systems is not maintain its OS monopoly. operating systems. airtight creates an incentive for Microsoft to CONCLUSION leverage its dominance so as to increase the MTC–00028284—0100 We show in this report that Microsoft has likelihood of future dominance in at least one VI. APPENDIX: CURRICULUM VITAE OF substantial incentives to engage in ant/- class of products—the operating system or FRANK MATHEWSON competitive tying of its middleware products applications. Dominance in applications G. FRANKLIN MATHEWSON—Professor with Windows. It has incentives to use provides (partial) insurance against the loss of Economics, Director of the Institute for contractual inducements to OEMs to bundle of monopoly power in operating systems, but Policy Analysis, University of Toronto Windows with its own middleware instead of the key is the preservation of monopoly in at Ph.D. Stanford University rival products; commingle applications code least one of the pair of products: the OS and B.Com. University of Toronto into the kernel of the operating system; and one or more important middleware ACADEMIC POSITIONS hamper the interoperability of rival applications. 1996-present Director, Institute for Policy applications. We also show that Microsoft’s Finally, tying IE and WMP into the OS and Analysis, University of Toronto. tying—in all of its forms—reinforces locking in Microsoft’s streaming media and 1969-present Professor of Economics, Microsoft’s monopoly in operating systems. DRM formats put Microsoft in a position to Department of Economics, University of Microsoft’s incentives to anti-competitively potentially collect a tax on e-commerce Toronto. bundle fall into four mutually reinforcing transactions. Tying thus facilitates the move 1969-present Research Associate, Institute categories. First, by tying its middleware by Microsoft to a business strategy of for Policy Analysis, University of Toronto. applications to the Windows operating collecting revenues from per-transaction 1995–1996 Acting Chair, Department of system, Microsoft can strengthen the royalty of its software, rather than outright Economics, University of Toronto. applications barrier to entry against its OS sale of its software. This business strategy 1985 Visiting Professor, Center for the competitors. This reinforces Microsoft’s OS lessens the competition that Microsoft, as a Study of the Economy and the State, monopoly. In order for entrants in the durable-good monopolist, faces from the University of Chicago, Spring Quarter. operating system market to succeed, they sales of its own previous versions of 1984 Visiting Scholar, Graduate School of must have a wide variety of applications Windows. In this sense, the strategy, and its Business, University of Chicago, Spring available for consumers to purchase. But facilitation through tying, reinforce Quarter. software developers will invest in the Microsoft’s dominance in operating systems. 1978–1983 Associate Chairman and creation of new applications only for Product integration can theoretically be Director of Graduate Studies, Department of operating systems that have widespread beneficial in some markets. Purchasers prefer Economics, University of Toronto. distribution. If Microsoft attains dominance to purchase some bundles of inputs, such as 1970–1982 Professor of Economics, Faculty with both the operating system and key steering wheels with cars or laces with shoes. of Management Studies, University of middleware applications, it can ensure that These efficiencies do not apply to the Toronto. its OS rivals will be unable to meet consumer bundling of middleware with Windows. 1978–1979 Senior Research Associate, demands for the most popular applications. Purchasing a personal computer with a full Ontario Economic Council. With a dominant position in applications set of applications and default options ‘‘out 1976–1977 Visiting Research Fellow, markets, Microsoft may choose not to write of the box’’ is valuable for many consumers. Department of Political Economy, University those applications to interoperate with rival But the efficiencies that come with an College, University of London. operating systems, thus enhancing the integrated package of an OS and various HONORS AND FELLOWSHIPS already significant applications barrier to entry. applications are not specific to Microsoft’s * Social Science and Humanities Research Second, tying reinforces Microsoft’s OS applications. In a market where OEMs were Council Research Fellowship: 1994, 1991, monopoly by deterring direct challenges to free to offer whichever packages of software 1989, 1987, 1986, 1985 the OS position as the platform of choice for consumers desired, without integration of * Social Science and Humanities Research software developers. Since programmers can applications into the operating system, and Council Leave Fellowship: 1983–1984 write calls to middleware products, without Microsoft’s tying constraints or * Canadian Council Leave Fellowship: inducements, the market would provide the 1976—1977
27 variety of packages preferred by consumers. * Canada Council Doctoral Fellowship: This is similar to the screening function that Moreover, the engineering efficiencies 1966–1969 upscale department stores provide in selecting high-quality products. Intermediaries in retail claimed for the integration of middleware * Woodrow Wilson Fellowship: 1965 markets invest in establishing brand names or trust code into the operating system appear to be PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS on the part of consumers. :s See U.S. Findings of negligible, and are therefore more than offset * Editorial Board, Journal of Economics of Fact 33—35, 53, 60, and 62–64. by the anti-competitive effects of tying. In Business, 1992-present.
VerDate 11
* Editorial Board, Managerial and Decision ‘‘Ensuring Failure.’’ With Jack Can’’ and ‘‘Vertical Integration by Contractual Economics, 1994-present. Neil Quigley. Toronto: CD Howe Institute, Restraints in Spatial Markets.’’ With Ralph * Editorial Board, Economic Inquiry, 1987– 1994. Winter. Journal of Business 56:4, 497–518, 1997. ‘‘Territorial Rights in Franchise Contracts.’’ October 1983. * Editorial Board, Journal of Industrial With Ralph Winter. Economic Inquiry 32:2, ‘‘Entry, Size Distribution, Scale, and Scope Economics, 1990–1995. 181- 192, 1994. (Presented at the EARLE Economies in the Life Insurance Industry.’’ * Associate Editor, International Journal of Conference, Budapest, Hungary, 1989.) With S. Kellner. Journal of Business 56:1, Industrial Organization, 1982–1988. ‘‘Reply to R. Gilson.’’ With Jack Can’’. 25—-44, January 1983. Co-editor with M. Trebilcock and M. Journal of Political Economy 99:2,426–428, ‘‘Regulation of Canadian Markets for Life Walker. The Law and Economics of 1991. Insurance.’’ With Ralph Winter. Department Competition ‘‘The Economics of Law Firms: A Study in of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Policy, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, the Legal Organization of the Firm.’’ With Government of Canada, 1983. 1990. Jack Carr. Journal of Law and Economics ‘‘The Rationale for Government Regulation Co-editor with J. Stiglitz. New 33:2, 307–330, 1990. ‘‘The Economic Effects of Quality’’ and ‘‘Policy Alternatives in Developments in the Analysis of Market of Automobile Dealer Regulation.’’ With Quality Regulation.’’ With D. Dewees and M. Structures, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985. Ralph Winter. Annales d’Economie et de Trebilcock. ‘‘Markets for Insurance: A Program Committee, European Association Statistique 15/16, 409- 426, Juillet-Decembre Selective Survey of Economic Issues,’’ in D. for Research in Industrial Economics, 1983- 1989. Dewees (ed.), The Regulation of Quality, 1991. ‘‘Unlimited Liability and Free Banking in Toronto: Butterworths, 1983. Program Committee, Conference on Scotland: A Note.’’ With Jack Carr and S. ‘‘An Economic Theory of Union-Controlled Industrial Organization, International Glied. Journal of Economic History 49:4, Finns.’’ With Y. Kotowitz. Economica 49:196, Economics Association, 1982. 974–978, 1989. 421-433, November 1982. (Paper presented at PUBLICATIONS ‘‘Vertical Restraints and the Law: A the Canadian Economics Association ‘‘The Analysis of Efficiencies in Superior Reply.’’ With Ralph Winter. RAND Journal of Meetings, Quebec City, 1978.) Propane: Correct Criterion Incorrectly Economics, 19:2, 298–301, Summer 1988. ‘‘Advertising, Consumer Information and Applied.’’ With Ralph Winter. Canadian ‘‘Unlimited Liability as a Barrier to Entry.’’ Product Quality.’’ With Y. Kotowitz. Bell Competition Record, Fall 2000, 20(2): 88–97. With Jack Cart. Journal of Political Economy Journal of Economics 10:2, 566–588, Fall ‘‘Professional Corporations and Limited 96:4, 766–784, August 1988. 1979. (Paper presented at the European Liability.’’ With Michael Smart, in Peter ‘‘Is Exclusive Dealing Anti-Competitive?’’ Econometric Society Meetings, Geneva, Newman (ed.) With Ralph Winter. American Economic 1978.) Palgrave Dictionary in Economics and the Review 77:5, 1057–1062, December 1987. ‘‘Informative Advertising and Welfare.’’ Law, 140–143 London: MacMillan Reference ‘‘Advertising and Consumer Learning.’’ With Y. Kotowitz. American Economic Limited, 1999. With Y. Kotowitz in FTC Conference Review 69:3, 284–294, June 1979. ‘‘Law Firms.’’ With Jack Carr, in Peter Volume, Consumer Protection Economics, ‘‘Information, Entry and Regulation in Newman (ed.) Palgrave Dictionary in 1986. (Paper presented at the FTC Conference Markets for Life Insurance.’’ Ontario Economics and the Law, 497–500, London: on Advertising, Washington, 1984.) Economic Council Research Studies, MacMillan Reference Limited, 1998 ‘‘Canadian Bank Mergers: Efficiency and ‘‘Competition Policy and Vertical University of Toronto Press, 1982. Consumer Gain versus Market Power’’ With Exchange.’’ With Ralph Winter. Royal ‘‘Some Issues on Public Advertising.’’ With Neil Quigley CD Howe Institute, Occasional Commission on the Economic Union and Y. Kotowitz. Journal of Contemporary Paper, No. 108, June 1998. Development Prospects for Canada, Business 7:4, 123–124, 1979. ‘‘To Merge or not to Merge: Is that the University of Toronto Press, 1985. ‘‘Economics of Fiscal Transfer Pricing in Question?.’’ With Neil Quigely. CD Howe ‘‘The Economics of Franchise Contracts.’’ Multinational Corporations.’’ With G.D. Institute. Occasional Paper, No. 108, 1998. With Ralph Winter. Journal of Law and Quirin. Ontario Economic Council Research ‘‘The Lax,,, and Economics of Resale Price Economics 3, 503–526, October 1985. (Paper Studies, University of Toronto Press, 1978. Maintenance.’’ With Ralph Winter. Review of presented at the EARLE Conference, ‘‘The Residential Demand for Electrical Industrial Organization, 13:1–2, 57–84, April Fontainebleau, 1984.) Energy and Natural Gas: A Model Estimated 1998. ‘‘The Economics of Life Insurance for Canada.’’ With R. Hyndman and Y. ‘‘What’s Essential, What’s Prudential, What Regulation: Valuation Constraints.’’ With Kotowitz in W.T. Ziemba et al. (eds.), Energy, Can Competition Provide?’’ With Neil Ralph Winter in J. Finsinger and M. Pauly Policy Modelling: United States and Quigley. Canadian Competition Record 18:2, (eds.), The Economics of Insurance Canadian Experiences, Martinus Nijhoff 11–28, 1997. Regulation, MacMillan and Company Press, 86–102, 1980. (Paper presented at the ‘‘Reforming the Bank Act: Regulation, Limited, 1986. (Paper presented at IIM Canadian Energy Policy Modelling Public Policy, and the Market’’ With Nell Conference on Regulation in Insurance Conference, Vancouver, 1978.) ‘‘Economies Quigley. Canadian Business Law Journal Markets, Berlin, 1984.) of Scale in Financial Institutions: Reply.’’ 29:1, 1–16, 1997. ‘‘The Economics of Vertical Restraints in With P. Halpern. Journal of Monetary ‘‘Ensuring Competition: Bank Distribution Distribution.’’ With Ralph Winter in J. Economics 3, 127–131, 1977. of Insurance Products: Prospects and Stiglitz and G.F. Mathewson (eds.), New ‘‘The Benefits and Costs of Rate of Return Implications for Canada.’’ With Ignatious Developments in the Analysis of Market Regulation.’’ With J. Callen and H. Mohring. Horstmann and Nell Quigley. Toronto: CD Structure, MIT Press, 1986. American Economic Review 66:5,290–297, Howe Institute, 1996. ‘‘An Economic Theory of Vertical June 1976. ‘‘Buyer Groups and Exclusivity: Towards a Restraints.’’ With Ralph Winter. RAND ‘‘Economies of Scale in Financial Theory of Managed Competition.’’ With Journal of Economics 15:1, 27–38, Spring Institutions: A General Model Applied to Ralph Winter. International Journal of 1984. (Reprinted in The Economics of Insurance.’’ With P. Halpern. Journal of Industrial Organization 15:2, 137–164, 1997. Marketing, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Monetary Economics 1:2,203–220, April (Presented at the EARIE Conference, Tel Publishing Limited, 1998.) 1975. Aviv, Israel, 1993.) ‘‘Information, Search and Price Variability ‘‘Price Effects of Market Power in the ‘‘Tying As a Response to Demand of Individual Life Insurance Contracts.’’ Canadian Newspaper Industry: Reply.’’ Uncertainty.’’ With Ralph Winter. The RAND Journal of Industrial Economics 32:2, 131– Canadian Journal of Economics 7:1, 130–132, Journal of Economics 28:3,566–583, 1997. 148, December 1983. (Paper presented at the February 1974. (Presented at the EARLE Conference, Lisbon, Canadian Economics Association Meetings, Cents and Nonsense: The Economics of Portugal, 1990.) Montreal, 1980.) Canadian Policy Issues. With J. Carr and J. ‘‘ility in the Absence of Deposit Insurance: ‘‘The Incentives for Resale Price McManus. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, The Canadian Banking System 1890–1966.’’ Maintenance.’’ With Ralph Winter. Economic 1972. With Jack Cart and Neil Quigley. Journal of Inquiry 21:3, 337–348, July 1983. (Paper ‘‘Metering Costs and Marginal Cost Pricing Money, Credit and Banking 27:4, 1137–1158, presented at the Western Economic in Public Utilities.’’ With G.D. Quirin. Bell 1995. Association Meetings, San Francisco, 1981 .) Journal of Economics 3:1,335–339, May 1972.
VerDate 11
‘‘A Note on the Price Effects of Market ‘‘Efficiency as a Goal of Competition de Statistique, 15/16, Juillet-Decembre 1989: Power in the Canadian Newspaper Industry.’’ Policy,’’ in Canadian Competition Policy: 409–426. With G.F. Mathewson. Canadian— Journal of Economics 5:2, 298– Preparing for the Future, forthcoming, 2002. ‘‘Vertical Restraints and the Lax,,,: A 301, May 1972. ‘‘Efficiency Analysis in Superior Propane: Reply,’’ Rand Journal of Economics, 19(2), ‘‘A Consumer Theory of Demand for the Correct Criterion Incorrectly Applied,’’ Summer 1988: 298–301. With G.F. Media.’’ Journal of Business 45:2, 212–224, forthcoming, Canadian Competition Record, Mathewson. April 1972. 2001, with G.F. Mathewson. ‘‘The Liability Crisis and the Dynamics of VII. APPENDIX: CURRICULUM VITAE OF The Law and Economics of Canadian Competitive Insurance Markets,’’ Yale RALPH WINTER Competition Policy, forthcoming 2001, with Journal on Regulation, 1988: 455–500. RALPH A. WINTER— Professor of M.J. Trebilcock, E. Iacobucci, and P. Collins, ‘‘Currency Options, Forward Markets and Economics and Finance, University of University of Toronto Press. the Hedging of Foreign Exchange Risk,’’ Toronto ‘‘Remarks on Recent Developments in Journal of International Economics, 25, 1988: Ph.D. Economics, University of California Canadian Competition Policy,’’ in Critical 291–302. With R. Ware. at Berkeley Issues in ‘‘The Competitive Effects of Vertical Agreements: Comment,’’ American Economic M.A. Statistics, University of California at Mergers and Acquisitions, Queen’s Annual Reviev, 77(5), December 1987: 1057–1062. Berkeley Business Law Symposium, 2000, 59–67. With G.F. Mathewson. B.Sc. Mathematics and Economics (with ‘‘The State of Efficiencies in Canadian Competition Policy,’’ Canadian Competition ‘‘The Role of Options in the Resolution of honors), University of British Columbia Agency Problems: Comment,’’ Journal of ACADEMIC POSITIONS Record, Winter 2000, pp. 106–114, with M.J. Trebilcock. Finance, December 1986: 1157–1174. With R. 1988-present Professor of Economics and Farmer. Finance, University of Toronto ‘‘Optimal Insurance under Moral Hazard,’’ in Handbook of Insurance, G. Dionne, editor, ‘‘R&D with Observable Outcomes,’’ Journal 1985–1988 Associate Professor, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000. pp. 155– of Economic Theory, December 1986: 1336– Department of Economics and Faculty of 186. 1351. With M. Peters. Management Studies, University of Toronto ‘‘Substantial lessening of Competition in ‘‘Public Pricing Under Imperfect 1979–1985 Assistant Professor, Department Canadian Competition Law’’, in Competition Competition,’’ International Journal of of Economics and Faculty of Management Law for the 21st Century, Canadian Bar Industrial Organization, 4 (1), March 1986: Studies, University of Toronto Association 1998. 87–100. With R. Ware. HONORS AND FELLOWSHIPS ‘‘Resale Price Maintenance and the ‘‘The Economics of Life Insurance * Olin Senior Research Fellowship, Yale Canadian Competition Act’’, Review of Regulation: Valuation Constraints,’’ in Law School, i 988 Industrial Organization, 1998. J.Finsinger and M. Pauley (eds.), The * National Fellowship, Hoover Institution, Economics of Insurance Regulation, ‘‘Colluding on Relative Prices’’, Rand MacMillan and Company Limited, 1986. Stanford University, 1986–1987 Harry, Journal of Economics Vol. 28, No.2, (Summer With G.F. Mathewson. Johnson Prize (with M. Peters), for best 1997): 359–372. Review of Blair and Kaserman’s’’ Law and article in the Canadian Journal of Economics, ‘‘Tying as a Response to Demand Economics of Vertical Control’’, Journal of 1983 Uncertainty’’, Rand Journal of Economics * Canada Council Doctoral Fellowship, Economic Literature, 1986. Autumn 1997 (with Frank Mathewson). Competition Policy and the Economics of 1975–1979 ‘‘Exclusivity Restrictions and Intellectual * John H. Wheeler Scholarship, University Vertical Exchange, book published by The Property’’ in Competition Policy and Royal Commission on Canada’s Economic of California at Berkeley, 1974–1975 Intellectual Policy, Anderson and Gallini, * Dean’s Honors List, University of British Prospects, 1986, 167pp. (with G.F. eds. 1998 (with Patrick Rey). Mathewson). Columbia, 1974 ‘‘Buying Groups and Exclusivity: Towards RESEARCH GRANTS ‘‘The Economics of Franchise Contracts,’’ a Theory of Managed Competition’’ (with GF Journal of Law and Economics, October 1985: * Social Sciences and Humanities Research Mathewson): International Journal of Council Research Grant: 1983–1985, 1986- 503- 526. With G.F. Mathewson. Industrial Organization, 1997. ‘‘Licensing in the Theory of Innovation,’’ 1987, 1988–1989, 1990, 1991–1993 ‘‘The Economics of Liability for Nuclear Social Sciences and Humanities Research Rand Journal of Economics, Summer 1985: Accidents’’ (with M.J. Trebilcock), 237–253. With N.T. Gallini. Council Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship: International Review of Law and Economics, 1981–1982 and 1982–1983 ‘‘The Economics of Vertical Restraints on 1997. Distribution,’’ in G.F. Mathewson and J.E. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS ‘‘Output Shares in Bilateral Agency Stiglitz (eds.), New Developments in the * International Editorial Board, Assurances Problems’’, with H. Neary, Journal of Analysis of Market Structure, MIT Press, * Editorial Board, Journal of Industrial Economic Theory 1995. 1985. With G.F. Mathewson. Economics ‘‘The Dynamics of Competitive Insurance ‘‘An Economic Theory of Vertical PROFESSIONAL APPEARANCES Markets’’, Journal of Financial Intermediation Restraints,’’ The Rand Journal of Economics, * British Columbia Utilities Commission, (1994), 379–415. 1 (1), Spring 1984: 27–38. With G.F. regarding capital structure and equity risk ‘‘Territorial Restrictions in Franchise Mathewson. premium for Pacific Northern Gas, 1998 Contracts’’, with G.F. Mathewson, Economic Regulation of Canadian Markets for Life Canadian Radio-Television and Inquiry, 1994. Insurance, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Telecommunications Commission, regarding ‘‘Vertical Control and Price versus Non- Ottawa, 1984. (With G.F. Mathewson, T. price cap regulation for telephone Price Competition,’’ Quarterly Journal of Cussman and C. Campbell). companies, 1996 Economics, CVIII(1), February 1993: 61–78. ‘‘The Incentives for Resale Price Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, ‘‘Moral Hazard in Insurance Contracts’’, in Maintenance under Imperfect Information,’’ regarding fair rate of return for TransAlta G.Dionne, Ed., Insurance Economics, 1992. Economic Inquiry, XXXI(3), June 1983: 337– Utilities Corporation and Alberta Power ‘‘The Liability Insurance Market,’’ Journal 348. With G.F. Mathewson. Limited, 1996 of Economics Perspectives, Summer 1991: ‘‘Market Equilibrium and the Resolution of * Expert witness, Nielsen case, before the 115–136. Uncertainty,’’ Canadian Journal of Canadian Competition Tribunal, 1994 ‘‘Solvency Regulation and the Insurance Economics, XVI(3), August 1983: 381–390. Ontario Energy Board (EBRO 483,484), Cycle,’’ Economic Inquiry, XXIX(3), July With M. Peters. regarding fair rate of return for Centra Gas, 1991: 458- 472. ‘‘Vertical Integration by Contractual 1993 (written submission) ‘‘The Law and Economics of Vertical Restraints in Spatial Markets,’’ Journal of Ontario Energy Board (EBRO 4790), Restraints,’’ in M. Trebilcock, ed., Business, 56(4), October 1983: 497–519. With regarding fair rate of return for Consumers Competition Policy in Canada, Vancouver: G.F. Mathewson. Gas, 1992 The Fraser Institute, 1990. With G.F. ‘‘Vertical Control in Monopolistic Expert witness, Chrysler case, before the Mathewson. Competition,’’ International Journal of Canadian Competition Tribunal, 1988 ‘‘The Economic Effects of Automobile Industrial Organization, 1(3), 1983: 275–286. PUBLICATIONS Dealer Regulation,’’ Annales d’Economie et With N.T. Gallini.
VerDate 11
‘‘On the Choice of an Index for Disclosure manufacturers or ‘‘OEMs’’) to implement given that competitors to Passport, .Net My in the Life Insurance Market: An Axiomatic design changes—particularly in the critical Services (formerly ‘‘known as Hailstorm), Approach,’’ Journal of Risk and Insurance, area of middleware—without sufficiently Windows Movie Maker, Microsoft Money, XLIX(4), December 1982: 513–549. ensuring their independence from gaming programs, and Microsoft Digital ‘‘An Alternative Test of the Capital Asset Microsoft’s tight clasp. The PFJ also follows Photography programs—even when shipped Pricing Model: Comment’’, American timelines that are too loose and too generous through the OEM channel—may not be Economic Review, Vol. 72, No. 5, December to a company with the engineering resources included in the scope of protected 1982:1194–96. (With S.M. Turnbull). and product-. update capabilities of competition, Microsoft would be free to ‘‘Majority Voting and the Objective Microsoft. retaliate against OEMs that promote those Function of the Firm under Uncertainty: Third, in too many places, the constraints competitors. Note,’’ Bell Journal of Economics, 12(1), on Microsoft (once the exceptions are taken Finally, the provision is substantially Spring 1981: 335–337. into account) devolve into a mandate that weakened in that only certain types of ‘‘On the Rate Structure of the American Microsoft act ‘‘reasonably.’’ Aside from the retaliation (i.e., retaliation by changing Life Insurance Industry’’, Journal of Finance, obvious concern about Microsoft’s contractual relations and retaliation by Vol. 36, No. 1, March 1981: 81–97. willingness to do so given its track record, changing promotional arrangements) are ATTACHMENT B this formulation is problematic for other forbidden, as opposed to prohibiting any A DETAILED CRITIQUE OF THE reasons. It does little more than restate form of retaliation whatsoever. In order to PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT IN U.S. v. existing antitrust law (such provisions cannot eliminate Microsoft’s ability to unlawfully MICROSOFT be said to be ‘‘remedial’’ if they, in essence, protect its OS monopoly, it is essential that Ronald A. Klain are merely directives to refrain from future Microsoft be prohibited from taking any Benjamin G. Bradshaw illegal acts). And, in terms of enforcement, action that directly or indirectly adversely Jessica Davidson Miller alleged violations of such ‘‘be reasonable’’ affects OEMs or other licensees who in any O’Melveny & Myers LLP provisions can only be arrested through way support or promote non-Microsoft 555 13th Street, NW proceedings that will become, in essence, products or services. Washington, DC 20004 mini-retrials of U.S. v. Microsoft itself. Non-Monetary Compensation Provision: January 2002 In sum, a consent decree that causes little Microsoft is free to retaliate against OEMs INTRODUCTION—1 or no change in the defendant’s behavior that promote competition by withholding any SECTION-BY-SECTION CRITIQUE OF THE cannot be found to advance the public existing form of ‘‘non- monetary PFJ—2 interest, especially when the defendant’s Compensation’’- only ‘‘newly introduced Section III of the PFJ: Prohibited Conduct —2 conduct has been found by both the district forms of non-monetary Consideration’’ may Section IV Of The PFJ: Compliance and and appellate courts to be in violation of the not be withheld. Enforcement—11 law. As such, based on the numerous OEM Termination Clause Will Intimidate Section V Of The PFJ: Termination—12 shortcomings outlined below, the Court OEMs: Microsoft can terminate, without Section VI Of The PFJ: Definitions—12 should disapprove the PFJ. notice, an OEM’s Windows license, after INTRODUCTION SECTION-BY-SECTION CRITIQUE OF sending the OEM two notices that it believes This Court may approve the parties’’ THE PFJ the licensee is violating its license. There Proposed Final Judgment (‘‘PFJ’’), but only if Section Ill of the PFJ: Prohibited Conduct need not be any adjudication or it first determines that the proposed decree A. Retaliation determination by any independent tribunal is ‘‘in the public interest.’’ In reviewing the The Scope Of The Protection Is Narrow: that Microsoft’s two predicate claims are PFJ, we acknowledge that there are some Section III.A of the PFJ appears to be directed correct; after just two notices to any OEM of beneficial and important restrictions put on at preventing Microsoft from retaliating a putative violation, Microsoft may terminate Microsoft’s unlawful conduct. In too many against OEMs that attempt to compete with without even giving notice. This provision instances, however, these restraints are Microsoft products, but Microsoft is means that the OEMs are, at any time, just inevitably swallowed up by broad exceptions constrained only from specified forms of two registered letters away from an and grants of power to Microsoft. The result retaliation. If it retaliates against an OEM for unannounced economic calamity. Obviously, is that the proposed settlement will do little, any non- specified reason, that retaliation is that danger will severely limit the if anything, to eliminate Microsoft’s illegal not prohibited. This formulation is willingness of the OEMs to promote products practices, prevent recurrence of those acts, particularly problematic because the that compete with Microsoft. and promote competition in the marketplace. protected OEM activities are narrowly and Pricing Schemes Will Allow Microsoft to The public interest requires more, and the specifically defined. Retaliation against an Avoid Effects of the Decree.’’ Microsoft can Court should thus reject the proposed OEM for installing a non-Microsoft price Windows at a high price, and then put settlement. application that does not meet the economic pressure on the OEMs to use only The purpose of this document is to middleware definition is not prohibited; nor Microsoft applications through the provision expose—on a point-by-point, provision-by- is retaliation against an OEM for removing a that Microsoft can provide unlimited provision basis—the many loopholes, ‘‘trap Microsoft application that does not meet the consideration to OEMs for distributing or doors,’’ and other critical deficiencies in the middleware definition. promoting Microsoft’s services or products. PFJ. We present the issues in an order that For example: The limitation that these payments must be tracks the proposed decree itself so that they MSN and MSN Messenger do not appear to ‘‘commensurate with the absolute level or may be easily followed. We also provide be middleware under the PFJ’s highly amount of’’ OEM expenditures is hollow— ‘‘real world’’ examples where helpful. In specific definition of a ‘‘Microsoft given that it is not clear how an OEM’s costs general, the PFJ suffers from several global, Middleware Product.’’ Given this will be accounted for, for this purpose. overarching flaws. First, in critical places, the uncertainty, an OEM cannot know with Pricing language used in the PFJ to define the confidence that it is protected from Microsoft Can Use Rebates To Eviscerate protections for competition are not broad retaliation if it removes the icon and start Competition. Under Section III.B of the PFJ, enough to cover behavior the Court of menu promotion for MSN and/or MSN Microsoft can provide unlimited ‘‘market Appeals held to be unlawful. Rather, only Messenger. development allowances, programs, or other specific rights are granted, only specific If client software to support Sun’s Liberty discounts in connection with Windows competitive products are protected, and only Alliance (a competitor to Microsoft’s Operating System Products.’’ This provision specific anticompetitive practices are Passport) were developed, it would probably severely weakens the protection for OEM banned. In many cases, the rights and not be middleware under the PFJ definition. choice, functioning the same way as the limitations are further clawed-back through Thus, Microsoft can retaliate if an OEM adds rebate provision discussed above, but carefully crafted carve-outs that benefit that software. without any tether or limiting principle Microsoft. More generally, it is odd to have a whatsoever. Arguably, Microsoft can charge Second, the proposed decree relies too formulation that de facto approves of $150 per copy of Windows, but then provide heavily on the personal computer (‘‘PC’’) Microsoft’s retaliation against OEMs, except a $99 ‘‘market development allowance’’ for manufacturers (original equipment where that retaliation is forbidden. That is, OEMs that install WMP.
VerDate 11
Presumably, this is intended to be G. Anticompetitive Agreements display a complete end-user interface or a circumscribed by Section III.B.3.c, which Joint Development Agreements Can trademark. This, in essence, allows Microsoft provides that ‘‘discounts or their award’’ Subvert Protections Of The Settlement. The to determine which middleware components shall not be ‘‘based on or impose any protection against anticompetitive will or will not be subject to effective criterion or requirement that is other, vise agreements is substantially undermined by competition. By embedding its middleware inconsistent with.., this Final Judgment,’’ but the exception in Section III.G of the PFJ that components in other middleware (and this circular and self-referential provision allows Microsoft to launch ‘‘joint thereby not displaying it in a Top Level does not ensure that the practice identified development or joint services arrangements’’ Window with all user interface elements), or above is prohibited. While Microsoft should with OEMs and others. Under this provision, by simply not branding the middleware with be allowed to engage in legitimate pricing Microsoft can ‘‘invite’’ OEMs, ISVs, and other a trademark, Microsoft can essentially stop decisions, those decisions should be limited industry players to enter into ‘‘joint rivals from launching their products in lieu to volume-based discounts offered on a non- development’’ agreements and then resort to of the Microsoft products. discriminatory basis. an array of exclusionary practices. Harder For Consumers To Choose Non- C. OEM Licenses For example: Microsoft Products Than Microsoft Products: Microsoft Retains Control Of Desktop Microsoft invites OEM X to form a ‘‘joint In the same provision (III.H.2), Microsoft may Innovation: Under Section III.C of the PFJ, development’’ project to create ‘‘Windows for require an end-user to confirm his/her choice Microsoft would retain control of desktop X,’’ a ‘‘new product’’ to be installed on the of a non-Microsoft product, but there is no innovation by being able to prohibit OEMs OEM’s PCs. As long as Microsoft’s activities similar ‘‘double consent’’ requirement for from installing or displaying icons or other are cloaked under this rubric, it is exempt Microsoft Middleware. There is no reason shortcuts to non- Microsoft software/ from the ban on requiting the OEM to ship why it should be harder for users to select products/services, if Microsoft does not a fixed percentage of its units loaded with non-Microsoft products than Microsoft provide the same software/product/service. Microsoft’s applications, and other products. For example, if Microsoft does not include a protections designed to promote competition. Microsoft Can ‘‘Sweep’’ The Desktop, media player shortcut inside its ‘‘My Music’’ H. Desktop Customization Eliminating Rival Icons: Additionally,-the folder, it can forbid the OEMs from doing the Add/Remove Is For Icons Only, Not The OEM flexibility provisions are substantially same. This turns the premise that OEMs be Middleware Itself.’’ The add/remove undermined by a provision that allows given flexibility to differentiate their provisions in Section III.H in the PFJ only Microsoft to exploit its ‘‘desktop sweeper’’ to products on its head. allow for removal of end-user access to eliminate OEM-installed icons by asking an For example: Microsoft middleware—not removal of the end-user if he/she wants the OEM-installed Sony—as a PC OEM and a major force in middleware itself. This position is configuration wiped out after 14 days. Thus, the music and photography industries— inconsistent with the language in the Court the OEM flexibility provisions will only last would be uniquely positioned to differentiate of Appeals’’ opinion on commingling or the on the desktop with certainty for 14 days, the ‘‘My Music’’ and ‘‘My Photos’’ folder. ‘‘add/remove’’ issue. and after that period, persistent automated And yet, Sony’s ability to do so turns solely If Microsoft’s middleware remains on PCs queries from Microsoft can reverse the effect on the extent to which Microsoft chooses to (even with the end-user access masked), then of the OEM’s installations. The effect of this unleash competition in these areas. applications developers will continue to provision is to severely devalue the ability of Microsoft Retains Control Of Desktop Promotion.’’ Microsoft also, very oddly, can write applications that run on that OEMs to offer premier desktop space to control the extent to which non-Microsoft middleware—reinforcing the applications ISVs—and to undermine the ability of OEMs middleware is promoted on the desktop, by barrier to entry that was at the heart of this to differentiate their products and provide virtue of a limitation that OEMs can promote case. Allowing Microsoft to forbid the OEMs consumers with real choices. Desktop such software at the conclusion of a boot from removing its middleware, and allowing ‘‘MFN’’ Requirements: Finally, nothing in the sequence or an Internet hook-up, via a user Microsoft to configure Windows to make it decree appears to forbid Microsoft from interface that is ‘‘of similar size and shape to impossible for end-users to do the same, requiring—especially where non-middleware the user interface provided by the allows Microsoft to reinforce the applications is concerned—so- called MFN agreements corresponding Microsoft middleware.’’ Thus, barrier to entry, irremediably. from the OEMs. These agreements tax OEM Microsoft sets the parameters for competition As we have seen with the implementation efforts to promote Microsoft rivals by and user interface. of this approach (i.e., icon removal only) requiring that equal promotion or placement Promotional Flexibility For IAPs Only, with regard to Internet Explorer in Windows be given to Microsoft products, often without And Only For The OEM’s ‘‘Own’’ IAP: OEMs XP, Microsoft can use the presentation of this compensation. are allowed to offer IAP promotions at the option in the utility to make it less desirable I. Licensing Provisions end of the boot sequence, but not promotions to end-users. Moreover, limiting the required Licenses Put In Hands Of OEMs Only— for other products. Also, OEMs are allowed ‘‘add/remove’’ provision to icons only is The), May Not Be Able To Use Them Without to offer IAPs at the end of a boot sequence, actually a step backward from the current Help: The OEM licensing provision is limited but only their ‘‘own’’ IAP offers. Given that state of affairs in Windows XP, where code in its effectiveness because the OEMs are this phrase is ambiguous, Microsoft may is removable for several pieces of Microsoft prevented in Section III.I.3 from ‘‘assigning, attempt to read this provision as limiting an middleware. transferring, or sublicensing’’ their rights. OEM’s right to offer an IAP product to those Why Are Non-MS Icons Subject To Add/ This may severely limit their ability to IAPs marketed under the OEM’s brand. Remove?: The PFJ gives Microsoft an added partner with software companies to develop Helpfully, the Competitive Impact Statement benefit: it can demand that OEMs include innovative software packages to be pre- suggests otherwise, but whatever this phrase icons for non-MS middleware in the add/ installed on PCs. This provision is especially means, it is a needless restriction on an remove utility. Why this should be required, harmful when contrasted with the broad OEM’s flexibility. in the absence of any finding that assuring partnering opportunities afforded to D. API Disclosure the permanence of non-Microsoft Microsoft under Section III.G. In addition, APIs Defined Too Narrowly: Microsoft can middleware on the desktop is the OEMs’’ willingness to use these evade the disclosure obligation provided anticompetitive, is bizarre. This essentially provisions—even if they have the financial under Section III.D of the PFJ by ‘‘hard- treats the victims of Microsoft’s and technical wherewithal to do so—may be wiring’’ links to its applications, and through anticompetitive behavior as if they were limited by the weakness of the retaliation other predatory coding schemes. equally guilty of wrongdoing. provisions discussed above. Additionally, the disclosure is limited to Microsoft Can Embed Middleware And Reciprocal License? ‘‘Equal Treatment’’ For ‘‘APIs and related Documentation.’’ This is Evade Restrictions: Under Section III.H.2, Law Abiders And Law Breakers Is Not Equal: too narrow and can be evaded. Moreover, the end-users and OEMs are allowed to Under Section III.I.5, the PFJ requires ISVs, provision for the disclosure of ‘‘Technical substitute the launch of a non- Microsoft OEMs, and other licensees to license back to Information’’ found in Judge Jackson’s Middleware product for the launch of Microsoft any intellectual property they interim conduct remedies has been Microsoft middleware only where that develop in the course of exercising their eliminated. These disclosures are necessary Microsoft middleware would be launched in rights under the settlement. But that simply to provide effective interoperability. a separate Top-Level Window and would rewards Microsoft for having created the
VerDate 11
circumstances (i.e., having acted illegally) petition for rehearing that centered on this The proposed decree allows Microsoft to that necessitated the settlement in the first issue. And yet, the PFJ would permit this continue to exploit dependencies between its place. Microsoft should not be able to obtain activity to continue. desktop applications or its desktop the intellectual property rights of others The danger of the absence of this provision middleware and its servers or handheld simply because those law abiding entities is reinforced by what is found in the devices to exclude server and handheld have been required to work with a definition of the Windows Operating System competition. Section III.I Excludes lawbreaker. Product (‘‘Definition U’’), which states that Competing Server Vendors From The In addition, this provision may the software code that comprises the Benefits Of Section III.E’s Disclosures: inadvertently work as a ‘‘poison pill’’ to Windows Operating System Product ‘‘shall Section III.I limits Microsoft’s obligation to discourage ISVs, et al., from taking advantage be determined by Microsoft in its sole license its desktop-server Communications of the licensing rights ostensibly provided to discretion.’’ Thus, Microsoft can, over time, Protocols to ISVs, IHVs, IAP, ICPs, and them in Section III.I. The risk that an ISV render all the protections for middleware OEMs; thus, server competitors are excluded would have to license its rights to Microsoft meaningless, by binding and commingling from the group of companies that Microsoft will be a substantial deterrent for that ISV code, and redefining the OS to include the must license information to under section from exercising its rights under Section III.I. bound/commingled applications. III.E. J. ‘‘Security and Anti-Piracy’’ Exception to Too Many Of The Provisions Require A The Failure To Define ‘‘Interoperate’’ Is A API Disclosure Mini-Retrial To Be Enforced: In numerous Mistake: Neither Section III.E nor any other The Settlement Exempts The Software And places throughout Section III, the limitations provision of the PFJ defines the meaning of Services That Are The Future Of Computing: on Microsoft’s conduct are basically ‘‘interoperate.’’ The failure to define One of the most seemingly innocuous rephrased versions of the Rule of Reason. For ‘‘interoperate’’ is tantamount to the provisions in the PFJ is, in fact, one of the example, in Section III.F.2, Microsoft may Department of Justice’s (‘‘DOJ’’) prior failure biggest loopholes: the provision found in enter into restrictive agreements with ISVs as to define ‘‘integrate’’ in the 1995 consent Section III.J.1 that allows Microsoft to long as those agreements are ‘‘reasonably decree, and will form the basis for unending withhold from API, documentation or necessary;’’ likewise, the Joint Venture disputes over the scope of Microsoft’s communication protocol disclosure any provisions found in Section III.G also employ disclosure obligations. ‘‘Communications information that would ‘‘compromise the a rule-of-reason test. As such, they simply Protocol’’ Is Defined Too Narrowly And Too security of .... digital rights management, restate textbook antitrust law, and alleged Ambiguously: The definition of encryption or authentication systems.’’ This violations of these provisions could only be ‘‘Communications Protocol,’’ which provision raises several critical concerns: resolved through mini-trials. determines the scope of server information to Digital Rights Management Exception Server Interoperability Issues (Found in be disclosed by Microsoft, is highly ‘‘Swallows’’ Media Player Rule: Since the Sections III.E, III.H and III.J) Only Full ambiguous and potentially very narrow in most prevalent use of media players in the Interoperability Can Reduce Microsoft’s scope: years ahead will be in playing content that Barriers To Desktop Competition: The PFJ’s It appears to be limited to the Windows is protected by digital rights management proposed server remedy will fail to provide 2000 server, and thus may exclude (‘‘DRM’’) (i.e., copyrighted content licensed meaningful, competitive interoperability Microsoft’s Advanced Windows 2000 server to users on a ‘‘pay-for-play’’ ‘‘basis), allowing between Microsoft desktops and non- and Datacenter server. Microsoft to render its DRM solution non- Microsoft servers because: It is unclear whether ‘‘rules for information interoperable with non-Microsoft Media The applications barrier to entry is central exchange’’ that ‘‘govern the format, Players and DRM solutions essentially means to this case and to Microsoft’s desktop semantics, timing sequencing, and error that non-Microsoft media players will be monopoly. A remedy that provides true control of messages exchanged over a virtually useless when loaded on Windows server interoperability can be a powerful tool network’’ mean the rules for transmitting computers. to reduce the applications barrier to entry. information packets over a network, or the Authentication Exception Allows The server has the same potential to provide rules for formatting and interpreting Microsoft To Control Internet Gateways, an alternative platform as did the browser or information within such packets. Server- Based Services: Most experts agree Java. In that sense, it is directly analogous to It appears to be limited to information that the future of computing lies with server- middleware products. exchanged via LANs and WANs, and based applications that consumers ,,,,,ill Microsoft has plainly recognized the threat therefore may exclude information access from a variety of devices. Indeed, that non-Microsoft servers pose as an exchanged over the Internet. In other words, Microsoft’s ‘‘.Net’’ and ‘‘.Net My Services’’ alternative applications platform and has having illegally seized dominance over (formerly known as Hailstorm) are evidence acted to exclude those products from full browsers, Microsoft will be allowed to use that Microsoft certainly holds this belief. interoperation with the desktop and to that power to establish de facto proprietary These services, ‘‘,,,’hen linked with advantage its own server products. It is able protocols for Internet communication and Microsoft’s ‘‘Passport,’’ are Microsoft’s self- to do so because it controls the means by keep them entirely to itself. Even in its declared effort to migrate its franchise from which servers may interoperate with the broadest possible meaning, the term the desktop to the Internet. functions and features of the Windows ‘‘Communications Protocols’’ is insufficiently By exempting authentication APIs and desktop. In order to succeed in establishing broad or comprehensive to require disclosure protocols from the PFJ’s disclosure/licensure non-Microsoft servers as an effective of the information. needed to permit requirement, the settlement exempts the most alternative application platform, both interoperability between non-Microsoft important applications and services that consumers and application developers have servers and the full features and functions of ,,’,’ill drive the computer industry over the to be convinced that such servers: (1) can Windows desktops. next few years. If Microsoft can wall off overcome the interoperability barriers that Section III.J’s Carve-Out Eliminates the Passport, .Net, and .Net My Services with Microsoft has erected, and (2) have become Most Important Disclosures: What little impunity—and link these Internet/server- viable alternatives to Microsoft’s own servers, Section III.E provides, Section III.J takes based applications and services to its desktop insofar as they can fully interoperate with the away by permitting Microsoft to refuse to monopoly—then Microsoft will be in a desktop. disclose the very protocols and technical commanding position to dominate the future An incomplete interoperability remedy dependencies it is currently using to prevent of computing. fails to meet this test. Neither consumers non-Microsoft servers from interoperating Additional Problems Raised By Numerous (professional IT managers) nor server with Microsoft desktops and servers. Provisions in Section III No Ban On application developers will be attracted to Section IV Of The PFJ: Compliance and Commingling Of Code.’’ Nothing in the non-Microsoft servers that lack any important Enforcement agreement prohibits Microsoft from interoperability functionality. If important A. Enforcement Authority commingling code or binding its middleware interoperability barriers are left in place, IT Enforcement Authority Is Too Difficult To to the OS. This was a major issue in the case; managers simply will not buy the product Employ: Clearly, what is missing from the the Court of Appeals specifically found and the remedy will fail to achieve its agreement is a quick, meaningful, and Microsoft’s commingling of browser and OS intended purpose. This is an important empowered mechanism for preventing and code to be anticompetitive; it rejected a guiding principle. rectifying Microsoft’s inevitable violations of
VerDate 11
the agreement. Thus, while the provision violations Microsoft engages in, the promotion, and end-user choice apply only allowing Microsoft to cure any violations of restrictions found in the settlement may be to these specified products—not to any other Sections III.C, D, E, and H before an extended only for a single two-year period. software applications. enforcement action may be brought is not Thus, if Microsoft is adjudged to have And yet, sadly, this narrow definition itself objectionable, it is but one of a number engaged in such a pattern of violations, it extends protection only to applications ‘‘of of provisions that make enforcing the essentially has a ‘‘free reign’’ to repeat those which at least one million copies were agreement cumbersome, expensive and time- violations with impunity. distributed in the United States within the consuming. Section VI Of The PFJ: Definitions previous year.’’ Thus, ‘‘an innovator in his B. Technical Committee / D. Voluntary A. APIs garage,’’ creating a new form of middleware Dispute Resolution API Definition Too Narrow: This is to revolutionize the computer industry, has Source Code Access Is Not Enough: While discussed above. no protection from Microsoft’s rapacious it is helpful that the Technical Committee I. ISV ways until he can achieve the distribution of (‘‘TC’’) will have access to Microsoft’s source Definition Is Not Forward-Looking: The 1 million copies of his software. code and can resolve disputes involving that definition of ISV is drafted too narrowly and Also, as noted above, ‘‘web-based services’’ issue, the TC is otherwise powerless to should more clearly encompass developers of are not captured in this definition, compel Microsoft’s compliance with the software products designed to run on new notwithstanding their importance to future agreement in any other respect. The versions of the Windows operating system competition to the Windows OS. prospects that Microsoft will accept the and next generation computing devices. R. Timely Manner decisions of the TC in a voluntary dispute K. Microsoft Middleware Product Netscape, All Over Again: Microsoft’s resolution process are near zero. And the Definition Exempts Too Much Middleware: obligation to disclose APIs and other entire mechanism seems designed to extend Much of the decree is based on this materials needed to make applications disputes indefinitely: no time limits or time- definition—the OEMs’’ flexibility turns on interoperable with Windows in a ‘‘timely lines are specified for dispute resolution. what is included or excluded from this manner’’ is keyed off the definition of that As it stands now, a party injured by category of application. And yet the term in Section R. But Microsoft retains Microsoft’s violation of the decree can definition, which is different from the complete control over this timeline because complain to the TC, which will then conduct definition used by the District Court the definition provides that Microsoft is an investigation: Once the investigation is (affirmed and employed by the Court of under no obligation to engage in these complete, the TC will presumably issue some Appeals) is fatally flawed. disclosures until it distributes a version of decision; while the investigation is ongoing, First, there are only five existing products the Windows OS to 150,000 beta testers. the TC is supposed to consult with that can be known with certainty to be Thus, as long as Microsoft restricts its beta Microsoft’s Compliance Officer, for an ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Products.’’ That testing program to 149,999 individuals until indefinite period; means that highly similar items, such as very late in the development process, it can If the TC concludes that Microsoft violated MSN, MSN Messenger, MSN Explorer, effectively eviscerate the disclosure the agreement, and Microsoft does not agree Passport, Outlook, and Office may be requirements. Our review of the available to change its behavior or rectify the wrong, excluded from the definition of middleware. documentation shows, for example, that then the TC must decide whether to Why Windows Messenger would be covered Microsoft had no more than 20,000 beta recommend the matter to the DOJ for further by the PFJ, but MSN Messenger would be testers 1 for Windows XP until very late in action; exempt; or why Internet Explorer would be the release cycle; thus, had this provision Once recommended, the DOJ—after some covered, while MSN Explorer would be been in place during the Windows XP release review period—may decide to take action, exempt—if this is, in fact, how the provision cycle, Microsoft would have been under no and apply to the court for a remedy, or it may operates—is a mystery. Why ambiguity obligation to release APIs until the eve of not; * And once the DOJ applies for action, would be accepted in such a critical area is product shipping. the process in court to obtain relief or remedy an even greater mystery. Slow disclosure of APIs is precisely how may extend for an indefinite period. Given the uncertainty, Microsoft may Microsoft defeated Netscape’s timely This is obviously a lengthy and ineffective attempt to retaliate against OEMs that remove interoperability with Windows 95. Thus, in process for ensuring that Microsoft complies even the icons for its applications; it may this way, not only is the decree inadequate with its obligations under the decree. In an also attempt to prohibit end-users from to prevent future wrongdoing, it does not industry where time is of the essence and removing these applications (or even their even redress proven illegal acts in the past. delays can be fatal, the built-in delays that icons). This is a step backward from the U. Windows Operating System Product allow Microsoft to drag its feet are wholly status quo (even in Windows XP); the The scope of Microsoft’s disclosure unacceptable. ambiguity is a gaping hole. obligations under the agreement are Technical Committee’s Investigation Has Second, the generic middleware definition, determined in large part by the meaning of Only Limited Use: The work of the Technical which applies only to new products, and ‘‘Windows Operating System Product.’’ The Committee cannot ‘‘be admitted in any therefore does not capture any product now definition of Windows Operating System enforcement proceeding before the Court for in existence, allows Microsoft to define Product leaves Microsoft free to determine in any purpose,’’ and the members of the TC are which products are included or not, by virtue ‘‘its sole discretion’’ what software code forbidden to appear. of Microsoft’s trademark and branding comprises a ‘‘Windows Operating System Thus, under the terms of the decree, the choices. Thus, as long as Microsoft buries Product.’’ In other words, Microsoft’s substantial time, effort and expense that can these products inside other applications, they disclosure obligation is subject entirely to its go into a TC process may need to be are not independently considered discretion. duplicated in an enforcement action— middleware. Note that the number of ‘‘beta testers’’ will adding to the complexity and expense that Third, as suggested in the points above, the be much smaller than the number of ‘‘beta the process will pose for victims of Microsoft definition misses the future platform copies’’ of a product that is being prepared violations. challenges to Microsoft’s Windows for release. Section V Of The PFJ: Termination monopoly: web-based services. These From: Philip Johnson A. Five-Year Limit services should be specifically defined and To: Microsoft ATR Five-Year Coverage Is Inadequate: Given included in the class of protected Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm the scope of Microsoft’s violations, the time middleware. Subject: Microsoft period required to restore effective N. Non-Microsoft Middleware Product I feel Microsoft has done no wrong and competition, and the pattern of willful Only Developers With Substantial should be left alone to innovate and sell their lawbreaking on Microsoft’s part, a five-year Resources bViii Be Protected: The products at whatever the market will bear. consent decree is inadequate. competitive offerings protected by the decree They are no more a monopoly than a lot of B. Two-Year Extension are narrowly limited to offerings that fall other companies, so if you are going to Penalty For Knowing Violations Is Too within the definition of ‘‘Non-Microsoft penalize them for that then you need to take Lenient: Amazingly, the PFJ provides that no Middleware Products.’’ Again, as noted action against say AOL also and companies matter how many knowing and willful above, the guarantees of OEM flexibility, like them.
VerDate 11
From: Wildcat I have sent a letter stating my thoughts as the proposed settlement (of product donation To: Microsoft ATR to settling Microsoft’s ongoing court case and to the schools) is allowed to continue, our Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm I am afraid I was a little slow in mailing it legal system will in effect be sanctioning, Subject: Microsoft Settlement in. even demanding, that Microsoft flood this I certainly hope you take into account that My feelings are, enough already. Leave additional market with its product and drive the effects of Microsoft’s business practices things as they are. Microsoft has gotten the out competitors from this area as well. In are *still* being felt, even today... A brand right decission and enough tax payers money effect, the proposed settlement will simply new computer with anything *other* than has been spent. reward Microsoft’s monopolistic practices by Windows on-board is still almost unheard of, Sincerely, providing them another monopoly in the many hardware manufacturers don’t support Matthew goun education market. Linux or offer drivers for it, and many Renata B. Hesse I urge the Justice Department, The Court, corporate websites are designed almost Antitrust Division The Judge, anyone else involved, to -reject- exclusively for Internet Explorer in *spite* of U.S. Department of Justice the proposed settlement and -insist- on a the W3C standards that are meant to make 601 D Street NW more fair remedy. the ‘‘World Wide Web’’ more accessible to Suite 1200 Microsoft is not like some poor farmer who *all* available browsers. I realize that these Washington, DC 20530–0001 has to hand over his old tractor to cover back last two points (drivers and web design) are taxes. The settlement amount is just a tiny almost entirely due to the preferences of the MTC–00028289 percentage (3%) of the -huge- cash hoard manufacturers and designers respectively, From: [email protected]@inetgw they have accumulated through their but those people are basing those decisions To: Microsoft ATR monopolistic practices. Short of breaking up on the atmosphere fostered by Microsoft that Date: 1/28/02 1:46pm the company (which I still think is justified) it is and shall be the only creator of operating Subject: Microsoft Settlement certainly we should at the very least, insist system and web browser software. To Whom it may Concern, that they pay their costs like the rest of us Recently, I experienced this form of I would like to add my voice to those in do, in cash. Anything less only reinforces ‘‘browser discrimination’’ firsthand. My adamant opposition to the proposed their monopolistic position. browser of choice is Netscape, and I was Microsoft Settlement. Please reject this Thank you for your consideration in this finding it difficult to access a major retailer’s proposal in favor of a much stronger remedy. matter, website and on-line shopping outlet — my Please review the current proposed David E. Jorgensen browser kept choking out. I e-mailed a report settlement and make sure that it adequately 350 Budd Ave. #E7 of this technical glitch, and received a reply represents the interests of open-source Campbell, California suggesting I use Internet Explorer. To me (to advocates, and consumers of open-source 95008, USA use an analogy), this is like being unable to products. Essentially, the question that needs e-mail: [email protected] get a clear picture of CNN from my cable to be addressed first and foremost is ‘‘Are the company, only to be told that my RCA barriers to entry for competition with MTC–00028291 television is the problem, and that the CNN Microsoft reduced to a reasonable level for From: Chuck1040 signal is designed specifically for a Sony. The both commercial and volunteer competitive To: Microsoft ATR bottom line is, I’ve never been a big fan of efforts?’’. Secondly, I would ask ‘‘Is the Date: 1/28/02 2:01pm Microsoft, and would really rather not give punitive element of this ruling sufficient to Subject: Settlement them my money, but as long as they’re make executives reluctant to engage in I believe that this matter has dragged on allowed to operate as they have in the past similar anti-competitive behaviour, and too far and should be settled as soon as decade, they’re going to wind up with a share stockholders reluctant to support executives possible. Get an agreement and move on to of the profit on almost anything I buy, who do?’’. other problems. whether I know it or not, whether I *like* it I trust that you’ll come up with an charles dennard, or not. equitable ruling that represents the current 1237 vintage place, Thank you for allowing me to state my and future interests of consumers, even if the nashville, tn 37215 economy must suffer. opinion. MTC–00028292 Bart Smith Sincerely, Independence, KS Aaron McHugh From: Patrick Purcell [email protected] [email protected] To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’ Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm MTC–00028287 MTC–00028290 Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Mildred/Jerry From: Dave Jorgensen Hello To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR My name is Patrick Purcell. As an Date: 1/28/02 1:56pm Date: 1/28/02 1:59pm Applications Developer and consumer of Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT Subject: Microsoft Settlement commercial software , I feel I must comment I/WE ARE IN 100% SUPPORT FOR Dear Sirs, on the proposed Final Settlement. MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT. WE NEED As a citizen of the United States of I will make the following general TIME AND MONEY SPENT ON THINGS America, and an employee in the High-Tech comments and then move on to specific LIKE ENRON INVESTIGATION. TOO MUCH sector of our nations economy, I feel items in the documents .(Civil Action No 98– ADO HAS BEEN DIRECTED AT compelled to write and voice my 1232 and Civil Action No 98–1232 CKK). MICROSOFT. disagreement with the proposed Microsoft It is my understanding that judgment SPEND MY TAX MONEY ON GOING anti-trust settlement. For the past two against Microsoft stands. Microsoft was AFTER REAL CROOKS LIKE ENRON decades, I have watched again and again as found in violation of the Sherman Act. I EXECUTIVES. Microsoft leverages its monopoly position to believe the original remedy should stand. In THANK YOU wipe out what were once healthy high-tech document Civil Action No 98–1232 CKK JERRY & MILDRED ROBERTS markets. Their actions have had a continued, Section III H 3 Microsoft would be prohibited chilling effect on the industry which will be from modifying third party icons,menus, and MTC–00028288 felt long into the future. However one of the shortcuts without asking for permission of From: Matt Goun few remaining areas where Microsoft has not the user. To: Microsoft ATR yet accomplished their monopolistic goals, is The description does not prevent from Date: 1/28/02 1:58pm in the education market. Microsoft continually asking the user if Subject: Microsoft Settlement It’s likely that Microsoft would leverage changes should be made. Matthew Goun their monopoly to take the education market In effect the user could be nagged to 1230 Parkwood Drive if they could, but they’ve likely hesitated in making a change. Merrick, NY 11566 order to avoid undue attention while the I believe the language should be strengthen [email protected] current cases are being judged. However, if to prevent Microsoft from nagging or making
VerDate 11
adjustments through a needed software fact that many of the financial backers of on the hardware that I purchase! Is that user- upgrade ( in the case of a software fix). these groups are in fact competitors of friendly? We had a Packard-Bell that loaded In document Civil Action No 98–1232 CKK Microsoft. a bunch of junk from PB and it drove us Section III J Microsoft is not obligated to I for one, want to make sure that the crazy, we disabled it because we didn’t want license or disclose its API to third parties. settlement primarily addresses remedying it. I want to be able to purchase hardware The API allows a programmer to develop any wrongs suffered by consumers (which I based on price, not how it interacts with the software and take advantage of services the think are actually relativily few) as opposed os that I choose!! There’s also the issue of operating system offers. to benefiting Microsoft’s competitors, support and service packs; who’s going to Having a closed API excludes developers especially those competitiors who operate support those changes? The OEM? Microsoft? from using the operating system to its full outside the narrowly drafted ‘‘market’’ for Do I get pushed back and forth because the extent and does not provide a level playing Intel based operating systems. OEM says it’s not their problem and field. An open API would level the playing Burt Harris Microsoft says it’s been changed so they can’t field. 15302 182nd Place NE help either? There is nothing worse than It is possible to have a public API and not Woodinville, WA 98072 trying to support a product that has been compromise security and encryption. modified; all your updates are delayed, MTC–00028294 The open source software Linux list all its because when Microsoft releases a fix, the API while providing a high level of security. From: Juanita Bergh OEM has to do the same thing. I know how The encryption software Pretty Good To: Microsoft ATR this works; I worked for a software company Privacy (PGP) provides the API and an Date: 1/28/02 2:02pm in the support area for 5 years and you excellent level of encryption. Subject: Microsoft Settlement cannot support something once someone else Both Linux and PGP clearly illustrate it is I have been and still am rather disgusted has modified it. This is NOT in the possible to provide your complete API to all at the lawsuit against Microsoft. At the time consumer’s best interests for any software and still provide levels of security. the lawsuit was filed, I was not an employee company to allow that. I know that it An open API would not preclude making of Microsoft. Now I am, but my feelings have happens and it has it’s advantages, but it’s a profit. For example Stronghold is a not changed. I worked for a software also a miserable position for the consumer commercial secure web server based on the company for 10.5 years before joining who needs an update or help. Apache web server. Stronghold is a Microsoft. We used Netscape as a browser for I have worked in the computer industry for successful product using an open API from a short period, but then our company 11.5 years now and I am tickled that the Apache web server. Another example is switched to Internet Explorer. I don’t recall consumers have pretty much selected one OS the Apple product, Mac OS X which is based at what point that was. But at the time I was that we can use as a basis for developing our on FreeBSD Unix. using Netscape, the browser was given away own applications. The macintosh died in the On December 13, 2001, the ECMA General free as an incentive to get people to switch business application market because Apple’s Assembly ratified the C# and common to using their browser. Does this sound focus appears to be the graphic / educational language infrastructure (CLI) specifications familiar? Isn’t this part of Netscape/AOL market. We used to support our applications into international standards. The ECMA Time Warner’s complaint against Microsoft? on the macintosh for many years, but finally standards will be known as ECMA-334 (C#) That by offering it free and making it discontinued that because it just wasn’t a and ECMA-335 (the CLI). The C# is a available as part of the operating system, good business proposition for us. Many, programming language developed by Microsoft is engaging in non-competative many software companies have thrived by Microsoft. By having ECMA (http:// acts. Hmmm. I wonder why it wasn’t illegal developing on the Microsoft platforms www.ecma.ch) ratify C# and CLI as when Netscape was first trying to gain market because Microsoft is the company that international standards, Microsoft lost direct share. That’s the main reason we used bothers to find out what consumers want and control of the future development of these Netscape, it was free and relatively easy to strives to give it to us. That’s why Microsoft technologies. However Microsoft opened the use. However, we found the Internet Explorer thrived and Apple did not. Apple had great API to the public to strengthen the worked better for us. There are differences potential and is doing fine, but they could’ve acceptance of these technologies. Microsoft and distinctions between the two that I’m not been the Microsoft. recognizes that publishing the API has terribly familiar with as I have no desire to Netscape/ AOL Time Warner would be benefits. Microsoft would not be overall see if Netscape has become more attractive. smarter to use their money to improve their negatively affected from publishing its I have heard that Netscape offers an easy way products so they can compete based on the complete API for its operating system. The of uploading data, which isn’t available in IE. products’’ merit, not to try to cripple a actual publishing of the API could be done I also have heard that Mac users prefer successful rival. through an agency such as ECMA. Netscape. The browser that fills the need best One more comment on the ‘‘monopoly’’ The above statements are my sole opinions is the browser that will be used. issue. Microsoft is not a phone company or and do not represent the views of my The last couple of times we purchased a utility company where the customer has employer. computer, it came preloaded with a several never had a choice; Microsoft has earned it’s I hope you will consider these statements different internet connectivity options. We OS monopoly because no other OS has in making a final decision. did not choose to use any of them because provided customers with what they want. We Sincerely we wanted to use a different one. love to bash Microsoft (well, not since I’ve Patrick Purcell The fact of the matter is, that if someone become an employee) for system bombs and wants to use a software product, they will crashes, but the fact remains that Microsoft MTC–00028293 use it whether it comes preinstalled or not. has made it possible for millions of users to From: Burt Harris It’s not as though we’re talking about a be able to use and afford a computer. My To: Microsoft ATR couple hundred dollars to purchase parents, in-laws, and grandparents, who Date: 1/28/02 2:01pm Netscape; I can download it today for free. never grew up using a computer are able to Subject: Microsoft Settlement . I’m not sure if Netscape used to have a charge use email and word processing programs I want to register my support for the or what those charges are, but it’s rather because it’s easy, simple, and uniform. I can proposed settlement of the Microsoft hypocritical to complain about someone else help them figure things out with a phone call antitrust case. The proposed settlement takes giving something away free when you’re because the OS behaves the same way no reasonable steps to address the underlying doing the same thing. As I said earlier, who matter what type of computer they have! My issue without crossing the boundry into the cares if it’s preloaded or not; many users grandparents would never have thought of punitive actions that its opponents seem to today are sophisticated enough that they’ll using a computer in the pre-windows days. want inforced. find and load what they want. Microsoft contributes a great deal of As a observer of the situation it strikes me Another complaint that bugs me in the money, software and time for charitable that many of the proponents of harsher terms lawsuit states that OEM’s cannot really add issues; if anyone has the issues of the have lost site of the fact that the settlement much to change the way windows loads; this consumer at heart, it’s Microsoft. is intended to be a remedy, not a really irks me because I don’t want to get a Thanks for listening, punishment. This seems to be driven by the different look and feel from windows based Juanita Bergh
VerDate 11
15705 28th St Date: 1/28/02 2:03pm In addition, the PFJ will not take into Casselton, ND 58012 Subject: Please See Attachment- Microsoft account all Microsoft gains made through its Please See Attachment—Microsoft illegal maneuverings. With all due respect, MTC–00028295 Thank you, the final settlement is basically From: King, Steve K. Port acknowledging the acceptance of Microsofts To: ‘‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Kevin Port anti-competitive behavior. What kind of Date: 1/28/02 2:02pm 250 Gorge Road # 29D message does this send out to the public? I Subject: Microsoft Settlement Cliffside Park, NJ 07010 can assure you that the message is clear and Renata Hesse January 28,2002 simple. Department of Justice, Antitrust Department Attorney General John Ashcroft The PFJ encourages big corporations to 601 D St NW US Department of Justice engage in monopolistic and predatory Suite 1200 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW conduct, which in turn is detrimental to the Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20530 technology industry at large. With all due Dear Ms. Hesse, Dear Mr. Ashcroft: respect your honor, I am outraged at such a I am a State Senator from Iowa and I also After three years of seemingly endless preposterous proposal that only helps the owner of construction contracting litigation, I was frankly relieved to hear that Microsoft to remain intact and continue with business. In my capacity as a State Senator Microsoft had reached a tentative settlement its unethical practices. Thus, I conclude by I am chairman of the state government with the Justice Department in November. respectfully submitting my disapproval to committee and also serve on the commerce This settlement is good for consumers and this Proposed Final Judgment. committee. I chose to serve on these therefore no further action is needed on the Respectfully, federal level. committees because as a business owner I am Mrs. Nimfa Paraso The terms of the settlement cover many acutely aware of negative impact over 7230 Adams Rd. areas and will require numerous concessions regulation can have on business. Magna, Utah 84044 It is from this unique perspective that I am from Microsoft. One area of concession is in writing you today to encourage you to settle relation to intellectual property rights. MTC–00028298 Microsoft has agreed that if a third party’s the Microsoft anti-trust case From: BROWNING, CONNIE (AIT) exercise of any options provided for by the The suit against Microsoft was brought To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’ settlement would infringe any Microsoft under anti-trust laws that were developed in Date: 1/28/02 2:04pm intellectual property right, Microsoft will at a time in our history when our nation was Subject: Microsoft Settlement provide the third party with a license to the growing into the industrial and economic To Whom it May Concern: necessary intellectual property on reasonable leader it is today. These laws were meant to Regarding the Microsoft Settlement, as a and non-discriminatory terms. And to assure protect American consumers from harm recent purchaser of a new computer this provision and every other one is inflicted by monopoly companies. These preloaded with Microsoft XP, I believe that followed, Microsoft will be monitored by a laws have served their purpose in the past. MS has gone too far in automating updates three-member Technical Committee. However, in this case, I do not think they As a former worker in the tech industry, I from my personal computer to their system. apply. The government and Microsoft’s understand the importance of Microsoft’s I see the XP software, attempting to contact critics have yet to prove consumer harm as products to our economy. Although I did not MS every time that I am on the internet. I a result of Microsoft actions or practices. feel this suit had any merit to begin with, I firmly believe that the software should have As a businessman and strong supporter of realize at this point the best development is been designed to request my explicit our free-market system, it is apparent to me to move forward. I hope your support for this permission before sending information that Microsoft’s only crime is giving the settlement continues and that the recent suit regarding my personal machine. American public a superior product, and by AOL will also be terminated. It is not Furthermore, I think that MS’s exclusive therefore has been able to build a loyal worth the time and money of the Justice and proprietary relationships are not in my following of committed users. Assumedly, Department to continue to pursue these best interest, and prevent the further Microsoft worked very hard to develop its actions against Microsoft, a successful, innovation of many independent software products and market. They should not be entrepreneurial company, that has developers. It was very clear to me when punished for this or for having the business contributed to the success of the U.S. loading other software on my XP system, savvy to take action to protect their market. economy and our technological which vendors had not paid the price for A closer look at this suit and the lobbying breakthroughs. Without the efforts of MS’s exclusive arrangements and were efforts that have fueled it will expose Microsoft, the global computer industry suffering from the dramatic negative disturbing realities. Microsoft’s competitors would not have the standards and success we messages that I received when trying to load do not appreciate that technology consumers witness today. ‘‘unapproved’’ software. are overwhelmingly loyal to Microsoft Sincerely, If I had known the nature of XP when products. However, instead of committing to Kevin Port purchasing my new computer, I would have production of new products that may allow insisted at the time that the manufacturer them to more successfully compete in our MTC–00028297 supply me with another operating system. free-market, they have banded together and From: N P Connie Browning found a way to use outdated anti-trust laws To: Microsoft ATR 468 Liberty Lane for their own purposes. Date: 1/28/02 2:03pm Westerville, OH 43081 The settlement before you is truly a Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028299 compromise for Microsoft. Certainly, Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, Microsoft will be held to the severe provision In all honesty the Proposed Final Judgment From: [email protected]@inetgw of this settlement, not the least of which is stinks. I disapprove of the tactics uses to get To: Microsoft ATR the sharing of intellectual property. However, what they want. As one can see, MS, with Date: 1/26/02 3:38pm negotiating settlement is the best solution for disregard to the rules put in place, will Subject: Microsoft Settlement the technology industry and our economy in continue to violate all anti-trust laws. The Microsoft was found guilty in this case. general. When this settlement is approved it Proposed Final Judgment is not a panacea to They have a history of similar behavior will send a signal to the technology industry the Microsoft debacle but, in fact, avoids the (examples include DR-DOS and Stac that the threat of government interference has whole issue altogether. Electronics). They are currently targeting been lifted. Undeniably true and accurate, Microsoft is Real Networks using similar tactics to the Sincerely, guilty of breaking these laws. Under the final ones used against Netscape. Senator Steve King settlement, the DoJ allows MS to retain most I do not believe that the proposed final of its profits gained through past illegal judgement will restrain Microsoft’s MTC–00028296 activities. Therefore, the PFJ will not anticompetitive conduct. It does not appear From: Kevin Port compensate parties harmed through to do anything to remedy the effects of their To: Microsoft ATR Microsofts egregious acts. past unlawful conduct.
VerDate 11
Their current .Net initiative attempts to closed. I don’t need a paternalistic usual, which is to abuse it Monopoly leverage their desktop monopoly to gain a government to tell me which software I position to squash competition and dominant position online services. They should buy or to use my tax dollars innovation to the detriment of the general should not be allowed to do this. prosecuting companies whose products I public. Peter Goldthorp enjoy and find immensely valuable. This is Thank you, Software Engineer not the proper role of government, and such Fred Murhammer Hayward CA antitrust actions must, by their nature, MTC–00028305 MTC–00028300 ultimately be destructive of consumer choice in the marketplace. From: Bill Kirtley From: Grissom, Marlene Please accept this letter as one citizen’s To: Microsoft ATR To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ plea for a government that protects me from Date: 1/28/02 2:09pm Date: 1/28/02 2:03pm force and fraud—not from valuable products Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: microsoft settlement successfully marketed by successful To Whom it may concern- I agree with Microsoft management in companies. I am writing as a US taxpayer, voter, and Hoping for a quick resolve and settlement Philip Steele citizen to protest the Proposed Final Marlene Grissom 691 Ora Avo Drive Judgment in the matter of the United States MTC–00028301 Vista, CA 92084 vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I do not feel that the solution as proposed From: Chris Arsenault MTC–00028303 either punishes Microsoft for previous To: Microsoft ATR From: jack gelin anticompetitive behavior, reduce the barriers Date: 1/28/02 2:05pm To: Microsoft ATR to entry for vendors other than Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 2:04pm innovating in the field, or inhibits Microsoft To whom it may concern: Subject: Microsoft Settlement from engaging in monopolistic behavior in After having read the provided case 1662 E 24th Street the future. documents, I have come to the following Brooklyn, NY 11229 conclusion: A number of well reasoned arguments have January 25, 2002 The proposed Final Judgement for United been written on the subject, and I won’t Attorney General John Ashcroft States v. Microsoft as currently written fails revisit them here. One good one can be found US Department of Justice to provide a concise and enforceable order at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW from the courts. It is inadequate to the task remedy2.html I feel that the best way to Washington, DC 20530 of addressing the needs of the People. Given protect the market without unduly punishing Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Microsoft’s past history of compliance with Microsoft shareholders would be to sever I understand the Courts will make their court orders, I feel that it’s business practices Microsoft into separate companies, and final decision next week on whether the would be difficult to enforce without require that those companies interact with proposed Microsoft settlement benefits the consequences being written into the Final each other in an above-the-board way. They Judgement. public. I’d like to express my feeling on this should use only each others published APIs. Such consequences should be related to issue. There should be clear delineation of the the grant of monopoly for copyrights and Microsoft did not get off easy. The money being spent and earned on individual patents. In effect, should Microsoft continue settlement was arrived at after extensive products. Furthermore I am shocked by the predatory business practices in a negotiations with a court-appointed timing of this agreement. The Justice monopolistic fashion, then the United States mediator. The Company agreed to terms that Department has abandoned all attempts to should revoke the grant of copyright to the extend beyond what was expected in the suit. preserve the appearance of enforcing the law. various versions of Windows software and They also agreed to design future versions A cynical observer might conclude that the Internet Explorer, as well as the foundation of Windows, starting with an interim release defendant in this case was successful in source code. This code would be then be of Windows XP, to provide a mechanism to purchasing influence during the last placed in the public domain. This removes make it easy for computer companies, Presidential election season. the need for monitoring for compliance and consumers and software developers to Thank you for your attention. reminds Microsoft that it undertakes business promote non-Microsoft software within Bill Kirtley; at the discretion of the People of the United Windows. This mechanism will make it easy 117 Newport Street; States. to add or remove access to features built in Arlington MA 02476 to Windows or to non-Microsoft software. Additionally, the issue which is at the MTC–00028306 heart of the case—what constitutes a Consumers will have the freedom to choose computing platform, is clearly left or change their configuration at any time. From: The Young Family unanswered by the proposed final judgement Microsoft really needs to get back to To: Microsoft ATR as written. Without delving into a lengthy business because they helped the economy Date: 1/28/02 2:07pm argument here, at least recognize that support far more than they could ever hurt the Subject: RE. Microsoft Settlement for open source and public standards by economy. Let’s end the litigation!! Please accept the settlement as is. This has which the Internet emerged is clearly a wise Sincerely, got to end. Thank You, and prudent action which encourages Jack Gelin Sondra Young cc: Representative Anthony David Weiner innovation and discourages format lock-in. MTC–00028307 For these reasons and many others, I MTC–00028304 strongly recommend that the court reject this From: [email protected]@inetgw proposed Final Judgement. From: Fred Murhammer To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 2:05pm Chris Arsenault Date: 1/28/02 2:07pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement 67 Pole Bridge Rd. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division N. Scituate, RI 02857 I am opposed to the Department of Justice’s 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 settlement with Microsoft. I believe it is not Washington, DC 20530–0001 MTC–00028302 in the public interest due to the many loop Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: From: Phil Steele holes in the settlement agreement. I believe Please put a stop to the economically- To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ that the nine states which are opposing this draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This Date: 1/28/02 2:03pm settlement are acting in the public interest. I has gone on long enough. Subject: Microsoft Settlement urge the D.O.J. to join forces with these nine Microsoft has already agreed to hide its To Whom It May Concern: states, who are seeking stiffer penalties and Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the As US citizen, I am outraged at our safeguards to be imposed on Microsoft. If the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little government’s prosecution of Microsoft, and I D.O.J. settlement with Microsoft is enacted it more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other believe the whole antitrust case should be will allow Microsoft to return to business as Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel
VerDate 11
going to those supposedly harmed by breaking up certain so-called monopolies. MTC–00028313 Microsoft: the computer user. AT&T was deemed a monopoly while we had From: James Love This is just another method for states to get the best service in the world. Now, no one To: Microsoft ATR free money, and a terrible precedent for the can understand the half-dozen phone bills Date: 1/28/02 2:10pm future, not only in terms of computer received each month from strange sounding Subject: Microsoft Settlement technology, but all sorts of innovations in the phone companies. Phone companies come most dynamic industry the world has ever and go with alarming frequency, and those MTC–00028313—0001 seen. that stay in business seem to be merging all Subject: Microsoft Settlement Please put a stop to this travesty of justice back together. I often wonder if I would have Date: January 28, 2002 now. Thank you. been better off if AT&T had been left alone. To: Renata B. Hesse Sincerely, The same may be true for Microsoft. In any Antitrust Division Mary Ellen Torres event, Microsoft and the Justice Department U.S. Department of Justice 121 Crest Haven Drive have reached an agreement. Microsoft has 601 D Street NW Belleville, IL 62221–4387 agreed to open the company up to third party Suite 1200 MTC–00028308 innovation; has agreed to disclose internal Washington, DC 20530–0001 source codes for Windows; and agreed to an Email: [email protected] From: james bohan (Note: In the Subject line of the e-mail, To: Microsoft ATR oversight committee. This is more than fair. I urge you to give your approval to this type Microsoft Settlement.) Date: 1/28/02 2:08pm Fax 1–202–307–1454 or 1–202–616–9937 Subject: RE: M.S. case agreement. Thank you for your consideration of my From: Ralph Nader I think that at the very least they should P.O. Box 19312 be broken up. In addition, I would views. Sincerely, Washington, DC 20036 recommend that the us gov not spend any James Love Bonnie Wood more money on their operating systems, Consumer Project on Technology cc: Senator Rick Santorum when there are cheaper and better ones out P.O. Box 19367 202–228–0604 there. Washington, DC 20036 MTC–00028309 MTC–00028311 Introduction From: Nutton, Thomas G Having examined the proposed consent From: Hugh B. Brawford final judgment for USA versus Microsoft, we To: ‘‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ To: Microsoft ATR offer the following comments. We note at the Date: 1/28/02 2:07pm Date: 1/28/02 2:08pm outset that the decision to push for a rapid Subject: aol Subject: Microsoft anti- trust settlement negotiation appears to have placed the I believe this can not go forward and in this I support the settlement..it is time to Department of Justice at a disadvantage, encourage our hard working succesful USA will be in the best interest of the USA. Tom given Microsoft’s apparently willingness to businessmen. N. let this matter drag on for years, through Thank you MTC–00028312 different USDOJ antitrust chiefs, Presidents Hugh B. Brawford C.R.S. and judges. The proposal is obviously limited From: Adam C Powell IV in terms of effectiveness by the desire to MTC–00028310 To: Microsoft ATR obtain a final order that is agreeable to From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 2:10pm Microsoft. We are disappointed of course to To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft ‘‘settlement’’ see a move away from a structural remedy, Date: 1/28/02 2:08pm Greetings, which we believe would require less Subject: Microsoft Settlement I am writing to strongly oppose the terms Here is a letter I am trying to fax you. The dependence upon future enforcement efforts of the ‘‘settlement’’ offer in the Microsoft and good faith by Microsoft, and which fax lines are very busy so I’ll give email a try. antitrust case. That Microsoft has violated the (See attached file: BonnieMS.doc) would jump start a more competitive market law is without question. But the proposed for applications. Within the limits of a Bonnie F. Wood settlement in fact rewards that company for Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company conduct- only remedy, we make the its misdeeds, rather than punishing them. I following observations. B3S must remind you that the marginal cost of Bonnie—[email protected] On the positive side, we find the proposed software is a tiny fraction of its retail price, final order addresses important areas where 610–407–1462 and therefore the stated monetary value of fax 302–452–7264 Microsoft has abused its monopoly power, the cost to Microsoft is far in excess of the particularly in terms of its OEM licensing MTC–00028310—0001 actual cost to that company. Furthermore, practices and on the issue of using this ‘‘punishment’’ allows Microsoft to Bonnie Wood interoperability as a weapon against 116 Timber Springs Lane expand its market share in education, which consumers of non-Microsoft products. There Exton, PA 19341 has long been one of their weakest markets. are, however, important areas where the January 28, 2002 In other words, this does not punish interoperability remedies should be stronger. Attorney General John Ashcroft Fax 1–202– Microsoft at all, and in fact rewards their For example, there is a need to have broader 307–1454 lawbreaking activity, handing them more of disclosure of file formats for popular office US Department of Justice Page 1 of 1 a monopoly on a silver platter. productivity and multimedia applications. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW As an administration and political party Moreover, where Microsoft appears be given Washington, DC 20530 which prides itself on being ‘‘tough on broad discretion to deploy intellectual Dear Mr. Ashcroft: crime’’, I would urge you to not reward property claims to avoid opening up its This letter is to give my support to the Microsoft for commiting a crime whose monopoly operating system where it will be Microsoft and Department of Justice impact on society is unmeasurable. The needed the most, in terms of new interfaces settlement. Microsoft is one of our greatest nation awaits your decision, and hopes that and technologies. Moreover, the agreement companies and I resent the government you will bring about justice in this case. appears to give Microsoft too many interference in what is basically competition Sincerely, opportunities to undermine the free software between technology companies. I doubt Adam Powell http://lyre.mit.edu/powell/ movement. whether Microsoft has done anything that the
VerDate 11
of antitrust penalties as a deterrent. Second, agreement. The agreement should require . . . Microsoft has also criticized the the agreement does not adequately address that this information be as freely available as General Public License (GPL) that governs the concerns about Microsoft’s failure to possible, with a high burden on Microsoft to the heart of Linux. Under this license, abide by the spirit or the letter of previous justify secrecy. Indeed, there is ample changes to the Linux core, or kernel, must agreements, offering a weak oversight regime evidence that Microsoft is focused on also be governed by the GPL. The license that suffers in several specific areas. Indeed, strategies to cripple the free software means that if a company changes the kernel, the proposed alternative dispute resolution movement, which it publicly considers an it must publish the changes and can’t keep for compliance with the agreement embraces important competitive threat. This is them proprietary if it plans to distribute the many of the worst features of such systems, particularly true for software developed code externally. . . operating in secrecy, lacking independence, under the GNU Public License (GPL), which Microsoft’s open-source attacks come at a and open to undue influence from Microsoft. is used in GNU/Linux, the most important time when the company has been putting the OEM Licensing Remedies rival to Microsoft in the server market. pricing squeeze on customers. In early May, We were pleased that the proposed final Consider, for example, comments earlier this Microsoft revamped software licensing, order provides for non-discriminatory year by Microsoft executive Jim Allchin: raising upgrades between 33 percent and 107 licensing of Windows to OEMs, and that http://news.cnet.com/news/0–1003–200– percent, according to Gartner. A large these remedies include multiple boot PCs, 4833927.html ‘‘Microsoft exec calls open percentage of Microsoft business customers substitution of non-Microsoft middleware, source a threat to innovation,’’ Bloomberg could in fact be compelled to upgrade to changes in the management of visible icons News, February 15, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PT Office XP before Oct. 1 or pay a heftier and other issues. These remedies would have One of Microsoft’s high-level executives purchase price later on. been more effective if they would have been says that freely distributed software code The action ‘‘will encourage—’force’’ may extended to Microsoft Office, the other key such as Linux could stifle innovation and be a more accurate term—customers to component of Microsoft’s monopoly power that legislators need to understand the threat. upgrade much sooner than they had in the PC client software market, and if they The result will be the demise of both otherwise planned,’’ Gillen noted in the IDC permitted the removal of Microsoft products. intellectual property rights and the incentive report* ‘‘Once the honeymoon period runs But nonetheless, they are pro-competitive, to spend on research and development, out in October 2001, the only way to and do represent real benefits to consumers. Microsoft Windows operating-system chief ‘‘upgrade’’ from a product that is not Interoperability Remedies Jim Allchin said this week. Microsoft has considered to be current technology is to buy Microsoft regularly punishes consumers told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while a brand-new full license.’’ who buy non-Microsoft products, or who fail discussing protection of intellectual property This could make open-source Linux’s GPL to upgrade and repurchase newer versions of rights . . . more attractive to some customers feeling Microsoft products, by designing Microsoft ‘‘Open source is an intellectual-property trapped by the price hike, Gillen said. destroyer,’’ Allchin said. ‘‘I can’t imagine Windows or Office products to be ‘‘Offering this form of ‘‘upgrade protection’’ something that could be worse than this for incompatible or non- interoperable with may motivate some users to seriously the software business and the intellectual- competitor software, or even older versions consider alternatives to Microsoft property business.’’ . . . of its own software. It is therefore good that technology.’’ . . . In a June 1, 2001 interview with the the proposed final order would require What is surprising is that the US Chicago Sun Times, Microsoft CEO Steve Microsoft to address a wide range of Ballmer: again complained about the GNU/ Department of Justice allowed Microsoft to interoperability remedies, including for Linux business model, saying ‘‘Linux is a place so many provisions in the agreement example the disclosures of APIs for Windows cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual that can be used to undermine the free and Microsoft middleware products, non- property sense to everything it touches. software movement. Note for example that discriminatory access to communications That’s the way that the license works,’’1 under J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, protocols used for services, and non- leading to a round of new stories, including Microsoft can withhold technical information discriminatory licensing of certain for example this account in CNET.Com: from third parties on the grounds that intellectual property rights for Microsoft http://news.cnet.com/news/0–1003–200– Microsoft does not certify the ‘‘authenticity middleware products. There are, however, 6291224.html ‘‘Why Microsoft is wary of and viability of its business,’’ while at the many areas where these remedies may be open source: Joe Wilcox and Stephen same time it is describing the licensing limited by Microsoft, and as is indicated by Shankland in CNET.com, June 18, 2001. system for Linux as a ‘‘cancer’’ that threatens the record in this case, Microsoft can and There’s more to Microsoft’s recent attacks on the demise of both the intellectual property does take advantage of any loopholes in the open-source movement than mere rights system and the future of research and contracts to create barriers to competition rhetoric: Linux’s popularity could hinder the development. and enhance and extend its monopoly power. software giant in its quest to gain control of The agreement provides Microsoft with a Special Concerns for Free Software a server market that’s crucial to its long-term rich set of strategies to undermine the Movement goals. development of free software, which depends The provisions in J.1 and J.2. appear to give Recent public statements by Microsoft upon the free sharing of technical Microsoft too much flexibility in withholding executives have cast Linux and the open- information with the general public, taking information on security grounds, and to source philosophy that underlies it as, at the advantage of the collective intelligence of provide Microsoft with the power to set minimum, bad for competition, and, at worst, users of software, who share ideas on unrealistic burdens on a rival’s legitimate a ‘‘cancer’’ to everything it touches. improvements in the code. If Microsoft can rights to obtain interoperability data. More Behind the war of words, analysts say, is tightly control access to technical generally, the provisions in D. regarding the evidence that Microsoft is increasingly information under a court approved plan, or sharing of technical information permit concerned about Linux and its growing charge fees, and use its monopoly power over Microsoft to choose secrecy and limited popularity. The Unix-like operating system the client space to migrate users to disclosures over more openness. In ‘‘has clearly emerged as the spoiler that will proprietary interfaces, it will harm the particular, these clauses and others in the prevent Microsoft from achieving a dominant development of key alternatives, and lead to agreement do not reflect an appreciation for position’’ in the worldwide server operating- a less contestable and less competitive the importance of new software development system market, IDC analyst A1 Gillen platform, with more consumer lock-in, and models, including those ‘‘open source’’ or concludes in a forthcoming report* more consumer harm, as Microsoft continues ‘‘free’’ software development models which . . . While Linux hasn’t displaced to hike up its prices for its monopoly are now widely recognized as providing an Windows, it has made serious inroads. . .] . products. important safeguard against Microsoft . In attacking Linux and open source, Problems with the term and the monopoly power, and upon which the Microsoft finds itself competing ‘‘not against enforcement mechanism Another core Internet depends. another company, but against a grassroots concern with the proposed final order The overall acceptance of Microsoft’s movement,’’ said Paul Dain, director of concerns the term of the agreement and the limits on the sharing of technical information application development at Emeryville, enforcement mechanisms. We believe a five- to the broader public is an important and in Calif.- based Wirestone, a technology services to-seven year term is artificially brief, our view core flaw in the proposed company* considering that this case has already been
VerDate 11
litigated in one form or another since 1994, Microsoft pay for its past misdeeds, and this Each computer based ahrdware and and the fact that Microsoft’s dominance in is an omission that must be remedied. software company seeks to use their the client OS market is stronger today than Microsoft is hardly a first time offender, and innovation over the competition. These it has ever been, and it has yet to face a has never shown remorse for its conduct, competitors just dont have the skill and significant competitive threat in the client OS choosing instead to repeatedly attack the talent to realize the kind of success that has market. An artificial end will give Microsoft motives and character of officers of the come to Microsoft. Please put an end to this yet another incentive to delay, meeting each government and members of the judiciary. matter as clearly as can be done. new problem with an endless round of Microsoft has profited richly from the Thank You!! evasions and creative methods of maintenance of its monopoly. On September David R. Gray, Esq. circumventing the pro-competitive aspects of 30, 2001, Microsoft reported cash and short- ([email protected]) the agreement. Only if Microsoft believes it term investments of $36.2 billion, up from will have to come to terms with its $31.6 billion the previous quarter—an MTC–00028315 obligations will it modify its strategy of accumulation of more than $1.5 billion per From: LETTIE POE anticompetitive abuses. month. To: Microsoft ATR Even within the brief period of the term of It is astounding that Microsoft would face Date: 1/28/02 2:11pm the agreement, Microsoft has too much room only a ‘‘sin no more’’ edict from a court, after Subject: ‘‘Microsoft Settlement’’ to co-opt the enforcement effort. Microsoft, its long and tortured history of evasion of Gentlemen: despite having been found to be a law antitrust enforcement and its extraordinary URGENT REQUEST!!! breaker by the courts, is given the right to embrace of anticompetitive practices— Three years ago, the U. S. Department of select one member of the three members of practices recognized as illegal by all members Justice charged Microsoft with having the Technical Committee, who in turn gets a of the DC Circuit court. The court has a wide engaged in anti-competitive behavior based voice in selecting the third member. The range of options that would address the most on allegations by its top competitors. I feel committee is gagged, and sworn to secrecy, egregious of Microsoft’s past misdeeds. For that Microsoft was singled out in this action denying the public any information on example, even if the court decided to forgo taken, and now I realize that The Justice Microsoft’s compliance with the agreement, the break-up of the Windows and Office parts Department is in the final stages of and will be paid by Microsoft, working inside of the company, it could require more deliberating on the proposed Microsoft Microsoft’s headquarters. The public won’t targeted divestitures, such as divestitures of settlement to decide whether to accept the know if this committee spends its time its browser technology and media player settlement or to litigate it further. playing golf with Microsoft executives, or technologies, denying Microsoft the fruits of Personally, I believe that the proposed investigating Microsoft’s anticompetitive its illegal conduct, and it could require settlement offers a reasonable compromise activities. Its ability to interview Microsoft affirmative support for rival middleware that will enhance the ability of seniors, like employees will be extremely limited by the products that it illegally acted to sabotage. myself, and all Americans, as well, to access provisions that give Microsoft the Instead the proposed order permits the internet and use innovative software opportunity to insist on having its lawyers Microsoft to consolidate the benefits from products to make their computer experience present. One would be hard pressed to past misdeeds, while preparing for a weak easier and more enjoyable. I am e-mailing imagine an enforcement mechanism that oversight body tasked with monitoring future you at this time to request that you not allow would do less to make Microsoft accountable, misdeeds only. What kind of a signal does Microsoft’s competitors to undermine the which is probably why Microsoft has this send to the public and to other large settlement negotiated with the federal accepted its terms of reference. corporate law breakers? That economic government and nine states; although, the In its 1984 agreement with the European crimes pay! settlement is tough on Microsoft as it is, I feel Commission, IBM was required to Please consider these and other criticisms it is a fair outcome for all parties concerned affirmatively resolve compatibility issues of the settlement proposal, and avoid if particularly senior consumers. I feel that it raised by its competitors, and the EC staff possible yet another weak ending to a not only will benefit the seniors, but this had annual meetings with IBM to review its Microsoft antitrust case. Better to send this settlement more importantly will have a very progress in resolve disputes. The EC reserved unchastened monopoly juggernaut a sterner positive impact on the American economy the right to revisit its enforcement action on message. 1 http://www.suntimes.com/ and will help to pull the Country from the IBM if it was not satisfied with IBM’s output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html ‘‘Microsoft jaws of recession in which we have been conduct. CEO takes launch break with the Sun- experiencing over the past year. The court could require that the Times,’’ Chicago Sun Times, June 1, 2001. I feel that consumer interests have been Department of Justice itself or some truly James Love served well, and that now the time has come independent parties appoint the members of Consumer Project on Technology to end this costly and damaging litigation. the TC, and give the TC real investigative P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 Continuing with this legal battle further will powers, take them off Microsoft’s payroll, http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@ only benefit the wealthy competitors, and give them staff and the authority to cptech.org lawyers, and special interest groups. inform the public of progress in resolving voice: 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176 Please do not litigate this matter further, compliance problems, including for example mobile 1.202.361.3040 and go ahead and accept the settlement for an annual report that could include the betterment of the public interest; all the information on past complaints, as well as MTC–00028314 Country. suggestions for modifications of the order From: [email protected]@inetgw Sincerely, that may be warranted by Microsoft’s To: Microsoft ATR Lettie Ann Poe conduct. The TC could be given real Date: 1/28/02 2:10pm 2214 Hemerick Place enforcement powers, such as the power to Subject: Microsoft Settlement!!!!!—-Tunney Clearwater, FL 33765–2227 levy fines on Microsoft. The level of fines Act Period Telephone Number (727) 796–6992 that would serve as a deterrent for cash rich Attn: DOJ and Judge: This note is to E-mail [email protected] Microsoft would be difficult to fathom, but support the proposed settlement in the CC: Lettie Ann Poe one might make these fines deter more by Microsoft case. It is about time this case be directing the money to be paid into trust ended. In all the years of watching litigation, MTC–00028316 funds that would fund the development of this case is the clearest example I have ever From: a p free software, an endeavor that Microsoft has sceen of a competitor induced lawsuit. To: Microsoft ATR indicated it strongly opposes as a threat to its Clearly, the Clinton Adm raised millions and Date: 1/28/02 2:11pm own monopoly. This would give Microsoft a got the Calif. electoral votes in exchange for Subject: Microsoft Settlement much greater incentive to abide by the this case. Further, so called judge jackson Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally- agreement. railroaded Microsoft in every aspect of the I implore you to reconsider the guidelines Failure to address Ill Gotten Gains case. As a CONSUMER the prices paid by me set forth in the Proposed Final Judgment. Completely missing from the proposed and every one else is essentially nominal to Most honorable one, please analyzes the true final order is anything that would make the benefits realised by use of this software. facts in the final settlement and judge
VerDate 11
accordingly. In the past week it has been Settleing this case is the right thing to do. Sue N. Hertzog brought to my attention a most astonishing Respectfully, 248 Hwy 289N development in the MS case. A Final Grant Young Ash Flat, AR 72513 Settlement has been reached between the two 3000 Grand Avenue, #910 MTC–00028320 parties. However, based on the details Des Moines, Iowa 50312 provided to me, the PFJ overturns findings by [email protected] From: Stephen Calandrino the U.S. Court of Appeals indicts Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR on violating antitrust laws. After further MTC–00028318 Date: 1/28/02 2:13pm review of the proposed settlement I find it From: richard sonnier Subject: Microsoft Settlement hard to believe the Justice Department would To: Microsoft ATR 8 Domidion Court withdraw their charges against Microsoft. In Date: 1/28/02 2:06pm Middletown, New Jersey 07748 fact, based on the assessments made on the Subject: [Fwd: Microsoft kills Real World/ January 3, 2002 proposal, Microsoft will go scotch free from Great Plains Classic] Attorney General John Ashcroft any charges of wrong doing in the matter. direct quote from letter to customers dated US Department of Justice How can this be? january 22,2002. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW There are several glaring flaws in the PFJ. ‘‘Your Microsoft Great Plains Classic Washington, DC 20530 However, non-so more apparent than accounting solution (peviously known as Dear Mr. Ashcroft: allowing an absentee landlord to govern Real World Classic) has benn an important I am writing you to express my belief that Microsoft. With all due respect, the final part f both your and our business success, the time has come to end the Microsoft settlement provides no security to restrict MS Since it has been available many companyies antitrust case. The Justice Department’s from breaking any laws in the future. In my have relied on Classic to accurately track and proposed settlement plan should be humble yet accurate opinion, the future report financial information, we are proud to implemented immediately. governing body, implementing certain rules have played a role in your business in the I believe the plan is more than fair from the or regulations and forcing MS to adhere by past and we hope to play that role in the complainants’’ standpoint. The procedures them, will not be stringent nor forceful future.’’ and policies Microsoft will adopt exceed the enough to make any dramatic changes. ‘‘due to the flexibility of Windows-based original demands of its competitors. Similarly, I am not convinced that these products, sales of Classic have been Microsoft will have to share code, change stiff penalties applied to MS will ensure the dropping, with demand for technical support marketing and licensing practices, and security and future growth of other steadily declining. submit to government oversight. The companies. A stiffer penalty and a whole TEREFORE WE ARE ANNOUNCING company will open itself up to more than new framework of laws must be established THAT TELEPHONE SUPPORT OF CLASSIC mere market competition; it will be required to justly punish MS. The Proposed Final WILL END JANUARY 31,2003, AND to aid its competitors. This is more than Judgment abstains from such justification ELECTRONIC SUPPORT WILL END sufficient. and order. I conclude therefore by objecting MARCH31,2003, iN ADDITION SALES OF This company should be allowed to return to the business of developing and producing to the Proposed Final Judgment. CLASSIC WILL END JUNE 30,2002, THIS the world’s most accessible computer All the Best, NOTICE GIVES YOU ADEQUATE TIME TO systems. It’s time to end this case. Ariel Paraso WEIGH YOUR OPTIONS AND DETERMINE Sincerely, 3450 West 8539 South YOUR NEXT STEP’’ Stephen Calandrino West Jordon, UT 84088 1. CLASSIC RUNS ON MANY PLATFORMS (UNIX,DOS,IBM,SUN, HP) MTC–00028321 MTC–00028317 AND THE ONLY OPTIONS GIVEN TO From: [email protected]@inetgw From: Grant Young(b) CUSTOMERS IS CONVERT AT EXTREME To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR EXPENSE TO ‘‘WINDOWS-BASED’’. Date: 1/28/02 2:11pm Date: 1/28/02 2:11pm 2. THE SALES AND SUPPORT ARE Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement DECLINING BECUASE MICROSOFT HAS Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division January 28, 2002 NOT FURNISHED ANY 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney ENCHANCEMENTS!!!! Washington, DC 20530–0001 Antitrust Division—US Department of Justice 3. MICORSOFT PURCHASED GREAT Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: 601 D Street NW—Suite 1200 PLAINS WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY Please put a stop to the economically- Washington, DC 20530 PURCHASED REAL WORLD LESS THEN 1 draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This [email protected] YEAR AGO. has gone on long enough. Attorney Hesse: AND ARE NOT ELIMINATEING 20,000+ Microsoft has already agreed to hide its I am emailing to urge the approval of the USERS PF OTHER PLATFORMS. tHIS IS A Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF ANTITRUST. fact is, this case against Microsoft is little The DOJ, Microsoft and the Attorney BY THE WAY MICROSOFT DID THE more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Generals that have signed onto this case EXACT SAME THING ‘‘FOX SOFTWARE’’ Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel deserve enormous credit for finding a way to BOUGHT/CHANGED TO FOXPRO going to those supposedly harmed by settle this case. ‘‘WINDOWS-BASE:’’ AND ELIMINATED Microsoft: the computer user. Our economy is the envy of the rest of the OTHER PLATFORMS. This is just another method for states to get world because we have created a successful RICHARD L. SONNIER free money, and a terrible precedent for the free-market based competition. As with any GULF CENTRAL SYSTEMS future, not only in terms of computer competition there are winners and losers. 800 MIRE STREET technology, but all sorts of innovations in the Microsoft has been the leader of the software HOUMA, LA 70364 most dynamic industry the world has ever industry for so many years because they 985–851–6674 seen. create good products at a decent price. The [email protected] Please put a stop to this travesty of justice people who run this company have worked now. Thank you. MTC–00028319 hard to achieve this and work even harder to Sincerely, protect the companies leading status. From: James Hertzog Americo Cardillo While there are those who believe To: Microsoft ATR 168 Lake Garden Dr. Microsoft has engaged in unfair practices and Date: 1/28/02 2:12pm Cranston, RI 02920 even harmed consumers, I fail to see where Subject: microsoft this has been proven over the last 4 years of Dear Mr. Ashcroft: MTC–00028322 this case. I believe that many of those Why are you not letting Microsoft get back From: Bryce Carey involved in this case have come to see it is to work? Please encourage research and To: Microsoft ATR a losing battle. Microsoft will not be broken development in our country instead of Date: 1/28/02 2:11pm up. persecuting it. Subject: Microsoft Settlement
VerDate 11
Hello, Accept the settlement and let the industry Please strike down this proposal, and I understand you are collecting comments move forward. continue to pursue a solution which on the proposed Microsoft settlement under Thank you for taking the time to listen to adequately addresses past Microsoft actions, the provisions of the Tunney Act. Please my concerns. and prevents future abuses. count me as an interested party (consumer Jules Feldmann, CPA Sincerely, and citizen) who is OPPOSED to the [email protected] John A. Watlington settlement as it currently stands. 4 Pinewood Rd. MTC–00028324 I would like to see the settlement re- Acton, MA 01720 negotiated with terms that are more carefully From: D P selected to protect competitors to Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028326 and especially to change the provisions that Date: 1/28/02 2:15pm From: Philip I. Long could potentially allow Microsoft to inhibit Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR competition from non-commercial software Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, Date: 1/28/02 2:15pm projects such as the Open Source software I oppose the proposed resolution in the MS Subject: Microsoft Settlement available on the GNU/Linux platform. As a case, better know as the Proposed Final As I’m sure many have pointed out, the Monopoly, Microsoft must be actively Judgment. Over and above the usual current settlement is deficient for many restricted from tilting the proverbial ‘‘level economic risks presented by an unchecked reasons. I would like try to summarize the playing field’’ by their legal and marketing monopolist—rising prices and most important issues as I see them: influences. I do not think the current monochromatic innovation the nations Microsoft was found to be a monopolist settlement proposal does enough to assure a computer infrastructure will be increasingly due to the applications barrier to entry. fair competitive environment. vulnerable to attack if a single software Microsoft has shown itself very adept at Thank you, system predominates. leveraging it’s desktop monopoly to creating Ralph Bryce Carey Obviously I am referring to Microsoft. barriers to entry, as well as defending that [email protected] Suppose that 80 or 90percent of the desktop monopoly. Therefore an effective Instructional Specialist, world’s grain supply came from a single settlement must take into account that the Aztec Middle College, variety of corns. We would be faced with the monopolist is strong, smart, unrepentant, and unacceptable risk that some single disease, Tucson Unified School District resistant to any measures that diminish it’s might wipe out an enormous portion of our Tucson, Arizona control. food supply. Having only one kind of The necessary and sufficient remedy to a MTC–00028323 operating system or one kind of browser monopolist is the possibility for competition From: Jules Feldmann would make it terribly easier for saboteurs to in this case, several things would be helpful To: Microsoft ATR bring the entire Internet to its knees. For one to allow this to occur: Date: 1/28/02 2:16pm entity, such as Microsoft, to control 80 to 90 1) Microsoft must lack the ability to use Subject: Microsoft Settlement percent of the market for PC operating intellectual property protection (patents, January 28, 2002 systems, Internet browsers, e-mail readers, trade secrets, etc.) to prevent —any— entity and office productivity software is clearly a TO: Renata B. Hesse (company, open source coalition, etc.) to significant security risk. To then allow that U.S. Department of Justice create and distribute (in any way they monopoly to actively attempt to drive out its In 1976, I purchased a computer to use in choose) their own implementation of remaining competition would hardly be in my business. It was an IBM and I was forced Microsoft functionality in any of their the public interest. Diversity is the key in to use their proprietary ‘‘operating system.’’ products. In other words, they must not be producing economic prosperity and Application programs for this computer were allowed any means to stop another entity improving the society as a whole. limited as to vendors because each vendor from creating and distributing their own It’s now up to you, Judge Kollar-Kotally, to had to develop their software for use on a implementation of anything they want. decide whether the proposed settlement specific machine or operating system. 2) Microsoft must expose the functional between Microsoft and the DoJ is a correct specifications of all of their products so that When Microsoft entered the scene, they and just solution. However I believe it utilized an ‘‘open architecture’’ approach contains too many loopholes to create the others could implement them. This includes allowing their ‘‘operating system’’ to utilize desired effect, changing MSs behavior, let protocols, file formats, APIs, etc. It should any brand of computer. Because their alone bring forth a certain types of diversity also include all information it’s own ‘‘operating system’’ was not specific to a which would enhance our security. developers have regarding future directions. particular hardware brand, the soffware Kind Regards, I should emphasize that I believe that application developers were able to write Debbie Paraso Microsoft has a right to keep secret their own application programs that would work on 3450 West 8539 South implementation. Requiring the monopolist to any computer running the DOS operating West Jordon, UT 84088 publish the source code to all of their system. Because of this ‘‘open architecture’’ software (without granting the license to we consumers were given the choice of many MTC–00028325 copy or compile it) would be effective, but more computer hardware manufacturers, From: [email protected]@inetgw would go too far in my opinion. rather than being limited to the To: Microsoft ATR 3) Microsoft should be prohibited from manufacture’s computer that ran our Date: 1/28/02 2:17pm using their PC desktop monopoly to promote intended application. Subject: Microsoft Settlement (in any way) other business initiatives. There are several operating systems As a professional developing both Eastman Kodak’s experience with their photo available that offer an alternative to MS DOS computer hardware and software, I feel that software is telling cautionary tale on this or Windows. Microsoft has been a boon to the proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft point. As is AOL’s/Real’s struggles with the the small business computer user and to the will not prevent Microsoft from continuing to MS media player. In particular, the control U.S economy as well. act contrary the the best interest of the Microsoft aims to obtain with passport is in The government’s antitrust activities public. need of very close scrutiny. Any effective directed at Microsoft has damaged our In particular, non-profit organizations are settlement should prevent the monopolist economy to a much greater extent than particularly harmed by allowing Microsoft to from approaching these or other initiatives in leaving Microsoft to the forces of a free refuse cooperation. If non-profit this manner. market. organizations developing software for free 4) Any settlement should prohibit I believe in free markets and I am distribution are not in the public interest, Microsoft from taking any action that convinced that a new competitor would have what is ? Microsoft became the unstoppable discourages alternative desktop operating eventually developed a challange to behemoth that it is today through unsavory system adoption. A particularly egregious Microsoft by offering a viable alternative. and illegal commercial tactics. It must be examples is the rumored OEM license It is time for the government to stop held accountable and punished. agreement prohibiting the ability to boot to pursuing this destructive course of antitrust The proposed DOJ settlement appears to be other operating systems if a Microsoft prosecution. written by Microsoft, for Microsoft. operating system is also present. This works
VerDate 11
to prevent Dell, Gateway, etc. from giving the operational obfuscation that the likes of IBM, A one time legal business charge this past public an option to have a PC that would Sperry-Rand, Digital Equipment Corporation, year, of 2/3 of a billion dollars to defend multiboot BE, Linux, etc. in addition to Varian, ATT and others carefully nurtured itself from its own government, is outrageous. windows. Clearly this helps the monopolist prior to the 1980’s. The U.S. government is very concerned about maintain it’s monopoly, but hurts consumers. For this, Microsoft is being punished under what Enron did to their employee’s Another example would be discontinuing the guise that they have engaged in anti- retirement funds and they should be. But on existing support of on alternative platforms. competitive behavior. Do you remember the a much larger scale, the government should Microsoft should be prohibited from, for way ATT handled the release of the original look at what their actions did to the example, releasing windows versions of MS Kernigan and Ritchy UNIX into the public Microsoft stockholders’’ retirement funds. Office without simultaneously releasing a domain and the antics of the ‘‘UNIX We look forward to your leadership of Mac version. I would not go so far as to say Consortium’’? That was anti-competitive bringing the Gov. vs. Microsoft’s legal case to that they should be forced to release a Linux behavior. Nothing breeds contempt like an end and focus on the real threat against version of Office, but that would be nice (and success. However, in the interest of wrapping the U S.- the terrorist. I’d buy it if they did even at full retail of $500 up this suit, I support Microsoft’s decision to Thank you. or whatever they are charging these days). be bound by the terms of the settlement Sincerely, 5) Because the harm they cause is hidden agreement. Steve and Suzanne Orton in secret agreements, Microsoft should be Microsoft has gone so far as agreeing to cc: Representative Darrell Issa disclose to its competitors various interfaces prohibited from keeping secret any contracts MTC–00028329 they enter into. internal to the Windows operating system. As They should all be available for public a development systems engineer, I find From: [email protected]@inetgw review. nothing inhibiting about the public To: Microsoft ATR I believe that Microsoft would balk at any interfaces. They have also agreed not to take Date: 1/28/02 2:21pm settlement that effectively addressed any of action against those who violate Microsoft’s Subject: I support the settlement these points. That they object should not be intellectual property rights. Similarly, they Rose Ryba Pomeranz of any concern to the public or justice will not take action against computer 16 High Meadow Lane because they benefit from intellectual manufacturers who ship computers Oyster Bay Cove, NY 11771 containing the competition’s software. property laws (cf their BSA campaign). As Settling this case is in the best interests of MTC–00028330 they have built their corporation on the all involved. I urge the Court to approve this From: Lee Kenna benefit of these laws and have been found to settlement agreement. Thank you. To: Microsoft ATR have gone too far and become a monopoly, Sincerely, Date: 1/28/02 2:20pm they must be subject to measures that could Peter Olend Subject: Microsoft Settlement not be fairly applied to an entity that had not I believe that the Proposed Final violated the law to the detriment of MTC–00028328 Judgement in the Microsoft case is flawed, consumers. I do not expect them to take From: Chauncey Orton principally because it allows continued kindly to the notion that they must compete To: Microsoft ATR ‘‘bolting’’ of non— integral software to the on price and quality alone, but it would be Date: 1/28/02 2:18pm Windows operating system, in such a way as of great benefit to consumers, innovation, Subject: Microsoft Settlement to minimize the opportunity for other (non and the global economy if they had to. Attached is our pro-opinion for the -Microsoft) competing products in the market I urge the Department of Justice to ensure settlement of the Microsoft case. space for these types of non—integral that any settlement effectively address these CC: [email protected]@inetgw software. Competitiveness and the American concerns. 29651 Wilhite Lane economy are not served by allowing Thank You, Valley Center, CA 92082 Microsoft, in spite of the Judges’’ ruling that Philip Long January 27,2002 they had acted unlawfully, to continue these 373 Daniels Rd. Attorney General John Ashcroft practices. Barboursville, VA 22923–2808 US Department of Justice Respectfully, — 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Lee M. Kenna Phil Long Washington, DC 20530 CEO Lead Software Applications Development Dear Mr. Ashcroft: SIMCO Electronics Engineer, The MITRE Corporation’s Approval of the Microsoft case settlement 1178 Bordeaux Drive Center for Advanced Aviation System will be in the best interests of America. The Sunnyvale, Ca. 94089 Development case has gone on long enough for the parties Tel 408–734–9750 Voice: (703) 883–5810 Fax: (703) 883–1367 to state their cases and present their MTC–00028331 MTC–00028327 evidence. Also, the settlement addresses all the issues in the litigation and goes beyond From: G M From: Peter Olend the scope of the litigation. The parties could To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR agree to terms beyond the litigation, but the Date: 1/28/02 2:20pm Date: 1/28/02 2:16pm judge would be restricted to only the formal Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement issues. So, the settlement is better than Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, 4848 Carberry Creek Road anything even the judge could do. What is I am opposed to the back-room deal cut Jacksonville, OR 97530–9329 more, the settlement means that there would between Microsoft and the DoJ. Several close January 15, 2002 be no time consuming and potentially friends and relatives have informed of this Attorney General John Ashcroft derailing court proceedings. The economy matter entailing a proposed settlement, US Department of Justice does not have stability needed for growth notoriously understood as the Proposed Final 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW when one of America’s leading industries is Judgment. Truthfully from where I sit, I dont Washington, DC 20530–0001 in an unsettling wrangle. like what I see. Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: The settlement will provide greater I cant believe the Justice Dept. threw out I was pleased to hear that the Department flexibility, cooperation and stability within all court findings indicting Microsoft for all of Justice and many of the states decided to the information technology industry. illegal activities. First of all the Proposed settle the Microsoft antitrust case. I would Microsoft will open up its business practices Final Judgment grants MS a government like the judge handling the case to approve and software code. A committee of mandated monopoly that threatens to destroy the settlement. technically skilled and recognized software any and all serious Microsoft competitors. Im In my opinion, this case should never have engineering expert parishioners will see that all for free enterprise and what it symbolizes. been brought against Microsoft. Through the terms are followed and hear and To strike a huge blow against the spirit of free hard work and innovation, Microsoft has investigate any complaints. enterprise, one need not look any further changed our world for the better. Microsoft Enriching our legal system further is than to allow MS to monopolize every sector, has broken the inter-operability barrier and counter productive to expanding businesses. whether it is the gaming industry or the
VerDate 11
software industry, by eradicating most if not allowed to compete fairly with Microsofts products that benefit the public. As a all competitors. By all means diversity is one products. All Microsoft Office file formats software developer who uses Internet essential ingredient in maintaining a healthy should be standardized with an open API so Explorer in most of my projects, I’ve never industry and more importantly a thriving that anyone wishing to compete with an understood the lawsuit. Why so much economy. Office-like package could do so fairly. attention was directed at I.E. hurting I submit my disapproval to the Proposed Microsoft should not under any consumers and competitors I will never Final circumstances be allowed to ship any know. No modern OS would be complete Judgment. additional Microsoft software product free of without a web browser. In addition, I.E. is a Kind Regards, charge along with their Windows operating fantastic product that provides features and Gladys Montefrio system. The only exceptions to this rule functionality that have always surpassed any 6024 Palamino Court should be utilities such as Notepad, WordPad other products on the market. Please accept Stockton, CA 95210 and the various command line utilities that this document into record as evidence of one currently ship with Windows. Internet consumer, developer and taxpayer who MTC–00028332 Explorer should not ship as a free part of agrees with settlement hopes to see the case From: McGreal, Martin P. Microsoft Windows. Neither should come to a close. To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Microsoft Money. No Microsoft software that Sincerely, Date: 1/28/02 2:40pm competes with another software product John Warner Lewin Subject: Microsoft Settlement should be included with the operating CC:[email protected]@inetgw This settlement proposal—agreed to by the system. If other competing products are DOJ and all but nine states— seems offered for download for free from MTC–00028336 alarmingly lenient for a company that was competitor’s sites, then Microsoft should be From: Ajay Ramachandran proven not only to be an illegal monopoly, allowed to offer free downloads for those To: Microsoft ATR but to have repeatedly abused that monopoly. kinds of products, but should not be allowed Date: 1/28/02 2:25pm I vehemently oppose this settlement, to ship those with the operating system. If Subject: Microsoft Settlement. wishing for more austere punishment of the they are allowed to do so, they are unfairly Hello, defendant, as well as provisions for the extending their monopoly power. If Microsoft I wanted to write saying that the current prevention of future monopolisic abuse by so wishes to ship a software product in with settlement in the case seems to be a the defendant. their operating system, they should have to reasonable one. While I understand that some Sincerely, submit that request to a third party changes might be necessary I think it very Martin McGreal committee that would vote on whether or not important that the consumers be the ones St Louis, MO to allow said inclusion, but only after a 90 who gain from any settlement or settlement modification. In this regard specifically it just MTC–00028333 day period whereby anyone wishing to protest said inclusion is given the does not make sense to entertain other From: Argo, Rich W. opportunity to do so before the committee in competitor wishes, they really ought to work To: Microsoft ATR person, via email or paper mail. with their customers to provide better Date: 1/28/02 2:10pm If Microsoft is found to have violated any products for them instead of attacking Subject: Microsoft Settlement part of the settlement they should be fined Microsoft, I believe that the proposed settlement is a a minimum of $1 billion. On the surface, this Sincerely, bad idea. may sound like an exorbant amount. Ajay S. Ramachandran, First and foremost, the proposed settlement However, nothing short of this will likely Redmond, WA. primarily deals with Microsoft’s dealings prevent Microsoft from violating the MTC–00028337 with OEMs. While this is a start, it does not settlement and adequately punish them if go nearly far enough. they do. From: [email protected]@inetgw It also does not appear to enable OEMs to Thank you, To: Microsoft ATR ship a PC with no operating system on it at Richard W. Argo Date: 1/28/02 2:27pm all. Many users wish to install Linux, Web Designer, McLeodUSA Subject: Microsoft Settlement FreeBSD or many other free and open source I’m writing to express my reservations operating systems and should not be forced MTC–00028334 about the proposed settlement of the anti- to pay for an operating system that they do From: Andrew Hagel trust case between the United States (as not want to use. To: ‘‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ represented by the Justice department) and Furthermore, additional provisions need to Date: 1/28/02 2:26pm Microsoft Corporation. I speak as a concerned be implemented in the settlement that will Subject: RE: United States v. Microsoft citizen with broad and significant computing force Microsoft to make versions of Microsoft Settlement experience. I’ve used computers in various Office available for the 3 most popular Dear Sir or Madam: capacities for over twenty years and have desktop operating systems Currently that After reviewing the documents concerning worked with half a dozen different operating would be Linux, Macintosh and Windows. the case, it is my personal opinion that the system families, including the complete Currently Microsoft only produces versions remedies currently proposed by the Microsoft family of products from MS-DOS to for Windows and Macintosh. Macs aren’t Department of Justice are in the best interests XP. I also have wide experience with many used in the business world very much and of the consumer, and that the marketplace is computer applications from both Microsoft are more expensive relative to Intel-based the appropriate competitive venue, as and other parties. PCs—which is what Microsoft Windows runs opposed to the court system. I have provided network and systems on. If there was a version of Office available Yours truly, administration of Microsoft and Linux for Linux, there would then be a choice for Andrew Hagel systems on a part-time basis and rely on consumers that use Intel processors. This CC:’andrewhagel(a)mediaone.net’’ secure and stable computing environments in would open up competition for operating my primary occupation as a research and systems on the Intel processing platform as MTC–00028335 development consultant to startup medical many businesses are reluctant to switch to From: [email protected]@inetgw device companies. another OS since they may not be able to run To: Microsoft ATR The proposed settlement offers insufficient Office applications. In order to help enforce Date: 1/28/02 2:25pm redress of Microsoft’s previous wrongs and the spirit of this proposal, provisions would Subject: Microsoft Settlement provides too little protection from this have to be implemented to force Microsoft to I would like it to be known that I fully company’s ongoing anti-competitive release versions of Office concurrently on all support the settlement proposed by the practices. While a just settlement should platforms. Government and Microsoft. This decision address Microsoft’s past practices, I am more Additionaly, all Windows API’s should be will bring about stability and confidence to concerned that a settlement provide adequate open so that competitors that wish to the technology sector and conclude a case protection to consumers, competitors, and produce software for Windows would be that I strongly disagree with. Microsoft makes indeed the economy as a whole, from
VerDate 11
Microsoft’s ongoing and likely future anti- of other ills created by this induced market Microsft deems it appropriate to reveal the competitive practices. failure, the most obvious of which are problem. Microsoft’s bad citizenship in With the release of it’s latest, highly- increased prices and lower product quality. regard to security is dangerous and should integrated operating system product, XP, Indeed, Microsoft has managed to defy the not be tolerated. A properly formulated Microsoft has demonstrated that it has no trends toward lower price and higher quality settlement of the current case should include intention of voluntarily curbing the sorts of that typify all other aspects of the computer measures to force Microsoft to follow a more predatory anti-competitive practices that industry. As hardware has become ever more appropriate security model. have enabled it prosper at the expense of capable and less expensive, the cost of the Microsoft’s anti-competitive practices are competitors and consumers alike. In my software provided by Microsoft has remained not merely illegitimate and contrary to the experience, succeeding generations of high and improvements in quality have been principles of market capitalism and free Microsoft operating system products have slow and ‘‘grudging’’ at best. An overall effect enterprise, they greatly harm the American integrated increasing numbers of middleware of these opposing trends has been that people in a significant number of concrete applications, and the configuration tools Microsoft has been able to garner an ways. The proposed settlement fails to needed to replace these applications with increasing, and I would say, excessive address these ills in any meaningful sense. It third party products have become more fraction of every dollar spent on computers. needs to be reformulated to provide obscure and less effective, locking many Microsoft is richly rewarded by the market appropriate and strong protection of the consumers into a monolithic, Microsoft-only distortions that it has been able to engineer. market and the people from Microsoft’s environment. It is time for these distortions to come to an rapacious and counterproductive practices. A The lack of choice implied by Microsoft’s end, and for the market to freely assert itself. strong and effective settlement would not monolithic model of computing is contrary to Then the winners will be not only the only serve the cause of justice, it would the workings of free market enterprise and is consumers, who will get better quality at a preserve an important sector of the United ultimately harmful to consumers. It is lower price, but other hardware and software States’’ economy from unnecessary harm. apparent that this trend has the goal of producers who will be able to command a It is imperative that the Justice department maintaining and expanding Microsoft’s more equitable share of the revenues from act in a wise and decisive manner and dominant position in the desktop computing their products. prevent Microsoft from continuing to isolate marketplace. In the long run, Microsoft’s illegitimate itself from market discipline via unfair and The unnecessarily tight integration of domination of the domestic information illegitimate means. middleware applications into its operating technology (IT) market threatens the United Michael Satteson, system products is far from the only States’’ preeminent position in the St. Paul, MN illegitimate tool that Microsoft has used to international IT marketplace. Though [email protected] dominate the desktop market in the United Microsoft has a global reach, it is clear that MTC–00028337—0004 States. Microsoft has plausibly been accused its market power is neither as pervasive nor of: extorting exclusive installation of its as potent as it is domestically. Because these MTC–00028338 products on computers by OEM overseas markets are less burdened by From: Leonard Bernstein manufacturers via differential pricing, of Microsoft’s stifling anti-competitive To: Microsoft ATR corrupting open software standards to gain practices, they can be more efficient and Date: 1/28/02 2:26pm exclusive access to important domains of innovative. If this disparity is allowed to Subject: RE: Microsoft settlement computing, and waging so-called FUD (fear, persist, it is likely that the United states will Please accept the Microsoft settlement and uncertainty and doubt) campaigns against suffer an erosion of its now strong position bring this matter to closure. competitors and consumers. An appropriate in the world IT economy. The best way for Thank you, settlement would address not only the the United States to prevent this Leonard Bernstein particulars of continued forced, artificial deterioration is to open the domestic market integration of its products but as many of the to free and fair competition by preventing MTC–00028339 other tools against free competition that Microsoft from exerting its anti-competitive From: j rim Microsoft has been using as is possible. It is tools to distort the domestic IT market. To: Microsoft ATR bad public policy and poor economics to Microsoft has a history of using its market Date: 1/28/02 2:29pm allow a single entity to maintain its position dominance to gloss over security problems Subject: Microsoft Settlement in the marketplace via unfair and illegal with its products. Rather than act quickly to Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, practices. Among the particular adverse patch and publicize its security I object to the so-called Proposed Final effects of Microsoft’s continued anti- vulnerabilities, Microsoft uses all means at Judgment in to Microsoft case. competitive behavior are: stifled innovation, its disposal to suppress news of and As every one knows, Microsoft continues corruption of the marketplace, deterioration information about its security problems. This to violate anti-trust laws set in place many of the United State’s position in the world’s ‘‘security through obscurity’’ approach is years ago. The Proposed Final Judgment goes information technology economy and well know to be one of the worst possible against all logic. Previously the US Court, has unnecessary security vulnerabilities. responses to computer security problems; it found Microsoft guilty of breaking the anti- Though Microsoft claims to be a leader in leaves the computing community open to trust laws. However, under the proposed innovation, the record suggests that it is security problems for much longer than is final settlement, MS is permitted to retain instead a follower (or perhaps a gatekeeper) necessary. It is typical for weeks or even most of its profits gained through their illegal of innovation. The Netscape saga illustrates months to pass between the discovery of a activities. The PFJ will not compensate this point. Microsoft failed to take the Microsoft security flaw and the company’s parties injured by the Microsoft debacle. internet and its potential seriously until issuance of a proper security patch. This poor The PFJ does not take into account all web’s usefulness and the great value of security behavior is completely unacceptable Microsoft gains made through its illegal effective browser technology were in the face of the heightened security maneuverings. The final settlement basically demonstrated by Netscape. Once Netscape concerns following the events of September acknowledges the acceptance of Microsofts was too successful to ignore, Microsoft used 11. Though Microsoft has recently paid lip anti-competitive behavior. What kind of all of the anti-competitive tools at its disposal service to improving the security of its message does this send out to the public? Do to neutralize Netscape. If Microsoft is products, it has shown no inclination to you think the public will be in favor of such allowed to escape effective punishment for replace its antiquated and dangerous security a move? this infraction, it will continue its current model with a more open, proactive and The PFJ encourages big corporations to practices and will be a brake on rather than effective model. Indeed, its recently issued engage in monopolistic and predatory an engine of innovation. This result would be code of security ethics for Microsoft conduct, which in turn is detrimental to the a loss for everyone, except perhaps Microsoft. professionals calls for strict adherence to the technology industry at large. With all due The stifling of innovation is just one of security through obscurity model. This code respect your honor, I am outraged at such a many symptoms of the market distortion dictates that these professionals’’ paying preposterous proposal that only helps created by Microsoft’s all too effective use of customers be kept in the dark regarding Microsoft to remain intact and continue with anti-competitive tactics. There are a number security vulnerabilities until such time as its unethical practices. Thus, I object to this
VerDate 11
Proposed Final Judgment. It solves nothing in produce that worked with a lot of different precipitated by the lawsuit, and we need to the matter. hardware, which allowed the price of a PC focus on more important matters than Sincerely, to be affordable. They and there work has nitpicking over what should be the final Simplicio, Tualla Jr. only benefited the public, the US economy, decision in the Microsoft lawsuit. 8959 Tam OShanter Dr. and most of Microsoft’s competitors. After Microsoft has also been more than Stockton, CA 95210 all, Where would AOL be today if no accommodating with the demands from the Microsoft? Do we want to distort the Justice Department. Microsoft has agreed to MTC–00028340 marketplace and get rid of Microsoft? What a technical committee to oversee future From: [email protected]@inetgw does this tell the next Microsoft? Don’t be too compliance (consisting of software engineers, To: Microsoft ATR successful or the government will get rid of not lawyers); Microsoft has agreed to a Date: 1/28/02 2:28pm you. Is this what the free enterprise system uniform price list; Microsoft has agreed to Subject: Microsoft Settlement is all about? A monopoly is the result of good internal interface disclosure; Microsoft has 2185 W 6410 N business moves against bad business moves. agreed to open the company up to third party Brigham City, UT 84302 This is All about Microsoft’s competitors innovation. This is more than fair. January 25,2002 wanting the Government (States and Federal) I urge you to give your support to this Attorney General John Ashcroft to do what they couldn’t, which is compete. agreement. US Department of Justice Thanks, Sincerely, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Richard Deno Melvin Young Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00028342 22 Club Drive Dear Mr. Ashcroft: illicothe, OH 45601 For nearly four years now, the Microsoft From: The Young Family antitrust case has been mired in the federal To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028343 courts. Finally, after six months of Date: 1/28/02 2:28pm From: Cheryl Stearn negotiation, Microsoft and the Department of Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Justice were able to reach an agreement, and ——- Original Message ——- Date: 1/28/02 2:29pm in November, their settlement was proposed. From: Microsoft’s Freedom To Innovate Subject: Microsoft Settlement That settlement is currently pending Network
VerDate 11
concerned that the company has shown an I strongly believe that Microsoft and the Microsoft has, in the face of legal action, ongoing history of using its monopoly American public deserve a fair, equitable, monopolized the internet browser market, position to overtake and overwhelm and timely settlement of the Microsoft and is in the process of creating a monopoly competitors. Microsoft’s ‘‘shadow’’ on the dispute. Microsoft is the firm that ‘‘got their in audio-visual software with Windows software and IT industry is huge. They have first’’ and through their innovative Media Player. The new Windows XP the ability to out-spend and out-last almost technologica and economic skills built the operating system requires users to register all of their competitors, and if they don’t do business that exists today. The entire with Microsoft. This is just the first part of that, they try to buy them out. With their new technological industry is exploding now and a plan to maintain a comprehensive database products such as Windows XP, Xbox game growth has it’s own momentum. Much of it of almost all computer users. It will then be console, PocketPC handheld computers, they is due to Microsoft that got the ball rolling. used to monopolize internet commerce using continue the same behavior. Now is the time to quit the haggling and let the .NET and Passport services being I am not a person that usually writes letters Microsoft get on with its business, deployed by Microsoft. This is all being done such as this, but because of my involvement unencumbered by repeated challenges. with blithe disregard to the antitrust findings in the IT industry and the importance for the I became a small stockholder in the 1980’s made by the U.S. court. This attitude (being future, I felt compelled to write. The recent because my intuition told me they were on above the law) was plainly evident in the events with Enron only highlight more fully track. They had the key that opened the door demeanor of Bill Gates during the trial. to me that the US Government has a definite then, and I believe they still are a wonderful Microsoft has preferred to spend vast oversight responsibility in industry. I do not example of American ingenuity in an open quantities of money to make the case go believe that market forces alone will protect market. Have me become a nation that away, mostly playing a game of delaying against abuse. Microsoft has been found to be punishes the successful? I hope not. tactics. I feel this settlement gives them a monopoly that misuses its position to Sincerely, exactly what they want, and is antithetical to protect and grow its markets. That behavior Rose Musacchio any concept of fairness. must be stopped. Please reconsider the 52 Bader Avenue Microsoft will probably try to ‘‘stuff the decision and make strong, enforceable Gowanda,NY 14070 ballot box’’ with comments in favor of the structural changes in Microsoft for the good settlement. It is a well known Microsoft tactic of consumers and the industry. The US MTC–00028347 to use pseudo-’grassroots’’ marketing efforts Government dealt with monopolistic issues From: [email protected]@inetgw on internet newsgroups and bulletin boards, with IBM and the industry did not disappear. To: Microsoft ATR and I expect them to do that in this instance. Neither did IBM. I believe that the entire Date: 1/28/02 2:31pm I urge the court to see through this computer industry will be better off with a Subject: Supporting microsoft underhanded scheme and make a decision stronger penalty for Microsoft. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: based on logic, precedent and fairness. Sincerely yours, I am writing to express to you my approval I am a computer user who uses several William W. McLendon, Jr. of the recent settlement in the antitrust different systems: Macintosh, Linux and 7905 Agape Lane dispute between Microsoft and the Windows, and I am deeply concerned about Waxhaw, NC 28173 Department of Justice. The economy needed the future and what choices we consumers [email protected] this settlement. The decline in the stock will have. Thank you very much for your market began with the attacks on Microsoft. time. I’m confident you will do the right MTC–00028345 I sincerely hope litigation on any level is thing. From: Robert Lancaster terminated. Thank you for your time and Tom O’Toole To: Microsoft ATR please put me down in favor of the 5885 El Cajon Blvd. #317 Date: 1/28/02 2:30pm settlement. San Diego, CA 92115 Subject: microsoft settlement Sincerely, [email protected] In regard to the settlement between Mona Abele MTC–00028349 Microsoft Corporation and the Department of Marietta, OH Justice: On the findings of the District Court From: [email protected]@inetgw and the Court of Appeal, the settlement is no MTC–00028348 To: Microsoft ATR more than a gift from the DOJ to Microsoft, From: Tom O’Toole Date: 1/28/02 2:33pm giving it the right and power to continue its To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Re: MS Settlement monopolistic and predatory practices in spite Date: 1/28/02 2:33pm Dear Madam: of the above- mentioned legal judgements. In Subject: To the District Court: Microsoft The communication below states far more fact, its monopoly power would be Antitrust case... ably than I the reason the proposed DOJ/MS effectively increased by the failure to require January 28, 2002 settlement is so objectionable. It simpley will anything which would restrict the ability of Honorable Court Officials, not break the monopoly. If there is anti-trust XP, Hailstorm, and Microsoft’s other current I am writing today because I have been law, if anti-trust law applies to MS and since releases to control the user’s access to the made aware of the Tunney Act permitting MS has violated anti-trust law, then how will Internet and the World Wide Web and public comment on the proposed settlement the proposed settlement break MS monopoly. prevent any other competing innovative between the U.S. Department of Justice and It simpley will not. products from obtaining a foothold. A radical Microsoft Corp. James Sturdevant modification of what appears to be a I strongly believe that the proposed Subject: Microsoft Settlement shameful collusion to allow Microsoft to settlement does little or nothing to curb the Date: January 28, 2002 continue business as usual in defiance of the anticompetitive practices of which Microsoft To: Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division legal judgements of the courts is imperative has been found guilty. In particular, the U.S. Department of Justice for the continuance of free development, settlement doesn’t resolve the issue of 601 D Street NW innovation, and entrepreneurship in this software bundling, which is a fundamental Suite 1200 country (and even to some extent in the part of the case against Microsoft. Under the Washington, DC 20530–0001 developed world). terms of the settlement agreement, Microsoft Email: [email protected] Robert Lancaster will essentially be given carte blache to (Note: In the Subject line of the e-mail, 145 Fairview Lane, Paso Robles, CA include whatever software components they type Microsoft Settlement.) Fax 1–202–307– desire into the Windows system which is 1454 or 1–202–616–9937 MTC–00028346 pre-installed on approximately 90% of From: Ralph Nader From: [email protected]@inetgw computer systems sold, and which has been P.O. Box 19312 To: Microsoft ATR shown to have a monopoly market. This Washington, DC 20036 Date: 1/28/02 2:31pm permits them to continue to use their James Love Subject: microsoft settlement operating system monopoly to create Consumer Project on Technology To the Department of Justice: monopolies in new markets, directly counter P.O. Box 19367 1/28/02 to antitrust law. Washington, DC 20036
VerDate 11
Introduction Interoperability Remedies told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while Having examined the proposed consent Microsoft regularly punishes consumers discussing protection of intellectual property final judgment for USA versus Microsoft, we who buy non-Microsoft products, or who fail rights . offer the following comments. We note at the to upgrade and repurchase newer versions of ‘‘Open source is an intellectual-property outset that the decision to push for a rapid Microsoft products, by designing Microsoft destroyer,’’ Allchin said. ‘‘‘‘I can’t imagine negotiation appears to have placed the Windows or Office products to be something that could be worse than this for Department of Justice at a disadvantage, incompatible or non- interoperable with the software business and the intellectual- given Microsoft’s apparently willingness to competitor software, or even older versions property business.’’ let this matter drag on for years, through of its own software. It is therefore good that In a June 1, 2001 interview with the different USDOJ antitrust chiefs, Presidents the proposed final order would require Chicago Sun Times, Microsoft CEO Steve and judges. The proposal is obviously limited Microsoft to address a wide range of Ballmer: again complained about the GNU/ in terms of effectiveness by the desire to interoperability remedies, including for Linux business model, saying ‘‘Linux is a obtain a final order that is agreeable to example the disclosures of APIs for Windows cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual Microsoft. and Microsoft middleware products, non- property sense to everything it touches. We are disappointed of course to see a discriminatory access to communications That’s the way that the license works,’’1 move away from a structural remedy, which protocols used for services, and non- leading to a round of new stories, including we believe would require less dependence discriminatory licensing of certain for example this account in CNET.Com: upon future enforcement efforts and good intellectual property rights for Microsoft http://news.cnet.com/news/0–1003–200– faith by Microsoft, and which would jump middleware products. There are, however, 6291224.html ‘‘Why Microsoft is wary of start a more competitive market for many areas where these remedies may be open source: Joe Wilcox and Stephen applications. Within the limits of a conduct- limited by Microsoft, and as is indicated by Shankland in CNET.com, June 18, 2001. only remedy, we make the following the record in this case, Microsoft can and There’s more to Microsoft’s recent attacks on observations. does take advantage of any loopholes in the open-source movement than mere On the positive side, we find the proposed contracts to create barriers to competition rhetoric: Linux’s popularity could hinder the final order addresses important areas where and enhance and extend its monopoly power. software giant in its quest to gain control of Microsoft has abused its monopoly power, Special Concerns for Free Software a server market that’s crucial to its long-term particularly in terms of its OEM licensing Movement The provisions in J.1 and J.2. goals practices and on the issue of using appear to give Microsoft too much flexibility Recent public statements by Microsoft interoperability as a weapon against in withholding information on security executives have cast Linux and the open- consumers of non-Microsoft products. There grounds, and to provide Microsoft with the source philosophy that underlies it as, at the are, however, important areas where the power to set unrealistic burdens on a rival’s minimum, bad for competition, and, at worst, interoperability remedies should be stronger. a ‘‘cancer’’ to everything it touches. legitimate rights to obtain interoperability For example, there is a need to have broader Behind the war of words, analysts say, is data. More generally, the provisions in D. disclosure of file formats for popular office evidence that Microsoft is increasingly regarding the sharing of technical productivity and multimedia applications. concerned about Linux and its growing information permit Microsoft to choose Moreover, where Microsoft appears be given popularity. The Unix-like operating system secrecy and limited disclosures over more broad discretion to deploy intellectual ‘‘has clearly emerged as the spoiler that will property claims to avoid opening up its openness. In particular, these clauses and prevent Microsoft from achieving a dominant monopoly operating system where it will be others in the agreement do not reflect an position’’ in the worldwide server operating- needed the most, in terms of new interfaces appreciation for the importance of new system market, IDC analyst A1 Gillen and technologies. Moreover, the agreement software development models, including concludes in a forthcoming report. appears to give Microsoft too many those ‘‘open source’’ or ‘‘free’’ software * While Linux hasn’t displaced Windows, opportunities to undermine the free software development models which are now widely it has made serious inroads. . . ]. . In movement. recognized as providing an important attacking Linux and open source, Microsoft We also find the agreement wanting in safeguard against Microsoft monopoly power, finds itself competing ‘‘not against another several other areas. It is astonishing that the and upon which the Internet depends. company, but against a grassroots agreement fails to provide any penalty for The overall acceptance of Microsoft’s movement,’’ said Paul Dain, director of Microsoft’s past misdeeds, creating both the limits on the sharing of technical information application development at Emeryville, sense that Microsoft is escaping punishment to the broader public is an important and in Calif.- based Wirestone, a technology services because of its extraordinary political and our view core flaw in the proposed company. economic power, and undermining the value agreement. The agreement should require Microsoft has also criticized the General of antitrust penalties as a deterrent. Second, that this information be as freely available as Public License (GPL) that governs the heart the agreement does not adequately address possible, with a high burden on Microsoft to of Linux. Under this license, changes to the the concerns about Microsoft’s failure to justify secrecy. Indeed, there is ample Linux core, or kernel, must also be governed abide by the spirit or the letter of previous evidence that Microsoft is focused on by the GPL. The license means that if a agreements, offering a weak oversight regime strategies to cripple the free software company changes the kernel, it must publish that suffers in several specific areas. Indeed, movement, which it publicly considers an the changes and can’t keep them proprietary the proposed alternative dispute resolution important competitive threat. This is if it plans to distribute the code externally. for compliance with the agreement embraces particularly true for software developed Microsoft’s open-source attacks come at a many of the worst features of such systems, under the GNU Public License (GPL), which time when the company has been putting the operating in secrecy, lacking independence, is used in GNU/Linux, the most important pricing squeeze on customers. In early May, and open to undue influence from Microsoft. rival to Microsoft in the server market. Microsoft revamped software licensing, OEM Licensing Remedies Consider, for example, comments earlier raising upgrades between 33 percent and 107 We were pleased that the proposed final this year by Microsoft executive Jim Allchin: percent, according to Gartner. A large order provides for non-discriminatory http://news.cnet.com/news/0–1003–200– percentage of Microsoft business customers licensing of Windows to OEMs, and that 4833927.html ‘‘Microsoft exec calls open could in fact be compelled to upgrade to these remedies include multiple boot PCs, source a threat to innovation,’’ Bloomberg Office XP before Oct. 1 or pay a heftier substitution of non-Microsoft middleware, News, February 15, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PT purchase price later on. changes in the management of visible icons One of Microsoft’s high-level executives The action ‘‘will encourage—’force’’ may and other issues. These remedies would have says that freely distributed software code be a more accurate term—customers to been more effective if they would have been such as Linux could stifle innovation and upgrade much sooner than they had extended to Microsoft Office, the other key that legislators need to understand the threat. otherwise planned,’’ Gillen noted in the IDC component of Microsoft’s monopoly power The result will be the demise of both report. ‘‘Once the honeymoon period runs in the PC client software market, and if they intellectual property rights and the incentive out in October 2001, the only way to permitted the removal of Microsoft products. to spend on research and development, ‘‘upgrade’’ from a product that is not But nonetheless, they are pro-competitive, Microsoft Windows operating-system chief considered to be current technology is to buy and do represent real benefits to consumers. Jim Allchin said this week. Microsoft has a brand-new full license. ‘‘’’
VerDate 11
This could make open-source Linux’s GPL playing golf with Microsoft executives, or technologies, denying Microsoft the fruits of more attractive to some customers feeling investigating Microsoft’s anticompetitive its illegal conduct, and it could require trapped by the price hike, Gillen said. activities. Its ability to interview Microsoft affirmative support for rival middleware ‘‘Offering this form of ‘‘upgrade protection’’ employees will be extremely limited by the products that it illegally acted to sabotage. may motivate some users to seriously provisions that give Microsoft the Instead the proposed order permits Microsoft consider alternatives to Microsoft opportunity to insist on having its lawyers to consolidate the benefits from past technology.’’ present. One would be hard pressed to misdeeds, while preparing for a weak What is surprising is that the US imagine an enforcement mechanism that oversight body tasked with monitoring future Department of Justice allowed Microsoft to would do less to make Microsoft accountable, misdeeds only. What kind of a signal does place so many provisions in the agreement which is probably why Microsoft has this send to the public and to other large that can be used to undermine the free accepted its terms of reference. corporate law breakers? That economic software movement. Note for example that In its 1984 agreement with the European crimes pay! under J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, Commission, IBM was required to Please consider these and other criticisms Microsoft can withhold technical information affirmatively resolve compatibility issues of the settlement proposal, and avoid if from third parties on the grounds that raised by its competitors, and the EC staff possible yet another weak ending to a Microsoft does not certify the ‘‘authenticity had annual meetings with IBM to review its Microsoft antitrust case. Better to send this and viability of its business,’’ while at the progress in resolve disputes. The EC reserved unchastened monopoly juggernaut a sterner same time it is describing the licensing the right to revisit its enforcement action on message. [email protected] system for Linux as a ‘‘cancer’’ that threatens IBM if it was not satisfied with IBM’s the demise of both the intellectual property conduct. MTC–00028349 0007 rights system and the future of research and The court could require that the MTC–00028350 development. Department of Justice itself or some truly From: Scott Shriver The agreement provides Microsoft with a independent parties appoint the members of To: Microsoft ATR rich set of strategies to undermine the the TC, and give the TC real investigative Date: 1/28/02 2:33pm development of free software, which depends powers, take them off Microsoft’s payroll, Subject: Microsoft Settlement upon the free sharing of technical and give them staff and the authority to To Whom It May Concern: information with the general public, taking inform the public of progress in resolving I hope it’s not too late to voice my advantage of the collective intelligence of compliance problems, including for example objection to any plan requiring Microsoft to users of software, who share ideas on an annual report that could include provide computers to schools as part of a improvements in the code. If Microsoft can information on past complaints, as well as settlement in the tightly control access to technical suggestions for modifications of the order DOJ’s antitrust suit against the corporation. information under a court approved plan, or that may be warranted by Microsoft’s As the computer lab supervisor in an Ohio charge fees, and use its monopoly power over conduct. The TC could be given real middle school, I never thought I’d see the day the client space to migrate users to enforcement powers, such as the power to when I’d turn down the possibility of free proprietary interfaces, it will harm the levy fines on Microsoft. The level of fines computer equipment or software. We sure development of key alternatives, and lead to that would serve as a deterrent for cash rich could use whatever assistance may be a less contestable and less competitive Microsoft would be difficult to fathom, but provided in our goal of increasing student platform, with more consumer lock-in, and one might make these fines deter more by access to computers and the Internet. The more consumer harm, as Microsoft continues directing the money to be paid into trust substantial costs of modern technology to hike up its prices for its monopoly funds that would fund the development of makes it difficult to provide quality products. free software, an endeavor that Microsoft has technology instruction in any but the most Problems with the term and the indicated it strongly opposes as a threat to its affluent schools. I know the objective is to enforcement mechanism Another core own monopoly. This would give Microsoft a penalize Microsoft in a way that helps our concern with the proposed final order much greater incentive to abide by the nation succeed in reforming and invigorating concerns the term of the agreement and the agreement. our public school system, but as well- enforcement mechanisms. We believe a five- Failure to address Ill Gotten Gains meaning and obvious as this solution may to-seven year term is artificially brief, Completely missing from the proposed seem, to give such a ‘‘gift’’ of computers will considering that this case has already been final order is anything that would make create several potential difficulties. litigated in one form or another since 1994, Microsoft pay for its past misdeeds, and this I have used ‘‘Wintel’’ computers for many and the fact that Microsoft’s dominance in is an omission that must be remedied. years and have only recently replaced worn- the client OS market is stronger today than Microsoft is hardly a first time offender, and out machines with comparable Apple iMac it has ever been, and it has yet to face a has never shown remorse for its conduct, computers. I have used identical software on significant competitive threat in the client OS choosing instead to repeatedly attack the both machines and find that the Macintosh market. An artificial end will give Microsoft motives and character of officers of the is far easier to instruct with and keep yet another incentive to delay, meeting each government and members of the judiciary. running. Maintenance and troubleshooting new problem with an endless round of Microsoft has profited richly from the time has been slashed. Networking, even evasions and creative methods of maintenance of its monopoly. On September between Macintosh and Windows machines circumventing the pro-competitive aspects of 30, 2001, Microsoft reported cash and short- has never been easier. Our school is now the agreement. Only if Microsoft believes it term investments of $36.2 billion, up from reaching the conclusion of a long process of will have to come to terms with its $31.6 billion the previous quarter—an migrating to the Mac platform. obligations will it modify its strategy of accumulation of more than $1.5 billion per Apple has worked hard, I am sure to anticompetitive abuses. month. maintain a niche in the education market and Even within the brief period of the term of It is astounding that Microsoft would face has rebounded from recent economic the agreement, Microsoft has too much room only a ‘‘sin no more’’ edict from a court, after problems. They would have difficulty to co-opt the enforcement effort. Microsoft, its long and tortured history of evasion of competing with a company that is literally despite having been found to be a law antitrust enforcement and its extraordinary giving away their products to schools. The breaker by the courts, is given the right to embrace of anticompetitive practices— proposed settlement will cost Microsoft some select one member of the three members of practices recognized as illegal by all members money, to be sure. But the gains made by the the Technical Committee, who in turn gets a of the DC Circuit court. The court has a wide company as it seeks to make inroads into the voice in selecting the third member. The range of options that would address the most education sector will, I believe, more than committee is gagged, and sworn to secrecy, egregious of Microsoft’s past misdeeds. For make up for the heartburn of giving away denying the public any information on example, even if the court decided to forgo product. In fact, I would liken this settlement Microsoft’s compliance with the agreement, the break-up of the Windows and Office parts solution to Brer Rabbit’s briar patch: they and will be paid by Microsoft, working inside of the company, it could require more may complain about the cost, but they would Microsoft’s headquarters. The public won’t targeted divestitures, such as divestitures of relish the opportunity to get away with a know if this committee spends its time its browser technology and media player forced increase in marketshare. It is my
VerDate 11
opinion that to provide any settlement to Sparks, NV 89434 Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm Microsoft which would erode Apple’s ability Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028352 to continue to provide great service and To whom it may concern, equipment to the education market does a From: Steve Bentley I have used Microsoft products for many disservice to the corporation as well as to To: Microsoft ATR years. I want you to know that I believe their schools. Date: 1/28/02 2:34pm products are superior in many ways to their Couldn’t Microsoft be asked to provide Subject: Microsoft Settlement competitors. I enjoy the fact that many of either free technology OR a comparable Dear Sirs: their products are integrated into their amount of money that might be used to I am writing this in regards to the proposed operating system. This is a feature that is purchase technology of choice for the Microsoft settlement. I am against accepting very useful for people like me, with little schools? the proposal as currently understood. computer savvy. Thank you for your time and attention. Perhaps it is only my naivety that I Even though I don’t consider myself a Very sincerely, continue to imagine that one of the roles of technical wizard, I am by no means a hapless R. Scott Shriver government is to protect the little guy from victim who cannot choose software that is R. Scott Shriver those more powerful then himself. In that useful to me. And I do not think that the Talawanda Middle School voice: vein, Microsoft is the bully on the block that government has any right to decide what can 513.523.1989 us little people need government to step in be in my computer. Also, I resent the idea 4030 Oxford-Reily Road fax: 513.523.5144 and protect us from. The ‘‘slap on the wrist’’ that a successful business and its products Oxford, OH 45056–8943 email: provided by the settlement as currently are a threat to anyone, especially me. [email protected] proposed does not, in my view, do any more This antitrust case was brought about by than say to Microsoft that it is acceptable to Microsoft’s whiny competitors, not MTC–00028351 continue to be the bully on the block. This disgruntled customers. Failed businesses From: E F proposed settlement would be akin to telling must not be allowed to set the rules for the To: Microsoft ATR the bully at school to give back 1 cent of markets in which they failed. Continued Date: 1/28/02 2:33pm every dollar extorted from your classmates, application of the antitrust laws against Subject: Microsoft Settlement hardly a just penalty. successful businessmen can only lead to Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, Thank you for considering my arguments corruption and economic disaster as shown I honorably object to the Proposed Final against accepting the proposal before you. in many other countries. Judgment in the Microsoft case. There are Sincerely, I want to see an America where success is several flaws with in the final proposal. One Steve Bentley not discouraged or punished, but embraced noticeable error is keeping Microsoft intact 187 W Randall Ave. and held as a goal for others to reach for. I and not severely admonishing them for Norfolk, VA 23503 want a free America where anyone with violating anti-trust laws. Another apparent (757) 583–5919 enough intelligence and hard work can be a defect entails the ineptitude to establish an [email protected] self-made man like Microsoft Chairman Bill effective mechanism that implements MTC–00028353 Gates. restrictions or regulations on MS. From: Mildred/Jerry And lastly, and most importantly, As stated in the proposed settlement, To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft has a fundamental right to its Microsoft must comply with restrictions Date: 1/28/02 2:33pm property. It is the government’s job to protect encompassed in the agreement. A three man Subject: 910 Hester Drive this right, not to take it away. compliance team will oversee and insure that 910 Hester Drive Regards, Microsoft comply with the stated rules and Harrison, AR 72601 Clayton Fellner regulations. Taking a closer look however, January 25, 2002 3813 Harrison Drive this three-man oversight team will be Attorney General John Ashcroft Carrollton, TX 75010 composed of the following: one appointee US Department of Justice CC:’activism(a)moraldefense.com’’ from the Justice Department, one appointee 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MTC–00028355 from Microsoft, and another appointee Washington, DC 20530 chosen by the two existing members. In turn, Dear Mr. Ashcroft: From: Andrew Johnson Microsoft will control half of the oversight I am writing to express my support of the To: Microsoft ATR team. settlement reached between the Justice Date: 1/28/02 2:35pm Yet, in the likelihood of any enforcement Department and Microsoft in the antitrust Subject: Microsoft Settlement proceeding, all findings by the oversight case in federal court. It is my belief the current proposed committee will not be allowed into court. I am glad that this case is in its final stages. settlement with Microsoft is insufficient to The sole purpose of the committee is to Microsoft and its competition have spent far punish Microsoft for illegally attempting to inform the Justice Department of all too much time competing in court rather than extend its desktop operating systems infractions by Microsoft. Subsequently the in the marketplace. The case has drained monopoly and to prevent it from re- Justice Depart will launch its own resources on both sides for far too long and attempting illegal activities in the future. investigation into the matter and commence should be brought to an end as soon as While I believe an oversight board is litigation to halt all infractions. possible. necessary to ensure Microsoft’s compliance What does this all mean? Translation- the In order to foster greater competition and with the court’s ruling, I do not believe an oversight committee purely is an absentee consumer choice, Microsoft has agreed to oversight board alone is enough. landlord, who will not scrutinize Microsofts design future versions of Windows to provide In the past, Microsoft has used its control business dealings. Therefore in all fairness, a mechanism to make it easier for computer of proprietary protocols and application the Proposed Final Judgment does not makers, consumers and software developers programming interfaces (APIs), and sufficiently provide the appropriate to promote non-Microsoft software within extensions to open protocols and APIs, to restrictions or penalties placed on Microsoft. Windows. It is in the public’s best interest to prevent third party software from interacting What reassurance do we have that Microsoft implement this agreement so that the properly with Windows. This has forced will not continue to abuse it monopoly industry and consumers can take advantage users wanting to use these protocols with position and break the anti-trust laws? I can of the new opportunities for competition and Windows to use other Microsoft software, assure you that the Proposed Final Judgment choice. rather than third party software. It is also will not effectively address the question in Sincerely, clear Microsoft intends to use similar tactics this matter. Therefore I respectfully submit to Jerry Roberts to establish a lock on Internet traffic and e- the court my objection to this Proposed Final cc: Representative Bob Stump commerce through its control of .NET/ Judgment. HailStorm, MSN, and its other online Sincerely, MTC–00028354 properties. By causing Windows to require Eric Fontanilla From: FELLNER, CLAYTON use of Microsoft online properties such as 1855 Baring Blvd Apt 2105 To: ‘‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Passport, and building hooks to other
VerDate 11
Microsoft online properties into Windows, Corporation has been trying to corner the business would significantly help end the Microsoft hopes extend its desktop operating computer market for nearly a decade. This recession; spending tax money on more system monopoly to control the Web sites a latest move in attempting to get what is litigation certainly would not help the user sees and uses on the Internet. Businesses essentially a governmental exemption from national recovery. trying to reach consumers via the Internet antitrust laws. Please do all you can to stop I run a small business and have been a will have to do business with Microsoft or this abuse of our justice system and to help Microsoft user since the mid-80s. I have been lose a vast majority of their audience. us retain our free market system. Competition using Microsoft not because they were a I propose two additions to the settlement is vital to our survival as a nation. Please monopoly holding a gun to my head, but that will hopefully deny Microsoft the ability don’t let Microsoft have their way with us because they have created decent and useful to illegally extend their current monopoly and our government. Thank you for your products. We don’t use them for all our into new markets while allowing the time. needs; and in fact use Novell and IBM/Lotus company to retain its current monopoly and Sincerely, for our networking requirements because of its ability to innovate: Adam S. Hammill their features and benefits. I don’t like their (1) Require Microsoft to publish all of its 1247 W. 30th St. #117 latest activation’’ policies on XP products, proprietary application programming Los Angeles, CA 90007 but not once have I felt ‘‘trapped’’ or interfaces (APIs) and protocols, and require (323) 733–5381 ‘‘manipulated’’ into having to buy, use or its software to comply with published CC:[email protected]@inetgw upgrade Microsoft products. protocols. By forcing Microsoft to publish all Please—can’t we, for the public good, just MTC–00028357 of its proprietary protocols and APIs, the get this case over with, and let Microsoft and settlement would ensure non-Windows From: Tom Ulrich others in the industry get back to the software could interoperate freely with To: Microsoft ATR business of computers. Windows desktop software. Microsoft would Date: 1/28/02 2:36pm Sincerely, also be required to comply with public Subject: Microsoft Case Concerns Thomas Ulrich specifications from third parties, since it has Please see the attached letter with cc: Senator Mike DeWine ‘‘embraced and extended’’ public protocols comments and concerns. MTC–00028358 in the past in such a way as to prevent users Thank you. from using third party software with Tom Ulrich From: thunderhawk Windows. The oversight board, in addition to Arthur N. Ulrich Company To: Microsoft ATR ensuring Microsoft publishes all of its [email protected] Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm protocols and APIs, would monitor Microsoft 800–848–2090 Subject: Microsoft settelment for compliance with its own standards and 1≤ARTHUR N. ULRICH COMPANY FAX Dennis C. Daggett standards published by others. It would 740–927–6017 363 Center Road receive and investigate complaints from third 10340 PALMER RD. S.W. PATASKALA, Lopez Island, WA 98261–8298 parties questioning the corporation’s OHIO 43062 740–927–8244 TOLL FREE Jnauary 28, 2002 compliance, and take appropriate action if 800–848–2090 Attorney General John Ashcroft Microsoft was found to be incorrectly January 26, 2002 US Department of Justice implementing standards to lock users into Attorney General John Ashcroft 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW using only Microsoft software. US Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530 (2) Require Microsoft to divest MSN and its 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Dear Mr. Ashcroft: other online properties, and bar it from Washington, DC 20530 I am writing today to encourage the owning online services in the future. This Dear Mr. Ashcroft Department of Justice to accept the Microsoft will prevent Microsoft from using its desktop Why is there hesitation in Washington to antitrust settelment. The issue was brought monopoly to gain a monopoly on Internet finalize the settlement in the Microsoft case? about by the former administration that traffic in general and Internet-based e- The cost to the taxpayers of this nation for simply did not understand the technology commerce in specific. Microsoft would be the government’s attacks on one of our industry. They ignored one of the things that free to develop innovative new software nation’s most successful companies has been makes our country the best in the world, our solutions, but would be unable to use them enormous. Not only have we funded what free enterprise system. Then to top it all off, to coerce users to use its online services only. appears to be a vindictive attack via our tax they extended their socialistic philosophy to Adding these provisions to the Microsoft dollars; we have watched billions or trillions apply antiquated antitrust laws to a band anti-trust settlement will both tangibly of dollars in value evaporate from our new industry. punish Microsoft for attempting to illegally personal investments, our profit sharing In the free market, Microsoft rose to the top extend its monopoly and help prevent it from programs, and our retirement and mutual because they had the best products. Their doing the same in the future. Microsoft’s funds as the market values of Microsoft and products are user friendly and Microsoft has monopoly in desktop operating systems other technology related firms fell made them very easy to integrate and at would remain intact, as well as Microsoft’s precipitously as a direct result of the lower cost than the alternitives. It is no freedom to innovate. These measures would government’s illogical efforts. wonder that where people had a choice most force the corporation to be a good industry I’m just a middle class American and a choose Microsoft software. Under the terms citizen by denying it the capability to take small time investor, but the losses on just the of the settelment Microsoft has agreed to advantage of its desktop operating system 200 shares of Microsoft stock I owned was allow computer makers the flexibility to monopoly to dominate other markets. nearly equivalent to one-year s tuition and install and promote any software they see fit. Thank you for your time and board for my daughter at Miami University. Microsoft has also agreed not to enter into consideration. That is not an insignificant amount to me, any agreement that would require a computer Lawrence Andrew Johnson and it is the Justice Department I have maker to use a fixed percentage of Microsoft [email protected] viewed though this process as the ‘‘enemy’’ software. I beleive that computer makers will of the consumer, not Microsoft! The continue to predominatly pre install MTC–00028356 posturing of the Department and that of many Microsoftware because it is the best and most From: Cheeseater state attorney generals lining up for their computer buyers will chose a Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR ‘‘dibs’’ reminds me a bunch of blood sucking windows based computer when making a Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm parasites. new perchase. This is not a monoply Subject: Microsoft Settlement My suspicion is that there must be BIG problem, Microsft simply is, supplying a Dear Judge Kotelly, MONEY SPECIAL INTERESTS that prodded better product and most people know it. I have been informed that you have the the original investigations and that must My experiance as supervisor of an electric responsibility of reviewing the Microsoft continue to do so, and that disturbs me. In power generation plant for over 15 years, antitrust case. I wanted to take a second of a market economy, the government generally offered me the oppertunity to try many your time to express my opinion on this should not take ‘‘sides’’ in commercial and brands of computer software products and matter. As many know, the Microsoft marketing issues Letting Microsoft get back to computer equipment. What I found over time
VerDate 11
was that even when cost was not a that. They have agreed not to retaliate against When I first got into computers it was 1995 consideration, products that were not competitors, which is a move that will boost and I thought Windows 95 would be the way Microsft based, did not perform satisfactorly. competition and result in an overall better to go. The price was better than Apple Microsoft products and windows based product. This will encourage people to hit Macintosh and the whole platform seemed computers were simply the best. On top of the stores, which will push up the economy. better for programmers. After a short time I that we experianced significant savings over Everyone wins. became frustrated by the stability of other options. Sure Microsoft has made a lot I support this settlement, and urge you to Windows so I began searching for a better of money, but can you imagine the cost to the implement as soon as possible. alternative. people of our nation if Microsoft and all they Sincerely, Then fortune struck! It was late 1996 and have provided for us vanished or had never Helen Bauch I was looking through a Macintosh related existed? This is my plea for justice in our cc: Representative Darrell Issa magazine when I came across an article about mecanized and technological society. Helen Bauch the BeBox by Be, Incorporated. This brand Microsoft has gotten to where they are by Food Smarts new and highly innovative computer had developing better products, not by crushing 1119 S. Mission Rd. PMB317 dual processors and ran the Be operating their competitors. Fallbrook, CA 92028–3225 system, all of which was engineered from the This suit and the fact it has gone on for (760) 731–9911 FAX (760) 731–9922 ground up to be modern, or as they called it, over three years is simply mind-boggling. It MTC–00028361 a system for the next millennium. I hopped is time to end it. DO NOT PUNISH on the Internet right away and looked into From: Paul Tait MICROSOFT FOR BEING BETTER. Please buying one of these BeBoxes and found to my To: Microsoft ATR acept the Microsoft antitrust settelment. surprise that I could get one for a very good Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm Sincerely, price. This system made me happy because Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dennis C. Daggett I never had any mysterious system problems 26484 Carrington Boulevard that required me to waste my time MTC–00028359 Perrysburg, OH 43551 reinstalling as I had done many times with From: Jason Irwin January 28, 2002 Windows. To: Microsoft ATR Attorney General John Ashcroft Soon thereafter BeOS was up and running US Department of Justice Date: 1/28/02 2:35pm on Intel compatible computers and being a 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: Microsoft Settlement total computer geek I had always wanted a Washington, DC 20530 I am a concerned citizen who does not laptop computer. So in 1998 I purchased a Dear Mr. Ashcroft: think that Microsoft should have been Dell Inspiron 3000, which I had figured I am what you is usually called a ‘‘head granted the Proposed Final Judgment by the would be able to run BeOS. I was right, Be hunter’’. I try to find qualified personnel for Justice Department. Please review these had the resources to make this possible and companies. I therefore have a good idea of proceedings so that Microsoft will not have I was able to stay current with their latest how the business world is doing, or not a monopoly. There are laws in place to developments. doing. Unfortunately, it is not doing very There is an alternate side to this Dell ensure that there are not monopolies in well, and I put much of the blame for this computer. It was purchased only weeks business in the US and I think they should on the antitrust suit brought against before Windows 98 was released yet I did not be abided by. Microsoft. This case was totally unwarranted. get any credit for the purchase and was given Jason Irwin All these firms started out on the same an ugly hacked version of Windows 95 that 510 Irving Ave playing field. made it look like Windows 98. Here’s another San Jose, CA 95128 Microsoft is a firm that created a product reason I’m very upset by Microsoft. To my 408–977–1512 that people wanted. Bill Gates standardized absolute horror this unstable factory CC:[email protected]@inetgw computer software, allowing the average installation only lasted about a week before person to understand computers, and MTC–00028360 I had to do a clean install of Windows! You’ll computer programs. There was no need to From: Helen Bauch have five different programs to do a note that this is the one of the disputed To: Microsoft ATR spreadsheet. Bill Gates simply was the best factors in the antitrust case, the tying in of Date: 1/28/02 2:36pm at giving the consumer what they wanted. Internet Explorer to Windows 95 is not only Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft has been more than a questionable business practice, but it made Food Smarts accommodating to the Department of my brand new very expensive computer a 1119 S. Mission Rd. Justice’s demands. Microsoft has agreed to a pile of junk. Fallbrook, CA 92028 technical committee to oversee future I called Dell about this and since it was a January 24, 2002 adherence; Microsoft has agreed to grant software problem they brushed it off. I then Attorney General John Ashcroft computer makers broad new license to called Microsoft and before I even talked to US Department of Justice configure Windows as to promote non- an actual person I was informed that I would 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft software; Microsoft has agreed to have to pay them money to even talk to Washington, DC 20530 terms that extend far beyond the products anyone! I instantly hung up the phone and Dear Mr. Ashcroft: and procedures that were actually at issue in felt angry, sad, and helpless to this ugly For over three years the Department of the original suit. situation. I thought to myself, ‘‘why after Justice and the Microsoft Corporation have Let’s put this matter to rest. I urge you to having spent over $3000 am I being treated been pouring millions of dollars down the give your support to this agreement. We need this way?’’ It was at this time that I decided drain due to court costs. The antitrust suit to help our country get beyond this pettiness. I did not agree with the Microsoft End User that was filed against Microsoft has not only Sincerely, License Agreement and called Dell back to cost these two entities millions, but look at Paul M.Tait see about getting compensation for this. Dell what happened to the market after the suit Consulting and Recruiting told me it would not be possible. was launched. The suit has cost more than paulm—[email protected] I eventually brushed it off because I was millions, just look at the recession that it has (419)874–1500 primarily a BeOS user and had great hope partially caused. Perrysburg, Ohio 43551 that Be would be able to continue developing Although the suit should have never been their amazing OS. Unfortunately, Microsoft’s initiated to begin with, I am relieved to see MTC–00028362 stranglehold made it nearly impossible for that a settlement has been reached. The From: Peter Schultz BeOS to be installed on factory systems and settlement is the best thing that could have To: Microsoft ATR now the result is that for all anyone knows, happened to the antitrust case, and it will Date: 1/28/02 3:38pm BeOS will never be updated again! Palm, Inc. benefit the economy. Microsoft’s competitors Subject: Microsoft Settlement has recently purchased the technology and can now produce and ship software that Hello, there may be a chance that the public will competes with Microsoft’s, and will not have The current status of the Microsoft anti- see another version, but there’s just no way to worry about Microsoft trying to prevent trust case scares me. to tell.
VerDate 11
Microsoft has steadily moved from shrewd To: Microsoft ATR Justice throws out, if not abandons all business to leveraging everyone into doing Date: 1/28/02 2:38pm previous court findings that indicts what they want. As a computer science Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft. In fact, the PFJ permits Microsoft student and a part-time consultant I deal I am a web developer for a public tv to continue with its monopolistic and with Microsoft in some way everyday. This station, making web sites for kids, and in my predatory practices, which in my opinion is is not by choice! If I were to attempt to professional work have seen much to be a detriment not only to the software sector discontinue the use and/or support of concerned about regarding Microsoft’s but also to the technology industry as a Microsoft products I would be putting myself business practices. whole. Without a doubt, I strongly believe into obscurity. It might be a case where I Microsoft, in its business and technical you will receive thousands of similar appeals won’t be able to view important documents decisions, has shown deep-rooted disregard encompassing the many flaws that are that are only readable by the latest version of for the openness of the internet, an engine of apparent in the proposed final settlement. Microsoft Office, or it might be that a web economic possibility, and has coopted My main focus entails one fundamental flaw page is only designed to be viewed in standards ‘‘for the benefit of competition/ clearly noticeable in the proposed settlement: Microsoft Internet Explorer. Ask any consumers/
VerDate 11
To: Microsoft ATR and any judgment that leads to competition, Thank you for considering this important Date: 1/28/02 2:41pm innovation, and meaningful customer choice matter. Subject: Microsoft Settlement will help repair that damage our economy. Dear Department of Justice: I support the efforts of the states that are MTC–00028371 I am writing regarding the Microsoft pressing for a more comprehensive From: Samira Lama settlement as someone with more-than- punishment for Microsoft’s illegal acts. As an To: Microsoft ATR average credentials to have an opinion. From informed and active citizen, I expect nothing Date: 1/28/02 2:42pm 1979 to 1988, I was Senior Editor of BYTE less. Subject: Microsoft Settlement magazine, the personal computer industry’s I submit my opinion to the Department of 5445 Elmview Drive first major magazine. From 1988 to 1998, I Justice with great respect, out of a deep Bay City, MI 48706 worked for Apple Computer, where I wrote concern for this nation’s long-term January 28, 2002 to third-party developers about the technological and economic health. Attorney General John Ashcroft advantages of the Mac OS platform over the Gregg Williams, [email protected] US Department of Justice Microsoft Windows platform. In both jobs, it 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW was my responsibility to be aware of MTC–00028369 Washington, DC 20530 Microsoft’s acts and how they affected the From: [email protected]@inetgw Dear Mr. Ashcroft: computer industry. To: Microsoft ATR I want to express my support for the With that introduction, let me add my Date: 1/28/02 2:43pm Microsoft settlement negotiated last voice to that of the many people and Subject: Microsoft November. I was against the lawsuit against companies who believe that the Department To The Department of Justice Microsoft and felt a break-up of the company of Justice’s proposed settlement is not in the I hope Judge Colleen Koller-Kotelly does was totally unjustified; consequently, I think public interest. The final judgment after a not forget about all of us who use Microsoft the compromise is a necessary move to allow trial should punish the guilty, discourage products and are very satisfied with their us to move on. similar offenses in the future, and if possible, performance. They produce a very good The terms accepted in the agreement are repair the damage done. The proposed product that is easy to use. You get what you very generous to the competition. Computer settlement actually causes harm, in several pay for! Unfortunately, I have a MAC Power manufacturers will have greater flexibility in ways: It does not provide the remedy that it Book and MSN does not have a compatible trading Microsoft software for non-Microsoft was meant to; it implicitly encourages the internet program. At present I have AOL ( products on the Windows operating system reoccurrence of similar wrongdoing; and it overpriced) but plan to buy a new laptop that without obligation, while software does not address significant larger issues that is MSN compatible and cancel my AOL. Has developers will gain access to Windows need attention. anyone ever told us how many cancel internal code and even be able to license The final judgment for this case is AOL?.....or only brag about how many sign Microsoft intellectual property. important in more than just its immediate up. Fortunately, the world is full of choices The terms highlight the fairness of this context; it also has important consequences and I am no longer interested in contributing proposal, which will be regularly monitored in our increasingly digital world. Our to dissenting states with my AOL monthly by an objective group of technical experts in country (and the world) has most of its eggs fee. Netscape did themselves in and AOL was order to confirm its implementation. I ask in one basket—Microsoft’s—and this is stupid to buy them. Everyone should read that you allow these measures to go through dangerous. Just as any natural ecology is Erick Schonfeld’s January 25, 2002 ‘‘A without further legal action. Thank you very endangered when its diversity is lessened RIDDLE: WHY DOES NETSCAPE STILL much. and one species dominates, so is our digital EXIST?’’. He tells it like it is! Sincerely, ecology endangered by Microsoft’s AOL stock is down 50% since I sold mine Sam Lama overwhelming market share and its stifling of and a lawsuit against Microsoft is not going competition. As just one example, observe to bring it back up. MTC–00028372 the devastating effects of the denial-of-service I am getting fed up with my tax dollars From: Mister Thorne attacks against amazon.com and other online paying for goverment funded lawsuits and in To: Microsoft ATR Date; 1/28/02 2:42pm businesses a few years ago. They would not the States vs Microsoft it needs to be settled Subject: Microsoft Settlement have been as effective if a significant fraction in a reasonable manner. If Microsoft had I am offering my comments on the of the country’s Internet users had not been beeen contributing to Clinton as the illegal Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) that was using Microsoft’s email programs. Also, all Asian money he probably would have told submitted by the United States in Civil hacker attacks are tied to the vulnerability of the DOJ to back off and let Netscape finance Action No. 98–1232. I am also sending you a specific product; if there were, say, three their own lawsuit. As it should have been. these comments via USPS. email programs and three browser programs The nine disssenting states are beginning to I am encouraging the Court to not accept in common usage (instead of Microsoft’s sound revengeful and stupid. this settlement for these reasons: Outlook and Internet Explorer), such attacks I guess they see success and money and 1. The settlement is ineffective; would injure fewer users, spread more their fangs go out. They seem to be blind to 2. The settlement does not serve the public slowly, and consume less Internet bandwidth the fact that a reasonable settlement could interest; than is the case today. For the above reasons, also affect the business in their state in a I encourage the Court to determine an this judgment is doubly important, and the positive manner. Microsoft is not asking effective remedy, one that (1) ends the currently proposed judgment is doubly them to divulge their secrets. unlawful conduct; (2) avoids a recurrence of dangerous. I believe that a good final I shall be watching the outcome and look the violation and others like it; and (3) judgment must both prevent further forward to my new laptop and cancelling undoes the anticompetitive consequences of wrongdoing and counteract Microsoft’s AOL. that unlawful conduct. dominance in current and future markets. Karen Dahlgard Age 65 Effect of Proposed Remedies Any attempt to regulate Microsoft’s conduct The PFJ is ineffective. It does not restore MUST be given the resources to succeed, and MTC–00028370 ‘‘competitive conditions in the personal its workings MUST be visible to the public. From: [email protected]@inetgw computer operating system market’’ as the Without these two provisions, Microsoft will To: Microsoft ATR U.S. claims in its Competitive Impact evade lawful punishment again, just as it did Date: 1/28/02 2:42pm Statement (CIS). In fact, the PFJ does nothing in the mid-1990s. Subject: microsoft settlement toward that end. Finally, Microsoft should be made aware Dear Mr Ashcroft, As the U.S. noted in its complaint, ‘‘PC that it has no say in selecting or refusing its Please do not increase the microsoft manufacturers (often referred to as Original punishment. Nor should the court be penalties over what was agreed to. Equipment Manufacturers, or ‘‘OEMs’’) have pressured into compromise for fear that The settlement although severe seemed no commercially reasonable alternative to punishing Microsoft will damage this fair. Futher penalties would in my opinion be Microsoft operating systems for the PCs that nation’s economy. In fact, it is Microsoft’s overkill and would result in slowing an they distribute.’’ The PFJ does nothing to actions that are causing long-term damage, already weak economy. alter that. Instead, it offers a series of
VerDate 11
restrictions and prohibitions aimed at software has increased. And Microsoft is a threat because it is big and deaf to some of opening the market for ‘‘middleware.’’ It moving on, leveraging its monopoly for the bedrock values of the American system.’’ offers nothing to restore a competitive market operating systems to extend its control of the The PFJ is ineffective. It does not for operating systems for personal computers. market with its .NET initiative. ‘‘eliminate Microsoft’s illegal practices, The PFJ does not ‘‘obtain prompt, effective The .NET initiative is Microsoft’s program prevent recurrence of the same or similar and certain relief for consumers.’’ On the to offer a new development platform, one practices, and restore the competitive threat contrary; it’s effect will be to leave that sits above the operating system. As Steve that (other software) products posed prior to consumers with no viable choice for personal Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, notes, this Microsoft’s unlawful undertakings’’ as the computer operating systems, other than initiative is ‘‘the pillar on which we are U.S. claims. different versions of Windows, or for building the next version of Microsoft.’’ Rather, it cements Microsoft’s position as browsers, other than different versions of When the initiative was announced, Ballmer the sole supplier of personal computer Internet Explorer. Consumers will not reap commented: ‘‘Starting this year, everything operating systems for the Plaintiffs, It allows the benefits of competition among operating we do will revolve around Microsoft .NET.’’ Microsoft to continue to dump products on systems or browsers, as they have the Having conquered the market for personal the market in order to maintain market benefits of competition among OEMs. computer operating systems, Microsoft is dominance. It allows Microsoft to continue to In the CIS, the U.S. claims that the PFJ poised to conquer new, emerging markets. tie its applications to its operating systems, ensures that ‘‘consumers will be able to In the CIS, the U.S. says appropriate effectively closing the market to would-be choose to use’’ non-Microsoft products like injunctive relief in an antitrust case should: competitors. And it allows Microsoft to build Internet browsers. That assumes that such (1) end the unlawful conduct; (2) avoid a upon its monopoly position to establish competing products will come to market, but recurrence of the violation and others like it; market reliance on its next-generation this is unlikely given that Internet Explorer and (3) undo the anticompetitive development platform (.NET). is given away at no cost. As Jon DeVaan, a consequences of the unlawful conduct. The The Public Interest Senior Vice President of Microsoft, would PFJ achieves none of these objectives. It is in the public interest for the U.S. to testify (see Microsoft’s offer of proof in Microsoft’s unlawful conduct in the browser enforce antitrust law; it is not in the public opposition to the entry of the government’s market is history, the PFJ does nothing to interest for the Court to accept the PFJ. That’s proposed final judgment): ‘‘No sensible reopen that market, and it leaves Microsoft because the PFJ does not address the central company devotes large resources to projects free to continue to violate the Sherman Act. issue in this matter: Microsoft’s monopoly from which it sees no potential return on its And Microsoft’s leaders have suggested that position, and its abuse thereof, in the market investment.’’ The PFJ does nothing to open that is precisely what they plan to do. for operating systems for personal computers. the market for Internet browsers or other As the U.S. stated in its complaint, The public has benefited from competition applications, and so it does nothing to give ‘‘Microsoft has made clear that, unless among PC manufacturers. We’ve benefited consumers more choice. restrained, it will continue to misuse its from lower prices, increased functionality, In the CIS, the U.S. says the PFJ ‘‘forbids operating system monopoly to artificially and those innovations that naturally occur Microsoft from stopping OEMs from offering exclude browser competition and deprive when firms compete fairly in a dynamic and dual-boot systems.’’ Yet the Court has customers of a free choice between open market. If the PFJ is entered as is, then determined that there exists an ‘‘applications browsers,’’ and ‘‘Microsoft’s conduct with Microsoft is left with its monopoly. And that barrier’’ to entry to the market for personal respect to browsers is a prominent and means no increased competition for computer operating systems. The PFJ does immediate example of the pattern of operating systems despite the U.S. claim in nothing to remove that barrier. anticompetitive practices undertaken by the CIS that the PFJ would restore The District Court concluded that Microsoft with the purpose and effect of ‘‘competitive conditions in the personal Microsoft violated the Sherman Act, and the maintaining its PC operating system computer operating system market.’’ Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, monopoly and extending that monopoly to The U.S. offers no justification for its claim determining that Microsoft’s ‘‘commingling other related markets.’’ of increased competition for operating of browser and operating system code Microsoft’s leaders continue to give us systems: none at all. While the PFJ might constitute exclusionary conduct, in violation reason for concern. At the start of the trial, enhance competition for middleware, it of s 2,’’ of the Sherman Act. Yet the PFJ does Steve Ballmer stated in an e-mail message leaves Microsoft in the same monopoly not address the issue of commingling and sent to Microsoft employees: ‘‘Microsoft’s position it was in at the beginning of this leaves Microsoft free to integrate whatever it business practices [are] entirely consistent action. In fact, since 1990, when the FTC first wishes with Windows, to continue to use its with the way other companies throughout investigated Microsoft for antitrust, the operating system monopoly to extend its our industry compete.’’ After the Court of company’s position has only gotten stronger. reach into new, emerging markets. Appeals upheld the District Court’s finding The lack of any effective corrective action The PFJ requires Microsoft to disclose to that Microsoft violated the Sherman Act, in the PFJ lets others know that they can get ‘‘ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs’’ the APIs Steve Ballmer made these statements: away with similar tactics, that it will take so used by Microsoft Middleware to ‘‘I do not think we broke the law in any long for antitrust complaints to be resolved interoperate with Windows. The provision way, shape, or form. I feel deeply that we that they don’t even matter. The courts are requires the disclosure to occur in a ‘‘Timely behaved in every instance with super seen as so slow to act that—in a rapidly Manner.’’ But ‘‘Timely’’ means only after integrity.’’ changing and advancing market—they can be Microsoft has sent any new version of ‘‘We were born a competitor, and we’ll ignored, and that is definitely not in the Windows to at least 150,000 beta testers. The continue to compete as we have in the past: public interest. result is that if Microsoft distributes a new vigorously and responsibly.’’ The public interest would be better served version of Windows to 149,999 beta testers, These statements from the company’s CEO by some remedy that ensures that Microsoft they don’t need to disclose the APIs to do not portend a change in the way Microsoft won’t be back in court, yet again, for antitrust anyone. conducts business. violations. But that is precisely what we can The PFJ contains a provision that if Comments made by the leaders of expect given that Microsoft’s leaders have Microsoft engages in ‘‘willful and systemic Microsoft after the court determined it broke stated that they did nothing wrong, that they violations of the agreement,’’ then the the law illustrate what many informed operated within the law and always have, ‘‘requirements and prohibitions’’ in the PFJ commentators have noted: ‘‘Microsoft just that they plan on conducting their business may be extended for two years. What the U.S. doesn’t get it.’’ While we can expect as they have in the past, even after the Court is basically saying is this: ‘‘if the agreement Microsoft to follow the restrictions in the PFJ, of Appeals upheld the District Court’s proves ineffective, our plan is to extend it!’’ we cannot expect it to live up to the spirit determination that Microsoft employed Finally, things have changed since the U.S. of it. And why not? Thomas Friedman, a New ‘‘anticompetitive means to maintain a filed its complaint. Microsoft’s dominance in York Times columnist put it well in a monopoly in the operating system market.’’ the market has continued to grow. It’s share column he wrote after the District Court The public interest is served by ‘‘the of the market for operating systems, ordered a breakup of the company: Government defining the contours of browsers, and common applications like ‘‘Microsoft isn’t a threat because it’s big. GE antitrust laws so that law-abiding firms will word processors, spreadsheets, and e-mail is big, Intel is big, Cisco is big. Microsoft is have a clear sense of what is permissible and
VerDate 11
what is not.’’ Entry of the PFJ works against Windows need to be rewritten for UNIX. But To: Microsoft ATR that. It says, in effect, that if a company has there is also an opportunity to eliminate that Date: 1/28/02 2:45pm the resources, then it can violate antitrust barrier now. Subject: Microsoft Settlement law. With its .NET initiative, Microsoft claims Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, It can raise all sorts of ridiculous it is reinventing its business. Steve Ballmer I wanted to let you know that I am against arguments to support its violations. It can use claims that as .NET versions of its products the Proposed Final Judgment. For the most obfuscation to avoid answering questions. It are released, they will make non-.NET part, the goals that were to be accomplished can present the court with bogus exhibits that versions of products obsolete in four to six such ridding out MSs illegal monopoly will are not what they are claimed to be. It can years. And that means that the Plaintiffs, be overturned with this proposed settlement. protest that an antitrust action is simply a unless they intend to use obsolete products I oppose such a deal. MS must be dealt with. means for the U.S. to help the company’s in the future, have these two choices: either I submit to you my objection to the Proposed competitors, or that the U.S. doesn’t know they can remain dependent on Microsoft and Final Judgment. enough about computers or the computer adopt .NET, or they can start to become Sincerely, industry to enforce antitrust laws there. The independent now; they can switch from Marilyn Yu, company can buy so much time that the Windows to UNIX. 310 S. Orange Ave Apt. 19 courts and, hence, the laws become While the DOJ claims (without support) Lodi, CA 95240 ineffective: by the time the courts act, the that the PFJ is good for the economy, what MTC–00028375 company has achieved its objectives, and would be a boost for the economy is for the From: John Transue after the courts act, the company keeps its ill- Plaintiffs to adopt UNIX. The plaintiffs are a To: Microsoft ATR gotten gains. How is that in the public sizeable market for software developers. If Date: 1/28/02 2:46pm interest? the Plaintiffs adopt UNIX, ISVs will develop Subject: Microsoft Settlement An Effective Remedy software for UNIX. And, in a marketplace not Microsoft is clearly a monopolist and I encourage the Court to accept nothing controlled by Microsoft, one in which market stifles competition. A deeper punishment is less than an effective remedy, one that serves forces are allowed to operate freely, we’ll the public interest, that restores competition vital to the industry and also to retain the have open competition, and the benefits of it. authority of the government in anti-trust in the market for personal computer And we won’t have to worry about a single operating systems and applications, and matters. firm having sole control of an important Microsoft is predatory and parasitic. They which discourages Microsoft from continuing component of our modern economy. In two to function with limited regard for antitrust are incredibly arrogant about this case. The decades, the personal computer has gone DOJ has to demonstrate that the US is a law. from being as popular as ham radio, to being But this is problematic. The new country of laws not of men. They have been an essential tool, and fundamental to our way found to be monopolists. Do the right thing administration seems to have little interest in of life. We could not enjoy our modern way pursuing this matter, even though it is and punish them. Don’t let their wealth, of life were it not for the development of the power, and treachery get them off the hook. charged with enforcing the law and the court personal computer and the software that has determined that Microsoft broke the law. They frequently make changes to their OS makes it so useful in so many ways. and applications for no reason other than to One effective way to open the market could The public isn’t served when there is only diminish competition. be done by executive order, rather than court one source of oil, or one bank. or one TV Please do the right thing and punish order. If the Plaintiffs can require that all station. And the public is not served by Microsoft. their personal computers run Microsoft having just one supplier of the most basic Sincerely, Windows, then they can just as well require software for personal computers. The public John Transue that all their computers run some other is served by free and open competition, and Assistant Professor operating system, such as UNIX. And there the Plaintiffs have a responsibility to enforce Department of Political Science are good arguments in favor of such a change. the laws that apply. Duke University Just about every personal computer on just I don’t think the settlement contained in [email protected] about every desk in just about every PFJ is good for the public or the economy. (919) 660–4336 government office is equipped with Microsoft I would like to see the Court require a Office and Internet Explorer. That settlement that accomplishes what the U.S. MTC–00028376 application suite includes the most common claims this settlement accomplishes. From: John R. Morris applications, comprising something like 95% Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR of the applications that 95% of computer Mister Thorne Date: 1/28/02 2:45pm users use 95% of the time. That same Subject: The Microsoft Anti-trust Case MTC–00028373 application suite is available (from Microsoft) Dear To whom it may concern, for the Macintosh operating system, which is From: Cynthia Roy I am a user of the OS/2 (operating system a UNIX-based operating system. To: Microsoft ATR from IBM). I have found this to be a So, if the Plaintiffs adopted a program to Date: 1/28/02 2:45pm technologically superior product over any of use UNIX instead of Windows with their Subject: microsoft settlement the operating systems offered by Microsoft, personal computers, the ‘‘applications Your Honor: especially their latest version, Windows XP. barrier’’ would be fairly low. (The As you know, there was a time in America I Believe that their further bundling of an ‘‘applications barrier’’ is a fallacy; Windows when Roosevelt had to launch an aggressive instant messager (The MSN Instant isn’t more popular than Macintosh because campaign against corruption in the corporate Messanger), the 3 year limitation on usage, there are so many more applications avaiable world. History has already shown us what Cd burning software and other included for Windows; the reason there are so many happens when industries, because they are multimedia software makes it clear and more applications for Windows is because monopolies, have too much power. The obvious that Microsoft is trying to extend Windows is more popular, the Plaintiffs and question is not supposed to be considered on and/or maintain their monopoly. Corporate America long ago having decided a situation basis, the antitrust laws were Unfortunately, OS/2 has been in decline for that desktop computers must be IBM made so that, among other reasons, the a number of years from what I believe to be compatible.) general public would not and COULD NOT unfair monopolistic marketing tactics of Of course, the Plaintiffs also make use of be taken advantage of. Therefore, with all due Microsoft. As a result, vendors of OS/2 specialized applications. Public agencies of respect,I don’t think that Microsoft should be related products have also diminished over all sorts use specialized applications to allowed to abuse antitrust laws. the years. Contrary to arguments by Microsoft manage more and more of their operations; Thank you sincerely for your time, that their products encourage competition, I a wide variety of government workers use Cynthia Roy believe the opposite is true; that Microsoft’s specialized applications on a regular basis. e-mail: sequin101@ marketing practices actually discourages So, there is a real barrier to adopting an competition and stunts technological growth. operating system other than Windows: MTC–00028374 Consequently, I do not believe that the specialized applications that were written for From: M Y Department of Justice’s proposed settlement
VerDate 11
with Microsoft, in its current form, is Sincerely, in this market in a fair and equitable basis anywhere near adequate and that stricter /s/ lowers prices for vital research and business measures need to be imposed on the [Intended as a signature.] functions of public and private markets. Most company to prohibit such tactics from being David B. McMahon significantly, from my point of view, research used in the future. DBM/dbm funded by the government cannot afford a In addition, I am appalled that after all the David McMahon Microsoft dominated market. Linux and open effort, my tax dollars, and other resources E-Mail: [email protected] source free software is just now setting that the Department of Justice has used and Phone/Voice Mail: 304–415–4288 research programs free of huge licensing this is the best settlement that they can come Fax: 810–958–6143 overheads. American business needs a cost up with. Futhermore, I am greatly troubled Work Address: 922 Quarrier Street, reduction in software licensing, especially in that the other Attorney Generals have fought Charleston, WV 25301 desperate economic times in the IT market. so hard over the past years and have spent Home Address: 1624 Kenwood Rd., All the horror stories of excited young enormous amounts of their money, and then Charleston, WV 25314 companies with fresh new ideas and new settle for this unrealistic package. technology being eaten and destroyed by Sincerely, MTC–00028378 Microsoft should fuel your drive to tame this John R. Morris From: [email protected]@inetgw monster! If Microsoft had decent ethics and [email protected] To: Microsoft ATR treated people right, I wouldn’t feel this way Corvallis, OR Date: 1/28/02 2:47pm or be writing this letter. In fact, you would United States of America Subject: Microsoft Settlement not have the case you have. I respect the MTC–00028377 Attorney General John Ashcroft work and time Dan Kegel has put into his US Department of Justice From: [email protected]@inetgw review of the proposed settlement. Please 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR give it your consideration. Thank you, Washington, DC 20560–0001 Date: 1/28/02 2:58pm Dow 26 January 2002 Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement Dow Hurst Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Hello, Office: 770–499–3428 Attached (better) and below are my As a former Federal Government employee Systems Support Specialist Fax: 770–423– comments on the microsoft settlement. who was forced to retire on 2 October 1998 6744 David McMahon due to a major reduction in force (RIF) in the 1000 Chastain Rd. DAVID B. McMAHON / ATTORNEY AT Defense Department (I was over 55 years of Chemistry Department SC428 LAW age and I had more than 5 years of service), Email:[email protected] 1624 Kenwood Road, Charleston, West I have been following the Microsoft antitrust Kennesaw State University Virginia 25314 case. Personally, I feel that Microsoft should [email protected] Phone 344–3620 / Day 415–4288 / Fax be left alone. Microsoft has been very good Kennesaw, GA 30144 for the economy and the technological 344–3145 MTC–00028380 e-mail [email protected] advancement of our country. Because of its January 28, 2002 innovative software, they have brought about From: Edwin van Beuzekom Renata B. Hesse increased computer literacy. Can any other To: Microsoft ATR Antitrust Division software company say the same? Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 2:51pm U.S. Department of Justice has also been very flexible in agreeing to the Subject: 1/28/02 3 PM 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 terms of the settlement beyond what is 1/28/02 3 PM Washington, DC 20530–0001 required in any antitrust case. Gentlemen, [email protected] Microsoft agreed to not enter into any This letter is to emphasise my opinion that Re: Microsoft Settlement. agreements that would obligate a third party it would help busines to settle the microsoft Dear Ms Hesse, to distribute or promote any Windows anti trust case. Please expedite your decision I am a lawyer for low income people. I am technology exclusively or for a percentage of and help business to grow again. also a ?Consumer Fellow? to the Business sales. I am sure competitors will like that. Sincelery, Law Section of the American Bar They have also agreed to allow access to their Edwin van Beuzekom Association. I was an Official Observer on operating systems protocols that are used to email: [email protected] operate within their server to the competition behalf of consumers on the drafting MTC–00028381 committee of the National Conference of for use with their software. That sounds Commissioners on Uniform State Laws that generous to me. From: [email protected]@inetgw revised Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Now that Microsoft has gone out of their To: Microsoft ATR Code. I am on the Board of an organization way to cooperate, shouldn’t we? Let us end Date: 1/28/02 2:51pm opposing the Uniform Computer Information this litigation and move on to more pressing Subject: Microsoft settlement Transaction Act in the states. issues. Thank you. I am extremely disappointed in the Thank you for the opportunity to comment Sincerely, government’s proposed settlement of the on the Microsoft settlement. I share generally Georgia Foundotos Microsoft case. The judge found that the opinion of Hon. Darrell McGraw, the 4 Damin Circle Microsoft had abused its monopoly power to Attorney General of my state, the State of St. James, New York 11780 -1604 crush the competition and rig the retail West Virginia. environment to ensure that consumers would MTC–00028379 It is my personal position that the have virtually no choice but Microsoft. The settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. From: [email protected]@ proposed settlement barely gives Microsoft a Department of Justice is not in the public inetgw slap on the wrist and does nothing to make interest. The settlement does not offer To: Microsoft ATR the market work as intended: in a free and remedies that sufficiently address Microsoft’s Date: 1/28/02 2:51pm fair competition. illegal, anticompetitive behavior as a Subject: Microsoft Settlement However, with a Republican monopoly that puts grabbing market share I do not agree with the current proposed administration in charge, I am not surprised above the quality of the software it produces. settlement as it stands. I have signed Dan that the DOJ chose to ‘‘wimp out’’ and let The settlement fails to include critical Kegel’s petition being submitted to you. Also, Microsoft off the hook. The Microsoft provisions that will counter Microsoft’s I ask you to reconsider your position and settlement, like the Enron debacle, monopolistic tactics, and does not contain read Dan’s website. http://www.kegel.com/ demonstrates that those with big money don’t appropriate and enforceable penalties for remedy have to play by the same rules as the rest of non-compliance. Changes to the settlement Without fixing this problem now we, as a us. If they contribute enough to the right must be made to address these issues, in nation, are consigning ourselves and future campaign coffers, and use buzzwords like order to bring the benefits of competition, generations to facing a severe monopoly in ‘‘free market’’ and ‘‘competition’’ to cover choice and innovation to consumers. the software market in America. Competition their dirty deeds, they can usually get
VerDate 11
government officials to either gut existing you for your time and consideration of my Date: 1/28/02 2:55pm regulations and rewrite tax laws to their thoughts. Subject: Microsoft Settlement specifications, or at least look the other way Sincerely, Attached please find a letter voicing my when they break the rules. And this means Douglas W. Lantz, President thoughts and questions. that big corporations like Microsoft and Advantage Technology Group, Inc. Charlene Howe Enron can get away with almost anything. [email protected] (907) 333–7207 I’d like to have faith in the U.S. system of 513.563.3560 Charlene Howe justice, but I doubt the DOJ will redeem itself MTC–00028384 8050 Resurrection Drive on this case. My only hope is Microsoft does Anchorage, AK 99504–4731 not yet own the EC, and Europe will refuse From: E L Phone: (907) 333–7207 to be bought out or bullied. That might at To: Microsoft ATR E Mail: [email protected] least slow down the Microsoft juggernaut. Date: 1/28/02 2:53pm January 25, 2002 Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft Settlement Attorney General John Ashcroft Cynthia A. McCune Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania 3177 Greenoak Court Id like to make my position known that I Avenue, NW San Mateo, CA 94403 am against the Proposed Final Judgment. MS Washington, DC 20530–0001 has been given all the breaks in the case. The Dear Mr. Ashcroft: MTC–00028382 Proposed Final Judgment pretty much seals I tried to fax this to you on my personal From: Chuck Broms the deal with Microsoft walking away letterhead but your fax lines were constantly To: Microsoft ATR unscathed. Justice must be served and MS busy. There must be a lot of people like me Date: 1/28/02 2:53pm should be dealt with accordingly. I again wanting to express our concerns. Subject: Microsoft Settlement concur with my previous statement by saying As a businesswoman and a veterinarian’s I support the purposed DOJ settlement I oppose this Proposed wife who has been following the Microsoft with Microsoft. Final Judgment. antitrust case, I believe the settlement is Charles Broms Sincerely, pretty fair. I have a lot of respect for Edith Landero, Microsoft; they’ve contributed to the MTC–00028383 310 S. Orange Ave Apt. 19 prosperity of the ‘‘90’s, produced well-paying Lodi, CA 95240 From: Douglas W. Lantz jobs, and provided great software at To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028386 reasonable prices. Since the technology Date: 1/28/02 2:53pm sector accounts for a third of economic Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Karina Montgomery To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ growth, I am afraid what might happen to the Attorney General John Ashcroft industry if litigation continues. US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Date: 1/28/02 2:55pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft has been very cooperative Avenue, NW throughout this ordeal. Not only have they Washington, DC 20530–0001 Dear Renata Hesse: As a United States citizen, I urge you to agreed to document and disclose various Dear Mr. Ashcroft: withdraw your consent to the revised Windows’’ internal interfaces to competitors. I am writing to express my views proposed Final Judgment settlement in the They also agreed to the establishment of surrounding the Microsoft settlement. I United States v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust technical team to monitor Microsoft’s believe that the agreement is fair and case. The limitations and punishments compliance to the settlement. What other reasonable, and would like to see the issue imposed upon Microsoft do not sufficiently company would risk such great exposure to put behind us. Not only does the settlement restore the competitive conditions previailing competitors? address the concerns that brought about the prior to Microsoft’s unlawful conduct. Unfortunately, the technology industry case in the first place, but it also sets up The Settlement only prevents Microsoft faces numerous challenges in protecting the guidelines of how to deal with possible from future monopolistic practices; it does entrepreneurial spirit we depend on. Some future problems. Microsoft has made not punish Microsoft for previous unlawful special interests are lobbying for increased unprecedented concessions in an effort to behavior. The advantages of immediacy and litigation, regulation, and legislation that end this debacle, and I will outline just a few certainty of the proposed Final Judgment are could impact entire industries and threaten of them for you. not sufficient cause for abandonment of this country’s economic vitality. Should we Under the settlement, Microsoft has agreed pursuit of further litigation. allow this to happen? to grant computer makers new rights to The damage done to individuals and Sincerely, configure Windows so as to promote non- businesses by design of Microsoft and its Charlene Howe Microsoft software in direct competition with engineers and practices requires more MTC–00028389 programs included within Windows. punitive measures than a slap on the wrist Microsoft will document and disclose for use and a promise to never get caught at doing From: Gregory Gerard by its competitors various interfaces that are it again. To: Microsoft ATR internal to Windows operating system I urge you to pursue litigation of the issue Date: 1/28/02 2:56pm products. Also, Microsoft has agreed to of remedy, whether as set forth in the Final Subject: Microsoft Settlement license Windows to the twenty largest Judgement entered by the District Court on The proposed settlement does not redress computer manufacturers, which make up a June 7, 2000, or as one of the other remedy the wrongs Microsoft has been found guilty vast majority of PC sales. proposals described in the Competitive of. There will always be those that try to pull Impact Statement, section (V) Alternatives to Gregory Gerard down whoever is on top, just as there will the Proposed Final Judgement. 255 Manzanita Avenue always be those that support it. I feel that if Thank you for your time and Palo Alto, CA 94306 this case is judged by the value of its merits, consideration, MTC–00028390 rather than the depth of the lobbyists’’ Karina J. Montgomery DOB 1/13/70 pockets, it is apparent that the original 4556 Park Blvd #1 From: [email protected]@inetgw problems have been solved. I believe that the San Diego CA 92116 To: Microsoft ATR suit has been pushed by competitors rather Please refer to my voter registration or Date: 1/28/02 2:56pm than consumers. It has negatively affected passport registration which you as a Subject: Microsoft Settlement our entire industry. In short, three years has government agency surely have access to in January 28, 2002 been long enough. It is time to allow order to verify my US Citizenship. Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly Microsoft and the IT industry as a whole to CC:Karina Montgomery U.S. District Court, District of Columbia return their focus to innovation, rather than c/o Renata B. Hesse litigation. We must ensure our country’s MTC–00028388 Antitrust Division place in the world technology market, and From: [email protected]@inetgw U.S. Department of Justice the best way to do it is by moving on. I thank To: Microsoft ATR 601 D Street NW
VerDate 11
Suite 1200 Des Moines, IA 50312 trust cases have indicated that any remedy Washington, DC 20530–0001 arising out of a successful anti-trust action Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally: MTC–00028391 should deny the offending corporation the As a long time political activist I am From: Chris Metzler fruits of its violations. And yet, despite the concerned about the leniency regarding the To: Microsoft ATR fact that Microsoft was judged guilty by the proposed settlement between the Department Date: 1/28/02 2:56pm court of damaging several companies illegally of Justice and Microsoft in U.S. v. Microsoft. Subject: Microsoft Settlement by its actions, there are *no* penalties aimed It is my belief that this will not put an end Enclosed please find my personal comment at making amends for Microsoft’s past actions to Microsoft’s monopolistic practices. on the proposed settlement in the U.S. vs. contained in this settlement. In fact, while The settlement abandons the principle that Microsoft antitrust action. The comment there are numerous terms clarifying how fueled consumer criticism and which gave comes in the form of four attachments. future operations by Microsoft can be rise to this antitrust case in 1998: Microsoft’s The first attachment is a text copy of a considered legal, there is *nothing*, decision to bind—or ‘‘bolt’’—Internet letter containing my main comment. anywhere in the settlement, that penalizes Explorer to the Windows operating system in The second attachment contains a text Microsoft for its past actions. In light of those order to crush its browser competitor copy of an appendix to that letter, going past Supreme Court decisions, and in light of Netscape. This settlement gives Microsoft through the proposed settlement in detail the flagrant nature of Microsoft’s violations of ‘‘sole discretion’’ to unilaterally determine and providing a point-by-point critique. the law (given that this is the second Federal that other products or services which don’t The third and fourth attachments contain anti-trust action against them, and their have anything to do with operating a the letter and appendix above again, but in violation of the previous consent agreement), computer are nevertheless part of a .PDF format rather than text, making for more a settlement that entirely fails to penalize ‘‘Windows Operating System product.’’ This attractive viewing and printing. Microsoft for their past actions and denies creates a new exemption from parts of Thank you for the opportunity to provide them the fruits of their illegal conduct cannot antitrust law for Microsoft and would leave a comment. possibly be considered to be ‘‘in the public Microsoft free to bolt financial services, cable Dr. Christopher A. Metzler interest.’’ television, or the Internet itself into CC: [email protected]@inetgw Instead, the focus of the agreement appears Windows. Renata B. Hesse to be simply to prevent future anti-trust The settlement does nothing to deal with Antitrust Division violations. This approach is tantamount to the effects on consumers and businesses of U.S. Department of Justice saying ‘‘it’s OK that you violated anti-trust technologies such as Microsoft’s Passport. 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 law and illegally damaged other companies Passport has been the subject of numerous Washington, DC 20530–0001 a second time, but you should stop it now.’’ privacy and security complaints by national To the United States Department of Justice, Perhaps a better way to describe it is as consumer organizations. However, and to the United States District Court saying ‘‘Stop, or I shall say ‘‘stop’’ again!’’ It corporations and governments that place a for the District of Columbia: fails to penalize Microsoft for the wrongs high value on system security will be unable I am writing to take advantage of the public already done, and only tries to instruct to benefit from competitive security comment period regarding the proposed Microsoft to obey a law that (being a law) technologies, even if those technologies are settlement in the antitrust action United they’re supposed to obey anyway! This alone superior to Microsoft’s. Why? Microsoft States v. Microsoft Corporation, provided would be unacceptable; but in addition, the controls their choices through its monopolies under the Tunney Act. I thank you for the settlement as written does very little new to and dominant market share, and still is able time you will take to consider my opinions. hinder Microsoft from continuing to maintain to dictate what technologies it will include. Many of the letters you will receive as public its monopoly, or extend it into other areas, The weak enforcement provisions in this comments on the settlement will come from using anti-competitive tactics. Indeed, proposed deal leave Microsoft free to do computer industry professionals—persons in analysts within the computer industry press practically whatever it wants. the pay of either Microsoft or their have typically described the settlement as A three-person technical committee will be competitors. I am neither. Nor, for that demanding almost nothing new from appointed, which Microsoft appointing one matter, do I have informal connections to the Microsoft. Legal specialists in technology member, the Department of Justice software development industry. My antitrust issues not employed by Microsoft or appointing another, and the two sides profession has been that of a research their competitors have described the agreeing on the third. This means that astrophysicist at prestigious research settlement as ‘‘business as usual for Microsoft Microsoft gets to appoint half of the members institutions. I mention this to indicate both . . .no significant change in the way it of the group watching over its actions. that I believe I have the competence to develops its products or sells to the The committee is supposed to identify critically examine the settlement and the marketplace.’’ violations of the agreement. But even if the opinions for and against, and that I have no It is true that the agreement outlines committee finds violations, the work of that direct or indirect material stake in the constraints on Microsoft’s business practices, committee cannot be admitted into court in outcome of this settlement. with the apparent intent of preventing any enforcement proceeding. This is like Despite my independence from the Microsoft from using its influence as a allowing a football referee to throw as many computer industry, as an citizen and a monopoly holder either to force unfair penalty flags as he likes for flagrant computer user I have strong feelings about agreements on other hardware or software violations on the field, but prohibiting him this settlement. I believe that this settlement vendors or to retaliate against them for from marching off any penalties. is not only contrary to the public interest, but actions involving non-Microsoft software. Finally, Microsoft must comply with the would damage it instead. However, these constraints are extremely lenient restrictions in the agreement for only As I understand, it is not illegal for limited in scope, are defined in terms of five years. This is not long enough for a Microsoft to hold an effective monopoly in subjective descriptions which are not easily company found guilty of violating antitrust personal computer operating system enforceable, and are laden with loopholes. law. The end result is that this proposed software. What is illegal is for Microsoft to An appendix to this letter covers several settlement allows Microsoft to preserve and maintain that monopoly, and attempt to specific flaws in the agreement in more reinforce its monopoly, while also freeing extend their monopoly into other domains, detail; meanwhile, I wish to make several Microsoft to use anticompetitive tactics to using predatory or anti-competitive practices. general points. spread its dominance into other markets. The District Court has found that Microsoft My appendix below notes how, because of After more than 11 years of litigation and has done this; the Court of Appeals has subjective descriptions and loopholes, the investigation against Microsoft, surely we confirmed this judgment, and the Supreme agreement fails to set viable restrictions on can— and we must—do much better than Court has effectively confirmed it again by Microsoft regarding the topics it actually this flawed proposed settlement between the choosing not to hear a further appeal by considers. Such subjective descriptions and company and the Department of Justice. Microsoft. Therefore, loopholes matter, because Microsoft has a Sincerely, Microsoft has once and for all been history of using such flaws to violate Tracy Lindgren declared guilty of such illegal conduct. agreements coming out of legal actions. For 2825 Grand Avenue, Apt. 206 Numerous Supreme Court decisions in anti- example, the consent decree originating from
VerDate 11
the earlier anti-trust action was meant to attempts by Microsoft to manipulate public In short, this settlement is a disaster for the prevent such actions as the bundling of opinion in unethical fashion, ranging from citizens of the United States. It is the polar Windows 98 and Internet Explorer, but this organized efforts to get employees to stuff opposite of an action in the public interest. current anti-trust action had to be started online ballot boxes/polls about Microsoft and It neither penalizes Microsoft for its past because of subjective terms Microsoft their products, to writing letters to officials illegal, destructive acts, nor does it force the successfully entered into the previous on Microsoft’s behalf using the names of kind of change in Microsoft’s current agreement that allowed them to ignore its people who are deceased. business practices necessary to prevent constraints. In the time this action has taken, Given this past history, that the further predatory, anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft’s monopolies have become even Department of Justice would arrive at such an This despite a contempt for the public and more firmly entrenched. To the extent that empty settlement with Microsoft is bizarre. the law displayed in Microsoft’s behavior in the requirements of Microsoft in the After all, the verdict from the District Court the courtroom and up to this very moment. agreement are concrete, they are comparable was strongly in the Federal Government’s If this settlement is upheld, I can guarantee to what Microsoft has been doing up to this favor. While the Court of Appeals that over its five year course, the problem point. And it is patently absurd to constrain subsequently rejected the breakup order, they with Microsoft will only worsen. This may a company guilty of the sorts of actions clearly affirmed Microsoft’s guilt. The result in yet another court challenge against demonstrated in this court case simply be position of the Federal Government was Microsoft; but we have seen in this case requiring them to act ‘‘in good faith.’’ In other strong, and Microsoft’s announcements of alone how Microsoft attempts to slow the words, not only does the agreement fail to what penalties or restrictions they would not pace of court action as long as possible, the punish Microsoft for its past illegal actions— accept in a judgment should have carried no better to create a ‘‘fait accompli’’, as they actions which have damaged or even more weight than the assertions of a successfully have here. If history, and this destroyed other companies attempting to convicted felon that he ‘‘would not accept’’ and the previous agreements in particular, compete—but the agreement also fails in the jail time. It has been noted by Rep. John are any guide, Microsoft will yet again be considerably less ambitious task of clearly Conyers Jr., the ranking member of the House able to hang on to their ill-gotten gains, and defining illegal actions or procedures that Judiciary Committee, that this settlement in be faced with a set of ‘‘restrictions’’ that Microsoft must avoid. fact is less onerous for Microsoft than the effect no change and allow them to continue Finally, there are many topics not terms that Microsoft was willing to concede to reinforce their monopolies. The resulting addressed by the agreement at all, such as in settlement talks *before* it lost the case damage to the prospects for innovation and Microsoft’s use of proprietary standards in in the Court of Appeals. competition in the high-tech sphere will be file formats, and how those standards Conyers went on to describe the settlement incalculable, and to the public interest even combined with Microsoft’s monopoly status as ‘‘like losing a game by forfeit when your more so. If Microsoft’s hegemony in the effectively block competing products from team was ahead with the bases loaded and computer industry is allowed to solidify the marketplace. Microsoft has an effective your best batter on deck.’’ (Washington Post, further, as this agreement would guarantee, monopoly on certain types of productivity 2 November 2001) Or, as an acquaintance then we will bequeath to our children the software, such as word processors and wrote, ‘‘Can someone explain to me how you kind of future that the early anti-trust actions spreadsheets (Microsoft Word and Excel, can win the trial, win the appeal, have the against Standard Oil or Jay Gould were now bundled together as part of Microsoft Supremes deny cert to the defendant, and intended to prevent: where one entity Office). Because these monopolies are so then let the perps walk?’’ controls the dominant new industry in our entrenched, competitors cannot produce So why ‘‘forfeit’’? Why this settlement? economy. We can be better ancestors than competing software of these types unless The most commonly-encountered that. I therefore urge you, as strongly as I can, their software can read and write Microsoft explanation is that the settlement springs not to accept this settlement. file formats. Rather than attempting to beat purely from politics: the executives of Thank you for your consideration. such competitors in the open market, Microsoft were major campaign contributors Sincerely, Microsoft has repeatedly acted to prevent to the current administration. For example, Dr. Christopher A. Metzler competition from taking place at all by Robert Lande, a professor of antitrust law 2702 Hemlock Avenue keeping the internal file formats for these who has followed the case closely, has Alexandria, VA 22305 software packages secret, and by periodically commented that ‘‘Microsoft broke open the APPENDIX: SOME DETAILED changing those file formats to block potential champagne when Bush was elected.’’ This COMMENTS ON THE TERMS OF THE competitors’’ attempts at reverse-engineering may or may not be an accurate assessment of AGREEMENT them. That this topic is not addressed at all the source of this agreement; but it is a The most significant complaint about this is yet another major failure of the agreement. difficult suspicion to dismiss; and if this agreement is a general one. Microsoft has What are the consequences of these suspicion is true, the claim that the been found to be a monopoly by a court of failures? Dreadful, if Microsoft’s past actions agreement is in the public interest seems law; that verdict has been affirmed by the predict their future ones. There has been a even more preposterous. Another Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court has long history of companies profoundly explanation offered for this settlement has chosen not to review that affirmation. damaged, or even completely destroyed, by come from Microsoft and its employees, who Therefore, under existing antitrust laws, Microsoft’s anti-competitive business have argued that the settlement is indeed in Microsoft is required to conduct its business practices. Digital Research and Stac are two the public interest simply because it halts the practices in a non-predatory/non-anti- examples of companies whose products were continuing hindrance of the operations of the competitive fashion. This is a standing essentially run off the market in a flood of leading computer software company, and requirement of law upon Microsoft. As noted fraud and misinformation and, in the latter therefore is good for the high-tech industry in my letter, the agreement as written holds case, simple copying of their technology (for and the economy. These statements are the no penalties for past action, only which Microsoft lost in court). This case has modern-day equivalent of ‘‘what’s good for ‘‘restrictions’’ upon future behavior. In my centered on the damage to Netscape, Sun and General Motors is good for America,’’ and letter, I noted how these ‘‘restrictions’’ are Apple by Microsoft’s actions; there are many they are false. It is true that our modern ineffective; below, I go into more detail on other such companies. we are left with a economic engine depends strongly upon the some of these. But most important of all is situation where an environment of continuing innovation of the computer the fact that such restrictions should be innovation and competition is stymied— industry. However, that innovation depends unnecessary; they attempt to restrict stymied by fear of even bothering to enter the in turn upon the ability of many different Microsoft from doing things that are illegal in market, given the expectation that Microsoft sources to imagine and create new software, the first place, since as a monopoly Microsoft will do anything to destroy your enterprise. and for those creations to be able to compete is bound not to conduct its business in a In the courtroom, it has been demonstrated for public attention. It is indeed a bad thing predatory fashion. For example, requiring that Microsoft has falsified and even to stifle the ability of the nation’s largest Microsoft in the agreement not to retaliate destroyed evidence. Despite these events, software company to produce new products; against companies that sell competing accepted as fact in a court of law, no criminal but it is not an acceptable alternative to stifle products with their computers is no great penalties have been forthcoming. In recent the ability of everyone *but* that company accomplishment; that was already illegal! In months, we have seen news stories covering to innovate instead. fact, enumerating such restrictions, and then
VerDate 11
providing exceptions shortly afterward, gives Finally, the last paragraph says that Computer,’’ which again is defined in a very the impression that there are certain terms Microsoft is not prohibited from providing restrictive fashion. Again, Microsoft is under which Microsoft is actually *allowed* Consideration if it’s commensurate with the allowed under this Part to retaliate against to violate the law. This cannot be considered OEM’s effort/expenses related to Microsoft manufacturers of machines which are acceptable. products. But since Microsoft is not required intended to be used as servers, for example. Below are specific comments on parts of to provide this Consideration, this means that —Section III, Part G— the agreement. they can use this provision of Consideration Once again, Microsoft is permitted under —Section III, Part A— as a carrot for the kind of behavior they want this Part to retaliate against a wide class of Section III, Part A. has several problems. OEMs to follow. The first part of this hardware manufacturers and vendors First, it only restricts what Microsoft can do restriction might seem to forbid that, since it because of the bizarre definition of ‘‘Personal against OEMs, which means makers of talks about withholding Compensation—but Computer’’ used in this agreement. ‘‘Personal Computers’’ according to the that’s non-monetary compensation only. Furthermore, an exception is provided definition given later in the settlement. They could certainly give monetary where Microsoft ‘‘obtains a representation The definition of ‘‘Personal Computers’’ compensation (i.e. kickbacks) under this that it is commercially practicable’’ for the used in the agreement excludes a wide class ‘‘restriction.’’ One might think this is other party to do equal or bigger business of technologies which should not be. For prevented by the restrictions in Part B with competing software. Nowhere does the example, a maker of machines which are immediately below—but again, that only agreement indicate from where such a intended to be used as servers does not fall applies to Covered OEMs, not new ones. representation of feasibility must come—it under this definition—odd given that the —Section III, Part B— could come from inside Microsoft itself! distinction between machines intended as Similar to the guarantees of license The agreement does say that the desktop PCs and machines intended as termination warnings/ opportunities to cure representation should be obtained ‘‘in good servers is often blurry. The phrasing in this described in the previous Part, the presence faith’’; but that’s subjective, and absurdly Part indicates that Microsoft is perfectly free of such volume discounts, and different generous to a company that has been found to retaliate however they choose for whatever volume discount schedules for 1–10 vs. 11– guilty of repeated abusing past agreements. they choose against manufacturers/vendors 20 Covered OEMs, strongly discourages those —Section III, Part H— of server hardware. OEMs from selling any other OS. This is In Subpart 1, allowing MS to present the Second, it says that Microsoft cannot another clause which *helps* Microsoft options for MS or non-MS software to people retaliate by altering commercial relations maintain its monopoly. as ‘‘one group’’ or ‘‘the other group’’ virtually with OEMs. But they can certainly retaliate —Section III, Part C— guarantees no one will use the non-MS stuff. by doing nice things for everyone *but* the Since the constraints of this part only Regarding the exceptions 1. and 2. to the target OEM. That might seem to be forbidden apply to Microsoft’s interactions with rest of Part H, both listed near the end of the from the next clause in that sentence OEMs—makers of ‘‘Personal Computers’’— part, 2. is an enormous loophole! It allows (including the parenthetical remark), but it other hardware manufacturers, such as Microsoft, and their Windows OS, to shun isn’t; that only forbids withholding *non- people making machines which are intended some non-Microsoft software simply because monetary* Consideration that others get. to be used as servers, *can* be restricted by Microsoft or some capability of Windows They can withhold new *monetary* Microsoft from exercising the options listed itself claims that software is not up to snuff. Consideration that others get without here. It could be a ridiculous claim; but in the time running afoul of the agreement. —Section III, Part D— it takes to sort it out, the practical damage to Furthermore, this Part restricts retaliation, Under these terms, in order to obtain the company providing that software is done, but it doesn’t restrict Microsoft from entering information about the Windows APIs etc., and Microsoft’s monopoly position is that into really predatory licenses with companies one has to join MSDN or ‘‘similar much stronger. And, of course, ‘‘reasonably with whom they hadn’t previously been mechanisms.’’ What are the terms of so prompt’’ is a subjective term, and based on doing business. In other words, Microsoft joining? Presently, MSDN subscriptions cost their past behavior, Microsoft can be counted could act so that if you were not previously a lot of money. This constraint seems to be upon to interpret it to their advantage. licensing Windows, and wanted to be, you’d saying that to get Microsoft to play fair, —Section III, Part I— better not do anything that upsets them (such everyone has to pay them! Furthermore, Again, this section is hobbled both by the as described in Subparts 1, 2 and 3 of this what’s to prevent Microsoft from making use of subjective terms (‘‘reasonable’’) and Part, III A.) or you’ll only get a bad license joining this mechanism difficult for entities the bizarre definition of ‘‘Personal from them. You might think this is prevented they wish to punish or abuse? Computer’’ used throughout this agreement. by Part B immediately following; but that Also, this section requires Microsoft to Subpart 5 seems to be saying that in any only applies to ‘‘Covered OEMs’’, not new begin providing access to APIs in a ‘‘Timely agreement Microsoft signs to give people ones. Manner,’’ which is defined as ‘‘the time APIs or documentation or similar Next, Section III, Part A restricts Microsoft Microsoft first releases a beta test version of information, like they’re supposed to provide from retaliating against OEMs that ship a Windows Operating System Product that is under the agreement, Microsoft can in turn Personal Computers that include Windows distributed to 150,000 or more beta testers.’’ require the software makers to license to and another OS or will boot more than one So if they only release it to 149,999 beta Microsoft any intellectual property rights OS; but it doesn’t restrict them from testers, this time never arrives (and so the they might have associated with anything the retaliating against companies that ship or are restrictions which are to occur at that point software companies might do that’s described contemplating shipping machines which do don’t)? in this Judgment, even if those properties are not include a Windows OS at all. Against Clearly, this ‘‘Timely Manner’’ demand is unrelated to the project for which the APIs/ OEMs that ship some of their Personal easily circumvented. And, for the purposes of etc. are used. This effectively authorizes one Computers with only a competing operating this agreement and definition, what’s a beta of Microsoft’s more strongly anti-competitive system installed, or with no operating system tester? tactics! installed, Microsoft is perfectly free to If the software is sent to a company, such —Section III, Part J— retaliate however they like. as a member of MSDN, to be tested, does that This is perhaps the most flawed Part of the Next, OEMs which are not Covered OEMs company count as one beta tester? Or are entire agreement. Regarding Subpart 1 . .who can have their Windows licenses terminated there as many as the company has employees decides whether disclosure of a particular without the notice and opportunity to cure that *ever* sit down in front of a machine. piece of information compromises the described here as to be provided to Covered This is not clear, and is full of possibilities security of anti-piracy etc. systems? OEMs. What is the purpose of this for exploitation. Microsoft? They can just say that it does, distinction? Why do only the bigger OEMs —Section III, Part F— without substantiation, and thus avoid terms get this protection? The obvious reason is ‘‘to This section hinges on the ban against of this agreement. Any disagreement with lock them into selling Windows.’’ In other ‘‘retaliating’’; it is not clearly defined what Microsoft’s claim, and they just drag it out words, a clause assisting Microsoft in further would constitute ‘‘retaliation.’’ forever in court while the other company solidifying its monopoly is contained within Furthermore, the entities used in this Part dies. This sequence of events could not be the agreement itself! are defined in terms of the term ‘‘Personal more predictable. It will happen. Count on it.
VerDate 11
Furthermore, it is important to note that What if Microsoft disagrees with the should not go unpunished for leveraging effectively all communications protocols of Committee? What mechanism exists to their illegal monopoly and utilizing anti- interest include some sort of authentication decide what the appropriate response to the competitive behavior. MSs fruits of their process, that Microsoft’s future plans involve complaint will be? How long can Microsoft illegalities must be dealt with in a proper license subscription with online verification, drag out the proceedings? manner. The PFJ does non-of this. Thus I etc. The claim can be made that none of their Subpart 4d) is, to be blunt, appalling. submit my stance opposing the Proposed APIs, relevant documentation, or Under this agreement, if the TC finds that Final Judgment. Thank you for your time in Communications Protocols are completely Microsoft has been brazenly violating this the matter. empty of information on security protocols, agreement, that fact can’t be used in any Respectfully, software licensing, encryption, court proceeding? And the Committee Aubrey Landero authentication, digital rights management, members can’t talk about it in any legal 310 S. Orange Ave. Apt. 19 etc. This clause basically means that proceeding? This is simply absurd; it seems Lodi, CA 95240 Microsoft can withhold pretty much intended to make sure that the Committee everything. It is a loophole through which a cannot actually accomplish anything. MTC–00028394 supertanker could be sailed. —Section V, Part A— From: joeikel Regarding Subpart 2, how is it determined This Part defines the length of the To: Microsoft ATR whether a licensee has a history of willful agreement as five years. This is too short for Date: 1/28/02 2:57pm violation of intellectual property rights? Is it any penalty agreement, of course; anyone Subject: Pubic Comment from past legal convictions, or findings following this case knows that Microsoft can I desired to get a signed copy of my against them in civil courts? drag out a court action for three years at a comments to you concerning the Microsoft Or is it just that Microsoft says so? And minimum. case and requested Mail-Etc to send a FAX who decides whether he licensee has ‘‘a —Section VI— to you but they have reported difficulties in reasonable business need for the API, ‘‘Consideration’’ is poorly-defined. It is not establishing a connection. Documentation, or Communications sufficiently general; there are many other To assure that my comments will arrive in Protocol’’? Microsoft? And who gets to forms of compensation than are listed here. a timely manner I am sending them as an decide whether the standards Microsoft gets Under the definition of ‘‘Microsoft attachment to this e-mail. Mail-Etc will to establish for certifying the authenticity and Middleware Product,’’ existing technologies continue to send a FAX and if they succeed viability of the business are in fact which are not listed there—such as IIS, SQL there will be a duplication of documents in ‘‘reasonable’’ or ‘‘objective’’? Microsoft has software, etc.—are not Microsoft Middleware your files. stated that they do not consider Open Source Products, and so Microsoft can go ahead and Thank you! to be a viable model; does this mean that no continue to exploit secret capabilities of the Joe G. Ike one writing Open Source software would be kernel/APIs in their design, and thus MTC–00028394—0001 allowed to look at the APIs or maintain an unfair advantage over competing Communications Protocols? Apparently, software. 3410 76th Avenue, SE according to the terms in this agreement. As noted above several times, the Mercer Island, WA 98040–3439 In particular, this is an effective lock-out definition of ‘‘Personal Computer’’ is far too January 25,2002 for designers wishing to create free software narrow. In particular, there is often no Attorney General John Ashcroft relating to anything which contains practical distinction between desktop, US Department of Justice ‘‘security’’-type subsystems (of the types ‘‘intended-for-single-user’’ machines, and 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW listed in the Subpart). And regarding 2d), machines intended to be used as servers. Washington, DC 20530 since the third party, that gets to test/ensure Excluding servers from the definition (and Dear Mr. Ashcroft: verification and compliance with Microsoft thus from the constraints of any agreement) I am writing to you today to encourage you specifications, has to be approved by makes no practical sense. to bring the litigation against Microsoft to an Microsoft, what’s to stop Microsoft from Also as noted above, ‘‘Timely Manner’’ is immediate and decisive closure. I must state using this third party evaluation as a barrier defined in an easily-circumvented fashion. that I have been unequivocally and strongly to other companies’’ bringing their products The definition of ‘‘Windows Operating against this case from its very inception. It to market? Nothing in this judgment. System Product’’ notes that Microsoft alone appears evident to me that it is very unfair This Part is a disaster. gets to decide what is part of the Windows to punish a company for excelling in their —Section IV, Part A— OS and what is not. If this restriction had industry. I am a volunteer instructor with a The presence of subjective terms such as been in place in the past, many of the claims non-profit organization teaching senior ‘‘reasonable opportunity’’ seems like a recipe Microsoft made in this case, later disproven, citizens how to enrich their lives by for further delays while court actions would simply have been accepted as fact. becoming computer literate. This is no easy proceed. This is a bad definition. task but at the close of every session I thank —Section IV, Part B God that Microsoft has been so innovative Three people is not a sufficiently large MTC–00028392 and far sighted as to integrate their basic group to vigorously pursue everything the From: Wayne Smith Operating System with applications to Technical Committee is tasked to oversee. To: Microsoft ATR provide the User with a basis of commonality Furthermore, the small size of the committee Date: 1/28/02 2:57pm that makes the learning process infinitely makes it strongly susceptible to politics: a Subject: Microsoft Settlement easier. This applies not only to senior pro-Microsoft administration means two pro- The currently proposed settlement with citizens but also to those individuals learning Microsoft members on the Committee voting Microsoft seems bad in that it does not the use of new software to increase their in the third member. To a great many people, appear to penalize or restrain Microsoft knowledge and consequently leading to this committee appears to be an empty enough. industrial efficiency. Prior to my retirement gesture. Wayne L Smith I vividly remember the days when it was a And the constraint on public comments by 669 Los Ninos Way nightmare when attempting to home-brew the TC has enormous ramifications. It Los Altos CA 94022 our own integrated system. I have prevents whistle-blowing, for example. If the [email protected] experienced the fact that Microsoft has system breaks, and two members of the expended every effort to provide us with the Committee are protecting Microsoft, the third MTC–00028393 features that we sorely needed. can’t say anything about it. From: A L As I dwell upon the past three years I —Section IV, Part D To: Microsoft ATR conclude that it must have been very taxing Subpart 4c) indicates that ‘‘If the TC Date: 1/28/02 2:58pm on the IT industry, the economy, Microsoft concludes that a complaint is meritorious, it Subject: Microsoft Settlement and its employees. I understand that shall advise Microsoft and the United States Dear Judge, Microsoft has spent millions of dollars in of its conclusion and its proposal for cure.’’ I want to let you know that I am against their defense—money that could have been No provision is made for what happens next. the Proposed Final Judgment. Microsoft put into the development of new products
VerDate 11
resulting in further advancement of the law, ?I do have some pride in my done to the citizens of the United States is technology and industrial efficiency. The legislative record and my history of service the integration of more and more software employees of Microsoft have had to endure in the Senate, and I don\’t like to have my into its operating system (Microsoft calls it an air of uncertainty during this entire words and my intention being middleware). Every time Microsoft integrates situation. As a citizen I am extremely misinterpreted,? reported at http:// another program into the operating system, it concerned with the possible flight of talent www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/depth/ harms the marketplace by killing that is the backbone of Microsoft’s awesome tunney012602.htm. ?The disclosure competition, forcing us to use Microsoft’s capability. provisions were designed to help ensure that proprietary technology (such as activeX, It is difficult for me to understand the no defendant can ever achieve ! through rather than Java), and preventing us from problems related to the proposed, but political activities what it cannot obtain uninstalling unwanted features/software. rejected, settlement. Judging from what the through the legal process.? Id. ?Failure to Microsoft keeps talking about innovating. media has reported, Microsoft has agreed to comply with these provisions raises an When it talks about innovation it’s really the terms included in the settlement as well inference or, at a minimum, an appearance of talking about monopolization. as to the terms brought forth on issues that impropriety.? Id. Microsoft has a long record The agreement talks about removing were not considered to be unlawful. To name of disregarding the law and intellectual shortcuts and icons. The real answer is for two concessions, Microsoft has agreed to property rights of others in favor of its the web browser (and other middleware) to avoid agreements that would obligate any determination to sustain its monopoly. be separate from the operating system so that third party to exclusively distribute Windows Microsoft executives have often criticized the consumer can choose which browser technology. Additionally, Microsoft will not competition without factual basis, and have (middleware) to use. This wasn’t in obligate software developers to refrain from launched smear campaigns against people Microsoft’s monopolistic interest, because developing competing software. Frankly, I who take positions contrary to their having the browser (middleware) separate personally cannot understand why Microsoft immediate business interests. Moreover, from the operating system prevented should have to divulge the code that makes Microsoft has a long record of campaigning Microsoft from locking consumers into using up their Operating System. I would certainly against fair competition by other Microsoft’s proprietary technologies. I am include that in the realm of being proprietary technologies, including open source extremely concerned about Microsoft’s .net and intellectual property. To put it more technologies. Microsoft has attempted technology. Not only is Microsoft tying all of strongly, to me it smacks of being a case of numerous times to quash and tarnish the their products into .net, but they are sour grapes by certain other organizations goals of the open source movement. Such beginning to require consumers to use it. An that have not been as successful. tactics are not only fundamentally unfair and example includes the messaging and unethical, but also against the interest of multimedia features built into Windows XP. MTC–00028394 0002 consumers, especially in view of Microsoft’s To take advantage of these features, you have Chairman Greenspan commented, with dismal software security record. to sign up for a Passport (.net) account. This words to the effect, that the Guide-On that is The Intellectual Property Group urges the is another form of Microsoft’s illegal and going to lead the economy of our nation out government to insist on a settlement or monopolistic behavior. of the doldrums is technology. It is our verdict that serves to benefit consumers. Microsoft has continuously broken future. There is absolutely no doubt in my Such a settlement would not only require previous consent decrees. I have no mind that Microsoft has been a major Microsoft to timely share relevant portions of confidence that Microsoft will abide by this contributor to technology. As a result, and to its software code with the business decree either. Besides, this decree is just a reiterate, I personally would like to see this community, but would also require that it slap on the wrist. The world’s largest matter closed as soon as possible and I am agree to offer reasonable royalties to monopoly in history must be fenced-in and sure that I am among many who share this intellectual properties in which it holds a controlled so that it doesn’t continue to harm same point of view. Thank you for your time controlling interest. Without this second consumers. I truly feel that the current DOJ, and giving me this opportunity to voice my aspect to the settlement, smaller companies under the current Pro-business Bush opinion. could be subject to intimidation and lawsuits administration is doing a disservice to the Sincerely, by Microsoft. Such actions would stifle American people by not dealing with Joe G. Ike competition and result in fewer choices for Microsoft more harshly. This is a turning Engineer( retired ) consumers. point. Our government has the opportunity to e-mail [email protected] Sincerely, change Microsoft’s behavior now and to tel: (206) 232–5643 Dave Ashby restore competition in the computer software The Intellectual Property Group marketplace. The Microsoft settlement will MTC–00028395 http://www.ipgroup.org not restore competition and it does not From: [email protected]@inetgw punish Microsoft for its illegal, monopolistic To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028396 actions. Date: 1/28/02 3:04pm From: Todd Symionow I do not support the current Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Settlement. The opinions expressed in this Sir: Date: 1/28/02 2:58pm email are my own. The Intellectual Property Group strongly Subject: Microsoft Settlement Todd Symionow urges the government to conclude that the The settlement that the DOJ and Microsoft CC:Todd Symionow proposed settlement with Microsoft is wholly came up with is ineffectual and is bad for the inadequate to encourage Microsoft to comply people of the United States. After reading the MTC–00028397 with applicable legal and ethical practices. agreement, it appears to me that Microsoft From: [email protected]@inetgw Microsoft has often played the game that dictated the document to the DOJ, who typed To: Microsoft ATR simply because an action is not specifically it up for them. Microsoft has received a Date: 1/28/02 2:59pm illegal, then it is acceptable to take the action, judgement of being a Monopoly by the Subject: Microsoft Settlement even if such action is contradictory to courts. To whom it may concern common business ethics. In many cases, Microsoft should have received a fine of I don’t feel that the current Settlement will Microsoft has taken this concept a step several billion dollars, plus stiff oversight curtail or discourage Microsoft from further and unilaterally decided that certain into its practices (like IBM had to go continuing the same illegal practices. laws are extremely limited, as in the case of through). The settlement does not punish Something has to be done to truly level the failing to identify communications with Microsoft for its illegal and monopolistic playing field. There are many talented and Congressional representatives because, as activities and doesn’t prevent it from creative people who do not further our Microsoft alleges, they are not part of the continuing to operate in illegal and current technology because they know that government (referring specifically to monopolistic ways. The most important part Microsoft would use their money to crush it Microsoft’s interpretation of the Tunney Act). of the case was ignored by the DOJ— no mater how good it is. Almost all of my In fact, Senator Tunney recently declared, Microsoft’s tying of software to its operating co-workers feel the same way. And many of with respect to Microsoft’s interpretation of system. The largest harm that Microsoft has them feel that Microsoft has the DOJ in it’s
VerDate 11
pocket and will be able to get away with Microsofts rivals will have ample Sincerely, what ever it wants to. If people could commit opportunity to carry on their own operations Chris Johnson a crime that would make them and will allow Microsoft to operate without 20821 Hillcrest Pl. Edmonds, WA 98026 $50,000,000,000 and all they had to do was further disruption, which of course, will be MTC–00028402 give back $1,000,000,000 most people would an asset to the computer consumer and the do it as many time as they were allowed. And current struggling economy.Don‘t breakup From: [email protected]@inetgw with the current settlement, Microsoft this fine company that has put the world at To: Microsoft ATR WOULD NOT be giving up a billion dollars our fingertips. Date: 1/28/02 3:03pm and WOULD be furthering their Monopoly! I Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft Settlement read an editorial in Barrons, December 10th, Richard S. Murchy I believe the settlement by the mediator metro section in which a Dr. Jeffrey Smith W.188 Lake Forest Lane W. was fair and beneficial to consumers and the gave a very good analysis and solution to the Shelton, WA 98584 United States economy. It is time to move problem. I would highly recommend a read CC:[email protected]@inetgw beyond this litigation. of the article and especially his solution. Joyce & John Hammill MTC–00028400 Thank You, MTC–00028403 David Anderson From: [email protected]@inetgw This is my opinion and I am not speaking To: Microsoft ATR From: Mark G. Munsell for JPL or NASA. Date: 1/28/02 3:01pm To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Fwd: Attorney General John Date: 1/28/02 2:59pm MTC–00028398 Ashcroft Letter Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: WILLIAM ROSSI THEY MADE SOME BRUTAL BUSINESS MTC–00028404 To: Microsoft ATR DECISION, BUT TO BREAKUP A Date: 1/28/02 3:00pm TECHNOLOGY COMPANY WHO STARTED From: t t To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement FROM SCRATCH IS DISASTEROUS Date: 1/28/02 3:04pm 20 Bea Avenue East Northport, NY 11731 AGAINST ALL BUSINESS GROWTH Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 25, 2002 PRINCIPLE. hOWEVER i BELIEVE THE Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, Attorney General John Ashcroft SHOULD PAY A CONSIDERABLE FINE Your honor I submit my objection to the US Department of Justice WHICH SHOULD BE to PROVIDE INTERNET Proposed Final Judgment. Apparently, there 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW SERVICE TO SMALL COMMUNITY FARMS are several loopholes encompassed in the Washington, DC 20530 REALLY UNDERPRIVELEGED AND THEY framework of the final proposal, which favors Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am supportive of the SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE THWE Microsoft. The proposed final settlement Department of Justice’s efforts to settle the INTERNETSERVICE FOR THEIR OWN does not dish out any due justice or antitrust case against Microsoft. I prefer the CHOICE AND msft SHOULD PAY FOR 3 punishment on the side of Microsoft. At the remedies provided by the settlement YEARS. same time no devices are in place to ensure agreement, as opposed to breaking up I AM A VERU SMALL FRY INTERESTED MS compliance to the stated rules enclosed Microsoft. Anticompetitive business IN BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY. P L E A in the settlement.Although being closely practices will be curtailed by Microsoft’s S E get ENRON and these crooks Thanks I monitored, Microsoft will not have any direct agreement; for example, it will become easier hope yopu give my thought some time. supervision to reassure the company for consumers to remove features of Respectfully complies with the stated agreement. A three- Windows from their computers and replace Josef Brunner man compliance team overseeing Microsoft them with other software programs. MTC–00028401 remain in alignment to the stated rules and Additionally, Microsoft has agreed not to regulations. This three-man oversight team retaliate against software developers who From: mofish will be composed of the following: one promote software that competes with To: Microsoft ATR appointee from the Justice Department, one Windows. The settlement agreement Date: 1/28/02 3:03pm appointee from Microsoft, and another provides the appropriate remedies to the Subject: Microsoft Settlement appointee chosen by the two existing complaints made by the plaintiffs. No further Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Thank you for finally members. In turn, Microsoft will control half action should be taken against Microsoft at ending the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft of the oversight team. All findings by this the federal level. with a settlement that is more than fair. I committee will not be allowed into court. Sincerely, personally feel that enough is enough. We The sole purpose for such a committee is to William Rossi r have expended millions of dollars on this inform the Justice Department of all suit already, and I believe our tax dollars MTC–00028399 infractions committed by Microsoft. could be more prudently allocated.This is a Subsequently the Justice Depart will launch From: Richard Murchy strong agreement. It grants computer its own investigation into the matter and To: Microsoft ATR manufacturers new rights to configure commence litigation to halt all infractions. Date: 1/28/02 3:06pm systems with access to various Windows When all is said and done, the oversight Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust case. features. In addition, it creates a committee is just window dressing. In turn, Attorney General John Ashcoft governmental technical oversight committee who will not strictly oversee Microsofts U S Department of Justice to review Microsoft software codes and business moves? In my opinion, the Proposed 950 Pennsylvania Ave.NW books, and to test Microsoft compliance to Final Judgment does not provide sufficient Washington D C 20530 ensure that Microsoft abides by the and appropriate restrictions or penalties Dear Mr Ashcroft, agreement. The only term of the settlement against Microsoft. What reassurance do we This letter is to show my support for the I believe is inappropriate is the internal have against Microsofts illegal and illicit pending settlement of the Microsoft Amti- interface disclosure. I do not believe that activities? I can assure you that the Proposed trust case. The compromise represents a fair Microsoft should have to divulge any Final Judgment does not effectively address resolution to this legal dispute.It has gone on information to its competitors relating to how the question. I am against the Proposed Final long enough. it designs or secures its product. This Judgment. It in fact pardons MS of all Microsoft has made the Computer easy to particular term defies the very foundation wrongdoing. use and the breakup of this great company is upon which this nation was built: free Respectfully, a poor decision to make. The proposed enterprise. Your decision demonstrates Travis Thurman settlement provides flexibility for computer insightful leadership on your part. I am glad 311 Estes Ct. makers with uniform licensing, rights to re- that our Attorney General is a friend of Travis Airforce Base 94535 configure Windows with other programs, American business. In my opinion, no more abilities to license Microsoft technologies action should be taken at the federal level in MTC–00028405 and to have access to the Windows internal this case. From: Hugh Queen code. With these conditions in place Thank you. To: Microsoft ATR
VerDate 11
Date: 1/28/02 3:03pm MTC–00028407—0001 To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement @??d;7??-——R*EDWARD A. VOTYPKA Date: 1/28/02 3:06pm 301 Bobby Jones Road 16611 Mohican Trail Subject: Microsoftsettlement Sarasota, FL 34232 Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 To Whom it May Concern, January 26, 2002 January 25, 2002 I think that Microsoft should not be Attorney General John Ashcroft Attorney General Mr. John Ashcroft allowed to abuse the antitrust laws or force US Department of Justice US Department of Justice consumers to use their own internet browser 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW because there must be competition in the Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20530 market, otherwise Micosoft will not be Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Dear Mr. Ashcroft: motivated to produce a product that is of I hope that this settlement will mean the This is to voice my support for the good quality. It is unfair to take away the end of any further action at the federal level settlement recently reached between the consumers right to choose the product they prefer and it is not beneficial to our countries and put an end to any more attacks on Department of Justice and Microsoft. In my economy to lose its competative edge by Microsoft. Microsoft has never been a opinion, this lawsuit should never have permitting monopolistic companies to exist. monopoly and the government certainly has happened. The basis of antitrust laws is sincerely, no place telling people how to run their damage to the consumer and monopolization of the market. There was no damage to the Lauren Kosty businesses. [email protected] Microsoft is willing to put this behind consumer. Bill Gates, through Microsoft, has helped consumers enormously. He them; they are sacrificing potentially millions MTC–00028410 standardized computer software. You do not of dollars in profits in order to get a need five different programs to do something. From: Paul Svitenko settlement agreed upon. They are giving up Nor is the price exorbitant; in fact, prices for To: Microsoft ATR access to their source code without software have gone down. Microsoft put out Date: 1/28/02 3:06pm retaliating when it is used to compete with a better product at a better price. His Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft products. This alone will cover any competitors had every chance, and still do, Dear DOJ, complaints against Microsoft by allowing a to put out a better product and they have not. From time to time, I hate Microsoft and its greater number of products to be used in Instead, they have gone crying to the federal product. what were predominantly Microsoft areas. government citing lack of competition. While At all times I hate this antitrust effort. It is I hope that his will satisfy everyone, as it it is true that Microsoft plays to win, so does unnecessary. Costly. Hypocritical. History is well should. Microsoft is going above and every other firm in the IT business ?? indeed, replete with antitrust prosecutions that have beyond what was expected of them and it in any business. Microsoft has tried to be fair wreaked nothing but havok. Doing something should be appreciated. in meeting the Department of Justice to end a government-granted monopoly is Sincerely, demands. Microsoft has agreed to open the one thing. Attacking the most successful Hugh Queen company up to more competition, agreeing to company of our day is another. They got to CC:[email protected]@inetgw allow other developers more of its the top by offering what the public wanted. copyrighted code to aid in the development We paid them all the way. MTC–00028406 of third party programs; Microsoft has agreed Let those who have the skills and honest From: Betty Brennan to a uniform price list; Microsoft has agreed desire punish Mr. Gates and company in the To: Microsoft ATR to disclose interfaces that are internal to market place. There are many out there. If Date: 1/28/02 3:04pm Windows’’ operating system. This is more Microsoft lets down even for a minute, they Subject: Microsoft Settlement than most companies would do. will suffer ? alternatives abound, as the Please settle the Microsoft case with the I urge you to support this agreement and Apple, Linux, and AOL-Netscape-Lindows current findings. We feel the prosecution of allow us to put this matter to rest. possibilities show. Microsoft has been and is detrimental to the IF MERGEFIELD PARA4 1/2 PARA4+<> In the end, it is not Microsoft that beat entire economy. The public has been ...... AOL, Sun, Apple and the rest of them ? it penalized by actions of the federal Sincerely, was I and other consumers who chose a government in this unreasonable prosecution Edward Votypka cheap, relatively reliable, available standard in computing. The rest remind me of Carl by the government, Microsoft competitors, MTC–00028408 various states where the competitors reside Marx ? riding on the coattails of their betters and a prejudiced judge. We feel Microsoft has From: and trying to bite the hand that has enabled [email protected]@inetgw a better product and should not be them to feed themselves. It’s disgusting, and To: Microsoft ATR prosecuted for making the best successful you should find something more constructive Date: 1/28/02 3:04pm economy in history and its prosecution led to do with my tax dollars. Subject: Microsoft Settlement to the recession. It appears the other giants, Best regards, Good Day: Paul L. Svitenko, Esq. i.e. Exxon and Mobil, merging banks, Short and simple, I am a consumer. A merging lumber companies, etc. manage to consumer who has been harmed by MTC–00028411 merge and be monopolistic to the detriment Microsoft’s monopoly in the form of inflated From: Don Carlson of the regular citizen causing increased prices prices, lack of software choice and shoddy To: Microsoft ATR and the federal government does not software produced by Microsoft. I join with Date: 1/28/02 3:07pm interfere. While Microsoft gets punished for the top Consumer ogranizations in America Subject: Microsoft Settlement going it alone (without political aid) and the (Ralph Nader’s Consumer Project on Please get this settled and move on with other giants lobby Congress, we (everyday Technology, The Consumer Federation of life. Don’t cave in to the demands of inferior citizens) have to pay the higher prices. America and Consumer’s Union) in asking companies and their whining senators etc. Please settle this matter with the current you to reject the proposed settlement as it Show me a better product at a better price decisions and do not carry it out any longer. does little to preserve real competition going and I will buy it. Until then, leave Microsoft Forcing Microsoft to help their competitors is forward and does nothing to punish alone and let’s get on with serious business. unAmerican. Microsoft for their illegal past behaviors. Thank you for your consideration. Joe and Betty Brennan Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Don Carlson FAX206–878–1681 Respectfully, PO Box 867 Winthrop, WA 98862 MTC–00028407 Michael A. Crist 5416 Palos Verdes Blvd. 509–996–3631 From: Edward Votypka Torrance, CA 90505 To: Microsoft ATR [email protected] MTC–00028412 Date: 1/28/02 3:04pm From: K T Subject: Microsoft Settlement See attached, MTC–00028409 To: Microsoft ATR please. From: Lauren Kosty Date: 1/28/02 3:09pm
VerDate 11
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 3:12pm MTC–00028418 Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: McDaniel-Neff, Clifton I am in opposition to the Proposed Final Don’t let Microsoft get away with their To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Judgment in the Microsoft case. tactics any longer! I do not want to see a Date: 1/28/02 3:12pm Undoubtedly, MS continues to violate world dominated by a company that seeks to Subject: Microsoft Settlement business practices. The Proposed Final control all flows of information, whether in I am thoroughly opposed to the settlement Judgment does not punish Microsoft for its the office, school, home or on the net. that has been reached between the Justice past violations to the anti-trust laws. A concerned citizen Department and Microsoft in the Antitrust Microsoft is guilty of breaking several anti- J Barnett case. Microsoft is, without a doubt, a trust laws. Under the final settlement, Norfolk VA monopoly that has abused its power and will Microsoft is permitted to retain most if not continue to do so unless it is reigned in by all profits gained through their illicit MTC–00028415 the government. Microsoft corp. does not activities. Subsequently, the PFJ will not From: Tom Stevenson compete on the merit or value of its software, compensate parties injured or harmed To: Microsoft ATR but by using unfair tactics to get where it through Microsofts egregious misdeeds. Date: 1/28/02 3:13pm wants. In addition, the PFJ will not take into Subject: Microsoft Settlement Any settlement, etc. in this case should set account all Microsoft gains made through its very clear rules that Microsoft must adhere illegal maneuverings. With all due respect, MTC–00028416 to. It should also set forth punishments for the final settlement is basically From: Gordon Ruby past and/or future abusive action. Please do acknowledging the acceptance of Microsofts To: Microsoft ATR not allow this settlement. anti-competitive behavior. What kind of Date: 1/28/02 3:12pm Clifton McDaniel-Neff message does this send out to the public? I Subject: Microsoft Settlement Visual Information Specialist can assure you that the message is clear and I don?t believe that the proposed For Your Information, Inc. simple. settlement in the Microsoft anti trust case is Phone: (202) 267–2818 The PFJ encourages big corporations to fair in any way. I am a computer technician Email: [email protected] engage in monopolistic and predatory that has been working with Microsoft MTC–00028419 conduct, which in turn is detrimental to the software for more that 12 years. I have technology industry at large. With all due repeatedly seen Microsoft use its From: E T respect your honor, I am outraged at such a monopolistic advantage to destroy the To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 3:14pm preposterous proposal that only helps competition. The proposed settlement only Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft to remain intact and continue with helps Microsoft conquer one of the last areas Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally- its unethical practices. In conclusion I submit that it doesn?t have a monopoly: the Please consider my disapproval at the to you my objection to this Proposed Final education system. I find this to be absurd. Proposed Final Judgment. Consider the true Judgment. Also there are so many loop holes in the Respectfully, facts in the matter and judge accordingly. proposed settlement that the punishment Karen Thurman From my understanding a Final Settlement will be less than a slap on the wrist. 311 Estes Ct. has been reached between the two parties. Gordon Ruby Travis Airforce Base 94535 However the Proposed Final Judgment will River City Technical Services overturn the evidence found by the U.S. MTC–00028413 10534 NE Beech St. Court of Appeals indicting Microsoft in From: Mark Sutherland Portland, or 97220 violation of antitrust laws. To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 503–262–1930 The proposed settlement has the Justice @inetgw MTC–00028417 Department withdrawing their charges Date: 1/28/02 3:10pm against MS. In fact, based on the assessments From: Rob Ellis Subject: Microsoft anti-trust made on the proposal, Microsoft will be To: Microsoft ATR Please don’t let Microsoft get away with it. cleared of all wrongdoing in the matter. How Microsoft would have been just fine if not for Date: 1/28/02 3:12pm can this be? their cut throat business practices. Releasing Subject: Microsoft Settlement There are several glaring flaws in the PFJ. a OS that compeats fairly on the market Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division However, non-so more apparent than would mean that microsft would have about U.S. Department of Justice allowing an absentee landlord to govern 50–60% market share. But when a hardware 601 D Street NW Microsoft. With all due respect, the final manufacturer has to sign an agreement to Suite 1200 settlement provides no security to restrict MS only sell computers with only the one type Washington, DC 20530–0001 from breaking any laws in the future. In my of operating system it hurts all of us. A. Robert Ellis humble yet accurate opinion, the future Competition is what makes our capitalist 88 College Road W governing body, implementing certain rules economy go round and when the OS Princeton, NJ 08544 or regulations and forcing MS to adhere by manufacturer stops that from happening we To the Court: them, will not be stringent nor forceful become little more than a communist As a citizen, a student, a programmer, and enough to make any dramatic changes. commune. Their control of the market has a consumer, I would like to comment on the Similarly, I am not convinced that these stiff been unmeasurable and this control has anti-trust case against Microsoft, as allowed penalties applied to MS will ensure the damaged the way we live, the way we learn, by the Tunney Act. security and future growth of other and the way we work. Microsofts Monopoly I feel that the proposed settlement with companies, has cost businesses in the US alone Billions Microsoft does not do enough to punish the A whole new framework of laws must be in dollars that could have been paid back to company for past anti-competitive actions, established to justly punish MS. The stock holders or be used to pay off loans and nor is it specific enough to ensure that future Proposed Final Judgment abstains from such help the economy instead of hurting it. Don’t incidents will not occur. For details, please justification and order. Again I submit my let Microsoft screw us all again make them see the statement made by Dan Kegel and objection to the stated Proposed Final work with binders on for awhile and see if others, which has been, or will be submitted. Judgment. they can deal with some of their own I agree entirely with their comments. Sincerely, medicine. I hope that a stronger, more detailed Eduardo Tualla Mark Sutherland agreement can be reached that will resolve Sacramento, CA 548–59–5236 current complaints, and protect businesses, programmers, and consumers in the future. MTC–00028420 MTC–00028414 Thank you for your time. From: Marty Irwin From: Jeryl Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR Arthur Robert Ellis Date: 1/28/02 3:14pm
VerDate 11
Subject: Microsoft Settlement accepting states and Microsoft is fair to all brightest talent to become one of the best Please accept my attached letter of concerned and the general in public. This marketing and technology companies in the response regarding the Microsoft Settlement case has only minimally been about world. If you really want to find out about with the Department of Justice. Thank You ! consumer protection from a monopoly and competition, then why don’t you go out and Marty Irwin Send and receive Hotmail on has largely been about protecting the compare a Microsoft solution, to that of one your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com interests of a very few, large corporate and of it’s competitors (IBM, SUN, AOL/ 1116 NW 52nd Street government interests to make sure that their TimeWarner, Linux or other OS/Application Vancouver, WA 98663 brand of technology isn’t usurped by vendors variants) and evaluate on all facets (up front January 25, 2002 like Microsoft who work to find unique costs, consulting needs, ongoing support, Attorney General John Ashcroft technologies and incorporate them into a etc), and you will see that if more draconian US Department of Justice coherent, useable form for large numbers of remedies are pushed upon Microsoft that the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW people to benefit from the technologies use. high prices already charged by these Washington, DC 20530 In regard to this competition, the proposed Microsoft competitors will do everything Dear Mr. Ashcroft: settlement is very fair, for two of it’s primary except become more competitive. I am writing today regarding the settlement stipulations, in my mind. The first is that Thank you for your time and that was reached between the Department of OEM’s are assured that Microsoft can not consideration! Justice and the Microsoft Corporation in their take retribution on the OEM’s if the OEM’s David J. Renner three year long antitrust battle. I believe that decide they find one technology more MTC–00028425 this case has been propagated for far too long compelling than a Microsoft technology. It and the money and resources expended on also provides the means for Microsoft’s From: W. Curtiss Priest both sides of this dispute could have been competitors to find out about underlying To: Microsoft ATR put to better use elsewhere. interfaces into it’s applications and operating Date: 1/28/02 3:17pm The terms of this settlement are fair. systems, by allowing the sharing of specific Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement: Microsoft has agreed to design all future technology information, woefully insufficient versions of its Windows operating system to but which does so, in a controlled Dear Justice Department, work in conjunction with the products of its atmosphere that protects Microsoft’s rights to As a software innovator and holder of competitors. The company will also cease it’s intellectual property. several software patents, I have first hand knowledge of how extremely brutal, unfair any action that may be considered retaliatory. This is the most important reason to accept and bullying Microsoft is to others in the Adherence to this settlement will also be this proposal. It DOES protect the intellectual industry. I was involved for five years in ensured by a government appointed oversight capital of this company without the negotiation, arbitration and potential legal committee which will monitor Microsoft. It wholesale rape and plunder of it’s most action against Microsoft which only caused is clear to me that this settlement addresses important technological secrets. In a Microsoft to spend incredible resources to the issues that were brought in this suit and communist/socialist system, one would deny me and Humanic Systems any just and then some. The reluctance of some people to expect that the details of how a successful due compensation for our innovative work. accept these terms is proof that they are more business is operated would be viewed in In my opinion, as President of Humanic concerned with perpetuating their own extreme detail without any regard for the political agendas than they are with finding Systems, a company that was (above) abused rights of those individuals who have worked by Microsoft regarding our intellectual a suitable solution to this problem. so hard to make that company a success. But Thank you for supporting this settlement property for significant components of this is America. Organizations and Microsoft Outlook, the proposed remedy is and for allowing me to voice my opinion on individuals in our society have the right to this issue. extremely inadequate: protect and keep private the fruits of their 1. It does not provide substantial redress Sincerely, hard work and share those fruits with others Marty Irwin for the prior losses caused by MS on others in a way that rewards those who worked to 2. Secrecy provisions undermind the MTC–00028421 create those fruits. Microsoft’s competitors, ability to obtain API information and will including the states who are objecting to this From: Matthew Stoecker systematically be used by MS, in my opinion, settlement (these states also have compelling To: Microsoft ATR to continue its monopoly stranglehold interests on the behalf of Microsoft’s Date: 1/28/02 3:15pm 3. There are no structural remedies, and, competitors in my humble opinion) care not Subject: I urge acceptance of the proposed without those, the ‘‘fascist’’ mindset of about competition, but how to get as much settlement (EOM) Ballmer and Gates will continue to dominate intellectual property as possible and the thinking of each and every employee MTC–00028422 eliminate Microsoft as a threat to their very 4. Microsoft’s stated opinions about From: carmar profitable franchises which are far from various forms of open software, being a To: Microsoft ATR affordable for the average consumer (which is ‘‘cancer’’ undermines the ability for Date: 1/28/02 3:15pm what they keep telling us this is all about, consumers to get the maximum benefit for Subject: Support settlement of Microsoft case that this is for Jane and Joe consumer). the least cost This position, alone, Dear Atty. General Ashcroft: Finally, I am not surprised, even in the demonstrates that they want ‘‘all the I am writing to request your support of the light of all the stuff that has gone on at marbles’’ and it is a ‘‘winner take all’’ game settlement Microsoft has offered and the ENRON, that the loss of billions of dollars Consider, for example, a PBS documentary Department of Justice has agreed to. There from investor funds (holding Microsoft stock) about extreme competition as taught within will always be rivals and special interests is not a big deal to our government leaders the Gates family as Mr. Gates grew up This who object. It is time to put closure and I because of all the money that state and person does not know the word cooperation, trust you will support the settlement of this federal representatives hope to acquire from and, without extremely directive measures, case. a major shake up of Microsoft, and because will never show cooperation to the rest of the Sincerely, their corporate benefactors (IBM, SUN, AOL/ software industry that is slowly dying under Carolyn Palmquist TimeWarner, et. al) will benefit from a coup his ruthless hand. Havana, Florida in obtaining Microsoft’s intellectual property. Very truly yours, ENRON is a big deal, because so many Dr. W. Curtiss Priest MTC–00028424 government leaders had there hands involved President, Humanic Systems From: Dave in that organization in so many ways. Director, Center for Information, To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft is, on the other hand, not a big deal Technology & Society Date: 1/28/02 3:14pm to the government and needs to be done away Member, American Economics Association Subject: Microsoft Settlement with, because rather than spend a lot of time Prior, Principal Research Associate, MIT I am writing in the hope that my thoughts throwing money at congressional leaders and Author, —Technological Innovation for a and concerns may be heard by the court of lobbying congress, Microsoft went about it’s Dynamic Economy—, 1980 (Pergamon Press) Judge Colleen Kotar-Kelley. I’ll be brief. The business. Microsoft did do and still does an —Risks, Concerns and Social Legislation— settlement, as proposed by the DOJ, the excellent job of finding the best and the , 1988 (Westview Press)
VerDate 11
—W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS Subject: Microsoft Settlement the licensor to keep fixing the ‘‘bugs’’ in Center for Information, Technology & Attached please find letter in support of software for a specified amount of time; and Society the Microsoft settlement. that new releases are just software with new 466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA 02176 Michele M. Adams features. Voice: 781–662–4044 [email protected] GTECH Corporation However, there are many unresolved Fax: 781–662–6882 WWW: http:// 55 Technology Way software ‘‘bugs’’ which are never fixed. With Cybertrails.org West Greenwich, RI 02817 no competing software, my only recourse is email: [email protected] to buy a new license for a different version MTC–00028426 Ph: 401–392–5556 of software. This may be an expensive From: Rick Balian Fx: 401–392–4808 remedy which I should not have to afford. To: Microsoft ATR Also, I have heard that major resellers Date: 1/28/02 2:18pm MTC–00028430—0001 MUST sell Microsoft software on their Subject: Microsoft settlement 20 Pepin Street, Unit 4 computers. From Dell, Gateway, etc I can not To Whom It May Concern, West Warwick, RI 02893 get a computer only. I must purchase an I hope Microsoft does not get off with a January 28, 2002 operating system. But, on a previous warning or a fine. Warnings have been VIA FACSIMILE (202–307–1454) & E-MAIL computer that will no longer be used, I disregarded in the past. And a fine will only ([email protected]) already paid for an operating system. If that be earned back by higher prices on its Attorney General John Ashcroft computer is no longer to be used, or to be products. I think for Microsoft to curtail its US Department of Justice used with Linux, Unix, FreeBSD, Be, or some illegal domination there have to be specific, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW other ‘‘ground roots’’ operating system, why strict instructions as to what it may and may Washington, DC 20530–0001 must I pay again for a software license when not do. Windows XP is even more bundled RE: Microsoft Settlement one is already freely available for use? with Microsoft products than previous Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: I believe I have been wronged. I have been versions. How did that happen; why was that I am sending this public comment via duped out of my hard-earned money. I insist product allowed to be shipped? Microsoft email to record my support for settlement of that this will not happen again! I want the does not play well with others and must be the court case against Microsoft Corporation. party found guilty by a jury to be considered severely restricted in its drive to curtail and I seek your continuing support in the effort guilty by the judicial system! bully competition, ignore industry standards to persuade the judge that the settlement will S. David Rose and push through its own proprietary be in the better public interest of the United Stamford, CT, US standards and hamper innovation. States than the alternative of costly and mailto:[email protected] Sincerely, unfocused, continued litigation. This e-mail and any attachments may be Rick Balian — The settlement, whatever its effects on confidential or legally privileged. If you MTC–00028427 Microsoft Corporation, will be quite received this message in error or are not the beneficial to the community that uses intended recipient, you should destroy the e- From: Evelyn Kessler personal computers, PC makers will be able mail message and any attachments or copies, To: Microsoft ATR to re-configure the desktop package of and you are prohibited from retaining, Date: 1/28/02 3:18pm programs that come with Microsoft?? distributing, disclosing or using any Subject: Microsoft Settlement Windows, or even to combine making PCs information contained herein. Please inform In my opinion, Microsoft’s proposed with operating systems from Microsoft and us of the erroneous delivery by return e-mail. settlement to the law suit is a fair solution other software makers, with the ending of Thank you for your cooperation. to ending this long, ongoing fight by exclusive distribution and promotion terms competitors to try to bring Microsoft its MTC–00028432 knees. The willingness of nine states to in contracts, These and other changes will From: Linda Charlie Puls accept the settlement clearly demonstrates bring greater flexibility and opportunity for To: Microsoft ATR that it is fair and reasonable. But nothing will experimentation to the PC world, If Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 3:21pm ever be enough ‘‘punishment’’ for those states wants to continue to lead the industry it will Subject: Microsof Settlement who want to damage Microsoft. have to come up with new and better PO Box 639 I urge the DOJ to recommend acceptance of innovations faster than it has in the past. Shoreham, NY 11786 the settlement proposal. Allow Microsoft, Please continue to support the settlement. January 26, 2002 along with its new awareness of business Thank you. Attorney General John Ashcroft practices, to continue building great software Respectfully yours, US Department of Justice and services for users around the world. Michele Adams Pizzitola Evelyn Kessler 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MTC–00028431 Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00028428 From: Rose, David Dear Mr. Ashcroft: From: Leon A Wilson To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ I support the settlement between your To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 3:22pm office and Microsoft in the ongoing antitrust Date: 1/28/02 3:18pm Subject: personal opinion of MS settlement trial. I believe that Microsoft has the right to Subject: DOJ: AOL vs. MSFT To whom it may concern. free enterprise, and the terms it will comply I am very concerned regarding a quick and with to end the case are fair to its MTC–00028429 non-remedying settlement against Microsoft. competitors. Microsoft’s concessions in the From: Anatoly Hiller I feel as thought I am a pet of this particular settlement will ensure that their rivals have To: Microsoft ATR corporation ... I am only allowed to have more opportunities to gain market share. Date: 1/28/02 3:15pm what they will allow me to have. Not only Making new program removal features Subject: Microsoft Settlement are my software choices very limited, but available in Windows XP and giving The PFJ should terminate Microsoft’s even some of those competing choices are computer makers new freedoms to integrate illegal monopoly. The PFJ should deny to taken away from me because of the reasons non-Microsoft programs into Windows will Microsoft the profits of its past behavior and which found Microsoft guilty of being an ensure that other companies who make good penalize them. illegal monopoly. products will have a greater chance of The PFJ should prevent any future One thing I do not understand is why distributing them to the public. anticompetitive activity. Anatoly Hiller (650) Microsoft has not been sued by corporations Please settle the Microsoft case, and be 473–3617 using their software. There are many software mindful of their right to innovate and reach ‘‘bugs’’ in their past software—Office 95, 97 as many people as possible with their MTC–00028430 2000, etc. Windows 95, 98, 98 second products. From: Adams, Michele edition, millennium, etc. If I am buying a Sincerely, To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ license to use software, and not the software Linda J. O’Neill -Puls Date: 1/28/02 3:19pm itself, it stands to reason that I would expect Linda Puls
VerDate 11
MTC–00028433 Today, no one knows what the economic *Other legal issues related to suing From: Gary Robson value of a PC operating system is, or a web Microsoft i.e. the Class-Action Suit http:// To: Microsoft ATR browser, or an email client. Microsofts www.microsoft.com/presspass/Press/2002/ Date: 1/28/02 3:22pm monopoly has blocked the free flow of Jan02/01–11ClassActionDe cisionPR.asp and Subject: Microsoft Settlement information and capital that is essential to a the resent AOL/Netscape suit http:// I believe that the findings in the Microsoft healthy market. The decision by the Justice www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/info/ antitrust case were accurate and reasonably Department to capitulate to Microsoft is a news—01—22—02.asp *Where has the end stated, but that the remedies do not go far gross injustice to the average consumer of consumer been harmed by Microsoft IE enough to prevent recurrence or to computer software. browser, in the scope of this case? For that compensate consumers and competitors for In summary, the Proposed Final Judgment, matter Microsoft’s technology harming the damage done by Microsoft. as written, allows and encourages significant consumers? And one should look back in anticompetitive practices to continue, would When I first began using computers with history and see where technology has come delay the emergence of competing Windows- Microsoft operating systems, the OS from and improved consumers, productivity compatible operating systems, and is represented around 1% of the total cost of the and world wide economy. therefore not in the public interest. It should computer (an IBM PC with MS-DOS). Now, Other 100 Class-Act Suite, and suggested not be adopted without substantial revision I can buy a computer for under $1,000 and settlement: to address these problems. a copy of MS Windows will cost over $100. ‘‘Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft Sincerely, They’ve gone from 1% to 10%. The vast had agreed to provide more than $1 billion David M. Martin amounts of profit Microsoft is raking in from in cash, training, support and software to 74 Shelters Rd. their operating systems monopoly is funding help make computer technology more Groton, Massachusetts advertising, price cutting, and other methods accessible to public schools serving nearly 7 [email protected] of invading other profit centers, including million of America’s most economically not only middleware, but video games, the MTC–00028435 disadvantaged children.’’ Would have helped ISP/ASP market (through MSN), and many those schools and prepared those students for From: [email protected]@inetgw the current real world computing skills. But less visible incursions through acquisitions To: Microsoft ATR no, Apple/Mac’s has the loin-share of that and partnerships. Date: 1/28/02 3:22pm market and go figure they are training Breaking up Microsoft is the only realistic Subject: Mircosoft settlement solution. ——— students on non-Microsoft technology in Gary D. Robson MTC–00028436 preparation their profitable careers. 1284 Highway 72 North From: Tom Hayes AOL/Netscape Suit: P.O. Box 9 To: Microsoft ATR Who killed Netscape? Well, AOL Belfry, MT 59008–0009 Date: 1/28/02 3:25pm purchased Netscape for $10 billion dollars in 406/664–3067 (home) Subject: Microsoft Settlement the midst of the DoJ trial, even after hearing 406/446–2742 (work) My Opinion/Vote: Settlement needs to be concrete evidence that IE’s success in the [email protected] http://www.robson.org/ completed and minimal penalties, if any, market was based on merit, not market share. gary/ need to assessed and allow Microsoft And in the middle of a so called browser war, sound like a poor business decision gone bad MTC–00028434 freedom to be innovative, creative and competitive and survive in the world and now want the sue. From: David Martin competitive economy and free market. At the Regards, To: Microsoft ATR rate the legal proceeding are going, throwing Tom Hayes Date: 1/28/02 3:22pm this case is completely an option. 425–442–8322 Subject: Microsoft Settlement I am pro-settlement with Microsoft, DoJ MTC–00028437 To: [email protected] and the nine states. The issues, who and Subject: Microsoft Settlement why’s are not reflective of the general From: Tim Pawlenty To: Renata B. Hesse populating and I am convinced this is being To: Microsoft ATR Antitrust Division driven by Sun, IBM and AOL/Netscape and Date: 1/28/02 3:25pm U.S. Department of Justice several other competitors who lack product Subject: RE: Microsoft lawsuit settlement 601 D Street NW creativity and success. After all the legal January 28, 2002 Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530–0001 battles and information about harming Ms. Renata B. Hesse Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment consumers, at the end, you ask the general Antitrust Division on the proposed Microsoft settlement. In my population and consumers thru the Tunney U.S. Department of Justice opinion, the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) Act. If this was really truly driven by the 601 D Street NW does not protect the interests of the American consumers, I am pretty sure we would be Suite 1200 public, and does not address the anti- hearing from them more then Sun, IBM, and Washington, DC 20530–0001 competitive practices Microsoft was found AOL/Netscape funded legal battles. Dear Ms. Heese: guilty of. In particlular, I would like to make Settlement: Microsoft, economy, I applaud the leadership displayed by the the following points: consumers and innovative productivity has Department of Justice and the nine Attorneys The PFJ doesn’t take into account suffered enough. There should minimal General for developing the proposed Windows-compatible competing operating penalties against Microsoft and many of the Microsoft settlement agreement that balances systems The PFJ Contains Misleading and practices in question are no longer in place the protection of consumer interests and the Overly Narrow Definitions and Provisions or even applicable. Companies need to be competitive process. I believe that this The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive innovative, creative and competitive to settlement will preserve Microsoft’s ability to License Terms currently used by Microsoft survive in the world economy and free innovate and engage in normal The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional market. procompetitive activities, critical during our Incompatibilities Historically Used by Issues: nation’s current economic recession. At the Microsoft The PFJ Fails to Prohibit *These legal fees are costing the US and same time, the settlement is a win for Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs Microsoft many dollars. I see where consumers, with its broad scope of The PFJ as currently written appears to lack Microsoft took a finical cost, $660 Million prohibitions and obligations imposed on an effective enforcement mechanism As a dollars battling these legal issues, but where/ Microsoft. It will certainly require substantial professional working in the Computer what are the funds fueling the DoJ and nine changes in the way that Microsoft does Software industry, I have personally states and the other previous other nine business. It imposes significant costs on the observed the effect Microsofts monopoly states? My income, state and local tax dollars company and entails an unprecedented power has had. It has stifled innovation, and maybe some selective corporate degree of oversight. Furthermore, the blocked investment in promising competitive sponsorship? I would challenge opposing agreement strikes an appropriate balance technologies, and severely distorted the corporate sponsorship in the court of law on within the technology industry, providing efficiency of the software marketplace. a case slated on behalf of the people. opportunities and protections for firms
VerDate 11
seeking to compete while allowing Microsoft significant amounts of money in stock. Hundreds of billions of dollars have to continue to innovate and bring new contributions making the party line that been lost. technologies to market. much more difficult to dispute. This suit has unleashed a mob of whining This reasonable settlement will help At this juncture, they seem to be trying to moochers angling for a chunk of cash or consumers, the industry, and the economy to make new inroads into people’s lives such control of Microsoft. If this lawsuit is upheld move forward. that they will control large portions of it will result in the virtual destruction of the Very truly yours, commerce with the Internet by holding much company, maybe not at once, but surely in Tim Pawlenty of the information used for marketing and a drawn out death by fragmentation and Majority Leader purchasing. If the Department of Justice can bankruptcy. No more operating systems, no Minnesota House of Representatives have its case split so cleanly at this juncture more Web browsers, no more games, no more how much less of a chance will there be an office software, no more jobs, no more MTC–00028438 answer in the future when no doubt the nothing. Contrast the way Microsoft does From: [email protected]@ political pressure will likely be even greater business with the way the Post Office, a real inetgw because of greater profit? monopoly, does business. Can Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR I truly doubt that they are significantly prevent the entry of competitors into its Date: 1/28/02 3:21pm changed from their earlier tactics simply realm of business? No it can’t, but the Post Subject: Microsoft Settlement because those tactics worked and now no Office routinely does this the only way Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division longer are necessary rather than they are possible: by the use of force or the threat of 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 facing any punitive measures. There will force. There is no other way to bar Washington, DC 20530–0001 remain the fact that no one can develop for competition than to resort to force. Entry in Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: their platform as easily as they can. They a field of business however does not ensure Please put a stop to the economically- have the source code and expertise in success. Your competitors do not have to draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This developing it that automatically gives them make allowances for your weaknesses by has gone on long enough. an advantage in experience. tailoring their business practices so you can Microsoft has already agreed to hide its I honestly feel as though I was sold out as survive. Everything is permitted except force Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the a consumer. I don’t doubt that any company or fraud. As Bill Gates has said many times, fact is, this case against Microsoft is little that is developing in a field that MS looks at no one has been forced to do business with more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other as potentially profitable feels even worse them. If their partners do not like the terms Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel knowing that they will be acquired or Microsoft sets they are always free to leave. going to those supposedly harmed by destroyed as a force in that market through Microsoft should not be compelled to open Microsoft: the computer user. T no special ability of MS other than not up its products to competitors. Windows and his is just another method for states to get having that market niche fund its Internet Explorer are their property to free money, and a terrible precedent for the development. Office will help pay for Money, dispose of as they see fit. future, not only in terms of computer which will help pay for Age of Empires, for This is the essence of the case, or lack of technology, but all sorts of innovations in the instance. Please reconsider this settlement. I a case, against Microsoft. Envious most dynamic industry the world has ever truly believe that a diversified software competitors complain about Microsoft’s seen. industry will be much better for us than a business practices, which they themselves Please put a stop to this travesty of justice gigantic corporation kept healthy through routinely use. On a personal level, I started now. Thank you. government intervention on its behalf. with the Prodigy browser and then switched Sincerely, Sincerely, to AOL. Finally when I bought a new Annette Hall Miles Cannon computer I ended up with Internet Explorer. 5409 Highview Lane I never had any trouble switching browsers Citrus Heights, CA 95610–7405 MTC–00028440 and from a business point of view it would From: [email protected]@inetgw not make sense to impede the installation of MTC–00028439 To: Microsoft ATR new software. After all what would be the From: Miles C Date: 1/28/02 3:28pm point of an operating system that sabotaged To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement certain programs? That Microsoft includes an Date: 1/28/02 3:26pm I wish to comment on the proposed internet browser with windows does not Subject: opposed to settlement Microsoft settlement. I agree with the mean you have to use it. Competing browsers From what I have read in the majority of problems outlined in Dan Kegel’s analysis on CDs are so numerous they are regarded as trade publications is that the consensus is posted on the web at http://www.kegel.com/ junk mail. The Department of Justice case that this is not a settlement that will remedy/remedy2.html It is my opinion that against Microsoft is not just senseless but in significantly benefit anyone other than the current proposed settlement will NOT do a recession and a time of war it is doubly Microsoft. enough to prevent further anti-competitive destructive. Reason and justice dictate that I hope that 9 states pursuing a separate practices by Microsoft, and to restore this case should be dismissed. path is enough to at least give whomever consumer choice to the software market. William B. Keough might be in charge of this case that it this Robert A. Glenn Seattle, Washington case is strongly questionable. I would put 360 W 22nd St #11K MTC–00028443 forth the suggestion that attorney generals in New York, NY 10011 9 states are also experts in the matters of law, From: Bill Young so even though 9 states have gone along with MTC–00028442 To: Microsoft ATR it the matter has some serious issues. As near From: Bill Keough Date: 1/28/02 3:28pm as I can tell, Microsoft is and will remain a To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement monopoly. They make the rules for their OS. Date: 1/28/02 3:28pm To Whom It May Concern: They will also use unfairly their considerable Subject: Microsoft Settlement Many others have eloquently voiced their resources to enter in and dominate any The recent history of antitrust has been a opposition to the proposed settlement. I aspect of the software industry because there jihad by the Department of Justice against a cannot hope to express the same concerns as does not exist another corporation who can pantheon of American industry. Antitrust well in a brief email. print money like they can. The idea of cases against IBM, Intel and Microsoft I am against the proposed settlement leveraging a monopoly is something that I seemed to have been designed to wreck the because I do not feel it goes far enough in don’t think was adequately explored. high tech industry. Al-Qaida could not have restricting the anti-competitive practices that I think that they have adopted the old designed a more devious program to destroy currently allow Microsoft to maintain a Royal philosophy of don’t explain and don’t the U.S. economy. Hyperbole? The current monopoly position in the desktop operating apologize as much as possible. It works, most recession was started or at least given a boost systems market. Further examples of these people will go away if you deny anything by the tepped up legal action against practices are evident in software releases long enough. They have added to it with Microsoft and the consequent fall of it’s subsequent to the court findings, further
VerDate 11
justifying the need for strong measures that consumers, but Microsoft’s unsuccessful be, at the very least, some hefty fines applied cannot be circumvented by Microsoft’s competitors. Failed businesses must not be against Microsoft, and perhaps even a loss of interpretations of loose wording. allowed to set the rules for the markets in property rights (creating an open source - signed— which they failed. library for) the various technology pieces William J. Young Protecting some businesses from others is Microsoft has used for monopolistic anti- Ph.D., Computer Science a dangerous policy. I want to see an America competitive leverage, such as Microsoft 26069 Highway 72 where success is embraced, not punished and Office, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Windows Golden, CO 80403 throttled! Bill Gates is a self-made man who 95/98/NT, and so on. For us to hesitate on CC:[email protected]@inetgw has brought America, the world, to new doing this because Microsoft is a ‘‘flagship’’ levels of progress. Microsoft has a for the industry, or because their products are MTC–00028444 fundamental right to its property, and it is now such established, fundamental tools in From: [email protected]@inetgw the governments job to protect this right, not our marketplace, really shows how To: Microsoft ATR to take it away. Microsoft, should be lauded entrenched and uncontrollable Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 3:32pm and left alone to continue to develop and truly is. Subject: FW: Microsoft Settlement [CGEY prosper so that, we the people, can too. Again, despite arguments of past or future Virus checked] Susan Greenbach behavior, at least in this case the findings are Thanks, CC: ‘activism(a)moraldefense.com’ clear. Microsoft has been caught abusing its Gigi Burton MTC–00028446 monopoly position in the worst of ways, to Critical Technologies Recruiter the intentional detriment of the browser From: Dave Jorgensen 425.990.6932 (Direct) market. Microsoft has shown that it cannot To: Microsoft ATR 425.802.1232 (Cell) self-regulate, and that it usurps the court and 425.990.6801 (Fax) Date: 1/28/02 3:36pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement the will of the people at every opportunity. CapCom 9976898 Dear Sirs, There has to be a more severe consequence http://www.usa.capgemini.com This is a follow-up to my e-mail from 11am for such destructive actions and intent. Send to: [email protected] this morning. My earlier letter was intended Thank you for your consideration in this My Opinion/Vote: Settlement needs to be for those handling the civil anti-trust suit matter, completed and minimal penalties, if any, against Microsoft. This additional letter is in David E. Jorgensen need to assessed and allow Microsoft regards to the federal anti-trust case. As a 350 Budd Ave. #E7 freedom to be innovative, creative and citizen of the United States of America, and Campbell, California competitive and survive in the world an employee in the High-Tech sector of our 95008, USA competitive economy and free market. At the nations economy, I feel compelled to write e-mail: [email protected] rate the legal proceeding are going, throwing and voice my disagreement with the MTC–00028447 this case is completely an option. proposed federal anti-trust settlement with I am pro-settlement with Microsoft, DoJ Microsoft. From: Wynn (038) Gail Williams and the nine states. The issues, who and For the past two decades, I have watched To: Microsoft ATR why’s are not reflective of the general again and again as Microsoft leverages its Date: 1/28/02 3:43pm populating and I am convinced this is being monopoly position to wipe out what were Subject: Gail Williams driven by Sun, IBM and AOL/Netscape and once healthy high-tech markets. While only Gail Williams several other competitors who lack product a few of these cases have seen a courtroom, P.O. Box 1693 creativity and success. After all the legal and while some would disagree about Tahlequah, OK 74465–1693 battles and information about harming whether Microsoft’s dominance in these January 25, 2002 consumers, at the end, you ask the general instances has provided more pluses or Attorney General John Ashcroft population and consumers thru the Tunney minuses for the end customer, one thing is US Department of Justice Act. If this was really truly driven by the painfully clear: Microsoft has now been 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW consumers, I am pretty sure we would be caught red-handed, showing the very worst Washington, DC 20530–0001 hearing from them more then Sun, IBM, and of intentions, as they abused their monopoly Dear Mr. Ashcroft: AOL/Netscape funded legal battles. position to destroy competition and seize I am a proponent of free enterprise and believe that the government’s interference MTC–00028445 control of the web browser market. What’s more, Microsoft has shown in court, in the with Microsoft hover the last three years has From: Susan Greenbach press, and in the marketplace, that they do been appalling. How can our nation and To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ not recognize their mistakes in this area. economy grow if politicians and lawmakers Date: 1/28/02 3:41pm They are simply not capable of the kind of keep attacking business? Subject: Microsoft Settlement introspection, conscience and respect The antitrust lawsuit has been ridiculous Dear District Court Judge: required to regulate themselves as a result of and now that a settlement has occurred I see I am writing to you to as I am frustrated the findings of this case. As we have seen that Microsoft is being forced to grant broad with the prosecution of Microsoft. I am the throughout this long ordeal, Microsoft shows new rights to computer makers to configure Information Systems manager for our office an arrogant disrespect for the letter and spirit Windows so that competitors can more easily and deal with Computers and Servers daily. of the law; sometimes manipulating technical promote their own products. They are also Streamlining computer software and evidence, other times violating the temporary forcing Microsoft to disclose for use by hardware can be the most difficult, time restrictions placed against them, all showing competitors interfaces that are internal to consuming and costly expense for our a clear pattern that they are truly unrepentant Windows operating system products. company. in their actions. The currently proposed The terms of the settlement seem aimed at Compatibility and support are key. I settlement, which is basically that ‘‘we won’t nothing more than to give competition an appreciate that Microsoft has helped do it again’’ is laughable under the existing edge it did not have before. Nevertheless, immensely with this task. We don’t need this circumstances. I urge the Justice Department, your office has to finalize the settlement. Our process mucked up by government The Court, The Judge, anyone else involved, economy cannot afford further litigation intervention. I resent that the government to reject the currently proposed federal case against Microsoft. I hope your office does does not believe that I can decide for myself settlement, which is merely a slap on the what it can to deter the states still eager to which software/hardware is useful to me. I wrist (like so many slaps Microsoft has sue. can’t believe our government views Microsoft ignored before) and insist on pursuing truly Sincerely, as a threat, when after all it is Microsoft that punitive, active remedies against this Gail Williams has brought the industry to where it is....on company which is so wreckless in the cc: Senator Don Nickles real earnings, not ‘‘puffed-up’’ .com hype. marketplace and so disrespectful of the Don’t forget the bubble bursting for the courts and of the American people. MTC–00028448 .communists and all of their venture capital. Short of breaking up the company (which From: D T Those bringing suit are not individual I still think is justified) certainly there should To: Microsoft ATR
VerDate 11
Date: 1/28/02 3:38pm April 13–16, 2002 San Diego, CA Hotel Del 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: Microsoft Settlement Coronado Washington, DC 20530 Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, http://www.siia.net/spring2002 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: In relation to my objection to the final CC:Ken Wasch,’Hilleboe Douglas’’ We wanted to write to you today to express settlement in the MS case, I want to point out our dismay over the Microsoft antitrust MTC–00028450 several loopholes attributed to the Proposed dispute. As Americans, we feel that this suit Final Judgment. From: David Grant is contrary to the very ideals of free trade and I am not in agreement to the oversight To: Microsoft ATR capitalism that we treasure in this nation. It committee proposed by the PFJ. With in the Date: 1/28/02 3:40pm is our opinion that punishing a company or confines of the settlement this committee Subject: Microsoft Settlement an individual for demonstrating the very must closely monitor and screen all activities I am writing to you today, giving official cleverness and ingenuity upon which we by MS. This close scrutiny insures MS notice of my objection to the current DOJ anti have built this nation is un-American. complies with all restrictions entailed in the trust settlement with Microsoft. Americans are unlike any other people in agreement. As a small business owner and software the world. It is our goal to become a success; A three man compliance team will oversee developer I strongly urge you to reconsider to become something more than our fathers and insure that Microsoft comply with the your settlement. Microsoft is a successful and grandfathers were; to start with nothing stated rules and regulations. Yet, this three- company not because their products are more than a good idea and a diligent work man oversight committee will be composed superior in quality, but because Mr. Gates ethic and end up a success. This is the of the following: one appointee from the and his associates are excellent salesman. American dream, and it is this dream that is Justice Department, one appointee from These salesman are selling the United under attack in this suit. Microsoft, and another appointee chosen by States government into a shitty deal. For This litigation is not a question of whether the two existing members. In turn, Microsoft years, Microsoft’s operating system alone or not Microsoft violated antitrust laws. It is will control half of the oversight team. grew to monopolistic power because of a question of whether or not we, as Also, in the likelihood of any enforcement exclusive agreements with hardware vendors Americans, have the right to become that eliminated any chance other competitors proceeding, all findings by the oversight successful without the interference of the in that market had. The emergence of the committee will not be allowed into court. government. We are pleased that this heinous Internet and the browser led to a weak but The sole purpose of the committee is to suit has finally reached a conclusion that is understandable argument that Microsoft inform the Justice Department of all satisfactory to all of the parties involved. intended to use ‘‘brute force’’ in the business infractions by Microsoft. Subsequently the However, it is our fondest wish that none of world to eliminate its competitor. Justice Depart will launch its own this unpleasant litigation had begun in the While I am all for the American way, and investigation into the matter and commence first place. Please keep the government out of all for free trade and freedom of commerce, litigation to halt all infractions. When all is the private sector. I believe along with many intelligent, said and done, the oversight committee is Thank you. just window dressing, who will not strictly educated professionals that the American way is now threatened by this settlement. Sincerely, oversee Microsofts business moves? This settlement will bind the United States Don Crohan In my opinion, the Proposed Final government to a monopoly that should not Gayle Crohan Judgment does not provide appropriate exist, a monopoly that already hinders free restrictions against Microsoft. What MTC–00028453 trade and creativity. Being Microsoft reassurance do we have against Microsofts From: [email protected]@inetgw Certified myself, I will leave you with this illegal and illicit activities? I can assure you To: Microsoft ATR thought; Microsoft builds software for the that the Proposed Final Judgment does not Date: 1/28/02 3:41pm lazy IT employee. While many people may be effectively nor sufficiently address the Subject: Microsoft Settlement employed as IT professionals, these IT people question. Subsequently, I again submit my Good Afternoon, are short minded and lacking pertinent objection to the final settlement in the knowledge. The arrogance this combination I certainly hope that you finally reach a Microsoft case. breeds; stupid people making good money, settlement in this case and let one of the Sincerely, establishes security risks. finest entities in America get on with Doray Tualla At this point in time, the last thing the business. Throughout my school years and Sacramento, CA United States government needs is arrogant all my years in busines, I have never received greater value and more productive tools than MTC–00028449 uneducated individuals at the helm of all the critical data in this country. Microsoft software. MS Word and MS Excel From: Mark Bohannon David M Grant are the envy of the software world as is the To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ President MS Windows operating system in all its Date: 1/28/02 3:25pm Busy Data LLC versions. I am sure that all Microsoft’s Subject: Microsoft Settlement competitors are jealous; however, they Please find attached a copy of comments MTC–00028451 should not be allowed to use the courts t from the Software & Information Industry From: Tom Groman achieve that which they cannot achieve Association (SIIA) on the proposed PFJ in the To: Microsoft ATR through innovation. Sam Walton never case U.S. v Microsoft. Please do not hesitate Date: 1/28/02 3:37pm resorted to the courts to beat out Sears, J.C to contact us if there is an error in the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Penny, K-Mart and the now defunct Ward’s. transmission or if you are unable to open the Dear Sirs: He used innovation and fair pricing and we document. <
VerDate 11
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, the computer industry as well as other support, and have sign Dan Kegel’s open I oppose the proposed resolution in the MS industries and markets into which Microsoft letter (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ case, better know as the Proposed Final may enter. letter.html). Judgment. Over and above the usual COMMENTS IN GENERAL OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY economic risks presented by an unchecked As the computer industry moves towards My second choice for a remedy is to force monopolist—rising prices and a future, fully-distributed, computing openness and transparency in Microsoft’s monochromatic innovation the nations environment, it is vital to have an technology. Distributed computing systems computer infrastructure will be increasingly environment which fosters and rewards are very complex and can be very subtle. To vulnerable to attack if a single software innovation. While it may seem a mature help the court, many other petitioners have system predominates. industry, we are still only at the early stages. listed specific technology disclosures that Obviously I am referring to Microsoft. To date, there have been several waves of will help create openness. I will add that, in Suppose that 80 or 90percent of the world’s general innovation and consolidation. Each a general way, if Microsoft’s technologies can grain supply came from a single variety of wave brings cost reductions, creative ideas, be viewed by the industry and the market as corns. We would be faced with the whole new companies and new technologies. *components* rather than as a *whole*, then unacceptable risk that some single disease After a wave, there has been consolidation a good balance may be struck between might wipe out an enormous portion of our around standards and then the next wave Microsoft’s ability to innovate, and the food supply. In the same respects translate appears. These waves could be named the industry’s ability to compete and develop that example over to the Microsoft issue. ‘‘mainframe era’’, the ‘‘minicomputer era’’, both complementary technology as well as Having only one kind of operating system or and the ‘‘personal computer era’’. We are competing technology. The tricky question is one kind of browser would make it terribly now leaving the ‘‘personal computer era’’ and this: ‘‘Where are the boundaries between the easier for saboteurs to bring the entire entering a new one centered on distributed components?’’ Internet to its knees. For one entity, such as computing and information, the ‘‘distributed A simple answer can be found by focusing Microsoft, to control 80 to 90 percent of the computing era’’. As each era transitioned to on and leveraging the up- coming pressures market for PC operating systems, Internet the next, the companies and products of each that will be felt as the distributed computing browsers, e-mail readers, and office successive wave accommodated the past, era arrives. The answer I propose is simple, productivity software is clearly a significant while providing new innovations. IBM easily monitored and enforced: security risk. To then allow that monopoly to anchored the mainframe era, Digital and * Force Microsoft to fully disclose all wire- actively attempt to drive out its remaining Hewlett-Packard emerged during the level (binary) protocols used between competition would hardly be in the public minicomputer era, and Microsoft, Dell, independent computing devices. (This interest. Diversity is the key in producing Gateway, and others emerged during the include .Net protocols, SMB/NBT protocols economic prosperity and improving the personal computer era. for file sharing, and others) society as a whole. The PFJ goes against What is different about the current * Force Microsoft to disclose the APIs allowing diversity to flourish. Therefore I transition, is that a single company, which they expect other components to use object to the Propose Final Microsoft, is attempting to leverage their as they access the wire-level protocols. Judgment. monopolistic power created in the personal * Force Microsoft to fully disclose all file Sincerely, computer era and their position in the formats used to store persistent information. Reynold Mamon industry to define and control the next era. The reason these are good remedies relies 179 River Pines Way COMMENTS ON CULTURE on the following: Vallejo, CA 94589 CC: microsoftcomments I worked at Microsoft before Windows was * The future direction of computing is @doj.ca.gov@inetgw a monopoly. What I observed was a culture toward small, distributed computing devices. fixated on domination at all costs. While The economic and technological pressures MTC–00028455 Microsoft was growing, these actions and will force the definition of boundaries From: Randolph S. Kahle activities were not illegal. After becoming a between distributed components. This will To: Microsoft ATR monopoly, they clearly are (and were found be a constant pressure to Date: 1/28/02 3:45pm to be so by the courts). What is important to * increase* disclosure over time. Subject: Microsoft Settlement note is that these illegal behaviors stem from * It is easier to monitor and audit Renata B. Hesse the culture of the company. compliance at these boundaries compared to Antitrust Division Because of this strong culture, I do not other more abstract and more easily re- U.S. Department of Justice believe that any external monitoring of defined boundaries. (Microsoft is a master at 601 D Street NW internal operations would ever be successful redefining boundaries for their own benefit). Suite 1200 (e.g. the ‘‘TC’’ as proposed). Microsoft * These disclosures provide significant Washington, DC 20530–0001 managers are simply too smart, experienced, value to competitors and innovators. Randolph S. Kahle and aggressive to ever agree to submitting to However, I must also point out that this is 6161 N Canon del Pajaro external pressures. This comes from the top, only a first step. This describes the Tucson, AZ 85750 Bill Gates himself. In my experience, I have technological boundaries and requirements. 28-January-2002 never encountered a discussion in which The Settlement must also address the legal Dear Ms. Hesse: anyone at Microsoft ever thought that they issues such as Microsoft’s attempt to prevent I have worked in the computer industry for were in the wrong. This would never occur open-source software from running on over 25 years. During that time I have worked to anyone. This is a cultural factor, an Windows, and other licensing and cross-tie as a developer, a marketing/business arrogance of doing no wrong. With this issues. I will leave these issues to the legal strategist, and as a consultant to large and culture, it seems extremely unlikely that experts. small companies. I have a degree from Rice Microsoft would be able to self-monitor or Violation of the Settlement must bring with University in software and hardware design even work with an external auditing agency. it a powerful and costly punishment. I and an MBA from the Amos Tuck School of REMEDIES propose that if Microsoft violates the Business Administration at Dartmouth My first choice for a remedy is to break provisions of the Settlement that they be College. Microsoft up into smaller competing entities. forced to place any software or system found My work experience includes Hewlett- The reason for this is to attempt to reshuffle to be in violation or associated with a Packard as well as six years as a marketing the organization so that there could be violation into the general domain through an and business strategist at Microsoft working cultural and behavioral change. I petition the open-source license. This, more than any on database and developer products. I have court to explore this remedy as the best way financial penalty, would be a real deterrent. seen Microsoft from both the inside and now, to combat future violations by Microsoft. Regards, for the last ten years, from the outside. If the court does not pursue a break-up of Randolph S. Kahle As I am not an attorney, I cannot speak to Microsoft, then I strongly agree with many Tucson, AZ the legal specifics of the Proposed Final others, that there must be changes to and Settlement, however, I am qualified to speak additional provisions added to the Proposal MTC–00028456 to the practical implications of the terms in Final Settlement. For example, I fully From: Judy Quandt
VerDate 11
To: Microsoft ATR proposal that only helps Microsoft to remain Sincerely, Date: 1/28/02 3:43pm intact and continue with its unethical Norwood Catron Subject: Microsoft Settlement practices. In conclusion I submit to you my Independent IT consultant and concerned objection to this Proposed Final Judgment. consumer MTC–00028456—0001 Best Regards, [email protected] 70 Konci Terrace Mylene Mamon 23747 Vassar Lake George, NY 12845–4101 179 River Pines Way Hazel Park, MI 48030 January 24,2002 Vallejo, CA 94589 MTC–00028459 Attorney General John Ashcroft CC: [email protected]@ US Department of Justice inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028458 Washington, DC 20530–0001 Date: 1/28/02 3:44pm Dear Mr. Ashcroft: From: Norwood Catron Subject: microsoft settlement The settlement with Microsoft is in the best To: Microsoft ATR It is time to end the persecution of interests of the public and the economy. It Date: 1/28/02 3:45pm Microsoft. This persecution could set a not only will restore fair competition but also Subject: Microsoft Settlement precedent that can ultimately have dire prevent future antitrust violations. But most I am an IT professional, specializing in consequenses to our American system of free importantly, the agreement will allow the providing Microsoft solutions for small to markets. Should the D of J pursue legal action technology industry to move forward with mid-size businesses. I’ve worked in the field against McDonalds for the benefit of Burger developing new products, rather than further for four years now, and have used Microsoft King and Wendy’s? Or Intel, or General burdening it with government lawsuits. The operating systems and applications for fifteen Motors, etc? settlement has imposed many restrictions on years. I’ve invested considerable time and The government should not be a tool of one Microsoft. For example, Microsoft has agreed financial resources in becoming an expert group of businesses’’ attempts to gain ground not to enter into any agreements with any with Microsoft products and have obtained on their competition. I am not an employee third party to promote any Windows several Microsoft specific certifications. My of Microsoft, nor do I own, nor have I ever technology exclusively. Additionally, continued livelihood will continue to depend owned any Microsoft stock. I purchase their Microsoft has agreed to a technical on Microsoft’s dominance in the market. products solely because they are the best on committee that will monitor the company’s Having said that, I feel strongly that the the market. compliance with the settlement. currently negotiated settlement does not do Andre Schan Furthermore, Microsoft has agreed to design enough to punish Microsoft for past 41 Horseneck Road future versions of Windows to make it easier anticompetitive behavior or to prevent such Montville, NJ 07045 for computer makers and consumers to behavior in the future. I don’t believe that a MTC–00028460 promote non-Microsoft software within break up of the company is a solution. The From: R M Windows. Clearly, these changes will benefit lines between application and operating system are quickly disappearing. Future To: Microsoft ATR both consumers and the economy. Date: 1/28/02 3:47pm technologies will continue to blur those The most impressive part of this settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement lines. But I feel that Microsoft has used strict is that it includes matters that were not even Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, contracts with OEM’s as well as unnecessary at issue in the lawsuit. Enough is enough. I object to the Proposed Final Judgment in integration of applications into the OS Let’s stop wasting money and time on the Microsoft case. There are several (Internet Explorer in Windows 95/98/ME/ unnecessary litigation. apparent flaws with in the final proposal that 2000 and XP, and now Windows Media Sincerely, I just dont like. One the PFJ does not Player in XP) to hinder consumer choice and Judith Quandt terminate the MS illegal monopoly. 2nd MS competition. will be able to continue with its ant- MTC–00028457 In addition to the solutions already competitive activities. 3rd MS will be From: M M proposed, Microsoft should be forced to open allowed to partake in the fruits of its past To: Microsoft ATR the source code to ALL operating system violations. I dont see how such a settlement Date: 1/28/02 3:44pm API’s, and quite possibly the entire OS. This punishes Microsoft for breaking the anti-trust Subject: Microsoft Settlement would allow competing application laws. Therefore I oppose a settlement- The Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, developers to successfully create applications Proposed Final Judgment. I oppose the Proposed Final Judgment in that work correctly with Microsoft operating Sincerely, relations to the Microsoft case. As one can systems. I feel strongly that the Rose Mamon plainly see, Microsoft continues to violate inaccessibility of the API information was 179 River Pines Way business practices. The Proposed Final one of the reasons Netscape, Corel, Novell Vallejo, CA 94589 Judgment does not punish Microsoft for its and other application providers have had CC: [email protected]@ past violations to the anti-trust laws. Based such a difficult time distributing bug free inetgw on supporting evidence found by the Court software. of Appeals, Microsoft is guilty of breaking Microsoft should also be strictly monitored MTC–00028461 several anti-trust laws. Under the final in terms of its contracts with OEM’s and From: [email protected]@inetgw settlement, Microsoft is permitted to retain other providers. Currently, if a consumer To: Microsoft ATR most if not all profits gained through their purchases a new PC from a manufacturer, it Date: 1/28/02 3:47pm illicit activities. Subsequently, the PFJ will is quite literally impossible for the consumer Subject: Microsoft not compensate parties injured or harmed to get one without a Microsoft OS. And if a January 25,2002 through Microsofts egregious misdeeds. In consumer is successful at such an endeavor, Attorney General John Ashcroft addition, the PFJ will not take into account that consumer can not be properly US Department of Justice all Microsoft gains made through its illegal reimbursed from the OEM or Microsoft for 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW maneuverings. With all due respect, the final the Microsoft software costs that are Washington, DC 20530 settlement is basically acknowledging the automatically incorporated into the cost of Dear Mr. Ashcroft: acceptance of Microsofts anti-competitive the PC. It is imperative that the federal I am frustrated that, despite all efforts to behavior. What kind of message does this government return the operating system and serve justice, problems continue to arise in send out to the public? I can assure you that application market to a more stable playing the Microsoft antitrust case. Now, even as a the message is clear and simple. The PFJ field. As well it is important that Microsoft settlement is pending in the federal courts, encourages big corporations to engage in make reparations for past wrongs. Please Microsoft’s opponents are seeking to overturn monopolistic and predatory conduct, which reconsider the current settlement, and come the settlement and bring additional litigation in turn is detrimental to the technology up with more appropriate and harsher against Microsoft. This is highly industry at large. With all due respect your consequences. Microsoft must not get off inappropriate. Microsoft has done nothing to honor, I am outraged at such a preposterous with just a slap of the wrist. warrant such vicious persecution except be
VerDate 11
successful. The litigants who seek to overturn and anticompetitive business practices must functionality. Typically, when Microsoft the settlement have no altruistic aims—they be stopped. There must be an injunction or ports their software to another platform only want to squeeze all the profit they can other legal device, or Microsoft must be split (Mac), that software is usually a crippled out of Microsoft. into separate business entities in order to version of the windows original. They can After six months of supervised restore competition. Microsoft’s operating claim that Windows is superior and thus negotiations, Microsoft and the Department system must be unbundled from its internet providing more features but any software of Justice were able to reach a settlement in browser and other software so that the engineer would say otherwise. Then the antitrust case. Microsoft’s opponents consumer and free market will determine the Microsoft must provide all the necessary claim the settlement is too lenient and that best products and foster healthy competition. specifications for 3rd party software vendors Microsoft has merely received a slap on the I have purchased several software packages so as not to give Microsoft another area of wrist, but such is not the case. Some of the such as spreadsheet, word processing, project unfair advantage. terms agreed to in the settlement extend to scheduling that I greatly preferred over the Another point to bring up is the myth that products and policies that were not found to Microsoft products; however, they are no Microsoft is good for our economy. Is it? I be unlawful by the Court of Appeals; longer available for update due to the unfair don’t think so. How can Microsoft justify Microsoft has agreed to these terms in the competition from Microsoft. I have been charging hundreds of dollars for an operating interest of wrapping up the case. I agree that personally hurt by Microsoft in that I am system that is no better than its previous it is time to settle and move on, and I do not forced to use inferior, crash prone software. version? The cost of manufacturing is nearly think the settlement is in any way unfair. For Thank you for your consideration. zero. But yet, everyone PC owner including example, Microsoft has agreed to license the Sincerely, businesses are strong-armed into buying this Windows operating system to twenty of the KR Schroepfer poor excuse for an upgrade. Those businesses largest computer makers on identical terms 310 Rider RIdge are then forced to pass on that cost to the and conditions, including price. Santa Cruz, CA 95065 consumer. The cost amounts to a heavy Additionally, Microsoft will refrain in future 1–831–809–1561 burden on our national economy. Then from retaliating against anyone who produces [email protected] Microsoft uses this money not to truly software that directly competes with innovate and create more secure software, Microsoft technology. MTC–00028465 but to use their legal monetary might to crush I do not believe that additional action is From: Bob Peterson the competition. Thus putting more people necessary on the federal level. Microsoft has To: Microsoft ATR out of jobs. This is bad for our economy. paid its debt to society, and it is time to let Date: 1/28/02 3:48pm So please do not let Microsoft escape this go. I ask you to support the settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement unscathed with yet another blatant violation in its entirety. Renata B. Hesse of the law. Just look around you. The Sincerely, Antitrust Division software landscape is nearly bare in the Donald Decker U.S. Department of Justice Windows market as far as ‘‘genetic’’ 183 San Remo Road I’m writing this to you because I’m gravely diversity. Without strong restrictions on their Carmel, CA 93923 concerned over the settlement between our business tactics, we will be left with a very MTC–00028462 DOJ and Microsoft. There is no teeth to the weakened engineering base as the world will settlement. It places too much trust in a continue to truly innovate. Having our From: Andy Oliver company that is not trustworthy and has schools teach Microsoft products instead of To: Microsoft ATR proven as such over its entire history. All real software engineering will amount to Date: 1/28/02 3:48pm that it will do is enhance Microsoft’s grip on suicide of the knowledge base. Then we’ll Subject: Microsoft must be strongly punished the desktop market and allow it to expand have to answer to our children and for illegal behavior and also destroy other areas. Already the grandchildren when they ask why we have Microsoft must be strongly punished for its signs are everywhere that with every step in to import quality software from Asia and anticompetitive behavior. As a software Microsoft’s control and destruction of our developer for the past 10 years, I have Europe. And, why we had such a lead in that computing industry, innovation has crawled witnessed first hand the detrimental effect of field and chose to allow one company to a near stop. When I say innovation, I am the Microsoft monopoly on innovation and (Microsoft) to sabotage everything we’ve referring to the true meaning of the word and pricing. Punishments must be far stronger worked for. Do the right thing now before it’s not another mad-twist meaning from than the proposed settlements in order for too late and we lose everything. Microsoft when they use ‘‘innovate’’ as part them to have any effect on Microsoft’s Sincerely, of their questionable ad campaign. behavior. Bob Peterson I am a user of Linux. Lately, I’ve noticed Please break up Microsoft and force the 1007 NE 126th that Microsoft has increasingly tried to separate groups to publicly document all Seattle, WA 98125 squeeze out non-windows platforms by their programming interfaces (APIs) and file MTC–00028466 formats, with strong, regular oversight. usual dirty tactics. It used to be that I could Thank you. access my hotmail account. Now I’m forced From: [email protected]@inetgw Andy Oliver to have a Passport account. Passport is a To: Microsoft ATR Professional Software Developer Microsoft product and Microsoft refuses to Date: 1/28/02 3:46pm andy—o—[email protected] support a Linux version of Passport. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Remember the debacle with MSN.com not Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division MTC–00028463 allowing any non Internet Explorer browsers 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 From: [email protected]@inetgw to visit their site? While on the subject of Washington, DC 20530–0001 To: Microsoft ATR Internet Explorer; who on earth wants to Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: Date: 1/28/02 3:48pm view their file directory as a webpage (like Please put a stop to the economically- Subject: Microsoft Settlement in the Windows operating system)? This is draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This I think it is unfair for the government to the result of you allowing Microsoft to tie-in has gone on long enough. punish companies for being successful and their browser and falsely claim that it’s an Microsoft has already agreed to hide its that is what is happening here. integral part of Windows. It is not necessary Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the and anyone with a slight understanding of fact is, this case against Microsoft is little MTC–00028464 computers should know that... except for more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other From: [email protected]@inetgw some reason the DOJ. Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel To: Microsoft ATR As part of the settlement you Microsoft going to those supposedly harmed by Date: 1/28/02 3:48pm must be forced to sell a version of Windows Microsoft: the computer user. Subject: Microsoft Settlement without all the predatory tie-ins. And they This is just another method for states to get Dear Sir or Madam— must be forced to port all their applications free money, and a terrible precedent for the Regarding the settlement of the antitrust to other operating systems. Those ported future, not only in terms of computer case with Microsoft— Microsoft’s unethical applications must be of equal quality and technology, but all sorts of innovations in the
VerDate 11
most dynamic industry the world has ever Charlotte Muse Prince William Regional Chamber of seen. 1020 Louise Street Commerce Please put a stop to this travesty of justice Menlo Park, CA 94025 ‘‘The Region’s Leading Voice for Business’’ now. Thank you. 4320 Ridgewood Center Drive Sincerely, MTC–00028470 Prince William, VA 22191 Christine Corea From: Andy Warner (703) 590–5000 (703) 590–9815 fax 38777 Road 600 To: Microsoft ATR www.RegionalChamber.org Raymond, CA 93653–9504 Date: 1/28/02 3:49pm <
VerDate 11
Please accept this antitrust settlement, so Judgment encourages big corporations to summarize our opinion?in almost every case our court system and Microsoft can get on engage in monopolistic and predatory Microsoft has been a tough but fair with other more productive issues. conduct, which in turn is detrimental to the competitor in the marketplace. In the areas Thank you. technology industry at large. I am angered at their practices were found anti-competitive, Emily Hughes a proposal that only helps Microsoft to the remedies that have already been Bellingham, Washington remain intact. Therefore I submit my recommended are sufficient. CC:[email protected]@inetgw objection to this Proposed Final Judgment. Microsoft has been a great partner to our Kind Regards, MTC–00028473 firm, and we do our best every day to help Cookie Trulssen ensure their success. Contrary to what many From: [email protected]@ 1742 Edgewood Dr. of Microsoft’s competitors state, we find the inetgw Lodi, CA 95240 marketplace to be a VERY competitive place, To: Microsoft ATR CC:[email protected]@inetgw and hope that a more comprehensive Date: 1/28/02 2:41pm MTC–00028476 ?remedy? is not enacted. Subject: Microsoft Settlement CC:[email protected]@inetgw Though I am not an attorney, I have From: [email protected]@inetgw followed this case from the beginning and am To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028477 appalled that Justice could consider Date: 1/28/02 3:54pm From: [email protected]@inetgw accepting such a settlement. It does not Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR address the criminal wrongdoing described With all that has been said, I will be brief Date: 1/28/02 3:50pm in the Finding of Fact, nor the Findings of and to the point: Subject: Microsoft Settlement Law, almost all of which were upheld by the (1) Microsoft has been a great partner to I’m against the propsed settlement. It is Appeals Court. More critically, there is our firm, G. A. Sullivan, and has been way too easy on Microsoft. neither punishment nor adequate means in instrumental in helping us grow dramatically I think Microsoft should be broken up into place to prevent Microsoft’s current market during the last decade. Among the honors we 1) operatings systems and 2) applications. dominance from being leveraged into new have received, Greg Sullivan, our founder, ventures. The control mechanisms (‘‘three was named the 1999 U.S. Small Business MTC–00028478 person team’’) is a joke, and the ‘‘exceptions’’ Administration National Small Business From: Jeff Fabijanic provide, as some have described it, Person of the Year. The success we have To: Microsoft ATR ‘‘loopholes on loopholes’’. I can only hope enjoyed has often been due to our strong Date: 1/28/02 3:55pm that Judge Kottelly has the sense to reject this partnership with Microsoft. Subject: Microsoft Settlement. proposal for failing the test of ‘‘public (2) Competition is alive and well in our To whom it may concern: interest’’. industry. In the operating system I am writing you today to express my Raymond Shwake marketplace, for example, IBM has thrown its concern and oppostition to the Proposed [email protected] considerable clout behind Linux and is Final Judgement in the United States v. MTC–00028474 aggressively advertising this fact. During the Microsoft antitrust case. I believe this recent National Football League NFC settlement is counter to the best interests of From: Arthur Vardy Championship, they ran advertisements the American people, harmful to our To: Microsoft ATR using basketball players as a metaphor for economy, and clearly inadequate given the Date: 1/28/02 3:54pm computer industry products and forces. For findings of fact in the trial. Subject: Microsoft example, the ?opposing team? included As a professional computer user and Dear Sirs: players named ?Hacker?, ?Virus?, and technology developer for the past 15 years Get off a Microsoft and do something ?Downtime?. ?Linux? was characterized as an (over twenty five if you consider my student worthwhile like take on Enron. incredibly talented player who would play years in high school and then MIT), I have Sincerely for ?almost nothing? because ?he loves the watched as Microsoft has used any number Beverly Vardy game?. It remains to be seen how effective of unethical and anti-competitive strategies MTC–00028475 this ad campaign will be, but IDC predicts to attain and maintain dominance at the From: C T that Linux’s market share will increase to expense of other companies, competing To: Microsoft ATR 41% by 2005. software platforms and consumers such as Date: 1/28/02 3:53pm (3) While Microsoft does have some myself. In this respect, I am satisfied with the Subject: Microsoft Settlement advantages in its daily business operations, findings of fact in the case, as they confirm Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, advantages that we believe they have earned this viewpoint. I wanted to make my opinion count. In through hard work, it also still faces However, as upset as I am with Microsoft’s turn, I object to the Proposed Final Judgment formidable obstacles and some important past behaviours, I am extremely concerned in the MS case. As history will prove, disadvantages. For example, as Microsoft that these same types of behavior are Microsoft continues to violate business attempts to sell its operating systems and prevented in the future. Given the findings of practices. The Proposed Final Judgment in a platforms to corporate America, in the largest fact, any judgement should demand strict sense, does not deny Microsoft its past corporations (sometimes called the measures which address not only the violations and illegal acts. As one can see, Enterprise marketplace) they are often practices the company has engaged in every court, which has been involved with viewed with condescension as a ?desktop? previously, but which should also prevent the case, has found Microsoft guilty of vendor selling personal productivity tools, them from engaging in other monopolistic breaking the anti-trust laws. However, under computer mice, and games. They continue to practices in the future. I do not think that the the proposed final settlement, Microsoft, build a channel of partners to help provide Proposed Judgement is strong enough to surprisingly enough, will be permitted to the necessary services to install, configure, serve this function. retain most if not all profits gained through and support their offerings in large As I read the Proposed Judgement, many— their illicit activities. corporations, but face stiff competition from perhaps most—of the remedies will be Subsequently, the PFJ will not compensate IBM Global Services, often an entrenched ineffective against a company such as parties injured or harmed through Microsofts competitor of huge proportions. Other large Microsoft which is determined to circumvent egregious misdeeds. In addition, the PFJ will service organizations are also most often them. That Microsoft will work to bypass the not take into account all Microsoft gains working against, rather than for, Microsoft. original intent of the Judgement is clear for made through its illegal maneuverings. With (4) In many key areas of new research and both technical and business practices—even all due respect, the final settlement is growth (e.g. Personal Digital Assistants during the course of the trial and settlement basically acknowledging the acceptance of (PDAs), instant messaging, and highly negotiations it has continued to use tactics Microsofts anti-competitive behavior. What scalable clustering for scientific purposes), that should be blocked by a solid agreement. kind of message does this send out to the Microsoft is a distant second or third place In fact just this month Bill Gates declared public? I can assure you that the message is competitor to other firms and technologies ‘‘security’’ to be the future direction of clear and simple. The Proposed Final (e.g. Palm, AOL, and Beowulf). To Microsoft’s focus. Of course, under the
VerDate 11
Proposed Judgement anything related to The Department of Justice must stand-by >As a 20 year veteran in the network security need not be disclosed even if such the settlement, and not allow competitor- industry, I would like to take this would otherwise be mandatory. Under a funded lobbying efforts to sway them. In no >opportunity to provide my comments on the strict reading, if Microsoft adds even basic way do the competitors (i.e. AOL, Sun settlement of the Microsoft >anti-trust case. security interfaces to its APIs then *none* of Microsystems, Oracle) have the consumer My opinions are based on both my those APIs would need to be disclosed and rights in mind when they continue to pour professional experience >as well as my there would be no penalty for not disclosing money into lobbying efforts. They want to experiences as a consumer. them. And to add insult to injury, the create harsher penalties on Microsoft so they >First, the currently proposed settlement settlement as written actually seems to codify may be better equipped to compete. If they terms reached by Microsoft and >Justice some of Microsoft’s predatory practices. For did have the consumers in mind they would Department negotiators is completely example, although the settlement forces be pouring money into research and inadequate to protect >consumers. It should Microsoft to share its APIs with certain development to compete with Microsoft in be dismissed out of hand. competitors, it also would force those who the marketplace. >Second, controls must be put in place to use these APIs to share all their finished code It’s time to end this with the proposed guard against Microsoft’s ability >to leverage with Microsoft. As a result, Microsoft would settlement and all these companies should their current desktop monopoly into effective see these companies’’ code trade secrets and get back to what they do best...create control of the >public Internet. If they are have the oportunity to replicate or innovative products for consumers. able to dictate the terms and conditions by circumvent them. MTC–00028480 >which meaningful business can be Another example—a requirement for conducted over the Internet, this >dynamic receiving documentation for those APIs is From: [email protected]@inetgw forum of social and business intercourse will that any organization needing it must meet To: Microsoft ATR be extremely >stifled. What would constitute *Microsoft-developed* standards of business Date: 1/28/02 3:54pm such effective controls? Rather than viability; ‘‘non-businesses’’ (eg small or non- Subject: Microsoft Settlement >focusing on contracts with computer profit companies, and individual developers) Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division vendors (which might be a >reasonable probably won’t qualify and so access to those 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 choice if we were concerned about the APIs will simply not be available to them. Washington, DC 20530–0001 maintenance of the >desktop monopoly), the Similarly, the clause requiring that Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: controls should be aimed squarely at the Microsoft’s competitors be allowed to place Please put a stop to the economically- >integration of all Microsoft software—both their own icons on the PC desktops only draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This client and server, with >no distinction applies to companies which have already has gone on long enough. between operating system and application— sold more than a million copies of their Microsoft has already agreed to hide its with any >Internet services provided by software in the U.S. So the very companies Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the Microsoft. If Microsoft chooses to >build who most need a competitive advantage can fact is, this case against Microsoft is little support for authentication, payment, name not, in this case, receive it. more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other resolution, routing, >search, or any other Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel There are numerous other problems or useful functionality into their software they going to those supposedly harmed by oversights in the Proposed Judgement. >should be allowed to do so, as long as they Microsoft: the computer user. However, for the sake of brevity, I will limit do not also provide >such service which is This is just another method for states to get my comments to this last statement—I feel accessed by that software. free money, and a terrible precedent for the that the Proposed Final Judgement is deeply >An example of such integration which future, not only in terms of computer flawed and needs to be substantially revised already exists is >the Passport system, technology, but all sorts of innovations in the to remove these flaws. Microsoft deserves whereby multiple Microsoft application most dynamic industry the world has ever more than a wrist-slap for the destructive >software products use common procedures seen. abuse of its monopoly power, and all of us, to make use of an authentication >service Please put a stop to this travesty of justice including Microsoft and its investors, need to now. Thank you. provided by Microsoft over the Internet. An be protected against future abuses. Sincerely, effective >curb on potential Microsoft abuse Sincerely Yours, Gaynelle Jordan would be to disallow the company >to Jeff Fabijanic 110 Breed St. provide the Internet service portion of that Boston, MA. Titusville, PA 16354–2122 function. If such a curb >is not implemented, Jeffrey Fabijanic Microsoft may be able to leverage their MIT Media Lab Liaison MTC–00028481 monopoly >on Internet client software into a Panasonic Information and Networking From: Xana Kim very effective control over Internet Technologies Laboratory To: Microsoft ATR >commerce. I suggest that the most effective [email protected] (617) 577– Date: 1/28/02 3:57pm method of implementing 1280 x115 Subject: Microsoft Settlement >such a control would be to force the company to divest all Internet >lines of MTC–00028479 To: Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division business other than those which are used to From: Stapleton, Mark U.S. Department of Justice market and >support it’s software business. To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ I must say that I am appalled at the >If effective controls are not placed on Date: 1/28/02 3:55pm proposed final judgment in United States v. Microsoft’s business conduct, >this company Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft. will be able to leverage undue influence in Department of Justice: Briefly, I do not feel that the settlement practically >every area of public life in the I am writing to comment on the proposed will in any way punish Microsoft for it’s past United States, including commerce, settlement with Microsoft. I believe that the violation of the law, nor will it prevent future >entertainment, news, personal settlement is fair for both Microsoft and violation. correspondence, and government. Not >only consumers. Microsoft deserved a penalty for Xana Kim would such a situation be bad for business, their behavior and the penalty is harsh it would be detrimental >to democracy. We enough for Microsoft to learn their lesson. MTC–00028482 can not allow one company to threaten our Microsoft’s competitors continue to fund From: Tommy Ward >future in the way that Microsoft will if lobbying efforts to overturn the settlement To: Microsoft ATR allowed free reign. and inflict harsher penalties. The settlement Date: 1/28/02 11:44pm >Regards, is for the consumers, not competitors who Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Antitrust Comments >Tommy Ward find their best way to compete is fund Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:46:45 -0800 >Saratoga, CA lawsuits against Microsoft. An antitrust To: [email protected] >[email protected] remedy should be designed to protect From: Tommy Ward
VerDate 11
To: Microsoft ATR screen and see the facts Microsoft has This electronic message transmission Date: 1/28/02 3:59pm superior products and the market proves that. contains information from the law firm of Subject: Microsoft settlement I feel the government should not pursure Lipton, Weinberger & Husick which may be Dear DOJ, any further actions against Microsoft. I confidential or privileged. The information is Due to the various continuing suits against believe the terms-which have met or gone intended to be for the use of the individual(s) Microsoft, I am forced to exit Microsoft beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals named above. If you are not the intended Explorer (the company’s browser and ruling-are reasonable and fair to all parties recipient, please be aware that any entrance to the internet) and bring up involved. This settlement represents the best disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the AmericaOnLine to read and send email. My opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to contents of this message is prohibited. other choice would have been, again, to close move forward. However, the settlement is not If you have received this electronic Microsoft Explorer and to bring up Microsoft guaranteed until after the review ends and transmission in error, please notify us by Outlook Express which, as you well know, is the District Court determines whether the electronic mail (PostMaster@ split off from Microsoft Explorer. But isn’t it terms are indeed in the public interest. LawHusick.com) immediately, before we get ironic; AOL is suing Microsoft over its Bruce Wynn in really big trouble. If you fail to be intimidated by this notice, we will get angry, overweening powers, yet I can use AOL for MTC–00028486 both purposes: to receive and send email stamp our feet, and hold our breath until we AND TO USE THE INTERNET but I From: Lawrence A. Husick turn blue. Thank you. CANNOT use Microsoft Explorer to use both To: Microsoft ATR (Official-Looking Notice V1.5fc3) Date: 1/28/02 4:00pm services. Just who IS the monopolist here? MTC–00028487 And last I looked on the tv screen, AOL, Subject: Microsoft Settlement which also has a pretty good control of the Appropriate injunctive relief in an antitrust From: Frank Zepf NYC cable market, is spending zillions on case should: (1) end the unlawful conduct; To: Microsoft ATR (2) ‘‘avoid a recurrence of the violation’’ and advertising its AOL Time Warner direct cable Date: 1/28/02 4:01pm others like it; and (3) undo its hookup. And doesn’t AOL have control of Subject: Microsoft settlement anticompetitive consequences. See Nat’l some magazines? and some TV stations? and 52 Pennsylvania Avenue Soc’y of Prof’l Eng’rs v. United States, 435 some books? and some records? Excuse me, Massapequa, NY 11758 U.S. 679, 697 (1978); United States v. E.I. du January 27, 2002 while I fall down the rabbit hole, said Alice. Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316, 326 Attorney General John Ashcroft As a stockholder of Microsoft, Sun Micro and (1961); Int’l Salt Co. v. United States, 332 US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania others and fortunate seller of AOL (at U.S. 392, 401 (1947); United States v. Avenue, NW breakeven) and as user of Apple, Microsft Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 103, 107 (DC Washington, DC 20530–0001 Word etc and AOL since 1985, AND Cir. 2001) The proposed settlment fails Dear Mr. Ashcroft: The antitrust suit attempted user of Netscape which has been utterly to achieve these goals. Rather, it is against Microsoft has gone on for long largely defunct since being taken over by another opportunity for Microsoft to litigate enough. I believe that this suit is just trying AOL, I would find the not so sly tactics of the definitions of the settlement, rather than to gore the fat cat just because it is fat. If the AOL/Sun etc gang who use stockholder participate fairly in the market. A settlement Time Warner packages Netscape with AOL, monies to launch extensive and expensive which leaves Microsoft free to hide features then what is the harm with Microsoft litigation (which then becomes their raison and functions of its operating system behind packaging Explorer with Windows? This d’Atre) laughable if it weren’t so harmful to license restrictions and nondisclosure suit’s contradicting demands are having a consumers, stockholders and profitably run agreements, and then to use these functions detrimental consequence on the nation’s businesses. It isn’t just off balance sheet to advantage its own applications financial situation. limited partnership that drain assets. development process and products is The settlement that was reached between My support for Microsoft is based on many inadequate. The source code of Microsoft’s Microsoft and the Justice Department will be years of using their products and services operating system must be published and beneficial in reviving consumer confidence. which have always worked smoothly, made available at nondiscriminatory rates to Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows reliably and efficiently which is, after all, all users in order to prevent future misuse of operating system to 20 of the largest what I pay for. As a stockholder I find this substantial advantage by Microsoft. The computer makers on identical terms and Microsoft reports earnings in a conservative source code to Microsoft’s Office products conditions. The settlement instructs manner and maintains a strong balance sheet must be auctioned to vendors wishing to Microsoft to also make all future versions of both of which indicate the company tends to compete with Microsoft, whether on the its Windows to be compatible with non- its business and is not wasting stockholder Windows platform or elsewhere in order to Microsoft software. assets. Everytime the market sneezes I don’t redress the violations that use of these The settlement may seem to challenge the feel as though I am going to lose my entire hidden functions by Microsoft has created. free-market, but it is vital to settle the case investment in Microsoft as I might with Microsoft must create an independent, not- to help provide assistance in revitalizing the others. If the interest is the consumer and the for-profit entity, transfer title to its Internet economy. stockholder, Microsoft will win hands down. Explorer code to that entity, and pay royalties Sincerely, If not, we’ll see just how fair the US markets for each copy of IE to that entity, which Frank Zepf really are. should then use the proceeds to fund Frank V. Zepf Ruth Sumners development of software products which 52 Pennsylvania Ave. January 28, 2002 function across multiple platforms in order to Massapequa, NY 11758–4838 open up the application development arena MTC–00028485 Phone 516–798 0353 to non-Microsoft products. From: Bruce Wynn Lawrence A. Husick MTC–00028488 To: Microsoft ATR LIPTON, WEINBERGER & HUSICK From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 4:00pm Intellectual Property and Technology Law To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft settlement [email protected] Date: 1/28/02 4:01pm The govenment, my government should http://www.LawHusick.com Subject: Microsoft Settlement make sure they understand that the consumer P.O. Box 587 Your Honor, is not harmed by Microsoft it’s products are Southeastern, PA 19399–0587 After reading and listening to the mass of cheaper than and better ever. Is Microsoft not 610/296–8259 Voice 610/296–5816 Fax information being presented to the general allowed to compete, it should be allowed to AOL/Netscape IM: LawHusick consumer regarding a potential miscarriage of compete and those cry babies Sun, Oracle ‘‘It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle justice, it would appear to me that I may have and AOL will just have to make better that the modern methods of instruction have a rather unpopular opinion. I’d like explain products rather than lobby with governments not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity my thoughts, but before I do...I need to clarify about a competior—Microsoft. They are of inquiry.’’ that I do NOT work for, recieve monys from, trying the exact same thing in Europe and I —Albert Einstein (1879–1955)— nor do I get any special benefits from either hope our legislators see through this smoke Autobiographical Notes party in doing so.
VerDate 11
We’ve seen what Apple computer tried to 1–800–641–2255; The settlement requires Microsoft to do in the past, by making everything they * Email us at [email protected] to radically alter its business practices and its make propriatory. The average working confirm that you took action. philosophy. Microsoft will now be required person can’t afford the equipment, let alone If you have any questions, please give us a to configure its Windows platforms in a the software that works ONLY on their call at 1–800–965–4376. Thank you for manner that readily accept non-Windows system. Tandy corporation (Radio Shack) your help in this matter. software. The company will be required to tried to do the same thing, and nearly sunk The Attorney General’s fax and email are license its Windows systems to major them financially. ....because of Microsoft. noted below. computer Manufacturers on uniform terms. Seems to me that if a competitor can’t come Fax: 1–202–307–1454 or 1–202–616–9937 Microsoft has agreed not to use retaliatory up with a competitive system, ad a Email: [email protected] practices against manufacturers whose competivitve cost...they cry monopoly. If any In the Subject line of the e-mail, type products compete against its product. It has legal decision favors these flag carrying Microsoft Settlement. promised generally to abjure any predatory or towncriers of ‘‘healthy competition’.....the For more information, please visit these anti-competitive market practices. It has ONLY ones that will benefit from it, will be websites: agreed, as I said above, to adopt a whole new them! www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/ market philosophy that encourages not just I don’t know if I’m adequately articulating www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm competition, but its competitors. Surely such my position, but I just feel if 10,000 people (See attached file: USAGBarlow—Donald— concessions are sufficient consideration for can easily afford to buy a computer, and use 1044—0124.doc) an end to this lawsuit. software that’s readily available, it’s better for The confidentiality of Internet e-mail cannot Please support this agreement and help those 10,000 people than if say only 1,500 be guaranteed. Information you send us bring this case to a close. could afford to pay the EXTREMELY high over Internet e-mail could be viewed by Sincerely, prices of a system made by Apple or Sun persons other than the intended Donald Barlow technologies. It’s true the profit to Apple recipients. cc: Senator Rick Santorum and/or Sun is considerably higher from these Therefore, you should not include your MTC–00028490 1,500 than the 10,000 working class like account numbers, credit card numbers, myself, but in my opinion...through all the passwords, home address or other From: Alan Q. Thompson smoke and mirrors...that’s what this is private information in your e-mail To: Microsoft ATR REALLY all about. $$$$$$ Yes...monopoly messages. Also, we will not accept buy Date: 1/28/02 4:02pm CAN be a bad thing, but the only thing or sell orders or cancels, address Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft is guilty of is providing an easy to changes, funds transfer requests or other My name is Alan K. Thompson. I live in use product at a low cost. Something the instructions normally requiring your Riverdale, MD, am a US citizen, and am 37 others just can’t seem to do. signature by e-mail. years old. I feel that the proposed DOJ Go with your instincts, and stick with ‘‘Of All market prices, data and other information settlement with Microsoft is a travesty of the People, By the People.....and FOR the in this communication are not warranted justice. The Sherman anti-trust act was created to prevent the sort of illegal extension people’’. It’s an old system...but it still works. as to completeness or accuracy and may and protection of monopoly for which Thanks for your time, be subject to change. This Microsoft has been found guilty. Microsoft Steve Shockley communication is not an official record has demonstrated in the past that it will use PO BOX 237 of your account and should not be relied every arguably legal means to avoid West Creek NJ 08092 upon for information regarding your restrictions on its actions, and the proposed PS: It would interest me greatly to know if account. Please refer to your Trade settlement will allow it too much room. A you ever recieve this letter. Confirmation and Client Statement which are the official records of your much more structurally enforced remedy, MTC–00028489 account. If there are any discrepancies such as that proposed by Judge Jackson in the From: Donald E. Barlow between this transmission and your original conviction or proposed by the ‘‘dissenting states’’ in early December 2001, To: Microsoft ATR Trade Confirmation and Client is necessary to restore competition to this Date: 1/28/02 4:01pm Statement, you should rely on the Trade vital segment of the economy. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Confirmation and Client Statement and Thank you. Forwarded by Donald E. Barlow/PSG/ contact your local branch manager with Alan K. Thompson Prudential on any questions. 4711 Sheridan Street Suite 316351 01/28/2002 04:00 PM This information is being sent to you for your Riverdale Park, MD 20737 ‘‘Microsoft’s Freedom To Innovate Network’’ information or at your request. If you do
VerDate 11
Dear Mr. Ashcroft, must give citizens and consumer groups an government under the terms of this As a retiree who has been following this equal opportunity to participate, along with settlement. These include contractual Microsoft antitrust case, I must admit I was Microsoft’s competitors and customers. restrictions on the promotion of Windows disappointed that this case was even brought Respectfully, technology, relationship with software to court. There are so many other companies Mary Beth Brangan developers and design obligations. with a high market share like Cisco and 117 Terrace Avenue Please support this settlement. It is Oracle. No one pursued those companies. Bolinas, CA 94924 important that the technology industry Microsoft has been great for the economy, for 415–868–1901 concentrates on business now. The terms will the shareholders, and for technology. What mean a new wave of innovation, promoted by are the ramifications for this country, if MTC–00028494 increased competition. I would appreciate it litigation were to continue another four From: Dave McGinley if the folks in Washington spent the years? Would Microsoft be able to survive? To: Microsoft ATR taxpayers’’ money in more efficient ways. They are already vulnerable, now that Date: 1/28/02 4:04pm Sincerely, they’ve agreed to disclose portions of their Subject: Microsoft Settlement Thomas Saeda source codes in their operating system to the Respectfully submitted: CC: Senator Harry Reid competition. I oppose any settlement with Microsoft. I CC:[email protected]@inetgw Microsoft has been more than cooperative consider Microsoft’s tactics to be MTC–00028496 in resolving this matter and agreed to terms monopolistic, unfair to competition, and well beyond what is expected in any antitrust predatory. Consider, From: bruce guenard case. That ought to be enough. I was an Apple computer user from the late To: Microsoft ATR Let’s stop the litigation so the government ‘‘70s. Apple computer is no longer a viable Date: 1/28/02 4:04pm can focus on more pertinent issues. Not only option do primarily to Microsoft. The Subject: microsoft settlement is it good for the company, but for the original MS Office came out on the Dear Judge, economy as well. Thanks for your Macintosh. When Apple begin to compete I am( just) a personal user of computers consideration in this matter. with Microsoft (late 80’s), the Office and software since 1982. I have not read all Sincerely, programs suddenly were no longer supported the legal docs, but have followed the rise of Earl Ramsey on the Apple Platform and then when again the personal compuger industry for about supported MS Word was interpeted causing two decades. Microsoft has produced good MTC–00028493 painfully slow execution (early 90’s). Finally, products and bad products. The culture of From: EON when Apple capitulated to MS, a new fully Microsoft,(like the culture of Enron) is To: Microsoft ATR functional release was made late 90’s. I was unhealthy: Before the death of Lotus 123, the Date: 1/28/02 4:03pm a Netscape Navigator user. After running in Microsoft mantra was‘‘DOS isn’t done ‘‘til Subject: Microsoft Settlement to so many e-sites that would not support Lotus won’t run.’’ The ‘‘winner take all, Renata B. Hesse Netscape I was forced to change to Internet damn the ethics’’ attitude of MS might be Antitrust Division Explorer. I was a Eudora e-mail user. Again tolerable if there were real competition in the United States Department of Justice I was forced to change to Outlook Express for operating system(OS) market. But there is no 601 D Street NW compatibility. competition. No admission of guilt, no Suite 1200 Lastly, when using an Apple Postscript repentance. ‘‘Innovation’’ to Microsft is Washington, DC 20530–0001 printer, mysteriously, MS Office products finding new ways to squeeze dollars out if Dear Ms. Hesse, would encounter errors printing. Research by the public. Microsoft will *always* use its I am very concerned that the proposed my programmer showed MS had ‘‘added’’ a OS and browser monopoly to maintain and Microsoft settlement is not in the public Postscript command of their own, thus extend it’s illegal monopolies. interest. My fear as a computer user is that preventing and Apple Standard Postscript If It’s a monopoly, it must be regulated. But the all important freedom of choice which command from executing without errors. The when has Microsft ever followed a judges’’ distinguishes our democracy will be further bottom line, if MS wants the market they order or an anti-trust law it doesn’t like? eroded. I appreciate your attention and hope have the financial and technical capability to Better, separate the OS/Browser business you will include the following in your drive any competitor from the market. Watch from the rest of Microsoft. THEN use a considerations. what happens with XBox vs Playstation and couple billion of MS illegal profits to fund at My objections include the following Ninetendo. least two open source OS alternatives, like points: 1) The settlement leaves the Microsoft HELP. Lindows. (using all MS internal tech data) IF monopoly intact. It is vague and Dave McGinley there is real competition in the OS market, unenforceable. It leaves Microsoft with Pericle Communications Company the public can choose to use or not to use MS numerous opportunities to exempt itself from 1910 Vindicator Drive, Suite 100 products on their merits, not because the OS/ crucial provisions. Colorado Springs, CO 80919 Browser demands it.* 2) The proposed settlement ignores the all- [email protected] 719–548–5014 Vx We don’t want the Chinese Communists important applications barrier to entry which 719–548–1211 Fx creating a Linux future for the Intel/AMD* must be reduced or eliminated. Any PC do we? settlement or order needs to provide ways for MTC–00028495 Bruce Guenard consumers to run any of the 70,000 existing From: Thomas Saeda san jose ca Windows applications on any other operating To: Microsoft ATR * There are no good analogies to the power system. Date: 1/28/02 4:04pm the OS has over the consumer. What if GM 3) Consumers need a la carte competition Subject: Microsoft settlement were the only car maker in earth and it sold and choice so they, not Microsoft, decide 2308 Delina Drive a car, but licensed the key? The key what products are on their computers. The Las Vegas, NV 89134 controlled the gas and brake and would only settlement must provide ways for any January 27, 2002 work properly if the car contained GM combination of non-Microsoft operating Attorney General John Ashcroft manufactured products. The car crashes a lot, systems, applications, and software U.S. Justice Department but really crashes if not using GM tires, gas, components to run properly with Microsoft 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW oil, batteries etc. And the key quits working products. Washington, DC 20530 after 5 years. Break a key, out of luck. Just 4) The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Dear Mr. Ashcroft, buy a new car and license the key Litigating States are in the public interest and I am in support of the Microsoft antitrust Car costs $19,999.00. Key licences for absolutely necessary, but they are not settlement. It is clearly a compromise for $1,990.00 for driving in the city, $2,990.00 to sufficient without the remedies mentioned both parties involved. go to the suburbs or out of state. (relative above. This is, out of the possible options, one of pricing of home vs prof versions.) If your 5. The court must hold public proceedings the more reasonable choices. Restrictions spouse or kids want a key, they must buy a under the Tunney Act, and these proceedings have been set upon Microsoft by the license, too.
VerDate 11
** With AMD battling Intel in the CPU simply be no match against both the one business from another, but to arbitrate market, hardware prices drop, with real entrenched competition-killing culture of contracts and protect individual and property choice. With the Microsoft OS Monopoly, Microsoft and the cadre of attorneys used to rights (businesses are owned by individuals). forced upgrade prices rise. Let there be the support that culture’s goals. Instead, more Microsoft products are not a threat to anyone. end of software monopolies!! (pardon my drastic measures, such as those proposed by As I remember, this case didn’t start with spelling) the nine dissenting states, should be put in consumers like me feeling ripped-off, or even place to help restore the competition that with a violation of any contract between MTC–00028497 Microsoft has so effectively eliminated. Microsoft business partners. It started with From: mike k There are certain details of the proposed Microsoft’s unsuccessful competitors! Since To: Microsoft ATR settlement that would seriously weaken the when do competition’s losers get to sue? I Date: 1/28/02 4:05pm settlement if it were to be implemented as it want to live in a country where anyone with Subject: Microsoft Settlement currently drafted. For example, very little enough on the ball, putting in sufficient Dear Sirs, consideration is given to competition that effort, can be a self-made-man like Bill Gates. I believe that Microsoft has proven that may come from non-profit-oriented That is the American Dream. It is a they can and will find a way to sidestep the organizations such as the developers of the fundamental right! I want to know that my intent of the judgement against them. They SAMBA project. This project’s main goal is country is there to protect my right to my will likely muddy the waters in such a way to provide software to allow users of other property, not to worry that if I succeed that that the details of the settlement will become operating systems to provide file-sharing my own country will take it away from me largely irrelevant. I believe that the current services in a network including Microsoft and turn it over to my competitors. judgement is not enforceable against such a Windows clients. SAMBA’s developers have Sincerely, slippery company. had to continually adapt to Microsoft’s Mary Bachmann thank you, changing of APIs and protocols to achieve 136 Galleon Loop N.E. Mike Kirita this goal. The provisions in the current Ocean Shores, Washington 98569 MTC–00028498 settlement proposal for releasing of API P.S. If I (the consumer) have been wronged, information simply are not stringent enough shouldn’t I be the one getting the settlement? From: Des Owens to be effective, as they don’t address in To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028501 enough either sharing APIs with non-profit Date: 1/28/02 4:05pm groups or the timeliness of those transfers of From: Troy Harkey Subject: Microsoft Settlement information. SAMBA has been the only To: Microsoft ATR I find the DOJ proposed settlement with effective competition to Microsoft when it Date: 1/28/02 4:05pm Microsoft to be a disgrace! Microsoft after comes to file-sharing in dominantly Subject: Microsoft Settlement snookering the original preparer of PC DOS Microsoft Windows environments, and this January 28, 2002 was handed a monopoly by IBM. They have settlement does little to encourage that Attorney General John Ashcroft exploited that monopoly in a number of competition. Granted, this is only one case of US Department of Justice illegal ways. After being found guilty, they 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW are now being rewarded by the DOJ with a weakness in the proposal, and the Washington, DC 20530 such weak ‘‘punishment’’ and unenforceable settlement is not intended to benefit any one Dear Mr. Ashcroft: behavior restrictions, that Microsoft can now specific entity, but this is an example of how I am writing to you to express my support declare victory and continue on their merry there are significant weaknesses in the for the settlement reached between Microsoft way. Considering the relationship between settlement’s ability to help restore and the Department of Justice. Consumer Microsoft and the Bush administration, the competition and to be in the public interest. confidence in tech stocks has dwindled as money and the Ballmer visit to VP Cheney, In summary, this proposed settlement is the federal case has dragged on. Since the US one might have expected the DOJ to recuse not in the public interest for many reasons— District Court entered its judgement against itself. many of which have been well documented Microsoft on April 3, 2000, we have This is an ‘‘honorable’’ administration— elsewhere. Please do not allow the best value is given for value received! interests of consumers to be forgotten. Please witnessed a historic decline in investor Yours truly, do not endorse this settlement. Thank you. confidence in the technology industry. The Desmond H. Owens Sincerely, technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite stock 1839 Kirkmont Drive Benjamin Curtis index, which managed to get as high as 4504 San Jose, CA 95124 15 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 202 that day, now rests comfortably below 2000 Bellevue, WA 98005 representing a loss of 56%. MTC–00028499 425–454–0088 Now we are in a recession. Massive layoffs are announced every week. Once mighty From: Benjamin Curtis MTC–00028500 To: Microsoft ATR companies are folding. I believe it is time to Date: 1/28/02 4:05pm From: Mary put this issue to rest and enact the Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR settlement. Please consider this email a vote for not Date: 1/28/02 4:04pm Microsoft has made many concessions allowing the proposed settlement to stand. Subject: Microsoft Settlement throughout this process. They have agreed to Microsoft has previously ignored and/or To the Justice Department: disclose the protocols of their windows violated previous decrees, and have I am deeply disturbed by the prosecution system. This means that Microsoft will be continued to exhibit predatory business of the Microsoft Company and Microsoft required to make its proprietary information practices to both establish and maintain their Chair Bill Gates. With Microsoft products, I available to competitors. I wonder if those monopoly in the technology sector. The have had the option of using other companies will have to share their current proposed settlement does not go far manufacturer’s software and was often proprietary data with Microsoft? It seems to enough to ensure that competition will be supplied at hardware purchase with software me we should be rewarding innovative restored to the marketplace, and is not in the like Lotus and Claris and browsers from companies not penalizing them, or slicing consumer’s interest. Mosaic to Netscape. I have received them up, and feeding them to the Microsoft has used various means to immeasurable benefit from the features of competition. eliminate any and all threats of competition, Microsoft products and they continue to be I can remember when DOJ disassembled including hiring away critical employees of my preference. The reason I say this is that AT&T. As a result, my local telephone competing companies (Borland), eliminating I very much resent the prosecution’s service is now far less reliable and much a profitable market for a software segment contention that I am some kind of helpless more expensive. I can?t even get anyone to (Netscape), and integration of new products consumer that can’t even pick which answer the phone at the phone company to with current market-dominating products software suits my purpose. And I don’t address a problem with my bill! (Microsoft Word vs. Word Perfect). An believe the Justice department has the right Finally, I would like to state that the oversight committee trying to enforce to tell me what kind of deals I can make with enactment of the settlement will benefit the disputable sections of the settlement will my supplier. The court’s job is not to protect technology industries. Microsoft has done its
VerDate 11
share to resolve the issue. Please enact the GUILTY! are the ramifications for this country, if settlement reached in November. Letting Microsoft off easily leads to: litigation were to continue another four Sincerely, World ‘‘Dumb-in-Nation’’! years? Would Microsoft be able to survive? Troy Harkey Carl Kipp They are already vulnerable, now that Columbus, OH, 43202 they’ve agreed to disclose portions of their MTC–00028502 In Unauthorized Windos 95, Andrew source codes in their operating system to the From: Frank M. Kepics Schulman (wizard & editor) has many quotes competition. Microsoft has been more than To: Microsoft ATR from the DoJ vs MS [‘‘settled’’ out of court, cooperative in resolving this matter and Date: 1/28/02 3:45pm 1994!] including his own congressional agreed to terms well beyond what is expected Subject: Microsoft Settlement testimony. One was from a MS VP who said in any antitrust case. That ought to be I’m writing to voice my opinion regarding ‘‘...my job is to see that Microsoft gets a fair enough. the proposed Microsoft settlement. I believe share of the application market. I define that IF MERGEFIELD PARA2 But clever people that the proposed settlement is woefully as 100%.’’ Perfidy. like me who talk loudly in restaurants, see inadequate as a deterrent to the anti- This case is an outgrowth of that one. MS this as a deliberate ambiguity. A plea for competitive and monopolistic business agreed to not bundle the browser, did it justice in a mechanized society. practices employed by Microsoft currently or anyway and claimed it was built-in. A lie, as Let’s stop the litigation so the government in the future. Enactment of this agreement as testimony showed. I own 98Lite a program can focus on more pertinent issues. Not only currently proposed will be ineffective in which merely uninstalls the IE browser. is it good for the company, but for the establishing a competitive business Drug on the market. economy as well. Thanks for your environment in the software industry. MS’s recent ‘‘$1 Billion’’ settlement consideration in this matter. I am strongly opposed to the terms and proposal for another suit is typically self- IF MERGEFIELD PARA5 But is suspense, conditions imposed by this agreement and serving. They account their $10 MS Office as Hitchcock states, in the box. No, there isn’t would like to see a re-negotiated settlement package cost as ‘‘$600’’ retail AND hook room, the ambiguity’s put on weight. that provides more safeguards to competition students in the education market. This is like Sincerely, and effective enforcement than that offered letting the tobacco companies pay their fines Ellen M. Ramsey by the currently proposed ‘‘slap-on-the- in cartons of cigarettes! MTC–00028505 wrist’’ agreement. Or the Carlos Lehder, of Medellin cartel Respectfully, pay fines in cocaine packets! From: [email protected]@inetgw Frank M. Kepics Judge T.P. Jackson did compare MS to a To: Microsoft ATR *Frank M. Kepics* dealership. Date: 1/28/02 4:07pm *School of Biomedical Engineering,* Damage to Society. Subject: Mirosoft Settlement. *Science and Health Systems* Microscoff is bad for innovation. [See I feel that the provisions of the agreement *MS 7–709* Caldera’s suit for damage to DR-DOS. See are reasonable and fair to all of the parties *Drexel University* Borland.]. involved. This would be the best opportunity *3141 Chestnut St.* Microsloth is bad for programmers. [You for MSFT and the industry to move forward. *Philadelphia, Pa. 19104* ** don’t program, you use MFC objects. Dumb.] Please accept the agreement. Donna Platt *(215) 895–2221 (voice)* Microstuff is bad for IT. [No one MTC–00028506 *(215) 895–4983 (fax)* understands their proprietary stuff. Even MS! From: S P Arif Sahari Wibowo See IIS buffer over run. See the FBI warns MS To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028503 about security. See Universal P’nP holes] Date: 1/28/02 4:07pm From: Carl Kipp Microscruff is bad for ZDNet, a media To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement company. [Users have given up I think the settlement proposal is NOT Date: 1/28/02 4:06pm understanding. ZD loses readers looking for good enough: Subject: Microsoft Settlement enlightenment. The technical comittee should give written WHAT. They are since under new management.] report to the public, and answer questions This is the penalty in the main DoJ suit ZDNet editor Kingman said ‘‘No single from the public as much as they can. after MS lost the appeal. The supression of company, not even Microsoft, is the enemy.’’ The time of remedy should allow growing Netscape’s browser is the primary issue, but WRONG. MS=Dumbination The GATES to of competition, therefore 5 years are not loss of BeOS is as bad. Dumb-in-Nation! enough, it should be a least 10 years. HARM. Carl Kipp Thanks you. The MS IE bowser has been a main entry Columbus OH, 43202 point for viruses, and its extensions have MTC–00028507 MTC–00028504 harmed the www. Tim Berners-Lee (who DID From: Wesley Williams invent the Web) dislikes the damage From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR,Microsoft ATR propietary MS extensions has done. His goal To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 4:10pm was equality of operation across platforms. Date: 1/28/02 4:06pm Subject: microsoft settlement MS has harmed Opera, Netscape by Subject: Microsoft Settlement I am a stockholder in microsoft and i GIVING IE away. MS has harmed Carl Kipp Please see attached document, explaining believe the settlement should be completed by corrupting sites and starving the publisher my feeling about the treatment of Microsoft. as soon as posible. Approval of the of my preferred browser: NetScape Thank You Ellen M Ramsey settlement would be in the best interests of Communicator! This is written on NetScape’s 3705 Arctic Boulevard #1451 all concerned, in my opinion. Please consider e-mail program! Anchorage, AK 99503–5774 approving the settlement. Thank you for your REMEDY? January 26,2002 consideration. I request forcing MS to be split (the original Attorney General John Ashcroft Sincerely, penalty) or source code opened without the US Department of Justice Wesley Williams ‘‘security’’ exemption. MS’s recent ‘‘$1 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Billion’’ settlement proposal for another suit Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00028508 is typically self-serving. They account their Dear Mr. Ashcroft, From: Richard A Martin (DTG) $10 MS Office package cost as ‘‘$600’’ retail As a retiree who has been following this To: Microsoft ATR AND hook students in the education market. Microsoft antitrust case, I must admit I was Date: 1/28/02 4:06pm This is like letting the tobacco companies disappointed that this case was even brought Subject: Microsoft Settlement pay their fines in cartons of cigarettes! to court. There are so many other companies Dear Mr. Ashcroft, US Judge Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is with a high market share like Cisco and Please read my attached letter... going to look at OUR public comment on the Oracle. No one pursued those companies. Richard Martin, Senior System Architect/ remedy/penalty now that Microscoff has Microsoft has been great for the economy, for President been confirmed the shareholders, and for technology. What Dominion Technology Group, Inc.
VerDate 11
mailto:[email protected] US Department of Justice (see what Hitachi had to do to ship a system (614) 529–1284 Home 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW with BeOS preinstalled) I have little choice (614) 216–7197 Cell Washington, DC 20530 but to move to the Macintosh platform. Richard Martin Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Remedy? There are plenty of methods Assistant Professor I am very adamant the lawsuit against where Microsoft could be forced to pay for DeVRY Institute of Technology Microsoft is unwarranted and should never illegal activities and possibly save the BeOS (614) 253–7291 x2551 have started in the first place. platform. They could be forced (with Palm’s mailto:[email protected] I believe it was politically motivated by understanding) to purchase the BeOS/BeIA January 28, 2002 significant contributions of Netscape to the source code— forced to pay community Attorney General John Ashcroft Democratic party. Further the suit, I believe developers to remove all third party code and U.S. Department of Justice has contributed to the down turn in the release it to the public as open source. I sure 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW economy. that other options are available—ones that Washington, DC 20530–0001 I fully suport for settlement that the DOJ might be more realistic, but the fact Dear Mr. Ashcroft: has proposed. If Microsoft deems this remains—if the settlement does not result in I am a professor at a technical college, and settlement fair then I will support Microsoft’s the renewed development of the BeOS then work as an IT consultant. I acknowledge that decision to comply. If you ask me, the I will have considered it a failure. there are legitimate reasons that brought lawsuit has only helped to strengthen Justin Lower about this case three years ago, but Microsoft Microsoft as a company rather than fulfill the 746 E 19th Ave #4 become powerful not by being a predatory intentions of the opposition—to tear the Eugene, OR 97401 attackers, but by making excellent products. company apart. (541)484–2353 <- Home # This case should not punish Microsoft for Microsoft’s willingness to comply should (541) 554–7250 <- Cell # being the industry leader, but should rule be some indication of the caliber company MTC–00028512 that exclusionary practices should be we are dealing with—a company that changed. The concerns that give merit to the possesses true leadership. One of the signs of From: Susan Chatman case have been addressed with the a great company is the willingness to To: Microsoft ATR introduction of new Microsoft software, and concede when it is evident that alternative Date: 1/28/02 4:11pm that provisions are in place under the choices are limited. I don’t the think the Subject: Microsoft Settlement agreement that will ensure competition in the concessions on Microsoft’s part where as To: Renata B. Hesse market. much an admission of guilt as it is Microsoft Antitrust Division The concerns of independent vendors, sincere desire to get back to what they do U.S. Department of Justice computer makers, and software engineers all best—innovate! 601 D Street NW have been taken into account to produce If the remaining opposition were to truly Suite 1200 licensing and development changes within look closely at this case they would see that Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft software. Protocol has been set up Microsoft has not gotten of easily as they January 28, 2002, to ensure that Microsoft remains a have implied in the past. Microsoft will have Dear Ms Hesse, responsible industry leader by forming to basically strip themselves of their I have been trying to understand the oversight committees and reevaluating future competitiveness by allowing significant intricacies of the proposed settlement. I am lawsuit guidelines. I do not understand what access to their internal interfaces and very concerned that the final outcome does more can be done at the federal level. This intellectual property. not promote a free market, and therefore case has already had an impact on the Microsoft’s efforts to comply, the allows Microsoft to continue monopolistic industry and the economy, and the effects of disastrous effects on the economy, the vast of activities. It is best for the American Microsoft being broken up would be amounts of tax payer dollars spent should be consumers that viable alternatives to devastating. The loss of standardization and plenty of reason to bring a speedy end to this Microsoft have the opportunity to compete operability would halt innovation, and might case. I hope you hear the plea of the public freely. jeopardize our country’s position as the and wrap up this matter. I have a friend that has published several world leader in technology development. We Sincerely, detailed and well-argued points about the must resolve this case, and the sooner, the Frederick Savalli basic unfairness of the proposed settlement. better. The necessary steps have been taken 1523 Tangerine Street Please do not let the free market be hijacked to foster competition, and would like to see Clearwater, Florida 33756 by Microsoft’s lawyers. We must have access to code, alternative to both operating systems the settlement given a chance to prove itself. MTC–00028511 Sincerely, and application interfaces must be allowed to Richard Martin From: Justin Lower exist, and we should not let this proposed CEO To: Microsoft ATR settlement go through the way it is currently Date: 1/28/02 4:08pm written. MTC–00028509 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Please reference http://www.kegel.com/ From: [email protected]@inetgw To Whom It May Concern: remedy/letter.html for more details on the To: Microsoft ATR As a long time BeOS (Be Inc. Operating specific changes that will help make this a Date: 1/28/02 4:09pm System) user I cannot say how disappointed much better settlement. Subject: Microsoft Settlement I am in what remedy’s have been discussed Thank you very much for your time. Dear Renata B.Hesse, to deal with Microsoft’s monopoly. These Sincerely, On behalf of the computer dummies please remedies are for me, the consumer, yet I have Susan Chatman settle this case for the ordinary computer no doubt that when all is said and done that 6665 Green Valley Circle, #322, Culver user, because we prefer Microsoft to be Microsoft will still be a monopoly, that I will City, CA 90230–8111 allowed to continue to innovate simple remain to have a very, very limited choice of MTC–00028513 software. operating systems to use. (I don’t consider Thank you. Linux, BSD, etc to be valid choices—few From: Frances B. Smith Sicerely, companies have been able to provide a easy, To: Microsoft ATR Myrna Rogoff usable operating system that does not require Date: 1/28/02 4:11pm a degree in Computer Science to feel one is Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028510 in control.) Apple and Be Inc. are the only January 28, 2002 From: Fred Savalli choices I had apart from Windows in the last Renata B. Hesse To: Microsoft ATR 5 years or more. Now, with the BeOS ‘‘dead’’, Antitrust Division Date: 1/28/02 4:10pm largely due to Microsoft’s illegal bootloader U.S. Department of Justice Subject: Please Settle Microsoft Suit license forcing system vendors to ignore Be 601 D Street, NW January 26, 2002 Inc. or ,worse, to force a dual boot system to Suite 1200 Attorney General John Ashcroft ignore the BeOS partition unless ‘‘activated’’ Washington, DC 20530–0001
VerDate 11
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Consumers are the ones who benefit from words, Microsoft is such an abusive Dear Ms. Hesse, the vibrant competition that exists. They are monopoly, that many of the world’s most I would like to express Consumer Alert’s the ones who would suffer from further technically proficient volunteered their time support for acceptance of the Proposed Final antitrust action or draconian remedies that and effort to provide an alternative, because Judgment to resolve the antitrust case against attempt to delineate how competition should any for-profit organization that tried would Microsoft. Consumer Alert, founded in 1977, evolve. The nature and speed of institutional be run into the ground. is a non-profit, non-partisan consumer group and technological change is misunderstood. People care about this case. This won’t be with individual members in all 50 states. In Today, no one can predict the future of IT— swept under the rug; it will be remembered addition, Consumer Alert is the founder and who the players will be and who are the in future elections. coordinator of the National Consumer likely winners and losers. Those who would Sincerely, Coalition (NCC). The NCC is an on-going use antitrust policy to mold their view of the Anthony D. Niesz coalition made up of 23 non-profit future are likely to create impediments to organizations, with those groups’’ members innovation. Predicting where systems will go MTC–00028516 numbering over 3 million. in the future is a task for markets and From: cole In today’s uncertain economic climate, it is ultimately the customers in those markets— To: Microsoft ATR in the best interests of consumers to have the consumers. Date: 1/28/02 4:13pm issues settled and to bring to an end litigation Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft Settlement that could further stymie our economic Frances B. Smith I oppose the proposed ‘‘Microsoft recovery. The agreement is needed to Executive Director Settlement’’ that is now before Judge Kollar- ‘‘provide a prompt, certain and effective Consumer Alert Kotelly for consideration. MicroSoft remedy for consumers.’’ The technology 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1128 represents how an inferior operating system sector and its resurgence could be vital to Washington, DC 20036 can achieve and maintain predatory market renewed economic growth, not only in the Phone: 202–467–5809 monopoly through dishonest, unethical and U.S. but in the world economy. Fax::202–467–5814 illegal business practices. Break this The remedies provided in the settlement www.consumeralert.org monstrous company up! are far-reaching and address the business Audrey Cole practices that the court found to be anti- MTC–00028514 270 West Cornwall Rd. competitive. Offered by the U.S. Department From: John Ilgen West Cornwall, CT 06796 of Justice, the proposed settlement was To: Microsoft ATR 28 January 2002 endorsed by nine State Attorneys General. Date: 1/28/02 4:14pm The settlement could bring an end to Subject: Public Comment on Microsoft Anti MTC–00028517 litigation that has created an uncertain and Trust Settlement From: ROTH David R disruptive climate. January 25, 2002 To: Microsoft ATR With this settlement, consumers likely will Attorney General John Ashcroft Date: 1/28/02 4:13pm continue to benefit from the products and US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Subject: Microsoft Settlement services offered by firms that operate in Avenue, NW I have been following the most recent case dynamic and rapidly changing markets and Washington, DC 20530–0001 against Microsoft with considerable interest. are innovative in their distribution systems. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Whatever objections may have been raised Those who would seek further redress would I believe that the Department of Justice was about the objectivity of the original judge, his try to shape the markets of today into a justified in filing this lawsuit against conclusions about Microsoft’s anti- narrow and static mold of competition—one Microsoft. I support the settlement that the competitive conduct were based on such that would threaten consumer welfare. Justice Department has proposed and think persuasive evidence that no one outside Satisfying the demands of competitors, at the that any other action, is just Microsoft’s Redmond has bothered to question it. expense of consumers, should not be the competitors looking for judicial remedies for He found that Microsoft’s conduct was so principal factor governing the resolution of what they can’t obtain the free market! consistently and pervasively corrupt in it’s this antitrust suit. As far as the nine remaining states action, anti-competitive conduct, that there was no Throughout the three-year litigation there has been no loss to consumers as a part hope of reform without the most dramatic process, no evidence of consumer harm was of Microsoft’s actions. Microsoft sells in intervention. I agree with him that the offered. Instead, it appeared that competitors volume and at non monopolist prices. Just company should be broken up, so that the wanted the legal system to help them with look at what its competitors charge for an operating system and the applications are their business plans. Some of those who are operating system, Sun and Apple. In fact, it developed and sold by separate companies. pressing for further restrictions may claim is Microsoft’s products that have been the Short of that, it is obvious that the only that those are needed to protect consumers biggest contributor to productivity gains in effective way for the Government to prevent from anti-competitive practices. Yet the US economy in the last five years. renewal of the abuses would be to establish consumers are the ones who benefit from I hope that the settlement will be sustained a very comprehensive set of guidelines and creative institutional and technological during this public comment period, and that strictures, with oversight sufficient to enforce change and are far more likely to be injured there will be no further federal action against them in the rapid and far-flung operation of by political restrictions on such change, Microsoft, or any other American company. the business. especially when such restrictions favor Sincerely, I recently signed the petition on this matter competitors. John Ilgen which has been circulated by Dan Kegel. I Obstructing the agreement is likely to have CEO endorsed that petition because it does such widespread unintended consequences that CitationSoft Corp a thorough job of identifying ways in which could disrupt the continuation of these CC:John Ilgen the proposed settlement misses the target. consumer benefits. Please heed those warnings. Consumers are benefiting from intense MTC–00028515 The defenders of Microsoft originally competition that has ?democratized? access From: Tony Niesz argued that the Government could not hope to technology in the past decade. Not least of To: Microsoft ATR to understand and supervise such a dynamic these are dramatically lower prices, ease of Date: 1/28/02 4:17pm technology. Then the Government use for even the untutored, and the Subject: Microsoft Settlement prosecutors successfully demonstrated continuous unveiling of innovative products I think the proposed Microsoft settlement impressive mastery of the issues, sweeping and services. Even during the past three years is a gross miscarriage of justice. Microsoft is the defense aside in one master stroke after while this case was being litigated, a convicted monopolist, and such a heinous another. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the new technological advances continued unabated, one that the only possible competition is the Administration threw away what the many offered by Microsoft, but others decentralized, guerilla Linux movement that previous Administration had accomplished portending new possibilities in information arose at the grassroots level in the face of by formulating a settlement which was based technology and new alignments. Microsoft’s anticompetitive tactics. In other on such a naive and simplistic approach to
VerDate 11
the problem. Now that Enron is hanging ‘‘reward, not a remedy.’’ Scott McNealy, CEO author of ‘‘Antitrust and Monopoly around the new Administration’s neck, does of Sun Microsystems, quipped that ‘‘I can1t (Independent Institute, 1998) and Antitrust: it want to add a sweetheart deal with retire now?I can1t leave the world to The Case for Repeal (Mises Institute, 1999)’’. Microsoft? anarchy.’’ From McNealy1s perspective the Roy Cordato is vice president for research world of falling software prices and MTC–00028518 and resident scholar at the John Locke innovative new products stimulated by Foundation in Raleigh. From: Don Carrington Microsoft1s presence in the market is To: Microsoft ATR anarchy. Apparently ‘‘order’’ is the pre- MTC–00028519 Date: 1/28/02 4:13pm Microsoft world where consumers paid up to From: Jim Abell Subject: Microsoft $1,000 for word processing and spreadsheet To: Microsoft ATR Date: January 28, 2002 programs and internet users had to fork over Date: 1/28/02 4:16pm To: The United States Department of Justice about $100 to use Netscape. Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Don Carrington True competition always looks anarchic to Dear District Court Judge: Vice President, John Locke Foundation those who can1t compete. Microsoft should I am writing to you to as I am frustrated be praised for refusing to cave in to ludicrous Raleigh, NC with the prosecution of Microsoft. demands from self-styled ‘‘trustbusters’’ like RE: Microsoft Settlement I am the Information Systems manager for Janet Reno and Mike Easley that it unbundle The Microsoft trial was a waste of our office and deal with Computers and taxpayers’’ money and a significant its web browser from its Windows operating Servers daily. Streamlining computer disincentive to investors. While both system (appeasing Netscape) or that the software and hardware can be the most Microsoft and the plaintiffs may be happy company be split into three separate pieces. difficult, time consuming and costly expense with the settlement, the truth is that the Instead, it courageously fought the for our company. plaintiffs should never have filed this action government for years to arrive at what Compatibility and support are key. I to begin with. amounts to a legal draw and a victory for We have seen government sponsored consumers. appreciate that Microsoft has helped lawsuits against the tobacco industry, against Ultimately the government got almost immensely with this task. We don’t need this Microsoft, and now fully expect to see nothing, and consumers are better off for it. process mucked up by government lawsuits against the fast food industry. While Under the consent decree, Microsoft is intervention. I resent that the government private parties should always have the prohibited from engaging in exclusive does not believe that I can decide for myself freedom to use our courts, the rise in dealing arrangements with original which software/hardware is useful to me. I government sponsored lawsuits is a danger to equipment manufacturers (OEMs), access can’t believe our government views Microsoft our great country. providers, and suppliers, a practice it had all as a threat, when after all it is Microsoft that but abandoned anyway. Further, Microsoft is This case should be ended as soon as has brought the industry to where it is....on required to share its applications program possible, so I am in support of this settlement real earnings, not ‘‘puffed-up’’ .com hype. interface code and allow all OEMs that only to expedite the process. Don’t forget the bubble bursting for the license its Windows operating system more I have attached the following opinion piece .communists and all of their venture capital. freedom to display non-Microsoft software from one of my associates. Those bringing suit are not individual applications. Again, Microsoft was already Please consider it a part of my official consumers, but Microsoft’s unsuccessful moving in the direction of what they call competitors. comment. ‘‘shared sources.’’ Finally, Microsoft must Cooper Gets It Right on Microsoft Failed businesses must not be allowed to charge OEMs published rates and offer them set the rules for the markets in which they By Dom Armentano and ROY CORDATO uniform discounts. failed. Protecting some businesses from ‘‘I have concluded that this settlement with But Microsoft is left entirely free to others is a dangerous policy. I want to see an Microsoft is in the best interest of North determine its own prices and discounts and America where success is embraced, not Carolina consumers.’’ With this statement change them at any time. This is crucial punished and throttled! Bill Gates is a self- Atty. Gen. Roy Cooper announced that North because it is Microsoft1s aggressive pricing made man who has brought America, the Carolina, along with eight other states, has strategies that have made the consumer joined the U.S. Department of Justice in software market as competitive as it is. world, to new levels of progress. Microsoft reaching a settlement in its antitrust lawsuit Finally, Microsoft is a clear winner on the has a fundamental right to its property, and against Microsoft. Cooper should be issue that first sparked the lawsuit: the tying it is the governments job to protect this right, commended for deciding to scrap this ill- of its Web browser to its operating system. not to take it away. Microsoft, should be conceived and ultimately anticonsumer Not only is that bit of efficient bundling now lauded and left alone to continue to develop lawsuit brought by his predecessor, now Gov. perfectly legal but more importantly, there and prosper so that, we the people, can too. Mike Easley. are no specific restrictions on any future Jim Abell The Microsoft antitrust case, as brought by bundling of applications with operating MTC–00028520 both the Reno and Easley Justice systems going forward. This is the most Departments, was a mistake from the start. important innovational development to come From: Steve Love The fatal flaw was that the Reno-Easley out of the settlement and it1s strongly pro- To: Microsoft ATR argument against Microsoft was essentially a Microsoft and proconsumer. Date: 1/28/02 4:11pm legal brief for Microsoft1s disgruntled It was never in the interest of North Subject: Microsoft Settlement competitors who simply could not compete. Carolina consumers to be part of this witch- I haven’t seen any improvement in Antitrust laws prohibit restraints of trade and hunt. Nearly all antitrust suits are brought or Microsoft antitrust situation. I think the higher prices, yet Microsoft was prosecuted instigated by competitors and are blatantly current settlement that lets the Microsoft for the opposite behavior?for rapid anticonsumer. Antitrust has a long history of corportation to not be divided is misguided innovation, increasing production, and prosecuting aggressively competitive and shortsighted. lowering prices. Indeed, Microsoft was being companies that have innovated rapidly and Steve Love [email protected] prosecuted not because of its monopolist lowered prices to consumers; this includes CC:[email protected]@inetgw behavior but because it was being too such famous cases as Standard Oil and IBM. MTC–00028521 competitive. Consumers and businessmen need free, open Like most antitrust suits since passage of markets and they need protection from force From: [email protected]@inetgw the Sherman Act in 1890, the Microsoft case and fraud, but they don1t need antitrust laws To: Microsoft ATR was not about protecting competition but that hamper innovation and harm society. Date: 1/28/02 4:16pm protecting competitors. Three cheers for Cooper in his decision to Subject: Settlement Postsettlement complaints by some of settle the state1s suit against Microsoft, and Dear Renata Hesse: Microsoft1s competition bear this out. In solid brickbats to Easley for bringing it in the I wanted to send you a brief e-mail urging the states to continue their war on first place. expressing my hopes that ‘‘our’’ government Microsoft, Real Network1s Kelly Jo Dom Armentano is professor emeritus in will settle the Microsoft case as soon as MacArthur said the settlement was a economics at the University of Hartford and possible.
VerDate 11
I hate that because a man builds and muti- Avenue, NW Date: 1/28/02 4:21pm billion dollar business from the ground up Washington, DC 20530–0001 Subject: Please Enforce Antitrust Laws, that the government has to attack him. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Anticompetitive Practices I believe given that the economy is now in I believe that the Department of Justice was Greetings: recession the last thing we need is more justified in filing this lawsuit against I am saddened and angered at the soft and litigation and regulation of the high-tech Microsoft. I support the settlement that the non-punative nature of the proposed industry. This litigation is cost us millions of Justice Department has proposed and think Microsoft settlement. You people owe it to dollars that we could be using for Homeland that any other action, is just Microsoft’s your constituency of hard-working American Security. Also, there has been no consumer competitors looking for judicial remedies for men and women who feel you coziness with harm as a result of any actions taken by what they can’t obtain the free market! As far Microsoft is an outrageous affront to common Microsoft. They have only helped us. as the nine remaining states action, there has decency and moral decency. Shame on you Settlement of this case is in everyone’s best been no loss to consumers as a part of if you allow them to come out of this case interests ??? the technology industry, the Microsoft’s actions. Microsoft sells in volume with anything resembling the cozy, soft economy and consumers. and at non monopolist prices. Just look at ‘‘penalties’’ described in the brief of the Thank you for your time. what its competitors charge for an operating proposed settlement. My friends, colleagues Sincerely, system, Sun and Apple. In fact, it is and myself feel this settlement has the Monty C. Floyd Microsoft’s products that have been the appearance of undue influence with respect MTC–00028522 biggest contributor to productivity gains in to Microsoft’s business practices and the the US economy in the last five years. Federal Government’s willingness to make From: WILLIAM YOCUM I hope that the settlement will be sustained them tow the line. Shame! To: Microsoft ATR during this public comment period, and that Microsoft will continue to be an unfairly Date: 1/28/02 4:18pm there will be no further federal action against dominant player in the software market Subject: microsoft settlement Microsoft, or any other American company. SOLELY BECAUSE of their ability to buy off WHAT DESIRE WOULD A COMPANY Sincerely, or otherwise influence legislators and others HAVE TO DEVELOP PRODUCTS IF IT WERE Paul Ilgen within our Federal Government because their NOT FOR PATENTS???. NONE. THIS IS Northeastern Executive Group products are of such mediocre-to-poor JUST WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS quality that they would have trouble TRYING TO TAKE FROM MICROSOFT. MTC–00028527 competing on a level playing field. Shame! MTC–00028523 From: Ken Wingert Please do the right thing; please do the To: Microsoft ATR moral thing; please do your job and punish From: Daniel L Christie Date: 1/28/02 4:21pm Microsoft in a manner that pleases average To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 4:13pm American consumers and taxpayers like me Ken Wingert Subject: microsoft settlement and dozens of my colleagues with whom I’ve 3000 Grand Ave, #910 We strongly urge setllement of the spoken of this horrendously-handled issue. Des Moines, IA 50312 microsoft suits as soon as possible why PUNISH MICROSOFT—DON’T SUBSIDIZE Renata Hesse penalize micorsoft for being successful?We THEM!!! Trial Attorney need microsoft to help lead the market ahead. Donald Bauer, Anti-trust Division dan christie and o.b.v. inc. California, USA US Department of Justice MTC–00028524 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 MTC–00028529 From: [email protected]@inetgw Washington, DC 20530 From: tom zukowski To: Microsoft ATR Attorney Hesse: To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 4:20pm Please accept the proposed settlement of Date: 1/28/02 4:21pm Subject: I believe consumer interests have the Microsoft antitrust suit. Subject: Microsoft been well served. It has been four years since this case was Tom Zukowski I believe consumer interests have been well first brought and I fail to see what we have 5746 Oak Hill Road served. gained. I strongly believe our government Gibsonia, Pennsylvania 15044 John R. Hunt must consider the financial impact this case January 28, 2002 has had and the benefits our economy will Attorney General John Ashcroft MTC–00028525 gain if it is settled quickly. US Department of Justice From: Frank Keenan This lawsuit has had a very damaging 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR effect on the technology markets. It was not Washington, DC 20530 Date: 1/28/02 4:22pm that long ago that we all looked forward to Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Subject: Microsoft has continued to thumb the continued growth of the ‘‘New Economy’’ I feel bittersweet pleasure at the fact that their nose at the Dept. of Justice. For the that revolved around the computer industry. Microsoft settled with the Department of approximately two yea Microsoft has Unfortunately, the DOJ’s antitrust suit can be Justice. Litigation should have ended long continued to thumb their nose at the closely associated with the downfall of the ago. As a user I feel that my rights have never Dept. of Justice. For the approximately NASDAQ. We can never forget that when the been infringed upon my Microsoft. two years, every PC sold has included courts announced that breaking up Microsoft In fact, their products have made it easier software giving one year FREE internet was the correct path to take, all technology for me to operate efficiently with computers, service via their MSN. In the meantime stocks dropped. more so now than ever before. I realize their small internet providers across the We have finally reached a point in this market dominance precludes competitors country are going out of business. case that all parties have come together to from gaining any edge. But, their products Typical Microsoft operation! negotiate a settlement. There can be no doubt are far superior to any other vendors. Frank Keenan that real compromises were made by I am glad to see that Microsoft has agreed 38 Gail Dr. Microsoft to put this case behind it. The best on particular concessions with the US Littleton, NC 27850 example of this is that Microsoft agreed to the department of Justice, but I am not happy establishment of an independent committee with nine states holding out. I support the MTC–00028526 to monitor its actions. settlement, and look forward to the end of From: [email protected]@inetgw Please accept this fair settlement. this case. To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, Sincerely, Date: 1/28/02 4:13pm Ken Wingert Tom Zukowski Subject: public comment on microsoft cc: Senator Rick Santorum January 28, 2002 MTC–00028528 Attorney General John Ashcroft From: Donald Bauer MTC–00028530 US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania To: Microsoft ATR From: John P. Kopp
VerDate 11
To: Microsoft ATR in our country. Microsoft has improved Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 4:21pm much of our systems of communication Renata B. Hesse Subject: Microsoft Settlement and i stongly feel that the case against Antitrust Division John Kopp their company is more or less moot. U.S. Department of Justice 342 Wellington Rd There is always competition in any field 601 D Street NW Mineola, N.Y. 11501 and the best systems will succeed. Suite 1200 January 10,2002 I urge your department to let market forces Washington, DC 20530–0001 Attorney General John Ashcroft reward or punish public ventures and spare Dear Ms. Hesse, US Department of Justice the court system for more serious injustices. In my following of the Justice Departments 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for your attention, Florence A. antitrust action against Microsoft I am Washington, DC 20530 Friedrichs-7045 HWY 135 compelled to write this letter in of support Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: Pilot Grove,MO of Microsoft and what I feel is an unjust When the federal government decided to prosecution of a company. pursue Microsoft in an antitrust suit three MTC–00028533 First—is bigness a crime? If it is you years ago, the intention was to determine if From: jdettre should take action against the Federal Microsoft exercised unfair market advantage To: Microsoft ATR Government and several Sate Governments. in the software industry. The result that the Date: 1/28/02 4:22pm Second—is offering a software package at plaintiffs (including the government) in the Subject: Microsoft Settlement a lower price than any one else can produce suit did not consider was the harm to other Antitrust Division a comparable product a crime? businesses in the technology industry created Department of Justice Third—Microsoft has brought utility and by the lawsuit. Attached is a letter concerning the Microsoft time savings to small business and computer Unlike other software companies, Settlement. users that is unprecedented in its impact on Microsoft has an open platform that allows John W. Dettre our nations economy. Microsoft Software’s many manufacturers of computer software 3038 Harbour Drive contribution to productivity of individuals and hardware to be profitable due in part to Palmyra, NJ 08065–2206 and business in the 17 years since they the enormous investment Microsoft placed in (856) 829–0704 opened their doors has to be one of the major creating the Windows operating system. [email protected] contributions of the 20th Century. Being involved in the video industry, I do a January 28, 2002 If our economy has produced the greatest great deal of work with computers. The truth Attorney General John Ashcroft standard of living in history it is because of is, creating the highly complex codes that are US Department of Justice the free enterprise system. This was made needed to support the programs used in Washington, DC 20530–0001 possible by the laws and the thinking of our business these days can only be done by a Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: Founding Fathers laid down in the company that has vast economic resources I am writing in support of Microsoft’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our Country and technical expertise. By harming antitrust settlement with your Department of cannot maintain it’s world leadership in Microsoft, the lawsuit is harming companies Justice. I think it is very reasonable. You freedom and free enterprise with a twisting that are dependent on its software for their should do your utmost to have it approved of justice such as this case against Microsoft. livelihoods. by the Court. Yours truly, Thanks to the extremely low price of the It is unfortunate that Microsoft’s Paul D. Shervey, President Windows operating system, computers and competitors had to resort to exploiting our Faber Shervey Advertising technology have found the widespread use legal system as their only way of staying in 8101 Lea Road that benefits all of us. For this and many business. In the settlement Microsoft agrees Bloomington, Minnesota 55438–1259 other reasons, I am in support of this to license its Windows operating system Phone 952–944–5111 settlement. products to the 20 largest computer makers Sincerely, (who collectively account for the great MTC–00028535 John Kopp majority of PC sales) on identical terms and From: James E. Willems conditions, including price (subject to To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028531 reasonable volume discounts for computer Date: 1/28/02 4:23pm From: Kuo, Benjamin P makers who ship large volumes of Windows). Subject: Microsoft Case To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft will make available to its Usdoj, Date: 1/28/02 4:22pm competitors, on reasonable and non- When I retired I made microsoft stock the Subject: Microsoft Settlement discriminatory terms, any protocols heart of our joint retirement because I Dear Sir or Madam: implemented in Windows’’ operating system believed that this company represents the I am writing to express my disapproval products that are used to interoperate with future america where service rather than over the proposed Microsoft Settlement. any Microsoft server operating system. production will be our world wide I believe this deal is a sellout to Microsoft. Microsoft will not to enter into any contribution. The government through there Consumers get no real benefits and Microsoft agreements obligating any third party to failure to settle this case has and continues goes unpunished for their antitrust behavior. distribute or promote any Windows impact the lives of us retired citizens. Please We have no reason to spend millions of technology exclusively or in a fixed settle this case so that our lives arenot taxpayer dollars pursuing this case, only to percentage. impacted in such a negative way. Microsoft hand out such lenient penalties when the In addition to the above, it appears that has done more to make life better for all facts are on the government’s side. Microsoft some of our ‘‘REPRESENTATIVES—?’’ in american citizens, then any other company is and continues to be a monopoly. Washington are being ‘‘Politically Correct’’ that I can recall. The settlement as I I urge you to reconsider the terms of the and favor those companies that support them understand is fair and should be finalized. deal so that real progress can be made to There are also’’ State Officials’’ trying to Thank you, restore competition in the marketplace. enhance their position and will do what they James E Willems, Age 75 Sincerely, can to disrupt Microsoft. Microsoft has given Benjamin Kuo its competitors the opportunity to stay afloat. MTC–00028536 American consumers have always benefited From: David Richard Larochelle MTC–00028532 form Microsoft’s innovations. To: Microsoft ATR From: Florence Fredrichs Sincerely, Date: 1/28/02 4:24pm To: Microsoft ATR John W. Dettre Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 4:23pm I am writing to inform you of my Subject: I hope the Department of Justice MTC–00028534 opposition to the proposed settlement in the considers well before punishing I hope From: Paul D. Shervey Microsoft case. As a researcher and a member the Department of Justice considers well To: Microsoft ATR of the security community I am extremely before punishing innovative enterprises Date: 1/28/02 4:22pm dismayed by the previsions of the settlement
VerDate 11
which allow Microsoft not to disclose details scanner to include my signature. Am advised computer operating systems, and the market of their software which they deem to be it does not matter. Attachment is to allow for Internet browsers.’’ This is foolish, security related. you to double space my comments, or indeed. There are two relevant markets. The For over 20 years it has been a widely manage electronically for your convenience. market for personal computer operating accepted in the security community that Attachment is in form of MS Word97. systems, and the market for applications ‘‘security through obscurity’’ does not work. Sincerely, which includes Internet browsers. Note also Keeping the details of software secret does Leon H. Carrington that the District Court found and the Appeals not make it more secure. Time and again it From Leon H. Carrington Court agreed, that Microsoft illegally tied its has been shown that malicious users are still 22022 Gloucester Court 3–B Explorer browser into Windows in a able to find and exploit security holes in Lexington Park, Md. 20653 nonremovable way while excluding rivals, in software even if the details of the software January 28, 2002 1 violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act. are not disclosed. To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney The illegal tie-in also injured certain other I am extremely distressed that these Antitrust Division application developers developing under prevision of the settlement disregard the U.S. Department of Justice Windows, who may not have been involved accepted views of the security community. 601 D Street, NW Suite 1200 with browsers.. They will do little or nothing to increase Washington DC 20530 Notwithstanding, the Complaint makes security and provide Microsoft with a giant My name is Leon H. Carrington, I am a reference to ‘‘Microsoft’s Windows operating loop hole to avoid releasing software. citizen of the United States and I am system’’ in section III subsection C. The David Larochelle herewith submitting my comments regarding Complaint refers often to ‘‘Microsoft’s the Proposed Final Judgement in Civil Action Windows operating system monopoly’’. That MTC–00028537 No. 98–1232, United States of America v. an operating system enables virtual software From: Bloom, Larry Microsoft Corporation. unification of the hardware computer To: ‘‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ The government has breached its duty to components and resources, exposing them, Date: 1/28/02 4:22pm the public by offering the Revised Proposed and thus facilitates use of those resources Subject: Microsoft Settlement Final Judgement (Final Judgement) as a Final and comnponents by users (consumers) and ‘‘Microsoft and its critics both worked to Judgement and settlement in the case United applications, is a perfectly acceptable and ensure their views were reflected in the States v. Microsoft Corporation. The remedy commonly understood definition of an comments. Americans for Technology proposed is not effective for correcting or operating system. However the Final Leadership, made up of Microsoft and several eliminating the violations alleged in the Judgement creates a new class of product others friendly to the software giant, offered Complaint (Civil Action No. 98–1232 (CKK)). called a Microsoft Operating System Product letter writers extra chances to win a The remedy proposed would create more (my emphasis) This new class, according to handheld computer.’’ harm to the public than the damage alleged the Final Judgement, includes Windows 2000 The above quote is a perfect example of due to the fact that the proposed remedy Profession, Windows XP Home and why Microsoft must be reigned in. Microsoft would ignore serious allegations and Professional, and their successors. The Final will always stoop to any level to be sure that behavior found by the United States District Judgement further states in the definition of their products remain the only platform Court for the District of Columbia and the the term ‘‘Microsoft Operating System offered to consumers...in this case, by trying United States Court of Appeals for the Product’’, that the code comprising the same to bribe letters of comment for their own District of Columbia, to be in violation of the ‘‘shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole support. Sherman Act; and it would confer upon discretion.’’ (Section VI—Definitions) We are Please add my name to the ranks of those Microsoft powers and authority the market lost. In spite of the fact that the Competitive who believe that Microsoft must be does not allow it to possess currently. Thus, Impact Statement recognizes what an controlled by an order with more effective the proposed remedy would not be in the operating system is, it confers upon the above enforcement and with more strict controls of public interest and would be disastrous for listed Microsoft operating systems the their anti-competitive practices. many third parties, while greatly benefitting designation ‘‘Microsoft Operating System Larry Bloom Microsoft.. If the remedy proposed includes Product’’. The new class and the reliance on Director, Internet Design & Development both the Final Judgement and the Middleware by the Final Judgement and the HealthPlanServices Competitive Impact Statement, the proposal Competitive Impact Statement, permits [email protected] is wholly inconsistent with the Complaint Microsoft to evade due penalties for (813) 289–1000 x4904 and its allegations due to the fact that the established violations and further abuse their MTC–00028538 Competitive Impact Statement is not even operating system monopoly by expanding From: Justin Meredith consistent with the Final Judgement which in their ‘‘tie-in’’ policy and rendering harmed To: Microsoft ATR turn is not responsive to the Complaint. ISV’s among others, to the status of market Date: 1/28/02 4:24pm Specifically, the most glaring and perverse irrelevance. This is a position Microsoft does Subject: Microsoft Settlement inconsistency is the base of nearly all damage not currrently enjoy. Allowing Microsoft to I wholeheartedly disagree with the pending rendering the Final Judgement inadequate define what an operating system is ( through settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft. I and insulting. That inconsistency is the fact their monopoly control and now U.S. Justice see the settlement as further stifling that the Complaint is substantially built on Department assistance) eliminates the threat competition. Furthermore, it appears to give the definition of an operating system. The of Middleware and applications which may Microsoft little more than a ‘‘slap-on-the- Competitive Impact Statement defines an compete with Microsoft applications. Indeed, wrist’’ and send them on their way. operating system in a manner wholly applications not yet conceived can be I understand this is not a democratic issue. consistent with the Complaint. The preempted until Microsoft ‘‘discovers’’ them I’m not casting a vote; Competitive Impact Statement definition is and adds them to their monopoly. I’m only making a public opinion known. in Section III ‘‘Description Of The Practices For such cause, many people recognize Justin Meredith Giving Rise To The Alleged Violations’’, that breaking up Microsoft is the best first 2189 W 480 N subsection B ‘‘Factual Background’’, step in correction of alleged and established Provo, UT 84601 subsection 1 ‘‘Microsoft’s Operating System abuse. Recognizing and enforcing the Monopoly’’. The Complaint definition is in legitimate (in this case) separation of MTC–00028539 Section IV ‘‘The Relevant Markets’’, operating system and applications is the best From: Leon H. Carrington subsection A ‘‘The PC Operating System way to eliminate the basis by which To: Microsoft ATR Market’’. Astonishingly, in this very Microsoft’s abuse of its monopoly operating Date: 1/28/02 4:27pm subsection the Complaint states truthfully, system caused damage and continues to do Subject: resend faxed comments that ‘‘No other product duplicates or fully so. Separating the operating system would I am resending my comments for your substitutes for the operating system.’’ Yet the encourage its owner to make public all convenience as an attachment. Was Complaint incorrectly states in Section IV features provided by the underlying concerned that I can not sign them because ‘‘The Relevant Markets’’, that ‘‘There are two hardware manufacturers. It would further I am sending from computer and have no relevant markets. The market for personal encourage competion between hardware
VerDate 11
component manufacturers which applications other than middleware do not a particular period of time in order to obtain manufacturers are as much victimized by generally offer much exposure to the API disclosure relief under Section III.D of Microsoft’s abuse of its monopoly operating programming consumer, and competition the Final Judgement; further enabling system as consumers and ISVs by virtue of keeps them distributed, not concentrated Microsoft to evade Complaint allegations and the fact that hardware components’’ through the entire PC universe. This is not even Sherman Act violations it has been interfaces must suit the Microsoft vision or the case with Microsoft applications. found guilty of. This is the case because be excluded. This why so many computer Commonly used Microsoft applications are again, some small mind has not yet learned software game manufacturers continued to part of the ‘‘programmers toolkit’’ for that computing facilities are continually develop for DOS well into the late 1990%: Windows developers. If they were not, the reused by bright agile minds. Interfaces used the Windows interface denied them full anticompetitive position they occupy would for middleware in one mind are perfect and access to the functionality that enabled them be more blatant as only Microsoft could necessary for another application in the mind to distinguish themselves and satisfy their interoperate with them, using the exposed of another party. This reuseability is the customers. No other vertical software market underlying functionality. On the other hand, inherent nature of computer software and had a customer base that would allow it or having these products so fully integrated into even the smallest computer hardware the underlying hardware verticle market to the operating system and each other while components. The various underlying markets ‘‘rebel’’. We are missing many new exposed and enjoying the proliferation must not be constrained by this taking on innovations. obtained from Microsoft’s illegal use of its behalf of Microsoft. The limited vision of Bill Evading the operating system definition monopoly operating system, facilitates more Gates’’ nightmares and appetites are not the eliminates or surely deteriorates the and more clever exploits by hackers. The proper perspective to use to correct the possibility of illegal tie-ins. All potential most common viruses affecting consumers abuses of Microsoft’s monopoly operating beneficiaries of just and reasonable have used the victims own Microsoft system. corrections that would have been established applications. It is not so easy to wreak havoc The Competitive Impact Statement states by faithfully addressing the allegations of the in other operating system environments in defining a Non-Microsoft Middleware also semi-adequate Complaint, are instead where there are no externally programmable, Product, that such a product must have ‘‘at further damaged or untreated (left damaged) ubiquitous applications which applications least one million copies distributed in the by the Final Judgement. In the Complaint are fully integrated into the operating system U.S. within the previous year’’ (my Section I subsection 5 it is stated via hidden APIs or interfaces. Strangely emphasis) .It further states that this that‘‘Microsoft’s conduct includes enough, in the Linux community, where requirement ‘‘is intended to avoid Microsoft’s agreements tying other Microsoft software essentially nothing is hidden, applications of affirmative obligations—including the API products to Microsoft’s Windows operating this power could exist and remain secure disclosure required by Section III.D .... being system;...’’ The effects of these tie-ins are because the open source community polices triggered by minor or even nonexistent well known but not part of the allegations of its environment jointly and severally. products that have not established a the Complaint. A Microsoft application with Interesting... someone can break Microsoft competitive potential in the market and that hidden interfaces (tie- ins) to the operating products but only Microsoft can fix them. might even be unknown to Microsoft system has a chilling effect on the Who pays? Thus we have another nasty by- development personnel.’’ (my emphasis) This development of competitive products and product of the ‘‘tie-in’’ problem. It would be is preposterous! This constitutes unjust and prevents those few who may discover this eliminated or greatly reduced with a return unlawful restraint of trade and unjust interface from remaining competitive because to application development competition discrimination. The Final Judgement does of course, the hidden interface may be based on an operating system exposed on a not restrict ISVs to a size or type insofar as changed upon upgrade of Microsoft’s non- discriminatory basis. their right to obtain the benefit of relief under application or operating system, 2 and the It would thus be disastrous for ISVs and Section III.D is concerned. If such were the former interface removed, thus ‘‘breaking’’ consumers alike if Microsoft had authority to case, the U.S. and Microsoft have decided the competitors application and causing regulate security issues for operating system who has the fight to compete where in the consumers to spend more money and applications alike. That power is also computing market which as stated above, unnecessarily. This situation also allows effectively granted by the Final Judgement consists of many integrated and Microsoft to occasionally appear to be where security APIs and documentation are simultaneously distinct and competing competing on the merits of their offering to regulated directly or indirectly by markets. This carving of the competing when such is not the case. Promoting Microsoft, the antithesis of security in development community, to the benefit of middleware as is done in the Complaint, the consumer and commercial computing. Microsoft, is ironically, the exact opposite of Final Judgement, and the Competitive Impact That the Final Judgement creates a new what should be carved. Neither the U.S. nor Statement, does nothing to alleviate this class called Microsoft Operating System Microsoft has the fight to determine what problem. As stated in the Complaint and Product, is reprehensible, clearly evading the merely new, useful, and innovative products noted above, ‘‘No other product duplicates or issues addressed by the complaint. That ISVs may be created using any functionality of a fully substitutes for the operating system.’’ who know how to use computing facilities as legitimate operating system. Is this why the Indeed, middleware is just another well as and better than Microsoft should be evasion technique deployed is to call an application, however useful. Denying ISVs relegated to the use of middleware for operating system an operating system and consumers the benefits afforded them by protection from abuse and for development is product instead of an operating system? a legitimately marketed bona-fide operating not contemplated by the Complaint or Court How dare this decree suggest that system as opposed to an ‘‘Operating System findings; is unjustly discriminatory, and not Microsoft development personnel should be Product’’ can not be in the public interest, in the public interest; denying the public the aware of what all or any others are doing in and is not responsive to the Complaint, expected benefits of many new applications development. Microsoft development including prior court judgements. which may or may not use, or be personnel can not provide consumers a When the ‘‘Nimda’’ computer virus middleware; yet must have the access to the finished product after any number of beta appeared last year, I was amazed at how it same APIs and documentation as any other tests, nor can they secure the products they performed its activities. I was more entity in the computing arena. Indeed, many make. The Revised Proposed Final astonished when it occurred to me that I was of the best among us study hardware Judgement and related Competitive Impact reading about functionality only a person documentation for software development, 3 Statement are a stench in the nostrils of familiar with Microsoft applications and vice versa. Shall the United States Justice intelligent, informed consumers. Unless a programming would understand. What Department and Microsoft alter this historic settlement can resolve the issues raised astonished me was the fact that this and landscape of a market in the interest of herein, Microsoft should be broken into at many other common viruses could not occur anyone other than Microsoft? least two separate pieces: operating systems if Microsoft applications were not tied in to The Competitive Impact Statement seeks to and applications. the operating system. Operating system limit the competition that competes against Respectfully Submitted, vulnerabilities are policed, as it were, by the Microsoft and others in selected markets, by Leon H. Carrington, entire computing community. Application requiring that ISVs must be of a certain size STB Practitioner vulnerabilities are not so well noted, because in the market and have had that position over (301) 862–1604
VerDate 11
MTC–00028541 First, let me state that I agree completely 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW From: Ann smith with Dan Kegel’s comments abot the issues Washington, DC 20530 To: Microsoft ATR at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Date: 1/28/02 4:27pm remedy2.html. He has done a great job I am writing to express my approval of the Subject: microsoft settlement summarizing the many problems with the settlement reached between the Justice states sueing microsoft as well as aol using proposed settlement. In particular, however, Department and Microsoft. netscape to get money from microsoft thru I feel that the public will be harmed most by As I understand the settlement, Microsoft the courts is wrong. microsoft is being the fact that the proposed settlement doesn’t has agreed to modify its Windows operating bullied by the goverment and stockholders account for any potential Open-Source systems to allow for the use of non-Microsoft have lost money because of this court action. competition. It allows Microsoft to decide programs and services within Windows. The amount of additional consumer choice it also does not let microsoft give all the which entities it’s required to share brought about by this concession could be attention it needs to fight the hackers and documentation with, and has too many very significant. make the internet safe for all users including exceptions for Microsoft to use as reasons for In addition, Microsoft has agreed to aol. not documenting their protocols and API’s. eliminate many of its more restrictive The reason we are so interested in Given that Microsoft has a documented covenants from its agreements with licensees Microsoft Programs is that children all over history of refusing to cooperate, this portion and distributors. I believe that this agreement the world are benefiting by Microsoft of the settlement is not very helpful at all in will also provide additional consumer choice products,games and all sorts of programs as restoring competition, and interoperability of protocols and data is absolutely required for after a period of time. an educational tool. I’m so pleased when I I know that you will agree that you have see my 4year old granddaughter open the any real competition to exist. The settlement is not in the public interest, more pressing problems on your agenda right computer and do what she wants to do. She now. Please take advantage of this for the many many reasons listed above. spends hours doing games and playing her opportunity, settle the case, and move on. Sincerely, videos, instead of watching T.V all the time. Thank you for your attention. Karl J. Smith We have eight babies we encourage to learn Sincerely, 12525 SW Foothill Dr. all they can by buying programs for them at Beverly Offutt Birthdays and just for fun. Portland, OR 97225 We the elderly have fun also and we invest [email protected] MTC–00028546 money into the future of Microsoft and other MTC–00028544 From: JJ Gifford companies for the future. To: Microsoft ATR From: Dean (038) Danielle Fulcer MTC–00028542 Date: 1/28/02 4:29pm To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Ron Date: 1/28/02 4:27pm To Whom It May Concern: To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement Attached are my comments re. United Date: 1/28/02 4:27pm I am in favor of this settlement. Microsoft States et al. v. Microsoft, pursuant to the Subject: Microsoft settlement- further has already changed many of its business Tunney Act. evidence practices that were shown to be in violation I have attached two copies of the same I have further indication that Microsoft of the antitrust laws. These antitrust laws document, one in Microsoft Word format; the continues to exercise monopolistic behavior were meant from the beggining to protect other in Rich-Text Format. Either document such that the only solution is to break it into consumers, not simply allow competitors should be readable on any modern PC using separate companies. who refuse to innovate and meet customer up-to-date software. I recently purchased a subscription to needs stay in business. Microsoft has taken Thanks in advance, MSDN (a service of Microsoft that includes incredible risks by investing in technology JJ Gifford their software on CD or DVD). R&D when many other businesses would 212 226 3462 I went to install Win/XP. They had not rather just keep the status quo. Jonathan Gifford supplied me with a product code for XP, and It’s time to move on. Accept this 117 Sullivan St., 5A such a code is required in order to be able settlement. Protect innovation while New York, NY 10012 to install the product I had paid for. monitoring Microsoft for compliance. Do not [email protected] It turns out that in order to get a product stifle Microsoft’s sucees. THAT would hurt January 28, 2002 code, I must register an Email address with consumers, not Microsoft coming out with Renata B. Hesse Microsoft[1]. Further, I must use Microsoft major new versions of their software that Antitrust Division Passport[2] in order to get a product code. itegrate key features every couple of years. U.S. Department of Justice The product I’m installing has no relation to Could you imagine buying a computer from 601 D Street NW Email or Passport. a manufacturer that was not allowed to Suite 1200 [1] I should not need an Email address to integrate a CD-RW drive, or a DVD, or for that Washington, DC 20530–0001 install something that is not an Email matter a laptop without a monitor? This is [email protected] application. Last time Microsoft got my Email analagous to what Microsoft has done, re. Deficiencies in Microsoft settlement. address, it took me nearly a year plus a letter integrate key user needs into a single Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am filing to the gripe line at Infoworld to get them to product. Please do not force me as a cosumer these comments on the proposed resolution stop spamming me. to shop for each of my operating system of United States, et al. v. Microsoft. [2] Microsoft Passport requires that: needs individually. That would hurt me in My Perspective, Experience, and Interest 1. You trust them to hold the required terms of time and money. I believe this case is tremendously information about you. Sincerely, important. As personal computers and the 2. You accept cookies, which has privacy Dean Fulcer Internet have become increasingly important implications 428 SW 347th ST to our everyday lives, so too has the 3. You use an approved browser. Microsoft Federal Way, WA 98023 landscape of the technology markets become rejected the browser I tried to use. — increasingly important. Not only will the Ronald Tansky MTC–00028545 outcome of this case impact the fortunes of From: Beverly Offutt a host of technology companies, but it will MTC–00028543 To: Microsoft ATR also affect how I and millions of others From: Karl J. Smith Date: 1/28/02 4:28pm communicate with our friends and family, To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw Subject: USAGOffutt—Beverly—1007—0122 what choices we have for online services Date: 1/28/02 4:29pm 5873 Warnke Road such as digital photography, and of course Subject: Microsoft Settlement Michigan City, IN 46360 how much we and businesses spend on The following is my comment about the January 24, 2002 technology infrastructure. proposed Microsoft Settlement under the Attorney General John Ashcroft Once the government decided not to seek Tunney Act: US Department of Justice a structural remedy, it necessarily embarked
VerDate 11
on a course of regulation. Regulation only not distributing it separately from the Microsoft Middleware. This makes it works when the conduct prohibitions truly operating system, or even just by not unlikely that an OEM would see much gain, restrain anti-competitive behavior, and create trademarking it. Microsoft therefore will have if any, in installing Non-Microsoft a genuine opportunity for innovators to enter enormous latitude in determining which new Middleware. Such distribution may benefit the market and compete in it based on their operating system features will be governed by the middleware developers, but would not merits. Unfortunately, the Proposed Final the PFJ. greatly benefit the OEM. Judgement (PFJ) presented by the Department Clarity Is Essential to Compliance and 2.2.2. Customizations will be short-lived. of Justice and several states fails on all Public Confidence. This prohibition remains in effect only for a counts. The PFJ consists largely of vague 14-day window starting after the end user Its results will be only a mild, temporary prohibitions hobbled by numerous qualifiers first turns on his or her PC. Thereafter, modification to Microsoft’s well-documented and exemptions. Microsoft is free to re-arrange the desktop as behavior, with no lasting or significant effect For instance: it sees fit, including automatic removal of on competition. Microsoft will retain its Limited replacement of Microsoft any non-Microsoft icons, e.g. by operating monopoly and every incentive to maintain it Middleware. system features such as the ‘‘Clean Desktop through any means not specifically 2.1. The PFJ requires Microsoft to enable Wizard’’ built-in to Windows XP (PFJ, prohibited by the PFJ. Consumers will users and OEMs to specify that Non- III.H.3). So, any Non-Microsoft Middleware continue to be deprived of the innovations Microsoft Middleware be used in place of developers who do manage to secure OEM and other benefits of a truly competitive Microsoft Middleware (PFJ, III.H.2). This is a distribution could well see their products market, in part because innovators will be welcome change because it had previously wiped off the desktop after a short two deprived of the opportunity and incentive to been difficult to replace Microsoft’s Internet weeks. challenge Microsoft’s monopoly as it expands Explorer (IE) without facing ‘‘considerable 2.2.3. Likely results. These limitations beg and evolves. Most importantly, America’s uncertainty and confusion’’ when IE would the question: will any OEMs risk irritating technology industry will stagnate, as ever nonetheless unexpectedly be invoked under Microsoft for such minor benefits? If they do, fewer competitors see any value in entering certain circumstances (Findings, ¿ 171). will the results truly be increased markets dominated by Microsoft. 2.1.1. Exemption for Microsoft servers. competition in the middleware market? While I believe that many if not most Unfortunately, Microsoft is exempt from this General Rule on Sharing APIs. Americans will be affected by the disposition requirement when the Middleware Product 2.3. The PFJ requires Microsoft to share of this case, I have a particular interest in it would be invoked ‘‘solely for use in APIs used by Microsoft Middleware with as a long-time technology consumer, interoperating with a server maintained by ISVs, et al. (PFJ III.D). In its Findings of Fact, entrepreneur, and enthusiast. Since 1980, I Microsoft’’ (PFJ III.H). This may exempt the District Court found that Microsoft had repeatedly withheld such information from have used personal computers nearly every Microsoft’s current move into network ISVs, or used its disclosure as an incentive day, first as a hobby, then for school, and services (’’.NET’’) from the judgement, for ‘friendlier’’ behavior, in an effort to later for my career in the technology inasmuch as such services communicate with preserve the applications barrier to entry industry. In the early 1990s, I managed a Microsoft-owned servers. Microsoft considers (Findings, ¿ 84, 90, 91). Because ISVs depend small but pioneering desktop publishing .NET to be the next phase of the Internet, at on such information to develop software for last offering ‘real’’ applications and services. department for a large advertising agency. a given platform, withholding APIs can limit Later, I joined a groundbreaking multimedia The first .NET service, Microsoft Passport, or destroy an ISV’s ability to create company that produced CD-ROMs for both aims at becoming a cornerstone of Internet competitive products. Therefore full API Macintosh and Windows-based computers. shopping and authentication transactions, disclosure should be considered a basic Most recently, I was a partner in a and stores its data exclusively on Microsoft- condition for any kind of effective successful Internet development firm, which owned servers. competition. designs and produces web sites and other 2.1.2. Exemption for proprietary 2.3.1. Only APIs necessary to mimic interactive media for corporate clients. technologies. Another exemption allows Microsoft’s products will be disclosed. Having sold my share of that business, I Microsoft to launch its own middleware Unfortunately, the PFJ requires Microsoft to currently consult for other companies in the when the Non-Microsoft Middleware ‘‘fails to share only those operating system APIs used technology industry. implement a reasonable technical by Microsoft Middleware. This is a limited Definitions Are Critical: the Devil Is in the requirement’’ (PFJ III H 3). Microsoft will be set of APIs, of use only to those ISVs who Details able to capitalize on this loophole simply by want to develop middleware products similar 1. Most provisions of the PFJ depend on emphasizing proprietary technologies not to Microsoft’s. It does little to help ISVs offer the definition of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware.’’ supported by Non- Microsoft Middleware. To features or innovations not already offered by Accordingly, we should expect this term to the extent that Microsoft can implement Microsoft’s products. Since ISVs typically be well-defined, with clear boundaries and features using proprietary technologies, it must provide innovations to gain market unquestionable meaning. Unfortunately, the will better be able to exclude Non-Microsoft share against an entrenched market leader, reality is that it is vaguely defined, in Middleware. A truly pro-competitive PFJ this requirement is unlikely to promote language that grants Microsoft itself much would encourage Microsoft to use open competition in the middleware market. control over what software it, and therefore industry standards. 2.3.2. Many APIs may be withheld on the PFJ, governs. OEM Distribution Channel Opened, But dubious ‘security’’ grounds. The PFJ allows 1.1. For Whom? Microsoft to exclude any APIs the disclosure Definition: According to the PFJ (PFJ VI.J), 2.2. The PFJ requires Microsoft to allow of which ‘‘would compromise the security of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ is any software OEMs to customize the user’s desktop by a particular installation or group of which: installing icons for Non-Microsoft installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, .* is distributed separately from the Middleware and other products (PFJ, III.C.1). software licensing, digital rights operating system, This is important to the PFJ because management, encryption or authentication .* controls the user interface of the Microsoft has in the past excluded Netscape systems’’ (PFJ III.I. 1 ). Microsoft Middleware, and other competitors from the valuable . This is a surprising exemption because .* provides substantially similar OEM distribution channel, often by few security professionals believe API functionality as a Microsoft Middleware contractually limiting an OEM’s ability to disclosure could weaken any well-designed Product, and customize the desktop. In addition, Microsoft security system. Indeed, the complete source . is trademarked. has used its control over the valuable desktop code (a level of disclosure far greater than 1.2. real-estate as an incentive to get IAPs such simple APIs) is publicly available for several Definition gives Microsoft control. So as AOL to support Microsoft Middleware operating systems and security-related Microsoft, which has long stated its goal of instead of competing products. products that are widely considered to be incorporating browsing and other 2.2.1. OEMs lack incentive. Unfortunately, more secure than Windows (e.g. the Linux middleware functions into its operating because Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is now operating system). system products, can exclude code from the the market leader, there is today little . Yet the inclusion of this exemption Microsoft Middleware definition simply by consumer demand for alternatives to implies that there in fact are such APIs
VerDate 11
whose disclosure could compromise security, 3.3. The TC cannot ensure timely remedies. Also, creating such a fulcrum position in and thereby opens the door for Microsoft to Further, because the committee is prohibited the TC makes this third seat much less make claims about which ones they are. from public comment (PFJ, IV.B.10), it will attractive and harder to fill, and injects an There is no basis for the Competitive Impact be unable to confirm any ISV’s suspicions element of politics into the TC that will Statement’s (‘‘CIS’’) optimism that security- about Microsoft’s compliance, nor could it distract from its technical mission and related exemptions will be limited to ‘‘keys force a timely remedy. Its only recourse will smooth functioning. Because the TC is not a and tokens’’ (CIS, IV.B.5) of particular instead be to notify Microsoft and the decisional body, but simply a means to keep installations. Nothing in the PFJ’s language Plaintiffs and to suggest a possible remedy. a watchful eye on Microsoft’s compliance, it so limits the exemptable APIs, and such Therefore, an ISV suspecting Microsoft of is unclear why Microsoft should have entities aren’t generally visible at the API non-compliance will not receive an representation here at all. All of the TC’s level, anyhow. immediate remedy, but must instead rely on members should be appointed by the . With Microsoft’s current push into a bureaucracy whose natural tendency will Plaintiffs, perhaps with the DOJ appointing network services (under the .NET moniker), be not to pursue minor infractions. While one member, the States appointing a second we can expect privacy and security features such infractions may indeed be minor in the member, and the Plaintiffs collectively to be suffused throughout the code, scope of the overall judgement, they would appointing the third. increasing the number of APIs Microsoft will assuredly be of great importance to the ISV. 3.6. Catch-22. Given the enormity of the try to exempt from disclosure. Indeed, 3.4. The TC’s findings may not be TC’s tasks, the limits on its powers and Microsoft has just this month announced that presented to the Court or the public. Under enforcement abilities, and the severe privacy and security will henceforth be its the PFJ, the TC may not testify in any matter employment restrictions surrounding service main priorities. 1 relating to the Final Judgement, nor may its in the TC (IV.B.2), it is clear that any 1 Associated Press, ‘‘Microsoft Announces work product and recommendations be candidate for the TC willing to accept the job Strategy Shift’’, D. Ian Hopper and Ted submitted to the Court (PFJ, IV.D.4.d). is almost certainly too inexperienced to be Bridis, January 17, 2002. Similarly, the TC is prohibited from public legitimately qualified for it. In Today’s Inadequate Enforcement comment (PFJ, IV.B.10). Thus, even if the Market, More is Needed. 3. The task of detecting whether Microsoft TC’s exclusive access to source code should 4. In perhaps its broadest weakness, the has violated these and other provisions falls produce evidence of deception and non- PFJ fails to recognize that the circumstances to a three- person ‘‘Technical Compliance’’ compliance by Microsoft, this evidence will of the original case were unique, and that committee (the ‘‘TC’’). This committee will not be presented to the Court. 2 circumstances today are very different. The have access to the source code and tools used BusinessWeek, ‘‘Windows XP: a Firewall for Internet’s rapid public acceptance around to create Microsoft’s products, as well as All’’, Alex Salkever, June 12, 2001. 1994–1995 took many established computer- access to the relevant Microsoft staff (PFJ . In theory, the TC will report to the industry firms by surprise, and radically IV.B.8). In theory, the TC’s oversight will Plaintiffs, who may in turn report such non- changed the personal computer market. The prevent Microsoft from using technical compliance to the Court, and produce basic reasons users wanted to own personal strategies to camouflage non-compliance, for evidence of it via other means. This may well computers changed dramatically within less instance by wrongly claiming that some happen in the case of massive or severe non- than two years. Two companies in particular, important API should not be disclosed for compliance. However, what happens to the Netscape and Sun Microsystems, were able to security reasons. While such oversight may in fact be helpful, the TC is an inadequate, small ISV who suspects Microsoft of non- aggressively exploit the new technologies inefficient and non-transparent attempt to compliance, e.g. by not disclosing some and to take advantage of Microsoft’s slow ensure enforcement of a Judgement that necessary API? Such an injured party may response to the burgeoning consumer otherwise relies on voluntary compliance report its concerns to the TC, and then hope demand. As a result, they were able to and enforces few penalties for transgressions. that the TC is able to verify its claims, and present a serious threat to the applications 3.1. Severe employment restrictions further is able to convince the Plaintiffs to go barrier to entry that has long protected threaten the TC’s performance. The PFJ to court on their behalf. During this Microsoft’s monopoly in Intel-compatible includes employment restrictions which will bureaucratic pursuit, the ISV’s business may operating systems. dramatically narrow the pool of TC suffer irreparable harm, or even vanish 4.1. No longer any consumer demand for candidates—first, to those experts not altogether (as has very nearly happened to non-Microsoft Middleware. But that window currently working for Microsoft or a Netscape). Were such ISVs to have access to of opportunity is long closed. The Internet is competitor, and then to those remaining Microsoft’s source code, perhaps in a secure an established part of the personal computer candidates willing to forego any such facility, they could investigate such concerns market. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is the employment for two years after serving on themselves, directly and immediately. dominant browser. There no longer is any the TC. In so doing, it excludes nearly all of Indeed, API disclosure would not be an issue great consumer demand for alternative those experts in operating systems design in the first place. browsers. Netscape no longer exists as an and programming whom the TC most needs, . The point here is that the nature of the independent company, and development of since it will be very difficult to find any such TC is as the first step in a bureaucracy whose the Netscape browser occurs at a fraction of experts not currently working for, and with natural instinct will be to pursue only the its former pace. Even the CIS acknowledges no intention of working for, Microsoft or a most serious transgressions. In the context of that Microsoft has ‘‘perhaps extinguished competitor. As a professional in this field, I a rapidly changing technology industry, this altogether the process by which these two cannot imagine why a highly competent is a serious weakness in the PFJ. middleware technologies [Java and the independent minded computer scientist 3.5. PFJ places enormous weight on third Netscape browser] could have facilitated the would wish to serve on the TC under these TC member. The PFJ proposes that the introduction of competition into the market circumstances. Plaintiffs appoint one member of the TC, for Intel-compatible personal computer 3.2- The TC will be buried under a Microsoft appoint a second, and then these operating systems’’ (CIS, III.B.3). mountain of technical data. Even if well two members themselves choose a third (PFJ 4.2. Cannot resuscitate existing staffed, the committee will have all IV.B.3). This structure places enormous middleware competitors. Nothing in the PFJ enormously difficult task from a technical responsibility on the third member, who can can or will restore these competitors to their standpoint. Inasmuch as deciphering be expected to decide any disagreement former strength. There is no way to rekindle computer source code can be difficult even between Microsoft’s representative and the the massive consumer demand, then left for the code’s author, much less a new Plaintiffs’’, especially in the context of the unserviced by Microsoft, that gave these reader, and inasmuch as Windows XP alone Voluntary Dispute Resolution process in companies their initial momentum. consists of some 45 million lines of code 2, IV.D. It is unclear whether the TC reports to 4.3. Hoping for another thousand-year this committee will have an enormously the Plaintiffs only as a single unit, or whether flood. Still, the CIS claims the PFJ will difficult task. Even with a large support staff, a dissenter’s view also gets submitted to the ‘‘restore the competitive threat that it is hard to imagine this committee Plaintiffs. A better structure would at the middleware products posed prior to effectively analyzing Microsoft’s source code very least make it crystal clear that any single Microsoft’s unlawful undertakings’’ (CIS, II). and fully investigating allegations of non- member of the TC may report, to the Given that Microsoft now dominates the compliance. Plaintiffs. browser market and retains its operating
VerDate 11
systems monopoly, and given that the PFJ .* Definitions such as that of ‘‘Microsoft competitiveness, and its innovativeness. allows Microsoft to support its browser Middleware’’ should be tightened Monopoly is the enemy of all three. market share by tying the browser to the considerably, and the PFJ reworked to (BusinessWeek, ‘‘Slapping Microsoft’s operating system, this claim seems to rest on minimize its reliance on such narrow Wrist’’, November 19, 200!) Based on my the optimistic hope that some new disruptive categories. experience, I do not find the PFJ to be in the technology will appear, will be ignored by . Microsoft should be required to make the ‘‘public interest’’, which is the standard that Microsoft, and will create massive consumer full source-code for its Intel-compatible the DOJ and the Court are subject to under demand for some non-Microsoft Middleware. operating systems available for viewing by the Tunney Act. Without such an event, the PFJ merely ISVs et al.. This will allow ISVs to better Respectfully submitted, establishes rules for a game that has no develop competitive products, and will allow Jonathan Gifford players. the ISVs themselves to monitor Microsoft’s January 28, 2002 Unconditional Surrender compliance with the judgement’s other 5. Finally, in a bizarre and extreme technical requirements, instead of relying on MTC–00028547 limitation, the PFJ will expire in only five an inefficient, overworked TC. From: Lorenzo Thurman years—regardless of whether or not Microsoft .* If the Court decides against requiring To: Microsoft ATR retains its operating systems monopoly (PFJ, source-code sharing, it should at a minimum Date: 1/28/02 4:27pm V.A). The DOJ must believe that not only is require the disclosure of all operating system Subject: Microsoft anit-trust settlement the PFJ an effective remedy, but that it will APIs used by any Microsoft products (i.e. not I feel the settlement does not punish be so effective that Microsoft will be reduced just those APIs used by Microsoft Microsoft for their wrong doings. Note that I to a shadow of its former self and must be Middleware). A blanket disclosure did not say ‘‘punish enough’’, because I do unshackled in just five years (seven, if the requirement such as this will close those not feel they are being punished at all. The Plaintiffs seek and receive the maximum existing loopholes whereby Microsoft might agreement calls for oversight, not extension permitted by the PFJ). withhold critical information from ISVs puninishment, and a large donation to Unfortunately, this clause is so careless that whose products threaten its operating system schools. Neither of these will force Microsoft it will release Microsoft no matter the monopoly. into changing its behaviour nor will they circumstances—that is, even if Microsoft .* Exemptions permitting various help create a more competitve environment. retains or even strengthens its monopoly proscribed behaviors under certain I, as a software developer, feel that any power. The message that the PFJ sends is circumstances should, as a whole, be business I start would be threatened if I ‘‘we’ll try this for five years, and then we’re stricken. develop technology like Java that threatens giving up.’’ Any judgement should remain in .* Finally, the judgment should include their Monopoly. effect until the Court finds that Microsoft no real consequences for non-compliance, such longer holds a monopoly in Intel-compatible I’ve heard some of Secretary Ashcroft’s as further conduct prohibitions, financial operating systems. It makes little sense to comments about the settlement and at least penalties, or further disclosure requirements. release Microsoft until competition has re- part of his reasoning is that it would be good The PFJ currently provides only a possible entered the market and Microsoft may no for the economy. In the short term, this may Court-imposed two-year extension of its longer commit the illegal acts described by be true, but the downturn in the economy rather toothless provisions. the Court’s Findings of Fact. and the war on terrorism will pass, and we Alternatives Conclusion I hope that the PFJ is modified will be left with a very non-competitive This PFJ illustrates the difficulty in by the DOJ or the Court, and that what seems environment with one company dominating devising effective conduct remedies for to be a great opportunity for antitrust law to both the operating system and the complex software cases such as this, make a difference for tomorrow’s applications area. This potentially has global especially where the defendant retains its entrepreneurs and consumers is not lost in a ramifications. As you may be aware, some monopoly power and the incentive to expand fog of complexity. The technology may be European countries and China are looking and maintain it by any method not complex and changing, but the underlying elsewhere for their technology. They are prohibited by the PFJ. Vague technical competitive issues are fundamental. I take concerned about their own security and definitions and even apparently narrow both comfort and concern from the fact that having only one company to provide the bulk exemptions can be exploited by the I am clearly not alone in expressing these of their productivity, security etc. This will monopolist to maintain its ill-gotten gains. It concerns. As the Financial Times only serve to create markets outside of the would be vastly preferable to create the editorialized: US. The Justice Department’s current proper structural conditions for competition ...It would be wrong for the states, or the settlement may solve short term problems, by decoupling parts of the monopolist judge, to reject this settlement merely but will only serve to isolate the American enterprise. Without a structural remedy, it is because it is not sufficiently punitive. The software vendors, unless you act now to imperative that the definitions and test is whether the proposal provides enough reduce and/or restrict the Microsoft prohibitions in the Final Judgement be as protection for the public and for Microsoft’s monopoly. clear and comprehensive as possible, so as to competitors. As it stands, it does not meet Thank you this test. Though a continued trial would be fully restrict the anti-competitive behavior MTC–00028548 that has been denying consumers choice, expensive and distracting, it would be better innovation and fair market pricing. There are than an unsatisfactory settlement. This From: Gordon Fox a number of specific changes that ought to be proposal should be rejected.. To: Microsoft ATR made to the PFJ: (Financial Times, ‘‘Micro-too-soft’’, Date: 1/28/02 4:28pm . Any judgement should remain in effect November 5, 2001) Subject: Microsoft Settlement until Microsoft no longer holds a monopoly I believe that the PFJ, if accepted by the As an individual and user of the Microsoft in Intel- compatible operating systems. Court in its current form, will lead to clear Operating System and bundled software I Starting in 5 years, the Court should annually and irreparable harm to consumers and to the have appreciated the ease of having it all in review United States’’ technology industry. So one package. I believe that most individual Microsoft’s position in the Intel-compatible pervasive has technology become that the consumers would agree. The government operating systems market. Should it find that technology industry is an obviously critical broke up Ma Bell and now there are many Microsoft no longer exercises monopoly component of the American economy. larger businesses. All it did was to make power in that market, and therefore cannot Even BusinessWeek, itself no anti- prices rise. A business should be allowed to commit the illegal acts described in the capitalist Microsoft critic, recognized the produce their product without governmental Court’s Findings of Fact, it could release broad implications of the resolution of this restraint unless it in some way will do Microsoft from the terms of the judgement. case: physical harm to a person. .* The TC should be appointed entirely by ... [T]he Justice Dept.’s weak censure of To those of us who are retired and hold the Plaintiffs, perhaps with the DOJ Microsoft for its serious monopolistic stock in these companies such as Microsoft, appointing one member, the States practices could cost the U.S. mightily in the the ongoing dispute over who is right has appointing a second member, and the years ahead. The great strengths of the only served to hurt the stockholders. Let’s get Plaintiffs collectively appointing the third. American economy are its openness, its this suit over with once and for all and let
VerDate 11
Microsoft get back to doing what they do best The settlement that has been negotiated is www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html). ? innovate! laughable. It does not change anything. Mr.Kegel’s site also contains links to several Thank you for your time, Microsoft will continue with their current other very compelling analyses. Due to the Gordon Fox way of doing business. And innovation and flaws which I and others have pointed competition will continue to be stifled. out,the settlement as it is currently written MTC–00028549 Respectfully, does not serve the public interest and should From: [email protected]@inetgw Larry Lininger not be accepted without considerable To: Microsoft ATR 3130 Hancock Place revisions to ensure that the market is not Date: 1/28/02 4:29pm Fremont, California tilted unfairly inMicrosoft’s favor. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Thank you for your time and for The U.S. government, via the USAF, MTC–00028550 considering my point of view. trained me to use and repair computers over From: Brian Showalter Sincerely, 30 years ago. One of the first things I learned To: Microsoft ATR Brian Showalter, Programmer/Analyst was that there are two kinds of software: Date: 1/28/02 4:30pm 14713 W. 149th Court operating system software and application Subject: Microsoft Settlement Olathe, KS 66062 software. As a United States citizen and experienced MTC–00028551 The operating system software, such as computer professional who has at times been Windows, controls how the computer compelled to work with Microsoft products,I From: Dave Janne functions, whether it be one with an Intel would like to express my opposition to the To: Microsoft ATR Pentium or another manufacturer’s CPU chip. settlement that has been proposed for the Date: 1/28/02 4:31pm Application software consists of programs USDOJ’s antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. Subject: Microsoft case that use the computer to perform tasks, such I feel that the terms of the settlement as Gentlemen- I’ll make this short. It’s time to as word processing, money management, or currently specified are weighted far too settle this case. I think the settlement is more browsing the internet. By Microsoft heavily in favor of Microsoft, and that they than fair, and any more delay in this is controlling the operating system market for will do nothing to prevent Microsoft from ongoing to hurt the economy more than it PCs, they have unfairly competed in the continuing abuse its monopoly position to already has. marketplace for years. stifle competition and lock customers into its Thank you By allowing Microsoft to continue to products. The terms also significantly L. David Janne- Pres. modify its operating system and add underestimate the lengths to which Microsoft Steuben Electronics Inc. application software to it, you are allowing has shown it swilling to go to root out CC:[email protected]@inetgw Microsoft to retain their monopoly and unfair loopholes in any agreements it enters into MTC–00028552 advantage. and exploit them in such a way that any Microsoft will continue to stifle intended restrictions on its behavior are From: Larry Boler competition by using its unfair advantage. effectively neutralized. I also feel that the To: Microsoft ATR Consider that Netscape, who developed the terms will do literally nothing to ease the Date: 1/28/02 4:31pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement network browser, has had to practically give market barrier to entry for new products, Enough is enough. Let’s end the legal its software away. In 2–3 years, why will particularly open-source products such as the assaults on Microsoft. anyone want to buy RealPlayer software Linux operating system, which may happen Microsoft has done more for the consumer when Microsoft will have imbedded their directly compete with Microsoft’s offerings. than anybody else in the industry. media player software in the operating There are a number of problems with the Without Microsoft’s excellent leadership system? settlement which other shave outlined and and ongoing product improvements we The only way to settle this issue fairly for on which I will not go into further would not be where we are today. Are we all concerned is to split Microsoft into two details.However, I am dismayed by the extent about to go back in time? companies. By requiring Microsoft to form a to which the proposed settlement focuses Let the Free Enterprise System function the company that produces only operating almost completely on attempting to restrict way it should and give Microsoft a chance to systems, you will not only make the Microsoft’s behavior on the Windows once again put 100% of it’s efforts to making marketplace more fair for all application desktop and middleware platforms, to the better products for the benefit of consumers. software companies, you will force Microsoft virtual exclusion of server platforms and Larry Boler to make the best operating system they can. other operating system products that are And, yes, the world needs a better offered or soon to be offered Microsoft. In MTC–00028553 operating system, not just the operating particular, the name ‘‘Windows’’ is From: John Jackson system Microsoft allows consumers to buy. I mentioned 56times in the document, yet no To: Microsoft ATR want an operating system that will efficiently mention is made of the embedded operating Date: 1/28/02 4:30pm use the software I want to install, not an system market or of Microsoft’s explicitly Subject: Microsoft Settlement operating system that is loaded with stated intention to replace the Windows 13223 46th Place W applications I might not want. By requiring desktop and server platform with the .NET Mukilteo, WA 98275 Microsoft to form a company that produces initiative. Furthermore, the definitions of January 28, 2002 only application software, you will place ‘‘operating system,’’ ‘‘personal computer,’’ Attorney General John Ashcroft Microsoft into a position where the quality of ‘‘Microsoft Platform Software,’’ US Department of Justice their software determines whether they and‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’ 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW succeed, not because they can use their refer entirely to desktop operating systems Washington, DC 20530 operating system to an unfair advantage. intended for use by a single user at a time. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Splitting Microsoft into two companies This loophole would have the effect of I am writing you today to express my would give application software companies a rendering Section III.A moot in its entirety opinion in regards to the settlement that was fair chance to succeed. Real and fair should Microsoft attempt to retaliate against reached in November between Microsoft and competition will return and innovation will an OEM that is attempting to market a the government. I support this settlement and drive the market. competing Server Platform on its products. believe it is a fair and sufficient agreement In the last 20 years, Microsoft has earned Additionally, the proposed settlement does to end the three-year antitrust dispute. billions of dollars in profits, often at the nothing to preclude Microsoft from dropping This settlement contains provisions that expense of other companies. Consider the Windows Brand name altogether and will foster competition. Microsoft has agreed Netscape who has had to give away their continuing their customer lock- to share more information with other product. Consider Novell who had the best in,competition-stifling and monopoly- companies and is willing to follow networking software available, but fell extending behavior on a similar but procedures to make it easier for companies to because Microsoft put networking software in differently named platform. compete. Under this agreement, Microsoft their NT operating system. There are dozens, Dan Kegel has done an excellent analysis must design future versions of Windows to if not hundreds, more. which may be found online at (http:// make it easier to install non-Microsoft
VerDate 11
software. Microsoft has also agreed to license consumer if the agreement cannot be clearly the quality of Microsoft gas is not very good, its Windows operating system products to understood even by the fairly educated but also because of the time delay to build the 20 largest computer makers on identical person with a fairly good understanding of a refinery capable of producing that special terms and conditions, including price. law that I am? gasoline. Microsoft will be monitored for compliance 3. Can the USDOJ vs Microsoft settlement The solution that the nine states and DC by a technical committee established by proposal be in the best interest of the are proposing is therefore an analogy to a order of the settlement. consumer if the agreement ignores that, Standard Oil case that is even more This settlement will serve in the best because Microsoft’s marginal cost is threatening to the consumer because, in this public interest. Microsoft has contributed so effectively zero, remedies, that might have case, Microsoft also owns the factory that much to our society that stifling this been effective for a predatory competitor that makes the special cars that more than 90% company will only serve to negatively impact *does* have real marginal costs, are totally of the people are using now and which cars the public. Please support this settlement. ineffective here? only run on Microsoft’s own special gasoline. Thank you for your time. What I, as the president of a company and Forcing Microsoft to become the non- Sincerely, as a consumer seek is simply an environment exclusive manufacturer of those proprietary John Jackson in which I can buy at a fair price what has MS-Office cars is therefore a brilliant remedy become as ubiquitous a product as on the part of the nine states and DC as well MTC–00028554 typewriters once were. In this case, however, as a meaningful punishment for Microsoft From: [email protected]@ this ubiquitous product is without the because it is neither a cash punishment not inetgw traditional competitive market place price a punishment that will hobble the company. To: Microsoft ATR pressures that go with ubiquitous products. Competition for the dollars that consumers Date: 1/28/02 4:28pm Therefore prices for those Microsoft products will spend to buy MS-Office is not only a Subject: Microsoft Settlement that have replaced our typewriters are about desirable end to this anti-trust case, by Attached please find comments by Palm, four times higher then a competitive market having an MS-Office version that effective Inc. to the Revised Proposed Final Judgment would allow. runs on OSes like Linux and Unix, this in United States v. Microsoft Corporation, The solution, the remedy, that USDOJ and solution will also lead to a more lasting end to this energy sapping Microsoft antitrust No. 98–1232, State of New York, et al. v. Microsoft offer to solve the issue of Microsoft hassle. By punishing Microsoft fairly for its Microsoft Corporation, No. 98–1233, having been found guilty of anti-trust proven illegal behavior, the government in submitted pursuant to the Tunney Act, 15 violations gives me very little comfort, if any, effect discourages other illegal behavior, such U.S.C. 16. that such a competitively priced market will as cracking, by large groups of people who The attached is a .pdf file. We are also develop as a result of that agreement. As a feel justified to take the law into their own delivering hardcopies for your convenience. matter of fact, if the agreement is allowed to hands if their government fails to afford its Please contact Craig Waldman at (212) 878 become final, Microsoft will be emboldened consumers protection from a monopolist 8458 with any questions or comments. to eliminate some of the loopholes that have under the law. <
VerDate 11
competing in the market instead of in the Washington, DC 20530–0001 case that several plaintiff States have not courts. Dear Ms. Hesse: agreed to the instant settlement, though they Sincerely, Accompanying are public comments could yet do so, suggesting that any final Bruce Morgan regarding the proposed Microsoft settlement resolution with respect to their continuing Bellevue, WA submitted for consideration pursuant to the action would need to be integrated, or made Tunney Act proceedings before the District compatible, with this negotiated settlement MTC–00028559 Court for the District of Columbia. in the event this settlement is accepted by the From: Fred Rone I am not a lawyer, computer professional, Court, if the public interest is not to be To: Microsoft ATR or Microsoft competitor. I use personal undermined by a patchwork of remedies Date: 1/28/02 4:32pm computers to perform business ‘‘office’’ applied to one monopolist by various parties. Subject: Microsoft Settlement functions and am concerned by how Moreover, it must also be observed that if this Dear DOJ: unwieldy and unreliable Windows has settlement is approved for all the practical Please impose penalties on Microsoft that become as new ‘‘features’’ I do not want or reasons noted by the Justice Department, it is will encourage new competition in operating use are incorporated. I also use Linux and also nearly a foregone conclusion that systems. The current de facto monopoly find it better than Windows for my needs. another, more far-reaching governmental results in the price gouging that is apparent However, few of the specialized applications antitrust action against Microsoft is in Microsoft’s extremely high profit margins. programs I need for my work (in addition to practically precluded during the five years Sincerely yours, general purpose ‘‘office’’ applications) are duration of this consent decree, even if the Fred Rone available for that platform without custom consent decree were manifestly not working [email protected] programming or adaptation so using adequately. In the fast moving field of Windows is a practical necessity. Microsoft computers, software, communications, MTC–00028560 products are priced considerably higher than entertainment, and their conjunction—of From: Bob Ray their functional equivalents by other possibly great value to at least some members To: Microsoft ATR publishers, a phenomenon I attribute to of the public—five years is a long time. Date: 1/28/02 4:33pm Microsoft’s monopoly pricing power that the Lastly, it must be noted that Microsoft is Subject: Microsoft Settlement instant Tunney Act proceedings are intended likely to be the landmark case in applying I can’t believe that the government’s to curb in the public interest while not losing antitrust law and principles to fast moving, response to Microsoft’s criminal behavior is the benefits of vigorous innovation in high-technology businesses so it is important a mere slap on the wrist. Not only will computer and communications technology. to get a sound foundation in place for future Microsoft continue to engage in anti- You have my permission to publish these reference and consideration. competitive and probably illegal behavior but comments and to make whatever use of them The Court found at trial, and the Court of other large companies will be encouraged to in the Tunney Act proceedings you see fit. Appeals affirmed, that Microsoft has a do so as well. I hope these comments will be helpful to the monopoly in its Windows operating system Bob Ray Court. for Intel-compatible personal computers MTC–00028561 Respectfully submitted, (without any finding that its Windows Is the Microsoft Settlement in the Public monopoly is either per se unlawful or From: Chris Waterson Interest? unlawfully obtained) and that Microsoft had To: Microsoft ATR The settlement negotiated between reinforced and extended its monopoly by a Date: 1/28/02 4:35pm Microsoft and the Justice Department and variety of business practices that the instant Subject: Microsoft Settlement several of the plaintiff States appears to rest remedy is intended to rectify. Indeed, the One rememdy that I would find on the dubious proposition that the public trial Court asserted at some length that particularly satisfactory would be for interest is synonymous with the summation computer operating systems may be a natural Microsoft to have to ship a copy of of private interests. Secondly, while the monopoly in that: (a) the customer generally Netscape’s product with every copy of their operating system. :-) settlement arguably addresses the is buying the computer for the functionality Chris Waterson ‘‘middleware’’ problem that was the focus of provided by their chosen application 437 Hoffman Ave. much attention in the trial, it is weak, if not programs, (b) OEMS have an over-riding need San Francisco, CA 94114 completely ineffectual, with respect to the to sell a machine that works with their 415–642–3522 equally important prevention of Microsoft’s hardware and the unknown customer’s CC:[email protected]@inetgw apparent extension of its operating system application programs, (c) software publishers monopoly to the most widely used business find it easier and more economical to write MTC–00028562 applications software programs. These for only one operating system rather than for From: Robert Randall observations are amplified below. several platforms, and (d) most customers To: Microsoft ATR While the Sherman Act provides for a want the operating system that works with Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm private right of action seeking trebling of the most readily available standard software Subject’’ Microsoft Settlement private damages suffered from so as to be protected with respect to future Attached, in WordPerfect format are a monopolization, its strong feature was needs not fully foreseeable now. cover letter and comments regarding whether declaring monopoly and monopolization to The Court’s Findings of Fact noted that the Microsoft settlement is in the public be detrimental to the general public interest while most consumers might have no interest. Let me know if you have difficulty beyond the summation of losses to objection to a ‘‘free’’ internet browser bolted opening the attached WordPerfect files. identifiable private parties who might sue. into their Windows operating system, many Robert L. Randall These days, in a case such as this, the loss business customers might prefer not to make RainForest ReGeneration to the general public interest might be seen it easy for their employees to browse the 1727 Massachusetts Ave NW as a stifling and channeling of innovation Internet if their duties do not require it. More Washington, DC 20036 into forms approved by the monopolist, a generally, there may be a broader divergence Tel: (202) 205–3366 hard-to-predict and quantify loss to an of what features, capabilities, and level of Fax: (202) 483–5175 undefined and disparate ‘‘public.’’ This is the ‘‘pre-integration’’ is wanted and valued by RAINFOREST REGENERATION putative loss the Sherman Act is intended to household consumers and by business THE RAINFOREST REGENERATION mitigate through the Tunney Act (office) customers for personal computers, INSTITUTE proceedings. The Justice Department and possibly by other significant identifiable ?27 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE NW observed in its Competitive Impact Statement market segments for personal computers. WASHINGTON, DC 20036 that the Court does not have the authority to Whether or not the new features may be in 26 January 2002 write a different settlement that it might some sense ‘‘free’’ of extra charge, they Renata B. Hesse prefer and that what might emerge from manifestly take up more memory, disk space, Antitrust Division further proceedings, and when, in the event and other computer resources, none of which U.S. Department of Justice the Court rejects the settlement as not in the are free, and may be more prone to ‘‘bugs’’, 601 D street NW, Suite 1200 public interest is indeterminate. It is also the security holes, and incompatibilities
VerDate 11
unrelated to the features a particular user leaves them open to antitrust charges if they waste of taxpayers’’ dollars on punishing actually wants, needs, values, and in exercise monopoly power in pursuing such a private-sector success. purchasing a personal computer system. strategy.) There is no question that Microsoft has Much of the trial was taken up with In summary, the Court should carefully proved to be an aggressive competitor. But ‘‘middleware’’, in particular internet consider whether the negotiated settlement there is no evidence of either a shortage of browsers and the Java programming decree will fully and reasonably protect the software products or rising prices. Indeed, language, as both were seen as actually—or public from stifling and channeling of the software market has grown tremendously at least potentially—offering a new standard innovation in personal computers, aside from in recent years while product prices have set of applications programming interfaces its direct effects on competitive private fallen dramatically. It thus appears that this (‘‘hooks’’) for other, unrelated application parties. In particular, the Court should case was largely provoked by rivals intent on programs of possibly less market penetration inquire carefully into whether the Technical gaining a competitive advantage through potential, while the ‘‘middleware’’ itself is Committee approach underlying the government force. The unjustified nature of more susceptible of being made compatible proposed consent decree, particularly with the antitrust complaint does not warrant with non-Windows operating systems (or respect to general applications developers/ further punishment. even native code interfaces) on the machine publishers as distinguished from Thank you for the opportunity for hardware side. Others can comment more ‘‘middleware’’ developers is sufficient to comment. perceptively on how effectively the protect the public interest in this fast moving Diane Katz settlement addresses that problem through its field. Director of Science Environment and proposed Technical Committee. Though not Respectfully submitted, Technology Policy as thoroughly addressed at trial, Microsoft Robert L. Randall Mackinac Center for Public Policy appears to have extended its Windows The RainForest ReGeneration Institute 140 West Main Street monopoly into the large business 1727 Massachusetts Avenue NW P.O. Box 568 applications software market (e.g., word Washington, DC 20036 Midland, MI 48640 processing, spread-sheets, small databases) Telephone: (202) 205–3366 MTC–00028565 through the same kinds of business practices From: [email protected] @inetgw as were found unlawful with respect to To: Microsoft ATR From: Mark Cooper ‘‘middleware.’’ That is, when word Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm To: Microsoft ATR processing, spreadsheets, and databases were Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm observed to be applications that were Renata B. Hesse: Subject’’ Microsoft Settlement inducing businesses (including government, I beleive the Proposed Settlement with Please accept the attached comments on non-profit, etc., ‘‘office’’ environments) to Microsoft is fair.It is time for the Government behalf of a variety of consumer groups. buy computers to put on nearly every to move forward, lets get the economy back Dr. Mark N. Cooper employee’s desk, Microsoft first tried to on its feet. This should be a good stimulus Director of Research program such applications themselves, then to the stock market and us individual Consumer Federation of America if unsuccessful, buy up a third-rate contender investors. (www.consumerfed.org) in the field, threaten the first-rate contender The DOJ should spend more time going mailto: [email protected] that if they didn’t sell out Microsoft would after the Enron’s who have been robbing the tel: 301/384–2204 not make new API ‘‘hook’’ information small investors of their pensions. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT available to them on a competitively timely John J. Strain COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA basis, and apparently design special, 16 Corte Almaden UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, undisclosed ‘‘hooks’’ into Windows that San Rafael, CA> 94903 VS. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant would make Microsoft’s own applications 415–492–3310 STATES OF NEW YORK ex rel. Attorney software run better, faster, and/or more CC: [email protected]@inetgw General ELIOT SPITZER, et al., Plaintiff, VS. reliably than competitors’’ products, such MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant compatibility providing great marketing MTC–00028564 Civil Action No. 98–1232 (CKK) advantage (and commanding higher market From: Katz, Diane S. Civil Action No. 98–1233 (CKK) prices) over rival applications program To: ‘‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Tunney Act Comments of publishers whose products might be Date: 1/28/02 4:39pm Consumer Federation of AmericaCalPIRG functional superior to Microsoft’s offerings in Subject: Microsoft Connecticut Citizen Action Group consumers’’ perceptions. Microsoft thereby 28 January 2002 ConnPIRG eventually established a monopoly for these Renata B. Hesse Consumer Federation of California widely used, and lucrative, ‘‘business’’ Antitrust Division Consumers Union application programs. Whether the Technical U.S. Department of Justice Florida Consumer Action Network Committee approach proposed works for 601 D Street NW Florida PIRG ‘‘middleware’’, where there are likely to be Suite 1200 Iowa PIRG only a few, very sophisticated ‘‘middleware’’ Washington, DC 20530–0001 Massachusetts Consumers’’ Coalition developers, it is likely to be much less Dear Ms. Hesse, MassPIRG successful in providing relief to general Pursuant to the Tunney Act, please accept Media Access Project software and applications developers and these comments in support of the proposed U.S. PIRG publishers, who are less likely to have the settlement in the case of U.S. v. Microsoft. Submitted January 25, 2002 depth of programming expertise of a The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is an A FINAL JUDGMENT MUST CORRECT middleware developer, or to be able to make independent, non-profit research and THE VIOLATION OF THE LAW a good case for requesting new API ‘‘hooks’’ educational institute dedicated to consumer THE MICROSOFT-DOJ PROPOSED FINAL of Microsoft’s Windows that might be helpful choice and economic growth. Having closely JUDGMENT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC to their new application, yet that might have followed the Microsoft case, we have INTEREST the potential to become the new ‘‘next big concluded that consumers have largely We find the Microsoft-Department of thing.’’ (That adaptability for new or special benefited from the company’s innovative Justice final judgment proposal to be needs is one of the great virtues of open- products and services. In particular, the fundamentally flawed. It is as an entirely source operating systems like Linux as one bundling of software applications has greatly inadequate remedy to the sustained, can add new API hooks as needed and push enhanced consumer capability and egregious, illegal conduct engaged in by them into the operating system when the convenience. In the absence of evidence of Microsoft to thwart competition in the application program loads. Microsoft, of harm to consumers, it is in the public interest software industry and protect and enhance course, is unalterably opposed to open- to end this protracted litigation. A settlement its own monopolies. Because it fails to source software as an expropriation of their of the matter would allow Microsoft to focus protect consumers, it fails to serve the public intellectual property. While that may be their its attention once again on producing useful interest. It should be rejected by the District legitimately chosen business strategy, it products while also halting the enormous Court.
VerDate 11
FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES PUBLIC that the public interest in this case is Netscape and Sun attempted to do with COMMENT. THE COURT SHOULD REVIEW properly understood to include the harms Navigator and Java—create software, known ALL COMMENTS that average consumers have experienced as ‘‘middleware’’ because they insert Federal antitrust law (Tunney Act, 15 due to Microsoft’s illegally anti-competitive themselves between the operating system and U.S.C. § 16) requires the Department of activities. Individual consumers ultimately applications running on top of the Justice to ‘‘receive and consider’’ comments paid the price of Microsoft’s past abuses of middleware. Because Netscape/Java was related to the proposed Microsoft-DOJ monopoly power, directly and indirectly, and compatible across systems, it threatened resolution currently under review by Judge they will pay for a continuation of the Microsoft. Microsoft’s reaction was to launch Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Microsoft monopoly. Any remedy endorsed an illegal campaign to crush Netscape and Court for the District of Columbia. Judge by the Court needs to benefit consumers by undermine Java. Kollar-Kotelly has ordered the Justice restoring competition in those segments of Because Microsoft illegally undertook to Department to provide to her by February 27 the software industry that Microsoft has prevent competition, consumers were left its response to comments received. The monopolized or is in danger of with products that did not honestly earn Tunney Act requires Judge Kollar-Kotelly, in monopolizing. We acknowledge that, their place in the marketplace. Microsoft turn, to determine whether the Microsoft-DOJ considering Microsoft’s long-standing unfair products have not been disciplined for price proposal is in the ‘‘public interest’’ To make business practices and deeply entrenched and quality by competitors because of the that determination, she may —to our mind monopoly, such a task will not be easy. It is company’s anti-competitive practices. must— consider the competitive impact of because of these same factors, however, that Remove the monopoly, and an avalanche of the proposal, including: it is necessary. competition —aiming towards operable * termination of alleged violations and THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY IS RIPE FOR standards, innovative products, and better prevention of future monopolization, COMPETITION AND DOES NOT LEND pricing— will be unleashed. Such * provisions for enforcement and ITSELF NATURALLY TO MONOPOLY developments would provide undeniable modification, We begin by rejecting claims that the benefit to consumers. The software market * duration or relief sought, software industry is prone to natural will support, and therefore the public interest * anticipated effects of alternative remedies monopoly. demands, actual competition within and actually considered, and Were that the case, Microsoft would not between markets. * any other considerations bearing upon have had to engage in its systematically anti- THE CHALLENGE BEFORE THE COURT the adequacy of such judgment. competitive practices to maintain and extend MICROSOFT’S DEEP-ROOTED ANTI- Under the Tunney Act, Judge Kollar- its monopolies. The trial record and reams of COMPETITIVE BUSINESS MODEL Kotelly is also given the option of reviewing trade press accounts bear testimony to the Detailing Microsoft’s anti-competitive the original comments provided to the unnatural acts embraced by Microsoft to business model is a nearly interminable task, Department of Justice, rather than just the create and protect its monopoly power over though it was accomplished well by the DOJ’s response to them. We believe that the years. These include leveraging the District Court in its Findings of Fact, Judge Kollar-Kotelly should endeavor to read Windows operating system, slowing or virtually all of which were upheld on appeal. all comments submitted in this highly stopping its own deployment cycle, denying The analysis attached by Consumer contentious and landmark case. We believe access to application interfaces, threatening Federation of America and Consumers Union that the Department of Justice is to deny access to its operating system, describe at length the depths to which institutionally disposed to give inadequate threatening to stop developing software for Microsoft would sink to prop up its operating consideration to comments such as these competing platforms, bloating the operating system monopoly, and to conquer other critical to a resolution that it, along with system with unnecessary functionality, markets, such as for the browser and business Microsoft, has proposed. hiding prices in whole computer productivity suites. The list of corporate Our comments demonstrate that configurations, compelling computer victims is long, and includes not just determining whether the DO J-Microsoft manufacturers (original equipment Netscape and Sun, but also IBM, Intel, and proposal is in the public interest should be manufacturers, or OEMs) to use its browser, Apple. Figure 1, below, summarizes in a fairly straight forward exercise. The reaching pacts with other companies to deny simple terms the barriers to competition that proposal fails to terminate the antitrust the use of alternative browsers, and on and Microsoft has repeatedly erected. We violations of which Microsoft has been found on. Though the Department of Justice at least reiterate that the Department of Justice and guilty (at trial and on appeal). Its appears to agree in principle that monopoly the Court should not lose sight of the fact that enforcement provisions are weak at best. It in the software industry is neither natural nor such practices ultimately negatively impact restricts Microsoft behavior for a much-too- desirable, in practice its proposal—prepared individual consumers, in the forms of higher short period of time. Myriad other problems, jointly with Microsoft allows for the prices, reduced choice, and inferior products discussed below as well as in detailed continuation, if not exacerbation, of and service. analysis attached to these comments Microsoft market power. CONSUMERS ARE HARMED BY prepared by the Consumer Federation of In our view, the software industry is ripe MICROSOFT’S ABUSE OF MARKET POWER America and Consumers, encumber and for competition. Competition would yield an Microsoft’s widespread, unlawful eviscerate an otherwise vague and loophole- explosion of innovation and consumer practices, which the Microsoft-DOJ proposal fiddled settlement proposal. Finally, a strong, convenience. Consumers care about fails to correct, harm consumers both workable alternative remedy, advanced by applications, not about operating systems. qualitatively and monetarily. The harms are the state attorneys general who continue to Furthermore, most consumers are inclined to sufficiently great to require that the Court aggressively pursue the case, already has invest time and money in functional avoid a ‘‘quick fix.’’ It is much more been submitted to the Court for review. applications that they reasonably feel will important to devote a reasonable amount of Unlike the Microsoft-DOJ proposal, that endure, be supported, and work time to get the final judgment right and alternative would protect consumers and the compatibility with other programs and their protect consumers. public interest. With such numerous and hardware. Independent vendors are Microsoft’s anticompetitive practices deny obvious shortcomings, the District Court interested, therefore, in creating products consumers choice. Microsoft strictly forces should reject the Microsoft-DOJ proposal in that match consumer expectations. computer manufacturers to buy one bundle short order. With the entrenched Microsoft monopoly, with all of its programs preloaded and biases THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST REQUIRES independent developers confront an the screen location, start sequences and THAT FINAL JUDGMENT PROTECTS applications barrier—Microsoft has such a default options. As a result, it becomes CONSUMERS significant lock on the computer platform substantially difficult to choose non- We insist on such an outcome on behalf of and on applications used, that many Microsoft products. Products tailored to meet our constituencies, who are America’s developers are dissuaded from producing individual consumer needs (consumer average consumers. Our groups have worked new products. Should the Microsoft friendly configurations, small bundles) are on basic consumer pocketbook issues across monopoly be broken down, developers una vailable and eventually competing the nation for decades, and our membership would look to create compatible, consumer- products disappear from the market. Further, numbers in the tens of millions. We believe friendly products. In fact, that is what by foreclosing the primary channels of
VerDate 11
distribution with exclusive contracts and that it has been the beneficiary of volume The history of the case and our analysis of other deals, Microsoft forces consumers of growth created by the falling price of the PC, the software industry show that in order for non-Microsoft products to acquire them in which masks its increasing prices. Thus, one new software to have a fair chance to time-consuming and inconvenient ways. of the key elements in Microsoft’s business compete, the remedy must: FIGURE 1: HOW MICROSOFT STOPS model is to bury its products in bundles. This u` create an environment in which COMPETITION AND HARMS CONSUMERS hides the price from the public and allows independent software vendors and CONSUMER Microsoft to hide behind the declining price alternative platform developers are free to DENY CUSTOMER CHOICE Force bundles of the total package. develop products that compete with so OEMs won’t install competing software The Consumer Federation of America has Windows and with other Microsoft products, Control the boot screen and desktop Restrict estimated that in the five years between the * free computer manufacturers to install icons and add/remove buttons start of the anticompetitive attack on the these products without fear of retaliation, CLOSE DOWN browser in 1995 and the District Court and DISTRIBUTION<5>Exclusionary deals with finding of liability, Microsoft overcharged * enable consumers to choose among them Internet Access Providers. Prevent computer consumers by about $20 billion. The with equal ease as with Microsoft products. manufacturers from preinstalling non- economic analysis of other experts suggests The Microsoft-Department of Justice Microsoft products Commingling code to overcharges of as much as $30 billion. settlement is an abysmal failure at all three make it hard to preinstall non-Microsoft In addition to direct monetary costs, levels. Under the proposed Microsoft- products indirect monetary costs of the Microsoft Department of Justice settlement, Microsoft UNDERMINE FUNCTIONALITY monopoly also present themselves. Though will be undeterred from continuing its DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCT SUPPORT difficult to calculate, they are no less anticompetitive business practices. Restrict functionality Prevent developers significant, and demand to be considered. INDEPENDENT SOFTWARE VENDORS from focusing on non-Microsoft products Consumers, individual and corporate, have GET LITTLE RELIEF UNDER THE Deceive developers into supporting undoubtedly lost hundreds of millions of MICROSOFT-DOJ PROPOSAL proprietary products Undermine dollars due to such issues as training, rapid Independent software vendors and compatibility Prevent support for competing upgrade cycles, software crashes, bloated competing platform developers will get little products bundles, debugging, service, and hardware relief from Microsoft’s continual practice of SOFTWARE DEVELOPER upgrades. hiding and manipulating interfaces. In addition, Microsoft’s practices impair WINDOWS XP/.NET, LEFT UNCHECKED, Microsoft has the unreviewable ability under quality and innovation. Because of ENHANCES AND EXPANDS THE the proposed settlement to define Windows Microsoft’s leveraging of the operating MICROSOFT MONOPOLY itself. It therefore controls whether and how system, superior products are delayed or Microsoft’s brazen disrespect for the independent software developers will be able antitrust laws is nowhere more readily driven from the marketplace. The District to write programs that run on top of the apparent than in the design of its newest Court noted at least six instances in which operating system. The definitions of software bundle of products (‘‘Windows XP,’’ and the Microsoft sought to delay the development of products and functionalities and the ‘‘.NET’’ initiative, hereafter referred to as competing products. It noted as well several decisions about how to configure ‘‘Windows XP/.NET’). The product is so instances in which it delayed the delivery of applications programming interfaces (APIs) blatantly at odds with the Court’s ruling its own products to accomplish an anti- Microsoft must have designed it on the are left in the hands of Microsoft to an competitive purpose. Resources are denied to mistaken assumption that Microsoft would extreme extent. As a consequence, the and investment is chilled in competing prevail in its appeal. company will be encouraged to embed products, slowing advances in technology The extreme reliance of ‘‘Windows XP/ critical technical specifications deeply into and rendering some libraries of content .NET’’ on a huge bundle of entire the operating system and thereby prevent obsolete. In addition, in several instances the applications and the continued reliance on independent software developers from seeing Court found that Microsoft had undermined contractual and technological bundling fly in them. To the extent that Microsoft would the ability of software applications or the face of the Court’s cautionary words. actually be required to reveal anything, it middleware to function properly with the Windows XP and the .NET initiative are a would be so late in the product development Windows operating system. Thus, Microsoft bundle of services bolted together by cycle that independent software developers has been quite willing to undermine the technological links (code embedded in the would never be able to catch up to quality of its own and of competing products operating system), contractual requirements, Microsoft’s favored developers. to preserve its market dominance. and marketing leverage. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals In addition to qualitative harm, consumers The software, applications, and services recognized that the Microsoft monopoly is have suffered monetary harm. The historical that Microsoft has bundled cover all of the protected by a large barrier to entry, as many behavior of prices makes it possible to draw functionalities that are converging on the crucial applications are available only for a direct line between competition and lower Internet, including communications, Windows. The proposed settlement does prices. Eliminating competition, as Microsoft commerce, applications, and service. Today nothing to eliminate this ‘‘applications has, results in higher prices. The fact that the these Internet activities are vigorously barrier to entry,’’ such as by requiring the excess price results from a failure to pass cost competitive, just as the browser was before porting of Microsoft Office to other PC reductions through to consumers does not Microsoft launched its victorious attack platforms. Rather than restore competition, change the fact that consumers are against Netscape. In other words, the the Microsoft-DOJ proposal all but legalizes overcharged. Nor does the fact that anticompetitive and illegal business practices Microsoft’s previous anticompetitive strategy consumers do not pay for the software Microsoft used to win the browser war are and institutionalizes the Windows directly. In fact, there was a substantial being extended to virtually every other monopoly. increase in the price of Microsoft products in application that consumers use. The bundle COMPUTER MANUFACTURERS HAVE the 1990s that consumers paid in the price is built on commingled code, proprietary LITTLE ABILITY OR INCENTIVE TO of the PCs they purchased. Of course, languages, and exclusive functionalities that INSTALL NON-MICROSOFT PRODUCTS consumers do pay directly in the case of are promoted by restrictive licenses, refusal UNDER THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT upgrades and for applications. to support competing applications, The Microsoft-DOJ proposal does not The centerpiece of Microsoft’s pricing embedded links, and deceptive messages. A shield computer manufacturers from strategy has been to increase operating strong remedy, unlike the weak one proposed Microsoft retaliation. The restriction on system prices while other components of the by Microsoft and the Justice Department, is retaliation against computer manufacturers delivered PC bundle have fallen. Evidence at needed before Microsoft becomes the leaves so many loopholes that any OEM who trial gave explicit estimates of the price of monopolist of virtually all computer and actually offended Microsoft’s wishes would operating systems. The average preinstalled Internet applications. be committing commercial suicide. Microsoft price is given as $19 in 1990 and over $49 THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT is given free reign to favor some, at the in 1996. During that time span the average FAILS TO PROTECT INDEPENDENT expense of others, through incentives and Microsoft revenue for preinstalled software SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS, COMPUTER joint ventures. It is free to withhold access to rose from $25 to $62. Microsoft recognizes MANUFACTURERS, AND CONSUMERS its other two monopolies (the browser and
VerDate 11
Microsoft Office) as an inducement to favor to restore competition because independent Johnson & Wales University the applications that Microsoft is targeting at software developers will not be freed to 8 Abbott Park Place new markets, inviting a repeat of the fiasco produce software products in a competitively Providence, RI 02903 in the browser wars. Retaliation in any way, neutral environment. As a result, consumers January 27, 2002 shape, fit, form, or fashion should be illegal. will continue to suffer at the hands of the John Ashcroft, Attorney General Any adequate remedy, unlike the Microsoft- Microsoft monopolies. The proposed Department of Justice DOJ proposal, must include a prohibition on settlement does not serve the public interest 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW retaliation that specifically identifies price and must be rejected. Washington, DC 20530 and non- price discrimination as well as FIGURE 2: SOFTWARE COMPETITION Dear Mr. Ashcroft, applying to all monopoly products. WILL NOT BE RESTORED BECAUSE THE Based on my background and experience CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT SETTLEMENT DOES NOT CREATE A in the technology industry, I think that the RESTORED BY THE SETTLEMENT. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR INDEPENDENT Microsoft antitrust case should be settled on Because the proposed settlement requires SOFTWARE VENDORS the terms that are on the table now. no removal of applications, only the hiding DO I HAVE A FAIR CHANCE TO HAVE Obviously, the terms could be tinkered with of icons, Microsoft preserves the ability to CONSUMERS USE MY PRODUCT? endlessly. Still, after three months of neuter consumer choice. The boot screen and Consumers have to choose my software negotiate with the mediator appointed by the desktop remain entirely tilted against twice to get my icon on the screen. new federal judge on the case, the parties competition. Microsoft retains the ability to Consumers never have to choose should have had ample opportunity to make be the pervasive default option and is Microsoft’s; it’s still the default. the agreement as good as they could get it. allowed to harass consumers who switch to Microsoft can sweep my icon off the The terms of the agreement will make it non-Microsoft applications. Furthermore, it system every 14 days. easier to work with Microsoft, which has still gets to sweep third party applications off WILL OEMs PUT MY PRODUCT ON THE been a stickler for holding to its legal fight the desktop, forcing consumers to choose PC? from copyright and patent infringement, to them over and over. Microsoft’s code is guaranteed to be in driving a hard bargain in contract GIVEN MICROSOFT’S PAST BEHAVIOR, every PC, only its icons are removed. negotiations. For example, Microsoft has been insisting on exclusive marketing ENFORCEMENT MUST BE SWIFT WITH My code gets into only those PCs that I agreements, under which a personal SUBSTANTIAL SANCTIONS FOR NON- convince OEMs to install. computer, PC, building company must put COMPLIANCE, BUT THE PFJ PROVIDES NO Microsoft can still give OEMs Microsoft’s Windows operating system on all SUCH MECHANISMS ‘‘considerations’’ to promote its product. of its computers or not receive the legal fight After the District Court identifies remedies Microsoft can engage in Joint Ventures and to use Windows at all. The other terms reflect that can address these problems, it must prevent OEMs from using mine. the same opening up of Microsoft to enable enforce them swiftly and aggressively. Microsoft can leverage its monopoly its partners, rival and competitors an even Microsoft has shown —through a decade of applications to keep my products out. investigations, consent decrees and greater participation in its overwhelming, WHAT APIs DO I GET TO SEE? and hard earned, success. This settlement litigation— that it will not easily be deterred Only APIs for products Microsoft has from defending and extending its monopoly. will be good from computing, and good for already developed. America. Microsoft behaves as though it believes it has Only APIs that Microsoft has decided not the right to do anything to eradicate Thank you for your leadership on this to move into the operating system. issue. competition. Every one of the illegal acts that Only APIs that Microsoft decides do not led to the District Court findings of liability, Sincerely, compromise its piracy, virus, licensing, Michael Shaw unanimously upheld on appeal, took place digital rights management, encryption or after Microsoft signed its last consent decree. authentication systems. MTC–00028568 With three monopolies to use against its WHEN DO I GET TO SEE THE APIs? From: Hamid Tabassian potential competitors (the Windows Very late in the process, after Microsoft has To: Microsoft ATR operating system, the Internet Explorer had a huge head start in developing its Date: 1/28/02 4:40pm browser, and Office in desktop applications), products. Subject: Microsoft Settlement enforcement must be swift and sure, or MTC–00028566 Renata B. Hesse competition will never have a chance to take Antitrust Division root. The proposed settlement offers virtually From: Michael Leibowitz U.S. Department of Justice nothing in this regard. The technical To: Microsoft ATR 601 D Street NW committee set up to (maybe) hear complaints Date: 1/28/02 4:32pm Suite 1200 can be easily tied up in knots by Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement Washington, DC 20530–0001 because of the vague language that creates it. I think the proposed settlement stinks. Fax: 1–202–307–1454 or Because of the delay in its implementation, What public good does it serve?! The 1–202–616–9937 the crucial element of API disclosure will be enforcement provisions are a farce! Email: [email protected] in place for only four years. If Microsoft Michael Leibowitz [michael.leibowitz@ I believe the terms that Microsoft has met violates the settlement, nothing happens to cirrus.com] or gone beyond the findings of the Court of the company, except that it must ‘‘endure’’ Applications Engineer, Embedded Appeals ruling are reasonable and fair to all the annoyance of this weak settlement for an Processors parties involved. Furthermore, I believe this additional two years. Moreover, Virtually Cirrus Logic, Inc. settlement represents the best opportunity for every specific measure of the proposed 4210 S. Industrial Dr. Microsoft and the industry to move forward. settlement is either fiddled with ambiguities Austin, TX 78744 Thank you. or put under the sole discretion of Microsoft. (512)912–6592 Hamid Tabassian In other words, Microsoft defines its own MTC–00028567 128 Sawmill Lakes Blvd sanctions. The Department of Justice and the Ponte Vedra, FL 32082 Court must not forget that independent From: Michael Shaw software vendors were the targets of To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ MTC–00028569 Microsoft’s campaign and that the Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm From: Brian Greenwood competitive process in the software market Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR was its victim. When we review the question Michael Shaw Date: 1/28/02 4:40pm of whether the proposed settlement will lift Systems Administrator Subject: Microsoft Settlement the yoke of anticompetitive practices from Johnson & Wales University Greetings, this market, we find that it will not (see 8 Abbott Park Place As an executive,engineer and inventor (20+ Figure 2). Under the proposed settlement, Providence, Rhode Island 02903 patents) I would like to provide the following Microsoft preserves immense market power P: 401–598–4357 F 401–598–1511 comments as the final decisions are made and discretion. The settlement cannot work Michael Shaw concerning the Microsoft Settlement.
VerDate 11
I have been a user of Microsoft Products Washington, DC 20530–0001 compatible PC operating systems, and that since buying my first personal computer in 28 January 2002 the company’s market position is protected about 1983. I have also been responsible for Ms. Hesse, As a software engineer with 20 by a substantial barrier to entry (p. 15). the coordination of information technology years’’ experience developing software for Furthermore, the Court of Appeals affirmed within my employer’s organization. In Unix, Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, I’d that Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act .7 submitting these comments, I am not like to comment on the Proposed Final 2 for illegally maintaining its monopoly by claiming to represent the official position of Judgment in United States v. Microsoft. imposing licensing restrictions on OEMs, my current employer, but only my personal Please find my comments below. A copy of IAPs (Internet Access Providers), ISVs views. my comments is also posted on the Web at (Independent Software Vendors), and Apple The standardization in file formats and http://kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html. Computer, by requiring ISVs to switch to software interfaces over the years has greatly Sincerely, Microsoft’s JVM (Java Virtual Machine), by improved the ability of people to Dan Kegel deceiving Java developers, and by forcing communicate with each other both within 901 S. Sycamore Intel to drop support for cross-platform Java organizations and between organizations. Los Angeles, CA 90036 tools. Much of this standardization has come On the Proposed Final Judgment in United The fruits of Microsoft’s statutory violation because people selected Microsoft’s Products States v. Microsoft include a strengthened Applications Barrier instead of those of other vendors. Taken as Contents to Entry and weakened competition in the a whole, Microsoft’s solutions have been * Introduction Intel-compatible operating system market; superior to those offered by other vendors. * Understanding the Proposed Final thus the Final Judgment must find a direct The network effect of many users using a Judgment way of reducing the Applications Barrier to common tool has driven the level of How should terms like ‘‘API’’, Entry, and of increasing such competition. ‘‘Middleware’’, and ‘‘Windows OS’’ be deployment of Microsoft’s products. In the following sections I outline the basic defined? Do not go beyond the current settlement intent of the proposed final judgment, point How should the Final Judgment erode the and impair the ability of Microsoft’s out areas where the intent and the Applications Barrier to Entry? engineers and programmers to create new implementation appear to fall short, and How should the Final Judgment be and improve their existing software. It should propose amendments to the Proposed Final enforced? Judgment (or PFJ) to address these concerns. not be the the role of Government to be in What information needs to be released to the middle of a company’s design efforts. Please note that this document is still ISVs to encourage competition, and evolving. Feedback is welcome; to comment The current settlement takes sufficient under what terms? steps to correct the commercial missteps on this document, please join the mailing list Which practices towards OEMs should be at groups.yahoo.com/group/ms-remedy, or which were made by the Microsoft team. prohibited? email me directly at [email protected]. Sincerely, Which practices towards ISVs should be Understanding the Proposed Final Brian F. Greenwood prohibited? Judgment 6007 Castleton Manor Which practices towards large users should In crafting the Final Judgment, the judge Cumming, Georgia 30041 be prohibited? will face the following questions: email: [email protected] Which practices towards end users should * How should terms like ‘‘API’’, MTC–00028570 be prohibited? Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the ‘‘Middleware’’, and ‘‘Windows OS’’ be From: Ernest W. public interest? defined? To: Microsoft ATR *Strengthening the PFJ * How should the Final Judgment erode Date: 1/28/02 4:40pm Correcting the PFJ’s definitions the Applications Barrier to Entry? Subject: Microsoft Settlement Release of Information * How should the Final Judgment be US Department Of Justice, Prohibition of More Practices Toward enforced? I’m writing to offer support for Microsoft’s OEMs * What information needs to be released to position in the current Antitrust scenario *Summary ISVs to encourage competition, and under against them. I feel that the government Introduction what terms? should NOT take adverse action against As a software engineer with 20 years’’ * Which practices towards OEMs should Microsoft. The marketplace will do that if the experience developing software for Unix, be prohibited? company deserves it. Other parties against Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, I’d like to * Which practices towards ISVs should be Microsoft in the business realm stand to gain comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in prohibited? financially against Microsoft if the software United States v. Microsoft. * Which practices towards large users giant gets penalized. They would therefore According to the Court of Appeals ruling, should be prohibited? offer tons of reasons why Microsoft should be ‘‘a remedies decree in an antitrust case must * Which practices towards end users penalized—of course. seek to ‘unfetter a market from should be prohibited? Please leave business matters of this sort to anticompetitive conduct’, to terminate the Here is a very rough summary which the marketplace and consumers instead of illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the paraphrases provisions III.A through III.J and lawyers eager for their fees and jealous fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure VI. of the Proposed Final Judgment to give business rivals holding daggers behind them. that there remain no practices likely to result some idea of how the PFJ proposes to answer Thank you. in monopolization in the future’’ (section those questions: Ernest Wiatrek V.D., p. 99). PFJ Section III: Prohibited Conduct 19203 CR 341 Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to A. Microsoft will not retaliate against Abilene, TX 79601 agree; he called the proposed settlement OEMs who support competitors to Windows, Ph: 915–676–4178 ‘‘strong and historic’’, said that it would end Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), ‘‘Microsoft’s unlawful conduct,’’ and said Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows MTC–00028571 ‘‘With the proposed settlement being Messenger (WM), or Outlook Express (OE). From: [email protected]@inetgw announced today, the Department of Justice B. Microsoft will publish the wholesale To: Microsoft ATR has fully and completely addressed the anti- prices it charges the top 20 OEMs (Original Date: 1/28/02 4:39pm competitive conduct outlined by the Court of Equipment Manufacturers) for Windows. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Appeals against Microsoft.’’ C. Microsoft will allow OEMs to customize To: [email protected] Yet the Proposed Final Judgment allows the Windows menus, desktop, and boot Subject: Microsoft Settlement many exclusionary practices to continue, and sequence, and will allow the use of non- To: Renata B. Hesse does not take any direct measures to reduce Microsoft bootloaders. Antitrust Division the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by D. Microsoft will publish on MSDN (the U.S. Department of Justice new entrants to the market. Microsoft Developer Network) the APIs used 601 D Street NW The Court of Appeals affirmed that by IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and OE, so that Suite 1200 Microsoft has a monopoly on Intel- competing web browsers, media players, and
VerDate 11
email clients can plug in properly to restrictive way, and allows Microsoft to Edition and Pocket PC in places (e.g. portable Windows. exclude any software from being covered by computers used by businessmen) currently E. Microsoft will license on reasonable the definition in two ways: served by Windows XP Home Edition, and terms the network protocols needed for non- 1. By changing product version numbers. thus appears to be trying to evade the Final Microsoft applications or operating systems For example, if the next version of Internet Judgment’s provisions. This is but one to connect to Windows servers. Explorer were named ‘‘7.0.0’’ instead of ‘‘7’’ example of how Microsoft can evade the F. Microsoft will not force business or ‘‘7.0’’, it would not be deemed Microsoft provisions of the Final Judgment by shifting partners to refrain from supporting Middleware by the PFJ. its efforts away from the Operating Systems competitors to Windows, IE, M J, WMP, WM, 2. By changing how Microsoft distributes listed in Definition U and towards Windows or OE. Windows or its middleware. For example, if XP Tablet Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, G. (Roughly same as F above.) Microsoft introduced a version of Windows X-Box, or some other Microsoft Operating H. Microsoft will let users and OEMs which was only available via the Windows System that can run Windows applications. remove icons for IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and OE, Update service, then nothing in that version How should the Final Judgment erode the and let them designate competing products to of Windows would be considered Microsoft Applications Barrier to Entry? be used instead. Middleware, regardless of whether Microsoft The PFJ tries to erode the Applications I. Microsoft will license on reasonable added it initially or in a later update. This Barrier to Entry in two ways: terms any intellectual property rights needed is analogous to the loophole in the 1995 1. By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, for other companies to take advantage of the consent decree that allowed Microsoft to ISVs, and IHVs who support or develop terms of this settlement. bundle its browser by integrating it into the alternatives to Windows. J. This agreement lets Microsoft keep secret operating system. 2. By taking various measures to ensure anything having to do with security or copy Definition K: ‘‘Microsoft Middleware that Windows allows the use of non- protection. Product’’ Microsoft middleware. A third option not PFJ Section VI: Definitions Definition K defines ‘‘Microsoft provided by the PFJ would be to make sure A. ‘‘API’’ (Application Programming Middleware Product’’ to mean essentially that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers Interface) is defined as only the interfaces Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), against non-Microsoft operating systems between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows which implement the APIs needed to run Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express (OE). application programs written for Windows. other application programs. The inclusion of Microsoft Java and not The Findings of Fact (?52) considered the K. ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ is Microsoft. NET is questionable; Microsoft has possibility that competing operating systems defined as Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft essentially designated Microsoft. NET and C# could implement the Windows APIs and thereby directly run software written for lava (MJ), Windows Media Player (WMP), as the successors to Java, so on that basis one would expect Microsoft. NET to be included Windows as a way of circumventing the Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook in the definition. Applications Barrier to Entry. This is in fact Express (OE). The inclusion of Outlook Express and not the route being taken by the Linux operating U. ‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’ Outlook is questionable, as Outlook (different system, which includes middleware (named is defined as Windows 2000 Professional, and more powerful than Outlook Express) is WINE) that can run many Windows Windows XP Home, and Windows XP a more important product in business, and programs. Professional. fits the definition of middleware better than By not providing some aid for ISVs The agreement can be summed up in one Outlook Express. engaged in making Windows-compatible breath as follows: Microsoft agrees to The exclusion of Microsoft Office is operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key compete somewhat less vigorously, and to let questionable, as many components of opportunity to encourage competition in the competitors interoperate with Windows in Microsoft Office fit the Finding of Fact’s Intel-compatible operating system market. exchange for royalty payments. definition of middleware. For instance, there Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and Considering all of the above, one should is an active market in software written to run III.E., restricts information released by those read the detailed terms of the Proposed Final on top of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft sections to be used ‘‘for the sole purpose of Judgment, and ask one final question: Word, and many applications are developed interoperating with a Windows Operating * Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the for Microsoft Access by people who have no System Product’’. This prohibits ISVs from public interest? knowledge of Windows APIs. using the information for the purpose of In the sections below, I’ll look in more Definition U: ‘‘Windows Operating System writing operating systems that interoperate detail at how the PFJ deals with the above Product’’ Microsoft’s monopoly is on Intel- with Windows programs. How should the questions. How should terms like ‘‘API’’, compatible operating systems. Yet the PFJ in Final Judgment be enforced? ‘‘Middleware, and ‘‘Windows OS’’ be definition U defines a ‘‘Windows Operating The PFJ as currently written appears to defined? System Product’’ to mean only Windows lack an effective enforcement mechanism. It The definitions of various terms in Part VI 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, does provide for the creation of a Technical of the PFJ differ from the definitions in the Windows XP Professional, and their Committee with investigative powers, but Findings of Fact and in common usage, successors. This purposely excludes the appears to leave all actual enforcement to the apparently to Microsoft’s benefit. Here are Intel-compatible operating systems Windows legal system. some examples: XP Tablet PC Edition and Windows CE; What information needs to be released to Definition A: ‘‘API’’ many applications written to the Win32 APIs ISVs to encourage competition, and under The Findings of Fact (? 2) define ‘‘API’’ to can run unchanged on Windows 2000, what terms? The PFJ provides for increased mean the interfaces between application Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, and disclosure of technical information to ISVs, programs and the operating system. However, Windows CE, and with minor recompilation, but these provisions are flawed in several the PFJ’s Definition A defines it to mean only can also be run on Pocket PC. Microsoft even ways: the interfaces between Microsoft Middleware proclaims at www.microsoft.com/ 1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice and Microsoft Windows, excluding Windows windowsxp/tabletpc/tabletpcqanda.asp: of technical requirements APIs used by other application programs. For ‘‘The Tablet PC is the next-generation Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors instance, the PFJ’s definition of API might mobile business PC, and it will be available of competing middleware to meet omit important APIs such as the Microsoft from leading computer makers in the second ‘‘reasonable technical requirements’’ seven Installer APIs which are used by installer half of 2002. The Tablet PC runs the months before new releases of Windows, yet programs to install software on Windows. Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition it does not require Microsoft to disclose those Definition J: ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ and features the capabilities of current requirements in advance. This allows The Findings of Fact (? 28) define business laptops, including attached or Microsoft to bypass all competing ‘‘middleware’’ to mean application software detachable keyboards and the ability to run middleware simply by changing the that itself presents a set of APIs which allow Windows-based applications.’’ requirements shortly before the deadline, and users to write new applications without and not informing ISVs. reference to the underlying operating system. Pocket PC: Powered by Windows Microsoft 2. API documentation is released too late Definition J defines it in a much more is clearly pushing Windows XP Tablet PC to help ISVs Section III.D. of the PFJ requires
VerDate 11
Microsoft to release via MSDN or similar Wine was violating. My customer could not Many Windows APIs, including Media means the documentation for the APIs used risk crossing Microsoft, and declined to use Encoder, are shipped by Microsoft as add-on by Microsoft Middleware Products to Wine. I didn’t even have a chance to SDKs with associated redistributable interoperate with Windows; release would be determine which patents were supposedly components. Applications that wish to use required at the time of the final beta test of violated; nor to disprove the validity of this them must include the add-ons, even though the covered middleware, and whenever a claim. they might later become a standard part of new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 The PFJ, by allowing this unclear legal Windows. beta testers. But this information would situation to continue, is inhibiting the market Microsoft often provides those SDKs under almost certainly not be released in time for acceptance of competing operating systems. End User License Agreements (EULAs) competing middleware vendors to adapt their Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibiting their use with Open Source or products to meet the requirements of section prohibited? Free Software applications. This harms ISVs III.H.3, which states that competing The PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by who choose to distribute their applications middleware can be locked out if it fails to Microsoft towards OEMs, but curiously under Open Source or Free Software licenses; meet unspecified technical requirements allows the following exclusionary practices: they must hope that the enduser has a seven months before the final beta test of a Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate sufficiently up-to-date version of the addon new version of Windows. against any OEM that ships Personal API installed, which is often not the case. 3. Many important APIs would remain Computers containing a competing Operating Applications potentially harmed by this undocumented System but no Microsoft operating system. kind of EULA include the competing The PFJ’s overly narrow definitions of Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license middleware product Netscape 6 and the ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ and ‘‘API’’ Windows on uniform terms and at published competing office suite StarOffice; these means that Section III.D.’s requirement to prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing EULAs thus can cause support problems for, release information about Windows about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft and discourage the use of, competing interfaces would not cover many important free to retaliate against smaller OEMs, middleware and office suites. interfaces. including important regional ‘white box’’ Additionally, since Open Source or Free 4. Unreasonable Restrictions are Placed on OEMs, if they offer competing products. Software applications tend to also run on the Use of the Released Documentation Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer non-Microsoft operating systems, any ISVs writing competing operating systems unspecified Market Development resulting loss of market share by Open as outlined in Findings of Fact (?52) Allowances—in effect, discounts—to OEMs. Source or Free Software applications sometimes have difficulty understanding For instance, Microsoft could offer discounts indirectly harms competing operating various undocumented Windows APIs. The on Windows to OEMs based on the number systems. information released under section III.D. of of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 2. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs systems sold by that OEM. In effect, this the PFJ would aid those ISVs—except that who target Windows-compatible competing allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on the PFJ disallows this use of the information. Operating Systems The Microsoft Platform Intel-compatible operating systems to Worse yet, to avoid running afoul of the PFJ, SDK, together with Microsoft Visual C++, is increase its market share in other areas, such ISVs might need to divide up their engineers the primary toolkit used by ISVs to create as office software or ARM-compatible into two groups: those who refer to MSDN Windows-compatible applications. The operating systems. and work on Windows-only applications; By allowing these practices, the PFJ is Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says: and those who cannot refer to MSDN because encouraging Microsoft to extend its ‘‘Distribution Terms. You may reproduce they work on applications which also run on monopoly in Intel-compatible operating and distribute ... the Redistributable non-Microsoft operating systems. This would systems, and to leverage it into new areas. Components... provided that (a) you constitute retaliation against ISVs who Which practices towards ISVs should be distribute the Redistributable Components support competing operating systems. prohibited? only in conjunction with and as a part of 5. File Formats Remain Undocumented Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ prohibit your Application solely for use with a No part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to certain exclusionary licensing practices by Microsoft Operating System Product...’’ This release any information about file formats, Microsoft towards ISVs. makes it illegal to run many programs built even though undocumented Microsoft file However, Microsoft uses other with Visual C++ on Windows-compatible formats form part of the Applications Barrier exclusionary licensing practices, none of competing operating systems. to Entry (see ‘‘Findings of Fact’’ ?20 and ? which are mentioned in the PFJ. By allowing these exclusionary behaviors, 39). Several of Microsoft’s products’’ licenses the PFJ is contributing to the Applications 6. Patents covering the Windows APIs prohibit the products’’ use with popular non- Barrier to Entry faced by competing operating remain undisclosed Microsoft middleware and operating systems. systems. Section III.I of the PFJ requires Microsoft Two examples are given below. Which practices towards large users should to offer to license certain intellectual 1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs be prohibited? property rights, but it does nothing to require who ship Open Source or Free Software The PFJ places restrictions on how Microsoft to clearly announce which of its applications Microsoft licenses its products to OEMs, but many software patents protect the Windows The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 not on how it licenses products to large users APIs (cf. current practice at the World Wide SDK EULA states ... you shall not distribute such as corporations, universities, or state Web Consortium, http://www.w3.org/TR/ the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in and local governments, collectively referred patent-practice). This leaves Windows- conjunction with any Publicly Available to as ‘enterprises’. Yet enterprise license compatible operating systems in an uncertain Software. ‘‘Publicly Available Software’’ agreements often resemble the per-processor state: are they, or are they not infringing on means each of (i) any software that contains, licenses which were prohibited by the 1994 Microsoft software patents? This can scare or is derived in any manner (in whole or in consent decree in the earlier US v. Microsoft away potential users, as illustrated by this part) from, any software that is distributed as antitrust case, in that a fee is charged for each report from Codeweavers, Inc.: free software, open source software (e.g. desktop or portable computer which could When selecting a method of porting a Linux) or similar licensing or distribution run a Microsoft operating system, regardless major application to Linux, one prospect of models ... Publicly Available Software of whether any Microsoft software is actually mine was comparing Wine [a competing includes, without limitation, software installed on the affected computer. These implementation of some of the Windows licensed or distributed under any of the agreements are anticompetitive because they APIs] and a toolkit called ‘MainWin’. following licenses or distribution models, or remove any financial incentive for MainWin is made by Mainsoft, and Mainsoft licenses or distribution models similar to any individuals or departments to run non- licenses its software from Microsoft. of the following: GNU’s General Public Microsoft software. However, this customer elected to go with License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL); Which practices towards end users should the Mainsoft option instead. I was told that The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla be prohibited? one of the key decision making factors was Public License; the Netscape Public License; Microsoft has used both restrictive licenses that Mainsoft representatives had stated that the Sun Community Source License (SCSL); and intentional incompatibilities to Microsoft had certain critical patents that ... discourage users from running Windows
VerDate 11
applications on Windows-compatible and intentional incompatibilities, and thus ?? Microsoft currently uses restrictive competing operating systems. Two examples encourages Microsoft to use these techniques licensing terms to keep Windows apps from are given below. to enhance the Applications Barrier to Entry, running on competing operating systems. 1. Microsoft uses license terms which and harming those consumers who use non- ?? Microsoft’s enterprise license prohibit the use of Windows-compatible Microsoft operating systems and wish to use agreements (used by large companies, state competing operating systems MSNBC (a Microsoft applications software. governments, and universities) charge by the subsidiary of Microsoft) offers software called Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the number of computers which could run a NewsAlert. Its EULA states ‘‘MSNBC public interest? Microsoft operating system—even for Interactive grants you the right to install and The problems identified above with the computers running Linux. (Similar licenses use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on Proposed Final Judgment can be summarized to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 your computers running validly licensed as follows: consent decree.) copies of the operating system for which the * The PFJ doesn’t take into account * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Windows-compatible competing operating Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft Windows(r) 95; Microsoft systems Microsoft Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, o Microsoft increases the Applications ?? Microsoft has in the past inserted Macintosh, etc.] .... ‘‘ Barrier to Entry by using restrictive license intentional incompatibilities in its Only the Windows version appears to be terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet applications to keep them from running on available for download. Users who run competing operating systems. competing operating systems (such as Linux) the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the Applications * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive which can run some Windows programs Practices Towards OEMs might wish to run the Windows version of Barrier to Entry. * The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly ?? The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate NewsAlert, but the EULA prohibits this. against any OEM that ships Personal Narrow Definitions and Provisions MSNBC has a valid interest in prohibiting Computers containing a competing Operating ?? The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft use of pirated copies of operating systems, System but no Microsoft operating system. publish its secret APIs, but it defines ‘‘API’’ but much narrower language could achieve ?? The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate so narrowly that many important APIs are the same protective effect with less against small OEMs—including regional not covered. anticompetitive impact. For instance, ‘white box’’ OEMs which are historically the ?? The PFJ supposedly allows users to ‘‘MSNBC Interactive grants you the fight to most willing to install competing operating replace Microsoft Middleware with install and use copies of the SOFTWARE systems—who ship competing software. competing middleware, but it defines PRODUCT on your computers running ?? The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer validly licensed copies of Microsoft ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ so narrowly that the discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs Windows or compatible operating system.’’ next version of Windows might not be based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office 2. Microsoft created intentional covered at all. or Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft incompatibilities in Windows 3.1 to ?? The PFJ allows users to replace to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible discourage the use of non-Microsoft Microsoft Java with a competitor’s product— operating systems to increase its market share operating systems but Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. in other areas. An episode from the 1996 Caldera v. The PFJ should therefore allow users to Microsoft antitrust lawsuit illustrates how * The PFJ as currently written appears to replace Microsoft. NET with competing lack an effective enforcement mechanism. Microsoft has used technical means middleware. anticompetitively. Considering these problems, one must ?? The PFJ supposedly applies to conclude that the Proposed Final Judgment Microsoft’s original operating system was ‘‘Windows’’, but it defines that term so called MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS API as written allows and encourages significant narrowly that it doesn’t cover Windows XP anticompetitive practices to continue, and to call up the services of the operating Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, system. Digital Research offered a competing would delay the emergence of competing or the X-Box—operating systems that all use Windows-compatible operating systems. operating system, DR–DOS, that also the Win32 API and are advertised as being implemented the DOS API, and could run Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is ‘‘Windows Powered’’. not in the public interest, and should not be programs written for MS–DOS. Windows 3.1 ?? The PFJ fails to require advance notice and earlier were not operating systems per se, adopted without addressing these issues. of technical requirements, allowing Microsoft Strengthening the PFJ but rather middleware that used the DOS API to bypass all competing middleware simply to interoperate with the operating system. The above discussion shows that the PFJ by changing the requirements shortly before Microsoft was concerned with the does not satisfy the Court of Appeals’’ the deadline, and not informing ISVs. competitive threat posed by DR-DOS, and mandate. Some of the plaintiff States have ?? The PFJ requires Microsoft to release added code to beta copies of Windows 3. I proposed an alternate settlement which fixes API documentation to ISVs so they can create so it would display spurious and misleading many of the problems identified above. The error messages when run on DR-DOS. Digital compatible middleware—but only after the States’’ proposal is quite different from the Research’s successor company, Caldera, deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that PFJ as a whole, but it contains many brought a private antitrust suit against their middleware is compatible. elements which are similar to elements of the Microsoft in 1996. (See the original ?? The PFJ requires Microsoft to release PFJ, with small yet crucial changes. complaint, and Caldera’s consolidated API documentation—but prohibits In the sections below, I suggest response to Microsoft’s motions for partial competitors from using this documentation amendments to the PFJ that attempt to summary judgment.) The judge in the case to help make their operating systems resolve some of the demonstrated problems ruled that ‘‘Caldera has presented sufficient compatible with Windows. (time pressure has prevented anything like a evidence that the incompatibilities alleged ?? The PFJ does not require Microsoft to complete list of amendments). When were part of an anticompetitive scheme by release documentation about the format of discussing amendments, PFJ text is shown Microsoft.’’ Microsoft Office documents. indented; removed text in shown in That case was settled out of court in 1999, ?? The PFJ does not require Microsoft to [bracketed strikeout], and new text in bold and no court has fully explored the alleged list which software patents protect the italics. conduct. The concern here is that, as Windows APIs. This leaves Windows- Correcting the PFJ’s definitions competing operating systems emerge which compatible operating systems in an uncertain Time constraints do not permit a complete are able to run Windows applications, state: are they, or are they not infringing on list of needed changes. As an example, Microsoft might try to sabotage Windows Microsoft software patents? This can scare Definition U should be amended to read U. applications, middleware, and development away potential users. ‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’ tools so that they cannot run on non- * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive means [the software code (as opposed to Microsoft operating systems, just as they did License Terms currently used by Microsoft source code) distributed commercially by earlier with Windows 3.1. ?? Microsoft currently uses restrictive Microsoft for use with Personal Computers as The PFJ as currently written does nothing licensing terms to keep Open Source or Free Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP to prohibit these kinds of restrictive licenses Software apps from running on Windows. Home, Windows XP Professional, and
VerDate 11
successors to the foregoing, including the Compliance Test Suite (‘‘WASCTS’’), and to member and hold him or her harmless Personal Computer versions of the products guide the WASD through the process of being against any losses, claims, damages, currently code named ‘‘Longhorn’’ and adopted by a standards body such as ECMA liabilities or expenses arising out of, or in ‘‘Blackcomb’’ and their successors, including or the IEEE. connection with, the performance of the upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. The The WASD shall be a document, suitable WASEG’s duties, except to the extent that software code that comprises a Windows for approval by a standards body such as such liabilities, losses, damages, claims, or Operating System Product shall be ECMA or IEEE, which accurately defines the expenses result from misfeasance, gross determined by Microsoft in its sole inputs, outputs, and behavior of each negligence, willful or wanton acts, or bad discretion. ] any software or firmware code Windows API, and enumerates any Essential faith by the WASEG member. The WASEG distributed commercially by Microsoft that is Claims. Services Agreements shall include the capable of executing any nontrivial subset of The WASCTS shall be software source following: the Win32 APIs, including without exclusion code which, when compiled and run, a. The WASEG members shall serve, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP automatically tests an operating system for without bond or other security, at the cost Home, Windows XP Professional, Windows compliance with the WASD, and produces a and expense of Microsoft on such terms and XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, list of APIs which fail to comply with the conditions as the Plaintiffs approve, PocketPC 2002, and successors to the WASD. The test suite should run unattended; including the payment of reasonable fees and foregoing, including the products currently that is, it should be capable of running expenses. code named ‘‘Longhorn’’ and ‘‘Blackcomb’’ without human interaction or supervision. b. The WASEG Services Agreement shall and their successors, including upgrades, bug 2. Three of the WASEG members shall be provide that each member of the WASEG fixes, service packs, etc. experts in software design and programming, shall comply with the limitations provided Release of Information and three of the WASEG members shall be for in section IV.E.2. above. Because any new competitor in the Intel- experts in intellectual property law. No 7. Microsoft shall provide the WASEG with compatible operating system market must be WASEG member shall have a conflict of funds needed to procure office space, able to run Windows applications to have a interest that could prevent him or her from telephone, other office support facilities, chance in the market, and because Microsoft performing his or her duties under this Final consultants, or contractors required by the has traditionally used undocumented Judgment in a fair and unbiased manner. No WASEG. Windows APIs as part of the Applications WASEG member shall have entered into any 8. The WASEG shall not have direct access Barrier to Entry, the Final Judgment should non-disclosure agreement that is still in force to any part of Microsoft’s computer software provide explicitly for a clear definition of with Microsoft or any competitor to source code that is not normally available to what APIs a competing operating system Microsoft, nor shall she or he enter into such all ISVs. The WASEG shall not enter into any must provide to run Windows applications. an agreement during her or his term on the non-disclosure agreements with Microsoft or The best way to do this is by submitting WASEG. Without limitation to the foregoing, third parties. No implementations of any the API definitions to a standards body. This no WASEG member shall have been Windows APIs shall be written or published was done in 1994 for the Windows 3.1 APIs employed in any capacity by Microsoft or by the WASEG. (see Sun’s 1994 press release about WABI 2.0 any competitor to Microsoft within the past 9. The WASEG shall have the following and the Public Windows Initiative). year, nor shall he or she be so employed powers and duties: The result is Standard ECMA–234: during his or her term on the WASEG. a. The WASEG may require Microsoft to Application Programming Interface for 3. Within seven days of entry of this Final provide comprehensive answers to questions Windows (APIW), which provides standard Judgment, the Plaintiffs as a group shall about Microsoft intellectual property claims. definitions for an essential subset (four select two software experts and two b. The WASEG may require Microsoft to hundred and forty-four out of the roughly intellectual property law experts to be provide comprehensive answers to questions one thousand) of the Windows 3.1 APIs; it members of the WASEG, and Microsoft shall about the inputs, outputs, and functionality was rendered mostly obsolete by the switch select one software expert and one of any Windows to Windows 95. The Final Judgment should intellectual property law expert to be API; in particular, the WASEG may compel provide for the creation of something like members of the WASEG; the Plaintiffs shall Microsoft to provide complete ECMA–234 for the various modem versions then apply to the Court for appointment of documentation for Windows APIs, including of Windows. the persons selected by the Plaintiffs and hitherto undocumented or poorly- Because Microsoft currently claims that it Microsoft pursuant to this section. documented Windows APIs. has intellectual property rights that protect 4. Each WASEG member shall serve for an c. The WASEG may engage, at the cost and the Windows APIs, but has never spelled out initial term of 30 months. At the end of a expense of Microsoft, the services of outside exactly which patents cover which APIs, the WASEG member’s initial 30-month term, the consultants and contractors as required to Final Judgment should force this to be party that originally selected him or her may, fulfill the duties of the WASEG. spelled out. in its sole discretion, either request re- d. The WASEG shall establish a publicly To achieve the above goals, the PFJ should appointment by the Court to a second 30- available web she not owned or otherwise be modified as follows: month term or replace the WASEG member controlled by Microsoft, and will publish First, Sections III.D and III.E should be in the same manner as provided for above. status reports and other information there at amended to remove the restriction on the use 5. If the United States or a majority of the least as often as once per month. of the disclosed information: Plaintiffs determine that a member of the Documentation on the web site shall be made ... Microsoft shall disclose ... [for the sole WASEG has failed to act diligently and available subject to the terms of the GNU purpose of interoperating with a Windows consistently with the purposes of this Final Free Documentation License; test suite Operating System Product,] for the purpose Judgment, or if a member of the WASEG source code made available on the web site of interoperating with a Windows Operating resigns, or for any other reason ceases to shall be made available subject to the terms System Product or interoperating with serve in his or her capacity as a member of of the GNU General Public License. application software written for Windows, the WASEG, the person or persons that e. The WASEG shall compile to the best of Second, a new section IV.E should be originally selected the WASEG member shall their ability a complete list of Windows APIs, created as follows: select a replacement member in the same including for each API the DLL name, entry E. Establishment of a Windows API manner as provided for above. point name, entry point ordinal number, Standards Expert Group 6. Promptly after appointment of the return value type, and parameter types, as 1. Within 60 days of entry of this Final WASEG by the Court, the United States shall well as which versions of Windows it is Judgment, the parties shall create and enter into a Windows API Expert Group supported by and an estimate of what recommend to the Court for its appointment services agreement (‘‘WASEG Services percentage of Popular Windows Applications a six person Windows API Standards Expert Agreement’’) with each WASEG member that use it. The WASEG shall publish this list on Group (‘‘WASEG’’) to manage the creation, grants the rights, powers and authorities the WASEG web site subject to the GNU Free publication, and maintenance of a Windows necessary to permit the WASEG to perform Documentation License, according to the APIs Standards Definition (‘‘WASD’’) and its duties under this Final Judgment. following schedule: Within 90 days after the associated Windows APIs Standard Microsoft shall indemnify each WASEG WASEG is convened, the WASEG shall
VerDate 11
publish this information for at least five j. In the event that a planned update to 2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) hundred Windows APIs. On the 1st of each Windows or any other Microsoft product is includes both a Windows Operating System month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish expected to result in the creation of new Product and a non-Microsoft Operating this information for another five hundred Windows APIs or Essential Claims, or System, or (b) will boot with more than one Windows APIs. This shall continue until a WASEG’s list of Windows APIs is updated, Operating System, or (c) includes a non- complete list of Windows APIs is available the WASEG shall create addenda to the Microsoft Operating System but no Windows on the web site. The WASEG shall update the WASD and WASCTS covering the new Operating System Product; or... list periodically to add previously unlisted Windows APIs or Essential Claims, make Summary Windows APIs. The WASEG shall them available via its web site, and undertake This document demonstrates that there are periodically check the list for completeness to submit them to the same standards body so many problems with the PFJ that it is not by installing and running a representative as above as an addendum to the standard. in the public interest. It also illustrates how sample of Popular Windows Applications Third, in section VI, Definition A should one might try to fix some of these problems. and Microsoft Middleware while using tools be amended to read Dan Kegel such as Apius from Sarion Systems Research A. ‘‘Application Programming Interfaces 28 January 2002 to watch the Windows APIs actually invoked (APIs)’’ means the interfaces, including any To: [email protected] by the product or its installer. The WASEG associated callback interfaces, that [ Subject: Microsoft Settlement shall also set up a way for third parties to Microsoft Middleware running on a To: Renata B. Hesse report Windows APIs which should be listed, Windows Operating System Product uses to Antitrust Division and shall update its list of Windows APIs call upon that Windows Operating System U.S. Department of Justice accordingly as appropriate. Product in order to obtain any services from 601 D Street NW f. The WASEG shall compile a complete that Windows Operating System Product. ] Suite 1200 list of Essential Claims, and an evaluation of Microsoft Middleware or Popular Windows Washington, DC 20530–0001 which Windows APIs each Essential Claim Applications running or being installed on a 28 January 2002 covers. The WASEG shall publish this Windows Operating System Product use to Ms. Hesse, information on the WASEG web site subject call upon that Windows Operating System As a software engineer with 20 years’’ to the GNU Free Documentation License, Product or Microsoft Middleware in order to experience developing software for Unix, according to the following schedule: obtain any services from that Windows Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, I’d like to Within 90 days after the WASEG publishes Operating System Product or Microsoft comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in a portion of the list of Windows APIs on its Middleware. United States v. Microsoft. web site, Microsoft shall deliver to the and two new definitions should be added: Please find my comments below. A copy of my comments is also posted on the Web at WASEG a list of the Essential Claims that V. ‘‘Popular Windows Applications’’ http://kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html. cover the published Windows APIs. Within means the top 10 selling applications as Sincerely, 90 days after the WASEG receives the list of reported by NPD Intelect Market Tracking in Dan Kegel Essential Claims, the WASEG shall publish each of the categories 901 S. Sycamore its evaluation of which APIs those Essential Business, Education, Finance, Games, Los Angeles, CA 90036 Personal Productivity, and Reference, plus all Claims cover. This shall continue until such On the Proposed Final Judgment in United evaluations for all Essential Claims have been Microsoft Middleware Products. States published on the WASEG web site. W. ‘‘Essential Claims’’ shall mean all v. Microsoft g. The WASEG shall compile claims in any patent or patent application, in Contents documentation for the list of Windows APIs any jurisdiction in the world, that Microsoft * . Introduction defined above in section IV.E.9.e, including owns, or under which Microsoft has the right * . Understanding the Proposed Final a complete description of the meanings of the to grant licenses without obligation of Judgment return values and parameters, and the effects payment or other consideration to an ?? How should terms like ‘‘API’’, of the API. The documentation should be unrelated third party, that would necessarily ‘‘Middleware’’, and ‘‘Windows OS’’ be composed in a style similar to that used for be infringed by implementation of the defined? the Single Unix Specification documentation Windows APIs Standard Definition by a ?? How should the Final Judgment erode ( http://www.UNIX-systems.org/go/unix). competing Operating System. A claim is the Applications Barrier to Entry? Within 180 days after the WASEG is necessarily infringed hereunder only when it ?? How should the Final Judgment be convened, and on the 1st of every month is not possible to avoid infringing it because enforced? thereafter until complete, the WASEG will there is no non-infringing alternative for ?? What information needs to be released make available the currently completed implementing the required portion of the to ISVs to encourage competition, and under portion of this documentation via its web Windows APIs Standard Definition. what terms? site. The following are expressly excluded from ?? Which practices towards OEMs should h. When the three documents described and shall not be deemed to constitute be prohibited? above—the list of Windows APIs, the list of Essential Claims: ?? Which practices towards ISVs should be Essential Claims and which Windows APIs 1. any claims other than as set forth above prohibited? they cover, and the documentation for the even if contained in the same patent as ?? Which practices towards large users listed Windows APIs—is complete, the Essential Claims; and should be prohibited? WASEG shall undertake to submit them to a 2. claims which would be infringed only ?? Which practices towards end users standards body such as ECMA or the IEEE as by portions of an implementation that are not should be prohibited? a Draft WASD Document, and to make such required by the Windows APIs Standard ?? Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the enhancements and revisions as needed to Definition, or enabling technologies that may public interest? gain the acceptance of that document as a be necessary to make or use any product or * . Strengthening the PFJ standard. portion thereof that complies with the ?? Correcting the PFJ’s definitions i. The WASEG shall create a WASCTS, and Windows APIs Standard Definition but are ?? Release of Information publish it on the WASEG web site subject to not themselves expressly set forth in the ?? Prohibition of More Practices Toward the GNU General Public License, according Windows APIs Standard Definition (e.g., OEMs to the following schedule: Within 180 days compiler technology, object-oriented * . Summary— after the WASEG is convened, the WASEG technology, etc.) or the implementation of Introduction shall publish test cases for at least one technology developed elsewhere and merely As a software engineer with 20 years’’ hundred Windows APIs. On the 1st of each incorporated by reference in the body of the experience developing software for Unix, month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish Windows APIs Standard Definition. Windows, Macintosh, and test cases for at least another one hundred Prohibition of More Practices Toward Linux, I’d like to comment on the Proposed Windows APIs. This shall continue until a OEMs Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft. complete WASCTS is available on the web ? III. A. 2. of the Proposed Final Judgment According to the Court of Appeals ruling, site. should be amended to read ‘‘a remedies decree in an antitrust case must
VerDate 11
seek to unfetter a market from Here is a very rough summary which Findings of Fact and in common usage, anticompetitive conduct’’, to terminate the paraphrases provisions III.A through III.J and apparently to Microsoft’s benefit. Here are illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the VI. of the Proposed Final Judgment to give some examples: fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure some idea of how the PFJ proposes to answer Definition A: ‘‘API’’ that there remain no practices likely to result those questions: The Findings of Fact (* 2) define ‘‘API’’ to in monopolization in the future’’ (section PFJ Section III: Prohibited Conduct mean the interfaces between application V.D., p. 99). A. Microsoft will not retaliate against programs and the operating system. However, Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to OEMs who support competitors to Windows, the PFJ’s Definition A defines it to mean only agree; he called the proposed settlement Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), the interfaces between Microsoft Middleware ‘‘strong and historic’’, said that it would end Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows and Microsoft Windows, excluding Windows ‘‘Microsoft’s unlawful conduct,’’ and said Messenger (WM), or Outlook Express (OE). APIs used by otherapplication programs. For ‘‘With the proposed settlement being B. Microsoft will publish the wholesale instance, the PFJ’s definition of API might announced today, the Department of Justice prices it charges the top 20 OEMs (Original omit important APIs such as the Microsoft has fully and completely addressed the anti- Equipment Manufacturers) for Windows. Installer APIs which are used by installer competitive conduct outlined by the Court of C. Microsoft will allow OEMs to customize programs to install software on Windows. Appeals against Microsoft.’’ the Windows menus, desktop, and boot Definition J: ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ Yet the Proposed Final Judgment allows sequence, and will allow the use of non- The Findings of Fact (¶28) define many exclusionary practices to continue, and Microsoft bootloaders. ‘‘middleware’’ to mean application software does not take any direct measures to reduce D. Microsoft will publish on MSDN (the that itself presents a set of APIs which allow the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by Microsoft Developer Network) the APIs used users to write new applications without new entrants to the market. by IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and OE, so that reference to the underlying operating system. The Court of Appeals affirmed that competing web browsers, media players, and Definition J defines it in a much more Microsoft has a monopoly on Intel- email clients can plug in properly to restrictive way, and allows Microsoft to compatible PC operating systems, and that Windows. exclude any software from being covered by the company’s market position is protected E. Microsoft will license on reasonable the definition in two ways: by a substantial barrier to entry (p. 15). terms the network protocols needed for non- 1. By changing product version numbers. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals affirmed Microsoft applications or operating systems For example, if the next version of Internet that Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act * to connect to Windows servers. Explorer were named ‘‘7.0.0’’ instead of ‘‘7’’ 2 for illegally maintaining its monopoly by F. Microsoft will not force business or ‘‘7.0’’, it would not be deemed Microsoft imposing licensing restrictions on OEMs, partners to refrain from supporting Middleware by the PFJ. IAPs (Internet Access Providers), ISVs competitors to Windows, IE, MJ, WMP, WM, 2. By changing how Microsoft distributes (Independent Software Vendors), and Apple or OE. Windows or its middleware. For example, if Computer, by requiring ISVs to switch to G. (Roughly same as F above.) Microsoft introduced a version of Windows Microsoft’s JVM (Java Virtual Machine), by H. Microsoft will let users and OEMs which was only available via the Windows deceiving Java developers, and by forcing remove icons for IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and OE, Update service, then nothing in that version Intel to drop support for cross-platform Java and let them designate competing products to of Windows would be considered Microsoft tools. The fruits of Microsoft’s statutory violation be used instead. Middleware, regardless of whether Microsoft include a strengthened Applications Barrier I. Microsoft will license on reasonable added it initially or in a later update. This to Entry and weakened competition in the terms any intellectual property rights needed is analogous to the loophole in the 1995 Intel-compatible operating system market; for other companies to take advantage of the consent decree that allowed Microsoft to thus the Final Judgment must find a direct terms of this settlement. bundle its browser by integrating it into the way of reducing the Applications Barrier to J. This agreement lets Microsoft keep secret operating system. Entry, and of increasing such competition. anything having to do with security or copy Definition K: ‘‘Microsoft Middleware In the following sections I outline the basic protection. Product’’ intent of the proposed final judgment, point PFJ Section VI: Definitions Definition K defines ‘‘Microsoft out areas where the intent and the A. ‘‘API’’ (Application Programming Middleware Product’’ to mean essentially implementation appear to fall short, and Interface) is defined as only the interfaces Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), propose amendments to the Proposed Final between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Judgment (or PFJ) to address these concerns. Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express (OE). Please note that this document is still other application programs. The inclusion of Microsoft Java and not evolving. Feedback is welcome; to comment K. ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ is Microsoft. NET is questionable; Microsoft has on this document, please join the mailing list defined as Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft essentially designated Microsoft. NET and C# at groups.yahoo.com/group/ms-remedy, or Java (MJ), Windows Media Player (WMP), as the successors to Java, so on that basis one email me directly at [email protected]. Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook would expect Microsoft.NET to be included Understanding the Proposed Final Express (OE). in the definition. Judgment U. ‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’ The inclusion of Outlook Express and not In crafting the Final Judgment, the judge is defined as Windows 2000 Professional, Outlook is questionable, as Outlook (different will face the following questions: Windows XP Home, and Windows XP and more powerful than Outlook Express) is * u` How should terms like ‘‘API’’, Professional. a more important product in business, and ‘‘Middleware’’, and ‘‘Windows OS’’ be The agreement can be summed up in one fits the definition of middleware better than defined? breath as follows: Microsoft agrees to Outlook Express. The exclusion of Microsoft * u` How should the Final Judgment erode compete somewhat less vigorously, and to let Office is questionable, as many components the Applications Barrier to Entry? competitors interoperate with Windows in of Microsoft Office fit the Finding of Fact’s * u` How should the Final Judgment be exchange for royalty payments. definition of middleware. For instance, there enforced? Considering all of the above, one should is an active market in software written to run * u` What information needs to be released read the detailed terms of the Proposed Final on top of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft to ISVs to encourage competition, and under Judgment, and ask one final question: Word, and many applications are developed what terms? * u` Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the for Microsoft Access by people who have no * u` Which practices towards OEMs should public interest? knowledge of Windows APIs. be prohibited? In the sections below, I’ll look in more Definition U: ‘‘Windows Operating System * Which practices towards ISVs should be detail at how the PFJ deals with the above Product’’ prohibited? questions. How should terms like ‘‘API’’, Microsoft’s monopoly is on Intel- * Which practices towards large users ‘‘Middleware, and ‘‘Windows OS’’ be compatible operating systems. Yet the PFJ in should be prohibited? defined? definition U defines a ‘‘Windows Operating * u` Which practices towards end users The definitions of various terms in Part VI System Product’’ to mean only Windows should be prohibited? of the PFJ differ from the definitions in the 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home,
VerDate 11
Windows XP Professional, and their does provide for the creation of a Technical announce which of its many software patents successors. This purposely excludes the Committee with investigative powers, but protect the Windows APIs (cf. current Intel-compatible operating systems Windows appears to leave all actual enforcement to the practice at the World Wide Web Consortium, XP Tablet PC Edition and Windows CE; legal system. http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice). This many applications written to the Win32 APIs What information needs to be released to leaves Windows-compatible operating can run unchanged on Windows 2000, ISVs to encourage competition, and under systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, and what terms? they not infringing on Microsoft software Windows CE, and with minor recompilation, The PFJ provides for increased disclosure patents? This can scare away potential users, can also be run on Pocket PC. Microsoft even of technical information to ISVs, but these as illustrated by this report from proclaims at www.microsoft.com/ provisions are flawed in several ways: Codeweavers, Inc.: windowsxp/tabletpc/tabletpcqanda.asp: 1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice When selecting a method of porting a ‘‘The Tablet PC is the next-generation of technical requirements Section III.H.3. of major application to Linux, one prospect of mobile business PC, and it will be available the PFJ requires vendors of competing mine was comparing Wine [a competing from leading computer makers in the second middleware to meet ‘‘reasonable technical implementation of some of the Windows half of 2002. The Tablet PC runs the requirements’’ seven months before new APIs] and a toolkit called ‘MainWin’. Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition releases of Windows, yet it does not require MainWin is made by Mainsoft, and Mainsoft and features the capabilities of current Microsoft to disclose those requirements in licenses its software from Microsoft. business laptops, including attached or advance. This allows Microsoft to bypass all However, this customer elected to go with detachable keyboards and the ability to run competing middleware simply by changing Windows-based applications.’’ and the Mainsoft option instead. I was told that the requirements shortly before the deadline, one of the key decision making factors was Pocket PC: Powered by Windows and not informing ISVs. that Mainsoft representatives had stated that Microsoft is clearly pushing Windows XP 2. API documentation is released too late Microsoft had certain critical patents that Tablet PC Edition and Pocket PC in places to help ISVs Section III.D. of the PFJ requires Wine was violating. My customer could not (e.g. portable computers used by Microsoft to release via MSDN or similar risk crossing Microsoft, and declined to use businessmen) currently served by Windows means the documentation for the APIs used Wine. I didn’t even have a chance to XP Home Edition, and thus appears to be by Microsoft Middleware Products to determine which patents were supposedly trying to evade the Final Judgment’s interoperate with Windows; release would be violated; nor to disprove the validity of this provisions. This is but one example of how required at the time of the final beta test of claim. Microsoft can evade the provisions of the the covered middleware, and whenever a The PFJ, by allowing this unclear legal Final Judgment by shifting its efforts away new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 situation to continue, is inhibiting the market from the Operating Systems listed in beta testers. But this information would Definition U and towards Windows XP almost certainly not be released in time for acceptance of competing operating systems. Tablet Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, X- competing middleware vendors to adapt their Which practices towards OEMs should be Box, or some other Microsoft Operating products to meet the requirements of section prohibited? System that can run Windows applications. III.H.3, which states that competing The PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by How should the Final Judgment erode the middleware can be locked out if it fails to Microsoft towards OEMs, but curiously Applications Barrier to Entry? allows the following exclusionary practices: The PFJ tries to erode the Applications meet unspecified technical requirements seven months before the final beta test of a Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate Barrier to Entry in two ways: against any OEM that ships Personal 1. By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, new version of Windows. 3. Many important APIs would remain Computers containing a competing Operating ISVs, and IHVs who support or develop System but no Microsoft operating system. alternatives to Windows. undocumented The PFJ’s overly narrow definitions of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license 2. By taking various measures to ensure Windows on uniform terms and at published that Windows allows the use of non- Product’’ and ‘‘API’’ means that Section III.D.’s requirement to release information prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing Microsoft middleware. about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft A third option not provided by the PFJ about Windows interfaces would not cover many important interfaces. free to retaliate against smaller OEMs, would be to make sure that Microsoft raises including important regional ‘white box’’ no artificial barriers against non-Microsoft 4. Unreasonable Restrictions are Placed on the Use of the Released Documentation ISVs OEMs, if they offer competing products. operating systems which implement the APIs Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer needed to run application programs written writing competing operating systems as ¿ unspecified Market Development for Windows. The Findings of Fact (¿ 52) outlined in Findings of Fact ( 52) sometimes Allowances— in effect, discounts—to OEMs. considered the possibility that competing have difficulty understanding various For instance, Microsoft could offer discounts operating systems could implement the undocumented Windows APIs. The on Windows to OEMs based on the number Windows APIs and thereby directly run information released under section III.D. of software written for Windows as a way of the PFJ would aid those ISVs—except that of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC circumventing the Applications Barrier to the PFJ disallows this use of the information. systems sold by that OEM. In effect, this Entry. This is in fact the route being taken Worse yet, to avoid running afoul of the PFJ, allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on by the Linux operating system, which ISVs might need to divide up their engineers Intel-compatible operating systems to includes middleware (named WINE) that can into two groups: those who refer to MSDN increase its market share in other areas, such run many Windows programs. and work on Windows-only applications; as office software or ARM-compatible By not providing some aid for ISVs and those who cannot refer to MSDN because operating systems. engaged in making Windows-compatible they work on applications which also run on By allowing these practices, the PFJ is operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key non-Microsoft operating systems. This would encouraging Microsoft to extend its opportunity to encourage competition in the constitute retaliation against ISVs who monopoly in Intel-compatible operating Intel-compatible operating system market. support competing operating systems. systems, and to leverage it into new areas. Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and 5. File Formats Remain Undocumented Which practices towards ISVs should be III.E., restricts information released by those No part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to prohibited? sections to be used ‘‘for the sole purpose of release any information about file formats, Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ prohibit interoperating with a Windows Operating even though undocumented Microsoft file certain exclusionary licensing practices by System Product’’. This prohibits ISVs from formats form part of the Applications Barrier Microsoft towards ISVs. using the information for the purpose of to Entry (see ‘‘Findings of Fact’’ * 20 and * However, Microsoft uses other writing operating systems that interoperate 39). exclusionary licensing practices, none of with Windows programs. 6. Patents covering the Windows APIs which are mentioned in the PFJ. How should the Final Judgment be remain undisclosed Section III.I of the PFJ Several of Microsoft’s products’’ licenses enforced? requires Microsoft to offer to license certain prohibit the products’’ use with popular non- The PFJ as currently written appears to intellectual property rights, but it does Microsoft middleware and operating systems. lack an effective enforcement mechanism. It nothing to require Microsoft to clearly Two examples are given below.
VerDate 11
1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs Which practices towards large users should competitive threat posed by DR-DOS, and who ship Open Source or Free Software be prohibited? added code to beta copies of Windows 3.1 so applications The PFJ places restrictions on how it would display spurious and misleading The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 Microsoft licenses its products to OEMs, but error messages when run on DR-DOS. SDK EULA states not on how it licenses products to large users Digital Research’s successor company, ... you shall not distribute the such as corporations, universities, or state Caldera, brought a private antitrust suit REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in and local governments, collectively referred against Microsoft in 1996. (See the original conjunction with any Publicly Available to as ‘‘enterprises’’. Yet enterprise license complaint, and Caldera’s consolidated Software. ‘‘Publicly Available Software’’ agreements often resemble the per-processor response to Microsoft’s motions for partial means each of (i) any software that contains, licenses which were prohibited by the 1994 summary— judgment.) The judge in the case or is derived in any manner (in whole or in consent decree in the earlier US v. Microsoft ruled that part) from, any software that is distributed as antitrust case, in that a fee is charged for each ‘‘Caldera has presented sufficient evidence free software, open source software (e.g. desktop or portable computer which could that the incompatibilities alleged were part of Linux) or similar licensing or distribution run a Microsoft operating system, regardless an anticompetitive scheme by Microsoft.’’ models ... Publicly Available Software of whether any Microsoft software is actually That case was settled out of court in 1999, includes, without limitation, software installed on the affected computer. These and no court has fully explored the alleged licensed or distributed under any of the agreements are anticompetitive because they conduct. following licenses or distribution models, or remove any financial incentive for The concern here is that, as competing licenses or distribution models similar to any individuals or departments to run non- operating systems emerge which are able to of the following: GNU’s General Public Microsoft software. run Windows applications, Microsoft might License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL); Which practices towards end users should try to sabotage Windows applications, The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla be prohibited? middleware, and development tools so that Public License; the Netscape Public License; Microsoft has used both restrictive licenses they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating the Sun Community Source License (SCSL); and intentional incompatibilities to systems, just as they did earlier with ... discourage users from running Windows 3.1. Many Windows APIs, including Media Windows applications on Windows- The PFJ as currently written does nothing Encoder, are shipped by Microsoft as add-on compatible competing operating systems. to prohibit these kinds of restrictive licenses SDKs with associated redistributable Two examples are given below. and intentional incompatibilities, and thus components. Applications that wish to use 1. Microsoft uses license terms which encourages Microsoft to use these techniques them must include the add-ons, even though prohibit the use of Windows-compatible to enhance the Applications Barrier to Entry, and harming those consumers who use non- they might later become a standard part of competing operating systems Microsoft operating systems and wish to use Windows. Microsoft often provides those MSNBC (a subsidiary of Microsoft) offers Microsoft applications software. SDKs under End User License Agreements software called NewsAlert. Its EULA states Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the (EULAs) prohibiting their use with Open ‘‘MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to public interest? Source or Free Software applications. This install and use copies of the SOFTWARE The problems identified above with the PRODUCT on your computers running harms ISVs who choose to distribute their Proposed Final Judgment can be summarized applications under Open Source or Free validly licensed copies of the operating as follows: Software licenses; they must hope that the system for which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT * u` The PFJ doesn’t take into account enduser has a sufficiently up-to-date version was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; Windows-compatible competing operating of the addon API installed, which is often not Microsoft Windows NT(r), Microsoft systems the case. Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.] .... ‘‘ ?? Microsoft increases the Applications Applications potentially harmed by this Only the Windows version appears to be Barrier to Entry— by using restrictive license kind of EULA include the competing available for download. Users who run terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet middleware product Netscape 6 and the competing operating systems (such as Linux) the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even competing office suite StarOffice; these which can run some Windows programs contributes to this part of the Applications EULAs thus can cause support problems for, might wish to run the Windows version of Barrier to Entry. and discourage the use of, competing NewsAlert, but the EULA prohibits this. u` The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly middleware and office suites. Additionally, MSNBC has a valid interest in prohibiting Narrow Definitions and Provisions since Open Source or Free Software use of pirated copies of operating systems, ?? The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft applications tend to also run on non- but much narrower language could achieve publish its secret APIs, but it defines ‘‘API’’ Microsoft operating systems, any resulting the same protective effect with less so narrowly that many important APIs are loss of market share by Open Source or Free anticompetitive impact. For instance, not covered. Software applications indirectly harms ‘‘MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to ?? The PFJ supposedly allows users to competing operating systems. install and use copies of the SOFTWARE replace Microsoft Middleware with 2. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs PRODUCT on your computers running competing middleware, but it defines who target Windows-compatible competing validly licensed copies of Microsoft ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ so narrowly that the Operating Systems Windows or compatible operating system.’’ next version of Windows might not be The Microsoft Platform SDK, together with 2. Microsoft created intentional covered at all. Microsoft Visual C++, is the primary toolkit incompatibilities in Windows 3.1 to ?? The PFJ allows users to replace used by ISVs to create Windows-compatible discourage the use of non-Microsoft Microsoft Java with a competitor’s product— applications. The Microsoft Platform SDK operating systems but Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. EULA says: An episode from the 1996 Caldera v. The PFJ should therefore allow users to ‘‘Distribution Terms. You may reproduce Microsoft antitrust lawsuit illustrates how replace Microsoft. NET with competing and distribute ... the Redistributable Microsoft has used technical means middleware. Components... provided that (a) you anticompetitively. ?? The PFJ supposedly applies to distribute the Redistributable Components Microsoft’s original operating system was ‘‘Windows’’, but it defines that term so only in conjunction with and as a part of called MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS API narrowly that it doesn’t cover Windows XP your Application solely for use with a to call up the services of the operating Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, Microsoft Operating System Product...’’ system. Digital Research offered a competing or the X-Box— operating systems that all use This makes it illegal to run many programs operating system, DR-DOS, that also the Win32 API and are advertised as being built with Visual C++ on Windows- implemented the DOS API, and could run ‘‘Windows Powered’’. compatible competing operating systems. programs written for MS-DOS. Windows 3.1 ?? The PFJ fails to require advance notice By allowing these exclusionary behaviors, and earlier were not operating systems per se, of technical requirements, allowing Microsoft the PFJ is contributing to the Applications but rather middleware that used the DOS API to bypass all competing middleware simply Barrier to Entry faced by competing operating to interoperate with the operating system. by changing the requirements shortly before systems. Microsoft was concerned with the the deadline, and not informing ISVs.
VerDate 11
?? The PFJ requires Microsoft to release proposed an alternate settlement which fixes 1. Within 60 days of entry of this Final API documentation to ISVs so they can create many of the problems identified above. The Judgment, the parties shall create and compatible middleware—but only after the States’’ proposal is quite different from the recommend to the Court for its appointment deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that PFJ as a whole, but it contains many a six person Windows API Standards Expert their middleware is compatible. elements which are similar to elements of the Group (‘‘WASEG’’) to manage the creation, ?? The PFJ requires Microsoft to release PFJ, with small yet crucial changes. publication, and maintenance of a Windows API documentation—but prohibits In the sections below, I suggest APIs Standards Definition (‘‘WASD’’) and competitors from using this documentation amendments to the PFJ that attempt to associated Windows APIs Standard to help make their operating systems resolve some of the demonstrated problems Compliance Test Suite (‘‘WASCTS’’), and to compatible with Windows. (time pressure has prevented anything like a guide the WASD through the process of being ?? The PFJ does not require Microsoft to complete list of amendments). When adopted by a standards body such as ECMA release documentation about the format of discussing amendments, PFJ text is shown or the IEEE. Microsoft Office documents. indented; removed text in [], and new text in The WASD shall be a document, suitable ?? The PFJ does not require Microsoft to bold italics. for approval by a standards body such as list which software patents protect the Correcting the PFJ’s definitions ECMA or IEEE, which accurately defines the Windows APIs. Time constraints do not permit a complete inputs, outputs, and behavior of each This leaves Windows-compatible operating list of needed changes. As an example, Windows API, and enumerates any Essential systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are Definition U should be amended to read Claims. The WASCTS shah be software they not infringing on Microsoft software U. ‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’ source code which, when compiled and run, patents? This can scare away potential users. means [] any software or firmware code automatically tests an operating system for * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive distributed commercially by Microsoft that is compliance with the WASD, and produces a License Terms currently used by Microsoft capable of executing any nontrivial subset of list of APIs which fail to comply with the ?? Microsoft currently uses restrictive the Win32 APIs, including without exclusion WASD. The test suite should run unattended; licensing terms to keep Open Source or Free Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP that is, it should be capable of running Software apps from running on Windows. Home, Windows XP Professional, Windows without human interaction or supervision. ?? Microsoft currently uses restrictive XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, 2. Three of the WASEG members shah be licensing terms to keep Windows apps from PocketPC 2002, and successors to the experts in software design and programming, running on competing operating systems. foregoing, including the products currently and three of the WASEG members shall be ?? Microsoft’s enterprise license code named ‘‘Longhorn’’ and ‘‘Blackcomb’’ experts in intellectual property law. No agreements (used by large companies, state and their successors, including upgrades, bug WASEG member shah have a conflict of interest that could prevent him or her from governments, and universities) charge by the fixes, service packs, etc. Release of Information performing his or her duties under this Final number of computers which could run a Because any new competitor in the Intel- Judgment in a fair and unbiased manner. Microsoft operating system— even for compatible operating system market must be No WASEG member shah have entered computers running Linux. (Similar licenses able to run Windows applications to have a into any non-disclosure agreement that is to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 chance in the market, and because Microsoft still in force with Microsoft or any consent decree.) has traditionally used undocumented competitor to Microsoft, nor shah she or he * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Windows APIs as part of the Applications enter into such an agreement during her or Incompatibilities Historically Used by Barrier to Entry, the Final Judgment should his term on the WASEG. Without limitation Microsoft provide explicitly for a clear definition of to the foregoing, no WASEG member shah ?? Microsoft has in the past inserted what APIs a competing operating system have been employed in any capacity by intentional incompatibilities in its must provide to run Windows applications. Microsoft or any competitor to Microsoft applications to keep them from running on The best way to do this is by submitting the within the past year, nor shall he or she be competing operating systems, API definitions to a standards body. This was so employed during his or her term on the * u` The PFJ Fails to Prohibit done in 1994 for the Windows 3.1 APIs (see WASEG. Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs Sun’s 1994 press release about WABI 2.0 and 3. Within seven days of entry of this Final ?? The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate the Public Windows Initiative). The result is Judgment, the Plaintiffs as a group shall against any OEM that ships Personal Standard ECMA-234: Application select two software experts and two Computers containing a competing Operating Programming Interface for Windows (APIW), intellectual property law experts to be System but no Microsoft operating system. which provides standard definitions for an members of the WASEG, and Microsoft shall ?? The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate essential subset (four hundred and fourty- select one software expert and one against small OEMs—including regional four out of the roughly one thousand) of the intellectual property law expert to be ‘white box’’ OEMs which are historically the Windows 3.1 APIs; it was rendered mostly members of the WASEG; the Plaintiffs shall most willing to install competing operating obsolete by the switch to Windows 95. The then apply to the Court for appointment of systems— who ship competing software. Final Judgment should provide for the the persons selected by the Plaintiffs and ?? The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer creation of something like ECMA-234 for the Microsoft pursuant to this section. discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs various modem versions of Windows. 4. Each WASEG member shall serve for an based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office Because Microsoft currently claims that it initial term of 30 months. At the end of a or Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft has intellectual property rights that protect WASEG member’s initial 30-month term, the to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible the Windows APIs, but has never spelled out party that originally selected him or her may, operating systems to increase its market share exactly which patents cover which APIs, the in its sole discretion, either request re- in other areas. Final Judgment should force this to be appointment by the Court to a second 30- * . The PFJ as currently written appears to spelled out. month term or replace the WASEG member lack an effective enforcement mechanism. To achieve the above goals, the PFJ should in the same manner as provided for above. Considering these problems, one must be modified as follows: 5. If the United States or a majority of the conclude that the Proposed Final Judgment First, Sections III.D and III.E should be Plaintiffs determine that a member of the as written allows and encourages significant amended to remove the restriction on the use WASEG has failed to act diligently and anticompetitive practices to continue, and of the disclosed information: consistently with the purposes of this Final would delay the emergence of competing ... Microsoft shall disclose ... [], for the Judgment, or if a member of the WASEG Windows-compatible operating systems. purpose of interoperating with a Windows resigns, or for any other reason ceases to Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is Operating System Product or interoperating serve in his or her capacity as a member of not in the public interest, and should not be with application software written for the WASEG, the person or persons that adopted without addressing these issues. Windows, originally selected the WASEG member shall Strengthening the PFJ Second, a new section IV.E should be select a replacement member in the same The above discussion shows that the PFJ created as follows: manner as provided for above. does not satisfy the Court of Appeals’’ E. Establishment of a Windows API 6. Promptly after appointment of the mandate. Some of the plaintiff States have Standards Expert Group WASEG by the Court, the United States shall
VerDate 11
enter into a Windows API Expert Group percentage of Popular Windows Applications month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish services agreement (‘‘WASEG Services use it. The WASEG shall publish this list on test cases for at least another one hundred Agreement’’) with each WASEG member that the WASEG web site subject to the GNU Free Windows APIs. This shall continue until a grants the rights, powers and authorities Documentation License, according to the complete WASCTS is available on the web necessary to permit the WASEG to perform following schedule: Within 90 days after the site. its duties under this Final Judgment. WASEG is convened, the WASEG shall j. In the event that a planned update to Microsoft shall indemnify each WASEG publish this information for at least five Windows or any other Microsoft product is member and hold him or her harmless hundred Windows APIs. On the 1st of each expected to result in the creation of new against any losses, claims, damages, month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish Windows APIs or Essential Claims, or liabilities or expenses arising out of, or in this information for another five hundred WASEG’s list of Windows APIs is updated, connection with, the performance of the Windows APIs. This shall continue until a the WASEG shall create addenda to the WASEG’s duties, except to the extent that complete list of Windows APIs is available WASD and WASCTS covering the new such liabilities, losses, damages, claims, or on the web site. The WASEG shall update the Windows APIs or Essential Claims, make expenses result from misfeasance, gross list periodically to add previously unlisted them available via its web site, and undertake negligence, willful or wanton acts, or bad Windows APIs. The WASEG shall to submit them to the same standards body faith by the WASEG member. The WASEG periodically check the list for completeness as above as an addendum to the standard. Services Agreements shall include the by installing and running a representative Third, in section VI, Definition A should following: sample of Popular Windows Applications be amended to read a. The WASEG members shall serve, and Microsoft Middleware while using tools A. ‘‘Application Programming Interfaces without bond or other security, at the cost such as Apius from Sarion Systems Research (APIs)’’ means the interfaces, including any and expense of Microsoft on such terms and to watch the Windows APIs actually invoked associated callback interfaces, that Microsoft conditions as the Plaintiffs approve, by the product or its installer. The WASEG Middleware or Popular Windows including the payment of reasonable fees and shall also set up a way for third parties to Applications running or being installed on a expenses. report Windows APIs which should be listed, Windows Operating System Product use to b. The WASEG Services Agreement shall and shall update its list of Windows APIs call upon that Windows Operating System provide that each member of the WASEG accordingly as appropriate. Product or Microsoft Middleware in order to shall comply with the limitations provided f. The WASEG shall compile a complete obtain any services from that Windows for in section IV.E.2. above. list of Essential Claims, and an evaluation of Operating System Product or Microsoft 7. Microsoft shall provide the WASEG with which Windows APIs each Essential Claim Middleware. and two new definitions should funds needed to procure office space, covers. The WASEG shall publish this be added: telephone, other office support facilities, information on the WASEG web site subject V. ‘‘Popular Windows Applications’’ consultants, or contractors required by the to the GNU Free Documentation License, means the top 10 selling applications as WASEG. according to the following schedule: Within reported by NPD Intelect Market Tracking in 8. The WASEG shall not have direct access 90 days after the WASEG publishes a portion each of the categories Business, Education, to any part of Microsoft’s computer software of the list of Windows APIs on its web site, Finance, Games, Personal Productivity, and source code that is not normally available to Microsoft shall deliver to the WASEG a list Reference, plus all Microsoft Middleware all ISVs. The WASEG shall not enter into any of the Essential Claims that cover the Products. non-disclosure agreements with Microsoft or published Windows APIs. Within 90 days W. ‘‘Essential Claims’’ shall mean all third parties. No implementations of any after the WASEG receives the list of Essential claims in any patent or patent application, in Windows APIs shall be written or published Claims, the WASEG shall publish its any jurisdiction in the world, that Microsoft by the WASEG. evaluation of which APIs those Essential owns, or under which Microsoft has the right 9. The WASEG shall have the following Claims cover. This shall continue until such to grant licenses without obligation of powers and duties: evaluations for all Essential Claims have been payment or other consideration to an a. The WASEG may require Microsoft to published on the WASEG web site. unrelated third party, that would necessarily provide comprehensive answers to questions g. The WASEG shall compile be infringed by implementation of the about Microsoft intellectual property claims. documentation for the list of Windows APIs Windows APIs Standard Definition by a b. The WASEG may require Microsoft to defined above in section IV.E.9.e, including competing Operating System. A claim is provide comprehensive answers to questions a complete description of the meanings of the necessarily infringed hereunder only when it about the inputs, outputs, and functionality return values and parameters, and the effects is not possible to avoid infringing it because of any Windows API; in particular, the of the API. The documentation should be there is no non-infringing alternative for WASEG may compel Microsoft to provide composed in a style similar to that used for implementing the required portion of the complete documentation for Windows APIs, the Single Unix Specification documentation Windows APIs Standard Definition. including hitherto undocumented or poorly- (http://www.UNIX-systems.org/unix). Within The following are expressly excluded from documented Windows APIs. 180 days after the WASEG is convened, and and shall not be deemed to constitute c. The WASEG may engage, at the cost and on the 1st of every month thereafter until Essential Claims: expense of Microsoft, the services of outside complete, the WASEG will make available 1. any claims other than as set forth above consultants and contractors as required to the currently completed portion of this even if contained in the same patent as fulfill the duties of the WASEG. documentation via its web site. Essential Claims; and d. The WASEG shall establish a publicly h. When the three documents described 2. claims which would be infringed only available web site not owned or otherwise above—the list of Windows APIs, the list of by portions of an implementation that are not controlled by Microsoft, and will publish Essential Claims and which Windows APIs required by the Windows APIs Standard status reports and other information there at they cover, and the documentation for the Definition, or enabling technologies that may least as often as once per month. listed Windows APIs—is complete, the be necessary to make or use any product or Documentation on the web site shall be made WASEG shall undertake to submit them to a portion thereof that complies with the available subject to the terms of the GNU standards body such as ECMA or the IEEE as Windows APIs Standard Definition but are Free Documentation License; test suite a Draft WASD Document, and to make such not themselves expressly set forth in the source code made available on the web site enhancements and revisions as needed to Windows APIs Standard Definition (e.g., shall be made available subject to the terms gain the acceptance of that document as a compiler technology, object-oriented of the GNU General Public License. standard. technology, etc.) or the implementation of e. The WASEG shall compile to the best of i. The WASEG shall create a WASCTS, and technology developed elsewhere and merely their ability a complete list of Windows APIs, publish it on the WASEG web site subject to incorporated by reference in the body of the including for each API the DLL name, entry the GNU General Public License, according Windows APIs Standard Definition. point name, entry point ordinal number, to the following schedule: Within 180 days Prohibition of More Practices Toward return value type, and parameter types, as after the WASEG is convened, the WASEG OEMs well as which versions of Windows it is shall publish test cases for at least one § III. A. 2. of the Proposed Final Judgment supported by and an estimate of what hundred Windows APIs. On the 1st of each should be amended to read
VerDate 11
2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) I certify that the following list of names their operating systems compatible with includes both a Windows Operating System was compiled from email sent to petition@ Windows. Product and a non-Microsoft Operating kegel.com; that return email was used to . The PFJ does not require Microsoft to System, or (b) will boot with more than one provide some small degree of assurance that release documentation about the format of Operating System, or (c) includes a non- each submission came from a valid email Microsoft Office documents. Microsoft Operating System but no Windows address; and that I have verified to the best . The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list Operating System Product; or ... of my ability that all co-signers are US which software patents protect the Windows Summary residents or citizens. APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible This document demonstrates that there are I am sending the document (http:// operating systems in an uncertain state: are so many problems with the PFJ that it is not www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html) they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft in the public interest. referenced in the joint open letter under software patents? This can scare away It also illustrates how one might try to fix separate cover as my personal Tunney Act potential users. some of these problems. comment. * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Dan Kegel Sincerely, License Terms currently used by Microsoft 28 January 2002 Dan Kegel . Microsoft currently uses restrictive 901 S. Sycamore licensing terms to keep Open Source and MTC–00028572 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Free Software apps from running on From: Riddle, Doug To: Renata B. Hesse Windows. To: ‘‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Antitrust Division . Microsoft currently uses restrictive Date: 1/28/02 4:39pm U.S. Department of Justice licensing terms to keep Windows apps from Subject: Micrsoft Settlement 601 D Street NW running on competing operating systems. To Whom It May Concern: Suite 1200 . Microsoft’s enterprise license agreements Whatever steps necessary to bring Washington, DC 20530–0001 (used by large companies, state governments, Microsoft onto a level playing field where Ms. Hesse, and universities) charge by the number of they are accountable to the users of their Under the Tunney Act, we wish to computers which could run a Microsoft software and their competitors should be comment on the proposed Microsoft operating system—even for computers used. Their software is a National Security settlement. We agree with the problems running competing operating systems such as risk and their corporate policies toward identified in Dan Kegel’s analysis (on the Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs were once competitors only serve to increase that risk. Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ banned by the 1994 consent decree,) Do not settle out of court. remedy2.html), namely: * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Regards, * The PFJ doesn’t take into account Incompatibilities Historically Used by Doug Riddle Windows-compatible competing operating Microsoft EMCO / Addis MIS Dept. systems . Microsoft has in the past inserted Mobile (225) 806–9715 o Microsoft increases the Applications intentional incompatibilities in its Pager: (225) 339–8275 Barrier to Entry by using restrictive license applications to keep them from running on Office: (225) 267–3225 terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet competing operating systems. Home: (225) 775–5691 the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Disclaimer contributes to this part of the Applications Practices Towards OEMs 1. This e-mail is for the intended recipient Barrier to Entry. . The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate only. If you have received it by mistake * The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly against any OEM that ships Personal please let us know by reply and then delete Narrow Definitions and Provisions Computers containing a competing Operating it from your system; access, disclosure, o The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft System but no Microsoft operating system. copying, distribution or reliance on any of it publish its secret APIs, but it defines ‘‘API’’ . The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate by anyone else is prohibited. so narrowly that many important APIs are against small OEMs—including regional 2. If you as intended recipient have not covered. ‘‘white box’’ OEMs which are historically the received this e-mail incorrectly, please notify . The PFJ supposedly allows users to most willing to install competing operating the sender (via e-mail) immediately. This e- replace Microsoft Middleware with systems—who ship competing software. mail is confidential and may be legally competing middleware, but it defines . The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer privileged. DSM does not guarantee that the ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ so narrowly that the discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs information sent and/or received by or with next version of Windows might not be based on criteria like sales of Microsoft office this e-mail is correct and does not accept any covered at all. or Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft liability for damages related thereto. . The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible Java with a competitor’s product —but operating systems to increase its market share MTC–00028573 Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The in other areas. From: [email protected]@inetgw PFJ should therefore allow users to replace * The PFJ as currently written appears to To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft.NET with competing middleware. lack an effective enforcement mechanism. Date: 1/28/02 4:40pm . The PFJ supposedly applies to We also agree with the conclusion reached by Subject: Micrsoft Settlement ‘‘Windows’’, but it defines that term so that document, namely that the Proposed (corrected date) narrowly that it doesn’t cover Final Judgment, as written, allows and Open Letter to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows encourages significant anticompetitive To: [email protected] CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box—operating practices to continue, would delay the Subject: Micrsoft Settlement systems that all use the Win32 API and are emergence of competing Windows- To: Renata B. Hesse advertised as being ‘‘Windows Powered’’. compatible operating systems, and is Antitrust Division . The PFJ fails to require advance notice of therefore not in the public interest. U.S. Department of Justice technical requirements, allowing Microsoft to It should not be adopted without 601 D Street NW bypass all competing middleware simply by substantial revision to address these Suite 1200 changing the requirements shortly before the problems. Washington, DC 20530–0001 deadline, and not informing ISVs. Sincerely, 28 January 2002 . The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API Aaron Croyle, Columbus, Ohio; Student, Ms. Hesse, documentation to ISVs so they can create Ohio State University Please find below a joint open letter signed compatible middleware—but only after the Aaron Hamid, Ithaca, NY; Java by 2366 people from across the United States. deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that Applications Developer, Cornell University I composed the open letter and offered to their middleware is compatible. Aaron J. Grier, Portland, OR; Embedded collect signatures by email as a simple way . The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API Systems Engineer, Frye Electronics for people to express their views on the documentation—but prohibits competitors Aaron Krol, Elma, NY; Electrical Engineer, Proposed Final Judgment. from using this documentation to help make member, IEEE
VerDate 11
Aaron Lambers, Boise, Idaho; System Alex Alegado, Rosemead, CA; President, Andrew Hermetz, Dayton, Ohio; Administrator, Manpower Professional ThoughtShop Networks TechnoShaman, Humanadyne Aaron Sakowski, Cleveland, OH; Alexander Johns, Montgomery Village, MD; Andrew Hon, Berkeley, California; Information Management, n/a Programmer, n/a Student, University of California Berkeley Aaron Swartz, Highland park, IL; Lead Alexander Kazura, Pittsfield, Andrew James Alan Welty, Twentynine Developer, The Plex Project Massachusetts; Head Technician, n/a Palms, CA; n/a Aaron Tillema, La Crosse, WI; Student, Alexander M. Johnson, Santa Cruz, CA; Andrew J. Murren, Mendham, NJ; Partner, University of Wisconsin—La Crosse Principal, Arete Systems Omni-Tech Solutions Aaron Zinman, San Diego, CA; Student, Alexander Shvedoff, San Francisco, Andrew Klenzak, Atlanta, GA; Embedded University of California at San Diego California; CO0 & Programmer, Software Engineer, CIENA Corporation Ab Kuenzli, North Pole, Alaska; Isomorphic Software Andrew Klopp, Denver, CO; HelpDesk Technology Manager, Lathrop High School, Alexander Stefansky, Santa Cruz, CA; Supervisor, Ultimate Electronics Fairbanks Consultant, Andrew Lenharth, Everett, WA; North Star Borough Alexander Wallace, Cedar Park, Texas; Information Technology Systems Specialist, Abraham Ingersoll, Venice, CA; Lead Developer / Network Administrator, State of Washington Programmer, Dajoba RW Andrew Longton, Rockville, M/D; Adam A. Turetzky, Evanston, IL; Technical Alex Belits, Denver CO; CTO, Belits President, Metamark Corporation Support Consultant, Northwestern University Computer Systems Andrew Lubbers, Phoenix, AZ; Software Adam Bowker, Dover, NH; Student, Alex Deucher, Arlington, Virginia; Sales Engineer, Helm Software University of New Hampshire Engineer, n/a Andrew Lundberg, Baltimore, Maryland; Adam Bregenzer, Atlanta, GA; Vice Alex Johnson, Cincinnati, Ohio; Freelance Staff Engineer, Equinox Corporation President Of Information Technology, Video Producer, n/a Andrew M. Page, Ithaca, NY; Media WebEntrada Alex Nicksay, New York, New York; Assistant, Cornell University Adam Burrill, Seattle, WA; Technology Student, Computer Science and Film Studies, Andrew O’Brien, Wyomissing, PA; Consultant, n/a Columbia University Sattelite Communications Instructor, NATO Adam Clayton, Norwich, VT; Software Alex Weissman, Johnston, RI; Artist and Andrew Park, Cleveland, Ohio; Systems Engineer, Animator, Worldwinner Analyst, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Adam Hitchcock, Ann Arbor, MI; Software Alfredo Azpiazu, Sarasota, Florida; Andrew Pavelchek, San Diego, CA; Sr. Programer, n/a Student, New College of Florida Electrical Engineer, Maxima Corporation Adam Houghton, San Antonio, TX; Ali Bawany, Austin, TX; n/a Andrew Pfiffer, Aloha, OR; Software Student, Trinity University Alice Schafer, Acton, Ma; Senior Database Developer, Citizen of USA Adam Johnson, Decatur, GA; Graduate Analyst, MITRE Corp Andrew Spencer, Salt Lake City, UT; Student, Georgia Institute of Technology Alison Chaiken, Fremont, CA; Chief Software Engineer, falling blue Adam Jones, Fishers, Indiana; Software Scientist, WSRCC Andrew S. Zbikowski, Minneapolis, MN; Engineer, Flexware Integration Alison N. Smith, Austin, Texas; n/a Information Technology Specalist, University Adam Kessel, Somerville, MA; Student, Allan T. Walters, Philadelphia, PA; of Minnesota Computer Northeastern University School of Law Systems Administrator, Note.com Adam K. Keys, Dallas, Texas; Student, Allen Cook, Bowling Green, KY; Student, Science Dept Southern Methodist University Western Kentucky University Andrew Valkanas, Chicago, IL; Student, Adrian P. Sinnott, Huntington Station, NY; Allen D. Malony, Eugene, Oregon; NEIU Former campus rep, Apple Associate Professor, University of Oregon Andy Barclay, Concord, California; Solaris AE Mustain, Oakland, CA; Software Allen J. Lopp, Lanesvile, IN; Owner/ Systems Architect, Digital Island Engineer & Manager, NextBus Information Consultant, 21st Century Cyber Andy Catalano, College Place, WA; Systems Allen S. Rout, Gainesville, Florida; Student, Walla Walla College Afsheen Bigdeli, Boston, MA; n/a Systems Programmer, University of Florida Andy Chin, Los Angeles, CA; Student, Agris Taurins, Lincoln, NE; Unix Allen W. Goetsch, Chicago, IL; Consultant, University of California, Los Angeles Administrator, n/a Jen-Tech Steele Andy Cristina, New Orleans, Louisiana; Ahmad Baitalmal, Issaquah, WA; IT, Etelos Alon Harpaz, Ashland, MA; Electrical Student, University of New Orleans, Penta Inc. Engineer, Dover Instrument Corporation Corporation Akkana Peck, San Jose, CA; Software Alyssa Canann, Costa Mesa, California; Andy Mroczkowski, Philadelphia, PA; , Engineer, Netscape Owner, For the Love of Peat Drexel University Alain James Bertrand II, West Valley, Utah; Amber Jain, Los Angeles, CA; Graduate Andy Wismar, Cleveland, Ohio; Internet PC Technician, Alorica Inc. Student, USC Application Developer, Weatherhead School Alan J. Miller, Des Plaines, IL; Senior Andrea J Cameron, Los Angeles, CA; of Management Engineer, The Standard Register Company Developer, Avacast Angus Crome, Maryville, IL; Systems Alan Overton, Marietta, Georgia; Web Andre Valente, Los Angeles, CA; Administrator, n/a content developer, Center for Assistive Consultant, n/a Anthony Britton, Fairfax, Virginia; Technology and Environmental Andre Vrignaud, San Jose, CA; n/a Network Engineer, N/A Access, Georgia Tech Andrew Barak Sweger, Seattle, WA; Anthony Lastowka, Philadelphia, PA; NT/ Alan Shoemaker, Moreno Valley, Software Developer, n/a W2K/Linux Administrator, University of California; Customer Service Technician, Andrew Bezella, Chicago, IL; n/a Pennsylvania Medical School MandrakeSoft Inc. Andrew Biddle, Lake Forest Park, WA; Anthony L Borchers, Coconut Creek, Alan V. Shackelford, Baltimore, Maryland; Network Engineer, AT&T Wireless Services Florida; Senior Engineer, PowerVision Senior Systems Software Engineer, Andrew C. Bertola, Sunnyvale, CA; Owner, Corporation The Johns Hopkins University drewb.com Anthony McDowell, MS State University, Alan Wilkinson, Burke, VA; President, Andrew Chaplin, Buffalo, NY; Lead MS; Student, Mississippi State University Results Computing Corporation Operator/System Admin I, Canisius College Anthony Spears, Ames, Iowa; Software Alan Zabaro, Glendale, CA; Programmer Andrew Chen, East Lansing, MI; Graduate Developer, Universal Systems and Analyst, Los Angeles County Assistant, Michigan State University Technologies (UNITECH) Al Cuenco, Portland, OR; System Andrew Deckowitz, Buffalo Grove, Illinois; Antone Roundy, Spanish Fork, UT; Administrator, NW Natural Systems Engineer, n/a Manager, Mouken Aleksandr Drel, Brooklyn, NY; Developer, Andrew D. Hwang, Worcester, MA; Antonio Arredondo, San Jose, CA; Student, Keane Professor, College of the Holy Cross n/a Alena Waller, Georgetown, KY; Concerned Andrew Gray, Las Vegas, NV; Systems Ara Aroyan, Davis, California; CSE Citizen, Administrator, University of Nevada Student, UC Davis Alex, Aaarons, Indianapolis; System Andrew Helsley, Calabasas, CA; Student, Aric Stewart, Minneapolis, MN; Administrator, Star News University of California, Riverside Programmer, CodeWeavers
VerDate 11
Ari Turetzky, Normal, IL; Development Ben Wilson, Louisville, KY; Systems Bradley M. Alexander, Amissville, VA; Team Lead, Illinois State University Analyst/Designer, Corvus Digital Solutions Security Engineer, VeriSign (acting on my Aron S. Spencer, Irvine, CA; Ph.D. Beth A. Roe, Sarasota, Florida; Financial own accord...) Candidate: Graduate School of Management, Controller & Consumer Bradley R. Stone, Columbus, Ohio; UC Irvine Bevan C. Bennett, Pasadena, California; Graduate Student, The Ohio State University Arrigo Benedetti, Los Angeles, CA; Staff Manager of Information Technology, n/a Brad Midgley, Salt Lake, Utah; Developer, scientist, Caltech Bill Abbas, Sanford, FL; Senior Systems n/a Arthur Corliss, Anchorage, AK; Architect, CRM Solutions Brad Myers, Bridgeport, WV; Senior Independent Programmer, n/a Bill Bennett, Gallatin, Tennessee; Systems Administrator, n/a Arthur Michaels, Parsippany, NJ; Software President, Double B Consulting Brad O’Hearne, Irvine, CA; Software Engineer/Technologist, Lucent Technologies Bill Bisho, Colorado Springs, Colorado; Engineer Art Johnson, Los Angeles, California; V.P. Information Technology, H.I.S. Financial Brad Showalter, Richmond, VA; Member lula.org, linuxatlax.org, CSC-SERC Services Corp. Information Security Specialist, Federal Artur Kedzierski, Walnut, CA; Graduate Bill Brody, Troy, Michigan; Electrical Reserve Bank— Richmond Student, University of California Brad Smith, Savannah, GA; Computer Engineer, n/a Ashley M. Kirchner, Boulder, Colorado; Engineering Major, Georgia Institute of Bill Bryan, Paso Robles, California; Owner, System Administrator, Photo Craft Technology Paralegal Services Laboratories, Inc. Brandi Weed, Davis, CA; Consultant Athur Abraham, Oakland, CA; Senior Bill Cunningham, Sparks, NV; Technical Brandon Low, Chicago, Illinois; Graphics Software Engineer, A-Squared Systems Lead, Bally Gaming and Systems and Imaging Specialist, Copytec, Inc. Group Bill Denney, LaGrange, GA; College Brandon M. Reynolds, Akron, Ohio; Attila Mate, New York, NY; Professor of Student, Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Engineer, Commercial Timesharing Mathematics, Brooklyn College of CUNY Bill Ezell, Manchester, NH; Sr. Software Inc. [http://www.comtime.com/] Audrey Lee, Princeton, New Jersey; Architect, Granite Systems Brandon Neill, Westminster, CO; Technical Graduate Student (PhD program in Electrical Bill Glover, Amarillo, TX; Enterprise Java Support Engineer, Sun Microsystems Engineering), Princeton University Architect, n/a Brandon Stephens, Huntsville, AL; Aurangzeb M. Agha, San Francisco, CA; Bill Huey, San Diego, CA; Software Network Security Administrator, CFD President and CEO, Missing Link Technology Engineer Research Corp Partners Bill Jetzer, Madison, WI; Software Brendan Billingsley, Boulder, Colorado; Austin Schutz, Portland, OR; Sr. Network Developer, SVA Consulting Student, University of Colorado at Boulder Engineer, Global Crossing Bill Sconce, Milford, NH; President, In Brendan Bouffler, New York, New York; Barak A. Pearlmutter, Albuquerque, N-M; Spec, Inc. Global Tech Support Manager, Proximity Professor, University of New Mexico Bill Toole, New York, NY; self employed, Corp Barrett Sylvies, Woodland Hills, CA; Field n/a Brendan Byrd, Louisville, KY; Web Service Technician, n/a Binu Parayil, Ocean, NJ; System Engineer, Programmer, Resonator Software Barrington King, Washington, DC; Co- n/a Brent Bryan, Friday Harbor, Washington; Founder, Wyrdwright Blake Huber, Austin, TX; Director of Eng. Student, Yale University Barry E. Tolnas, Olympia, WA; Adjunct Operations, Coremetrics Brent Chivers, Arlington, VA; Systems Faculty, The Evergreen State College Blake Wesley Thomas, Chicago, Illinois; Administrator, Mitretek Systems Barry Rountree, San Diego, CA; Software Student, Senior Tutor, CS, University of Brent Geske, Vancouver, WA; Software Engineer, Freelance Chicago Engineer, self Barry Wilson, Beaverton, OR; Software Bob Alvarez, Chicago, IL; Human Factors Brent Laminack, Atlanta, GA; Director of e- Engineer, n/a Engineer/Software Engineer, bobalvarez.net commerce, Enweben, LLC. Baxter Michael Gilley, Chester, VA; Bob Armstrong, Conway, MA; Consulting Brent Pickert, Scottsdale, Arizona; Student, Student, ECPI Technical College Engineer, Compaq Arizona State University B. Charles Reynolds, Seward, Alaska; Bobby Hays, Lawrenceville, GA; Graphic Brett Barton, Dublin, OH; Pricing Independant Business Owner, Unicity Systems Developer, Network Coordinator, Ashland Distribution Company Network Communications, Inc. Brett Carter, Portland, OR; Web Engineer, Benjamin C. Kite, Santa Cruz, CA; n/a Bob Dehnhardt, Reno, NV; n/a Kavi Benjamin Cressey, Chapel Hill, NC; Brett Coon, Milpitas, CA; Technical Bob Hardy, Santa Clara, CA; UNIX Systems Architect, n/a Director, n/a Sysadmin, Sanmina-SCI Corp. Benjamin Gilbert, Pittsburgh, PA; Brett Johnson, Windsor, CO; Software Bob Horvath, Arlington Heights, IL; Engineering student, Carnegie Mellon Engineer, n/a Software Engineer, n/a University Brett Kislin, Pompano Beach, FL; Pres., Bob Mileti, Torrington, CT; President, Benjamin J. Liberman, Santa Fe, NM; Kislin Consulting Programmer/Analyst, Accent Optical Trlby Innovative Brett Lorenzen, Alexandria, VA; Technologies Bob Nicksic, Chicago, IL; Technical Consultant and Developer, n/a Benjamin Moore, Marina del Rey, Product Manager, Peter Martin Associates Brett Miller, Nashville, TN; Systems California; Programmer Analyst IV, USC Bob Pendleton, Round Rock, Texas; Administrator, n/a Institute for Creative Technologies Owner, Gameprogrammer.com Brett Peckinpaugh, Denver, Colorado; Benjamin Morse, Somerville, Bob Stephan, Pebble Beach, California; System Support Specialist, Avaya Massachusetts; Student, MIT Owner/Consultant, Moby Disk Brett Presnell, Gainesville, Florida; Benjamin Moser, Floyds Knobs, Indiana; Boyce Fullmer, Plano, TX; Systems Associate Professor, University of Florida System Engineer, Kimball International Analyst, Flash Computers and Networks Brett Sanger, Williamsburg, VA; Web Benjamin R. Eastwood, Albany, CA; IT Brad Baylor, Columbus, OH; Supervisor, Programmer, n/a Manager, wilweb.com Qwest Brett Schwarz, North Bend, WA; Lead Benjamin Russo, Herndon, Virginia; UNIX Bradford Carpenter, Camino, CA; Database Network Engineer, n/a Systems Administrator, Currently Programmer, Construction NewsNet Brian Allemana, Chicago, IL; Web Unemployed Brad Garcia, Freedom, PA; Senior Software Developer/Consultant, n/a Benjamin W Pearre, Cambridge, MA; Engineer, n/a Brian A. Redding, Champaign, IL; Software Research Associate, MIT Brad Harvell, Chandler, AZ; Senior Engineer, n/a Ben Messinger, Kennewick, WA; Network Engineer, n/a Brian Beveridge, Oakland, CA; General Systems Administrator, HFG Bradley Greger, Los Angeles, CA; Partner, Paradigm Three Bennett Neale, Santa Monica, California; Neuroscientist, Caltech Brian Casten, Elgin, IL; Student, Columbia Software Engineer, Edmunds.com Bradley J. Christensen, Berrien Springs, College Ben Penning, San Diego, CA; Web Michigan; Oracle Database Administrator, Brian Chiko, Saratoga, California; VP Programmer, Einstein Industries Andrews University Marketing, Vpacket Communications
VerDate 11
Brian Cleverly, Sacramento, CA; ex Brock Organ, Chapel Hill, NC; QA Caroline Lambert, Palo Alto, CA; IT Software Developer and now angry captive Engineer, Red Hat Inc Infrastructure Manager, Agilent Technologies Microsft user., Anzam Yacht Refurbishing Bruce Armstrong, Orem, Utah; Software Carolyn Cooper, Princeton, NJ; Computer Brian Davis, Beaverton, OR; Unix Systems Quality Assurance Engineer, NTT/Verio Science graduate student, Johns Hopkins Administrator, n/a (www.verio.net University Brian Dellert, Prior Lake, MN; Software Bruce Buckelew Oakland, CA; Director, Carroll Grigsby, Raleigh, NC; Retired, n/a Developer, Independent Consultant Oakland Technnology Exchange—West Cary Roys, Aurora, IL; Resnet Consultant, Brian DeRosa, Elk Grove Village, IL; Bruce E. Birch San Diego, California; North Central College Principal, The Net Squad Information Systems Administrator, Biostruct Case Matthew Wiedner, Arlington Heights, Brian D. Klar, Dayton, OH; VTC Engineer, Bruce Hamilton Redondo Beach, CA; n/a Illinois; Network Administrator, American OTS / WPAFB Bruce Horn, Mammoth Lakes, CA; Chief Telephone and Telegraph Brian Fahrlander, Evansville, Indiana; Technical Officer, Marketocracy, Inc. Casey Gordon, Athens, Georgia; Web Owner, Kamakiriad.com Bruce McCready, Baltimore, FiD; Software Administrator, College of Family & Consumer Brian Feathers, Arlington, VA; Consultant, Engineer, Advertising.com Sciences n/a Bruce McFarland, wilmington, DE; Casey Hutchinson, Santa Cruz, CA; Brian Filipiak, Ypsilanti, MI; Grant President, Absolute Systems Inc Network Administrator, Nadel Phelan, Inc. Associate, Eastern Michigan University Bruce Rakes, Atlanta, GA; CTO, Zmed Catherine Jenkins, Cambridge, MA; Brian Grossman, Fort Collins, Colorado; Bruce Rogovin, Cincinnati, Ohio; Student, MIT President, SoftHome President, Bruce J. Rogovin DMD C. Brandon Forehand, Pflugerville, TX; Brian Hall, Colorado Springs, CO; Software Bruce Timberlake, Carlsbad, CA; Software Developer, n/a Engineer, Northrop Grumman Technology Engineer, Sun Microsystems Cerrise Weiblen, Louisville, Colorado; Brian Hellman, Osceola, IN; IT manager, Bruce W. Calkins, Wales, MA; n/a Freelance XA, XA Business Services 1st Source Bank Bryan Carpenter, Loveland, CO; Software Chadd Horanburg, Ferndale, MI; Security Brian Horton, Pflugerville, TX; n/a Development Engineer, Agilent Technologies Engineer, Internet Security Systems Brian J. Brondel, Springfield, MO; Student, Bryan Durkee, Oshkosh, WI; NT Server Chad Kavanaugh Bisk, Reston, Va; Senior Southwest Missouri State University Manager, Winnefox Library System Consultant, Braun Consulting Brian Johnson, Durham, NC; IT Analyst, Bryan Housel, Philadelphia, PA; Software Chad Kay, Milwaukie, Oregon; n/a Duke University Engineer, CIM of Philadelphia Chad Margetts, West Jordan, Utah; Brian Kelly, Chicago, Illinois; Student, Bryan Newman, Seattle, WA; Programmer, Independent Consultant, Ron Allen DePaul University n/a Consulting Services Brian Koppe, Buffalo Grove, IL; Bryan Waterman, Monterey, CA; Chad Miller, Valdosta, GA; Developer, Undergraduate Student, DePaul University Lieutenant, DOD Debian Brian LaMere, San Diego, California; UNIX Bryce Schober, Seattle, WA; Software Chad Vogelsong, Carlisle, PA; Student, The Sysadmin, Diversa Engineer, Dynon Development Pennsylvania State University Brian Lau, Huntington Beach, CA; Software Buckley Collum, Los Angeles, CA; Partner, Charles B. Cranston, Burtonsville, Engineer, Gordian Inc. MenaceFX Maryland; Staff computer programmer, Brian Martin, Champaign, IL; Webmaster, Buford Lemon, Midland, MI; Dr., A Big Farm Credit Services Chemical Company University of Maryland at College Park Brian Mason, Hinesburg, Vermont; Web Caleb Mardini, Bellevue, WA; Real Estate Charles Borner, Lisle, IL; Owner, Developer, Image Mason Design Coordinator, WhyNotOwn.com EvilNET.net Brian McFadden, Altamonte Springs, Calvin Harrigan, Atlanta, Georgia; Software Charles D. Galler Jr., Houston, Tx; System Florida; Device Driver Engineer, CDP Engineer, n/a Admin, C2C Fiber Brian M. Fisher, Chapel Hill, NC; Graduate Calvin S. Taylor Jr., Tigard, Oregon; Charles D. McJilton, Laporte, Colorado; Student in Nuclear Physics, University of President, Sandforge Engineering System Administrator, JYM Information North Carolina at Chapel Hill Canyon Russell, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Systems LLC Brian M. Schkerke, St. Louis, MO; Vice Consultant, n/a Charles Durst, Arlington, MA; Senior President Information Systems, NETCO Carl Alexander, Watertown, Massachusetts; Software Engineer, n/a Brian Olsen, Aurora, Colorado; Senior Senior Systems and Network Administrator, Charles E Chandler III, New Orleans, LA; Software Developer, Pixxures Inc. Technical Education Research Center Computer Technician, Computer Source, Brian P. Bilbrey, Sunnyvale, CA; IT/Web/ Carl Christian Brink, Portland, OR; CTO, LLC. Consultant/Author, Orb Designs ONSITE! Technology Charles E Mason IV, Tallahassee, FL; Brian Redfern, Los Angeles, CA; Linux Carl Drake Jr, Chillicothe, OH; Commander Student, Florida State University Programmer USN(Ret) Charles E. Oesterle, Plymouth, Michigan; Brian Reichert, Bethlehem, PA; Systems Carl Friedberg, New York, NY; President programmer, CEO Image Systems Engineer, n/a and CEO, Comet and Company Charles F. McKnight, Fayetteville, Brian R. Furry, Hackettstown, New Jersey; Carlie J. Coats, Jr., Ph.D., Chapel Hill, NC; Arkansas; PC/LAN Specialist, Mercy Health Mathematics and Computer Science Teacher, Mathematician/Analyst, MCNC- Systems— NWA Watchung Hills Regional High School Environmental Modeling Center Charles Forsythe, Dallas, TX; Enterprise Brian R. Swan, Elgin, Illinois; internetwork Carl J. Youngdahl, Ph.D., Evanston, IL; Systems Consultant, Texas Home Health of Solutions Engineer, ThruPoint Software/Content Developer, n/a America Brian Strand, Oakland, California; CTO, Carl Klutzke, Indianapolis, IN; Software Charles F. Wilkins, III, Houston, TX; Switch Management Developer, Covance Inc. Systems Analyst, Cullen College of Brian Teague, Houston, TX; Computer Carl M. Holmberg, Kihei, HI; Systems Engineering Science student, Rice University Analyst, AFRL—Maui High Performance Charles Hasegawa, Mesa, Arizona; Brian Templeton, Starkville, MS; Student, Computing center Software Engineer, Cottonwood Technology Mississippi State University Carl M. Keil, Portland, OR; Multimedia Group Brian T. Johnson, Bainbridge, GA; Producer, Portland Community College Charles Hinson, King of Prussia, PA; Electronics Calibration Specialist, USN Carl Mueller, Seattle, WA; Software Senior Engineer, Avercom Brian Vincent, Breckenridge, CO; Telecom Engineer, Nintendo Charles Hopkins, Foothill Ranch, CA; Engineer, Copper Mountain Carlos Eberhardt, White Bear Twp, MN; Systems Analyst, Boeing Satellite Systems Brian Weir, Cleveland, Ohio; student, Consultant / Software Engineer, n/a Charles Hurlocker, Renton, WA; Retired Hiram College Carlos Santellanes, Montebello, California; Software Engineer Bridgette Ruggles, Waldwick, NJ; Computer Graphic Designer, Freelance Charles Jenkins, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Support/Web Designer, Cline Carl Spangenberger, Wyoming, Michigan; Software Developer, n/a Brien Dieterle, Chandler, Arizona; Software Engineer, n/a Charles Kendrick, San Francisco, CA; Co- Computer Technician, Maricopa Community Carl Youngblood, Orem, Utah; Software Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Colleges Engineer, n/a Isomorphic Software
VerDate 11
Charles Kerr, Oklahoma City, OK; Senior Chris Hruska, Ithaca, NY; Graduate Christopher Plummer, Flemington, NJ; Software Engineer, University of Oklahoma student, Cornell University Lotus Notes Administrator, Independent Charles Krug Smart, Pittsburgh, Chris Humphres, Durham, North Carolina; Contractor Pennsylvania; Undergraduate Student, Software Engineer, n/a Christopher R. Wren, Cambridge, Carnegie Mellon University Chris Lea, Los Angeles, CA; Senior Massachusetts; Research Scientist, MERL Charles Kuske, New York, NY; Engineer, Technologist, Lucid Designs Christopher Sean Morrison, Aberdeen, FID; Metropolis DVD Chris Loendorf, Sacaton, Arizona; Project Senior Software Engineer, U.S. Army Charles L. Hethcoat III, Houston, Texas; Director, Gila River Indian Community Research Laboratory Concerned citizen, n/a Cultural Resource Christopher Smith, Los Angeles, California; Charles Mattice, Stone Mountain, GA; Chris March, Buffalo, NY; Network Senior Technologist, Xdrive Technologies Technical Director, Permite Corporation Administrator, Prep Incorporated Christopher S. Swingley, Fairbanks, Charles Mercer, Wichita, KS; Lead Analyst, Chris Marckel, Minneapolis, Mn; QA Alaska; Computer / Network Manager, Cessna Aircraft Company analyst, IBMGS University of Alaska Fairbanks Charles Noble Baker, Van Nuys, California; Chris Mccraw, Denver, CO; unix Christopher Vargas, Arlington, VA; Web Systems Administrator, Solar Webb, INC consultant, independent Publisher, HHMI Charles ‘‘Pat’’ Kelley, Norcross, Georgia; Chris McGraw, Clark, SD; Information Christopher Wallace, Austin, TX; System Firmware Engineer, Enrev Power Solutions Systems Operator/Maintainer, SDARNG Architect, Dell Computer Corporation Charles R. Fry, Sunnyvale, California; Chris Monson, Provo, UT; Chief Architect, Christopher Weuve, Alexandria, VA; Computer Scientist, n/a Orangatango Senior Research Specialist, n/a Charles Steinkuehler, Topeka, KS; Chris Rabkin, Naples, Florida; Internet Christopher Wolske, Gaithersburg, MD; Electronics Engineer, NewTek Partners; Business Strategist, imageProjektions-DGL Consultant, n/a member, Linux Chris Scheller, Palmdale, CA; Presidnet/ Chris Turner, El Paso, TX; Graduate Router Project Founder, Antelope Valley Linux Users Group Student, UTEP Charles Wiltgen, San Diego, CA; Product Chris Sexton, Raleigh, NC; Student, North Chris Watson, Wellington, KS; President, Manager, PacketVideo Carolina State University Open Systems Inc. Charlie Eidem, Rohnert Park, California; Chris Sutton, Seattle, WA; Software Chris Wells, Lexington, KY; Software Student, Sonoma State University Engineer, iFloor.com Engineer, rpcnet.com Charlie Kilian, Wamego, KS; Director of Chris Telfer, West Lafayette, Indiana; Chris Williamson, Wilmore, KY; Software Development, Aphelion Studios Graduate Student, Purdue University Instructional Technology Assistant, Asbury Charlie Zender, Irvine, CA; Professor of Christian Greika, Atlanta, GA; Software College Earth System Science, University of Engineer, NCR Corporation Chris Wingate, Fort Wayne, Indiana; Real California at Irvine Christian H=F61tje, San Jose, Texas; Lead Estate Investor, n/a Chase Caster, Ames, IA; Student, Iowa Developer, Rackspace Managed Hosting Chris Worley, SLC, UT; Programmer, State University Christian Schumann-Curtis, Denver, CO; Liberate Technologies Chase Grund, Dayton, Ohio; Web R&D Manager, Pixxures Chuck Messenger, Rochester, NY; Software Administrator, LOGTEC, Inc. Christian Walker, San Francisco, engineer, self employed Chester Hoster, Dallas, TX; IT Network California; Software Developer, Ubiquitos Engineer, n/a Information Chuck Moss, Manassas, VA; President, Chip Hart, Burlington, VT; Director of Christine Eck, Columbia, FID; software Complete Network Solutions Marketing, Physician’s Computer Company engineer, n/a C. J. Keist, Fort Collins, CO; UNIX admin, (PCC) Christopher A. Baumbauer, Lafayette, IN; Colorado State University Chip Witt, Santa Rosa, CA; Sr. Network student, Purdue University Clark N. Quinn, Walnut Creek, CA; Administrator, Westwave Communications, Christopher A. Worth, Louisville, KY; Executive Director, OtterSurf Labs Inc. Biomedical Engineer, Univ. of Louisville Claude Keswani, Boston, Massachusetts; Chris A. Miller, Omaha, NE; Application Christopher Caldwell, Woburn, Student, University of Massachusetts Architect, Withheld out of fear Massachusetts; Chief Engineer, Interliant Claudia Santoro, Somerville, MA; Systems Chris Armstrong, Sterling, VA; Product Corporation Architect, Elm Square Technologies Engineer, America Online, Inc. Christopher Corayer, Newton, MA; Clay J. Claiborne, Jr., Los Angeles, Chris Bare, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Technical Network Engineer, ADE Corporation California; President, Cosmos Engineering Director, Metro Link Incorporated Christopher Elmquist, St. Paul, MN; Company; Founder, lula.org Chris Barr, Wayland, MA; Software Software Engineer, Elmquist Microsystems Clayton S. Chan, Irvine, CA; Computer Engineer, Strider Software, Inc. Christopher Fitch, Memphis, TN; Senior Technician, n/a Chris Beattie, Columbia, South Carolina; Software Engineer, n/a Clif Cox, Eugene, OR; System System Administrator, Independent Christopher Foley, Atlanta, Georgia; administrator, OCFnet cliff Earle, Sunland, Chris Bopp, Honolulu, HI; System Systems Engineer, Stevens Communications CA; n/a Administrator, Travel Hawaii Christopher Holley, Durham, NC; Medical Clifton Leonard, Oklahoma City, OK; Chris Carlin, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Student, Duke University Medical School Systems Engineer, CACI Student, Texas A&M University Christopher J. Armstrong, Clinton, C. Megan Larko, Laurel, FiD; Systems Chris Davis, Minneaplois, MN; Software Pennsylvania; Web Developer, NOVA Administrator, NASA Goddard Space Flight Developer, KRS Software Chemicals Center Chris Dawson, Portland, Oregon; Software Christopher J. Kucera, Green Bay, WI; C. Michael McCallum, Elk Grove, CA; Engineer, Contractor Software Engineer, n/a Associate Professor of Chemistry, University Chris Dos, Highlands Ranch, CO; Christopher Mende, Colorado Springs, of the Pacific President, Open Innovations Colorado; Systems Engineer, Raviant Colin Dean, Volant, PA; Web Designer, Chris Gamble, Grapvine, Texas; Developer, Networks Student, Freelance CPB Inc Christopher Michael Werner, Brooklyn, Colin Kinlund, Bristol, Vermont; Student, Chris Gebhardt, State College, PA; Student New York; Student, SUNY Binghamton The Red Cedar School of Computer Engineering, The Pennsylvania Christopher N. Lawrence, Oxford, MS; Colin Spencer, Norfolk, VA; Consultant, State University Computer Systems Manager, University of Independent Chris Hadley, Memphis, TN; System Mississippi Colin Steele, Charlottesville, VA; n/a Engineer, Infuturo Christopher O’Brien, Raleigh, North Colleen Shannon, San Diego, California; Chris Hamilton, Anchorage, AK; IT Carolina; Contracted Developer, CDI Programmer/Analyst, CAIDA, San Diego Contractor, C&S Management Associates Christopher Palow, Miami, Florida; Supercomputer Center, UCSD Chris Harmon, Copley, Ohio; Student, Student Computer Engineering, Carnegie Collin Anderson, Osceola, IN; Student, University of Akron Mellon University Penn High School Chris Holland, Costa Mesa, CA; Christopher Park, Jacksonville, Florida; Conan Heiselt, Fremont, California; Programmer, Contractor’s Source Inc Software Developer, Independant Systems Engineer, Kodak
VerDate 11
Connor Smith, New York, NY; Computer Dan Berger, Chino Hills, CA; Software Danny Espinoza, Washington, DC; Senior Support, Cline Davis & Mann Engineer, n/a Software Engineer, emotion Conrad Clark, Morgantown, WV; IT Dan Bidwa, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Dan Reese, Spanish Fork, UT; Software Consultant, Self Employed Multimedia Technologist, Carnegie Mellon Engineer, Clearstone Corporation Cory McKinstry, Austin, TX; Field University Dan Speers, Morristown, NJ; Editor, The Engineer, Northrop Grumman Information Dan Carrigan, Yellow Springs, OH; Naturist Journal Technology Librarian, Antioch College Dan Trevino, San Antonio, TX; President, Coy T. Thorp, Vallejo, California; Network Dan Devine, Seattle, Washington; n/a bluemagnet, llc Systems Administrator, MDL Information Dane Johnson, Minneapolis, MN; Senior Dan Wilder, Seattle, WA; Tech Manager, Systems Systems Analyst, Supervalu Specialized Systems Consultants Craig Butcher, Chelsea, Michigan; Danial Hinshaw, Honolulu, Hawaii; Dan Wood, Alameda, CA; Founder, Karelia Foreman, University of Michigan Plant AC Electrician, Federal Employee Software Shop Danial Howard, Pocatello, ID; IT Darcelle Bleau, Los Angeles, california; Craig I. Hagan, Seattle, Washington; Programmer/Analyst, Idaho State University Research Analyst—IT, Major HMO Systems Engineer, n/a Daniel Boudrot, Lewisville, TX; SW Darcy James Argue, Boston, MA; Musician, Craig R. Campbell, Everett, WA; Software Engineer, ForeLogic, LLC n/a Engineeer, Fluke Networks Daniel Bungert, State College, PA; Student, Darlene Wallach, San Jose, CA; Software Craig Sparks, Overland Park, KS; Former Pennsylvania State University Engineer, n/a CEO, NetGames USA (acquired by Microsoft) Daniel Bunn, Bedford, Virginia; Talent Daron D. Fraley, Plainfield, IN; IT Manager, Craig Van Degrift, Los Angeles, CA; Scout / Artist, EB Muzik DCM Indiana President, Kanji-Flash Softworks Daniel E. Shown, St. Louis, MO; Darren Hiebert, Madison, Alabama; Senior Craig Welch, Denver, Colorado; Systems Administrative Secretary, Saint Louis Software Engineer, XonTech Administrator, Consulting University Darren Nguyen, San Mateo, CA; System Craig Znamierowski, Charlton, MA; Daniel Fuhr, Topeka, KS; Intern, Kansas Administrator, Talaris Inc. Network Engineer, GweepCo Department of Health and Environment Daryl Biberdorf, Carrollton, Texas; CR Jones, Walnut, MS; Systems Engineer, Daniel Gryniewicz, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Database administrator, n/a Consultant Software Engineer, Nexthop Technologies Dave Blankenship, Boise, Idaho; Senior C. Scott Ananian, Cambridge, MA; PhD Daniel Helfman, Los Angeles, California; Software Engineer, n/a student, Massachusetts Institute of Systems Administrator, Jim Henson’s Dave Gardner, South Pasadena, CA; Technology Creature Shop Network Administrator/Security Analyst, ExacTax Inc. Curt Cox, University City, MO; Daniel Holdren, Albany, NY; System Administrator, SUNY Albany Dave Greene, Albany, NY; Technical Programmer, n/a Daniel Hong, Redwood City, CA; Support, n/a Curt Holmer, Sterling, VA; Chief Unemployed Graduate, n/a Dave Lyon, Sandy, Utah; Web Engineer, Consultant, CIHolmer Consulting Inc., http:/ Daniel Kupka, Worcester, Massachusetts; TeachStream /www.ciholmer.com PC Administrator, Framingham Heart Study Dave Mallery, Ramah, NM; Editorial Curtis Lisle, Orlando, FL; Visual Systems Daniel Lake, Portland, Oregon; Electrical Director (retired), Professional Press Scientist, SGI Engineer, Mentor Graphics Dave Ruske, Sussex, WI; Sr. Software Curtis R. Danner, Batavia, IL; Tech Daniel Lee, San Mateo, CA; Senior Engineer, Rockwell Software Inc. Specialist, Fermilab Software Engineer, Entelos Dave Seltzer, Rochester, N-Y; Network Curtis Rey, Madison, Wisconsin; Daniel Lipofsky, San Rafael, CA; Senior Software Engineer, n/a R.N.B.S.N., Saint Marys Hospital Software Engineer, n/a Dave Serls, Littleton, CO; Software Curtis Rushing, Lake St. Louis, MO; Daniel Maas, Ithaca, NY; President, Maas Engineer, n/a President, Rushing Consulting Inc. Digital, LLC Dave Wreski, Upper Saddle River, NJ; Curtis Turner II, Central, South Carolina; Daniel Martinelli, Worcester, Director, Guardian Digital, Inc. Systems Administrator, Integrated Support Massachusetts; Webmaster, Cancer Detection David A. Rogers, La Grange, Illinois; Senior Systems, Inc. and Prevention Software Engineer, SPSS Inc. Curtis Wood, Corpus Christi, Texas; Daniel Paquette, Apalachin, NY; Software David B. Caplinger, Omaha, NE; System Administrator/Architect, Engineer, n/a Information Technology Manager, Meridian, BlueDomino Hosting Daniel Paul Veditz, Ben Lomond, Inc. Curt Jacobson, Kalispell, MT; n/a California; Software Engineer, Netscape David Beahm, Williamsport, PA; Curt Pederson, Madison, Wisconsin; Daniel Poston, Florence, SC; Computer Programmer, Champion Parts Software Engineer, Berbee Technician, N/A David Bechberger, Bozeman, MT; Cushing Whitney, Hoboken, NJ; Daniel R. Gowans, Fort Collins, Colorado; Hardware/Software Engineer, n/a Information Security Consultant, n/a Design Engineer, Agilent Technologies David Benfell, San Francisco, California; Cyril Bortolato, Campbell, CA; Staff Daniel Rozinsky, Marlboro, New fork; Systems Administrator, n/a Software Engineer, Adaptive Silicon President, Brainstorm Technology Associates David Bilton, Colchester, CT; n/a Dagny Haug, Minneapolis, MN; Associate Daniel Stringfield, Wayne, NJ; Site David Border, Bowling Green, Ohio; Program Director, University of Minnesota Supervisor, Arsenal Digital Solutions Assistant Professor, Bowling Green State Dale Schoeck, Houston, TX; Concerned Daniel Stutzbach, Eugene, Oregon; University Citizen, Individual Graduate Student, University of Oregon David B. Peterson, Palo Alto, CA; Systems Dallas Legan, Downey, California; Member, Daniel T. Drea, Salem, CT; Owner, Daniel Administrator, n/a linuxatlax.org T. Drea P&H David Buehler, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Damian Cunniff, Harrington Park, NJ; Daniel W. Brown, Gloucester, MA; Senior Graduate Student (Computer Science Ph.D. , Computer Science, Ramapo College of NJ Software Engineer, n/a University of New Mexico Damon A. Brown, Alexandria, VA; Daniel W. Drake, Apex, NC; Vice President, David Castro-Diephouse, Philadelphia, PA; Consultant, Booz √ Allen √ Hamilton Oak Grove Software Software Engineer, Retek Damon A. Schmidt, Brooklyn Center, PIN; Daniel Wolstenholme, Chandler, AZ; David Chapman, Sonoma, CA; Software PC Analyst/Intel Servers Support, Provell Software Engineer, Intel Corporation Tester, LucasArts Entertainment Damon Cann, Port Jefferson, New York; Daniel Wright, Redwood City, California; David C. Hill, Centennial, Colorado; Ph.D. Student, SUNY at Stony Brook President, ComputerX Consumer Damon Casantini, King of Prussia, PA; Dan Marker, Kettering, OH; Technical David Christensen, Berkeley, CA; UC Computer Technician, n/a Support Engineer, SGI Berkeley Damon C. Richardson, St. Louis, MO; Dan Milstein, Boston, MA; Consultant, n/ David C. Johanson, Gaithersbutg, MD; Software Developer, Express Scripts a Aviation Physiologist, US Navy Dana L. Parso, San Francisco, CA; Dan Moore, Salt Lake City, Utah; David Clark, Simi Valley, CA; Software Administrator, Santos & Urrutia Programmer, Sandstar Family Entertainment Engineer, Consultant
VerDate 11
David Cotton, Santa Cruz, CA; Systems David Morgan, Los Angeles, CA; Professor Deanna Thompson, Las Vegas, Nevada; Administrator, vortex4.net of CS, Santa Monica College, Los Angeles System Adminitrator David C. Sloane, Boston, Massachusetts; City College, UCLA Extension Debbie Shrock, Spangle, WA; Girls’’ Dean, Sr. Systems Admin., Vanderweil Facility David Neu, West Lafayette, Indiana; Upper Columbia Academy Advisors Computing Center Consultant, Purdue Deborah Tribble, Scottsdale, Arizona; David Dahl, Chicago, IL; President, University housewife, n/a ddahl.com David Newman, Naperville, Illinois; Delbert Hart, Huntsville, Alabama; David Daniel, Lyons, CO; Advisory Principle Software Engineer, Private Citizen Assistant Professor, Computer Science Engineer, Storage Technology Corp. David Noonan, Atlanta, GA; Network Department, University of Alabama in David Diplock, San Diego, California; Engineer, n/a Huntsville Software Engineer, Peregrine Systems David O. Blanchard, Ph.D., Flagstaff, Del Teel, Charlotte, NC; IT Architect / David Dittrich, Seattle, Washington; Arizona; Atmospheric Scientist, n/a Engineer, IBM Corp Member, The Honeynet Project David O’Brien, Alameda, CA; Computer Denise Schilling, Big Bend, WI; Consumer, David D. Lewis, Chicago, IL; Independent Engineer, Consultant n/a Consultant David Pearson, Walnut Creek, CA; Dennis Cruise, Beaverton, Oregon; David Dolinar, Provo, Utah; Software Attorney, Law Offices of David S. Pearson Developer, Professional Data Exchange Developer, n/a David Polenychko, Troy, Michigan; Dennis Jarecke, Kent, Ohio; Physicist, Kent Davide Libenzi, Beaverton, OR; Sr Software Network Administrator, ACE Controls State University Engineer, NAI/McAfee David Pool, Sunland, California; Software Dennis Jenkins, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; David Ford, Meriden, CT; Blue Labs Developer, n/a Alpha Geek, Universal Savings Bank Software David R Dick, Nashua, NH; President, Derek Ramsey, Philadelphia, PA; Software David F. Williams, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Software Innovations Engineer, n/a Network Administrator, Onbravo of Tulsa David R. Roth, Portland, OR; Systems Derek Scott Young, Oklahoma City, David Gabler, Atascadero, CA; Network Analyst, Bureau of Labor and Industries, Oklahoma; Lead Developer, Orcacom and Systems Security Engineer, n/a State of Oregon Worldnet David Gessel, Oakland, CA; Engineer, David Rush (US Citizen/Expatriate), Derek Tarvin, Tulsa, OK; Manager, Black Rose Technology Dunlavin, Republic of Ireland; Principal DecisionOne David Goodwin, Sunnyvale, CA; Software Engineer, Derek Warnick, Salt Lake City, UT; Engineer, Tensilica AOL Technologies/Dublin Software Engineer, 3M David Graser, Port Neches, Texas; Process David Rysdam, Milford, NH; Software Derek W. White, Las Vegas, Nevada; IT Operator, Huntsman Corp. Engineer, n/a Student, Community College of Southern David Greenberg, Highland Park, IL; David S. Goldberg, Belmont, MA; IT Nevada President, David Data Manager, n/a Derick Siddoway, Salt Lake City, UT; David Hamilton, Nashville, Tennessee; David Small, Kent, OH; Computer Science Seriousdata Company, Systems Architect Technical Consultant, n/a Major, Kent State University D.Erickson, San Jose, CA; M.Dir., David Hartwell Clements, Golden, CO; David Smith, Kalamazoo, MI; Director of AdVenture Group Math/CS Student, Colorado School of Mines David Henning, Montgomery village, MD; Development, Zooropa Design Devin Kyle Irby, Tivoli, New York; Video Senior Security Engineer, CACI David Smith, Morgantown, West Virginia; Installation Engineer (VIE), Ingest Digest David Hershberger, Pittsburgh, PA; Ph.D. Systems and Network Administrator, West Dhaval Patel, Roselle Park, New Jersey; n/ student, Carnegie Mellon University Virginia University a David HM Spector, Huntington, NY; David Sowder, Cleburne, Texas; Systems Diane F. Engles, Raleigh, NC; Software President and CEO, DropZone Networks Administrator, Southwestern Adventist Developer, Rho, Inc. David Hudson, Cerritos, CA; Technologist, University Diane McSweeney, San Jose, CA; The Capital Group, Inc. David S. Roland, Denver, Colorado; Webmaster, n/a David Hutchens III, Largo, FL; Operations President, Advanced Intelligent Networks Diane M. Napolitano, Ossining, New York; Support Technician, n/a Corporation Linux programmer, n/a David James Burneff, Columbus, Ohio; David Stair, Asheville, NC; College Diane Walter, Menlo Park, CA; Senior Developer, n/a Student, Member, ACM Research Engineer, SRI International David J. Carlson, Farmington, Utah; Airline David Sullivan, Denver, CO; Associate Dj Merrill, Lebanon, New Hampshire; Sr. Pilot (Retired) Professor, MSCD Unix Systems Administrator, Dartmouth David Lance Smith, Newnan, Georgia; David Walker, Pescadero, Ca; QA Manager, College Owner/ CEO, smithSyndicate Rocket Network D. Mark Abrahams, Berkeley, CA; David Lesher, Wheaton, MID; Engineer, David White, Stockbridge, Georgia; President and principal analyst, Abrahams- David L. Gantose, Cleveland, OH; Software Computer User, Private Individual Rizzardi, Inc. Engineer, n/a David Wiley, Ph.D., Logan, Utah; Assistant Dominic Eldridge, Sheridan, Michigan; David L. Williams, San Diego, CA; Sr. Professor, Utah State University Computer Lab Monitor, Montcalm Software Engineer, Stellcom David Wilk, Gallup, NM; Systems Community College David Mandala, Phoenix AZ; President, Administrator, Community Internet Access Dominic Franchetti, San Mateo, CA; THEM Productions David Witherspoon, Salt Lake City, Utah; Software Engineer/Project Manager, eJiva David Marsh, Palmdale, CA; Network Algorithm Engineer, Idaho Technology Donald Byrd, Bloomington, IN; Senior Engineer, Medical Research Products David W. Kennedy, Champaign, IL; Scholar, Indiana University David May, Houston, TX; Senior Analyst, Student, University of Illinois at Urbana- Donald Grayson, Louisville, Kentucky; Dow Chemical Champaign System Administrator, n/a David McCuskey, Portland, Oregon; David W. Thurston, Monroe, La.; Systems Donald J Bindner, Kirksville, MO; Asst Owner, McCuskey Consulting Administrator, CenturyTel Professor of Mathematics, Truman State Univ David Medinets, Ftanders, NJ; President, David Yates, Central, South Carolina; Donald R. Clarke, Northport, New York; Eclectic Consulting Devleopment Scientist, Perrigo Company Staff Operations & Training Specialist, USAR David Merrill, Byfield, MA; Software Dean Brettle, Gaithersburg, Maryland; Donald R. Fairchild, Chesterfield, VA; Engineering Consultant, Merrill SCM Software Engineer, brettle.com CEO, Fairchild Software Inc. Consulting Deane Thomas, New York, NY; Senior Don Black, Newport Beach, CA; Director, David Mestel, St. Louis, Missouri; Systems Software Architect/Analyst, Goldman Sachs Digital ChoreoGraphics Analyst, Free-Source.com & Co. Don Holmgren, Batavia, IL; Computer David M. Hull, Menlo Park, CA; Member Dean Jefferson, Madison, WI; Instructor, Professional, Fermi National Accelerator of Technical Staff, TIBCO Software, Inc Madison Area Technical College Laboratory David Minor, Reston, Virginia; System Deanna Cheung, Long Beach, CA; Director, Don J. Rude, Gaithersburg, Maryland; Architecht, Orbotech Inc. Tara School Owner/CTO, Steem
VerDate 11
Don J Smith, Columbus, Ohio; Sr. Staff Edan Dalton, Atlanta, GA; Research Elliott Wilcoxon, Minneapolis, PIN; Software Engineer, n/a Assistant, Georgia Institute of Technology Student, University of Minnesota—Twin Don Soegaard, Sutter, California; Industrial Ed Chapman, Point Mugu, CA; Assistant Cities Engineer, entrepreneur Administrative Officer, US Navy E. Matthew Schulz, Iowa City, Iowa; Dorab Patel, Santa Monica, California; Eden Crane, Stockton, California; Network Statistician, ACT, Inc. President, Digicraft Administrator, Tonecontrol.net Emily Stambaugh, Chapel Hill, NC; Dorothea Salo, Madison, WI; n/a Ed Hagerty, Addison, TX; Owner, General Librarian, American Library Association Doug Alcorn, Kings Mills, Ohio; Knowledge Corporation Eric A Bolden, Madison, WI; IPC, Independant Software Developer, Lathi.net Ed Howland, St. Louis, MO; Independant University of Wisconsin—Madison Doug Bryant, Charleston, SC; Software Software Consultant, n/a Eric Albers, Jefferson, Maryland; CEO, Engineer, Arthur D. Little Ed Huott, Latham, NY; Consultant, Vertigo Simulations Doug Burks, Augusta, GA; Systems SuperGeek Consolidated Eric Anderson, Northfield, Minnesota; Administrator, n/a Ed Leafe, Penfield, NY; Independent Software Engineer, Lockheed Martin Douglas James, West Jordan, UT; Chief Consultant/ Developer, n/a Eric Benedict, Madison, WI; Lecturer, Systems Administrator, I-Net Innovations Edmond Temple, Piedmont, California; Department of Electrical and Software Douglas Lewan, Brick, NJ; Senior Software College Instructor, UC Berkeley Extension Engineering Engineer, Adir Technologies Edmund Charles Lewis, Keene, Texas; Dir Eric D. Burgess, Farmers Branch, Texas; Douglas Loss, South Williamsport, PA; Administrative Computing, Southwestern Senior Programmer, VarTec Telecom Data Network Coordinator, Bloomsburg Adventist University Eric Fisher, Manilla, Indiana; Student, University Edmund Mitchell, Kingston, NY; Novice Programmer Douglas R. Glenn, Mauldin, SC; Enterprise Programmer/Analyst, Micro General Eric Gold, Albuquerque, NM; Physician, Applications Analyst, KEMET Electronics Corporation University of New Mexico Corp. Ed O’Connor, Madison, New Jersey; Eric Hendrickson, Eden Prairie, Minnesota; Douglas Rohrer, Cincinnati, Ohio; Chief Independent Software Developer, Rebol Systems/Commerce Architect, Albedo Technology Officer, Safe@Work Scripting Community http://www.rebol.com Applications Doug Matheson, Stockton, CA; Professor, Ed Saipetch, Indianapolis, IN; Developer, Eric Hidle, Bryn Mawr, PA; Electrical University of the Pacific Indianapolis Star Engineer, Honeywell International INC Doug McBride, San Mateo, California; Edward Burton, Lewiston, Idaho; Eric Howland, Madison, WI; Consultant Software Developer, Liberate Technologies Proprietor and Mediator, Clearwater Peace and Programmer, n/a Doug Raichle, Princeton, NJ; Member (alternative dispute resolution) Eric Irrgang, Austin TX; Computer Technical Staff, Sarnoff Corp. Edward Byfield, New York, NY; Faculty, Programmer, University of Texas at Austin Doug Schafer, Agoura Hills, CA; Principal Parsons School of Design Eric Jergensen, Bethany, Oklahoma; Hardware Engineer, Ixia Pow Hurst, Edward Figarsky, Holland, PA; President, da Vinci Network Services Acworth, Georgia; System Support Specialist, Programmer, FASTNET Corporation Eric J. Gleske, Dover, NH; Television Kennesaw State University Edward F. Valeev, Atlanta, GA; Research Producer/Director, Freelance Dow McKeever, Valley Cottage, NY; Sound Scientist, Georgia Institute of Technology Eric Knudstrup, Saratoga, 95070; n/a Designer, Sine Post Audio Edward Kaeufer, Blaine, WA; Software Doyle Hopkins, Fort Collins, Colorado; Engineer, CMPI Eric Ludlum, New York City, New York; Systen Engineer, LSI Logic Edward Langenback, Cherokee Village, AR; President, Core77 Drake wilson, Pittsburgh, PA; Student, Web designer / promoter, n/a Eric Lundquist, Austin, Texas; President, University of Pittsburgh Edward Lentz, Conshohocken, Pa; The Robot Group, Inc Drew Poulin, Edmonds, WA; Translator, Programmer/Analyst, Glaxo Smith Kline Eric McGough, Pleasanton, CA; CEO, Sole Proprietor, TransCom Japan Dr. Kenneth Edward Resnick, Toronto, Ontario; Random Cube, Inc. R. Brownsberger, Boulder, CO; Software and Systems Engineer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Eric Nedervold, Mountain View, CA; Operations Scientist, University of Edward Schlunder, Mesa, Arizona; software engineer, self-employed Colorado—Boulder Software Engineer, SHEF Systems Eric Nichols, Marlborough, MA; Dr. Paul E. Black, Gaithersburg, MD; Edward Simmonds, Glendale Heights, IL; Programmer/Analyst, Raybeam Solutions Computer Scientist, Member, Association for Financial Systems Consultant, National Eric Roe, Sarasota, Florida; Chemical Computing Machinery (ACM) Association of Realtors Engineer, n/a Dr. Scott McCormick, Hamilton, OH; Edward Smith, Cincinnati, OH; Windows Eric Smith, Williamsport, PA; Network President, ESM Software Programmer/Consultant, n/a Admin, Carole Hockman Designs Inc Dr Steve Otto, Portland, Oregon; CTO, Edward Starback, Troy, MI; Application Eric Spiegelberg, Savage, MN; Software TrueDisk Inc. Engineer, n/a Developer, n/a Dr. Thomas A. Cleland, Ithaca, NY; E John Swift, Aurora, CO; Technology Eric Stechmann, Shoreview, MN; Software Research Associate, Cornell University Teacher, Castle Rock Middle School Engineer, n/a D. Scott Alexander; Warren, NJ; Chief Elaine Lindelef, Glendale, CA; Partner, Eric Stierna, St. Petersburg, Florida; Architect, Activium, Inc. Cognitivity Software Engineer, IEEE Member Duane Gustavus, Denton, Texas; UNIX Elias Lutfallah, Chicago, IL; System Eric Stoll, Rochester, NY; Software Research Consultant, University of North Administrator/Programmer, Endeavor Engineer, n/a Texas Information Systems Eric Weeks, Bountiful, Utah; Attorney, Dudley Irish, Salt Lake City, Utah; IT Elijah C. Menifee, Bethany, OK; Software Weeks Law Firm Consultant, Ars Magna, Inc. Engineer, da Vinci Network Services Eric williams, Pittsburgh, PA; PhD student, Duncan Murphy, Midway, KY; Consultant, Elijah Wright, Athens, Ohio; Webmaster, University of Pittsburgh Problem Solved! http://stderr.org Erik Hanson, Fremont, CA; Software Durwood Gene Bland, Jr., Cary, North Eliot Mason, Waunakee, WI; Lecturer, developer, Independent Carolina; Software Consultant, Analysts University of Wisconsin Erik Hovland, La Crescenta, CA; Software International Corporation Elizabeth Bonney, Cranford, NJ; Library Engineer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Dusty Wright, westminster, CO; Content and Information Science Graduate Student, USCLUG member development, Sun Microsystems Rutgers University Erik Vered, Indianapolis, Indiana; Dwayne Parks, Fayetteville, AR; Software Elizabeth Edwards, Cambridge, MA; Consultant/Analyst, n/a Engineer, Shinkoh Technologies Inc. Software Engineer, n/a Ernest Fisch, Phoenix, Arizona; Retired Dwight Briggs, Orange City, F1; Software Elizabeth Mieczkowski, New Orleans, LA; Ernest R. Smothers, Burke, VA; n/a Engineer, n/a Web Developer, Medical Center Esten N Porter, Clinton, MD; Systems Dwight N Buchanan, San Jose, CA; Senior Elliot Abramowitz, Glendale, AZ; Student, Engineer, Galaxy Computer Services, Inc. Programmer, IBM Private Citizen http://www.gcsi.com Dwight Thornton, Reseda, Ca; Owner, Elliot Jordan, Decorah, IA; Student, Luther E. Trasel Rowland, M.D., Fort Pierce, Symple Engineering College Florida; n/a
VerDate 11
Eugene Clement, Palm Springs, CA; Gareth J. Greenaway, Thousand Oaks, CA; Gita Sukthankar, Cambridge, MA; Member Program manager, n/a President, Simi Conejo Linux Users Group of Research Staff, Compaq Computer Eugene Lee, West Lafayette, Indiana; Garrick James, Seattle, WA; Network Glen Canaday, Clearwater, FL; Support Department of Computer Science, Purdue Security Engineer, Frank Russell Company tech, BobCAD-CAM, Inc. University Garry Stahl, Dearborn, MI; Editor in Chief, Glen McGraw, Greenville, SC; Consultant, Evan Anderson, Troy, OH; Software DCG Computer club. n/a Engineer, Oxford Systems Integration Garth Minette, San Jose, California; Glen M Cornell, Grosse Pointe Park, MI; Evan Edwards, Palm Beach, FL; Vice Member of Technical Staff, Verisity, Inc. Software Engineer, Metro Link, Inc. President, Inforule Inc. Gary Calvin, Los Angeles, California; Glenn Focht, Ph.D., Gordonsville, TN; Evan Flink, Santa Rosa, CA; Owner, Systems Administration Manager, Kenwood Owner, Focht Research Electronic Warrior Computer Games Americas Corporation Glenn Hauman, Weehawken, NJ; President Evan Marshall, Rochester, MN; Systems Gary D. Cupp, Jr., Harrisonburg, VA; & Publisher, BiblioBytes Administrator, n/a Owner, HelpNet Glenn Holmer, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Fan Li Tai, Memphis, TN; Senior Data Gary Downing, Menlo Park, CA; Programmer/Analyst, Weyco Group, Inc. Protections Analyst, FedEx Technology Evangelist, Palm, Inc. Glenn Josefosky, Ferndale, MI; Sr. Software Felix Finch, Dutch Flat, CA; Programmer, Gary Gordhamer, Waukesha, WI; OWNER Engineer, CGN & Associates Scarecrow Repair / DBA, H&H Consulting Services, LLC Glenn Sokol, Philadelphia, PA; Student, Felix Tan, Oakton, VA; Systems Developer, Gary Heller, Orlando, Florida; VP. Drexel University n/a Development & QA Manager, ImageSoft, a Glenn Stone, Seattle, WA; Consultant, Fen Labalme, San Francisco, CA; Fiserv Resource Gamma Delta Iota Consultant, ACM Gary L. Withrow, Santa Cruz, California; Glenn Strauss, Manalapan, NJ; Founder, Fletcher Bartley Hubbard, Raleigh, NC; Senior DP Programmer/Analyst and Oracle 8i Glue Logic Software Developer, n/a DBA, County of Santa Cruz Gordie Freedman, Palo Alto, CA; Principal Fong Vang, Pleasanton, California; Systems Gary Peck, Berkeley, CA; Computer Developer, Dotcast, Inc. Engineer, Zantaz Science Student, University of California, Gordon Fischer, Austin, Texas; Software Ford Crews, Jackson, MS; Programmer, Berkeley Developer, Advent Networks ERDC-VBG Gary Schulte, Dallas, TX; Systems Analyst, Gordon MacGinitie, Pittsburgh, PA; Sr. Forde Prigot, Hoboken, NJ; Systems Singular Software Hardware Engineer, retired Analyst, Lehman Brothers Gavin Jefferies, San Francisco, CA; Gordon Marx, Charlottesville, VA; Student, Forrest N Austin, San Francisco, CA; Sr Consultant, Emptytree University of Virginia Gordon S. Bauer, Erie, PA; Computer Systems Administrator, Digitalpipe Geff Underwood, Ames, Iowa; System Administrator, Iowa State University Hardware Technician, Rentway Frances Felix, Winchester, VA; NOC Gene Schmidt, Scottsdale, AZ; Professor, Govind Salinas, San Antonio, Texas; Liaison Specialist, Covad Communications Scottsdale Comm. College Software Developer, n/a Francine Taylor, Tigard, OR; Senior Geng Yang, Austin, TX; Software Engineer, Graham Mitchell, Leander, TX; computer Programmer, Northwest Analytical Ashley Laurent, Inc. science teacher, Leander High School Frank DeRosa, Charlottesville, Virginia; Geoff Hoyer, Oxford, MI; Software Graham West, Chicago, Illinois; Game Student, University of Virginia, Computer Engineer, Clarity Programmer, Midway Games Science Department Geoffrey Bennett, Austin, Texas; Network Grant Goldade, Mandan, ND; ITD Frank Goetz, Wheaton, IL; Computer Security, TICOM Computer Operator, ITD, ND Program Director, People’s Resource Center Geoffrey Gerber, St. Paul, MN; Computer Greg Bailey, Salt Lake City, UT; Frank J. Cameron, Beaverdale, PA; Student, Consultant, n/a Consultant, LXPRO.COM University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown Geoffrey H. Kuenning, Claremont, CA; Greg Barnes, Seattle, Washington; Software Frank J. Iacovino Jr., Baltimore, Maryland; Assistant Professor, Harvey Mudd College Engineer, UW System Administrator, n/a Geoff Sanders, San Diego, CA; Systems Greg Baugher, Hannibal, MO; PC and Frank Riha, Cleveland, Ohio; Senior Engineer, Self Network Support, Prince Manufacturing Systems Consultant, KeyBank George B. Czerw, Rancocas, NJ; Network Company Frank Skorupski, Nashua, New Hampshire; Design & Administration Consultant, n/a Greg Briggs, Tacoma, Wa; ASPLU Student Account Support Engineer, n/a George Chong, Palo Alto, California; Government Senator, Pacific Lutheran Frank Tobin, Long Beach, NY; Software Systems Engineer, Quinstreet, Inc. University Developer, In-tel-tec (http:// George Grayson, Chicago, IL; Greg Foster, Columbus, OH; Senior www.inteltec.com/) neuroscientist, Abbott Laboratories Consultant, 3X Corporation Frans de Wet, Tallahassee, FL; Software George Hartogensis, Chicago, Illinois; Team Gregg Rice, Toledo, OH; Computer Engineer, n/a Leader—Unix Systems Administration, Rush- Consultant, n/a Fred Cheng, Los Angeles, CA; Student, Presbyterian St. Lukes Medical Center Greg Koch, Tampa, F1; Computer UCLA George Rebovich, Acton, MA; Private Consultant, PW Technology Frederick C. Smith, Stoneham, MA; Senior Citizen, None Greg Kuchta, Fort Collins, CO; Design Applications Programmer/Analyst, n/a George Robinson II, San Clemente, Ca; n/ Engineer, LSI Logic Frederick Geier, Berkeley, California; VP, a Greg Licon, San Francisco, CA; Network Geier & Geier Consulting George Seff, Arlington, VA; President, Administrator, Key Resources Frederick Haab, Atlanta, Georgia; Software Limbic Systems Greg Lim, Atlanta, GA; Software Engineer, Turner Broadcasting System George Soler, San Francisco, CA; Software Developer, InfiStar Frederick Malouf, Mountain View, CA; Developer, eRide Inc. Gregory A. Lund-Chaix, Portland, Oregon; Technical Lead, Glyphic Technology George Vamos, Studio City, California; Systems Administrator, State of Oregon Fred L. Drake, Jr., Reston, Virginia; Principal Engineer, Advanced Bionics Gregory A. O’Neil, Glendale, N-Y; Systems Software Engineer, n/a Corporation Engineer, n/a Fred Martin, Concord, MA; Educational George Wagner, Sylvania, OH; President, Gregory James Berkholtz, Portland, Oregon; Technology Designer, Gleason Research Computers, Support, & Consulting Senior Systems Administrator and Fumitaka Hayashi, Boston, MA; Research Gerald Perkins, Brentwood, Tennessee; Information Security Specialist, Yoshida’s Fellow, Massachusetts General Hospital Retired, n/a Inc. Gabriel Freund, West Palm Beach, FL; Giles Hoover, Bradenton, Florida; Co- Gregory Kirkendall, Parker, CO; President Financial Analyst, Ocwen Owner, MacTampa (http:// and CEO, OpenEtools Galen Seitz, Portland, Oregon; Senior www.mactampa.com) Gregory Recine, Lyndhurst, NJ; Grad Engineer, Seitz & Associates Gina Erickson, Camarillo, CA; Tech Student (Comp Physics), Stevens Institute of Galen Stocking, Moreno Valley, CA; Support, VCNet, Inc. Technology Student, California State University San Girard Jergensen, Edmond, OK; Software Gregory R. Warnes, Ph.D., Groton, CT; Bernardino Engineer, n/a Statistician and Software Developer, n/a
VerDate 11
Gregory R. Wold, Langhorne, PA; , n/a Herb DaSilva, Andover, MA; Senior James B. Evins, Alexandria, VA.; Electrical Gregory Y. Tada, Salt Lake City, UT; Software Engineer, Adaptive Optics Engineer, n/a Software Developer, IAS Design Associates James B. Greer, Memphis, TN; Concerned Greg Roy, Norwell, MA; Software Quality Herrick Goldman, Boston, MAss; Designer, Citizen, Group Of Linux Users in Memphis Assurance Engineer, PentaSafe Security Herrick Goldman Lighting Design James B. Rimmer, San Diego, California; Technologies Hollie Schmidt, Lexington, Massachusetts; Software Engineer, CenterComm Greg Steiert, Aloha, OR; Hardware Design President, Lifting Mind Inc. James Damour, Albany, New York; Engineer, n/a Holly Shaltz, Boyne City, MI; Freelance Principle Consultant, Keane Greg von Beck, Mesa, AZ; Programmer/ Web Designer, Shaltz Farm James David McIninch, Ph.D., Burlington, Analyst, TRW Automotive Holly S. Robinson, Tamarac, FL; Technical MA; Computational Biologist, Cereon Greg Willden, San Antonio, Texas; Writer, Metro Link Genomics Research Engineer, Southwest Research Howard Allen Cohen, Holllywood, Florida; James Dixon, Mannington, WV; n/a Institute Attorney, Atkinson, Diner, Stone, Mankuta James Domenico, San Francisco, CA; Griffin Foster, Ramona, California; and Ploucha, P.A. TECH, Self-employed President, Tera256 Computer Club Howard E. Melton III, Sacramento, James E. Collins, Jr., Hinesburg, VT; V. P., G. Robert Mattix, Allen, Tx; Data Network California; Registered Voter, Self Employed Treasurer, Vermont BS Engineer, n/a H. W. Egdorf, Los Alamos, NM; Technical James E Flemer, Troy, NY; Student, Guillermo Maturana, Ph.D., Berkeley, CA, Staff Member, Los Alamos National Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute CTO Andes Networks, Inc. Laboratory James E. Powell, Englewood, CO; Guy Albertelli II, Ann Arbor, MI; Specialist H. william Welliver III, Mountain Top, PA; President, Silver Future Software in Educational Technology, Michigan State Systems Administrator, Fairchild James Fitch, Napa, CA; Chief Deputy and University Semiconductor System Administrator, Solano County Public Guy Garrison, San Francisco, California; Ian Ballantyne, Vienna, ; Software Engineer Defender Motion Graphics Designer, Garrison and System Administrator, Schuster and James Flynn, Sunnyvale, California; Guybernetics Hwesta Gmbh Software Engineer, Self Employed Guy Speier, La Crescent, MN; Sr. System Ian Billington, Ester, AK; Student / James Gallagher, Cypress, CA; Software Administrator, n/a Network Tech, University of Alaska Engineer, Boeing—C-17 Engineering Data Gwen L. Veneskey, Pittsburgh, PA; Director Fairbanks Management of Marketing and Sales, Ounce of Prevention Ian Felton, Morgantown, West Virginia; n/ James Gettys, Carlisle, Massachusetts; Software a Principal Member of Technical Staff, Compaq Hal Black, Columbia, MD; Director, Ian Hall-Beyer, Prairie Village, KS; James Giacchi, Warren, NJ; Personel, Software, n/a Consultant persinel Hal Bundy, Ottawa, Kansas; Librarian, Ian McMahon, Atlanta, GA; Linux Software James Gregory Davidson, San Diego, Ottawa Library Engineer, e-VERIFILE.com California; Instructor, Learning Tree Hal King, Knoxville, TN; Systems Ian Ragsdale, Austin, Texas; Software International Programmer, University of Tennessee Engineer, SKYLIST James Hardwick, Salt Lake City, Utah; Hal Vaughan, Richmond, VA; Owner, Ian Sterling, Memphis, TN; System Software Engineer, GE Medical Systems Threshold Digital Administrator, n/a igor Furlan, San Jose CA; James Hebert, Paradise, CA; Consultant, Hamlin R. Krewson, Ames, IA; Macintosh IC Design Engineer, National Semiconductor Self Employed Support Tech, Beacon Microcenter Ilan Rabinovitch, Encino, CA; n/a James Henderson, Salt Lake City, UT; Sr. Hank Fisher, Arvada, Colorado; Software Ilya Volynets, Belmont, CA; VP of Systems Engineer, n/a Engineer, Private Citizen Engineering, Total Knowledge James H. Kimura, Berkley, Michigan; End Hans Hazelton, Anchorage, AK; Sr. Imad Hussain, West Lafayette, IN; Student, User, Private Citizen Network Technician, GCI Purdue University James John Ewell III, Katy, Texas; CEO, Hans Kugler, Tempe, AZ; software Ismet Kursunoglu, MiD, Manhattan Beach, Ewell Enterprises engineer, n/a CA; Founder, linuxatlax.org James Kennedy, Topeka, Kansas; Hargun Khanna, San Jose, CA; Student, Ivan Kohler, San Francisco, CA; Developer, Progammmer/System Administrator, Archbishop Mitty High School Debian Standard Beverage Corporation Harold L. Brooks, Urbana, IL; Network Jack Dunn, Omaha, Nebraska; Citizen, n/a James Lamanna, Pasadena, CA; Student, Administrator, Scitec Jack Gott, Austin, Texas; Software California Institute of Technology Harry Barrett, Canyon Country, Ca.; PC Engineer, Compaq James Landon, Overland Park, Kansas; User (12 years), n/a Jack Green, San Francisco, CA; n/a Senior Network Engineer, Sprint Corporation Harry G. Harbin, Woodinville, WA; Jackie D. Smith, Imperial, Missouri; retired ,lames LasCola, Portland, OR; Systems Programmer/Analyst Contractor, Jack L Caldwell, Jr., Sugar Hill, GA; Admin, Romar Tmp.Wordwide/Washington Mutual Member Technical Staff, Movaz Networks James LewisMoss, Durham, NC; Developer, Harvey C. Scobie III, Manchester, NH; Jack Lloyd, Baltimore, MD; System Linux Developers Group Technical Specialist, Kollsman Administrator, Johns Hopkins University James Lieb, Fremont, California; Software Harvey Lange, Toney, Alabama; Systems Jack Park, Brownsville, CA; Independent Consultant, Wild Open Source Inc. Analyst, n/a Software Developer, Thinkalong Software James Lopez, Carrollton, Texas; Sales Harvey Ussery, Hume, Virginia; Member, Jack Wenger, Madison, WI; IS Sytems Manager, CompUSA Northern Virginia Linux Users Group Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Natural James L Osborn, Jr MSEE, Melbourne Harvie Branscomb, Carbondale, CO; Resources Beach, Florida; Senior Account Engineer, Owner, Charybdis Jacob Gemmell, Juneau, Alaska; Network PacketVideo Corporation Heath Oderman, Suffolk, VA; Senior Specialist, Alaska Department of Labor & James L. Sullivan, Fort Pierce, FL; Consultant, netdecisions Workforce Development Supervisor, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Hector Vasquez, Edinburg, TX; Computer Jake Robb, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Institution Specialist, The University of Texas-Pan Software Engineer, 43rd Parallel James Lucha, Moreno Valley, CA; American LAC Dept. Technologies Programmer/Analyst, San Bernardino Heidi Miller, Los Gatos, CA; Technical James Adams, Denver, CO; Software Medical Group Writer, Gatespace Inc. Engineer, Agilent Technologies James Mitchell Ullman, Statesboro, Heidi Shanklin, Portland, OR; Apple James Altes, Washington, DC; Electronic Georgia; Technical Support Specialist I, Service Tech, Metro Publishing Specialist, American Red Cross Georgia Southern University H. Emery Ford, Kensington, MiD; Senior James Ault, Albany, NY; Information James Moss, Gresham, Oregon; Creative Programmer, CodeRyte Security Leader, Noble Consulting Director, Personal Image Concepts Henry Keultjes, Mansfield, OH USA; James B. Bushman, Medina, Ohio; James M. Smith, St. Louis, MO; Manager, President, Microdyne Company President, Bushman & Associates Technical Services, Intercon
VerDate 11
James Myers Jr., Middletown, NY; Water Jason Cox, Irvine, Ca; IT Manager, E- J. Clifton Bullard, Memphis, TN; Operator, Town of Goshen Commerce Exchange Programmer, US Postal Service James Newby, Carbondale, IL; Jason Day, Atlanta, GA; Software JC Pollman, Burke, Virginia; Major, US Undergraduate, SIUC Engineer,n/a Army James Patrick Miculka, Houston, Texas; Jason Greene, Fairway, Kansas; Software J. David Eisenberg, San Jose, CA; Software Engineer, BMC Software Eng. IV, Sprint Programmer/Teacher/Writer, n/a James Perkins, Beaverton, OR; Software Jason Guidry, Brackettville, Texas; Director Jeanne S. Glazer, Silver Spring, FID; Engineer, IEEE Associate Member of Bands, Brackett ISD Consultant, The Seva Group James Price, Atlanta, Georgia; System Jason Henriksen, Concord, CA; President, Jean-Pierre, Ann Arbor, Michigan; student, Administrator, n/a Hardy Henriksen Hughes Consulting, Inc. University of Michigan James R. Hofmann, Naperville, IL; Senior Jason Howard, Oakdale, CA; Software Jedediah Roach, Davis, California; Student, Software Engineer, Ricardo Software Engineer, SpectSoft University of California, Davis James Richard Tyrer, Green Valley, AZ; Jason Jobe, Purcellville, VA; President, Jeff Adams, Kyle, TX; System Consultant; Member, ACM Datalore Administrator, n/a James R. Leu, Allison Park, PA; Jason L. Shiffer, Vienna, VA; Senior Jeff Brown, San Diego, CA; Graduate Independent Software Developer, n/a Software Engineer, Zerotao.com Student Researcher, UC San Diego James R. Maynard III, Fairmont, Minnesota; Jason McC. Smith, Chapel Hill, NC; PhD Jeff Carlson, Encino, CA; Systems Senior Systems Engineer, Global MAINTECH Candidate, Univ of North Carolina at Chapel Administrator, InfoUSA / www.easytel.net Corporation Hill Jeff Coffin, Nevada City, CA; Software James Roberts, Birmingham, AL; Software Jason M. Crist, Lexington, Kentucky; New Engineer, contractor for American Airlines Engineer, BankWare Media Specialist, Hart Media Services Jeff Couturier, Tampa, FL; Web James Rogers, Ridgecrest, CA; Software Jason M. Felice, Cleveland, OH; Application Developer, ATT Engineer, NAWCWD Technology consultant and business owner, Jeff Donner, Randolph, Massachusetts; James Salsman, Mountain View, CA; Cronosys Software Engineer, Scheduling Systems Inc Private Citizen, United States of America Jason Noble, Atlanta, Georgia; Software Jeff Greenman, Los Angeles, CA, Paralegal, James Sanford, Norwood, OH; Developer, Engineer, n/a General Counsel’s Office, Los Angeles Reynolds and Reynolds Jason Penney, Dracut, MA; Software Community College District James Shofstall, Carterville, Illinois; Engineer, n/a Jeff Hayas, Boulder, Colorado; Senior Owner, Select Synthetics Jason Pierce, Greensboro, NC; Computer Software Engineer, Storage Technology James Simons, Atascocita, Texas; Field Technician, Softwired Systems Corporation Jeff Holcomb, Tucson, Arizona; Software Webmaster, International Webmasters Jason Purdy, Cary, NC; Chief Technology, Journalistic, Inc. Engineer, Red Hat Association Jason Radecki, Porter, Indiana; Engineer, Jeff Hostetler, Jeffersonville, IN; President James Sterling Jr., McCrory, Arkansas; Local 150 and Software Craftsman, Jeff Hostetler Computer Technician, Crabtree’s Computer Jason Reich, San Diego, CA; Software Jeff Jackowski, Cary, North Carolina; James S. Wadell, Anchorage, Alaska; Engineer, Qualcomm, Inc. Software Developer, n/a Systems Analyst, SAIC Jason Rennie, Cambridge, MA; Graduate Jeff Jennings, Boulder, CO; Advisory James Wartell, Tucson, Az; Programmer, Student, Massachusetts Institute of Firmware Engineer, Benchmark Storage University of Arizona Technology Innovations James White, Laguna Hills, CA; Software Jason Samsa, Appleton, Wisconsin; Jeff Lightfoot, Peoria, AZ; Systems Consultant, Pagesmiths Database Administrator, Airadigm Controller, US Air Force James W. Wiebmer, Petaluma, CA; Manager Communications Jeff Mayzurk, Los Angeles, CA; Vice Systems Administration, Westwave Jason Scheirer, Riverside, California; President, Technology, E! Entertainment Communications, Inc. Professional Student Intern, County of Television, Inc. James Zach II, Frankton, IN; Electronics Riverside, CA Jeff McKenna, Redmond, WA; President, Technician, Smurfit-Stone Container Jason Shonk, Montclair, NJ; Electronic McKenna Consulting Group Jamie Dow, Newport Beach, CA; Student, Engineer, n/a Jeffrey A. Ebert, Half Moon Bay, CA; Senior University of California, Irvine Jason Shupe, Pasadena, CA; System Logic Designer, Sonics, Inc. Jamie Lee Cho, North Bergen, New Jersey; Engineer/Student, JPL/Cal Poly Pomona Jeffrey A. Worth, Stoneham, MA; Senior Technical Architect, Zelo Technologies Jason Stefanovich, Alexandria, VA; Vice President/MIS Manager, Stoneham Jamie Piperberg, Hamden, CT; Software Software Test Analyst, US Government Savings Bank Engineer, n/a Jason Titus, Brooklyn Park, MN; Jeffrey Barger, Mason’s Neck, Virginia; Jamie Yukes, Seattle, WA; Independent Consultant, Independent Systems Admin/Engineer, Maczilla Heavy Consultant, TCN Communications Jason Waterman, Cambridge, MA; Research Industries Jared Allar, Fargo, North Dakota; Student, Scientist, MIT Jeffrey Bridge, Houston, TX; Programmer, North Dakota State University Jason Westlake, Newnan, Georgia; Thyme Technology Jared Curtis, Fresno, CA; Student, Fresno Computer Technician, ICA Consulting Jeffrey C. Albro, Duxbury, NA; Consultant, City College Jason Woolever, Sunnyvale, CA; Sr. R&D interaction-engineer.com Jared Robinson, Springville, UT; Software Engineer, Synopsys, Inc. Jeffrey Dale Greenfield, Grand Rapids, MI; Engineer, Symantec Corporation Jayan Moolayil, Chicago, IL; Senior Systems Engineer, Calvin College Jarred Fehr, Marietta, Georgia; PC Software Engineer, n/a Jeffrey D. Kent, Austin, Tx; Stores Manager, Coordinator, Peachtree Business Products Jay Beale, Baltimore, MD; President, JJB Physics Dept. J. Arruda, Santa Clara, CA; Corporate Security Consulting Jeffrey Goff, Forest Heights, MD; Software Alchemist, VA Software Jaye Mathisen, Medford, OR; Manager, Engineer, Blackboard Inc. Jason A. Dujardin-Terry, Spokane, WA; Western Telephone Integrated Jeffrey Johnson, Livermore, CA; Computer Computer Tech, Descriptive Imaging Communications Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Jason A. Tripp, Edenton, NC; Independent Jay R. Walker, Valparaiso, IN; Application Laboratory Software Developer, n/a Developer, Golden Technologies, Inc. Jeffrey K. Downey, Raleigh, NC; Editor, Jason Baietto, Boca Raton, Florida; Jay Sachs, North Adams, MA; Development Triangle Sports Journal Principal Engineer, Concurrent Computer Architect, Eziba.com Jeffrey L. Clark, Coon Rapids, MN; Corporation Jay Sulzberger, Yonkers, New York; Principal Software Engineer, EDS PLM Jason Balicki, St. Louis, MO; Sr. Network Corresponding Secretary, LXNY, New York’s Solutions Engineer, Alexander Systems Free Software Organization Jeffrey L. Susanj, Florissant, MO; Member, Jason Bergstrom, Portland, OR; System Jay W. Luther, San Anselmo, CA; Attorney, ACM Administrator, Mentor Graphics Law Offices of Jay W. Luther Jeffrey Quinn, Nashville, TN; System Jason Box, Binghamton, New York; J.B. Nicholson-Owens, Champaign, Illinois; Software Specialist, Vanderbilt University Software Engineer, Self Consultant & Owner, Forest Field Consulting Medical Center
VerDate 11
Jeffrey Rehbein, Water Valley, MS; Jerry L. Neff, Fresno, CA; Programmer/ Joe Weber, Louisville, CO; Senior Macintosh Games Developer, n/a Analyst, State Center Community College Technologist, Cable Television Laboratories Jeffrey R Pitman, Hillsboro, OR; Software District John August, New Orleans, Louisiana; Engineer, Brooks Automation Jerzy Puchala, Alpharetta, Georgia; Senior Analyst, Tulane University Jeffrey S. Morgan, Cleveland, Ohio; Sftware Engineer, Still Current Development John A. Varela, McLean, VA; Retired Director of Technology, Bristol West Jeshua Smith, Madison, WI; Undergraduate John Beal II, Bend, OR; Network Engineer Insurance Student, University of Wisconsin II, Orcom Solutions, Inc. Jeffrey Wescott, San Francisco, California; Jesse Becker, Evanston, IL; Systems John Beamon, Baton Rouge, LA; Internet Software Developer, n/a Administrator, n/a Systems Administrator, EATEL Jeffrey Willis, Columbus, Ohio; Student, Jesse Burson, Boston, MA; Manager of MIS, John Bekas, Jr., Chicago, IL; Software Ohio State University Adaptive Optics Associates Architect, Confirmative Technologies, Inc. Jeffrey Y. Sue, MD, Honolulu, HI; Jesse Donaldson, San Jose, CA; Senior John Bryan, Austin, Texas; Programmer Diagnostic Radiologist, n/a Software Engineer, Palm, Inc. Analyst, Broadwing Communications Jeff Rosowski, Las Vegas, NV; Network Jesse Holden, Ukiah, CA; Web Designer / John Callaway, Santa Cruz, California; Systems Specialist, n/a Computer Technician, Independent Software Engineer, visiComp Jeffry Jones, Marietta, GA; Senior Internet Contractor John Carpenter, Brookfield, WI; Software Application Developer, weather.com Jessica Slason, Southington, CT; Microsoft Engineer, Penta Technologies Jeff Shultz, Sacramento, CA; Partner, Alternatives Hobbyist, n/a John Clayton Long, Tallahassee, Florida; Sunfire Design and Consulting J.F. Neveau II, Essexville, MI; Trooper, Programmer, Graphic Artist, Student, Jeff Wandling, Fall City, WA; Software Michigan Dept. of State Police National High Magnetic Field Laboratory Jill Ratkevic, Sunnyvale, Ca; Consultant, n/ Development Engineer, RealNetworks John Clymer, Fairmont, MN; Software a Jeff Wieland, West Lafayette, IN; Network Engineer, Kahler Automation Jim Barnes, Bellevue, WA; Network Analyst/Engineer, Purdue University John C Meuser, West Lafayette, Indiana; Administrator, S&B Inc. Jef Spaleta, Princeton, NJ; Graduate Student, Purdue University Jim Belant, Pulaski, Wisconsin; Electrical Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab John Crowley, Somerville, MA; Web Engineer, System Engineer Jemaleddin S. Cole, Glen Burnie, MD; Consultant, johncrowley.net Jim Bengtson, Nevada, Iowa; Sr. Systems Analyst, Data Computer Corp. John D. Heintz, Austin, TX; Software Programmer/Analyst, Ruan Transportation America Integrator, Isogen International, LLC. Jim Bertin, Hysham, MT; Tech Jem Lewis, Seattle, WA; Software Engineer, John Diley, Gaithersburg, Maryland; n/a Coordinator, Hysham Public Schools n/a John D. Mitchell, Moraga, CA; Citizen, Jim Eikner, Austin, Texas; Network Jennifer Bohmbach, Minneapolis, MN; Administrator, n/a USA Information Architect, Imaginet Jim Gamble, Warrenton, VA; Software John Donaldson, Brattleboro, Vermont; Jennifer Mandel, Los Angeles, Ca; Engineer, n/a Director, K2Kid:HyperMedia Computer Tech, freelance Jim Matisi, Richardson, Texas; Sr. John Edstrom, Newport, OR; Senior Jeremiah Bachmann, Pittsburgh, PA; Middleware Administrator, CompUSA Programmer, NewSof Group Software Engineer, n/a Jim Miller, Cedar Rapids, IA; Chief of John E. Ivory, New Hartford, NY; President, Jeremiah Gilbert, Moriah, New York; Software Infrastructure, i-OP Blue Vista Solutions Consultant, vtnetworks.net Jim Priest, Raleigh, North Carolina; CTO, John Enters, Cedarburg, WI; Web and Jeremiah Stanley, Arvada, CO; n/a ClickCulture Database Developer, Sysnetweb Jeremiah Trudeau, Tolland, CT; Graduate Jim Quinn, Shelton, CT; Desktop Systems John Evans, Boston, Massachusetts; Student, University of Connecticut Administrator, Getronics Computer Specialist, Association of Jeremy D. Foshee, Seneca, SC; Jim Roland, Irving, TX; Consultant, n/a Computing Machinery Programmer/Systems Analyst, Integrated J. Kenneth Gentle, Lincoln University, PA; John Ewart, San Bernardino, California; Support Systems, Inc. Software Architect, iMedium, Inc. Software Developer, LANtrocity Jeremy Green, Norman, OK; CTO, Digital J Matte, Atlanta, GA; Application John F Biggs II, Charlotte, North Carolina; Commerce Solutions Programmer, Peachtree Business Products Systems Admin, Wachovia Jeremy Howes, Charlotte, NC; Product J. Nathan Matias, Mount Joy, PA; John F. Chamblee, Tucson, AZ; Graduate Mechanical Designer, Eurotherm Drives Inc Technologist, Allied Networks Research Associate, Center for Applied Jeremy Leader, Arcadia, CA; Software (www.allied.net) Spatial Analysis Developer, self employed JoAnna Minneci, Los Angeles, CA; John F. Houde, San Francisco, California; Jeremy McMillan, Chicago, IL; Unix Webmistress, On Target Design Assistant Research Neuroscientist, University System Administrator, Aon Joe Howard, Puyallup, WA; Student, of California Jeremy Noetzelman, Seattle, Washington; University of Puget Sound John Franks, Evanston, IL; Professor, Senior Network Engineer, University of Joe Kazura, Durham, NH; Information Northwestern University Washington Technologist, University of New Hampshire John G. Hasler, Elmwood, Wisconsin; Jeremy Padfield, Dallas, TX; Design Joel F. Leland, Oceanside, Ca; Owner, Debian Developer Verification Engineer, n/a http://www.moonstoneservices.com/ John Goodleaf, Seattle, Washington; Jeremy Pastore, Bethlehem, PA; systems Joel Garringer, Tulsa, OK; Senior Web- Technology Coordinator, Immunex analyst, libra consulting corp. Designer/Developer, Tek-Systems John Grayless, San Antonio, Texas; IT Jeremy Petersen, Draper, Utah; Manager, Joel Harris, Indianapolis, IN; Consultant, Director, Gerloff Company, Inc. TeachStream Bravura Systems John Guthrie, Washington, DC; Software Jeremy Schiffer, NYC, NY; Computer Joel Kickbusch, Rockledge, FL; Lead Developer, American Institutes for Research Security Administrator, Columbia University Software Engineer, e-Security John Hall, Fairbanks, Alaska; Programmer, Jeremy Stanley, Orem, UT; Software Joel Miles, Maplewood, MN; IT Support University of Alaska Engineer, LDS Missionary Training Center Specialist, Science Museum of Minnesota John Hardin, Snohomish, Washington; Jeremy Walker, Southfiled, MI; Software Joel Schneider, Bloomington, Minnesota; Internal Systems Administrator, Apropos Developer, i33 Software Developer, Effective Tech Services Retail Management Systems, Inc. Jeremy White, Saint Paul, Minnesota; Joe Marcotte, Honolulu, HI; Network John Hatch, Dundas, MN; Computer User: President & CEO, CodeWeavers, Inc. Security/Firewall Administrator, n/a Microsoft, Linux and Apple Products, n/a Jerome D Krough, Laurel, Maryland; Joe Naccarato, Wilmington, DE; John Heasley, Portland, Oregon; n/a Chemist, n/a Programmer, Dade Behring John Hohm, Oak Forest, IL; Software Jerome Falatko, Reading, PA; Computer Joe Provo, Needham, MA; Director, RCN Developer, Applied Systems, Inc. Systems Analyst, n/a Corporation John Holcomb, Greenville, IL; n/a Jerry C. McGill, Ph.D., Crowley, Texas; Joe Smith, Philadelphia, PA; biomedical John Holstein, Charleston, WV; Helpdesk/ Associate Professor, UNTHSC-FW research fellow, Thomas Jefferson University Support Coorinator, www.cotse.com
VerDate 11
John H. Robinson, IV, San Diego, CA; John Viega, Warrenton, VA; CTO, Secure Jon Ciesla, Des Moines, IA; PC Systems Systems Administrator, University of Software Solutions Support, American Republic Insurance California John Vitek, Anderson, SC; Owner/ Company John (Jack) Varga, Lafayette, Colorado; Data President, Ideal Solutions Jon Hartwell, La Crescent, MN; Consultant, Systems/Software Architect, Independent John V. Martinez, Atlanta, GA; Principal FIDS John J. Beach, Waterville, MN; Instructor, Software Engineer, Ciena Jon McClintock, El Cerrito, CA; Project PC/LAN, IT Department, Brown College John Voigt, Terre Haute, Indiana; System Engineer, Blue Mug John Karakash, Raleigh, NC; Senior Administrator, Valley Technology Jordan Peterson, Watertown, WI; Network Software Engineer, Lv17 Systems Inc. John Walsh, Broomfield, CO; Java Administrator II, DeLaRue Cash Systems John K. Edwards, Burke, VA; Vice Architect, Sun Microsystems Jorge Guerra, Miami, FL; Business President, Results Computing Corporation John Wedoff, Somerville, MA; Software Development Manager, Opera Software John K. Herndon, Kansas City, Missouri; Developer, n/a Joseph A. Knapka, El Paso, TX; Sysems Student, DeVry John Wendel, Monterey, CA; Computer Engineer, TransCore Intelligent Traffic John K. Molnar, Atlanta, GA; Network Programmer, U.S. Navy Systems, Inc. Security Developer, Trellis Network Security John Wenger, Ph.D., Redondo Beach, CA; Joseph Alek Piasecki, Danville, Illinois; John Kroll, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Internet Consultant, Wenger Consulting Systems Administrator, Danville Holdings, Systems Analyst, n/a John W. Linville, Mebane, NC; Computer Inc. John Langley, Hollis, NH; Director of Engineer, LVL7 Systems, Inc. Joseph Buck, Campbell, CA; Principal Platform Archtiecture, KANA Software John Wohlers, Somonauk, IL; Library Engineer, Synopsys John L. Grzesiak, Derry, NH; Senior Technology Assistant, Waubonsee Joseph Cooper, Portland, Oregon; Analyst, The Learning Incentive community College Programmer, Torment Interactive John Manning, Sterling, VA; President, Jonathan Abbey, Austin, TX; Senior Joseph Crowley III, Dedham, MA; Data electronworks, inc. Operating System Specialist, The University Entry Specialist, Preferred Temporaries John McCain, Birmingham, Alabama; of Texas at Austin Joseph Daniel Lyman, Tigard, OR; CIO, Systems Engineer, Layer3 Communications Jonathan Blocksom, Vienna, VA; President, Exacura Professional Technologies John Medway, Austin, TX; Human Being, GollyGee Software Joseph Esrey, Gainesville, FL; Student, Human Race Jonathan Booth, Urbana, IL; Graduate Anthropology, University of Florida John Meek, Dallas, Tx; Owner, Your IT Student, UIUC Joseph Foley, Cambridge, MA; Senior Services Jonathan Cameron, Chandler, Arizona; Software Engineer, Akamai Technologies John Merryweather Cooper, College Place, Software Engineer, Motorola Joseph J Collins, Middlesboro, Kentucky; Washington; Student/FreeBSD Maintainer, n/ Jonathan D. Nolen, Santa Barbara, CA; Web Pharmacist, n/a a Developer, n/a Joseph Kanowitz, Ridgefield, CT; Network John M. Siino, Reno, NV; Sole-Proprietor, Jonathan E. Greenberg, Ann Arbor, Administrator, Individual Advanced Engineering Services Michigan; Lead Consultant, Innovative Joseph K. Fish, Raytown, Missouri; John Napiorkowski, New York City, NY; Process Solutions Programmer / Analyst, DataCapture Senior Programmer, Bristol Myers Squibb Jonathan Freiermuth, Rochester, NY; Lead Technologies John Oglesby, Snohomish, Washington; Systems Engineer, VoiceWeb Corporation Joseph L. Hill, Hanover, NH; Unix Systems President, Data Index, Inc. Jonathan Hartley, Denver, CO; Senior Manager, Dartmouth College John Oliver, San Diego, CA; Systems Software Engineer, SchlumbergerSema Joseph L. McCay, Manchester, NH; Administrator, hosting.com Jonathan Hart, Livermore, CA; Citizen, Software Engineer, n/a John Paquin, Freeland, Maryland; Senior citizen Joseph Lubin, New York City, New York; Programmer, Breakaway Games Jonathan Haskins, Los Angeles, CA; Web Senior Software Engineer, emagine solutions John P. Conner, Colorado Springs, CO; Designer, n/a Joseph Majeske, Highland Park, NJ; VP President, Empire Digital Instruments Jonathan Hill, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Software, Sonorus, Inc. John Peter Hermes, Waterloo, Illinois; Systems Administrator, Marshall & Ilsley Joseph Palmer, San Jose, CA; (Former) DBA, Fleishman-Hillard Corporation Director of Hardware Engineering, Be, Inc. John Pierce, Palatine, IL; Consultant, n/a Jonathan Kamens, Brighton, MA; Senior Joseph R. Justice, Alexandria, VA; John Pulliam, Frisco, Tx; Associate Software Engineer, Curl Corporation Computer Programmer, self-employed Technical Profesional, Halliburton Energy Jonathan Korman, San Francisco, CA; Joseph Rock, Ann Arbor, MI; Services Principal designer, Cooper Interaction Design Communications Engineer, NextHop John Quigley, Greenwich, Connecticut; Jonathan Lindstrom, St. Louis, MO; Senior Technologies Inc. Student, SUNY Maritime College MIS Specialist, Anheuser-Busch Companies Joseph Shraibman, New York, NY; Director John Reyst, Royal Oak, Michigan; Owner, Jonathan McLin, Tempe, AZ; Chief of Internet Operations, Xtenit Inc (http:// Net-Mechanics.com Technology Officer, Cottonwood Technology www.xtenit.com) John Rohrbaugh, Fort Collins, CO; Design Group Joseph Sloan, Fullerton, Ca; Systems Automation Engineer, Agilent Technologies Jonathan M. Hamlow, Minneapolis, MN; Engineer, Mirai Consulting John Seals, Minneapolis, MN; Consultant, Development Coordinator, Public Radio Joseph Vandevander, Raleigh, North Solution Design Group International Carolina; System Administrator, n/a John Soliday, Marietta, GA; Systems Jonathan Morris, Portland, Oregon; ASQ Joseph W. Gibson, Pasadena, CA; Lead Administrator, Self john Stillwagen, San Certitified Software Quality Engineer, private Software Engineer, n/a Diego, CA; Database Administrator, La Jolla citizen Josep L. Guallar-Esteve, Chapel Hill, NC; Institute for Allergy and Immunlogy Jonathan Newquist, Kearney, Nebraska; QA Testing Engineer, Red Hat Inc. & member John Stoneham, Baltimore, MD; Associate computer technician, n/a of IEEE Computer Society Software Engineer, eOriginal, Inc. Jonathan Niebling, Boston, Mass.; Flight Josh Bauguss, Albuquerque, New Mexico; John Stoner, Chicago, Illinois; Software Attendant, American Airlines Senior Programmer, Web-Galleries Developer, Independent Jonathan Nizar, Baltimore, Maryland; Josh Douglas, Bedford, VA; Systems John Sweeney, Satellite Beach, FL; Systems Student, Johns Hopkins University Administrator, Smyth Companies Administrator, SAIC Jonathan Powers, Melbourne, FL; Digital Josh Jackson, Houston, TX; Founder, John Tebbutt, Frederick, MD; Computer Designer, Harris Corp. University of Houston Linux Users Group Scientist, The National Institute of Standards Jonathan Troiano, Los Angeles, CA; IT Josh Mayers, Boston, MA; Network and Technology Consultant, Freelance Engineer, n/a John Tobias, San Francisco, California; Sr. Jonathan Walton, Newport Beach, CA; Josh Prokop, Brewster, MA; Independent Network Engineer, Marin Networks Inc. Design Engineer, Gordian Softeware Developer, n/a John Vann, Collegeville, PA; Web Jonathan Weeks, Seattle, WA; Director of Josh Simon, Aurora, IL; Principal, Joshua Developer, Kaloke Technologies Engineering, Performant S. Simon Consulting John Van Patten, Petoskey, Michigan; Jon Beckett Schreiber, Milwaukee, WI; IT Joshua Arnold, Austin, Texas; Systems Violinist/Music Instructor, Self employed Testing Analyst, Manpower Administrator, IronRhino
VerDate 11
Joshua Bennett, Chicago, IL; Corporate Justin Hall, Cincinnati, OH; Network Ken Horton, Indian Harbour Beach, FL; Systems Technologist, ABN A mro Administrator, The Sant Corporation Developer, ImageLinks Joshua Crone, Baltimore, Maryland; Unix Justin Lee, Denver, CO; Senior Software Ken Kelley, Charlottesville, VA; Software Systems Administrator, Advertising.Com Development Architect, Harland Financial Engineer, n/a Joshua Fluty, Greenville, SC; Independent Solutions Ken Klavonic, Concord, NC; Systems Programmer, n/a Justin Miller, Somerville, Massachusetts; Admin, Wachovia Joshua Fritsch, Stamford, CT; Security Senior Software Architect, Oculus Ken Kumayama, Glendale, Arizona; Analyst, UnixGeeks.Org Technologies Corp. System Administrator, n/a Joshua Fryman, Bogart, GA; PhD Student Justin Wojdacki, Santa Clara, CA; Senior Ken Martin, Woodinville, WA; Software and Researcher, Georgia Institute of Engineer, Analog Devices Engineer, n/a Technology Kanayo Orji, East Lansing, MI; Student, n/ Ken McKee, Hillsborough, NC; Analyst Joshua Kayse, Smyrna, Georgia; Student, n/ a Programmer, Duke University Medical Center a Karen Mirande, Dufur, OR; Landscape, Kenneth Badertscher, San Jose, CA; Joshua Keith, Malden, MA; n/a, n/a U.S. Citizen Technical Yahoo!, Yahoo! Personals Joshua Kirby, Little Rock, Arkansas; IT Karl Bellve, PhD, Worcester, Kenneth Bromberg, Garden City, NY; Specialist III, Southwest Power Pool Massachusetts; Research Engineer, University College Lab Technician, City University of Joshua Levenson, Raleigh, NC; Premier ISV of Massachusetts New York Graduate Center Partner Engineer, Red Hat Karl J. Smith, Portland, OR; Systems Kenneth E McFarling, Portland, Oregon; Joshua Smith, East Lansing, Michigan; Engineer, n/a Software Engineer, n/a Student, Michigan State University Karl M. Hegbloom, Portland, Oregon; Kenneth Eschrich, Branford, CT; Student, Joshua Willingham, Phoenix, AZ; Developer and Consultant, The Debian Worcester Polytechnic Institute Technical Coordinator, Aries Technology, Project Kenneth J. Hendrickson, Tucson, AZ; Inc. Karl S. Griffiths, Edwardsville, Illinois; Principal Engineer, Raytheon Missile Josh Varner, Bartlesville, Oklahoma; Microcomputer Technician, I cannot disclose Systems Programmer, Diversified Systems Resources Katherine Smith, San Jose, CA; Scientific Kenneth J. Lund, Houston, Texas; Josiah Royse, Lexington, KY; Technical Programmer, n/a Hardware Engineer IV COMPAQ Contractor, Analysts International Kathleen L Smith, Seattle, WA; Retired, Kenneth M. De Tullio, Huntsville, AL; J. Scott Evans, Springfield, VA; Chief Seattle schools Programmer, BRC Technology Officer, Computational Physics, Kathy Cook, Los Angeles, CA, Registered Kenneth Miller, San Francisco, California; Inc. Psychologist, Didi Hirsch Community Mental Associate Professor, University of California J. Scott Jaderholm, Provo, Utah; Student, Health Center Kenneth V. Cuvelier, Canby, OR; Computer Brigham Young University Kathy Evans, Antioch, TN; Web Designer, Consultant, Becken Computer Services Juan Lang, San Jose, CA; software engineer, E.I.C.C. Kenneth W. Cochran, Alexander City, Cranite Systems Kathy I. Morgan, Tok, Alaska; just a US Alabama; Consultant, Independant Judd Rogers, Austin, Texas; Product citizen who uses computers Kenneth W. Melvin, East Bend, North Developer, BMC Software Kaushik De, Arlington, TX; Professor, The Carolina; Citizen, United States of America Judith Phillips, Atlanta, Georgia; Learning University of Texas at Arlington Kenn Murrah, Dallas, Texas; Webmaster, Products Engineer, HP Keith Bierman, San Jose, CA; Software Ussery Printing Jules Agee, Seattle, WA; System Developer, n/a Ken Settle, Newport Beach, CA; Software Administrator, Pacific Coast Feather Co. Keith Hays, Champaign, IL; Senior Support Developer, TransMedia Productions, Inc. Jules Siegel, Cancun, Quintana Roo; Writer Engineer, Argus Systems Group Kent Benedict, Iowa City, Iowa; Systems and Graphic Designer, CafeCancun.com Keith H. Hayden, Dumont, NJ; Web Site Administrator, n/a Julia Christianson, Arlington, VA; Developer, powersolution.com Kent Peterson, Charlottesville, Virginia; Administrative Director, ICON Community Keith Holland, Bowling Green, KY; Senior Quality Assurance Analyst, n/a Services Software Developer, Independent Consultant Kent Pirkle, Atlanta, Georgia; Systems Julia Hart, NYC, NY; Student, Columbia Keith Keller, San Francisco, CA; System Administrator, n/a University administrator, n/a Kent Schumacher, Minneapolis, MN; IS Keith K Gross, Madison, WI; Development Manager, Structural Wood Corporation MTC–00028573—0025 support specialist, Wisconsin Department of Kermit Woodall, Glen Allen, VA; Julia Mackert, Galesburg, Illinois; PC Revenue President, Nova Design Support Specialist, OSF Keith Reed, Detroit, Michigan; UNIX/SAN Kerry Crouse, Nashua, NH; Owner/ Julia Mason M.D., Waunakee, WI; Administrator, CareTech Solutions/Detroit Engineer, Crouse Consulting Pediatrician, Physicians for Social Medical Center Kevin A. Sesock, Stillwater, Oklahoma; Responsibility Keith Wissing, Lititz, PA; Senior Software Deskside Computer Support Specialist, Julie Szekely, Austin, Texas; Web Designer, Engineer, IDenticard Oklahoma State University Self-employed Kelly Cordellos, Santa Rosa, CA; Apple Kevin D. Clark, Nottingham, NH; Software Julio A. Cartaya, Atlantic Highlands, New Sales Consultant, Apple Computer Engineer, n/a Jersey; Systems Engineer, AT&T Kelly Hatcher, Austin, Texas; Senior Kevin Dickson, Billerica, MA; Software Justin A. Faughn, College Station, TX; Software Engineer, Vignette Corporation Engineer, Raytheon Student, Texas A&M University Kelly Hickel, Minneapolis, MN; Senior Kevin H. Devin, Bothell, WA; Systems Justin Anderson, Amherst, MA; Student, Software Architect, n/a Administrator, n/a University of Massachusetts Amherst Kelvin Kakugawa, Champaign, IL; Student, Kevin Hostelley, Cleveland, OH; Justin Ballou, Burlington, VT; EDI Project Self Technology Master, KeyBank Manager, The Physician’s Computer Ken Bowman, Mt. Pleasant, SC; IT Kevin Hutson, Austin, TX; Programmer, Company Manager, Quovadx Insomniac’s Lounge Justin Dugger, Olathe, KS; Student, Kansas Ken Conrad, Dayton, OH; Network Analyst, Kevin J. Butler, Spanish Fork, Utah; State University Motoman, Inc. Software Architect, Campus Pipeline Justin D. Whitney, Worcester, Kendall Bailey, De Pere, WI; Software Kevin Martin, Tuxedo Park, NY; Owner, Massachusetts; n/a Engineer, Schneider National Brass Cannon Consulting Justin Fletcher, Murray, KY; Network Kendall whitlatch, Duvall, Washington; IT Kevin McFadden, McLean, VA; consultant, Technician, Murray State University Consultant/Software Engineer, Grendel n/a Justin French, McPherson, KS; Student, n/ Industries Kevin Michael Pansky, Cleveland, OH; a Ken Engel, Berkeley, CA; Software Student, Northwestern University Justin Georgeson, Plymouth, MN; Software Engineer, member, Tau Beta Pi National Kevin Morgan, Los Angeles, CA; Engineer, Optical Solutions Inc. Engineering Honor Society—tbp.org Consultant, Self-employed Justin Guerin, Colorado Springs, Colorado; Ken Fox, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Kevin Nelson, St. Louis, MO; Senior SMC Product Engineer, Atmel Corp. Programmer, Ford Motor Company Staff, Cybercon
VerDate 11
Kevin O’Connor, Ardsley, NY; Systems Lamar Prosser, Charleston, SC; IT Linchuan Liu, Mountain View, California; Analyst, McGraw-Hill Coordinator for Ctr for Health Care Research, Student, University of California at Berkeley Kevin O’Mahoney, Palo Alto, California; Med Univ of SC Linda Lawson, Phoenix, AZ; Flash Design Senior Software / Hardware Engineer, n/a Lance Dryden, Astoria, New York; Network and Production, n/a Kevin Oster, Milpitas, CA; Software Administrator, Modelwire Lindsay Pallickal, Elmsford, New York; Engineer, Member, ACM Lance Ivy, College Place, WA; Student, Principle, Guidewalk LLC Kevin Rayhons, San Antonio, TX; Walla Walla College Lion Templin, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Multimedia Specialist, Southwest Research Lane Weast, Fort Myers, FL; Programmer Owner, LCR Systems Institute Analyst I, Lee County Clerk of Court Lisa Applegate, Pekin, IL; Network/ Kevin Sonney, Pittsboro, NC; Programmer, Lanny Powers, Athens, Alabama; Systems Administrator, Pekin School District webslingerZ, Inc President, LANPOWERS Inc. 108 Kevin Swearingen, Saint Charles, Missouri; Larry Groebe, Dallas, TX; VP New Media, Lisa A Uber, Highland Park, New Jersey; President, Reliable Group Insider Marketing Consultant/Project Manager, Starling Kevin White, Newbern, TN; Computer Larry Hammer, Williamsburg, Virginia; Lisa Corner, Princeton, WV; System/ Support Technician, Collierville Municipal Network Administrator, Ecpi Technical Network Administrator, n/a Government College Lisa R. Bogue, Los Angeles, CA; System Kevin Wright, Dallas, TX; Systems Larry McVoy, San Francisco, CA; CEO, and Network Administrator, n/a Technician, Neiman Marcus BitMover, Inc. Lisa Werner Carr, Dallas, Texas; Senior Khouri Giordano, Melville, NY; Software Larry Norris, Oklahoma City, OK; Director Content Developer, imc2 Technology Researcher, Nikon of Development, AFA eDirect Lou Glassy, Bozeman, Montana; Software Kimberly A. Brosan, Irmo, SC; Library Larry Sendlosky, Leominster, MA; Engineer, RightNow Technologies Media Specialist, Mid-Carolina High School Consulting Software Engineer, Storigen Louis Canaiy, Fort Collins, Colorado; Kimberly Claffy, La Jolla, CA; associate Systems Systems Administrator, Engineering Network research scientist, Principal Investigator, Larry Smithmier, Cary, NC; Software Services (Colorado State University) UCSD, CAIDA Engineer, Oak Grove Software Lou Miller, Washington, DC; Project Kimberly Menninga, Grand Rapids, Larry Staton Jr., Winter Park, Florida; Coordinator, Washington Metropolitan Area Michigan; Research and Development Paralegal/Economist, Holihan Diaz Transit Authority Coordinator, The Composing Room of Larry Works, Charlottesville, Virginia; Lucas McCauslin, Worcester, MA; Michigan Network Engineer, n/a Embedded Systems Engineer, Microwave Kip Gebhardt, San Francisco, CA; Software Lars R. Damerow, Oakland, CA; Senior Radio Communications Engineer,n/a UNIX System Administrator, n/a Luc Lapalme, Sudbury, Ontario; Software Kip Manley, Portland, Oregon; Writer and Laura Wick, San Diego, CA; Homemaker Developer, Accutron Instruments designer, Freelancer Laurence Mills-Gahl, Chicago, IL; Luke A. Kanies, Nashville, Tennessee; Konrad Nagel, Santa Cruz, CA; Application President, Webfarm, Inc. Infrastructure Architect, Caterpillar Financial Manager, SZ Testsysteme Laurence Schorsch, Evanston, IL; Graduate Luke Crawford, Rochester, NY; Web Kory Hamzeh, West Hills, CA; President, Student, University of Chicago Programmer, R Brooks Associates Avatar Consultants, Inc. Lawrence Alkoff, Austin, TX; retired, n/a Lyle D. Vogtmann, Oak Harbor, WA; Pres., Krishna Sethuraman, Sunnyvale, CA; Lawrence Gohar, New York, NY; Sr. Whidbey Island Linux User Group Programmer/Analyst, SGI Server/Network Engineer, n/a Lynn Yuan, West Covina, California; Kris Ktindworth, Urbana, Illinois; Database Lawrence M. Brinley, Greenfield, IN; Executive Director, i2s Inc. Administrator, Carle Clinic Association President/CEO, SOHO Solutions MacDonald Jackson, Corvallis, OR; CAD Kristian Kvilekval, Santa Barbara, CA; Lawrence R. Doolittle, Walnut Creek, Engineer, Intel Graduate Researcher, UC Santa Barbara California; Staff Engineer, Lawrence Berkeley Malcolm Gin, Columbia, Maryland; Kristine Sawyer, Castro Valley, California; National Laboratory Systems Architect, Member, ACM Concerned Citizen Lawson Whitney, Concord, North Carolina; Marcel Valcarce, Hollywood, CA; Designer/ Kurt Andersen, Liberty Lake, Washington; Citizen, United States of America Director, Pacific Title and Art Studio Postmaster, Agilent Technologies Lee Adams, Lake Mary, Florida; BOFH, Marc Grubb, Roslindale, MA; Director, IS, Kurt Anderson, Bangor, Maine; Info Synergy Southeast Panache Editorial Security Assoc, Eastern Maine Healthcare Lee C Smith, Tyrone, GA; Regional Sales Marcia Baczynski, Jersey City, NJ; Member, Kurt D. Starsinic, Brooklyn, NY; Senior Mgr (Retiring), Plastican Inc New York Linux Users Group Software Architect, WolfeTech Development Lee Glenn, Des Moines, Iowa; Software Marc Levine, Ukiah, California; Systems Kurt Overberg, San Francisco, CA; Analyst, Engineer, n/a Analyst Programmer, County of Mendocino KMDI Inc. Lee Graba, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Marcus B. Sellers, Homer City, PA; Masters Kurt Schaeffer, Houston, TX; Technical Principal Engineer, Honeywell, Inc. Candidate Biology, Indiana University of Support Representative, Larson Software Lee M. Bernbaum, Midwest City, OK; Penna Technology Programmer/Analyst, self-employed Marcus I. Ryan, Ames, IA; Computer Kurt Yoder, McLean, VA; Network Lee Wenzbauer, Chicago, IL; Senior Engineer, Iowa Department of Transportation administrator, Sport & Health Clubs Consultant, DanielGraphics Marcus Porter, Falls Church, VA; Systems K.V. Moffet, Lancaster, CA; Owner, Lee Willoughby, Kansas City, MO; Web Engineer, National Institutes of Health Offworld Press Developer, AP Network Services Margaret Stephanie Leber CCP, Kyle Davenport, Dallas, TX; SysAdmin, Leif Sawyer, Anchorage, AK; Network Jeffersonville, PA; Chief Technical Officer, CompUSA Engineer, General Communication, Inc Matrisync Kyle Hasselbacher, Elmhurst, IL; Lei Zhang, Los Angeles, CA; Student, Mario Martinez, New York, NY; Systems Programmer, n/a UCLA Linux Users Group Engineer, Thomson Financial Kyle Hoyt, Pinellas Park, FL; System Len Frazier, McAllen, TX; Systems Marion Bates, Hanover, NH; Research Engineer, Raytheon Manager, Rio Grande Valley Publishing Engineer, Institute for Security Technology Kyle MacLea, Norwich, VT; Graduate Leonard Park, Salem, MA; Sales Associate, Studies Student, Dartmouth College Apple Computers Mark ‘‘Adam’’ Baum, Elk River, MN; Kyle Mandli, Madison, Wisconsin; Leonard Schrieber, PhD, Fair Lawn, NJ; Software Engineer, Lockheed Martin ATM Software Engineer/Researcher, Mandli Senior Trading Systems Analyst, n/a Mark Allshouse, Baltimore, Maryland; Communications Leon D. Shaner, Dearborn, ; Internet Student, Anne Arundel Community College Kyle McDonald, Burlington, MA; System Architect, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Mark A. Lytle, Houston, Texas; Network Engineer/Programmer, Sun Microsystems Lewis Vincent, Melbourne, Vic; Manager, Analyst, Phillips Petroleum Co. Kyle Mesnard, Crystal Lake, IL; Student, eDream Designs Mark Anderson, Chandler, Arizona; University of Illinois Lex Mierop, Newbury Park, CA; Senior Component Engineer, Intel Corp. Kyle Wheeler, Cincinnati, Ohio; Student, Software Engineer, Network Telephone Mark A. Thomas, Germantown, Maryland; Ohio University Services Owner, Play by Electron Games
VerDate 11
Mark Belnap, Pleasant Grove, UT; Software Mark Symonds, Fountain Valley, CA; Matthew Manor, Valley Stream, New York; Developer, n/a Systems Administrator, n/a President, Kingmanor Enterprises Mark C. Bradley, Eden Prairie, MN; Senior Mark Tucker, Clifton Park, NY; Unix Matthew McNeil, Pocatello, ID; Student, Software Engineer, n/a Systems Consultant, n/a Idaho State University Mark Clancy, Rochester, MN; Senior Mark Wagner, Fremont, California; Matthew Patton, Springfield, VA; Network Analyst/Programmer, Mayo Clinic Database Administrator, IBM/CrossWorlds Security Officer, VGS Mark Ericksen, Omaha, Nebraska; Software Mark W. Alexander, Orlando, FL; Matthew Poor, Englewood, FL; Citizen, Engineer, n/a Consumer, n/a Venice Auction Mark Fasheh, Los Angeles, CA; Student, Mark Whiteford, BaltiMore, MD; Network Matthew Radway, Rapid City, SD; Student, UCLA Linux Users Group Administrator, WW PCTechs South Dakota School of Mines and Mark Gray, Atlanta, GA; Computer Systems Mark wilson, Ithaca, NY; Student, Cornell Technology Analyst, n/a University Matthew Ray, Austin, Texas; Software Mark Greene, Concord, NH; Sr. Systems Marlene Morley, Cleburne, Texas; Linux Developer, 360 Commerce Engineer, Capital Region Health Care Administrator, Hypernet Communications Matthew R Burack, Ames, IA; Software Mark H. Bickford, Portland, ME; Marshall D. Lewis, Charlottesville, VA; Developer, Computer Data Services Programmer/Analyst, n/a Senior Programmer, ScholarOne Inc. Matthew Reed, Seattle, Washington; Mark Holbrook, Pocatello, Idaho; IS Martin Middleton, Bridgewater, MA; Student, n/a manager, AMI Semiconductor Release Engineer, n/a Matthew Ross, Ephrata, Washington; Mark Horning, Aurora, CO; Unix Systems Martin Slade, Pasadena, CA; Scientist, non- Founder, nineinchnerds.org Administrator, IBM Global Services profit research lab Matthew Sachs, Merrick, NY; Lead Mark Jackson, Fort Collins, Colorado; Marty Altman, Orlando, Florida; Senior Developer and Project Manager, Zevils Software Engineer, Shuffle Master Scientist, SAIC Software Mark Jacob, San Diego, CA; Software Marty Paul Combs, San Francisco, CA; Matthew Sexton, Kirkland, WA; Design Engineer, Sony Computer Entertainment Systems Administrator, Techprose Engineer, n/a America Mary Pat McDonald, Phoenix, Arizona; Matthew Strait, Oak Park, IL; Student, Mark Jaroski, San Francisco, California; Educator, Cartwright School District Carleton College Senior Software Engineer, World Health Mary Peterson Hartzler, Alexandria, Matthew Toia, Washington Crossing, PA; Organization Virginia; self employed, n/a Student, n/a Mark J. Horn, Charlotte, NC; System/ Matt Curtis, American Fork, UT; Software Matt Krabbenhoft, Austin, Texas; Graphic Network Administrator, n/a Engineer, Clearst0ne Corporation Designer, n/a Mark Juliano, Atlanta, GA; Unix Matt Dew, Denver, CO; Hardware Engineer, Matt Leonard, Denver, CO; Consultant, n/ Administrator, Autotrader.com SEAKR Engineering a Mark King, Sun Valley, NV; Graphic Artist, Matt Graha Matt Lewis, Sacramento, CA; Network n/a M, Lansing, Security Manager, WINfirst Mark Kinzie, Baltimore, MD; Software MI; QA/Testing Lead, Group InfoTech Matt Oquist, Nashua, NH; Software Engineer, Johns Hopkins University Matt Hell Engineer, Compaq Computer Corporation Mark Martin, Rochester, New York; Experience Designer, Element K Man, Urbandale, Iowa; Network Security Matt Potosnak, New York, New York; Mark Miller, Berkeley, CA; Student, Univ. Analyst, Principal Financial Group Programmer, RiskMetrics Group of California Matthew A. Matt Pujol, Fort Collins, Colorado; Mark Mynsted, Lewisville, TX; Senior Miller, Ahahei Electrical Engineer, IEEE Application Developer, n/a M, California; Software Engineer, The van Matt Schmill, Amherst, MA; Research Mark Nottage, Berkeley, CA; Systems der Roest Group Assistant, University of Massachusetts Engineer, n/a Matthew Barr, New York, NY; Syste Matt Vanderveer, Charlottesville, VA; Mark Parker, Salt Lake City, Utah; Lead Ms Ad Systems Administrator, Boxer Learning Web Developer, Medicity Ministrator, Barr Consulting Matt Welsh, Berkeley, CA; Graduate Mark Plimley, San Jose, CA; President, Matthew Bogosian, San Francisco, student researcher, UC Berkeley Computer Plimley Consulting California; Software Engineer, Grand Central Science Division Mark R. Andrachek, Jr., Richmond, VA; Communications Maureen Duffy, Troy, NY; Student, Concerned Citizen, n/a Matthew Bohnsack, Ames, Iowa; Software Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Mark R. Millsap, Potomac Falls, Virginia; Developer, bohnsack.com Maurice P., Buckfield, ME; Technology Business Development Manager, Affiliated Matthew Caughron, Omaha, Nebraska; Co- Manager, MSAD #39 Information Resources, Inc. Founder, Proteron LLC Max Bell, Portland, Oregon; Senior Mark Rottler, Indianapolis, IN; Owner/ Matthew Conway, Cambridge, Systems Analyst, Max Bell Consulting President, SLM Industries LLC Massachusetts; Senior Software Engineer, i2 Maxx Christopher Lobo, San Jose, CA; Mark R. Ritschard, Loveland, CO; Director Technolgies Inc. Network Architect, ArrayComm, Inc. of Computing, Colorado State University Matthew C. Rees, Greenville, Rhode Island; Mayer Ilovitz, New York, NY; AVP, Mark Rushing, Seattle, WA; IT Consultant, Computer Programmer, n/a Citibank Orbis Lumen Matthew Goheen, Rochester, NY; Melissa Grams, Appleton, WI; Systems Mark Salisbury, Chelmsford, Ma; Senior Consultant, MRRC Consulting Corp. Analyst, Airadigm Communications Software Engineer, Salisbury and Salisbury Matthew Hornyak, Pittsburgh, PA; CTO, Melissa Woo, Champaign, IL; Research Inc. rTheory Programmer, University of Illinois at Urbana- Mark Schafer, Defiance, ohio; student, Matthew Hudson, Seattle, WA; Network Champaign NSCC Security Engineer, AT&T Wireless Meredith Dixon, Mannington, WV; Mark Schweikle, Gilbert, Arizona; Student, Matthew Jenove, West New York, New Webmaster, Raven Days Byte Rain Development Corporation Jersey; Software Engineer, n/a Meryl Newbern, New York, NY; Mark Shepard, Dallas, TX; Software Matthew J. Evans, Espanola, New Mexico; Consultant, n/a Engineer, Consultant Owner/Operator, Oasis CyberCafe Micah Cox, Kingston, TN; Lead Mark Stevenson, Indianapolis, IN; Small Matthew Jones, Fort Wayne, Indiana; Programmer, Ethereal Software businesss owner, n/a Macintosh computer lab Administrator, Micah John Cowan, Mountain View, CA; Mark Stock, Ann Arbor, MI; PhD student, Taylor University Fort Wayne Software Engineer, Transmeta Corporation U of Michigan Matthew J. Turk, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Michael A. DeLuca II, Hatboro, PA; Web Mark Stratman, Hoffman Estates, IL; Student, Northwestern University (IL) Designer, Psidonia.org Systems Administrator and Software Matthew Kerr, Walnut Creek, CA; Student, Michael A. Jaskowiak, Centreville, VA; n/ Developer, EMC Capital Management Saint Mary’s College of California a Mark Swayne, Portland, OR; Computer Matthew Luu, Santa Ana, CA; Helpdesk Michael Alatorre, Los Angeles, CA; EIS Programmer, n/a Administrator, Goodwill Industries of OC Liaison Analyst, Cedars-Sinai Health System
VerDate 11
Michael A. McLean, Raleigh, NC; QA Michael Isaac Jones, Columbus, Ohio; Michael Sandford, Jacksonville, Florida; Testing Engineer, Red Hat Inc. Computer Science Student, The Ohio State Student, University of North Florida Michael Amster, Los Angeles, CA; Chief University Michael Shiplett, Ann Arbor, MI; Senior Technology Officer, WebEasy Michael Jennings, Portland, OR; Business Software Developer, Cisco Systems Michael A. Raymond, Eagan, MN; Software Owner, Futurepower(R) Computer Systems Michael Sierchio, San Francisco, Engineer, SGI Michael J. Manning, London, Ohio; California; Information Security Consultant, Michael A. Schupp, New York, NY; Senior Software Engineer, n/a Tenebras, LLC Developer/Systems Architect, Crosslinks Michael J Myers, Manchester, PA; Sr Michael Skora, Ann Arbor, MI; Web Systems Applications Developer, PA State Employee’s Master, University of Michigan Michael Barnes, San Mateo, CA; Software Retirement System Michael Spencer Jr., Council Bluffs, Iowa; Engineer, Cisco Systems Michael J. O’Donnell, Chicago, Illinois; Programmer/Analyst, Celebrity Personnel Michael Batchelder, Redwood City, CA; Professor in Computer Science, The Michael S. Scaramella, Esq., Cherry Hill, Software Engineer, Counterpane Internet University of Chicago NJ; Senior Partner, Scaramelia & Hoofnagle Security, Inc. Michael Jones, Ruckersville, VA; Java Michael Tesch, Minneapolis, MN; Software Michael Battle, Phoenix, AZ; Software Programmer, Boxerlearning Engineer, Independent Contractor Engineer, Motorola Semiconductor Products Michael J. Porter, Newark, DE; Senior Michael Tomkins, Kingman, AZ; Sector Systems Programmer, University of Delaware Consultant, VMSupport Michael Bell, Pewaukee, WI; Programmer, Michael King, Wheeling, Illinois; QA Michael T. Rankin, Walker Valley, NY; n/a Software Tester, Zebra Technologies Software Support Manager, n/a Michael Blakeley, Foster City, CA; Internet Michael Klein, Hermosa Beach, CA; Chief Michael T. Scheidler, Greentown, IN; consultant, self-employed Architect, Greatmark Software Unix/NT System Administrator, Delphi Michael Bolen, Mishawaka, Indiana; Field Michael Komarnitsky, Boulder, CO; Automotive Systems Enginner, Service Express, Inc. President, Komar Consulting Group Michael Warnock, San Francisco, Michael Bourgon, Fort Worth, TX; Michael Kriss, Naperville, Illinois; System California; Artificial Life Programmer, Database Administrator, n/a Administrator, n/a InOrbit Entertainment Inc. Michael Brauwerman, Chevy Chase, FiD; Michael L. Broggy, New York, NY; System Michael Westcoat, San Francisco, CA; Software Engineer, OPNET Technologies Analyst, New York Times Software Engineer, n/a Michael Buice, Chicago, Illinois; Graduate Michael Lee, Phoenix, Arizona; Cell Michael Wimpee, Olympia, Washington; Student, University of Chicago Biologist, Environomics Southwest Student, Whitman College Michael Challis, Oklahoma City, OK; Michael Lewis, Fort Collins, Colorado; Michael W. Shaffer, Palo Alto, California; Network and Security Administrator, Agilent President, NeoDigita CEO, NicheStaffing Technologies Michael Charrier, Colorado Springs, Michael Logue, Asheville, NC; Business Michelangelo Grigni, Atlanta, GA; Colorado; President, Charrier Consulting Owner (Partner), Earth Guild Associate Professor, Emory University International Michael Lucas, Saint clair Shores, MI; Michelle Arden, Palo Alto, CA; Consultant, Michael Cope, Richmond, VA; Consultant, Great Lakes Technologies Group Arden Consulting Michael McConnell, Edina, Minnesota; Photographer, Michael Cope Photography Michelle Klein-Hass, Van Nuys, CA; Michael Creighton, St. Louis, MO; Chief Architect, http://info- Citizen of the United States of America, n/ Interactive Designer, Omni Creative Group sapient.sourceforge.net a Michael C. Schultheiss, Indianapolis, IN; Michael McCray, San Bernardino, CA; Mignon Belongie, Redwood City, CA; CEO / CIO, Amellus Enterprises, Ltd. Computer Technician, San Bernardino Software Engineer and co-founder, Digital Michael D. Barry, Baltimore, FiD; Medical Group Persona, Inc. Application Developer, n/a Michael McGonagle, Chicago, Illinois; Mike Cathey, Collegedale, TN; Network Michael Desjardins, Gray, ME/ Computer Owner, FoundSoundRealizations Administrator, RTC Internet DBA Catt.com Programmer, n/a Michael McHenry, Long Beach, CA; Mike Dean, Cleveland, OH; Programmer, Michael Dill, San Jose, CA; Systems Consultant, Rossum Technologies NBD, Inc. Administrator, Novellus Systems Michael Mirande, Dufur, OR; Mike Doherty, Cleveland, OH; Self, Self Michael Dinsmore, Gaithersburg, MID; Videographer, Self Mike Grello, Gaston, South Carolina; MacGenius, Apple Michael Monasco, Minneapolis, Principal Programmer, MaranaTha Software Michael E Brown, Pflugerville, TX; Minnesota; President, Cycle Software Mike Heath, Provo, UT; Software Software Engineer, Dell Computer Corp Services Developer, Terrapin Technologies Michael Fairchild, Ventura, CA; n/a Michael Morrison, San Diego, Ca.; Software Mike Hokenson, Green Bay, WI; Systems Michael Fair, Los Angeles; Member, Engineer, Stonefly Networks Admin, DCT Technologies linuxatlax.org Michael O’Neill, Holden, MA; n/a Mike Lundy, San Jose, CA; Founder, Michael F. Klein, Palo Alto, CA; Engineer Michael O’Toole, San Jose, Ca; Engineering Leland High School Linux/BSD Club and Domain Administrator, n/a Director, n/a Mike Schiller, Edgewater, MID; Electrical Michael Fox, Seattle, Washington; Michael Owens, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Engineer/Embedded Programmer, n/a Software Engineer, Self Systems Analyst, State of New Mexico Mike Schiraldi, Ashburn, VA; Research Michael Galloway, Lenoir City, TN; System Michael Parker, Los Angeles, CA; Software Scientist, VeriSign Engineer, Oak Ridge National Lab Architect, n/a Mike Shupp, Los Angeles, California; grad Michael Granger, Lakewood, CO; Architect, Michael Peay, Murrieta, CA; IT Manager, student, Cal State University The FaerieMUD Consortium RedZone Interactive Mike Simpson, Atlanta, Georgia; Senior Michael Guymon, New York, NY; Systems Michael Percy, San Ramon, CA; Software Technical Architect, Abel Solutions Architect, Igicom Engineer, Portera Systems Mike Vondrasek, Fort Worth, TX; Senior Michael Hagedorn, Houston, Tx; Sr Michael P McGill, Bethesda, MD; Director Windows Engineer, CitiGroup Software Engineer, Pentasafe, Inc of Software Development, HealthASPex Inc. Mike Wexler, Santa Clara, CA; CTO, Michael Heyes, Fort Wayne, Indiana; Michael Poole, Reston, Virginia; Design TIAS.COM Electrical Engineer, Lincoln Foodseervice Engineer, n/a Mike Whitney, Austin, TX; Sr. Systems Products Michael Remski, Merrimack, NH; Principal Analyst/Programmer, Motorola Michael Hnatko, Syracuse, NY; Student, Software Engineer, n/a Miles Pickering, San Francisco, CA; Syracuse University Michael R. Jinks, Chicago, Illinois; Unix Owner, 4by6.com Michael Hollander, San Francisco, CA; Systems Administrator, James Franck Milind Rao, Atlanta, GA; Software Software Engineer, Intraspect Software Institute Architect, Brickstream Michael Houda, Soquel, CA; Senior Michael Roberts, Bloomington, Indiana; Mingyan Bao, Fort Collins, CO; Software Engineering Technician, CSJ/DPW/D&C Owner, Vivtek http://www.vivtek.com Engineer, n/a Michael Hrubik, Norton, Ohio; Student, Michael Roman, Ithaca, NY; Sr Systems Miron W. Neal III, Portland, OR; Instructor, The University of Akron Analyst, Cornell University Portland Community College
VerDate 11
Mitch Lee, San Francisco, CA; Software Neal Young, Cambridge, MA; Senior Patricia A. Rupe, Ormond Beach, FL; Engineer, unemployed Research Scientist, n/a Senior Applications Analyst, n/a M. Jamie Hejduk, Lexington Park, Neeraj Tulsian, Austin, Texas; n/a Patrick B. Gardner, Aiken, South Carolina; Maryland; Network Admin, Neil D. Rosenthal, Schenectady, New York; Owner, Offdwall Computers www.memorabledvds.com Consultant, Applications Programming, Patrick Corrigan, Tigard, Oregon; n/a M. Lisa Colvin, Nederland, Colorado; James McGuinness & Associates, Inc. Patrick Finnegan, West Lafayette, IN; Disabled, Concerned individual Nell Drumm, Polk City, Iowa; Student, Student, Purdue University M.L. McCauley, Dallas, Texas; President, North Polk Community School District Patrick Insko, Roscoe, Illinois; Principal, Mtech Services Neil Getker, Cincinnati, OH; Network Insko Computer Consulting Group Molly Tomlinson, Somerville, MA; Administrator, HR ProFile Patrick J. LoPresti, Cambridge, NA; Consultant, PeaceGeeks Neill Haggard, Cary, North Carolina; Founder, Curl Corporation Mona T Magee, Tallahassee, Florida; State Consultant, Self employed Patrick J. Santucci, Dayton, OH; Control Worker, n/a Nevin Lyne, Rochester, FiN; Sr Network Systems Programmer, MCSi Morgan Collins, Yakima, WA; Owner, Administramor, Gippy’s Internet Solutions Patrick McDonald, Boston, MA; President, Morcant Software Nicholas Allen, Columbus, OH; Computer Heed Technology Moses Lei, Falls Church, VA; Student, Engineering Student, Ohio State University Patrick McMahon, Newark, DE; Computer Thomas Jefferson High School for Science Nicholas Bender, Norton, NA; Quantitative Information Technology Associate III, and Technology, Alexandria, VA Analyst, n/a University of Delaware Mukesh Agrawal, Pittsburgh, PA; Graduate Nicholas Jones, Chicago, IL; Unix Patrick Moon, Somerville, Massachusetts; Student, Carnegie Mellon University Administrator/Network Tech, DuckSystems/ Substitute Teacher, Somerville High School Nadia Pervez, Goleta, CA; Graduate SignalCorp Patrick Nichols, Norfolk, VA; Web Student, EE/CS, UCSB Nicholas Paulick, Oshkosh, WI; Developer, n/a Najati Imam, Lexington, Kentucky; Masters Mechanical Engineer, n/a Patrick Scannell, Fairbanks, AK; Network Student, University of Kentucky Nick Fankhauser, Liberty, IN; Programmer, Manager, USFWS Nancy Goroff Whitney, East Setauket, NY; Doxpop Paul Belt, Franklin, MA; Networking Assistant Professor, SUNY Stony Brook Nick Grossman, New York, NY; Software Consultant, Self Nancy Lehrer, Thousand Oaks, CA; Developer, n/a Paul Blair, Bluffton, SC; Software Software Architect, self employed Nick Ienatsch, Orinda, CA; Retired, State of Development Manager, Databuilt Nasser Salim, Albuquerque, New Mexico; California Paul Bort, Euclid, Ohio; Systems Engineer, Systems Administrator, Albuquerque High Nick K. Aghazarian, Stockton, CA; TMW Systems Paul Bradley, Portland, Oregon; Performance Computing Center Windows Software Engineer, n/a Technology Specialist, n/a Nate Fichthorn, Nokesville, Virginia; Nick Scott, Arlington, VA; Engineer, Paul Campbell, Seattle, WA; Tech Student, n/a Veritect Consultant, n/a Nate Sammons, Denver, CO; Senior Nick Traxler, West Lafayette, Indiana; Paul Cantrell, St. Paul, MN; Software Consultant, BEA Systems Student, Purdue University Engineer, Retek Inc. Nick Wesselman, Milwaukee, WI; Nathan Bargmann, Bremen, Kansas; Lead Paul DeStefano, Beaverton, Oregon; Electronics Technician, Class A, Union Consultant, Digital visions Systems Analyist, n/a Pacific Railroad Niels Provos, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Ph.D. Paul D. Robertson, Alexandria, Virginia; Nathan Black, Madison, WI; Consultant candidate, CITI, University of Michigan Director of Risk Assessment, n/a Nathan Clegg, San Diego, CA; Software Nigel Gamble, Mountain View, CA; Paul Eberle, New Prague, MN; Software Engineer, MUSICMATCH Operating System Software Engineer, Afara Developer, BlueCross BlueShield of MN Nathan Cohick, Quartz Hill, California; Websystems Paul Felts, Ventura, CA; Network Design Engineer, (Advanced Bionics) Private Nigel Olding, Folsom, CA; Consultant, CDI Administrator, CSF Consultant Nino R. Pereira, Springfield, VA; Sr. Paul Forbes, Sunnyvale, CA; Network Nathan Currier, Los Alamos, NM; Graduate Scientist, Ecopulse Engineer, Trimble Research Assistant, University of California Nitin Borwankar, Oakland, CA; President Paul G. Allen, El Cajon, CA; Engineering Nathan Egge, Austin, TX; Software and CEO, Borwankar Research Inc. Consultant, Random Logic Consulting Developer, Trilogy Software Noah Gibbs, Mountain View, CA; Software Services Nathan Feltch, Provo, UT; Software Engineer, Palm, Inc Paul Gardner, Carlsbad, CA; Software Analyst, Dentrix Dental Systems Inc. Noel Holshouser, Plain Dealing, LA; Engineer, n/a Nathaniel Davis, Chicago, IL; Graphic Independent Consultant, n/a Paul G. Ennis, Chapel Hill, NC; Attorney at Designer, The Creative Group Nolan Leake, San Francisco, CA; Software Law, n/a Nathaniel Gray, Pasadena, CA; Graduate Engineer, Radik Software Paul Herzog, Flanders, New Jersey; Student, California Institute of Technology Norbert Roma, Pittsburgh, PA; Research President, Gapware Systems Nathan Kunkee, Rolla, MO; Student, Scientist, n/a Paul H. Lewis, Aiken, South Carolina; University of Missouri-Rolla Norman Yamada, New York, NY; Government Documents Librarian, University Nathan Myers, Placerville, CA; Software Independent software developer, n/a of S. Carolina—Aiken Engineer, n/a Ocie Mitchell, Pasadena, California; Paul Hoehne, Reston, VA; Manager, T4 Nathan Neulinger, Rolla, MO; Systems Software Engineer, Paracel Consulting Group Administrator, University of Missouri—Rolla Oliver Azevedo Barnes, Brooklyn, NY; Web Paul Howard, St. Joseph, Michigan; Sole Nathan O’Meara, Ravenna, OH; Student, Developer, self-employed Proprietor, Tomcat Robotics SSCT Oliver Stacey, Berkeley, California; Paul Keusemann, Savage, MN; Software Nathan Paul Simons, Ridgecrest, Software Engineer, n/a Engineer, n/a California; Owner, Hard Core Hackers Pablo Virgo, Middletown, Maryland; Paul Levitt, Brookline, MA; Space Systems Nathan Roach, San Antonio, Texas; Student Tech Support, Earlham College Engineer, n/a Product Manager, small business Pamela Eachus, Manchester, New Paul Lorenz, Rochester, NY; Software Nathan T. Spillson, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Hampshire; IS Operations Analyst, Engineer, NetSetGo Inc. Principal, Innovative Process Solutions Syndicated Services Paul Lupa, Austin, TX; Sr. Systems Nathan W. Labadie, Detroit, MI; Sr. Pamela Jasins, Ann Arbor, Michigan; GIS Analyst, Motorola Security Specialist, Wayne State University Technician, Washtenaw County Government Paul Lussier, Lunenburg, MA; Senior Neal J. Murphy, Orinda, CA; L.Ac., n/a Paonia J. Ezrine, Chelmsford, MA; Sr. Unix Network/Systems Administrator, Mission Neal Rauhauser, Omaha, Nebraska; Consultant, n/a Critical Linux Engineer, American Relay Partha Narasimhan, Santa Clara, CA; Paul M. Dubuc, Columbus, OH; Software Neal R. Haslam, Ashfield, PA; Network Architect, n/a Engineer, CAS Telecommunications Engineer, electric Pat Augustine, Jacksonville, FL; Systems Paul Miller, Kalamazoo, MI; Systems utility Administrator, n/a Analyst, Bary County Telephone
VerDate 11
Paul Miller, Palm Bay, Fla.; Microsoft Phillip Jones, Raleigh, NC; Java Devloper Richard Blumberg, Cincinnati, OH; Support Tech, graphic-mac.com (Contractor), IBM Proprietor, Wm. Blake Fabricators Paul Notley, San Francisco, California; QA Phillip Karlsson, New York, NY; General Richard Brennan, Lockport, New York; n/ Engineer, Isomorphic Software Partner, Goats, LLC a Paulo Raffaelli, San Francisco, CA; Phillip Mocek, Seattle, WA; Software Richard Bullington-McGuire, Arlington, Principal Engineer, ImagiWorks, Inc. Engineer, Internap Network Services VA; Managing Partner, PKR Internet Paul Rupe, Chapel Hill, NC; Software Phillip Pollard, Lansdale, PA; Programmer, Richard Clark, Warren, MI; Field Service developer and computer hobbyist, n/a Diversified Consulting Engineer, MBM Computer System Solutions Paul Schreiber, Cupertino, CA; Software Phil True, M.S., Eagan, MN; System Richard Congdon, Rockport, MA; Senior Engineer, Apple Computer Inc. Architect, n/a Programmer, Harvard University Paul Stroud, Raleigh, NC; Software P. Ryan Bergman, Des Moines, Iowa; Web Richard Copeland, Marietta, Georgia; Engineer, IBM Developer, GeoLearning Senior Systems Engineer, n/a Paul Walmsley, Boulder, Colorado; n/a P. T. Kornman, Notasulga, AL; Dr., Central Richard D. Cravens, Columbia, MO; , Paul Z. Myers, Morris, MN; Professor, AL Comm College Independent Consultant University of Minnesota, Morris P T Withington, Plymouth, MA; Software Richard Forno, Arlington, VA; Chief Peter A. Schwenk, Newark, Delaware; Journeyman, callitrope Technology Officer, Shadowlogic CITA-3, Systems Administrator, University of Rachel Slatkin, Atlanta, Georgia; Electrical Richard G. Misenheimer, Los Angeles, CA; Delaware Engineer, n/a Senior Engineering Consultant, n/a Peter Bakke, Portland, Oregon; Webmaster, Rafal Boni, Stoughton, MA; Software Richard Harris, Pittsburgh, PA; Director of Independent Engineer, n/a Technology, Anexinet Peter Benjamin, Santa Monica, CA; Ralph Stanley, Austin, Texas; Probe Test Richard Jason Armstrong, Phoenix, Consulting Scientist, n/a Engineering, Motorola Arizona; Network Systems Engineer, Peter Boothe, Laguna Beach, CA; Software Ramon R. Aviles, Montgomery, IL; Private Technica Corporation Developer, Gordian Inc. citizen, n/a Richard Johnson, Kansas City, MO; Peter DeWeese, Fairfax, VA; Developer Randall Campbell, Fort Collins, Colorado; President, Northland Computer Services Support Engineer, webMethods Software Engineer, Hewlett-Packard Richard Kelsch, Lakeside, California; Peter F. Hollings, Atlanta, Georgia; Randall J. Parr, Seattle, WA; owner, Owner, RK Internet Technologies Software Consultant, n/a Temporal Arts Richard Lesh, St. Peters, MO; President, Peter Flugstad, Iowa City, Iowa; System Randall W Smock, Arvada, Colorado; Compass Genomics Architect, Icon Labs Hardware/Software Systems Engineer, Richard Linville, Spruce Pine, NC; Peter Frischknecht, Clemson, SC; Net Storagetek Distance Education Technician, Mayland CC Admin, Empowering Solutions Inc Randolph H. Kramer, Bethlehem, Pa; Richard M. Atwater, Indianapolis, IN; Peter Gephardt, Columbus, Ohio; Engineer, Consultant, n/a Software Engineer, Charles E. Hill & n/a Randolph S. Kahle, Tucson, AZ; President, Associates Peter Havens, Dever, CO; Senior Engineer, Kahle Associates, LLC Richard Moore, Newark, California; Level 3 Communications Randy Froc, Pepperell, MA; Software President, DACS Software, Inc. Peter J Scordamaglia, Holiday, FL; Senior Systems Engineer/Developer, Pegasus Engineer, Curl Corporation Richard Murphy, Las Cruces, New Mexico; TransTech Randy Tidd, McLean, VA; Software Mechanical Engineer, HTSI, NASA JSC Peter Kasting, Santa Barbara, CA; Software Engineer and Private Investor, (Self) White Sands Test Facility Development Engineer, Green Hills Software, Raylynn Knight, Acworth, GA; Sr. Software Richard Nicoletti, Southborough, MA; Inc. Design Engineer, ChoicePoint Software Engineer, Millennium Peter Luichinger, Fort Wayne, Indiana; Ray McVay, Arlington, TX; Sr. Software Pharmaceuticals Software Engineer, TEK Interactive Group Engineering Specialist, Northrop Grumman Richard Plevin, Brattleboro, Vermont; Peter Marreck, Greenwich, CT; Software Information Technology President, Richard Plevin and Associates Developer, FactSet Raymond Ferguson, Madison, WI; NOC- Richard Ross, Oxnard, CA; Lieutenant Peter Rinehart, Jupiter, FL; student of Analyst, Berbee Commander, United States Navy computer science, Cornell University Raymond Kocian, Ridgefield, CT; Research Richard Sawey, San Carlos, CA; Citizen, Peter Schneider, Nashville, TN; Software Scientist, Schlumberger-Doll Research USA Engineer, n/a Raymond Leonard Haines, Columbus, Richard Schumer, San Francisco, Peter Tagtmeyer, Hamilton, NY; Librarian, Ohio; Support Analyst, OCLC California; Auditor, Curtis Hotel Colgate University Ray Tayek, Lakewood, California; Richard Tietjen, Guilford, CT; Publishing Peter Vessenes, Cambridge, HA; President, programmer, nanosoft Technologist, McGraw-Hill Ybos Corp Rebecca Andrews, San Francisco, Richard W. Ernst, San Diego, CA; n/a Pete Smith, New Smyrna Beach, Florida; California; consultant, n/a Richard W. Lipp, Overland Park, KS; Electronics Technician, Bellsouth Rebecca Frankel, Boston, MA; Software Information Systems Manager, List & Clark Pete Toscano, Fairfax, VA; Systems Engineer, MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Company Research Manager, n/a Rebecca Sobol, Boulder, Colorado; Editor, Richard Wynne, Raleigh, NC; System Petre Scheie, St. Louis Park, MN; Unix LWN.net Administrator, AT&T System Administrator, Nextel Partners Red Lloyd, San Antonio, Texas; Senior Rich Coe, Milwaukee, WI; Software Petr Vicherek, Richester Hills, MI; Software System Administrator, Veridian Engineer, n/a Engineer, Eaton Corporation Rene Fromhold-Treu, Mountain View, CA; Rich Fuchs, Burlingame, CA; systems Phil Harris, Reston, Virginia; System Consultant, Eike Consulting programmer, Research Libraries Group Administrator, Cable & Wireless Renu Bora, Los Angeles, California; CFO, Rich Gordley, Des Moines, Iowa; Lead Philip Brogden, Tijeras, New Mexico; Linux Public Broadcasting Network Programmer, Diversified Software Senior Engineer, CWS Renwick Preston, Houston, Texas; Control Technology Philip Brown, Lakewood, California; Systems Specialist, S&B Engineers & Rich Irvine, Minneapolis, Minnesota; System Administrator, bolthole.com Constructors, LTD SysAdmin/Senior Systems Consultant, Philip Budne, Arlington, MA; Consultant, Reuben Partida, Pasadena, CA; Specialist, ArchWing Innovatons LLC n/a Verizon Advanced Services Rick Bradley, Harlingen, Texas; CTO, Philip Hilton, Farmington, Maine; Student, Reuven Gevaryahu, Philadelphia, PA; EastCore University of Maine at Farmington Student, University of Pennsylvania Rick Buford, Columbia, MO; System Philip Sagstetter, Littleton, Colorado; Rev. Nicholas R. Robbins, Bay City, MI; , Administrator, CARFAX Software Developer, Lockheed Martin Richard A. Eiken, Kansas City, Missouri; Rick Frankel, New York, New York; Corporation, Astronautics Company PC Consultant, Eiken Consulting President, cyberCode consulting inc Phillip Cox, Mesa, AZ; Network Engineer, Richard A. Milewski, Sunnyvale, Rick Richardson, Wayzata, MN; Dad, Charles Schwab California; CTO, RamPage.Net Richardson Family
VerDate 11
Rick Romero, Waukesha, WI; IT Manager, Robert J Brenneman, Poughkeepsie, NY; Rob Rennier, Olney, IL; System Valeo Software Engineer, IBM Administzator, n/a Rick Thompson, Claremore, Oklahoma; Robert J. Wygand, III, San Francisco, CA; Rocky Marquiss, Gillette, Wyoming; Developer, aeonblue Founding Engineer, FileFish Inc. Computer Programmer, Campbell County Rick Wittstruck, Lincoln, NE; Computer Robert Kelman, Long Beach, CA; Public Schools Programmer, self-employed Consultant, Deloitte Consulting Rod Martin, Springfield, IL; Owner, Ricky Musci, Berkeley, California; Systems Robert Kennedy, Austin, TX; Systems Network 23 Administrator, The Nautilus Institute Analyst, The University of Texas at Austin Rod Nayfield, Denver, CO; Director, ‘‘A Rik Farrow, Sedona, Arizona; Security Robert Klein Tribit, Lindenwold, New Telecommunications Company’’ Consultant Jersey; Systems Administrator, Mobility Rogan Hamby, Charlotte, NC; Assistant RL ‘‘Bob’’ Morgan, Seattle, WA; Senior Technologies Manager, Public Library Technology Architect, University of Robert Langer, Two Rivers, WI; Engineer, Roger Fujii, Burke, VA; Software Engineer, Washington Dramm Corp N/A R.L.Dempsey, Carrollton, Texas; Robert Lasch, Trevor, WI; Software Roger Humphrey, San Rafael, CA; Sr. unemployed, concerned user Engineer, n/a Software Developer, OSI Software Roberta A. Kennedy, St. Augustine, FL; Robert Leary, Atlanta, GA; Internet Roger K. Atkinson, San Diego, California; Applications Specialist, n/a Marketing Manager, n/a Sr. Operating Systems Analyst, Cubic Robert A. Cooper, Katy, Texas; Individual Robert Leland, Arlington, Virginia; Sr. Corporation Robert A. Glenn, New York, NY; Private Software Engineer, Free2Create Roger Partridge, West Chester, PA; software citizen Robert Love, Meadville, Pa; Systems development manager; member, IEEE Robert A. Jacobs, Omaha, Nebraska; Administrator, Stargate Industries Roger Shaffer Jr., Chicago, IL; Electronics Computer Analyst, Northrup Grumman Robert Lucas Marshall, Santa Clara, Utah; Engineering Student, DeVry Institute of Information Technology Webmaster, Developer Shed Technology Robert A Salzman Jr., Beaverton, OR; Sr. Robert Lusian, Spokane, WA; Software Roger West, Phoenix, AZ; Member, Member of Technical Staff, Responsys Engineer, n/a SourceForge Robert Bercik, Washington DC; Student, Robert Melton, Arlington, VA; Software Roger Whitehead, Greenville, SC; Computer Science, Georgetown University Developer, Metro DC Police Department Computer Engineering Student, Clemson Robert Bingham, Westerville, OH; Student, Robert Mena, Downey, CA; President, University Ohio State University Quadratel Systems Ronald L. Chichester, Kingwood, TX; Robert Brown, Northfield, Minnesota; Robert Minvielle, Notre Dame, IN; Adjunct Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Chair, Northfield Citizens Online Electronics Programmer Specialist, University of Notre Dame Ronald R. Gage, Saginaw, Michigan; Robert Brown, Northfield, MN; Chair, Robert Moeckel, East Wenatchee, WA; Owner, Linux Network Services (http:// Northfield Citizens Online Track Manager, Pangborn Kart Track www.lns-saginaw.net) Robert Brown, Portland, Oregon; Network Robert Morris, Carrboro, NC; VP of Ron Golan, Los Angeles, California; Manager, US District Court of Oregon Engineering, Eyetide Media Member, lula.org Robert Bruggner, Notre Dame, Indiana; Robert Murawski, Lyndhurst, NJ; Graduate Ron Hitchens, Lake Forest, CA; President, Student of CSE, University of Notre Dame Student/Research Assistant, Stevens Institute Ronsoft Technologies Robert Burcham, Kansas City, MO; of Technology Rory Louis Federico, Lemoore, CA; Software Engineer, Sprint PCS Robert Nesius, Portland, Oregon; Systems Personnel Supervisor Accountant, US Navy Robert Burke, Santa Monica, California; Programmer, n/a Ross Peterson, Missoula, Montana; Programmer, University of California, Los Roberto Rosario, Aguadilla, PR; Senior President, Trilocal Inc. Angeles Integrator, Linux Solutions of Puerto Rico Ross Youngblood, Chandler, Az; Robert Bushman, Chandler, Arizona; Robert Parnes, Mechanic Falls, ME; Applications Engineer, Credence Systems Senior Software Engineer, Apollo Group Author, consultant, n/a Corporation Robert B. Wamble II, Ramona, CA; Robert P. Booth, Rantoul, IL; Owner, Booth Roy James Milican, San Diego, CA; Software Engineer, SeaSpace Corporation Systems Engineering Network/System Administrator, Anonymizer Robert Chastain, North Plainfield, NJ; Robert P. Shaw, Cleveland, Ohio; Network Inc. Senior Analyst, NA Administrator, Cronosys, LLC Russell Hemati, Dallas, TX; Systems Robert Cober, Scottsdale, Arizona; Lead Robert Ramsey, Iowa City, Iowa; IT Engineer, Independent Consultant Developer, Scottsdale Insurance Professional, Private citizen Russell Luzetski, Indianapolis, IN; Robert Coli, San Francisco, CA; n/a Robert Riemersma, Holland, MI; Quality Consultant, Praxis Solutions Robert Dodier, Boulder, Colorado; Process Technician, Trans-Matic, Inc. Russell Stoneback, Austin, TX; Physicist, Programmer, Interested Citizen Robert S. Iacullo, Mountlake Terrace, WA; University of Texas at Austin Robert Eden, Cedar Hill, TX; System Software Test Analyst, Self Employeed Russ Urquhart, Plano, TX; Technical Administrator, n/a Robert Simmons, Ventura, CA; Web Writer, Multigen Paradigm, Inc. Robert E. Gomez, Highland, IN; Senior Designer, McVey Design Rusty Carruth, Tempe, AZ; Staff Software Technical Analyst, Neurosource Robert Spotswood, Houston, TX; Computer Engineer, Schlumberger T&T, Inc Robert Elshire, Urbana, IL; Director, Illinois Consultant, Self-Employed Ruthann Sudman, Rochester, MN; A Genetic Marker Center Robert Werckmeister, Chicago, Illinois; concerned computer-literate U.S. citizen. Robert Fowler, Miami, FL; Network Web Developer, Nuveen Investments Ryan Boder, Columbus, Ohio; Student, Administrator MCP, n/a Robert Winburn, Eminence, KY; Retired, Carnegie Mellon University Robert Freeborn, Hurst, TX; System US Govt, Web Sales Ryan Breen, Durham, North Carolina; Administrator, n/a Robert W. Mielke, San Antonio, Texas; Director of Software Engineering, Porivo Robert Gentner, Mesa, Arizona; Systems Project Manager, Rackspace Managed Technologies Programmer, Avnet Hosting. Ryan Gillespie, Newark, DE; Programmer, Robert Grunloh, Tucson, Arizona; Support Robert Woodraska, Sioux Falls, SD; IB University of Delaware Systems Analyst, University of Arizona Systems Administrator, Precision Computer Ryan Koga, Stanford, CA; Programmer, Robert Guthrie, Little Rock, Arkansas; Systems UCSD Software Engineer, Acxiom Corp. Rob Henerey, Williamsburg, MA; Web Ryan Little, Augusta, GA; Training Robert Helmer, El Cerrito, CA; Systems Developer, cogitowebworks.com Developer, n/a Administrator, Namodn Robin Cook, San Antonio, Texas; Systems Ryan Osial, Rochester, NY; Student, Robert Heyen, Boynton Beach, FL; Engineer, Edgewood ISD Rochester Institute of Technology Strategic Consultant, The Network Institute Robin Hopkins, Irvine, CA; Unix Systems Ryan Smith, Nashville, TN; Creative (www.tneti.com) Administrator, n/a Director, Monster Labs Robert J. Berger, Saratoga, CA; Chairman Robin Miller, Bradenton, Florida; Editor, Ryan Todd, Dallas, Texas; Network and Founder, UltraDevices Linux.com Administrator, EFO Holdings
VerDate 11
Ryan Yoong, Wayzata, MN; Student, Scott Rockwell, San Jose, CA; Member, Shawn Dunn, Spring Creek, Nevada; Chief University of Minnesota QOS, LLC Cook and Bottlewasher, Dumpsterdivers.net, Sabrina L. Nelson, Castro Valley, CA; Scott R. Wilson, Ph.D., Corrales, New and Dunn Consulting, Ltd. Freelance film/video editor, n/a Mexico; Engineering Manager, n/a Shawn Fogle, San Diego, CA; Aircraft Salvatore LaFata, Macomb Township, MI; Scott Sesher, Raymore, MO; Systems Mechanic, USMC Help Desk Coordinator, EDS Administrator, Sprint Shawn Kinzel, St Paul, MN; System Sam Denton, St. Louis, MO; Chief Systems Scott Thomason, East Troy, WI; Engineer/Administrator, Self Architect, WAN Technologies Consultant, Interactive Business Systems Shawn McCarthy, Bowie, MD; Systems Sam Harrison aka Trey Harrison, Seattle, Scott Wilder, Denver, CO; Lead Java Administration Manager, n/a WA; Chief Software Architect, Developer, Digital Reliance Shawn Yarbrough, San Antonio, Texas; Treyharrison.com Scott W. Starkey, Dayton, IN; Computer Software Developer, nailstorm.com Sam Hill, Fort Worth, Texas; LAN Support Technician, Purdue University Sherman Wang, Los Angeles, California; Administrator, TCCD (http://www.tccd.net/) Scott Yates, Des Moines, Iowa; Developer, Student, University of California Los Angeles Sam Mertens, Bethesda, FID; Software Yatesframe.com Shilon Shoaf, High Point, NC; Vice Engineer, n/a Sean Bruton, Dallas, Texas; Senior President, Orion Adv and Design Sam Steingold, Boston, MA; Senior Engineer, NeoSpire Shimone Samuel, Pacifica, California; Web Analyst, Xchange Inc Sean McCune, Natrona Heights, PA; Developer, n/a Sam W. Bowman, Valencia, CA; Electrical President, Red Hand Software Shing Cheng, New York, New York; Engineer, Medtronic Minimed Sean M Lentner, Norwalk, CT; CEO, Sam Wynn, Fort Worth, TX; Senior Graduate Student, New York University Lentner.com Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, Annandale, Embedded Software Engineer, Lockheed Sean Perry, Palo Alto, CA; Student, UC Virginia; Atid/2 Martin Aeronautics Davis Shon Burton, Irvine, CA; President, Sandra L. Bartlett, Ann Arbor, MI; Adjunct Sean Reilly, Richmond, VA; Chief Dataverse Corporation Assistant Professor, University of Michigan Technology Officer, Appgen Personal Sinan Karasu, Seattle WA; Electrical/ Sanjay Linganna, Baltimore, MD; Quality Software Software Engineer, bozuk.com Assurance Engineer, eOriginal, Inc. Sean Russell, Bend, OR; Sr. Software SI Reasoning, Birmingham, Alabama; Chief Sarah Barwig, Pasadena, California; Developer, Germane Software Technology Officer, Protection Products Software Developer, ArsDigita Sean T. Brann, Boston, MA; Principal, Sky Golightly, Capitola, CA; Systems Scott A. Clausen, Edgewood, WA; database Bigcity Interactive Architect, Walking Thunder Productions programmer, n/a Sean T. Canty, Kansas City, MO; System Spencer Carter, Traverse City, MI; Lead Scott Ames, Corvallis, Oregon; Technical Intergrator, Sunset Systems Support Representative, n/a Sean Woods, Philadelphia, PA; Senior Network Analyst, n/a Scott Baumann, San Francisco, CA; Network Engineer, The Franklin Insitute Spencer Cathey, Colville, WA; video game Creative Director, Heavy Graphics Seon Lee, Potomac Falls, VA; Software developer, unrapt.com Scott Bell, Los Angeles, CA; Consumer, n/ Engineer, n/a Sriram Kota, Miami, F1; Consultant, a Sergio Rey, La Mesa, CA; Associate Independent Scott Call, Santa Rosa, CA; Network Stan Gatchel, Dallas, TX; President, Engineer Professor, Department of Geography, San Diego State University Process Sciences Laboratory Scott Clark, Canton, MA; Principal Member Stan Novacki, Arlington, VA; Systems of Technical Staff, General Dynamics C4 Seth Bjorn, Santa Ana, California; Network Engineer, Goodwill Industries of Orange Engineer, n/a Systems Stefanie DeFiglia, Washington, DC; Scott Disher, Overland Park, Kansas; County Seth Delackner, Brooklyn, N-Y; Program Manager, n/a Consultant, OnLine Technical Solutions Steffen Hulegaard, Tiburon, California; Scott Dunbar, Kansas City, MO; Calibration Programmer, Contractor Seth Gordon, Boston, MA; Scientific President, TXL, Inc. Technician, Test & Measurement, Inc. Stephan A. Greene, Herndon, VA; Systems Scott D. Webster, Bergenfield, NJ; Owner, Programmer, Whitehead Institute Seth Herstad, Urbana, Illinois; EE Graduate Engineer, n/a Etc Services Stephen Bovy, Los Angeles, CA; Software Scott Dylewski, Ph.D., San Jose, CA; Student, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign Engineer, Computer Associates Hardware Development Engineer, Agilent Stephen Degler, Philmont, New York; Technologies Seth House, Salt Lake City, Utah; Student, Director—Systems and Technology, Scott Francis, Murfreesboro, TN; Systems University of Utah Allegheny Energy Global Markets Administrator, Rum Consortium Seth Lytle, Somerville, MA; programmer, Stephen Hughes, Dearborn, Michigan; Scott Francis, North Hollywood, MO; independent contractor President/CEO, Honeycomb Electronics, Systems/Network Manager, Tonos Seth Russell, Ellensburg, WA; Student, Entertainment Central Washington University Audio and Scott Furman, Menlo Park, CA; Software Seth Taplin, Nederland, Colorado; Senior Stephen J. Wright, Madison, WI; Professor, Engineer, n/a Software Engineer, DigitalGlobe University of Wisconsin-Madison Scott J. Lopez, Chicago, IL; Unix System Shane Kerr, Amsterdam, (US citizen, Stephen Kemler, Cleveland, Ohio; Network and Network Engineer, n/a voting in Virginia); Senior Database Software Administrator, Athersys Scott Lewis, Great Falls, Montana; Engineer, RIPE NCC Stephen Kuenzli, Phoenix, AZ; Software Software Developer/Service Technician, Shane Williams, Austin, Texas; Systems Engineer, Motorola Davis Business Machines Administrator, UT Austin Stephen Martin, Murray Hill, NJ; Senior Scott Lowe, Germantown, FiD; Director of Shannon E. Bock, Rio Rancho, New Developer, Binary Blizzard Software Information Technology, n/a Mexico; Business Systems Support Analyst, Stephen M. Deal, Perinton, NY; Systems Scott Maxwell, Pasadena, CA; Software Unisys Engineer, n/a Developer, n/a Sharon Lake, Los Angeles, CA; Web Stephen Mencik, Gambrills, Maryland; Scott M. Brylow, London, UK (US citizen Designer, n/a Senior INFOSEC Engineer, ACS Defense living abroad); Independent consultant Sharon Stevens, Tucson, AZ; Student, (affiliation shown for identification only) (technology management) University of Arizona Stephen Milton, Redmond, Washington; Scott McMullen, Dripping Springs, Texas; Shaun Reynolds, Northfield, MN; Student, ISP Owner, ISOMEDIA.COM n/a Carleton College Stephen Moore, Tucson, AZ; Computer Scott Meyer, St. Louis, Mo; Student, Shawn Allen, Vancouver, WA; Software Programmer, University of Arizona Fontbonne College Engineer, self Stephen Peters, Cambridge, MA; Doctoral Scott Parish, Arma, KS; System Shawn Campbell, Canton, Ohio; Student Student, MIT AI Lab Administrator, Pittsburg State University Network Administrator, Malone College Stephen Ronan, Cambridge, MA; Managing Scott Rachlinski, Baltimore, MID; Software Shawn Cornelius, Broken Arrow, OK; Director, Community Technology Centers’’ Engineer, Advertising.com Network Engineer, n/a Network
VerDate 11
Stephen R. Walter, Menlo Park, CA; Steve Wahl, Chanhassen, MN; Software Thomas McElroy, Morrisville, NC; Staff Associate Chief Geologist, US Geological Engineer, n/a Software Engineer, n/a Survey Stuart D. Pompian, Hanover, N-H; VP, Thomas Parker, Burke, VA; Technology Stephen Saunders, Los Angeles, CA; Dartware, LLC consultant, n/a President, Kodan Web Technologies, Inc. Stuart Levy, Champaign, IL; Sr. Research Thomas P Mensch, Oakland, CA; Stephen Scrivner, Boulder, CO; Software Programmer, University of Illinois Contracting Programmer, Independant Engineer, Micro Motion—division of Stuart Schneider, Portland, OR; Contractor, Thomas P. Taggart, State College, PA; Emerson n/a College Student, Penn State University Stephen Waits, San Diego, CA; CEO, Waits Sudhir Kumar, Ashburn, VA; Principal Thomas R. Corbin, Fairfax, VA; CTO, Consulting Member of Technical Staff, Portal Software SamSix Stephen W. Hurst, Austin, Texas; Suman Karamched, Norcross, GA; PDM Thomas Smith, West Lafayette, IN; Information Analyst, University of Texas at Consultant, n/a Developer, Debian Austin Susan Farrell, Portland, OR; User Thomas Warnock, Syracuse, New York; Steve Colwell, Santa Barbara, CA; Software Experience Specialist, ACM Senior Software Engineer, AppliedTheory Architect, CodeWell LLC Sylvester La Blanc, Anaheim. CA; Sr. Corp. Steve Domenico, Louisville, Colorado; Software Engineer, Anamex Corp. Thomas Wiest, Orem, Utah; n/a Webmaster, wildwoodguitars.com Tara Andrews, Somerville, MA; Systems Thom Dieterich, Lynnwood, WA; Software Steve Feldman, Newark, NJ; System Engineer, Akamai Technologies Engineer, n/a Administrator, University of Medicine and Tara de Wet, Tallahassee, FL; Student, n/ Tim Anderson, Walnut Creek, CA; Dentistry of NJ a President, T. Anderson Associates, Inc. Steve Fox, Rochester, MN; Software Ted Chiang, Bellevue, WA; technical Tim Curtin, Essex Junction, VT; Test Engineer, IBM writer, (self-employed) Engineer, IBM Steve Guerrero, San Francisco, California; Ted Grzesik, Goffstown, N-H; Principal Tim Kennedy, Tewksbury, MA; Sr. concerned citizen, n/a Software Engineer, i2 Technologies, Inc. Hardware Design Engineer, Avid Technology, Steve Johns, Greenbelt, MD; Software Ted Nitz, Santa Cruz, CA; Network Inc. Engineer, Independent Administrator, APT Technologies Inc. Tim McClarren, San Francisco, CA; n/a Steve Kann, Roslyn Heights, NY; Chief Ted Wright, Cleveland, Ohio; Engineer, Tim O’Brien, Evanston, IL; Software Engineer, HorizonLive.com NASA Engineer, n/a Steve Kostecke, Providence, RI; Developer, Teresa L. Beumeler, Raleigh, NC; Timothy Basham, Bloomington, IL; Senior Debian Accounting Assistant, Wright Construction Programmer, AutoSafe Intl. Steve Lindt, San Jose, CA; Application Company Timothy E. Jedlicka, Glen Ellyn, IL; Engineering Manager, LSI Logic Terrance C. Hansen, Sandy, Utah; Software Network Entomologist, US Citizen Steve Metter, West Carrollton, OH; Senior Designer/Developer, n/a Timothy E. Miller, Winston-Salem, North Architect, Digineer Terrence Egan, Cupertino, CA; Carolina; Research Assistant, Vanderbilt Steve Murtha, West Long Branch, NJ; Independent Software Developer, Geodesic University Physics Department President, Simulation Tools Tripoint Timothy Gray, Rosevelt Park, Michigan; Steven Armstrong, Milwaukee, WI; Information Technology Consultant, Terry Badger, Paso Robles, CA; Computer I.S. Specialist, Gray Technologies Wisconsin Electric Technician, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Timothy H. Clapin, Laurel, MD; Systems Steven Bryant, New York, NY; Lab Terry Hibdon, Grandville, MI; Teacher, n/ Administrator, n/a Manager, The Juilliard School a Timothy J. Stegner, Bolton, MA; Senior Steven Davis, Nurnberg, (originally Terry Melton, Hoboken, NJ; Network Systems Engineer, Computer Corporation of Arizona); Solution Manager, T-Systems Administrator, Engineering Information America Steven Edwards, Nashville, TN; Software Thack Douglas, Denver, CO; senior Timothy J. Wood, Seattle, WA; Vice Engineer, (independent) network administrator, gambro bct President, Omni Development Steven F. Crisp, Amherst, NH; Senior Thaddeus Selden, Fredericksburg, VA; Timothy Kuo, Sterling, VA; Engineer, Principal Engineer, MITRE Corporation Scientist, Navsea Orbital Sciences Corp. Steven H. David, New York, NY; President, Theodore A. Jump, Austin, Texas; Senior Timothy MacDonald, Houston, Texas; Unix Steve David Productions, inc. Software Engineer, NewsStand Administrator, Houston Information Team Steven H Snover, Pasadena, California; Theodore J. Allen, Geneva, New York; Timothy Musson, Cleveland; Software Deputy Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Assistant Professor of Physics, Hobart & Engineer, Zin Technologies Department William Smith Colleges Timothy P. Egbert, J.D., Ph.D., Salt Lake Steven K. Sharp, San Diego, California; Sr. Theodore J Oliver, Tucson, Arizona; City, Utah; Senior Software Developer, n/a Software Engineer, n/a Database Administrator/System Timothy R. Butler, St. Peters, MO; Steven L. Bratt, Brush Prairie, WA; Administrator, Desert Archaeology Chairman & CEO, Universal Networks Communications Services Manager, Thomas A. Brown, San Diego, CA; Retired (www.uninetsolutions.com) Vancouver School District Thomas Bohmbach, Jr., Minneapolis, FIN; Timothy Wall, Boston, MA; Director of Steven L. Salzberg, Ph.D., Gaithersburg, Senior Software Engineer, MLT Vacations, Software Development, Oculus Technologies MD; Senior Director of Bioinformatics, The Inc. Timothy W. Lewis, Toledo, OH; Computer Institute for Genomic Research Thomas Bradford Smith, El Paso, Texas; Science Student, University of Toledo Steven M. Palm, Loves Park, Illinois; President/CEO, Southwest-Technology Inc. Tim Sirianni, Cottage Grove, MN; SGI Software Developer, n/a Thomas Gabriel von Schwerdtner, Tim Thomas, Anchorage, AK; Editor, The Steven Nolting, Leslie, MO; IT Manager, Wheaton, MD; Web Designer/Web Communique, Alaska Apple User Group SN Design Applications Programmer, n/a Tim Uckun, Missoula, MT; IT Director, Steven O’Toole, Irvine, CA; Software Thomas G. Moertel, Pittsburgh, PA; USIS Developer, self-employed President, Moertel Consulting Todd A. Mizukami, Alpharetta, GA; NOC Steven Pierce, Kenosha, Wisconsin; Thomas J. Mather, New York City, NY; Manager, America Online Manager—IS, ASF-Keystone Software Developer, Longitude Todd Chatman, Urbana, IL; Graduate Steven Pothier, Tucson, Arizona; Senior Thomas J. Philpot, Houston, Texas; Student, University of Illinois Scientist, SAIC Software Engineer, IBM Todd Eshler, Blacksburg, Virginia; Steven Spencer-Priebe, Crofton, MD; Thomas J. Teters, Ft. Collins, CO; Internet Computer Engineering Graduate Research Telecom System Engineer, Science Tech., The Galactic WareHouse Assistant, Virginia Tech Applications International Corporation Thomas K. Egan, Altoona, PA; Programmer Todd Flinders, Sacramento, California; Steven Thibault, Beverly, MA; Consultant and Web Designer, Liquidbinary System Software Specialist, California in Engineering Systems, FM Global Insurance Thomas Malone, Long Beach, NY; Manager Department of Justice Steven Thomas, Boyton Beach, FL; IT of IT Systems and Administration, Lancer Todd Hanson, Madison, WI; Software Consultant, eDiets.com Insurance Company Engineer, Luhata Group
VerDate 11
Todd Johnson, Evansville, IN; Unix Tyler Palmer, Lawrence, Kansas; Software Wes Price, Irving, TX; Systems Engineer II, Specialist, OneStar Long Distance Architect/Network Administrator, DesignLab Southwest Airlines Todd Lamothe, Boston, MA; Student, n/a Ty Norton, Redmond, Washington; Whitney Tracy Austin, TX; n/a Todd Lawson, Phoenix, Arizona; Attorney Network Administrator, n/a Wilbur Liebson, Tucson, Arizona; retired at Law, n/a Ty van den Akker, Arlington, MA; Java Will Grzanich, Chicago, IL; Software Todd Sackett, San Francisco, CA; Software Developer, Oculus Technologies Developer, Morningstar QA Engineer, n/a Valdis Kletnieks, Blacksburg, Virginia; William A. Birch, New Ipswich, NH; Chief Todd Warner, Durham, NC; Software Computer Systems Senior Engineer, Virginia Techical Officer, The lyte Research Group Engineer, Red Hat Inc. Tech Computing Center William Barnett-Lewis, Madison, WI; Tod Schmidt, Falls Church, VA; Network Vance Shieh, Kingwood, TX; student, n/a Owner, Brain Candy Computing Engineer, Cable and Wireless Vartan Piroumian, Palo Alto, CA; Senior William B. Cushman, Ph.D., Pensacola, Tom Arons, Davis, CA; Programmer/ Java Consultant, Sun Microsystems Florida; President, Poiesis Research Analyst, University of California Vasant Ram, Richardson, TX; Electrical William Biese, Kaukauna, WI; Systems Tom Barclay, Long Beach, CA; Systems Engineer, none Analyst, Claim Management Services Inc. Analyst, PacifiCare Health Systems Vaughan Johnson, San Francisco, CA; CEO, William Birch, New Ipswich, NH; CTO, Tom Burton, Seward, AK; Student, Alaska Vaughan Johnson Systems The lyte Research Group Vocational Technical Center Vic Parekh, Los Angeles, CA; Computer William Breen, Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania; Tom B. Younker, Decatur, GA; Owner/ Programmer, n/a Sr. Software Engineer, InterDigital Member, Dare Computer, LLC Victor Didra, Quincy, WA; Graphics Artist, Communications Corp. Tom Callaway, Durham, NC; Software Quincy Valley Post-Register William Chapple, Ponchatoula, LA; Victor D. Odhner, Phoenix, Arizona; Engineer, Red Hat Director of IS, n/a Tom Cloud, Jamestown, RI; Senior Programmer/Analyst; n/a William Costa, Durham, NH; Information Software Engineer, Healthcare Automation Vijay Ramasubramanian, Manchester, CT; Technologist, University of New Hampshire Tom Emmons, Chicago, IL; Technology Aerospace Engineer, n/a William Croft, Menlo Park, CA; Engineer, Architect, Confirmative Technologies Vincent Broman, San Diego, CA; Scientist, MITEM Corporation Tom Howland, San Jose, CA; Computer Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center William E. Shotts, Jr., Rockville, Maryland; Scientist, n/a Vitaly Luban, Mountain View, CA; VP, Technical Services, Media Cybernetics, Tommy M. McGuire, Austin, TX; Graduate Software Development Consultant, Los Altos Inc. Student, Dept. of Comp. Sci., UT Austin Software Testing House William E. Stuckey, Indianapolis, IN; Tom Phoenix, Portland, Oregon; Perl Vladislav Imshenetskiy, New York, NY; Network and Information Systems Mentor, Stonehenge Consulting Services Software Engineer, Micromuse Inc. Tom Rauschenbach, Peterborough, New Wade E. Masshardt, Madison, WI; System/ Coordinator, School of Liberal Arts Hampshire; Computer Programmer, U.S. Network Administrator, Wisconsin Alumni William F. Mann, Sudbury, MA; Computer citizen Association consultant, Self-employed Tom Raymond, Wausau, WI; Programmer/ Wade Hought, Mission viejo, California; William G. Thompson, Jr., Bridgewater, NJ; Analyst, Eastbay Consultant, n/a Chief Japple Evangelist, Saucon Technologies Tom Rockwell, Lansing, MI; Graduate Wade Newbern, New York, NY; William Hubscher, Huntsville, Alabama; Student, Michigan State U. Copyeditor, n/a Media Relations Manager, Carleton Public Tom Scott, Bowling Green, Ohio; Wally Flint, Marina del Rey, California; Relations, Inc. President, Vedatel Independent Software Developer, n/a William James Stewart, Charleston, SC; Tom Vanderpool, Kansas City, Mo; email Walter Ellinthorpe, Herndon, VA; Field Software Specialist, Buist administrator, n/a Engineer, United Messaging William Lamb, Aurora, Illinois; President, Tom Voorheis, Ann Arbor, MI; Student, n/ Walter Josh Staiger, Akron, OH; Student, William Lamb Development, Inc. a Case Western Reserve University William Leddy, Alexandria, VA; Director, Tony Beauregard, San Antonio, TX; Walter K. Zydhek, Charlotte, North St. Stephen’s & St. Agnes School Manager, ISTI Carolina; NT Administrator, Genesis II William Lee Irwin III, Hillsboro, OR; Linux Tony Duckett, Herndon, VA; System Networks, LLC kernel programmer, IBM Administrator, n/a Walter W. Asher, Troy, Tennessee; William L. Moss IV, Atlanta, GA; Digital Torleiv Ringer, Saint Paul, Minnesota; TAGMA of Northwest Tennessee Technologies Specialist, Atlanta Journal- System Administrator, n/a Walter Wilson, Lexington, NC; Student- Constitution Toshi Isogai, Centennial, Co; Hardware Computer Science, College William Riley, Kirksville, MO; Owner, R Engineer, SEAKR Engineering Warren Ferguson, Cary, North Carolina; and D Technologies Tracy Budd, Arlington, VA; Senior Senior Software Engineer, n/a William Schneider, Rochester, Minnesota; Software Engineer, Exadata Analytics Warren Togami, Honolulu, Hawaii; Esquire, Retired Trammell Hudson, Bethesda, Maryland; Founder, Mid-Pacific Linux Users Group William Warner, Seattle, Washington; CEO, Rotomotion Corporation Warren Turkal, Memphis, TN; Computer Software Engineer, A large wireless carrier Travis J. Eckman, Jamestown, New York; Science Intern, DotLogix, Inc. William Wise, Norfolk, VA; Manager, Cell Network Administrator, Allied Fire W. C. Ryan Lewis, Janesville, WI; Owner, Signaling Technology Protection Systems Red Moon Computers Will Secrest, Atlanta, Ga; IS Development Travis Morga, Shawnee Mission, KS; Wendy Seltzer, New York, NY; lawyer and Manager, Intercall Systems/Network Engineer, CIO Inc. Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Will Sergent, Lakewood, OH; System Trever Furnish, Indianapolis, Indiana; Society Administrator, n/a Unix Administrator, Herff Jones Wes Groleau, n/a, Indiana; Software Will Symonds, Houston, TX; IT Trevin Beattie, West Hollywood, CA; Engineer, n/a Consultant, thincpc.com Software Developer, n/a Wesley Ferrel, Omaha, NE; Technical Will Wainwright, University City, Trevor Johnson, Gardena, California; Engineer, Distribution Management Systems Missouri; System Administrator, Washington Software Engineer; Contributor, FreeBSD Wesley P. Taylor, Bellingham, WA; University in St. Louis Project Database Programmer, Premier Agendas, Inc. Wilson Jones, Vinita, OK; Independent Trey Merrell, Newberg, OR; Programmer, Wesley Townsend, Guttenberg, NJ; Programmer, n/a Student Computer Consultant, Deloitte Consulting Winfield Hill, Stoneham, MA; Dir of E.E., Troy D. Smith, Chicago, IL; Software Wesley Watters, Pittsburgh, PA; Graphic Rowland Institute Developer, Shoptalk Artist, n/a Wolfgang Rupprecht, Fremont, CA; Troy Gutman, Lexington, KY; Programmer, Wes Loder, Deer Lake, Pennsylvania; Software Engineer, wsrcc.com Wyncom, Inc. Campus Librarian, Penn State Schuylkill W. Wood Harter, Orange, CA; Owner/ T. Shannon Gilvary, Union Beach, New Wes Morgan, Grand Rapids, MI; Computer President, Side-Eight Software Jersey; n/a Science Undergrad Student, Calvin College (www.side8.com)
VerDate 11
Wyatt Bode, Lebanon, Pennsylvania; corporate side stand to gain greatly not operating system like Linux would make Manufacturing Information Systems because DOJ will eliminate a threat to their these non-employable. Coordinator, Curwood Specialty Films well-being, but because DOJ is beating down Not only is Linux useless in developing Wynette Richards, Albuquerque, NM; a competitor who has the pulse of the work skills for these kids, it is also extremely Software Engineer, Los Alamos National marketplace (which they often do not). difficult to learn. Thus, only those who are Laboratory Let’s get this travesty of litigation out of the supremely motivated—such as young boys Young Hyun, San Diego, CA; Software way and move on to something important! already pursuing the maths and sciences— Developer, San Diego Supercomputer Center Jim Ford would make the effort to learn. The other, Zac Feuerborn, Boise, ID; Consultant, n/a Network Consulting majority of students would avoid computing. Zachary Erbaugh, Richmond, Indiana; [email protected] And they would lack computer skills needed Computing Support Specialist, Bethany (888) 969–6699 for them to succeed academically and Theological Seminary and Earlham School of professionally. Religion MTC–00028577 The present paradigm is to introduce kids Zachary Weinberg, Berkeley, CA; From: [email protected]@inetgw to Windows or MacIntosh operating systems. Consultant, CodeSourcery LLC To: Microsoft ATR Then, the kids move to more specialized Zach Dennis, Columbus, OH; Resource Date: 1/28/02 4:42pm operating systems as the need arises. Unix Specialist, EPRI Subject: Microsoft settlement and Linux are often used by academics— not Zach Johnson, Minneapolis, MN; Student, Sir: by the rest of the world. University of Minnesota—Twin Cities I am but a lowly consumer and cannot I therefore respectfully submit that the Zephaniah Hull, Atlanta, GA; Developer, afford 10,000 dollar an hour lawyers. settlement agreement is, on topic (b), Debian I have no way to file any briefs with any completely fair and valuable to the nation as Please note: we are signing this letter as judges and would not even know how. I can a whole. individuals, not as official representatives of tell you one thing. On my computer I cant Thank you for the opportunity to comment. the companies we work for or organizations even remove one small icon that has to do Susan Kaltenbach we belong to. with the MSN network. I would not even Mercer Island, Washington begin to be able to come close to removing MTC–00028574 MTC–00028579 or using any other soft ware on my home PC. From: Brian Bender Now I know little of the law and have no way From: JJ Gifford To: Microsoft ATR of sending this letter to the judge. To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 4:41pm I can tell you one thing micro soft has Date: 1/28/02 4:43pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement monopolized my system and that’s a fact. Subjec: Microsoft Settlement To Whom It May Concern, Thank You To Whom It May Concern: As I understand the proposed settlement Thomas F. Sullivan Attached are my comments re. United regarding the anti-trust trial against little guy consumer States et al. v. Microsoft, pursuant to the Microsoft, little if anything is done to correct Tunney Act. the actions that have been found anti- MTC–00028578 I have attached two copies of the same competitive. The agreement simply prevents From: Susan Kaltenbach document, one in Microsoft Word format; the them from continuing. This hardly seems To: Microsoft ATR other in Rich-Text Format. Either document sufficient to deter a corporation from Date: 1/28/02 4:43pm should be readable on any modern PC using cheating its way into a dominant position. Subject: Microsoft Settlement up-to-date software. There should be, in my opinion, actual To the Department of Justice (DOJ): Thanks in advance, peanalties paid for past actions, so that there I would like to submit my comment on the JJ Gifford is a real disincentive to engaging in these issue of the Microsoft settlement. 212 226 3462 practices in the future. I understand that complainants against the Jonathan Gifford Consider this a ‘‘no’’ vote on the proposed settlement state that it (a) Does not correct 117 Sullivan St., 5A settlement. Microsoft’s ‘‘anti-competition’’ errors, and (b) New York, NY 10012 Thanks for your attention. Having Microsoft donate $1B of hardware, [email protected] Sincerely, software and training is wrong because it January 28, 2002 Brian Bender perpetuates Microsoft’s domination of the Renata B. Hesse Pittsburgh, PA, USA operating system marketplace. Antitrust Division MTC–00028575 I cannot comment on topic (a) because I am U.S. Department of Justice From: Lissa Levy not well educated on the complaints and 601 D Street NW To: Microsoft ATR resolutions of this large and complex case. Suite 1200 Date: 1/28/02 4:41pm But I can comment on topic (b). Washington, DC 20530–0001 Subject: Microsoft Settlement I am an individual who cares deeply about microsoft, [email protected] I believe that the proposed settlement is a getting more underrepresented school kids re. Deficiencies in Microsoft settlement. bad idea. It gives too much control to interested in the sciences, and I have Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am filing Microsoft without concern for the consumer. expended effort and mentorship to try to these comments on the proposed resolution Thanks, facilitate this. (In Washington state, of United States, et al. v. Microsoft. Lissa Levy ‘‘underrepresented’’ means racial minorities My Perspective, Experience, and Interest Chapel Hill, NC and ‘‘first generation’’ college students— I believe this case is tremendously students who are the first in their family important. As personal computers and the MTC–00028576 history to attend college. I personally am a Internet have become increasingly important From: Ford, Jim ‘‘first generation’’ college student.) I’ve heard to our everyday lives, so too has the To: Microsoft ATR comments from those opposed to the $1B landscape of the technology markets become Date: 1/28/02 4:41pm donation that these kids should receive increasingly important. Not only will the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Linux software, since it is ‘‘free’’ and ‘‘open outcome of this case impact the fortunes of To Whom It May Concern: code,’’ and would help loosen Microsoft’s a host of technology companies, but it will I am writing this last minute email to state grip on the operating system’s marketplace. also affect how I and millions of others my support for the Microsoft Settlement. I I want to make my message perfectly clear: communicate with our friends and family, believe that this battle the DOJ has waged These kids would be further ghettoized if the what choices we have for online services against Microsoft has been, at the least, Linux proponents get their way. The such as digital photography, and of course misguided, and has threatened competition Microsoft Windows software and how much we and businesses spend on more than anything Microsoft itself has been applications model is used throughout the technology infrastructure. Once the accused of. I would also point out that most business world and is the dominant government decided not to seek a structural of the key players in this battle on the international software. To donate a fringe remedy, it necessarily embarked on a course
VerDate 11
of regulation. Regulation only works when operating system, or even just by not unlikely that an OEM would see much gain, the conduct prohibitions truly restrain anti- trademarking it. Microsoft therefore will have if any, in installing Non-Microsoft competitive behavior, and create a genuine enormous latitude in determining which new Middleware. Such distribution may benefit opportunity for innovators to enter the operating system features will be governed by the middleware developers, but would not market and compete in it based on their the PFJ. greatly benefit the OEM. merits. Unfortunately, the Proposed Final Clarity Is Essential to Compliance and 2.2.2. Customizations will be short-lived. Judgement (PFJ) presented by the Department Public Confidence. This prohibition remains in effect only for a of Justice and several states fails on all 2. The PFJ consists largely of vague 14-day window starting after the end user counts. prohibitions hobbled by numerous qualifiers first turns on his or her PC. Thereafter, Its results will be only a mild, temporary and exemptions. Microsoft is free to re-arrange the desktop as modification to Microsoft’s well-documented For instance: it sees fit, including automatic removal of behavior, with no lasting or significant effect Limited replacement of Microsoft any non-Microsoft icons, e.g. by operating on competition. Microsoft will retain its Middleware. system features such as the ‘‘Clean Desktop monopoly and every incentive to maintain it 2.1. The PFJ requires Microsoft to enable Wizard’’ built-in to Windows XP (PFJ, through any means not specifically users and OEMs to specify that Non- III.H.3). So, any Non-Microsoft Middleware prohibited by the PFJ. Consumers will Microsoft Middleware be used in place of developers who do manage to secure OEM continue to be deprived of the innovations Microsoft Middleware (PFJ, III.H.2). This is a distribution could well see their products and other benefits of a truly competitive welcome change because it had previously wiped off the desktop after a short two market, in part because innovators will be been difficult to replace Microsoft’s Internet weeks. deprived of the opportunity and incentive to Explorer (IE) without facing ‘‘considerable 2.2.3. Likely results. These limitations beg challenge Microsoft’s monopoly as it expands uncertainty and confusion’’ when IE would the question: will any OEMs risk irritating and evolves. Most importantly, America’s nonetheless unexpectedly be invoked under Microsoft for such minor benefits? If they do, technology industry will stagnate, as ever certain circumstances (Findings ¶ 171). will the results truly be increased fewer competitors see any value in entering 2.1.1. Exemption for Microsoft servers. competition in the middleware market? markets dominated by Microsoft. Unfortunately, Microsoft is exempt from this General Rule on Sharing APIs. While I believe that many if not most requirement when the Middleware Product 2.3. The PFJ requires Microsoft to share Americans will be affected by the disposition would be invoked ‘‘solely for use in APIs used by Microsoft Middleware with of this case, I have a particular interest in it interoperating with a server maintained by ISVs, et al. (PFJ III.D). In its Findings of Fact, as a long-time technology consumer, Microsoft’’ (PFJ III.H). This may exempt the District Court found that Microsoft had entrepreneur, and enthusiast. Since 1980, I Microsoft’s current move into network repeatedly withheld such information from have used personal computers nearly every services (’’.NET’’) from the judgement, ISVs, or used its disclosure as an incentive day, first as a hobby, then for school, and inasmuch as such services communicate with for ‘‘friendlier’’ behavior, in an effort to later for my career in the technology Microsoft-owned servers. Microsoft considers preserve the applications barrier to entry industry. In the early 1990s, I managed a .NET to be the next phase of the Internet, at (Findings, ¶ 84, 90, 91). Because ISVs depend small but pioneering desktop publishing last offering ‘‘real’’ applications and services. on such information to develop software for department for a large advertising agency. The first .NET service, Microsoft Passport, a given platform, withholding APIs can limit Later, I joined a groundbreaking multimedia aims at becoming a cornerstone of Internet or destroy an ISV’s ability to create company that produced CD-ROMs for both shopping and authentication transactions, competitive products. Therefore full API Macintosh and Windows-based computers. and stores its data exclusively on Microsoft- disclosure should be considered a basic Most recently, I was a partner in a owned servers. condition for any kind of effective successful Internet development firm, which 2.1.2. Exemption for proprietary competition. designs and produces web sites and other technologies. Another exemption allows 2.3.1. Only APIs necessary to mimic interactive media for corporate clients. Microsoft to launch its own middleware Microsoft’s products will be disclosed. Having sold my share of that business, I when the Non-Microsoft Middleware ‘‘fails to Unfortunately, the PFJ requires Microsoft to currently consult for other companies in the implement a reasonable technical share only those operating system APIs used technology industry. requirement’’ (PFJ III H 3). Microsoft will be by Microsoft Middleware. This is a limited Definitions Are Critical: the Devil Is in the able to capitalize on this loophole simply by set of APIs, of use only to those ISVs who Details emphasizing proprietary technologies not want to develop middleware products similar 1. Most provisions of the PFJ depend on supported by Non- Microsoft Middleware. To to Microsoft’s. It does little to help ISVs offer the definition of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware.’’ the extent that Microsoft can implement features or innovations not already offered by Accordingly, we should expect this term to features using proprietary technologies, it Microsoft’s products. Since ISVs typically be well-defined, with clear boundaries and will better be able to exclude Non-Microsoft must provide innovations to gain market unquestionable meaning. Unfortunately, the Middleware. A truly pro-competitive PFJ share against an entrenched market leader, reality is that it is vaguely defined, in would encourage Microsoft to use open this requirement is unlikely to promote language that grants Microsoft itself much industry standards. competition in the middleware market. control over what software it, and therefore OEM Distribution Channel Opened, But 2.3.2. Many APIs may be withheld on the PFJ, governs. For Whom? dubious ‘‘security’’ grounds. The PFJ allows 1.1. Definition: According to the PFJ (PFJ 2.2. The PFJ requires Microsoft to allow Microsoft to exclude any APIs the disclosure VI.J), ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ is any OEMs to customize the user’s desktop by of which ‘‘would compromise the security of software which: installing icons for Non-Microsoft a particular installation or group of . is distributed separately from the Middleware and other products (PFJ, III.C.1). installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, operating system, This is important to the PFJ because software licensing, digital rights . controls the user interface of the Microsoft has in the past excluded Netscape management, encryption or authentication Microsoft Middleware, and other competitors from the valuable systems’’ (PFJ III.J.1). . provides substantially similar OEM distribution channel, often by . This is a surprising exemption because functionality as a Microsoft Middleware contractually limiting an OEM’s ability to few security professionals believe API Product, and customize the desktop. In addition, Microsoft disclosure could weaken any well-designed . is trademarked. has used its control over the valuable desktop security system. Indeed, the complete source 1.2. real-estate as an incentive to get IAPs such code (a level of disclosure far greater than Definition gives Microsoft control. So as AOL to support Microsoft Middleware simple APIs) is publicly available for several Microsoft, which has long stated its goal of instead of competing products. operating systems and security-related incorporating browsing and other 2.2.1. OEMs lack incentive. Unfortunately, products that are widely considered to be middleware functions into its operating because Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is now more secure than Windows (e.g. the Linux system products, can exclude code from the the market leader, there is today little operating system). Microsoft Middleware definition simply by consumer demand for alternatives to . Yet the inclusion of this exemption not distributing it separately from the Microsoft Middleware. This makes it implies that there in fact are such APIs
VerDate 11
whose disclosure could compromise security, 3.3. The TC cannot ensure timely remedies. Also, creating such a fulcrum position in and thereby opens the door for Microsoft to Further, because the committee is prohibited the TC makes this third seat much less make claims about which ones they are. from public comment (PFJ, IV.B.10), it will attractive and harder to fill, and injects an There is no basis for the Competitive Impact be unable to confirm any ISV’s suspicions element of politics into the TC that will Statement’s (‘‘CIS’’) optimism that security- about Microsoft’s compliance, nor could it distract from its technical mission and related exemptions will be limited to ‘‘keys force a timely remedy. Its only recourse will smooth functioning. Because the TC is not a and tokens’’ (CIS, IV.B.5) of particular instead be to notify Microsoft and the decisional body, but simply a means to keep installations. Nothing in the PFJ’s language Plaintiffs and to suggest a possible remedy. a watchful eye on Microsoft’s compliance, it so limits the exemptable APIs, and such Therefore, an ISV suspecting Microsoft of is unclear why Microsoft should have entities aren’t generally visible at the API non-compliance will not receive an representation here at all. All of the TC’s level, anyhow. immediate remedy, but must instead rely on members should be appointed by the . With Microsoft’s current push into a bureaucracy whose natural tendency will Plaintiffs, perhaps with the DOJ appointing network services (under the .NET moniker), be not to pursue minor infractions. While one member, the States appointing a second we can expect privacy and security features such infractions may indeed be minor in the member, and the Plaintiffs collectively to be suffused throughout the code, scope of the overall judgement, they would appointing the third. 3.6. Catch-22. Given the increasing the number of APIs Microsoft will assuredly be of great importance to the ISV. enormity of the TC’s tasks, the limits on its try to exempt from disclosure. Indeed, 3.4. powers and enforcement abilities, and the Microsoft has just this month announced that The TC’s findings may not be presented to severe employment restrictions surrounding privacy and security will henceforth be its the Court or the public. Under the PFJ, the service in the TC (IV.B.2), it is clear that any main priorities.1 Associated Press, TC may not testify in any matter relating to candidate for the TC willing to accept the job ‘‘Microsoft Announces Strategy Shift’’, D. Ian the Final Judgement, nor may its work is almost certainly too inexperienced to be Hopper and Ted Bridis, January 17, 2002. product and recommendations be submitted legitimately qualified for it. Inadequate Enforcement to the Court (PFJ, IV.D.4.d). Similarly, the TC In Today’s Market, More is Needed. 3. The task of detecting whether Microsoft is prohibited from public comment (PFJ, 4. In perhaps its broadest weakness, the has violated these and other provisions falls IV.B. 10). Thus, even if the TC’s exclusive PFJ fails to recognize that the circumstances to a three- person ‘‘Technical Compliance’’ access to source code should produce of the original case were unique, and that committee (the ‘‘TC’’). This committee will evidence of deception and non-compliance circumstances today are very different. The have access to the source code and tools used by Microsoft, this evidence will not be Internet’s rapid public acceptance around to create Microsoft’s products, as well as presented to the Court. 2 BusinessWeek, 1994–1995 took many established computer- access to the relevant Microsoft staff (PFJ ‘‘Windows XP: a Firewall for All’’, Alex industry firms by surprise, and radically IV.B.8). In theory, the TC’s oversight will Salkever, June 12, 2001. changed the personal computer market. The prevent Microsoft from using technical . In theory, the TC will report to the basic reasons users wanted to own personal strategies to camouflage non-compliance, for Plaintiffs, who may in turn report such non- computers changed dramatically within less instance by wrongly claiming that some compliance to the Court, and produce than two years. Two companies in particular, important API should not be disclosed for evidence of it via other means. This may well Netscape and Sun Microsystems, were able to security reasons. While such oversight may happen in the case of massive or severe non- aggressively exploit the new technologies in fact be helpful, the TC is an inadequate, compliance. However, what happens to the and to take advantage of Microsoft’s slow inefficient and non-transparent attempt to small ISV who suspects Microsoft of non- response to the burgeoning consumer ensure enforcement of a Judgement that compliance, e.g. by not disclosing some demand. As a result, they were able to otherwise relies on voluntary compliance necessary API? Such an injured party may present a serious threat to the applications and enforces few penalties for transgressions. report its concerns to the TC, and then hope barrier to entry that has long protected 3.1. Severe employment restrictions that the TC is able to verify its claims, and Microsoft’s monopoly in Intel-compatible threaten the TC’s performance. The PFJ further is able to convince the Plaintiffs to go operating systems. includes employment restrictions which will to court on their behalf. During this 4.1. No longer any consumer demand for dramatically narrow the pool of TC bureaucratic pursuit, the ISV’s business may non-Microsoft Middleware. But that window candidates—first, to those experts not suffer irreparable harm, or even vanish of opportunity is long closed. The Internet is currently working for Microsoft or a altogether (as has very nearly happened to an established part of the personal computer competitor, and then to those remaining Netscape). Were such ISVs to have access to market. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is the candidates willing to forego any such Microsoft’s source code, perhaps in a secure dominant browser. There no longer is any employment for two years after serving on facility, they could investigate such concerns great consumer demand for alternative the TC. In so doing, it excludes nearly all of themselves, directly and immediately. browsers. Netscape no longer exists as an those experts in operating systems design Indeed, API disclosure would not be an issue independent company, and development of and programming whom the TC most needs, in the first place. the Netscape browser occurs at a fraction of since it will be very difficult to find any such . The point here is that the nature of the its former pace. Even the CIS acknowledges experts not currently working for, and with TC is as the first step in a bureaucracy whose that Microsoft has ‘‘perhaps extinguished no intention of working for, Microsoft or a natural instinct will be to pursue only the altogether the process by which these two competitor. As a professional in this field, I most serious transgressions. In the context of middleware technologies [Java and the cannot imagine why a highly competent a rapidly changing technology industry, this Netscape browser] could have facilitated the independent minded computer scientist is a serious weakness in the PFJ. 3.5. PFJ introduction of competition into the market would wish to serve on the TC under these places enormous weight on third TC member. for Intel-compatible personal computer circumstances. The PFJ proposes that the Plaintiffs appoint operating systems’’ (CIS, III.B.3). 3.2. The TC will be buried under a one member of the TC, Microsoft appoint a 4.2. Cannot resuscitate existing mountain of technical data. Even if well second, and then these two members middleware competitors. Nothing in the PFJ staffed, the committee will have an themselves choose a third (PFJ IV.B.3). This can or will restore these competitors to their enormously difficult task from a technical structure places enormous responsibility on former strength. There is no way to rekindle standpoint. Inasmuch as deciphering the third member, who can be expected to the massive consumer demand, then left computer source code can be difficult even decide any disagreement between Microsoft’s unserviced by Microsoft, that gave these for the code’s author, much less a new representative and the Plaintiffs’’, especially companies their initial momentum. reader, and inasmuch as Windows XP alone in the context of the Voluntary Dispute 4.3. Hoping for another thousand-year consists of some 45 million lines of code2, Resolution process in IV.D. It is unclear flood. Still, the CIS claims the PFJ will this committee will have an enormously whether the TC reports to the Plaintiffs only ‘‘restore the competitive threat that difficult task. Even with a large support staff, as a single unit, or whether a dissenter’s view middleware products posed prior to it is hard to imagine this committee also gets submitted to the Plaintiffs. A better Microsoft’s unlawful undertakings’’ (CIS, II). effectively analyzing Microsoft’s source code structure would at the very least make it Given that Microsoft now dominates the and fully investigating allegations of non- crystal clear that any single member of the browser market and retains its operating compliance. TC may report to the Plaintiffs. systems monopoly, and given that the PFJ
VerDate 11
allows Microsoft to support its browser . Definitions such as that of ‘‘Microsoft Based on my experience, I do not find the market share by tying the browser to the Middleware’’ should be tightened PFJ to be in the ‘‘public interest’’, which is operating system, this claim seems to rest on considerably, and the PFJ reworked to the standard that the DOJ and the Court are the optimistic hope that some new disruptive minimize its reliance on such narrow subject to under the Tunney Act. technology will appear, will be ignored by categories. Respectfully submitted, Microsoft, and will create massive consumer . Microsoft should be required to make the Jonathan Gifford demand for some non-Microsoft Middleware. full source-code for its Intel-compatible January 28, 2002 Without such an event, the PFJ merely operating systems available for viewing by establishes rules for a game that has no ISVs et al.. This will allow ISVs to better MTC–00028580 players. develop competitive products, and will allow From: [email protected]@inetgw Unconditional Surrender the ISVs themselves to monitor Microsoft’s To: Microsoft ATR Finally, in a bizarre and extreme compliance with the judgement’s other Date: 1/28/02 4:40pm limitation, the PFJ will expire in only five technical requirements, instead of relying on Subject: Microsoft Settlement years—regardless of whether or not Microsoft an inefficient, overworked TC. Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division retains its operating systems monopoly (PFJ, . If the Court decides against requiring 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, V.A). The DOJ must believe that not only is source-code sharing, it should at a minimum DC 20530–0001 Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: the PFJ an effective remedy, but that it will require the disclosure of all operating system Please put a stop to the economically- be so effective that Microsoft will be reduced APIs used by any Microsoft products (i.e. not draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This to a shadow of its former self and must be just those APIs used by Microsoft has gone on long enough. unshackled in just five years (seven, if the Middleware). A blanket disclosure Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Plaintiffs seek and receive the maximum requirement such as this will close those Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the extension permitted by the PFJ). existing loopholes whereby Microsoft might fact is, this case against Microsoft is little Unfortunately, this clause is so careless that withhold critical information from ISVs more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other it will release Microsoft no matter the whose products threaten its operating system Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel circumstances—that is, even if Microsoft monopoly. going to those supposedly harmed by retains or even strengthens its monopoly . Exemptions permitting various proscribed Microsoft: the computer user. power. The message that the PFJ sends is behaviors under certain circumstances This is just another method for states to get ‘‘we’ll try this for five years, and then we’re should, as a whole, be stricken. Finally, the free money, and a terrible precedent for the giving up.’’ judgment should include real consequences future, not only in terms of computer Any judgement should remain in effect for non-compliance, such as further conduct technology, but all sorts of innovations in the until the Court finds that Microsoft no longer prohibitions, financial penalties, or further most dynamic industry the world has ever holds a monopoly in Intel-compatible disclosure requirements. The PFJ currently seen. operating systems. It makes little sense to provides only a possible Court-imposed two- Please put a stop to this travesty of justice release Microsoft until competition has re- year extension of its rather toothless now. Thank you. entered the market and Microsoft may no provisions. Sincerely, longer commit the illegal acts described by Conclusion Noreen Willig 7394 E. Brisa Drive the Court’’ s Findings of Fact. I hope that the PFJ is modified by the DOJ Scottsdale, AZ 85262 Alternatives or the Court, and that what seems to be a This PFJ illustrates the difficulty in great opportunity for antitrust law to make a MTC–00028581 devising effective conduct remedies for difference for tomorrow’s entrepreneurs and From: Peter Anderson complex software cases such as this, consumers is not lost in a fog of complexity. To: Microsoft ATR especially where the defendant retains its The technology may be complex and Date: 1/28/02 4:44pm monopoly power and the incentive to expand changing, but the underlying competitive Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT and maintain it by any method not issues are fundamental. I take both comfort Please find attached my comments in the prohibited by the PFJ. Vague technical and concern from the fact that I am clearly Microsoft Settlement. definitions and even apparently narrow not alone in expressing these concerns. As Peter Anderson exemptions can be exploited by the the Financial Times editorialized: ‘‘. . .It 5749 Bittersweet Place monopolist to maintain its ill-gotten gains. It would be wrong for the states, or the judge, Madison, WI 53705 would be vastly preferable to create the to reject this settlement merely because it is (608) 233–6167 proper structural conditions for competition not sufficiently punitive. The test is whether Daytime: (608) 231–1100 by decoupling parts of the monopolist the proposal provides enough protection for enterprise. Without a structural remedy, it is the public and for Microsoft’s competitors. MTC–00028581—0001 imperative that the definitions and As it stands, it does not meet this test. 5749 Bittersweet Place prohibitions in the Final Judgement be as Though a continued trial would be expensive Madison, Wisconsin 53705 clear and comprehensive as possible, so as to and distracting, it would be better than an (608) 233–6167 fully restrict the anti-competitive behavior unsatisfactory settlement. This proposal January 28, 2002 that has been denying consumers choice, should be rejected..’’ (Financial Times, Ms. Renata B. Hesse innovation and fair market pricing. There are ‘‘Micro-too-soft’’, November 5, 2001) Antitrust Division a number of specific changes that ought to be I believe that the PFJ, if accepted by the U.S. Department of Justice made to the PFJ: Court in its current form, will lead to clear 601 D Street NW Suite 1200 . Any judgement should remain in effect and irreparable harm to consumers and to the Washington, DC 20530–0001 until Microsoft no longer holds a monopoly United States’’ technology industry. So Re: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT in Intel- compatible operating systems. pervasive has technology become that the COMMENTS Starting in 5 years, the Court should annually technology industry is an obviously critical Ms. Hesse: review Microsoft’s position in the Intel- component of the American economy. I would like, if I may, to forgo adding any compatible operating systems market. Should Even Business Week, itself no anti- further efforts to muddy the law and, instead, it find that Microsoft no longer exercises capitalist Microsoft critic, recognized the just comment on the proposed settlement as monopoly power in that market, and broad implications of the resolution of this a consumer who uses a PC computer. With therefore cannot commit the illegal acts case: ‘‘. . . [T]he Justice Dept.’s weak censure all the drang and sturm already surrounding described in the Court’s Findings of Fact, it of Microsoft for its serious monopolistic this case, the interests of the consumer can could release Microsoft from the terms of the practices could cost the U.S. mightily in the sometimes get lost in the legal crossfire. judgement. years ahead. The great strengths of the Separate from the arcana of the law, there . The TC should be appointed entirely by American economy are its openness, its are two competing views that have been the Plaintiffs, perhaps with the DOJ competitiveness, and its innovativeness. expressed to determine the consumer’s appointing one member, the States Monopoly is the enemy of all three.’’ interest, as regards the benevolence of the appointing a second member, and the (BusinessWeek, ‘‘Slapping Microsoft’s monopoly that Microsoft maintains over Plaintiffs collectively appointing the third. Wrist’’, November 19, 2001) desktop operating systems, and against
VerDate 11
which the proposed settlement ought to be Anjou in France, then to the king of Portugal. but vibrant competition is the only proven judged. When the latter refused his request for ships engine to maintain the pressure to constantly The first, and most easy to understand, is in which to explore westward, Columbus strive and to provide rewards for those who the view ably championed by Microsoft. That turned to the duke of Medina-Sedonia, who succeed. points to the great advantages in convenience also refused, then to the count of Medina- Absent clear and enforceable constraints from having a single seller that, alone, can Celi, who did likewise, and finally to the on the extension of Microsoft’s desktop erect a seamless intra and inter connectivity king and queen of Spain, who denied monopoly to the web and beyond, the future among the various applications on one’s own Columbus’s first request but eventually will be the worse for the dead weight of their desktop and in electronic communications granted his renewed appeal. Had Europe monopoly. If the trial court’s original with different computer users using different been united under one of the first three structural remedy breaking up the operating platforms. Certainly the convenience factor rulers, its colonization of the Americas might system monopoly from applications and the has some merit and, I must confess, some of have been stillborn.’’ Jared Diamond, Guns, web is off the table, then it is absolutely my computer-using colleagues with whom I Germs and Steel: the Fates of Human essential that the final judgment erect an discuss these issues second Mr. Gates’’ Societies, W.W.Norton & Co. (1999), at pp. impenetrable wall preventing Microsoft’s feelings. 411–413 (emphasis added). conduct from extending its monopoly into On the other hand, and less readily The same motivating forces that animate a the new frontiers that advanced computation understood but eminently as vital, is the civilization described by Mr. Diamond have opened. essential creative energy for dynamic change similarly infect those of companies, This includes a ban on bundling or and future progress that only emanates from technologies and markets. Microsoft certainly otherwise tying the sale of its Windows disorganization and chaos, both of which are, has much to be proud of in prevailing over operating system with any other software too often, swallowed in the maw of a so many of its competitors. But innovation product whose essential purpose is to monopoly, especially one, like here, that has does not number high on that list. communicate to or from the world wide web been found to wantonly abuse its monopoly Whether we think back to the first ‘‘killer or manipulate digitized sights and sounds, all power. That is why I believe this excerpt app,’’ the spreadsheet, or the word processor, of which are outside the OS market and none from the Pulitzer Prize winning book, Guns, not to mention the mouse, the user-friendly of which is mission critical for a desktop Germs and Steel, is so instructive for how to WYSIWYG interface, the world wide web, computer to operate. At the same time, structure a remedy in this case, if you will media streaming, music sharing or almost Microsoft must also open all its evolving indulge me in this short detour to an anything else that has caught fire in the source code with complete documentation to explanation of why civilizations expand and market, it was someone other than Microsoft competing developers so that they are given fall- who conceived and gave life to these ideas a fair opportunity to be the First to market ‘‘Why did China lose its [technological] so critical to the realization of the full for mid-ware with product that is seamlessly lead [over Europe]? Its falling behind is potential of computing. Furthermore, the fact integrated into the operating system. Lastly, initially surprising because China enjoyed that Microsoft exercised its monopoly power the defaults built into the operating system undoubted advantages . . . over the desktop to destroy so many of these cannot steer the passive user to Microsoft’s ‘‘These advantages and head start enabled inventors, depriving them of their just reward products, such as the Word folder that medieval China to lead the world in for their labors, is of great concern for an Outlook Explorer continues to steer me to technology. The long list of its major economy whose lifeblood literally depends when attaching fries such as this to email, technological firsts . . . In the early 15th upon the nourishment of innovation. impervious to my best efforts to change that century it sent treasure fleets, each consisting What Microsoft has added to the equation default setting. of hundreds of ships up to 400 feet long and apart from technical refinements is, Mind you, none of this means that with total crews of up to 28,000, across the essentially, marketing—marketing with the Microsoft ought to be stopped from Indian Ocean as far as the coast of Africa, unique power that arises not because it has marketing any product that they chose, so decades before Columbus’s three puny ships developed the newest or best product for the long as it is unbundled in its own shrink crossed the narrow Atlantic Ocean to the consumer, but rather the dominance that wrap to insure that they are forced to Americas’’ east coast. Why didn’t Chinese derives from the illegal extension of its compete on a level playing field. Even if they ships proceed around Africa’s southern cape desktop operating system monopoly. had acquired their monopoly power on the westward and colonize Europe, before Vasco This is not a contentious statement. The desktop legally—and the trial court found da Gama’s own three puny ships rounded the company’s executives openly acknowledge otherwise—that tragedy would be Cape of Good Hope eastward and launched the fact, as in the Wall Street Journal profile inexcusably compounded in a black mark on Europe’s colonization of East Asia? Why that ran following Mr. Gates handing day-to- the legal system were they now permitted to didn’t Chinese ships cross the Pacific to day control over to Mr. Ballmer two years ago leverage that illegal monopoly into new colonize the America’s west coast? Why, in at the height of this litigation. ‘‘Mr. Ballmer’s markets and, in the process, slow the brief, did China lose its technological lead to ascension signals— ‘‘the shift in power at development of future opportunities on the formally so backwards Europe? Microsoft from those with purely technical which America’s leadership depends. ‘‘The end of China’s treasure fleets gives us minds to those who can fuse technology with For all his accomplishments, Mr. Gates a clue. Seven of those fleets sailed from business sense and customer concerns. For ought not to be heard to complain about the China between A.D. 1405 and 1433. They example, Microsoft’s consumer chief Rick intervention of the anti-trust laws in his path were then suspended as a result of a typical Belluzzo, a longtime Hewlett-Packard Co. to market power inasmuch as Microsoft only aberration of local politics that could happen executive whom Mr. Ballmer recruited, says exists by virtue of the fact that the Justice anywhere in the world: a power struggle the success of Microsoft’s Web efforts depend Department had previously sued IBM for between two factions at the Chinese court more on marketing than technology.’’ David anti-trust violations, which at the time had a (the eunuchs and their opponents). The Bank, ‘‘How Steve Ballmer Is Already near monopoly in mainframe computers. The former faction had been identified with Remaking Microsoft,’’ Wall Street Journal reason IBM visited young Mr. Gates that sending and captaining the fleets. Hence (Jan. 17 ‘‘00) (emphasis added). fateful day in 1979 in search of an outside when the latter faction gained the upper Nor ought that statement to be surprising. party to provide an operating system for hand in a power struggle, it stopped sending It is in the essential nature of organization IBM’s first personal computer was, by fleets, eventually dismantling the shipyards, that, once primacy in some endeavor is moving that product extension in someone and forbade oceangoing shipping . . . But in achieved, every sinew in its corporeal body else’s hands, to throw the antitrust wolves off China . . . because the entire region was is marshaled toward the defense of the their traces, not because they had any politically unified . . . [o]ne decision product at the source of its power, to be free capacity or desire to develop their own stopped fleets over the whole of China. of the unpleasantness of brutish competition, product in-house. ‘‘Now contrast those events in China with and to enjoy the quiet life of the monopolist. Now it is time for him to recognize that the what happened when fleets of exploration Understandable though that may be for any sun which has shined on him is setting. For began to sail from politically fragmented monopoly, including Microsoft, this the immediate future, Microsoft can continue Europe. Christopher Columbus, an Italian by condition does not demarcate the consumer to enjoy monopoly rents on a mature birth, switched his allegiance to the duke of interest. Rather it is antithetical to it. Messy business so long as it refrains from those acts
VerDate 11
found unlawful that illegally sustain its trust case with Microsoft in November 2001 Throughout this process Microsoft and Bill monopoly, but it must leave future markets to continue with the process of settlement Gates have shown no remorse or even signs to be conquered only by those who fairly and see it through to its completion. I have that they have infringed on the rights of prevail on the field of competition. read the terms of the settlement and the others in the marketplace. The current It is in its dynamic economy that America punishment of Microsoft is stern but fair for settlement is a sellout to Microsoft. has defined its greatness. In that all involved. I and the other consumers who They concede nothing and give nothing. achievement, however, lay the seeds of our ultimately drive the economy will benefit The day after this settlement concludes own decline if we let ourselves become prey, from this settlement and that is of utmost Microsoft will continue to bully and coerce as so many civilizations have before us, to importance today. It is time for the Federal smaller competitors protect their programs subside into complacency, lured by the siren Government the participating States and all and deny what everyone thought that they call of convenience and its hand maiden, the those who seek to further delay this were supposed to yield. Their lawyers will status quo. settlement to move on to other issues by find protection in the samll print. Microsoft With the future of economic growth so tied allowing the completion of this settlement gained leadership through shrewd buisness to the ability to multiply human productivity and ending the Microsoft anti-trust case once alignments initially and afterward by through advances in computation, it would and for all. borrowing technology from others. Did be a tragedy of the first order to let that Microsoft introduce the mouse or pull down happen. This case creates the opportunity to MTC–00028584 screens? No! If it wern t for other competition seize a far better future than the convenient From: [email protected]@inetgw Microsoft would still have us using DOS. but far more limited one promised by To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft has continuously introduced Microsoft. Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm mediocre software and mediocre upgrades Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft Settlement that crash and crash again. If they were Peter Anderson Please honor this settlemnt and free time building automobiles no one would buy a money and resources to pursue solutions to second one. Microsoft has dominated the MTC–00028582 the truly outrageous abuses perpetrated by personal computer software field with poor From: [email protected]@inetgw ENRON and ANDERSEN!!! products soley because they have muscled To: Microsoft ATR every competitor into submission. The MTC–00028585 Date: 1/28/02 4:45pm proposed settlment does nothing to stop this Subject: Anti Trust settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw still arrogant corporation from continuing as Mr. Ashcroft, To: Microsoft ATR it has in the past. Break up Microsoft! Please read the attached letter regarding Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm Give the Nation an honest and fair playing Microsoft. Thank you. Subject: Microsoft Settlement field for all. Thanks ! Regards, The government has no business James J Lennox determining software/hardware combinations MTC–00028589 how technology can be improved how From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028582—0001 technology companies can form partnerships To: Microsoft ATR James Lennox and how companies can manage their Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm 19 Dellwood Drive intellectual property. The market and Subject: Microsoft Settlement Florham Park, NJ 07932 consumers have already made that decision I am shocked that the government has January 28, 2002 and make it every day in their purchasing brought this case against Microsoft. Microsoft Attorney General John Ashcroft choices. This settlement should be approved is an innovative company that does a lot for US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania so that we can all move on to the business it s consumers. It s amazing that a small Avenue, NW of innovation. business can be successful with the tools Washington, DC 20530 Microsoft has developed. This case against MTC–00028586 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Microsoft needs to be dropped. It s harming The purpose of this letter is to go on record From: [email protected]@inetgw consumers and our economy to continue as a supporter of the settlement that To: Microsoft ATR such a fight against a company that has done Microsoft and the Department of Justice has Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm so much for the consumers and America! reached. The antitrust suit against Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement Please drop this case and move on. has drained state and federal government Because I am old (68) I remember the Settlement is needed to help the economy to funds, as well as Microsoft’s; am relieved to growth of computer technology and it has move forward. I am so disappointed in the see that it has ended. been great. Microsoft has led the way. But 9 states that are continuing the fight against A inordinate amount of money has been along the way there has been a lot Microsoft. They are obviously not listening to spent pursuing Microsoft, and this settlement complaining about the leadership. As I the American people since most of us do not finally allows an end to the litigation. The remember it would come from people who want this to continue since Microsoft has settlement was actually harder on Microsoft were experts. It seemed they had control of done so much to help improve our lives. It than I would have liked, but I am relieved their world and didnt want it to change. But s so obvious that the 9 states are being to see an end to the dispute. In fact, Microsoft technology is about change and therefore pushed to continue to fight Microsoft just for will be required under the agreement to what ever Microsoft did it made the present money and their power-hungry competitors supply its competitors with its intellectual better and pushed us into the future. From that have not been able to develop products property in the form of source code and my point of view we should stop all law as well as Microsoft. As a consumer I choose design data, which makes up the internal suites aginst Microsoft and get on with which products I want to use. It s not forced structure of the Windows operating system. business. upon me! Therefore I m not sure how I m This does not seem fair to me, but if it ends MTC–00028587 being harmed. I choose what I want to use the suit against Microsoft, I support it. and I will continue to choose Microsoft. This settlement is fair enough, and I just From: [email protected]@inetgw Please move forward and let things continue hope that there will be no further litigation To: Microsoft ATR the way they are. against Microsoft. Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028590 James Lennox The settlement proposal appears to be From: [email protected]@inetgw more than fair and with all the protection To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028583 features necessary. Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm From: paul—[email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028588 To: Microsoft ATR It is time this case is settled as determined Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm From: [email protected]@inetgw in November and stop any futher costs Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR I urge the Federal Government and those Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm MTC–00028591 states involved in the settlement of the anti- Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw
VerDate 11
To: Microsoft ATR loser.Does not the vanquished perpetually MTC–00028604 Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm cry foul upon defeat?Technology today is a From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement profusion of opportunities let‘s not support To: Microsoft ATR Leave Microsoft alone. They have regulatory suffocation! Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm simplified the use of computers. What MTC–00028597 Subject: Microsoft Settlement happened to free enterprise? It s a shame when corporations suing they came up with a better mouse trap and From: [email protected]@ Microsoft can t stand competition. It also other companies want to capitalize on their inetgw appears our legal system is willing to expertise. To: Microsoft ATR continue trying to destroy Microsoft. Why Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm MTC–00028592 don t we just let the market system work? Let Subject: Microsoft Settlement the people buy the product they want instead From: [email protected]@inetgw Microsoft is among the few companies who To: Microsoft ATR of forcing Microsoft to give incentives to it allowed the USA to become the number one s competitors. Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm software exporter in the world. Don t break Subject: Microsoft Settlement or harm a company that brings so much MTC–00028605 Leave Microsoft alone. This is the first money to the USA and that employs (directly From: [email protected]@inetgw company in the history of the United States and indirectly) so many people. Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR to be number one in the world at what they keeps bringing a lot of inovations at a very Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm do. I think that Mocrosoft has done a low cost for the customer. Subject: Microsoft Settlement wonderful service to this country and I do The involvement of the government in this not want any damage to the company that MTC–00028599 matter disturbs me a great deal. The tax has managed to keep the foreigners away From: [email protected]@inetgw dollars used to fund the prosecution of from the leadership in this technology. To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft deserves all of our support so that Microsoft far outweigh the consumer benefit Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm (if any) a judgment would provide. As I see they will be able to concentrate on bringing Subject: Microsoft Settlement to us the newest advances in computer it the only people who are being assisted by i disagree with the gov. interfering with this would be AOL SUN Oracle and others. software and related technology. Sincerely microsoft s effort to increase the use of Frank So as a consumer I would like to once again technolgy. i wish to support the settlement Caycedo thank you for all you ve done to help big that has been worked out between microsoft M.D. business in my name. and the gov! please alow us the opportunity MTC–00028593 to determine what we want—-now get off MTC–00028606 From: [email protected]@inetgw their back so they can provide us with new From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR technolgy sincerely wesley and lois arent. To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm MTC–00028601 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement It seems the loudest voice against the From: [email protected]@inetgw Get on with the settlement! As long as all settlement is Microsoft competitors. That To: Microsoft ATR parties aggree let s get back to good should indicate to the court that they intend Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm competitive business. Subject: Microsoft Settlement to use the justice system to their benifit. The MTC–00028607 settlement is just and fair and should be Please settle the case against Microsoft. granted. Pursuing the case against Microsoft is From: [email protected]@inetgw harming consumers. Microsoft has done a lot To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028594 for me as a small business owner. I do not Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm From: [email protected]@inetgw support the actions of fighting Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR since their programs and tools have helped I think the proposed settlement is in the Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm my business be successful. Please settle and public interest and should be accepted. let us consumers decide which products we Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028608 Dear Sirs I encourage you to complete and want to use. From: [email protected]@inetgw settle the Microsoft case as soon as possible MTC–00028602 in a manner that is the least intrusive of To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft. It is my opinion that this entire From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm case is based not upon what is best for To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement consumers as we enjoy the greatest Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm It is my belief that government has gone technological advantage in the world here in Subject: Microsoft Settlement too far in it s pursuit/vendetta against the USA largely due to the contributions Why tear down one of your biggest Microsoft. When the public buys more goods from Microsoft but based upon the desire of corporations just to destroy them? (EX> K- from a certain company it is usually because others as Larry Elison and Scott McNealey Mart). You have much bigger fish to fry. Go that company had the foresight to see the (Oracle & Sun Corporations) to themselves be after the real problems—the stock market. needs of the public. Also the public has in # 1 in place of Microsoft. Both have openly The manipulations of the anaylasts have essence cast it s vote by buying goods and and repeatedly said as much on many done major damage to the ecomony. Go after services from Microsoft thereby showing it s venues. It is time to close this case and move those people who are one of your biggest trust and it s wish to continue a consumer/ on. Best problems instead of wrecking another major producer relationship with that company. It Regards industry who has done so much to advance makes me wonder what is next on the Danny Chadwell technology in the country and the world. government s agenda to attack and break up. This divide and conquer strategy taken by MTC–00028595 MTC–00028603 our government can next attack anything From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw American. The people should beware and To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR vote accordingly to be assured that those who Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm intend to use big government against the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement public are not in a position to do so. The origin of Microsoft is the story of Microsoft brought the computer to this America.Competition and innovation should country for the common people. They have MTC–00028609 be encouraged cultivated and done what the government could not do. From: [email protected]@inetgw applauded.Tempered with some rules and Actually Microsoft brought the computer to To: Microsoft ATR regulations but not punished for the World. You should be thankful for this. Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm triumph.Every contest has a winner and a Shame on you for being so selfish. Marcia Subject: Microsoft Settlement
VerDate 11
I do not support the settlement/s as written government seeing a huge pile of cash that settlement have been endorsed across the with Microsoft. Microsoft retains a monopoly it can extort from a legal corporation business spectrum. Let s just move on. on my PC. I can not remove MS Explorer operating in a legal manner producing a legal from my PC. I favor Netscape. MS has been product being used in a legal manner. MTC–00028621 let off much to lightly. MS should be split up From: [email protected]@inetgw ASAP. MTC–00028616 To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm MTC–00028610 To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@ Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm This a fair and reasonable settlement time inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement to let the agreement move forward and gauge To: Microsoft ATR Although it is obvious that Gates is a the results speak for themselves!! Not only Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm communist I can t see any lawful authority have i not benn overcharged for software but Subject: Microsoft Settlement for the government to tell him how to run his have received technical support free of Settle this problem now! This suit was not business. And just as the government asked charge whenever it was needed usually necessary to begin with. Taking up to much Howard Hughes to finance World War II who because of a problem on my end....I own a precious time and money of the tax payers. do you think the government is going to ask lot of software and by far Microsoft has been to finance World War III? MTC–00028611 the most deserving of it s price....features MTC–00028617 combined with excellent customer service far From: [email protected]@inetgw exceedes almost all other competitors To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw software I have used....other operating Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm To: Microsoft ATR systems that i have seen are of no interest Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm regardless if you give it to me for free! price Yes I agree hope it is settled and finished Subject: Microsoft Settlement vs. results is of the utmost importance....and let Microsoft continue with the creative This is to register my support of Microsoft free or cheap has it s costs....let free course that made it famous and helped it s position. I think we should support a compition be thy guide not lawyers bring about so many new products and company that is contributing to the US and andspecial interests....i stand firmly behind a ideas!! Feel Bill Gates is a deservering man world economy by providing a good product. company that stands behind their —- let him go on and on and on ...... It frustrates me that the government goes after products!!!! a satisfied Microsoft Microsoft... why weren t they on Enron customer...... MTC–00028612 instead? Not enough contributions? From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028622 MTC–00028618 To: Microsoft ATR From: joe—[email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm It seems clear that the settlement reached Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement in the Microsoft case is a good one. The most Subject: Microsoft Settlement My Opinion is that the government should important goal should be to end the use of We as Americans need to quit spending stay out of technology and the web. They are the taxpayers money on such an unworthy our time and valuable economic resources currupting freedom of speech with every cause. Let s end the waste! and focus on the real problems. Corporations attack on the Internet & Microsoft. People like Microsoft keep America s economy shouldn t be prosocuted for doing good MTC–00028613 running the war is not against Microsoft who business and making good products. there From: [email protected]@inetgw provides job to thousands of Americans and hasn t been a company that is better at doing To: Microsoft ATR helps to the financial health of our nation. business OR making good software for Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm Microsoft as a leading technology Subject: Microsoft Settlement improvement corporation should be an consumers and business to use. Most THE ATTEMPTED RUINATION OF AN example to follow restraining it will cause a Commerce on the internet is backed by INOVATIVE COMPANY BY VINDICTIVE regression of the high tech industry. I as a microsoft servers and a technology that COMPETITORS SHOULD NOT FIND AN consumer and concerned citizen would like microsoft has made. That awesome advance ALLY IN THE U.S. JUSTICE DEPT.. SETTLE to see a little bit of wisdom in my elected (known as ACTIVE SERVER PAGES) in the THIS CASE AND LET S GET BACK TO representatives if they could do a better job internet is downplayed by one or more tiny BUSINESS. by focusing on real problems and keep little losers in the consumer market. Most America rolling. people know and love windows its on MTC–00028614 something like 90% of consumers PCs. From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028619 Your alternatives are Macintosh or Linux. To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw Both of these options are either too technical Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm To: Microsoft ATR or too expensive. Windows is easy enough Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm for most Non-Technical people to use and I am concerned that this process has Subject: Microsoft Settlement learn. Macintosh says they are the easiest but draged on long enough and $35 Million Companies against Microsoft should go to with most people they dont want a taxpayer dollers was too much to spend work each day to innovate rather than Macintosh because they look dumb or they already. collude with the state AG s to litigate! It are too expensive you choose why. Plus seems that the only way to satisfy Microsoft $1000 for a low end computer isn t desireable MTC–00028615 s competitors is to legislate and litigate the for me how about you!? From: [email protected]@inetgw Microsoft Corp. completely into oblivion! Your other option are linux and OS2 (all To: Microsoft ATR flavors) do you program C? I dont and im a Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm MTC–00028620 database administrator enough said. Another Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: paulbarker—[email protected]@inetgw person (or the government) might take the It seems to me to be more a matter of To: Microsoft ATR opposite view. Well they are soo good they extortion than justice.The complaints were Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm are tring to take over all the companies that brought by competitors rather than Subject: Microsoft Settlement make technology. I don t believe they are consumers. The anti trust and monopoly I think that the speedy resolution of the tring to take over anything. I think that the laws were intended to protect consumers yet settlement is in the best interest of consumers are making them. they are making consumers are not for the most part the ones everyone—the technology industry the products that are far better than any others.I complaining.If Microsoft is a monopoly then economy and especially consumers. The don t work for microsoft nor do I believe in how can there be competitors to bring about nation has spent enough money on this case thier mission statements. But as a consumer these complaints? It seems to be another case and should move on to other cases more in the technology field I believe in their like that of the tobacco co.s of the important. Besides the lengthly negotiated products. So be it is I will continue to buy
VerDate 11
Microsoft products reguardless of any Now get off of them and let them do Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm government regulations% business. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Please let the settlement stand. Do not MTC–00028623 MTC–00028628 pursue further action against Microsoft. From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028633 Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR I feel that the US Gov t cannot keep their Microsoft should be prevented from its Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm mitts off of anything. I feel bad for the U.S. longstanding and ongoing deceptive and Subject: Microsoft Settlement that we should target the entrepreneurial predatory business practices. If this requires you have tried to strangle the goose that spirit of this country and lambaste the breaking the company into two or more laid that golden egg and spent too much $$$ winners of the contest to see who can come smaller companies so be it. onit. out on top. It is to our shame that an outfit like Microsoft (being the biggest boy on the MTC–00028629 MTC–00028634 block by far) is hounded by the U.S. s own From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw legal offices. My feelings about this whole To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR incident lean towards the abstinence of the Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm corporate entity in the marketplace from Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement today on. In other words MS would close Attention: I am writing to tell you that I I buy Microsoft products because I like their doors from this point on retire those believe that there has been no consumer them and I want them. The thought that people that they can furlough those people harm whatsoever as a result of any actions Netscape or any other company is losing that can t be retired and shut the doors. If the taken by Microsoft. In fact Microsofts market share due to a monopoly is U.S. infrastructure begins to fail so be it. The products and services have led to ridiculous. If I thought other products had justice dept. caused the whole thing. If the tremendous benefits for consumers such as merit I would buy them. The only reason entire economic structure of the U.S. is my myself and my family such as better Microsoft seems to have a monopoly is placed in jeopardy because of this incident products and lower prices. Antitrust law is because their products are many times better maybe the DOJ will put noses up their own supposed to be about consumer harm and on than the competition! In my opinion the a** instead of into other peoples businesses. that one key issue alone the government has plaintiffs in this case are wasting my tax failed to show any harm whatsoever. So lets dollars. MTC–00028624 back off now and leave Microsoft alone and From: [email protected]@inetgw this will also help our economy MTC–00028635 To: Microsoft ATR tremendously! Given that the economy is From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm now in recession the last thing we need is To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement more litigation and regulation of the high- Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm Microsoft has done more for this country tech industry. Settlement of this case is in Subject: Microsoft Settlement than any other ten companies put together. everyones best interests the technology I believe that the Microsoft settlement is Stop the action that seems to be planned to industry the economy and consumers. I hope fair and equitable for the technology go on forever. Finalize the settlement and you heed this advice! Thank you! Sincerely industry. Further litigation would be counter- stop further action. Lisa Ludwig productive to the technology industry and to the general business climate. It is time to end MTC–00028625 MTC–00028630 this protracted court action. From: [email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028636 Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR I am encouring a swift and fair conclusion In my humble opinion it is long past time Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm to the Microsoft case. They should be to cease this ridiculous persecution of the Subject: Microsoft Settlement allowed to innovate and offer the consumer most innovative corporation in the nation. I believe this settlement proposal unfair to their best product. They should be fair. The The benefit that has accrued to the nation Microsoft and prohibits Microsoft to conduct consumers will ultimately determine the from Microsoft s standardization of software their normal course of business not unlike software choices best suited for their needs. and the continued increase in the any other corporation. Microsoft has been productivity thereof are vitually beyond unfairly targeted as an industry monster and MTC–00028626 calculation. And what do they get as their this settlement sends the wrong message to From: [email protected]@inetgw reward? Persecution by the government other businesses and consumers alike. To: Microsoft ATR because a passel of would-be competitors MTC–00028637 Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm simply are not sufficiently creative to keep Subject: Microsoft Settlement up with them. Can it. From: [email protected]@inetgw I do not believe that taxpayer interests are To: Microsoft ATR served by government continuing to hear MTC–00028631 Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm competitor-driven antitrust lawsuits against From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft. It is regrettable that the original To: Microsoft ATR I have been a consumer of Microsoft lawsuit was heard. Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm products since 1991. I have never felt Sincerely Subject: Microsoft Settlement disadvantaged by their pricing of their Jeannene Murphy The Dept. Of Justice should drop it s products. In fact my personal productivity lawsuit against Microsoft. Do not penalize a has increased significantly every year as their MTC–00028627 company for success. I feel that the lawsuit products improved through innovations they From: [email protected]@inetgw against Microsoft in early 2000 was one of incorporated into their software and services. To: Microsoft ATR the prime reasons the stock market started it I think the settlement is fair and it is time to Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm s slide in 2000. Big Business drives the end this costly legal battle. Our government Subject: Microsoft Settlement economy of this country do not stand in the has better battles to fight. I would urge the I think that Microsoft has been unjustly way of the economy lets get the economy judge to pressure the remaining State s treated. They happen to make the best rolling again. Attorney s to also settle the case and let s internet browser and operating software in move on to more serious offenders than the industry. Microsoft has made is easy for MTC–00028632 Microsoft which has helped make America first time computer users to access the From: [email protected]@inetgw the World leader in technology and software. Internet and I herald them for thier efforts... To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely
VerDate 11
Rober J. Ballweber Jr. that my tax money is being used against a MTC–00028646 President company that wanted to excel. From: [email protected]@inetgw Thank you for this opportunity and your MTC–00028638 To: Microsoft ATR time. Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm From: [email protected]@inetgw Take Care Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Eric W. Ross Judge Kollar Kotelly RE: U.S. vs. Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm MTC–00028643 Your Honor The U.S. Government has no Subject: Microsoft Settlement business going after Microsoft in the first I do not agree that MicroSoft has violated From: Rick Moore place—Bill Gates started in a garage and any antitrust laws. If it weren t for the To: Microsoft ATR made it work—his whining competitors intellect of Bill Gates where would we be Date: 1/28/02 4:42pm should get over it. Please let Microsoft get today? He has made a difference!!! Subject: Microsoft Settlement back to business. One thing about Microsoft MTC–00028639 Dear Sir or Madam, is that it is a U.S. company—please free it The proposed settlement does not go from U.S. and state lawsuits. We need good From: [email protected]@inetgw nearly far enough in stopping microsoft’s products to compete in the world market. To: Microsoft ATR Thank you Sir. Sincerely H. David Young Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm egregious behavior. The company should be 7165 E. St. Rte. 41 Troy OH 45373–9020 937– Subject: Microsoft Settlement dealt with decisively. How many anti-trust 335–6422 I would strongly encourage the resolution suits do my tax dollars have to fund. You of this suit by agreeing to the terms of the have a mandate to protect the consumer and MTC–00028647 proposed settlement. competition. Microsoft has repeatedly shown contempt for our government and our people. From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028640 If we are to fight terrorism around the world To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw we should begin at home. This monopoly Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm To: Microsoft ATR only inhibits the growth of our economy, It Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm does not represent it. As a business manager My thoughts concerning the settlement are Subject: Microsoft Settlement I am forced into disadvantageous purchasing few and simple. I believe that the government Renata Hesse: Please find in favor of the decisions as a direct result of microsoft should have little to do with obstructing the free actions of the marketplace. To my Microsoft Corporation and direct the DOJ breaking compliance with technologies knowledge Microsoft has not used force to attention at more important matters such as before their life cycles are realized. We are compel anyone to purchase their products. corporate welfare and Enron. forced to spend capital to replace equipment thank you that is not broken just to remain on a MTC–00028648 Bryan Rogowski platform that they support. You let the best From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028641 remedy escape when you opposed the break To: Microsoft ATR up now you don’t even have an enforceable From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm doctrine. Please for all our sakes take stronger Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR action. I just don’t want to continue to buy Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm On behalf of the Ohio Taxpayers lesser products because I have no choice. Association and our over 5,000 Ohio Subject: Microsoft Settlement Thank You Our anti-trust laws should be modified to members I am writing in support of the Richard Moore reflect the contemporary marketplace. proposed settlement between the Justice Microsoft’s competitors took advantage of MTC–00028644 Department and the State of Ohio. No further legal action is necessary or welcomed. The antiquated laws to hurt the company that has From: [email protected]@inetgw provided unprecedented benefit to our settlement provides a fair and reasonable To: Microsoft ATR settlement that benefits technology society economy productivity as a nation and Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm ability to comunicate globally. Free consumers and brings to end this lengthy Subject: Microsoft Settlement enterprise has prevailed. It is indeed the very case. Thousands of Ohioans are employed in I am computer professional who for 20 size of Microsoft that enabled continuous well paying jobs because of the work of years has worked for large companies small reinvestment into improving it’s products. Microsoft in addition many more Ohioans are startups and my own business. I urge the The state of our present computing systems shareholders in the company. Settlement is now well ahead of where it might have court to accept the proposed settlement. allows Microsoft and the rest of the been were Micrsoft restricted. Re-do the laws. Further litigation will severely disrupt our technology industry in Ohio get back to Leave Microsoft alone. Tell the competitors industry and only serve those companies that work. The only thing this lawsuit has to take their case to the market and not the directly compete with Microsoft. This case succeeded in doing is driving down the share courts. has never been about the interests of prices of technology companies and wasted consumers or software developers. We have taxpayers dollars The positive benefits are MTC–00028642 voted overwhelmingly in the marketplace for numerous to this agreed upon settlement. From: ew—[email protected]@inetgw Microsoft products. They have been the Implementation of the settlement is a To: Microsoft ATR underpinning of the great productivity and positive step for the American and Ohio Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm economic gains which we experienced in the taxpayer. Subject: Microsoft Settlement past decade. The courts should not be used Sincerely To whom it may concern by corporations with inferior products as a Scott A. Pullins I believe as a citizen of this free country mechanism for overturning the will of the Ohio Taxpayers Association the government does not have right to free market. I resent the use of my hard www.ohiotaxpayers.com intervene with any company. The companies earned taxpayer dollars to reverse my well of the United States are like the citizens of thought out choices. I urge the court to settle MTC–00028649 the United States. They both have the this case now. From: [email protected]@inetgw freedom to excel. This is what makes Sincerely To: Microsoft ATR America what it is. In the case regarding Casey Simon Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm Microsoft I believe they have their right to Subject: Microsoft Settlement excel. They company has brought us new MTC–00028645 This settlement is for the COMPETITORs technology has helped out the economy and From: [email protected]@inetgw NOT the consumer !!! I always thought a free had begin a new market. The comapny To: Microsoft ATR market system would let the market decide. should not be punished. I believe the Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm We are not a free market system when the majority of the citizens of the United States Subject: Microsoft Settlement government dictates the market especially are grateful for what Microsoft has done and Best would have been for the government when it has been obvious over the last 4 what they will continue to do. Its a shame to halt the lawsuit. But this is acceptable years of this lawsuit that the competitors are
VerDate 11
using our own government to gain their own the best interest of the nations economy and Three years is long enough for a case to advantages. Not many consumers in the US the technology industry. continue. Microsoft has agreed to this today believe this lawsuit has anything to do settlement and now it is time for the with them. We all know it has to do with MTC–00028653 government to respond in kind. jealously and posturing by the competitition. From: Doug Riddle Anticompetitive laws have benefited greatly Please stop this nonsense and let To: Microsoft ATR from the result of this case and so have all consumers decide what is best for them. Our Date: 1/28/02 4:47pm sides concerned. Let Microsoft continue to dollar speaks loudly in a free market system. Subject: Microsoft Settlement develop software that benefits us all without the threat of further litigation hanging over MTC–00028650 To Whom It May Concern: I think the increasing frequency of the company. I urge you to accept this From: [email protected]@inetgw computer viruses and denial of service settlement. Thank you. To: Microsoft ATR attacks only serve to underscore how Sincerely, Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm important competition is in the market place, Joanne Griffin Subject: Microsoft Settlement and how poor quality and service can get in 1152 Center Drive The settlement action recently undertaken the face of a monopoly. Microsoft is Saint Louis, MO 63117 between the Justice Department and knowingly producing shoddy products MTC–00028656 Microsoft Corp. represents a fair and because they can force suppliers to comply From: Bruce Nazarian unbiased end to the legal battles that have with their demands. They use their size, To: Microsoft ATR gone on for these several years. To allow market share and media assets to avoid Date: 1/28/02 4:49pm Microsoft s competitors to block this just competition, while their lawyers tie up what Subject: Microsoft Settlement. settlement to aid their own deficient competition and complaints there are. I do Dear DOJ products would be a travesty and not at all not want to see them shut down, but I want in line with the fair competitive nature The fact that this government has backed real accountability to the public built into the down from properly seeking a strong which benefits both consumers and remedy. Please help see to it that any producers. settlement from Microsoft, in view of the proposed settlement has teeth, or do not finding that it has promulgated monopolistic MTC–00028651 settle. behavior is distressing. In my view, and that From: [email protected]@inetgw Warmest Regards, of MANY literate computer professionals, To: Microsoft ATR Doug Riddle what Microsoft has wrought on the Country, Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm http://www.dougriddle.com World, and the Computer business at large is Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028654 nothing more than a thinly -veiled attempt to Though I do not believe that justice should create a monopolistic stranglehold on how From: [email protected]@inetgw be swayed by the majority’s opinion for we compute, and what we compute with. To: Microsoft ATR majority’ssake I provide my opinion here If there needs be any further evidence Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm because the Microsoft case has been made about how ineffective Microsoft is at open for public comment. The American Subject: Microsoft Settlement innovation, and how little they care about government has taken Microsoft to task for This ruling against Microsoft is unjust. anything other than Market share, it would being a productive innovative and successful Settlements like these will scare any be this: Their Latest ‘‘state of the art’’ company. The purpose of the government is company into becoming too successful. The operating SYstem Windows XP, is so full of to defend its peoples’ individual rights these evidence against Microsoft failed to prove security breaches and bugs that it makes rights are impinged upon when force is used that Microsoft is a monopoly. This was just matters WORSE rather than better. And they to undermine another’s ability to think live an action by the business-hating Clinton KNOW it! In addition, they are patching or produce through free choice. Controls on Administration. Don t Hang Microsoft out to these flaws so quickly and so often that it is legitimate spending contracts and dry. virtually impossible for IT professional to productivity undermine civilized human MTC–00028655 maintain a stable computing environment in behavior and only cause more controls. their businesses. Microsoft has settled rather than fight the From: Griffin, Joanne I, for one, CATEGORICALLY REFUSE to court system with its energy money and time. To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ operate their software, and avoid using the But the justice system is wrong. These laws Date: 1/28/02 4:45pm Windows operating system completely. Many should never have existed in America. There Subject: I support Microsoft settlement IT professional are now switching to UNIX, should be a complete separation between Please see my attached memo. THx.JSG Mac OS X and LINUX as a stable alternative. economy and state only cases of national CC: ‘‘fin(a)mobilizationoffice.com’’ i wish that DOJ would SERIOUSLY security fraud and broken contract should be January 24, 2002 REVIEW their proposed settlement (which business matters of the court domain. To Attorney General John Ashcroft has been watered down significantly since, punish Microsoft for being so successful is US Department of Justice coincidentally, a REPUBLICAN administratin the equivalent of punishing an individual for 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW took power) as it DOES NOT provide being good at living. I can only hope that the Washington, DC 20530 protection for the American Computing precedent set by the outcome of this case Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Public, and, in fact, lays the way clear for does not seek to completely undermine all I am writing to you to express my support Microsoft to continue to promulgate that America stands for. for the settlement of the anti-trust lawsuit Monopolistic control of the way we work— against Microsoft. The agreement that has Iff you need more proof, look seriously as the MTC–00028652 been reached will not only help the .NET Strategy, and their abusive software From: [email protected]@ economy, but it will ensure that in the future, upgrade ‘‘purchase’’ policies. inetgw anticompetitive corporate action will not be I am disappointed with DOJ being prepared To: Microsoft ATR tolerated. Microsoft has not been let off to THROW AWAY the ONLY opportunity we Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm lightly and the government has proven its have to remedy Microsoft’s egregious Subject: Microsoft Settlement point. business practices, and to properly punish I think that the settlement between The biggest provision of the settlement is them. Please do the right thing—since you Microsoft and the state attorneys general is the fact that Microsoft will not attack other won’t break them up, at least LEVEL THE fair and reasonable. I think it is time that this computer manufacturers who produce rival PLAYING FIELD so they can no longer usurp lengthy process is over. The parites that are products. This will definitely open up the INNOVATION from third parties and call it upset about the settlement obviously want to market to fair competition without fear of WINDOWS. LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID TO see Microsoft crushed at the hands of the reprisal. I support Microsoft’s position and NETSCAPE!!!! Mad, you’re damn right I’m federal government. If these parties were also think that it is necessary for small mad—I pay your salaries! Now please do the genuinley interested is fairness which is business to flourish in partnership with will of the people, NOT the will of the what they claim then they should endorse larger companies. This settlement allows this politicians. WE WANT THIS ABUSER the settlement as well. The settlement is in to happen. PUNISHED!
VerDate 11
Bruce C. Nazarian case and it is for no other reason then of others will play heavily on your decision Common Citizen, and NON-Mircrosoft user Microsoft’s ability to offer better products to wrap this matter up quickly. Thank you for and support with lower total-cost-of- taking the time to consider my thoughts on MTC–00028657 ownership that they have my business. this matter. From: [email protected]@inetgw This case was never created for or even by Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR consumers but for the benefit of failed market Albert Minoofar Date: 1/28/02 4:49pm competitors to Microsoft. It was presided cc: Representative Darrell Issa Subject: Microsoft settlement over by a judge with a personal axe to grind CC:[email protected]@inetgw My wife and I enjoy the quality and who was incapable of understanding MTC–00028661 reliability of Microsoft products. We have anything technical. The prosecution of used competitors products in the past and Microsoft was an insult and the behavior of From: Liz Bradley have found them to be inferior time and time the court was worse. Microsoft’s proposed To: Microsoft ATR again. settlement is more than fair and should be Date: 1/28/02 4:51pm We think it would be in everyone’s best accepted. Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement interest to resolve the case. We may just be Thank you for your time, Greetings— two individuals in the population but our Sincerely, I am a professor of computer science at the opinion is that this drama has gone on too Reid Flickinger University of Colorado at Boulder. I am a long as it is. The company that provides a Reid Flickinger lifelong Unix user, but my professional life superior product at a reasonable price should Chief Technical Officer has been significantly affected by the not be ‘‘bashed’’ just because it is preferred MFC Inc, SaleView Systems & Contact24 Microsoft monopoly, and I would like to by the user. Continuous Web Monitoring and make a few points about the settlement. Approximately fifteen years ago a Notification Microsoft has a long history of business practices that intentionally and effectively tie competition issue arose with telephone [email protected] its users’’ hands—in ways that benefit companies and I have not experienced the 925.831.8942 Ext. 11 Microsoft, and that perpetuate and extend its same degree of satisfaction in telephone www.saleview.com & www.contact24.com monopoly. Their business practices are service since the breakup of AT&T. I would Danville, California U.S.A hate to see history repeat itself. predatory, and their design choices have CC:[email protected]@ made it difficult for anyone to use any kind Maybe the time and monies used to inetgw,letters@capitalis... prosecute Microsoft could be better used of competing software or format. This is true investigating the pricing and merger MTC–00028660 from the system level (e.g., the netscape lockout) to the social/practice level—for activities within the cable industry. At the From: Minoofar(a)cox.net example, how hard it is to get a Microsoft consumer level these appear to be unfair, To: Microsoft ATR email program to send email messages in monopolistic, and not in the best interest of Date: 1/28/02 4:48pm anything but Microsoft-proprietary format. the public. Subject: Microsoft This last example, which hits me many Wesley & Lynn Sharpe 44 Blue Horizon times every day, may seem petty, but it is Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 MTC–00028658 really pernicious—in the way that my history January 28, 2002 From: [email protected]@inetgw classes taught me that the anti-trust act is Attorney General John Ashcroft To: Microsoft ATR intended to fix. I get email from a non- US Department of Justice Date: 1/28/02 4:49pm computer-scientist colleague, complete with 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: Microsoft Settlement a Word attachment. I email back, asking for Washington, DC 20530 Dear Mr Ashcroft: a lingua franca format like pdf or ascii. My Dear Mr. Ashcroft: The settlement between Microsoft and the correspondent can’t figure out how to do the I was recently informed that the DOJ has Department of Justice in regards to the translation, eventually gets frustrated, and asked for the public’s opinion on the antitrust suit is a very fair settlemant for all castigates me for not ‘‘getting with the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. As I feel sides involved. I feel that there is no need to program’’ and using Microsoft. Since I use continue litigation. It is a wast of time and very strongly about this issue, I decided to computers professionally, doing so is not an money. the only people who profit from this take full advantage of this opportunity. I am option; moreover, I know enough to not are the lawyers and the companies whose an avid support of Microsoft and if this succumb to that kind of pressure. Neither of product are less popular with consumers. settlement brings closure to this three-year those things is true for most people, and the I feel that the settlement is a good thing battle against them, then I support the pressure propagates the Microsoft monopoly. and that it should be finalized. settlement as well. In my opinion, this Encouraging an entire community of users Regards Orrin O. Stromswold 2706 169th lawsuit as done nothing but attempt to tear to use a single set of proprietary software is Ave N.E. Bellevue, Wa. 98008 down the IT industry leader. In the process, not only a matter of monopoly. It is also a major damage has been done to this industry matter of security. Microsoft’s email MTC–00028659 and the economy. It is time to bring closure programs, for example, not only force their From: Reid Flickinger to this case and I hope that you will make naive users to send Microsoft-format To: Microsoft ATR the necessary decision to ensure this. attachments, but also make those users Date: 1/28/02 4:49pm I have a hard time understanding the vulnerable, because the defaults are set up so Subject: Microsoft Settlement reasons behind the States’’ dissatisfaction incoming attachments are automatically Good Afternoon, with the settlement. The settlement seems ingested. Moreover, those programs are full As a professional with 20 plus years of fair and serves to ensure that future antitrust of security holes. This combination causes computer technical experience and a decade- violations will not occur. Microsoft has even dozens of virus attacks to propagate around long owner of several successful computer agreed to alter business practices that were the world every year. My colleagues’’ service companies I feel that I have a relevant not found to be unlawful, just so that this computers are routinely paralyzed during perspective on this case that should not be matter will close quickly. As for Microsoft these events, but I have never—NEVER— ignored. Important background to consider competitors, they should be more than been affected by a virus in my 20 years at first is that I initially gained experience with pleased that Microsoft has agreed to grant MIT and Colorado. Microsoft’s competitor Apple, followed by them much easier access to their company It is well known in ecology that a diverse various other competitor’s systems. I was codes and interfaces. This is the first time population is far more robust. The goal of slow to move to Microsoft’s products but that this has happened in an antitrust case. Microsoft’s direct and indirect pressure is a eventually found that they offered superior Additionally Microsoft will adhere to homogeneous population of computer users products and support. As a developer in the findings by a Technical Committee as it running Windows. A single smart hacker computer business, they were far more relates to compliance disputes. would be able to take down this entire responsive to my needs than Apple and I am confident that I am one of many country if they succeed. delivered more cost effective solutions. Since people who feel the same way about this File formats should be open, just like the then on countless projects, this has been the matter and hope that my comments and those design of a car interface —- the steering
VerDate 11
wheel/accelerator layout, etc.—is open. Date: 1/28/02 4:51pm of President Reagan’s Private Sector Survey Competitors should not be smothered using Subject: Microsoft Settlement on Cost Control, better known as the Grace heavy handedness. (This is EXACTLY what We strongly support the settlement and Commission. Since its founding, CAGW has catalyzed the suit that ended up in Sherman!) want to see this put behind us. Microsoft is been researching, publicizing, and working to The open-source community, in particular, one of America’s great companies and has eliminate wasteful government spending. In should be allowed to thrive, not squelched. been punished enough. Let’s move on. particular, CAGW has exposed Manufacturers should be able to install any Albert Strong mismanagement of governmental resources OS that they can sell, without fear of Privo.com in the technology sector, such as retaliation. That kind of force is the very CC:[email protected]@inetgw incompatible computer and accounting antithesis of the free and open market. systems, as well as billions of dollars spent Sincerely, MTC–00028666 on hardware and software that simply did Elizabeth Bradley From: Danny O. Bielby not work. On the basis of our 18 years of Boulder CO To: Microsoft ATR nationally recognized expertise representing CC:[email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 4:52pm the interests of American taxpayers, we are submitting our comments to you today. MTC–00028662 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Freedom to inovate. On November 6, 2001, Microsoft, the From: Oliver Harris If this was a drug, wouldn’t you have a Department of Justice (DO J) and nine states To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ patent on it. You can’t, what’s new today is agreed to a Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in Date: 1/28/02 4:47pm old tomorrow invclving the internet. In some the lawsuit against the company. As the Subject: Settlement cases there having law suits today and overriding element of the Tunney Act is Our government or any part thereof, should making the rules tomorrow. I have a little whether an antitrust settlement is in the never be used as some sort of wrecking ball company,so should I automaticaly sue a public interest, CAGW submits that the PFJ used against those entities which through bigger company with not much of a cause. clearly meets this standard. superior strategy and innovation realize the Who knows, I might win, if not it will be a CAGW estimates that to date the Microsoft maximum benefits of our capitalistic system. tax deduction. lawsuit has cost taxpayers more than $35 It is through such practices that the consumer Thank you, Danny O. Bielby million. It has also hobbled one of America’s realizes the greatest benefits of innovations at premier high-tech engines of growth at a time competitive market costs. MTC–00028667 when we need to jump-start our economy. Therefore, it is a credit to our system of From: philippa jeffery The PFJ is fair to all sides in the case, justice and fairness that the anti-trust case To: Microsoft ATR including: against Microsoft, encouraged and driven by Date: 1/28/02 4:56pm Microsoft, which will continue to be able those entities that choose to whine rather Subject: Microsoft Settlement to provide new software that integrates new than compete, be concluded in this Dear Sir/Madam, products; settlement rather than some heavy handed Please find attached the Tunney Act Competitors, who will have more access to judgement by the DOJ against the Microsoft Comments for Citizens Against Government the Windows platform to incorporate their Corporation. Waste. products or make them compatible; Thank You. Philippa Jeffery Software manufacturers, who will get back Oliver Harris Media Associate to the business of creating innovative Loan Officer Citizens Against Government Waste products; CWCapital, Mid-Atlantic 1301 Connecticut Ave., Suite 400 Consumers, who will have more choices 6395 Dobbin Road Washington, DC 20036 among software products; and, Suite 206 202–467–5318- Direct Line Investors, who will have stability in the Columbia, MD 21045 202–467–4253- Fax Number marketplace. 410.772.2260 x4 [email protected] Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American 410.772.0503 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT people, the settling states will avoid [email protected] COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA additional costs and now be able to focus MTC–00028664 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, their time and resources on matters of far From: Jan Chesne Plaintiff greater significance. As noted by District To: Microsoft ATR Civil Action No. 98–1232 (CKK) Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who Date: 1/28/02 4:50pm V. pushed for a settlement after the attacks of Subject: Microsoft Settlement MICROSOFT CORP., September 11, it is vital for the country to The purpose of the settlement, I hope, is Defendant move on from this lawsuit. The parties to restrain Microsoft’s monopolistic tactics in COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED worked extremely hard to reach this the future. Allowing them to donate their SETTLEMENT BY: agreement, which has the benefit of taking software and compatible hardware to schools Citizens Against Government Waste effect immediately rather than months or would be a step in the wrong direction, only Thomas A. Schatz years from now when all appeals from furthering their monopoly. Anything to President continuing the litigation would finally be equalize the playing field would be helpful, 1301 Connecticut Ave., NW—Suite 400 exhausted. Furthermore, Microsoft, DOJ and e.g., let them purchase competitors’’ products Washington, DC 20036 the nine states have accepted the settlement for the schools. (202) 467–5300 FAX: (202) 467–4253 as better than continued proceedings. I believe MS should be required to make On behalf of the one million members and Specifically, Microsoft will not be broken most of its products and Web services supporters of Citizens Against Government up and will be able to continue to immolate compatible with all other systems. Windows Waste (CAGW), I am providing comments on and provide new software and products. should be provided separately from other MS U.S. v. Microsoft pursuant to the Tunney Act. Software developers and Internet service products (Outlook Express, etc.) so that CAGW supports the settlement as being in providers (ISPs), including competitors, will hardware makers could include competing the public interest and opposes further have unprecedented access to Microsoft’s products and users could make easier litigation in this case. Further expenditure of programming language and thus will be able choices. tax dollars and government resources on this to make Microsoft programs compatible with Good luck. case, which has stifled technology, their own. Competitors also benefit from the Janet Chesne innovation, and investment at a time when provision that frees up computer 61 Village Park Way the economy is in recession and the nation manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Santa Monica, CA 90405 is at war, would not benefit the American Microsoft application or element of an people. operating system and install other programs. MTC–00028665 CAGW is a nonprofit, nonpartisan In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against From: [email protected]@inetgw organization founded in 1984 by J. Peter computer manufactures, ISPs, or other To: Microsoft ATR Grace and Jack Anderson following the report software developers for using products
VerDate 11
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in now more than ever, the country needs the MTC–00028671 an unprecedented enforcement clause, a economic stability this settlement can From: John Roth technical committee will work out of provide. This settlement is in the public To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft’s headquarters for the next five interest, and should be accepted without Date: 1/28/02 4:52pm years, at the company’s expense, and monitor change. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft’s behavior and compliance with Respectfully Submitted, Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: the settlement. Thomas A. Schatz I would like to register my deep The settlement is compatible with the President, Citizens Against Government dissatisfaction with the settlement terms findings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Waste offered by the Justice Department to District of Columbia, which substantially MTC–00028668 Microsoft. These terms are not in the public narrowed the scope of legal liability and interest; rather, they seem to serve only the From: [email protected]@inetgw instructed the U.S. District Court to created interest, not even of the shareholders, but of To: Microsoft ATR remedies that fit the ‘‘drastically altered’’ the executives of a few powerful Date: 1/28/02 4:51pm findings. As Assistant Attorney General for corporations, including Microsoft. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Antitrust Charles James said in testimony I will not bother to repeat the observations Attn: Renata B. Hesse before the Senate in December: of, for example, Consumers Union, but rather Antitrust Division Of the twenty anticompetitive acts the focus on one specific failure of the U.S. Dept of Justice court of appeals reviewed, it reserved with settlement: namely, to address the concerns In my opinion, the terms of the findings of respect to eight of the acts that the district of open-source software development. the Court of Appeals ruling has been met by court had sustained as elements of the Many the most important tools that I use Microsoft who has not only met but gone monopoly maintenance claim. Additionally, in my work as a software developer are beyond said findings. Microsoft has agreed the DC Circuit reversed the lower court’s ‘‘open-source’’ software, including the GNU/ that the terms are reasonable and fair to all findings that Microsoft’s ‘‘course of conduct’’ Linux operating system. These are non- parties involved. It’s time to drop the matter separately violated Section 2 of the Sherman commercial products with many qualities and allow Microsoft, as well as the industry, Act. It reserved the district court’s rulings on that Microsoft products have never achieved, to move forward. Please NEVER forget what the attempted monopolization and tying such freedom from crashes, support for MICROSOFT has done for the INDUSTRY. claims, remanding the tying claim for further networking with standard security protocols, Thank you for your attention to the proceedings under a much more difficult rule compatibility between versions, and foregoing. of reason standard. And, or course, it vacated adaptability which make them ideally suited Sylvia Earnst the district court’s final judgment that set to software development. These products are forth the break-up remedy and interim MTC–00028669 developed largely on the volunteer work of conduct remedies. thousands of developers; their quality stems Acceptance of the PFJ would send a clear From: Billy SG McCarthy To: Microsoft ATR directly from the openness and liberality of signal to the nine remaining states and the the copyright. Their low dollar cost does not District of Columbia opposed to the Date: 1/28/02 4:50pm Subject: Lack of Punishment reflect their value. settlement that their remedy is not To whom it may concern, One of the greatest challenges in open- appropriate given the findings of the court of I’m writing as a concerned citizen, and as source software development is to implement appeals. The alternative proposed by the a computer science major to express my interfaces to obfuscated, proprietary remaining plaintiffs appears to be based on feelings about the settlement reached protocols that companies such as Microsoft the original district court decision, which is between the United States Department of develop to lock-out competitors. This point no longer relevant. Dragging the proceedings Justice and Microsoft. Like many others out that was not lost on the Department of Justice out further, with a new remedy hearing, a there, I do not think that the settlement only a year or two ago. Unfortunately, the new district court decision, another appeal to reached goes nearly far enough to punish terms of the settlement enable Microsoft to the DC Circuit, an appeal to the Supreme Microsoft for it’s illegal actions. Also, the continue to use its monopoly power against Court, and remand back to the court of settlement does not give anyone any real open-source products, since many of the appeals and district may be in the interests power to prevent any further antitrust issues remedies that are supposed to prevent of Microsoft’s competitors, but it is not in the from arising. Microsoft from dominating by implementing public interest. Microsoft was found guilty of numerous proprietary protocols are conditioned on Most importantly, this settlement is fair to violations of antitrust law, and they are there being an economically viable the computer users and consumers of walking away pretty much unscathed. It feels corporation, rather than a more reasonable America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was like the US DOJ doesn’t have the stamina to definition, perhaps in terms of the number of allegedly filed. Consumers will be able to fight against a huge corporation, and users represented. select a variety of pre-installed software on therefore took the easy way out. This is not This is a slap in the face to open-source their computers. It will also be easier to right. It is the government’s job to find a developers, absolutely contrary to the public substitute competitors’’ products after remedy that is in the best interest of the interest, which it is the Governments’’ purchase as well. The PFJ even covers issues citizens of the United States of America. We special responsibility to protect, and a failure and software that were not part of the are the ones who were injured by Microsoft’s to enforce the spirit of anti-trust law, which original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which anticompetive actions, and we want to make is to prevent mere market domination from will have to be modified to comply with the sure that will never happen again. stifling competition. There is no real wealth settlement. Thank you for your time, and I hope that created by Microsoft’s use of proprietary Public opinion is squarely in favor of this joke of a settlement is never agreed upon. protocols; only a guarantee of its ability to settlement. Voter Consumer Research William SG McCarthy stifle alternative platforms in the future. conducted polls of 1,000 eligible voters in 18 Allston St. Your Truly, Utah and Kansas in November, 2001, and Allston, MA John Charles Roth opposed further action by their state USA attorneys general following the settlement by MTC–00028672 a 6 to 1 margin. This is an even greater MTC–00028670 From: [email protected]@inetgw percentage than previous polls concluding, From: Christina Jordan To: Microsoft ATR by a 2 to 1 margin, that the lawsuit brought To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 4:52pm by DOJ and the 19 states was a waste of tax Date: 1/28/02 4:52pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement dollars. Subject: Microsoftsettlement Greetings... The Microsoft case was supposedly The anti-trust lawsuit the government filed As a long time computer user (since ‘‘82) brought on behalf of American consumers, against Microsoft was the beginning of the and software developer (since ‘‘85), I have who have paid the price of litigation through recession. Let it go so we can get our been extremely bothered and dismayed at the their taxes. Investment portfolios have been economy going again! methods that Microsoft has utilized in its substantially devalued during this battle, and Christina Jordan business practices. However, because of the
VerDate 11
combination of Microsoft’s massive I strongly object to the proposed settlement Microsoft’s stranglehold. Their corpses litter pocketbook and their ability to intimidate with Microsoft. It is a gross and negligent the high-tech industry. others within the industry, it seemed the the miscarriage of justice. Just how powerful is Microsoft? Powerful only relief from Microsoft’s tactics lay with I have some unique first-hand knowledge enough to put just about any company out of the anti-trust efforts of the US Govt and the of the kind of financial damage that Microsoft business in short order if they were various states. When Microsoft was found has inflicted upon other companies. I know determined, including other huge powerful guilty of predatory monoplistic behavior, this because I was at the heart of the project companies such as Intel. How would they Judge Jackson’s orginal solution was right on at Compaq that resulted in Microsoft accomplish such an impossible-sounding target for what was deserved and needed to terminating Compaq’s license to Windows. feat? Simply by making the following remedy the actions of Microsoft. Let me provide some background for you. announcement: ‘‘Microsoft today announces After this valid punishment was I am the former product manager at Compaq a strategic relationship with Advanced Micro overturned on a technicality, an settlement Computer Corporation who was responsible Devices. Beginning with the next version of was proposed which does nothing but for the Compaq/AOL deal in 1995. I worked Windows, which will ship in six months, provide Microsoft with a slap on the wrist for Rod Schrock, who was Vice President of only new co-branded AMD/Microsoft the consumer division. You used several of processors will run Windows optimally. and a promise to ‘‘go forth and sin no more’’. my email messages in your case against Legacy Intel processors will still run This is the same ‘‘punishment’’ that Microsoft. Windows, but only at 1/4 speed, and only for Microsoft received in ‘‘94.. after which they In 1995, I was placed in charge of defining a limited time. Microsoft strongly encourages went out and obliterated Netscape from the Compaq’s consumer online strategy. I its customers to begin migrating to the AMD/ Internet, held PC makers hostage to their proposed a relationship with America Microsoft platform immediately, in demands for the desktop and threatened Online, one which was great for America preparation for the release of the exciting Apple Computer with actions that would Online, and even better for Compaq. It was new Windows system.’’ have destroyed Apple unless Apple played worth HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF The proposed settlement does little or the game the Microsoft way. DOLLARS IN INCREMENTAL PROFIT to our nothing to prevent this kind of behavior in Microsoft has truly proven itself to be a business unit. The deal, in a nutshell, the future. The absurd thing is, it actually company that cannot be trusted, despite all involved Compaq heavily promoting the AOL gives Microsoft a government-sponsored leg- of Bill Gates’’ ‘‘aw-shucks’’ mannerisms and service, in exchange for AOL giving Compaq up to claim an additional monopoly in one speeches. This is a company that choses to a significant ongoing revenue share. of the rare markets that they don’t currently not play by the rules or behave like a Microsoft heard about this forming own: the education market. responsible corporate citizen. Just like with relationship. They contacted us and asked Microsoft (and some supporters) say that any other individual who continually that we work with them instead of AOL, to ‘‘Microsoft is good for the U.S. economy... operates outside the rules, the Federal and promote their new online service code- they are a brilliant high-tech success story for State governments MUST PUNISH Microsoft named Marvel (now known as MSN, the America ... don’t punish successful in a way that is comenserate with their Microsoft Network). We responded that we companies.’’ There is a half-truth in what crimes. would be happy to work with them, but we they say, but their logic is flawed. By that The proposed settlement does not in any would expect them to pay us in a similar line of thinking, Standard Oil would never way begin to match what the court fashion to how AOL was to pay us. have been broken up. In truth, Microsoft has documents clearly show that Microsoft Their response? I’ll paraphrase: We are not been a strong force for innovation. To the deserves. It should be thrown out and a new Microsoft. We own the customer, not you, contrary, they have systematically stifled plan devised that exacts from Microsoft the Compaq. You Compaq have three choices: innovation. Their policy seems to be ‘‘crush punishment it deserves. 1) Do the deal with Microsoft. We will pay anything that Microsoft doesn’t own and Thank you. you NOTHING, but we’ll have a closer control’’. Dean Gillispie davidldlgillispie@ relationship, with various intangible benefits We will never know how much innovation raytheon.com (281) 280–2883 (voice) (wink wink lower price on the OS, etc.) and economic growth might have emerged SSTF-Vehicle Sys Raytheon Technical 2) Cancel the deal and do it with nobody. from companies that fell victim to Microsoft’s Services Co. Houston, Texas, USA We are OK with that. control ploys. However, we can guess by 3) Do the deal with America Online. looking at one rare example where they MTC–00028673 WARNING: IF YOU PURSUE THIS OPTION, failed. We know that Microsoft did not want From: Anthony Correia WE WILL PUT YOU OUT OF BUSINESS. the open Internet to happen, that instead they To: Microsoft ATR Our team at Compaq reviewed the had a vision of a Microsoft-owned-and- Date: 1/28/02 4:52pm situation, and concluded that Microsoft must controlled worldwide network (see early Subject: Government Persecution of Big be bluffing. They couldn’t do it, because it presentations on Microsoft’s Marvel Project). Business would be a blatant violation of anti-trust In this case, for once, they did not move Stop ‘‘killing’’ Big Business! Get on with laws. We decided to proceed with the deal. quickly enough to stop this emerging threat, the job you all are getting paid for with our Shortly afterward, Microsoft sent us a letter and by the time they began their attack, they tax dollars— constitutionally—to provide for telling us that we were in violation of their met a force so powerful that even they could the common defense of the ‘‘several states’! Windows License agreement, and we could not stop it. We now know just how much Fight TERRORISM not American companies no longer sell PCs with Windows installed. benefit the U.S. and the world have realized that hire citizens who pay the very taxes you Our license to Windows was terminated. from the advent of the Internet. How many people frivolously fritter away on ‘‘unjust’’ Since Microsoft Windows is the only viable other promising technologies and markets causes’’. operating system on the market, we were has Microsoft successfully stopped? How If we find crooks in our American effectively shut down as a company. As much economic growth has been stunted by industries, there are many legal and local Microsoft had threatened, THEY WERE the Robber Baron of high-tech? The time has authorities to chase them and prosecute to PUTTING US OUT OF BUSINESS!!! come to force Microsoft to play fair. the ‘‘fullest extent of the law’’. Needless to say, we ended up having to I would be glad to discuss this further with I pray to God that this message is CLEAR quickly appease Microsoft and redo the deal anyone from the DOJ. Please contact me at enough for the least of you and your limited with AOL, dramatically watering it down and your earliest convenience. understanding of the Constitution! making it effectively into a nothing deal: no Thank you, An angry Korean ‘‘Conflict’’ veteran... substantive benefit to AOL, no substantive Vaughn Rhodes benefit to Compaq. Formerly Strategic Planning Manager (and MTC–00028674 If this kind of behavior is not a flagrant Product Manger) at Compaq Computer in From: [email protected]@inetgw abuse of monopoly power, I don’t know what Houston, TX To: Microsoft ATR is. Microsoft regularly wields this kind of 650–938–8587 (home) Date: 1/28/02 4:54pm abusive power. They have it, and they use it 650–279–6221 (cell) Subject: Microsoft Settlement most aggressively. Speak with any of the [email protected] (work email Dear DOJ, myriad companies that have fallen victim to address)
VerDate 11
[email protected] (home email address) I would like to take a moment to voice my their only interest is maximizing their CC:[email protected]@inetgw objection to the propsed settlement in the corporate profit by any means, legal or Microsoft Anti-Trust case. I believe that the illegal. MTC–00028675 proposal is far too weak to have any Microsoft has indeed made a bunch of From: Richard Ballard meaningful effect on the marketplace. money for some people. So does dumping To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ In the past, Microsoft has demonstrated it’s toxic waste into the environment. Why Date: 1/28/02 4:53pm willingness to do whatever it sees fit in spite should Microsoft be treated differently than Subject: Microsoft Settlement of the law, and to use it’s billions to fend off anyone else, simply because they’ve made a I find it interesting that now, after you any legal action until it is far too late to lot of money? made your decision, you permit comments rectify the damage. I expect that if this As a revealing exercise, consider how on your to little to late actions. settlement is accepted, it will be less than a much human effort is wasted by Microsoft While following this case not once did I year until Microsoft breaks the agreement in software each year. Assuming 100,000,000 see where it was mentioned all the third the pursuit of some competitor and creates PC’s running MS software, and also assuming party software stolen by Microsoft and another prolonged legal battle that will not be a week of unnecessary downtime each year ‘‘added’’ to their Operating System. ICQ (now resolved until the competitor is long dead. (a conservative estimate), every year we have MS Message), MP3 (Winamp, MuchMusic, And I expect that every last word in the almost 2 million man-years of human life etc. and here they decided to lower the agreement will be endlessly debated in court squandered—simply thrown away. This is standard 128BPS), Java (They usurped the case after court case, as Microsoft forestalls technical innovation? This is business whole idea of java, making programs usable any enforcement for years. Microsoft has leadership? No, this is an appalling disregard on ALL OSs, by changing the code so it shown little respect for the law to date (in for human life. And this tyrannical contempt wouldn’t work on their own system). Internet terms of previous broken agreements, for the lives of the people is made possible Connection Sharing wasn’t an MS idea, I falsifying testimony related to IE and by Microsoft’s monopoly. Our country was bought that programming back in Win 95s Windows, forging letters of support, etc). founded to defend the people from tyrants. day. Now its a feature? Another company There is no reason to expect them to behave And though the founding fathers of our product down the drain. differently in the future. country believed in market freedoms, they These are a few of many examples of Such outrages are funded by a public that believed more in the power of our Microsoft’s brazen theft that seemed to be has little choice but to pay Microsoft for it’s government to protect the public interest. ignored, while they cry ‘‘foul’’. products. I am writing this letter on a Linux That’s why we have a federal government, And for punishment you are trying to give machine that I bought with Windows 98. and not a federal marketplace. Please, have them a foothold in the Education market they Despite the fact that I do not use MS the courage to create a settlement agreement ignored until Apple started showing it as a products, I find that I am forced to buy them that will actually protect the American viable market? What about the businesses whenever I buy hardware. So long as MS can people. and programmers they put under? ‘‘tax’’ us this way, they can afford unlimited Millions of us are depending on you. Your punishment couldn’t have been any legal bills. I feel that any settlement that does Sincerely, better for Microsoft. Do you own stock? not split up the company or prevent it from Richard Ballard Bruce McDiffett using Windows to enter new markets is 8812 Spring Lake RD. doomed to fail. MTC–00028679 Pine Bluff, AR Finally, I find it absurd that the DOJ won From: [email protected]@ MTC–00028676 the first case, and essentially ‘‘won’’ the inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw appeal (in that all the findings were upheld To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR and only the remedy was vacated), and then Date: 1/28/02 4:53pm Date: 1/28/02 4:51pm suddenly turned about and proposed the Subject: microsoft settlement-influence Subject: Microsoft Settlement weakest remedy imaginable (filled with all peddling Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division the legal loopholes MS could dream of). This Dear US District judge Colleen Kollar- 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 smells heavily of politics. It seems very much Kotelly, Washington, DC 20530–0001 as if the new DOJ lead by Mr Ashcroft is not The fact that Microsoft has blatantly failed Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: interested in enforcing antitrust law or to comply with any honest behavior Please put a stop to the economically- achieving justice for consumers, but is including the Tunney Act, as evidenced by draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This instead catering to the worst elements of the the interpretation of the acts creator, via his has gone on long enough. Republican party. Hopefully, the court will affadavit filed with the court, comes as no Microsoft has already agreed to hide its not accept this. surprise to anyone. Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the Sincerely, Surely any company which doesn’t fact is, this case against Microsoft is little Michael J Myers disclose that their top monopoly monger, more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Manchester, PA 17345 StevieBoy Balmer met with his kin, (Dickie Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel [email protected] to drunk to disclose his three drunken driving convictions Cheney,) can’t be going to those supposedly harmed by MTC–00028678 Microsoft: the computer user. counted on to comply with a little ole This is just another method for states to get From: Bruce McDiffett paperwork disclosing the millions spent free money, and a terrible precedent for the To: Microsoft ATR lobbying the rest of congress and their staff’s. future, not only in terms of computer Date: 1/28/02 4:53pm We all know Steve and Dick didn’t talk technology, but all sorts of innovations in the Subject: Microsoft Settlement technology shop. They talked about the most dynamic industry the world has ever Greetings, EnronBushCheney energy monopoly policy! seen. I’d like to express my extreme personal and But hey, by golly, thats priviledged Please put a stop to this travesty of justice professional disappointment at what I deeply information according to Dick. Or maybe now. Thank you. believe will be the almost total they had a concensual sexual relationship, Sincerely, ineffectiveness of the proposed Microsoft But hey a concenting sexual relationship isn’t Rita Carder antitrust settlement agreement. covered under executive priviledge !!!! So 4 Brooks Road You might just as well sentence a serial forget antitrust,enrongate,insider trading none killer to probation, with the stern warning to influence peddling and the rest! Lets be good Bel Air, MD 21014 not kill the victims again. Republicans and spend 60 million and see if As a computer designer, I’ve had the those secret meetings were were about Steve MTC–00028677 opportunity to work with Microsoft since the bobbing From: Michael Myers late 1970’s. I’ve watched them stifle technical Dick! To: Microsoft ATR innovation for almost a quarter century now. Date: 1/28/02 4:53pm For nearly 25 years, regardless of their MTC–00028680 Subject: Microsoft Settlement corporate size, they have consistently shown From: [email protected]@inetgw
VerDate 11
To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, 1909 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 Date: 1/28/02 4:53pm Franziska Raedeker T: 202.263.3384 F: 202.263.5384 Subject: Microsoft Settlement 925 Spruce Street [email protected] 117 James Garland Road Berkeley, CA 94707 www.appellate.net/gossett Hot Springs, AR 71913 [email protected] MAYER, BROWN & PLATT January 28, 2002 555 COLLEGE AVENUE Attorney General John Ashcroft MTC–00028682 PALO ALTO, CA 94306–1433 US Department of Justice From: [email protected]@inetgw DONALD M. FALK 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR DIRECT DIAL (650) 331–2030 Washington, DC 20530 Date: 1/28/02 4:55pm DirECT FAX (650) 331–2068 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Subject: Microsoft Settlement [email protected] I am glad to see that the Microsoft case is Any company that dominates the vehicles MAIN TELEPHONE coming to a close. I believe that you should by which companies achieve daily tasks and (650) 331–2000 settle the case pursuant to the terms of the goals (while maintaining the illusion of open MAIN FAX agreement you reached with Microsoft in market participation, owns and controls the (650) 331–2060 November 2001. very same roads that facilitate those vital January 28, 2002 This settlement agreement provides you components of commerce AND maintains VIA E-MAIL AND MESSENGER not only with the chance to bring a close to mafia-esque enforcement practices to insure Renata B. Hesse the federal government’s case, but also to as few vehicles from any and all rival Antitrust Division help the economy in the process. competitors are equipped with the necessary U.S. Department of Justice Microsoft’s agreement to discontinue a technology and mechanisms to use those 601 D Street NW number of its more restrictive business purported ‘‘public’’ roads constitutes the key Suite 1200 practices should have a positive impact on issue in assessing the true injustice of Washington, DC 20530–0001 the computer and software sector of the monopolistic practices. Re: Microsoft Settlement: United States v. economy. The agreement to allow To my mind the appropriate analogy Microsoft Corp., No. 98–1232 Tunney competition from non-Microsoft software would be if Ford or GM suddenly decides to Act proceedings within Windows is of particular importance buy up all the major highways in the US and Dear Renata: because it could provide immediate then equip those highways with exclusive Enclosed please find the following opportunities for designers and developers of features and benefits that can be only comments on the settlement: non-Microsoft software products. realized if you own their car. As a matter of (1) Comments of Computer & I hope you approve the settlement and fact, if your vehicle is not made by that Communications Industry Association on the close this case as soon as the law allows. dominant manufacturer, it just doesn’t drive Revised Proposed Final Judgment; Thank you for your time. as well when it accesses those highways...it (2) Declaration of Joseph E. Stiglitz and Sincerely, seems to go slower, has trouble with Jason Furman; and Suzanne C. Akers maneuvering and steering and the radio (3) Declaration of Edward Roeder. Robert C. Akers signal is weak or generates nothing but static. Thank you for your assistance. Please feel E-mail—[email protected] As a daily consumer of those highways, one free to call my Washington colleague, David becomes quickly convinced to buy a vehicle Gossett (202–263–3384) or me if you have MTC–00028681 manufactured by the same company that is any questions. From: Franziska Raedeker optimized for those highways by virtue of Hope all is well with you. It’s a long way To: Microsoft ATR their exclusive ownership and that can also from the ELQ days. Date: 1/28/02 4:55pm take exclusive advantage of any and all the Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft Settlement extras and amenities that are not accessible Donald M. Falk I want a fair choice of several options in to any other manufacturers’’ vehicles. Enclosures computer applications. Microsoft must be disavowed of their CHARLOTTE CHICAGO COLOGNE 1. The proposed settlement is not in the monopoly in being made to relinquish FRANKFURT HOUSTON LONDON LOS public interest. The settlement leaves the ownership either the Windows operating ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO PARIS Microsoft monopoly intact. It is vague and system or the right to develop and market the WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT MEXICO unenforceable. It leaves Microsoft with primary applications which are optimized to CITY CORRESPONDENT: JAUREGUI, numerous opportunities to exempt itself from run within the Windows OS environment. NAVARRETE, NADER Y ROJAS crucial provisions. Individually, each currently dominates their BEFORE THE UNITED STATES 2. The proposed settlement ignores the all- respective markets (solely by virtue of their DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNITED important applications barrier to entry which combined ownership) and jointly present a STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. must be reduced or eliminated. Any total supremacy of the marketplace in both MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. settlement or order needs to provide ways for areas. Civil Action No. 98–1232 (CKK) United consumers to run any of the 70,000 existing States District Court for the District of Windows applications on any other operating MTC–00028684 Columbia system. From: Gossett, David M. STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Attorney 3. Consumers need a la carte competition To: Microsoft ATR General ELIOT SPITZER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. and choice so they, not Microsoft, decide Date: 1/28/02 4:5 1pm MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. what products are on their computers. The Subject: Microsoft Settlement Civil Action No. 98–1233 (CKK) United settlement must provide ways for any Attached please find: States District Court for the District of combination of non-Microsoft operating (1) Cover letter; Columbia systems, applications, and software (2) Comments of Computer & COMMENTS OF COMPUTER & components to run properly with Microsoft Communications Industry Association on the COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY products. Revised Proposed Final Judgment; ASSOCIATION ON THE REVISED 4. The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff (3) Declaration of Joseph E. Stiglitz and PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT Litigating States are in the public interest and Jason Furman; and Donald M. Falk Edward J. Black absolutely necessary, but they are not (4) Declaration of Edward Roeder. Mayer, Brown & Platt Jason M. Mahler sufficient without the remedies mentioned Please confirm receipt of this message. 555 College Avenue Computer & above. Thank you. Note that we are having a copy Communications 5. The court must hold public proceedings of these documents delivered by messenger Palo Alto, California 94306 Industry under the Tunney Act, and these proceedings as well. Association must give citizens and consumer groups an Regards, (650) 331–2030 666 11th Street NW equal opportunity to participate, along with David Gossett (650) 331–2060 facsimile Washington, DC Microsoft’s competitors and customers. David M. Gossett ++ Mayer, Brown & Platt 20001
VerDate 11
(202) 783–0070 C. The RPFJ Provides No Remedy For 2. RPFJ III(J)(2) Permits Microsoft To Refuse David M. Gossett Microsoft’s Suppression Of The Browser Effective Disclosure To A Range Of Mayer, Brown & Platt And Java—42 Potentially Effective Competitors—77 1909 K Street, NW IV. The Icon-focused Oem flexibility G. RPFJ § III(I) Would Place A Judicial Washington, DC 20006 Provisions Are Ineffective—44 Imprimatur On Microsoft’s Use Of (202) 263–3000 A. The PFJ Permits Microsoft’s To Continue Technical Information As A Lever To TABLE OF CONTENT§ Illegally Commingling Middleware Code Extract Competitors’’ Intellectual Property INTRODUCTION With The Code For The Monopoly VI. built-in delays exacerbate the decree’s A. Liability Rests On Microsoft’s Suppression Operating System—45 unjustifiably brief duration—82 Of Middleware Threats That Threatened 1. The DC Circuit Specifically Condemned VII. Additional weaknesses undercut the rpfj To Erode The Applications Barrier To Commingling Twice—46 A. The Anti-Retaliation Provisions Are Entry—6 2. The Failure To Limit Commingling Is Deeply Flawed B. The RPFJ Does Not Prevent Microsoft Critical Because Ubiquity Trumps B. Microsoft Can Evade The Price From Abusing Its Position And Does Not Technology In Platform Software Discrimination Restrictions Markets—49 Meet Basic Standards For An Antitrust C. Microsoft Can Enforce De Facto 3. The RPFJ Retreats From The 1995 Consent Remedy—9 Exclusivity Decree—52 C. The Obligations That Supposedly Restore VIII. THE RPFJ’S ENFORCEMENT 4. The RPFJ Encourages Illegal Commingling MECHANISMS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY Competitive Conditions In Fact Make By Placing The Critical Definition of Microsoft Do Virtually Nothing Against INADEQUATE Windows Under Microsoft’s Exclusive CONCLUSION Its Will—11 Control—53 D. The Public Interest Requires An Effective INTEREST OF THE COMMENTER B. Empirical Evidence Shows That The Icon The Computer & Communications Industry Remedy That The RPFJ Does Not Provide— Flexibility Provisions Will Not Be Used— Association (‘‘CCIA’’) is an association of 15 54 computer, communications, Internet and I. The Tunney Act Requires Close Scrutiny C. The Icon Flexibility Provisions Require— technology companies that range from small Under The Present Circumstances—18 And Accomplish—Little—55 entrepreneurial firms to some of the largest A. The Government’s Victory On Liability D. The 14-Day Sweep Provision Effectively members of the industry. CCIA’s members Removes Litigation Risk And Therefore Nullifies RPFJ § III(H)—57 include equipment manufacturers, software Limits Deference—19 E. By Placing The Burden To Restore developers, providers of electronic 1. The Imposition And Affirmance Of Competition On OEMs, The PFJ Leads To commerce, networking, telecommunications Liability Remove Any Constitutional No Remedy At All For Much Of The and on-line services, resellers, systems Misconduct At Issue—58 Concerns About Searching Review And integrators, and third-party vendors. Its F. The RPFJ Permits Microsoft To Control Require The Court To Perform Its member companies employ nearly one Consumers’’ Access To Innovation To Suit Constitutional Duty—19 million persons and generate annual Its Monopolistic Aims—59 2. The Extensive Record And Judicial revenues exceeding $300 billion. CCIA’s V. The API and Communications protocol Opinions Provide Clear, Manageable mission is to further the interests of its Standards For Substantive Review Of The Disclosure Provisions Are ineffective—60 A. The API Provisions Require Little, If members, their customers, and the industry RPFJ—23 at large by serving as the leading industry B. Broad Deference Is Particularly Anything, Beyond Current Disclosure Practices In Microsoft’s Self-Interest—60 advocate in promoting open, barrier-free Inappropriate Because The Circumstances competition in the offering of computer and Are Suspicious—26 B. The RPFJ Does Not Require Disclosure of Windows APIs, But Rather Lets Microsoft communications products and services 1. Microsoft’s Manifestly Inadequate worldwide. CCIA’s motto is ‘‘Open Markets, Disclosure Under The Tunney Act’s Determine The Scope of Disclosure Through The Design and Labeling of Its Open Systems, Open Networks, and Full, Sunshine Provisions Weighs Strongly Fair and Open Competition,’’ and its website Against Judicial Deference To The Terms Operating System And Middleware—61 C. The Definition of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ is at www.ccianet.org. Of The RPFJ—26 For nearly 30 years, CCIA has supported 2. The RPFJ Represents A Swift And Gives Microsoft Further Leeway to Limit Its Disclosure Obligation—63 antitrust policy that ensures competition and Significant Retreat By DOJ—32 a level playing field in the computer and 3. The CIS Overstates The Terms Of The 1. The RPFJ Requires Microsoft To Disclose Only The APIs Used By The ‘‘User communications industries. That RPFJ, Reflecting The Indefensibility of the Interface’’ Or Shell Of Microsoft involvement antedates the founding of RPFJ Itself—33 Middleware—64 Microsoft, much less its acquisition of its first II. the rpfj must meet the legal standards 2. The RPFJ Requires Microsoft To Disclose monopoly and its refinement of normally applicable to antitrust remedies— APIs Only For ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ anticompetitive techniques. CCIA supported 34 That Is Distributed Separately From the Tunney Act in the 1973 congressional A. The Relief Should ‘‘Terminate The Illegal Windows, Yet Is Distributed To Update hearings preceding the enactment of that Monopoly’’.—35 Windows—65 legislation, and played active roles on the B. The Relief Should Prevent ‘‘Practices 3. The Limitation Of Microsoft Middleware side of competition in other significant Likely To Result In Monopolization In The To ‘‘Trademarked’’ Products Further antitrust cases, including those against AT&T Future’’—36 Eviscerates The API Disclosure Provision— and IBM. Before participating as amicus C. The Relief Should ‘‘Deny To The 65 curiae at the trial and appellate stages of the Defendant The Fruits Of Its Statutory D. The Disclosure Provisions—Particularly current Microsoft case, CCIA participated as Violation’’—37 Those Concerning ‘‘Communications a leading amicus curiae in the proceedings D. Broader Principles Applicable To Protocols’’—Depend On An Undefined examining the last Microsoft consent decree Injunctive Relief Also Should Inform The And Thus Unenforceable Concept of in 1994-1995, both in the district court and Analysis Of The RPFJ—37 ‘‘Interoperability’’—69 in the court of appeals. As a consequence, III. The RPFJ falls far short of providing a E. The Narrow Scope Of The Disclosure CCIA and its members are intimately familiar remedy for proven offenses upheld on Provisions Contrasts Sharply With The with the shortcomings of that decree, and its appeal—39 Broader Definitions In DOJ’s Earlier failure to prevent or deter Microsoft from A. DOJ’s Effort To Minimize The Scope Of Remedy Proposals—70 continuing on an anticompetitive course. The DC Circuit’s Affirmance Cannot F. The ‘‘Security’’ Exceptions in Section III(J) Microsoft’s conduct in the intervening years, Obscure The Failure Of The RPFJ To Permit Microsoft To Avoid Its Disclosure including the period while this case has been Remediate Clear, Proven Violations—39 Obligations—72 litigated, has only sharpened CCIA’s B. The RPFJ Simply Restates The Antitrust 1. The Exclusions for Security-Related APIs awareness of Microsoft’s dedication to Laws At Critical Points And Thus Forfeits and Protocols in RPFJ(J)(1) Permit driving out competition from as many The Clarity And Efficiency Of The Microsoft To Hobble Disclosures That Are aspects of the computer-software and related Contempt Process—41 Critical in Internet Computing—73 industries as possible. Microsoft may repeat
VerDate 11
its attempts to mischaracterize CCIA as a liability for Microsoft’s commingling of any idea precisely which APIs or protocols mere voice for competitors, but that middleware code with the code for the must be disclosed. innuendo cannot withstand scrutingy in light Windows operating system. The RPFJ’s provisions and definitions are of the diversity of CCIA’s membership now More fundamentally, the RPFJ misses the so vague that only two practical results are and over the years, combined with CCIA’s 30 point of Microsoft’s illegal conduct, which possible. Either everyone will simply ignore years of vigorous commitment to supporting was to prevent erosion of the applications the decree, which plainly would not be in the openness and competition in the computer barrier to entry by preventing middleware public interest for an antitrust remedy, or the technology and communications industries. from attracting software developers to the Court will have to take primary responsibility In hopes that a meaningful remedy in this middleware application programming for defining its terms during enforcement case will prevent Microsoft from further interfaces (‘‘APIs’’). The RPFJ’s basic proceedings. DOJ’s answer seems to be to let expanding the scope of its monopoly, and premises, moreover, ignore the current Microsoft set the terms of its obligations: the with the certainty that the current Revised economic and technical realities of the RPFJ gives the defendant ‘‘sole discretion’’ to Proposed Final Judgment (‘‘RPFJ’’) falls far computer and software markets. In the seven define the decree’s most important term, short of that task, CCIA submits this analysis years since Microsoft began the illegal ‘‘Windows Operating System Product,’’ of the RPFJ in conjunction with the economic conduct at issue in this case, Microsoft has which appears 46 times to delimit the RPFJ’s analysis of Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and strengthened its operating systems 10 substantive provisions. his colleague Jason Furman, and the monopoly. The Internet browser, formerly a Indeed, much of DOJ’s Competitive Impact Declaration of Edward Roeder. threat to that monopoly, has become an Statement (‘‘CIS’’) seems to reflect an INTRODUCTION adjunct to it, with Microsoft’s 91% share of understanding that the RPFJ is inadequate in The Tunney Act was designed to constrain that product adding further insulation to the several critical respects. The CIS defines the Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) from operating systems monopoly. Microsoft’s terms not defined in the RPFJ, exaggerates entering into settlements that provided DOJ unadjudicated monopoly over personal the scope of certain RPFJ provisions, and with an exit from an antitrust case but did productivity applications—a key to the redefines other terms in order to minimize not provide the public with a remedy applications barrier to entry in the operating the impact of some of the broad exemptions commensurate with the defendant’s antitrust systems market—likewise has grown in in the RPFJ. It is the RPFJ that the Court violations. The Revised Proposed Final market share and market power. would have to enforce, however, as the CIS Judgment (RPFJ) in this case does not provide But the RPFJ does not try to deprive is not part of the contract between DOJ and adequate relief for the extensive and Microsoft of any of the benefits of its illegal Microsoft. thoroughly proven antitrust violations it activity directed at the browser and other In sum, although the RPFJ’s provisions purports to remedy. middleware. DOJ’s remedial theory rests superficially seem to restrict Microsoft’s Review of the RPFJ in this case should be entirely on unidentified future middleware practices, there is no substance behind them. especially searching because there can be no threats. In fact, there are no technologies The provisions accomplish little beyond doubt about Microsoft’s liability. For the first today presenting a threat as intense as that laying down criteria for Microsoft to follow time in the history of the Tunney Act, the presented by the Netscape browser and Java, in order to avoid any interference with its Court will review a proposed settlement and the duration of the RPFJ is so short that continuing campaign of illegal reached after liability has been not only it almost certainly will expire before any monopolization. imposed, but unanimously affirmed on the significant new threats materialize. The terms of the RPFJ, as much as the government’s most sweeping and Aside from some restrictions on circumstances of the settlement, strongly economically significant theory. That clear- commercial retaliation that at best might suggest that Microsoft and the Department of cut liability, and the voluminous Findings of keep matters from getting worse, the RPFJ Justice shared a desire to end this case, rather Fact and trial record, place the Court in this relies on two sets of putative obligations to than to provide an effective remedy for case in a different position from courts achieve a more competitive market. But Microsoft’s substantial antitrust violations. reviewing pre-trial settlements. neither the provisions aimed at original The 1995 consent decree with Microsoft Because there is no litigation risk on equipment manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) flexibility produced uninterrupted illegal liability, the Court is uniquely situated to nor those addressing information disclosure monopolization, prompting the filing of this evaluate any asserted litigation risk as to requirements in fact require anything case in 1998. The Court can expect the same remedy. Established principles of antitrust competitively meaningful. In large part, these with this decree. The RPFJ, if approved, relief provide the Court in this case with provisions replicate Microsoft’s current might temporarily end DOJ’s involvement, concrete, recognized standards to ensure that business practices respecting the disclosure but would not provide the type of remedy the settlement serves the public interest in a of technical information and the that the public interest and the Tunney Act way that courts reviewing pre-trial configuration of end-user access to demand. To the contrary, because the harm settlements cannot. Magnifying the need for middleware products. to the competitive process caused by close measurement of the RPFJ by objective The OEM flexibility sections in RPFJ Microsoft’s adjudicated illegal conduct is principles is Microsoft’s silence, in its filing §§ III(C) and III(H) are literally superficial, certain, a remedy that masks but does not under 15 U.S.C. § 16(g), about its effort to principally addressing desktop icons rather cure that harm affirmatively injures the truncate this case by a lobbying campaign of than the middleware code itself, which public interest, and therefore should be unprecedented scope directed at the contains the APIs relied on by software rejected. Executive and Legislative Branches alike— applications developers. Even if successful, A. Liability Rests On Microsoft’s despite extensive public reports of that the flexibility provisions would not affect the Suppression Of Middleware Threats lobbying. Microsoft’s effort to deny the applications barrier to entry. Moreover, these That Threatened To Erode The obvious gives rise to an inference that it has provisions largely restate current business Applications Barrier To Entry This case is something to hide. practices or provide OEMs with flexibility about Microsoft’s devastatingly thorough The terms of the RPFJ provide the strongest that both Microsoft and DOJ understand from suppression of threats to its Windows reason for close scrutiny, because they experience will never be exercised. OEMs operating system (‘‘OS’’) monopoly by cannot withstand analysis. The RPFJ would have little or no incentive to exercise their ‘‘middleware.’’ That monopoly was insulated not provide a meaningful remedy for options; if they decline to do so, then the from competition by the applications barrier Microsoft’s extensive campaign of flexibility provisions will have no to entry described by the court of appeals and exclusionary acts. That campaign suppressed competitive consequences for the industry. the CIS. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., the most serious threat to Microsoft’s The RPFJ’s information disclosure sections 253 F.3d 34, 55–56 (DC Cir. 2001) monopoly in the past decade, and not only (§§ III(D) and III(E)) are so transparently (‘‘Microsoft III’’); CIS 10–11, 66 Fed. Reg. prevented the erosion of the applications insubstantial as to cast doubt on the entire 59,452, 59,462 (2001). See also Declaration of barrier to entry that insulates the monopoly, proposal. The purported disclosure Joseph E. Stiglitz & Jason Furman 7–9 but increased the bar to new competition. requirements trace back to definitions that (‘‘Stiglitz/Furman Dec.’’) (attached). The The RPFJ ignores some of the most are committed to Microsoft’s control, are middleware at issue in this case exposed significant holdings of the court of appeals, circular, or simply do not exist. Neither DOJ APIs that could be used by software however, including its separate imposition of nor any other objective observer could have applications developers to write programs
VerDate 11
that did not rely on the underlying Windows PC destroys the competitive threat presented independent Internet browser. It does operating system. As Microsoft recognized, if by the competing middleware’s APIs, since nothing to restore the threat of cross-platform developers embraced non- Microsoft few developers will them in preference to Java. And it does nothing to protect any other middleware APIs and designed their Microsoft middleware APIS that are certain middleware threat—in the unlikely event products to run on that middleware rather to be ubiquitous. This fact provides the that another such threat might arise within than directly on an operating system, essential context for any meaningful analysis the short duration of the RPFJ—from much ‘‘middleware’’ of this kind ‘‘would erode the of the information disclosure and OEM similar exclusionary conduct, or indeed from applications barrier to entry,’’ as flexibility provisions of the RPFJ. the identical commingling of code that sealed ‘‘applications * * * could run on any B. The RPFJ Does Not Prevent Microsoft Netscape’s fate. Rather, the RPFJ appears to operating system on which the middleware From Abusing Its Position And Does Not assume that it is still 1995, and that the threat product was present with little, if any, Meet Basic Standards For An Antitrust of the Internet browser can begin anew porting.’’ Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 55. The Remedy without confronting a more thoroughly threat that ‘‘middleware could usurp the The DC Circuit set out a simple standard entrenched Microsoft. The RPFJ does not take operating system’s platform function,’’ id. at for measuring the legal sufficiency of any account of the impact on participants at 53, prompted Microsoft’s anticompetitive remedy selected in the Microsoft litigation: different levels of the computer and software conduct. the remedy must ‘‘seek to unfetter [the] industries of an additional seven years of But non-Microsoft middleware can become market from anticompetitive conduct,’’ * * * Microsoft’s anticompetitive abuses. That a competing platform only if developers to ‘terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to view does not accord with reality, and the write software that calls on the non-Microsoft the defendant the fruits of its statutory provisions intended to permit open middleware APIs. Most developers will violation, and ensure that there remain no competition in that counterfactual world create software only to run on platforms that practices likely to result in monopolization cannot achieve their goal. are distributed widely enough for the in the future.’’’ Microsoft HI, 253 F.3d at 103 C. The Obligations That Supposedly developers to be reasonably certain that the (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 Restore Competitive Conditions In Fact Make APIs (on which their programs rely) will be U.S. 562, 577 (1972), and United States v. Microsoft Do Virtually Nothing Against Its present on most, if not all PCs. Likewise, if United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244, Will developers can be certain that Microsoft’s 250 (1968)). As the District Court recognized The RPFJ purports to give current and middleware APIs are present on all PCs, this in beginning remedy proceedings on remand future middleware the ability to present the will strongly influence their initial decision (9/28/01 Tr. 6–7), not one word in the DC same threats to the Microsoft monopoly that as to whether it is worth the effort to write Circuit’s opinion suggests the slightest Netscape and Java presented before the onset applications to alternative, non-Microsoft antipathy toward any conduct remedy related of Microsoft’s illegal conduct. DOJ describes middleware APIs. to the illegal monopolization that the Court the obligations in the RPFJ as if they would The successful theory of the case—proved 1 of Appeals exhaustively condemned. The have stopped Microsoft’s suppression of and accepted by two courts—is that District Court warned the plaintiffs to be Netscape, and as if they would allow rival Microsoft engaged in an ‘‘extensive campaign ‘‘cautiously attentive to the efficacy of every middleware vendors to obtain the technical of exclusionary acts’’ that were designed ‘‘to element of the proposed relief.’’ 9/28/01 Tr. information that they need to ‘‘emulate maintain its monopoly’’ by suppressing 8. That is, the plaintiffs must make sure that middleware threats posed by the Netscape Microsoft’s integrated functions’’ (Testimony the proposed remedy works. of Charles James before Senate Judiciary Navigator Internet browser and the cross- That admonition appears to have fallen on platform Java technologies. CIS 9, 66 Fed. Committee 7 (Dec. 12, 2001)) and to step into deaf ears. Because liability has been the shoes of Microsoft middleware in relation Reg. 59,462; Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 53–56, established and affirmed in great detail, the 60–62, 74–78. Microsoft’s response to this to Windows and the Windows monopoly. scope of the District Court’s appropriate The RPFJ does not achieve those goals. threat guaranteed that developers would not deference to DOJ is extremely limited use the APIs of competing middleware, Most of the RPFJ reduces to two sets of because the range of permissible action by obligations, along with some prohibitions on destroying the platform threat. DOJ is closely confined. There is no litigation Because Microsoft has a monopoly over the exclusive deals and on retaliation against risk other than the risk that the District Court those who take advantage of Microsoft’s OS, it can ensure that its own versions of a would not approve a particular remedy, or obligations. One set of obligations appears to middleware product have universal that the District Court’s exercise of discretion restrain Microsoft from taking particular distribution, so that Microsoft’s middle- ware in approving a remedy might be reversed on actions to interfere with OEMs’’ placement of APIs will be present on all PCs. For example, appeal. A remedy, even one imposed by the icons of Non-Microsoft Middleware on because Windows is both an operating agreement, must provide adequate relief for their machines, or with end-users’’ use of system and a distribution channel for the violations that have been proved, those products. These OEM flexibility Microsoft’s technologies, Microsoft could and however. DOJ is entitled to deference only for provisions principally rely on the OEMs to did ensure that the code for its Internet choices that fall within the range of adequate provide a remedy for Microsoft’s misconduct. Explorer (‘‘IE’’) browser was distributed to relief. The other set of obligations requires a certain every PC. The RPFJ misses the point of the central Ensuring that the code for Microsoft theory of liability. The RPFJ does not impose degree of disclosure of APIs and middleware was on every PC accomplished certain, enforceable, or competitively Communications Protocols to allow two related goals. First, it guaranteed instant significant obligations on Microsoft to restore competing software products can and unassailable ubiquity for the Microsoft competition or to avoid suppressing future ‘‘interoperate’’— an undefined term—with version of the middleware and the threats. The RPFJ allows Microsoft to keep the monopoly OS. middleware APIs on which developers rely. every anticompetitive gain that resulted from For the most part, the obligations placed on Second, the forced ubiquity of Microsoft its illegal conduct, simply requiring Microsoft by the RPFJ simply replicate middleware prevents competing middleware Microsoft to find new and slightly different current options voluntarily provided by from achieving ubiquity, or anything like it, ways to accomplish its anticompetitive goals. Microsoft. For example, Microsoft must because few distribution channels will incur DOJ seems to recognize that the case focused continue to disclose the APIs it currently the support and other costs of distributing on two specific products—Netscape discloses in the Microsoft Developers’’ two versions of the same functionality. A key Navigator and Java—that embodied the Network (MSDN), a program Microsoft theory of the case is that the applications broader threat of middleware and the Internet developed to further its self-interest in barrier to entry could have been eroded only to the stability and significance of Microsoft’s making the Windows platform popular with if developers chose and used alternative monopoly. The RPFJ does nothing to restore software developers. And Microsoft must middleware platforms on which to write the specific competitive threat posed by an continue to allow end-users to delete icons software. End-user access to middleware was from the desktop and start menu. Such provisions at most simply prohibit Microsoft significant only to the extent it influenced 1 Indeed, in denying rehearing, the DC Circuit developers’’ choices to write to the APIs of made crystal clear that ‘‘[n]othing in the Court’s from making matters worse than they are that middleware. opinion is intended to preclude the District Court’s after Microsoft’s years-long anticompetitive Thus, ensuring that the code for the consideration of remedy issues.’’ Order, at 1 (DC campaign. Indeed, the RPFJ in some Microsoft version of middleware is on every Cir. Aug. 2, 2001) (per curiam). instances specifically approves potential
VerDate 11
misuse of Microsoft’s current voluntary or Windows(r) marks with a generic or discussion of Microsoft’s array of implementations of the flexibility and descriptive term. exclusionary behavior. The competitive disclosure provisions. Indeed, because ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ significance of the conduct condemned by To begin with the flexibility provisions, need not mean any more than the user that holding is explained both in the opinion, their chief flaw is their focus on icons rather interface of a middleware functionality that in the Declaration of Joseph E. Stiglitz and than on middleware functionality. This is meets the other definitional requirements, Jason Furman (‘‘Stiglitz/Furman Dec.’’) 16– literally a superficial approach. Microsoft can see RPFJ § VI(J)(4), the only APIs that must 20, and in the Comment of Robert E. Litan, include its own middleware and middleware be disclosed are those between the Roger G. Noll, and William D. Nordhaus APIs on every PC. Developers will know middleware user interface and ‘‘Windows,’’ (‘‘Litan/Noll/Nordhaus Comment’’) 12–31, those APIs are there and consequently will which Microsoft in its discretion can define among other submissions for this Tunney Act write to them in preference to the APIs of a to include all of any given middleware proceeding. The difficulties encountered by competing product that may or may not be functionality. See id. § VI(U). Microsoft need peripheral claims are irrelevant, particularly on a particular machine. No provision of the not disclose how the middleware actually because all of the challenged conduct RPFJ restricts Microsoft’s insertion and invokes Windows to work, except for the way supported monopolization liability in commingling of middleware code into the that the OS displays the middleware’s shell. addition to one or more of the since- ‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’ The disclosure provisions applying to abandoned theories. The supposed bundle that Microsoft receives the right to Communications Protocols are similarly ‘‘narrowing’’ left a huge monopolization case define for decree purposes ‘‘in its sole weakened by non-existent definitions. The with a stark judgment affirming the discretion.’’ RPFJ § VI(U). From the point of disclosable Protocols are those required to government’s theory. e RPFJ does not provide view of developers—and thus of the ability ‘‘interoperate’’—whatever that may mean— a remedy commensurate with that liability. of middleware to erode the applications with equally undefined ‘‘Microsoft server The RPFJ is insufficient for another barrier to entry—these ‘‘flexibility’’ operating products.’’ RPFJ § III(E). In overarching reason. The passage of time has provisions are meaningless. addition, the Communications Protocol only exacerbated the problem of Microsoft’s Even to the extent that competing disclosure provisions are limited by successful abuse of its operating systems middleware vendors might obtain favorable sweeping exceptions applying to security monopoly to extend that monopoly to placement for their products’’ icons in protocols that are intertwined with all embrace other sectors of computing and to preference to the icons for Microsoft significant computer-to-computer forestall threats to the monopoly from those products, that achievement would be both communication. See id. § III(J)(I). Microsoft sectors. Microsoft’s monopoly over Internet superficial and temporary. The functionality can withhold parts of those Protocols (and, browsing is complete, as its current 91% of the Microsoft product would remain on indeed, parts of APIs) on the basis that market share indicates. Julia Angwin, et al., the machine, and Microsoft could insist on disclosure would compromise security of an AOL Sues Microsoft Over Netscape in Case its invocation for a variety of functions. And, installation. That Could Seek Billions, WALL ST. J., Jan. 14 days after a PC first boots up, Microsoft If this exemption were limited to the 23, 2002, at B 1. Even the RPFJ recognizes, would be free to nag users to click a ‘‘Clean customer-specific data like encryption keys albeit through toothless provisions, that Desktop Wizard’’ which would organize or authorization tokens, it would be Microsoft is using its desktop OS monopoly icons in the way that suited Microsoft. There necessary, not objectionable. But the to force greater use of its server operating is nothing in the RPFJ to stop that ‘‘Wizard’’ exemption explicitly permits Microsoft to systems. And Microsoft’s efforts to use the from resetting default applications to withhold portions of the Protocols and APIs inclusion of its Passport authentication coincide with Microsoft’s preferences as themselves, which necessarily makes software on every Windows machine as a well, or even from enhancing the product so ‘‘interoperation’’ (as that term normally is means of directing through a Microsoft server that it becomes a Clean File Wizard to used) incomplete. Interoperation, however, is all authentication and identification remove code of competing middleware with an all-or-nothing state. Software that can use transactions—gaining a literal chokehold a single click. only parts of APIs and Communications over the communications aspect of Internet These provisions place responsibility for Protocols simply cannot ‘‘intemperate’’ with computing—is so significant that Microsoft restoring competition on innocent OEMs and the software on the other side of the API or sought and obtained an exemption in the ISVs rather than on Microsoft. And many Protocol. RPFJ specifically designed to excuse that provisions give end-users what they have But that is not all. RPFJ § III(J)(2) permits known monopolistic strategy. See RPFJ now: the ability to remove an icon from the Microsoft to refuse to (disclose security- § III(H)(1)[second] 2 see also id. § Ill(J). desktop or a program menu by right-clicking related Protocols or APIs to any company Microsoft has made ample use of the seven it and selecting ‘‘Delete,’’ or by dragging it to that does not meet Microsoft’s standards of years since the beginning of the conduct at the Recycle Bin. The provisions do change business viability or its standards for a issue in this case. The RPFJ is wholly the status quo in one way. The ‘‘Add/ business need. Again, little if anything is left inadequate even on its own terms, which Remove’’ function, which now removes some of this disclosure requirement if Microsoft assume that the world has returned to 1995. underlying code for applications, will only chooses to resist disclosure when that serves But the RPFJ does not begin to address what remove a few icons when the removed its anticompetitive goals. has happened since then. The public interest application is Microsoft middleware. One thing is certain. Unless Microsoft and in a remedy that achieves what antitrust law The disclosure provisions are no better. DOJ alike render the RPFJ irrelevant by says it must cannot be obscured by focusing The RPFJ requires Microsoft to disclose APIs simply ignoring it, the District Court will be either on the preference of the technology between ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ and a faced again and again with the task of industry for standards, or on the never- ‘‘Windows Operating System Product,’’ but interpreting the RPFJ’s indistinct provisions. litigated assumption that Microsoft obtained the definitions of those terms are so Microsoft has demonstrated its incentive and its original operating systems monopoly completely within Microsoft’s control that it ability to contest even the most seemingly legally in the 1980s. The last premise, after is impossible to tell whether Microsoft ever obvious points of any court order. all, still suggests that the last ten years or so would have to disclose an API that might D. The Public Interest Requires An of Microsoft’s hegemony have resulted from have competitive significance. As noted Effective Remedy That The RPFJ Does Not the illegal acts that prompted two above, a ‘‘Windows Operating System Provide government antitrust lawsuits. If DOJ’s Product’’ is whatever Microsoft says it is. Despite the belated efforts of DOJ to enforcement history is to be credited, ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ must be distributed minimize the scope of this case, it remains Microsoft has at least doubled the life of its separately from the OS (unlike, e.g., the the largest, most successful prosecution for monopoly through illegal conduct. current version of Windows Media Player). monopolization liability since at least the In addition, even if the nature of software ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ must be Second World War. The DC Circuit affirmed platforms generally, or computer operating ‘‘Trademarked’’ in a way that would exclude ‘‘the District Court’s holding that Microsoft Windows Messenger, may exclude Windows violated ? 2 of the Sherman Act in a variety 2 RPFJ § III(H) contains two subsections (1) and Media Player, and certainly would exclude of ways.’’ 253 F.3d at 59. The breadth of that (2). We distinguish between the two sets of any products that followed Microsoft’s holding is clear from the 20 Federal Reporter subsections with the bracketed terms ‘‘first’’ and practice of simply combining the Microsoft(r) pages consumed by the court’s detailed ‘‘second.’’
VerDate 11
systems in particular, results in transitory active investigation into Microsoft’s failure to 1462. It was precisely the absence of a single-firm dominance, that does not mean disclose the bulk of that lobbying despite the ‘‘judicial finding of illegality’’ that might that competition has no place, or that command of 15 U.S.C. 16(g). The lenient impede the Tunney Act from ‘‘supply[ing] a entrenched monopoly is somehow without terms of the RPFJ itself further underscore judicially manageable standard for review.’’ social costs. See Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 13–16. the need for close judicial scrutiny. Never in Id. at 1459. Here, two courts have provided Innovation results in the periodic the history of the Tunney Act has a Court the ‘‘findings that the defendant has actually replacement or ‘‘leapfrogging’’ of one been confronted with this combination of an engaged in illegal practices’’ that were standard by another. This is not some impregnable judgment of liability, pervasive missing in both Microsoft I and AT&T (like meaningless replacement of one monopoly lobbying, and apparent surrender by the other cases settled before trial). Id. at 1460– with another, as some would have it. To the federal government. The circumstances here 1461 (emphasis added). In addition, the contrary, as economists—including those of indicate exactly the sort of ‘‘failure of the appellate affirmance imposed the Chicago school—have recognized, government to discharge its duty’’—whether monopolization liability for all of the ‘‘competition * * * ‘for the field’’’ provides or not actually ‘‘corrupt’’—that even DOJ significant conduct that had been alleged to consumers with substantial benefits. See concedes warrants close judicial scrutiny of support the additional, largely Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 49 and sources cited a settlement. CIS 66, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,476 supererogatory legal theories that were therein. But if competition in a market is (quoting United States v. Mid-America rejected as ground for additional liability. limited in scope to serial competition for Dairymen, Inc., 1997–1 Trade Cas. * 61,508, It is accordingly entirely appropriate, and transitory dominance, predatory conduct is at 71,980, 1977 WL 4352 at * 8 (W.D. Mo. indeed necessary, for the Court in this case especially harmful. See generally Stiglitz/ 1977)). ‘‘to measure the remedies in the decree as if Furman Dec. 13–16. The monopolist may A. The Government’s Victory On Liability they were fashioned after trial,’’ Microsoft I, need to eliminate only a few incipient but Removes Litigation Risk And Therefore 56 F.3d at 1461, because they were significant threats in the course of a decade Limits Deference ‘‘fashioned after trial’’ and appellate in order to transform transitory dominance The CIS suggests (at 65–68, 66 Fed. Reg. at affirmance. The Court need not ‘‘assume that into a durable, even impregnable monopoly. 59,475–476) that the Court owes nearly the allegations in the complaint have been That is what happened here. Although absolute deference to DOJ’s decision to formally made out’’ (id.), but rather knows Netscape Navigator had not developed into a retreat from its appellate victory. That is not beyond doubt exactly which allegations were competing applications platform when true. The affirmance of liability on appeal proved. There is a ‘‘judicial finding of Microsoft cut off its revenue sources, removes any speculation that ‘‘remedies relevant markets, closed or otherwise, to be Netscape contemplated just such a which appear less than vigorous’’ simply opened’’ and ‘‘of anticompetitive activity to development—and Microsoft both ‘‘reflect an underlying weakness in the be prevented.’’ Maryland v. United States, contemplated and deeply feared it. The government’s case.’’ Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at 460 U.S. at 1004 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). outcome of the competition that Microsoft 1461. There is no ‘‘underlying weakness’’; ‘‘IT]hat there was an antitrust violation,’’ and thwarted is unknowable. But there will be no liability is a given, and provides a clear ‘‘the scope and effects of the violation,’’ were further competition—much less competitive benchmark for measuring whether the not assumed, as they must be in a pretrial outcomes—if Microsoft is allowed to repeat proposed relief is sufficiently effective to settlement, but proved to the satisfaction of the course of conduct it undertook here. come ‘‘within the reaches of the public two courts. Id. But the RPFJ permits Microsoft to continue interest.’’ Id. at 1460. Those ‘‘reaches’’ are Very limited prosecutorial discretion to fortify and expand its monopoly. Indeed, narrower when liability is proved and remains in this situation. The amorphous, the RPFJ provides an imprimatur for affirmed than when it is merely alleged, as policy-laden choices whether to bring a case Microsoft to continue and expand a whole it was in Microsoft I. and how much to allege, are behind us. The range of additional, related anticompetitive 1. The Imposition And Affirmance Of predictive judgment as to the chances of practices. As a consequence, the RPFJ is an Liability Remove Any Constitutional success on liability likewise is beyond instrument of monopolization, not a remedy Concerns About Searching Review And serious dispute in light of the unanimous for it. The Court should not add judicial Require The Court To Perform Its affirmance of monopolization liability by the endorsement to DOJ’s agreement to give up Constitutional Duty en banc court of appeals. DOJ has some the case. The ‘‘public interest,’’ within the Most important, the current posture of this leeway in choosing a remedy, but its chosen meaning of the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(e), case places it beyond the scope of the remedy must be ‘‘adequate to remedy the requires far more effective relief. prudential and constitutional concerns antitrust violations alleged in the complaint,’’ I. THE TUNNEY ACT REQUIRES CLOSE expressed by some courts (and dissenting United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, SCRUTINY UNDER THE PRESENT Justices) about judicial scrutiny of DOJ’s 665 (9th Cir. 1981), under the well- CIRCUMSTANCES charging decisions, or of its settlement of established legal standards for antitrust relief. The Tunney Act exists ‘‘to prevent ‘judicial unproven claims. It may be that when ‘‘the See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 103. Those rubber stamping’’’ of proposed antitrust government is challenged for not bringing as standards inform the ‘‘public interest’’ consent decrees. United States v. Microsoft extensive an action as it might, a district determination under the Tunney Act, and, by Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1458 (DC Cir. 1995) judge must be careful not to exceed his or her contrast with the ‘‘public interest’’ standing (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1463, 93d Cong. 2d constitutional role.’’ Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at alone, are judicially manageable without a sess. 8, reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535, 1462. Such concerns did not persuade the doubt. 6538) (‘‘Microsoft/’); United States v. BNS, majority of the Supreme Court, however, The DC Circuit has made crystal clear that Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1988); In re which over a dissent rejected similar a consent decree ‘‘even entered as a pretrial IBM, 687 F.2d 591,600 (2d Cir. 1982). Upon arguments in summarily affirming the settlement, is a judicial act,’’ so that ‘‘the enactment it was immediately clear that modifications imposed by the district court district judge is not obliged to accept one ‘‘Congress did not intend the court’s’’ review in the AT&T consent decree. See Maryland that, on its face and even after government of a proposed settlement ‘‘to be merely pro v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). explanation, appears to make a mockery of forma, or to be limited to what appears on In any event, when the action has been judicial power.’’ Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at 1462. the surface.’’ United States v. Gillette Co., brought, tried, and won, and the only Judicial approval of the settlement in this 406 F. Supp. 713,715 (D. Mass. 1975) question is whether the proposed relief is case is far more of a classic ‘‘judicial act’’ (Aldrich, J.). adequate, the constitutional concerns than the typical settlement without proof of The Tunney Act requires particularly close dissipate. Because DOJ already made the liability. As in the context of post-conviction scrutiny of the RPFJ in this case. The discretionary decision to bring the case, and criminal sentencing, the Court must act as government seeks to remedy a proven, well- successfully proved liability to the more than a passive recipient of defined, serious violation of the antitrust satisfaction of two courts, the Court in arrangements made between the parties laws. Microsoft’s heavy lobbying of the reviewing this settlement runs no risk that by There is no serious question that a federal executive and legislative branches in order to exercising its normal remedial discretion court may reject a plea bargain in its sound bring political pressure for a lenient under established legal principles it discretion, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Santobello v. settlement heightens the need for scrutiny, somehow might be said ‘‘to assume the role New York, 454 U.S. 257, 262 (1971), for and in addition makes necessary the Court’s of Attorney General.’’ Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at reasons that may include the ‘‘court’s belief
VerDate 11
that the defendant would receive too light a United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660 that record under well-established remedial sentence under the circumstances.’’ United (9th Cir. 1981). See CIS 66–67 & n.4; 66 Fed. principles. Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 665. States v. Adams, 634 F.2d 830, 835 (5th Cir. Reg. 59,476. One could hardly find a setting The differences are real, but not dramatic, 1981).3 Granted, plea bargains in the criminal more distant from this one. Not only did between the Court’s role in deciding whether context generally involve admissions of Bechtel not involve a finding of liability after to accept this settlement in Track I, and in liability. But the case here, if anything, is full litigation and affirmance on appeal; and deciding in Track II what relief to impose at stronger here, where liability has been, not not only did the setting there—alleged the request of those plaintiffs who have not admitted, but established after extensive complicity in the ‘‘Arab boycott’’ of Israel in abandoned the pursuit of a full and effective litigation and affirmed by an en banc court the mid-1970s—implicate the foreign policy remedy in this case. In each track, the Court of appeals over the vigorous objection of the powers of the executive branch; but the issue must measure proposed remedies against the defendant. before the curt in Bechtel was the defendant’s legal standards set out by the DC Circuit and At this stage, ‘‘the discrepancy between the effort to avoid its own settlement by arguing by the Supreme Court. In each track, the remedy and undisputed facts of antitrust that the settlement to which it had agreed Court should not approve a remedy that is violations’’ can ‘‘be such as to render the was ‘‘not in the public interest.’’ Bechtel, 648 inadequate to meet those standards. In decree ‘a mockery of judicial power.’’’ F.2d at 665.4 evaluating the RPFJ, the Court is not at Massachusetts School of Law, Inc. v. United As it happens, however, the court of liberty to substitute its view of equally States, 118 F.3d 776, 782 (DC Cir. 1997) appeals in Bechtel enunciated the legal effective, or marginally more effective relief, (quoting Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at 1462). By standard that should be applied here: if the terms of the RPFJ are fully adequate to contrast with the concerns expressed in the ‘‘whether the relief provided for in the the task as the law defines it. That is, the pretrial settlement context about the proposed judgment was adequate to remedy DOJ’s choices among adequate alternatives intrusion of Tunney Act courts on functions the antitrust violations alleged in the warrant deference, but its determination of that are constitutionally allocated to the complaint.’’ Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 665 what is adequate warrants none. In the other executive branch, the situation after liability (emphasis added). That is precisely the track, the Court does have the liberty, not is established presents opposite concerns standard that DOJ wishes to avoid. Where merely to go beyond any decree that might under our system of separated powers, and liability is a given, as it is here, the Court be entered in this track, but also to insist that of checks and balances between the branches must ensure that the ‘‘remedies negotiated the final decree address the competitive of government. Constitutional concerns in between the parties and proposed by the issues in a way that satisfies the Court’s view this case would arise only if the Court failed Justice Department clearly and effectively as to the best and most effective means of to apply the legal standards governing address the anticompetitive harms’’ that have opening the operating systems market to antitrust relief to the adjudicated liability been proved. United States v. Thomson competition, depriving Microsoft of the fruits here. DOJ asks the Court not only to abandon Corp., 949 F. Supp. 907, 913 (D.DC 1996). of its illegal conduct, and preventing similar its traditional power over the relief to be When the ‘‘anticompetitive harms’’ and their monopolistic abuses in the future. That is, imposed in an adjudicated case, but also to illegality have been proved, the fit between while in this track of the proceeding the ignore the clear command of Congress to those harms and the proposed remedies must Court cannot insist on the ‘‘best possible provide a check on the irresponsible exercise be closer than when those harms merely have settlement,’’ Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716, so of power by a suddenly and inexplicably been ‘‘initially identified,’’ id., as is usually long as the proposed relief meets the compliant prosecutor. The Court should the case in Tunney Act proceedings. remedial standards anchored in antitrust law, refuse that suggestion. Even if there were no finding a liability, in Track II the Court has not only the power 2. The Extensive Record And Judicial the Court would not be compelled but the duty to impose the ‘‘best possible’’ Opinions Provide Clear, Manageable ‘‘unquestionably [to] accept a consent decree decree. Standards For Substantive Review Of The as long as it somehow, and, however B. Broad Deference Is Particularly RPFJ inadequately, deals with the antitrust Circumstances Are Suspicious None of the authorities on which DOJ problems implicated in the lawsuit.’’ United 1. Inappropriate Because The Microsoft’s relies involved a full trial in which liability States v. Alcan Aluminum, Ltd., 605 F. Supp. Manifestly Inadequate Disclosure Under The was proved, much less one in which liability 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (citing United Tunney Act’s Sunshine Provisions Weighs was affirmed on appeal. Indeed, the States v. AT&T, 552 F. Supp. 131,151 (D.DC Strongly Against Judicial Deference To The statements quoted in the CIS draw heavily on 1982), aff’d sub nom. Maryland v. United Terms Of The RPFJ Section 2(g) of the that fact—that in each case there had been no States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). With liability in Tunney Act requires Microsoft to file a ‘‘true finding of liability, and that review of the place, however, the Court need not proceed and complete description’’ of ‘‘any and all settlement at issue necessarily involved ‘‘on the assumption that the government written or oral communications’’ by it or on second-guessing DOJ’s prosecutorial would have won.’’ Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at its behalf ‘‘with any officer or employee of discretion in making two rather standardless 716 n.2. the United States concerning or relevant to’’ assessments: (1) whether to bring a case at The government did win. The Court in this the proposed settlement. 15 U.S.C. § 16(g) all, and thus place the matter in a judicial case need not ‘‘speculate in regard to the (emphasis added). The only exception from forum, see Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at 1459–1460, probability of what facts may or may not this requirement is for settlement and (2) the chances for success. See, e.g., have been established at trial.’’ United States negotiations between ‘‘counsel of record Mid-America Dairymen, 1977 WL 4352, at *8 v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., 1977 WL alone’’ and ‘‘employees of the Department of (Tunney Act ‘‘did not give this Court 4352, at *1. Those facts are a matter of Justice alone.’’/d. (emphasis added). authority to substitute its judgment about the record. When Senator Tunney first introduced his advisability of settlement by consent Whatever narrow deference may be bill, he focused on the significance of the judgment in lieu of trial’’) (emphasis added). afforded here amounts only to the tested rule disclosure provision. ‘‘Sunlight is the best of Here, neither of these fundamentally that ‘‘[i]t is not the court’s duty to determine disinfectants,’’ he explained (quoting Justice discretionary prosecutorial judgments is at whether this is the best possible settlement Brandeis), and thus ‘‘sunlight * * * is issue. The decision to bring the case was that could have been obtained.’’ Gillette, 406 required in the case of lobbying activities made years ago, and the case was litigated F. Supp. at 716 (emphasis added). Although attempting to influence the enforcement of and won, establishing liability to a known the Court may not be able to insist on the the antitrust laws.’’ 119 Cong. Rec. 3449, extent. ‘‘best possible’’ decree, the proof and 3453 (1973). Minor amendments to Section It is telling that in asking for broad affirmance of liability require the Court to 2(g) were designed ‘‘to insure that no deference DOJ places heavy reliance on ensure that the RPFJ is at least adequate on language from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in loopholes exist in the obligation to disclose all lobbying contacts made by defendants in 4 4 Decided in an equally remote context was 3 antitrust cases culminating in a proposal for See also, e.g., United States v. Robertson, 250 United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. a consent decree.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 1463, at 12 F.3d 500, 509 (6th Cir. 2001); United States v. 1988), in which the Ninth Circuit approved a Greener, 979 F.2d 517, 521 (7th Cir. 1992); United preliminary injunction, entered over DOJ’s (emphasis added). States v. McGovern, 822 F.2d 739, 742 n.4 (8th Cir. objection, against a tender offer for an acquisition The breadth of Microsoft’s effort to use 1987); United States v. Randahl, 712 F.2d 1274, that a proposed consent decree would have political pressure to curtail this case has no 1275 (8th Cir. 1983). permitted. parallel in the history of the antitrust laws.
VerDate 11
The ITT episode that prompted the Tunney capitulation by the government despite its Cabinet officer discussing ‘antitrust policy’’ Act pales in comparison. It has been widely victory on appeal, directly before the last during the pendency of antitrust litigation known that since 1998 Microsoft has round of settlement negotiations. against that corporation.’’ 119 Cong. Rec. at comprehensively lobbied both the legislative b. The ‘‘Counsel of Record’’ Exception Is 3453. The Act borrows from evidentiary and executive branches of the federal Very Narrow. concepts, including the privilege for government in an effort to create political Section 16(g) provides a narrow exception settlement discussions, which prompted the pressure to end this case.5 But Microsoft did from disclosure for contacts between narrow exception for counsel of record. The not disclose any of these contacts, much less ‘‘counsel of record alone’’ (emphasis evidentiary concept of relevance is very all of them, as the Tunney Act requires. added)—that is, without any other corporate broad. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. ‘‘Relevance of Rather, Microsoft disclosed only meetings officers or employees also involved—and evidence is established by any showing, that occurred during the last round of ‘‘the Attorney General or the employees of however slight, that the evidence’’ makes a settlement negotiations ordered by the Court. the Department of Justice alone.’’ As Senator legally important factor ‘‘more or less likely.’’ Microsoft’s insupportable interpretation of its Tunney explained, this ‘‘limited exception’’ United States v. Mora, 81 F.3d 781,783 (8th statutory disclosure duty effectively nullifies for attorneys of record ‘‘is designed to avoid Cir. 1996) (emphasis added) (citation the sunshine provisions of the Act, which are interference with legitimate settlement omitted). Plainly ‘‘relevant’’ to the question crucial to the Act’s protection of the public negotiations between attorneys representing a whether a defendant’s lobbying activities interest. defendant and Justice Department attorneys influenced the existence and terms of a a. Contacts With All Branches Must Be handling the litigation. * * * [T]he provision consent decree are contacts with the Disclosed. is not intended as loophole for extensive administration, and with members of All contacts with ‘‘any officer or employee lobbying activities by a horde of ‘counsel of Congress, that touch on the desirability of the of the United States’’ must be disclosed. As record.’’ 119 Cong. Rec. at 3453. The House government’s agreeing to end the case. It is Senator Tunney explained, Report further clarifies that this ‘‘limited startling, for example, that Microsoft would Included under [section 16(g)] are contacts exception’’ distinguishes ‘‘‘lawyering’’ omit reference to its efforts to enlist support on behalf of a defendant by any of its officers, contacts of defendants from their ‘lobbying for congressional proposals that would have directors, employees, or agents or any other contacts’.’’ H.R. REP. No. 1463, supra, at 9. cut DOJ’s funding for the pursuit of this case, person acting on behalf of the defendant, Microsoft did not disclose the well- and for antitrust enforcement in high with any Federal official or employee. Thus, publicized participation in the last round of technology industries in general.7 * * * the provision would include contacts settlement negotiations of its lobbyist-lawyer, Disclosure under Section 2(g) is not with Members of Congress or staff, Cabinet Charles F. ‘‘Rick’’ Rule. It appears that the usually burdensome; most defendants do not officials, staff members of executive critical ‘‘negotiations’’ leading to the RPFJ try to win their case politically rather than departments and White House staff 119 Cong. took place, not in the offices of Microsoft’s in the courtroom. Microsoft’s massive and Rec. at 3453 (emphasis added). In other counsel of record, but ‘‘in Justice’s offices unprecedented effort to distort the judicial words, the disclosure applies equally to and those of Microsoft legal consultant Rick process through political pressure makes its contact with any branch of Government, Rule.’’ Paul Davidson, Some States Fear compliance burdensome, but all the more including the Congress. * * * [T]here is a Microsoft Deal Has Big Loopholes, USA necessary. It is exactly this sort of great deal to be gained by having a corporate TODAY, Nov. 5, 2001. Rule has been a manipulation that the Tunney Act was official who seeks to influence a pending registered lobbyist for Microsoft for some designed to discourage by bringing it to light. antitrust case through congressional pressure, years, but was not named as counsel of d. Microsoft’s Flouting Of Its Statutory know that this activity is subject to public record until November 15, 2001, after the Duty Counsels Painstaking Judicial Scrutiny view. settlement negotiations were complete. See Of The RPFJ Id. Indeed, it is firmly established in other Notice of Appearance (D.DC filed Nov. 15, Microsoft’s cunning ‘‘interpretation’’ of the areas of the law that ‘‘officer’’ of the United 2001). That designation—long after the statutory disclosure requirements—so that States includes Members of Congress and settlement deal had been struck cannot disclosures reach only the very settlement their employees.6 retroactively shield his extensive prior discussions that the Tunney Act was not But Microsoft did not disclose its extensive contacts with Mr. James or other executive or concerned about—sheds considerable light and heavily reported lobbying of Congress. legislative officials from disclosure. Contacts on Microsoft’s likely ‘‘interpretations’’ of any Indeed, upon the remand to the District by ‘‘[a]ttorneys not counsel of record’’ must remedy imposed on it, especially one like the Court, Microsoft’s lobbying of Congress be disclosed. Id. Of course, Microsoft’s many RPFJ of which it can claim to be an equal produced a letter signed by more than 100 other lobbyists do not conceivably come drafter, if not the principal author. Members urging a swift settlement. But within this exception. But Microsoft Microsoft’s disclosure is so inadequate as to Microsoft did not disclose even that concealed all of those lobbying contacts. lobbying, aimed at pressuring a swift raise questions about Microsoft’s good faith. c. All Communications Urging The The filing includes no disclosure of any Government To Abandon Or Settle The Case lobbying contacts between Microsoft and the 5 See generally Declaration of Edward Roeder Were ‘‘Relevant To’’ The Proposed administration; it includes no disclosure of (attached). See also, e.g., Ian Hopper, Microsoft Settlement Lobbied Congress Over Case, SAN JOSE MERCURY any contacts between Microsoft and members NEWS, Jan. 11, 2002, at C3; Heather Fleming Section 16(g) requires the disclosure of all of Congress; it includes no disclosure of any Phillips, Washington Politicians Chime In On contacts ‘‘concerning or relevant to’’ a contacts whatsoever before September 27, Microsoft, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, June 30, proposed settlement. This statutory 2001, although it is well known that 2001, at A1; Rajiv Chandrasekaran & John Mintz, definition is intentionally broad. Microsoft’s Microsoft and the government have tried to Microsoft’s Window of Influence,’’ Intensive disclosure interprets the word ‘‘concerning’’ settle the government’s antitrust action since Lobbying Aims to Neutralize Antitrust Efforts, very narrowly, so that the provision covers before it was filed, and that Microsoft lobbied WASH. POST, May 7, 1999, at A 1; James Grimaldi only actual settlement discussions—and only Congress to bring pressure on DOJ to settle & Jay Greene, Microsoft Hard At Work Outside the last round of them. In Microsoft’s view, Courtroom, SEATTLE TIMES, Feb. 17, 1999, at A1. or simply abandon the case. See also Microsoft’s Political Donation In Question; the Tunney Act would require disclosure Microsoft should face contempt sanctions South Carolina GOP Says Decision To Quit Lawsuit only of the very meetings that must precede for its certification ‘‘that the requirements of Coincidental, CHI. TRIB., Dec. 25, 1998, at 3. any settlement. Microsoft reads the words [Section 16(g)] have been complied with and 6 ee, e.g., Williams v. Brooks, 945 F.2d 1322, 1325 ‘‘relevant to’’ right out of the statute. That that such filing is a true and complete n.2 (5th Cir. 1991) (‘‘a congressman is an ‘‘officer this statutory provision is broad is obvious by description of such communications known of the United States’’ within the meaning of [28 its very terms; in order for the phrase to the defendant or which the defendant U.S.C. 1442(a)(1)]’’); Nebraska v. Finch, 339 F. ‘‘relevant to’’ not to be mere surplusage, it reasonably should have known.’’ DOJ should Supp. 528, 531 (D. Neb. 1972) (‘‘It is * * * clear that must encompass contacts less directly refuse to acquiesce in Microsoft’s deception. a representative to the Congress of the United States focused on the settlement than those that is an officer of the United States, not an officer of Although DOJ cannot be expected to be the district in which he was elected.’’); United ‘‘concern[]’’ that agreement. States v. Meyers, 75 F. Supp. 486, 487 (D.DC 1948) Senator Tunney an example: ‘‘the 7 See Chandrasekaran & Mintz, supra, WASH. (‘‘Obviously, a Senator of the United States is an provision would require disclosure * * * of POST, May 7, 1999, at A 1; Grimaldi & Greene, officer of the United States.’’). a meeting between a corporate official and a supra, SEATTLE TIMES, Feb. 17, 1999, at A1.
VerDate 11
aware of all of Microsoft’s lobbying of to liability. Now there is none. Nonetheless, the District Court to apply to any proposed Congress in an effort to create pressure for a the definitions and obligations in the current relief on remand. See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d favorable settlement, DOJ should reveal the RPFJ fall short of those in the pre-judgment at 103. The ‘‘appropriate’’ inquiry (Bechtel, end-product of that pressure in the form of offer. 648 F.2d at 666) is ‘‘whether the relief communications from Members and their ‘‘[T]he government’s virtual abandonment provided for in the proposed judgment [i]s staffs. And there is no excuse for DOJ to be of the relief originally requested’’ is ‘‘a adequate to remedy the antitrust violations’’ complicit with Microsoft when it comes to sufficient showing that the public interest that were proved at trial and affirmed on contacts with DOJ itself. In particular, DOJ was not * * * adequately represented’’ in the appeal. Id. at 665. certainly is aware of Mr. Rule’s lobbying RPFJ. United States v. Associated Milk The DC Circuit provided benchmarks contacts with before he belatedly appeared as Producers, Inc., 534 F.2d 113, 117 (8th Cir. rooted in Supreme Court jurisprudence to counsel after the settlement had been 1976). It is precisely when DOJ appears to guide the evaluation whether a remedy is concluded. The proper resolution of this have ‘‘abruptly ‘‘knuckled under,’’ id. at 118, ‘‘adequate.’’ A remedy in this case must serve issue is the appointment of a special master as here, that judicial scrutiny under the ‘‘the objectives that the Supreme Court with the ability to examine the relevant Tunney Act should be most substantive and deems relevant,’’ Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at participants under oath. In view of its searching. 103. That is, a remedy must ‘‘seek to * * * responsibility to enforce 15 U.S.C. § 16(g) 3. The CIS Overstates The Terms Of The [1] ‘terminate the illegal monopoly, [2] deny along with the rest of the antitrust laws, DOJ RPFJ, Reflecting The Indefensibility of the to the defendant the fruits of its statutory should request (and support) the RPFJ Itself violation, and [3] ensure that there remain no implementation of such a procedure by the The CIS underscores the need for close practices likely to result in monopolization Court. scrutiny of the actual terms of the RPFJ and in the future.’’’ Id. at 103 (quoting Ford, 405 2. The RPFJ Represents A Swift And their effectiveness. The CIS seeks to convey U.S. at 577, and United Shoe, 391 U.S. at Significant Retreat By DOJ an image of stringency by adding terms to 250).9 Another factor counseling against provisions of the RPFJ that are absent from A. The Relief Should ‘‘Terminate The deference here is the DOJ’s striking the RPFJ itself. But it is the RPFJ, not the CIS, Illegal Monopoly’’ capitulation to Microsoft’s view of an that defines the enforceable bargain between In a monopolization case, the problem to appropriate remedy, despite the unanimous the parties. As the Supreme Court has be remedied is the monopoly itself. Because affirmance of the core of DOJ’s case. The recognized, ‘‘any command of a consent the RPFJ would leave the illegally insubstantial provisions of the RPFJ provide decree * * * must be found within its four maintained monopoly in place without ample ‘‘reason to infer a sell-out by the comers, and not by reference to any purposes making the market structure more Department,’’ Massachusetts School of Law, of the parties.’’ United States v. ITT competitive, to satisfy this criterion relief 118 F.3d at 784. Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223,233 must exclude the possibility that Microsoft After prevailing on liability in the district (1975) (citations and internal quotation again will prolong its monopoly power by court, DOJ sought and obtained not only marks omitted). While the CIS may be useful abusing it. At a minimum, however, a structural relief—as is ‘‘common’’ in broad in interpreting ambiguous terms in the REFJ, monopolist should emerge from a remedy monopolization cases, see Microsoft III, 253 the wording of the CIS is not independently facing competitive threats of similar scope F.3d at 105—but also ‘‘interim’’ conduct enforceable. Only the RPFJ would be entered and significance to those it illegally stamped restrictions that clearly could not stand alone as a judgment, and ‘‘[t]he government cannot out. The DC 35 as a monopolization remedy. DOJ earlier unilaterally change the meaning of a Circuit recognized that the illegal conduct recognized that the interim conduct remedies judgment.’’ Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 665. It would in this case was aimed at increasing and were stopgaps to keep the competitive be different, of course, if the CIS or its hardening the applications barrier to entry situation from continuing to decline in the relevant refinements were ‘‘expressly that insulates Microsoft’s OS monopoly. See year or so before divestiture jumpstarted incorporated in the decree.’’ ITT Continental, id. at 55–56, 79. The CIS similarly recognized competition. See Plaintiffs’’ Memorandum in 420 U.S. at 238. In particular, the CIS goes that ‘‘[c]ompetition was injured in this case Support of Proposed Final Judgment 30–31 beyond the text of the RPFJ to paint a far principally because Microsoft’s illegal (corrected version) (filed May 2, 2000). On stricter picture of Microsoft’s disclosure conduct maintained the applications barrier remand, DOJ abandoned the structural relief obligations than the RPFJ supports. It is no to entry * * * by thwarting the success of that it formerly found necessary, even though wonder that DOJ seeks to defend a middleware.’’ CIS 24, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,465. A liability on the monopolization claim— document—the CIS—to which Microsoft remedy that does not literally terminate the which alone could support structural relief in would not be bound, rather than the far monopoly accordingly must undermine the the first place—was affirmed with minor weaker RPFJ that alone would be judicially applications barrier to entry that was modifications. DOJ stated that it would enforceable. The CIS cannot transform the strengthened by the illegal conduct. pursue relief ‘‘modeled upon’’ the interim RPFJ into a better deal for competition and B. The Relief Should Prevent ‘‘Practices ‘‘conduct-related provisions,’’ along ‘‘with consumers than it is. Likely To Result In Monopolization In The such additional provisions as Plaintiffs may II. THE RPFJ MUST MEET THE LEGAL Future’’ conclude are necessary to ensure that the STANDARDS NORMALLY APPLICABLE TO To satisfy this criterion, any remedy must relief is effective, given their decision not to ANTITRUST REMEDIES both (1) prevent the monopolist from seek a structural reorganization of the The ‘‘public interest’’ standard in the company.’’ Joint Status Report 2 (filed Sept. Tunney Act is not without content. Rather, 9 20, 2001). 9 It is telling that the CIS ignores the remedial those ‘‘words take meaning from the Instead of fortifying the proposed decree to standard that the DC Circuit set out. See CIS 24, 66 purposes of the regulatory legislation,’’ Fed. Reg. 59,465. The CIS submerges the need to compensate for the abandonment of NAACP v. Federal Power Comm’n, 425 U.S. craft relief that tends to ‘‘terminate’’ the illegally structural relief, however, DOJ moved 662, 669 (1976). The well-developed maintained monopoly, despite the court of appeals’’ considerably backward from the interim jurisprudence of antitrust remedies provides contrary instructions. See 253 F.3d at 103. Rather, remedies, narrowing Microsoft’s duties and sound guidance for the public interest the CIS endorses a watered-down standard in order providing broad exceptions. Indeed, the RPFJ to set a lower bar for the RPFJ to clear, in tacit is weaker than the final proposal in the determination. recognition that the RPFJ cannot satisfy the DC settlement negotiations that took place Although a district court should not Circuit’s standard. The CIS would require relief during Spring 2000, before any judgment of ‘‘engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what only to ‘‘[e]nd the unlawful conduct,’’ to prevent antitrust liability, much less appellate relief would best serve the public,’’ Microsoft recurrence of the violation ‘‘and others like it,’’ and to ‘‘undo its anticompetitive effects.’’ CIS 24, 66 affirmance.8 Then, there was litigation risk as I, 56 F.3d at 1458 (quoting Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666) (emphasis added), principled Fed. Reg. 59,465. The RPFJ falls short even of these modified, more modest objectives, however, 8 restrictions for that evaluation in this case 8 That final proposal, known as Draft 18, was arise from the extensive, unvacated Findings particularly when measured by its failure to prevent formerly posted on a now-defunct website, future violations that work slight variations on the www.contentville.com, in connection with a review of Fact, the comprehensive opinion affirming conduct condemned by two courts, and its failure of a book that detailed the progress of this case. The monopolization liability on appeal, and the to ‘‘undo’’ any of the ‘‘anticompetitive effects’’ of text of Draft 18 may now be viewed at long-standing remedial principles of antitrust Microsoft’s sweeping, coordinated, and successful www.ccianet.org/legal/ms/draft 18.php3. law, principles that the DC Circuit instructed anticompetitive campaign.
VerDate 11
engaging in the same sorts of conduct that illegal monopolist should be flatly prevented Assistant Attorney General James made the underlie the current finding of liability, and from engaging in the same or similar remarkable assertion that the DC Circuit, (2) prevent other types of conduct that could suppression of competition in the future. In despite affirming ‘‘the District Court’s preserve the monopoly. The ‘‘monopolization addition, the remedy should be enforceable holding that Microsoft violated ¶ 2 of the in the future’’ that must be prevented with sufficient speed and certainty to make Sherman Act in a variety of ways,’’ 253 F.3d includes both the simple maintenance of the stiff contempt sanctions likely if the at 59, somehow precluded any consideration, current monopoly and the expansion of that monopolist nonetheless manages to engage in for remedial purposes of Microsoft’s monopoly’s scope. Relief should make it anticompetitive conduct again. astonishing anticompetitive campaign as a impossible for the monopolist to continue its The point of antitrust relief after a finding whole. See James Testimony 5. To the pattern of using current market power to of liability is to learn from history, not to contrary, the court of appeals never rejected foreclose imminent or contemplated permit the offender to repeat it. This the common-sense notion that ‘‘Microsoft’s competitive threats. Because Microsoft has consideration is particularly acute here, specific practices could be viewed as parts of been ‘‘caught violating the [Sherman] Act,’’ it where the purposes of the expiring 1995 a broader, more general monopolistic ‘‘must expect some fencing in.’’ Otter Tail consent decree clearly have not been scheme’’; much less did the court of appeals Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 381 realized, but rather have been evaded or insist (or even hint) that ‘‘Microsoft’s (1973). neutralized. practices must be viewed individually’’ for A monopolist that has been litigating for Because antitrust relief necessarily is all purposes. Id. Rather, the court of appeals years no doubt has developed forward-looking, a remedy’s effectiveness clearly considered some illegal acts in the anticompetitive techniques that achieve the should be judged with respect to where the context of others. Thus, the court held that same goals through slightly different means. market is going, not where it has been. Microsoft’s exclusive contracts with ISVs, Microsoft embarrassed DOJ by obtaining Microsoft has directed its efforts to destroy though affecting only ‘‘a relatively small language in the 1995 consent decree that was the competitive threat of Internet computing. channel for browser distribution,’’ had tailored to exclude, at least arguably, the The more functionality that is performed on ‘‘greater significance because * * * Microsoft company’s next planned anticompetitive the Web, the less significant the operating had largely foreclosed the two primary initiative. Exemptions, provisos, and narrow system on a particular client device channels to its rivals.’’ 253 F.3d at 72. definitions should be scrutinized on the connected to the Web. Thus, Internet The DC Circuit’s examination of the assumption that Microsoft again has tried to computing represents the maturation of the divestiture remedy is telling. If the many ensure that the RPFJ will not impede competitive threat posed by the Internet separately illegal monopolistic acts could not currently planned anticompetitive acts. browser and squelched by Microsoft’s illegal be viewed as cumulatively contributing to C. The Relief Should ‘‘Deny To The conduct. The current industry-wide focus on the illegal maintenance of Microsoft’s Defendant The Fruits Of Its Statutory Web-based services reflects the realization monopoly, divestiture would have been an Violation’’ that a competitive market still survives in unthinkable remedy, since no specific act Relief in an antitrust case not only must this sector. The Court will have to consider held illegal on appeal changed the structure prevent ‘‘recurrence of the violation,’’ but whether the RPFJ in fact is ‘‘all about the of the company or of the market. But the also must ‘‘eliminate its consequences.’’ past, not the future battle in Internet court of appeals recognized that divestiture National Society of Professional Engineers v. services[, and] doesn’t touch the company’s could be justified if the many separate illegal United States, 435 U.S. 679, 697 (1978). ability to use Windows XP to extend its acts, taken together, were shown to have had Thus, a remedy should prevent a monopolist monopoly to these new areas.’’ Walter a sufficiently certain causal connection to from retaining the accrued competitive Mossberg, For Microsoft, 2001 Was A Good justify using structural relief to undermine, if benefits of its illegal conduct. These Year, WALL ST. J., Dec. 27, 2001, at B1. See not end, the monopoly. See 253 F.3d at 80, advantages may permit a monopolist to Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 38–39. 106–107. maintain its monopoly without additional III. THE RPFJ FALLS FAR SHORT OF The court of appeals did ‘‘reverse [the] antitrust violations. Relief that allows a PROVIDING A REMEDY FOR PROVEN conclusion that Microsoft’s course of conduct wrongdoer the full benefit of its illegal OFFENSES UPHELD ON APPEAL separately violates 2 of the Sherman Act.’’ activity fails the most basic test of any The RPFJ lights upon narrowly defined 253 F.3d at 78 (emphasis added). But the remedy under any branch of the law. practices and prohibits narrowly defined reversal occurred because the district court In this case, the ‘‘fruits’’ of Microsoft’s versions of them, in ways that might have purported to find that a series of acts that did illegal conduct may be the most important mitigated, but would not have ended, the not constitute separate, free-standing target of a responsible remedy. One of the very conduct at issue in this case. The RPFJ antitrust violations had a ‘‘cumulative effect chief advantages that Microsoft gained by does not measure up to the sweeping * * * significant enough to form an incorporating the Internet browser into the monopolization violations found by two independent basis for liability’’—but never Windows monopoly was the ability to courts. The RPFJ’s provisions do not address specified acts other than those that separately control not only the browser for its own sake, Microsoft’s ability and incentives to violated Section 2 that might be aggregated suppressing the possibility that the Internet strengthen the applications barrier to entry, into such a violation. Id. browser would provide a source of alternate, which was the underlying issue at the core It is a remarkable leap from this OS-neutral APIs, but also the browser as the of the case, instead focusing on techniques of unremarkable holding to the absurd notion gateway to all Internet computing. As the monopolization that have been defined so that Microsoft’s extraordinary series of Litan/Noll/Nordhaus Comment explains (at narrowly that Microsoft’s actual behavior separate adjudicated antitrust violations 58–60), one of the most important fruits of need not change. And when addressing a cannot be considered together for any monopolistic conduct is the suppressed precise technique that directly implicated the purpose. Even the CIS recognizes that those development of competitive threats. That is reinforcement of the applications barrier to violations are part of one coordinated and why a forward-looking remedy must be entry—Microsoft’s ability to stop porting its ‘‘extensive pattern of conduct designed to rooted in current market conditions, and Office productivity suite to the Apple eliminate the threat posed by middleware.’’ must seek to restore competition to where it Macintosh platform—the RPFJ permits CIS 11, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,462. They should be likely would have been in the absence of the Microsoft to retain the ability to repeat that remedied as such. anticompetitive conduct. Litan/Noll/ threat in slightly altered contexts. B. The RPFJ Simply Restates The Antitrust Nordhaus Comment 35–36, 40–42, 58–59. A. DOJ’s Effort To Minimize The Scope Of Laws At Critical Points And Thus Forfeits D. Broader Principles Applicable To The DC Circuit’s Affirmance Cannot Obscure The Clarity And Efficiency Of The Contempt Injunctive Relief Also Should Inform The The Failure Of The RPFJ To Remediate Clear, Process Analysis Of The RPFJ Proven Violations Another striking feature of the RPFJ is its The remedial analysis here resembles other DOJ has tried to lower the bar for approval repeated reliance on a reasonableness remedial undertakings. Although civil of its proposal by minimizing the most standard of conduct that simply imports full antitrust relief is not punitive, effective significant appellate imposition of rule-of-reason analysis under the antitrust antitrust relief shares with criminal monopolization liability in the past half- laws. Antitrust remedies, like other sentencing the broad goals of incapacitation century, and adopting Microsoft’s crabbed injunctive decrees, are supposed to be and deterrence. As much as possible, an view of its own liability. In Senate testimony, amenable to swift and sure enforcement,
VerDate 11
according to standards that give warning of more, and stronger, weapons to suppress any and menu entries relating to middleware.10 what is forbidden and what is permitted both middleware threats that it identifies in the These provisions are hollow, however. to the wrongdoer and to its potential victims. future, since its monopoly control over the Section III(H)(1) duplicates only what But the RPFJ would regularly require the browser—now labeled part of the Windows Microsoft unilaterally agreed to permit OEMs decree Court to determine whether monopoly product—provides Microsoft with to do back on July 11, 2001. And the end- Microsoft’s conduct was ‘‘reasonable.’’ For complete control over the universal client for user provisions simply restate and preserve example, the Court would have to determine Internet computing. The RPFJ’s approach is end-users’’ longstanding options to delete * whether volume discounts were like sentencing a bank robber to probation, icons and menu entries if they right-click and ‘‘reasonable’’ or exclusionary (RPFJ but letting him keep his weapons and the delete or drag the icon or menu entry to the § III(B)(2)); loot. Recycle bin. The default provisions in * whether technical requirements for the But the RPFJ’s failure to provide relief that Section III(H)(2) are so limited, and so fully bootup sequence that Microsoft imposed on restores the specific competitive threats that subject to Microsoft’s architectural control, as OEMs were ‘‘reasonable’’ (id. § III(C)(5)); Microsoft illegally suppressed is worse than to be competitively meaningless as well. * whether the terms on which Microsoft that. In a platform technology market like The icon provisions do not adequately makes Communications Protocols available that for PC operating systems, single address the competitive harms of Microsoft’s are ‘‘reasonable’’ (id. § III(E)); standards tend to prevail, so that only adjudicated misconduct because Microsoft * whether exclusivity requirements sweeping changes can dislodge the remains able to ensure that the Microsoft imposed on ISVs were ‘‘reasonable’’ in incumbent. Platform threats are very rare. It versions of middleware will appear, ready to ‘‘scope and duration’’ (id. § III(F)(2)); see also could easily be another five or ten years or be invoked by applications, on every PC. id. § (III(G)(2)); more before a comparable threat arises again; Even if the icon provisions had greater * whether technical requirements designed certainly no threat of similar strength to the competitive significance in theory, they are to force the invocation of Microsoft Internet browser or Java has surfaced in the unlikely to have any significance in fact, Middleware despite contrary consumer or nearly seven years since Microsoft began the because few if any OEMs are likely to take OEM preferences are ‘‘reasonable’’ (id. course of illegal conduct condemned by the advantage of the options provided. DOJ § III(H)(2)[second]); court of appeals. See Stiglitz/Furman Dec. cannot claim to be unaware of this market * whether the licensing terms 35–36. That is what makes anticompetitive reality. These provisions are mere window- accompanying required disclosures, and conduct directed at them so potentially dressing. See Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 35. terms of mandatory cross-licenses required profitable. The RPFJ makes that conduct A. The PFJ Permits Microsoft’s To for access to the disclosures, are ‘‘reasonable’’ profitable beyond any rational actor’s wildest Continue Illegally Commingling Middleware (id. ???* and whether Microsoft’s bases for dreams, and greatly increases the incentives Code With The Code For The Monopoly excluding ISVs from access to security- for its repetition. Having been caught Operating System related protocols are ‘‘reasonable’’ (id. illegally suppressing two related platform The RPFJ capitulates on DOJ’s most hard- § III(J)(2)(b)–(c)). threats, Microsoft retains all the benefits that fought and significant substantive victory: It is telling that the RPFJ states so many of it sought through its illegal acts. the finding that Microsoft illegally preserved its provisions in terms that simply duplicate By eliminating Navigator, Microsoft has its monopoly by commingling the the antitrust rule of reason. Rule of reason not only eliminated consumer choice in middleware code with the operating system, disputes are notoriously difficult to litigate, browsers, but it also seized the power to foreclosing the competitive threat to see Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical control the interfaces and protocols through Windows while effectively expanding the Soc., 457 U.S. 332, 343 (1982) (noting which an enormously valuable set of Internet scope of the monopoly to encompass ‘‘extensive and complex litigation’’ involving applications—ranging from instant messaging middleware. DOJ’s inability to enforce the ‘‘elaborate inquiry’’ at ‘‘significant costs’’), — and e-mail to streaming video and e- 1995 consent decree against the binding of IE and difficult for plaintiffs to win. These commerce—are delivered to desktop to Windows, see United States v. Microsoft, provisions add nothing to the antitrust laws computers and other digital devices. 147 F.3d 935 (DC Cir. 1998) (‘‘Microsoft II’’), themselves, either in clarity of obligation or Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is now the was widely viewed as prompting this action. in efficiency of enforcement. That is no bottleneck through which all Internet-related The conduct itself was viewed as the most remedy at all. middleware must pass. Instant messaging successful in furthering Microsoft’s C. The RPFJ Provides No Remedy For and media player technology are equally anticompetitive goals. Microsoft’s Suppression Of The Browser And dependent on browser software. Microsoft Rather than repeat and strengthen the Java. has also seized the power to decide whether prohibition in the 1995 decree that failed to As noted above, perhaps the most glaring that browser functionality will be ported to achieve its goals, the RPFJ does not even deficiency of the RPFJ is that it does nothing any competing operating system, and, if so, impose the type of superficial prohibition to restore the competitive threats to Windows to which ones. Finally, in destroying applied to other conduct condemned at trial posed by the Internet browser and cross- Navigator, Microsoft has also destroyed an and on appeal. To the contrary, under the platform Java. That cannot be an oversight. important alternative distribution channel, RPFJ, the operating system is whatever The bulk of the evidence, and much of the one free of Microsoft’s control or influence, Microsoft says it is, and Microsoft can opinion of the court of appeals affirming through which Microsoft’s competitors could commingle any new product to the monopoly liability, focused on Microsoft’s successful formerly distribute middleware runtimes and product—foreclosing competition for the OS efforts to suppress these threats to the products to desktop consumers and and the new product alike. See Stiglitz/ applications barrier to entry. See Microsoft application developers. Furman Dec. 34–37. Not only does Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 58–78. Even the CIS Although Navigator has practically preserve its anticompetitive gains, but it recognizes the primacy of these products in disappeared from the competitive scene, Java obtains a green light to repeat the same the case. See CIS 10–17, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,462– has not. But Java’s importance has been conduct to destroy any new middleware 463. limited to servers, where Microsoft has a threats. In a market characterized by serial Yet the RPFJ does not change the leading share but not yet an operating dominance, an incumbent monopolist may competitive picture for either product in the systems monopoly. Microsoft’s conduct need only to suppress one threat every few least. The RPFJ does not deprive Microsoft of appears to have assured that Java will not years in order to make its monopoly virtually these ‘‘fruits’’ of its illegal conduct, but function as cross-platform middleware for permanent. Cf. id. at 35–36. A continued instead takes that illegal conduct, and the client computers. Java thus poses no threat to ability to commingle middleware gives advantages derived from it, as a tacit baseline the desktop OS monopoly. But the RPFJ lets Microsoft limitless tenure over the OS for future competition. The RPFJ leaves Microsoft keep that anticompetitive benefit of market. If Microsoft emerges from this case Microsoft with the full benefit not only of the its conduct. free to bind middleware to the OS, this action years of insulation from the competitive IV. THE ICON-FOCUSED OEM will be an exercise in futility. threats posed by those products, but also of FLEXIBILITY PROVISIONS ARE 1. The DC Circuit Specifically Condemned the expanded power it has accumulated by INEFFECTIVE Commingling Twice incorporating Internet Explorer into the RPFJ §§ III(H)(1)–(2)[first] superficially Windows monopoly. Microsoft thus has allow OEMs and end users to rearrange icons 10 10 See n.2, supra.
VerDate 11
DOJ’s victory on the commingling point Lest there be any doubt on the matter, the this violation gives Microsoft something the was crystal clear, and repeatedly underscored court of appeals flatly rejected Microsoft’s DC Circuit twice refused: a victory on the by the court of appeals. The court of appeals reheating petition aimed squarely at the hardest-fought legal issue in the case. Given recognized that ‘‘Microsoft’s executives remedial issue. Microsoft specifically sought the central importance of middleware to the believed’’ that ‘‘contractual restrictions to preclude relief that addressed the theory of the case, failing to address the placed on OEMs would not be sufficient in commingling violation, and instead to treat principal means by which Microsoft bundled themselves’’ and therefore ‘‘set out to bind’’ the commingling and the lack of add/remove browser middleware to Windows would be IE ‘‘more tightly to Windows 95 as a functionality as the same. Microsoft’s plainly inadequate. technical matter.’’ Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at reheating petition made clear that the ‘‘ruling 2. The Failure To Limit Commingling Is 64 (quoting Findings, 84 F. Supp.2d at 50 (¶ with regard to ‘commingling’’ of software Critical Because Ubiquity Trumps 160)). In the CIS (and in Assistant Attorney code is important because it might be read to Technology In Platform Software Markets General James’’ Senate testimony), DOJ suggest that OEMs should be given the option The failure to prohibit commingling of appears to assume that icon-based relief that of removing the software code in Windows middleware deprives the RPFJ of any subjects some Microsoft Middleware 98 (if any) that is specific to Web browsing significant procompetitive effect on the Products to the Add/Remove utility equates [as opposed to] removing end-user access to emergence and adoption of competing with relief for commingling code. Thus, the Internet Explorer.’’ Appellant’s Petition for platform software. The critical competitive CIS blends the two offenses in stating that Reheating, at 1–2 (July 18, 2001). Microsoft phenomenon in this case was not Microsoft violated Section 2 when it argued that affirmance only on the ground of middleware in itself, but rather the potential, ‘‘integrated Internet Explorer into Windows the add/remove issue would ensure that the and deeply feared, development of particular in a non-removable way while excluding remedy was tightly confined, because the middleware into a competing platform for rivals.’’ CIS 7, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,461. In ‘‘problem will be fully addressed by software applications. Middleware can affirming liability for both courses of including Internet Explorer in the Add/ develop into a competing applications conduct, however, the court of appeals Remove Programs utility, which Microsoft platform by attracting software developers to clearly distinguished between Microsoft’s has already announced it will do in response use its Application Programming Interfaces ‘‘excluding IE from the ‘Add/Remove to the Court’s decision.’’ Id. at 2. (APIs) in preference to, or at least in addition, Programs’’ utility’’ and its ‘‘commingling The court of appeals rejected this argument to the APIs offered by Microsoft in Windows. code related to browsing and other code in out of hand, adding this remarkable sentence Developers will write their applications to the same files.’’ 253 F.3d at 64–65, 67. The in a terse per curiam order denying reheating: invoke particular APIs—i.e., to run on a court of appeals found no justification for ‘‘Nothing in the Court’s opinion is intended particular platform—based on how widely commingling code or, indeed, more broadly, to preclude the District Court’s consideration available the APIs will be. for ‘‘integrating the browser and the of remedy issues.’’ Order at 1 (DC Cir. Aug. Although potential platform software not operating system.’’ Id. at 66. One could 2, 2001) (per curiam). Nonetheless, the RPFJ distributed by Microsoft must attract users in hardly ask for a clearer statement. would settle this case as if rehearing had order to achieve the widespread availability Microsoft argued bitterly against liability been granted, requiring Microsoft only to of their APIs that will attract developers, it for commingling, and for a declaration that allow OEMs and end users to ‘‘add/remove’’ is the expected presence of the APIs that its product design decisions were beyond the the icons for middleware. This is insufficient matters, not how much consumers directly reach of the antitrust laws. Instead, the DC to remedy technological binding— use the application exposing the APIs. Non- Circuit pointedly rejected Microsoft’s commingling [] since it does nothing to Microsoft middleware depends on the argument that it ‘‘should vacate Finding of remove the underlying middleware code on availability of the application in order to gain Fact 159 as it relates to the commingling of which developers will continue to rely. If the critical mass of users that, in turn, may code.’’ Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 66; see only the Internet Explorer icon is removed attract developers. Findings, 84 F. Supp.2d at 49–50 (¶ 159). from the desktop, the IE middleware remains, The availability and prominence of the And the court of appeals ‘‘conclude[d] that and with it the same applications barrier application’s icon may be significant for the such commingling has an anticompetitive issues that Microsoft preserved by stifling purpose of attracting end-users. In platform effect,’’ because it ‘‘deters OEMs from pre- competition by Netscape and Java. competition, however, the availability of the application is only a means to the desired installing rival browsers, thereby reducing It is true that the interim conduct relief in end. Developers don’t write to icons; they the rivals’’ usage share and, hence, the vacated Final Judgment required only write to APIs. The inclusion of Microsoft developers’’ interest in rivals’’ APIs as an that Microsoft offer an operating system Middleware functionality in every copy of alternative to the API set exposed by where OEMs and end-users were permitted Windows is determinative, regardless of how Microsoft’s operating system.’’ 253 F.3d at 66 to remove end-user access to the middleware or whether the icons are featured, and (emphasis added). See generally id. at 64–67. components, United States v. Microsoft regardless even of the presence of the user That is, commingling helps reinforce the Corp., 97 F. Supp.2d 59, 68 (D.DC 2000), interface or shell? 11 If developers know that applications barrier to entry that shields the vacated, 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001), a the plumbing for a Microsoft version of Windows monopoly. provision similar to that in RPFJ middleware will be on every PC because it The DC Circuit’s holding reflected a § III(H)(1)[first]. That transitional provision of is commingled with Windows, then principle of critical importance to the course assumed the existence of structural developers will write to the Microsoft enforcement of the antitrust laws in the relief that would remove Microsoft’s version’s APIs. Because the RPFJ permits software industry, where the economic incentive to bind middleware to Microsoft to include the APIs accompanying complementarity of different programs makes the OS unless the binding was independently the software functionality that mimics product design a potentially devastating justifiable. Without a structurally more middleware that is a potential platform weapon to foreclose competition: a competitive market, those modest provisions threat, Microsoft will be able to defeat any ‘‘monopolist’s product design decisions’’ can would be meaningless, and would permit middleware threat in exactly the same way violate the antitrust laws just as any other Microsoft to follow much the same course it destroyed the threat of Netscape and Java economic conduct can. 253 F.3d at 65. that triggered the lawsuit. on the PC desktop. See Stiglitz/Furman Dec. Product design decisions may be grossly There is no excuse for DOJ’s failure to do 36. anticompetitive, particularly in the software anything about one of the principal, and most Under the RPFJ, developers will continue industry where lines of code can be packaged easily replicable, violations in the case. Even to assume that Windows Media Player, for (and marketed) in many different ways one of Microsoft’s vocal, libertarian example, is present on every computer. This without affecting the operation of programs defenders, University of Chicago law will be true regardless of whether ‘‘end user once they are installed. As Microsoft’s James professor Richard Epstein, recognized that access’’ is removed, because the remedy does Allchin recently acknowledged, software the minimum plausible remedy after the DC ‘‘code is malleable,’’ so that ‘‘[y]ou can make Circuit decision would involve ‘‘undoing a 11 The user interface is especially insignificant it do anything you want.’’ Microsoft Net few product-design decisions.’’ Richard because the browser window already can serve as Profit Fell 13% in Recent Quarter, Wall St. Epstein, Phew/, Wall. St. J., June 29, 2001, at the user interface for many products, and could J. Europe, Jan. 18, 2002, 2002 WL–WSJE A10. But DOJ did not even insist on that. easily be adapted to serve as the user interface for 3352885 (quoting Allchin). Instead, the RPFJ’s omission of any relief for many more.
VerDate 11
not require Microsoft to remove the bundle decisions, a power that Microsoft is any, of the technical provisions of the RPFJ middleware. The result is that software exercising more broadly, as the breadth of the will mean anything except what Microsoft developers will write applications to, for Windows XP bundles clearly illustrates. The wants them to mean, and that none can be example, the Windows Media Player APIs, RPFJ should not step back from the 1995 enforced without lengthy litigation that will rather than to the APIs supplied by rival Consent Decree. further shrink the tightly limited duration of platforms. That is an advantage that no 4. The RPFJ Encourages Illegal the proposed relief. competitor can overcome. Commingling By Placing The Critical B. Empirical Evidence Shows That The It is no answer to say that OEMs can offer Definition of Windows Under Microsoft’s Icon Flexibility Provisions Will Not Be Used rival middleware even if the code for a Exclusive Control Not only do the icon flexibility provisions Microsoft version of the same product is But the RPFJ does step back from the 1995 address the wrong problem, but the market commingled with Windows, so that the Decree, and makes matters still worse. Not already has tested their consequences. On Microsoft version of middleware appears on only does the RPFJ completely fail to prevent July 11, 2001, Microsoft announced that every desktop PC. If Microsoft’s version of a future illegal commingling, but it effectively OEMs and end users would be permitted to product is everywhere, few OEMs will go to approves that conduct by permitting remove access to Microsoft’s Internet the effort of providing another product that Microsoft ‘‘in its sole discretion’’ to Explorer browser, just as RPFJ § III(H)(1) does largely the same thing. The district ‘‘determine[]’’ exactly which ‘‘software code permits. As of this writing, not one OEM has court and court of appeals alike recognized comprises [sic] a Windows Operating System availed itself of this new liberalized policy. that OEMs faced strong disincentives to Product.’’ RPFJ § VI(U). That provision Windows XP is shipping with Internet install two competing products with similar permits Microsoft an unearned advantage in Explorer on every single personal computer middleware functionality, disincentives repelling any future challenges to illegal shipped by every single OEM. This real- arising largely from support costs and disk commingling of applications code with world experience speaks volumes about the space. See 84 F.Supp.2d at 49–50, 60–61 (¶¶ Windows. Were the Court to enter this practical significance of this relief. 159, 210); 253 F.3d at 61. If the Microsoft provision as part of its judgment, Microsoft C. The Icon Flexibility Provisions Middleware is there, the OEM will have to could point to DOJ’s capitulation on this Require—And Accomplish—Little support it, even if—perhaps especially if— issue—and the Court’s approval—as 1. The icon flexibility provisions do not the end-user does not know that it is there. extraordinarily persuasive evidence that its permit OEMs to swap out Microsoft Thus, rival middleware cannot undermine monopoly product was as broad as it says it Middleware Products and replace them with Microsoft’s monopoly unless (1) the rival is, and that, despite the contrary holding of other products. Rather, the OEMs at most can middleware is ubiquitous, or (2) the the DC Circuit, any commingling of an hide the Microsoft icon, but need to be Microsoft version is not ubiquitous. If application with the operating system is per prepared to support the underlying Microsoft developers do not feel compelled to write to se legal. software when another software application the rival middleware as well as the Microsoft The Court can and should disapprove invokes it. That means that these provisions middleware, the rival middleware will not provisions that appear to endorse practices of do not address the added ‘‘product testing undermine the monopoly. And if Microsoft’s apparent anticompetitive effect and dubious and support costs’’ that discourage OEMs version of particular middleware can be legality. Thomson Corp., 949 F. Supp. at from including more than one version of ubiquitous by virtue of its inclusion in the 927–930 (refusing to approve fee schedule for particular functionality. Microsoft III, 253 monopoly operating system, as the RPFJ plainly allows, there is virtually no mandatory license for legally dubious F.3d at 66. likelihood that rival middleware will ever copyright). The Court should not approve This is a step backward from DOJ’s achieve the ubiquity needed to present a this provision, which defangs many of the settlement posture before liability was platform challenge. See Stiglitz/Furman Dec. other obligations in the RPFJ. established. At that time, DOJ insisted that 36–37; see generally Litan/Noll/Nordhaus Rather than learning from the difficulties OEMs be allowed to alter or modify Comment 44–47. with the ‘‘integration proviso’’ in that Decree, Windows, and that Microsoft provide OS 3. The RPFJ Retreats From The 1995 DOJ has ceded the issue to Microsoft, development tools for that purpose. See Draft Consent Decree permitting Microsoft to decide for purposes 18, §§ 4(1)(d), 4(g). The RPFJ provisions, by Microsoft uses Windows as an instant, of the decree obligations where the OS stops contrast, only permit OEMs to display icons, universal distribution channel for Microsoft and where middleware begins. Much of the shortcuts, and menu entries for Non- software that represents a response to a threat RPFJ rests on the relationship between the Microsoft Middleware. The RPFJ does not to the dominance of Windows as a program Windows OS and middleware. But the RPFJ require Microsoft to permit OEMs to remove development platform. As a consequence, places Microsoft firmly in control of every any Microsoft Middleware Products, ‘‘Windows’’ has become whatever bundle technical aspect of the proposed decree by although even current Microsoft practice Microsoft needs it to be to forestall permitting Microsoft absolute control over permits this. The RPFJ requires Microsoft competition. The 1995 Consent Decree the definition of ‘‘Windows Operating only to allow the removal of ‘‘icons, contained a prohibition on contractual tying System Product.’’ That subjects many of shortcuts, or menu entries.’’ RPFJ of applications to the operating system in Microsoft’s purported obligations to § III(H)(1)[first]. order to prevent anticipated conduct that Microsoft’s own discretion. 2. Section III(H)(2)[first] seems to permit would maintain the operating systems No term is more important in the RPFJ than OEMs and end-users to choose default monopoly by anticompetitive means. That ‘‘Windows Operating System Product,’’ middleware for particular functions. the earlier provision failed in its purpose which appears fully 46 times in the RPFJ: 26 Microsoft’s obligations are far less than they suggests that the provision should be times in the descriptions of substantive appear. broader, not that it should be abandoned, obligations, and 20 times in the definitions The provision applies only where a particularly since this case began as a way to that circumscribe those obligations. The Microsoft Middleware Product would launch stop conduct that had escaped summary definition of Application Programming into a top-level display window (rather than condemnation under the earlier decree. It Interfaces (APIs) is the starkest example. operating within another interface) and would be senseless as a matter of ‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’ would either display ‘‘a// of the user enforcement policy to bring and win an appears three times among the 41 words of interface elements’’ or the ‘‘Trademark of the action prompted by an evasion (if not a the API definition. See RPFJ § VI(A.). Thus, Microsoft Middleware Product.’’ RPFJ violation) of a monopolization consent Microsoft can determine ‘‘in its sole § III(H)(2)(i)–(ii) (emphasis added). Thus, the decree, win the case on the monopolization discretion’’ what an API is, and thus what provision does not apply if Microsoft designs theory most closely related to the object of must be disclosed. the slightest variation on the interface the earlier consent decree, and then reward One would think that DOJ would do elements that launch from within another the violator by removing the relevant everything possible to ensure that a new application, so long as the trademark also is restriction upon the expiration of the earlier decree did not contain an analogue to the not displayed in the top-level window. These decree rather than broadening it as proposed ‘‘integration proviso’’ that nullified much of do not present serious programming here. the anti-tying provision of the 1995 decree. challenges. Microsoft’s ability to preclude Microsoft’s monopoly gives it the power to See generally Microsoft II, 147 F.3d 935. OEM installation of desktop shortcuts that make all systems integration and software Instead, Section VI(U) ensures that few, if ‘‘impair the functionality of the [Windows]
VerDate 11
user interface’’ (RPFJ § III(C)(2)) provides Desktop Wizard’’ (id.) secures a click of user provided by RPFJ §§ III(C) and III(H). The another, largely unreviewable set of consent, Microsoft can hide any icons that RPFJ gives ISVs very slight incentives to opportunities to impede the use of innovative offend it. Indeed, there is nothing in the RPFJ subsidize OEM alterations of Microsoft’s shortcuts to innovative software. Microsoft that would stop Microsoft from including preferred desktop display, since the ISVs asserted similar reasons to defend some of similar ‘‘wizards’’ that would prompt users to who sell middleware that competes against a the conduct condemned by the DC Circuit. reset middleware defaults, or even to remove Microsoft offering cannot buy exclusivity on See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 63–64. The DC Non-Microsoft Middleware,’’ in order to the desktop of any computer. Rather, at best Circuit rejected Microsoft’s approach, but the ‘‘optimize performance’’ or to ‘‘take full an ISV can obtain parity in the availability RPFJ adopts it. advantage of powerful new Windows to developers of its middleware’s code. No 3. As explained above, the code beneath features.’’ matter what ISVs and OEMs do, Microsoft the surface is critically important to the E. By Placing The Burden To Restore Middleware will be ubiquitous. And ISVs success of middleware in undermining the Competition On OEMs, The PFJ Leads To No could buy only 14 days of advantageous icon applications barrier to entry in the OS Remedy At All For Much Of The Misconduct display before a Microsoft ‘‘Clean Desktop market. The RPFJ contains exceptions that At Issue Wizard’’ (CIS 48, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,471) would ensure that, however icons may be displayed One of the most misguided elements of the begin prompting users to undo the OEM’s on the surface, Microsoft Middleware will be RPFJ is its allocation to OEMs, ISVs and end- arrangement of icons and reinstate the firmly (and unchallengeably) established in users of the primary responsibility for arrangement favored by Microsoft. No ISV the plumbing of each PC. injecting competition into the OS market. would pay more than a pittance for such a Sections III(H)(1)–(2)[second], undo what The icon and default flexibility provisions of shallow and short-lived advantage on the might be left of the obligations earlier in the RPFJ allocate to the OEMs almost all of desktop. Section III(H). Section III(H)(1)[second] the financial risk and responsibility for F. The RPFJ Permits Microsoft To Control permits Microsoft to ensure that Microsoft remediating Microsoft’s antitrust violation, Consumers’’ Access To Innovation To Suit Its Middleware Products are invoked whenever while the monopolist has no obligations Monopolistic Aims an end-user is prompted to use Microsoft except to allow others to make changes to The RPFJ allows Microsoft to exercise full Passport or the group of Microsoft web hide (or add to) Microsoft’s middleware. That control over the pace of innovation in services now known as Hailstorm. Section approach ignores the fact that OEMs are middleware because Microsoft can ensure III(H)(2)[second] ensures that Microsoft need motivated by their own fiduciary and that consumers are denied access—or have only program in functions that invoke Active economic considerations, not by the drive to only severely impeded access—to X or other similar Microsoft-proprietary remedy a monopolization offense. OEMs are competitively threatening middleware implementations of common functions, in risk-averse, as they operate in a low-margin, products to which Microsoft has no analogue. order to ensure that Microsoft Middleware highly competitive environment in what has Section III(C)(3) allows Microsoft to prohibit become a commodity-product market. In that OEMs from configuring PCs to launch non- Products constantly appear regardless of an environment OEMs are highly dependent on Microsoft middleware from any point unless end-user’s stated preferences. And none of the good graces of Microsoft, not only for Microsoft already has a competing product the provisions in Section III(H) would apply favorable pricing on Microsoft’s monopoly that launches from that point. Microsoft can unless the corresponding Microsoft software products [] Office as well as prohibit OEMs from configuring non- Middleware Products existed seven months Windows [] but also for timely technical Microsoft middleware from launching before the last beta version of a new assistance, and access to technical automatically at the end of the boot sequence Windows release. As with other provisions, information. or upon the opening or closing of an Internet Microsoft would be constrained by these The Stiglitz/Furman Declaration confirms connection unless a Microsoft Middleware requirements only if it paid no attention to (at 32–34) that the economics of the OEM Product with similar functionality would them when it decided when and how to industry—a commodity industry captive to a launch automatically. RPFJ §III(C)(3). release its products. bottleneck monopolist—discourage Even after this catch-up provision serves D. The 14-Day Sweep Provision Effectively expenditures of this kind. It is bizarre and its delaying purpose, Microsoft can control Nullifies RPFJ § III(H) counterproductive to place the burden to how competing middleware products reach Even if these provisions otherwise might restore competition on the innocent, low- and serve consumers, so that products launch mean something, the RPFJ ensures that they margin OEMs rather than the monopolist. only in the way that best suits Microsoft. will be competitively meaningless by The ‘‘hapless makers of PCs’’ still ‘‘aren’t in This provision appears designed to protect permitting Microsoft to nag users to give any position to defy Microsoft,’’ Walter Microsoft from competition, and to give the permission for Microsoft to override any Mossberg, For Microsoft, 2001 Was A Good monopolist a clear imprimatur to control the array of non-Microsoft icons and menu Year, But At Consumers’’ Expense, Wall. St. pace of innovation. See Stiglitz/Furman Dec. entries 14 days after the initial boot-up of a J., Dec. 27, 2001, at B1, any more than they 28. PC. See RPFJ § III(H)(3). Thus, Microsoft only were when the illegal conduct in this case V. THE API AND COMMUNICATIONS needs to prompt users with a dialog box first occurred. See, e.g., Findings, 84 F. PROTOCOL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS inviting them to ‘‘optimize the Windows user Supp.2d at 62 (¶ 14) (Hewlett-Packard ARE INEFFECTIVE interface’’ every time they boot up, or when observation to Microsoft that ‘‘[I]f we had a A. The API Provisions Require Little, If they download the inevitable bug fixes and choice of another supplier, * * * I assure you Anything, Beyond Current Disclosure security patches among Windows updates, in [that you] would not be our supplier of Practices In Microsoft’s Self-Interest order to undo any OEM’s or end-user’s choice’’). But if OEMs choose not to exercise The API and Communications Protocol customization of icons. Microsoft apparently their new ‘‘flexibility’’ under the middleware disclosure provisions (§§ III(D)–(E)) contain provided DOJ with the name for this feature, provision %62 a choice that seems likely in little in the way of hard, fast, enforceable which DOJ uses in the CIS: ‘‘Clean Desktop view of the demonstrated lack of a response obligations, and do not appear to add Wizard.’’ CIS 48, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,471. What to Microsoft’s offer of July 11, 2001 [5 the anything significant to Microsoft’s current user would not agree to have a cleaner government is left with no antitrust remedy disclosure practices. As the CIS recognizes: desktop? No ISV is likely to pay an OEM a for much of its case.12 Through its MSDN [Microsoft Developer’s fee sufficient to cover the trouble of Nor can ISVs be expected to pay OEMs to Network] service, Microsoft presently makes rearranging icons, and supporting additional take advantage of the limited flexibility widely available on the Internet an extensive software, for the privilege of having non- and detailed catalog of technical information Microsoft software icons displayed 12 Similarly, the RPFJ places no limits on that includes, among other things, advantageously for as little as two weeks. Microsoft’s conduct toward one of its largest current information about most Windows APIs for The CIS suggests that the ability of groups of licensees—direct corporate licensors of use by developers to create various Windows Microsoft to sweep away icons of competing bulk Windows licenses. The corporate market has applications. MSDN access is presently middleware and other products 14 days after always been Microsoft’s point of leverage, and those buyers now often buy direct. Microsoft has made broadly available to developers and other a computer first boots up (RPFJ § III(H)(3)) clear its intention to make Windows and other interested third parties. applies only to ‘‘unused icons’’ (CIS 48, 66 software a renewable ‘‘service.’’ Microsoft can undo CIS 34, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,468. Fed. Reg. 59,471), but the decree terms all of the provisions applying to OEMs upon the Microsoft already discloses literally contain no such limitation. Once its ‘‘Clean first license renewal with an end-user. thousands of APIs to software developers
VerDate 11
through MSDN for the good reason that it is that time, and certainly Microsoft’s Statement of Charles James to Senate in Microsoft’s self-interest to promote the rudimentary browser did not perform Judiciary Committee 8 (Dec. 12, 2001). But it Microsoft Windows platform to software anywhere near the range of functions is difficult to imagine what Microsoft would developers. The extent of information performed by Netscape Navigator. See have contested. Just as in the dispute disclosure required by the RPFJ must be Findings, 84 F. Supp.2d at 31–32 (§ 82–84), whether Internet Explorer is part of understood in the context of Microsoft’s 33–34 (§ 91–92). The RPFJ provisions would Windows, Microsoft can simply relabel current information disclosure practices. A not have helped Netscape then. See Letter software as part of one product rather than ‘‘requirement’’ that Microsoft disclose APIs from James L. Barksdale, former CEO of another. The label does not affect the for the most part simply ‘‘requires’’ that Netscape, to Chmn. Leahy & Sen. Hatch, commands and operations in the software. Microsoft do what it does voluntarily. Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Attachment, 1. The RPFJ Requires Microsoft To Disclose Microsoft has a business incentive not only Question 1 (Dec. 11, 2001). 13 And they will Only The APIs Used By The ‘‘User Interface’’ to disseminate Windows APIs but to assist not help any software developer whose Or Shell Of Microsoft Middleware ISVs in understanding and implementing products exceed the functionality of existing The APIs that must be disclosed are those Windows APIs in their products. Microsoft Microsoft middleware. The API disclosure that ‘‘Microsoft Middleware * * * uses to call and other platform software vendors compete provisions in the RPFJ thus ensure that upon [a] Windows Operating System to attract developers by disclosing technical Microsoft can control the pace of middleware Product.’’ RPFJ § VI(A); see id. § III(D). But information, creating easy-to-use innovation, providing another level of Microsoft determines how much code development tools, and ‘‘evangelizing’’ their assurance that non-Microsoft products will performing a Microsoft Middleware function development platforms. Attracting not gain the type of head start that might is part of the Middleware, and how much is developers helps Microsoft perpetuate the result in ubiquity before a similar Microsoft part of the Windows Operating System substantial network effects that produce the product can be included Product, since the latter definition is within applications barrier to entry protecting the Mr. Barksdale’s letter in lieu of hearing Microsoft’s ‘‘sole discretion.’’ Id. § VI(U). The Windows monopoly. Because the strength of testimony is available at http://java.sun.com/ only code in Microsoft Middleware that the Windows monopoly and the power of the features/2002.01.barksdale-letter.html, and Microsoft must consider separate for the applications barrier to entry are directly the attachment is available at http:// purposes of API disclosure is the user related to the number of developers writing java.sun.com/features/2002.01.barksdale- interface, or shell, of the Middleware—or, applications for Windows, it is in Microsoft’s attach.htm in the bundle of products sold rather, ‘‘most’’ of the shell. Id. § VI(J)(4). The interest to provide a robust information with every Windows operating system. only limit is that ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ disclosure program. That limitation on API disclosure is severe must ‘‘[i]nclude at least the software code By widely disclosing APIs, Microsoft enough. But it is just a beginning. The that controls most or all of the user interface ensures that applications will continue to be disclosure obligation is further limited by the elements of that Microsoft Middleware.’’ Id. written for its platform software rather than definition of APIs at RPFJ § VI(A): Thus, the terms of the RPFJ permit Microsoft for rival platforms. Properly understood, ‘‘Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)’’ to provide only the APIs that go between Section III(D) does not actually require means the interfaces, including any 51% of the user interface elements of Microsoft to provide any new disclosure of associated callback interfaces, that Microsoft Microsoft Middleware and the rest of the APIs and technical information to promote Middleware running on a Windows Windows bundle of products. None of the interoperability; Microsoft already engages in Operating System Product uses to call upon APIs used by the Middleware’s these disclosures. Rather, the incremental that Windows Operating System Product in functionality—the APIs that permit the effect of the API disclosure provisions of the order to obtain any services from that Middleware perform its functions while RPFJ is at most to prevent Microsoft from Windows Operating System Product. running on Windows—need be disclosed, so selectively withholding certain APIs from Setting aside the circularity, the long as the shell APIs are disclosed. This certain vendors. As explained below, malleability of the two principal defined definition appears to be designed to have however, the disclosure ‘‘requirements’’ in terms renders this definition (and the nothing to do with developer preferences, or the RPFJ are too insubstantial and too easily corresponding obligations) a practical nullity. with the applications barrier to entry. manipulated to accomplish even that limited The API definition depends on the 2. The RPFJ Requires Microsoft To Disclose goal. relationship between two ‘‘products,’’ each of APIs Only For ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ That B. The RPFJ Does Not Require Disclosure which is defined solely by Microsoft. As Is Distributed Separately From Windows, Yet of Windows APIs, But Rather Lets Microsoft noted above, Microsoft has ‘‘sole discretion’’ Is Distributed To Update Windows Determine The Scope of Disclosure Through to identify software code as part of a To come within the disclosure obligation, The Design and Labeling of Its Operating ‘‘Windows Operating System Product.’’ RPFJ Microsoft Middleware must be ‘‘distributed System And Middleware § VI(U). Many APIs can disappear from view separately from a Windows Operating System To begin with, the API disclosure simply as a result of Microsoft’s Product.’’ That restriction alone is enough to requirements aim at the wrong thing. The unreviewable decision to relabel certain take Windows Media Player 8 outside the RPFJ defines APIs as the interfaces used by interfaces as internal to Windows. If definition, as that product is available only Microsoft Middleware to invoke resources Microsoft says that an operation takes place as part of the Windows XP bundle. But not from a Windows Operating System Product. entirely within Windows, rather than all separate distributions prompt the API requiring the interaction of a middleware and RPFJ § VI(A). But innovative rival software 14 obligations; Microsoft must characterize the vendors do not need APIs between Microsoft Windows, then there is no API to disclose. distribution as one that ‘‘update[s] th[e] Middleware and Windows. The really C. The Definition of ‘‘Microsoft Windows Operating System Product.’’ See threatening innovators are threatening Middleware’’ Gives Microsoft Further RPFJ § VI(J)(1). Thus, the scope of the Leeway to Limit Its Disclosure Obligation precisely because their products perform obligation depends entirely on the labeling of The only APIs that need be disclosed are functions that Microsoft’s do not. In those the product, which Microsoft can easily those used by ‘‘Microsoft Middleware.’’ But cases, by definition, there will not be any manipulate. ‘‘Microsoft Middleware,’’ too, is defined in a fully analogous Microsoft middleware—just 3. The Limitation Of Microsoft Middleware way that gives Microsoft fight control over as Microsoft did not have an Internet browser To ‘‘Trademarked’’ Products Further the scope of its own obligations. Remarkably, when Netscape Navigator first appeared. Eviscerates The API Disclosure Provision Assistant Attorney General James testified Those developers need full access to But that is not all. At least equally that this definition would have been difficult Windows APIs—APIs for all functionalities significant is the restriction of the Microsoft for DOJ to achieve in a litigated proceeding. enabled by the Windows platform, whether Middleware definition, and thus the API Microsoft calls them ‘‘internal’’ calls within disclosure obligation, to Middleware that is 14 Windows or external APIs that may be Moreover, the term ‘‘interfaces’’ is not defined ‘‘Trademarked.’’ RPFJ § VI(J)(2). The distributed to ISVs—not to the limited subset in the RPFJ. The CIS explains that ‘‘‘[i]nterfaces’’ definition of ‘‘Trademarked’’ allows includes, broadly, any interface, protocol or other used by a Microsoft version of similar method of information exchange between Microsoft Microsoft to exclude current middleware middleware. Middleware and a Windows Operating System from the API disclosure obligation, and to That is what Netscape needed in 1995; Product.’’ CIS 33–34, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,468. But that prevent future middleware from becoming there was no Internet Explorer to speak of at definition would not be part of the judgment. subject to the API disclosure obligation,
VerDate 11
simply by manipulating its use of That this highly restrictive definition is no new releases. Second, even under current trademarks. accident is clear from comparison with the practice a version with two digits to the right a. Microsoft Easily Can Ensure That ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ definition of the decimal point may fix significant Middleware Is Not ‘‘Trademarked’’ By Using which governs the icon-display obligations. errors, so that disclosure only of the prior A Generic Or Descriptive Name Combined To provisions paralleling the ‘‘Microsoft version of the APIs might leave developers With Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) Middleware’’ definition, the ‘‘Microsoft without the ability to invoke some needed The definition of ‘‘Trademarked’’ does not Middleware Product’’ definition adds several functionality with the disclosed APIs. include ‘‘[a]ny product distributed under * * named current products, including ‘‘Internet D. The Disclosure Provisions—Particularly * a name compris[ing] the Microsoft(r) or Explorer, Microsoft’s Java Virtual Machine, Those Concerning ‘‘Communications Windows(r) trademarks together with Windows Media Player, Windows Protocols’’—Depend On An Undefined And descriptive or generic terms.’’ Id. § VI(T). Messenger, Outlook Express and their Thus Unenforceable Concept of That is how Microsoft has chosen to name successors,’’ RPFJ § VI(K)(1), although only to ‘‘Interoperability’’ some of its newest and most important the extent that Microsoft ‘‘in its sole Both the API and Communications products: the combination of a monopoly discretion’’ (id. § VI(U)) decides that those Protocol disclosure provisions define the brand with a simple descriptive mark that products are ‘‘in a Windows Operating scope of the data to be disclosed as that helps identify an entire software function System Product.’’ Id. § VI(K)(1). Thus, necessary to permit non-Microsoft products with the Microsoft implementation of it. Microsoft’s icon display/removal obligations to ‘‘interoperate’’ with the Windows client Windows(r) Messenger instant messaging for those named products would not change OS and to ‘‘interoperate natively’’ with software is one example. merely because of a strategic product Microsoft server operating system products. Moreover, by the terms of the RPFJ renaming or abandonment of a trademark See RPFJ § III(D), (E). The disclosure Microsoft disclaims any rights in the use of that combines the Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) obligations are limited to ‘‘the sole purpose such combinations of the Microsoft(r) or name with generic or descriptive terms. But of interoperating with a Windows Operating Windows(r) marks with generic or none of those current products is named in System Product.’’ Id. descriptive terms, and abandons any rights the ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ definition that The obligations depend on the meaning of that may be acquired in the future. RPFJ governs the disclosure obligations. That ‘‘interoperate,’’ but the RPFJ never defines § VI(T). These provisions suggest that enables Microsoft to manipulate whether that term, and there is no non-discrimination Microsoft can change the scope of the those products, although surely middleware, provision attached to this obligation. That is definition of Middleware, and thus of the API also satisfy the four subparts of RPFJ § VI(J). critical because interoperability is not disclosure obligation, by abandoning some c. The CIS Broadens The ‘‘Trademarked’’ something that can be achieved half way. marks it has registered as combinations of Definition Beyond Its Terms Either two software products interoperate for Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) with generic or The CIS overstates the breadth of the all functions that they must perform together, descriptive terms—if the RPFJ does not ‘‘Trademarked’’ definition, contending that it or they do not. Any impediment in any accomplish that in itself. Windows Media ‘‘covers products distributed * * * under aspect of the interoperation nullifies the Player is an example. Although Microsoft has distinctive names or logos other than by the interoperability. The CIS seems to equate registered the combination of Windows(r) Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) names by ‘‘interoperate’’ with ‘‘fully take advantage and the generic term ‘‘Media’’ as Windows themselves.’’ CIS 22, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,465. of,’’ see CIS 36, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,468, but there Media(r), at bottom the name Windows Media Player is a combination of the The CIS further claims that the exception for is no such language in the RPFJ itself. Windows(r) mark with the generic term products known by combinations of generic The Communications Protocol disclosure ‘‘media player.’’ terms with Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) does provision (RPFJ § III(E))outlines a seeming Indeed, Microsoft could plausibly argue not cover marks that ‘‘are presented as a part ‘‘obligation’’ that is entirely undefined. that the Windows Media(r) mark does not of a distinctive logo or another stylized Section III(E) seems to require disclosure of come within the ‘‘Trademarked’’ definition presentation because the mark itself would Communications Protocols on Windows as it is, since even that mark consists of no not be either generic or descriptive.’’ CIS 23, clients that are ‘‘used to interoperate natively more than the Windows(r) mark in 66 Fed. Reg. 59,465 (emphasis added). To the * * * with a Microsoft server operating combination with the generic term ‘‘media.’’ contrary, the terms of the RPFJ definition of system product.’’ But just as ‘‘interoperate’’ is 15 RPFJ § VI(T) may therefore embody ‘‘Trademarked’’ focus entirely on ‘‘names,’’ not defined, neither does the RPFJ define Microsoft’s ‘‘disclaim[er of] any trademark not ‘‘logos’’ or ‘‘marks’’ as a whole. RPFJ ‘‘Microsoft server operating system product.’’ rights in such descriptive or generic terms § VI(T). The distinction is striking: the word One of the most important aspects of the apart from the Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) ‘‘name’’ appears five times in the definition, Windows 2000 Server product bundle is trademarks.’’ But even if Section VI(T) does and ‘‘descriptive or generic terms’’ appears Microsoft’s web server, IIS. In the absence of not go so far, Microsoft could easily get three times. Neither ‘‘logo’’ nor ‘‘mark’’ a definition of ‘‘Microsoft server operating Windows Media(r) Player outside of the appears at all. system product,’’ however, it is unclear ‘‘Trademarked’’ definition—and thus outside Microsoft clearly appreciates the whether the disclosure obligation the scope of the In this discussion we set distinction. Although Microsoft apparently encompasses protocols used to interoperate aside the non-trivial question whether has not yet formally abandoned the mark with this and other aspects of the current ‘‘Windows’’ itself is a generic, or at best ‘‘Internet Explorer’’ (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. server product. Cf. RPFJ § VI(U) (defining descriptive, mark for the type of 2277122), it does not assert that mark when ‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’ as all ‘‘windowing’’ graphical user interfaces it lists its trademarks as a warning to the software code ‘‘distributed commercially * * invented at the Xerox Palo Alto Research public. See http://www.microsoft.com/misc/ * as Windows 2000 Professional’’ and other Center in the 1970s, popularized by the info/cpyright.htm. Microsoft does list its named products, and ‘‘Personal Computer Apple Lisa and Macintosh in the 1980s, and trademark for the Microsoft Internet Explorer versions’’ of their successors). since used by Microsoft and many other logo, however. Id.; see U.S. Trademark Reg. Again, the CIS attempts to provide software vendors. disclosure obligations that No. 2470273. assurances that go beyond the terms of the apply only to ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’— d. Microsoft Can Easily Manipulate Which proposed judgment. The CIS states (at 37, 66 simply by abandoning the registration mark Middleware Releases Are ‘‘New Major Fed. Reg. 59469): and moving the registration symbol to the Versions’’ The term ‘‘server operating system left. Thus, Microsoft can transform Indeed, even a ‘‘Microsoft Middleware product’’ includes, but is not limited to, the ‘‘Windows Media(r) Player,’’ which might be Product’’ satisfying that four-part test may entire Windows 2000 Server product families subject to API disclosure requirements, into not be ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ subject to the and any successors. All software code that is ‘‘Windows(r) Media Player,’’ which clearly is disclosure obligation unless it is a ‘‘new identified as being incorporated within a exempt. major version’’ of the product, that is, if the Microsoft server operating system and/or is b. The ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ Definition release is ‘‘identified by a whole number or distributed with the server operating system Governing Disclosure Obligations Is Far by a number with just a single digit to the (whether or not its installation is optional or Narrower Than The ‘‘Microsoft Middleware right of the decimal point.’’ RPFJ § VI(J). That is subject to supplemental license Product’’ Definition Governing OEM has two implications. First, Microsoft can agreements) is encompassed by the term. For Flexibility simply adopt a different method of naming example, a number of server software
VerDate 11
products and functionality, including encryption/decryption algorithms), registry misconduct at issue in this case—it will be Internet Information Services (a ‘‘web settings, and field contents. The RPFJ, by able to conceal critical layers of that altered server’’) and Active Directory (a ‘‘directory contrast, contains no analogue to these protocol from rivals, essentially ending the server’’), are included in the commercial precise and inclusive definitions. Instead, the possibility of competition for client software distribution of most versions of Windows RPFJ relies solely on the circular (and for Internet computing. And by giving 2000 Server and fall within the ambit of completely manipulable) definition of API Microsoft a basis to conceal authentication ‘‘server operating system product.’’ (RPFJ § VI(A)), a similarly narrow definition protocols (not merely data), the RPFJ frees That definition would be appropriate. But of ‘‘Communications Protocol’’ (id. § VI(B)), Microsoft Passport from scrutiny and permits no corresponding language—no enforceable and a definition of ‘‘Documentation’’ that is Microsoft to bind a proprietary universal definition—appears in the RPFJ. wholly dependent on the API definition (id. password and identity utility to its monopoly E. The Narrow Scope Of The Disclosure § VI(E)). operating system without hope of Provisions Contrasts Sharply With The F. The ‘‘Security’’ Exceptions in Section interoperation. Broader Definitions In DOJ’s Earlier Remedy III(J) Permit Microsoft To Avoid Its By permitting Microsoft to withhold key Proposals Disclosure Obligations parts of encryption, digital rights Before liability had been confirmed on RPFJ § III(J) provides Microsoft with two management, authentication, and other appeal, DOJ took a far broader view of what additional lines of defense in the event that security protocols, the RPFJ effectively should be disclosed. The interim remedies in any competitively sensitive APIs nonetheless allocates Web-based computing to the the vacated judgment required disclosure of fall within the malleable definition of API. monopolist of the desktop. A decree could APIs, Communications Interfaces, and Section III(J)(1) severely undercuts the hardly try to place a clearer stamp of ‘‘technical information’’ needed to enable disclosure requirements to the extent they approval on an expansion of the scope of an competing products ‘‘to interoperate apply in the modem world where security illegally maintained monopoly. effectively with Microsoft Platform protocols are critical to any communication 1. The Exclusions for Security-Related Software.’’ 97 F. Supp.2d at 67 (3(b)). That between networked computers, particularly APIs and Protocols in RPFJ(J)(1) Permit disclosure requirement was backed up by a over the Internet. And Section III(J)(2) Microsoft To Hobble Disclosures That Are requirement, absent from the RPFJ, that provides Microsoft with seemingly unfettered Critical in Internet Computing Microsoft create a secure facility so that discretion to decide who is worthy to receive It is no coincidence that Bill Gates has now developers could work with Windows source technical information necessary to make emphasized the centrality of security code to ensure that their applications worked middleware function on the Internet. concerns in Microsoft’s future software properly on the Microsoft platform, gee id. Microsoft can plausibly rely on Section offerings. See, e.g., John Markoff, Stung by The definition of ‘‘technical information,’’ III(J) to decline to comply with disclosure Security Flaws, Microsoft Makes Software moreover, helped ensure that disclosure requests based on concerns with Safety a Top Goal, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 17, 2002, would be complete and not subject to many authentication and security that it will be at C1. That is no more than an different methods of manipulative narrowing. able to assert with respect to any program acknowledgment of market and technical The ‘‘technical information’’ definition that involves communication between a PC realities that have been widely known encompassed the following items: all and a server on the Internet (or even within throughout the industry for years as Internet information regarding the identification and many private networks). Authentication, computing has taken hold. That market means of using APIs and Communications security, and similar protection mechanisms reality should have been sufficient to make Interfaces that competent software are and will continue to be integral parts of clear that an indistinct exception of the type developers require to make their products the functioning of those products. See, e.g., in RPFJ § III(J)(1) would allow Microsoft to running on any computer interoperate Comment, William A. Hodkowski, The disclose ‘‘crippled’’ versions of APIs and effectively with Microsoft Platform Software Future of Internet Security: How New Communications Protocols. Microsoft’s running on a Personal Computer. Technical Technologies Will Shape the Internet and sudden dedication to security leaves no information includes but is not limited to Affect the Law, 13 SANTA CLARA doubt that it will inject security aspects into reference implementations, communications COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 217 (1997). its proprietary APIs and its proprietary, protocols, file formats, data formats, syntaxes Indeed, security and rights-protection are extended implementations of and grammars, data structure definitions and particularly critical to Internet-based Communication Protocols. Under the terms layouts, error codes, memory allocation and economic activity, which encompasses much of Section III(J)(1), Microsoft can easily argue deallocation conventions, threading and of the computing on the Internet. As a that disclosure of those aspects—necessary synchronization conventions, functional consequence, the security mechanisms are for one machine to communicate with specifications and descriptions, algorithms critically important to any Internet-based another—will compromise the security from for data translation or reformatting (including middleware threat to the Windows OS any installation or group of installations. See compression/decompression algorithms and monopoly. also Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 30. encryption/decryption algorithms), registry For example, digital rights management The CIS maintains that Section III(J)(1) settings, and field contents. (‘‘DRM’’) has become a principal part of simply protects Microsoft and its customers 97 F. Supp.2d at 73 (7(dd)). Windows Media Player. Allowing Microsoft from disclosure of customer-specific ‘‘keys, Indeed, DOJ’s position was stronger even to withhold data needed to permit rivals to authorization tokens, or enforcement before liability had been imposed at all. interoperate with the DRM specifications in criteria,’’ and states that the exception ‘‘does Draft 18 from the Posner mediation Windows Media Player—specifications that not permit [Microsoft] to withhold any imposed a disclosure obligation using this Microsoft is making universal by including capabilities that are inherent in the Kerberos definition Of ‘‘technical information’’: Windows Media Player on every PC— may and Secure Audio Path features as they are all information, regarding the identification well end effective competition for media implemented in a Windows Operating and means of using APIs (or communications players within the next upgrade cycle for System Product.’’ CIS 52, 66 Fed. Reg. interfaces), that competent software Windows. Similarly, any distant remaining 59,472. But that reading does not square with developers require to make their products possibility of Internet browser (or even e-mail the text of the exemption. The quoted running on a personal computer, server, or client) competition should be squelched by examples are specifically presented ‘‘without other device interoperate satisfactorily with the RPFJ’s approval for Microsoft to withhold limitation.’’ RPFJ § III(J)(1). The RPFJ Windows platform software running on a parts of encryption-related protocols (again, language easily permits Microsoft to contend personal computer. Technical information as distinct from the customer-specific keys that any release of the way its proprietary includes reference implementa- tions, that make use of those protocols). For another security protocols work ‘‘would compromise communications protocols, file formats, data example, Secure Socket Layer (SSL) is an the security of a particular installation.’’ formats, data structure definitions and open standard that has been critical to the Most important, Section III(J)(1) clearly layouts, error codes, memory allocation and open development of a relatively secure permits Microsoft to withhold portions of deallocation conversions, threading and Internet. As Microsoft implements a APIs or Communications Protocols, but the synchronization conventions, algorithms for proprietary version of SSL—one that others examples given of keys and authorization data translation or reformatting (including will have to follow given the ubiquity of the codes are not parts of APIs or compression/decompression algorithms and Microsoft browser as a result of the Communications Protocols. They may be part
VerDate 11
of customer- specific Documentation, rather piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital standard is likely to produce a flood of than the Documentation used by customers, rights management, encryption or disputes—each of which will delay the consultants, and developers to create or authentication systems, including without competitor’s receipt of technical information identify and implement particular keys, limitation keys, authorization tokens or while Microsoft gains more time to respond tokens, or enforcement criteria.) The APIs enforcement criteria.’’ But that is not the (by legal or illegal means) to the competitive and Communications Protocols for security- approach the RPFJ takes. Rather, the RPFJ threat. Moreover, the ‘‘reasonable business related applications are not customer- makes clear that Microsoft is entitled to need’’ must be for a ‘‘planned or shipping specific, nor does their disclosure withhold, not merely customer- or product.’’ If the product is already compromise security. To the contrary, the installation-specific data, but some ‘‘shipping,’’ it may be too late for disclosure most powerful encryption and other security- ‘‘portions’’ of APIs and some ‘‘portions or to be helpful in the market. How fully related software is openly disclosed, as is the layers’’ of Communications Protocols. All ‘‘planned’’ a product must be raises further Kerberos standard, or even open source, as is communication of substance between questions that Microsoft will be able to the federal government’s new encryption desktops (or other client computers) and resolve to its own disadvantage. standard. See, e.g., Watch your AES: A new server computers over the Internet In addition, Microsoft need not provide encryption standard is emerging, Red Herring increasingly involves layers of security security-related APIs, protocols, or (Dec. 1, 1999) (open source government protocols, anti-virus routines, and the like. documentation to any vendor that does not standard). And one of Microsoft’s principal current ‘‘meet[] reasonable, objective standards Unless RPFJ § III(J)(1) refers to a null set, efforts is to foist its own version of digital established by Microsoft for certifying the however, Microsoft will have a basis to rights management (DRM) upon providers of authenticity and viability of its business.’’ withhold some parts of Communications copyrighted content over the Internet. RPFJ § III(J)(2)(c) (emphasis added). That Protocols and APIs. The CIS states that When Microsoft asserts a right to withhold provides Microsoft with a basis for excluding Communications Protocols ‘‘must be made information, it will be difficult indeed for the almost all nascent competitors except for available for third parties to license at all Technical Committee, DO J, or the Court to those associated with established, profitable layers of the communications stack,’’ (CIS exclude the possibility that particular companies. It would not be difficult to craft 36–37, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,468 (emphasis added)) ‘‘portions or layers of Communications ‘‘reasonable, objective standards’’ for but the RPFJ to which Microsoft agreed—and Protocols,’’ or ‘‘[p]ortions’’ of the APIs that ‘‘viability of [a] business’’ that would exclude which alone is potentially enforceable— says permit middleware programs to operate atop any Internet-focused startup, including no such thing. To the contrary, Section Microsoft operating systems, in fact Netscape in 1995. Indeed, the history of the III(J)(1) explicitly relieves Microsoft from the ‘‘compromise the security of a particular software industry both before and after the obligation to license some ‘‘portions or layers installation or group of installations.’’ RPFJ dot-com bubble shows that very few software of Communications Protocols’’ (and some § III(J)(1). Any such determination is likely to companies have had ‘‘viable’’ businesses. ‘‘[p]ortions of APIs’’)—not just client-specific be time-consuming, and related enforcement Certainly Section III(J)(2)(c) would give data. If part of a Communications Protocol is therefore would be slow. It should be a Microsoft at least a debatable basis for withheld, not ‘‘all layers of the simple matter for Microsoft to delay withholding the APIs and Communications communications stack’’ are ‘‘available * * * disclosures of this type long enough to Protocols needed to interoperate with to license.’’ And if part of a Communications disadvantage competitors. Microsoft software over the Internet from all Protocol is unavailable, interoperation is 2. RPFJ III(J)(2) Permits Microsoft To open source ISVs—who are more interested impossible; at certain points, the interaction Refuse Effective Disclosure To A Range Of in constantly improving the quality of between two computers will break down. Potentially Effective Competitors software than in obtaining licensing profits. Limited withholding of APIs or While RPFJ § III(J)(1) allows Microsoft to Although open source software is widely Communications Protocols (rather than refuse to disclose portions of APIs, RPFJ recognized as a major threat to Microsoft’s merely withholding customer-specific data) § III(J)(2) permits Microsoft to withhold all of monopoly power, the business models even will render middleware non-functional, since any ‘‘API, Documentation, or of the leading Linux providers might fail any software cannot interoperate with other Communications Protocol’’ having to do with number of ‘‘reasonable, objective standards’’ software partially. Carving off some aspects ‘‘anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, for ‘‘viability.’’ Indeed, Microsoft’s CEO Steve of interoperability means that there is no license enforcement mechanisms, Ballmer describes open source software as a interoperability, thwarting the premise of the authentication/authorization security, or ‘‘cancer’’ that threatens the viability of any disclosure provisions altogether. third party intellectual property protection software business. See Mark Boslet, Open The CIS also describes other limits that do mechanisms of any Microsoft product.’’ The Source.’’ Microsoft Takes Heat, INDUSTRY not exist in the text of the RPFJ. The CIS RPFJ allows Microsoft to select to whom it STANDARD, July 30, 2001; Dave Newbart, claims that the RPFJ requires disclosure of will disclose this information by imposing Microsoft CEO Takes Launch Break with the the Communications Protocols used for the several tests that may be based on standards Sun-Times, CHI. SUN-TIMES, June 1, 2001, Microsoft-proprietary implementation of the apparently committed to Microsoft’s sole at 57. For that matter, it is not entirely Kerberos security standard a ‘‘polluted’’ discretion as much as is the definition of unreasonable to regard head-to-head Kerberos that is the strict analogue to the Windows Operating System Product. competition with Microsoft in platform ‘‘pollute[d]’’ Java that figured prominently at Thug, RPFJ § III(J)(2)(b) permits Microsoft software as a less than viable business plan; trial. See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 76–77 to evaluate whether a competitor has a certainly most venture capitalist and other (quoting 22 J.A. 14,514). But Section III(J) ‘‘reasonable business need’’ for the desired investors hold that view. It would not be explicitly relieves Microsoft of the obligation information. What Microsoft is likely to difficult for Microsoft to craft ‘‘objective’’ to disclose ‘‘portions’’ of APIs or consider a ‘‘reasonable’’ business need by a standards of business viability that would Communications Protocols that would competitor may be narrow indeed. As the DC exclude Corel and Novell, to name two ‘‘compromise the security of a particular Circuit observed, Microsoft viewed its desire examples. Microsoft should be able to installation or group of installations of ‘‘to preserve its’’ monopoly ‘‘power in the exclude many sources of potential cross- security software. That is an open invitation operating system market’’ as a platform middleware threats through RPFJ to withhold some part of the Microsoft- procompetitive justification for exclusionary § III(J)(2)(c) alone. proprietary variation of Kerberos. conduct. Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 71. No Yet RPFJ § III(J)(2) contains yet another The type of customer-specific information doubt Microsoft will view direct or indirect method for screening competitors from that the CIS claims is all that can be withheld efforts to undermine its hammerlock on the access to technical information needed by could and should be described much more OS market as unreasonable efforts to confuse Internet-centric middleware applications. accurately and specifically in the RPFJ, not consumers or impair the ‘‘Windows Any ISV that clears the hurdles and receives as [p]ortions of APIs or * * * portions or experience.’’ the information nonetheless must submit its layers of Communications Protocols,’’ but Even bona fide attempts by a monopolist implementation of the APIs, Documentation rather as ‘‘customer-specific or installation- to objectively evaluate a potential or Communications Protocols for review by specific data the disclosure of which would competitor’s ‘‘reasonable business need’’ can a Microsoft-approved third party (likely a compromise the security of a particular scarcely be expected to produce consistent or captive commercial ally) ‘‘to test for and installation or group of installations of anti- foreseeable results. Rather, that amorphous ensure verification and compliance with
VerDate 11
Microsoft specifications for use of the API or (RPFJ § III(I)(1)) beyond what any OEM could misconduct for at least seven years. The RPFJ interface, which specifications shall be afford to pay in that competitive, low-margin not only would allow Microsoft to retain related to proper operation and integrity of business. If OEMs have to pay Microsoft to those benefits, but would subject Microsoft to the systems and mechanisms identified in exercise any of their icon-shuffling options — its light and uncertain obligations for no this paragraph.’’ RPFJ § III(J)(2)(d). ‘‘[P]roper’’ a state of affairs clearly envisioned in RPFJ more than five years, and scarcely four and no doubt will mean ‘‘the way Microsoft does § III(I)—the slim likelihood that any OEM one-half years for the many obligations that it,’’ making this provision into yet another will take advantage of those provisions will are delayed. way in which Microsoft can control the pace be lessened still further. Microsoft need not The RPFJ further abbreviates its already of innovation to ensure that the market has permit transfers or sublicenses of API rights, brief duration, and undermines its already no or limited access to products that improve imposing yet another barrier to entry. Id. insubstantial requirements, by building in upon Microsoft’s offerings. This mechanism § III(I)(3). And Microsoft could ensure, long delays before Microsoft must comply means that vendors who tried to adapt APIs through licenses, that end-users could not with its limited duties. Thus, Microsoft need to function as bridges to other platforms make competitively significant alterations to not comply with the icon-related would have to give Microsoft the the Microsoft-approved package. requirements until November 2002, see RPFJ ammunition to defeat that function—if not Most important, however, the RPFJ § III(H)(1), although Microsoft needed only simply disapprove it and await the slow specifically permits Microsoft to use its two weeks after the DC Circuit decision to operation, if any, of the RPFJ enforcement monopoly as a means to force access to offer OEMs roughly the same flexibility with mechanism. others’’ intellectual property. Microsoft can icon display as the RPFJ requires, and needed The CIS suggests that there are strict limits assert a right to license ‘‘any intellectual no more than three additional months to on Microsoft’s discretionary ability to deny property rights’’ a competitor ‘‘may have implement that flexibility on Windows XP. access to security-related aspects of relating to the exercise of their options or See Microsoft Announces Greater OEM Communications Protocols and APIs, CIS 53, alternatives provided by’’ the RPFJ. RPFJ Flexibility for Windows (Microsoft press 66 Fed. Reg. 59,473, but those limits are § III(J)(5). Thus, to take advantage of a release July 11, 2001). Similarly, Microsoft absent from the decree language. The CIS competitive option, an ISV will need to need not comply with its API disclosure contends that these exceptions ‘‘are limited license its product to Microsoft, and hope requirements or the OEM flexibility to the narrowest scope of what is necessary that Microsoft does not use that license as a provisions until November 2002, RPFJ and reasonable, and are focused on screening means to produce a copycat program and §§ III(D), (H), and need not comply with the out individuals or firms that * * * have a bundle it into Windows. Many companies Communica- history of engaging in unlawful conduct long since departed the software industry As of 1998 it was the policy of the related to computer software * * *, do not after entering into what they thought were Antitrust Division that consent decrees last have any legitimate basis for needing the limited exchanges of intellectual property for at least 10 years. See ANTITRUST information, or are using the information in with Microsoft. 16 DIVISION MANUAL, at IV:54 (3d ed. Feb. a way that threatens the proper operation and Although the CIS states that Microsoft 1998); see also V VON KALINOWSKI ET AL., integrity of the systems and mechanisms to could demand only any IP rights it would ANTITRUST LAWS AND TRADE which they relate.’’ Id. Setting aside the need to comply with its own disclosure REGULATION §§ 96.01[2], at 96–4; 96.02[1] opportunity for Microsoft to argue, as it has obligations under the RPFJ, CIS 50–51, 66 at 96–10 (2d ed. 2000). in other contexts, that the injection of Fed. Reg. 59,472, the broad ‘‘relating to’’ If Microsoft actually and convincingly lost competing software ‘‘threatens the proper language does not compel that narrow its monopoly before the expiration of a operation and integrity’’ of its products, see reading, and may not support it at all. The decree of appropriate length, it could, of Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 63–64, the CIS vague limitations in Section III(I)(5) are course, move for modification or termination simply does not address the broadest basis unlikely to reassure ISVs that Microsoft will of the decree under Rufo v. Inmates of for withholding APIs and Communications not use its license to analyze the ISV’s IP Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992). Protocols under Section 111(1)(2): rights well enough to design around it and Protocol disclosure requirement until Microsoft’s ability to decide, based on criteria bundle a copycat program into Windows or August 2002. Id. § III(E). See also Stiglitz/ within its own discretion, that an ISV is not Office, as has happened many times before. Furman Dec. 30. These built-in delays cut far ‘‘authentic[]’’ and ‘‘viab[le].’’ RPFJ § III(J)(2). This weapon should give Microsoft into the unusually brief term of the decree. That provision could provide a basis for additional ability to prevent industry The ‘‘Timely Manner’’ governing excluding all but a handful of other software participants from taking advantage of the Microsoft’s disclosure obligations in RPFJ companies. superficially appealing provisions of the §§ III(D)-(E)—after the initial delay—permits G. RPFJ § III(I) Would Place A Judicial RPFJ. Microsoft to withhold that disclosure until a Imprimatur On Microsoft’s Use Of Technical VI. BUILT-IN DELAYS EXACERBATE THE product version has been distributed to Information As A Lever To Extract DECREE’S UNJUSTIFIABLY BRIEF 150,000 beta testers. See RPFJ § VI(R). ‘‘Beta Competitors’’ Intellectual Property DURATION testers’’ in undefined. Until recently, The RPFJ would actually increase It is remarkable that the RPFJ would Microsoft, like other vendors, distinguished Microsoft’s bargaining power by explicitly reward Microsoft for litigating and losing between ‘‘beta testers’’ who agreed to provide placing a judicial imprimatur on demands by broadly on liability with a consent decree substantial feedback to the software Microsoft that recipients of APIs cross- that is shorter than other such decrees, and manufacturer, and ‘‘beta copies’’ of a program license any intellectual property developed may 16 See, e.g., Testimony of Mitchell that might be distributed without such using the APIs. Section III(I) of the RPFJ Kertzman before the Sen. Jud. Comm., July obligations or expectations. Few, if any, beta permits Microsoft to use intellectual property 23, 1998 (detailing Sybase’s difficulties in testing programs involved 150,000 beta licensing terms to impede whatever this regard); Statement of Michael Jeffress testers under that usage. A return to the competitive benefits otherwise might have before the Sen. Jud. Comm., July 23, 1998 former terminology could postpone the arisen from its disclosure obligations. (after TVHost revealed its intellectual ‘‘Timely Manner’’ until commercial release. Microsoft’s licenses ‘‘need be no broader than property to Microsoft in failed negotiations to And in any event, it should be a simple is necessary to ensure’’ the licensee’s ability sell the company, Microsoft imitated the matter for Microsoft to delay distribution of to ‘‘exercise the options or alternatives product). be the shortest ever. DOJ antitrust any beta version to 150,000 testers, however expressly provided’’ by the RPFJ. RPFJ consent decrees now routinely last ten years. defined. III(I)(2). A welter of litigation over the 17 Section V of the RPFJ provides for a term Here again, the contrast with the interim breadth that is ‘‘necessary’’—and the of only five years, however, less time even remedies of the original decree is striking. collateral restrictions that are permissible—is than Microsoft has engaged in the illegal The ‘‘Timely Manner’’ definition in that certain to continue through the life of the conduct that was the subject of this litigation. judgment required Microsoft to disclose decree. The decree plainly should be longer than the ‘‘APIs, Technical Information and Similarly, Microsoft should have no period between the initiation of the Communications Interfaces * * * at the difficulty delaying the use of any option for misconduct and the imposition of relief, and earliest of the time that’’ those items were which it is entitled to charge a royalty, at least as long as the typical relief. 18 (1) disclosed to Microsoft’s applications simply by setting a ‘‘reasonable’’ royalty Microsoft has enjoyed the benefits of its developers, (2) used by Microsoft’s own
VerDate 11
Platform Software developers in software from the terms of their agreements. The CIS providing another outlet for the nullification released by Microsoft in alpha, beta, release admits that ‘‘Windows license royalties and of RPFJ § III(B). candidate, final or other form, (3) disclosed terms are inherently complex.’’ CIS 28, 66 Even on their own terms, however, the to any third party, or (4) within 90 days of Fed. Reg. 59,466. Given that complexity, it RPFJ pricing provisions contain a substantial a final release of a Windows Operating would be surprising if most OEMs did not loophole. Microsoft can reward an OEM for System Product, no less than 5 days after a transgress some term of their Windows an ‘‘absolute level * * * of promotion’’ of material change is made between the most licensing agreements every year or so, if not Microsoft products. RPFJ § III(A). That recent beta or release candidate version and more often. Such transgressions would provides a means for Microsoft to distinguish the final release. provide ample basis for Microsoft to retaliate between OEMs who make sure that Microsoft 97 F. Supp.2d at 73–74 (§ 7(ff)) (emphasis without fear of interference from the RPFJ. software dominates their offerings, and OEMs added). While the vacated judgment made a There is no limit on what Microsoft can who either promote competing software or strong effort to place outside developers on invoke as a reason for termination, that is, simply do not interfere with consumers’’ the same footing as Microsoft’s applications there is no requirement that terminations be choices. developers throughout the development for cause, much less for a material breach of C. Microsoft Can Enforce De Facto process, the RPFJ permits Microsoft to delay the license agreement. Indeed, the sudden Exclusivity disclosure until the last minute, without any termination that Microsoft may impose after Despite a superficial prohibition, Sections analogue to the requirement that Microsoft two notices—even notices of purported III(F)(2) and Ill(G) permit Microsoft to impose promptly update changes made in the final violations that were promptly and practical, effective exclusivity obligations on pre-release stage. completely cured—need not even be based ISVs and others who need access to Windows Another significant built-in delay results on something the OEM could cure. to develop their products. Microsoft need do from the definition of ‘‘Non-Microsoft The anti-retaliation provisions for software no more than recast its agreements with ISVs Middleware Product’’ to include only and hardware vendors contain another as contracts to ‘‘use, distribute, or promote * products that have one million users. RPFJ weakness. Section III(F)(1)(a) forbids * * Microsoft software’’ or ‘‘to develop § VI(N) (ii). That definition governs the extent retaliation against hardware and software software for, or in conjunction with, of the anti-retaliation provisions in RPFJ vendors who support software that competes Microsoft,’’ RPFJ § III(F)(2), or as a ‘‘joint §§ III(A)(1), III(C), and III(H). Moreover, the with Microsoft Platform Software or that runs venture,’’ joint development * * * icon flexibility and information disclosure on other platforms. But that provision arrangement’’ or ‘‘joint services provisions apply only to Microsoft therefore permits Microsoft to use its arrangement.’’ Id. § III(G). New ‘‘joint Middleware and Microsoft Middleware Windows monopoly to crush middleware development agreements’’ or ‘‘joint services Products, each of which must have vendors if Microsoft does not yet have arrangements’’ likely will supersede the functionality similar to a Non-Microsoft competing middleware (see RPFJ §§ VI(K)- current licenses for use by ISVs of Microsoft Middleware Product. See RPFJ §§ VI(J)(3), (L)) and whose middleware applications are software developments tools and perhaps VI(K)(2)(b)(ii). By restricting all of these used on the Windows platform—where any also the current arrangements for preferential protections to middleware products that have middleware would have to start in order to access under MSDN. At best, a decree court distributed more than one million copies, the be a practical bridge to another platform. would have to undertake a full antitrust RPFJ encourages Microsoft to crush new Moreover, when prohibiting a specific type analysis of whether the joint venture was middleware threats at the earliest stages. That of retaliation would also help undermine the ‘‘bona fide.’’ Id. § III(G). To nullify RPFJ is, the RPFJ puts a premium—indeed, a applications barrier to entry, the RPFJ hews § III(F)(2), Microsoft could simply change its judicial imprimatur—on the monopolistic to a general approach rather than focusing on development tools agreements to require use exclusion of nascent threats before the precise adjudicated conduct. For example, of Microsoft software— which literally would innovations in those products reach a sizable Microsoft threatened to discontinue its port be ‘‘a bona fide contractual obligation * * * mass of consumers. That flies in the face of of Microsoft Office for the Macintosh unless to use * * * Microsoft software.’’ Since any the concerns behind the judgments of Apple ceased supporting Netscape Navigator. ISV that wants its software to run on liability in this case. See Microsoft III, 253 See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 73–74. Yet the Windows almost certainly would need to use F.3d at 54, 79. RPFJ does not require Microsoft to continue Microsoft’s development tools, the anti- VII. ADDITIONAL WEAKNESSES to offer Mac Office (much less to keep the exclusivity provision, like so many others in UNDERCUT THE RPFJ port current)—an expedient that would take the RPFJ, would have no practical effect. A. The Anti-Retaliation Provisions Are away Microsoft’s weapon rather than merely DOJ has defended this provision as Deeply Flawed admonishing it to behave well, and would necessary to permit legitimate Although anti-retaliation provisions are tend to undermine the applications barrier to ‘‘procompetitive collaborations.’’ CIS 44, 66 clearly necessary, the provisions in the RPFJ entry as well. Fed. Reg. 59,470. But the broad terms of the proceed from a misguided premise that B. Microsoft Can Evade The Price RPFJ itself provide little basis for hope that retaliation by the monopolist—abuse of Discrimination Restrictions the objects of joint ventures permitting monopoly power—is permitted unless The uniform pricing provisions in RPFJ exclusivity will not include a variety of squarely forbidden. The well-meaning § III(B) have too narrow a reach to provide ‘‘new’’ products that amount to little more restrictions in the RPFJ leave Microsoft with significant limits on Microsoft’s ability to than routine alterations to Windows and ample recourse to use its monopoly power to engage in price discrimination in order to other Microsoft products in conjunction with retaliate against those who aid competitive force OEMs to eschew non-Microsoft requests from other industry participants. It threats. See Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 31–32. products that may threaten Microsoft’s OS is not uncommon for an ISV to ask for a new Most important, the anti-retaliation monopoly. Microsoft’s well-known market API, or for an IHV to ask for some other provisions permit Microsoft to withdraw the position in other products permits easy specification in Windows. These exercises Windows license of any OEM (or other evasion of these limits. For example, nothing soon may become objects of ‘‘joint ventures’’ licensee) that does not serve Microsoft’s prevents Microsoft from discriminating in the or ‘‘joint development agreements’’ under anticompetitive bidding. The CIS (at 27, 66 pricing of its monopoly suite of desktop RPFJ § III(G). Fed. Reg. 59,466) suggests that the provision productivity applications, Microsoft Office, RPFJ § III(G)(1) undercuts its superficial of RPFJ § III(A) requiring notice and to which every OEM of any size needs access. prohibition on contracts that would require opportunity to cure a violation provides Moreover, the leading PC OEMs all build participants at different levels of the market some kind of protection to OEMs. But the server computers using Intel-based hardware, to install or promote Microsoft Platform protection is evanescent, disappearing and increasingly rely on revenue from servers Software to a ‘‘fixed percentage’’ of those entirely after two notices within a license to make up for the exceptionally low margins participants’’ own customers. Section term. See RPFJ § III(A). See also Stiglitz/ on desktop PCs. To continue in the Intel- III(G)(1) permits Microsoft to impose such Furman Dec. 31–32. based server business, PC OEMs must license contracts so long as it ‘‘in good faith obtains Such notices will become routine, quickly Microsoft’s server operating systems, which a representation that it is commercially and completely nullifying this provision. In are dominant on the Intel-based platform. practicable for the entity to provide equal or the rough-and-tumble of everyday business, The RPFJ places no limits on Microsoft’s greater distribution, promotion, use or parties frequently diverge in minor respects pricing of server operating systems, support for software that competes with
VerDate 11
Microsoft Platform Software.’’ Such selection and composition of the Technical The Revised Proposed Final Judgment representations should be easy to come by, so Committee problematic; the RPFJ’s should be rejected as contrary to the public long as Microsoft pays enough. There is restrictions on how the Technical Committee interest. nothing to require a single party making such can go about its business are equally Respectfully submitted. a representation actually to carry out the inadequate. For example, it is likely that all Donald M. Falk parallel distribution that it told Microsoft third-party allegations of misconduct by Mayer, Brown & Platt was ‘‘commercially practicable.’’ And it Microsoft will be reviewed by the Technical 555 College Avenue should be easy enough for Microsoft, through Committee. 20 But the Technical Committee Palo Alto, California 9430 a wink and a nod, to ensure that any such lacks any real power, and operates almost (650) 331–2030 representations were not accompanied by entirely in secrecy. Even if the Technical (650) 331–2060 facsimile efforts to prove that commercial Committee finds Microsoft to be violating the David M. Gossett practicability to Microsoft’s detriment. RPFJ, its sole recourse is to ‘‘advise Microsoft Mayer, Brown & Platt VIII. THE RPFJ’S ENFORCEMENT and the Plaintiffs of its conclusion and its 1909 K Street, NW MECHANISMS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY proposal for cure.’’ Id. IV(D)(4)(c). If DOJ or Washington, DC 20006 INADEQUATE. the settling State plaintiffs proceed with a (202) 263–3000 As we have shown above, the RPFJ fails complaint, none of the ‘‘work product, Dated: January 28, 2002 adequately to prevent Microsoft from findings or recommendations by the Edward J. Black engaging in illegal and anticompetitive Technical Committee may be admitted in any Jason M. Mahler practices, and allows it to continue the enforcement proceeding before the Court for Computer and Communications patterns of behavior that led to this litigation any purpose, and no member of the Industry Association in the first place. The RPFJ suffers from an Technical Committee shall testify by 666 1lth Street NW important secondary flaw, however: the deposition, in court or before any other Washington, DC 20001 enforcement mechanisms contained in tribunal regarding any matter related to [the (202) 783–0070 Section IV are fundamentally inadequate. RPFJ].’’ Id. § IV(D)(4)(d). Enforce- ment BEFORE THE UNITED STATES The RPFJ commits much of the practical would have to start over from scratch. In DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNITED enforcement responsibility to a ‘‘Technical effect, the Technical Committee’s STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. Committee,’’ RPFJ § IV(B), that would investigation is simply a waste of time. Even MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. monitor ‘‘enforcement of and compliance were the plaintiffs to decide, based on a Civil Action No. 98–1232 (CKK) with’’ the RPFJ. Id. § IV(B)(1). The Technical Technical Committee report, that Microsoft STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Attorney Committee is likely to impede enforcement had violated the RPFJ, the plaintiffs would General Eliot Spitzer, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. rather than aid it. need independently to investigate that Civil Action No. 98–1233 (CKK) First, Microsoft—the antitrust violator— violation under Section IV(A)(2). Indeed, the DECLARATION OF JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ could exert inappropriate control over the Technical Committee’s reports to the 20 AND JASON FURMAN membership of the Technical Committee. While third parties have the right to raise TABLE OF CONTENTS Rather than creating a special master or an complaints with the Internal Compliance I. QUALIFICATIONS—1 Officer, see RPFJ § IV(C)(3)(g), the RPFJ gives independent review committee to monitor II. PURPOSE—2 compliance with the consent decree, the them no incentive to do so; such complaints III. INTRODUCTION—2 RPFJ allows Microsoft to have an equal voice would merely allow a proven antitrust IV. THE MODERN ECONOMIC THEORY OF with the plaintiffs in choosing the members violator itself to determine whether it has COMPETITION AND MONOPOLY.—6 of the Technical Committee; indeed, violated the RPFJ or again violated the A. Acquisition of a monopoly—7 Microsoft may choose one of the three antitrust laws. Although the RPFJ also allows B. Potential for competition—10 members outright. Id. § IV(B)(3). Although third parties to submit complaints directly to C. Consequences of monopoly—12 appointing a special master with real (though the plaintiffs, see id. § IV(D)(1), the plaintiffs D. Monopolies and innovation—14 reviewable) power might make sense as a can thereafter at their sole discretion refer V. FACTS AND LEGAL CONCLUSIONS matter of judicial administration, allowing any such complaints to the Technical RELATING TO MICROSOFT—16 Microsoft to choose its own monitor makes Committee, id. § IV(D)(4)(a), or to the Internal A. Monopoly power—16 no sense at all. Compliance Officer, id. § IV(D)(3)(a). B. Anticompetitive behavior—17 The composition of the Technical plaintiffs will be secret. See RPFJ C. Effectiveness of anticompetitive behavior Committee suffers from a second defect. The § IV(B)(8)(e), (9). Ultimately, the Technical in maintaining the monopoly—19 RPFJ provides that ‘‘[t]he Technical Committee simply injects delay into the VI. OUTLINE OF AN EFFECTIVE CONDUCT Committee members shall be experts in process. But delay is indisputably in REMEDY—20 software design and programming.’’ RPFJ Microsoft’s interest; Microsoft’s monopolies A. Creating more choices for consumers—22 § IV(B)(2) (emphasis added). The bring it $1 billion each month in free cash B. Reducing the applications barrier to interpretation of the RPFJ is largely a legal flow, see Rebecca Buckman, Microsoft Has entry—23 matter, however, dependent on adequate the Cash, and Holders Suggest a Dividend, C. Preventing Microsoft from strengthening knowledge of the antitrust Section after WALL ST. J., Jan 18, 2002, at A3. Microsoft its operating system monopoly by bringing section of the RPFJ is extraordinarily vague. not only can afford to contest enforcement new products within its scope—23 19 Experts in software design simply will not vigorously, but would not have to postpone VII. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED FINAL have any basis adequately to review enforcement for long before the RPFJ expires. JUDGMENT—24 complaints that Microsoft’s 19 For example, Finally, the ‘‘crown jewel’’ provision in the A. Creating more choices for consumers—26 as we discussed above the RPFJ relies heavily RPFJ is grossly inadequate. If at any point the 1. Ensuring that OEMs and potentially ISVs on a ‘‘reasonableness’’ standard of conduct court were to find that Microsoft had have the right to modify fundamental that simply reproduces a full analysis under ‘‘engaged in a pattern of willful and aspects of the computer experience in any the antitrust laws. Antitrust remedies, like systematic violations,’’ RPFJ § V(B) (emphasis way they choose—27 other injunctive decrees, are supposed to be added), the RPFJ provides only one remedy 2. Ensuring that OEMs and ISVs have amenable to swift and sure enforcement, for plaintiffs or the court: to extend the adequate information and technical access according to standards that give warning of inadequate, and already overly-short, consent to develop applications for, or even what is forbidden and what is permitted both decree by ‘‘up to two years.’’ But that is no modifications to, Windows—29 to the wrongdoer and to its potential victims. deterrent. Willful and systematic violations 3. Ensuring that OEMs and ISVs are protected But again and again, the RPFJ would require should result in divestiture that terminates from retaliation by Microsoft for providing both the Technical Committee and eventually the illegally maintained monopoly once and alternatives to consumers—31 the decree court to determine whether for all. See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 103; 4. Ensuring that OEMs have financial Microsoft’s conduct was ‘‘reasonable.’’ United Shoe, 391 U.S. at 250. Slightly incentives to make changes that benefit behavior fails to comply with the RPFJ. prolonging a failed decree makes no sense at consumers—32 However, that is the entire purpose of the all. B. Reducing the applications barrier to Technical Committee. Not only is the CONCLUSION entry—34
VerDate 11
1. Middleware and the applications barrier to This Declaration was commissioned by the programmers to write applications to entry—34 Computer & Communications Industry Netscape and Java, meaning that such 2. Microsoft Office and the applications Association (CCIA) as an independent programs would then work on any operating barrier to entry—37 analysis of the competitive effects of the system that would run Netscape or lava. By C. Preventing Microsoft from strengthening Proposed Final Judgment. The views and reducing or even eliminating the cost of its operating system monopoly by opinions expressed in this Declaration are producing applications for different extending it to encompass additional solely those of the authors based on their operating systems, these technological rivals products—38 own detailed study of the relevant economic reduced the barriers to entry for a new VIII. STEPS TO IMPROVE THE PROPOSED theory and court documents; they do not operating system and threatened, over the FINAL JUDGMENT: THE LITIGATING necessarily reflect the views and opinions of longer run, to erode Microsoft’s monopoly in STATES’’ ALTERNATIVE—39 CCIA. In addition, the views and opinion Intel-compatible PC operating systems by A. Fostering competition through OEMs and expressed in this Declaration should not be allowing competitors to provide superior reducing the applications barrier to entry— attributed to any of the organizations with products at a lower cost. 40 which the authors are or have previously Microsoft’s conduct has effectively B. Internet Explorer browser open source and been associated. eliminated the threat posed by Netscape and Java distribution—41 III. INTRODUCTION Java. Given ongoing rapid technological C. Cross-platform porting of Office—42 Competition is the defining characteristic progress, it is impossible to predict with D. Mandatory disclosure to ensure of a market economy. It provides the certainty where the next challenge to interoperability—42 incentive to produce new products that Microsoft Windows will come from. The IX. CONCLUSION—43 consumers want, to improve efficiency and experience in this area, however, suggests I. QUALIFICATIONS lower the costs of production, and to pass on that it is likely to come from rivalry at the Our names are Joseph Stiglitz and Jason these innovations in the form of lower prices borders of operating systems, in particular Furman. Dr. Stiglitz is a Professor at for consumers. In a competitive market, a from ‘‘middleware’’ that makes it possible for Columbia Business School, Columbia’s firm that does not act in the best interests of programmers to write to the ‘‘middleware’’ Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (in the consumers will be punished and, ultimately, rather than to the underlying operating Department of Economics), and Columbia’s will fail. But when competition is system. One such example comes from the School of International and Public Affairs. In imperfect—or when it is nonexistent as in the increasingly important area of multimedia: 2001, Dr. Stiglitz was awarded the Nobel limiting case of monopoly—the incentives to streaming media players. Whether the next Prize in Economic Sciences. In addition, Dr. undertake these beneficial actions may be challenge to Microsoft’s operating systems Stiglitz serves as a Senior Director and attenuated. In fact, a firm may even face monopoly comes from a multimedia package Chairman of the Advisory Committee at incentives to behave in ways which do not or another technology, Microsoft will Sebago Associates, Inc., an economic and serve the interests of consumers or the continue to have the same incentives and public policy consulting firm. economy more generally. Monopoly power ability to stifle competition as it displayed Dr. Stiglitz previously served as the World may lead a firm to underinvest in innovation, against Netscape and Java in the mid- 1990s. Bank’s Chief Economist and Senior Vice misdirect its investments, or undertake other The principal goal of any remedy for President for Development Economics. activities in order to stifle competition rather Microsoft’s illegal behavior in this case Before joining the Bank, he was the Chairman than to improve products. Costs of should be to foster competition and expand of the President’s Council of Economic production may be excessive because the choices for consumers. The key to achieving Advisers. Dr. Stiglitz has also served as a monopolist has insufficient incentives for this goal is changing Microsoft’s incentives professor of economics at Stanford, efficiency, has incentives to undertake costly and taking steps to increase competition. A measures to deter competition, or undertakes Princeton, Yale, and All Souls College, structural remedy, such as splitting up the measures to raise rivals’’ costs. And Oxford. company, would most directly alter consumers will face higher prices and fewer As an academic, Dr. Stiglitz helped create incentives. Where such structural changes choices in the short run; in the long run, the a new branch of economics—‘‘The are not possible, the remedy should prohibit losses to consumers may be even more Economics of Information’’—which has and regulate the conduct that Microsoft has severe. received widespread application throughout used in the past and will have an incentive In a unanimous decision, the full Court of economics. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, to use in the future to eliminate threats from Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld the Dr. Stiglitz helped revive interest in the ‘‘middleware’’ products that threaten to limit District Court finding that Microsoft was economics of technical change and other its monopoly power by usurping some, and guilty of violating 2 of the Sherman Act factors that contribute to long-run increases perhaps eventually all, of the important in productivity and living standards. Dr. through its illegal maintenance of a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible functions of the Windows operating system. Stiglitz is also a leading scholar of The Revised Proposed Final Judgment personal computer (PC) operating systems.1 competition policy. (PFJ) of November 6, 2001 does not change In 1979, the American Economic The Court of Appeals also affirmed numerous findings of fact concerning the consequences Microsoft’s incentives to undertake Association awarded Dr. Stiglitz its biennial anticompetitive acts to stifle consumer John Bates Clark Award, given to the of this illegal monopolization for misdirecting innovation, raising rivals’’ costs, choice by thwarting potentially superior economist under 40 who has made the most 3 and limiting consumer choice. products ) Furthermore, the PFJ provides few significant contributions to economics. His effective prohibitions against future work has also been recognized through his The desire to maintain this monopoly, even against potentially superior products, anticompetitive conduct: It alternatively election as a fellow to the National Academy ratifies Microsoft’s existing conduct, contains of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts creates a powerful incentive for Microsoft to eliminate or weaken competition that could sufficient loopholes to allow Microsoft to and Sciences, and the American circumvent the legislation, and suffers from Philosophical Society, as well as his election erode or even eliminate its monopoly. In the mid-1990s, the principal threat to Microsoft’s toothless enforcement procedures that would as a corresponding fellow of the British allow Microsoft to reap the fruits of its Academy. He has also been awarded several Windows operating system came from the development of the Netscape browser and monopoly for a significant, and potentially honorary doctorates. even indefinite, period. In our view, the PFJ Java technologies,2 which allowed Jason Furman is a Lecturer in economics at would leave intact Microsoft’s ability to Yale University. In addition, Mr. Furman is 1 maintain, and benefit from, its Windows a Director at Sebago Associates. Mr. Furman United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 operating system monopoly, while allowing previously served as Special Assistant to the (DC Cir. 2001). 2 President for Economic Policy at the White ‘‘The Java technologies include: (1) a See 253 F.3d at 74, citing Findings of Fact ¶ 73, House, where his responsibilities included programming language; (2) a set of programs written in that language, called the ‘Java class libraries,’’ United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9, tax policy, the Federal budget, Social which expose APIs; (3) a compiler, which translates 29 (D.DC 1999). Security, anti-poverty programs, and other code written by a developer into ‘bytecode’; and (4) 3 United States v. Microsoft Corp., Revised economic policy issues. a Java Virtual Machine (‘JVM’), which translates Proposed Final Judgment, in the U.S. District Court II. PURPOSE bytecode into instructions to the operating system.’’ for D.C, November 6, 2001.
VerDate 11
it to continue to limit choices for consumers A. Acquisition of a monopoly files created under one applications software and stifle innovation. The traditional view of monopoly is that in program may not be easily or perfectly The PFJ does not even accomplish the specific industries, like public utilities, transferable to others, there are large costs limited remedial goals articulated in the U.S. increasing returns to scale create a situation associated with switching. As a result, Department of Justice’s Competitive Impact in which luck or initial success will consumers will evaluate, among other Statement (CIS).4 Specifically, in addition to eventually lead to one firm that can maintain factors, the current existence of compatible its loopholes and its inadequate enforcement its monopoly by controlling an entire market applications and the likely number of future mechanism, the PFJ is entirely silent on and thus benefiting from the lower average compatible applications.8 8 The current several key findings of the Court of Appeals, costs of production that result from the larger number of compatible applications is likely including the commingling of applications scale of production. This aspect of the to depend directly on the past and current and operating systems code, the pollution of traditional view is still salient in the software market share of the operating system. A Java, and the applications barrier to entry market. Producing a software program has consumer’s reasonable evaluation of the more broadly. high fixed costs in the form of investments prospects for the continued support of his or The PFJ should be rejected and replaced in research and development but, once this her favorite applications and the with a remedy that changes Microsoft’s investment has been made, virtually no development of new applications is also incentives to unfetter the market for marginal cost from producing additional likely to be based on current market share. competition. At a minimum, a remedy in this units. As a result, the larger the scale of As a result, increased market share indirectly case needs to restrain Microsoft’s conduct, by production, the lower the average cost. By increases the desirability of an operating restricting the means through which itself, these increasing returns to scale will system. Microsoft can illegally maintain and benefit provide a powerful force for consolidation. Empirically, this applications barrier to from its monopoly. The modem view of monopoly has added entry is dramatic. At its peak in the mid- The goal of this Declaration is to analyze an additional effect that can strengthen the 1990s, IBM’s operating system, OS/2 Warp, the PFJ. It does not propose a detailed advantages enjoyed by the lucky or initially had 10 percent of the market for operating alternative remedy. It is important to note, 6 successful firm: network effects. 6 Network systems for Intel-compatible PCs and ran however, that the proposal by the litigating effects arise when the desirability of a approximately 2,500 applications. In States, while imperfect, is clearly superior to product depends not just on the the PFJ in all of these regards. We do not contrast, Windows supported over 70,000 characteristics of the product itself but also applications.9 Establishing a new operating address more aggressive remedies—such as on how many other people are using it. structural changes to break up Microsoft or system that effectively competes head-to- Network externalities may be direct: as a head with Windows would require the impose more extensive limitations on its user of Microsoft Word, I benefit when many intellectual property rights—but we note that hugely expensive task of attracting ISVs to other people also use the program because it port thousands or even tens of thousands of such broader measures may well be is easier to share Word files. Network necessary and desirable in order to alter programs to the new operating system, a externalities may also be indirect: I am more process with a substantial fixed cost and, in Microsoft’s incentives for anti-competitive likely to purchase a computer and operating 5 the absence of a large guaranteed market, behavior. We are convinced, however, that system if I know that more software choices the PFJ fails to meet the minimum little scope to benefit from economies of are currently available (and will be available scale. Particularly important to the requirement of an acceptable remedy—that in the future) for this system. An operating is, it is unlikely to substantially increase applications barrier to entry is the system with a larger set of existing (and availability of applications providing key competition in the relevant market. expected) compatible applications will be The remainder of this Declaration contains functionalities, such as office productivity. more desirable. This indirect network effect Microsoft’s dominance in this area, and its five sections. First, it presents a brief has been called the ‘‘applications barrier to discussion of the modem theory of choice about whether or not to port its entry.’’ 7 The main reason that consumers competition, focusing on its relation to Microsoft Office program to alternative demand a particular operating system is its innovation. Second, it summarizes the operating systems, can add a new and even ability to run the applications that they want. relevant facts and legal conclusions relating higher level to the applications barrier to In developing applications, Independent to Microsoft. Third, it outlines what an entry. Software Vendors (ISVs) incur substantial effective remedy in this case should entail. With this barrier to entry, a monopoly once sunk costs and thus face increasing returns Fourth, it examines the PFJ and highlights its established may be hard to dislodge. to scale. This motivates ISVs to first write to deficiencies in comparison to this effective Anticompetitive practices early in the the operating system with the largest remedy. Finally, the paper concludes with a competitive struggle can lead to a market installed base. Because ‘‘porting’’ an brief discussion of practical measures that dominance that can persist, even if the application to a different operating system could provide a more effective remedy. anticompetitive practices which gave rise to will result in substantial additional fixed IV. THE MODERN ECONOMIC THEORY the monopoly position are subsequently costs, a firm will have less incentive to OF COMPETITION AND MONOPOLY prohibited. These hysteresis effects are produce the application for operating This section presents a brief overview of reinforced by switching costs. Learning a systems with a smaller installed base, and the modem economic theory of competition language or a program interface may involve may do so with a delay or forgo porting and monopoly. The theory of competition significant costs. Users must therefore be completely. has evolved rapidly in the last few decades, convinced that an alternative program is The applications barrier to entry can skew due in part to the natural evolution of substantially superior if they are to be competition for an extended period of time economic thought and in part to the issues induced to incur the learning and other costs and ensure that any monopoly power, once raised by the ‘‘new economy’’ (such as the associated with switching to an alternative established, will tend to persist. In choosing importance of network effects and rapid product. These ‘‘lock in’’ effects make it more a PC and an operating system, consumers innovation). Given the vast literature on the difficult to dislodge a firm that has make a large fixed investment. In addition, topic, this discussion is necessarily selective established a dominant position, even when because a considerable amount of learning is and focuses on the most relevant issues for it is technically inferior to rivals. Microsoft’s monopoly of the market for associated with the use of operating systems This perspective has two important policy operating systems for Intel-compatible PCs. and associated applications, and because implications. First, it is imperative to address This theoretical background motivates the anticompetitive practices as quickly as conclusions about the PFJ. 6 For an overall survey, see Michael Katz and Carl possible. Delay is not only costly, but it Shapiro (1994), ‘‘Systems Competition and Network impedes the restoration of competition even 4 Effects.’’ Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8:2, 93– U.S. Department of Justice (November 15, 2001), in the longer run. Second, prohibiting the Competitive Impact Statement in United States vs. 115. For a specific application to Microsoft, see Microsoft Corp. Timothy Bresnahan (2001), ‘‘The Economics of the 5 Restrictions on intellectual property rights have Microsoft Case.’’ Mimeo available at http:// 8 Nicholas Economides (1996), ‘‘The Economics been used as a remedy in past antitrust cases, for www.stanford.edu/tbres/Microsoft/The Economics of Networks.’’ International Journal of Industrial example IBM’s 1956 tabulating machines case, in a of The Microsoft Case.pdf. Organization, 14:2. manner that is both effective and largely without 7 Franklin Fisher, ‘‘Direct Testimony of Franklin 9 Findings of Fact, ¶ 40 and ¶ 46, 84 F. Supp. 2d adverse effects. Fisher’’ in United States v. Microsoft Corp. at 20, 22.
VerDate 11
practices that gave rise to the monopoly may Windows by allowing a greater variety of that the value placed on the forgone not suffice to restore competition. Stronger programs to function on a greater variety of consumption by consumers exceeds its cost conduct, and possibly structural, remedies operating systems. The social benefits from to producers.16 may be required. such innovation were likely significant, but Over the last few decades, economists have B. Potential for competition Microsoft would have experienced substantially enhanced this traditional theory In the most simplistic view, a monopoly significant losses from the innovation and explored other ways in which market once attained is permanent. Increasing through the erosion of its monopoly power. power imposes social costs. The modem view returns to scale and network externalities Similarly, this same point can provide the is that when competition is imperfect, firms make the monopolist impregnable—any new rationale for structural or conduct remedies try to maintain and extend their market entrant can be priced out of business by the that can potentially reduce barriers to entry power by taking actions to restrict monopolist—which can then go back to and thus increase competition in part, or all, competition. firms is producing innovations charging the monopoly price for the product. of the market. The fundamental idea is that In the world of perfect competition, the In contrast to this simplistic static view, Microsoft acted as it did because it was afraid source of success for that benefit consumers the economist Joseph Schumpeter presented that Netscape and Java would reduce the and reduce prices. In the world of imperfect a dynamic vision of technological change applications barrier to entry and thus competition, an additional—and perhaps giving rise to a series of temporary undermine its operating systems monopoly. paramount—source of success is the effort to monopolies. In his vision, the most By preventing this anticompetitive behavior, reap monopoly profits, capture rents, deter successful firm in a winner-take-all contest and indeed promoting competition, a entry into the market, restrict competition, would become a temporary monopolist, conduct remedy could have precisely the and raise rivals’’ costs.17 benefiting from the rents that this monopoly opposite effect, creating the conditions for Under the new view, the social costs of confers—a process necessary to justify the dynamic, innovative Schumpeterian monopolies go well beyond the ‘‘Harberger incurring the sunk costs in research and competition that would otherwise be absent triangles’’ that result from higher prices and development required to obtain the in this market. restricted output. In fact, even if the monopoly in the first place. But, in the In understanding the monopoly in the monopolist is not currently restricting Schumpeterian vision, this monopoly would operating systems market, and how it fits into output, the steps taken to maintain the eventually be toppled by entry as a newly the overall PC platform, it is useful to monopoly will result in substantial economic innovative entrant displaced the monopolist introduce some issues specific to this area. inefficiencies and costs to society. These with a superior product, thus reaping the Timothy Bresnahan, a Professor of costs may be far larger than the monopoly benefits of increasing returns to scale and Economics at Stanford University and a profits and far larger than the Harberger network externalities.10 former Deputy Assistant Attorney General triangles. These social losses reflect higher The real world likely lies somewhere and Chief Economist at the U.S. Department costs of production (both for the firm and its between these two views. A monopoly is not of Justice Antitrust Division, formulated the rival), limited or distorted investment in a fixed part of the economic landscape. But concept of ‘‘Divided Technical innovation, a restricted set of potentially the downfall of a monopoly is not inevitable. Leadership.’’ 13 The concept is that although inferior choices for consumers, and, in the In fact, more recent economic research each aspect of the platform is dominated by long run, higher prices. strongly indicates that Schumpeter’s a single company, different companies D. Monopolies and innovation conclusion was wrong; when restraints on dominate different ‘‘layers’’ of the platform: The information technology industry is anticompetitive conduct are absent, a ‘‘At one stage, all of IBM and Compaq characterized by a rapid rate of technological monopoly can take steps to ensure that it is (computer), Microsoft (OS), Intel (CPU), change. As the modem theory of competition likely to be perpetuated.11 These steps can Netware (networking OS), WordPerfect and and monopoly underscores, it is important to suppress the overall level of innovation and Lotus (near-universal applications) focus not just on the static issues that affect have other high social costs.12 Significant participated in technological leadership of consumers today, but also on how the 14 network effects combined with switching the PC platform.’’ In a situation of divided mixture of monopoly, competition, and the costs, as discussed above, represent one way technical leadership, according to Bresnahan, intellectual property regime affects the pace in which a firm can perpetuate its market competition comes from two sources: ‘‘(1) and direction of innovation. power. firms in one layer encouraging entry and Schumpeter emphasized that monopolies epochal change in another layer and (2) would provide both the incentives and the Understanding this point is central to 15 understanding what motivated the actions of rivalry at layer boundaries.’’ To the degree means for innovation. According to that divided technical leadership is absent, Microsoft in promoting Internet Explorer and Schumpeter, the fear of losing monopoly because for example Microsoft controls many restraining Netscape and Java, and also to rents would drive a monopolist to continue of the layers (operating system, office understanding the motivations of a conduct innovating and these monopoly rents—or the applications, networking, browsers, etc.), remedy to improve competition. Network promise of further monopoly rents in the competition will be restricted. Any measures externalities are not a ‘‘d factor’’ in the future—would provide the financing for to facilitate divided technical leadership, economic landscape. They depend, at least in these innovations. Schumpeter’s vision even if they leave the monopoly at any given part, on decisions by the monopolist. A contains elements of truth: the threat of layer intact, will facilitate competition and monopolist has substantial resources at its competition may induce monopolists to thereby benefit consumers in the form of disposal to strengthen barriers to entry and invest more in innovation than it otherwise greater innovation, more choices, and lower might. But the pace of innovation may be thus to maintain and strengthen its monopoly prices. power. Exclusionary conduct by the even higher if the incumbent’s monopoly C. Consequences of monopoly power were curtailed. Monopoly power monopoly can be used to prevent a reduction Traditional economic theory suggests that in the barriers to entry or even affirmatively could lower the pace of innovation for four the principal consequence of a monopoly is reasons. to raise them even higher. Java and Netscape to raise prices and restrict production. This would have reduced the monopoly power of First, previous innovations are inputs into combination has two consequences. First, any subsequent innovation. Monopoly power higher prices allow the monopolist to capture can be thought of as increasing the cost of 10 Joseph Schumpeter (1942 / 1984), Capitalism, some of the surplus previously enjoyed by Socialism and Democracy. Harper Collins, New one of the central inputs into follow-on consumers. Second, restricted production innovations. Standard economic theory York. results in a deadweight loss for society, the 11 See, among other references, Richard Gilbert so-called ‘‘Harberger triangle,’’ to the extent and David Newbery (1980), ‘‘Preemptive Patenting 16 Arnold Harberger (1954), ‘‘Monopoly and and the Persistence of Monopoly.’’ American Resource Allocation,’’ AEA Papers and Proceedings, Economic Review 72(3), pp. 514–526 and Partha 13 Timothy Bresnahan and Shane Greenstein 44: 77–87. Dasgupta and Joseph Stiglitz (1980), ‘‘Uncertainty, (1999), ‘‘Technological Competition and the 17 Partha Dasgupta and Joseph Stiglitz (1998), Market Structure and the Speed of R&D,’’ Bell Structure of the Computer Industry.’’ Journal of ‘‘Potential Competition, Actual Competition and Journal of Economics, 11 (1), pp. 1–28. Industrial Economics, 47(1): pp. 140 and Bresnahan Economic Welfare.’’ European Economic Review, 12 Joseph Stiglitz (1987). ‘‘Technological Change, (2001). 32: 569–577. For an extended discussion and Sunk Costs, and Competition.’’ Brookings Papers on 14 Bresnahan (2001), p. 5. additional references see Joseph Stiglitz (1994), Economic Activity, 3, pp. 883–937. 15 Bresnahan (2001), p. 6. Whither Socialism, MIT Press, Cambridge.
VerDate 11
predicts that as the cost of inputs into any than under a per se rule; the U.S. Department areas. The key instances of this activity increases, the level of that activity of Justice chose not pursue this issue further. anticompetitive behavior found by the Court falls. The Court of Appeals also vacated the of Appeals include: Restrictive Licenses to Second, with more substantial barriers to District Court’s Final Judgment, in part Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs).22 entry, the threat of Schumpeterian because of the narrowed scope of the Microsoft’s Windows license placed competition and therefore the incentives to judgment on the conclusions of law. restrictions on OEMs that limited their ability innovate are diminished. In the extreme case, The current task in this case is to develop to change the look of the Windows desktop, if a monopoly could ensure that there were a remedy that addresses the central finding the placement or removal of icons for no threat of competition, it would no longer of the Court of Appeals: the monopolization browsers, or the initial boot sequence. The have to innovate. A monopolist’s of the operating systems market. This result was to increase the user share of anticompetitive actions to raise barriers to judgment was based on findings of fact and Internet Explorer, not because of its merits, entry will reduce its future incentives to conclusions of law in three areas: Microsoft but because Microsoft limited the crucial innovate, similarly measures that increase has monopoly power in the relevant market, OEM channel of distribution for Explorer’s competition will increase the Schumpeterian Microsoft behaved anticompetitively, and chief rival, Netscape. u´ Integration of Internet incentive. Microsoft’s anticompetitive behavior Explorer into Windows.23 Microsoft Third, innovation itself may be misdirected contributed to the maintenance of its discouraged OEMs from installing other in order to secure a monopoly by deterring monopoly. These are briefly discussed in browsers and deterred consumers from using entry and raising rivals’’ costs. In operating turn. them by not including Internet Explorer in systems, for example, the development of A. Monopoly power the Add/Remove programs list for Windows alternative proprietary standards and the Monopoly power is the power to set prices 98 and commingling the operating system without regard to competition. It can be construction of non-interoperable and browser code. inferred by the combination of market share middleware are examples of innovations that u´ Agreements with Internet Access in the relevant market and significant barriers could potentially strengthen monopoly Providers (IAPs).24 Microsoft engaged in to entry. The District Court found that power. exclusionary conduct to restrict the second Microsoft’s share of the worldwide market for Fourth, the incentives of a monopoly to main distribution channel for Netscape by 18 Intel- compatible PC operating systems innovate are limited. Since a monopolist exceeded 90 percent in every year of the offering IAPs, including America Online, the produces less than the socially optimal 1990s and has risen to 19 253 F.3d at 46. opportunity to be prominently featured in output, the savings from a reduction in the more than 95 percent in recent years. Windows in exchange for using the Internet cost of production are less than in a Microsoft did not dispute these facts, but Explorer browser exclusively. Dealings with 25 competitive market. Also, a monopolist’s instead argued that the relevant market was ISVs and Apple. Microsoft further incentives to undertake research will not lead broader and should include all platform restricted additional outlets for Netscape by it to the socially efficient level. Rather, its software (e.g., servers, handheld devices, providing ISVs with preferential access to concern is only how fast it must innovate in Macintosh computers, etc.). The Court of information about forthcoming releases of order to stave off the competition—a level of Appeals, however, rejected Microsoft’s Windows 98 in exchange for their writing to innovation that may be markedly lower than attempt to broaden the definition of the Internet Explorer rather than Netscape. In socially optimal. Consider, for example, a market, agreeing with the District Court that addition, Microsoft negotiated with Apple to simple patent race in which a monopoly these other platforms were not ‘‘‘reasonably restrict the ability of Macintosh consumers to incumbent can observe the position (at least interchangeable by consumers for the same use Netscape in exchange for continuing to partially) of potential rivals. The purposes.’’’ 20 develop and support Microsoft Office for the monopolist’s incentive is to move out in front In addition, the Court of Appeals affirmed Macintosh operating system. u´ Polluting Java. of the potential rivals by just enough to the finding that Microsoft’s dominant market The Court of Appeals also found that much convince them that they cannot beat the share was likely to persist. This conclusion of Microsoft’s behavior vis- a-vis Java was an monopolist. Given those beliefs, the rivals do was based on the substantial barriers to entry, attempt to limit a threat to its operating not engage in research, and the monopolist including increasing returns to scale and the system monopoly rather than benefit can then slow down its research to a lower applications barrier to entry discussed above. consumers. These illegal actions included level (since it no longer faces a viable threat). As a result, according to the Court of entering into contracts requiring ISVs to In short, monopolization not only harms Appeals, ‘‘Because the applications barrier to write exclusively to Microsoft’s Java Virtual consumers by raising prices and reducing entry protects a dominant operating system Machine, misleading ISVs into thinking that output in the short run, but may reduce irrespective of quality, it gives Microsoft the Microsoft’s Java tools were cross-platform innovation in the long run. These long-run power to stave off even superior new rivals. compatible, and forcing Intel to terminate its harms, which are especially important in The barrier is thus a characteristic of the work with Sun Microsystems on Java.26 innovative industries, may substantially operating systems market, not of Microsoft’s exceed the short-run costs to consumers. popularity.’’ 21 22 The Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of v. FACTS AND LEGAL CONCLUSION B. Anticompetitive behavior this anticompetitive behavior slightly, rejecting the RELATING TO MICROSOFT The Court of Appeals found numerous District Court’s finding that Microsoft’s restrictions In its decision, the Court of Appeals instances where Microsoft behaved on alternative interfaces was anticompetitive, affirmed the District Court’s overall anticompetitively through exclusionary arguing that the ‘‘marginal anticompetitive effect’’ judgment, albeit on a narrowed factual and conduct that harmed consumers, had an of Microsoft’s license restrictions was outweighed anticompetitive effect, and had either no by the alternative, the ‘‘drastic alteration of legal basis. The Court of Appeals concluded Microsoft’s copyrighted work.’’ See 253 F.3d at 63. ‘‘procompetitive justification’’ or an that ‘‘Microsoft violated § 2 of the Sherman 23 The Court of Appeals, however, overruled the Act by employing anticompetitive means to insufficient ‘‘procompetitive justification’’ to District Court in one instance, finding a sufficient maintain a monopoly in the operating system outweigh the harm. These actions, according justification for the fact that in certain situations market.’’ 19 In addition, the Court of Appeals to the Court of Appeals, had the intention Internet Explorer will override user defaults and overturned the lower court’s judgment that and effect of preserving or increasing the launch, for example when alternative browsers do Microsoft violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by applications barrier to entry. The Court of not provide the functionality required by Windows attempting to monopolize the web browser Appeals upheld most of the general Update. See 253 F.3d at 67. 24 market. The Court of Appeals remanded the categories of anticompetitive behavior The Court of Appeals found that several decision on whether the tying of Internet originally found by 20 253 F.3d at 52, inducements offered by Microsoft to encourage IAPs to use Internet Explorer were not Explorer to Windows violated § 1 of the quoting United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 395 (1956). anticompetitive. See 253 F.3d at 68. Sherman Act and indicated that tying should 25 the District Court, but overturned some of The Court of Appeals overturned the finding be evaluated under the rule of reason, rather that Microsoft’s deals with Internet Content the District Court’s specific findings in these Providers were anticompetitive. See 253 F.3d at 71. 18 Kenneth Arrow (1962), ‘‘Economic Welfare and 26 See 253 F.3d at 74–78. The Court of Appeals, the Allocation of Resources for Invention.’’ In The 20 253 F.3d at 52, quoting United States v. E.I. du however, found a sufficient procompetitive Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 395 (1956). justification for Microsoft’s development of its own University Press, Princeton: pp. 609–625. 21 253 F.3d at 56. version of a Java virtual machine. See id. at 74–75.
VerDate 11
C. Effectiveness of anticompetitive fashion a remedy that is ‘‘tailored to fit the appeal to consumers. Not only will behavior in maintaining the monopoly wrong creating the occasion for the consumers benefit from the greater product Finally, the Court of Appeals found that remedy.’’ 29 In the CIS, the Department of choice, but entry and competition may be Microsoft’s anticompetitive efforts to increase Justice appears to take a minimal view of the enhanced as consumers learn how to interact usage of Internet Explorer and Microsoft’s goals of a remedy, writing that it should with a variety of interfaces. At a minimum, Java Virtual Machine at the expense of ‘‘eliminate Microsoft’s illegal practices, empowering OEMs and possibly ISVs to Netscape and Sun’s Java had the effect of prevent recurrence of the same or similar create more choices for consumers would increasing the applications barrier to entry practices, and restore the competitive threat involve: (1) the right to modify the desktop, and thus helping to maintain Microsoft’s that middleware products posed prior to the start menu, or other fundamental aspects monopoly of the market for operating Microsoft’s unlawful undertakings.’’ 30 We of the computer experience so that OEMs can systems for Intel-compatible PCs. This believe that the PFJ fails even within the market PCs with alternative overall ‘‘looks’’, finding is the crucial link to the economics narrow terms that the Department of Justice different software packages (including of the case; a monopoly is neither set for itself. supplementing, replacing, or removing automatically permanent nor automatically The Court of Appeals appears to provide Microsoft middleware), and to offer lower- transient. Rather, its persistence depends, in guidance for a broader remedy, quoting the priced options with reduced features; (2) part, on the barriers to entry which, in turn, Supreme Court in saying that the role of a adequate information and technical access to depend on the actions of the monopolist and remedies decree in an antitrust case is to develop applications for, and even the regulation of the government. This ‘‘unfetter a market from anticompetitive modifications to, functionalities included finding is also crucial to the development of conduct’’ and ‘‘terminate the illegal with Windows, which would allow ISVs to proposed remedies. monopoly, deny the defendant the fruits of develop their own bundle of the Windows Specifically, the Court of Appeals found its statutory violation, and ensure that there operating system plus applications (and/or that although neither Netscape nor Java remain no practices likely to result in minus Microsoft middleware) that could be posed an imminent threat of completely monopolization in the future.’’ 31 marketed either to OEMs or directly to end replacing all the functions of the operating One type of potential remedy, imposed by users; (3) protection from retaliation by system (and thus should be excluded from the District Court but vacated by the Court of Microsoft for engaging in this conduct; and the definition of the relevant market for the Appeals, is structural. Such a structural (4) financial incentives to make changes that test of monopoly power), they did pose a remedy would involve breaking Microsoft benefit consumers. nascent threat to Microsoft’s future into two or more companies with the goal of B. Reducing the applications barrier to dominance of the operating system market. establishing a new set of incentives that entry Though not part of the ‘‘operating systems foster competition. Although potentially The central goal of Microsoft’s illegal market,’’ they clearly affected the nature of disruptive in the short run, the goal of a conduct was to preserve and strengthen the competition in this market. Both Netscape structural remedy is to terminate the applications barrier to entry so that the and Java established Applications monopoly and create the structural Windows operating system continued to be Programming Interfaces (APIs) that allowed essential to desktop computing. An effective conditions to prevent it from re-emerging, developers to write some programs to conduct remedy in this case should take without requiring ongoing regulation or Netscape and Java. These programs would steps to reduce the applications barrier to supervision by the court or the government. then be able to run on any operating system entry, by creating conditions conducive to Such structural remedies are particularly that runs Netscape or Java. The result would more competition and by requiring Microsoft suitable when there have been a wide variety be, at least in one segment of applications, a to undertake actions that would lower that of anticompetitive practices in the past and dramatic reduction in the applications barrier barrier. Reducing the applications barrier to when changing market conditions (such as to entry. No longer would software entry is consistent with the findings of the innovation) provide opportunities for new developers have to incur additional costs to Court of Appeals and is central to an effective run on additional operating systems. As a types of anticompetitive conduct in the remedy in this case. Although the Court of result, Netscape and Java had the potential to future. Structural remedies have the further Appeals rejected or remanded the District act as a crucial level of ‘‘middleware’’ advantage of fundamentally altering Court’s findings of liability for tying and for between the operating system and the incentives. monopolization of the browser market, both programs, and eventually could A second type of potential remedy relates of these actions were central to the Court’s ‘‘commoditize the underlying operating to conduct or licensing, seeking to prevent finding of liability on the § 2 Sherman Act system,’’ to use the memorable words of anticompetitive conduct and foster violation for monopolizing the market for then-Microsoft Chairman and CEO Bill Gates competition. A conduct remedy has the operating systems. The Court found that in an internal memo.27 advantage of avoiding the dramatic and Microsoft used commingling of code and The Court of Appeals wrote: potentially deleterious changes associated other exclusionary measures to increase the We may infer causation when exclusionary with a structural remedy, but suffers from the market share for Internet Explorer and reduce conduct is aimed at producers of nascent defect that it is necessarily complicated and the distribution of Netscape and Java in order competitive technologies as well as when it requires at least some involvement of the to strengthen the Windows monopoly. is aimed at producers of established court and the government in regulating There are two specific aspects to reducing substitutes... the question in this case is not private enterprise. Ideally, a conduct remedy the applications barrier to entry: whether Java or Navigator would actually would also be structured to affect incentives: (1) encouraging competition in middleware have developed into viable platform in particular, such a remedy should raise the in a manner that makes it easier for substitutes, but (1) whether as a general costs of acting in an exclusionary manner. developers to write programs that run on a matter the exclusion of nascent threats is the The remainder of this section discusses an variety of operating systems, and (2) type of conduct that is reasonably capable of outline of the elements of an effective requiring Microsoft to port its dominant contributing significantly to a defendant’s conduct remedy that seeks to achieve three applications to alternative operating systems. continued monopoly power and (2) whether goals: creating more choices for consumers, C. Preventing Microsoft from strengthening Java and Navigator reasonably constituted reducing the applications barrier to entry, its operating system monopoly by bringing nascent threats at the time Microsoft engaged and preventing Microsoft from strengthening new products within its scope in the anticompetitive conduct at issue.’’ 28 its operating systems monopoly by bringing Microsoft’s ability to leverage its Windows The court answered in the affirmative on new products within its scope. A. Creating monopoly to control other aspects of both issues. more choices for consumers computing that then reinforce the Windows VI. OUTLINE OF AN EFFECTIVE A conduct remedy should empower rival monopoly is a key part of its strategy of 23 CONDUCT REMEDY computer companies to modify their own anticompetitive conduct that formed the The Court of Appeals was clear that the versions of the computer experience to foundation for the Court o[ Appeals ruling. District Court has ‘‘broad discretion’’ to To deal with the anticompetitive practices 29 253 F.3d at 105, 107. that are ‘‘likely to result in monopolization 27 United States v. Microsoft Corp., Government 30 CIS, p. 3. in the future’’ requires a remedy that Exhibit 20. 31 253 F.3d at 103, quoting Ford Motor Co. v. addresses not just areas of past misconduct, 28 253 F.3d at 79. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972). but emerging areas as well.
VerDate 11
The next section compares the actual incentives will persist under the PFJ; given ensuring that OEMs and ISVs have adequate agreement to these elements. these incentives, it impossible to foresee—let information and technical access to develop VII. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED alone effectively prohibit—the wide variety applications for, and even modifications to, FINAL JUDGMENT of potentially anticompetitive conduct that Windows; (3) ensuring that they are The PFJ fails to fulfill even the minimal may result. Indeed, the reason that many protected from retaliation by Microsoft for goals set by the CIS. It does not address many economists have argued for the more drastic providing alternatives to consumers; and (4) of the proven illegal practices, including structural settlement (such splitting up ensuring that they have financial incentives commingling, polluting Java, and Microsoft) is that such structural changes to make changes that benefit consumers. The strengthening the applications barrier to would alter incentives.34 Though the Court of PFJ is deficient in all four. entry more broadly. Furthermore, in our Appeals has determined that such a remedy 1. Ensuring that OEMs and potentially ISVs judgment the PFJ would not ‘‘restore the might be too drastic, the imperative in have the right to modify fundamental aspects competitive threat that middleware products evaluating any remedy is to ascertain its of the computer experience in any way they posed prior to Microsoft’s unlawful impact on incentives. 32 choose undertakings.’’ Nothing in the PFJ would The following analyzes the details of the The PFJ codifies several new rights for be likely to resuscitate the conditions of PFJ by comparing it to the principles OEMs to modify the desktop or the computer greater ‘‘divided technical leadership’’ that outlined in the previous section. Our experience, some of which were already prevailed in the mid-1990s when Netscape discussion does not aim to be voluntarily announced by Microsoft on July and Java both presented a serious threat to comprehensive, but instead to focus on areas 11,2001 and implemented with the release of Microsoft, which Microsoft suppressed that illustrate or represent important through anticompetitive actions. economic aspects of the PFJ. Although the Windows XP on October 25, 2001. The PFJ also falls dramatically short of all enforcement aspects of the PFJ, in particular Specifically, Section III.C of the PFJ prohibits three elements of the guidelines that appear the powers of the Technical Committee, are Microsoft from restricting OEMs from to have been endorsed by the Court of essential to understanding the limitations of ‘‘Installing or displaying icons, shortcuts, or Appeals for the DC Circuit: it allows the agreement, we only briefly discuss these menu entries for, any Non-Microsoft Microsoft’s illegal monopoly in operating issues. Middleware... distributing or promoting Non- systems to continue and perhaps even be A. Creating more choices for consumers Microsoft Middleware by installing and strengthened, it allows Microsoft to keep the In developing a remedy, the court is well displaying on the desktop shortcuts of any fruits of its statutory violation, and it leaves aware of its technical shortcomings in size or shape...’’ among other actions. intact all of the incentives— and many of the deciding exactly what should or should not This new required latitude, however, is means—for Microsoft to maintain and extend be included as part of an operating system unduly limited in several respects: New its monopoly in the future, especially in the today—or in the future. Neither should these flexibility is quite narrow. OEMs can only important emerging areas of web services, determinations be made solely by a modify the initial boot screen to market IAPs multimedia, and hand-held computing. monopolist. These choices should be made to users, but cannot modify it to uninstall The main impact of the PFJ is to codify by consumers through the choices they have Microsoft middleware or to market much of Microsoft’s existing conduct. Where between different OEMs and ISVs. Stanford middleware that competes with Microsoft the agreement limits Microsoft’s conduct, Law Professor Lawrence Lessig described this middleware (Section III.C.5). Nothing in the there are often sufficient exceptions, strategy as follows: ‘‘To use the market to PFJ would allow ISVs to acquire licenses to loopholes, or alternative actions that police Microsoft’s monopoly... by assuring create their own bundles of Windows plus Microsoft could undertake to make the initial that computer manufacturers and software applications to market to consumers or conduct limits meaningless. Even where the vendors remain free to bundle and support OEMs, a measure that could enhance limits are binding, Microsoft could still flout non-Microsoft software without fear of competition by bringing additional the conduct restrictions without fear of a punishment by Microsoft.’’35 We agree with participants with substantial experience in timely enforcement mechanism. Because the Professor Lessig that this should be among software development into the market. While 33 Technical Committee is essentially the goals of a final judgment and that the the benefits to consumers and competition of advisory and only has expertise in software current agreement is woefully inadequate in allowing ISVs to acquire such licenses are design, not law and marketing, the only meeting this objective. In our view, this is in evident, Microsoft Would only be harmed to enforcement of the PFJ is through a full legal fact a minimal objective that mitigates some the extent that it reduces its monopoly proceeding—which would provide enough of the harms to consumers from Microsoft’s power. There is no other convincing time for Microsoft to inflict irreversible harm monopoly position but, by itself, would do explanation for these restrictive trade on competition. The time issues are little to reduce the applications barrier to practices. especially important because in a market entry or facilitate competition in the u It contains several limitations that limit characterized by increasing returns to scale operating systems market itself. applications the overall look of Non-Microsoft and network externalities, once a dominant would be designed and marketed to Middleware and pace of innovation. For position is established it will be hard to maximize their own profits, with no regard example, the PFJ requires that the user reverse, even if the original abusive practices to how this might affect the profitability of interface on automatically launched Non- are subsequently circumscribed. the operating system. 36 The fundamental problem with the Microsoft Middleware must be ‘‘of similar As noted above, a remedy that turns this size and shape to the user interface displayed agreement is that it does not change the overall strategy into a reality requires four incentives that Microsoft faces. All of the by the corresponding Microsoft Middleware different elements: (1)ensuring that OEMs Product’’, can only be launched when a illegal anticompetitive actions identified by and potentially ISVs have the right to modify similar Microsoft product would have been the District Court and affirmed by the Court the desktop, the start menu, or other launched, and Microsoft can impose non- of Appeals were the result of rational fundamental aspects of the computer discriminatory bans on icons (Section decisions by Microsoft about how best to experience in any way they choose; (2) enhance its value by maintaining and III.C.3). In addition to the fact that these limitation are frivolous, asymmetric, and expanding its monopoly. These same 34 See, for example, Robert Litan, Roger Noll, and would seem to serve no purpose other than William Nordhaus (2002), ‘‘Comment of Robert E. 32 CIS, p. 3. Litan, Roger D. Noll, and William D. Nordhaus on restricting competitive threats—no such 33 The Technical Committee consists of three the Revised Proposed Final Judgment.’’ United limitations apply to Microsoft—they could experts in ‘‘software design and programming’’— States v. Microsoft Corp., Before the Department of also have a severe impact in limiting one appointed by Microsoft, one by the plaintiffs, Justice. The point is simple: now strategy with competition. Specifically, it allows Microsoft and the third by these previous two. The Committee respect both to applications and the operating to control the pace of innovation in the would have broad access to internal Microsoft system is designed to maximize total profits, computer experience, letting Microsoft delay documents, source code, etc. It would be including the monopoly profits. With structural the effective launch of a new type of product responsible for reporting any violations of the PFJ separation, until it is ready to compete in that area. Thus to the plaintiffs. They would not, however, be able 35 Lawrence Lessig (December 12, 2001). to rely on the work of the Technical Committee in ‘‘Testimony before the Senate Committee on the Court proceedings. See PFJ, Section IV.B. Judiciary.’’ 36 36 AS defined in Section VI.M.
VerDate 11
both competition and innovation may be also required anticompetitive actions in features only accessible to Microsoft impeded. exchange for information, as in the ‘‘first middleware. u It is unnecessarily delayed. Specifically, wave’’ agreements found illegal by the Court . Disclosures are not timely. The Section III.H gives Microsoft up to 12 months of Appeals.41 disclosures are not very timely, allowing or the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows The PFJ requires disclosure of ‘‘the APIs Microsoft enough time to ensure that its XP, whichever is sooner, to provide end and related Documentation that are used by products—and products by favored OEMs users and OEMs a straightforward Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a and ISVs— enjoy a substantial ‘‘first to mechanism to remove icons, shortcuts, or Windows Operating System Product’’ market’’ benefit in taking advantage of the menu entries for Microsoft Middleware (Section III.D) and specified Communications functionality of the operating system. Products or to allow OEMs or end users to Protocols (Section III.E). Microsoft has up to 9–12 months to disclose designate alternative Non-Microsoft These requirements, however, are deficient the APIs and communications protocols. In Middleware Products 37 to be invoked by the in several ways: the case of a new version of the Windows Windows operating system in place of u Windows APIs are not covered. In Operating System Product, the PFJ bases the Microsoft Middleware Products.38 There is particular, the PFJ does not require the timing of the disclosure on the number of certainly no economic or legal justification disclosure of the APIs used by Windows. beta testers, effectively giving Microsoft for this delay and our understanding is that Although Microsoft already has an incentive substantial discretion over the timing of the it is technically feasible to carry out these to disclose Windows APIs, there are required disclosures through its definition of changes in a few weeks time, as circumstances where delay could be more the term ‘‘beta tester’’ and its control over demonstrated by Microsoft’s July 11, 2001 profitable. The consequences of this omission their number. (Sections III.D and VI.R) voluntary agreement to implement elements are aggravated by the definition in Section . Microsoft could cripple rival products. of this provision. As we have emphasized, VI.U: ‘‘the software code that comprises a The PFJ does nothing to prevent Microsoft there can be significant long-run Windows Operating System Product shall be from deliberately making changes in consequences for competition from even determined by Microsoft in its sole Windows with the sole or primary purpose short delays. discretion.’’ Thus, as middleware gets of disabling or crippling competitors’’ u Microsoft could encourage users to undo blended in the operating system, the scope of software products. 30 changes after 14 days. The value of the new disclosures could be narrowed. 3. Ensuring that OEMs and ISVs are contractual freedoms is limited by u Internet Explorer and other middleware protected from retaliation by Microsoft for Microsoft’s ability to encourage the user to APIs are not covered. Furthermore, the providing alternatives to consumers The right undo all OEM changes after 14 days by agreement does not require the disclosure of to make alterations to the Windows desktop allowing a user-initiated ‘‘alteration of the the APIs used by Internet Explorer. Although will only be effective if companies are OEM’s configuration... 14 clays after the the government did not prove that Microsoft protected from retaliation for exercising it. initial boot up of a new Personal Computer.’’ was guilty of monopolizing the browser The PFJ provides some protection against (Section III.H.3) This provision, in effect, market, dominating this market played a key retaliation (Section III.A) and requirements would allow Microsoft to present a message role in shoring up its monopoly in the for uniform licensing and pricing for to end users (e.g., ‘‘Press ‘yes’’ to optimize operating systems market. As a result, Microsoft Windows (Section III.B). The your computer for multimedia’’) that could requiring disclosure of the APIs for Internet protections, however, are only partial, in that bias choices toward Microsoft products, Explorer and other middleware could play a they omit several important behaviors, still regardless of what the OEM had chosen. This role both in denying the fruits of that leave substantial scope for Microsoft to provision could therefore greatly reduce the monopoly and reducing this barrier to entry retaliate, and contain a very large loophole. scope and value of the changes that OEMs in its operating systems market. . Definitions First, the prevention against retaliation make.39 could limit disclosure even further. The only applies to a very specific set of actions 2.Ensuring that OEMs ISVs have adequate scope of APIs required to be disclosed under that are specified in the PFJ, such as altering information and technical access to develop the agreement could be potentially limited the icons on the desktop or promoting an IAP applications for, or even modifications to, even further by the control Microsoft has in the initial boot sequence. This rule does Windows over what is ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ and not apply to other actions by OEMs, such as The right to make modifications to what is the ‘‘Windows Operating System the inclusion of third party software that Windows will only work effectively if OEMs Product.’’ does not fall under the definition of Non- and ISVs have the knowledge to exercise this . Additional loopholes further limit Microsoft Middleware. right. Microsoft currently releases an disclosure and ability of non-Microsoft Second, there may still be some scope for enormous quantity of information on the middleware to fully interoperate with discrimination and retaliation. Section III.B.3 Windows operating system and its APIs, Windows. Section III.J.1 provides a of the PFJ explicitly gives Microsoft the right through the Microsoft Developer Network substantial loophole that exempts from the to use ‘‘market development allowances,’’ for (MSDN) and other means. Indeed, the disclosure requirements anything that example to provide a pre-license rebate to indirect network externalities supporting the ‘‘would compromise the security of a selected OEMs on the basis of potentially Windows monopoly provide a strong particular installation,... digital rights ambiguous joint ventures. Although these incentive for Microsoft to ensure that as management, encryption or authorization incentives would have to be offered many applications as possible run well on its systems...’’ These are all very important uniformly, there still could be some scope for system. But Microsoft also has an incentive technologies for Windows Media Player, defining them in an exclusionary manner. to bolster its operating system monopoly by Passport, the Internet Explorer browser, and Furthermore, the relationships between selectively withholding timely information to any of the many programs that rely Microsoft and computer companies are very impede or delay the development of products increasingly on security and encryption. In complex and multifaceted, leaving that threaten to reduce the applications addition to giving Microsoft substantial substantial scope for retaliation in aspects barrier to entry.40 In addition, Microsoft has discretion and blurring the disclosure not covered by the PFJ, including potentially requirements further, these exceptions would the pricing of Microsoft Office and the server 37 As defined in Section VI.N. make it impossible for competitors to design business. 38 As defined in Section VI.K. middleware that fully interoperated with the Finally, Section III.A allows Microsoft to 39 This provision would allow Microsoft to run Windows operating system, leaving certain terminate the relationship with an OEM the ‘‘Desktop Cleanup Wizard’’ that removes without cause and within a brief span of time unused shortcuts from the desktop in a non- months in mid-1995. Findings of Fact, • 90–91, 84 simply by delivering two notices of discriminatory manner. Nothing in our reading of F. Supp. 2d at 33. termination. With no ready substitutes for 41 the language of Section III.H.3, however, would These agreements, which were entered into Windows available, this power would give limit the power of Microsoft to remove all user between the Fall of 1997 and Spring of 1998 Microsoft substantial leverage in its access to non-Microsoft middleware or restore between Microsoft and several ISVs, provided access to Microsoft middleware. preferential early access to Windows 98 and relationships with OEMs. Although the OEM 40 40 For example, the District Court found that Windows NT betas and other technical information would have the option of litigating Microsoft withheld the ‘‘Remote Network Access’’ in exchange for using Internet Explorer as the Microsoft’s denial of a Windows license, the API from Netscape for more than three crucial default browser. See See 253 F.3d at 71–72. text of Section III.A and the lack of ‘‘bright
VerDate 11
line’’ rules in the PFJ would make this OEMs to pay twice—once for Microsoft’s the computer industry to change the outer litigation costly and uncertain—and thus an version of the product (as bundled into the appearance of a computer and the way it is imperfect means of protection against this price of Windows) and once for the perceived and used by users, including the threat. 4. Ensuring that OEMs have financial alternative. Such bundling is a particularly ability and ease of accessing programs that incentives to make changes that benefit invidious way of undermining competition. are included with the Windows operating consumers In effect, it implies that the marginal cost of system or added by the OEM or end user. The Even if the three previous conditions were any item in the bundle is zero, making issues raised by the applications barrier to met, they would be economically irrelevant competitive entry, even for a superior entry go deeper, to the underlying code in if OEMs did not have financial incentives to product, impossible. The fact that such entry Windows. In particular, although the PFJ take advantage of the new licensing has occurred is testimony to the superiority allows end users or OEMs to remove user freedoms. The production of PCs is a highly of the rival products—consumers are willing access to Microsoft Middleware, it also competitive industry with very low profit to pay substantial amounts for the allows Microsoft to leave in place all of the margins. 42 PCs are virtually a commodity alternatives. In addition, forced bundling can programming underlying this middleware. that can be priced based on a limited set of have adverse effects on consumers, because This code could still be accessed by other characteristics like processor speed and hard it uses up memory and storage space, and programs that write to the APIs exposed by drive size. All of the steps allowed by the there is always the possibility that the the middleware. PFJ—including installing non- Microsoft commingled code will interfere with the The Court of Appeals explicitly rejected middleware or removing user access to performance of other applications. Microsoft’s explanation for commmingling Microsoft middleware—entail higher costs In summary, under the PFJ, OEMs are not the code of Windows 98 and Internet for the OEMs both in the costs associated provided the rights, means, protections, or Explorer, concluding that it deterred users with the initial configuration of the system incentives to create alternative choices for from installing Netscape, had no substantive and in the added costs of end user support. 43 consumers. As a result, the lynchpin of the purpose, and thus that ‘‘such commingling In addition, OEMs may perceive that PFJ’s strategy for promoting competition has an anticompetitive effect.’’ 46 Despite this Microsoft would take additional steps to raise would be greatly attenuated. strong finding, no provision in the PFJ their costs through forms of retaliation either B. Reducing the applications barrier to addresses this issue. 47 permitted by the PFJ or imperfectly banned. entry Netscape and Java represented a very rare These costs may explain why, to our The applications barrier to entry was challenge to Windows—they offered the knowledge, no major computer manufacturer central to the Court of Appeals’’ opportunity to develop middleware that has yet taken Microsoft up on its July 11, understanding of this case. It is the principal would allow a wide range of applications to 2001 offer to remove access to Microsoft barrier to entry that protects Microsoft’s be costlessly transferred between different middleware and replace it with non- overwhelming dominance of the market for systems. It is difficult to imagine when, if Microsoft middleware. 44 operating systems for Intel-compatible PCs. ever, there will be a challenge of this As a result, the key source of greater Furthermore, the court found that Microsoft magnitude again. Nonetheless, some existing middleware—and future middleware that we competition and consumer choice in the engaged in illegal acts to increase the may not even be able to forecast today—will computer experience—OEMs—would have applications barrier to entry, principally by continue to present challenges to Windows. limited economic basis for promoting such suppressing Netscape and Java at the expense For example, there is still substantial choice. In part this is because the value of of Internet Explorer and Microsoft’s version competition in the market today for some of the new freedoms obtained by the of Java. Thus, any remedy that is ‘‘tailored to multimedia players, with Windows Media OEMs in the PFJ are limited fit the wrong creating the occasion for the Player, RealNetworks RealOne player, and by loopholes. For example, by allowing remedy’’ must necessarily take affirmative Apple’s QuickTime, among others, all Microsoft to bar OEMs from marketing non- steps to reduce the applications barrier to entry and also prevent Microsoft from offering different versions of similar Microsoft middleware in the initial boot functionality. engaging in anticompetitive actions to sequence, the PFJ removes one source of The treatment of middleware is crucial increase this barrier. Unfortunately, the PFJ revenue and choice. In addition, allowing because the market for middleware, like the barely addresses this central issue. Microsoft to encourage users to ‘‘voluntarily’’ market for operating systems, is subject to The following discusses two key aspects of revert to the Microsoft-preferred substantial network externalities. These the applications barrier to entry: the use of configuration of icons, the Desktop, and the externalities mean that the desirability of a anticompetitive means to reduce the market Start Menu after 14 days may reduce middleware package increases as the share of rival middleware (and thus its substantially the value of this screen ‘‘real installed user base increases. As with potential to reduce the cost of porting estate.’’ As a result, the PFJ precludes some operating systems, such externalities arise for applications to different operating systems) of the principal means by which OEMs could direct reasons (e.g., users can share files in be remunerated for providing additional or and the use of decisions about Microsoft a particular media format) and indirect alternative functionality desirable to Office to influence the prospects of rival reasons (writing a program to different consumers. operating systems. 1. Middleware and the middleware, so the dominant middleware The more fundamental problem is that applications barrier to entry will have the most programs associated with OEMs continue to be required to license a The CIS states that under the PFJ, ‘‘OEMs it). With regard to indirect network effects, version of Windows that includes have the contractual and economic freedom the key point is that the installed base is not middleware like Internet Explorer, Windows to make decisions about distributing and the number of computers with shortcuts to Media Player, and Windows Messenger. By supporting non-Microsoft software products the given middleware, but the number of not requiring Microsoft to sell a cheaper, that have the potential to weaken Microsoft’s computers with the underlying code stripped-down version of the operating personal computer operating system permitting the middleware to be invoked by system—excluding many of these added monopoly without fear of coercion or a call from another program. A programmer 45 features—the PFJ in effect would require retaliation by Microsoft.’’ Even if the PFJ that wanted to develop, for example, an did give OEMs this contractual and economic interactive TV program could still use 42 For example, the Washington Post recently freedom without fear of retaliation, and the Windows Media Player regardless of whether noted that profit margins are in ‘‘single digits.’’ See previous subsection expressed severe doubts or not an OEM or end user had removed the Rob Pegoraro and Dina E1 Boghdady (January 20, on this point, it still would do little if icons or shortcuts that allow easy user access 2002), ‘‘Building Creativity Into the Box’’ anything to weaken Microsoft’s operating to this program. Washington Post. system monopoly. By providing no means for OEMs or end 43 In the Microsoft trial numerous industry Enhancing competition by allowing OEMs users to undo the commingling of code that witnesses testified to the user confusion and added and ISVs to provide consumers with a greater ties support costs associated with having alternative variety of choices, the subject of the previous browsers pre-installed on a computer. See 253 F.3d at 71–72. subsection, is in some sense literally 46 See 253 F.3d at 66. 44 Microsoft Press Release (July 11, 2001), superficial. It involves the ability of firms in 47 The Court of Appeals rejected, per curiam, ‘‘Microsoft Announces Greater OEM Flexibility for Microsoft’s petition for a reheating on this point. Windows.’’ 45 CIS, p. 25. Order (DC Cir. Aug. 2, 2001).
VerDate 11
Microsoft middleware to the operating The PFJ, however, does not address any proposals. Our analysis of the shortcomings system, the PFJ ensures that Microsoft issues relating to the pricing, distribution, or of the PFJ, however, can be illustrated and middleware will have an installed base, in porting of Microsoft Office. This considerable strengthened by a selective comparison of the relevant sense, of nearly the entire PC loophole has been used by Microsoft in the some of the provisions in the PFJ with the market. As a result, programmers will find it past. In the future, Microsoft will have the proposal transmitted to the court by the nine cheaper to write to Microsoft middleware same incentives to use this loophole again. In litigating States and the District of Columbia rather than to rival programs. In this case, addition, it may be necessary to examine on December 7, 2001.50 ubiquity could trump quality—because the additional Microsoft applications that can be Many of the issues in the ‘‘Plaintiff size of a middleware’s installed base could be used to reinforce the Windows monopoly. Litigating States’’ Remedial Proposals’’ are more important than the quality of the Given the difficulty of undoing a monopoly technical and involve loopholes, some of middleware program. Microsoft middleware of this sort, once established, it is particularly which were discussed above including thus increases the applications barrier to appropriate to reach beyond remedies that stronger anti-retaliation provisions and a entry in the same manner that promoting are narrowly circumscribed. broader definition of middleware that could Internet Explorer and restricting the C. Preventing Microsoft from strengthening not be manipulated by Microsoft. In addition, distribution of Netscape do. By allowing its operating system monopoly by extending this proposed remedy makes an important Microsoft to continue to commingle the code it to encompass additional products change in enforcement: it proposes a Special for middleware and its operating system, and The Court is charged with fashioning a Master, rather than requiring new legal preventing OEMs or end users from making remedy that ‘‘ensure[s] that there remain no proceedings to enforce the judgment. None of real choices, the PFJ contributes to practices likely to result in monopolization these important issues are discussed here. Microsoft’s ability to restrict the market share in the future.’’ Some of the most important Instead, we focus on selected areas in which of its rivals in neighboring ‘‘layers’’ to the newly emerging areas are multimedia, the litigating States’’ proposal illustrates operating system, reducing the main form of networking, web services, and hand-held some of the principal economic points potential future competition at ‘‘layer computing. Microsoft is already making identified in the preceding analysis. boundaries.’’ substantial investments in these areas with A. Fostering competition through OEMs 2. Microsoft Office and the applications its .NET strategy, Microsoft Passport, MSN, and reducing the applications barrier to entry barrier to entry Windows Messenger, Windows Media The litigating States proposal would As noted above, in the mid-1990s, Player, and the Pocket PC operating system. require Microsoft to license a cheaper version Microsoft Windows was compatible with The recently released Windows XP is of Windows that does not include more than twenty times as many programs as characterized by substantial integration commingled code from added middleware. 51 IBM’s OS/2 Warp. This offers a dramatic between all of these features; indeed the In addition, the proposal would require example of the applications barrier to entry. seamless integration is one of Microsoft’s Microsoft to continue to license older One crucial feature of Microsoft is that in chief selling points for Windows XP. versions of its operating system without addition to producing the Windows Microsoft has marketed Windows XP raising its prices. This would have two operating system, it is also a leader in many (standing for ‘‘experience’’) on the basis of its effects. First, it would more effectively other applications. Network externalities seamless integration between the Internet, promote competition and consumer choice work here to help create and maintain market multimedia, and the computer. For example, by allowing OEMs to ship computers with a dominance. Thus, for a rival operating on the day it was released, a Microsoft press wide range of alternative middleware, system to succeed it would need not only to release announced, ‘‘Windows XP Home thereby allowing consumers to choose persuade ‘‘neutral’’ software companies to Edition is designed for individuals or between different versions or write to it, but also persuade Microsoft itself families and includes experiences for digital Moreover, such a provision would provide to port some of its leading applications to the photos, music and video, home networking, Microsoft with better incentives; only if it operating system. To the degree that and communications.’’ 49 produced an operating system which Microsoft produces leading or essential Like Internet Explorer, these new areas performed substantially better would it be applications, they can use their refusal to present new opportunities for Microsoft to able to sell its new releases. It would at least port these applications to reinforce their leverage its monopoly in the operating attenuate its ability to use new releases as a Windows monopoly. system to dominate other markets. In way of extending its market power. Some One application, in particular, is especially addition, Microsoft could use its strong or have advocated even stronger measures to important to users: Microsoft Office and its dominant position in these new markets to ensure Microsoft faces pro- consumer, pro- associated programs, including Word (for erect new barriers to entry that prevent competition incentives, including requiring word processing), Outlook (for e-mail and potential competitors from offering products Microsoft to release all of its Windows source scheduling), Excel (for spreadsheets), and and services with part or all of the code and requiring the free distribution of its PowerPoint (for presentations). Indeed, functionality provided by Windows. For operating system after 3 to 5 years. Second, Microsoft Office has about 95 percent of the example, if Passport is successful then a rival this provision would directly address the market for business productivity suites. 48 operating system would not just need to Court of Appeals finding that Microsoft’s The Court of Appeals affirmed the District persuade other developers to write for it, but commingling of code was anticompetitive. By Court’s finding that the desire by Apple to would also need to develop its own version ensure that Microsoft continued to maintain of Passport and convince numerous e- 50 United States v. Microsoft Corp., ‘‘Plaintiff and update Mac Office was central to its commerce sites to use it. If the rival operating Litigating States’’ Remedial Proposals,’’ in the U.S. motivation to enter into an illegal, system failed in any of these steps, its District Court for D.C, December 7, 2001. anticompetitive deal with Microsoft to attempts to establish itself could be seriously 51 The Court of Appeals overturned the District suppress Netscape and promote Internet curtailed. The PFJ, however, does not address Court, finding that Microsoft could not be held Explorer. In addition, Microsoft does not any aspects of these important emerging liable for the fact that in certain situations, like currently have a version of Office that barriers to entry. updating Windows or accessing help files, Internet operates on Linux, the primary alternative to VIII. STEPS TO IMPROVE THE Explorer overrides the user’s default browser settings and opens automatically. This implies that Windows in the PC operating system market. PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT: THE the complete removal of HTML-reading software is Withholding or simply threatening to LITIGATING STATES’’ ALTERNATIVE impossible. But Windows could be shipped with, withhold Microsoft Office from other The goal of this Declaration is to explain for example, a stripped-down browser that performs operating systems is 48 Richard Poynder why we believe that the PFJ is deficient and essential system functions. Most of the functionality (October 1, 2001). ‘‘The Open Source why the Court should exercise its discretion of Internet Explorer, however, is not necessary for Movement.’’ Information Today, 9:18. a to fashion a remedy in this case that would the examples Microsoft invoked. This is analogous powerful way in which Microsoft can use promote competition and benefit consumers. to the way in which Windows is shipped with a anticompetitive means to reduce the We do not propose an alternative remedy or stripped-down text editor, Notepad, but not with a full-fledged word processor. desirability of rivals while also extracting provide an exhaustive analysis of any other combinations. The lack of financial incentives for concessions or exchanges that help support OEMs to take advantage of the more liberalized the Windows monopoly of PC operating 49 Microsoft Press Release, ‘‘Windows XP is licensing rules is one of the principal deficiencies systems. Here!’’ 10/15/01. in the PFJ.
VerDate 11
disentangling the middleware from the with respect to other technologies that could MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) operating system, this proposal would allow provide a significant competitive platform, ) greater competition in middleware—and thus including network servers, web servers, and STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ultimately in operating systems—by reducing hand- held devices.’’ 53 In doing this, the v. Civil Action No. 98–1233 (CKK) the network externalities that benefit proposal would reduce the ability of MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) Defendant. ) Microsoft middleware at the expense of Microsoft to use its dominant position in ) potentially superior products. operating systems to eliminate emerging DECLARATION OF EDWARD ROEDER B. Internet Explorer browser open source threats at the boundary of this ‘‘layer’’ of Edward Roeder declares under penalty of and Java distribution computing. perjury as follows: Two of the fruits of Microsoft’s IX. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION monopolization of the operating systems The Revised Proposed Final Judgment 1. I am a Washington journalist, author, market are the dominance of the Internet agreed to by the U.S. Department of Justice, lecturer, and editor, expert on the U.S. Explorer browser and the destruction of Java the Attorneys General of nine States, and Congress, elections and efforts to influence as a viable competitor. Microsoft Corporation is critically deficient. the U.S. government. My byline has appeared The anticompetitive measures that helped The overall aims of the PFJ are laudable—to in most major U.S. newspapers, many top achieve these goals protected a crucial increase competition and reduce Microsoft’s magazines, and on all major wires and ‘‘chink in the armor’’ of the Windows ability to maintain its monopoly at the networks. I have written, edited, produced operating system. The PFJ does nothing to expense of consumers. But the PFJ will not and reported on money in politics, ‘‘deny the defendant the fruits of its statutory succeed in achieving these goals. It does not Congressional ethics and the American violation.’’ 52 Furthermore, it does not change any of the incentives faced by political economy for more than three enhance the ability of competitors to Microsoft to undertake anticompetitive decades. My experience includes work as a interoperate with Internet Explorer because it actions. It restrains these anticompetitive Senate subcommittee counsel, House select includes no disclosure requirement for the actions only with highly specific and committee chief investigator, United Press Internet Explorer APIs. exception-ridden conduct requirements. And International editor, publisher, White House The litigating States propose to remedy it has an insufficient enforcement speechwriter, government aide at level GS- these deficiencies by requiring Microsoft to mechanism. 15, freelance reporter and publisher. I publish the source code and APIs for Internet The interest of consumers in a greater founded Sunshine Press Services, Inc., a Explorer and freely license them to range of choices, lower prices, and greater Washington news service and publishing competitors. In addition, their proposal innovation would be served by rejecting the house specializing in ‘‘Casting Light on would require Microsoft to distribute a Sun- PFJ and replacing it with a more effective Money and Politics.’’ Sunshine has compatible version of Java Virtual Machine conduct remedy. A remedy for this case developed References to Use, with all future operating systems. The result should recognize that the monopoly power Not Just Peruse TM, computer-based would be to decrease the applications barrier created by Microsoft’s past anticompetitive, reference works on U.S. politics. As National Political/Finance to entry and promote competition. illegal practices is likely to persist, and that Editor for United Press International, I C. Cross-platform porting of Office it will therefore be likely to continue to enjoy produced the nation’s first weekly state-by- As discussed in the previous section, the fruits of its illegal behavior, unless there state computer- generated reports on federal Microsoft Office is one of the most crucial are far stronger remedies than those in the election financing. In 1974, I became the first applications for many users. The existence of PFJ. The new remedy should change freelance correspondent fully accredited to this application for a particular operating Microsoft’s incentives. It should restrict U.S. House & Senate Press Galleries. As a system is one key factor in the demand for Microsoft’s ability to repeat its past, or freelance print and broadcast reporter, I the operating system. The litigating States’’ develop new, anticompetitive practices. It should provide OEMs and ISVs with the specialized in covering elections and election proposal would remove the ability of financing. In Roeder v. FEC, I successfully means and incentives to stimulate genuine Microsoft to either threaten to withhold sued Federal Election Commission under the competition in the provision of platforms. Office or actually withhold Office by federal Freedom of Information Act, forcing And it should take whatever steps are requiring Microsoft to continue to port Office a reduction in fees for records and release of possible to reduce the applications barrier to to Macintosh. In addition, the proposal computerized data. entry so that there is greater scope for would require Microsoft to auction off My experience includes lecturing about genuine competition in the market for PC licenses to ISVs that would provide them covering influences on government at the operating systems. with the entire source code and graduate schools of journalism at Columbia, I, Joseph E. Stiglitz, declare under penalty documentation for Office in order for them to Northwestern (Medill), American, Maryland of perjury that the foregoing declaration is port the product to alternative operating and other universities, and at the Hastings systems. Although we draw no conclusions true and correct. Executed on January 28, Center, the Heritage Foundation, and many about the particular rules proposed by the 2002. other forums, and testifying before U.S. litigating States, this proposal would clearly E. Stiglitz House and Senate committees. I also taught reduce Microsoft’s ability to deliberately I, Jason Furman, declare under penalty of a public affairs course, Shadow Government raise the applications barrier to entry. perjury that the foregoing declaration is true in the Sunshine State, for three terms at D. Mandatory disclosure to ensure and correct. Executed on January 28, 2002. Florida State University. I have appeared on interoperability Jason Furman ABC’s Nightline, the CBS Evening News, The PFJ requires some disclosure to ensure Joseph E. Stiglitz World News Tonight (ABC), NBC Nightly that Microsoft is not able to withhold certain Columbia University News, All Things Considered (NPR), John information to illegally benefit Microsoft Uris Hall Room 814 McLaughlin, and many other broadcast Middleware at the expense of Non-Microsoft New York, NY 10027 outlets. Middleware. The disclosures are limited in 212–854–0671 My reference publications include PACs scope and timing. The litigating States’’ [email protected] Americana, the 1,150-page authoritative proposal is substantially broader. Jason Furman reference on political action committees and Of particular importance, the litigating Yale University their interests, Congress On Disk TM, the States’’ proposal recognizes that ‘‘nascent 28 Hillhouse Ave. Rm 311 pioneer diskette publication on politics, threats to Microsoft’s monopoly operating New Haven, CT 06511 PAC-Track TM, covering all transactions by system currently exist beyond the 203–432–3054 political action committees and party middleware platform resident on the same [email protected] committees, FatCat-Track TM, covering ‘‘soft computer’’ and thus the States’’ proposal IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT money’’ and all contributions of $200-and-up requires timely disclosure of technical COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, from individuals to any federal party, information to facilitate ‘‘interoperability UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. campaign or PAC, and Ready Money Reports Civil Action No. 98–1232 (CKK) TM, comparing relative financial standings of 52 253 F.3d at 103, quoting United States v. each federal campaign. A partial list of news United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968). 53 Litigating States, pp. 10–11. clients is attached as Appendix B.
VerDate 11
2. I was commissioned by the Computer & Associated Press September 18, 1999. the court is aware, Watergate spurred a Communications Industry Association to ‘‘Microsoft Covered Cost of Ads Backing It in number of political reforms requiring conduct a review of publicly available Antitrust Suit.’’ Joel Brinkley. New York ‘‘sunshine’’ on the political activities of documents, news reports, and commentary Times September 18, 1999. ‘‘Rivals fear special interests, in particular. But the regarding Microsoft’s lobbying and political Microsoft will cut a deal.’’ John Hendren. Tunney Act was also enacted during a contributions since the United States The Seattle Times June 21, 2001. ‘‘Bush’s different political era, when political Department of Justice and 19 States filed suit Warning: Don’t Assume Favors Are Due.’’ influence peddling was far less sophisticated against Microsoft in 1998. 1 Gerald F. Seib The Wall Street Journal than it has become after a quarter-century of 3. My review of the available documents January 17, 2001. ‘‘Bounty Payments are efforts to circumvent the ‘‘reforms’’ of the has led me to conclude that over the past five offered for pro- Microsoft letters and calls.’’ 1970s. By necessity, political influence years Microsoft has engaged in a ‘‘pattern and The Wall Street Journal October 20, 2000. peddling is no longer necessarily marked by practice’’ of political influence peddling in ‘‘Microsoft is Source of ‘Soft Money’’ Funds a single ‘‘transaction’’ or a single ‘‘meeting,’’ many ways unprecedented in modem Behind Ads in Michigan’s Senate Race.’’ John or even an overt ‘‘quid pro quo.’’ In fact, political history. 2 What makes Microsoft’s R. Wilke. The Wall Street Journal October 16, one of the effects of the modem reforms has lobbying efforts so unique is not necessarily 2000. ‘‘Microsoft leans creatively on levers of been to legalize many activities—especially the size (i.e. level of political contributions) political power as breakup decision looms, the transfer of funds from corporate to but the scope of its efforts and the speed at ‘stealth’’ lobbying efforts aim for survival.’’ political coffers—that had long been illegal which Microsoft went from having almost no Jim Drinkard and Owen Ulmann. under laws in effect since 1907 or 1934. political presence in Washington DC to USA Today May 30, 2000. ‘‘Microsoft’s Lobbying today is marked by incrementalism, having one of the largest and most All-Out Counterattack.’’ Dan Carney, Amy where there may not be any single meeting, sophisticated political operations in history. Borrus and Jay Greene. BusinessWeek May or any single contribution, or any single 4. By ‘‘scope’’ I am referring to the breadth 15, 2000. ‘‘Aggressiveness: It’s Part of Their agreement. Rather, over time, what may of Microsoft’s efforts. Microsoft has not DNA.’’ Jay Greene, Peter Burrows and Jim develop is an ‘‘understanding’’ of the merely established one of the largest Political Kerstetter. BusinessWeek May 15, 2000. ‘‘The respective parties’’ interests, objectives, and Action Committees, or leapt to the top of the Unseemly Campaign of Microsoft.’’ Mike desired outcomes. Instead of corruptly corporate contributor list in ‘‘soft money,’’ France. Business Week April 24, 2000. influencing politicians to buy a discreet unregulated corporate contributions. Over ‘‘Microsoft’s Lobbying Abuses.’’ Editorial. government decision, the money exerts far the past five years Microsoft has also New York Times November 1, 1999 broader influence over appointments, policy assembled a large lobbying office and ‘‘Awaiting Verdict, Microsoft Starts Lobbying frameworks or positions, and ultimately, retained dozens of high-powered consultants; Campaign.’’ Joel Brinkley. New York Times decisions. Much of it may be legal, but it’s Microsoft has created numerous ‘‘front’’ November 1, 1999. ‘‘Microsoft Seeks Help Of far more corrupting than simple bribery. groups and has contributed heavily to a Holders.’’ John R. Wilke. The Wall Street The simple matter of paying off a corrupt variety of think tanks and other organizations Journal November 1, 1999. ‘‘Microsoft’s Bad politician to obtain a favorable government willing to espouse Microsoft’s view of Lobbying.’’ decision is certainly offensive and unfair to antitrust policy and this case; and Microsoft Editorial. Washington Post October 24, the voters and those who are disadvantaged has created a variety of grassroots capabilities 1999. ‘‘Microsoft Attempt To Cut Justice by the decision. Yet such petty or grand that appear to be directed at state-level Funding Draws Fire.’’ David Lawsky. Reuters corruption, if isolated, does not seriously government. October 17, 1999. ‘‘Microsoft Targets threaten the American system. What 5. Two key factors indicate that Microsoft’s Funding for Antitrust Office.’’ Dan Morgan Microsoft has accomplished over the past lobbying efforts were designed and directed and Juliet Eilperin. Washington Post October half decade, however, presents a far darker to try to minimize the impact of its lawsuit 15, 1999. ‘‘Pro-Microsoft lobbying to limit prospect. and try to achieve a result in the political antitrust funding irks top lawmakers.’’ The By pouring money into America’s process that it is Wall Street Journal October Wall Street Journal October 15, 1999. institutions of political pluralism, rewarding 15, 1999. ‘‘Microsoft Paid For Ads Against ‘‘Microsoft Paid For Ads Against DoJ those organizations and individuals that do DoJ Case.’’ Madeleine Acey. TechWeb Case.’’ Madeleine Acey. TechWeb September its bidding and denying or limiting funding September 20, 1999. ‘‘Microsoft Paid For Ads 20, 1999. ‘‘Microsoft Paid For Ads Backing Its to its opponents, Microsoft has in some ways Backing Its Trial Position.’’ David Bank. The Trial Position.’’ David Bank. The Wall Street corrupted American political discourse itself. Wall Street Journal September 20, 1999. Journal September 20, 1999. ‘‘Microsoft Paid Newspapers that have run an editorial or ‘‘Microsoft Paid For Ads Backing It In Trial.’’ For Ads Backing It In Trial.’’ Seattle Times opinion article sympathetic to a Microsoft Seattle Times September 19, 1999. ‘‘Pro- September 19, 1999. ‘‘Pro-Microsoft Ads position, reporters who have interviewed a Microsoft Ads Were Funded by Software Were Funded by Software Giant.’’ Greg professor, politician, or pundit about this Giant.’’ Greg Miller. Los Angeles Times Miller. Los Angeles Times September 18, antitrust action, and anyone who has hosted September 18, 1999. ‘‘Microsoft Paid for Ads 1999. ‘‘Microsoft Paid for Ads About Trial.’’ or observed public discourse on the subject About Trial.’’ Associated Press September 18, 1999. must now wonder: Were the views expressed ‘‘Microsoft Covered Cost of Ads Backing It in independent and sincere, or were they 1 I am aware that Microsoft has undertaken an Antitrust Suit.’’ Joel Brinkley. New York purchased by an unseen hand, smothering effort to use the Court discovery process to build Times September 18, 1999. apparent it could the American marketplace of ideas? As is a political case against its competitors. The not achieve in the legal process. First, detailed below, Microsoft’s efforts to subvert relevancy of Microsoft’s strategy will have to be Microsoft’s efforts are new. Their onset democratic institutions such as political determined by the Court since Microsoft—and not coincides with the time the government sued campaigns and debates, party organizations, its competitors—have been found to be liable under Microsoft and they have continued and news outlets, think tanks and government the antitrust laws. I took input and advice from a escalated ever since. Second, Microsoft’s offices have been so vast as to be a new broad range of sources in conducting this research, including CCIA and its members. This research is efforts are completely out of proportion to the phenomenon, unenvisioned and unaddressed nonetheless based on the extraordinary public rest of the high- technology industry. There by existing political mechanisms intended to record of Microsoft’s political activities during the is not one other example of a software, check the influence of special interests. timeframe of this case. I have also undertaken computer hardware, or Internet firm that Limited campaign contributions can serve extensive original review of the records of the comes anywhere near Microsoft’s level of the purpose of encouraging, facilitating, Federal Election Commission regarding election campaign contributions. extending and opening political discussion. finance. These records covering all election cycles 6. I am not a lawyer, an expert on antitrust But political money in such vast amounts since 1970–80 have been available in computerized or an expert on the Tunney Act. My is a substitute for politics, not a means of format since the court-ordered settlement of Roeder substantive views of of the Proposed Final undertaking political action. v. FEC, a Freedom of Information lawsuit I filed in this very courthouse two decades ago. Judgment are based primarily on the analysis While the modem-day political pressure 2 ‘‘Microsoft Targets Funding for Antitrust of Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, whose brought to bear by Microsoft in the last Office.’’ Dan Morgan and Juliet Eilperin. declaration also supports the CCIA decade may not be precisely the same as that Washington Post October 15, 1999. ‘‘Pro-Microsoft submission. undertaken by ITT in the 70’s, it is no less lobbying to limit antitrust funding irks top 7. The Tunney Act was enacted after the objectionable to the Court’s charge of acting lawmakers.’’ ITT scandal during the Watergate affair. As on behalf of the ‘‘public interest.’’
VerDate 11
8. Based on my review of the public record 12. I declare to the court that where ‘‘there Microsoft spent tens of millions of dollars to and the declaration provided by Dr. Stiglitz, is smoke there is typically fire.’’ Even if the attempt to create an aura outside the it is apparent that the Department of Justice ‘‘fire’’ in the context of modem day political courtroom of what it could not prove undertook a major ‘‘change in policy’’ at a influence peddling is very subtle, it inside—innocence. According to Business critical moment this past fall. My belief— nonetheless does not serve the public Week Magazine: ‘‘Even seasoned Washington again based largely on Dr. Stiglitz’’ analysis interest. My view is that Microsoft’s political hands say they have never seen anything and substantiated by a wide array of antitrust campaign has been so extensive the court quite as flamboyant as the Microsoft effort.’’ 3 experts and scholars—is that the Proposed should take immediate notice. In modem 16. In late 2001, when the Department of Final Judgment cannot be reconciled with the political influence-peddling and purchasing, Justice and a group of state Attorneys General government’s extensive court victory. The Microsoft has set a new bar. South Korea’s agreed to the currently proposed settlement, public record suggests a Microsoft strategy spreading cash throughout Washington in the it appeared as if Microsoft’s efforts were that appears to defeats in the legal process, 1970s Tongsun Park scandal paled in successful. Fortunately, two obstacles stand but which focuses on winning an acceptable comparison. in the way of Microsoft and the continued outcome through the political process. It 13. During the course of my research I was monopolization of the software industry: the appears to be working. Indeed, if it weren’t struck by the similarities between Microsoft remaining state Attorneys General who are working, such vast expenditures might give and the current scandal involving Enron continuing to litigate for a more effective rise to a shareholder suit for breach of Corporation. While Enron, of course, is in an remedy and the Tunney Act, which—among fiduciary duty. If Microsoft’s money has had entirely different business, it seems the core other things—requires Microsoft to divulge the desired effect of inducing the U.S. issue—from a public disclosure all of its dealings with the Administration government to throw in the towel on the perspective—is its campaign contributions and Congress in conjunction with the biggest antitrust suit in history, such a suit and its ability to influence the nation’s antitrust trial. A. Campaign Contributions could be easily defended. But to argue that energy policy. Microsoft’s campaign 17. In 1995, before the United States Microsoft had no such intent is tantamount contributions significantly surpassed those of Department of Justice and state Attorneys to suggesting that its corporate spending it in Enron; Microsoft was a defendant in a major General from 19 states and the District of the control of squandering fools. governmental lawsuit; and it appears Columbia brought an antitrust case against it, 9. I have also reviewed Microsoft’s Microsoft may have successfully influenced Microsoft had virtually no presence in lobbying disclosures filed before the court as the Administration’s antitrust policy, with Washington, DC The company had only one part of the Tunney Act. Again, while I am not major implications for legal antitrust lobbyist working out of a Chevy Chase, a lawyer, my review of public documents, precedent. Maryland sales office and had contributed press reports and the plain language of the 14. My recommendation to the court is to less than $50,000 in the previous election cycle. 4 Its lobbyist, Jack Krumholtz, had no statute leads me to believe that disclosures undertake an immediate review of made to the court can not possibly be secretary and its PAC was financed by only Microsoft’s lobbying activities surrounding reconciled with Microsoft’s lobbying $16,000. In those days, the Microsoft this settlement, with particular attention to activities surrounding both this case and this lobbying operation was affectionately meetings with the Justice Department or the settlement. referred to in press reports as ‘‘Jack and his White House by Microsoft or its agents. 10. Various press reports indicate that Jeep.’’ Included in this review should also be Microsoft is trying to convince the court and 18. However, since the beginning of the the public that the litigating states have been contacts made on Microsoft’s behalf to the antitrust case against Microsoft, the company ‘‘put up to this’’ (i.e. continuing to litigate Justice Department or the White House by has become a major political contributor and through the remedy phase) by Microsoft’s Members of Congress, their official staff, and was the fifth largest during the 2000 election competitors, and therefore cannot be acting campaign staff. The court should also cycle 5, alongside the giants of the tobacco, in the public interest. My review of public interview Department of Justice staff who do telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and documents suggests this theory is backwards not operate within the sphere of political insurance industries. Microsoft’s political and should be particularly alarming to the appointees. And the court should interview contributions to elected leaders in a position Court. The far more likely scenario, into the political appointees of the Attorney to help the software giant in this election which the Court must inquire, is whether the General and their staff. Moreover, the court cycle when the trial was at its peak, was Department of Justice has executed should review any contacts or greater than all previous, cumulative Administration policy in response to the communications between the Republican campaign contributions. In the history of unprecedented campaign to influence the National Committee, the National Republican American PACs, only three companies that new Administration’s antitrust policy Senatorial Committee, the Republican have raised at least $50K in one election generally, and as antitrust policy applies to Congressional Campaign Committee, and the cycle have increased receipts by 500% in the the high-technology sector and Microsoft, in White House or the Justice Department. next. In 1984–86, Drexel Burnham Lambert, particular. Lastly, the court should review any contacts the corrupt and now-defunct securities 11. In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, or communications between Microsoft and brokerage, increased its receipts from just various Justice Department actions make the settling states. Anything less would under $67,000 to more than $446,000, a perfect sense in the context of my research. clearly not vindicate the public interest. 567% jump. In that same cycle, AT&T, facing The Department went to great lengths to II. REVIEW OF PUBLIC RECORD antitrust divestiture, increased its PAC create the appearance they were going to be 15. Since May 1998, Microsoft has fought receipts by 745%, from $215,000 to $1.8 ‘‘tough’’ with Microsoft, beginning with strenuously in the courtroom to defend its million. In the history of corporate PACs, enlisting President Bush’s renowned litigator, ‘‘freedom to innovate’’ and to continue with only 68 have increased their spending by half Phillip Beck. What actually occurred, business as usual. In fact, plugging in in one election cycle after reaching a level of however, is they systematically appear to ‘‘Microsoft + trial’’ into the Google search a quarter of a million dollars. Only 15 have have given away their hard-fought court engine produces more than 697,000 article doubled their spending in one election cycle victory. First, the Department unilaterally hits. When ‘‘Microsoft + politics’’ is entered after reaching that level. Only one— abandoned its pursuit of structural relief, and into the search engine, Google produced Microsoft—has approached tripling its informed the court it would not seek a review nearly 448,000 articles and links. But as hard spending after reaching that threshold. of the Sherman Act Section tying claim on as it fought inside the courtroom, Microsoft Microsoft increased its spending almost remand. Then the Department suggested it fought far harder—often secretly—outside the fivefold, from $267,000 to more than $1.2 would base its remedy on the interim courtroom to influence the outcome of the million, between the 1997–98 and 1999–2000 conduct remedies ordered by Judge Jackson. trial. In a campaign unprecedented in its size, election cycles. (Table 5.) Then the Department began speaking of the scope, and cost, Microsoft used campaign 20. Every year, Microsoft tops itself. The extensive litigation risk involved in pursuing contributions, phony front groups, intensive company’s political giving in the 2000 a remedy based on the need for immediate lobbying, biased polling, and other creative, relief. Finally, the Department—outside of if not possibly unethical, pressure and public 3 BusinessWeek, May 15, 2000, Carney public scrutiny—emerges with the Proposed relations tactics to escape from the trial with 4 ‘‘The Microsoft Playbook’’ Common Cause Final Judgment, which based on Dr. Stiglitz’’ its monopoly intact. According to media 5 San Francisco Chronicle, July 1, 2001, analysis appears to be woefully inadequate. accounts, experts, and my own research, Wildermuth
VerDate 11
cycle—the time leading up to its day of election cycle, Microsoft and its executives Leadership PACs $162,000 $41,500 judgment in federal court—was again more accounted for some $2,298,551 in ‘‘soft State Parties $255,025 $38,887 than it contributed in all previous cycles money’’ contributions, according to FEC Candidates $1,053,792 $818,951 combined. Campaign money to candidates records. For context, consider that this was (ii) State Contributions and political parties in just one state was two-thirds more than the $1,546,055 in soft 28. Along with the Department of Justice, greater than Microsoft’s contributions from money contributed by the now-bankrupt 19 states and the District of Columbia 1990 through 1996 to every state and federal Enron and its executives during the same initially prosecuted Microsoft. Naturally, candidate combined. (Note that the period. candidates and political parties and then, Microsoft concentrated a good deal of government first levied antitrust charges PACs federally and in all 50 states. its campaign contributions on state races. against Microsoft in 1995.) As one business commentator put it: 29. Candidates and political parties in all Except for Microsoft, no corporate PAC ‘‘...there’s something quite disturbing about 50 states received contributions from sponsor in American history has increased its watching the world’s richest man trying to Microsoft, but none more so than the PAC receipts by an order of magnitude, buy his way out of trouble with Uncle Sam... company’s home state of Washington, which starting from a base of $50,000 or more. Since Gates’s actions undermine the legal system received $830,478. Republicans received 1986, the only such firm that has increased itself.’’ 9 $359,000 while $458,000 went to Democrats. its PAC receipts by as much as 500% in one (b) Political Action Committee (PAC) Nearly all of the $100,000 edge for the election cycle is Microsoft. Receipts for Money Democrats came from contributions to the Microsoft’s PAC rose a record-setting 903%, 24. Microsoft’s PAC donations also grew State Democratic Party, which totaled froth $59,790 in 1995–96 to just under substantially in the years since the beginning $85,387. 30. One of the original states $600,000 in 1997–98. (Table 1.) Microsoft of the antitrust trial. In 1998, the company participating in the suit was South Carolina, followed this by another jump of 165% in made a concerted effort to increase the size whose attorney general, Charles Condon, was 1999–2000, to $1.59 million. (Table 2.) In the of its PAC. facing re-election in 1998. Shortly before the history of corporate PACs, only 15 have had Within a matter of days, the company grew election, Microsoft contributed $25,000 to the as much as a 300% rise in receipts after its PAC from $31,000 to $326,000. 10 South Carolina Republican Party. According achieving a base of $50,000. (That requires Employees contributed $1.6 million to to the Chairman of the South Carolina rising from at least $50,000 to at least Microsoft’s PAC for the 2000 election cycle Republican Party this was the largest $200,000.) None has ever followed such a which allowed the PAC to contribute more unsolicited donation ever received. Three rise with another three-digit percentage than $1.2 million. The PAC began the 2002 weeks after he won, Attorney General increase in receipts, except Microsoft. (That election cycle with an impressive $772,000 Condon withdrew from the antitrust case. would require a subsequent rise to at least cash-on-hand—more than any other Two years ago, Condon solicited and $400,000.) 21. Between 1995 and 2000, American corporate PAC. received a $3,500 donation from Microsoft.12 Microsoft donated more than $3.5 million to Microsoft’s unprecedented rise as a 31. In California, a state represented by federal candidates and to the national parties, political player took its PAC from just under Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Microsoft about two-thirds of which was contributed $60,000 in 1995- 96 receipts to just under contributed $25,000 to the 1998 election during the 2000 election cycle alone.6 $1.6 million in 1999–2000. In the history of campaign for challenger Dave Stirling, a Including company and employee donations corporate PACs, only two have had a rise of Republican; a contribution made nine days to political parties, candidates and PACs in more than 1,000% in receipts over four years before election day. The company the 2000 election cycle, Microsoft’s giving (two election cycles), after attaining $50,000. contributed an additional $10,000 to (that of the company, its PAC and its Only one, Microsoft, has had an increase of gubernatorial democratic candidate Gray employees) amounted to more than $6.1 more than 2,000%. From 1995–96 through Davis, whose opponent was among the million, far more than has been previously 1999–2000, Microsoft’s PAC increased in size original 19 state attorneys general to bring the reported. 7 Nearly $1 million came in the 40 by more than 2,500%. (Table 4.) antitrust suit against Microsoft. days immediately before the November 7th (c) Party Breakdown 32. Within weeks of the 2000 election, election. As most political operatives know, 25. While Microsoft has donated to both Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer made late these late contributions often are made by national political parties, the company has contributions of $50,000 each to two state donors who don’t want their participation tended to favor Republicans, who have been Republican Parties, Michigan and known until after the election, when more vocal in their defense of the company. Washington, where Microsoft found its financial reports for the final days of a Between 1995 and 1998, 72% of Microsoft’s defenders under fire. Then U.S. Senator campaign are due, and public and news contributions went to Republicans, while the Spencer Abraham, a Michigan Republican media attention are no longer focused upon GOP received only 55% of the company’s who is now Secretary of Energy, had been an the election. The effect of delaying donations during the 2000 election cycle. 11 outspoken supporter of Microsoft. Former contributions until very near the election is Republicans received a total of $3.2 million, U.S. Senator Slade Gorton, a Washington to thwart efforts by the news media and the about half of which—$1.69 million—went to state Republican, who proudly called himself political opposition to make disclosures the national Republican Party. 26. Yet, when ‘‘the Senator from Microsoft’’ had even meaningful to voters before they vote. analyzing Microsoft’s campaign contributions sought to cut the funding of the Justice i. Federal Contributions by donating entity, some stark disparities Department’s Antitrust Division while the (a) ‘‘Soft’’ Money emerge. Virtually all of the money donated court case was ongoing. 22. Comprising the majority of Microsoft’s by individual Microsoft employees 33. Microsoft used back channels to direct campaign contributions was soft money.8 ($222,750) benefited Democratic 527s, groups even more undisclosed soft money into the Like their overall presence in Washington, that raise and spend money independent of 2000 Michigan Senate race. According to The Microsoft’s soft money donations grew political campaigns During this same period Wall Street Journal, Microsoft ‘‘funneled’’ substantially since the beginning of the Microsoft employees gave $15,000 to soft money into the race by secretly making antitrust trial. In fact, in the seven days Republican affiliated 527s. Democratic PACs undisclosed contributions to the Michigan preceding Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s also benefited from Microsoft’s employees Chamber of Commerce to fund negative ads ruling against Microsoft, the company largesse, receiving $222,100 compared to just aimed at Abraham’s opponent, now U.S. donated more in soft money to the national $42,875 for Republican PACs. Senator Deborah Stabenow. Some close to the political parties than it gave to federal 27. But Republicans enjoyed an edge in Chamber have estimated that the candidates and political parties between 1989 and 1996. 23. During the 1999–2000 every other category; the majority of contributions, while legal and not requiring donations to leadership PACs, state parties reporting, may have amounted to more than and candidates went to the Republican Party. $250,000.13 Such contributions are usually 6 Common Cause The following table illustrates the disparity. made to organizations to support the 7 Independent analysis of giving to elective office Republican Democrat organization’s activities, not political ads— 8 ‘‘Soft’’ money is the term generally applied to which is why there is no disclosure unregulated, unlimited corporate and individual contributions that can not go to candidates but 9 BusinessWeek, April 24, 2000, France typically goes to political parties in support of party 10 ibid. 12 USA Today, 5–30–00, Ullman, Drinkard ‘‘efforts.’’ 11 ibid. 13 Wall Street Journal, Oct. 16, 2000, Wilke
VerDate 11
requirement. Microsoft knew this and took Bush, $57,300; Al Gore, $28,000, John chairman, the Bill and Melinda Gates advantage of the loophole in Michigan. McCain $39,448. Foundation, ‘‘donate millions of dollars to Political operatives throughout the country Table 1. Candidates & Organizations causes and projects that are dear to the hearts reported similar occurrences in other Receiving $10,000 or more from Microsoft of government policymakers, such as a political races considered ‘‘top targets’’ by Following is a breakdown of Microsoft’s $50,000 gift to the Congressional Black both national parties, but efforts to gain contributions of more than $10,000 to Caucus Foundation.’’ 14 Shortly after the access to contributor lists from some of the candidates and organizations during the 2000 donation to the CBC, according to Business ‘‘independent’’ groups believed to be election cycle. Week, Microsoft gained an unlikely ally in accepting the contributions have Abraham for Senate $24,650.00 Kerrey for the Caucus chairman, Representative James unsuccessful. US Senate $10,000.00 E. Clyburn (D- SC), ‘‘who represents one of 34. Significant contributions were also Adam Smith for Congress $31,750.00 the least technology-rich districts in the made in Missouri by Microsoft to help re- Leadership PAC 2000 (Oxley) $10,000.00 country.’’ 15 In addition, a timely $10 million elect Senator John Ashcroft, the current U.S. American Success PAC(Drier) $11,750.00 gift to the U.S. Capitol Visitor’s Center Attorney General. Missouri was another state Majority Leader’s Fund (Armey) $11,000.00 further endeared Microsoft to many Members where independent groups without Ashcroft (combined) $19,250.00 McCain of Congress. significant resources of their own suddenly 2000 $39,448.00 40. Yet the strategic philanthropy began were flush with money to run ads defending Bill Bradley for President $33,400.00 long before the 2000 election cycle. Ashcroft and attacking his opponent. McIntosh for Governor $25,000.00 According to the Gates Foundation web site, Ashcroft, whose campaign benefited greatly Brian Baird for Congress $38,400.00 there was a three-year hiatus in philanthropic from Microsoft’s disclosed campaign Michigan Republican State Ctte. $50,000.00 giving between 1995 and 1998. Curiously, the contributions—$19,000 in reported Bush for President $57,300.00 Montana last donation in 1995 occurred just prior to donations—lost his election bid. He now Republican State Ctte. $10,000.00 the signing of the 1995 consent decree and runs the federal executive department Bush/Cheney Inaugural $100,000.00 NDN the first donation in 1998 occurred the day responsible for proposing the settlement $38,750.00 prior to the Department of Justice filing its offer, and his office is now staffed with California FriendsLatino PAC $10,000.00 antitrust suit against Microsoft. political operatives who played a role in New Majority Project $15,000.00 c. Lobbying raising the $19,000 from Microsoft, California Women Vote $10,000.00 New 41. In addition to the millions Microsoft coordinating his campaign efforts with those York Senate 2000 $40,000.00 spent on campaign contributions, the of Microsoft in Missouri, and in one case, Cantwell 2000 $30,150.00 NWLeadership company spent millions more lobbying directing the entire Republican National PAC (Gorton) $17,000.00 Congress, the Administration and state officials to influence the outcome of the Committee fundraising and political Citizens for Rick Larsen $35,600.00 antitrust trial. Much like its campaign campaign operation in the 2000 election Republican Party $1,691,090.50 contributions, the company’s lobbying cycle. DASHPAC $10,000.00 Republican presence in 35. Deborah Senn, the Democratic primary Campaign Committee of New Mexico Washington has grown significantly in the opponent of Washington State Senator $33,492.48 last few years, its growth accelerating rapidly Cantwell, received $15,000 more from Democratic Party $1,300,892.00 at the outset of the antitrust trial. Once just Microsoft than did Cantwell who received Republican Majority Fund (Don Nickles) Jack Krumholtz, the company’s lobbying $30,150. This total, however, dwarfs the $15,000.00 group now employs money poured into now-former Senator Democratic Party of Georgia $20,000.00 40 people in Redmond and Washington. Gorton’s campaign—$131,160. Only Republican Party of Virginia $12,000.00 The company has hired a dozen lobbying Democratic Congressman Jay Inslee’s total Dooley for Congress $10,500.00 Republican firms and counts among its consultants and of $126,850 comes close to that of former Senate Council $15,000.00 lobbyists some of the most prominent figures Senator Gorton. Congressman Inslee EMILY’s List $176,600.00 Santorum 2000 in politics. A company with 30,000 represents Microsoft’s home district, and $11,000.00 employees, Microsoft has more lobbyists on defends the company vigorously in Ensign for Senate $10,000.00 Senn 2000 retainer than the handful of U.S. companies Washington, D.C. $45,651.00 with more than 300,000 employees. 36. In addition to those in Washington Feinstein 2000 $12,000.00 Snowe for According to USA Today, ‘‘in 1996, the State, candidates or parties in three other Senate $10,000.00 company spent $1.2 million on its states received contributions totaling six Friends for Slade Gorton $131,160.00 Washington lobbying operations. [In 1999], figures. California was second at $174,900 TechNet $10,000.00 that figure topped $4.6 million.’’ According with virtually the entire amount going to Friends of Conrad Bums $15,250.00 Utah to Business Week in reference to the Leadership PACs—Members’’ PACs that Republican Party $29,383.00 company’s political spending, ‘‘These days, contribute money to other allied Friends of Heidi $16,300.00 Washington Microsoft money flows like champagne at a candidates—and directly to Members of State Democratic Central Committee wedding.’’ 16 Some of the biggest names in Congress. Texas was third at $107,250 $30,387.00 Washington going back 30 years represent although this amount does not include Friends of Jennifer Dunn $14,700.00 Microsoft—many are former bosses of the contributions to the Bush/Cheney campaign. Washington State Republican Party people they lobby. There are more than a This was an unusually large amount for the $104,150.00 half-dozen former Members of Congress, four state when compared to previous giving Gore for President $28,000.00 Washington former White House Chief Counsels, patterns. Victory Committee 1999 $35,500.00 countless dozens of former senior aides from 37. While Microsoft contributed $100,000 Inslee for Congress $126,850.00 the Congress, Justice Department and to the Bush/Cheney Inaugural Committee in Washington Victory Fund $55,000.00 elsewhere throughout the highest levels of January 2001, virtually all contributions to Jim Davis for Congress $17,250.00 government. presidential campaigns were made prior to Washington Women Vote $11,000.00 i. Lobbying the Administration July 31st, with the exception of contributions Jon Kyl for Senate $11,000.00 Western 42. Since the inauguration of George W, to Libertarian Party candidate Harry Republican PAC $10,000.00 Bush in January 2001, Microsoft has made a Browne’s campaign. (This is presumably Kennedy for Senate $12,000.00 Women concerted effort to strengthen its ties to the because, to be eligible for federal matching Vote 2000 $100,000.00 Administration. The Administration’s funds for the primaries and federal funding B. ‘‘Strategic’’ Philanthropy decision to agree to a settlement widely for the general election, major party 38. Microsoft has also contributed money accepted to be ineffective calls into question candidates receiving are not allowed to to the causes of politicians as yet another the nature of such ties. solicit or receive campaign contributions method to use donations, political in nature, after they are nominated at their to gamer support and ultimately influence 14 USA Today, May 30, 2000, Drinkard, Ullman conventions.) Only four primary presidential the outcome of the trial. 15 BusinessWeek, May 15, 2000, Carney, Borrus, candidates received contributions greater 39. According to USA Today, Microsoft Greene than $10,000: Bill Bradley, $33,400; George and the philanthropic arm of its founder and 16 16 ibid.
VerDate 11
43. Prior to the announcement of the Bush in Austin was ‘‘part of a delicate 53. The company also hired Ginny settlement, for example, it has been reported political dance between the software giant Terzano, former Gore press secretary, and there was an inappropriate, if not illegal, and the Republican Party .... Dollar signs in tobacco industry ad man Carter Eskew, a discussion between a senior aide to Attorney their eyes, GOP leaders covet big political former Gore adviser-cum-Microsoft image General John Ashcroft and a lobbyist for contributions from Microsoft’s coffers. In consultant who helped craft the company’s AOL-Time Warner. turn, Microsoft executives, plagued by the 1999 advertising campaign aimed at 44. According to the account in the New Clinton Justice Department’s lawsuit, hope bolstering its reputation as a ‘‘good corporate York Times, the senior aide to General that a Republican president and Congress citizen.’’ Also retained by Microsoft was Ashcroft is David Israelite. Israelite was the might shut down the efforts to punish the super-lobbyist Jack Quinn, former Chief of political director of the Republican National company.’’ 50. A number of other Microsoft Staff to Vice President Al Gore and White Committee which received more than a executives, lobbyists and other paid counsel House Counsel. million dollars from Microsoft during the lead back to the Bush camp. The company’s iii. Lobbying Capitol Hill 2000 presidential campaign. Chief Operating Officer, Steve Ballmer, 54. But Microsoft did not focus solely on In that role, Mr. Israelite directed served then Governor Bush as a technology lobbying those who would soon be in control fundraising operations and coordinated adviser. Tony Feather, former Bush political of the Department of Justice. Microsoft also campaign activities between entities like director, is a partner with a Republican waged a massive lobbying campaign aimed at Microsoft and the national party apparatus. consulting firm Microsoft hired to manage Congress. Now General Ashcroft’s deputy chief of staff grassroots lobbying efforts. And Microsoft 55. Alongside its Administration-oriented in the Office of the Attorney General, Mr. has paid lobbyist and former head of the team, Microsoft recruited more lobbyists and Israelite recused himself from the case as a Republican Party Haley Barbour hundreds of consultants with ties to Members of Congress result of his ownership of 100 shares of thousands of dollars to assist the company in on both sides of the aisle. Republican hires Microsoft stock. Washington. The company has also hired Vin included Allison McSlarrow, former deputy 45. The Times wrote, ‘‘According to the Weber, a former Republican Congressman, chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Trent notes of a person briefed about the and Michael Deaver, the former White House Lott, Ed Kutler, former assistant to then conversation on Oct. 9, the day it is said to chief of staff and trusted adviser credited Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Mitch have occurred, Mr. Israelite called [AOL with crafting President Ronald Reagan’s Bainwol, former chief of staff to the Senate lobbyist] Mr. [Wayne] Berman. ‘‘Are you guys image and campaign advertisements in the Republican Caucus and the Republcian behind this business of the states hiring their 1980s. 51. In addition, Microsoft retained the National Committee, Kerry Knott, former own lawyers in the Microsoft case?’’ Mr. services of Ralph Reed’s Century Strategies chief of staff to House Majority Leader Israelite asked Mr. Berman in the predawn ‘‘for the stated purpose of improving the Richard Armey, Ed Gillespie, former Armey 20 Reed’s firm—a conversation, according to the notes. ‘Tell company’s public image.’’ and Republican National Committee paid consultant to the Bush campaign— your clients we wouldn’t be too happy about communications director, and Mimi aimed itself at mobilizing Bush supporters to that.’’ Simoneaux, former legislative director to express to the candidate their dissatisfaction 46. Israelite allegedly said on that call that House Commerce Committee Chairman Billy with the antitrust trial. Once it was reported the Supreme Court was soon to deny Tauzin, who was then-chairman of the House Microsoft’s appeal, which would prompt the in the New York Times, the firm issued an apology. The Wall Street Journal later subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department of Justice to seek a settlement. He technology industry. was reported to have complained that AOL reported more on Ralph Reed’s lobbying efforts on Microsoft’s behalf: 56. Among the Democrats lobbying on was ‘‘radicalizing’’ the states. 17 While the ‘‘BOUNTY PAYMENTS are offered for pro- behalf of Microsoft were Jamie Houton, conversation was confirmed, the participants Microsoft letters and calls. Republican Ralph former associate director of the Senate denied the content of the conversation. Still, Reed’s lobbying firm coordinates a network Democratic Steering Committee, former it was enough to provoke angry responses of public-relations and lobbying partners that Democratic Representative Vic Fazio, the from the technology industry and an generates grass-roots comments for cash. third-highest ranking House Democrat, and accusation of ‘‘inappropriate and possibly Payments are for letters, calls and visits to his former top staffer Tom Jurkovich. illegal’’ conduct from a key House Democrat, lawmakers and policy makers. An e-mail 57. Despite Microsoft’s assertion in its Congressman John Conyers, Ranking offers sample letters opposing a Microsoft mere three-page Tunney Act disclosure Democratic Member of the House Judiciary breakup. A letter to a member of Congress filing, the company has incessantly used its Committee. In a letter to Attorney General from a mayor or local Republican Party tremendous resources to contact and Ashcroft, Rep. Conyers asked for more official is worth $200, the guidelines say. A influence Members of Congress. Over the information about Israelite’s alleged contacts ‘‘premier’’ letter or visit by a fund-raiser course of a 16-month period beginning in with Berman, specifically asking for a list of known to the lawmaker or a family member 1999, Microsoft flew at least 130 Members of contacts between Israelite and AOL officials. can be worth up to $450 apiece. An op-ed Congress or their staff to the company’s ‘‘If the allegations reported by the media are piece in local papers fetches $500.’’ 21 headquarters in Redmond, Washington to true, such active involvement by a recused 52. Microsoft was lobbying the Democratic lobby on a number of issues, including the public official could violate federal conflict side as well. Like its team of Republican all- antitrust case. of interest laws,’’ Conyers wrote. 18 stars, Microsoft’s team of Democrats had very 58. Perhaps the most egregious example of ii. Lobbying on the Campaign Trail close ties to its party as well. The team its heavy-handed largesse came in late 1999, 47. Mirroring its political giving strategy, included ‘‘super lobbyist’’ Tommy Boggs, a when Microsoft lobbied Congress to cut $9 Microsoft’s lobbying strategy has focused top Washington insider with deep million from the budget for the Department mainly on Republicans, while hedging its Democratic ties, Tom Downey, a former of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the very body bets and simultaneously courting Democrats Democratic Congressman with close ties to that was leading the prosecution against to a slightly lesser extent. 48. During the former Vice President Al Gore, and Craig Microsoft. Pilloried industries like the gun campaign, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was Smith, former campaign manager for Gore and tobacco had considered and rejected the asked if a Republican administration would and board member of the Microsoft front strategy as overly bold. be a positive development for the company. group, Americans for Technology 59. According to the Washington Post, It would ‘‘help,’’ he said. 19 After all, before Leadership. As a board member of the ATL, ‘‘Nonprofit organizations that receive Judge Jackson ruled against Microsoft, then Smith wrote to the Democratic National financial support from [Microsoft] have also Governor Bush was quoted as saying that he Committee urging his fellow party members urged key congressional appropriators to stood ‘‘on the side of innovation, not to abandon support for the antitrust case, limit spending for the division .... The non litigation.’’ citing that support ‘‘would make us profits made their request in a letter last 49. In fact, according to Newsweek vulnerable to attack in the general election.’’ month after an all-expenses-paid trip to Magazine, Bill Gates’s visit to then Governor 22 Microsoft headquarters in Redmond, Washington, where they were entertained 17 17 New York Times, Nov. 2, 2001 20 20 ibid. and briefed on an array of issues facing the 18 The Kansas City Star, Nov. 8, 2000, Kraske 21 WSJ, Oct. 20, 2000 company.’’ Further discussion follows in the 19 Common Cause, ‘‘The Microsoft Playbook’’ 22 Common Cause, ‘‘The Microsoft Playbook’’ next section entitled ‘‘Front Groups.’’
VerDate 11
60. After the previously secret letters from exhibited the true nature of Microsoft’s Similarly, the company has hired many these non-profit groups were exposed, news ‘‘public support’’ and the depths to which Washington, DC-based law firms with of the attempts received widespread the company will go to influence the antitrust expertise to work on issues not bipartisan criticism from media and outcome of the trial. related to the antitrust case. ‘‘They’ve got the politicians alike. House Judiciary Committee 65. In August 2001, the Los Angeles Times whole town conflicted out,’’ said one Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL), called the reported that two letters received by the Utah attorney. ‘‘They’ve sucked out all the division ‘‘one of the best-run departments in Attorney General’s office, one of the oxygen.’’ 29 the government.’’ Senator Herb Kohl, a prosecuting states, were sent by dead men. D. Front Groups 70. Supporting its political Democrat on the Senate Judiciary The campaign was funded by Craig Smith’s contributions and lobbying campaign, Committee’s antitrust subcommittee, said ‘‘it Americans for Technology Leadership. Microsoft undertook an aggressive public would set [a] terrible precedent to alter the Despite its claims to represent ‘‘thousands of relations campaign aimed at ‘‘creating the division’s budget based on one case alone.’’ small and mid-sized technology companies,’’ appearance of a groundswell of public ‘‘It’s like the Mafia trying to defund the FBI,’’ news reports have repeatedly characterized support for the company.’’ 30 said a prominent member of the Washington ATL and its counterpart, the Association for 71. In April 1998, a reporter for the Los antitrust bar. 23 According to Jan McDavid, a Competitive Technology (ACT) as essentially Angeles Times received a package of lawyer with the Washington firm of Hogan & wholly- owned subsidiaries of Microsoft confidential materials created by Edelman Hartson and chairperson of the American Bar Corp., whose funding launched and sustains Public Relations for its client, Microsoft. Association’s antitrust section, the section’s both groups. 26 Other characteristics of the Among the documents was a media relations policy states that it ‘‘opposes the use of the letter writing campaign to the Attorneys strategy for a ‘‘multi-million dollar’’ congressional budget and appropriations General included similar phrases popping up campaign aimed at stemming the rash of process to intervene in or influence ongoing again and again, invalid return addresses, antitrust investigations being undertaken by antitrust enforcement matters.’’ 24One and even masses of identical letters with a number of states in conjunction with the congressional GOP staffer went as far as to different signatories. federal government’s investigation. say that Microsoft’s lobbying had ‘‘the odor 66. In one news story, Jim Prendergast, According to the reporters, Greg Miller and of obstruction.’’ 25 director of ATL, initially admitted only to Leslie Helm, ‘‘the elaborate plan ... hinges on 61. Not surprisingly, Senator Slade Gorton, providing letter writers with ‘‘message a number of unusual—and some say a Republican from Microsoft’s home state of points.’’ ‘‘We gave them a few bullet points, unethical—tactics, including the planting of Washington, was adamantly supportive of but that’s about the extent of it,’’ he said. articles, letters to the editor and opinion the idea. Between 1997 and 1999, he received When asked why identical phrases were pieces to be commissioned by Microsoft’s top more than $50,000 from Microsoft and its popping up again and again, he confessed media handlers but presented by local firms employees. During the 2000 election cycle, that sometimes ATL did indeed provide as spontaneous testimonials.’’ 31 While Gorton’s PAC received $17,000 while the whole letters for the citizens to sign and Microsoft contends that this strategy was Washington State Republican Party received send. ‘‘We’d write the letter and then send never implemented, a number of the more than $100,000. it to them,’’ he admitted. company’s activities since the outset of the iv. Lobbying the States 67. According to the same article, other trial clearly indicate that most of the 62. Because 19 state attorneys general states, like Minnesota and Iowa, were elements have been employed, at times initiated the antitrust case alongside the subjected to Microsoft’s full-press grassroots repeatedly. Department of Justice, Microsoft initiated a lobbying campaign. Both states are 72. Throughout the antitrust trial, state lobbying campaign aimed at influencing participants in the antitrust case. In the case Microsoft relied heavily on many those attorneys general to back away from the of Iowa, Attorney General Tom Miller ‘‘independent’’ groups to support the case. Microsoft even hired former Iowa received more than 50 letters in a month’s company and to oppose the suit publicly. House Speaker Donald Avenson to lobby the time calling on him to drop the case. While Some groups they created themselves out of state’s Attorney General, who was leading the none of the letters were identical, several whole cloth during the trial. Others sullied group of states prosecuting the company. phrases were similar. In four of the letters, for their long, distinguished backgrounds by While Microsoft has retained professional example, the following sentence appeared: trading hard cash for the use of their good ‘‘grassroots consultants’’ and others in many ‘‘Strong competition and innovation have names. Many denied any involvement with states, according to published reports, it is been the twin hallmarks of the technology Microsoft, claiming that their passion came their efforts in the 19 states with Attorneys industry.’’ Three others contained this from concern for the economy or General who brought suit against them where sentence: ‘‘If the future is going to be as ‘‘innovation’’—only to later be unmasked by the real pressure has occurred. In those states successful as the recent past, the technology the news media when evidence of their they have retained former lawmakers, law sector must remain free from excess financial dealings with Microsoft came to partners of the Attorneys General, their regulation.’’ 27 light. One account suggests Microsoft has predecessors in that same office, business 68. Minnesota Attorney General Michael harnessed at least 15 advocacy groups and associates, and their own trusted political Hatch, who received 300 identical letters, think tanks that use Microsoft donations to consultants. Microsoft has also hired those characterized the campaign as ‘‘sleazy.’’ spread the company’s message through polls, on whom the AGs are often most politically Many of the letter writers were misled by news conferences, Web sites, letters to the dependent, such as union leaders and Microsoft and one even wrote by hand to editor, research papers, opinion pieces and activists in states with Democratic Attorneys Attorney General Hatch to say so and to letter-writing campaigns aimed at lawmakers. 32 General, and fiscally conservative activists in apologize for his previous letter. ‘‘I sure was state with Republican AGs. misled,’’ he wrote. ‘‘It’s time for you to get 73. Groups with names like Americans for 63. Perhaps the company’s most successful out there and kick butt.’’ 28 Technology Leadership and the Association effort to influence the state attorneys general vi. Tying Up the Lobbyists and Lawyers for Competitive Technology had the veneer came in 1998, when, three days after a 69. A frequently employed tactic of of genuine independence, but were actually $25,000 contribution to the South Carolina Microsoft is to retain all major lobbying firms founded by Microsoft, launched with Republican Party, the state’s Attorney in key states so that its opposition cannot. Microsoft dollars, and work on few other General, Charles Condon, announced that he issues than the defense of Microsoft in its antitrust trial. would withdraw from the case. 26 ‘‘Microsoft’s All-Out Counterattack.’’ Dan 64. Yet, a few of its grassroots efforts Carney, with Amy Borrus. BusinessWeek May 15, targeted at the states have done more harm 2000; ‘‘Microsoft’s Lobbying Largess Pays Off; Back- 29 Business Week, May 15, 2000, Borrus, Carney, than good. Because of the unprecedented Channel Effort Wins Support for Case.’’ James V. Greene 30 size, scope and cost of Microsoft’s campaign, Grimaldi. Washington Post May 17, 2000; ‘‘Trust Us, We’re Experts’’ Sheldon Rampton ‘‘Microsoft leans creatively on levers of political and John Stauber, p. 8 a number of high profile gaffes have power as breakup decision looms, ‘stealth’’ 31 ibid. lobbying efforts aim for survival.’’ Jim Drinkard and 32 32 USA TODAY, ‘‘Microsoft leans creatively on 23 23 Reuters, Oct. 17, 1999, Lawsky Owen Ullmann. USA Today May 30, 2000 levers of political power as breakup decision looms, 24 ibid. 27 Los Angeles Times, August 23,2001 ‘stealth’’ lobbying efforts aim for survival’’ by Jim 25 WS J, Oct. 15, 1999 28 28 Los Angeles Times, August 23, 2001 Drinkard and Owen Ullmann, May 30, 2000
VerDate 11
74. Even well known Washington, DC written in the New York Times, ‘‘among the headquarters ‘‘for three days of briefings that organizations with strong ties to the institute’s internal documents is a bill from included tickets to a Seattle Mariners game Administration and to Congress were well Mr. Theroux sent to John A. C. Kelly of and dinner and entertainment at Seattle’s funded by Microsoft—respected fiscally Microsoft for the full costs of the ads, plus Teatro ZinZani, according to an itinerary.’’ conservative groups like Grover Norquist’s his travel expenses from San Francisco to 38Among the groups were Citizens for a Americans for Tax Reform, former White Washington for the news conference, totaling Sound Economy, the National Taxpayers House Counsel C. Boyden Grey’s Citizens for $153,868.67. Included was a $5,966 bill for Union and Americans for Tax Reform, whose a Sound Economy, the National Taxpayers airline tickets for himself (Theroux) and a president, Grover Norquist, received $40,000 Union and Citizens Against Government colleague. Unfortunately, he wrote Mr. Kelly, in lobbying payments from Microsoft during Waste. But upon closer scrutiny, the true ties ‘the airlines were heavily booked’’ and ‘we the second half of 1998. of these groups to Microsoft became had to fly first class to DC and business class 83. Two days after returning from the trip, apparent. By paying for pro-Microsoft on the return.’’’ Furthermore, despite those three groups and three others secretly advertisements, by sponsoring publications, additional statements from its president that sent a letter to House appropriators urging by donating money outright, Microsoft both it ‘‘adheres to the highest standards of that the Antitrust Division receive the lowest ensured and devalued their support. independent scholarly inquiry,’’ internal amount of funding proposed. In a 75. According to Business Week, Microsoft institute documents have shown that, having coordinated effort, on the same day one of ‘‘secretly funds those that do its public- contributed more than $200,000, or 20% of Microsoft’s own lobbyists, Kerry Knott, met relations work and pulls funding from those the institute’s total outside contributions, with Rep. Dan Miller of Florida to urge him that dare question its positions.’’ 33 On one Microsoft ‘‘secretly served as the institute’s to grant the Antitrust Division the lower such occasion, Microsoft pulled funding from largest outside benefactor [in 1999].’’ 36 It amount of funds. That meeting prompted the American Enterprise Institute once one of wasn’t until September that the institute Rep. Miller to write to the chairman of the its fellows, Robert Bork, came out in favor of finally admitted the extent of Microsoft’s House Appropriations Commerce, Justice, the antitrust trial even though the institute support. State and Judiciary Subcommittee that ‘‘it itself has no position on the trial and many 78. In these instances, as in others, would be a devastating blow to the high-tech of its technical and antitrust experts have Microsoft’s behavior outside the courtroom industry and to our overall economy if the expressed their opposition to the case. In had a direct impact on the proceedings inside federal government succeeds in its efforts to another case, they quit a technology industry the courtroom. According to the New York regulate this industry through litigation.’’ trade group, the Software and Information Times, the ads prompted not only more news According to the Washington Post, ‘‘Miller 37 Industry Association, because a majority of stories but also courtroom discussion. said that while he objects to the funding on its members supported the antitrust case. Microsoft also covered the costs of the fiscal grounds, he had not focused on it until i. Independent Institute publication of the institute’s book, ‘‘Winners, Knott and Citizens for a Sound Economy 76. In one instance, Microsoft paid for the Losers and Microsoft: Competition and spokeswoman Christin Tinsworth, a former placement of newspaper advertisements by Antitrust in High Technology,’’ which Miller staffer, made their pitch just off the the California-based Independent Institute. Microsoft’s economic witness in the trial House floor.’’ 39 Published in June 1999 in the New York then used to support his own testimony. 84. A Washington Post editorial Times and the Washington Post, the full-page ii. Biased Polling summarized the propriety of the incident this ads featured a pro-Microsoft letter signed by 79. According to Business Week, Microsoft way: ‘‘[T]he fact that Microsoft has the right 240 academics. Nothing in the ad’s copy has also commissioned polls to help foster an to lobby ... doesn’t make the lobbying any indicated to readers who—other than the image of great public support for the less unseemly. If Microsoft has a gripe, it Institute itself- was paying for the ads. company. At the outset of the 2000 should make its complaint to the court Apparently, no one at the Independent presidential campaign, around the time of the hearing its case.’’ 40 Institute indicated to the letter’s 240 Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire III. CONCLUSIONS signatories who was paying for the ad either. primary, Microsoft funded polls aimed at 85. The end result of Microsoft’s One signatory, Professor Simon Hakim of demonstrating the public’s opposition to the unprecedented political campaign seems to Temple University, stated that he would not antitrust case. Once the results were in, have been rewarded by the weak settlement have signed on to the advertisement had he Microsoft distributed the results to the media presented by the Department of Justice. known who was behind it. 34 in order to compel the candidates to Respectfully Submitted, 77. At a Washington, DC press conference incorporate their opposition to the case into Edward Roeder unveiling the ads, Independent Institute their platform. January 28, 2002 president David Theroux answered a 80. In addition, while the state Attorneys APPENDIX A: Selected Tables reporter’s specific question about whether General were working through the spring on Table 1. Rapid Rises in Corporate PAC Microsoft had anything to do with the ads, formulating a remedy, Microsoft front group Fundraising, 1979–2002 including paying for them, with a resounding Americans for Technology Leadership (After Raising More than $50,000) ‘‘no.’’ When questioned months later by the conducted and issued the results of a poll, Microsoft Corporation, Formed: 1987–88, New York Times, Theroux again denied that which concluded that the public wanted the Total Raised, 1995–96: $59,750, Total Raised, Microsoft paid for the ads. He said, instead, Attorneys General to focus their time and 1997–98: $599,568, Difference: $539,818 = that the ads ‘‘were paid for out of our general energy on other issues. In this case, Microsoft 903.46% Rank: 1 funds.’’ He also said the ‘‘implication that failed to disclose the nature of its American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Microsoft had any influence is ridiculous.’’ 35 relationship with ATL and the source of Formed: 1983–84, Total Raised, 1983–84: But, according to a front-page article later funding for the poll. $215,423, Total Raised, 1985–86: $1,820,621, iii. Targeting the Antitrust Division of the Difference: $1,605,198 = 745.14% Rank: 2 Department of Justice 33 Business Week, May 15, 2000, Carney, Borrus, Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. Greene 81. As stated above, one of Microsoft’s Formed: 1981–82, Total Raised, 1983–84: 34 most egregious attempts to use lobbying to $66,844, Total Raised, 1985–86: $446,279, I am aware there have been allegations that influence the outcome of the antitrust trial Difference: $379,435 = 567.64% Rank: 3 material relating to the Independent Institute was came when the company lobbied to cut Safari Club International Formed: 1979–80, uncovered by Investigative Group International funding for the Antitrust Division of the Total Raised, 1993=94: $94,149, Total Raised, (IGI), allegedly retained by Oracle Corporation. My Department of Justice. Microsoft funded a 1995–96: $545,915, Difference: $451,766 = understanding of the circumstances indicates that host of third parties to push forth its agenda. 479.84% Rank: 4 employees of IGI’s were terminated as a result of 82. In September 1999, the company flew Fluor Corporation Formed: 1979–80, Total their actions. I have not reviewed those allegations representatives from about 15 major Raised, 1987–88: $87,236, Total Raised, specifically, since the subject of my review was Washington, DC- based think tanks to defendant, Microsoft Corporation. Regardless, neither the Independent Institute nor Microsoft ever Microsoft’s Redmond, Washington 38 The Washington Post, Oct. 15, 1999, Morgan, denied the validity of the claims after they were Eilperin exposed. 36 New York Times, Sept. 19, 1999 39 ibid. 35 Associated Press, September 18, 1999 37 New York Times, Sept. 19, 1999 40 Washington Post, Oct. 24, 1999
VerDate 11
1989–90: $494,417, Difference: $407,181 = 1983–84: $280,183, Difference: $214,645 = TABLE 3.—LARGEST CASH BALANCES 466.76% Rank: 5 327.51% Next Cycle: 1985–86, Total Raised: AT END OF 1999–2000 ELECTION Dow Chemical, USA—HQ Formed: 1979– $364,113, Difference: $83,930 = 29.96% CYCLE 80, Total Raised, 1995–96: $60,290, Total Rank: 5 Raised, 1997–98: $331,286, Difference: Fluor Corporation Formed: 1979–80, Total American Corporate PACs $270,996 = 449.49% Rank: 6 Raised, 1987–88: $87,236, Total Raised, Lucent Technologies, Inc. Formed: 1995– Cash on 96, Total Raised, 1995–96: $87,568, Total 1989–90: $494,417, Difference: $407,181 = Rank PAC Sponsor Hand Raised, 1997–98: $464,592, Difference: 466.76% Next Cycle: 1991–92, Total Raised: $377,024 = 430.55% Rank: 7 $610,142, Difference: $115,725 = 23.41% 1 ...... Microsoft Corpora- $712,874 Nat’l Star Route Mail Contractors Ass’n Rank: 6 tion. Formed: 1981–82, Total Raised, 1995–96: Nat’l Star Route Mail Contractors Ass’n 2 ...... Southern Bell Tele- 617,922 $63,512, Total Raised, 1983–84: $313,609, Formed: 1981–82, Total Raised, 1995–96: phone & Tele- Difference: $250,097 = 393.78% Rank: 8 $63,512, Total Raised, 1983–84: $313,609, graph Co.. Eastern Airlines, Inc. Formed: 1979–80, Difference: $250,097 = 393.78% Next Cycle: 3 ...... Crawford Group / 611,442 Total Raised, 1985–86: $53,309, Total Raised, 1985–86, Total Raised: $43,468, Difference: Enterprise Leasing. 1987–88: $243,529, Difference: $190,220 = 4 ...... Southwestern Bell 550,841 $2,269 = 5.51% Rank: 7 356.83% Rank: 9 Corporation. Pacific Telesis Group Formed: 1979–80, Firstar (First Wisconsin) Corp. Formed: 5 ...... Chrysler / Gulfstream 481,068 Total Raised, 1981–82: $65,538, Total Raised, 1979–80, Total Raised, 1997–98: $113,743, Aerospace Corp.. 1983–84: $280,183, Difference: $214,645 = Total Raised, 1999–00: $480,239, Difference: 6 ...... Federal Express 424,739 327.51% Rank: 10 $366,496 = 322.21% Next Cycle: (data Corporation. Henley Group/Wheelabrator Technologies, incomplete, cycle now in progress) 7 ...... NationsBank ...... 413,663 Inc. Formed: 1979–80, Total Raised, 1985–86: CSX Corp.—Jeffboat Formed: 1981–82, 8 ...... First Union Corpora- 410,242 $89,255, Total Raised, 1987–88: $380,102, Total Raised, 1997–98: $74,125, Total Raised, tion. Difference: $290,847 = 325.86% Rank: 11 9 ...... First Bank System, 405,187 Firstar (First Wisconsin) Corp. Formed: 1999–00: $303,763, Difference: $229,638 = 309.80% Next Cycle: (data incomplete, cycle Inc.. 1979–80, Total Raised, 1997–98: $113,743, 10 ...... Stone Container Cor- 368,973 Total Raised, 1999–00: $480,239, Difference: now in progress) poration. $366,496 = 322.21% Rank: 12 Dow Chemical, USA—HQ Formed: 1979– 11 ...... General Electric 359,469 U.S. West, Inc. Formed: 1983–84, Total 80, Total Raised, 1995–96: $60,290, Total Company. Raised, 1987–88: $123,767, Total Raised, Raised, 1997–98: $331,286, Difference: 12 ...... National Health Cor- 340,205 1989–90: $521,886, Difference: $398,119 = $270,996 = 449.49% Next Cycle: 1999–00, poration. 321.67% Rank: 13 Total Raised: $279,618, Difference: $-51,668 CSX Corp.—Jeffboat Formed: 1981–82, 13 ...... Exxon Corporation ... 328,559 = -15.60% Rank: 10 Total Raised, 1997–98: $74,125, Total Raised, 14 ...... Outback 325,977 1999–00: $303,763, Difference: $229,638 = Lucent Technologies, Inc. Formed: 1995– Steakhouse, Inc.. 309.80% Rank: 14 96, Total Raised, 1995–96: $87,568, Total 15 ...... Columbia / HCA 284,827 J. P. Morgan & Company, Inc. Formed: Raised, 1997–98: $464,592, Difference: Healthcare. 1979–80, Total Raised, 1983–84: $68,569, $377,024 = 430.55% Next Cycle: 1999–00, 16 ...... American Family 283,963 Total Raised, 1985–86: $274,515, Difference: Total Raised: $343,462, Difference: $-121,130 Corporation. 17 ...... Cooper Industries, 281,054 $205,946 = 300.35% Rank: 15 = -26.07% Rank: 11 Inc.. Source: Computer analysis by Sunshine Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. Press Services of Federal 18 ...... Suntrust Banks, Inc. 275,779 Formed: 1981–82, Total Raised, 1983–84: 19 ...... Winn-Dixie Stores, 273,232 Election Commission data, Jan. 1, 1979 $66,844, Total Raised, 1985–86: $446,279, 27 through Dec. 31, 2000. Inc.. Table 2. Continued Rises in Corporate PAC MTC–00028684—0173 Difference: $379,435 20 ...... Jacobs Engineering 272,982 Fundraising, 1979–2002 = 567.64% Next Cycle: 1987–88, Total Group, Inc.. 21 ...... Ford Motor Company 264,914 Following Rapid Rise of More than 300% Raised: $310,188, Difference: $-136,091 = 22 ...... U.S. West, Inc...... 261,289 from a base of $50,000+ (Ranked by -30.49% Rank: 12 Percentage Rise in Next Election Cycle) 23 ...... Compass Banc- 253,625 Microsoft Corporation Formed: 1987–88, Safari Club International Formed: 1979–80, shares, Inc.. Total Raised, 1993=94: $94,149, Total Raised, Total Raised, 1995–96: $59,750, Total Raised, Source: Computer analysis by Sunshine 1997–98: $599,568, Difference: $539,818 = 1995–96: $545,915, Difference: $451,766 = Press Services of Federal 903.46% Next Cycle: 1999–00, Total Raised: 479.84% Next Cycle: 1997–98, Total Raised: Election Commission data. $1,589,684, Difference: $990,116 = 165.14% $378,078, Difference: $-167,837 = -30.74% Table 4. Largest Percentage Increases in Rank: 1 Rank: 13 J. P. Morgan & Company, Inc. Formed: Receipts Over Two Eastern Airlines, Inc. Formed: 1979–80, Election Cycles 1979–80, Total Raised, 1983–84: $68,569, Total Raised, 1985–86: $53,309, Total Raised, Total Raised, 1985–86: $274,515, Difference: American Corporate PACs With More Than 1987–88: $243,529, Difference: $190,220 = $205,946 = 300.35% Next Cycle: 1987–88, $50,000 Total Raised: $514,285, Difference: $239,770 356.83% Next Cycle: 1989–90, Total Raised: Microsoft Corporation Formed:1987–88, = 87.34% Rank: 2 $105,734, Difference: $-137,795 = -56.58% Total Raised, 1995–96: $59,750, Total Raised, American Telephone & Telegraph Co. Rank: 14 1999–00: $1,589,684, Difference: $1,529,934 Formed: 1983–84, Total Raised, 1983–84: Henley Group/Wheelabrator Technologies, = 2,560.56% Rank: 1 $215,423, Total Raised, 1985–86: $1,820,621, Formed: 1979–80, Total Raised, 1985–86: American Telephone & Telegraph Co. Difference: $1,605,198 = 745.14% Next $89,255, Total Raised, 1987–88: $380,102, Formed:1983–84, Total Raised, 1983–84: Cycle: 1987–88, Total Raised: $3,043,510, Difference: $290,847 = 325.86% Next Cycle: $215,423, Total Raised, 1987–88: $3,043,510, Difference: $2,828,087 = 1,312.81% Rank: 2 Difference: $1,222,889 = 67.17% Rank: 3 1989–90, Total Raised: $141,072, Difference: Firstar (First Wisconsin) Corp. U.S. West, Inc. Formed: 1983–84, Total $-239,030 = -62.89% Rank: 15 Raised, 1987–88: $123,767, Total Raised, Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1995–96: Source: Computer analysis by Sunshine 1989–90: $521,886, Difference: $398,119 = $59,437, Total Raised, 1999–00: $480,239, 321.67% Next Cycle: 1991–92, Total Raised: Press Services of Federal Difference: $420,802 = 707.98% Rank: 3 $734,130, Difference: $212,244 = 40.67% Election Commission data, Jan. 1, 1979 J. P. Morgan & Company, Inc. Rank: 4 through Dec. 31, 2000. Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1983–84: Pacific Telesis Group Formed: 1979–80, $68,569, Total Raised, 1987–88: $514,285, Total Raised, 1981–82: $65,538, Total Raised, Difference: $445,716 = 650.03% Rank: 4
VerDate 11
U.S. West, Inc. Formed:1983–84, Total Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company Raised, 1985–86: $69,588, Total Raised, Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1979–80: Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1989–90: 1989–90: $521,886, Difference: $452,298 = $56,895, Total Raised, 1983–84: $282,297, $74,612, Total Raised, 1993=94: $319,846, 649.97% Rank: 5 Difference: $225,402 = 396.17% Rank: 24 Difference: $245,234 = 328.68% Rank: 43 Bell Atlantic Corp. Formed:1983–84, Total Federal Express Corporation Formed:1983– Chase Manhattan Bank Formed:1979–80, Raised, 1993=94: $146,949, Total Raised, 84, Total Raised, 1983–84: $230,478, Total Total Raised, 1983–84: $64,813, Total Raised, 1997–98: $1,046,617, Difference: $899, 668 = Raised, 1987–88: $1,139,978, Difference: 1987–88: $274,828, Difference: $210,015 = 612.23% Rank: 6 $909,500 = 394.61% Rank: 25 324.03% Rank: 44 Fluor Corporation Formed:1979–80, Total MBNA Corporation Formed:1991–92, Total Raytheon Company Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1987–88: $87,236, Total Raised, Raised, 1991–92: $184,764, Total Raised, Raised, 1979–80: $54,158, Total Raised, 1991–92: $610,142, Difference: $522,906 = 1995–96: $903,599, Difference: $718,835 = 1983–84: $228,899, Difference: $174,741 = 599.42% Rank: 7 389.06% Rank: 26 322 65% Rank: 45 Dow Chemical, USA—HQ Formed:1979– MCI Telecommunications Corporation Manufacturers Hanover Corporation 80, Total Raised, 1993=94: $53,297, Total Formed:1983–84, Total Raised, 1993=94: Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1979–80: Raised, 1997–98: $331,286, Difference: $104,688, Total Raised, 1997–98: $510,195, $69,178, Total Raised, 1983–84: $291,068, $277,989 = 521.58% Rank: 8 Difference: $405,507 = 387.35% Rank: 27 Difference: $221,890 = 320.75% Rank: 46 GA Technologies, Inc. Formed:1987–88, Smith Barney & Company Formed:1979– Tenneco, Inc. Formed:1979–80, Total Total Raised, 1987–88: $51,702, Total Raised, 80, Total Raised, 1995–96: $128,843, Total Raised, 1991–92: $208,019, Total Raised, 1991–92: $320,081, Difference: $268,379 = Raised, 1999–00: $627,332, Difference: 1995–96: $866,590, Difference: $658,571 = 519.09% Rank: 9 $498,489 = 386.90% Rank: 28 316.59% Rank: 47 U.S. West, Inc. Formed:1983–84, Total Chrysler / Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. Loral Systems Group Formed:1985–86, Raised, 1987–88: $123,767, Total Raised, Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1981–82: Total Raised, 1989–90: $86,215, Total Raised, 1991–92: $734,130, Difference: $610,363 = $77,152, Total Raised, 1985–86: $373,792, 1993=94: $358,895, Difference: $272,680 = 493.15% Rank: 10 Difference: $296,640 = 384.49% Rank: 29 316.28% Rank: 48 American Information Technologies Corp. American Information Technologies Corp. Koch Industries, Inc. Formed:1989–90, Formed:1983–84, Total Raised, 1989–90: Formed:1983–84, Total Raised, 1987–88: Total Raised, 1993=94: $202,392, Total $233,266, Total Raised, 1993=94: $1,370,945, $105,465, Total Raised, 1991–92: $501,210, Raised, 1997–98: $831,184, Difference: Difference: $1,137,679 = 487.72% Rank: 11 Difference: $395,745 = 375.24% Rank: 30 $628,792 = 310.68% Rank: 49 Allied-Signal, Inc. Formed:1979–80, Total Waste Management, Inc. Formed:1979–80, Koch Industries, Inc. Formed:1989–90, Raised, 1981–82: $65,703, Total Raised, Total Raised, 1983–84: $138,076, Total Total Raised, 1991–92: $104,401, Total 1985–86: $384,530, Difference: $318,827 = Raised, 1987–88: $653,361, Difference: Raised, 1995–96: $428,074, Difference: 485.25% Rank: 12 $515,285 = 373.19% Rank: 31 $323,673 = 310.03% Rank: 50 Glaxo, Inc. Formed:1985–86, Total Raised, Texas Air Corp. Formed:1979–80, Total Bellsouth Corporation Formed:1983–84, 1989–90: $106,192, Total Raised, 1993=94: Raised, 1981–82: $53,560, Total Raised, Total Raised, 1985–86: $70,383, Total Raised, $607,224, Difference: $501,032 = 471.82% 1985–86: $252,847, Difference: $199,287 = 1989–90: $287,836, Difference: $217,453 = Rank: 13 372.08% Rank: 32 308.96% Rank: 51 Nynex Corporation Formed:1983–84, Total Federal Express Corporation Formed:1983– Rockwell International Corporation Raised, 1991–92: $62,304, Total Raised, 84, Total Raised, 1985–86: $334,334, Total Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1979–80: 1995–96: $346,809, Difference: $284,505 = Raised, 1989–90: $1,561,744, Difference: $123,700, Total Raised, 1983–84: $497,473, 456.64% Rank: 14 $1,227,410 = 367.12% Rank: 33 Difference: $373,773 = 302.16% Rank: 52 Pacific Telesis Group Formed:1979–80, Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. Safari Club International Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1981–82: $65,538, Total Raised, Formed:1981–82, Total Raised, 1983–84: Total Raised, 1993=94: $94,149, Total Raised, 1985–86: $364,113, Difference: $298,575 = $66,844, Total Raised, 1987–88: $310,188, 1997–98: $378,078, Difference: $283,929 = 455.58% Rank: 15 Difference: $243,344 = 364.05% Rank: 34 301.57% Rank: 53 Philip Morris, Inc. Formed:1979–80, Total Dow Chemical, USA—HQ Formed:1979– RJR Nabisco, Inc. Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1979–80: $93,291, Total Raised, 80, Total Raised, 1995–96: $60,290, Total Raised, 1981–82: $64,199, Total Raised, 1983–84: $499,938, Difference: $406,647 = Raised, 1999–00: $279,618, Difference: 1985–86: $256,498, Difference: $192,299 = 435.89% Rank: 16 $219,328 = 363.79% Rank: 35 299.54% Rank: 54 American Electric Power Company, Inc. General Telephone & Electronics Corp. American Information Technologies Corp. Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1995–96: Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1987–88: Formed:1983–84, Total Raised, 1985–86: $106,155, Total Raised, 1999–00: $545,295, $169,871, Total Raised, 1991–92: $779,782, $58,487, Total Raised, 1989–90: $233,266, Difference: $439,140 = 413.68% Rank: 17 Difference: $609,911 = 359.04% Rank: 36 Difference: $174,779 = 298.83% Rank: 55 Waste Management, Inc. Formed:1979–80, NationsBank Formed:1979–80, Total Southern Company Formed:1981–82, Total Total Raised, 1981–82: $76,738, Total Raised, Raised, 1987–88: $238,405, Total Raised, Raised, 1995–96: $125,656, Total Raised, 1985–86: $391,637, Difference: $314,899 = 1991–92: $1,094,012, Difference: $855,607 = 1999–00: $497,118, Difference: $371,462 = 410.36% Rank: 18 358.89% Rank: 37 295.62% Rank: 56 Cigna Corporation Formed:1979–80, Total CSX Corp.—Jeffboat Formed:1981–82, Lucent Technologies, Inc. Formed:1995– Raised, 1979–80: $56,174, Total Raised, Total Raised, 1995–96: $66,789, Total Raised, 96, Total Raised, 1995–96: $87,568, Total 1985–86: $286,319, Difference: $230,145 = 1999–00: $303,763, Difference: $236,974 = Raised, 1999–00: $343,462, Difference: 409.70% Rank: 19 354.81% Rank: 38 $255,894 = 292.22% Rank: 57 LDDS Communications, Inc. Formed:1987– Sears Roebuck & Co. (Allstate) Fluor Corporation Formed:1979–80, Total 88, Total Raised, 1993=94: $63,542, Total Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1981–82: Raised, 1985–86: $126,081, Total Raised, Raised, 1997–98: $323,680, Difference: $50,277, Total Raised, 1985–86: $223,313, 1989–90: $494,417, Difference: $368,336 = $260,138 = 409.40% Rank: 20 Difference: $173,036 = 344.17% Rank: 39 292.14% Rank: 58 Safari Club International Formed:1979–80, First Union Corporation Formed:1983–84, Central & South West Services, Inc. Total Raised, 1991–92: $107,314, Total Total Raised, 1995–96: $119,980, Total Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1993=94: Raised, 1995–96: $545,915, Difference: Raised, 1999–00: $525,262, Difference: $57,841, Total Raised, 1997–98: $226,201, $438,601 = 408.71% Rank: 21 $405,282 = 337.79% Rank: 40 Difference: $168,360 = 291.07% Rank: 59 Michigan Bell Telephone Company Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. HSBC Americas / Marine Midland Banks Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1983–84: Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1991–92: Formed:1981–82, Total Raised, 1983–84: $53,326, Total Raised, 1987–88: $266,944, $117,271, Total Raised, 1995–96: $512,562, $52,071, Total Raised, 1987–88: $200,106, Difference: $213,618 = 400.59% Rank: 22 Difference: $395,291 = 337.07% Rank: 41 Difference: $148,035 = 284.29% Rank: 60 E1 Paso Company Formed:1979–80, Total Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. Formed:1991– Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Raised, 1995–96: $75,920, Total Raised, 92, Total Raised, 1993=94: $54,312, Total Formed:1981–82, Total Raised, 1995–96: 1999–00: $379,370, Difference: $303,450 = Raised, 1997–98: $232,861, Difference: $127,472, Total Raised, 1999–00: $488,875, 399.70% Rank: 23 $178,549 = 328.75% Rank: 42 Difference: $361,403 = 283.52% Rank: 61
VerDate 11
Banc One Corporation Formed:1979–80, Difference: $197,407 = 256.32% Rank: 79 Difference: $632,823 = 232.09% Rank: 96 Total Raised, 1989–90: $270,704, Total Timken Company Formed:1995–96 Gun Owners of America (gun control foes) Raised, 1993=94: $1,037,361, Difference: Total Raised, 1995–96: $79,717 Formed:1991–92 $766,657 = 283.21% Rank: 62 Total Raised, 1999–00: $277,044 Total Raised, 1995–96: $93,086 Archer-Daniels-Midland Company Difference: $197,327 = 247.53% Rank: 80 Total Raised, 1999–00: $309,050 Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1979–80: Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. Difference: $215,964 = 232.00% Rank: 97 $50,369, Total Raised, 1983–84: $192,426, Formed:1979–80 Dun & Bradstreet Corporation Difference: $142,057 = 282.03% Rank: 63 Total Raised, 1981–82: $54,650 Formed:1979–80 Aetna Life and Casualty Company Total Raised, 1985–86: $189,822 Total Raised, 1981–82: $51,577 Formed:1983–84, Total Raised, 1983–84: Difference: $135,172 = 247.34% Rank: 81 Total Raised, 1985–86: $169,954 $88,329, Total Raised, 1987–88: $333,008, National City Corporation Formed:1981–82 Difference: $118,377 = 229.52% Rank: 98 Difference: $244,679 = 277.01% Rank: 64 Total Raised, 1983–84: $59,921 J. C. Penney Company, Inc. Formed:1979– Outback Steakhouse, Inc. Formed:1991–92, Total Raised, 1987–88: $207,361 80 Total Raised, 1993=94: $230,022, Total Difference: $147,440 = 246.06% Rank: 82 Total Raised, 1981–82: $91,484 Raised, 1997–98: $865,042, Difference: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Formed:1979–80 Total Raised, 1985–86: $301,185 $635,020 = 276.07% Rank: 65 Total Raised, 1989–90: $56,535 Difference: $209,701 = 229.22% Rank: 99 Lockheed Corporation Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1993=94: $195,579 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. Total Raised, 1979–80: $136,127, Total Difference: $139,044 = 245.94% Rank: 83 Formed:1979–80 Raised, 1983–84: $511,131, Difference: Eastern Airlines, Inc. Formed:1979–80 Total Raised, 1985–86: $567,328 $375,004 = 275.48% Rank: 66 Total Raised, 1983–84: $70,676 Total Raised, 1989–90: $1,865,785 Duke Power Company Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, 1987–88: $243,529 Difference: $1,298,457 = 228.87% Rank: Total Raised, 1995–96: $69,970, Total Raised, Difference: $172,853 = 244.57% Rank: 84 100 1999–00: $261,562, Difference: $191,592 = Heublein, Inc. Formed:1979–80 Source: Computer analysis by Sunshine 273.82% Rank: 67 Total Raised, 1985–86: $52,292 Press Services of Federal TRW, Inc. Formed:1979–80, Total Raised, Total Raised, 1989–90: $178,944 Election Commission data, Jan. 1, 1979 1979–80: $69,121, Difference: $126,652 = 242.20% Rank: 85 through Dec. 31, 2000. Total Raised, 1983–84: $256,296 Salomon Brothers, Inc. Formed:1981–82 Table 5. Rapid Rises in Corporate PAC Difference: $187,175 = 270.79% Rank: 68 Total Raised, 1981–82: $106,250 Spending, 1979–2002 United Telecommunications, Inc. Total Raised, 1985–86: $363,500 (After Spending More than $250,000) Formed:1979–80 Difference: $257,250 = 242.12% Rank: 86 Microsoft Corporation Formed: 1987–88 Total Raised, 1983–84: $66,922 First Bank System, Inc. Formed:1979–80 Total Spent, 1997–98: $267,500 Total Raised, 1987–88: $247,495 Total Raised, 1995–96: $85,349 Total Spent, 1999–00: $1,221,730 Difference: $180,573 = 269.83% Rank: 69 Total Raised, 1999–00: $290,311 Difference: $954,230 = 356.72% Rank: 1 Loral Systems Group Formed:1985–86 Difference: $204,962 = 240.15% Rank: 87 Federal Express Corporation Formed: Total Raised, 1987–88: $55,311 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 1983–84 Total Raised, 1991–92: $202,887 Formed:1979–80 Total Spent, 1985–86: $392,441 Difference: $147,576 = 266.81% Rank: 70 Total Raised, 1993=94: $54,504 Total Spent, 1987–88: $1,093,998 American General Corporation Total Raised, 1997–98: $185,093 Difference: $701,557 = 178.77% Rank: 2 Formed:1979–80 Difference: $130,589 = 239.60% Rank: 88 Compass Bancshares, Inc. Formed: 1983– Total Raised, 1995–96: $182,254 North Carolina National Bank Corp. 84 Total Raised, 1999–00: $668,062 Formed:1979–80 Total Spent, 1991–92: $363,617 Difference: $485,808 = 266.56% Rank: 71 Total Raised, 1979–80: $79,627 Total Spent, 1993=94: $974,893 Phillips Petroleum Company Total Raised, 1983–84: $269,718 Difference: $611,276 = 168.11% Rank: 3 Formed:1979–80 Difference: $190,091 = 238.73% Rank: 89 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Total Raised, 1983–84: $99,365 Caterpillar Tractor Company Formed: 1979–80 Total Raised, 1987–88: $364,141 Formed:1981–82 Total Spent, 1997–98: $310,633 Difference: $264,776 = 266.47% Rank: 72 Total Raised, 1985–86: $65,232 Total Spent, 1999–00: $815,624 Entergy Operations, Inc. Formed:1989–90 Total Raised, 1989–90: $219,844 Difference: $504,991 = 162.57% Rank: 4 Total Raised, 1993=94: $64,650 Difference: $154,612 = 237.02% Rank: 90 Bell Atlantic Corp. Formed: 1983–84 Total Raised, 1997–98: $236,109 Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loec, Inc. Total Spent, 1995–96: $388,073 Difference: $171,459 = 265.21% Rank: 73 Formed:1979–80 Total Spent, 1997–98: $1,006,783 American Information Technologies Total Raised, 1979–80: $51,400 Difference: $618,710 = 159.43% Rank: 5 Corporation Formed:1979–80 Total Raised, 1983–84: $171,973 Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. Total Raised, 1983–84: $68,916 Difference: $120,573 = 234.58% Rank: 91 Formed: 1995–96 Total Raised, 1987–88: $249,574 Northrop Corporation Formed:1979–80 Total Spent, 1997–98: $359,408 Difference: $180,658 = 262.14% Rank: 74 Total Raised, 1979–80: $86,250 Total Spent, 1999–00: $914,501 Sea-Land Corporation Formed:1979–80 Total Raised, 1983–84: $288,361 Difference: $555,093 = 154.45% Rank: 6 Total Raised, 1987–88: $52,291 Difference: $202,111 = 234.33% Rank: 92 RJR Nabisco, Inc. Formed: 1979–80 Total Raised, 1991–92: $189,284 GMC Electronic Data Systems Corporation Total Spent, 1987–88: $348,897 Difference: $136,993 = 261.98% Rank: 75 Formed:1979–80 Total Spent, 1989–90: $872,626 First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. Total Raised, 1987–88: $116,315 Difference: $523,729 = 150.11% Rank: 7 Formed:1979–80 Total Raised, 1991–92: $388,257 Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. Total Raised, 1979–80: $85,372 Difference: $271,942 = 233.80% Rank: 93 Formed: 1979–80 Total Raised, 1983–84: $307,649 Textron, Inc. Formed:1979–80 Total Spent, 1989–90: $265,096 Difference: $222,277 = 260.36% Rank: 76 Total Raised, 1981–82: $116,552 Total Spent, 1991–92: $650,905 Banc One Corporation Formed:1979–80 Total Raised, 1985–86: $388,852 Difference: $385,809 = 145.54% Rank: 8 Total Raised, 1987–88: $173,949 Difference: $272,300 = 233.63% Rank: 94 American Information Technologies Corp. Total Raised, 1991–92: $622,458 Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. Formed: 1983–84 Difference: $448,509 = 257.84% Rank: 77 Formed:1979–80 Total Spent, 1991–92: $518,442 E1 Paso Company Formed:1979–80 Total Raised, 1987–88: $203,554 Total Spent, 1993=94: $1,207,881 Total Raised, 1993=94: $74,169 Total Raised, 1991–92: $678,024 Difference: $689,439 = 132.98% Rank: 9 Total Raised, 1997–98: $264,338 Difference: $474,470 = 233.09% Rank: 95 Tenneco, Inc. Formed: 1979–80 Difference: $190,169 = 256.40% Rank: 78 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. Total Spent, 1993=94: $380,688 Dow Chemical, USA Formed:1979–80 Formed:1979–80 Total Spent, 1995–96: $860,515 Total Raised, 1985–86: $77,017 Total Raised, 1983–84: $272,659 Difference: $479,827 = 126.04% Rank: 10 Total Raised, 1989–90: $274,424 Total Raised, 1987–88: $905,482 Banc One Corporation Formed: 1979–80
VerDate 11
Total Spent, 1991–92: $421,467 Waste Management, Inc. Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1987–88: $2,841,464 Total Spent, 1993=94: $934,434 Total Spent, 1985–86: $341,975 Difference: $1,097,163 = 62.90% Rank: 44 Difference: $512,967 = 121.71% Rank: 11 Total Spent, 1987–88: $615,059 General Motors Corporation Formed: 1979– American General Corporation Formed: Difference: $273,084 = 79.85% Rank: 28 80 1979–80 Houston Industries, Inc. Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1993=94: $477,782 Total Spent, 1997–98: $291,488 Total Spent, 1983–84: $256,353 Total Spent, 1995–96: $777,521 Total Spent, 1999–00: $634,510 Total Spent, 1985–86: $460,684 Difference: $299,739 = 62.74% Rank: 45 Difference: $343,022 = 117.68% Rank: 12 Difference: $204,331 = 79.71% Rank: 29 Keycorp Formed: 1979–80 Boeing Company Formed: 1981–82 Cigna Corporation Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1995–96: $376,200 Total Spent, 1995–96: $370,105 Total Spent, 1997–98: $352,512 Total Spent, 1997–98: $611,975 Total Spent, 1997–98: $759,495 Total Spent, 1999–00: $624,736 Difference: $235,775 = 62.67% Rank: 46 Difference: $389,390 = 105.21% Rank: 13 Difference: $272,224 = 77.22% Rank: 30 Union Pacific Corporation Formed: 1979– MBNA Corporation Formed: 1991–92 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. 80 Total Spent, 1993=94: $403,796 Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1989–90: $731,974 Total Spent, 1995–96: $825,974 Total Spent, 1987–88: $943,815 Total Spent, 1991–92: $1,188,407 Difference: $422,178 = 104.55% Rank: 14 Total Spent, 1989–90: $1,658,366 Difference: $456,433 = 62.36% Rank: 47 Compass Bancshares, Inc. Formed: 1983– Difference: $714,551 = 75.71% Rank: 31 Sierra Club (environmentalist) Formed: 84 Black America’s PAC Formed: 1995–96 1979–80 Total Spent, 1995–96: $729,612 Total Spent, 1995–96: $1,899,486 Total Spent, 1987–88: $299,891 Total Spent, 1997–98: $1,468,094 Total Spent, 1997–98: $3,337,602 Total Spent, 1989–90: $486,795 Difference: $738,482 = 101.22% Rank: 15 Difference: $1,438,116 = 75.71% Rank: 32 Difference: $186,904 = 62.32% Rank: 48 Southtrust Corporation Formed: 1979–80 Chase Manhattan Corporation Formed: Chrysler / Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. Total Spent, 1995–96: $266,593 1979–80 Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1997–98: $530,794 Total Spent, 1989–90: $274,760 Total Spent, 1993=94: $417,015 Difference: $264,201 = 99.10% Rank: 16 Total Spent, 1991–92: $481,894 Total Spent, 1995–96: $659,369 FirstEnergy Corp. (Ohio Edison) Formed: Difference: $207,134 = 75.39% Rank: 33 Difference: $242,354 = 58.12% Rank: 49 1981–82 Barnett Banks of Florida, Inc. Formed: Pfizer, Inc. Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1997–98: $253,675 1979–80 Total Spent, 1997–98: $536,471 Total Spent, 1999–00: $502,890 Total Spent, 1985–86: $304,230 Total Spent, 1999–00: $844,132 Difference: $249,215 = 98.24% Rank: 17 Total Spent, 1987–88: $532,509 Difference: $307,661 = 57.35% Rank: 50 Koch Industries, Inc. Formed: 1989–90 Difference: $228,279 = 75.04% Rank: 34 Chase Manhattan Bank Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1995–96: $428,664 Bankamerica Corporation Formed: 1981–82 Total Spent, 1989–90: $269,299 Total Spent, 1997–98: $807,318 Total Spent, 1993=94: $311,633 Total Spent, 1991–92: $423,632 Difference: $378,654 = 88.33% Rank: 18 Total Spent, 1995–96: $535,516 Difference: $154,333 = 57.31% Rank: 51 Northrop Corporation Formed: 1979–80 Difference: $223,883 = 71.84% Rank: 35 Sierra Club (environmentalist) Formed: Total Spent, 1993=94: $422,969 NationsBank Formed: 1979–80 1979–80 Total Spent, 1995–96: $794,880 Total Spent, 1997–98: $607,578 Total Spent, 1993=94: $431,725 Difference: $371,911 = 87.93% Rank: 19 Total Spent, 1999–00: $1,041,837 Total Spent, 1995–96: $677,883 J.P. Morgan & Company, Inc. Formed: Difference: $434,259 = 71.47% Rank: 36 Difference: $246,158 = 57.02% Rank: 52 1979–80 United Technologies Corporation Formed: Banc One Corporation Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1985–86: $262,250 1979–80 Total Spent, 1989–90: $269,833 Total Spent, 1987–88: $492,681 Total Spent, 1993=94: $263,300 Total Spent, 1991–92: $421,467 Difference: $230,431 = 87.87% Rank: 20 Total Spent, 1995–96: $450,078 Difference: $151,634 = 56.20% Rank: 53 Philip Morris, Inc. Formed: 1979–80 Difference: $186,778 = 70.94% Rank: 37 Raytheon Company Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1983–84: $403,699 Southwestern Bell Corporation Formed: Total Spent, 1995–96: $385,863 Total Spent, 1985–86: $754,949 1979–80 Total Spent, 1997–98: $601,994 Difference: $351,250 = 87.01% Rank: 21 Total Spent, 1997–98: $961,990 Difference: $216,131 = 56.01% Rank: 54 Eli Lilly & Company Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1999–00: $1,642,657 Eli Lilly & Company Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1995–96: $375,583 Difference: $680,667 = 70.76% Rank: 38 Total Spent, 1997–98: $700,580 Total Spent, 1997–98: $700,580 Lockheed Corporation Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1999–00: $1,089,599 Difference: $324,997 = 86.53% Rank: 22 Total Spent, 1991–92: $422,512 Difference: $389,019 = 55.53% Rank: 55 Southwestern Bell Corporation Formed: Total Spent, 1993=94: $708,346 Chrysler / Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. 1979–80 Difference: $285,834 = 67.65% Rank: 39 Formed: 1979–80 Total Spent, 1993=94: $365,700 Union Pacific Corporation Formed: 1979– Total Spent, 1995–96: $659,369 Total Spent, 1995–96: $674,857 80 Total Spent, 1997–98: $1,021,714 Difference: $309,157 = 84.54% Rank: 23 Total Spent, 1985–86: $296,938 Difference: $362,345 = 54.95% Rank: 56 Rockwell International Corporation Total Spent, 1987–88: $495,482 Amsouth Bancorporation Formed: 1983–84 Formed: 1979–80 Difference: $198,544 = 66.86% Rank: 40 Total Spent, 1997–98: $304,524 Total Spent, 1981–82: $266,688 Household Finance Corporation Formed: Total Spent, 1999–00: $470,782 Total Spent, 1983–84: $490,541 1979–80 Difference: $166,258 = 54.60% Rank: 57 Difference: $223,853 = 83.94% Rank: 24 Total Spent, 1989–90: $270,795 Glaxo, Inc. Formed: 1985–86 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. Total Spent, 1991–92: $444,889 Total Spent, 1997–98: $716,634 Formed: 1979–80 Difference: $174,094 = 64.29% Rank: 41 Total Spent, 1999–00: $1,104,801 Total Spent, 1991–92: $1,835,231 Sierra Club (environmentalist) Formed: Difference: $388,167 = 54.17% Rank: 58 Total Spent, 1993=94: $3,350,884 1979–80 Crawford Group / Enterprise Leasing Difference: $1,515,653 = 82.59% Rank: 25 Total Spent, 1997–98: $441,208 Formed: 1987–88 General Telephone & Electronics Corp. Total Spent, 1999–00: $721,429 Total Spent, 1993=94: $253,769 Formed: 1979–80 Difference: $280,221 = 63.51% Rank: 42 Total Spent, 1995–96: $391,094 Total Spent, 1989–90: $420,131 Westinghouse Electric Corp. Formed: Difference: $137,325 = 54.11% Rank: 59 Total Spent, 1991–92: $765,805 1979–80 Associates Corp. (Ford Motor Co.) Formed: Difference: $345,674 = 82.28% Rank: 26 Total Spent, 1987–88: $264,890 1989–90 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. Total Spent, 1989–90: $431,697 Total Spent, 1995–96: $342,269 Formed: 1979–80 Difference: $166,807 = 62.97% Rank: 43 Total Spent, 1997–98: $526,937 Total Spent, 1985–86: $522,514 American Telephone & Telegraph Co. Difference: $184,668 = 53.95% Rank: 60 Total Spent, 1987–88: $943,815 Formed: 1983–84 Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc. Formed: Difference: $421,301 = 80.63% Rank: 27 Total Spent, 1985–86: $1,744,301 1979–80
VerDate 11
Total Spent, 1985–86: $303,919 Seattle Post-lntelligencer Civil Action No. 98–1232 (CKK) Total Spent, 1987–88: $465,992 Seattle Times * MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. Difference: $162,073 = 53.33% Rank: 61 St. Louis Post-Dispatch * STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Houston Industries, Inc. Formed: 1979–80 St. Petersburg Times * Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, et al., Total Spent, 1995–96: $470,646 Tampa Tribune Plaintiffs, Total Spent, 1997–98: $720,544 USA Today v Difference: $249,898 = 53.10% Rank: 62 Washington Post * . Civil Action No. 98–1233 (CKK) Outback Steakhouse, Inc. Formed: 1991–92 Washington Times MICROSOFT CORPORATION Defendant. Total Spent, 1997–98: $636,741 Articles ran on page 1 or led Sunday Comments of The Progress & Freedom Total Spent, 1999–00: $974,275 Difference: section Foundation on the Revised Proposed Final $337,534 = 53.01% Rank: 63 Periodicals Judgment and the Competitive Impact Household Finance Corporation Formed: American Banker * Statement 1979–80 Capital Style Jeffery A. Eisenach, Ph.D. Total Spent, 1997–98: $512,016 Conservative Digest * President Total Spent, 1999–00: $782,819 Free Inquiry * Thomas M. Lenard, Ph.D. Difference: $270,803 = 52.89% Rank: 64 Monthly Business Review * Vice President for Research General Motors Corp. / Hughes Aircraft MS. * THE PROGRESS & FREEDOM Formed: 1979–80 New Republic * FOUNDATION Total Spent, 1985–86: $271,290 New Times * 1301 K. St., NW Total Spent, 1987–88: $412,181 Newsweek Difference: $140,891 = 51.93% Rank: 65 Washington, DC 20005 Playboy * (202) 289–8928 American Airlines Formed: 1979–80 Politics Today * Total Spent, 1991–92: $282,647 (202) 289–6079 Facsimile Rolling Stone * Table of Contents Total Spent, 1993=94: $426,852 Saturday Review * Difference: $144,205 = 51.02% Rank: 66 I. Introduction 1 Sierra * A. Authors 1 Cooper Industries, Inc. Formed: 1979–80 Space Business International * Total Spent, 1989–90: $264,213 B. Summary of Contents 2 The Nation * II. Background: The Facts, the Law and the Total Spent, 1991–92: $397,960 Time Remedy 5 Difference: $133,747 = 50.62% Rank: 67 Village Voice * A. The Illegal Conduct and Its Effects 5 Flowers Industries, Inc. Formed: 1979–80 Washington Monthly * B. The Appropriate Criteria for a Remedial Total Spent, 1993=94: $254,819 Washingtonian * Action 7 Total Spent, 1995–96: $383,269 Bylined feature magazine articles III. The CIS and the PFJ: Flawed Analysis Difference: $128,450 = 50.41% Rank: 68 Broadcast of a Flawed Remedy 9 Source: Computer analysis by Sunshine ABC News (TV) * A. Major Provisions of the PFJ 9 Press Services of Federal CBS News (TV) * B. The Competitive Impact Statement 10 Election Commission data, Jan. 1, 1979 CNN * C. The PFJ Will Not Have Its Claimed through Dec. 31,2000. Canadian Broadcast’g Co. (Radio) * Effect, Nor Any Pro-Competitive Effect 18 APPENDIX B: Publication List KABC-TV (Hollywood, CA) * The news organizations listed below have National Public Radio * IV. The Remedies Alternatives 23 published news reports or commentary by Nightline (ABC News- TV) * A. Alternative Structural Remedies 24 Edward Roeder NBC News (TV & Radio) B. The Litigating States Proposal 29 Daily Newspapers 20–20 (ABC News- TV) V. Conclusion 31 Albuquerque Journal WBAL-TV (Baltimore, MD) I. Introduction Arizona Republic WDIV-TV (Detroit, Mich.) * These comments on the Proposed Final 1 Arkansas Gazette-Democrat WJLA-TV (Washington, DC) * Judgment (‘‘PFJ’’) and the Competitive 2 Atlanta Constitution * WJXT-TV (Jacksonville, Fla.) * Impact Statement (‘‘CIS’’) in the Microsoft Austin American-Statesman WJZ-TV (Baltimore, MD) case are submitted to provide the Department Baltimore Sun * WPLG-TV (Miami, Fla.) * of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) and the Court with Boston Globe * WRC-TV (Washington, DC) information and analysis based on nearly five Chicago Sun-Times * WTVT-TV (Tampa, Fla.) * years of research by the authors on the legal, Chicago Tribune * WUSA-TV (Washington, DC) * policy and economic implications of this Cleveland Plain Dealer * Paid on-air appearanc(s) landmark proceeding. Based on that research, Dallas Morning News it is our assessment that (a) the PFJ fails to Denver Post MTC–00028685 address meaningfully the violations of law Deseret News From: David Robinson found by this court and upheld by the U.S. Detroit Free Press* To: Microsoft ATR Court of Appeals and its entry by the court Detroit News * Date: 1/28/02 4:55pm manifestly is not in the public interest; (b) Florida Today Subject: Microsoft Settlement the CIS fails to meet the standard of analysis Fort Lauderdale News & Sun-Sentinel * I disagree with the PFJ because it does not demanded by the law and occasioned by the Greensboro News & Record * end Microsoft’s monopoly but may allow MS magnitude of the issues involved; and (c) the Kansas City Star to extend and expand its monopoly! public interest will best be served through Los Angeles Times Enforcement of the PFJ appears nearly imposition of a ‘‘hybrid’’ structural remedy Louisville Courier-Journal * impossible to enforce. or, if the court chooses not to impose a Miami Herald * Thank you for considering my opinions. structural remedy, a conduct remedy Nashville Tennessean Dave Robinson modeled after the proposals of the remaining New Orleans Times-Picayune 407–843–3294, ext 227 litigating states. New York Daily News A. The Authors New York Newsday MTC–00028686 Dr. Eisenach is President and Senior New York Times * From: Brooke Emmerick Fellow at The Progress & Freedom Orlando Sentinel * To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Philadelphia Inquirer * Date: 1/28/02 4’58pm 1 United States v. Microsoft Corp., Stipulation Portland Oregonian Subject: Microsoft Settlement and Revised Proposed Final Judgement (November Providence Journal BEFORE THE UNITED STATES 6, 2001) (hereafter ‘‘PFJ’’). Richmond Times-Dispatch DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 2 United States v. Microsoft Corp., Competitive Sacramento Bee * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Impact Statement (November 15, 2001) (hereafter San Jose Mercury News v. ‘‘CIS’’).
VerDate 11
Foundation,3 a non-profit research and DOJ is required by the Antitrust Procedures discussion of what we believe to be the educational institution dedicated to and Penalty Act (‘‘APPA’’)7 to prepare a CIS, appropriate standards by which remedial analyzing the impact of the digital revolution which is intended to analyze the competitive action should be judged. Next we discuss the and its implications for public policy, and an implications of the PFJ and any alternatives shortcomings in the PFJ and the CIS, Adjunct Professor at George Mason to it. explaining why the PFJ will not achieve the University Law School. As a professional The PFJ does not serve the public interest government’s objectives or serve the public economist, he has been actively engaged in and will not achieve the government’s interest and demonstrating that the CIS falls the analysis of competition and regulatory objective that it ‘‘halt continuance and far short of the analytical standard that policy issues for more than 20 years, and has prevent recurrence of the violations of the should be demanded by the court. Finally, served in senior positions at the Office of Sherman Act by Microsoft that were upheld we turn to an evaluation of the remedial Management and Budget and the U.S. by the Court of Appeals and restore alternatives and explain why we believe that Federal Trade Commission and as a competitive conditions to the market.‘‘8 (a) a ‘‘hybrid’’ structural remedy would best consultant to the U.S. Sentencing Indeed, much of the behavior found by the serve consumers and competition and (b) that Commission on criminal sentencing Court of Appeals to be anticompetitive would if the court chooses not to impose a structural guidelines for corporations. He has also be permitted under the PFJ. Further, even if remedy, the LS Proposal is superior to the served on the faculties of Harvard the PFJ did preclude such behavior it would PFJ. University’s Kennedy School of Government, fail to restore competitive conditions because II. Background: The Facts, the Law and the the University of Virginia and Virginia it fails to affect the behavior of participants Remedy Polytechnic Institute and State University. in the marketplace. The U.S. District Court 10 found, and the Dr. Lenard is Vice President and Senior The CIS does not satisfy the government’s U.S. Court of Appeals 11 affirmed, a pattern Fellow at The Progress & Freedom obligation to provide the District Court with of Sherman Act violations by Microsoft that Foundation and a professional economist an analytical basis for determining whether had the effect of foreclosing competition in with 30 years of experience in academia, the PFJ is in the public interest. The APPA the market for personal computer operating government, private consulting and the non- clearly requires, and good public policy systems. The District Court ordered a profit sector. He has worked on a wide range demands, an ‘‘evaluation’’ of the proposed structural remedy, which was overturned by of regulatory and antitrust issues covering a remedy and major alternatives to it. The CIS the Appeals Court, which remanded the broad span of industries, and has consulted does not present such an evaluation. It does remedy issue back to this court. The Appeals on antitrust cases for both private firms and not explain why the PFJ will achieve the Court did not prescribe or prohibit adoption the Federal Trade Commission. In intended results, but merely asserts that it of any particular remedial actions by this government, he has held senior economic will do so. It also does not explain why the court. positions at the Council on Wage and Price DOJ concluded that the PFJ will better serve A. The Illegal Conduct and Its Effects Stability, the Office of Management and the public interest than major alternatives, The Appeals Court unanimously affirmed Budget and the Federal Trade Commission. A but merely states that ‘‘[t]he United States the core of the government’s case against principal focus of his research has been the ultimately concluded that the requirements Microsoft, finding that the company had benefits and costs of regulatory interventions and prohibitions set forth in the Proposed undertaken a broad array of anticompetitive into the economy and the analytical Final Judgment provided the most effective practices to maintain its monopoly in underpinnings needed to make informed and certain relief in the most timely personal computer operating systems, in decisions about government interventions. manner.‘‘ 9 The DOJ has produced no real violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.12 Both Drs. Eisenach and Lenard have done analysis of the relative merits for Operating Microsoft’s strategy was to use its monopoly extensive work on the economics of high- Systems: Alternative Structural Remedies in power to prevent the emergence of any new tech markets in general, and the Microsoft the Microsoft Case,’’ George Mason Law technology that might compete with case in particular. They are co-authors of the Review, Vol., 9, Spring 2001, 803–841. of Windows. Microsoft’s anticompetitive annual Digital Economy Fact Book,4 co- alternative forms of relief to guide the District activities were particularly directed against editors of Competition, Innovation and the two products—the Netscape browser and Microsoft Monopoly: Antitrust in the Digital Court in deciding whether to approve the PFJ. Indeed, the CIS fails by a wide margin Sun’s Java programming language—that Marketplace and authors of numerous other could support operating-system-neutral papers on these and related topics.5 to meet the standards required of analyses of regulatory proposals routinely promulgated computing and thereby erode Microsoft’s B. Summary of Comments market position. In summary, the District The PFJ is intended to settle the by government agencies. Accordingly, the District Court should not Court found, and the Appeals Court affirmed, government’s antitrust case against Microsoft that: and was agreed to by the United States, 9 of accept the PFJ, but should, instead, expand its hearing on the Litigating States Proposal Microsoft has monopoly power in the the 18 states that were also party to suit, and market for Intel-compatible PC operating by Microsoft. The nine remaining states and (‘‘LS Proposal’’) to include the full range of major alternatives. This would permit the systems, with a market share of greater than the District of Columbia (the ‘‘Litigating 95 percent. Microsoft’s market is protected by States’’) have not agreed to the PFJ and are District Court to gather the information needed to make an informed judgment a substantial barber to entry—the pursuing more stringent relief through a ‘‘applications barrier to entry‘‘—that remedy hearing at the District Court.6 The concerning which of the remedy proposals will best serve the public interest. The discourages software developers from writing alternatives that should be considered applications for operating systems that do not 3 These comments reflect the views of the authors already have an established base of users. include: and do not represent the views of The Progress & u Microsoft effectively excluded rival Freedom Foundation, its officers or board of u The PFJ. browsers from the two most efficient means directors. u The proposals of the Litigating States. of distribution—pre-installation by Original 4 See Jeffrey A. Eisenach, Thomas M. Lenard and u Major structural remedies, including the Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and Stephen McGonegal, The Digital Economy Fact vertical-divestiture remedy initially adopted distribution by Internet Access Providers Book 2001 (Washington: The Progress & Freedom by the District Court and the ‘‘hybrid’’ Foundation, 2001). (IAPs). remedy proposed by Dr. Lenard and others. 5 See Jeffrey A. Eisenach and Thomas M. Lenard, u Microsoft imposed restrictions on its Among these remedies, the ‘‘hybrid’’ eds., Competition, Innovation and the Microsoft Windows licenses that effectively prevented structural approach would best serve the Monopoly: Antitrust in the Digital Marketplace, OEMs from pre-installing any browser other Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999; Thomas M. public interest and maximize net economic than Internet Explorer (IE). Lenard, Creating Competition in the Market for benefits to consumers. Operating Systems: A Structural Remedy for In the sections that follow, we provide, 10 Microsoft, (Washington: The Progress & Freedom first, a brief restatement of the facts and legal United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9 (DCCirc 1999) (‘‘Findings of Fact’’);United Foundation, 2000), http://www.pff.org/remedies/ background in this case, including a brief htm; and Thomas M. Lenard, ‘‘Creating Competition States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (DC in the Market Circ. 2000) (‘‘Conclusions of Law’’). 6 United States v. Microsoft Corp., Plaintiff 7 15 USCS 16 (b-h). 11 United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F 3d, at Litigating States’’ Remedial Proposals, (December 7, 8 CIS at 2. 6 (DC Circ. 2001). 2001) (hereafter ‘‘LS Proposal’’). 9 9 CIS at 63. 12
VerDate 11
u Microsoft’s technological binding of IE to competition or to use anticompetitive be permitted to earn continuing returns based Windows deterred OEMs from pre-installing practices to leverage its monopoly beyond upon its illegally enhanced monopoly rival browsers and consumers from using the desktop into new phases of computing. position. To do so would be to allow the them. In a business that moves as rapidly as the company not only to retain the fruits of its u Microsoft’s contracts with IAPs—for software marketplace (and other information illegal conduct in the past but to continue example, agreeing to give AOL preferential technology and communications markets harvesting those fruits indefinitely. placement on the Windows desktop in Microsoft is now entering or is likely to enter III. The CIS and the PFJ: Flawed Analysis exchange for AOL’s agreement not to soon) it is particularly important that the of a Flawed Remedy distribute any non-Microsoft browser to more remedy be forward looking. DOJ and Microsoft prefer a PFJ which than 15 percent of its subscribers and to do The DOJ claims that the PFJ meets these contains a number of restrictions on so only at the customer’s explicit request— standards, and ‘‘will eliminate Microsoft’s Microsoft’s conduct on a going forward basis. blocked the distribution of a rival browser. illegal practices, prevent recurrence of the The questions before the court are whether u Microsoft’s deals with Independent same or similar practices, and restore the entry of the PFJ is consistent with the Software Vendors (ISVs)—for example, competitive threat that middleware products purpose and intent of the Sherman Act and, giving preferential support to ISVs that used posed prior to Microsoft’s unlawful in addition, whether, under the APPA, it is IE as the default browser in software they undertakings.’’ 14 For masons discussed at consistent with the public interest. To develop—and Apple—prohibiting Apple length below, we disagree. Here, we address facilitate the court’s deliberations on the from pre-installing any non-Microsoft two issues relating to the standard by which latter issue, the APPA requires the DOJ to browser—were similarly exclusionary. any remedy should be judged. submit a CIS.16 However, the CIS submitted u Microsoft’s agreements with ISVs that First, it is noteworthy that the DOJ does not in this proceeding contains virtually no made receipt of Windows technical claim the PFJ achieves the goal of denying analysis of either the PFJ or alternative information conditional on the ISVs’’ Microsoft the fruits of its violations, and remedies. It represents nothing more than a agreement to use Microsoft’s version of the clearly it will not. Such restitution is set of unsupported assertions, and Java Virtual Machine (JVM) exclusively were important not only to ‘‘make whole’’ the accordingly should be given little deference anticompetitive. Microsoft also deceived Java victims of Microsoft’s illegal activity (e.g., the by the court. developers into believing that its tools were United States), but also to establish In this section, we briefly describe the not Windows-specific and were consistent appropriate incentives on a going forward main provisions of the PFJ. Next, we explain with Sun’s objective of developing cross- basis. In general, allowing violators to retain why the CIS fails to meet a reasonable platform applications. the fruits of their illegal conduct deprives the standard of substantive analysis. Third, we u Microsoft’s pressuring of Intel to stop antitrust laws of much of their force, because provide some examples of shortcomings in supporting cross-platform Java—by it sends a signal to violators that the returns the PFJ which would have been obvious had threatening to support an Intel competitor’s to their behavior are positive—even when DOJ performed a more complete analysis in development efforts—was exclusionary. they are caught. With $42 billion in the bank, the CIS. Microsoft was clearly successful in its one wonders how Microsoft’s senior A. Major Provisions of the PFJ efforts to eliminate threats to its desktop management could read the proposed PFJ As described in the CIS, the proposed PFJ monopoly. Through its anticompetitive any other way. contains seven major provisions. In brief activities, Microsoft achieved dominance in Second, and relatedly, DOJ’s stated goal of summary, they are: the browser market and forestalled the restoring ‘‘the competitive threat that . OEMs would have the freedom to support development of such cross-platform middleware products posed prior to and distribute non-Microsoft middleware technologies as the Netscape browser and Microsoft’s unlawful undertakings’’ is not the products or operating systems without fear of appropriate objective, and certainly is not Java that could have eroded the applications retaliation by Microsoft. equivalent to the Supreme Court’s standard barrier to entry. The promise of operating- . To help ensure against retaliation, of ‘‘terminat[ing] the illegal monopoly.’’ The system-neutral computing was that it would Microsoft would be required to provide competitive threat posed by the Netscape inject competition into the market for uniform licensing terms to the 20 largest browser and Java was quantitatively operating systems, which would foster computer manufacturers. relatively small at the time that Microsoft’s innovation throughout the industry. By . Computer manufacturers would have the illegal campaign against them was preventing the development of competition, freedom to feature and promote non- undertaken. But it was clear, certainly to Microsoft’s illegal conduct thwarted Microsoft middleware and customize their Microsoft, that their competitive potential in innovation and harmed consumers. computers to use non-Microsoft middleware the dynamic software marketplace was very as the default. B. Appropriate Criteria for a Remedial significant. Had Microsoft not engaged in . Microsoft would be required to disclose Action illegal activities, the competitive significance the interfaces and technical information that The Supreme Court has stated that the of these products would be much greater its own middleware uses, so that ISVs can purpose of remedial action in an antitrust today than it was at the time. develop competitive middleware products. case is to ‘‘terminate the illegal monopoly, There is a useful analogy here to simple . Microsoft would be required to disclose deny to the defendant the fruits of its commercial damage cases. If, for example, an communications protocols necessary for statutory violation and ensure that there individual or a company incurs monetary server and Windows desktop operating remain no practices likely to result in damages from actions in the past, 13 system software to interoperate with each monopolization.‘‘ In other words, a remedy compensation is generally based on the other. must be effective in the present (terminating present value of those damages, typically the monopoly), the past (expropriating ill- calculated by bringing the damage amount . Microsoft would be prohibited from gotten gains), and the future (preventing forward (from the time of the damage to the retaliating against ISVs or IHVs that develop similar conduct going forward). present) at a normal rate of return. That or distribute software that competes with As professional economists, we suggest it would be the only way for the damaged party Microsoft middleware or operating system is especially important to look to the future, to be made whole. Similarly, society has been software. where economic actors will make decisions damaged by Microsoft’s actions. For society . Microsoft would be prohibited from based on the incentives inherent in whatever to be made whole, competition should, to the entering into exclusive contracts concerning remedy the court imposes. The remedy extent possible, be restored to what it would its middleware or operating system products. should not only address the illegal practices be today in the absence of Microsoft’s illegal The CIS claims that these provisions, and Microsoft already has employed to maintain conduct,15 Equally important on a going the supporting provisions pertaining to its operating system monopoly, it should also forward basis, however, Microsoft should not enforcement, ‘‘will eliminate Microsoft’s as the Supreme Court has said—address illegal practices, prevent recurrence of the same or similar practices, and restore the practices that Microsoft might employ in the 14 CIS at 3. competitive threat that middleware products future to erect barriers to operating system 15 To truly be made whole in addition need to be compensated for the benefits it lost due to the posed prior to Microsoft’s unlawful 13 253 F 3d at 99–100, quoting (United States v. absence of competition in the itnervening years, United Shoe Mach. Corp), 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968). which is proably not possible. 16 CIS at 3–4.
VerDate 11
undertakings.’’ But the CIS presents virtually threatening middleware....’’ 18 (Emphasis actions affecting one of the most important no analysis to support this claim. added.) sectors, and companies, in the U.S. economy. B. The Competitive Impact Statement There, in the word ‘‘thus,’’ lies the sum The AT&T CIS differs markedly from the The CIS does not meet the standards and the entirety of the CIS’s explanation of CIS in this proceeding both in its explanation established by the APPA and does not the connection between the PFJ and its of the competitive effects and in its provide sufficient analysis for this court to anticipated effects on competition. For as evaluation of alternative remedies. Section III make an informed decision on whether the explained in more detail below, it is hardly of the AT&T CIS 22 presents a comprehensive PFJ is in the public interest. obvious, indeed, it is highly unlikely, that explanation of the proposed remedy and its Section 16(b)(3) of the APPA requires that simply ending Microsoft’s illegal restrictions anticipated effects on competition. Indeed, in the CIS include ‘‘an explanation o* the on middleware would have any significant stark contrast to the CIS in this case, the proposal ... and the anticipated effects on effect on competition on a going forward AT&T CIS contains, in Section III.E, an competition of such relief.’’ (Emphasis basis. Even in these semantically troubled extensive discussion specifically detailing added.) Section 16(b)(6) further requires ‘‘a times, we submit, the word ‘‘thus’’ cannot be ‘‘The Competitive Impact of the Proposed description and evaluation of alternatives to taken as the ‘‘explanation’’ the law requires. Modification.’’ The section is a lengthy one, such proposal actually considered by the But the CIS’s discussion of the PFJ must be explaining in detail how each provision of United States.’’ (Emphasis added). Under counted an analytical masterpiece when the proposed remedy is expected to affect compared with its treatment of alternative Section 16(e), the District Court is required competition on a going forward basis, remedies. In contrast to the lengthy, if failed, to determine that the consent judgment is in beginning as follows: treatment accorded the PFJ, the CIS attempts the public interest and in making that Put in simplest terms, the functional its ‘‘evaluation of alternatives’’ in three determination ‘‘may consider...anticipated divestiture contemplated by the proposed pages. Not surprisingly, given its brevity, the modification will remove from AT&T the effects of alternative remedies ....’’ Taken analysis is limited in how much light it can power to employ local exchange services in together, these provisions make clear that the shed on the DOJ’s decisionmaking process or ways that impede competition in CIS was intended by Congress to serve as a the relative merits of the alternatives before interdependent markets, and will remove guide to the court in evaluating the proposed the court. With respect to structural from the Bell Operating Companies relief relative to other alternatives which remedies, for example, the evaluation (‘‘BOCs’’), which will retain such power, any might better serve the public interest, not consists of 49 words: ‘‘After remand to the incentive to exercise it. The United States simply as a pro forma set of claims and District Court, the United States informed the believes, therefore, that the modification’s assertions. Yet the CIS in this case fails even court and Microsoft that it had decided, in divestiture requirement, and its to fully ‘‘explain,’’ and certainly cannot be light of the Court of Appeals opinion and the complementary injunctive provisions, will said to ‘‘evaluate,’’ either the likely effects of need to obtain prompt, certain and effective substantially accelerate the development of either the PFJ or the available alternatives. relief, that it would not further seek a competitive markets for interexchange Such an analysis would seem especially breakup of Microsoft into two businesses.’’ 19 services, customer premises equipment, and important in a fully-litigated Tunney Act Receiving even less attention are six other telecommunications equipment generally.23 case such as this one, where a prior finding remedy alternatives, which are summarily The ensuing pages present a careful of liability suggests a lower degree of dismissed in a single paragraph, and an analysis of why the government believes this deference to the PFJ than would otherwise be unknown number of ‘‘others received or to be the case and what the precise impacts appropriate, and thus a higher burden on the conceived’’ which, in apparent direct on competition are likely to be. The proposed court to evaluate alternatives. violation of the APPA, are not even remedy will ‘‘accelerate the emergence of How should the court evaluate the described.20 There simply is no semantic competition in interexchange adequacy of the CIS? Three sets of criteria standard by which this treatment of the services,’’ 24‘‘prevent the reemergence of the present themselves. First, does the CIS satisfy alternative remedies can possibly be ... incentive and ability to leverage regulated the plain language of the statute? Second, considered ‘‘an evaluation.’’ monopoly power into the customer premises how does it compare with previous CIS’s in In summary, the CIS submitted by the DOJ equipment market,’’ 25 make AT&T ‘‘subject similarly significant cases? Third, how does in this case fails the first test the court should to competition in all of its services,’’ 26 it compare with the standards of analysis that apply: It does not fulfill the plain language ‘‘remove the source of AT&T’s monopoly are required to be performed in similar requirements of either Section 16(b)(3) or power and its ability to leverage monopoly situations, such as agency rulemakings? This Section 16(b)(6) of the APPA. power into related markets,’’ 27 and ‘‘prevent CIS fails all three standards. Any effort the DOJ may make to defend the the creation anew of incentives and abilities First, does the CIS satisfy the plain CIS would be on firmer ground if it could in the BOCs to use their monopoly power to language of the statute? It depends on how argue it is simply following past practice. undercut rivals in competitive markets.’’28 the words ‘‘explain,’’ and ‘‘evaluate’’ are While we believe, as suggested above, that ‘‘There is every reason to believe that, defined. To defend successfully the plain- the CIS in this case should be held to a divested of the BOCs, AT&T will be a language adequacy of the CIS, the DOJ would higher standard than in cases where the procompetitive force in the markets that it have to adopt a very narrow interpretation of issues have not been fully litigated and a enters. As a result of the modification, it is both words. finding of liability has not been entered, at likely that AT&T will expand not only its Granted, the CIS devotes 43 pages 17 to least the DOJ could claim it was adhering to product lines, but also the areas in which it reciting and, DOJ presumably would argue, precedent. Even by the standards of past sells telecommunications equipment.’’29 ‘‘explaining’’ the provisions of the PFJ. What cases, however, this CIS falls far short. The authors have searched in vain, as will the CIS does not do at any point, however, Of course, Tunney Act cases vary in the court, for any similar explanation in the is explain ‘‘the anticipated effects [of the PFJ] significance and complexity. The best Microsoft CIS. As a procedural matter, the on competition.’’ standard for comparison for this case would absence of such explanations flies in the face The semantic sleight of hand upon which appear to be the CIS filed in the AT&T case 21 of the APPA. As a substantive one, it strongly DOJ relies to avoid this obligation is found in 1982. In that case as in this one, DOJ was suggests such statements are lacking for the on page 24 of the CIS. There, DOJ reminds tasked with explaining and evaluating a simple reason that they are not justified by us that ‘‘Restoring competition is the ‘key to Proposed Final Judgment aimed at resolving the remedy Microsoft and the DOJ are asking a continuing series of complex antitrust the whole question of an antitrust remedy,’’ the court to adopt. du Pont, 366 U.S. at 326.’’ Then it continues 18 CIS at 24. with a clever subterfuge: ‘‘Competition was 22 AT&T CIS at 7173–7180. 19 CIS at 61. injured in this case principally because 23 23 AT&T CIS at 7178. 20 CIS at 63. Microsoft’s illegal conduct maintained the 24 AT&T CIS at 7178. 21 United States v. Western Electric Company, applications barrier to entry .... Thus, the key 24 AT&T CIS at 7179. Inc. and American Telephone & Telegraph to the proper remedy in this case is to end 24 AT&T CIS at 7179. Microsoft’s restrictions on potentially Company, Competitive Impact Statement (February 17, 1982), 47 FR 7170–01. (Hereafter AT&T CIS). Of 24 AT&T CIS at 7179. course, unlike this case, the PFJ in the AT&T case 24 AT&T CIS at 7179. 17 CIS, 17–60. was entered prior to any finding of liability. 24 AT&T CIS at 7179.
VerDate 11
The AT&T CIS also differs from the one in analysis, of the costs and benefits of if at all, the provisions of the PFJ will change this case in its treatment of alternative potentially effective and reasonably feasible the behavior of participants in the remedies.30 The AT&T CIS appears to meet alternatives to the planned regulation ....’’ marketplace. the requirements of the APPA by describing The specific analytical techniques to be Other commentators will undoubtedly in some detail the alternative remedies used in such evaluations are further thoroughly catalogue the loopholes in the considered and evaluating their likely described in guidance from the Office of PFJ, of which there are many, and it is not impacts on competition relative to those Management and Budget issued January 11, our intention to do so here. It is, however, expected from the one proposed. ‘‘The 1996,33 and reiterated most recently by OMB illustrative of the defects of the PFJ to United States believes,’’ it concludes, ’’that on June 19, 2001.34 These guidelines require analyze it through the lens of the Netscape the [main alternative] did not approach even agencies, before issuing any major regulation, browser experience, since so much of remotely the effectiveness of the proposed to take into account such issues as whether Microsoft’s liability concerns its actions modification in achieving conditions that more ‘‘performance oriented’’ approaches are toward the Netscape browser. Accordingly, would assure full competition in the possible, the impact of alternative levels of much of the PFJ is directed at precluding the telecommunications industry.’’ 31 Again, stringency and effective dates, and type of anticompetitive acts that Microsoft such evaluative language is simply absent alternative methods of ensuring compliance, undertook against Netscape (even though the from the CIS in this case. And again, one and to perform evaluations that take into browser war is over and the industry has now cannot help but conclude that, had today’s account ‘‘discounting,’’ ‘‘risk and moved on to a different stage). But, the PFJ DOJ conducted the same careful analysis as uncertainty,’’ and ‘‘non-monetized benefits does not even succeed in this minimal goal— that conducted 20 years ago, it might well and costs.’’ Each analysis, the guidance of creating the conditions under which the have reached different conclusions in the demands, must ‘‘provide information Netscape browser could have competed current case. allowing decisionmakers to determine that: without being subject to Microsoft’s In summary, then, the CIS not only fails There is adequate information indicating the exclusionary practices. Indeed, the PFJ the satisfy the plain language of the APPA, need for and consequences of the proposed specifically permits many of the exclusionary but also fails to meet the standard established action; The potential benefits to society practices in which Microsoft engaged: by DOJ for a CIS in the most directly justify the potential costs ...; The proposed . Section III.A of the PFJ is supposed to analogous case. action will maximize the net benefits to protect OEMs from retaliation by Microsoft if The third criteria by which the court society...; [and] .... Agency decisions are they distribute non-Microsoft products. should evaluate the sufficiency of the CIS is based on the best reasonably available However, the language of Section III.A whether it meets the standards of analysis scientific, technical, economic, and other prohibits Microsoft from retaliating against that are required to be performed in similar information.’’ an OEM for ‘‘developing, distributing, situations, the most obvious of which is To repeat what we asserted at the outset of promoting, using, selling, or licensing any agency rulemakings. this section, the court might evaluate the CIS software that competes with Microsoft For at least the last 20 years, agencies have in this case by three standards: First, does the Platform Software or any product or service been required to undertake a detailed CIS satisfy the plain language of the statute? that distributes or promotes any Non- regulatory impact analysis when they Second, how does it compare with previous Microsoft Middleware.’’ (Emphasis added). propose major regulatory actions. Under E.O. CIS’s in similarly significant cases? Third, (Microsoft Platform Software is defined as 12291 (in effect during the Reagan and Bush how does it compare with the standards of including (i) a Windows Operating System Administrations), and E.O. 12866 (issued by analysis that are required to be performed in Product and/or (ii) a Microsoft Middleware President Clinton and still in effect), similar situations, such as agency Product.) While the Netscape browser was a government agencies have been expected to rulemakings? This CIS fails all three potential competitor for the Microsoft prepare a detailed analysis of the expected standards. operating system, it never became an actual benefits and costs of major regulatory C. The PFJ Will Not Have Its Claimed competitor. Moreover, at the time Netscape proposals and alternatives to them.32 While Effect, Nor Any Pro-Competitive Effect introduced its browser, Microsoft did not the PFJ is technically not a regulation that In fact, a close reading of the language of have a comparable Middleware Product. would fall under E.O. 12866, the magnitude the PFJ indicates that it will not do what the Thus, the language of III.A would have of its impact far exceeds the $100 million DOJ claims. Moreover, even if DOJ’s claims permitted Microsoft to retaliate against OEMs are taken at face value, the PFJ will not have threshold that defines a ‘‘major rule’’ and for distributing the Netscape browser at the its intended effect because of the realities of thus triggers the requirement for a detailed time it was introduced. the marketplace. Indeed, this is the only analysis. . Similarly, Section III.F. 1 prohibits conclusion that can be reached based upon The analysis of regulatory interventions in Microsoft from retaliating against any ISV or a real analysis of the ‘‘competitive impact’’ of the economy, which is what the PFJ in this IHV for ‘‘developing, using, distributing, the PFJ, which is to say an analysis of how, case is, is not a black art. Increasingly, and promoting or supporting any software that on the basis of more than two decades of competes with Microsoft Platform Software 33 performing such analyses of all major rules, Office of Management and Budget, Economic or any software that runs on any software regulatory analysis has become a scientific Analysis of Federal Regulations Under Executive that competes with Microsoft Platform Order 12866 (January 11, 1996)(available at process comprised of distinct steps and www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/riaguide.html). Software ....’’(Emphasis added). The containing specific elements. E.O. 12866, for 34 Office of Management and Budget, prohibitions in Section III.F.2 on Microsoft’s example, lays out specific criteria such Memorandum for the Heads of Executive relations with ISVs are also triggered by analyses should meet, including: ‘‘(i) An Departments and Agencies: Improving Regulatory software that ‘‘competes with Microsoft assessment, including the underlying Impact Analyses (June 19, 2001)(available at Platform Software’’, which the Netscape analysis, of benefits anticipated from the www.whitehouse.gov.omb/memoranda/m01- browser did not initially do. regulatory action (such as, but not limited to, 23.html) . Section III.G.2 is intended to prevent the promotion of the efficient functioning of respect to Competitive Impact Statements are, of similar exclusionary behavior with respect to the economy and private markets ....) together course, far less specific than those listed above. But IAPs and ICPs, by prohibiting Microsoft from the purpose of the APPA in requiring a CIS is with, to the extent feasible, a quantification presumably similar to the purpose of regulatory entering into any agreement with ‘‘any IAP of those benefits; (ii) An assessment, analyses: To allow decisionmakers, in this case the or ICP that grants placement on the desktop including the underlying analysis, of costs court, to understand the ramifications of their or elsewhere ... on the condition that the IAP anticipated from the regulatory action ... actions relative to alternative choices. By the or ICP refrain from distributing, promoting or together with, to the extent feasible, a standards of modem policy analysis, DOJ’s CIS fails using any software that competes with quantification of those costs; and (iii) An to perform this function at the level the court Microsoft Middleware.’’ (Emphasis added). assessment, including the underlying should expect, especially in a case of this Again, Netscape’s browser was a new magnitude. Office of Management and Budget, product that did not compete with any Memorandum for the Heads of Executive 30 30 AT&T CIS at 7181. Departments and Agencies: Improving Regulatory Microsoft product at the time it was 31 AT&T CIS at 7181. Impact Analyses (June 19, 2001)(available at introduced. 32 32 See E.O. 12291 (February 17, 1981) and E.O. www.whitehouse.gov.omb/memoranda/m01- . Section III.C is intended to prevent 12866 (September 30, 1993). 23.html) restrictive agreements with OEMs by, for
VerDate 11
example, preventing Microsoft from should seek to preserve the right to squash antitrust violations—conduct remedies and restricting the ability of its OEM licensees precisely such competitive threats. More structural remedies. Conduct remedies leave from ‘‘[l]aunching automatically ...any Non- broadly, the requirement that Microsoft have Microsoft intact and attempt to constrain its Microsoft Middleware if a Microsoft a comparable product in order to trigger some anticompetitive behavior by imposing a set of Middleware Product that provides similar of the PFJ’s provisions creates perverse behavioral requirements—essentially, a functionality would otherwise be launched incentives. It may discourage Microsoft from regulatory regime tailor-made for one firm. ....’’ (See Section III.C.3, emphasis added). introducing its own product, because to do Microsoft’s structure—and, importantly, its Under this language, Microsoft can preclude so triggers provisions restricting its ability to incentives—remain largely the same.35 The its OEM licensees from permitting the exclude a potential competitor. The result challenge is to develop rules that effectively automatic launch of a new product if could be that consumers would be deprived deter anticompetitive behavior, given that Microsoft does not have a similar product or entirely of a useful middleware product that such behavior might continue to be in if the Microsoft product does not have might potentially compete with the Windows Microsoft’s interest. The PFJ, which relies on ‘‘similar functionality’’ (obviously, a term operating system, because Microsoft is able to conduct remedies, will not be effective in open to interpretation). Again, when the engage in exclusionary practices against deterring anticompetitive behavior on the Netscape browser was launched, Microsoft another firm and does not find it in its part of Microsoft. did not have a similar product. interest to introduce its own product. Structural relief takes a different approach. . Section III.D is intended to preclude But the PFJ is flawed at an even deeper Structural relief, as the name implies, Microsoft from excluding rival products by level: Even if it did what DOJ and Microsoft involves restructuring the firm so as to denying them the technical information they say it would, its effect on firms that operate change its incentives and ability to act need to interoperate with the Windows in Microsoft’s markets and its ability to anticompetitively. As DOJ explained operating systems. It requires Microsoft to restore competition in those markets would eloquently in the AT&T CIS, if a restructuring ‘‘disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and be minimal at most. Most of the PFJ is is successful in achieving those goals, OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating intended to prevent Microsoft from behavioral restrictions are largely with a Windows Operating System Product ... retaliating against OEMs, ISVs, IAPs and unnecessary. The Appeals Court noted that the APIs and related Documentation that are others that distribute, develop or otherwise structural relief is a common form of relief used by Microsoft Middleware to support software that competes with in antitrust cases and is ‘‘the most important interoperate with a Windows Operating Microsoft middleware. Under the terms of of antitrust remedies.’’ 36 System Product.’’ (Emphasis added). If, the PFJ, however, these entities would have In this section, we describe the alternative however, Microsoft does not produce an little incentive to promote competitive structural remedies available to the court. analogous product, it might not use the APIs middleware. Then we offer an evaluation of the proposals needed for a new application, such as the This is principally because, despite the offered by the remaining litigating states. Appeals Court ruling that Microsoft’s Netscape browser, to get started. A. Alternative Structural Remedies integration of the browser and the operating . Section III.H contains a variety of At the government’s urging, the District system was anticompetitive, the PFJ would provisions designed to enable choice of Non- Court initially adopted a structural remedy, allow Microsoft to continue to bundle its Microsoft Middleware Products on the part of supplemented by interim conduct relief. 37 middleware (and other) products with its users and OEMs. The PFJ explicitly states, The Appeals Court vacated the District operating system. Indeed, Microsoft’s new XP Court’s remedy, partly because it modified however, that ‘‘Microsoft’s obligations under software incorporates new functionality into this Section III.H as to any new Windows the District Court’s liability finding and the Windows operating system as never partly because the District Court had failed Operating System Product shall be before. It includes, among other things, the IE determined based on the Microsoft to hold an evidentiary hearing. 38 The browser, Microsoft’s instant messaging and Appeals Court did not, however, rule out a Middleware Products which exist seven email software, Windows Media Player and months prior to the last beta test version (i.e., structural solution to this case. The Court the Microsoft Passport digital authentication directed that ‘‘the District Court also should the one immediately preceding the first software. All of these functions are bundled release candidate) of that Windows Operating consider whether plaintiffs have established together and the combined package is sold at a sufficient causal connection between System Product.’’ At the time the Netscape a fixed price. browser was introduced, there was no Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct and its Thus, OEMs have virtually no incentive to dominant position in the OS market.’’ 39 It comparable Microsoft Middleware Product. customize their offerings with non-Microsoft . Finally, Non-Microsoft Middleware continued, ‘‘[i]f the court on remand is software. To do so involves an additional unconvinced of the causal connection Products are defined to include products ‘‘of cost for the non-Microsoft software when which at least one million copies were between Microsoft’s exclusionary conduct compariable functionality is provided by and the company’s position in the OS distributed in the United States within the Microsoft at no additional cost. An OEM that previous year.’’ (Section VI.N). Thus, market, it may well conclude that divestiture did this would have to pass these added costs is not an appropriate remedy.’’ 40* This is an regardless of any of the other provisions, the on to its customers and would likely lose PFJ permits exclusionary behavior against issue that should be explored in an sales to other OEMs. Obviously, if OEMs evidentiary hearing. new products that are trying to get don’t have the incentive to install non- established. While it is difficult to predict exactly how Microsoft software, ISVs won’t have the the industry would have developed in the In sum, under the provisions of the PFJ incentive to develop it and IAPs won’t have Microsoft would have been permitted to absence of Microsoft’s anticompetitive the incentive to distribute it. behavior, it is likely that an alternative to engage in anticompetitive practices against As a result, the PFJ will not have any Microsoft’s operating- system platform would the Netscape browser because the browser significant pro-competitive impact in the have emerged and it is a virtual certainty that did not compete against the Windows markets for either middleware or PC Microsoft’s position would be far less operating system and because Microsoft did operating systems. Nor, for the same reasons, dominant than it is today. Clearly, Microsoft not at the outset have a comparable product. is it likely to have any significant pro- thought that was a distinct possibility. Moreover, at least in the early stages, the competitive impact on newly emerging Netscape browser would not have been markets, such as voice-over-IP instant 35 covered because a million copies had not messaging, game boxes, e-commerce 35 Microsoft’s incentives would be modified to been distributed in a single year. The DOJ the extent it faces legal penalties, but those technologies (e.g., ‘‘Passport’’) or digital penalties would have to be very large to have a obviously feels that the fabled entrepreneurs rights management technologies. Indeed, the significant effect on Microsoft’s incentives. of Silicon Valley, working in their garages, inability to make any plausible claims for 36 253 F 3d at 103, quoting United States v. E.I. are not worthy of protection against such pro- competitive effects is the most du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316, 331 Microsoft under the PFJ. It is especially likely explanation for the fact that, in (1961). ironic that Microsoft, which has dedicated so contrast to the AT&T CIS, the CIS in this case 37 United States v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F Supp-2d. much rhetoric to persuading the courts and doesn’t make any. (DCCirc. 2000) ‘‘Final Judgement’’. the public that its monopoly could be IV. The Remedy Alternatives 38 253 F 3d at 6. overturned at any moment by the proverbial There are two general classes of remedies 39 253 F 3d at 105. entrepreneur working out of her garage, that can be employed to remedy Microsoft’s 40
VerDate 11
The causation between Microsoft’s independent applications company would the vertical divestiture remedy that the anticompetitive practices and its operating have every incentive to support competitors District Court adopted by first separating the system monopoly runs both ways. Without to Windows rather than make decisions operating systems company from the its monopoly, Microsoft would have been based on the level of threat those competitors applications company and then creating unable to engage in the exclusionary pose to Microsoft.44 A separate applications three equivalent operating system companies. practices documented by the District Court company would have appropriate incentives Microsoft’s bundling of more applications and affirmed by the Appeals Court. to port its products to competing operating functionality into the new XP operating Moreover, because of the wide array of systems, such as Linux, thereby lowering the system strengthens the arguments for the business practices at issue and the applications barrier to entry that potential hybrid remedy relative to other remedies. complexity of the industry, it is very difficult competitors face. Currently, Microsoft has an The PFJ (as discussed above) does not to fashion a conduct relief regime that will incentive to strategically withhold contain any restrictions on bundling, which be effective if Microsoft retains its dominant applications from actual or potential will hinder its effectiveness dramatically. In market position. This is why the Department competitors, even if providing them would addition, as more applications are moved of Justice (initially) and others (including otherwise be economically justified. In into the operating system, the vertical ourselves) favor a structural solution. Two addition, the applications company would divestiture becomes less able to restore the different forms of structural solution have have the incentive to make its tools available competitive balance, because the newly been proposed, which we review in turn. to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) that formed applications company would be a The DOJ initially proposed, and the cooperate with competing operating system District Court initially ordered, a vertical less powerful competitor. providers. By creating competing Windows divestiture, which would divide Microsoft Separate operating system and applications along product lines, into an operating companies, the hybrid remedy directly companies would make it possible for addresses the monopoly problem, which is systems company and an applications middleware technologies in the applications company.41 The DOJ argued that this remedy the source of Microsoft’s anticompetitive company to be competitive with Windows. behavior. As indicated above, without the would create two powerful companies that When applications are written to middleware would have the incentive to compete with monopoly, Microsoft would never have been technologies, like the Netscape browser, able to exclude the Netscape browser from each other, diminishing the market power of which operate between the applications both. According to Timothy Bresnahan, Chief the most effective means of distribution— software and the operating system, they OEMs and IAPs. It would not, for example, Economist at the Antitrust Division at the become operating system neutral,45 reducing time, ‘‘divestiture of the company into an have been able to get the OEMs to refrain the applications barrier to entry and from pre-installing the Netscape browser as applications and an operating system facilitating competition with Windows. a condition for receiving a Windows license. company restores competitive conditions There are several desktop applications, Similarly, Microsoft would not have been very like those destroyed by the including Microsoft Office, that expose APIs anticompetitive acts. Absent the able to extinguish the market for a competing and could become important middleware anticompetitive acts, Microsoft would have browser by bundling the Windows operating technologies. lost the browser war, and other finns would system with IE. Microsoft would not have Of course, a vertical divesture now would have commercialized useful technologies been able to do these things—which are at have a somewhat different effect than when now controlled by Microsoft. Divided the core of the Appeals Court’s liability it was first adopted by the District Court, technical leadership, which could be finding—because the OEMs and the IAPs because Microsoft has bundled many more accomplished by having an independent would have had competitive alternatives to applications into its new XP operating browser company in the late 1990s or an which they could turn. system. If the District Court again decided to applications company now, lowers barriers to adopt this remedy, it would also have to The hybrid remedy would eliminate the entry and competition in many markets. It applications barrier to entry for the new was exactly this route to an increase in decide whether to require Microsoft to remove some applications functionality from Windows companies and deprive Microsoft competition that Microsoft avoided by its of its ability to leverage its desktop monopoly anticompetitive acts. Second, ending its XP operating system or permit it to remain as is. If the XP operating system were into new markets. Because it really does Microsoft’s unique position in the industry restore competition, extensive behavioral offers innovative new technologies the choice allowed to remain as is, applications that would previously have been part of the restrictions are not required, making this the of two mass-market distribution partners, least regulatory of the available alternatives. either Appsco [the applications company] or applications company would be part of the operating system company. However, The hybrid remedy is to a significant OSCo [the operating system company]. The extent an ‘‘intellectual property’’ remedy, divestiture will do much to reduce the significant applications—principally, Microsoft Office—still remain separate from requiring Microsoft to grant full intellectual motive to violate and also to reduce the property rights to its Windows Operating effectiveness of future anticompetitive acts. It the operating system. The alternative to a vertical approach is System to two new companies. This type of restores conditions for competitive remedy is particularly suited to ‘‘new- innovation at a moment in technology history what we term a ‘‘hybrid’’ structural remedy, which combines both vertical and horizontal economy’’ companies like Microsoft, whose [i.e., when the Internet is starting to be assets consist primarily of informational commercialized] when having a single firm elements. A purely horizontal divestiture capital, which can easily be replicated.47 The set the direction of innovation in PC and end- would divide Microsoft into several rationale for going further and dividing up user oriented internet markets is most vertically integrated companies, each with employees is that much of the intellectual unwise.’’ 42 full rights to Microsoft’s intellectual property is embodied in the employees.48 In Similarly, the Department of Justice, in property, creating several sellers of Windows contrast to traditional ‘‘old-economy’’ initially proposing this remedy, argued that as well as Microsoft’s other software separating the operating system from the products. This remedy arguably goes beyond applications company would ‘‘reduce the what is necessary or could be justified as Remedy for Microsoft, ( Washington: Progress & entry barriers that Microsoft’s illegal conduct matter of law, since it divides up products Freedom Foundation, 2000) http://www.pff, org/ erected and make it less likely that Microsoft that were not the subject of the case. remedies/htm; Remedies Brief of Amici Curiae [would] have the incentive or ability to A number of commentators, including Dr. Robert E. Litan et al., 2000; Thomas M. Lenard, ‘‘Creating Competition in the Market for Operating increase them in the future.’’ 43 An Lenard, have proposed a ‘‘hybrid’’ remedy, which has elements of both vertical and Systems: Alternative Structural Remedies in the 46 Microsoft Case,’’ George Mason Law Review, Vol. 41 41 Final Judgement at 2. horizontal divestiture. It goes a step beyond 9., Spring 2001. 42 Timonthy F. Bresnahan, ‘‘The Right Remedy,’’ 47 Remedies Brief of Amici Curiae Robert E. Litan at 1, (available at www.stanford.edu/tbres/ 44 United States v. Microsoft Corp., 147 F 3d 935 et al., 2000. microsoft/The Right Remedy.pdf). (DCCirc. 1998) Romer Declaration # 4, (hereafter 48 Thomas M. Lenard, Creating Competition in the 43 Plantiffs’’ Memorandom in support of Proposed Romer). Market for Operating Systems: A Structural Remedy Final Judgement at 30–43, Microsoft (No. 98–1232), 45 45 Romer at 13. for Microsoft,(Washington,: Progress & Freedom available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4600/ 46 See Thomas M. Lenard, Creating Competition Foundation, 2000) http://www.pff.org/remedies/ 4640.htm. in the Market for Operating Systems: A Structural htm.
VerDate 11
companies, however, there is very little u` Finally, the LS Proposal would require continued its aggressive tactics. The recent physical capital to be divided up. Microsoft ‘‘to auction to a third party the allegation that they lobbied congressional This factor should alleviate some of the right to port Microsoft Office to competing members in defiance of the Tunney act once concerns expressed in the Appeals Court operating systems.’’ This would reduce the again bears out my belief that they think they opinion about the use of a structural remedy applications barrier to entry for a competing are above the law. in the case of a ‘‘unitary company‘‘—i.e., a operating system, such as Linux. All of these The government has a duty to pursue a company not formed by mergers and aspects of the LS Proposal would add course of action that will effectively remedy acquisitions.49 Such concerns have more significantly to the probability that the the situation. This has not been achieved. validity in the case of old- economy remedy in this case would actually have the The proposed settlement terms are extremely companies, because of the difficulty of desired effect of increasing competition in weak. They will have virtually no effect in dividing up physical capital. What is being one or more of the relevant product markets. curbing Microsoft’s behavior. On the proposed in the hybrid remedy is much V. Conclusion contrary, they seem to be an endorsement of closer to a reproduction than it is to a The PFJ is not an adequate remedy and its Microsoft’s tactics. How can anyone who has division of the company’s assets. When those adoption is not in the public interest. It will any knowledge of the matter imagine that the assets consist primarily of information, they not deter Microsoft from engaging in playing field has been leveled, or that can be reproduced at very low cost. anticompetitive activities and it will not Microsoft will modify its monopolistic B. The Litigating States Proposal restore competition in this extremely practices on the basis of said terms? In We believe a structural remedy continues important sector of the economy. Moreover, addition, where is the penalty for their past to offer the best hope of deterring Microsoft’s the CIS that the government has prepared actions? The government is about to fail very anticompetitive behavior in a way that is not does not provide the information necessary badly in its duty to protect the American overly regulatory. If, however, a structural for the District Court to determine that the public. remedy is off the table, the conduct remedy PFJ is in the public interest. If Microsoft continues to dominate through proposed by the Litigating States (LS) is far In order to generate the necessary monopolistic practices, it will significantly better than the PFJ. The LS Proposal does not information for such a determination, the affect the technology available to consumers, contain the obvious loopholes and District Court should hold an evidentiary and what they pay for it. Microsoft has exceptions that are pervasive in the PFJ. always rushed to market with shoddy Moreover, the LS Proposal includes a number hearing in which the competitive impacts, software, expecting users to exercise and test of provisions that can partially restore benefits and costs of all the available it. Large numbers of bug fixes are generally competition to what it might have been remedies are closely evaluated. In addition to required to any given product, but the absent the anticompetitive behavior. Because the PFJ, the Court should consider structural products themselves never stabilize because it will change the behavior of the participants remedies—which appear to be justified under in the market, the LS Proposal provides a the criteria established by the Court of Microsoft releases the next version with more serious remedy to Microsoft’s offenses. Some Appeals—as well as the LS Proposal. We bells and whistles and even more bugs. This of the attractive features of the LS proposal believe that at the end of this process, the process explains why their operating systems are as follows: court will agree that the PFJ is not in the are so vulnerable to security attacks, i.e., as u` In contrast to the PFJ, the LS Proposal public interest and that the ‘‘hybrid’’ the systems have become larger and more contains prohibitions on exclusionary and structural remedy we recommend best meets complex, adequate security, which has never retaliatory behavior that are clear and all the of the criteria governing the court’s been very good in any of their products, unambiguous and mean what they purport to deliberations in this matter. becomes more tenuous. A lack of real competition exacerbates this kind of result. mean. In general, they provide meaningful MTC–00028687 protection against retaliation for the Businesses and individuals who use development and distribution of non- From: Albert Delgado Microsoft products and suffer the Microsoft software. To: Microsoft ATR consequences of viruses, worms, etc. pay an The LS Proposal would require Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 5:01pm enormous cost. In a competitive market, to license an unbundled version of its Subject: Microsoft Settlement consumers could make other choices unless software. As discussed above, the bundling of Microsoft should be punished to the fullest the problems were fixed. applications together with the monopoly extent of the law. The government should Finally, I don’t understand how anyone operating system makes it uneconomic in understand that Microsoft has been found can support Microsoft’s argument that the most cases to develop and distribute software guilty and should make restitution and consumer has benefited in the form of low- that competes with Microsoft. This change its predatory practices. Microsoft cost software. One doesn’t buy such a requirement would address that problem and does not innovate, but makes shoddy product and have done with further expense. create an environment in which rival software that many hackers attack at will. At Rather, it is a case of buying on the software can be developed. Chicago public schools, the network installment plan, as one pays again and again u` The LS Proposal would require Microsoft administrators now prefer Linux and OSX for each new release that is made, along with to license its software to third parties (not from Apple since they are stable platforms. the need to pay separately for user manuals. just OEMs) who could produce a customized Albert Delgado If the average person were to calculate the product that would enlarge the range of Chicago Public Schools. outlay for software over a reasonable time consumer choice and provide competition for period, it would be shown that the cost is far Microsoft. MTC–00028688 from the bargain Microsoft portrays. u` The proposal also would require From: Ron Ohlander In conclusion, the government must find a Microsoft to continue to license predecessor To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’ way to curb Microsoft’s behavior. The versions of Windows. This would permit Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm currently proposed settlement signally fails OEMs to expand the range of consumer Subject: FW: Microsoft Settlement to do that. choice by providing a lower-priced To whom it may concern: Sincerely, operating-system product that might be I am a computer scientist (Ph.D Carnegie- Ronald B. Ohlander perfectly satisfactory for a large number of Mellon University) who has worked in the users. In addition, it would permit OEMs and field for over 25 years. I have been a close MTC–00028689 third parties to continue to develop a observer of Microsoft’s behavior since its From: bugbee differentiated product that might be inception. I believe that the proposed To: Microsoft ATR competitive with Microsoft. Microsoft settlement is a farce. Date: 1/28/02 4:59pm u` The LS Proposal would require Microsoft Microsoft has exhibited rapacious behavior Subject: Comments on MS / DoJ Settlement to make IE available on an open-source basis, since its start. The courts have found them Your Honor, and would require Microsoft to distribute to be a monopoly and guilty of monopolistic To be especially brief, I’ll be politically Java, thereby partially reversing some of the practices, which only attests to what most incorrect. (You have a lot to read.) effects of Microsoft’s illegal activities professionals in the field have known for a It sucks. long time. Even as the case has been Why? For all intents and purposes, there is 49 49 253 F 3d at 103. progressing through the courts, Microsoft has 1) no penalty for past illegal acts, and 2) no
VerDate 11
teeth in the agreement to insure it won’t making it difficult and or prohibitively of a very successful product is the happen again. expensive for outsiders, to access, or even opportunity to sell the product to Microsoft A structural change in the way Microsoft know about operating system, or hardware at a price determined only by the latter. does business is what’s needed. Promising to features which may be important for fields 3. The required ‘‘operating system’’ (now be good has not worked before, and future Microsoft dominates, or wishes to dominate. more properly an operating environment) is monitoring is both ineffectual and pointless. The ‘‘browser wars’’ were about exposing the so complex as to create a huge barrier I could elaborate, but I’d be taking your inner workings of Microsoft’s operating between the creative idea of a researcher, valuable time and I’m sure you’ve heard it all system so others might use them. developer, or engineer and its before. Because of the ease of writing and implementation into a useful product. Please do what you can to SOLVE this defending impenetrable code Microsoft I’m reminded of a university researcher’s problem. ...a structural change. already has an almost unlimited ability to website I saw several years ago. The Thanks for listening, restrict access to the core of the operating researcher noted that he was using older, and Larry Bugbee system and to the hardware beyond, whether by then outdated, analysis software for his Kent, Washington or not a court orders it to provide access. research. Although he had written the Microsoft sells just enough tools to access original software himself, he believed that MTC–00028690 selected parts its operating environment to be the new requirement of interfacing with From: Russell Pavlicek able to provide lip-service to openness. Windows had introduced such complexities To: Microsoft ATR Generally speaking the products are scaled in that he could not afford either the time to Date: 1/28/02 4:56pm such a way that only those who have made update the software himself, or the money to Subject: Microsoft Settlement a large commitment, financial or ‘‘sweat to hire a Windows specialist to update it for To whom it may concern, equity’’ which will tend to lock in their him. Whether or not the researcher’s This settlement is an extremely bad idea. allegiance to Microsoft are allowed access to assumption was actually true, Microsoft It will not adequately curtail Microsoft’s the more powerful tools. literature and promotions (the so-called FUD abuse of monopoly power. Because of the high barrier created by the factor) would certainly lead him to this Sincerely, impenetrability of the Microsoft code, it is conclusion. Hence his further research in this Russell Pavlicek hard to imagine any remedy short of a field was stymied. breakup will be able to curtail Microsoft’s 4. Similarly the Microsoft ‘‘one size fits MTC–00028691 illegal monopolistic practices. The second all’’ operating system and tools, interposed From: Robert McConnell comment, related to manufacturing flight, is between America’s manufacturing engineers To: Microsoft ATR contained in a letter I sent to the Attorney and the computer, hamper their creative Date: 1/28/02 4:58pm General general of Massachusetts several efforts. Modern Windows software effectively Subject: Microsoft Settlement. months ago. The text follows: prevents these engineers from writing high In response to the government’s request for Dear Mr. Attorney General, speed one-of-a-kind applications necessary comments on the proposed Microsoft I must congratulate you and your staff on for the most efficient manufacturing. Ten Settlement: the stand you have taken against the years ago the same engineer would have had As a computer professional with over three proposed Microsoft settlement. no trouble writing this type of software. As decades of experience writing software for a I am a software developer who has long a Senior Member and member of the Peer variety of operating systems including been appalled by the relentless manner in Review Committee of the Machine Vision Windows, and as one-time fan of Microsoft, which the American public interest Association of the Society of Manufacturing I would like to make two points. The first is continues to be steamrolled by the Microsoft Engineers I became personally concerned to suggest one route which in the absence of juggernaut. Therefore I was shocked by the about this issue several years ago. I was a breakup I expect Microsoft to continue to decision by the Justice Department to take particularly worried that is resulting in exploit to maintain it’s monopoly. The the breakup option off the table. It is my substantial advantages for manufacturing second point is to call attention to a related opinion that this option offered the only facilities in foreign countries and earlier this danger from Microsoft’s monopoly which I chance to restore competition to the software year prepared the attached document. believe is accelerating the flight of marketplace. Needless to say, I was further I’m not sure any of this will be of any help manufacturing from the US to foreign dismayed by the terms of the proposed in the successful resolution of the Microsoft countries. settlement. situation, However I thought it might be First the monopoly preservation strategy: As you are obviously well aware, under the helpful in explaining why at least one of us Most competent computer programmers guise of ‘‘innovation’’ Microsoft has is behind you. can, if they wish, write and document succeeded in stifling true innovation in many Again, congratulations and good luck on functioning code which is virtually ways. Much of the damage done by Microsoft your stand! incomprehensible to any other competent is not as a result of overt actions towards the Sincerely, programmer (including the author him/ ‘‘victim’’ whether an individual or a Robert McConnell herself). Moreover said author can almost company. Rather it is in creating an certainly (disingenuously but successfully) environment in which the fate of others who MTC–00028692 argue in a court comprised of non-experts have tried to innovate in the face of Microsoft From: Stephen Hopkins that the code is straightforward, well- serves as a deterrent to further innovation. Of To: Microsoft ATR documented and easy to understand. course this type of deterrence by example Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm Subject’’ Microsoft What does this have to do with Microsoft does not carry the connotation of physical Settlement maintaining and extending their monopoly? danger as might be expected from similar Conceptual Computing, Incorporated Everything. Whether hardware or software, it threats by organized crime or terrorists. i is in the interests of the creator of any Nevertheless it is quite effective. This is an 9315 Locarno Drive, Dallas, TX 75243– product to facilitate use by the consumer environment in which: 7217 while hiding as much of the internal 1. Intelligent software developers know January 28, 2002 workings as possible to discourage that they have little chance of being Attorney General John Ashcroft competition. Microsoft’s strategy has been to successful unless they join the Microsoft U.S. Department of Justice continuously expand the boundaries of it’s camp. Once in that camp more of a 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ‘‘operating system’’ (more properly now an developer’s time will be likely spent keeping Washington, DC 20530–0001 operating environment) enveloping or up with Microsoft’s complexity-increasing- Dear Mr. Ashcroft, attempting to envelope entire classes of whims than improving their product. Most individuals and companies affiliated applications, office, networking, on-line 2. Intelligent funding institutions know with computer software products are very shopping, manufacturing etc... within the from history that there is no point in excited about the recent antitrust settlement boundaries of the ‘‘operating system’’. This developing a product in a market in which between Microsoft Corp. and the U.S. Justice can be done explicitly as in the case of Microsoft is known or believed to have Department. The lawsuit has significantly Internet Explorer, or implicitly by simply interest. The best one can hope for in the case dampened technological innovation as well
VerDate 11
as investment. Continuing the lawsuit would remedy/letter.html). I would like to single >Despite Judge Jackson’s ruling last June, only make matters worse; therefore, the out two points which deserve special Microsoft remains the single most >dominant settlement should be accepted and finalized attention. technology firm in the world. Microsoft’s as soon as possible as it is fair and As stated in the Findings of Fact, Microsoft core businesses, its Windows >operating reasonable. enjoys a monopoly in the operating systems system and Office software, are certainly For example, it has agreed to disclose its market (section 33–44). According to the under legal challenges on >several fronts, but internal interfaces for Windows to its Court of Appeals ruling, ‘‘a remedies decree at the moment they are still generating competitors. It also agreed not to retaliate in an antitrust case must seek to ‘‘unfetter a tremendous revenues >and profits for the against computer makers who ship software market from anticompetitive conduct’’, to company. In addition, Microsoft plans to that competes with anything in its Windows ‘‘terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the jump-start its >Internet access operation, operating system. Last, and perhaps most defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, MSN, which is also unlikely to be affected by important, Microsoft has to design future and ensure that there remain no practices Judge >Jackson’s verdict. > versions of Windows to provide a mechanism likely to result in monopolization in the Why is it more important to the Senator to make it easy for computer makers, future’’ (section V.D., p. 99). from Georgia that Microsoft generate profits consumers and software developers to First, to meet these standards the Windows than have conditions favorable to small promote non-Microsoft software within API—almost all of them, not just ‘‘Microsoft businesses in his district? I never got a Windows. Middleware’’ as narrowly defined in the response, despite phone calls and emails to I sincerely hope the settlement is allowed PFJ—must be completely open and the Senator’s office. This is the ultimate aim to take hold as soon as the public comment documented in such a manner that third- of monopoly power, and Microsoft has period concludes and that those who may party developers can create an environment achieved it. Please stop them. I’d like to have attempt to derail it are not successful in their that can run Windows applications. An my government back. example of such an environment is the WINE attempts. Respectfully submitted, (WINdows Emulator) middleware that is Sincerely, Sara Yurman available for the Linux operating system. Stephen Hopkins Second, the enforcement mechanism must MTC–00028696 President be nimble. The original suit which led to the CC: Representative Richard Armey From: Jerry PFJ was filed in 1995. Since then, Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028693 has released three new versions of the Date: 1/28/02 4:59pm Subject’’ Comments operating system (Windows 98, ME, XP) and From: wt.catch1 regarding Proposed Settlement is positioning itself to be the middleman in To: Microsoft ATR Attached is a PDF document with my Internet transactions via the .Net initiative. If Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm comments regarding the Proposed Settlement the courts are used as an enforcement Subject: Microsoft Settlement of US v. Microsoft mechanism then Microsoft is guaranteed Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division Thank you for your attention in this matter. several more years without serious 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 January 25,2002 competition in the operating systems market. Washington, DC 20530–0001 To: Best regards, Renata B. Hesse Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: Neil Kohl Antiturst Division Please put a stop to the economically- Manager, ACP-ASIM Online U.S Department of Justice draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This American College of Physicians— 601 D Street NW has gone on long enough. American Society of Internal Medicine nkohl Suite 1200 Microsoft has already agreed to hide its @mail.acponline.org 215.351.2638, Washington, DC 20530–001 Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the 800.523.1546 x2638 fact is, this case against Microsoft is little Subject: Microsoft Settlement more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other MTC–00028695 The following are my comments regarding Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel From: Sara Yurman the proposed settlement of the United States going to those supposedly harmed by To: Microsoft ATR vs. Microsoft antitrust case. Microsoft: the computer user. Date: 1/28/02 4:59pm Personal Background This is just another method for states to get Subject: Please reject this settlement. I am Information Technology specialist free money, and a terrible precedent for the Thank you for the opportunity to comment who works primarily in Systems architecture, future, not only in terms of computer on this ruling. I am sure than many people design, and development. Over the past ten technology, but all sorts of innovations in the have offered excellent technical reasons for years I have specialized in Information most dynamic industry the world has ever rejecting this extraordinarily weak Security. I have been a user of Microsoft seen. settlement. I have two reasons that I hope the products (for both consumers and Please put a stop to this travesty of justice court will consider: developers) since the early 1980s. now. Thank you. 1) I am a small business person. At the United States v. Microsoft Background Sincerely, moment I can operate on Linux, and not be The District Court and the Court of Yvonne Keenoy hampered by some of the Microsoft-specific Appeals concluded that Microsoft had 46225 Verba Santa formats that I receive. This, however, is ‘‘unlawfully maintained its monopoly power #11 tenuous and getting more so. As Microsoft by suppressing emerging technologies that Palm Desert, CA 92260 extends its reach into the internet, and threatened to undermine its monopoly continues to keep its formats closed my control of the personal computer operating MTC–00028694 ability to communicate without Microsoft is system market.’’ From: Neil Kohl somewhat serendipitous. Operating with The Court of Appeals held ‘‘a remedies To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft products is not an option for us. decree in an antitrust case must seek to Date: 1/28/02 5:05pm We are a distributed company and cannot ‘‘unfetter a market from anticompetitive Subject: Microsoft Settlement afford the expense and security problems conduct,’’ to ‘‘terminate the illegal monopoly, To whom it may concern: inherent in those products. A virus could be deny to the defendant the fruits of its I am writing in opposition to the Proposed fatal to our small firm. statutory violation, and ensure that there Final Judgment (PFJ) in the case of United 2) It appears that Microsoft’s monopoly remain no practices likely to result in States v. Microsoft. power is having a corrosive affect on our monopolization in the future.’’ I am a programmer with over 20 years political system. I wrote my U.S. Senators ( Comments experience, and I currently work as a web Zell Miller and Max Cleland ), urging them Scope of Protection is Too Limited site administrator for a large medical to support Senator Schumer’s call to block Microsoft’s competition in the Operating association. the distribution of the XP operating system. system area varies greatly in type and size. I agree wholeheartedly with the Open Senator Miller never answered. The This competion includes: Letter created by Dan Kegel and signed by following was included in Senator Cleland’s . direct competitors, organizations creating over 2000 people (http://www.kegel.com/ response: different Operating systems (e.g. Linux)
VerDate 11
. organizations that build applications and Settlement. This should at least include To: Microsoft ATR middleware that run ‘‘on top’’ of an operating Windows CE and Windows XP Tablet Date: 1/28/02 4:59pm Subject’’ Tunney Act system (e.g. Java and Netscape Edition. Too Many Restrictions on Disclosure Comments Communicator) of Security Interfaces The Proposed Thanks for reviewing our comments. .* organizations that customize operating Settlement places restrictions on the Ken Brown systems for their clients (hardware OEMs) disclosure of Microsoft security interfaces in January 28,2002 .* organizations that provide software the name of National Security. I would Renata Hesse equivalence of the services of one operating suggest that the reverse is true. In the current Trial Attorney system on a different system or environment. environment it is important to nurture the Antitrust Division The proposed restrictions on Microsoft development of security functionality. All U.S. Department of Justice business conduct will provide protection to Microsoft security programmable interfaces, 601 D Street, NW Suite 1200 a subset of these Microsoft competitors. The protocols, and data structures should be fully Washington, DC 20530 majority of the Proposed Settlement focuses disclosed. The only restriction should be that e-mail: microsoft.atr @ usdoij.gov on providing relief for the content of some specific data elements Re: AdTI Tunney Act Comments 1) organizations that provide middleware may not be disclosed (private keys, etc.) The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution that run exclusively on Microsoft Windows Limits on Which Organizations can Seek submits these comments under the Tunney products, and hardware OEM vendors. There Disclosure of Interfaces Act. are only minimal changes in the Microsoft The proposed Settlement places The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is an conduct to protect vendors of competing restrictions on which competitors Microsoft independent non-profit education and operating systems. must disclose their APIs. The competitors research organization described in detail at Only Large Competitors Are Protected must be of sufficient size and have a valid www.adti.net. The mission of AdTI is to The size of organizations that develop business case. This allows Microsoft to chose provide helpful policy analysis to advance software varies greatly. Even Microsoft which organizations they wish to compete. the ideas of democracy and freedom around started as a small number of people. Unlike Even Microsoft in its earliest years would the world. many other businesses, there is not a have failed these requirements. Given that in Sincerely, requirement for a large capital investment to the current environment one of Microsoft’s Kenneth Brown start developing software. strongest competitors is primarily a volunteer President The restrictions on Microsoft conduct organization (Lunix) it seems likely that Telephone Number(s)- office 202–548– apply only to large organizations (both OEM Microsoft would not disclose any APIs to 0006, cell 703–608–4222 and software developers). Not only does this ‘‘Free’’ Software development organizations. ALEXIS de TOCQUEVILLE not work to terminate the monopoly it creates Poor Enforcement Mechanisms Why the Microsoft Case Should Be Settled new exclusionary and discriminatory A good settlement should include Alexis de Tocqueville Institution practices which did not previously exist. enforcement that is easily understood, Washington, DC Scope of Interfaces to be Disclosed is too quantifiable, and verifiable. There should be January 22, 2002 Narrow metrics that can be used over a period of time The Hard Truth About Invention in the The Proposed Settlement requires that to evaluate the success of the Settlement. A U.S. Marketplace Microsoft disclose the APIs for its good enforcement needs to provide quick Two courts have reaffirmed that Netscape middleware. However, in the Proposed resolution of issues related the Settlement for nor its browser were shut out of the Settlement the definition of Middleware is so the business needs of both any plaintiff as marketplace. The browser wars produced a limited that it excludes many of the well as Microsoft. Finally, there needs to be winner and a loser; and Netscape was the interfaces required by competitors. The a sufficient motivation to insure Microsoft loser. However, within thousands of briefs Interfaces to be disclosed need to include not will not violate the Settlement. and legal arguments criticizing the U.S. vs. just Application Programming Interfaces The Proposed Settlement provides almost Microsoft settlement is the repeated concern (APIs) but all other data structures and none of the above. There is technical review about the future of new Netscape’s in the protocols extemalized by Microsoft software by a three person team but all of their work technology sector. Almost every other issue components. The Department of Justice chose will be confidential and not subject to is tangential, and we must differentiate the not to pursue issues related to the comigling review. There is no public or judicial review arguments properly. of software and yet the Proposed Settlement of the progress of the Settlement. The only We see an interchanging of terms being assumes to have sufficient knowledge of the option for handling misconduct, outside of used, specifically, ’’....the settlement should separate pieces (middleware vs. operating the technical team, is to go back to court— make the marketplace safe for firms to system) to provide a working definition in one of the slowest ways to resolve any compete with Microsoft...’’ vs. ’’...the the Proposed Settlement. violations. Finally, given that there is no settlement should be safe for firms to As long as the definition of the Windows financial incentive required in this introduce new products...ie, like Netscape Operating Systems is outside the scope of the Settlement and that Microsoft earns billions Navigator...’’ The Department of Justice has Proposed Settlement Microsoft will maintain of dollars using their current business proposed a settlement that properly speaks to the control over which interfaces must be conduct it is hard to see why Microsoft will its duty—to introduce a remedy which disclosed. It would be more appropriate to be motivated to make any changes in their allows firms to safely introduce new require Microsoft to disclose ALL interfaces conduct. products. Microsoft has agreed to the rules; between all components of their products. Conclusion which include a mandate that Microsoft Not All Middleware Components are The Proposed Settlement does not provide disclose any information necessary for rival Identified. adequate changes in business conduct of firms to produce fully interoperable products Given that some of the Microsoft Microsoft to provide a remedy that meet the with Windows for competing software and Middleware components that are subject to requirements of the Court of Appeals servers. this settlement are mentioned in the mandate. In some cases the Proposed The reason why critics want a settlement Proposed Settlement, the ’’.net’’ interfaces, as Settlement adds new barriers to the which goes further is because they want the Microsoft followon to Java should be competition to Microsoft Operating Systems Microsoft completely out of the way. The included. Given the complexity of the and Middleware. Thus, the Proposed case is merely obfuscation. With billions of definition of Middleware provided in the Settlement does not serve in the public dollars in resources, Microsoft’s competitors Proposed Settlement, it would be desireable interest. I recommend that the Proposed want every advantage because 1) the to include the complete list of all Microsoft Settlement be rejected. marketplace for new technology is Middleware. This list should be publicly Sincerely, overwhelming and having a chief competitor available for the time period that the Jerry L. Hadsell eliminated makes things a little easier and 2) Settlement is enforced. 2800 Wood??ey Road NW the competitors lobbying for a far-reaching Not All Current Versions of Windows are Washington DC, 20008 settlement are among the most aggressive and Covered in the Settlement fierce technologists in the world. All current versions of Windows that are MTC–00028697 The reality is that the marketplace, based on Win-32 should be covered by the From: Ken Brown particularly the marketplace for new
VerDate 11
technology has never been safe from a many stories about wars between rival Netscape maintained its Internet competitor. What Microsoft’s competitors innovators throughout history, particularly dominance until 1997, when Internet want is an oxymoron because no technology aspects of the Thomas Edison story. Explorer’s fourth version was able to lap product is ever ‘‘competition-free’’ or Although the Edison-Tesla rivalry did not Netscape. Netscape Navigator never regained guaranteed success in the marketplace. This involve anti-trust law, the contest details the its prominence. In addition, by that time, the benefits consumers, the country and reality of the ‘‘invention business’’ in the Netscape product was slow, outdated, and ironically inventors themselves, which most competitive capitalist society in the unstable, falling to a swifter surging Internet makes it relevant to observe the reality of the world. Explorer. marketplace (beyond the courtroom) for a Contrary to popular belief, the idea of But perhaps the most unmentioned reality moment. electric lighting was not Edison’s. A number regarding Netscape’s fall was their Great Inventors Must Be Fierce Strategists of individuals had developed forms of announcement to all (Microsoft included) Every inventor and innovator small and electric lighting, but none had developed a that their strategy was to be the middleware large must face the formidable odds to system that was practical for home use. Using that would be the ‘‘new’’ Windows, removing succeed in the marketplace for new lower current, a small carbonized filament, technology. Since the day the first idea was Microsoft’s flagship product from and an improved vacuum inside the bulb, dominance. Hindsight is 20/20 but when you registered in the U.S. patent office, countless Edison was able to produce a reliable, long- inventions and innovations have become consider how far ahead Netscape was in front lasting source of light. Thomas Edison didn’t of Microsoft, there are infinite what if’s’’ to cinders in the furnace of competition. ‘‘invent’’ the light bulb, but became a legend Relentless markets in America only sustain consider if it had been mum about its strategy for making a 50-year-old idea a fantastic to take on Redmond. Microsoft had all but the fiercest competitors, without exception. commercial success. Technologists rewarded with fabulous wealth ignored the Internet and it is very Edison’s fiercest rival, was an ex-employee questionable if they would have been able to and fame did so at the expense of employing named Nikola Tesla from Smijlan, Croatia. play catch-up to a well-funded and branded hard-hitting, merciless strategies. Regardless Tesla was a genius who invented the of ingenuity, technologists without the ability Netscape team. The outcome of this fluorescent bulb in his lab forty years before to navigate in the marketplace were failures; possibility almost completely counters any industry ‘‘invented’’ them. At World’s Fairs and lucky to even receive credit as creators damage claims in their civil suit recently and similar exhibitions, he demonstrated the of their own inventions. announced. After all, Netscape’s grand plan world’s first neon signs. Perhaps Tesla’s The marketplace for food, furniture and was never realized, thus the future is greatest invention was the AC (alternating other goods each have their challenges. But, incalculable especially when taking into current) system we use in our homes today. the technology marketplace is unique consideration the hubris of Netscape. DC (direct current), an inferior system, because it demands both inventive genius Innovators are the Lifeblood of U.S. ironically, was designed by Thomas Edison. and keen business savvy. The combination of After years of fierce wars and debate between Today, new technology firms use every the two is rare in individuals and means available to compete including corporations, and particularly scarce among the Tesla and Edison teams, AC became the accepted system of transporting electricity. In spending billions of dollars on research and pure inventors such as physicists, development. Sun Microsystems, IBM and mathematicians or engineers. From the light fact, Edison later admitted that AC was the better system. AOL and Microsoft combine to spend over bulb to the PC operating system, every $100 billion annually just on research and innovator that history has been kind to, had While both men were geniuses ahead of their time, the biggest difference between development. Firms spend exorbitant the indomitable capability to merge amounts of money to create and protect to intellectual power with commercial insight. Edison and Tesla was their perspective and approach to invention. Edison had a keen new products. But again, this competition is In the end, technologists with these qualities to the benefit of inventors and the U.S. became far more successful than their understanding of capital markets and the strategies necessary to finance, promote and marketplace. 1Recently, the United States counterparts with better inventions or greater Patent Office released its annual list of the talent. commercialize his inventions. Tesla was a great theoretician who worked perpetually to top ten private sector patent recipients. It Competitive Inventors Preserve U.S. reported that for the ninth consecutive year, Leadership finance experiments. Edison held a world record 1,093 patents IBM received more patents than any other However, America’s owes its technological organization in the world. ‘‘1 am proud that leadership in the world to its competitive and died a wealthy, famous man. Tesla American corporations are leaders among battleground. Although education, vigorous received over 800 patents, died penniless and U.S. patent holders,’’ said James E. Rogan, intellectual property rights and democracy was literally erased from the history books. Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual are also credit to American invention, its In fact, Tesla was poor the last thirty years Property. ‘‘Patents promote technological ability to surface inventors with commercial of his life and arguably would have eclipsed savvy, make it a source of the most Edison’s patent record if he had the capital. progress and are a potent source for competitive innovations in the world. Remembered for many things, Edison was competitive free enterprise.’’ In the end, the U.S. is a leader in world- known for saying, ‘‘1 have more respect for USPTO’s comments echo the importance of changing innovations, at the expense of the fellow with a single idea who gets there preserving the status quo of the U.S. sustaining a ‘‘bare-knuckled’’ marketplace. than for the fellow with a thousand ideas marketplace. After an excruciating and lengthy who does nothing.’’ Edison’s vision reflects In the end, it is in the interest of examination by the court system, the federal the view of anti-trust law, that the greater innovation that we close the chapter on U.S. government and 9 states (actually 41 when value is in a stable marketplace, not the vs. Microsoft. The judicial process has sorted you consider the states that never filed suit) resurrection of competing ideas. through the facts and come to judgment. agree on the U.S. vs. Microsoft settlement. The Other Truth about Netscape Those dissatisfied with the settlement should Regardless of the differences among the The Appeals Court ruling reflects another be reminded by W. M. Deming’s famous parties, we can’t expect any ruling to settle hard truth—Netscape fell, because it did. The quip, ‘‘Learning is not essential, survival is the differences between Microsoft and its DC Circuit rejected the course-of-conduct not mandatory.’’ Deming’s point speaks not competitors. However, this dissatisfaction is theory, under which Microsoft’s specific only to the Microsoft case; but the hard truth in the best interest of our country and will practices could be viewed as part of a ‘‘broad about invention and success in the only spawn better ideas and products that monopolistic scheme.’’ This obviously has technology business. The court system has will propel the U.S. to new heights. U.S. made anyone that viewed Microsoft as an done its job, and enough precious time has technological leadership depends on the evil-doer exponentially dissatisfied with been dedicated to legal jurisprudence. It is undying will of its innovators to be no. 1. DOJ’s settlement. But again, is the now the time for Microsoft and its opponents The ‘‘Electric’’ War Between Edison and responsibility of the DOJ to make the world to tuck in their chin, learn from their Tesla The debate over Windows is similar to safe from Microsoft? mistakes and return to the marketplace.
VerDate 11
*U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO) LIST OF TOP 10 PATENT RECIPIENTS
Preliminary # Final Num- Preliminary of Patents in Organization Final Rank ber of Pat- Rank In 2001 2001 in 2000 ents in 2000
1 ...... 3,411 International Business Machines (IBM) ...... 1 2,886 2 ...... 1,953 NEC Corporation ...... 2 2,021 3 ...... 1,877 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha ...... 3 1,890 4 ...... 1,6543 Micron Technology ...... 7 1,304 5 ...... 1,450 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd...... 4 1,441 6 ...... 1,440 Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd...... 11 1,137 7 ...... 1,363 Sony Corporation ...... 6 1,385 8 ...... 1,271 Hitachi, Ltd ...... 13 1,036 9 ...... 1,184 Mitsbushi, Denki Kabushiki Kaisha ...... 14 1,010 10 ...... 1,166 Fujitsu Limited ...... 10 1,147 *Source: USPTO, January 10, 2002. The listed patent counts are preliminary counts, which are subject to correction. The final listing of patent counts for the top patent organizations in 2001 should be available by early April 2002. Patent information reflects patent ownership at patent grant and does not include any changes That occur after the
MTC–00028698 Consumers are not complaining. However American companies that borders on treason, From: Helen Gamsey antitrust laws are now being used to protect in my opinion...when they resort to getting To: Microsoft ATR competitors, and to make trial lawyers even the European Union to crush their Date: 1/28/02 5:02pm richer,,,at the expense of consumers and the competition ..if they can’t get the DOJ or FTC Subject’’ Microsoft settlement economy. How many companies have been to do it... It is telling that Sun Microsystems forced into bankruptcy now by trial lawyers has 200 lawyers in their legal department, Helen B. Gamsey over asbestos? 20? 30? 50? more than many large firms, even in 6006 S River Road AOL, Time Warner, IBM, Sun Washington. I think their shareholders might Norfolk, VA 23505–4711January 27, 2002 Microsystems, Oracle, etc have contributed prefer they spent more on improving their Attorney General John Ashcroft heavily to politicians for years...long before products and competing...as their stock US Department of Justice, 950 Microsoft was forced to play this game, as a continues to decline. It’s the old familiar Pennsylvania Avenue, NW result of their persistent efforts to prosecute story as Glassman says. ‘‘Pick an Washington, DC 20530–0001 and persecute Microsoft. unsympathetic target with deep pockets. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Should the DOJ continue to ‘‘work’’ on Generate lots of publicity. I am writing you today to voice my opinion behalf of Attorney Generals who are Change the laws, if need be.’’ ‘‘Then get the in regards to the Microsoft settlement issue. receiving large contributions and specific company to capitulate.’’ Gee, Jesse Jackson is I feel that this debate has gone on long instructions from Microsoft’s competitors via so good at these tactics of file:///C√/win/ enough and that it is time to end this ProComp and other such organizations? After temp/tmp. getting large corporations to litigation. After three years of litigation, it is all, it was Sun Microsystems’’ financing of donate to his ‘‘charities; it is not surprising time to focus on more pressing issues. In my ‘‘Project Sherman’’ which assembled of panel he was involved with the class action opinion, this lawsuit should never have of so called antitrust experts to testify before lawsuits in California claiming Microsoft occurred in the first place. Nonetheless, this the DOJ. This panel had worked secretly for discriminated against blacks and then settlement is the perfect means to end this months, to ‘‘produce’’ antitrust charges women too. Microsoft was consistently been dispute. Microsoft will remain together and which would appear credible to the DOJ. rated one of the top corporations ‘‘to work for continue designing and marketing their Unknowing to the DOJ, these ‘‘experts’’ were and one of the most admired companies by innovative software, while fostering being paid $600 to $700 an hour by Fortune until the trial lawyers and AG and competition and making it easier for other Microsoft’s competitors. Reputable antitrust MSFT’s competitors started their hatchet jobs companies to compete. Microsoft has pledged experts like Carlson produced novel antitrust and made Microsoft into an ‘‘unsympathetic to share more information about Windows theories of harm from incomplete foreclosure target.’’ http://www.techcentralstation.com/ operating system products and has agreed to of market share that even bamboozled the 1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051– be monitored for compliance. During these Appeals Court judges; their decision relied 250&CID=1051–012901A The Appeals Court difficult times, it is vital to do all we can to on this ‘‘novel’’ theory...and most of their judges in Microsoft’s appeal were astonished boost our economy. Restricting Microsoft will findings of antitrust violations were based on to learn that 160 million copies of Netscape not accomplish this. This country is at war Carlson’s novel’’ theories. Project Sherman, browsers were distributed overall, and that with a world wide network of Islamic which cost Sun $3 million, initially their user base doubled to 33 million ...... in extremists intent on destroying us. The convinced the Department of Justice to take 1998 ..... when Microsoft’s competitors were Department of Justice needs to focus on this case.. accusing Microsoft of foreclosing competion. ‘‘fixing’’ the FBI and improving the security I would think that the Enron scandal They claimed that Microsoft ‘‘threatened to of our nation and protecting American would make politicians and regulators more cut off Netscapes air supply,’’ a statement citizens against more terrorist attacks. Has wary of the dangers involved from large MSFT never made. this short passage of time since September 11 contributors... I was surprised to learn the Microsoft’s competitors lobbied politicians dulled memories so quickly that we are back extent of Enron’s contributions. They gave for years before Microsoft was finally forced to the old games of using lawyers and $50,000 to Paul Krugman, from the New York to join their game and forced to pay this’’ politicians and the Department of Justice to Times, who writes about economic matters, protection money. ’’ For about 20 years Gates squash competitors? Are things really back to and not too surprisingly, Krugman and his colleagues just sat out there in ‘‘the normal? I don’t think so...until the next apparently wrote positive articles in the past other Washington,’’ creating and selling. As terrorist attack... Antitrust laws are not meant about Enron .... the company got bigger, Washington, DC, to protect competitors against their inability I think it was American competitors of GE politicians and journalists began sneering at to compete in the marketplace due to their and Honeywell who gave secret testimony to Microsoft’s political innocence. A own incompetence...Look who is suing? the EU commission that lead the EU to congressional aide told the press, ‘‘They AOL, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, IBM are disallow the GE-Honeywell merger, ge with don’t want to play the DC game, that’s clear, multibillion corporations.., not mom and pop Honeywell... It was a complaint from Sun and they’ve gotten away with it so far. The outfits threatened by a bully...The antitrust Microsystems that lead the European Union problem is, in the long run they won’t be able laws were meant to protect consumers and to to launch an antitrust case against Microsoft to.’’ Politicians told Bill Gates, ‘‘Nice little allow fair competition. by the EU. There is something about certain company ya got there. Shame if anything
VerDate 11
happened to it.’’ And Microsoft got the in trying to mislead the public about the Microsoft’s competitors have used the message: If you want to produce something terrorist underpinnings of militant Islamic Department of Justice to try to take not just in America, you’d better play the game. In movements, in particular Hamas. ‘‘http:// their money but their intellectual property as 1995, after repeated assaults by the Federal www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6453/ well. Trade Commission and the Justice emerson.html From ‘‘The Theft of Microsoft’’ by David Department, Microsoft broke down and CAIR and other such organizations have Boaz. http://www.cato.org/dailys/07–27– started playing the Washington game. It hired lobbied to change our US laws, like the use 00.html ‘‘In antitrust circles, Creighton is a lobbyists and Washington PR firms. Its of secret evidence, to make it harder to card-carrying anti-Microsoft agitator. executives made political contributions. And deport them or to prosecute them; under the Creighton is now the deputy director for the every other high-tech company is getting the guise of protecting our freedom of speech. FTC. message, too, which is great news for These terrorists posing as phony charitable I hope she has recused herself from any lobbyists and fundraisers.’’ (but not for groups or think tanks also contribute to involvement in this case.’’ Five years ago— consumers or innovators or successful politicians and lobbyists and use the media while her then-partner Gary Reback played a companies..) From ‘‘The Theft of Microsoft’’ to advance ‘‘their cause. CAIR has routinely more public role—Creighton penned the by David Boaz. http://www.cato.org/dailys/ exaggerated or fabricated ‘‘hate crimes’’ infamous white paper commissioned by 07–27–00.html against Muslims. Just one example: Netscape.’’ Susan Creighton, and her partner ‘‘What lesson should they draw? The ‘‘CAIR’s 1997 report on ‘‘hate crimes’’ Gary Reback, from Silicon Valley’s Wilson antitrust laws are fatally flawed. When our labeled the death of Ahmed Abdel Hameed Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Creighton antitrust laws are used by competitors to Hamida as a ‘‘hate crime.’’ Hamida drove his ‘‘helped ignite the government’s landmark harm successful companies, when our most car into a crowd of Israelis at a Jerusalem bus case against the monopolist from Redmond, innovative companies are under assault from stop on February 26, 1996, killing one Wash. the federal government, when lawyers and woman and injuring twenty-three other ‘‘Microsoft’s Captain Ahab’’ by Krysten politicians decide to restructure the software, Israelis. He attempted to escape on foot but Crawford, from The American Lawyer credit-card and airline industries, it’s time to was shot to death by Israeli civilians. He August 22, 2001from http://www.law.com repeal the antitrust laws and let firms shouted ‘‘Allahu Akbar,’’ (God is Great!) as ‘‘Bill Gates draws praise from the cultural compete in a free marketplace.’’ his car struck the crowd. He had made elite when he gives away his money—and he ‘‘Our tobacco, gun and antitrust laws have statements previously affirming his intent to has given away more than $20 billion; the essentially been rewritten by state AGs and kill Jews. Bill and Melissa Gates foundation has given their trial-lawyer allies. The result, as former Hamida was a terroris, yet CAIR classified more than any other philanthropist Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote in USA his death as a ‘‘hate crime.’’ foundation. Yet those contributions pale Today, has been ‘‘regulation by litigation’’ - Why is this relevant to Microsoft’s antitrust when compared to the g Microsoft’s great a sorry state of affairs that has cut elected case? Microsoft’s competitors and these contributions to the technological and representatives out of the system.’’ phony front groups are using their influence economic advances of the last decade. It ‘‘Political science quiz: Today’s category is over the media, and their power from would be a shame to see Microsoft’s assets decision making at the Federal Trade contributions to politicians to give the and intellectual property distributed to Commission and the Department of Justice.’’ appearance that they are concerned with civil greedy conniving corporations and lawyers ‘‘Which is more important in the merger rights or consumers, when they are only and publicity seeking Attorney Generals approval process? advancing their own agenda, which is trying to further their careers. 1) a sophisticated economic study prepared harmful to most of us. Microsoft’s Mr. Tunney is now complaining about the by staff economists, complete with extensive competitors claim to have the interest of way Microsoft has reported their political industry data, statistical analysis, and tight consumers at heart, when in reality their own contribution. I doubt he is really impartial. reasoning, incompetence lead to their loss of market Robert Bork was a prominent foe of antitrust 2) a scratchy, three-minute cell-phone call share. AOL 5 was such a terrible product that law in the 1970’s, and a colleague of Judge from the secretary of commerce?’’ ANSWER: even computer experts could not deal with Posner. Bork though as ‘‘changed’’ sides and 2) a scratchy, three-minute cell-phone call the changes it made to the computer. It became very ‘‘pro-antitrust’’ when hired by from the secretary of commerce?’’ ‘‘In 1991, changed your default settings and took over. Microsoft’s competitors. the Time Warner buyout of Turner Mossberg from the Wall Street Journal, who I sincerely hope the Department of Justice Broadcasting zipped past the FTC, despite a has never been a fan of Microsoft, accepts this settlement and puts an end to staff report branding the merger as anti- acknowledged this at the time and there were this mess and turns their attention to real competitive. After Ted Turner and Gerald lawsuits over this which somehow failed to threats to the Nation- the terrorists who want Levin, the two CEOs involved, visited top make the news.. Anyone who has ever used to destroy the West. Caving into Microsoft’s officials in Washington, the commissioners AOL knows about their inferior products and major competitors who are behind the tossed the staff work out the window.’’ From: their poor customer service. Attorney Generals hurt consumers and the ‘‘Texas Swing: ‘‘In 1975 Microsoft had 3 employees and economy further. Let them innovate like The not-so-shocking reason the Lone Star revenues of $16,000. Over the next 25 years Microsoft does, rather than litigate. state chose not to sue Microsoft.’’ By Thomas they grew to 36,000 employees and revenues Thank you for your attention. W. Hazlett REASON August/September 1998 of $20 billion by obsessively figuring out Sincerely, http://reason.com/9808/col.hazlett.html what computer users needed and delivering Helen B. Gamsey ‘‘Did they disagree with the competitive it to them.’’ ‘‘Over the years Gates and his 757–440–5910 analysis? Was it a difference of opinion as to colleagues made a lot of people mad, Sincerely, the cross-elasticity of demand? Or were the especially their competitors. Some of those Helen Gamsey politically appointed regulators moved by a competitors delivered a 222-page white paper higher voice? It would be nice if the pundits in 1996 to Joel Klein, head of the Justice MTC–00028699 who explained our politics to us could see Department’s antitrust division, and urged From: Bartucz, Tanya Y. where the politics goes. ‘‘That’s what him to do to Microsoft in court what they To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ ‘‘access,’’ and the campaign contributions couldn’t do in the marketplace. (Susan Date: 1/28/02 5:02pm used to purchase it, are all about.’’ Somehow Creighton wrote that White Paper). Subject: Tunney Act comments this case reminds me of what terrorists living Justice worked closely with the Attached please find the Tunney Act in the US are doing so well. competitors for four years, often showing comments on the Microsoft settlement of There are many front groups for violent them sentences or paragraphs in drafts of the Griffin B. Bell, Edwin Meese III, and C. terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad department’s plans and soliciting their Boyden Gray. A paper copy will be submitted residing in the US, claiming to be think tanks approval. The politics of the case is a far cry by fax. or charitable groups. Organizations like from the Platonic ideal of rigorous Tanya Bartucz C.A.I.R. or the Council on‘‘American Islamic economists devising the best possible Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP Relations, masquerade as mainstream public antitrust rules and wise, disinterested judges 1501 K Street, NW affairs organizations. CAIR has taken the lead carefully weighing the evidence.’’ Washington, DC 20005
VerDate 11
(202) 736–8067 * Microsoft has clearly shown its obstinate fundamental hopes and expectations of Fax (202) 736–8711 incapability to adhere to behavioral consumers. This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may restraints. For example, of what import is the fact that contain information that is privileged or Lack of Hope Microsoft may or may not have ‘‘over- confidential. The settlement and (behavioral) remedies charged’’ some customers for some of their If you are not the intended recipient, proposed by the US DoJ vs Microsoft anti- products if there was no hope of having a fair please delete the e-mail and any attachments trust action are not only worthless to the and open market to determine the true and notify us immediately. marketplace but are outright detrimental. pricing? The very fact that there was not (any Why is that so clearly the case? Simple... The hope of) a fair and open market meant that MTC–00028700 proposed settlement does absolutely nothing there was absolutely no possibility From: John D. Mitchell to address the fundamental abuse of whatsoever that anyone could have paid a To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft: the severe curtailing and, often, fair price for any product or service from Date: 1/28/02 5’03pm outright elimination of hope. For example: Microsoft nor for any product or service Subject: Microsoft Settlement * The hope of major (software) competitors impacted by the monopolistic effects of the John D. Mitchell has been mostly devastated over the years by so skewed marketplace. 2129 Ascot Drive q e.g., Microsoft’s abuse of its monopolistic Behavioral Remedies are Insufficient Given Moraga, CA 94556 power to exclude the competition from pre- the facts of the case, it is crystal clear that 2002.01.28 built computers containing Microsoft the current proposed settlement’s reliance Renata B. Hesse operating systems (which increasingly upon strictly behavioral remedies is Antitrust Division forcing the ‘‘up selling’’, if not outright insufficient to effectively and efficiently U.S. Department of Justice inclusion of more and more Microsoft restore any hope. 601 D Street NW products and services). My analogy is that of modifying the Suite 1200 * The hope of computer vendors to sell behavior of children... It is clear that while Washington, DC 20530–0001 whatever (software) it is that they want and an appropriate corrective action (e.g., a slap microsoft.atrusdoj.gov are able to with their computers to satisfy on the wrist) by a reasonable, supervising Subject: Microsoft Settlement their customers. guardian may well affect a change of SUMMARY * The hope of upstart, would-be (software) behavior (for the better) in an otherwise The currently proposed settlement with competitors. It’s a well known truism that a normal, well-behaved child; such a remedy Microsoft woefully fails to address the great many startup companies work so as to does, at best, nothing to positively change the critically important need of restoring hope to *not* attract the notice of Microsoft for as behavior of a willfully recalcitrant teenager all of the parties afflicted by the Microsoft’s long as possible. It’s incalculable how many (and, at worst, merely incenses and incents abuse of monopolistic power. companies (and projects within existing them to be more clever in their abuses). At Restoring of hope is a critical criteria by companies) have been canceled due to fear of least, Microsoft must be treated as such a which any and all proposed solutions to the Microsoft’s (re)action. willful violator. Microsoft monopoly problem must be judged. * The hope of consumers for a fair price Many others have gone through and picked Moving forward, a just and fair solution to based on a fair, open market. apart each and every one of the behavioral the Microsoft monopoly can only be created through a combination of structural and * The hope of (ignorant, inexperienced, remedies in the proposed settlement. I won’t behavioral remedies. etc.) consumers for computer systems that go further into analyzing them here due to AXIOMS actually work (reliably, robustly, my contention that those remedies are, by (Rule of) Law inexpensively, securely, etc.). themselves, so clearly insufficient. That said, At the surface, (the rule of) law is the * The hope of (informed, experienced) I have co-signed Dan Kegel’s open letter— complex, accretive, disjointly semi- consumers for computers and software that http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. hierarchical, codification of the can (reliably, effectively, inexpensively, Structural Remedies are Necessary conglomeration of (the processes of) (dealing securely, etc.) inter-operate between all Structural remedies are necessary to any with) (quasi-) behaviors. consumers (that don’t explicitly choose to proposed resolution to the Microsoft At the heart, (the rule of) law is a simple isolate themselves) without being, a priori, monopoly. Only by incontrovertibly belief system. forced into using Microsoft products (due to dispersing and otherwise separating each of Fundamentally, (the rule of) law is about such forces as the so called ‘‘network the major constituents can there be any hope hope. externalities’’ effects which reinforce of significantly and effectively modifying the Anti-Trust Law monopolistic power). behavior of Microsoft and its monopolistic At the surface, anti-trust laws are primarily * The hope of investors for a market which effects. about dealing with things like the (private is unskewed by the insidious abuses of Structural remedies are necessary so that sector) abuse of monopoly power to harm monopolistic power. each of the resulting entities can be consumers. At the heart, anti-trust laws are * The hope of citizens that the rule of law effectively constrained from (attempting to) about dealing with entities which unduly (still) has meaning and that breaking the law reconstitute the original company. In restrict free-market competition. has serious, effective, and efficient addition, the resulting entities must be Fundamentally, anti-trust laws are about consequences upon the violators, inhibitive sufficiently isolated in terms of its market dealing with entities which eliminate hope. effects upon would be violators, and some power by having to stand and compete in a MICROSOFT ANTI-TRUST CASE restitution for the violated. By neglecting fair and open market without being able to Background dealing with hope, the proposed settlement rely on the direct and synergistic power The facts are simple and clear: precludes the reconstitution of a fair and effects that Microsoft currently abuses. * Microsoft has systematically and open market, allows a vicious predator to Structural and Behavioral Remedies are aggressively pursued monopolistic goals continue their predations, and weakens the Necessary and Sufficient I hope that it’s clear since its formation. rule of law. from the preceding that the only ways to * Microsoft’s behavioral outrageousness Therefore, any proposed settlement curtail the continued devastation of all of our stems directly from the corporate, ‘‘Cult of remedies must be judged in their collective hopes by Microsoft is to imposed Bill’’ culture [ala ‘‘Cult of Personality] that effectiveness and efficiency at restoring hope. significant structural remedies along with has been created and fostered by all of the Side-note on Consumer Pricing broad behavioral remedies. senior management of the company I have heard many arguments, both pro and I will leave it to another missive to go into including Bill Gates himself. con, from various people using details and rationale of my proposed * Microsoft has been very successful at (‘‘guesstimates’’) of the effects of Microsoft’s remedies but the broad strokes are: gaining monopolistic power in many critical monopolistic abuses on the prices that * Divest the current assets of Microsoft into areas of the computer (software) business. consumers have paid for various products. I three (4) new entities. One entity for creating * Microsoft has repeatedly, aggressively, have found all of those such arguments that operating systems for devices (PCs, and unapologetically abused its monopolistic I have heard to be severely lacking directly handhelds, etc.). One entity for the end-user power to the detriment of the marketplace. in proportion to their failure to address the applications such as Microsoft Office suite of
VerDate 11
applications. One entity for the development have Netscape and Internet explorer on my Subject: Microsoft Settlement tools and libraries. And finally, one for end- home PC. I think that the suit against Microsoft was user services such as MSN. Appropriate, P.S. The U.S. lost a unfair trade case in the a waste of taxpayers money. They were being suitably related portions of each of the world court. Is this one of those cases where sued simply because they were successful. general facets such as customer service & we are suppose to do what you say not as you support and Microsoft Research would be do? MTC–00028708 dispersed to each of the new entities. From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028703 * Require that the (major) shareholders, the To: Microsoft ATR board members, and at least top three levels From: Alex Lazutin Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm of executive management can only have To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement anything whatsoever to do with at most one Date: 1/28/02 4:53pm The Department of Justice Settlement is a of the created entities. Also, inhibit their Subject: Microsoft Rulings total non-settlement which deserves ability to switch between the created entities. To whom it may concern: investigation in it own right. I feel that the * Enjoin the resulting entities from In my opinion, the Microsoft settlement anti-competitive practices are being actively colluding with any of the entities on any was just and fair to all parties. encouraged by the Bush Administration products or services to the exclusion of any I believe Microsoft should be exempt from settlement allowing Microsoft to increase its other companies in any respective market. In any future litigation. stranglehold on operating systems. Please do conclusion: Taking into consideration all the not sell out the intrests to future generations * The currently proposed settlement fails wonderful things Microsoft does for children allowing greed collusion to dictate to future completely to provide any hope for anyone, and its employees, why should the company generations what our public officials do not except those who gain by Microsoft be put though any future expense. have the courage to do. Do not accept the continuing to abuse its monopoly, that Sincerely, Department of Justice Settlement. anything will change for the better. Paula Lazutin * Judging any proposed solution to Maintain the future health of competitors Microsoft’s monopoly must incorporate and MTC–00028704 such as Apple and the open systems such as account for the effects hope. From: [email protected]@inetgw Linux. We as consumers deserve a choice. * Based on my experience and analysis, the To: Microsoft ATR Have the courage to stop the arrogance of only possible solutions necessarily must be Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm Microsoft please rule against the proposed based a combination of both structural and Subject: Microsoft Settlement settlement. behavioral remedies. I find it amazing that the Federal Govt MTC–00028709 Sincerely, would go through such extrodianry lengths to John D. Mitchell prosecute Bill GAtes and Microsoft. I cant From: [email protected]@inetgw Moraga, CA speak on the legal technacalities of the To: Microsoft ATR 2002.01.28 lawsuit but the Microsoft s impact on the Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm United States is clear. Over the past 10 years Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028701 computers the internet and technology have I believe the settelment is in the best intrest From: Devin (038) Marilee been made more available to households and of all concerned. lets stop the antics of aol To: Microsoft ATR schools across the country. I find it odd that and other companys and individuals who Date: 1/28/02 5:04pm this can be considered some sort of monoply have a hidden agenda what have there Subject: Microsoft Settlement that is harming our nation. Microsoft has contributions been to all compared to ATTN: U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust done wonders for our scociety making microsoft. Division computers cheaper easier to use and more MTC–00028710 In my opinion, the terms of the Microsoft avialable. Thank You for your time. Settlement are reasonable and fair to all Marc T Povondra From: [email protected]@inetgw parties involved. It is time to move Microsoft MIDN USN To: Microsoft ATR and the industry forward. The terms of this Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm agreement are in the public interest and MTC–00028705 Subject: Microsoft Settlement should be accepted. From: [email protected]@inetgw As I can see that the U.S.Attorney for the Thank You— To: Microsoft ATR Department of justice is looking out for the Marilee Sauer Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm right of the Computer would and that no one 8618 Henrietta Avenue Subject: Microsoft Settlement should be ably to hold the computer world St. Louis, MO 63144 I think that Microsoft should be taken to down and that mead Mictosoft task for their illegal and bullying ways to MTC–00028711 MTC–00028702 crush any competition in the O/S and From: Bill Whitlock browser market. They (M$) develop lousy From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR software and through their business methods To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 5:04pm keep competitors from delivering better Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm Subject: Microsoft antitrust case — software. Subject: Microsoft Settlement I would like to say get this case over with REG At a meeting of the Executive Board of The and let Microsoft get on with business. Do Hatfield Chamber of Commerce today the not let the states do separate settlements. MTC–00028706 Board voted unanimously to voice their Because it will just turn into a money grab. From: [email protected]@inetgw support of the Proposed Microsoft/ How dose consumer protection benefit from To: Microsoft ATR Department of Justice Antitrust Settlement. fifty one separate legal cases? The only Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm It is our belief that this settlement is a people that profit are the lawyers and state Subject: Microsoft Settlement tough fair and reasonable compromise that is attorneys looking to make a name for I think the government should not in the best interest of everyone—the themselves. continue a lawsuit again Microsoft. I think technology industry the economy and Making the source codes available will give there should be a settlement so Microsoft can especially consumers. Thank you. new products an ability to integrate with get on with its business. There was no good Hatfield microsoft. Will you require apple to do the reason to sue Microsoft in the first place. Just Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 445 same? The U.S. economy is in the toilet. Tens government at its worst going after someone Hatfield PA 19440 of thousands of jobs have been lost. Excess just because it was successful. beating up on Microsoft will not help this MTC–00028712 situation. Dragging this issue out any longer MTC–00028707 From: [email protected]@inetgw will not help U.S. consumers. From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR I am writing this on a Mac G4. I have both To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm Apple and Microsoft operating systems. I also Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement
VerDate 11
If there has ever been any doubt that AOL Government settlement is more than fair.It is Chris Carman does not want a fair and expedient solution time for the cry babies to go home! Hamilton, Ohio to it s legal challenge to Microsoft then it s MTC–00028718 latest legal action should remove a all doubt. MTC–00028719 The irony of all their actions is that there has From: Chris Carman From: [email protected]@inetgw never been a ground swell of consumer To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR complaints stating that the consumer has Date: 1/28/02 5:06pm Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm been hurt by Microsoft business practices. It Subject: reasons against the settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement is obvious that AOL Time Warner is trying I know I might be sending this a bit late, On belief of the Tech World further delays to use the courts for it s own competitive but I just found out about the open comment of the D. of J. in the decision re: MICROSOFT purposes. It is also time to challenge whether period and I’d like to say a couple things are simply causing greater expenditures of AOL is monopolistic in it s own business as from an educator’s point of view. the tax payers money. Furthermore the the largest internet provider. If AOL should I teach two computer classes—one in web remedy that was proposed by Microsoft was in fact buy the Linux operating system I site design and programming, the other in ideal because it would make available for the suppose we will see yet another challenge to computer & network support (aimed at most under-priveledged children a Microsoft in the courts. For the sake of the CompTIA’s A+ and Network+ tests). Our technology that now is almost uniform in our technology industry the nation s economy high school uses Windows PC’s almost country. Further delays will simply and America s consumers let s get these exclusively because of a directive from our compound the problem in teaching. issues out of the courts and into the school board that has more or less banned MTC–00028720 competetive marketplace where they should Macs due to their lack of presence in most be. businesses. I primarily use Macs at home, but From: [email protected]@inetgw Jack D. Reece I also have 3 PC’s and am very comfortable To: Microsoft ATR 419 Chesterwoods Court with the Windows and Linux operating Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm High Point systems (I’m A+, Network+ and Linux+ Subject: Microsoft Settlement NC 27262 336–841–7810 certified). As a user of the Microsoft Operating The settlement is bad for consumers, System and bundled software I have MTC–00028714 educators, students and the country as a appreciated the ease of having it all in one From: [email protected]@inetgw whole for two major reasons. package. I believe that most individual To: Microsoft ATR The first reason is that educators and consumers would agree. The government Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm students would have very little say in what broke up Ma Bell and now there are many Subject: Microsoft Settlement products are chosen to be placed in their larger businesses. All it did was to make Microsoft is making a mockery of the DOJ. classrooms. Deep discounts from Microsoft prices rise. To those of us who are retired and Who is getting paid off? All your excuses are and used PC heardware not only limits hold stock in these companies such as lame this is an embarrassment. choices, but also increases tech support costs Microsoft the ongoing dispute over who is for the school. I did an observation at an right has only served to hurt the MTC–00028715 inner-city high school in Cincinnati when I stockholders. From: [email protected]@inetgw was in college, and five brand-new PC’s sat Gordon Fox To: Microsoft ATR in a corner because kids had stolen the balls Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm from inside the mice and they were rendered MTC–00028721 Subject: Microsoft Settlement useless. Of course, a $2 mouse ball would From: [email protected]@inetgw I believe that the proposed DOJ settlement have fixed this, but with very little tech To: Microsoft ATR offer is fair. I hope that this matter can be support in that district, the technology is Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm resolved and that this great company can get wasted. If you want to do anything with Subject: Microsoft Settlement on by the business of innovation. Thank you schools, give them some money for I use Microsoft products and they are Eva Stubits equipment but give a lot more money for tech pretty average. I believe they would be better support training and increased salaries for if there was improved and fair competition MTC–00028716 tech coordinators to attract more qualified in the market place. I strongly believe this From: [email protected]@inetgw individuals. site is a pawn in Microsofts plans to To: Microsoft ATR The second, and most important reason, is monopolize information technology. To Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm that the settlement does absolutely nothing to improve all of out futures rethink your Subject: Microsoft Settlement curb Microsoft’s future domineering policies and realize that what Microsoft is The Department of Justice Settlement is a behavior. In fact, they come out looking like doing is wrong. total non-settlement which deserves the good guys by donating to impoverished investigation in it own right. I feel that the schools while increasing their installed user MTC–00028722 anti-competitive practices are being actively base! This sort of thing cannot be allowed to From: [email protected]@inetgw encouraged by the Bush Administration happen. To: Microsoft ATR settlement allowing Microsoft to increase its The Windows APIs that allow programs to Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm stranglehold on operating systems. Please do run inside the Windows Operating System Subject: Microsoft Settlement not sell out the intrests to future generations should be opened up for everyone to Please bring an end to the Microsft suit. allowing greed collusion to dictate to future download, use, interpret, and include in The economy has suffered long enough. generations what our public officials do not another OS. For example, if Mac OS X could Wes Vernon have the courage to do. Do not accept the run Windows programs natively, it would be MTC–00028723 Department of Justice Settlement. a dramatic improvement for the computer Maintain the future health of competitors industry as a whole because it would provide From: [email protected]@inetgw such as Apple and the open systems such as some serious competition for Microsoft. If To: Microsoft ATR Linux. We as consumers deserve a choice. you look back to the beginning of the Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm Have the courage to stop the arrogance of computer industry, IBM was very slow to Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft please rule against the proposed improve its original 8086 and 80286 The settlement terms are fair to all settlement. computers until competition (in the form of concerned and should be implemented Compaq clones) came along. The same thing without delay. Carl Bearden MTC–00028717 happened with Intel, which rested on its State Representative District 16 From: [email protected]@inetgw laurels until AMD released a chip (the To: Microsoft ATR Athlon) that was faster and cheaper than MTC–00028724 Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm their Pentium 3. From: Everett—[email protected]@ Subject: Microsoft Settlement Competition is good for the industry. inetgw I can not see where Microsoft has hurt Please don’t allow Microsoft to get away with To: Microsoft ATR anyone except for their feelings. The this sort of bribery. Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
VerDate 11
Subject: Microsoft Settlement The RPFJ represents a reasonable CompTIA’s reservation notwithstanding, Microsoft creates software they do it better compromise of the parties’ respective we believe the settlement will benefit the than anybody else. If there is a better positions in this case. The benchmark under industry as a whole and we respectfully urge operating system possible the developers can which the settlement must be judged is the District Court to approve the RPFJ. become the next Microsoft. It is time to stop whether it is consistent with the United II.COMPTIA’S INTEREST IN THIS punishing success in this country. Microsoft States Court of Appeals June 28, 2001 MATTER should be praised not hounded. Just leave opinion. The Court of Appeals found that The Computing Technology Industry them alone. The settlement should just say: Microsoft took actions to unlawfully Association (CompTIA) is the world’s largest Microsoft did it better. They did nothing maintain its monopoly in the operating trade association in the information wrong. All charges dropped! system market, but also ruled that Microsoft technology and communications sector. had not attempted to unlawfully monopolize CompTIA represents over 8,000 hardware MTC–00028725 the Internet browser market nor did it and software manufacturers, distributors, From: Ken Brown unlawfully tie its Internet Explorer to the retailers, Internet, telecommunications, IT To: Microsoft ATR Windows operating system. The RPFJ training and other service companies in over Date: 1/28/02 5:05pm represents a reasonable balance of the Court 50 countries. The overwhelming majority of Subject: Tunney Act Comments of Appeals split decision by imposing CompTIA members are resellers companies Just to make sure you received our fax, we obligations upon Microsoft in the areas that resell software and hardware to are sending it one more time. If there are any where it was found liable, and avoiding consumers, businesses, or other resellers. problems with the submission you can call obligations in areas where Microsoft’s These resellers are vendor-neutral and their me 703–608–4222. conduct was not found to be unlawful. As objective is to be able to sell whatever Ken Brown such, the RPFJ is narrowly tailored to fit the products their customers wish to buy. In that violations and will likely avoid collateral sense they believe that antitrust laws should MTC–00028726 damages to the marketplace. After the focus primarily on consumer impact rather From: [email protected]@inetgw November 6, 2001 Proposed Final Judgment than competitor impact. Microsoft is a To: Microsoft ATR was announced many of Microsoft’s member of CompTIA as are many of Date: 1/28/02 5:08pm competitors complained that the settlement Microsoft’s competitors. In 1998, CompTIA’s Subject: Microsoft Settlement was too lenient. The antitrust laws, however, Board of Directors adopted a formal policy Renata B. Hesse make clear that the settlement should not be statement on antitrust. Antitrust Division designed as a wish list for Microsoft’s That statement supports sensible antitrust U.S. Department of Justice competitors. The settlement should fairly enforcement that is based on demonstrable 601 D. Street, NW address the areas of liability found by the economic effects in the marketplace. Court of Appeals. Anything less would Suite 1200 CompTIA believes that market forces encourage Microsoft and other companies to Washington, DC 20530–0001 typically correct any temporary market engage in anti-competitive conduct in the RE: Microsoft Settlement imperfections and that government regulators future; anything more would inappropriately Dear Ms. Hesse: should only intervene in the technology imperil the technology marketplace and Please find attached the Tunney Act marketplace when there is overwhelming cause harm to consumers. comments of the Computing Technology The terms of the RPFJ insure that the evidence of a substantial and pervasive Industry Association (CompTIA) relating to technology sector will continue to expand market failure. Pursuant to its policy Microsoft settlement. and innovate. The settlement places strong statement, CompTIA has written and spoken The attached file is formated in Word and appropriate checks on Microsoft in areas frequently on antitrust issues of relevance to Perfect 9. Please let me know if you have any where such checks are needed, but is the technology sector. In June 1998, difficulties downloading and/or formatting designed in such a way that Microsoft will CompTIA filed an amicus brief in the Intel this file and I will be happy to provide it to be able to compete fairly and aggressively in v. Intergraph litigation in the U.S. Court of you in a different format. all markets. CompTIA urges the United States Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In that case Thank you for the opportunity to submit District Court to approve the settlement and CompTIA urged the court to reject a lower these comments. I would appreciate your reject the non-settling states more extensive court’s finding that antitrust allegations acknowledgment of receipt of these remedy proposal as that would erode could be a basis for ordering a company to comments. Thank you. intellectual property protection, harm disclose its valuable intellectual property. Lars H. Liebeler competition, and stall growth in the industry. CompTIA co-authored an amicus brief in the Thaler Liebeler LLP The only significant reservation regarding United States Court of Appeals for the 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW the RPFJ that CompTIA holds is that the District of Columbia Circuit in the United Suite 200 settlement obligates Microsoft to disclose an States v. Microsoft case in November 2000. Washington, DC 20006 abundance of intellectual property to the The amicus brief urged the Court of Appeals Direct: (202) 828–9867 Plaintiffs and the Technical Committee. to reverse the District Court’s order breaking Main: (202) 466–4110 While this technical information is to be used Microsoft into two separate companies and Fax: (202) 466–2693 for the purpose of achieving the further discussed the negative industry-wide 4350 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 440 interoperability goals specifically identified ramifications of the District Court’s liability Arlington, VA 22203–1624 in the RPFJ, CompTIA is concerned that the findings were they all permitted to stand. Tel (703) 812–1333 precedent established by these disclosure The basis for CompTIA’s participation as Fax (703) 812–1337 provisions will be harmful to the technology amicus and submission of these Comments is [email protected] sector in the long run. Innovation and growth its interest in the overall health and QQQ in the IT industry are fostered by strong prosperity of the technology sector. CompTIA protection of intellectual property rights. If III. THE CONSENT JUDGMENT IS IN THE Comments of the Computing Technology every antitrust violation is remedied by a PUBLIC INTEREST AND SHOULD BE Industry Association on the Revised wholesale forfeiture of valuable proprietary APPROVED BY THE COURT Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. information by the defendant, intellectual A. Standards Under Which the RPFJ Microsoft property rights will suffer a significant blow. Should Be Judged Submitted to the United States Department And, justifying the forced disclosure of a Under the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. u 16, the of Justice pursuant to the Tunney Act, 15 company’s valuable technical information on consent judgment should be approved if it is U.S.C. u 16 the ground that it will be used for in the ‘‘public interest.’’ The public interest January 28, 2002 interoperability purposes only is not a analysis must be measured by the objectives I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY sufficient protection. Because there is no of the antitrust laws; public interest concerns CompTIA supports the Revised Proposed bright line as to what constitutes that are not within the purview of the Final Judgment (RPFJ) entered into between interoperability information and what does antitrust laws are irrelevant. U.S. v. AT&T, the United States Department of Justice, nine not, the chance of valuable intellectual 552 F. Supp 131 (D.DC 1982), affirmed, 103 states, and Microsoft on November 6, 2001. property being compromised is high. S.Ct. 1240 (1983).
VerDate 11
Nor is their a requirement that the Second, Microsoft is obligated to adhere to monopoly maintenance findings by the Court settlement be, in the eyes of the District one uniform license agreement for Windows of Appeals would not be in the public Court, ‘‘the best possible settlement that with the top twenty OEM’s and the royalty interest absent a finding of causal connection could have been obtained;’’ the settlement for the license shall be made publically showing actual harm in the marketplace, and must simply be within the reaches of the available on a web site accessible by all clear evidence of how the remedy would public interest. U.S. v. Agri-Mark, Inc., 512 OEM’s. The price schedule may vary for obviate the harm, while avoiding collateral F. Supp 737 (D. Vt. 1981). In short the volume discounts and for those OEM’s who damage to the marketplace. District Court should not reject the consent are eligible for market development 2. Commingling of Software Code judgment allowances in connection with Windows Bundling can also capitalize on certain merely because [s]he believe[s] other products. This allows Microsoft to continue economies of scope. A possible example is remedies [are] preferable. United States v. to compete in all software markets with other the ‘‘shared’’ library 1 files that perform OS Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1460 (DC Cir. 1995). software manufacturers and this competition and browser functions with the very same The language of the Tunney Act sets forth will continue to benefit consumers. lines of code and thus may save drive space specific areas of inquiry relating to the public Third, OEM’s are permitted to alter the from the clutter of redundant routines and interest: appearance of the Windows desktop to add memory when consumers use both the OS For the purpose of such determination, the icons, shortcuts and menu items for non- and browser simultaneously. court may consider—(1) the competitive Microsoft middleware, and they may Some may criticize the settlement because impact of such judgment, including establish non- Microsoft programs as default the RPFJ does not address the issue of termination of alleged violations, provisions programs in Windows. Consumers also have Microsoft’s commingling of operating system for enforcement and modification, duration the option of removing the interface with any code and Internet Explorer code which was or relief sought, anticipated effects of Microsoft middleware product. found to be unlawful. See United States v. alternative remedies actually considered, and Fourth, Microsoft must reveal the API’s Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 66 (DC Cir. 2001). any other considerations bearing upon the used by Microsoft middleware to interoperate The Court of Appeals concluded that adequacy of such judgment; (2) the impact of with the Windows operating system. Microsoft’s commingling of code entry of such judgment upon the public Microsoft must also offer to license its deters OEMs [original equipment generally and individuals alleging specific intellectual property rights to any entity who manufacturers] from pre-installing rival injury from the violations set forth in the has need for the intellectual property to browsers, thereby reducing the rivals’’ usage complaint including consideration of the insure that their products will interoperate share and, hence, developers’’ interest in public benefit, if any, to be derived from a with the Windows operating system. rivals’’ APIs as an alternative to the API set determination of the issues at trial. These central features of the settlement exposed by Microsoft’s operating system. Id. 15 U.S.C. u 16(e). Focusing on selected insure that other companies have the ability While Microsoft vigorously contested this areas identified within the Tunney Act, to challenge Microsoft products, both in the finding of fact, and the Court of Appeals CompTIA sets forth its analysis of the RPFJ operating system and middleware/ elsewhere acknowledged potential below. applications markets, and are not unfairly efficiencies from commingling of code, the B. The Competitive Impact of Such shut out of those markets as a result of Court denied1 Microsoft’s petition for Judgment Microsoft’s operating system monopoly. rehearing on this issue. In denying 1. Termination of Violations Consumers and OEM’s have far greater Microsoft’s petition, however, the Court of The RPFJ closely tracks the liability Appeals expressly noted that [n]othing in the findings from the Court of Appeals opinion. freedom to install and use non- Microsoft products, Microsoft is prohibited from Court’s opinion is intended to preclude the First, the settlement prohibits Microsoft from District Court’s consideration of remedy retaliating against any OEM (original retaliating against any entity who promotes non-Microsoft programs, and all companies issues. Order, August 2, 2001. Thus, the equipment manufacturer) because of an Court of Appeals signaled that its finding that OEM’s participation in promoting or have equal access to Microsoft API’s and Microsoft unlawfully commingled code does developing non-Microsoft middleware or a technical information so that non-Microsoft not necessarily mandate a remedial order non-Microsoft operating system. This middleware has the same opportunity to requiring Microsoft to separate the code. provision takes the club out of Microsoft’s perform as well as Microsoft middleware. At Given the variety of other provisions in the hand and prevents the company from using the same time the RPFJ does not prevent RPFJ that encourage OEMs to place non- anticompetitive means to discourage OEM’s Microsoft from integrating new technology Microsoft middleware on the desktop, the from promoting or preventing rival software into the Windows operating system and does consent judgment does not fail for the fact from being developed or installed on the not prohibit Microsoft from competing in any that it does not require Microsoft to separate Windows desktop. market that it chooses to enter. Such the code. In the overall totality of The anti-retaliation provisions of the RPFJ restrictions would have harmed consumers even go so far as to prohibit Microsoft from and been antithetical to the goals of the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude altering its license with an OEM even if the antitrust laws. that the public interest would be better OEM offers users the option of launching Because the RPFJ adheres closely and served by avoiding an order that would other Operating Systems from the Basic effectively addresses the liability findings of require Microsoft to engage in a fundamental Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft the Court of Appeals, it is a reasonable redesign of its operating system. The object boot-loader or similar program that launches settlement and therefore in the public of such a remedy is effectively addressed prior to the start of the Windows Operating interest. Finally, the Court of Appeals through other provisions that do not harm System Product. directed the District Court to consider consumers. RPFJ at u III.C.4 (emphasis added). Thus, whether there is a causal connection between 3. There are no Loopholes in the RPFJ an OEM has the full ability to make decisions Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct and its Some critics of the settlement have opined based on price, features and performance dominant position in the OS market. United that the RPFJ contains loopholes in the with respect to whether an alternative States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 106 (DC language that requires Microsoft to disclose operating system will be loaded on its Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 350 (2001). And APIs (application programming interfaces) to computers; and that operating system while this direction was made in the context software developers. See Washington Post, product may appear to the user before of whether structural relief is appropriate, it Wording of Microsoft Deal Too Loose, Windows does. This flexibility will insure is logical to conclude that the foundation of Analyses Say, January 18, 2002, E01. The that operating systems that compete with that inquiry remains highly relevant even settlement requires Microsoft to make such Windows will have a full opportunity to though structural relief is no longer at issue disclosures with respect to its browser, reach the consumer. Once there, the decision in this case. In the absence of evidence that Internet Explorer, and other software such as about whether they succeed or fail is in the the marketplace would have looked any Windows Media Player so that software hands of consumers. These anti-retaliation differently absent Microsoft’s anticompetitive developers may create competing software provisions deal head on with the bulk of the behavior, the RPFJ provisions that enjoin the that interoperates with the Windows conduct the Court of Appeals found to be conduct found unlawful by the Court of operating system. The allegation that the illegal in the monopoly maintenance section Appeals are appropriate and in the public of its June 28, 2001 opinion. interest. Any remedy that extends beyond the 1 Id. at 87.
VerDate 11
settlement has loopholes in this regard, ! inspect all books, records, ledgers, or any of the Final Judgment to all officers and however, is based on a faulty interpretation document within the control of Microsoft; directors of the company and brief those of the plain language of the settlement ! inspect all source code for any Microsoft people on the meaning of the Final Judgment agreement. Section III.D of the RPFJ requires program; and the requirements of the U.S. antitrust Microsoft to make available the APIs and ! interview any Microsoft employee, and laws. The compliance officer is responsible related Documentation that are used by record such interview; for securing the written certification from Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a ! order Microsoft to prepare any report each and every officer and director in the Windows Operating System Product. The under oath regarding any matter in the Final company that they understand the terms of term Microsoft Middleware is defined as Judgment. the Final Judgment, agree to comply with its software code that is contained within the These access provisions give the Plaintiffs terms, and that they understand that failure operating system, but for which updates are essentially unfettered ability to obtain any to comply may result in a finding of distributed separately. The definition also piece of information that they seek with contempt of court. requires, inter alia, that the software code be respect to Microsoft’s compliance with the Dispute Resolution: Any person may trademarked. The two programs cited by Final Judgment. There is no loophole or submit complaints concerning Microsoft’s critics of the settlement as possibly excluded exception that would prevent the Plaintiffs compliance with the Final Judgment to either from disclosure requirements, Internet from acquiring information relating to the Justice Department, the States, the Explorer and Windows Media Player, are, Microsoft’s compliance with the settlement. Technical Committee, or the Compliance however, clearly within the definition. Both Further, any information obtained by the Officer. Upon receipt of a complaint from any are included within the Windows operating Plaintiff’s may be presented directly to the person the Plaintiffs may initiate an system as an initial matter and updates to Court in order to secure Microsoft’s enforcement proceeding with the Court and both are distributed compliance. seek to hold Microsoft in criminal or civil A comprehensive list of downloadable The Technical Committee: In addition to contempt. The Court has wide latitude to updates to software that is contained within the wide latitude given to the Plaintiffs to interpret the agreement, order compliance the Microsoft operating system is located at inspect Microsoft documents, code, and with the agreement, and/or impose fines or the following url: Updates to Internet personnel, the settlement agreement also other sanctions upon the company. Explorer and Windows Media Player are establishes an independent three person Notwithstanding the Plaintiffs’ ability to distributed on this site. Technical Committee (TC). This TC will be immediately seek Court intervention to Publically available trademark information made up of experts in software design and resolve compliance issues, other dispute indicates that Internet Explorer is programming and shall establish permanent resolution mechanisms are available under trademarked under serial Nos. 75663324 and offices at Microsoft’s Redmond campus. The the agreement. These less formal procedures 75340051 (assigned from Synet Inc.) and expense of the TC shall be paid by Microsoft allow complainants to quickly resolve Windows Media, including descriptions of and the TC shall have the power to hire any compliance issues with the assistance of the Windows Media Player are trademarked consultants necessary to assist them in their independent Technical Committees’s under serial Nos. 75663200, 75517785, and duties. extensive knowledge of the Company’s 75517786. separately. Moreover, both the The TC’s sole function is to monitor activities. Any person may submit a logos and the words covering Internet Microsoft’s compliance with its obligations compliance issue to the Technical Committee Explorer and Windows2 Media Player are trademarked.3 under the Final Judgment. Thus, the TC has for investigation. The TC shall investigate A natural reading of the RPFJ demonstrates complete access to all Microsoft documents, complaints, bring them to the attention of the that there are no loopholes that would computer programs, personnel, equipment, Microsoft Compliance Officer and advise frustrate the overall intent of the document. and physical facilities. The TC members may Microsoft of its conclusions and proposal for The definitions are constructed in such a way direct Microsoft to prepare reports of any cure. The identity of any complainant may be to give meaning to certain terms, including information and in any format the TC desires. kept from Microsoft to insure that no middleware, that otherwise would be Most significantly, the TC will have retaliation could possibly occur. susceptible to a wide variance of complete access to the confidential source The only limitation placed on the TC’s interpretation. While some who are critical of code of Microsoft’s programs. The TC may work is that its findings or recommendations the settlement may prefer broader definitions study the code, interrogate the code, and in a informal dispute proceeding may not be of certain terms, the danger in over-expansive interact with the code in order to insure that admitted as evidence in Court, nor may the definitions is that they exclude nothing and Microsoft is complying fully with the Final TC members be called to testify. This thus become unworkably vague. Judgment. The TC may interview any restriction does not interfere with the TC’s 4. Provisions for Enforcement and Microsoft employee regarding the source responsibility to inform the Plaintiffs of any Modification CompTIA has carefully code and its operation. Again, there is no violation, explain the details of that analyzed the enforcement provisions of the loophole or exclusion that would prevent the violation, and provide supporting evidence RPFJ and concludes that the enforcement TC from obtaining any piece of information to the Plaintiffs. Similarly, the restriction provisions are stringent, thorough, in any way related to Microsoft’s compliance does not impede the Plaintiffs’ ability to comprehensive, and are carefully designed to with the agreement. obtain and present all information obtained insure that Microsoft comply with the And, any information obtained by the TC from Microsoft to the Court in support of the substantive terms of the settlement may be shared with the Plaintiffs and the alleged violation. Instead, it permits the TC agreement. Court. Indeed, the TC has an obligation to to actively and aggressively use every method In addition, the terms are creative in that report its activities to the Plaintiff at regular possible to quickly negotiate the resolution of they include provisions that are likely to six- month intervals. If, however, the TC has disputes between complainants and speed the resolution of consumer and reason to believe that a violation of the Microsoft without having the work-product competitor disputes, rather than result in agreement has occurred, it is obligated to of that negotiation process made public. additional lengthy litigation over the terms of report that fact immediately to the Plaintiffs Protecting the TC members from having to the settlement. In sum, CompTIA finds little and provide a written summary of the nature testify is consistent with the rules of every support for the characterization of the of the violation. The Plaintiffs may then mediation session undertaken within the enforcement provisions as weak, and instead immediately initiate a contempt proceeding U.S. legal system. It encourages the parties to believes that the enforcement mechanisms against Microsoft in the U.S. District Court as be fully candid and forthcoming before the are strong, effective, and will likely provide that Court has ongoing jurisdiction to enforce TC in attempting to resolve disputes under quick and effective resolution of any disputes the terms of the Final Judgment. the settlement agreement. under the agreement. Microsoft’s Internal Compliance Officer: In sum, the extensive power and access Plaintiff’s Powers to Enforce: The RPFJ Another important aspect of the RPFJ is a that the TC has under the settlement specifically provides that the United States or provision requiring Microsoft to appoint an agreement insures that the informal any of the individual states involved in the internal compliance officer. This person has complaint procedure will not be a dead case have responsibility for enforcing the the responsibility to administer the letter. Because the TC has full access to every Final Judgment. To facilitate this company’s compliance with the settlement book, record, person, and program at enforcement, the Plaintiffs have the right to: agreement. The officer must circulate a copy Microsoft, and has the ability to order
VerDate 11
Microsoft to prepare any report it wishes, the of technological improvements in Windows, rather than insuring a level playing field for TC can make life very difficult for Microsoft. creating a marketplace in which the same all participants in the software industry. In Indeed, Microsoft has great incentive to software applications would not necessarily the absence of compelling justification for satisfy the TC and avoid compliance issues have the same functionality. This remedy wholesale and forced disclosure of a altogether. The TC will provide an effective would balkanize the computing industry and company’s intellectual property, the harm procedure for quick resolution of complaints would undermine the benefits consumers caused by such disclosure is unwarranted against Microsoft typically far quicker than if obtain from a standardized operating and harmful to the entire technology a contempt proceeding were initiated. platform. marketplace. The vigorous protection of The enforcement provisions of the RPFJ In addition to the stripped down version of intellectual property has fueled the rapid and grant extremely broad powers of access to Windows, the December 7, 2001 proposal dynamic growth of the technology industry. both the Plaintiffs and to the independent would also require Microsoft to continue Actions that erode protections for intellectual Technical Committee. Both entities have the licensing and supporting prior versions of property should be viewed with great power to present the information they obtain Windows for five years after the introduction trepidation. from Microsoft to the Court to insure of a new version of Windows. The primary The long term effects of the conduct Microsoft’s compliance with the settlement effect of this requirement is to impose restrictions proposed by the non-settling agreement. The Court has wide discretion in unnecessary costs upon Microsoft (that States encourage continued litigation, rather punishing Microsoft for violations of the would likely be passed on to consumers) and than competition in the marketplace. Final Judgment and the RPFJ specifically reduce the incentives for Microsoft to IV. CONCLUSION provides that the terms of the agreement may improve the operating system. This The RPFJ will never be and cannot be all be extended for an additional two years if disincentive to Microsoft to make things to all people. But, in the end, it is a Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful technological advances would ripple reasonable result given the respective violation. The RPFJ also includes a wide throughout the software industry as positions of the both sides in this litigation. array of formal and informal dispute applications developers would not have an In assessing the effectiveness of the current resolution mechanisms that give a advancing platform to write software to. settlement, the Court should recognize that complainant maximum ability to resolve The non-settling States remedy proposal the marketplace is far different than it was at disputes quickly and fairly. Charles James, also includes a variety of restrictions that the time the case was originally brought in head of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, testified will have little if any quantifiable benefit to May 1998. The Court of Appeals spoke to this that [t]he proposed decree contains some of consumers but which will simply advance very issue: the most stringent enforcement provisions the interests of Microsoft competitors. [J]ust over six years have passed since ever contained in any modern consent Consumers and OEM’s currently have full Microsoft engaged in the first conduct plaintiffs allege to be anticompetitive. As the decree. CompTIA’s review of the ability and freedom to include Java software record in this case indicates, six years seems enforcement procedures supports Mr. James’ on their computers; the States’ requirement like an eternity in the computer industry. By conclusions. The establishment of an that Microsoft carry Java on all copies of the time a court can assess liability, firms, exceptionally powerful Technical Committee Windows does not provide consumers or products, and the marketplace are likely to as a permanent fixture on Microsoft’s campus OEM’s with any more choice than they have changed dramatically. This, in turn, already have. Similarly, the requirement that is unprecedented. The Technical threatens enormous practical difficulties for Committee’s investigatory duties and duties Microsoft continue to produce an Office courts considering the appropriate measure to report directly to the Plaintiffs insures that Suite for Macintosh interferes with natural of relief in equitable enforcement actions, the enforcement provisions have the power market forces that direct resources to the best both in crafting injunctive remedies in the necessary to force Microsoft to comply with use and may actually preclude the success of first instance and reviewing those remedies the substantive terms of the Revised competing applications software. Directing in the second. Conduct remedies may be Proposed Final Judgment. Microsoft to produce and support any unavailing in such cases, because innovation C. Anticipated Effects of Alternative software without regard for market forces is to a large degree has already rendered the Remedies Actually Considered likely to harm consumers, not help them. anticompetitive conduct obsolete (although While the November 6, 2001 Revised Moreover, the November 6 Proposed by no means harmless). United States v. Proposed Final Judgment goes beyond the Judgment fully addresses and prevents Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 49 (DC Cir. 2001). liability found by the Court of Appeals in Microsoft from retaliating or taking any CompTIA does not interpret the Court of some areas (i.e., by requiring Microsoft to anticompetitive actions against Apple. Appeals’ language to support the proposition disclose its confidential technical Advances in technology are frequently that minimal or no remedies should be information relating to servers), the non- made as a result of joint ventures between imposed upon Microsoft because advancing settling States’ proposal filed on December 7, competitors. The Department of Justice and technology has made the browser wars or 2001 goes so far beyond the judgment as to the Federal Trade Commission have recently other issues in the 1998 lawsuit irrelevant at bear little relationship to the Court of released guidelines for the formation of such this point in time. However, it appears that Appeals decision. joint ventures. Notwithstanding the those who now seek to impose more far- The centerpiece of the states’’ remedy recognition by these enforcement agencies reaching remedies against Microsoft are demand is that Microsoft be compelled to that most joint ventures are pro-competitive, excessively focused on the marketplace as it create and market a stripped down version of the non-settling States seek to restrict was in 1998, ignoring its state in 2002. The its Windows operating system that would not Microsoft from entering into joint ventures advances in server technology, wireless and include many of the features that current whereby the parties to the joint venture agree handheld devices, and web based versions of Windows do include. Since not to compete with the product that is the applications all diminish the overall consumers can now easily remove Microsoft subject of the joint venture. This restriction competitive significance of the Windows features from their desktop and OEM’s are will chill innovation and prohibit countless desktop. Thus, for example, the goal of free to place non-Microsoft programs on the consumer welfare enhancing arrangements. attempting to inject more competition into desktop, it is difficult to see how this Further, this proposal flatly ignores the fact the browser market at this time has little requirement would benefit consumers. that the Court of Appeals found in competitive significance to the overall Instead of giving consumers more choices Microsoft’s favor on the issue of the alleged technology marketplace. of software products, this unwarranted illegality of its joint venture proposal to The goal of the settlement in this case intrusion into marketing and design decision Netscape. The most harmful of the remaining should not be to penalize Microsoft for past by the non-settling States would cause remedy proposals include those that require behavior, nor should it be to benefit further delays in the development of software the extensive and mandatory sharing of Microsoft’s competitors by forcing Microsoft created to run on XP, with developers Microsoft’s source code, without to license its source code against its will. The waiting to see which version would become compensation to Microsoft. settlement should insure that Microsoft does the standard. Such delays would further The non-settling States proposals in this not engage in the actions found unlawful by postpone the salutary effects of XP on the regard go well beyond those in the November the Court of Appeals. This consent judgment computer market. It would also hamper 6 Proposed Final Judgment and appear to be does just that and therefore it should be programmers’’ ability to take full advantage aimed at benefitting Microsoft’s competitors approved.
VerDate 11
Respectfully Submitted, manufacturing from the US to foreign marketplace. Needless to say, I was further Lars H. Liebeler, Esq. countries. dismayed by the terms of the proposed Thaler Liebeler LLP First the monopoly preservation strategy: settlement. 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Most competent computer programmers As you are obviously well aware, under the Suite 200 can, if they wish, write and document guise of ‘‘innovation’’ Microsoft has Washington, DC 20006 functioning code which is virtually succeeded in stifling true innovation in many CompTIA Antitrust Counsel incomprehensible to any other competent ways. Much of the damage done by Microsoft (202) 828–9867 programmer (including the author him/ is not as a result of overt actions towards the herself). Moreover said author can almost ‘‘victim’’ whether an individual or a MTC–00028727 certainly (disingenuously but successfully) company. Rather it is in creating an From: [email protected]@inetgw argue in a court comprised of non-experts environment in which the fate of others who To: Microsoft ATR that the code is straightforward, well- have tried to innovate in the face of Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 5:07pm documented and easy to understand. serves as a deterrent to further innovation. Of Subject: Microsoft What does this have to do with Microsoft course this type of deterrence by example To Whom It May Concern: maintaining and extending their monopoly? does not carry the connotation of physical I would like to express my opinion on the Everything. Whether hardware or software, it danger as might be expected from similar Microsoft settlement: is in the interests of the creator of any threats by organized crime or terrorists. 1- There should never have been a need. product to facilitate use by the consumer Nevertheless it is quite effective. This is an If microsoft competetors can’t handle the while hiding as much of the internal environment in which: competition, then its time for them to get out workings as possible to discourage 1. Intelligent software developers know of the business (just as anyone else in competition. Microsoft’s strategy has been to that they have little chance of being business would). continuously expand the boundaries of it’s successful unless they join the Microsoft 2- Since there seems to be a need for a ‘‘operating system’’ (more properly now an camp. Once in that camp more of a settlement, I think microsoft has offered one operating environment) enveloping or developer’s time will be likely spent keeping that is more than adequate. attempting to envelope entire classes of up with Microsoft’s complexity-increasing- 3- Get the government out of the way of applications, office, networking, on-line whims than improving their product. progress. shopping, manufacturing etc... within the 2. Intelligent funding institutions know Thanks for this opportunity. boundaries of the ‘‘operating system’’. This from history that there is no point in R.E. Lee can be done explicitly as in the case of developing a product in a market in which MTC–00028728 Internet Explorer, or implicitly by simply Microsoft is known or believed to have making it difficult and or prohibitively interest. The best one can hope for in the case From: [email protected]@inetgw expensive for outsiders to access, or even of a very successful product is the To: Microsoft ATR know about, operating system or hardware opportunity to sell the product to Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 5:08pm features which may be important for fields at a price determined only by the latter. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft dominates, or wishes to dominate. 3. The required ‘‘operating system’’ (now I think the facts, as well as the opinions, The ‘‘browser wars’’ were about exposing the more properly an operating environment) is are in and it is time for the Department of inner workings of Microsoft’s operating so complex as to create a huge barrier Justice to act firmly against Microsoft. It has system so others might use them. between the creative idea of a researcher, long been know that Microsoft has used it Because of the ease of writing and developer, or engineer and its position to squelch competition and stifle defending impenetrable code Microsoft implementation into a useful product. creativity. Microsoft has used its position to already has an almost unlimited ability to I’m reminded of a university researcher’s deliver products that were full of flaws and restrict access to the core of the operating website I saw several years ago. The demand premium prices. This, in light of system and to the hardware beyond, whether researcher noted that he was using older, and their predatory practices, should not be or not a court orders it to provide access. by then outdated, analysis software for his tolerated. Microsoft sells just enough tools to access research. Although he had written the Please take this opportunity to open up this monopoly to other players and get the selected parts its operating environment to be original software himself, he believed that economy back on track. able to provide lip-service to openness. the new requirement of interfacing with Verizon Communications Generally speaking the products are scaled in Windows had introduced such complexities Bruce T. Granger, M.I.S. such a way that only those who have made that he could not afford either the time to Enterprise Solutions Group a large commitment, financial or ‘‘sweat update the software himself, or the money to Manager—Network Integration equity’’ which will tend to lock in their to hire a Windows specialist to update it for Senior Network Integration Engineer— allegiance to Microsoft are allowed access to him. Whether or not the researcher’s CCNA, CCNP the more powerful tools. assumption was actually true, Microsoft Work—972.718.3174 Because of the high barrier created by the literature and promotions (the so-called FUD Fax—972.718.3336 impenetrability of the Microsoft code, it is factor) would certainly lead him to this Mobile—214.789.4630 hard to imagine any remedy short of a conclusion. Hence his further research in this breakup will be able to curtail Microsoft’s field was stymied. MTC–00028729 illegal monopolistic practices. 4. Similarly the Microsoft ‘‘one size fits From: Robert McConnell The second comment, related to all’’ operating system and tools, interposed To: Microsoft ATR manufacturing flight, is contained in a letter between America’s manufacturing engineers Date: 1/28/02 5:08pm I sent to the Attorney General general of and the computer, hamper their creative Subject: Microsoft Settlement Massachusetts several months ago. The text efforts. Modern Windows software effectively In response to the government’s request for follows: prevents these engineers from writing high comments on the proposed Microsoft Dear Mr. Attorney General, speed one-of-a-kind applications necessary Settlement: I must congratulate you and your staff on for the most efficient manufacturing. Ten As a computer professional with over three the stand you have taken against the years ago the same engineer would have had decades of experience writing software for a proposed Microsoft settlement. no trouble writing this type of software. variety of operating systems including I am a software developer who has long As a Senior Member and member of the Windows, and as one-time fan of Microsoft, been appalled by the relentless manner in Peer Review Committee of the Machine I would like to make two points. The first is which the American public interest Vision Association of the Society of to suggest one route which in the absence of continues to be steamrolled by the Microsoft Manufacturing Engineers I became personally a breakup I expect Microsoft to continue to juggernaut. Therefore I was shocked by the concerned about this issue several years ago. exploit to maintain it’s monopoly. The decision by the Justice Department to take I was particularly worried that is resulting in second point is to call attention to a related the breakup option off the table. It is my substantial advantages for manufacturing danger from Microsoft’s monopoly which I opinion that this option offered the only facilities in foreign countries and earlier this believe is accelerating the flight of chance to restore competition to the software year prepared the attached document.
VerDate 11
I’m not sure any of this will be of any help be too big a price even if there were a public can claim a large portion of their product in the successful resolution of the Microsoft interest to be served by such a restriction. In falls under section III.J.1 and 2, when in fact, situation, However I thought it might be fact there is none. It is Microsoft who has knowing the details does not lessen security helpful in explaining why at least one of us been serving the public, as evidenced daily in any measurable way. Small companies is behind you. by those who voluntarily purchase would not have the resources to contest this. Again, congratulations and good luck on Microsoft’s products. Whether or not they As a software engineer, I found most of your stand! realize it, even Microsoft’s competitors Microsofts arguments about the need to Sincerely, benefit from Microsoft’s presence, which inextricably bind their browser to the Robert McConnell spurs them to added effort and ever-higher operating system very odd. CC:Attorney General Tom Reilly levels of quality. Were it not for Microsoft Fact #1: Microsofts Internet Explorer many of them would not exist! Without browser runs on Apples operating system MTC–00028730 Microsoft most computers might still be and a UNIX version also existed. Further, From: Jim D. Kirby running CP/M—that would be a sad state of their first versions of Microsoft IE ran To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ affairs. without tight integration into its own Date: 1/28/02 5:09pm Adam Wildavsky operating system. So, the claim about it Subject: Microsoft Settlement President needing to be inextricably bound to the They say hindsight is 20–20. Sometimes Tameware, LLC operating system to ‘‘provide a better we get the benefit of hindsight prior to the 33–39 80th St. No. 32 experience’’ is without any merit. fact. In this case, the emerging Enron scandal Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Fact #2: Every competent software engineer shows us exactly what the Bush [email protected] http:// will tell you that reliable and maintainable administration was attempting in their www.tameware.com software is designed in pieces with very settlement with Microsoft: corporate clearly defined interfaces that encapsulate capitulation. MTC–00028732 and hide internal details of each piece. This The proposed settlement between From: Chris Carman makes it possible to keep defects in one piece Microsoft and the Federal government reeks To: Microsoft ATR from breaking things inside other pieces. of nepotism, favoritism and backroom Date: 1/28/02 5:10pm Further, this encapsulation with well-defined interfaces makes it easy to pull out one piece shenanigans. Enron has shown us how our Subject: one more comment and replace it with a better piece in the executive branch operates; please do not let I wrote an earlier comment against the future, without breaking all the other pieces similar actions favoring Microsoft provide yet settlement, but I wanted to add one last (makes future enhancements easier). This is more fodder for our growing recession. thing—Microsoft should not be allowed to analogous to replacing the incandescent light Jim Kirby engage in any ‘‘exclusive contracts’’ (ie, a bulb in your lamp with a more energy Senior Network Engineer/Architect computer that is shippsed booting Windows efficient light bulb both bulbs use the same Wells’’ Dairy, Inc. is only allowed to boot Windows and cannot screw-in interface to your lamp). Main: 712–546–4000 Direct: 712–548–2919 boot or include another operating system like Are we really to believe that all those top Fax: Linux or BeOS—this is why Dell, IBM, etc. talent engineers at Microsoft are NOT using 712–548–3106 won’t sell PC’s that have both Windows and basic design principals of encapsulation and mailto:[email protected] http:// Linux ) for at least the next ten years. This well-defined APIs, that would allow them to bluebunny.com would be roughly in line with how long easily pull out a current version of their Windows has been around. Just a thought. MTC–00028731 Internet Explorer and with a future enhanced Thanks! version (and therefore also allow a third From: [email protected]@inetgw Chris Carman party browser to also use that same well To: Microsoft ATR Hamilton, Ohio defined interface to plug their browser in)? Date: 1/28/02 5:01pm Microsoft cant have it both ways: They’re Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028733 a competent software company who can I am dismayed by the DOJ action against From: George Van Treeck speak with authority in court (design code Microsoft. It makes me ashamed to be an To: Microsoft ATR that encapsulates internals with well-defined American. I urge the court to dismiss the suit Date: 1/28/02 5:10pm APIs) or the browser is so inextricably tied entirely, or, failing that, to impose the Subject: Microsoft Settlement that another browser can not easily replace mildest sanctions possible. I would like to comment on section III.J.1 it (and thus can’t believe what they say I use Microsoft’s software on a regular and III.J.2 of the proposed settlement. I because they’re incompetent). basis—it’s certainly improved my life. While worked at company last year that asked for I know Microsoft has some of the sharpest I prefer using Macintosh computers to PCs information on a network communication software engineers around. I know they write running Windows, I have nothing but protocol so that we could make our product some pretty good software. So, this means admiration for Microsoft’s accomplishments. work their products. Microsoft didnt refuse, their executive’s excuses for Microsoft’s Claiming there are no alternatives to they repeatedly failed to respond to the behavior are not credible. Microsoft products is laughable. Not only are requests in any way. And sections III.J.1 and So, what does this indicate about Microsoft there a host of alternatives, but if Microsoft III.J.2 are so ambiguous in interpretation that executives attitude and how they are likely were ever to attempt to charge exorbitant there they could use it as an excuse to to interpret an ambiguous settlement rates for its wares I and a host of others provide information, effectively squashing agreement? Will appointing a review would rush in to compete. small companies who cant afford the legal committee that is not highly technical in To say that Microsoft has a monopoly for warfare to compel a disclosure. specialized areas of software (e.g., specialied PC operating systems is meaningless. What An example of how section III.J.1 and 2 security) interpret this agreement in the makes an ‘‘industry standard’’ PC standard is could be used a smoke screen by Microsoft public interest? precisely the fact that it runs Windows. to deny access to communication protocols Microsoft has a monopoly in the same sense and APIs for security reasons: Virtually all MTC–00028734 that Tom Clancy has a monopoly on ‘‘The security systems software is designed in such From: Sean Ryan Hunt for Red October’’. This monopoly is the a way that even if you do know how the To: Microsoft ATR right of a producer to his product— it is software works, it is virtually impossible to Date: 1/28/02 5:11pm guaranteed by Section 8 of the U.S. break it. For example, the software for the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Constitution. PGP encryption algorithm is public Your Honor, Microsoft has never harmed me, nor do I knowledge and used by a large number of I am writing to voice my displeasure with ever expect it to. How could it? My people, because knowledge of how the the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft transactions with Microsoft are voluntary. encryption works does not help in breaking Anti-Trust Case. The PFJ has three major This court, however, can harm me and every the code. In fact, public knowledge helps flaws. American. By restricting Microsoft’s freedom people identify potential problems early 1. It does not terminate Microsoft’s illegal everyone’s freedom is restricted. This would before the there is wide adoption. Microsoft monopoly
VerDate 11
2. The penalty for past illegal behavior is produced the technologically superior or specifically breaks the law regarding the not a disincentive and will actually give secure operating system platform needed by tying of a new product to a monopoly Microsoft an advantage in another market the marketplace because they have not had product by combining bug fixes (a warranty segment. to innovate as they hold a monopoly and service) into product upgrades (for a fee) and 3. The Department of Justice must pledge successfully prevent competition into that by not making them available separately but to prevent any future anti-competitive space. The computer scientists that have combining fixes with new code (and a new activity by Microsoft by maintaining a close built Linux allow for commercial proprietary set of bugs). While the argument has been watch of the companies activities. software to run on this more reliable made regarding Microsoft’s Internet Explorer Illegal monopolies hurt the consumer, platform. They only want the operating browser being part of the Microsoft Operating inhibit innovation, and encourage future system not the applications which run on it System instead of application software, two illegal activity if they are not handled in a to be free/open and beyond subversion. They facts belie that claim. One, Internet Explorer manner far more aggressive than that in the have produced a system which is more is available for the Macintosh, Solaris and Proposed Final Judgment. I urge you to reject secure and reliable than Microsoft’s operating HP-Unix—platforms that are obviously not the PFJ. systems. Businesses that have seen how often Microsoft operating systems. So tying Thank You, the Microsoft sands shift have chosen not Internet Explorer to the correct operation of Sean Ryan build on the Microsoft choices of foundation. the Windows Operating System was a (707) 438–7326 The free operating system Linux was given deliberate attempt to sabotage competition in as an example to the court as a serious threat the browser space resulting in the demise MTC–00028735 to Microsoft’s monopoly, but that argument and purchase of Netscape instead of more From: Othniel Graichen should be discounted as that Operating competition. Second, Microsoft’s claim that To: Microsoft ATR System is totally free ? meaning no license Internet Explorer is free—just like Netscape Date: 1/28/02 5’10pm cost per machine. So it does not compete Communicator is bogus. IE is only free to Subject: Microsoft Settlement with Microsoft. There is no company called Microsoft customers. Internet Explorer is In the western system of capitalism, Linux. No one company controls the specifically not available on Linux (proving consumers do not usually buy directly from direction Linux will take. The reason Linux? that it is not free) and because the API producers. In our economy, multiple levels of open source API can compete with (operating system interface) which it uses is middlemen exist to satisfy the demand for Microsoft’s Monopoly OS is because the purposely obfuscated. Netscape Navigator finished goods. This results in healthy companies that use it are guaranteed of a and Communicator are free and are available competition, reasonable profits and an truly level operating system playing field. on Linux along with the next generation increased tax base. The established Microsoft Linux is to operating system technology what Mozilla open source browser. monopoly on technology (like AT&T’s free markets are to economic systems. Artificially high operating system prices Requiring Microsoft to support the Linux monopoly on communications before it) has combined with fewer OS technological platform as a tier 1 operating system for all not been used toward the public’s good and advances cause fewer computers to be sold their application software is not taking the company’s business practices illegally by market forces due to customers learning money out of Microsoft’s hand and putting it extend this monopoly by tying inferior to be disappointed in what their computers in the hand of some other company. If products to its established ones slowing the can do. More competition would increase the Microsoft’s management doesn’t respond to rate of technology advancement. This the viability of Linux, Microsoft’s value of the computing infrastructure and substantially reduces the opportunities for shareholders will be hurt on the order of motivate companies to invest in more competing technology producers and has what happened to Enron. That is not in the computers. This was the expectation 20 years resulted in decreased tax revenues which can interest of middle America. What is in ago. All that money went to Microsoft. What be collected from the offending multinational America’s best interests is not a powerful do we have to show for all that investment? corporation. Furthermore by refusing to Microsoft, but a software platform where no Some improvement but a lot of broken support the Linux platform, Microsoft company has control over hardware or promises. Open Source Software delivers on management reduces its value to processor, but one where all businesses (and that promise and the Linux operating system shareholders. My explanation follows: governments) can compete based on is the standards based vendor neutral Microsoft does not just have a monopoly innovation, quality and their ability to meet mechanism to remedy the difficult situation on PC operating systems. In the minds of customer requirements. Microsoft needs to the court finds itself needing to resolve. middle management in the Western world, a become a technology producer instead of I look to the court to render a decision new technology is not ready for deployment controlling technology deployment. which will increase employment of software until a Microsoft product includes it. The Microsoft unfairly changes the operating developers in this country, increase the successful managers have witnessed where system platform whenever a competitor has diversity of IT sector businesses, and punish business needs existed for a given found a niche which Microsoft wants to the company which brazenly ignored anti- technology, early adopters (using non- occupy. Only when Microsoft agrees to trust law, threat, and actual suit. Do not Microsoft tools) were burned by support the Linux Operating system with forget how the courts were unmistakably lied incompatibilities with key Microsoft software their application software will competition in to. Now that Microsoft has been found guilty components or unavailability of updates to the business and office technology sector of being a monopolist, do not take the teeth products such as Excel, Word, DOS, flourish to the benefit of all. out of enforcement by accepting the weak Windows, Internet Explorer and Media Microsoft is a grand marketing organization Proposed Final Judgement. Microsoft has Player to name a few. but they do not stimulate our economy to injured the Information Technology sector After slaying Goliath, Microsoft now holds build (and profit from building) new and with remedies you can drive a truck hostage an even larger customer base than technological advances. Business plans that through and will continue to do so for the IBM did before it changed it business would go head-to-head with Microsoft are next 5 to 7 years. The DOJ position has practices to remedy an earlier DOJ suit. rejected. Instead of hiring and training more changed since the beginning of this trial with Microsoft has not cooperated with the will of computer scientists, software developers and Joel Klein. Despite all the pressure to join the the people as pursued by the USDOJ and programmers, our country has changed US DOJ, many of the state attorneys general attorneys general of the 19 states. Unlike immigration laws to allow 500 thousand could not in good conscience join the IBM, Microsoft cannot see the error of its more H1-B Visas thereby increasing the Revised Proposed Final Judgement. Do your ways. Its no longer just about profits ? instead unemployment of working class Americans. job to ensure that America begins the 21st it’s about the power to be above the law. The Furthermore, Microsoft is not pushing the century by accelerating the deployment of ‘‘software tax’’ that it collects on all PCs sold envelope of technology. It recoups its technology rather than allowing business as planet-wide by leveraging US political and investment on technology many fold more usual at Microsoft to continue. military influence makes Microsoft (and by than necessary before developing new Nor is breaking up Microsoft the only extension the US) a target of foreign products. This is not good for consumers and solution! That is a simpleton’s way to elicit nationalistic pride/prejudice. Wars in the has transformed the desired behavior, which won?t work coming centuries will be fought over control Microsoft into more of a marketing because there will be uncontrollable of Information. Microsoft’s way has not company than a purveyor of technology. It collusion between the two subentities.
VerDate 11
Releasing the source code for Internet Brigham City, UT 84302 Washington, DC 20530–0001 Explorer would be in line with Microsoft’s January 24, 2002 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: claim that Internet Explorer is free. Its? Attorney General John Ashcroft The Department of Justice and Microsoft interconnection with Outlook (the Email US Department of Justice have finally reached a settlement to the three- client) is responsible for most of the virus 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW year antitrust dispute, and I am writing to vulnerabilities. The inevitable improvements Washington, DC 20530 champion that settlement and ask that it be in security once the source code is released Dear Mr. Ashcroft: approved as soon as possible. I am in favor would benefit the public. Getting Microsoft I am very much in favor of the right of of any agreement that will end litigation to drop the suit against Lindows.com ? a consumers to choose the configuration of the against Microsoft and that will help America. potential operating system competitor ? system they work in. I am, therefore, in favor Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any would also be proof that they will permit of the settlement reached between Microsoft contractual obligations with third-party competition. The most important goal is to and the Department of Justice. There is no companies that mandate that they strictly use convince Microsoft that selling its Office doubt in my mind that Microsoft was or promote Microsoft products. They have Suite on Linux is good for Microsoft. The behaving monopolistically, but the also agreed not to retaliate against computer RPFJ does not accomplish that. That is one corporation produces good software, and I do companies that make or promote software reason why all the state’s attorneys general not believe that so much fuss should have that competes with Windows. did not support it. been made about actions that were not, in Believe it nor not, they will share source Microsoft writes good application software, effect, harming the public. code and other data that is critical to the but they have made operating systems which The settlement allows for a return of fair design and implementation of Windows. are not secure from viruses. Actually Java competition in the technology industry. This allows the competition to make was designed from the start to be a more Microsoft has, for example, agreed to products that are compatible with Windows. secure middleware platform, yet Microsoft reformat future versions of Windows so that This will improve the IT industry and the quickly pushed its own alternative computer makers as well as users will be free economy. technology which has since been to reconfigure Windows using both Microsoft I fully support this settlement, and hope it successfully targeted by virus writers. Why? and non-Microsoft software to suit their is approves with haste. Thank you. Not to support the public good, but to retain specific needs. The settlement also requires Sincerely, control of their market. that Microsoft’s actions be monitored by a Eddie Schwartz There is no money in selling operating three-person technical committee consisting MTC–00028739 systems, yet the foundation of all of software engineers who will resolve applications is operating system support. disputes and make sure Microsoft complies From: Bernard R Buchta Since the beginning, OSes have always been with the settlement. I think Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR given away with the computer. The Microsoft deserves a chance to prove its ability to Date: 1/28/02 5:15pm licensing agreement must be changed to not adhere to the settlement. It will cost more in Subject: Microsoft Settlement require that Microsoft application software be the long run to continue litigation against January 28, 2002 used only with or on a Microsoft Operating Microsoft. The technology industry, the Attorney General John Ashcroft System license. What Microsoft has done is economy, and the American people have all US Department of Justice that they have sold all the computer felt the repercussions of this case. It is time 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW manufacturers on the idea of paying them to to settle. I urge you to support the agreement Washington, DC 20530 preload computers with their operating and move on. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: system. Thus the price of the operating Sincerely, As a six-year teacher of PCs and the system is inseparable from the hardware. Barbara Findley Windows operating system, I would like to Microsoft gets their ‘‘tax’’ whether you use voice my strong support for settling the their software or not. This lack of consumer MTC–00028737 pending Microsoft case. My experience as a choice in operating system middleware must From:[email protected]@inetgw PC instructor and my 26-year’s as a military end. As long as Microsoft products are only To: Microsoft ATR logistics officer has taught me the great value licensed for Microsoft operating systems, Date: 1/28/02 5:12pm of standardization. Standardization buys consumers will be tied to that platform and Subject: Copy of my letter everyone a lot. And, after standardization is technology sector businesses will be unable To Whom It May Concern: achieved, ‘‘the payback is forever.’’ Witness: to innovate and compete with Microsoft. I would like to express my opinion on the When we go to war, we want our bullets to Lastly, market (business) and government Microsoft settlement: fit into our allies’’ guns and rifles, and want (military) forces are finally responding to the 1- There should never have been a need. theirs to fit into ours. We want to be able to fact that only open source software systems If microsoft competetors can’t handle the share, substitute and interchange their are secure. Your judgement should promote competition, then its time for them to get out artillery rounds, fuel, and rations, etc., with this trend without being legislative. Microsoft of the business (just as anyone else in ours. It’s called being ‘‘Interoperable.’’ It’s a should be prevented by decree from business would). great force-multiplier and keeps costs down. developing a version of their operating 2- Since there seems to be a need for a Standardization, by definition, creates systems which are incompatible with settlement, I think microsoft has offered one efficiency. It also makes for convenience and VMware or preventing their application that is more than adequate. ease of use. Now, today, we need software from running under WINE in Linux. 3- Get the government out of the way of standardization and efficiency more than Such measures are simply exclusionary. Only progress. ever. Therefore, the proposed solution seems at this point in history will you be able to Thanks for this opportunity. like a fair compromise that will provide the extract such willingness to compete from an R.E. Lee most effective long-term results for avowed monopolist. They need to be taught consumers. As seen with the International that limits exist on acceptable business MTC–00028738 Standards Organization, the uniformity of practices. From: Eddie Schwartz Windows(R) and its supporting products is Othniel Graichen To: Microsoft ATR an asset to all computer users. This includes Senior Software Engineer Date: 1/28/02 5:14pm business and industry, schools, home users, 107 Nobhill Subject: Microsoft Settlement . . . just everyone! San Antonio, TX 78228 Eddie Schwartz Technology is complicated enough for the 4625 Tara Drive average person, so the advantages Microsoft MTC–00028736 Nashville, TN 37215 provides with the scope of their software From: [email protected]@inetgw Fax: presence is immeasurable in the form of To: Microsoft ATR January 22, 2002 America’s almost seamless transition into the Date: 1/28/02 5’’ 12pm Attorney General John Ashcroft information age with young and old alike. Subject: Letter US Department of Justice, 950 Though I did not respect the government’s 437 Highland Boulevard Pennsylvania Avenue, NW case, the restrictions imposed with this deal
VerDate 11
are far more favorable than the possibility of business practices on Microsoft’s part. Upon new regulations have far too many loop holes a corporate break up and chaos within the approval of the agreement, Microsoft will and with Microsoft’s record there is no computer world. Based on the new, more refrain from taking retaliatory action against reason to believe they will change the way even-handed approach of Microsoft toward those who sell, promote, or develop software they do business. Microsoft must be held competitors, and those who do business with that competes with Windows. Another step accountable and forced to allow applications competitors, plus the implementation of an Microsoft is taking is making it easier for that run on their system to be used anywhere. objective technical committee of experts to consumers to remove features of Windows so And they must be required to make their ensure compliance, it seem to me it would they may replace these features with products compatible with competitive be in the best interest of all parties involved Microsoft’s competitor’s software programs. products. to proceed with this agreement. This will In my view, Microsoft has made adequate To make this process fair to all, we need save the consumer a great deal of heartache. concessions to resolve this case. No further to hear from public consumer groups and It will also permit continued interoperability action should be taken by the Department of from state governments not just Microsoft in future systems and software programs. Justice against Microsoft. and their competitors. This is a right given Thank you very much for your Thank you for your consideration of my by the Tunney act and must be preserved. It consideration. comments on this issue. is my sincere hope that you will consider Sincerely, Sincerely, these points before going forward. The Bernard R. Buchta Lynn Walker American people deserve and have a right to Bernard R Buchta, in Troy, MI choose the products that serve them best, the LTC, OrdC, US Army (Retired) MTC–00028742 proposed settlement is unfair and unjust. P.S. From: [email protected]@inetgw Please allow the people a voice. You’re doing a great job in the War on To: Microsoft ATR Thank you, Terror. Date: 1/28/02 5:15pm Thomas B. Daly, Ph.D. Don’t let them grind you down! Subject: Microsoft Settlement 303–530–3337 203 Hazelton Court PO Box 17341 MTC–00028740 Mullica Hill, NJ 08062–9350 Boulder, CO 80301 From: Daniel Sells January 14, 2002 MTC–00028744 To: Microsoft ATR Attorney General John Ashcroft Date: 1/28/02 5:15pm US Department of Justice From: Vicinanza, Gregg Subject: No winners, just more wasted 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ money. Washington, DC 20530–0001 Date: 1/28/02 5:16pm How many new schools could we build Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: Subject: Microsoft Settlement with the money that is being wasted on this The Microsoft antitrust case settlement Please accept this comment regarding the case? Better yet, how many people could be agreement should be approved as soon as Microsoft settlement on behalf of Sony. feed? What’s more important, People or what possible. We will all be better off. This Gregg H. Vicinanza kind OS/browser they use to access the lawsuit demonstrates that Microsoft’s O’Melveny & Myers LLP internet? competitors, like Sun, are merely envious of 555 13th Street, NW Stop Wasting MY Tax Money!!!!! Microsoft’s success. Their failure to develop Washington, DC 20004 This lawsuit is a huge waste of tax payer products of the same caliber, as Windows voice (202)383–5235 money. The federal government should use does not mean Microsoft engaged in fax (202)383–5414 MY tax money to provide valued services to anticompetitive behavior. e-mail [email protected] me and all Americans. WHAT DOES The terms of the settlement agreement are internet www.omm.com ANYONE STAND TO GAIN BY SUEING fair. There should be no hesitation in the MTC–00028745 MICROSOFT? Know one is forced to buy the settlement’s approval. The agreement From: William Wallace Windows operating system, browser or any provides for such things as a technical To: Microsoft ATR other Microsoft product. Apple Macintosh oversight committee, which will monitor Date: 1/28/02 5:16pm has been around for years and is a very viable Microsoft’s business, practices. Additionally, Subject: Microsoft settlement alternative to the Windows platform for all Microsoft has agreed to disclose to its Shame! Microsoft is being rewarded, not who chose such. Linux is growing in competitors proprietary information, like penalized for illegal monopoly practices and popularity as another choice. I don’t interfaces that are internal to the Windows restraint of trade. Is this administration understand why your DOJ is pursuing this. operating system. Given these types of merely pro-business, or really for a FREE If other companies want to sue Microsoft, concessions, no further action should be market system? they have the courts to do so. Let AOL, IBM taken against Microsoft. William Wallace or whoever sue them WITHOUT USING MY Thank you for your intelligent attention. TAX DOLLARS! The DOJ should step down Sincere regards, MTC–00028746 and let the other companies battle this out as Linda Maher From: Michael T Vilas long as their willing to pay. MTC–00028743 To: Microsoft ATR D.M. Sells Date: 1/28/02 5:16pm From: Tom Daly MTC–00028741 Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Dear Sir: From: Lynn Walker Date: 1/28/02 5:15pm It is time to end the costly litigation against To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft. I urge you to stop all that is Date: 1/28/02 5’09pm To: Renata B. Hesse continuing the delays is the settlement. Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT Antitrust Division Thank You: 967 Artman-Gibson Road Colville, WA 99114 United States Department of Justice M Vilas January 25, 2002 601 D Street NW Attorney General John Ashcroft Suite 1200 MTC–00028747 US Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530–0001 From: Thomas Treder 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Dear Ms. Hesse, To: Microsoft ATR Washington, DC 20530 I have been following the Microsoft case Date: 1/28/02 5:16pm Dear Mr. Ashcroft: for many months and I believe that the Subject: I oppose the Department of Justice’s Thank you for your efforts to settle the proposed resolution of the case is clearly not proposed Microsoft antitrust case. Concluding this in the interest of the American consumer and I oppose the Department of Justice’s litigation will be beneficial for the tech not good for the economy. proposed settlement with Microsoft. None of industry, as well as the economy. Microsoft will still be a monopoly for all the proposed actions appear adequate to The settlement agreement adequately intents and purposes and will continue to prevent Microsoft from entering any new addresses concerns about any predatory use their power to limit competition. The market it chooses, then utilizing a
VerDate 11
combination of exclusionary licensing, reason these systems could not be licensed They helped consumers. If you truly want to predatory pricing, and all but unlimited under a standard non-disclosure agreement put an end to a monopoly, why don’t you marketing capital to force the incumbents (NDA). The same type of agreement could be start with The U.S. Postal Service? That’s a into extinction. used for authentication systems. I also note Government-created monopoly, which has Microsoft continues to employ the tactics that there is a major flaw in the Department’s thrived since the 1840s. It has been against with which it decimated Netscape. Against understanding of authentication and the law for anyone to compete with the U.S. RealPlayer, Microsoft has integrated cryptographic systems. A basic tenet in Postal Service by carrying first-class mail. Windows Media Player. To drive a wedge cryptography is that in order to be trusted, a That’s a monopoly that you should stop. into the game console market, XBox is sold cryptographic system should be subjected to I beg of you, Department of Justice, end the below cost. extensive public peer review. Rather than Microsoft case now. Do not stifle innovation. While the short-term benefit to the relying on secrecy for security, Do not require Government permission for consumer is reduced cost of the individual authentication systems rely on the strength of companies to improve their products. Such commodity, the overall cost to the consumer their cryptographic algorithms. Even though intervention only benefits companies who and to society is huge; Operating System the algorithms are widely published, they are lethargic to compete. In the end, that (Windows) and Applications (Office) priced remain secure because of the mathematical hurts taxpayers, consumers, the economy, far higher than any hopeful rival of equal or complexities in defeating them. It should be and future of technology. greater quality (Linux/StarOffice); reluctance noted that the standard for securing Do not meddle with Microsoft—or any of new players to enter the market; laughable transactions on the Web today (such as credit other company’s—future product design security (ILoveYou, Nimda, Code Red), and card purchases) is the openly specified SSL decisions. Leave that to software executives, ultimately a hegemony imposed with standard. SSL employs only publicly not judges and bureaucrats. Keep America Microsoft the gatekeeper of all society’s documented and reviewed cryptographic free, allowing Microsoft to continue to information flow and transactions (pending mechanisms. There is even an open source develop affordable products, create jobs, and success of ‘‘.Net’’). implementation known as OpenSSL which is please customers. This isn’t about Microsoft. Even Judge Jackson’s rememdies seemed used extensively to secure transactions on It’s about the freedom of every American no guarantee that Microsoft couldn’t find a the Internet. This is a difficult concept for the company to improve their products. Most circumvention; however, that the current layman to understand, but it is critical to an importantly, it’s about allowing consumers Department of Justice has volunteered a open and competetive environment on the the freedom to pass judgment with their remedy weaker than one to which Microsoft Internet. pocketbooks, by personal choice. had already acquiesed is at best difficult to -Larry J. Blunk =Stephanie Sailor= understand, and at worst smells of Saline, Michigan USA 118 Mendham Rd. malfeasance. Judge Jackson’s remedies MTC–00028749 Bernardsville, NJ 07924 should be imposed upon Microsoft without 908.766.0990 delay. From: Sawley [email protected] To: Microsoft ATR http://www.StephanieSailor.com MTC–00028748 Date: 1/28/02 5:25pm CC:[email protected]@inetgw From: Larry Blunk Subject: AOL Suit To: Microsoft ATR The AOL lawsuit against Microsoft is a MTC–00028753 Date: 1/28/02 5:16pm pathetic attempt to try to gain public From: Spencer Black Subject: Microsoft Settlement sympathy in court against a competitor that To: Microsoft ATR I wish to stress my opposition to current they can’t compete against in the public Date: 1/28/02 5’19pm United States vs. Microsoft proposed market...... Subject: Microsoft Settlement Settlement Agreement. The numerous Lewis W. Sawley Spencer Black loopholes and lack of consequences for MTC–00028750 Artist violation of the agreement will result in little Microsoft Games Studios From: [email protected]@inetgw or no change in Microsoft’s anti-competitive To: Microsoft ATR 801–275–6393 behaviour. Date: 1/28/02 5:18pm [email protected] Perhaps most unsettling is the area of DRM Subject: Microsoft settlement
VerDate 11
Microsoft has agreed to a variety of on their own lawsuits. Microsoft has done MTC–00028758 restrictions and obligations under the wonderful things for our country including From: john w orlandella settlement, all of which would restore a fair creating jobs, wealth, and making To: Microsoft ATR competitive atmosphere within the technological breakthroughs. Date: 1/28/02 5:24pm technology market. For example, Microsoft They shouldn’t be forced to disclose Subject: Microsoft settlement has agreed not to take retaliatory action interfaces that are internal to Windows I see no reason for the government to against any software producer or computer operating system products. They have spent continue the case against Microsoft. The only maker that introduces software into the huge amounts of money and resources ones who can possibly gain are the attorneys. market that competes with Microsoft. developing these secrets. They should also Please go with the current settlement and lets I do not believe that it is in the best public not be prohibited from entering into get this economy going again. interest to continue litigation. I urge you to agreements that obligate third parties to John and Jacqueline Orlandella support the settlement as it now stands. exclusively distribute Microsoft products. Redington Shores, Fl 33708 registered Sincerely, This inhibits their ability to gain market independents Spencer Black share. Nevertheless, the settlement should be MTC–00028759 MTC–00028754 implemented so that our IT sector can From: Dean Royalty From: Little Hen rebound. Our nation needs to pull out of To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR recession and cannot afford to have the Date: 1/28/02 5:25pm Date: 1/28/02 5:22pm government interfering with the most Subject: settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement successful businesses. Make the right choice To whom it my concern: Becky Garrett and do what is best for the public. End the It is my opinion that the proposed 11050 North Highway 59 dispute. Microsoft settlement should be finalized as Gravette, AR 72736 Sincerely, written. We, the public, need this enacted to January 28, 2002 help our economy to move forward, and help MTC–00028756 Attorney General John Ashcroft all who access the internet. As a senior, US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania From: Derik Stenerson I say it is now time to settle this matter in Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR this fair and equitable way. Washington, DC 20530 Date: 1/28/02 5:23pm Respectfully, Dean Royalty Dear Mr. Ashcroft: My name is Becky Subject: Microsoft Settlement CC:Winnie R. Hanna,Shirley M. Garrett. I am a resident of Gravette, Arkansas January 28, 2002 Trigg,sandra murphy,PAT... writing in support of the settlement recently Attorney General John Ashcroft reached between the federal government and US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania MTC–00028760 Microsoft. The public interest will not be Avenue, NW From: Linda Jo Hamlin served by reopening litigation against Washington, DC 20530–0001 To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft. Given all of the changes in Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Date: 1/28/02 5:25pm direction the case has taken to date, the I would like to voice my position of Subject: Microsoft Settlement outcome of additional litigation is far from support for concluding the litigation against Dear Antitrust Division, certain. You have a settlement agreement on Microsoft by approving the proposed I cannot even guess at what is fair or the table at this time that not only provides settlement with the Justice Department. This correct according to the law’s eyes to levy certainty in the outcome of the case, but also case has proved not to be the best use of the upon Microsoft, but I do want to comment provides increased opportunities for government’s resources, as the break-up regarding this issue. I have always used an competition in the industry. attempt has only led to protracted dispute apple computer (for many reasons) but I have Microsoft has agreed to either modify or with no resolution. Consequently, it seems to use some Microsoft software (Word) to eliminate allegedly anticompetitive business that accepting this current plan would be the process documents into booklets and layouts. practices in the areas of pricing, distribution best course of action for both sides at this This software often causes crashes as it tries contracts, relations with software developers, point. The terms will be very favorable to to install over my operating system. The and systems configuration. If the agreement Microsoft’s opponents without causing entire screen will freeze and go into a loop. is implemented, these concessions will lead severe disruption to its business model. When I reboot my computer, it alerts me that to great growth in the software and computer Computer makers will have more flexibility something has tried to rewrite my software. industries. I hope you decide to go forward to choose software programs for the Windows That is just a wrong thing to have happen. with the settlement. It is in the best interests operating system, and even to manage It is installed, I bought it, paid Microsoft for of all involved. specific features, like the supposedly it and that should be enough for Microsoft. Yours truly, controversial bundling options. Software The rest is nefarious intervention by software Becky Garrett developers will have unprecedented access written with a company’s agenda. Please cc: Representative Bob Stump to Windows internal interfaces and server reprimand this company fittingly. Today the protocols, as well as the ability to license its world of competition and deregulation is MTC–00028755 intellectual property. A non-partisan group of being swallowed up by profiteering. How can From: Bhanu Patel software experts will then monitor the the little guy protect himself from huge, To: Microsoft ATR process to ensure ongoing compliance. Based powerful and rich entities if there is no Date: 1/28/02 5:22pm on these actions and measures, it seems that substantial result from proven misdeeds? It Subject: microsoft settlement Microsoft is reaching out to the software must have consequence when actions are 5201 Meadowview Avenue community in a significant way to allow done that are not for the good of the North Bergen, NJ 07047 more competition in the marketplace. It economic system we have here in the United January 25, 2002 should be in the best interest of all parties States and the consequences should be a Attorney General John Ashcroft to take this opportunity and run with it, deterrent in the future to dissuade others US Department of Justice rather than delay further the possibility of a from the same type of actions. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW mutual solution. I look forward to your Thank you for your time reading this. I Washington, DC 20530 finalization of this agreement at your earliest appreciate it. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: convenience. Sincerely, I am writing to express my interest on the Thank you very much. Linda Jo Hamlin, one of the little guys. recent antitrust settlement between Microsoft Sincerely, and the US department of Justice. The Derik Stenerson MTC–00028761 lawsuit has gone on long enough and should 7845 235th PL NE From: Harlan Wilkerson be finalized. All that is happening now is Redmond, WA 98053Get more from the To: Microsoft ATR taxpayer dollars are being wasted and other Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : Date: 1/28/02 5:25pm companies are being given the chance to tack http://explorer.msn.com Subject: Proposed Settlement
VerDate 11
I feel that adoption of the proposed billions in capital, and isn’t even held liable Microsoft operating systems provide a boot settlement is not in the public interest. for the people’s costs in prosecuting the case. manager that allows consumers to use several The Appeals Court ordered the District In crafting a remedy that terminates the operating systems. In fact, Microsoft includes Court to craft a remedy that would ‘‘unfetter illegal monopoly or eliminates practices a boot manager that allows consumers to use [the] market from anticompetitive conduct,’’ likely to result in monopolization in the multiple (older) versions of Windows e.g. to ‘‘terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to future it is important that hearings be held Windows 2000 and Windows 98. The act of the defendant the fruits of its statutory to investigate how we got here in the first installing a Microsoft operating system violation, and ensure that there remain no place. The Federal Trade Commision and doesn’t invalidate a consumers licences for a practices likely to result in monopolization DOJ took up Microsoft’s trade practices competitors products. Yet installing (or in the future.’’ involving OEM per-machine-licensing of reinstalling) Microsoft Windows will always Windows has gained it’s market position MSDOS. During this case a private antitrust result in a consumers other operating systems not by consumer demand, but by Microsoft’s suit was brought against Microsoft by becoming inaccessable. This is almost total control of production. In the Caldera. That suit was settled but provided anticompetitive behavior. Microsoft should past, Microsoft has used exclusive OEM no relief for the millions of consumers who be required to automatically add other licensing and —marketing incentives to pass purchased Digital Research’s Disk Operating operating systems to it’s boot manager in the along the so-called ‘‘Microsoft tax’’ to every System. Digital publicly complained that same manner that it adds it’s own products. PC consumer. Most of the top 20 OEMs they had sufferred from Microsoft’s The DOJ and Microsoft appear to have simply don’t offer PC systems without the anticompetitive per-machine-licensing forgotten that this case is about—Personal Windows operating system pre-installed. scheme and were wrongly excluded from the Computers— if a consumer shops for a PC, Microsoft has urged (and rewarded) the 0EMs Windows 3.1 beta testing program—even and makes a purchase based on the software to ‘‘just say no’’ to buyers who request a so though they were participants in beta testing selection, it makes no sense to provide called ‘‘naked PC’’ (a PC with no pre- earlier versions of Windows. Digital’s Microsoft the arbitrary right within fourteen installed software). This is ironic since the Operating system didn’t compete with days to delete icons or programs and OEM’s associated support costs should Windows, but did compete with MSDOS. At substitute their own because they have actually be reduced. The OEMs that do offer the time these were seperate Microsoft retail judged the competitors product lacking in alternatives to Microsoft’s Windows charge products. The respected magazine and online some quality or state they deem essential. essentially the same price for non-Windows publication Dr Dobbs Journal revealed that Microsoft has stated that their power to models. This is true even for those with pre- the Windows 3.1 beta contained code that innovate or bundle applications into installied versions of absolutely free was only useful for detecting Digital Research Windows XP is essential to the economic operating systems e.g. Linux, or the BSDs. DOS. This code gave the user error messages recovery of the PC industry. The PC OEMs These operating systems can be freely or simply halted a users machine whenever have testified that there is no viable downloaded and installed on all of a Digital Research DOS was detected. Windows alternative to Windows. In the past year consumers PCs without any licensing fee version 4 and MSDOS version 7 were alone private business LANs and Internet whatsoever. Consumers who have opted to eventually bundled into Windows 95 which companies have suffered billions of dollars in install these free operating systems (on their carried exclusive OEM license agreements damages caused by trojan or virus programs own) are usually frustrated in any attempt to that didn’t permit OEMs to use or dual boot that specifically targeted Windows PCs. The obtain refunds from the OEMs for their other operating systems like Digital’s DOS. Executive and Legislative branches of the unused Windows licenses. This despite For example, some Hitachi PCs had a hidden Federal Government have recognized the provisions for a refund from the OEM that are copy of the BeOS that consumers could only Internet as a vital piece of our national and contained in the Microsoft Windows EULA. discover and activate using instructions on international infrastructure. They have It’s no accident that consumers can’t Hitachi’s web site. Digital, Hitachi and BeOS established agencies tasked with it’s determine the fair price of a PC under these have since exited the PC OEM and PC protection. Indeed one reason for pursuing circumstances. This was highlighted during Operating system business. For it’s part the the proposed settlement after September 11 the trial by a grass roots movement that DOJ has complained publicly that Microsoft was ‘‘the national interest’’. It’s hard to culminated in a ‘‘Windows Refund Day’’. violated the first consent agreement. The understand why much of Microsoft’s ill Consumers who purchase Microsoft practice of monopolies denying companies gotten monopoly shouldn’t be considered an Windows through an OEM usually have no that compete in any software catagory timely essential public facility. Certainly consumers standing in class action suits brought against access to APIs, and the practice of bundling have a right to migrate their own IP out of Microsoft. seperate retail products for anticompetitive proprietary Microsoft file formats. Microsoft Nothing in the proposed settlement reasons, and/or using exclusive licensing should be required to publish the file format prohibits Microsoft from continuing to offer agreements to harm competitors is a common information needed for other applications to OEMs existing forms of advertising or and recurring theme. The judge was correct interoperate with files created by MS Office. marketing incentives (on an equitable basis) in denying Microsoft’s request to limit the This is certainly the case with regard to to include Windows on every machine, or to scope of the remedies without an evidentiary Apple Computer users who have already decline to sell ‘‘naked PCs’’. We currently are hearing, and the DOJ was premature in been threatened with the cancellation of the in the worst economic recession in at least dropping their case in-main on product Apple version of MS Office. a decade. It’s doubtful that some of todays bundling. Microsoft is engaged in world-wide In conclusion, the court combined the OEMs will even survive. Nonetheless, many trade and the DOJ and European antitrust individual State and DOJ cases. A settlement of these same ‘‘equipment manufacturers’’ regulators seem uncoordinated and out of that doesn’t include half the plantiffs is at won’t sell their equipment at any price step. The European regulators have taken up best not a settlement. without pre-installed software from complaints that Microsoft has withheld Sincerely, Microsoft. This is hardly the behavior of an access to Windows server software API’s that Harlan L. Wilkerson unfettered market. are necessary for interoperability with other Hutchinson, KS. 67501 Microsoft should be required to post the network operating systems, and the bundling costs of it’s OEM products on a public web of Windows Media Player in Windows XP. MTC–00028762 site, and they should be precluded from Microsoft is not so quietly announcing it’s From: Kevin McCoy offerring any incentives to OEMs to curtail plans for a single Internet logon To: Microsoft ATR the sales of ‘‘naked PCs’’ authentication service it’s calling ‘‘.NET’’. Date: 1/28/02 5:25pm To paraphrase the Appeals Court by the The stated objective of this initiative is to Subject: Microsoft Settlement time this case is resolved the facts will be leverage the Windows monoply in order to I strongly disagree with the proposed ancient history, but the effects of the illegal create a new (Internet) monopoly. While settlement. It does not go nearly far enough acts will have caused harm nonetheless. The these practices may or may not be lawful, it’s to restore competition and deny Microsoft proposed remedy does nothing to ‘‘deny to doubtful that all of the practices likely to the fruits of their illegally obtained market the defendant the fruits of its statutory result in monopolization in the future have advantage. In particular the Office suite violation’’. Microsoft staunchly denies any been eliminated without a single hearing on monopoly is devastating to competitors and wrong doing in it’s public statements, retains the issues here in our courts. Most non- consumers through lack of choice. I think the
VerDate 11
nine states that are still pursuing litigation MTC–00028764 that it does not have what I nor others want. are much closer to purposing a remedy that From: [email protected]@inetgw I and every person and/or company must be is in agreement with the appeals courts To: Microsoft ATR free to create and sell their property to any findings. Date: 1/28/02 5:25pm other willing person and it is your job to Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft Settlement protect that most fundamental right not to Kevin D. McCoy To: Department of Justice undermine and punish it. Orem, Utah Re: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, Sam Axton MTC–00028763 Incredibly, the foremost innovative and economy enhancing company of the past fifty Reward is commensurate with effort. From: W. Curtiss Priest years has faced and continues to face an MTC–00028766 To: Microsoft ATR onslaught of legal challenges because of its Date: 1/28/02 5:26pm superior and highly successful business From: David Rahrer Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement: model. This is happening through the To: Microsoft ATR woefully insufficient combined conspiratorial actions of past Date: 1/28/02 6:25pm Dear Justice Department, federal and present state governments allied Subject: Microsoft Settlement As a software innovator and holder of with certain business companies, i.e., Sun To Whom It May Concern: several software patents, I have first hand Microsytems, Oracle, AOL, et al. What these It would be difficult in the time I have knowledge of how extremely brutal, unfair companies could not achieve in the ultimate available to describe the transparent and and bullying Microsoft is to others in the test—the marketplace—they seek to gain via political nature this case has taken. I will, industry. I was involved for five years in the use of Machiavellian chicanery and however, do my best to summarize some of negotiation, arbitration and potential legal political cronyism; particularly a number of my thoughts for the record, as I believe I action against Microsoft which only caused State Attorneys General and the foul, represent the majority of working America Microsoft to spend incredible resources to disgraced Clinton Justice Department. who simply don’t have the time to make their deny me and Humanic Systems any just and There is no harm here to the American or opinions formally known. It is these people due compensation for our innovative work. Foreign consumer. To the contrary, Microsoft who some parties continue to claim have In my opinion, as President of Humanic has made sense of the Internet and has been so desparately harmed by Microsoft. I Systems, a company that was (above) abused provided commonality and standardization don’t think this is so. by Microsoft regarding our intellectual and thus ease of use to the consumer, not It is clear that MS was extremely aggressive property for significant components of obscurantism and confusion such as that and, in some instances, outside the law in its Microsoft Outlook, the proposed remedy is which existed prior to the advent of persuit of the browser market. In the media extremely inadequate: Microsoft’s operating systems. at the time were boastings by Netscape that 1. It does not provide substantial redress If there is any illegality being practiced they would destroy windows, creating their for the prior losses caused by MS on others relative to the issues at hand concerning own desktop environment. They were quite 2. Secrecy provisions undermind the Microsoft, it is the conspiracy of Government serious and I think MS realized that. I would ability to obtain API information and will operating hand in hand with some of the also like you to recognize that NS browsers systematically be used by MS, in my opinion, slimiest, slipperiest billionaire business were freely downloadable at the time and to continue its monopoly stranglehold operatives, and their surrogates, in existence find it hard to believe that sales to average 3. There are no structural remedies, and, in the world today. consumers were a significant source of without those, the ‘‘fascist’’ mindset of The Government must reward business revenue. It was the corporate sales that drove Ballmer and Gates will continue to dominate excellence and innovativeness; Government their engine so please keep in perspective the thinking of each and every employee must recognize and commend those that the majority of consumers were not 4. Microsoft’s stated opinions about enterprises that enhance economic activity; paying for the endless revisions of the NS various forms of open software, being a the Government and the Courts must not Browser, they simply downloaded and ‘‘cancer’’ undermines the ability for penalize achievement and success to satisfy installed it. consumers to get the maximum benefit for the politically connected obstructionist When MS came out with IE, it was not very the least cost losers. good and most people continued using NS, This position, alone, demonstrates that even though IE came with Windows 95. What they want ‘‘all the marbles’’ and it is a MTC–00028765 difference does it make which ‘‘comes with’’ ‘‘winner take all’’ game From: Sam Axton the OS. Do the complaintants believe the Consider, for example, a PBS documentary To: Microsoft ATR public is so stupid that they just take what about extreme competition as taught within Date: 1/28/02 5:24pm is put before them? It was because IE became the Gates family as Mr. Gates grew up Subject: Microsoft Settlement so much better than NS that NS failed. They This person does not know the word Renata B. Hesse had geared themselves towoard owning the cooperation, and, without extremely Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice market—their own ‘‘monopoly’’—and then directive measures, will never show 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 beyond to the desktop. It didn’t happen, in cooperation to the rest of the software Washington, DC 20530–0001 large part because MS created a much better industry that is slowly dying under his or to whom it may concern, browser and, forseeing that the Internet ruthless hand. I am opposed, in principle, to any penalty would be an extension of the desktop Very truly yours, meted to Microsoft for anti-trust reasons. I environment, included it as standard Dr. W. Curtiss Priest use Microsoft products voluntarily which is equipment with Windows. To this day one President, Humanic Systems the only way one can use their products. Any can install any browser one chooses—even Director, Center for Information, claim to the contrary is simply wrong. pay for Opera. Or, one has the choice of using Technology & Society The free market will punish anyone who what comes with the Windows OS. Those Member, American Economics Association mistreats their customers. Microsoft has been 12% of users who purchase Apple systems, Prior, Principal Research Associate, MIT nothing short of wonderful to the success of also have a built-in browser but can install Author,—Technological Innovation for a my business and personal life. They deserve any they like. For those of us that have been Dynamic Economy—, 1980 (Pergamon Press) their success and must be left unhindered to using computers for a long time, it is quite —Risks, Concerns and Social Legislation— continue their efforts for my best interests. I obvious that MS has done the , 1988 (Westview Press) do not want you to presume to tell me what unimaginable—converted a world of W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS software configuration I want in my fragmented systems and hardware to the Center for Information, Technology & computer nor what any company can bundle interchangable, useful, indespensible marvels Society to meet my needs. I will decide whether of today. It had to happen that someone 466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA 02176 Microsoft or any other company is a success would do this, and I think it is the picture Voice: 781–662–4044 [email protected] for me or not. of an American success story that they did. Fax: 781–662–6882 WWW: http:// The idea that another company cannot We should not be continually beating on a Cybertrails.org compete with Microsoft is every indication company that is in reality the crown jewel of
VerDate 11
American enterprise. What better example Attorney General John Ashcroft that its Windows brand of operating systems can you offer? And all this because it’s US Department of Justice software gives it over competitors. Simply fashionable to hate the big guy, and also that 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW allowing this company to give away so many some people would rather blame their own Washington, DC 20530–0001 billion dollars worth of retail software is business model failures on MS instead of Dear Mr. Ashcroft: ineffective. This will not only not cost the finding ways to innovate. I am writing in full support of the recent company anything like the sticker price of To be perfectly blunt, as a middleclass, settlement between Microsoft and the US the donations, but in fact allow it to more average American, I have been quite Department of Justice. firmly entrench itself into area it already has disgusted during most of this process. MS Although the lawsuit was lengthy and inroads into. Monetary damages should be doesn’t produce tobacco , they aren’t the costly for taxpayers, I am happy that settled in CASH, and the company should be enemy. They deserve to be fined and put on Microsoft will not be broken up. The terms subjected to direct oversight of its activities notice about the laws they did in fact of the settlement seem fair. for at least five years. This seems to be the violate—not to have a state by state feeding Under the terms of the settlement outside amount of time for it to develop a frenzy on the most viable corporation in our Microsoft has agreed to improve its relations generation of products all the way across the country—all fueled by none other than. . . with computer makers and software board, and tying its hands for this length of Competitors. It’s not moral, should not be developers. It has also agreed to design future time will help other companies to get a legal and the rest of the world is laughing the Windows versions so that competitors can foothold they badly need to compete. hidious way we have allowed it to happen. more easily promote their own products. Sincerely, It is unfortunate, but I believe much of the These concessions and more make up the Andrew Neely correspondance you receive will be from basis for a settlement that is aimed at those with an axe to grind or who followed protecting consumer rights. MTC–00028771 the directions on a form letter with hopes of While it is not perfect, it is the best thing From: [email protected]@inetgw collecting an offered prize. You probably that could happen. Our nation needs To: Microsoft ATR won’t hear from the majority, those who are Microsoft back in action and innovating like Date: 1/28/02 5:27pm simply working and enjoying the bright, they have been for over 10 years. Hopefully, Subject: (no subject) boundless world open to them through the your office can overcome any opposition Renata B. Hesse Internet and their computer. Not only would there may be in the federal government to the Antitrust Division they not be enjoying this as easily or as settlement, and bring a swift end to this U.S.Department of Justice cheaply if MS had not been sucessful, but already tiresome case. Thank you. Washington DC 20530–000i they might not be enjoying it at all. These are Sincerely, I’m writing to you in the hope that you will the people who are collectively thrown Paula Lazutin move forward in settling the complaints around in discussions by politicians and sour President of Alco Marketing and Sales against Microsoft as the agreement that your CEO’s hoping to score points or money by Microsoft shareholder office has recommended. attacking MS while it’s fashionable. As a faithful taxpayer and retirees, my wife I emplore you to settle this trial as swiftly MTC–00028770 and I rely on the economy being strong. and as close to the current framework as From: Andrew Neely Microsoft is a present and future major player possible. It has run on far too long as it is To: Microsoft ATR to that end. and we have far, far, more important things Date: 1/28/02 5:22pm Thankyou. to work on. Thank you for your time. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, David Rahrer As a longtime computer user, and recent Ron and MaryLou Pettengill MTC–00028767 professional who uses both Windows and 84 Westover Drive Macintosh both at work and at home, I feel Webster, NY 14580 From: bobalexander that without a doubt, Microsoft is a predatory CC:[email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR monopoly. I have used many different Date: 1/28/02 5:26pm software products, and it has only been in the MTC–00028772 Subject: microsoft settlement last three years or so, during the intense From: Gil Friend please approve settlement as is. it is both pressure that the DOJ initially brought to bear To: Microsoft ATR fair and reasonable. with it’s antitrust lawsuit that I’ve even seen Date: 1/28/02 5:27pm MTC–00028768 anything in the way of alternate OS offerings Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw making their way onto store shelves and into Renata B. Hesse To: Microsoft ATR OEM computers. Antitrust Division Date: 1/28/02 5:26pm Microsoft has not only dominated the OS United States Department of Justice Subject: Microsoft action market to the detriment of its competition, 601 D Street NW To: DOJ
VerDate 11
problem, enabling Microsoft to maintain an US Department of Justice view that as the settlement is written, it effective ‘‘lock’’ on the applications market. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW appears fair to all parties. Apparently, In addition, the proposed settlement fails Washington, DC 20530 Microsoft has made numerous changes to to address the critical ‘‘applications barrier to Dear Mr. Ashcroft: satisfy this agreement, including agreeing to entry’’ associated with the installed base of I want to take a moment to express my work with a Technical Committee that will 70,000 Windows applications, enabling support for the settlement reached in serve as a watchdog of its activities and Microsoft to maintain an effective ‘‘lock’’ on November between Microsoft and the practices. It seems to me that Microsoft and the operating systems market by denying Department of Justice. I believe the the government, possibly no lover of the competitors with other operating systems the settlement is fair to both sides and represents company, have hammered out an agreement information needed to run these other an opportunity for everyone to move forward. that each party can live with. Since this is applications on other operating systems. Any The terms of the settlement are very strict the case, there should be no reason to alter settlement must make it easier—not harder— and mandate a number of concessions from the agreement...I have become increasingly for competitors to run the Windows Microsoft. Among the terms of the cynical, believing that additional applications. settlement, Microsoft has agreed to license its requirements are wanted by competitors to Consumers, not Microsoft, should decide Windows operating system products to the satisfy their interests, certainly NOT the what products are on their computers. The twenty largest computer makers on identical ‘‘public’s’’. settlement must eliminate Microsoft’s various terms and conditions, including price. My life, and my business’’ life, have been barriers—business and technical—to There should be no question as to improved and made easier by Microsoft. The allowing combinations of non-Microsoft Microsoft’s compliance with the terms of the adage ‘‘crying over sprit milk’’ has been a operating systems, applications, and software settlement. It calls for a technical committee tactic for decades. It is time for competitors components to run properly with Microsoft to monitor Microsoft’s business practices in to step up their efforts to compete: to products. the future. innovate, improve and participate in the The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff I hope that your continued support for technology revolution that just won’t quit. I Litigating States are in the public interest and finalizing the settlement will convince those also support the philanthropic works of the absolutely necessary, but they are not states who are moving forward in their Gates family and feel certain they will sufficient without these remedies. litigation to amend their positions. continue to lead the US in discovering and The Tunney Act provides for the Court to It is well past the point for the federal and pursuing worthwhile projects, some that the hold public proceedings, with citizens and state governments to focus their resources on United States has ignored or underfunded for consumer groups afforded an equal more urgent matters, like stimulating our decades. Let Microsoft’s competitors follow opportunity to participate, along with economy. in its footsteps and show the world that the Microsoft’s competitors and customers. I Sincerely, corporate world can think beyond the hope you will encourage those proceedings, William Foerster ‘‘bottom line’’ and lead with generosity. Thank you for calling for comments, and for and consider carefully how to proceed in this MTC–00028774 matter. Your decisions have great your attention. From: Ernest Kahn significance for the health of the US Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR economy’s most vital industries, by Carola Lewis Date: 1/28/02 5:29pm eliminating Microsoft’s ability to illegal Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028777 constrain markets and innovation. BlankTo whom it may concern From: Edward Becerra Thank you for the opportunity to comment In my experience Microsoft has turned out To: Microsoft ATR on this important matter. good products a fair prices, It seems that their Date: 1/28/02 5:40pm Sincerely yours, products where simply better than others and Subject: Microsoft Settlement Gil Friend they facilitated communications. I am opposed to tentative settlement of the President & CEO Ernest J. Kahn United States vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. Natural Logic, Inc. Sharon, MA Edward Becerra PO Box 119 Haxtun, Colorado 80731 Berkeley CA 94701 MTC–00028775 Natural Logic, Inc. From: Jim MTC–00028778 More value. Less stuff.[tm] To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw Tel: 1–877–NatLogic Date: 1/28/02 5:29pm To: Microsoft ATR http://www.NatLogic.com Subject: anti trust Date: 1/28/02 5:31pm MTC–00028773 I think America has forgotten that Bill Subject: Microsoft Settlement Gates has brought this country to where it is. Dear Attorney General John Ashcroft; From: Bill Foerster Any attack against him is from greed and Now is the time to drop the charges against To: Microsoft ATR jelousy. He has created more jobs than any Microsoft and get on with the real business Date: 1/28/02 5:31 pm one else in the area of free interprise. I at hand, the Enron mess!! Microsoft has not Subject: Microsoft Settlement personally am ashamed my country would caused thousands of people to loose their US DOJ: do this to him. jobs, caused millions of people to loose much Attached is a letter expressing my support James Payne of their life savings, and to be so closely tied for the proposed settlement with Microsoft. to the Bush administration, that it causes Regards, MTC–00028776 concern among voters. Microsoft is just doing Bill From: [email protected]@inetgw a better job than the rest and should be William M. Foerster To: Microsoft ATR allowed to continue it’s leadership role. We Foerster Bhupathi International, LLC Date: 1/28/02 5:30pm all benefit from their expertice. 8111 Preston Road, Suite 600 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dale Schendel, Dallas, Texas 75225 Please see attachment Bloomington, Mn 1.214.369.3242 (business) 28 Suncrest Terrace 1.214.369.5363 (fax) Oneonta, NY 13820 MTC–00028779 1.214.244.9400 (cell) January 28, 2002 From: [email protected]@inetgw [email protected] Attorney General John Ashcroft To: Microsoft ATR www.fbillc.com US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Date: 1/28/02 5:32pm William Foerster Avenue, NW Subject: Microsoft Settlement 8111 Preston Road Washington, DC 20530–0001 Renata B. Hesse Suite 610 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Antitrust Division Dallas, TX 75218 Today is the last day that I can contact you US Dept. of Justice (Legal) January 25, 2002 regarding the finalization of the Microsoft The settlement is more then generous. I do Attorney General John Ashcroft antitrust settlement. I would like to share my not, and did not agree with the government
VerDate 11
action. It is not the justice departments job that the only thing keeping it going is the number of companies that all have rights to to aid and abet competitors who cannot make strong ‘‘Litigation and Lobby’’ being financed sell and develop newly forked versions of the it on their own. by Microsoft competitors who are able to operating system would be a great first step. As an example, I cannot buy a Chrysler keep the pressure on the nine states that But if this cannot be accomplished, there are auto frame, and a General Motors Body and won’t buy in to your settlement. At least the still several things that the Department of a Ford Transmission, yet that is what you DOJ settlement seems to have us (consumers) Justice can do to help with the state of have asked Microsoft to do with it’s software. in mind rather than the welfare of the Microsoft’s monopoly. To force a company to design product so that Microsoft competitors. There should be no monetary penalties others made add on to it is nut justice. It The sooner we can get back to letting these from Microsoft for original equipment maybe legal, but not justice. Were we the companies spend their money on R & D manufacturers (OEMs) that sell computers public to start to buy all Fords, would you rather than lawyers, the better off we will all bundled with Microsoft’s operating systems take action against Ford to force them to be. for the inclusion of any software, whether redesign there product so that Chrysler can Thanks for listening. Sun’s Java Virtual Machine, Netscape/AOL’s put its motor in? I think not. MTC–00028782 Netscape browser, free alternatives to ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT AND GET Microsoft Office, or the ability to ?dual-boot? OUT OF THE CASE NOW. From: Timothy Buckley into other alternative operating systems CC:[email protected]@inetgw To: ‘‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ preinstalled on the machine, like Linux or Date: 1/28/02 5:32pm MTC–00028780 FreeBSD. For every pre-packaged solution Subject: Microsoft Settlement offered by Microsoft, whether its Internet From: [email protected]@inetgw I believe this case is a deliberate attempt Explorer, MediaPlayer, or what-have-you, To: Microsoft ATR by companies such as Netscape to use legal there should be another, out of the box Date: 1/28/02 5:32pm methods to help level the playing field alternative for computer users ready for use Subject: Microsoft settlement instead of innovating and creating a better like Mozilla or Real’s I am responding to the U.S. goverment’s product. I urge the court to accept the RealPlayer or Apple’s QuickTime. These challenge to Microsoft regarding their proposed remedies, and let this case be done should not be secondary products, but true conduct in the competitive marketplace. I am and over with. Any further remedies will alternatives that users can choose upon first speaking from the position of a retired CEO only serve to help Microsoft’s competitors, booting their new computers, and should for one of Howard Hughes’’ companies. not Microsoft’s consumers. also be alternatives that can be accessed at a I see a great parallel between the Microsoft Thank you, future date. case and the lawsuit against Hughes by TWA. Tim Buckley Simply put, not enough has been done to After years of legal actions it finally reached Lead Credit Coordinator level the playing field. Microsoft’s aggressive the Supreme Court. In short order it was (425) 889–3930 thrown out. Hughes won. The reason was tendencies can be counterbalanced by logic. Hughes owned 70 percent of the TWA MTC–00028783 providing a level playing field for OEM’s to stock when he was challenged with From: Allan Engle/wellness/stusvc/Okstate sell their hardware of choice with software of mismanagement! The Supreme Court To: Microsoft ATR choice without punishing those who have recognized the obvious. He had the legal Date: 1/28/02 5:34pm put in hard work at Microsoft unduly as well. right to make the decisions involved. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Please reconsider your original, relatively The Microsoft case is different in detail, To whom it may concern: light sentencing. but identical in concept. The actions each In regard to Microsoft’s long history of Wm. Ruffin Bailey were (are) are charged with represent normal, noncompliance, and their more recent delay Turben Place legal and proper competitive practice. Both and defer strategies, I would strongly urge Mount Pleasant, SC 29466 Hughes and Microsoft had the right to that you scrap the proposed settlement in MTC–00028785 optimize their hard won positions just as favor of a penalty that is more self-enforcing. every other company does in the worldwide Breakup of the company would meet this From: Michael Crozier marketplace. A point missed by the Monday criteria. If you give them the leeway To: Microsoft ATR morning, arm-chair critics is that competition contained in the proposed settlement, they Date: 1/28/02 5:33pm is based on survival. The professional will attempt to circumvent it at every Subject: Comments on the PFJ for USA vs MS football team doesn’t let up on the opposing opportunity. I am fully in agreement to the criticisms of team because it might lose the game in the Sincerely, the PFJ that Dan Kegal has collected at http:/ process. The competitors in the Microsoft Allan Engle /www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html. case know this is the way competition works. Allan Engle, Ph.D. In particular, I am concerned with the They operate this way too! In fact their Certified Novell Administrator licencing practices that Microsoft uses with present legal action is just another weapon Oklahoma State University OEM’s and end user software. they chose to use. And the state attourney Seretean Wellness Center Michael Crozier generals who are fighting Microsoft see profit 405–744–6838 834 NE Shaver ST for their state or political advantage. Portland OR 97212 MTC–00028784 My plea is not to let them get away with MTC–00028786 it!! There is no end to this sort of challenge From: Ruffin Bailey to the healthy capitalist system where To: Microsoft ATR From: Vicky Francis innovation is the engine. My suggestion is to Date: 1/28/02 5:34pm To: Microsoft ATR review the TWA versus Hughes Tool Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 5:37pm Company decision by the Under the Tunney Act, I would like to Subject: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Supreme Court as a reference. comment on the proposed Microsoft January 28, 2002 Tom Stuelpnagel settlement. Attorney General John Ashcroft [email protected] I find the punishments levied for a US Department of Justice (805) 595 2771 company that ?engaged in a variety of 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW exclusionary acts designed to protect its Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00028781 operating system monopoly? are wholly Dear Mr. Ashcroft: From: Stan Smith inadequate, amounting to little more than a I am in favor of the settlement of the To: Microsoft ATR slap on the wrist. I would like the settlement Microsoft antitrust case. In a perfect world, Date: 1/28/02 5:30pm to have more teeth that would serve to I would like to see the case dropped in its Subject: Microsoft Settlement officially level the playing field in the entirety. To: Department of Justice personal computer operating system market However, I recognize that the likelihood of From: Stanford L. Smith (User of Windows) without hurting the people at Microsoft that this happening is slim, so I support the steps Please do whatever you can to bring this have put in countless hours to create what is Microsoft is taking to bring this case to a whole Microsoft action to a close. It appears a useful product. Splitting Microsoft into a conclusion. The terms of the settlement
VerDate 11
agreement are more than fair. In fact, I think attached the firm objections of the KDE competitor to Microsoft Windows in the they are entirely too harsh. For example, League, Inc. to the above- referenced desktop operating system market and the Microsoft has agreed to the creation of a proposed final judgment (the ‘‘Proposal’’). strongest factor in the expansion of UNIX- technical oversight committee that will The KDE League is a group of industry based operating systems in the server market. monitor the way they conduct their business. leaders and KDE developers focused on The defendant has now clearly observed In our free enterprise system, this seems facilitating the promotion, distribution, and that in fact KDE is ready and able to expand especially restrictive. They have also agreed development of KDE. KDE is a contemporary, the role of Open Source as well as to not retaliate against those who compete free ‘‘Open Source’’ desktop environment. proprietary UNIXes on the office, school and against them, or those who promote In many ways, KDE is the functional home desktop, as well as on TV settop boxes, Microsoft’s competitors. Our free market does equivalent of Windows. It consists of a webpads, handheld- devices and other not appear to be so free after all. modern, elegant, intuitive desktop computing platforms. While I think the agreement really goes environment, including a modern browser, The KDE League strongly feels that the much farther than it should, I fully support accompanied by a host of easy-to-use and proposed settlement does not adequately Microsoft’s decision to do what is best for easy-to-learn applications, including the protect KDE from the defendant’s monopoly consumers, the economy, and the IT industry productivity/office suite KOffice. In addition, power, and hence leaves the defendant free as a whole—and that is to move on. KDE provides a broad array of intuitive to attempt to crush its strongest potential Thank you. graphical configuration tools. In fact, competitor in an anticompetitive manner. In Sincerely, APPS.KDE.com (a KDE/Qt application fact, we anticipate that if the Proposal is Vicky Francis website) lists over 1,250 publicly-available approved, the defendant may feel even less KDE applications (it should be noted that tethered than it has during the course of this MTC–00028787 someone using KDE can also run a number seven-plus-year proceeding to use unlawful From: Morton M Vogel of non-KDE applications, such as GNOME, practices to attempt to derail KDE from To: Microsoft ATR Motif, wxWindows, X, etc. applications). widespread acceptance. The fact that the Date: 1/28/02 5:37pm The comprehensive set of tools available to government has refused my requests for Subject: microsoft settlement KDE users combine to make system meetings to discuss how the Proposal might It is time to bring the above matter to administration substantially easier than the be reworded to provide some comfort that the finalization. The time, effort and money standard command-line-driven UNIX/Linux defendant will be unable to use unlawful being expended on this extended litagation is administration, and hence make Linux and practices to crushing its strongest competitor wrong. At this time we should be expending other UNIXes more competitive with adds little solace to a weakly-worded our efforts to enhance and develope the best Microsoft not only in the desktop markets but document. in the computer world, both hardware and also in the server operating system markets. At this juncture I would like to disclose sfotware and not be bogged down in non While KDE is most commonly used in that, from the time of commencement of this productive situations. Reach a settlement conjunction with Linux, it is extremely case until approximately June 1999, I was now, so that we can all move forward. portable and versatile, and does not depend employed as an attorney by counsel for the Litigation does not produce progress- only on any particular operating system. For defendant in this matter. However, I was additional income for the legal profession. example, it also runs successfully on many exclusively involved in representing other Morton M. Vogel other systems (such as Sun’s Solaris, clients in unrelated matters. I never e-mail Mortlee@ Juno.com Compaq’s Tru64, IBM’s AIX, HP’s HP-UX, performed any legal services for the CC:[email protected]@inetgw and other UNIXes). defendant, nor was ! ever exposed to any Moreover, since KDE is based on an non-public information about the defendant, MTC–00028788 outstanding graphical toolkit called Qt, and whether relating to this litigation or From: [email protected]@inetgw since Qt is also available for Windows, the otherwise. To: Microsoft ATR new Mac OS X, as well as embedded devices I would also like to point out that the Date: 1/28/02 5:37pm (such as Sharp’s new Zaurus), KDE has the views and opinions in this memorandum Subject: Microsoft Settlement potential to become a familiar environment express the views of the KDE League, and Please find attached the objections to the deployed in a broad array of heterogeneous may not necessarily express the views of its settlement proposal. The original format is environments. members. .sxw (OpenOffice), and I apologize in As you are undoubtedly aware, Microsoft Best regards, advance for any problems in converting it to has often been noted, during the trial and Andreas Pour MS Word, RTF and HTML formats, which I particularly in recent months, as viewing Chairman also attach. I will fax a copy in short order Open Source as the only significant challenge KDE League, Inc. so you may see the original. to its reign. So far, Open Source—particularly Introduction Unfortunately some time commitments Linux—has been largely limited to server The KDE League opposes the above- have prevented me from fully addressing all systems. But in recent months the defendant referenced proposed final judgment (the the issues. Within the next week or two a has been paying increasing attention to KDE, ‘‘Proposal’’). Specifically, the Proposal lacks more complete draft will be available. I pray and at this juncture KDE is the major direct adequate enforcement provisions, is too you will still consider it that time- given the competitor with Microsoft Windows desktop limited in scope, and fails to address issues utmost importance of this settlement on the operating system products and Microsoft of restitution. Our objections will focus on future of our society and the freedoms which middleware and productivity applications the specific problems faced by an Open we enjoy. and, through its capacity to simplify Source project such as KDE/Linux, though Best regards, installation, usage and administration, a many will apply more broadly as well. Andreas Pour major indirect competitor with the defendant In conducting its review, the Court should Chairman in the server operating system market. bear in mind the applicable provisions of 15 KDE League, Inc. In recognition of the strength and power of U.S.C. Sec. 16(e): Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice KDE as a desktop environment, an ever- (e) Public interest determination 601 D Street NW Suite 1200 growing body of companies and governments Before entering any consent judgment Washington, DC 20530–0001 have started the switch to KDE, including the proposed by the United States under this The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly Korean government, which is migrating section, the court shall determine that the United States District Court for the District of 120,000 office workers to KDE from entry of such judgment is in the public Columbia Windows, and other companies and interest. For the purpose of such 333 Constitution Avenue, NW governments are seriously contemplating the determination, the court may consider— Washington, DC 20001 switch, including the government of (1) the competitive impact of such Re: US v. Microsoft, Civil Action No. 98– Germany. Due to its maturity, low cost, judgment, including termination of alleged 1232: Revised Proposed Final Judgment features and active developer community, as violations, provisions for enforcement and The Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly and well as due to the freedoms KDE grants its modification, duration or relief sought, the US Department of Justice: Please find users, KDE constitutes the most viable anticipated effects of alternative remedies
VerDate 11
actually considered, and any other The clearest implication of this provision is two years after the expiration of the term of considerations bearing upon the adequacy of that the defendant is not legally determined his or her service on the TC. such judgment; to be a ‘‘monopoly’’ in this case for purposes 3. Within 7 days of entry of this Final (2) the impact of entry of such judgment of res judicata or collateral estoppel. Judgment, the Plaintiffs as a group and upon the public generally and individuals Microsoft has proven in this case that, for all Microsoft shall each select one member of the alleging specific injury from the violations practical resources, it has infinite resources, TC, and those two members shall then select set forth in the complaint including time, tenacity and patience to fight any the third member. The selection and consideration of the public benefit, if any, to potential litigants. In fact, recent SEC filings approval process shall proceed as follows. be derived from a determination of the issues indicate that the defendant is sitting on a $36 a. As soon as practicable after submission at trial. billion cash horde. Even the government, of this Final Judgment to the Court, the As the Supreme Court wrote in U.S. v. with all its resource, has fought for almost Plaintiffs as a group and Microsoft shall each Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966): We start seven- and-a-half years, only to end up with identify to the other the individual it from the premise that adequate relief in a a Proposal which only the defendant’s proposes to select as its designee to the TC. monopolization case should put an end to stockholders could cheer about. How is a The Plaintiffs and Microsoft shall not object the combination and deprive the defendants free, open project like KDE to obtain redress to each other’s selection on any ground other of any of the benefits of the illegal conduct, against such a tenacious and resourceful than failure to satisfy the requirements of and break up or render impotent the opponent? Section IV.B.2 above. Any such objection monopoly power found to be in violation of Though the conclusion was obvious to all shall be made within ten business days of the the Act. That is the teaching of our cases, judges engaged in this matter, both at trial receipt of notification of selection. notably Schine Theatres v. United States, 334 and on appeal, the fact is that virtually no b. The Plaintiffs shall apply to the Court for U.S. 110, 128 -129. private plaintiff will be able to afford to appointment of the persons selected by the prove that Microsoft is a monopoly, a As a result of its limited, if not negligible, Plaintiffs and Microsoft pursuant to Section necessary first step in obtaining relief against scope, the absence of any enforcement IV.B.3.a above. Any objections to the the defendant should it continue to abuse its provisions for private litigants who have eligibility of a selected person that the parties monopoly position shouldered the expense of the trial already have failed to resolve between themselves Second, the enforcement provisions of the shall be decided by the Court based solely on and who have been financially injured by the Proposal are weak enough to amount to defendant, and the absence of any restitution the requirements stated in Section IV.B.2 nothing but a ruse. For example, the above. to the victims of the defendants’’ unlawful ‘‘Technical Committee’’ which is charged conduct, the Proposal is at best palpably c. As soon as practical after their with the duty to ‘‘assist in enforcement of appointment by the Court, the two members without, if not directly against, the public and compliance with th[e] Final’’ Judgment, of the TC selected by the Plaintiffs and interest. As has been said by industry analyst are (1) picked by MS (though one is picked Microsoft (the ‘‘Standing Committee Robert X. Cringely, ‘‘If this deal goes through by MS and one by Justice and the third by Members’’) shall identify to the Plaintiffs and as it is written, Microsoft will emerge from the first two, in light of how this Proposal Microsoft the person that they in turn the case not just unscathed, but stronger than signals the government’’ practical before’’. abandonment of prosecution of this matter, propose to select as the third member of the Unenforceable. and in light of the defendant’s tenacity, it is TC. The Plaintiffs and Microsoft shall not The Proposal makes enforcement of its likely in our opinion that the third person object to this selection on any grounds other minimal restrictions by parties actually will favor the defendant); (2) sworn to than failure to satisfy the requirements of harmed by the defendant’s violation of its secrecy; (3) paid by MS; (4) required to work Section IV.B.2 above. Any such objection provisions practically impossible. In on MS’s ‘‘campus’’; and (5) unable to speak shall be made within ten business days of the particular, should the defendant use with any MS employee without an MS receipt of notification of the selection and unlawful and anti-competitive practices lawyer present. See Proposal, Section IV.B. shall be served on the other party as well as against KDE, neither the KDE developers nor The Proposal reads in relevant part: on the Standing Committee Members. the KDE League will be likely to obtain B. Appointment of a Technical Committee d. The Plaintiffs shall apply to the Court redress for such violations. This failure may 1. Within 30 days of entry of this Final for appointment of the person selected by the ultimately deny consumers the choice to Judgment, the parties shall create and Standing Committee Members. If the forgo the use of some or all of defendants’’ recommend to the Court for its appointment Standing Committee Members cannot agree products. a three-person Technical Committee (‘‘TC’’) on a third member of the TC, the third To ensure private litigants, who, as the to assist in enforcement of and compliance member shall be appointed by the Court. Any courts so far have agreed, have been with this Final Judgment. objection by Microsoft or the Plaintiffs to the financially injured by the defendant, have a 2. The TC members shall be experts in eligibility of the person selected by the remedy for the defendant’s unlawful software design and programming. No TC Standing Committee Members which the conduct, and so that the defendant’s member shall have a conflict of interest that parties have failed to resolve among competitors, such as KDE, can have the hope could prevent him or her from performing his themselves shall also be decided by the Court to obtain justice should the defendant or her duties under this Final Judgment in a based on the requirements stated in Section continues its pattern of unlawful practices, fair and unbiased manner. Without limitation W.B.2 above. the Government should require that to the foregoing, no TC member (absent the 4. Each TC member shall serve for an Microsoft admit to its standing as a agreement of both parties): initial term of 30 months. At the end of a TC monopolist and the violations of the a. shall have been employed in any member’s initial 30-month term, the party Sherman Act affirmed by the court of capacity by Microsoft or any competitor to that originally selected him or her may, in its appeals, together with any additional Microsoft within the past year, nor shall she sole discretion, either request re-appointment violations this Court may find upon remand or he be so employed during his or her term by the Court to a second 30-month term or of, and consistent with, the appellate court’s on the TC; replace the TC member in the same manner order. b. shall have been retained as a consulting as provided for in Section IV.B.3.a above. In or testifying expert by any person in this [pour 1] the case of the third member of the TC, that action or in any other action adverse to or on The proposed remedies are inadequate for member shall be re-appointed or replaced in behalf of Microsoft; or private litigants for the following reasons. the manner provided in Section W.B.3.c c. shall perform any other work for First, the Final Judgment provides that it above. Microsoft or any competitor of Microsoft for ‘‘does not constitute any admission by any 5. If the United States determines that a party regarding any issue of fact or law’’.2 member of the TC has failed to act diligently regarding any issue of fact or law; and thwart and consistently with the purposes of this competition in its markets. The Government, having Final Judgment, or if a member of the TC 1 See Robert X. Cringely, He’s Not in It for the fought its battle in what in technological terms is Profit (Dec. 6, 2001, PBS Presents). a generation, cannot really take seriously its resigns, or for any other reason ceases to 2 See Proposal, Preamble. The Proposal reads in reference to remedies under Section 4 of the serve in his or her capacity as a member of relevant part: AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment Clayton Act in Article VI of its Competitive Impact the TC, the person or persons that originally does not constitute any admission by any party Statement (doc. 9549). selected the TC member shall select a
VerDate 11
replacement member in the same manner as interrogate and interact with the source code 1. Microsoft shall designate, within 30 days provided for in Section IV.B.3. in order to perform its functions and duties, of entry of this Final Judgment, an internal 6. Promptly after appointment of the TC by including the handling of complaints and Compliance Officer who shall be an the Court, the United States shall enter into other inquiries from non-parties. employee of Microsoft with responsibility for a Technical Committee services agreement d. The TC shall receive complaints from administering Microsoft’s antitrust (‘‘TC Services Agreement’’) with each TC the Compliance Officer, third parties or the compliance program and helping to ensure member that grants the rights, powers and Plaintiffs and handle them in the manner compliance with this Final Judgment. authorities necessary to permit the TC to specified in Section IV.D below. 2. The Compliance Officer shall supervise perform its duties under this Final Judgment. e. The TC shall report in writing to the the review of Microsoft’s activities to ensure Microsoft shall indemnify each TC member Plaintiffs every six months until expiration of that they comply with this Final Judgment. and hold him or her harmless against any this Final Judgment the actions it has He or she may be assisted by other employees losses, claims, damages, liabilities or undertaken in performing its duties pursuant of Microsoft. expenses arising out of, or in connection to this Final Judgment, including the 3. The Compliance Officer shall be with, the performance of the TC’s duties, identification of each business practice responsible for performing the following reviewed and any recommendations made by except to the extent that such liabilities, activities: the TC. losses, damages, claims, or expenses result a. within 30 days after entry of this Final f. Regardless of when reports are due, from misfeasance, gross negligence, willful or Judgment, distributing a copy of the Final wanton acts, or bad faith by the TC member. when the TC has reason to believe that there may have been a failure by Microsoft to Judgment to all officers and directors of The TC Services Agreements shall include Microsoft; the following. comply with any term of this Final Judgment, the TC shall immediately notify the Plaintiffs b. promptly distributing a copy of this a. The TC members shall serve, without Final Judgment to any person who succeeds bond or other security, at the cost and in writing setting forth the relevant details. to a position described in Section IV.C.3.a expense of Microsoft on such terms and g. TC members may communicate with above; conditions as the Plaintiffs approve, non-parties about how their complaints or c. ensuring that those persons designated including the payment of reasonable fees and inquiries might be resolved with Microsoft, in Section W.C.3.a above are annually briefed expenses. so long as the confidentiality of information on the meaning and requirements of this b. The TC Services Agreement shall obtained from Microsoft is maintained. Final Judgment and the U.S. antitrust laws provide that each member of the TC shall h. The TC may hire at the cost and expense and advising them that Microsoft’s legal comply with the limitations provided for in of Microsoft, with prior notice to Microsoft advisors are available to confer with them Section IV.B.2 above. and subject to approval by the Plaintiffs, such regarding any question concerning 7. Microsoft shall provide the TC with a staff or consultants (all of whom must meet the qualifications of Section IV.B.2) as are permanent office, telephone, and other office compliance with this Final Judgment or reasonably necessary for the TC to carry out support facilities at Microsoft’s corporate under the U.S. antitrust laws; its duties and responsibilities under this campus in Redmond, Washington. Microsoft d. obtaining from each person designated Final Judgment. The compensation of any shall also, upon reasonable advance notice in Section IV.C.3.a above an annual written person retained by the TC shall be based on from the TC, provide the TC with reasonable certification that he or she: (i) has read and reasonable and customary terms agrees to abide by the terms of this Final access to available office space, telephone, commensurate with the individual’s and other office support facilities at any other Judgment; and (ii) has been advised and experience and responsibilities. understands that his or her failure to comply Microsoft facility identified by the TC. i. The TC shall account for all reasonable 8. The TC shall have the following powers with this Final Judgment may result in a expenses incurred, including agreed upon finding of contempt of court; and duties: fees for the TC members’’ services, subject to a. The TC shall have the power and e. maintaining a record of all persons to the approval of the Plaintiffs. Microsoft may, whom a copy of this Final Judgment has been authority to monitor Microsoft’s compliance on application to the Court, object to the with its obligations under this final distributed and from whom the certification reasonableness of any such fees or other described in Section IV.C.3.d above has been judgment. expenses. On any such application: a) the b. The TC may, on reasonable notice to obtained; burden shall be on Microsoft to demonstrate f. establishing and maintaining the website Microsoft: unreasonableness; and (b) the TC member(s) i. interview, either informally or on the provided for in Section IV.D.3.b below. shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred g. receiving complaints from third parties, record, any Microsoft personnel, who may on such application (including reasonable the TC and the Plaintiffs concerning have counsel present; any such interview to attorneys’’ fees and costs), regardless of the Microsoft’s compliance with this Final be subject to the reasonable convenience of Court’s disposition of such application, Judgment and following the appropriate such personnel and without restraint or unless the Court shall expressly find that the procedures set forth in Section IV.D below; interference by Microsoft; TC’s opposition to the application was and ii. inspect and copy any document in the without substantial justification. h. maintaining a record of all complaints possession, custody or control of Microsoft 9. Each TC member, and any consultants personnel; or staff hired by the TC, shall sign a received and action taken by Microsoft with iii.. obtain reasonable access to any confidentiality agreement prohibiting respect to each such complaint. systems or equipment to which Microsoft disclosure of any information obtained in the Voluntary Dispute Resolution personnel have access; course of performing his or her duties as a 1. Third parties may submit complaints iv. obtain access to, and inspect, any member of the TC or as a person assisting the concerning Microsoft’s compliance with this physical facility, building or other premises TC to anyone other than Microsoft, the Final Judgment to the Plaintiffs, the TC or the to which Microsoft personnel have access; Plaintiffs, or the Court. All information Compliance Officer. and gathered by the TC in connection with this 2. In order to enhance the ability of the v. require Microsoft personnel to provide Final Judgment and any report and Plaintiffs to enforce compliance with this compilations of documents, data and other recommendations prepared by the TC shall Final Judgment, and to advance the parties’’ information, and to submit reports to the TC be treated as Highly Confidential under the joint interest and the public interest in containing such material, in such form as the Protective Order in this case, and shall not prompt resolution of issues and disputes, the TC may reasonably direct. be disclosed to any person other than parties have agreed that the TC and the c. The TC shall have access to Microsoft’s Microsoft and the Plaintiffs except as allowed Compliance Officer shall have the following source code, subject to the terms of by the Protective Order entered in the Action additional responsibilities. Microsoft’s standard source code or by further order of this Court. 3. Submissions to the Compliance Officer. Confidentiality Agreement, as approved by 10. No member of the TC shall make any a. Third parties, the TC, or the Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs and to be agreed to by the TC public statements relating to the TC’s their discretion may members pursuant to Section IV.B.9 below, activities. Third, making matters worse are the and by any staff or consultants who may have Appointment of a Microsoft Internal Proposal’s ‘‘No Third Party Rights’’ access to the source code. The TC may study, Compliance Officer
VerDate 11
provisions.4 The absence of third party rights e. The TC may preserve the anonymity of grievance against the defendant. OS Only is, in fact, explicitly stated twice in the any third party complainant where it deems The restrictions imposed on the defendant in Proposal: first in Section III.I (last paragraph) it appropriate to do so upon the request of the Proposal are inadequate to prevent the and again in Section VIII). Thus if a private the Plaintiffs or the third party, or in its defendant from further engaging in party has been harmed by the defendant’s discretion. any harm visited upon these reasonably predictable unlawful behavior. violation of the Final Judgment, that person’s international developers results in direct Moreover, the restrictions are inadequate to sole recourse is to approach the Justice harm to the American consumers which the protect our democracy from the Department or a State to request enforcement Antitrust Laws are designed to protect.) This overconcentration of power left in the of the Proposal. Given the fact that the Justice limitation should be particularly borne in defendant’s hands. The restrictions of the Department has not even responded to the mind when reading the entire Proposal, such Proposal have the following principal KDE League’s request for a hearing regarding as the supposed ‘‘abandonment’’ of certain shortcomings: the settlement, it seems that the likelihood trademark rights in Section VI.T. First, Microsoft’s office, multimedia, that the Justice Department acting on behalf Fourth, the term of the agreement is Internet and other products, although many of any Open Source project or other small extremely short—only five years.5 Even if the of which from all appearances each company is marginal at best. In addition, government proves to the court ‘‘a pattern of constitutes a monopoly onto themselves, are many Open Source developers live in other willful and systematic violations’’, the not even addressed by the Proposal. Instead, countries, making it extremely difficult for Proposal may only be extended once for a only the ‘‘OS’’ is covered. Viewed in light of them to obtain any redress through the maximum of two years.6 Thus, given the the defendant’s .NET strategy for the future, courts. (Here it is important to bear in mind defendant’s dilatory legal maneuverings, it is this limitation all but renders the Proposal’s that while these developers live in other easily possible that the defendant can prohibitions vacuous. countries, their software is freely available to blatantly violate the Proposal from the get-go Although it is a fact proven in this case American consumers, and hence submit to and have the Proposal expire before that the defendant used its OS as a basis to the Compliance Officer any complaints proceedings can adjudge it guilty of any abuse its monopoly position and compete concerning Microsoft’s compliance with this violations. unfairly, the essence of the violations related Final Judgment. Without in any way limiting Of course there is also a ‘‘Voluntary to the incorporation by the defendant of its authority to take any other action to Dispute Resolution’’ provision, where additional technologies into its ‘‘OS’’. This enforce this Final Judgment, the Plaintiffs essentially a victim of the defendant’s inclusion repeatedly encompassed items, may submit complaints related to Sections monopoly abuses would have the such as a browser or multimedia player that, III.C, III.D, III.E and III.H to the Compliance opportunity to submit a grievance through a in reality, do not form part of the OS but Officer whenever doing so would be web form 7 Insofar as the defendant rather are separate applications as they do consistent with the public interest. adamantly denies any wrongdoing in the face not have any responsibility for allocating b. To facilitate the communication of of a lawsuit by the federal government and limited resources, such as memory, disk complaints and inquiries by third parties, the numerous States, and in the face of every space, screen space, etc., among competing Compliance Officer shall place on Microsoft’s judge to have reviewed the matter and applications, but rather themselves are Internet website, in a manner acceptable to disagreed with them, it strikes us as applications competing for these limited the Plaintiffs, the procedures for submitting extremely unlikely that any aggrieved party resources). complaints. To encourage whenever possible would obtain resolution using this method. Under the Proposal, the OS is, at least to the informal resolution of complaints and Under the Proposal, the defendant then has some minimal extent (presumably far less inquiries, the website shall provide a 30 days to decide, in effect, to ignore the than the defendant could have hoped when mechanism for communicating complaints request (it is possible the defendant might it formulated its current NET strategy), and inquiries to the Compliance Officer. redress a grievance, of course, but since the subject to restrictions. Accordingly, one can c. Microsoft shall have 30 days after defendant continues to assert it is not a reasonably anticipate that the defendant’s receiving a complaint to attempt to resolve it monopoly and not guilty of any wrongdoing, new strategy will be to extract functionality or reject it, and will then promptly advise the it is totally unreasonable for the government from the OS. Instead, these applications TC of the nature of the complaint and its to rely on this in its evaluation of the could be provided separately, either as ‘‘free’’ disposition. Proposal).8 downloads from the Internet (of course if, as 4. Submissions to the TC. Alternatively, a complaint may be may be expected, they won’t work without a. The Compliance Officer, third parties or submitted to the Technical Committee, the defendant’s OS they are not ‘‘free’’) or as the Plaintiffs in their discretion may submit which in turn may review a complaint (it is network services provided over the Internet to the TC any complaints concerning notable in this regard that though the or a local network, providing a credible Microsoft’s compliance with this Final Proposal speaks of ‘‘shall investigate’’, as justification for reclassifying as an Judgment. there are no third party rights under the application what was before (at least b. The TC shall investigate complaints Proposal, a third party has no remedy in the according to the defendant) part of the OS. received and will consult with the Plaintiffs event the Technical Committee fails to take Specifically, the defendant has ‘‘bet the regarding its investigation. At least once such action).9 In the event the Technical company’’ on its .NET platform. The .NET during its investigation, and more often when Committee agrees with the person filing a strategy means any device which has one it may help resolve complaints informally, grievance, that person is barred from every application (for simplicity, something the TC shall meet with the Compliance presenting any evidence in court about the equivalent to Java) can access a great Officer to allow Microsoft to respond to the findings of the Technical Committee.10 In the multitude of services, whether provided by substance of the complaint and to determine final analysis this situation probably does not MS or its allies. The OS itself can be restored whether the complaint can be resolved have a great practical effect, as the person to what traditionally has been considered an without further proceedings. filing the grievance does not have any rights OS, to wit, a system for allocating shared c. If the TC concludes that a complaint is under the Proposal anyway. resources (such as access to memory, disk meritorious, it shall advise Microsoft and the However, it does highlight in how many space, the screen, etc.) amongst competing Plaintiffs of its conclusion and its proposal ways the defendant has been able to insulate applications, such as multimedia players, for cure. itself from any responsibility for actual browsers, etc., rather that artificially defined d. No work product, findings or wrongdoing it engages in, and how the to include those applications itself. Such an recommendations by the TC may be admitted Technical Committee is a veritable mirage approach can be seen with some of the in any enforcement proceeding before the with respect to any party having a legitimate defendant’s recent home products. Court for any purpose, and no member of the In other words, the last decade has TC shall testify by deposition, in court or 5 See Proposal, Section V.A. witnessed MS simply ‘‘integrating’’ before any other tribunal regarding any 6 See Proposal, Section V.B. applications into the OS to ensure control matter related to this Final Judgment. 7 See Proposal, Section IV.D. over more applications and expand its OS 8 See Proposal, Section W.D(3). monopoly (for example, when MS integrated 4 See Proposal, Section III.I (last paragraph) and 9 See Proposal, Section W.D(4). its Internet browser into the OS, Netscape’s Section VIII. 10 See Proposal, Section IV.D(4)(d). Navigator was doomed). With the OS under
VerDate 11
attack and possibly subject to regulation, the formats, the absence of an open standard requester will have to assume that all the defendant has begun taking the direct limits consumer choice and may even submitted information will be carefully opposite tack, undermining the importance prevents consumers from switching to reviewed by the defendant. of the OS and extracting and separating the another operating system. No Protection to Consumers core functionality provided by its One obvious manner in which the lack of The Proposal also does not provide any applications. Of course, from the user’s attention to Productivy Products comes into protection to consumers. While some indirect perspective, nothing will have visibly play is in the ‘‘restrictions’’ of Section III.A. protection is provided via the limited changed. These do not prevent the defendant from protections afforded to OEMs, large Second, by reserving to the defendant the retaliating against an OEM for the consumers (such as Fortune 1000 companies) right to determine ‘‘in its sole discretion’’ the ‘‘protected’’ conduct in the pricing of such receive no protection. For example, nothing software code which comprises a ‘‘Windows additional software, as well as other popular in the Proposal appears to prevent the Operating System Product’’, the Proposal software distributed by the defendant (such defendant from raising prices on software to, grants the defendant the uncurtailed freedom as its web server or database products). for example, General Electric if General to redefine the term ‘‘OS’’.11 Notably, the Similarly, the provisions of the Proposal Electric elects to deploy KDE in its offices. definition of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware which to some limited if not negligible extent In effect, the defendant is free to retaliate Product’’ is limited to products which are ‘‘in require the defendant to permit others to freely against large companies, governments, a Windows Operating System Product’’)12 learn the defendant’s secret protocols do not universities, and other institutions which Hence, if the OS is reduced in significance, even pretend to extend to the format of its elect to employ competing products in some and the Middleware Products are either information encryption, encoding and other but not all of their computer systems. No bundled separately (as a group of add-ons, obfuscation. Volumous Exceptions Protection for ISVs/Developers on other similar to how currently MS Office is an add- What few requirements are imposed on the Platforms As recognized by the trial court, on, possibly available for free download or defendant are largely undone by the breadth both by the defendant and the plaintiff, Open use to anyone with a registered MS Operating of the qualifications in III.J of the Proposal, Source clearly represents the most viable System) or provided as a service via the particularly subsection 2. Provision (a) competitive threat to defendant’s monopoly. Internet or some other computer network, thereof essentially disqualified all Nevertheless, the Proposal does not provide such products (though essentially the same) corporations (including the defendant itself), any means for this competition to compete would not be covered by the Proposal either. as it is impossible not to have a ‘‘history’’ of fairly with the defendant. Thus, the minimal restrictions included in violation of intellectual property rights For example, the defendant’s obligation to the Proposal relate to something about which presumably even making an unpermitted release Documentation and APIs under the defendant may reasonably foreseeably no backup copy would satisfy this broad Section III.D does not extend to document longer care. Having abused its monopoly in provision). Provision (b) requires formats (such as MS Office formats or video/ the desktop to gain a monopoly in demonstration of a ‘‘reasonable business’’ audio ‘‘codecs’’ used in multimedia applications (including certain middleware), need (as opposed to reasonable technical applications) or network protocols used by the defendant can/likely will simply switch need) for a ‘‘planned or shipping product’’. the defendant to maintain its monopoly, nor to abusing its monopoly in applications, and The provision would essentially require a does it prevent the defendant from pursuing nothing in the Proposal places any competitor to disclose to the defendant its patents or other exclusive legal rights on restrictions on that foreseeable tactic. non-public, planned products, without any such formats and protocols solely or Third, another extremely important confidentiality, non-competition or other substantially for the purpose of preventing inadequacy of the Proposal is the complete assurance that the defendant will not use this competition from software vendors/ omission of the defendant’s office/ information to benefit itself or harm the developers on other platforms. In addition, as productivity applications (‘‘Productivity supplier. Provision (c) entitles the defendant noted above, it is far from clear that any of Products’’). It seems clear that the defendant to establish ‘‘reasonable, objective standards the limited and unenforceable restrictions in enjoys a monopoly in at least the office ... for certifying the authenticity and viability the Proposal apply to Open Source productivity market (Word, Excel, of its business’’, which standards for some businesses and developers at all. Powerpoint, FrontPage, etc.) commensurate unknown reason the defendant is not now Proposal Language with (or perhaps even more so) its OS able to articulate, leading to a very low Much of the language of the Proposal monopoly. expectation as to the reasonableness and appears to be drafted to permit easy Thus, for example, the provisions of objectiveness of the eventual standards. circumvention. This point will be made with Section II.E of the Proposal, which (to some Undoubtedly provisions (b) and (c) are a handful of examples, although many more very limited extent) require the defendant to intended to prevent Open Source projects, can be identified in the Proposal. For share ‘‘Communication Protocols’’ with third which to date form the sole serious example, Section III.A uses the term ‘‘known parties to enable them to interoperate with competitor to the defendant over its range of to Microsoft’’, as opposed to something less Windows Operating System Products, do not products, from claiming any rights specified stringent (knowledge being very difficult to extent to Productivity Products. In particular, in the Proposal. Generally Open Source prove), such as leaving out the language ‘‘it the definition of ‘‘Communications Protocol’’ developers program for the challenge and joy is known to Microsoft that’’ altogether or by is limited to tasks involving a ‘‘Windows of expression, rather than as part of a ‘‘viable using the substitute phrase ‘‘it is or should Operating Systems Product’’, which as noted business’’. As Open Source software is free, be known to or suspected by Microsoft that’’. does not include Productivity Products) 13 the defendant could quite rightfully argue In addition, provision III.A.2 does not In addition, the principal way in which the that the developers do not have a ‘‘viable provide protection to OEMs who ship defendant maintains its monopoly in business’’. Yet from the perspective of a Personal Computers that boots only into a Productivity Applications is through the use software user, it hardly matters what the competing operating system. As another of file formats which are extremely - if not developers’’ motivation is; in fact a user example, Section III.C.4 prohibits the unnaturally—difficult for competitors to might prefer software that is developed under defendant from entering into any agreement decipher. Without access to the details of the Open Source model rather than for profit. with an OEM which restricts the ability of such file formats (the standards published on Finally, provision (d) permits the the user to launch another operating system the defendant’s website are totally defendant to deny any request unless the from the boot prompt. However, the inadequate), competing developers cannot party making the request in essence submits provision does not restrict the defendant create adequate filters so that their projects all its trade secrets and intellectual property from causing its operating system to delete can interoperate with the defendant’s to a ‘‘third party’’. Since this ‘‘third party’’ any boot loader which might provide the user Productivity Products. As the vast majority of (not to be confused with ‘‘independent a choice of which operating system to the human knowledge base has been party’’) is selected in the defendant’s sole launch. In fact, the defendant’s operating ‘‘locked’’ into these decidedly proprietary discretion, and since there is no provision systems are well known to so interfere with assuring the confidentiality of any data the operation of other operating systems. In 11 See Proposal, Section VI.U. submitted or that any party reviewing the addition, the provision fails to provide that 12 See Proposal, Section VI.K. information—including this ‘‘third party’’— the defendant is barred from requiring OEMs 13 See Proposal, Section VI.B. itself satisfies the criteria of Section III.J, any to install a Windows Operating System on all
VerDate 11
its products, which has been the case in the broader; by specifying ‘‘independent b) of that Section is a huge loophole, as it is past and which forces consumers to pay for process’’, the defendant has made it trivially commonplace for OEMs to do the ‘‘initial a product they either do not want or need easy to make any top- level window not fall boot up’’ before shipping a PC and hence the and makes alternative operating systems within the definition of ‘‘Top-Level 14-day period could have largely or unable to compete with the defendant on the Window’’ simply by starting the middleware completely expired by the time a user boots basis of price. product as a ‘‘child’’ process. up the PC for the first time. The provisions of Section III.E similarly The second requirement also leaves huge Another example of loophole language fall short of the goal of permitting amounts of room for avoidance of any from the definitions relates to the term competition with the defendant. In requirement to permit users access to ‘‘ISV’’. The term is defined in terms of an particular, the disclosure of Communication competitor products. One easy way to ‘‘entity’’, rather than the traditional ‘‘person’’ Protocols is limited by Section III.J.1, which circumvent the requirement is to add a single or ‘‘person or entity’’, thereby preventing broadly exempts any information ‘‘which user interface element which is available Open Source developers from falling within would compromise the security of a when the product is launched from the Start the protections afforded to ISVs. From a particular installation or group of menu, but not when it is launched from the competitive standpoint, there is no reason for installations’’. While superficially this Microsoft Middleware Product. This element the government to favor an incorporeal entity sounds reasonable, the gaping hole is created could be an element entirely inconsequential over a human developer, and accordingly by reference to ‘‘any portion[] or layer[] of to the operation of the Microsoft Middleware this definition is unreasonable and against Communication Protocols’’. Of course, it Product, such as a trivial status bar, an extra the public interest. No Restitution or would be difficult to imagine that knowledge line of text somewhere, an extra menu Penalties The evidence, upon which the of a communication protocol layer could element, an extra toolbar or toolbar icon, etc.; defendant was adjudged guilty of essentially compromise security, and hence the addition in fact it could be a single user interface felonious conduct, was mainly based on of such language by the defendant would element added solely to the version launched events of the mid-late 1990%. Since the strongly indicate its intention to create such from the ‘‘Start’’ menu for the purpose of commencement of this litigation, the layers in order to prevent competitors from making it different than the one launched defendant’s behavior has in the KDE League’s interoperating with its products. It is worth from the Microsoft Middleware Product (and opinion become substantially more unlawful noting at this juncture that all the major of course this element could be added after and egregious, the whole time right under the authentication, security and encryption the functional and user interface design of government’s nose. schemes rely on completely open protocols the product has otherwise been totally Under the Proposal, the punishment for and that security is afforded solely through completed). conduct which all judges to hear evidence an unknown key, token or similar access Of course, it is also trivially easy for the have uniformly ruled is unlawful appears to control mechanism rather than through any defendant to avoid being caught in be absolutely nothing; even the most portion of the protocol itself. This is true subsection (ii) of Section III.J.2. In particular, generous read of the Proposal would have to because it is generally considered insecure to the definition of the term ‘‘Trademarked’’ conclude that at most it aims to prevent the rely on aspects of a protocol for security or specifies that: defendant from engaging in (some) further authentication as they are quite easy to We start from the premise that adequate unlawful conduct. reverse engineer, i.e. defeat, by anyone not relief in a monopolization case should put an In fact, no restitution or compensation to concerned with compliance with the law. end to the combination and deprive the the corporate, developer or consumer victims Section III.J.2 requires the defendant to defendants of any of the benefits of the illegal of its legion abuses is contemplated. Not even permit competition only when a ‘‘Windows conduct, and break up or render impotent the an injunction against the defendant’s recent Operating System Product’’ (which, as noted monopoly power found to be in violation of announcement that it will stop providing more below, is a definition entirely within the Act. That is the teaching of our cases, security patches for older versions of its the control of the defendant) launches a notably Schine Theatres v. United States, 334 product line (which would be similar to a car ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ (essentially U.S. 110, 128–129. manufacturer not fixing a serious safety a browser, Java, a media player, a chat client, Any product distributed under descriptive violation and an act which a non-monopolist a mail client or a calendar client), but only or generic terms or a name comprised of the could hardly get away with), forcing if (a) the product is opened in a ‘‘Top- Level Microsoft?? or Windows?? trademarks everybody to ‘‘upgrade’’ to the much-more- Window’’, and b) either (i) all of the user together with descriptive or generic terms expensive but in many cases much-less- interface elements are displayed, or ii) the shall not be Trademarked as that term is used desirable Windows XP/2000 series. Trademark of the Microsoft Middleware in this Final Judgment. Accordingly, the Apparently, the government is quite content Product is displayed. Thus, if the product is defendant could describe its media player as that the defendant keep the billions in profit not opened in a ‘‘Top-Level Window’’, the the ‘‘Microsoft Media Player’’, or its it unlawfully bilked from American defendant can prevent the consumer from messenger as the ‘‘Microsoft Messenger’’, or consumers and businesses. using a competitor’s product. Why, might its calendar as the ‘‘Microsoft Calendar’’, Moreover, the government’s failure to one reasonably ask, would whether or not a without being caught in subsection (ii). address the defendant’s ever-more- egregious media player has a separate ‘‘move’’ and Obviously, no competitor can similarly name conduct provides the public with no ‘‘resize’’ button affect whether or not the user its product, so to say such names are not confidence that the government would act to should have a choice over the media player? Trademarked defies all reason. In any event, enforce the ‘‘slap-on-the-wrist’’ restrictions In fact, the definition of ‘‘Top-Level the essence of the argument is that, if the contained in the Proposal. Accordingly, it is Window’’ is entirely obtuse. Technically, any defendant expends just a little bit of effort imperative for the public interest that any ‘‘window’’ can contain ‘‘sub-windows’’— and (possibly) imagination, Section III.J.2 settlement provide remedies for private even a simple dialog box is composed of will not curtail the defendant from litigants to enforce their rights under the many sub-windows (e.g., each text item, each eliminating user choice as to the Middleware federal antitrust laws without having to checkbox, each text edit box, etc. is a Product launched by any Microsoft Operating mount a full attack and prevail over the ‘‘window’’). Since this is a requirement, one System Product. Similarly, Section III.J.3 defendant on the core issues of must assume it means something more. does not specify that the user’s consent be monopolization and abuse of monopoly Hence the requirement leaves a tremendous voluntary (e.g., the consent may be provided power. amount of wiggle room for the defendant. as part of a larger question), that the Patent Abuse Similarly, clause (c) of the definition of presentation of the request for the consent be The threat of the defendant using patents ‘‘Top-Level Window’’ permits ample room non-discriminatory and fair to all products, to destroy Open Source interoperability with for manipulation. The defendant can simply or that the defendant may only request a the defendant’s technologies is a major ensure that at least the ‘‘user interface switch once, so that it cannot prevail over its obstacle to consumer choice and a elements’’, as opposed to the actual competitors by virtue of sheer harassment competitive marketplace. The defendant is functioning of the program, is not under the (such as popping up a dialog every time a building up a large reservoir of patents, control of an ‘‘independent process’’. It is Middleware Product is launched or even assisted by the USPTO’s abysmal software important to note here that use of the term every time a feature of a Middleware Product patent review strategy. Even a patent which ‘‘separate process’’ would have been much is used). Even the time language in provision might be obviously invalid, for lack of
VerDate 11
novelty or otherwise, would be extremely To: Microsoft ATR This is just another method for states to get difficult for an Open Source project to Date: 1/28/02 5:44pm free money, and a terrible precedent for the overcome, as the defendant has a huge hoard Subject: Microsoft Settlement future, not only in terms of computer of resources to throw at Open Source Dear Sir or Madam: technology, but all sorts of innovations in the developers who would in almost all cases It is my belief that the antitrust suit against most dynamic industry the world has ever lack the resources to respond, let alone Microsoft Corporation is the height of seen. prevail. government abuse of a great company. It is Please put a stop to this travesty of justice Just to pick one example of an absurdly the direct result of requests by Microsoft’s now. Thank you. broad patent which the defendant could use competitors and their political connections Sincerely, as a sword to maintain its monopoly was (i.e. Novell and Senator Orin Hatch) to level Sharon Rondeau recently issued. See United States Patent the playing field. 388 Spring Street 6,330,670 (Dec. 11, 2001). Claim 1 of this Microsoft is a great company. I have been Manchester, CT 06040–6738 using their products since the late seventies patent is for: A computerized method for a MTC–00028792 digital rights management operating system and I have always received value for my comprising: assuming a trusted identity; money. Sure, some of their software has a From: [email protected]@inetgw executing a trusted application; loading few bugs, but it’s still the best available. To: Microsoft ATR rights-managed data into memory for access Microsoft will work on a product until it is Date: 1/28/02 5:41pm by the trusted application; and protecting the the very best available. They created the Subject: Microsoft Settlement rights-managed data from access by an microcomputer revolution when they CC: [email protected]@inetgw untrusted program while the trusted introduced Windows 3.0 in the early 90?s. This letter is intended as public comment, application is executing. The interface was easy to use and as provided for by the Tunney Act, on the This really is something that must be understand, and helped computers to become proposed settlement in United States vs. extremely obvious to even a non-computer common fixtures in American homes and Microsoft. The proposed settlement should scientist. It’s the equivalent to getting a small businesses. not be accepted for the following reasons: patent on the following ‘‘process’’, employed Microsoft increased the size of the —The proposed settlement does not by a security guard at a top-secret facility: A American economic pie for all of us. Bill provide an adequate remedy for Microsoft’s method for workplace security comprising: Clinton didn’t create the robust economy of abuses of its monopoly position. assuming a trusted employer; relying on the 1990’s, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, and other —Rather than increasing competition, the trusted equipment; permitting the protected aggressive and innovative companies did. proposed settlement appears to be employee onto the premises; and protecting How does the American judicial system specifically tailored to discourage certain the premises from access by an untrusted repay the genius and hard work provided by kinds of competition against Microsoft person while the trusted person is working. Microsoft over the last 25 or so years. It —The proposed settlement fails to redress While this sounds like a joke, it is actually attempts to break-up one of the most the harm done by Microsoft’s illegal abuses more sophisticated than this most obvious successful companies in American history. of its monopoly position. ‘‘patent’’ the defendant has obtained. Who was damaged other than Microsoft? —The proposed settlement is likely to Unfortunately, an Open Source project like Did any consumers complain about the strengthen Microsoft’s position in the KDE would find it veritably impossible to products they purchased? Why were the marketplace, thereby worsening the situation have such a patent overturned in court states allowed to join the suite—-— just how for consumers caused by a lack of should the defendant elect to try to enforce were the states damaged. It all appears to be competition. it. Even more unfortunately, the Proposal one big illegal feeding frenzy similar to the —The proposed settlement encourages does not place any restrictions or tobacco suits. It is shameful. Microsoft to use its monopoly position in the circumstances on the defendant—such as its I strongly believe that this suite against desktop market to obtain monopolies or status as an abusive monopolist— which Microsoft ignited the collapse of tech markets drastically increase its market share in other might assist its competitors fight such an in late 1999 and 2000 which sucked billions markets. attack in a legal forum. of dollars of wealth out of the American 1. The proposed settlement does not Conclusion economy. I think the Clinton Justice provide an adequate remedy for Microsoft’s In conclusion, the KDE League would like Department and Judge P. Jackson should be abuses of its monopoly position. to reiterate its firm opposition to the fined and/or jailed over this extreme abuse of The proposed settlement specifies several Proposal. The Proposal does nothing to assist judicial power. prohibitions and limitations on Microsoft’s a great many competitors in competing with This judgment was bought and paid for by future behavior. However for the most part the defendant, even in markets which the Microsoft’s competitors! these limitations are narrowly tailored to defendant has demonstrably conquered using Very truly yours, provide remedies for specific features of the unlawful methods. And it does nothing to Michael E. Foley Government’s complaint of May 1998. prevent the defendant from unlawfully 2320 State Route 73 West Market conditions have changed drastically abusing its most viable competitors, not even Wilmington, Ohio 45177 since that time, due in large part to illegal anticompetitive practices by Microsoft.. a small leg up in pursuing justice in a court MTC–00028791 of law. There are no longer any credible competitors From: [email protected]@inetgw to Microsoft in the market for desktop MTC–00028789 To: Microsoft ATR operating systems for Intel-compatible From: Brian Gault Date: 1/28/02 5:38pm personal computers. Microsoft’s Internet To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement Explorer has largely succeeded in displacing Date: 1/28/02 5:43pm Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Netscape’s web browser and other web Subject: Microsoft Settlement Antitrust Division browsers. And while Java has proven to be Judge Kollar-Kotally: 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 a very useful programming language in many Not that I am aware of all the issues of law Washington, DC 20530–0001 respects, Java’s run-time environment has not involved here, but it seems to me that Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: become a ‘‘virtual operating system’’ which Microsoft is in violation of our country’s anti- Please put a stop to the economically- could support the same applications on a trust laws. As a citizen of this country, I urge draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This variety of computing platforms, and which you to find against Microsoft in this case. has gone on long enough. could thereby threaten its monopoly on the Brian C. Gault Microsoft has already agreed to hide its desktop. These developments were 507 Lindale Drive Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the significantly furthered by Microsoft’s Clinton, MS 39056 fact is, this case against Microsoft is little anticompetitive actions both before and after 601–925–0212 more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other the government’s complaint was filed. Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel Conditions in these markets change so MTC–00028790 going to those supposedly harmed by quickly that the problems caused by From: Michael Foley Microsoft: the computer user. Microsoft’s monopoly simply cannot be
VerDate 11
addressed after-the-fact, or by specific servers which communicate with those in order to give Microsoft applications an prohibitions on Microsoft’s future behavior clients—particularly those using ‘‘open advantage over competitors’’ products. that are narrowly tailored to constrain its source’’ server platforms such as Linux —Impose weak means of authenticating previous behavior. Furthermore, previous which have provided significant competition users over a network, for the sake of settlements of this type have proven to be to Microsoft products in the server market. backward compatibility with Microsoft ineffective at curbing Microsoft’s abusive The provision which allows Microsoft to products. practices. use Microsoft middleware in preference to a Even if a settlement provided an effective 2. Rather than increasing competition, the competitor’s middleware when the curb on Microsoft’s future behavior, to be proposed settlement appears to be competitor’s middleware ‘‘fails to implement acceptable it would also need to redress the specifically tailored to discourage certain a reasonable technical requirement (e.g. the considerable harm done by past abuses. kinds of competition against Microsoft requirement to be able to host a particular Injured parties include not only purchasers The proposed settlement is also inadequate ActiveX control)’’ effectively gives Microsoft of Microsoft software (and computers which because it appears to be specifically tailored license to bypass competitors’’ middleware at were supplied with Microsoft software) but to discourage certain kinds of competition— will, by declaring as part of the settlement also the numerous institutions who have in particular, efforts by both commercial and that addition of any ActiveX control to a suffered damage due to such vulnerabilities, noncommercial parties to make alternatives middleware interface is inherently a and operators of public and private Internet to Microsoft’s products freely available to the reasonable technical requirement. For the networks whose operations have been public. For instance: settlement to be effective, Microsoft cannot harmed by the traffic generated by viruses —The settlement prohibits Microsoft from be allowed to change its programming transmitted by Microsoft software. retaliating against OEMs for shipping a interfaces at will. To be effective, a remedy would need to personal computer which includes both a The requirement to Microsoft to license redress these injuries without further Microsoft operating system and a non- intellectual property rights ‘‘on reasonable strengthening Microsoft’s position in the Microsoft operating system, but it does not and nondiscriminatory terms’’ that are market. prohibit retaliating against an OEM for needed to exercise options under the 3. The proposed settlement is likely to shipping a personal computer which does agreement, because of presumptions on what strengthen Microsoft’s position in the not include an operating system, or which is ‘‘reasonable’’, effectively allows Microsoft marketplace, thereby worsening the situation includes only a competing operating system. to set the bar on access to such information for consumers caused by a lack of Computer purchasers who intend to use high enough to exclude ‘‘open source’’ and competition. alternative operating systems (which are noncommercial competitors. By imposing essentially no penalties on often superior to Microsoft’s products for —Similarly, the provision which allows Microsoft and few limitations on its behavior, certain purposes as well as being available at Microsoft to require that the licensee of any the proposed settlement would signal to no cost) are often forced to purchase a copy of its intellectual property have a ‘‘reasonable Microsoft and its competitors that of a Microsoft operating system, which they business need’’ would likely allow Microsoft anticompetitive behavior is largely ‘‘safe’’. never use, with each new computer to exclude noncommercial competitors. The The proposed settlement would also provide purchase. Microsoft has effectively managed fact that the only significant competition to Microsoft with the means to discourage to impose a ‘‘tax’’ on the sale of most new Microsoft in many markets comes from certain kinds of competition, particularly personal computer systems (particularly noncommercial parties makes a presumed ‘‘open source’’ or noncommercial products, ‘‘laptop’’ computer systems). The proposed requirement of ‘‘reasonable business need’’ allowing it to further limit consumer choice. settlement does nothing to redress that for access to such information inherently 4. The proposed settlement encourages problem. favorable to Microsoft and unreasonable as Microsoft to use its monopoly position in the —The provision of the settlement requiring part of a remedy. desktop market to obtain monopolies or Microsoft to disclose APIs and related 2. The proposed settlement fails to redress drastically increase its market share in other documentation, presumably via the Microsoft the harm done by Microsoft’s illegal abuses markets. Developer Network (MSDN), allows of its monopoly position. By focusing largely on the desktop or client Microsoft to impose nearly arbitrary Due in large part to Microsoft’s illegal market, the settlement ignores Microsoft’s conditions on the use of that information, to anticompetitive practices, Microsoft has ongoing efforts to leverage its existing prevent potential competitors from using that obtained a monopoly in several markets, monopolies to obtain monopolies in other information to produce products that including desktop operating systems, web markets. Furthermore, because different compete with Microsoft operating systems browsers, and office productivity software. kinds of computers communicate with one and middleware. The harm done is a considerably more than another over a network, Microsoft’s In addition, in the past such to limit consumer choice, stifle innovation, monopoly on desktop operating system documentation as has been provided by and artificially inflate prices. software can be a powerful coercive force Microsoft via MSDN has often proven Microsoft’s monopoly has also forced over other markets—for instance, media insufficiently detailed to allow other parties consumers to accept operating system and players and mechanisms for protecting to write equivalent interfaces. networking software which are dangerously intellectual property transmitted over a Finally, nothing in this proposed insecure and have been compromised on network. settlement prevents Microsoft from shipping numerous occasions by computer viruses. There is no significant difference between APIs which provide undocumented features, Many of these vulnerabilities are a direct the tactics that Microsoft used to take over and documenting and using those features at result of Microsoft decisions to: the operating system, web browser, and office a later time. This would make its Disregard Internet standards for the productivity software markets, and the tactics competitors’’ deployed operating system and labeling of content transmitted over the that Microsoft is currently using to attempt middleware products incompatible with network, thereby bypassing the requirement to establish control over other markets. programs written to the latter API for security review that was designed into Any remedy which allows Microsoft to use specification. that mechanism. This was done in order to its control over the desktop to favor its own Because of these flaws, this provision is allow arbitrary content to be interpreted by solutions in any way cannot be considered unlikely to be effective at furthering applications on Microsoft operating systems, adequate. For the reasons stated above, I competition. and to provide Microsoft with an advantage recommend that the Court reject the The provision which requires Microsoft to over competitors’’ operating systems that proposed settlement. document communications protocols applies used other means to label content. An effective remedy would require to ‘‘client computer[s]’’ only. Presumably this Provide a means for their document —Microsoft to be pro-actively prevented requires only that Microsoft document the formats to contain executable content with from future abuse, ‘‘client’’ side of such protocols, allowing the ability to perform any function available Competition to be re-introduced in the Microsoft to hold more closely the to any application on the host computer— markets in which Microsoft has a monopoly documentation of the ‘‘server’’ side of a including the ability to delete and alter and which it has shown abusive behavior, protocol, and allowing Microsoft a arbitrary files and the ability to send network —Compensation for injuries caused by competitive advantage over providers of traffic impersonating the computer’s owner— Microsoft’s anticompetitive behavior It is
VerDate 11
difficult to understand how such a remedy built upon and made strong by our capitalist [email protected] could be effected without either: roots and our belief in free enterprise. It is —Active government regulation of the dream of every American to exceed the MTC–00028797 Microsoft’s behavior, and in particular success of their father and grandfather, to go From: Brian Seguin affirmative prior approval of all new and from rags to riches with nothing more than To: Microsoft ATR revised Microsoft products prior to release, hard work, perseverance, and an unshakeable Date: 1/28/02 5:43pm and approval of contracts between Microsoft belief in America. This suit flies in the face Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit and other parties before they become of this dream. Renata B. Hesse effective, or Microsoft is the very embodiment of the Antitrust Division —Structural reorganization of Microsoft American dream. This company started in a U.S. Department of Justice into two or more competing entities and garage and twenty years later it is one of I believe that the lawsuit against Microsoft without significant financial compensation to America’s greatest corporate assets. This by Joel Klein and the Clinton Administration injured parties. litigation sends the message to all future has been a complete waste of time and Keith Moore American entrepreneurs that it is okay to taxpayers money. Microsoft made computing MTC–00028793 become successful, but only to a point, possible for the individual and small because too much success is forbidden. I am businesses at a reasonable cost. The From: Steve Bonfoey in favor of the settlement that was reached consumer has benefited from Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR in this case in early November, not because products. Attached is my letter to Mr. Date: 1/28/02 6:09pm it is a fair settlement, but because it will Ashcroft requesting that this lawsuit be Subject: Microsoft Settlement finally bring an end to this protracted settled under the terms agreed on between Gentlemen: litigation. the Department of Justice and Microsoft. Microsoft has done nothing but benefit The issue in this case is no longer whether Brian P. Seguin, P.E., P.L.S. consumers. State attorney generals pursuing Microsoft committed antitrust violations. I Project Engineer politics-as-usual and Microsoft’s competitors personally believe that it did. If that were the Reid Middleton Inc. have used the law to punish a good issue, they would have been reprimanded Phone: (425) 741–3800 competitor. Microsoft deserves to win this and sent on their way a better, more Fax: (425) 741–3900 case. If their competitors and the politicians responsible business leader. The issue of this [email protected] win it will forever damage the economy of case is whether or not we, as Americans, 3622 99th Street Southeast the United States. have the right to engage in free trade, and Everett, WA 98208 Steve Bonfoey whether or not capitalism has a place in the January 26, 2002 4620 W. Hetherwood twenty-first century. I say that without this Attorney General John Ashcroft Peoria, Illinois 61615 right the future of America is bleak. This is US Department of Justice 309–692–6272 probably one of the most important decisions 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MTC–00028794 that has ever faced this nation, and it rests Washington, DC 20530 From: Dave on your shoulders, so you had better choose Dear Mr. Ashcroft: To: Microsoft ATR wisely. Thank you for your time and The antitrust lawsuit brought against Date: 1/28/02 5:37pm consideration of this issue. I trust you will Microsoft was unjustified and flawed. The Subject: Settlement make the right choice. dispute in my opinion arose due to If Microsoft get off with a slap on the wrist Sincerely, competitors’’ envy for their own lack of as it look like they will it proves that money Angie McQuillen MSN Photos is the innovation and creativity. Microsoft has been talks and B—S—Walks. easiest way to share and print your photos: the leading innovator of technology for over Click Here a decade. In the 80’s when we lagged behind MTC–00028795 Angie McQuillen Japan in many industries, Microsoft developed a product that streamlined and From: Angela McQuillen MTC–00028796 To: Microsoft ATR made more effective many of our businesses. Date: 1/28/02 5:42pm From: Tom Wolf The company I worked for is a perfect file:///C√/win/temp/tmp.l. To: Microsoft ATR example as it was able to use Microsoft January 28, 2002 Date: 1/28/02 5:43pm software for its businesses. Attorney General John Ashcroft Subject: Microsoft Settlement The terms of the settlement are harsh and US Department of Justice To whom it may concern, seem to reflect the intense lobbying of 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW I want to voice my objections to the Microsoft’s competitors. Forcing Microsoft to Washington, DC 20530 announced settlement between the US and give up internal interfaces and protocols, Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I have always been Microsoft. It seems to be lost on those making them agree not to retaliate against proud to be an American, not just because involved on the US side that Microsoft broke other vendors, stipulating that they must this is the place of my birth, but because I a consent decree on browsers to get in this grant computer makers broad new rights to have always known that this nation was mess in the first place. This company has configure Windows so as to make it easier for unlike any other in the world. We are blessed demonstrated contempt for honesty and for non-Microsoft products to be prompted, the to be citizens of a country where we have the the American business community, not to settlement also reflects lawmakers and privilege to live life the way we choose. This mention the legal process. In short they politicians lack of concern for the public. is the legacy that was left to us by our cannot be trusted to hold up their end of this This settlement only aims at giving forefathers, and this is what we should pass extremely weak and ineffectual settlement. competition an edge they did not have and on to our children. I believe the antitrust suit This settlement is bad for consumers and US could not attain on their own. against Microsoft, and other cases like it, business in general. The settlement is Even though I think the settlement is compromises the very foundation upon transparently politically motivated and unfair, I must support it because the which this nation was built. If litigation like completely undermines any credibility the alternative of further litigation would be too this is continued, this nation will become a Bush administration had. I urge you to reject much for our weak economy. I urge your shell of its former self, and the glory that is the settlement and vigorously pursue the just office to take a firm stance against the America will be nothing but a memory. prosecution of the case to save countless US opposition and stop any further disputes. This suit was nothing more than an businesses and preserve innovation in the Thank you. attempt by the Clinton administration to market. Sincerely, socialize American business. Our forefathers Regards, Tom Wolf, President, Brian P. Seguin did not build a nation on the ideals of Ascend Public Relations Professional Land Surveyor Socialism. This nation did not become the 206–903–1730 Professional Engineer sole world superpower in a mere 200 years 206–903–1732 fax of existence because we allowed socialism to 206–850–3095 cell MTC–00028798 thrive in America; rather we are a nation 866–903–1730 toll free From: Ernest Paul Webber
VerDate 11
To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, Author,_Technological Innovation for a Date: 1/28/02 5:43pm John Joseph Dynamic Economy_,1980 (Pergamon Press) Subject: Microsoft Settlement _Risks, Concerns and Social Dear Sirs: MTC–00028800 Legislation_,1988 (Westview Press) As I see it, you have established as a From: The Babcock Design Studios W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS finding of fact that Microsoft has broken the To: Microsoft ATR Center for Information, Technology & law. Microsoft is quite apparently lacking in Date: 1/28/02 5:45pm Society repentance and assured that it can evade Subject: Microsoft Settlement 466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA 02176 justice. Your responsibility is to insure that Honorable Judge Coleen Kollar-Kotelly, In Voice: 617–662–4044 Microsoft —cannot— continue to break the December of 2001 I have purchased new [email protected] law. Microsoft has made it clear that it does computer with Microsoft XP, Home Edition Fax: 617–662–6882 WWW: http:// not understand the crimes it is guilty of, nor program installed. I wanted to upgrade the www.eff.org/pub/Groups/CITS does it intend to learn how or why it should program to Microsoft XP Professional change its own behavior, other than as a version. There was no upgrade available. I MTC–00028802 response to your judgment, and its desire to had to purchase new Microsoft XP From: Chuck Peper avoid substantial pain suffered as a result. Professional version at full price ($300). In To: Microsoft ATR Please do whatever it takes to stop these above mentioned case I do not consider Date: 1/28/02 5:45pm guys! Microsoft policy either competative or fair. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, Sincerely, As a professional software developer, I find Ernest Paul Webber Dushan D. Hrovat — the governments proposed settlement with 1808 Anacortes Ave NE MS a joke. MS was clearly found to be a Renton, WA 98059 MTC–00028801 monopoly and anti competitive but the MTC–00028799 From: Dr. W. Curtiss Priest government has essentially taken no punitive To: Microsoft ATR,W. Curtiss Priest action. What is even more disquieting is MS From: jjoseph Date: 1/28/02 5:44pm continues its illegal activity on a daily basis. To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement: Date: 1/28/02 5:45pm It’s new products and development languages woefully insufficient Subject: Microsoft Agreement (.Net) are anti competitive to other database Dear Justice Department, Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: manufacturers. They are using the same As a software innovator and holder of Attached please find my letter in favor of tactics over and over. several software patents, I have first hand the Microsoft Antitrust Agreement. Splitting MS into OS and application knowledge of how extremely brutal, unfair Thank you. companies is the only solution. and bullying Microsoft is to others in the Sincerely, industry. I was involved for five years in MTC–00028803 John E. Joseph negotiation, arbitration and potential legal From: Michael Sharp 6618 Manila Road action against Microsoft which only caused To: Microsoft ATR Goshen, OH 45122–9403 513–625–1745 Microsoft to spend incredible resources to Date: 1/28/02 5:47pm CC: [email protected]@inetgw deny me and Humanic Systems any just and Subject: Microsoft Settlement 6618 Manila Road due compensation for our innovative work. Please find attached my comments with Goshen, OH 45122–9403 In my opinion, as President of Humanic regards to the Microsoft Settlement (513) 625–1745 Systems, a company that was (above) abused <
VerDate 11
MTC–00028803_0002 To: [email protected] I oppose the Microsoft settlement. It is bad Cc: [email protected] for the computing profession and bad for MTC–00028804 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:29:19 -0500 long term economic development. I have From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: microsoft settlement been a software professional since 1973, and To: Microsoft ATR Message-ID: <20020128.162921.- in my personal experience the dominance of Date: 1/28/02 5:49pm [email protected]> states sueing Microsoft has had a negative impact on Subject: Microsoft Settlement microsoft as well as aol using netscape to get quality and innovation in the software I feel the Court should approve the money from microsoft thru the courts is industry. The settlement does not address the proposed settllement in the Microsoft wrong. microsoft is being bullied by the practices that have kept Microsoft in power. antitrust case. I think the complaints against goverment and stockholders have lost money A continuation of the Microsoft monopoly Microsoft have been more than adequately because of this court action. it also does not will only reduce the growth and future utility addressed by the proposed settlement let microsoft give all the attention it needs to of the software industry, and keep the general agreement and I support the recent efforts to fight the hackers and make the internet safe public from reaping the rewards of continued bring this case to a rapid conclusion. Thank for all users including aol. innovation in this relatively young field. you for your attention to this important The reason we are so interested in Mitch Wade matter. Larry Neustadt Microsoft Programs is that children all over MTC–00028812 MTC–00028806 the world are benefiting by Microsoft products,games and all sorts of programs as From: Alyne From: Damon Miller an educational tool. I’m so pleased when I To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR see my 4 year old granddaughter open the Date: 1/28/02 5:52pm Date: 1/28/02 5:49pm computer and do what she wants to do. She Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement spends hours doing games and playing her CC: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ videos, instead of watching T.V all the time. January 28,2002 remedy2.html Attorney General John Ashcroft US This sums it up quite nicely. Please release We have eight babies we encourage to learn all they can by buying programs for them at Department of Justice humanity from the stifling monarchy that 950 Pennsylvania A venue, NW Washington, Microsoft has created. ‘‘Freedom to Birthdays and just for fun. We the elderly have fun also and we invest DC 20530 Innovate’’? Not quite, Bill; ‘‘Freedom to Dear Mr. Ashcroft: desecrate’’ is closer to the truth, but still not money into the future of Microsoft and other companies for the future. Over the past three years I have watched quite there. the Department of Justices’’ aggressive attack The effect Microsoft has had on the CC:[email protected]/renatahesse@ inetgw on Microsoft. I am so pleased to see that this computer industry is disgusting. Bill Gates unwarranted and unsubstantiated antitrust and his money have systematically destroyed MTC–00028809 assault on Microsoft coming to close, everything the industry stood for, and all of provided that the government has the the individuals on whose shoulders it stands. From: Robert Smith foresight to see the beneficial impact from Bush sold millions of peoples’’ ideals right To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft’s settlement. down the river on this one, and something Date: 1/28/02 5:50pm The settlement allows for new Windows needs to be done. Please be strong enough to Subject: Microsoft configurations, giving computer makes and stand up to Microsoft, finally ending their Please see the attached letter. developers greater flexibility in offering non- blatant laughter in the face of human liberties Thank you! Microsoft software programs. This will everywhere. Too dramatic, you say? Think Robert R. Smith provide consumers with the option to remove again. Take a look at what this company has Smith-Krenning Enterprises, LLC and/or reconfigure any part of Windows. truly done TO humanity, and ask yourself if [email protected] that statement is untrue. CC:[email protected]@inetgw This gives the consumer the decision of what they like to use, and don’t want to keep. Sincerely, MTC–00028810 Damon Miller Consumers drive the markets; they decide (An individual trying to breathe under From: [email protected]@inetgw what it is that makes a company fail or Microsoft’s despotic tyranny) To: Microsoft ATR succeed. Date: 1/28/02 5:51pm Microsoft has successfully proven, time MTC–00028807 Subject: Microsoft Settlement after time, by creating and updating their From: Bill Humke Renata B. Hesse innovative products, where nothing else To: Microsoft ATR Antitrust Division compares. This settlement is the right thing Date: 1/28/02 5:53pm U.S. Department of Justice to do, for Microsoft, the public interest, the Subject: Microsoft Settlement 601 D Street NW tech industry, the economy, and all of which I urge you to settle this case on what is Suite 1200 is vested in consumer purchasing. Keeping now before the Court. Too much time and Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft out of more entangled legal money have been spent upon this case to Fax: 1–202–307–1454 or 1–202–616–9937 matters, will definitively promote more date. Let’s get it behind us so this Company Email: [email protected] responsible business decisions from can get onto productive activates, and thus It is time to close the doors on the Microsoft right down the line to the produce profits and positive cash flows so Microsoft antitrust case. We (USA) must customer. Please don’t continue this absurd that additional technical developments and think of the globe market place. Microsoft mess of litigious behavior with Microsoft. It innovations can be advanced. This will then produces products that all sold worldwide. is a waste of time and does not serve the best aid all of us in increasing our productivity, We should let Microsoft get back 100% to interest of the public good. their real business. I think we should allow thus producing additional profits upon MTC–00028813 which we will have to pay additional taxes— the company to go back and work 100% of again help all. their time and money on producing new and From: harry emlet Respectfully, improved products. To: Microsoft ATR Bill Humke Mary Ann Dieckman Date: 1/28/02 5:52pm [email protected] P.O. Box 210113 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Auke Bay, AK 99821 The Department of Justice should hold to MTC–00028808 Occupation Transportation Planner, the revised proposed Final Judgment to From: Ann smith which Microsoft has tentatively agreed and To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028811 reject the requests for other and further Date: 1/28/02 5:49pm From: [email protected]@inetgw remedies requested by the states continuing Subject: Fw: microsoft settlement To: Microsoft ATR to oppose the judgment. ————- Forwarded message ————— Date: 1/28/02 5:51pm I am dismayed at the persistence From: Ann smith
VerDate 11
several key industry leaders who so ardently must be one that will make switching by the enormous opportunities for innovative seek to diminish the dominant role of consumer cost effective. For that to happen software designers to develop programs that Microsoft and if possible replace it. They the alternative offered will have to stand out work within the dominant Microsoft piously attribute their efforts to their interest head and shoulders above Microsoft’s operating system as is well demonstrated by in the welfare of the consumer, when in fact product so that the considerable costs of the the proliferation of such ad hoc software. The it is the average consumer, individual and conversion will be justified. So far the very fact that the Microsoft operating system corporate, who would suffer most should alternatives offered have had only modest is dominant greatly facilitates continuation of Microsoft be greatly diminished or (in the advantages coupled with distinct such proliferation. inevitably lengthy interim) should Microsoft disadvantages. This is likely to continue to be The Department of Justice needs to be eventually replaced. They also claim that the case as long as Microsoft continues to continue to keep clearly in focus what is in Microsoft makes it more difficult for advance at the same rapid pace the the best short and long term interests of the entrepreneurs to develop and market technological and functional character of its consumer rather than what will promote the innovative products when in fact the product. Unable to outrun Microsoft, its private agendas of the industry warlords, opposite is true and their real problem is that would-be competitors seek to hamstring present or aspiring, in their relentless search they seek the dominance that Microsoft now Microsoft in ways that will slow its progress for greater power and fortune. has and cannot keep up with the innovative to where it can be overtaken. Microsoft has Let stand the revised proposed Final pace of Microsoft’s continuing evolution of provided in its operating system a Judgment. Terminate these endless its products. The challengers make these continually evolving, backward compatible, challenges, promptly implement the representations directly and through the software standard that has been a crucial remedies, let the developers and Attorney Generals of selected states. factor in facilitating the adoption by both entrepreneurs move on with their evolution The claim of harm to Netscape, for businesses and individuals of computing that of better and better systems within the example, is particularly false. Netscape permits near universal and highly efficient Microsoft environment, and let us users deliberately configured its browser so that interaction among all participants at steadily continue to move ahead with confidence in when it was used within Windows as part of reducing costs in user time and money. the continued forward and backward non-Microsoft application software it would I began my career in 1955 as a programmer compatibility of what we produce within the immediately take over all web browser on the very first of the large electronic present and future computing environment. functions. (I personally was so irritated by computers introduced by IBM. I have worked Very much needed as a follow-up, is a repeatedly having to counter this latter tactic with computers in one capacity or another thorough reassessment of the antitrust laws that I finally gave up in disgust and removed (as an analyst, manager, and corporate in the light of the present very different and Netscape from my system along with the executive) ever since in the areas of both rapidly evolving technological environment, application that required it.) The position of national defense systems in support of the the critically related pace of innovation, and those pretending that Microsoft was the Air Force and other Department of Defense the character of the related industries and its culprit in the demise of Netscape blissfully agencies and in health systems in support of users ignores both the technological character of the Centers for Disease Control, the National Harry Emlet the industry, the needs of the average Institutes of Health, and other health 3302 Clearwood Court individual and corporate user, and the agencies. As a retired professional I work Falls Church, VA 22042 specific technical issues that are relevant to with five desktop computers in my home. [email protected] the case and the remedy. What I and many others, whether If the continued challenges to Microsoft independent or corporate users, want in our MTC–00028814 prevail it will seriously harm the consumer, computers is commonality of software among From: Ronnie n/a will undermine the lead role which the our own computers and those with whom we To: Microsoft ATR United States now holds throughout the correspond electronically. We greatly prefer Date: 1/28/02 5:54pm world as a result of the proliferation of integrated systems from a single source that Subject: microsoft settlement Microsoft products worldwide, and will keeps to a minimum the investment of our This letter boasts my personal opinion in thereby decrease the present ease of time in resolving conflicts between operating every way and I appreciate microsoft for communication internationally made systems and applications. Microsoft through having contacted me with this letter. possible by the software commonality that is constant innovation has done a superb job of 5000 SE 83rd Place a direct result of the widespread proliferation meeting that need. It is obviously not perfect Oklahoma City, OK 73135 of Microsoft products. The mantra that but it demonstrated a wiliness to respond to January25,2002 increased competition at any cost is always the needs of its users. Attorney General John Ashcroft better in the long run is a na VerDate 11 American public. It might be flawed, but also freeing Microsoft to use anticompetitive Microsoft has eliminated it. In particular, the further litigation would be far worse. I hope tactics to spread its dominance into other settlement seems to validate Microsoft’s you take the right direction and side with markets. After more than 11 years of present monopoly in personal computer American people. litigation and investigation against Microsoft, operating systems. It is this monopoly, which Sincerely, surely we can—and we must— do much Microsoft maintains by anti-competitive cc: Senator Don Nickles better than this flawed proposed settlement business practices, which has severely Ronnie Higgins between the company and the Department of compromised the security of the nation’s Justice. computing infrastructure, which is the very MTC–00028815 Thank you for your time. foundation of modern commerce. From: Gunnar G Pedersen President Some argue that the personal computer To: Microsoft ATR CC: Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller operating system is an example of a ‘‘natural’’ Date: 1/28/02 5:54pm 505 Fifth Avenue, Suite 920 ?Des Moines, monopoly and that the software industry Subject: Microsoft Settlement Iowa 50309 * (515) 244–1900 * (515) benefits from Microsoft’s role in setting de- As it has been pointed out by senior 2444425 Fax www.gillettestrategies.com .info facto standards. First of all, this argument citizens groups, the Microsoft settlement @gillettestrategies.com ignores the observation that the Internet, seems to be a fair and equitable action and which throughout most of its formative phase should not be allowed to drag on any longer. MTC–00028818 grew up outside Microsoft’s sphere of I wish to add my voice to this cause. Gunnar From: Neele Johnston influence and in spite of Microsoft’s Pedersen, Clifton Park, NY To: Microsoft ATR determined attempts to undermine it, has MTC–00028817 Date: 1/28/02 5:57pm been the single greatest source of innovation Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement in technology for a generation. Some might From: [email protected]@inetgw Information say the only source. More importantly, the To: Microsoft ATR Date: January 28, 2002 argument ignores the significant national Date: 1/28/02 5:55pm From: Neele T. Johnston, President security and business risks that we are now Subject: Letter to Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly Intelligenesis, Inc. subjected to as a result of Microsoft’s Please see attached. 25 Froude Circle monopoly in operating systems that are used Thanks, Cabin John, MD 20818 in defense, government and business. Graham Gillette (301) 263–0248 Operating systems are the most critical piece 515–244–1900 email: [email protected] of infrastructure which either keep GILLETTE To: Renata B. Hesse commercial transactions and command and STRATEGIC Antitrust Division control functions safe and secure, or leave RESOURCES U.S. Department of Justice them vulnerable to malicious disruption, Wednesday, January 23, 2002 601 D Street NW theft, and falsification. These vulnerabilities Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly Suite 1200 become increasingly clear with each passing U.S. District Court, District of Columbia Washington, DC 20530–0001 week; one need only make a cursory c/o Renata B. Hesse U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division email: [email protected] examination of IT industry news to be keenly 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Subject: Microsoft Settlement aware of the risks and costs associated with Washington, DC 20530–0001 To whom it may concern, them. Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly: I am writing to encourage you, in the If we are inclined to be kind to Microsoft The proposed settlement between the strongest terms, to reject the settlement of we could argue that the risks are inherent in Department of Justice and Microsoft in U.S. United States v. Microsoft, that has been a monopolized market segment, due to the v. Microsoft is not good enough. proposed by the Department of Justice and issue of homogeneity. The differences that I am a member of the Des Moines School Microsoft Corporation. The proposed exist in naturally varying systems mean that Board, a small businessman and a political settlement is not in the public interest and only a minority of the population tends to be activist. In each of these roles, I am will only serve to give Microsoft Corporation susceptible to any particular threat. This is concerned about protecting competition in the green light to inflict further harm on borne out by observing the Apple Macintosh the marketplace. This agreement does not consumers, businesses, and the competitive community, which is less than five percent adequately protect the free market and landscape of the Information Technology of the personal computer population and innovation, and does not go far enough to industry. enjoys essentially all the same capabilities as address consumer choice. Now is the time for our federal government Microsoft Windows users. While the ninety- The settlement does nothing to deal with to step up it’s efforts to rein in Microsoft and five percent of personal computer users with the effects on consumers and businesses of control it’s abusive practices. Having rightly Microsoft Windows have been subjected to technologies such as Microsoft’s Passport. found Microsoft guilty of illegally extending over a dozen well-publicized attacks in the Passport has been the subject of numerous their monopoly in personal computer form of Internet email worms, Macintosh privacy and security complaints by national operating systems to other areas of the users (as well as Linux users, who make up consumer organizations. However, software industry, the judicial system has an an even smaller percentage), have been corporations and governments that place a obligation to impose a penalty on Microsoft invulnerable to virtually all these attacks. high value on system security will be unable that is commensurate with the harm they This proves, on the face of it, that no one to benefit from competitive security have caused and that will serve to partially besides Microsoft benefits from Microsoft’s technologies, even if those technologies are restore competition where the defendant’s monopoly. superior to Microsoft’s. Why? Microsoft predatory business practices have destroyed Furthermore, if we are inclined to be more controls their choices through its monopolies it. This is not the time to go easy on them. realistic and less kind to Microsoft, it is easy and dominant market share, and still is able This is not the time to tire of the fight for to establish that Microsoft’s chronic lack of to dictate what technologies it will include. increased competition in the software emphasis on quality, reliability or security in Enforcing federal antitrust laws against industry. the Windows operating system has greatly monopolies is not new or novel. Antitrust In spite of what the government and exacerbated the vulnerability that we are now law has protected free markets and enhanced Microsoft now contend, resolution of this faced with. Microsoft has now, belatedly, consumer welfare in this country for more case has nothing whatsoever to do with admitted this is an issue and pledged to make than a century. The Microsoft case does not patriotism, ‘‘freedom to innovate,’’ or security their main focus in the future. This represent a novel application of the law, but maintaining America’s leadership in a is just marketing hype designed to distract us is the kind of standard antitrust enforcement flagship industry. On the contrary, leaving from the magnitude of the risk we are living action necessary to insure vigorous Microsoft intact and unshackled will leave a under. Only the advent of true competition competition in all sectors of today’s very serious threat to our national security in the operating systems market segment will economy. unresolved. The proposed settlement does far ever cure this vulnerability. The proposed settlement allows Microsoft too little to restore competition in the key Microsoft’s performance in reference to the to preserve and reinforce its monopoly, while areas of the software industry where Y2K bug proved that they cannot be trusted VerDate 11 to act in the best interests of their customers. significantly penalizes Microsoft. The current Robert R. Smith Throughout the course of this trial many of environment in which Microsoft is seen by MPIC-MGTS Microsoft’s defenders have argued that most as getting away with murder as a result (314) 827–3584 consumers were never harmed in the browser of their own might and cleverness, and often Robert. [email protected] war. This is patently false. Microsoft openly being lionized for it, is not healthy for the MTC–00028819 0001 and publicly committed all of their attention Judicial System or for America, to say and resources to defeating Netscape and nothing of industry. Robert R. Smith embracing (belatedly) the Internet. One need Microsoft claims that they have a right to Smith-Krenning Enterprises, LLC only note the timing of these events to realize compete as vigorously as possible and that 10784 Stroup Road that Microsoft was busy fighting the browser they are simply better at it than other Festus, MO 63028 war at the precise time that their customers companies. However, Microsoft has no January 28, 2002 were demanding Y2K fixes, and not getting awareness of what honorable or gentlemanly Department of Justice them. This lack of responsiveness to competition is all about. In most arenas we Attorney General John Ashcroft customer requirements cost American do not allow competitors to openly cheat, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW businesses and consumers many billions of especially if they are prodigious and Washington, DC 20530–0001 dollars, if not more. unrepentant about it. If we will not allow Dear Mr. Ashcroft, During the time of the browser war, I was such behavior in the Olympics, how can we While I believe that the recently negotiated a director of Information Technology at feel comfortable allowing it to continue in settlement between Microsoft and the Fannie Mae, a Fortune 50 company with an Information Technology? The winner must Department of Justice has gone too far, I also IT budget well over $50 million. I had first- bear a special burden of scrutiny. In addition think that this suit is better settled. It is hand knowledge of what Y2K abatement cost to numerous abuses that they have not yet important for the IT community to move my company and it was clear that a been tried for, or are perhaps not technically forward again. It is equally important for the considerable portion of it, easily several criminal, Microsoft has been tried and found IT community to trust that the government million dollars, was due solely to Microsoft’s guilty, upheld on appeal, of severe criminal would allow the owners their right to enjoy tardiness in addressing the Y2K issues in misconduct. Over the course of this trial, the benefits that our wonderful country was their software, many of which were not their entire executive staff engaged in built on, allowing each of us to exercise our solved until well past the eleventh hour, well numerous, obvious acts of perjury, skills and make money. after the date we had targeted to be fully demonstrating that it is their usual way of However, some of the terms of the compliant. I am sure that nearly every other doing business. No one seriously believes settlement are a bit troublesome. Microsoft American business faced similar issues and that they can be trusted to honor the terms should not be forced to release some of its the resulting, unnecessary costs they bore are of a consent decree. source code to third-party software truly staggering. Anyone who believes this Given the remarkably high profile of the developers. Doing so is no guarantee that this was inevitable or even excusable need only company, the citizens of this country cannot source code will not be used to develop some note the fact that the Apple Macintosh allow this state of affairs to continue. I want sort of Windows-type clone. My company writes applications that work on the operating system was never susceptible to to urge my government, in the strongest Microsoft Windows platform, and we do so any of the Y2K problems that businesses terms, to withdraw it’s support for the without any code from Microsoft that isn’t waited until after the eleventh hour for settlement that is on the table. It does not go already published. I don’t need Microsoft’s solutions for from Microsoft. Could this nearly far enough to serve the public’s insight to their operating systems any more possibly be because Apple has never had the interests. It is riddled with loopholes, which than the next developer. If we start luxury of a monopoly position for its Microsoft has proven for nearly a decade that demanding code from Microsoft, then products, but has had to compete on their they will exploit to the fullest. It sends the Microsoft should be able to demand code merits? Had Microsoft targeted reliability and wrong messages to the public, to Microsoft, from us, and I’m not willing to share mine quality as major product goals and had they and to whatever would-be innovators may be made a reasonable effort at Y2K abatement at either. thinking of trying to compete against While innovation is the hallmark of the IT the time they began the browser war, I firmly Microsoft. It sends a signal to terrorists that community, simply cloning software that believe (based on first-hand experience in my we are sanguine about the fact that they have does not carry with it the full expertise that company) that the price tag that consumers only a single target to concentrate on to take the original software has is dangerous. There and businesses would have paid for Y2K out the infrastructure of America’s economy. are issues like product confusion, reliability compliance would have been 30% to 50% It gives Microsoft the government’s implicit and support that may end up causing more less than it was. blessing in their continued effort to confusion in the consumer’s mind than did I have over twenty years of professional undermine the free software and open source this lawsuit. experience in systems integration and IT movements, which represent the only real The very least that can be said, however, management. I have carefully observed hope for competition in operating systems is that the litigation is apparently over, and Microsoft’s rise from the start. My seven and infrastructure technologies. this is a good thing. I am hoping that there years at Fannie Mae convinced me that Please give some consideration to adopting will be no further federal action against Microsoft’s heavy-handed control over my the proposal of remedies put forth by the Microsoft or any other IT company. industry is very harmful to corporate IT and nine dissenting states. Their proposal, while Sincerely, to the industry in general. I could go on for still inadequate to fully address the threat, is cc: Representative Richard A. Gephardt many pages to explain to you, with hard at least a significant improvement over the Robert Smith evidence, why this is so. However, I believe settlement proposed by the Justice Co-Owner that has already been established in court. Department. What this industry desperately needs is Yours very truly, MTC–00028820 competition in the segments Microsoft Neele T. Johnston From: cparrish1 controls, such as desktop operating systems. Intelligenesis, Inc. To: Microsoft ATR Any settlement of this case must not only 25 Froude Circle Date: 1/28/02 5:59pm be fair to Microsoft and to the industry they Cabin John, MD 20818 Subject: microsoft settlement have harmed, it must be seen to be fair by 301–263–0248 I strongly believe you should back off and the public and must be seen as a punishment, [email protected] let entrepreneurship alone. if a light one, for the misdeeds that have Sincerely, MTC–00028819 already been established. This proposed Charles M. Parrish settlement is widely viewed as a stunning From: Smith, Bob victory for Microsoft, witness the majority of To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ MTC–00028821 reports in the press over the past two months, Date: 1/28/02 5:57pm From: Fil Alleva and that alone is reason enough not to Subject: Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR proceed with it. It is not a punishment. It Please see the attached message concerning Date: 1/28/02 5:59pm neither guarantees competition nor the litigation against Microsoft. Subject: Microsoft Settlement VerDate 11 MTC–00028821—0001 Attorney General John Ashcroft operate with any particular operating system. ??e:///c√/win/temp/tmp. United States Department of Justice We were warned by our vendor, Gateway, To US Federal District Court and US DO Washington, DC 20530–0001 that we should have purchased our computer J, Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: with Windows, then installed a free I am writing to express my support of the I am writing you let you know that I am operating system to coexist with it. For any settlement reached by Microsoft and the DOJ. a staunch supporter of Microsoft and I remedy to be effective, Windows should be I believe that the settlement will allow all of believe that the current lawsuit against the an extra-cost add-on to a basic Gateway the parties involved to move on to more company instigated by the federal computer that we purchase or recommend to productive endeavors. Microsoft has been government is wrong and perhaps even the military commanders and community incredibly successful because it has created counter-productive. Nevertheless, after three development workers who’ll use our products that consumers and businesses find long, long years of legal wrestling, the software. useful. Arguably many Microsoft’s settlement reached in November should A second source of harm to me as a competitors that decry its behavior would not provide the opportunity to put an end to this consumer comes from Microsoft’s secret file even exist today had it not been for issue once and for all. For that reason I urge formats. The only way my software can Microsoft’s tireless efforts on behalf of the that you work towards implementing this reduce information overload for military personal computing industry. settlement as soon as possible. commanders and community development Fil Alleva Under this settlement, Microsoft has agreed workers is if my software can read and write Stockholder and Employee of Microsoft to design future versions of the Windows the file formats for information with which Redmond, Washington. operating system to provide a mechanism for these workers are inundated. Other vendors users, computer manufacturers and software and researchers publish their file formats. MTC–00028822 developers to promote non-Microsoft Microsoft does not. I can not avoid using From: kayandmitch software applications. Additionally source Microsoft file formats and must spend extra To: Microsoft ATR codes and interfaces internal to the Windows money to try to keep up with changes to Date: 1/28/02 5:59pm operating system and its products will be them. Through a model called ‘‘embrace and Subject: Microsoft settlement freely available to Microsoft’s competitors. extend,’’ Microsoft is able to use its As a retired citizen of Washington state, I This is only the tip of the iceberg. As such, monopoly position to change file formats encourage you to accept the proposed this settlement should more than satisfy the such as Rich Text Format over time to reduce settlement in the anti-trust case involving Department of Justice, as well as competing interoperability among customers and Microsoft. I am neither an employee nor a companies. competitors. Only a remedy that forces stockholder in this firm. It is time that we concentrate on more Microsoft to publish file formats so that they This settlement is appropriate and reflects important matters facing America. I ask that cease to be a monopoly-strengthening tool a triumph of the rule of law. Many critics, all you work towards putting the November can provide effective relief for me as a with an axe to grind, i.e. competitors and settlement into action as soon as possible and consumer. state attorneys-general, call for extreme, without any more litigation. Thank you. A third source of harm to me as a stringent restrictions that are totally Sincerely, consumer concerns my ability to use the inappropriate. Dennis Cassidy World Wide Web without the requirement These objections ignore the decision of the cc: Senator Rick Santorum that I use Microsoft products. I can not Appeals Court that reversed much of Judge browse certain web pages nor conduct MTC–00028824 Jackson’s original findings. Objectors not transactions on certain websites because the only misstate facts, but deliberately misinter- From: Mick McQuaid authors of a free operating system running on pret the Appeals Courts’’ key findings. To: Microsoft ATR my computer do not have access to Microsoft In my view there can be no valid objection Date: 1/28/02 6:00pm networking protocols. Fortunately, not every to this settlement since every major finding Subject: Public Comment on Microsoft web site is forbidden because I have chosen of the Appeals Court is stringently addressed Settlement a free operating system, but more sites are with a targeted remedy that specifically I am a university-based research scientist denied me every day. Two years ago, I prohibits and prevents the conduct in developing software to reduce information believed that free operating systems like question. overload. My sponsors include the US Army Linux were the wave of the future. In the past Acceptance of the proposed settlement will Research Lab, which hopes my software will year, I have come to realize that Microsoft is send a signal to American industry reduce information overload for tactical working actively to shut down free operating managements and all thinking citizens that commanders in battle, and the Ford systems by making access to the Internet the rule of law is still being enforced Foundation’s Community Development more difficult for those who fail to access appropriately. Any- -thing beyond this Program, which hopes my software will do using current Microsoft products. Only a settlement would be a victory for those who the same for overworked, underpaid remedy that forces Microsoft to publicly seek damage and destruction rather than a community development workers. reveal networking protocols such that users remedy;. for competitors, litigation rather In my research, I am a consumer of of free operating systems have a chance to than innovative, honest competition. computer hardware and software, as are my rewrite their software to visit websites and Every person with the most rudimentary sponsors, their customers, and the students conduct transactions. understanding of free markets wants the law who work in my lab. In my view, we are all To summarize, I have been harmed as a to protect the markets’’ smooth functioning. harmed by Microsoft’s monopoly, and this consumer by Microsoft’s monopoly. The Can we depend on the fair application of the harm is not addressed by the proposed proposed settlement does not offer me any laws that all participants in the U.S. economy settlement. relief from that harm and I suggest in this rely on ? I hope your answer is a resounding As a public university, and with message three requirements that would have ‘‘yes’’. government agencies and charitable to be met to provide that relief: (1) make Thank you for your consideration. community foundations as our sponsors, we Microsoft operating systems an extra-cost Harold G. Mitchell are acutely aware of the need to save money. add-on to computers, (2) compell Microsoft 1800 Skyline Way One way we believe we could accomplish to publish file formats it uses to maintain and Anacortes, WA 98221 this is by using free operating systems such extend its monopoly to the desktop, and (3) as Linux or FreeBSD instead of Windows. We compell Microsoft to publish networking MTC–00028823 have been stymied in our efforts to purchase standards it uses to maintain and extend its From: [email protected]@inetgw computers with free operating systems or no monopoly to the Internet. To: Microsoft ATR operating systems. I have never written to comment on any Date: 1/28/02 6:00pm We found that purchasing a computer from such settlement before, in part because I Subject: Microsoft a vendor, Gateway, with no operating system never been persuaded of the gravity of such 325 North Broadway cost just as much as to purchase it with a situation. The proposed settlement shocks Wind Gap, PA 18091–1214 Windows and also led to a warranty problem me as a consumer and I can only explain it January 28, 2002 where the computer was not warranted to by taking into account the profound effect VerDate 11 that recent events have had on the DOJ response to the allegation that Microsoft has Adobe—imaging program Symantec— mindset about what constitutes the national engaged in unfair business practices, utilities programs Ipswitch—FTP program interest. Possibly DOJ has become less Microsoft has agreed to give up many things. Real Networks—multimedia programs It is aggressive toward violators during a period of Microsoft has agreed to disclose portions of reasonable to ask what the ability to edit national mourning. Now it is time for cooler its code to their competitors. They have also photographs, for example, has to do with a heads to prevail and to demonstrate to the submitted to making it easier for consumers computer operating system. The only public that our government considers the to change the configuration of Windows. This purpose for including such programs in national interest to include what is best for will allow consumers to run programs made Windows at no charge is to drive competitors consumers, not merely what is best for by Microsoft’s competitors, while using out of business. This represents classic anti- corporations. — Windows. Additionally, Microsoft has agreed competitive behavior that must be curtailed. Mick McQuaid, [email protected] not to take retaliatory actions against those Sincerely, 2721 East Fort Lowell Road who distribute or promote software that Jack Burlingame Tucson, AZ 85716 competes with Windows. Fair competition 28–B Old County Road 520–975–5157 will be restored as a result of the concessions Hingham MA 02043 MTC–00028825 Microsoft has made. Nothing else should be MTC–00028830 required of Microsoft beyond the terms of the From: Tommy Goddard settlement agreement. From: Leonard Shackelford To: Microsoft ATR Thank you. To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 5:56pm Sincerely, Date: 1/28/02 6:02pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement Linda Rogers Subject: Microsoft Settlement Do you plan on dropping the millions of CC:[email protected]@inetgw I support any decision which will allow customers? What do plan on doing about the Microsoft to continue business without any fact that 99% of the government’s computers MTC–00028828 government intervention. Please leave are run by MS? Now that AT&T is a From: kwhite Microsoft alone! government controlled company their service To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, sucks. I can see how making MS a Date: 1/28/02 6:02pm Leonard Shackelford government entity would create so many Subject: Microsoft Settlement [email protected] issues for consumers and hurt our economy The courts are punishing Microsoft, a MTC–00028831 worse.. Anything federally regulated and winner and rewarding the losers who have From: Gordie (038) Barbara Rydberg funded sucks. Have you ever had a speeding inferior products in my estimation. What is To: Microsoft ATR ticket or tried to get a different phone wrong with winning? I don’t see Be on every Date: 1/28/02 6:03pm company? MS actually provides good desktop and Oracle is so expensive and Subject: Microsoft Settlment support. cumbersome that only foolish bureaucracies Attorney General John Aahcroft I Tommy run this software. There are no gains for the Internet √ Developer encourage the United States Justice general population which this lawsuit Sportwave, Inc. & Championship Department to accept the recent anti-trust pretends to ‘‘protect’’. Very clearly the courts Tennistours, Inc. settlement it reached with Microsoft. I’m for are protecting a very few major corporations ‘‘It’s Tennis on the Net!’’ anything that will get the matter behind us and their interests, not us little guys. And EMail: VerDate 11 the Microsoft case. As a beneficiary of years freedom of production and trade and an Considering that this case was initial of anti-trust violations, Microsoft is now interference with the right to acquire and brought not at the insistence of individual being allowed to retain many billions of possess property. We disagree with the consumers or with Microsoft’s business dollars of illegal profits. Furthermore, this essential factual component of this case that partners, but at the insistence of Microsoft’s proposed settlement does nothing to limit Microsoft’s integration of its Internet unsuccessful competitors, this entire case Microsoft’s power and ability to continue its Explorer Web browser with its Windows reeks of business failures asking the anti-competitive behavior. I feel we are being operating system was a coercive act against government to step in and give them the sold short by this proposed final judgment, Microsoft’s competitors and customers. commercial success they could not achieve and Microsoft emerges as the winner. Instead, we see a company that according it in the marketplace. Failed businesses must Respectfully, its evaluation of the marketplace saw the not be allowed to set the rules for the markets Carl Hekkert commercial value of product integration and in which they failed. In evaluating the 408–245–7266 acted accordingly. In exercise of Microsoft’s proposed settlement, we find that it right to control its property, the firm set specifically threatens the right to private MTC–00028833 terms for the sale of that property that it property. A key component of the proposed From: Nicholas P. Provenzo believed was in its own self-interest. remedy is a requirement that Microsoft make To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft’s subsequent commercial success its source codes available to a government- Date: 1/28/02 6:02pm after this integration affirms the wisdom of sanctioned oversight committee, which in Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft’s actions—Microsoft’s customers turn is supposed to ensure these same source Please see the attached document for the themselves chose to reward the firm with codes are made available to non-Microsoft Center’s comments on the proposed increased sales and increased market share. ‘‘middleware’’ producers, so that these Microsoft Settlement. Rather than serve an impediment to the free companies can create products to compete The Center for the Moral Defense of market, Microsoft’s actions personified them. with Microsoft. Since under the proposed Capitalism The Center for the Moral Defense of judgment, the United States would retain the VerDate 11 condemns it. Microsoft’s innovation, its What Judge Jackson really objects to is the be easier to incorporate the fast-growing continual product upgrades, its millions fact that Microsoft defeated its competitors, Internet into all aspects of personal spent on research and development, are cited i.e., that it was successful. The real meaning computing. In fact, Judge Jackson partly by Jackson, not as evidence that Microsoft of his ‘‘findings of fact’’ is that the best brains acknowledges the groundbreaking work has earned its position, but only as evidence must be crippled, so that lesser brains will performed by Microsoft in this regard: of a conspiracy to ‘‘stifle’’ its competitors. not have such a hard time succeeding. He The inclusion of Internet Explorer with Fiction #2: Microsoft’s ‘‘monopoly power’’ and the government prosecutors whose Windows at no separate charge increased allows it to ‘‘coerce’’ its customers. A private arguments he is echoing do not want to foster general familiarity with the Internet and company has no power to force consumers to innovation; they want to sacrifice the best reduced the cost to the public of gaining do anything. Did Judge Jackson find that and the brightest in the name of access to it, at least in part because it Microsoft threatened to beat people up or egalitarianism. They want the playing field compelled Netscape to stop charging for throw their bodies into the East River if they leveled by coercion so that no one can rise Navigator. These actions thus contributed to bought the wrong Web browser? Of course to the top. improving the quality of Web browsing not. The only ‘‘leverage’’ Microsoft has is the What consumers need is an antidote to the software, lowering its cost, and increasing its leverage it has earned by producing a product fictions peddled by Judge Jackson: the availability, thereby benefiting consumers. that people want to buy. recognition that businessmen have a right to (Paragraph 408) Concurrent with its This economic power, the power of succeed by trading their products in a free technological innovation, Microsoft put into voluntary trade, is fundamentally different market. Dr. Edwin A. Locke is Dean’s practice novel business services and from political power, the power of the gun. Professor of Motivation and Leadership at the licensing arrangements. Just one of many Yet Judge Jackson is eager to erase this Robert H. Smith School of Business at the examples addressed by Judge Jackson is the distinction. Thus, such actions as upgrading University of Maryland and is affiliated with Internet Explorer Access Kit (IEAK), a service a product to match the features offered by a UMD’s Department of Psychology. An that permits an Internet access provider competitor, distributing a product for free, or internationally renowned behavioral (IAP), such as America Online or Earthlink, negotiating favorable terms with business scientist, Locke’s work is included in leading to accept a license agreement on the Web and partners—all of them normal and beneficial textbooks and acknowledged in books on the then download and customize Microsoft’s business practices—are presented by Judge history of management. Internet software. When Microsoft began Jackson as if they are a nefarious, mafia- like THE CENTER FOR THE MORAL DEFENSE offering this service in September, 1996, it conspiracy to oppress the public. OF CAPITALISM was the first time an Internet access provider Fiction #3: Microsoft harmed consumers. Appendix 2: could create a distinctive identity for its This is certainly news to the millions of Altruism in Action: An Analysis of Judge service in as little as a few hours by people worldwide who value Microsoft Jackson’s Finding of Fact and the Antitrust customizing the title bar, icon, start and products enough to make the company and Assault on Microsoft search pages, and ‘‘favorites’’ in Internet its founders rich. by Adam Mossoff Explorer. The IEAK also made the Most bizarre is Judge Jackson’s claim that Policy Analyst installation process easy for IAPs. With the Microsoft harmed consumers by giving away The Center for the Moral Defense of IEAK, IAPs could avoid piecemeal its Web browser, making it unprofitable for Capitalism installation of various programs and instead other firms to sell their browsers. Any sane United States District Court Judge Thomas create an automated, comprehensive consumer would be delighted to get a P. Jackson is crystal clear in his recent installation package in which all settings and product for free rather than paying money for ‘‘findings of fact’’: Microsoft is marked for options were pre-configured. (Paragraph 249) it. To speak of receiving free software as a destruction. But why does Judge Jackson More than 2,500 access providers— ‘‘harm’’ is Orwellian doublespeak. want to punish one of the most successful representing more than 95% of the Internet Fiction #4: Microsoft is a threat to corporations in American history? Because subscriber market in the US—used consumers because it ‘‘could’’ raise its prices. Bill Gates proclaimed that he wanted ‘‘to Microsoft’s IEAK service. (Paragraph 251) Under this criterion, anyone could be prove that a successful company can renew Notably, Netscape did not create a similar prosecuted for anything. Do you own a itself and stay in the forefront’’ i—and he service until nine months after Microsoft kitchen knife? Then you might stab proceeded to do just that. introduced IEAK, and Netscape charged somebody—so should the government put By the early 90s, Microsoft had gained a almost $2,000 for something Microsoft you in jail? dominant position in the software industry offered for free. (Paragraph 250) Microsoft has the right to sell its product by creating Windows, the first commercially Microsoft blended technological for any price it chooses—but anyone familiar viable graphical operating system that could innovation with business acumen and thus with the history of business and with be used on PCs. But in the mid-90s, Gates offered its business partners an integrated Economics 101 knows that market leaders realized that the Internet represented the next package of new technology and new business have a selfish interest in keeping their prices step in the ongoing computer revolution; opportunities. In exploiting these low. Why? Because they make a lot more thus, he created a business plan to ‘‘stay in opportunities, Microsoft often offered money by creating a mass market than by the forefront’’ of this revolution. In so doing, ‘‘valuable consideration‘‘—such as special creating a product only the rich can buy. he set into motion the same technological discounts— to companies like Compaq, IBM, Henry Ford understood this. So did Bill and commercial innovation that had led to and Intel as an incentive to adopt its Internet Gates. Clearly, Judge Jackson does not. Microsoft’s leading market position in the Explorer and other Microsoft technology. In The only basis for his conclusion is the first place. fact, Judge Jackson uses the term ‘‘valuable caricature of the successful corporation as a Microsoft began by investing a staggering consideration’’ eight times to describe vicious ‘‘Robber Baron’’ which, even if it is $100 million each year in Internet research Microsoft’s business agreements with other not ‘‘exploiting’’ consumer now, is merely and development, and in four years the companies—leaving the honest reader to waiting for the opportunity to do so. Fiction company expanded its Internet division from conclude that Microsoft’s dealings were not #5: Blocking Microsoft’s ability to compete only six people to more than one thousand. some form of coercion but rather value-for- will foster greater industry innovation. A These investments, in the words of Judge value trades. private company, with no power over Jackson, paid ‘‘technological dividends.’’ ii For instance, Microsoft beat Netscape in consumers but the power conferred by (Paragraph 135) Microsoft developed a Web developing a special type of browser that offering a useful product, is branded by Judge browser called Internet Explorer, and ‘‘after America Online (AOL) required for its Jackson as dangerous. But far-reaching the arrival of Internet Explorer 4.0 in late Internet service. As a result, the two government intervention in the software 1997, the number of reviewers who regarded companies entered into several agreements in industry, including the massive use of force it as the superior product was roughly equal 1996. In exchange for AOL’s commitment to to shatter Microsoft and control its business to those who preferred [Netscape’s] use Microsoft’s Internet software, Microsoft practices, is presented as an attempt to spur Navigator.’’ (Paragraph 135) promised to provide AOL with innovation. Only those who believe AI Gore But Gates took Microsoft even farther. He unprecedented access to Internet Explorer invented the Internet could take this integrated Internet Explorer into Microsoft’s source code, extensive technical assistance, argument seriously. Windows operating system so that it would ‘‘free world-wide distribution rights to VerDate 11 Internet Explorer,’’ an assurance ‘‘that future of evidence as irrelevant because Microsoft explains this vague allegation. Moreover, he versions of its Web browsing software would could simply be using low prices today in claims, the integration of Windows and possess the latest available Internet-related order to ‘‘capture’’ the market and charge Internet Explorer has created slower technology features, capabilities, and exorbitant prices at some future date. In other computers with more bugs—as if computers standards,’’ and the placement of an AOL words, Microsoft is a monopolist if it charges are slower and less dependable than they icon in a special folder on the Windows prices that are deemed ‘‘too high‘‘—but it is were two years ago! One might regard such desktop. (Paragraph 288) also a monopolist if it charges prices that are mythical ‘‘harms’’ as the laughable This relationship has been advantageous to too low. By virtue of its dominant position allegations of a Luddite—if they did not both parties. Overall usage of Internet in the industry—that is, by virtue of its come from a judge who wields the coercive Explorer has risen dramatically, and as a success—Microsoft is damned if it does and power of the federal government. result of this agreement AOL registered damned if it doesn’t. Regardless of how trivial these alleged almost one million new users in a single Judge Jackson’s visceral antagonism to harms may be, Judge Jackson seems sincerely year—11% of its total membership—through business is also revealed by his to believe that Microsoft is acting as a vicious its icon on the Windows desktop. This fact condemnation of Microsoft for winning the monopolist. Why? He answers this question alone prompted AOL to state in 1998 that its browser battle against Netscape when in the last few sentences of his ruling: business arrangement with Microsoft was an ‘‘superior quality was not responsible for the ‘‘Microsoft’s past success in hurting such ‘‘important, valued source of new customers dramatic rise [in] Internet Explorer’s usage companies and stifling innovation ... occur for us.’’ (Paragraph 302) Microsoft’s share.’’ (Paragraph 375) Note the implicit for the sole reason that [other companies and achievements should be held up as a model premise in this condemnation: If Microsoft their innovations] do not coincide with of how to create and maintain a highly hasn’t produced a product that is Microsoft’s self-interest.’’ (Paragraph 412) productive, innovative company. Yet Judge technologically superior, then only (Emphasis added.) Jackson is unable to view any of these facts commerce can explain its success. Jackson is It takes Judge Jackson more than 200 pages, in a positive light. While Judge Jackson repulsed by the notion that successful but in the end he names the essence of his recognizes many of the concrete facts that computer companies require both disgust for Microsoft—and the essence of the demonstrate Microsoft’s productive technological savvy and business skills; in antitrust laws. In so doing, Judge Jackson achievement, he is incapable of praising the his ideal world, Silicon Valley would be exposes the fundamental moral premise innovation and business acumen that led to populated solely by computer scientists with dictating his factual distortions, his fallacy- Microsoft’s success. nary an ‘‘alarming’’ venture capitalist or ridden arguments, and his illogical Instead, his descriptions are clouded by ‘‘threatening’’ businessman in sight. Judge conclusions: a hatred for any form of self- slanted, inflammatory terms that attribute Jackson’s praise for innovation, however, interest. vicious motives to Gates and his company. might seem to contradict his overall attack on The morality of altruism or self-sacrifice is When Microsoft created new technology to successful businesses. Technological often presented as a form of benevolence, as compete with its rivals, Judge Jackson innovation is a source of business success, is if it simply means being nice to other people. describes the company’s motivation as ‘‘fear’’ it not? Although Judge Jackson recognizes But the actual meaning of this philosophy is and ‘‘alarm.’’ When Microsoft offered that technological innovation causes a hatred of success. Under this morality, incentives to its business partners, Judge businesses to succeed, he believes that this anyone who achieves some extraordinary Jackson decries this as the ‘‘quashing’’ and innovation has another, more legitimate, wealth or distinction owes it to his fellow ‘‘stifling’’ of rivals. When Microsoft licensed function. He writes: men to sacrifice what he has earned— its products only under conditions favorable In many cases, one of the early entrants including giving away his whole fortune, as to its long-term success, Judge Jackson into a new software category quickly captures and when it is demanded by others. (This is describes these actions as ‘‘threats’’ and a lion’s share of the sales .... What eventually essentially what has been demanded of Bill ‘‘force.’’ (Judge Jackson uses variations of displaces the leader is often not competition Gates.) But what about those who have not ‘‘threat’’ no fewer than twenty times and of from another product within the same achieved anything? They are entitled to ‘‘force’’ no fewer than sixteen times to software category, but rather a technological welfare programs, private charities, describe Microsoft’s actions.) When advance that renders the boundaries defining protective legislation, and a host of other Microsoft refused to support its competition, the category obsolete. These events, in which unearned benefits to be paid for by those who Judge Jackson calls this ‘‘punishment.’’ When categories are redefined and leaders are have succeeded. In this system, anyone who Microsoft ingeniously melded technological superseded in the process, are spoken of as earns success through his own effort is to be and business strategies to convince ‘‘inflection points.’’ (Paragraph 59) (Emphasis punished, while anyone who hasn’t exerted consumers that its products were the best, added.) any effort and hasn’t attained any success is Judge Jackson sees the company as ‘‘seizing Innovation appeals to Judge Jackson not to be rewarded. control’’ and trying to ‘‘capture’’ the market. because it leads to the creation of wealth, but Far from standing for benevolence or good Even worse than his slanted terminology rather because it tends to tear down the will, such a moral outlook stands for are his substantive arguments, in which he market leader. He argues that the emergence destruction. This code of sacrifice demands sets up impossible standards according to of the Internet in the mid-90s was one such an assault on a Microsoft or a Bill Gates. By which no successful business could escape ‘‘inflection point.’’ (Paragraph 60) Thus, the amassing so much money and achieving so prosecution. For example, Judge Jackson nature of his support for innovation explains much success, they must be shirking their writes early in his ruling that: his disgust with Microsoft’s defeat of duty to sacrifice to others. But it does not It is not possible with the available data to Netscape: By introducing its browser product demand the destruction of the Netscapes of determine with any level of confidence sooner, Netscape should have replaced the world because, by* virtue of having whether the price that a profit-maximizing Microsoft—if only Microsoft had not engaged faltered, they are the ‘‘have-nots’’ who are firm with monopoly power would charge for in the ‘‘vicious’’ commercial competition that entitled to benefit from the sacrifice of their Windows 98 comports with the price that ensured its continued leadership in the more-successful competitors. Microsoft actually charges. Even if it could be computer industry. Note that the ultimate standard of this determined that Microsoft charges less than These beliefs ultimately lead Judge Jackson moral outlook is not the well-being of the the profit-maximizing monopoly price, to conclude that Microsoft’s ‘‘monopoly poor, the weak, the downtrodden; has the though, that would not be probative of a lack power’’ has ‘‘harmed consumers in ways that welfare state ever achieved these aims? of monopoly power, for Microsoft could be are immediate and easily discernible.’’ Instead, the goal is the sacrifice of the rich, charging what seems like a low short-term (Paragraph 409) What are these alleged the strong, and the powerful—not to achieve price in order to maximize its profits in the harms? Judge Jackson claims (wrongly) that any positive aim, but simply to punish them future for reasons unrelated to underselling the integration of Windows 98 and Internet because they are rich, strong, and powerful. any incipient competitors. (Paragraph 65) Explorer does not allow employers to block The altruist connection to antitrust is (Emphasis added.) employees from surfing the Web. He asserts evident in the mere fact that Judge Jackson Judge Jackson admits that it is not possible that vast ‘‘confusion’’ reigns among could have applied the antitrust laws against to tell whether Microsoft is in fact charging consumers—but beyond one or two offhand Microsoft without finding any harm at all. a monopoly price. Yet he dismisses this lack references throughout the ruling, he never Although the ostensible purpose of antitrust VerDate 11 is to ‘‘protect consumers’’ from alleged Given this legal context, Microsoft was iv Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 US 145, 153 ‘‘monopolists,’’ court decisions consistently doomed before it even set foot in the (1968). belie this fiction. In one of the first cases courtroom. The media, in an anti-Microsoft v Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. defining the doctrine of antitrust, a large feeding frenzy, often highlighted mistakes Western Union Telegraph Co., 797 F.2d 370, railroad trust defended itself against made by Microsoft’s counsel during the 377 (7th Cir. 1986), citing Aspen Skiing Co. prosecution by arguing that its price-fixing lengthy (and ongoing) trial. Yet Microsoft’s v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 US 585 plan resulted in lower prices for consumers. attorneys could have performed flawlessly, (1985) (holding that a monopolist has a duty Since the stated purpose of the 1890 and Judge Jackson would still have produced to help a competitor). Sherman Antitrust Act was to protect the same ruling. vi US v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 consumers, and since consumers actually The reason is that Microsoft is an F.2d 416, 431 (2d Cir. 1945). benefited in this case, the defendant logically extremely successful company; Gates is a vii ‘‘Statement by Bill Gates on the concluded that the antitrust laws should not unique combination of technological genius Findings of Fact,’’ www.microsoft.com/ apply to its practices. The Supreme Court and businessman, reminiscent of earlier presspass/ofnote/11- 09wsj.asp, visited Nov. rejected this argument and ruled that the American giants like Thomas Edison. Thus, 11,1999. railroad trust was guilty. In an illuminating it was irrelevant how hard Microsoft’s statement, Justice Peckham declared: ‘‘In this attorneys worked, or how much intellectual MTC–00028834 light it is not material that the price of an vigor they brought to their legal briefs and From: kayandmitch article may be lowered. It is in the power of courtroom arguments. These things were To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw the [monopolist] to raise it.’’ iii irrelevant because no army of lawyers could Date: 1/28/02 6:06pm (Interestingly, Justice Peckham was an hide a single, essential fact—the only fact Subject: Microsoft settlement ardent conservative who was one of the necessary for applying the antitrust laws: As a retired citizen of Washington state, I principal advocates of ‘‘freedom of contract’’ Microsoft succeeds at what it does. encourage you to accept the proposed in the 19th century—just as Judge Jackson The punishment doled out for success is settlement in the anti-trust case involving was a Reagan appointee. This proves once paralysis. Judge Jackson makes it clear that Microsoft. I am neither an employee nor a again that conservatives are not reliable Microsoft must not be permitted to capitalize stockholder in this firm. friends of freedom.) Continuing to apply the upon its well-earned success. Because it has This settlement is appropriate and reflects underlying anti-success principle of antitrust, created values, it must now relinquish them. a triumph of the rule of law. Many critics, all the Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that a Does it matter that Microsoft has earned its with an axe to grind, i.e. compeitors and state newspaper company violated the Sherman success by producing a better product, by attorneys-general, call for extreme, stringent Antitrust Act when it fired a distributor for offering better incentives to its business restrictions that are totally inappropriate. charging rates above an allowable maximum partners, and by providing better service to These objections ignore the decision of the price. The Court found that the newspaper software developers and Internet access Appeals Court that reversed much of Judge ‘‘would not tolerate over-charging’’ of its providers? No. Jackson’s original findings. Objectors not customers, and that it even agreed to rehire Such facts do not matter to a man who only misstate facts, but deliberately the distributor if he ‘‘discontinued his believes that a successful company has a misinterpret the Appeals Courts’’ key pricing practice’’—-that is, if he charged moral duty to sacrifice to its lesser rivals— findings. lower prices. Nonetheless, the Court held -especially when that man has the legal In my view there can be no valid objection that the benefit to consumers was irrelevant power to coerce the company to obey its to this settlement since every major finding in finding that the newspaper company acted alleged duty. With every slanted term and of the Appeals Court is stringently addressed in ‘‘conspiracy’’ with its other distributors to with every absurd conclusion, Judge Jackson with a targeted remedy that specifically set prices—thus its actions were ‘‘an illegal practically screams his unstated moral prohibits and prevents the conduct in restraint of trade under Section 1 of the premise: Since Microsoft is a leader in the question. Sherman Act? computer industry, it must sacrifice the Acceptance of the proposed settlement will Harm to consumers has nothing to do with values it has created because it has created send a signal to American industry the purpose of antitrust. The antitrust laws them. managements and all thinking citizens that are intended only to punish ‘‘power‘‘—but In his ruling, Judge Jackson claims to set the rule of law is still being enforced since economic power is earned on the free out the objective facts underlying his appropriately. Anything beyond this market, this means that the purpose of impending application of the antitrust laws settlement would be a victory for those who antitrust is to punish successful business to Microsoft. But the only thing he manages seek damage and destruction rather than a practices. Antitrust case law is replete with to establish is his own animosity towards remedy;. for competitors, litigation rather examples of companies being punished, not commercial success. What drives this than innovative, honest competition. for any alleged harm, but simply for having animosity is the underlying moral Every person with the most rudimentary the acumen to remain successful in their justification for antitrust: altruism’s hatred of understanding of free markets wants the law industries. A ski resort in Aspen, Colorado, success. to protect the markets’’ smooth functioning. was not only found guilty in 1985 of The basis for Judge Jackson’s ruling is not Can we depend on the fair application of the violating the antitrust laws because it any ‘‘monopoly’’ allegedly controlled by laws that all participants in the U.S. economy successfully competed against its only rival; Microsoft; it is the monopoly commanded by rely on? I hope your answer is a resounding it was also held to a ‘‘duty under antitrust the morality of altruism over our culture. ‘‘yes’’. law to help a competitor.’’ v In the famous That monopoly can be seen, unfortunately, in Thank you for your consideration. case against ALCOA in 1945, Judge Hand Bill Gates’s sanction of his own destruction Harold G. Mitchell declared that ‘‘the successful competitor, in a comment immediately after the ruling, 1800 Skyline Way having been urged to compete, must not be in which he declares that ‘‘because of our Anacortes, WA 98221 turned upon when he wins.’’ success, we understand that Microsoft is held But he contradicted himself in the very to a higher standard, and we accept that MTC–00028835 next paragraph, concluding that ALCOA responsibility.’’ vii As long as this moral From: Lisa Kianoff insists that it never excluded competitors; monopoly remains unchallenged, legal To: Microsoft ATR but we can think of no more effective doctrines such as antitrust will continue to Date: 1/28/02 6:06pm exclusion than progressively to embrace each punish successful businesses. Subject: Microsoft Settlement new opportunity as it opened, and to face i Bill Gates, The Road Ahead 64 (1995) Dear Attorney General Ashcroft. every newcomer with new capacity already ii US v. Microsoft, No. 98–1233 (TPJ) (D.DC Please see the attached word document geared into a great organization, having the Nov. 5, 1999) (findings of fact). All references regarding my support for the Microsoft advantage of experience, trade connections, to the findings of fact hereafter will refer only settlement. Please contact me if you have any and the elite of personnel. vi to the paragraph number. problem reading the document. ALCOA’s ability and success, by Hand’s iii United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight cc: Spencer Bauchus reasoning, was the deciding factor for finding Association, 166 US 290, 324 (1897), Regards, it guilty of violating the antitrust laws. emphasis added. Lisa Kianoff, CITP.CPA VerDate 11 Top Ten Birmingham Business Women For empowered. There are so many strengths I While some of the settlement provisions 2000 would like to share, but in the interest of are a good start, there are many loop holes, L. Kianoff & Associates, Inc. brevity I will highlight Microsoft’s generosity and several places where it falls short. The ‘‘Computerized Accounting Solutions’’ to employees, customers, community and trial should be allowed to proceed, so that a 1128 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL charities. stronger remedy without loop holes, and 35205 205–592–9990 205–592–9991 fax lisa There were less than 5,000 employees with stricter enforcement and actual @kianoff.com www.kianoff.com working at Microsoft when I began work punishment for past wrongs can be enacted. there. Excel had less than 11% of the I will leave some of the other problem topics MTC–00028835—0001 spreadsheet marketplace and Windows was to others, but wish to address a limited set L. Kianoff not yet graphical. Through the careful design here. Associates, Inc. by management, programmers, marketing, The stipulated parties who are protected Computerized Accounting Solutions usability testing and sales people, Microsoft from anti-competitive acts are ISVs, IHVs, January 28, 2002 went from a company I had rarely heard IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs. This list is much too 1128 22nd Street South mentioned from ‘‘84 to ‘‘89 (while teaching exclusive. The general public and especially Birmingham, AL 35205 PC classes on the East Coast) to a household Open Source software developers must also 205–592–9990 * FAX 205–592–9991 name today. be protected. In the recent past, one of the e-mail: [email protected] I encourage you to settle this case and only viable responses to Microsoft’s Attorney General John Ashcroft commend Microsoft for going beyond the hegemony has been Open Source software U.S. Department of Justice requirements stated by the Court of Appeals developers. These people have *donated* 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ruling. The products Microsoft offers have millions of hours of their time to produce a Washington, DC 20530 enriched the lives of so many. software platform—a feat which would not Dear Mr. Ashcroft, I remember reading an article about Bill have been possible if they were a strictly I cannot help but think that this settlement Gates’’ Mother one time and I’ve never commercial entity in competition with recently reached between the Department of forgotten it. She was calling for him (perhaps Microsoft. These people must have the same Justice and Microsoft is a good thing. Since it was to dinner), over and over again, but access to information as commercial entities, the court case was as contentious as it was, there was no response. Finally when she or one of the few viable responses to the asked what he was doing, he said, ‘‘I’m there was very little progress being made. Microsoft monopoly will be stymied by the thinking!’’ I’m glad he couldn’t see the The terms of this settlement, however, settlement. negative in the future, for he may have accomplishes a great deal without all the All of the API, format, and protocol stopped in his tracks before starting controversy. Most consumers will standards which Microsoft uses to propagate Microsoft. immediately benefit by being able to choose its monopoly should be opened. Microsoft Let us highlight bright companies and different software combinations without fear has repeatedly leveraged its monopoly businesses that stretch their imaginations and of compromising their installed operating position along with rapidly changing or build superior products. Microsoft was not systems, and most computer makers will secret formats to lock competitors out of their always such a big company, thousands have benefit by being able to offer a wider variety market. Due to the substantial network effects worked very hard to bring about it’s success. involved in computer software, it is very of options to their customers. They have worked consistently for hard to function when using alternative All in all, this settlement is a great benefit developers, resellers, consumers and software since users will be unable to interact to all and I am writing to express my support corporate customers, to build products with others as soon as Microsoft releases the for it. Thank you for the hard work you put needed in their world. Please do not allow next revision of a product. in to reach this settlement, and your jealous competitors to side track the industry, The central reason that Microsoft has continued support. government and the economy on this matter maintained and extended its monopoly is not Sincerely, any longer. Thank you for your time and due to the superiority of its product, but Lisa Klanoff consideration, through ‘‘lock-in.’’ Once one’s data and President Respectfully, Cc: Representative Spencer Bachus Maureen J. Baskin software on secreted away within the L. Kianoff 502 8th Ave. West, Kirkland, WA 98033 Microsoft platform, it is extremely painful to Associates, Inc. CC: Maureen Baskin switch to a superior platform. This not only Computerized Accounting Solutions directly hurts consumers, but stifles 1128 22nd Street South MTC–00028837 innovation in the computer industry. The Birmingham, AL 35205 From: Benjamin B. Thomas provisions in the settlement do not do 205–592–9990 * FAX 205–592–9991 To: Microsoft ATR enough to make Microsoft open these e-mail: [email protected] Date: 1/28/02 6:08pm standards to all parties interested in being compatible and do little to dissuade foot- MTC–00028836 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Benjamin B. Thomas dragging on Microsoft’s part. Microsoft’s From: Maureen Baskin 1975 Cahaba Valley Road APIs, file formats, and protocols should be To: Microsoft ATR Indian Springs, AL 35124 fully standardized, documented, publicly Date: 1/28/02 6:07pm Renata B. Hesse published, and an accessible compatibility Subject: Microsoft Settlement Antitrust Division laboratory formed. This allow other software I apologize for sending this via email, I’ve U.S. Department of Justice vendors to compete on a more fair playing tried several times to FAX this to you 601 D Street NW field. This would be a start, but as others will today from a local office store, but the Suite 1200 surely describe in other comments, a fair line has been busy each time. Washington, DC 20530–0001 distribution channel, free from punishing Respectifully, United States Department of Justice: bundling agreements must be enforced. Maureen J. Baskin I am writing to oppose the proposed I ask the DOJ to reconsider the decision to January 24, 2002 settlement with Microsoft. I have read the settle and to continue with the matter at trial. Dear Attorney General John Ashcroft, original complaint of United States and the Microsoft has repeatedly show a willingness Please consider my request for an several States, the proposed settlement, the to flout the law. The remedies do not go far immediate approval of the pending Competitive Impact Statement at, in addition enough in punishing past illegal behavior or settlement between Microsoft, the to many other sources including the findings dissuading similar new behavior. The Department of Justice and nine states. I of fact. I feel that the proposed settlement proposed mechanism of enforcement does worked for Microsoft from 1989 to 1996 in falls far short of rectifying the damage which not seem to have teeth, and Microsoft will sales. Prior to Microsoft I worked for small has been done to myself and other consumer likely attempt to break it soon after and large corporations, including Bank of by Microsoft through years of abuse of their enactment. There is little deterrent to their America and Dun and Bradstreet. I have monopoly, and that the enforcement doing so. never worked for a company where the provisions do little to dissuade Microsoft Sincerely, employees were so bright, motivated, and from continuing such practices in the future. Benjamin Thomas, Voter VerDate 11 MTC–00028838 remedies would ensure consumer choice, I think that the internal interface From: John Spear competition and interoperability of software. disclosure, licensing of Windows products, To: Microsoft ATR Specifically, I support the following: . and technical committee in the settlement all Date: 1/28/02 6:09pm Microsoft should offer an alternative, basic open the doors for increased competitive Subject: For the proposed settlement version of Windows to personal computer behavior. If the government alleges that Hi! manufacturers. This alternative version Microsoft was involved with anticompetitive While you may discount this, I would like would have no Microsoft ‘‘add-ons’’, such as behavior, then the problem is rectified. to state my opinion that the proposed Internet access software, media players, or We need an end to drawn out legal settlement in the Microsoft Anti-trust case is email applications, included. proceedings. It is time to allow Microsoft to both a valuable and useful resolution to this 2. Microsoft should provide the software get out of court and get back to business. court battle that continues unwarrantedly. code for Internet Explorer to competing Support the antitrust settlement. While it is unfathomable to me how the software developers so that Microsoft cannot Sincerely, United States government, along with several monopolize the Internet access or browser Joan Stupler State governments can conceive of punishing markets. MTC–00028843 a successful company for being successful, I 3. Microsoft should develop some From: [email protected]@inetgw can see how some of the stated actions mechanism to allow competitors to produce To: Microsoft ATR attributed to Microsoft could be considered non-Windows based versions of the Office Date: 1/28/02 6:11pm inappropriate for an open marketplace. I do software suite. Subject: Microsoft settlement agree that many of the settlement terms Sincerely, I believe that the microsoft settlement is implement procedures that Microsoft should Colleen Reilly bad for american business. I have seen the have (and sometimes did) put into place future of Microsoft operating system software many years ago. As such, I believe this MTC–00028840 in XP and I do not want it. It is horrid to use. settlement should go through substantially as From: [email protected]@inetgw I went out and got a older version of win 98 proposed. To: Microsoft ATR to replace it. I also would like to see our court system Date: 1/28/02 6:09pm If Microsoft maintains its freedom to abuse spend time and money on anti-trust issues Subject: Microsoft Settlement its consumers, my business will suffer. The that have actual, demonstrated customer Microsoft believes the terms-which have only real punishment is to break up the harm at their core, rather than the supposed met or gone beyond the findings of the Court company or to require much of the secret harm to competitors that tripped up in the of Appeals ruling-are reasonable and fair to stuff in Windows to become public so that course of their own business and have failed all parties involved. This settlement the market can punish Microsoft for writing to produce products that customers would represents the best opportunity for Microsoft bad, crash prone, stupidly functioning, continue to use over the course of years. and the industry to move forward. software. Under the current government TTFN I ALSO AGREE WITH MICROSOFT proposal, this will not happen. John Spear (This ruling will unnecessarily keep Daniel Winter, President Microsoft from reaching the public with MTC–00028839 Brookline Print Center improvements for the computer industry) From: [email protected]@inetgw 370 Boylston Street Jimmy McCoy Brookline MA 02445 To: Microsoft ATR http://youens.com/mccoy/ MTC–00028844 Subject: Letter for Microsoft From: Seth Mearig Dear Sir or Madam, MTC–00028841 To: Microsoft ATR This a copy of my letter to support the From: Elliott Mitchell Date: 1/28/02 6:13pm efforts of the MA Attorney general, Tom To: Microsoft ATR Subject: microsoft settlement Reilly regarding the Microsoft settlement. I Date: 1/28/02 6:10pm Dear Judge, will be following up with a signed copy via Subject: Microsoft Settlement I am not always entirely in favor of heavy- fax. The settlement is flawed. It will not foster handed government influences, but I do Thank you very much, competition in any way. In fact by requiring believe that Microsoft has gone too far in Colleen Reilly, MA Microsoft to donate their software to schools some of its business practices. I do not think Renata B. Hesse will have very much the opposite effect, the Proposed Final Judgement goes far Antitrust Division helping the Microsoft monopoly to weaken enough to sanction a company that has U.S. Department of Justice Apple, the sole remaining competitor in proved itself capable of willfully violating 601 D Street NW making Operating Systems. laws and engaging in monopolistic practices. Suite 1200 I sincerely hope that the settlement will be Please look again at the PFJ and give Washington, DC 20530–0001 completly rejected, thereby restoring the Americans some freedom in the area of via email: [email protected] hope that the rest of the computer industry operating systems, web browsers, and other Re: The Microsoft Settlement will florish once again. software programs. If something is not done I am writing to you about the proposed MTC–00028842 to check Microsoft now, it may be too late in Microsoft settlement as both a private the future. consumer as well as a human resources From: [email protected]@inetgw Sincerely, professional. I am very concerned as a To: Microsoft ATR Seth Mearig consumer that I continue to have a choice in Date: 1/28/02 6:11pm 3025 Royal Street the software I purchase without having to be Subject: Microsoft Settlement Los Angeles, CA 90007 concerned with interoperability issues. 1085 Warburton Avenue Apt. 324 CC:[email protected]@ As a human resources professional and Yonkers, NY 10701 inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo... personal user of Microsoft, I want to maintain January 26, 2002 open computer systems that will facilitate Attorney General John Ashcroft MTC–00028845 communication and training materials. US Department of Justice From: Jana Marie Goodwin (TASCA) Openness is paramount to maintaining 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR competition, but openness is not what Washington, DC 20530 Date: 1/28/02 6:13pm Microsoft wants. And it is not what this Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT settlement, as it is currently written will I am in support of the settlement proposed As a Microsoft consumer, employee and guarantee. in the antitrust case between the Department shareholder, I felt it my obligation to write I support including additional remedies as of Justice and Microsoft. The settlement on behalf of Microsoft corporation. Our proposed by the dissenting Attorneys offers terms that I feel are beneficial to government has spent more time, money and General, including the AG form my own technology users and sufficient enough to resources fighting Microsoft Corporation than state, Tom Reilly (no relation). Those end all of this litigation. Terrorism! And all based upon allegations VerDate 11 from our competitors and their political quarter relating to the lawsuit. At what point I do not claim that Bill Gates is a saint. He supporters. As a tax payer, I question this, as can we all resume business and our is a tough competitor, and I understand how being the best use of tax dollars and competitors and special interests be silenced? companies can feel daunted by Microsoft’s government resources and the best place for Why are other States, not accepting the prowess in the market. But I believe efforts to be invested. proposed settlement and accepting the terms consumers are able to judge for themselves Microsoft has a passion for the customer of the settlement , whatever happened to what is good and what is not, and are capable and it’s products and technology. I’ve been torte reform? of regulating big business through purchase proud to represent them as an employee and Can’t this battle be fought in the market and support of products. The government has to help our customers succeed and grow their place and not in the court room? no fight to take that privilege away from businesses with Microsoft technologies and Thank you, consumers. The settlement requires Microsoft products. I have over the years, continually Jana Marie Goodwin to disclose source code from its Windows had happy customers who felt Microsoft OEM Business Development Manager operating system, allowing competitors the contributed greatly to their success and the Microsoft Press ability to work within Microsoft’s operating growth of the industry and was a true partner CDDG system instead of having to develop a quality in their businesses. mspress.microsoft.com operating system on their own. It also Microsoft is not Big Tobacco, it is not requires Microsoft to refrain from retaliation misleading, deceiving or intentionally MTC–00028846 when software is put on the market that hurting consumers, which makes the From: Orpheus Colin Vazquez directly competes with Microsoft software, allegations and continued lawsuits To: Microsoft ATR but this just makes companies weaker by increasingly more difficult to rationalize. Date: 1/28/02 6:15pm reducing the severity of competition in the Why should competitors reap the benefits of Subject: Microsoft Settlement market. Restrictions breed contempt, and this suit? The current settlement made by the DOJ, contempt is not productive. F.A. Harper* If consumers and the general public are failed to meet the changes hoped for by wrote, ‘‘Human goodness can only grow in a being hurt, why won’t the additional 9 states myself, and I’m sure many others. A quick climate of liberty.’’ If liberty is removed from accept the settlement that proposes to help settlement was reached, but no real the technology market, the government the consumer and benefit and educate the punishment was delivered to the company, cannot expect goodness to remain. general public and make technology and it seemed as if the DOJ quickly gave up. The companies and states who are accessible and available to those who would Hopefully a better agreement can be reached continuing to pursue litigation are not have exposure otherwise ? in the future with the last states that have opportunists. They are the result of an What I fear, is that the focus has moved kept their claim against mircosoft, and I hope education system that has indoctrinated them away from what is best for consumers, futhermore that this case if ever brought to believe that it is acceptable to steal from partners, customers and the industry, (not to before a judge in the future by the DOJ, I one’s neighbor as long as one has the mention our Nation’s economy) by the efforts hope they can further persue their goals in government do it for them. They take of competitors and competitive interests, and the case, and not give up so quickly. privileges for granted and claim them as is aimed at taking down a ‘‘powerhouse’’ or Microsoft continues to show practices which rights. It is nothing but political whoring. It ‘‘the richest man in the world’’. Is this really prevent competition. They continue to is wrong. The litigation needs to stop now, as objective a process as it should be? dominate areas of markets without it seems before this kind of behavior is reinforced any What is good for ‘‘competitors’’ may not be any hope for future competition with the longer. It is a total waste of creative and what’s good and healthy for innovation and settlement that has been reached. Hopefully productive energy—and of the resources that the industry. something can and will be done about this would otherwise support these essential Punishing successful companies and one day. elements of a health economy and entrepreneurs, is creating an environment Orpheus Vazquez prosperous society. that destroys the motivation to innovate and Sincerely, improve and invest in new and improved MTC–00028847 Joanna Parker technologies in all facets of our economy. From: Joanna F.A. Harper was a revered scholar and The value placed on Intellectual Property can To: Microsoft ATR founder of the Institute of Humane Studies, not be negotiated away. Will you next have Date: 1/28/02 6:20pm which still continues at George Mason COKE, give PEPSI, their recipe? Or throw Subject: Microsoft Settlement University in Fairfax, Virginia. patents out the window in an effort to level January 27, 2002 the playing field and stifle innovation all Attorney General John Ashcroft MTC–00028848 together? There is a difference between Open US Department of Justice, 950 From: H Pittell standards and giving away intellectual Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR property to competitors, then the consumer Washington, DC 20530–0001 Date: 1/28/02 6:16pm loses. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Subject: Microsoft Settlement And would our competitors willingly give I am acutely dismayed that our government I am writing to give my support to us their source code and intellectual has decided to insert itself into the affairs of Microsoft in the recent Department of Justice property? If we are leveling the playing field private businesses. I do not believe it is the v. Microsoft antitrust case, and ask that you then shouldn’t everyone comply? responsibility of the government to regulate approve this settlement. I have Microsoft Based upon the state of our economy, and business. The Microsoft antitrust case is just products and approve and agree with what the recent ENRON scandal, I fear Microsoft another example of the state pandering to Mr. Bill Gates has been trying to do—and has is headed in the same direction and thus not petulance. Companies can and should have succeeded—in doing so by making softwear hurting the ‘‘Richest Man in the world’’ or the ability to stand on then own feet. I am available to the average person, of which I am this big, bad, bully of a company as it is disgusted that every time a conflict arises in one, and at an affordable price. Just what is portrayed, but the average American worker business, it is acceptable to run to the it that he has done that is contrary to law? and investor in Microsoft in any fund or government for protection instead of I have always thought that by making a pension plan nation wide. My pension and toughening up. This whole suit has been a superior product with a reduction in price retirement funds have plummeted over the colossal waste of time and money not only you would be serving the public. Personally, last 2 years as this lawsuit ensues and on the part of the government, but on I think it is ‘‘sour grapes’’ on the part of the continues. I fear I will end up like the Microsoft’s part as well. They should have competitors of Microsoft who run crying to ENRON employees as I watch my 401 K been putting their resources towards the government that what he has succeeded value fall as a result of this lawsuit and the innovation, not litigation. I believe the in doing, and doing so well, comes under impact it has had on the economy as a whole government should back off in this case. antitrust. Also the attorneys-general who and the entire tech sector. Over the years, There is absolutely no need to federalize have refused to enter into a settielement Microsoft has committed to changing it’s what is simply the inability of companies to always have been able to appoint ‘‘high business and licensing practices multiple take their licks and keep moving in a fiercely powered’’ law firms to represent their state times to comply and paid over $600M last competitive atmosphere. which, of course, calls for huge fees—not VerDate 11 fees, as far as I am concerned, but ‘‘pay offs.’’ due to the illegal monopoly, it is hard to must be used instead. This will not only I do not know the technicalities of the make reparation to them. Rather, the remedy return some benefit to the consumer, but settlement nor would I be able to understand must seek to redress the harm done to the prevent further harm done to MS the testimony in the actual trial. consumer, and to prevent Microsoft Competitors. I am merely an average citizen, with an continuing to use its illegaly gained market Applications Barrier to Entry: average education with a family to support dominance to monopolise new markets. It is who is interested in justice for the average apparent that Microsoft traditionally gains Significant barriers exist to competing person and want to pay a fair price for a dominance in a new market buy tying sales products in the marketplace due to product which, to me, is outstanding. of one product to sales of another— for Microsofts illegal monopoly. These must be What is it that Shakespeare said about example, the bundling of Microsoft Office eroded and removed in the following ways: lawyers? with Windows, and the intimidation of By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, Harold Pittell Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), and MTC–00028849 ensure that this continues to the exclusion of competitors. Their willful circumvention of Independant Hardware Vendors (IHVs) who From: John A. Hossack previous court restrictions, which violate the support or develop alternatives to Windows. To: Microsoft ATR spirit if not the exact letter of the agreements, All APIs and file formats (MS Word, MS Date: 1/28/02 6:14pm indicate that MS must be given no latitude Excel, MS Access, MS Powerpoint, MS Subject: MS Settlement in which to avoid punishment. The only Outlook and Outlook Express, WMP—the [Text body exceeds maximum size of option remaining if this is true, is a structural Microsoft Middleware Products) should be message body (8192 bytes). It has been remedy. available to ISVs and HSVs. File formats converted to attachment.] should be open and available for public Microsoft Settlement Structural Remedy: viewing at no cost. Any changes made to To: Renata B. Hesse The existing MS corporation must be split APIs and file formats must be announced and Antitrust Division into at least 5 separate companies, each of specified a period of time must have passed U.S. Department of Justice which is barred from operating in the other before these changes are implemented (e.g. 601 D Street NW 4 areas or joining with one of the other 180 days for APIs and 90 days for file Suite 1200 compnaies for a period of not less than 10 formats). Current definitions of APIs allow Washington, DC 20530–0001 years. The company should be split along the MS to avoid releasing documentation on From: John Hossack following lines:- Operating Systems, many important interfaces. File formats, 617 Davis Ave Computer Programming Languages (must while an important barrier to entry, are Charlottesville include .NET and C#), Applications (such as currently not included in the proposed VA 22901 MS Office), Hardware (including XBox), and settlement and must be publicly disclosed. I wish to comment on the proposed Internet Services (MSN etc). Wording of the licence agreement for ISVs Microsoft settlement. The Court of Appeals Microsoft continually use their monopoly accessing APIs and documentation shall state affirmed that Microsoft (MS) has a monopoly position in each of these sections to dominate that it will solely be for the purpose of on Intel-compatible PC operating systems, others—and must be denied the opportunity interoperating with a Windows Operating and that the company’s market position is to do so in the only method it appears that System Product or with application software protected by a substantial barrier to entry, will work. It is imperative that the .NET be written for Windows. Current phrasing limits and that Microsoft is liable under Sherman split from all other services, since it is clear this to OS only. Act 2 for illegally maintaining its monopoly. MS intends to use this to tie in future Definitions of requirements for companies According to the Court of Appeals ruling, ‘‘a applications and services and ‘‘lock out’’ or individuals to access APIs should be remedies decree in an antitrust case must competing products. Previous anti-trust cases publicly available and independently seek to ‘‘unfetter a market from which have resulted in large corporations enforced—MS should have no say in this part anticompetitive conduct’’, to ‘‘terminate the being split extensively detail prohibitions on of the decision process. illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the these individual companies. All patents covering the Windows APIs fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure It is clear that despite all evidence pointing must be disclosed. Currently those ISVs that there remain no practices likely to result to a structural remedy as being the only producing Windows-compatible operating in monopolization in the future’’. solution, the courts are unlikely to impose systems are uncertain if they are infringing Like all those found guilty of a crime, such a remedy. Whether or not this is on Microsoft software patents. Microsoft need to be punished for their implemented, the following aspects of MS Wording of the current proposed final actions—ideally in a way that attempts to illegal behaviour must be addressed. judgement should not prevent ISVs using restore competition and undoes the damage Consumers Overcharged and Require released APIs to make alternative OSs inflicted on the consumer by their Compensation: compatible with Windows based OSs. Forced anticompetitive behaviour. MS has profitted Upgrades Must be Stopped: greatly from their behaviour, and the fruits of In addition to monopolising markets, the MS abuses its monopoly postion by forcing their illegal actions must be denied to them. consumer has been harmed by Microsoft consumers to upgrade from older products to Previous court ordered remedies have products being overpriced than would have newer ones, at substantial cost. Since there shown that Microsoft willfully ignores and occurred had competition been available. is now no effective competition due to the attempts to circumvent any restrictions Once again, Microsoft must be denied any illegal actions, the consumer has no placed on them by careful selection of the profits from their illegal activities. The alternative but to go with MS products. By language used in these remedies, and stalling consumer must be recompensed for this, and altering file formats in latest releases that are with continued appeals such that by the time so a substantial cash fine should be levied incompatible with older versions, and by a resolution occurs, there is no surviving against MS, which would then be divided removing older products from sale, MS force competition. Microsoft show no signs of amongst all registered users of Microsoft the consumer to upgrade. remorse or attempts to change their pattern products. This fine should be no less than 1 To prevent this, file formats for all Office of behaviour. Indeed, while conceding billion US dollars—note that MS currently Applications and WMP must be publicly certain points on existing Operating Systems have cash reserves of over $35 billion and available at no cost to allow alternatives to (OS), they are careful to ensure that this is increasing rapidly—it is a small fine be developed. This is mentioned in detail applications (such as Microsoft Office Suite) to MS. above. and future products such as .NET are Should this not prove to be practical, then To prevent the removal of older products excluded from any restrictions. It is clear MS should still be fined, but with the money that are still viable applications, Microsoft from their pattern of behaviour that they will going to the purchase of computer and must continue to support older products for attempt to monopolise these markets, and computer related hardware for schools, at least 15 years after their introduction. MS that nothing but the most severe restrictions colleges and charity groups. MS should not may choose not to support the software on their behaviour will have any effect. be allowed to provide software for these during this time citing that it is not a useful Since many of the companies adversely systems, and alternatives such as Apple product, in which case it is allowed to do so affected by Microsoft are no longer operating computers or free software such as Linux but must make the entire MS source code to VerDate 11 the application publicly and freely available. MTC–00028850 over three years. I would like to see this case Under these circumstances, users may From: Mike (038) Barb Stineman finalized as soon as possible. The proposed maintain and compile the software To: Microsoft ATR settlement ensures that Microsoft’s themselves. This will apply to operating Date: 1/28/02 6:40pm competitors have access to Microsoft systems as well as middleware and Renata Hesse January 28, 2002 interface programs, protocol, and applications. Trial Attorney documentation so that they can promote their Prohibiting practices towards OEMs: Antitrust Division products and attach them to Windows. Also, Department of Justice Microsoft will use a uniform price list when In addition to current restrictions in the licensing Windows out to the twenty biggest Proprosed Final Judgement (PFJ), Microsoft 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530 computer companies in the U.S. must be restricted against reprisals for OEMs Additionally, Microsoft won’t retaliate that sell PCs with a competing OS but no Dear Ms. Hesse, One thing that sets America apart from against companies that use or promote Microsoft OS. Microsoft’s competitors’ products. Clearly, The PFJ requires Microsoft to license almost every other country is our free market system. Recently, however, this system has the terms of this settlement are not too easy Windows on uniform terms and at published on Microsoft. prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing been in jeopardy. What I have witnessed over past few years between Microsoft and the IF MERGEFIELD PARA2 But clever people about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft like me who talk loudly in restaurants, see free to retaliate against smaller OEMs if they United States government is infuriating. You would think that the federal government this as a deliberate ambiguity. A plea for offer competing products. There should be justice in a mechanized society.<> ...... This selected ‘‘groups’’ of OEMs of varying sizes, would have learned from the IBM case—that the high-tech industry moves at a pace far settlement should be adopted at the earliest for example OEMs 1–20, 21–100, 101–1000, opportunity. The IT industry needs to focus 1001+, and in those bands prices must be greater than that of the federal government on innovation without the burden of further uniform and published on all MS OS, bureaucracy. litigation. Thank you. IF MERGEFIELD Applications, and Middleware products. This case has become a political football PARA4 Ecce homo ergo elk. La Fontaine Market Development Allowances (discounts) and as a result the Nasdaq has plummeted, knew his sister, and knew her bloody well.<> to OEMs must be fully disclosed in public. America’s international technology IF MERGEFIELD PARA5 But is suspense, as Discounts may not be given in one product leadership has been compromised, and Hitchcock states, in the box. No, there isn’t (e.g. Office Applications) due to sales in taxpayers’’ time and money has been wasted. room, the ambiguity’s put on weight.<> another product (e.g. OS). This will prevent The fact is, no consumer harm by Microsoft Sincerely, MS using its OS dominance to move its was proven in this case—which was the basis Ann Mango monopoly into other areas. for the suit in the beginning. Therefore, Microsoft has been persecuted for making a MTC–00028852 Enforcement: better product and using aggressive MS will attempt to circumvent all remedies marketing to promote it better than its From: Claude Holland to the best of their ability. Strong, competitors. To: Microsoft ATR independent and effective supervision of MS The settlement that is before Judge Kollar Date: 1/28/02 6:19pm is necessary, and a panel of several industry Kotelly would do what should have been Subject: Microsoft Settlement experts (chosen by the courts and done long ago: end the federal case against 3824 Williamsburg Circle complainants, with minimal input by MS) Microsoft. The settlement, in my mind, is Birmingham, AL 35243 must be allowed full and unfettered access to more than fair to the government— keeping January 28, 2002 MS documents. They will be provided with Microsoft under review for a period of time Attorney General John Ashcroft support staff, and be paid for by MS at and making it tougher for them to compete. US Department of Justice competitive rates given their experience. This I support the proposal for the simple reason 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW panel should have the ability to force release that it will bring closure to the case. Washington, DC 20530 of MS documentation and source code, and I hope that you will keep my comments in Dear Mr. Ashcroft: delay the release of products until mind as you review your position on the I appreciate the opportunity to comment compliance is complete. Any undisclosed settlement to the Microsoft case. on the proposed settlement between APIs discovered should result in a large cash Sincerely, Microsoft and the federal government in the fine. Current proposed enforcement allows Michael J. Stineman, President antitrust case. no incentive for MS to comply with the Citation Homes, Inc. I believe it is in the public interest to end remedy. PO Box AF the case and accept the settlement that is on Some of the above stated remedies may Spirit Lake, IA 51360 the table. The case has been pending for three seem extreme, but given the magnitude of the Ph 712–336–2156 years, and if you go back to Court now it MS corporation and the extend to which it might take at least that much time to reach has broken the law, the remedies must be of MTC–00028851 an outcome. The settlement agreement a similar magnitude. As stated in the first few From: Robert Arango negotiated by your Department with paragraphs, the intent of any remedy is to To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft, with the help of a court-appointed restore competition, terminate the monopoly, Date: 1/28/02 6:16pm mediator, offers the opportunity to end the deny the benefits of the illegal actions, and Subject: Microsoft Settlement case now and help the economy. prevent such abuses from ocurring in the Please refer to the attached letter. I fully Microsoft has made a number of future. Due to the uncooperative nature of support the Microsoft settlement. Let’s get off concessions, but its primary concession, once MS, the remedy must be decisive and the dime on this. implemented, will offer immediate strongly enforced. Thank you opportunities for growth in the software While MS has already done considerable Ann Arango industry. Under the settlement, Microsoft has harm to the consumer by its illegal actions, +Pu .... +8330 Greenbriar Road agreed to allow competition within its there are many future markets in which MS Wind Lake, WI 53185 Windows operating systems from non- can gain a further monopoly—and exacerbate IF MERGEFIELD LCSZ Ft Pierce, FL Microsoft software programs upon the problem. They must be prevented from 34982<> ...... finalization of the settlement. This will doing so. If an individual commits a crime January 21, 2002 provide non-Microsoft software designers where the public have been illegaly Attorney General John Ashcroft and manufacturers the chance to step up and overcharged that individual will be fined, US Department of Justice compete within a very short period. and perhaps imprisoned—and certainly 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW I hope you see the wisdom of accepting would be if he was a repeat offender shown Washington, DC 20530 this agreement rather than continuing in to ignore previous court orders. Microsoft Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Court. Thank you for allowing me the chance must be no different, or justice will not be This letter documents my support for the to offer my point of view. done, and will not be seen to be done. proposed settlement for the Microsoft Sincerely, John Hossack antitrust case. This case has been active for Claude Holland VerDate 11 cc: Representative Spencer Bachus Microsoft should have to pay a penalty for its I wrote about these issues for a popular years of misconduct and apparent bad faith audience when this antitrust litigation was at MTC–00028853 in dealings with the government, with an early stage: ‘‘So it’s up to consumers like From: Daniel Clifton manufacturers, competitors and those who us, and the government that represents us. To: Microsoft Settlement license Microsoft products, and with It’s up to us to prevent what has been Date: 1/28/02 6:12pm consumers and citizens. history’s most democratic medium from Subject: Microsoft Settlement Third, in addition to the need for a penalty, being trivialized and demeaned. It’s up to us Daniel Clifton I see a need for some structural remedy, not to keep the Web from going down the same 3 Avon Road just an agreement about future conduct. path as TV itself.’’ (‘‘Tailoring the Web for Edison, NJ 08817 Given the particulars of this agreement, as I Profit,’’ St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 15, January 28, 2002 understand it, Microsoft has far too much 1998, and Computer underground Digest, Microsoft Settlement latitude to avoid doing the right thing while June 1998. http://www.webster.edu/ U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division still arguably conforming to the consent bumbaugh/net/tailorweb.html ) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW agreement. Microsoft is at liberty, largely at I hope that my government will do better Washington, DC 20530 its own discretion, to withhold information than has been proposed. I hope for a good Dear Microsoft Settlement: crucial to interoperability from competitors it outcome in this case, for justice that punishes The Microsoft trial squandered deems ‘‘inauthentic.’’ Microsoft can, as I the evildoer and takes away its ill-gotten taxpayers’ dollars, was a nuisance to understand the agreement proposed, gains, for remedies that will send the right consumers, and a serious deterrent to withhold information from those working to message to individuals and corporations investors in the high-tech industry. It is high make software available under the GPL as considering misconduct, and for remedies time for this trial, and the wasteful spending threatening Microsoft’s intellectual property. that will benefit all of us today and future accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will What little oversight is called for is to happen generations. indeed see competition in the marketplace, largely in secret, at places of Microsoft’s Thank you for the opportunity to comment. rather than the courtroom. And the investors choosing, under terms Microsoft sets, and Bruce Umbaugh who propel our economy can finally breathe conducted in part by parties appointed by Associate Professor of Philosophy a sigh of relief. Microsoft. With what I understand about Webster University Microsoft’s past record in these matters, it is Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the 470 E. Lockwood Ave. hard to expect that Microsoft will be a ‘‘good federal government should not have broken St. Louis, MO 63119 citizen’’ in its future dealings and behavior. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Bruce Umbaugh To my mind, this makes structural rather companies like Microsoft can get back into Humanize the Internet: than conduct remedies necessary. the business of innovating and creating better Finally, if this agreement is settled largely Assoc. Prof. (Philosophy) products for consumers, and not wasting as proposed, and if the state attorneys general Ethernet the Arts faculty. valuable resources on litigation. fail to sustain their action against Microsoft— Webster University Competition means creating better goods one of the richest corporations we might ever —Peter Danielson and offering superior services to consumers. know, able to carry on litigation indefinitely St. Louis, MO 63119 USA With government out of the business of far into the future—what might we http://XRayNet.editthispage.com stifling progress and tying the hands of reasonably expect? If the future is like the [email protected]/bumbaugh@ corporations, consumers—rather than past, we should expect Microsoft to try to well.com bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick leverage its desktop-operating-system CC:[email protected]@inetgw the winners and losers on Wall Street. With monopoly into a server operating system MTC–00028855 the reins off the high-tech industry, more monopoly, to try to disenfranchise on the Net entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create content providers not partnering with or From: William McKenna new and competitive products and otherwise paying tribute to Microsoft through To: Microsoft ATR technologies. Thank you for this opportunity its .Net and Hailstorm undertakings, to try to Date: 1/28/02 6:18pm to share my views. stigmatize competitors in the media display Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, space by limiting interoperability and I have been a resident of the United States Daniel Clifton exploiting its exisiting monopolies and choke since birth and a user of Microsoft products for some twelve years. MTC–00028854 points. Some action on integration of Windows Media Player would help here. I believe that you should withdraw your From: Bruce Umbaugh Action on browser technology would help consent to the revised proposed Final To: Microsoft ATR here. Any plausible action on ‘‘middleware’’ Judgment settlement. Date: 1/28/02 6:18pm would benefit consumers and benefit This settlement will not provide a Subject: Microsoft Settlement. competition. Without such remedies—ones sufficient influence on Microsoft to abandon I wish to comment on the proposed that do not require continual maintenance its monopolistic practices. settlement of anti-trust litigation United and political will on the part of overseers and Microsoft should NOT be allowed to use its States of America versus Microsoft. that do not require the goodness and ongoing popularity to limit choice among computer First, I am surprised that the government acquiescence of Microsoft—there is every manufacturers and therefore, computer users would agree to terms that do not penalize reason to think that the result will be across the world. Here’s why: Microsoft for its past conduct. Having been something like an Internet controlled by There are several good operating systems found in violation of federal law, with a Microsoft. out there today. Each has its own strengths record of apparent disdain for proceedings An Internet world controlled by and its own weaknesses. None of them are against it, and as I understand the facts Microsoft—or any similar entity—is a the perfect solution to every problem. I manifestly having violated the strictures of frightening prospect. The Internet became so believe that we all do ourselves a great previous such agreements, I would think that amazingly valuable because it has been, in disservice by forcing users to grow Microsoft would be expected to pay some the words of the Court of Appeals in the accustomed to the fact that Microsoft (and penalty for its corporate misdeeds. Not to Communications Decency Act decision, ‘‘the maybe Apple) is all that there is. penalize Microsoft for its conduct seems most democratic medium the world has Manufacturers should be allowed to provide, unjust, unfair, and I am sure quite unlike the known.’’ The ‘‘gift economy’’ that drove the NAY! encouraged to promote, side-by-side results individual citizens would expect if development of the Internet, and in which operating system comparisons on the same found similarly to have violated federal law. the real value of the Net still resides for many machine. For better or worse, let the people Moreover, I believe that this result users (whether they know it or not), would decide! undercuts respect for law generally in the be badly threatened if Microsoft could extend So again, please rescind your agreement. popluation (‘‘it only matters how much its monopoly to control media distribution, Make Microsoft act properly. money you have,’’ people will say) and for example, or to control authentication and Besides, I doubt that it’s going to break undercuts respect for anti-trust law in the personal identification through its new them! corporate world in particular. I think that Passports strategy. Sincerely, VerDate 11 William McKenna MTC–00028857 Microsoft Settlement 407 West 18th #207 From: J Wilson U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division Austin, TX 78701 To: Microsoft ATR 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 512.478.9617 Date: 1/28/02 6:19pm Washington, DC 20530 Dear Microsoft Settlement: MTC–00028856 Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern, The Microsoft trial squandered From: Satish—[email protected]@ The settlement of the Microsoft antitrust taxpayers’ dollars, was a nuisance to inetgw trial is entirely inadequate, clearly favoring consumers, and a serious deterrent to To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft. investors in the high-tech industry. It is high Date: 1/28/02 6:18pm It is difficult to enforce and easily evaded. time for this trial, and the wasteful spending Subject: Microsoft Settlement I do not believe the DOJ’s settlement offer is accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will I really don’t understand the settlement indeed see competition in the marketplace, that the 9 states made with Microsoft and a serious attempt to fairly resolve this major antitrust issue. rather than the courtroom. And the investors DOJ. Looks like, it is just a slap on wrist. who propel our economy can finally breathe What ever monitory damages DOJ is Jim Warhol Berkeley, California a sigh of relief. assessing against Microsoft, Microsoft can get Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the that money from the consumers by just MTC–00028859 federal government should not have broken raising the price of Windows $2–5. Here are From: [email protected]@inetgw up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, my arguments and suggestions. To: Microsoft ATR companies like Microsoft can get back into . We all know now that Microsoft is a Date: 1/28/02 6:21pm the business of innovating and creating better monopoly. One of the main reasons is that products for consumers, and not wasting there is no competing windows operating Subject: ANTI TRUST SETTLEMENT system. Just like AT&T was broken into DEAR SIR, valuable resources on litigation. pieces and every piece was able to deliver I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE ANTI Competition means creating better goods similar services, you are not going to solve TRUST SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE and offering superior services to consumers. the problems. I think, the company should be DEPT. OF JUSTICE AND MICROSOFT. IT IS With government out of the business of broken down into 4 main companies— FAIR AND JUST TO ALL PARTIES stifling progress and tying the hands of . Divide it into 2 competing Windows CONCERNED. SIGNED corporations, consumers—rather than companies, one may sell NT type operating MAX FINESMITH 2ND LT. US AIR FORCE bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick system and the other selling for homes. Let WWII the winners and losers on Wall Street. With them compete and bring the price of EX POW GERMANY the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create windows down. If you look at the price of MTC–00028860 Windows product, it has kept on going up new and competitive products and through out the decade. They don’t even From: [email protected]@inetgw technologies. provide any books or training material with To: Microsoft ATR Thank you for this opportunity to share my it. Again, they provide only 60 days Date: 1/28/02 6:21pm views. guarantee and that is nothing. Subject: Microsoft Sincerely, . 3rd part of the company should be 2227 Huron Street john waszewski Bellingham WA 98226 Application systems and other software, like MTC–00028863 office, mapping, etc. Now, if this was an January 24, 2002 independent company, they will provide I am writing you today to encourage you From: [email protected]@inetgw software for other platforms to compete with and the Department of Justice to accept the To: Microsoft ATR other companies. Also, this company will not Microsoft antitrust settlement. The issue has Date: 1/28/02 6:21pm get any privileged information any time been dragged out for over three years and it Subject: Microsoft Settlement sooner than the other competing companies. is time to put an end to it. A settlement is Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division . 4th part of the comany should be available and the terms are fair. I would like 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 hardware, gaming area. to see the government accept it. Washington, DC 20530–0001 . Force Microsoft to reduce the price of the In order to reach a settlement, Microsoft Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: operating system every year for the next has made many concessions. They have Please put a stop to the economically- decade. agreed to give computer makers the draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This .Force them to give 1–2 year warantee. flexibility to install and promote any has gone on long enough. .Operating system should include only the software that they see fit. Microsoft has also Microsoft has already agreed to hide its functionality needed for the operating agreed not to enter into any agreement that Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the system. It should not include all type of other would require any computer maker to use a fact is, this case against Microsoft is little packages like Internet explorer, Video player, fixed percentage of Microsoft software. Also, more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other etc. Every time, Microsoft cannot compete Microsoft has agreed to license its software Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel against a company, they start bundling the at a uniform price to computer makers no going to those supposedly harmed by software. They don’t lose any money. They matter how much they use it. Microsoft and Microsoft: the computer user. just increase the price of Windows. Also, if the industry need to be able to move on. The This is just another method for states to get you look at the history of TCP/IP products longer that this suit goes on, the worse it will free money, and a terrible precedent for the offered by 3rd party companies like be for everyone. Microsoft has agreed to future, not only in terms of computer NetManage/Chameleon, they were were many terms to reach a settlement. The technology, but all sorts of innovations in the superior products. settlement is fair and should be accepted. most dynamic industry the world has ever When Microsoft bundled it in Windows 95, Please accept the Microsoft antitrust seen. not only they made the whole connection as settlement. Please put a stop to this travesty of justice a rigid environment but also they caused Sincerely, now. Thank you. problems for the other comanies. Other DOLORES HANSON Sincerely, companies could not offer the same Rodney Mitchell flexibility they were able to offer even in MTC–00028862 P. O. BOX 3361 Windows for work groups. From: john waszewski Boulder, CO 80307–3361 . All government contracts should be bid To: Microsoft Settlement with 2 vendors with compatible products, so Date: 1/28/02 6:15pm MTC–00028864 that the government can compare them easily Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Kirby Thornton from the initial cost, maintenance (which has john waszewski To: Microsoft ATR been a nightmare with Microsoft software), 214 south johnson blvd. Date: 1/28/02 6:24pm compatibility, upgrades, etc. If these kinds of gloucester, nj 08030 Subject: Microsoft Settlement. guide lines are there, January 28, 2002 TO: Renata B. Hesse VerDate 11 This is a letter I sent to the various State The anti-competitive nature of Microsoft is Thank you Atty Generals not wishing to concur on this widely known; it is very important that Melissa Schweisguth matter under the current settlement proposal. Microsoft not own all the desktops and the San Francisco, CA I agree with their efforts; it was suggested net. —Roger Sherron MTC–00028868 that I forward my letter to you for your Gluon Networks review and so that is now done. Email: [email protected] From: william—[email protected]@inetgw Thanks you for your attention to this issue, Phone: (707) 285–1499 To: Microsoft ATR Kirby Thornton Fax: (707) 794–9651 Date: 1/28/02 6:23pm PO BOX 100 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Haymarket, VA 20168 MTC–00028866 In paragraph 4 of the complaint, you ————— Forwarded message ————— From: Timothy R. Chilson should have mentioned that the reason there Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:24:46 -0500 To: Microsoft ATR is no potential threat to Microsoft’s operating From: Richard Blumenthal VerDate 11 figured out a way of intercepting LIM/EMS engaging in litigation to prevent a competing repair the damage if they were not allowed system calls to use the Extended Memory O/S said to be capable of running some to use the information Microsoft was asking available on a 80186 or 80286 system as LIM/ software designed for older versions of them NOT to disclose? EMS memory. At the time, Microsoft did not Microsoft Windows from ever coming to By ‘‘breaking’’ or ‘‘extending’’ these current worry much about Quarterdeck shipping a market. There seems to be very little in the standards Microsoft makes it difficult if not memory manager as an add-on to MS/DOS settlement to prevent Microsoft from impossible for new entrants and innovators but when Digital Research figured out how to continuing these anti-competitive practices to truly compete in the marketplace. incorporate those features (and others) into that have stifled the market. Microsoft has too great of a hold on our DR/DOS 7 something had to be done. Again, I wish that I had more time to desktop operating systems at the current Microsoft entered into agreements with substantiate some of the history that I have time. The world has seen time and time again companies like Compaq Computer that they recalled or to suggest areas where the that because of the homogeneity of these would ship MS/DOS exclusively with their settlement could be improved but I work in networks a single virus can move through products. If Microsoft found that any vendor a corporate IT department supporting and cause huge amounts of damage. So why was shipping products with any competing Microsoft’s products. The complex, buggy can’t network operators move to a more O/S then Microsoft would charge them the nature of these products takes up so much of heterogeneous network? The main reason is retail rate for every copy of MS/DOS that the my time that I have not had time to make a the limited compatibility between Microsoft company shipped with their computers. DR/ better comment before today’s deadline. You and other vendors. DOS enjoyed a strong after-market with may find that there are many other people in One might say well Microsoft just puts out hobbyists and systems integrators who corporate IT that wish Microsoft didn’t have a better product and the others cannot keep wanted a superior Operating System but it the monopoly in the markets they do have so up so don’t penalize Microsoft. That wasn’t enough to sustain their business in the that they could choose better software for statement though could not be farther from face of the competition from Microsoft’s their companies. the truth. How can anyone compete with a exclusive agreements with the hardware Sincerely, monopoly? If Microsoft can’t compete then it vendors. Now, I think you will find that both William A. McQueen simply tweaks the operating system and now Quarterdeck and Digital Research are not william—[email protected] a competing vendors product seems to much more than footnotes in the history of [email protected] perform far worse than a similar Microsoft the Personal Computer. CC:[email protected]@inetgw product. Isn’t it the place of the government Another Digital Research product, Gem, MTC–00028870 to facilitate the marketplace? If so then how was a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that was can the government or court overseeing this once used by one of the two leading Desktop From: Marc Schuette case accept this settlement and believe that Publisher software packages as the user To: Microsoft ATR acceptable public good was done? Please interface. I don’t remember the details of this Date: 1/28/02 6:28pm reject the current settlement and place much case, but this software vendor was convinced Subject: Microsoft Settlement tougher restrictions or concessions on that they would have greater market share if Dear Sir/Madem: Microsoft that open the marketplace to the they converted their package to work with I would like to exercise my right to true innovators and loosen the grip of the Microsoft Windows 2.0. After that, Gem was comment on the proposed Microsoft incumbent, proprietary solution provider. I no longer bundled with the Desktop settlement. I have been involved with the could go on and on and on but I think the Publishing software and Gem dropped out of deployment of technology in private message I wanted to get across has been site. businesses for the last seven years and have made—don’t approve the current Microsoft One can only speculate on what the state- been involved in the technology industry for settlement and don’t approve any settlement of-the-art for personal computing devices the last 15 years. I am currently a Network that falls short of facilitating the marketplace. would be now if Microsoft had not created Administrator at a private company Thank you for your time and consideration this monopoly market for it’s operating involved in the wholesale plumbing on this matter. system products. We are only now beginning industry. During my career I have come Marc Schuette—Consolidated Supply Co. to see enhancements such as voice and across situations where system Voice (503) 684.5904 ext.125 handwriting recognition technology. These incompatibilities causes by what I feel is Fax (503) 598.1086 are just two examples of technology that poor quality programming on the part of Email [email protected] would have been in widespread use years ago Microsoft. When I searched fro answers to if Microsoft had had competition in it’s these problems more often than not I came MTC–00028872 markets. I believe that every consumer of across comments that basically said From: Margaret Crighton electronic devices such as telephones, ‘‘Microsoft believes it should be that way so To: Microsoft ATR personal computers and other consumer that the way it is and because they control Date: 1/28/02 6:28pm electronic devices has been harmed by the the operating system it cannot be changed’’. Subject: Microsoft Settlement lack of choices and innovation in the markets Open standards such as JAVA which YOur Honor, of Operating Systems and productivity Microsoft ‘‘broke’’ and then when caught in I am a doctoral student in nursing, writing software over the last two decades. To give a lawsuit with Sun Microsystems simply to express my disagreement with the current Microsoft significant market share in one of refused to include in future versions of the microsoft settlement. Microsoft is receiving a the few areas they have not been able to gain Windows operating system even though the mere slap on the wrist for actions that beg a market share on their own, the educational JAVA language held a good chance of easing more serious response. I hope that you will market, is not a fair settlement. the burden of portable of software across make a decision that will move towards Also, if you look at where Microsoft has different platforms (operating systems). Also holding microsoft accountable for its actions. focused it’s strategy since they were brought Microsoft has continually ‘‘tinkered’’ with Thank you for your considerations, to trial, you will see that they have shifted the SMB protocol causing headaches and Margaret H. Crighton, their restrictive licensing policies from the downtime for any company or person 2224 Kater Street manufacturers to the end-users. The press is running the open source program SAMBA Philadelphia, PA 19146 filled with many examples of complaints which allows a company to implement a 215 546 5854 from Corporate IT executives about the robust and heterogeneous network. Under restrictive enterprise licensing agreements Windows 2000 Microsoft modified a version MTC–00028873 that Microsoft is forcing them into. Microsoft of Kerberos and then called it Microsoft From: [email protected]@inetgw has also designed their latest Operating Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 and To: Microsoft ATR System, Windows XP, so that you must required strict disclosure agreement to see Date: 1/28/02 6:29pm supply them with a hardware ‘‘signature’’ in the format of the version they had released Subject: Microsoft Settlement order to continue using that software beyond which had broken networking features that Dear Sirs; the introductory period. This feature also had previously worked. As a very satisfied user of Microsoft restricts you from installing this software on Programmers were caught between a rock software, I want to strongly urge you to more than one computer. Microsoft is also and a hard place because how could they accept the proposed settlement. This VerDate 11 company is a national treasure and any ITG up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, perceived illegal business practices that it 4795 Emerald companies like Microsoft can get back into has supposedly been involved in, have been Boise, ID 83706 the business of innovating and creating better addressed and resolved in this agreement. 208–344–5545 products for consumers, and not wasting Yours truly,’’ valuable resources on litigation. Mrs. Janice Osborne MTC–00028877 Competition means creating better goods 8508 Caldbeck Drive, From: Alan Wunschel and offering superior services to consumers. Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 To: Microsoft Settlement With government out of the business of Date: 1/28/02 6:27pm stifling progress and tying the hands of MTC–00028874 Subject: Microsoft Settlement corporations, consumers—rather than From: Vinson, Danny Alan Wunschel bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ 130 ELLEN CT the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Date: 1/28/02 6:34pm OREGON, wi 53575 the reins off the high-tech industry, more Subject: Regarding the dispensation of justice January 28, 2002 entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Although no lives were lost in the actions Microsoft Settlement new and competitive products and of the Microsoft corporation, I feel that they U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division technologies. have flown in the face of legality, ethical 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my business behavior, and quality of Washington, DC 20530 views. workmanship for far too long. Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, Allowing this company to continue to The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? Bobbi Cady control how the people in our market, and in dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a MTC–00028879 the greater world, access information is serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech dangerous, both for the immediate business industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Kevin A Faaborg environment and the longer term information wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft ATR economy. We are still dealing with the over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 6:35pm decisions made ages ago, when Roman in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement engineers build roads to accommodate two courtroom. And the investors who propel our January 7, 2002 horses pulling a two-wheeled chariot, in the economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Attorney General John Ashcroft sizes of our cars and space shuttle booster Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the US Department of Justice motors (which must be transported by rail, federal government should not have broken 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW which is based on those same up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Washington, DC 20530 measurements). companies like Microsoft can get back into Dear Mr. Ashcroft: The stage is set for us to establish an open the business of innovating and creating better Being in the data processing industry and environment, where ideas and information products for consumers, and not wasting witnessing first hand the valuable addition Microsoft has made to the industry, I am can flow free from corporate control—this is valuable resources on litigation. Competition writing to support the November antitrust the fertile environment from which means creating better goods and offering settlement between Microsoft and the US innovation comes, not from the domination superior services to consumers. With department of Justice. of a single corporate entity. government out of the business of stifling The settlement is fair, as it requires Please don’t allow this settlement to take progress and tying the hands of corporations, Microsoft to make concessions that will place with only a token nod that Microsoft consumers—rather than bureaucrats and facilitate competition within the industry has strayed from the path of ethical behavior. judges—will once again pick the winners and without breaking the company up. I am glad Definitely don’t allow them to propagate losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the to see that Microsoft will be able continue to uncontrollably by giving schools their over- high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will do business as usual and grow at a rate valued software and hardware resources— be encouraged to create new and competitive consistent with its past performance. It is that will only breed a higher degree of market products and technologies. ironic that the states filing suit are dependent domination, no matter how nice it may seem Thank you for this opportunity to share my on Microsoft’s technology. that they would give things to children. Hold views. Microsoft’s innovation has set the standard to the intention of this legal action, and Sincerely, for my industry and I look forward to seeing remove their ability to subjugate smaller ALAN WUNSCHEL the settlement finalized so Microsoft can companies to their clearly greedy intentions. MTC–00028878 once again lead our nation’s IT sector to its Thank you for your time. position of dominance in the global From: Bobbi Cady -Danny Vinson technology market. To: Microsoft Settlement Director, Software Quality Assurance Sincerely, Xperts, Inc. Date: 1/28/02 6:28pm Kevin Faaborg Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028876 5112 Towers Terrace Bobbi Cady Pittsburgh, PA 15229 From: Rick Sanders 1865 N Raymond St. To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Boise, ID 83704 MTC–00028880 Date: 1/28/02 6:30pm January 28, 2002 From: rgirdner Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Renata B. Hesse U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division Date: 1/28/02 6:36pm Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: microsoft U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530 Dear sirs, 601 D Street NW Dear Microsoft Settlement: I would like to voice my opinion on the Suite 1200 The Microsoft trial squandered Justice Department case against Microsoft. Washington, DC 20530–0001 taxpayers’ dollars, was a nuisance to Please move forward on this item so that we Fax: 1–202–307–1454 or 1–202–616–9937 consumers, and a serious deterrent to may then move onto keeping our streets safe Email: [email protected] investors in the high-tech industry. It is high from criminals instead of worrying about It is time to move on. This settlement time for this trial, and the wasteful spending who is going to be the new star in computers. represents the best opportunity for Microsoft accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will Rick Girdner and the industry to move forward. At this indeed see competition in the marketplace, CC:Microsoft’s Freedom To Innovate point the settlement benefits the industry and rather than the courtroom. And the investors Network the nation. who propel our economy can finally breathe Sincerely, a sigh of relief. MTC–00028881 Richard H. Sanders Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the From: Raj6953 Technical Services Manager federal government should not have broken To: Microsoft ATR VerDate 11 Date: 1/28/02 6:37pm Many of these states and companies which entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Subject: Microsoft Settlement are suing Microsoft are not doing it to benefit new and competitive products and To: Judge Kollar-Kotally, the consumers, but to get as much as they technologies. I am Phil Miller with an MBA. This is to can. I attended a Jesuit University, Gonzaga Thank you for this opportunity to share my request you to file my objection to the U in Spokane. I find the people intent on views. proposed settlement before the court in getting money from Microsoft are just out to Sincerely, Microsoft vs. US. get their hands on some dough. Surely the Billy Miller As a daily user of Microsoft’s products, I justice department has more important things would like to have more options from its to concern itself with. Please, let’s move on. MTC–00028887 competitors. The Proposed Final Judgment Mary Emmick From: Tom Tisch allows a government sanctioned monopoly Issaquah, WA To: Microsoft ATR which is bad for all computer users and Date: 1/28/02 6:44pm MTC–00028884 American business. The proposed agreement Subject: Microsoft anti-competitive history violates the three required standards from the From: Heidi Michaelian The US Department of Justice must not courts, and is not even enforceable. It To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ settle with Microsoft on the proposed basis. threatens all Microsoft competitors, and I Date: 1/28/02 6:39pm I have spent 20 years in the venture capital object to this special treatment. Subject: Microsoft Settlement and computer industry during which time I appreciate your your kind consideration. I don’t think it’s wise for our nation to let have personally observed Microsoft steal Repectfully Microsoft monopolize the computer market secrets, be duplicitous in its dealings, and Phil Miller in this way. It seems to me we then will open through its dominance of the operating CC:Gregory Slayton ourselves up to their political and social system force acceptance of other Microsoft agenda, as they can attach whatever they MTC–00028882 products. wish to the operating system and we would At least two companies of which I have From: James Monsees have no choice but to buy it. I don’t like the been an investor and a director have directly To: Microsoft Settlement possibilities. been harmed by Microsoft monopoly Date: 1/28/02 6:34pm Sincerely, practices. One (Stac) won a $100 Million Subject: Microsoft Settlement Heidi Michaelian judgment against Microsoft for stealing James Monsees 213–748–8141 patented information. The judgment was no 11116 Lakeridge Run CC:’microsoftcomments(a)doj.ca.gov’’ more than a slap on the wrist of the economic Oklahoma City, OK 73170 juggernaut. The other saw its premier January 28, 2002 MTC–00028885 product line integrated into Microsoft Microsoft Settlement From: Erik Kennedy products and effectively given away U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division To: Microsoft ATR contributing significantly to the company 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Date: 1/28/02 6:42pm ultimately withering away.. Washington, DC 20530 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Microsoft Settlement: I am not in favor of the proposed As a personal user, I have wasted hours, The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? settlement. even days, of my time dealing with dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a dysfunctional Microsoft products, products serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00028886 that in a more competitive environment industry. From: Billy Miller would have been driven from the It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft Settlement marketplace or forced to upgrade in quality. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 6:36pm What other company can delay, or miss a over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: Microsoft Settlement promised introduction date for a new in the marketplace, rather than the Billy Miller product by 6 or more months and not suffer courtroom. And the investors who propel our 4486 Oriole Street competitive penalties? None other but economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Columbus, Ga 31907–5056 Microsoft. Not General Motors, not General Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the January 28, 2002 Electric, not United Airlines, not IBM, not federal government should not have broken Microsoft Settlement ATT. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division The time is here when the Federal companies like Microsoft can get back into 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Government, for which you have some the business of innovating and creating better Washington, DC 20530 responsibility, can be severely crippled by products for consumers, and not wasting Dear Microsoft Settlement: Microsoft business decisions and for which valuable resources on litigation. The Microsoft trial squandered the Federal Government—along with the rest Competition means creating better goods taxpayers’ dollars, was a nuisance to of us—can find no relief in competitive and offering superior services to consumers. consumers, and a serious deterrent to products or services. With government out of the business of investors in the high-tech industry. It is high The proposed remedies for the Microsoft stifling progress and tying the hands of time for this trial, and the wasteful spending antitrust case are a sham and sellout on corporations, consumers—rather than accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will behalf of the American people and hundreds bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick indeed see competition in the marketplace, of thousands of workers in the computer the winners and losers on Wall Street. With rather than the courtroom. And the investors industry. Core ethical values are at stake in the reins off the high-tech industry, more who propel our economy can finally breathe this matter. entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create a sigh of relief. Thank you. new and competitive products and Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Tom Tisch technologies. federal government should not have broken 15040 Encina Court Thank you for this opportunity to share my up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Saratoga, CA 95070 views. companies like Microsoft can get back into [email protected] Sincerely, the business of innovating and creating better Tel. 415.990.0102 James M. Monsees products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation. MTC–00028888 MTC–00028883 Competition means creating better goods From: Michael May From: David Emmick and offering superior services to consumers. To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR With government out of the business of Date: 1/28/02 6:37pm Date: 1/28/02 6:40pm stifling progress and tying the hands of Subject: Public comment Subject: microsoft trial corporations, consumers—rather than Renata B. Hesse Microsoft is certainly not harming the bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Antitrust Division consumer. I am a consumer and I love their the winners and losers on Wall Street. With U.S. Department of Justice products and the decent prices. the reins off the high-tech industry, more 601 D Street NW VerDate 11 Suite 1200 University of Texas at Austin UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Washington, DC 20530–0001 Austin, TX 78712–1197 Plaintiff, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, It is my opinion that the November 6 office (512) 471–5531 Defendant. revised proposed Final Judgment is an fax (209) 821–9058 Civil Action No. 98–1232 (CKK) insufficient remedy and does not adequately VerDate 11 represents 64,000 Black owned businesses technologies that threatened Microsoft’s B. An Inadequate Settlement and provides an advocacy that reaches all operating system monopoly. In their Proposed Final Judgement, the 640,000 Black owned businesses. The As a result of Microsoft’s actions, not only Court of Appeals recognized Microsoft’s businesses that the NBCC represents are both have consumers suffered from the immediate culpability and rightly called for ‘‘prompt, consumers of computer software and effects of higher prices for the company’s certain and effective’’ remedies for competitors in a market that has been shaped software products and the continuous cycle consumers. The Court is specific in and dominated by the Microsoft Corporation. of upgrades i Statement of Dr. Mark N. describing these provisions. Among them are The NBCC joins these comments today in an Cooper on ‘‘The Microsoft Settlement: A requirements that computer manufacturers effort to restore competition to this vital Look to the Future,’’ Before the Committee on have the freedom to make ‘‘middleware’’ economic sector. the Judiciary, United States Senate, decisions regarding what software they The National Native American Chamber of December 12, 2001. choose to offer to consumers as standard on Commerce (NNACC) is organized to provide required for their systems to function their machines. Manufacturers are to be able a coordinating forum to service Native properly, they have also been adversely to sell and promote Microsoft and non- American business, government, and civic affected by the decline of choice, quality and Microsoft products equally, and customize organizations for community development. innovation in the marketplace. their systems and software as they choose, The efforts of the Chamber are also to provide with licensing agreements to reflect this and 1. The Damage to Consumers services and benefits to Native Americans to without fear of retaliation. The Proposed assist them in competing in business and in An amicus brief filed with the Court in Final Judgement also frees other software and government. The nationwide businesses that 1999 estimated that monopoly overpricing by hardware developers to work on applications are members of the NNACC already face Microsoft has cost consumers an estimated for the Windows platform, and requires enormous challenges in competing in the $25 to $30 billion. 2 Other estimates put this Microsoft to disclose the technical New Economy. Monopolistic players such as figure at $10 to $20 billion. 3 In either case, information needed for them to do so. Microsoft, who also engage in illegal business the high and steadily increasing prices of Consumers would no doubt benefit from practices, make these efforts at competition Microsoft’s products stand in stark contrast the decrease in price and increase in choice nearly impossible. Accordingly, we join in to those of personal computer systems and in the software market if the U.S. Department offering these comments to the Court. hardware, which as a result of fierce of Justice settlement with Microsoft III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT competition have plummeted in recent years. supported, and made enforceable, all of the To some extent, Microsoft’s strategy of Judgement’s provisions. Unfortunately, the The proposed U.S. Department of Justice bundling its products and the overall settlement falls short of this goal, as it settlement contains inadequate enforcement reduction in new computer system prices contains many loopholes. For example, while provisions to protect consumers from have also hidden these high prices from Microsoft is required to share technical Microsoft’s monopolistic overpricing in the consumers. information to ensure compatibility with software market. Accordingly, the Court The full cost of Microsoft’s anti- other companies’’ software, it has no should adopt the more stringent settlements competitive actions in squeezing out obligation to do so if Microsoft determines as proposed by the nine states Attorneys’’ competing operating systems, Internet that the disclosure would compromise General and Corporation Counsel from the browsers, word processing, spreadsheet, and security or damage licensing agreements. District of Columbia. Microsoft, alone, should not be given the A. Microsoft as Monopoly presentation applications from the marketplace is difficult to quantify. It is right to make this determination. As a monopoly in the software market, The Court of Appeals found Microsoft’s impossible to calculate how, without Microsoft produces more than 90% of all of ‘‘commingling of code,’’ the process by Microsoft’s illegal business practices, the software operating systems in personal which Microsoft inextricably links the competing products might have forced down computers (PCs) and approximately 90% of programming of its other applications to software prices or brought new innovations all of the software suites (including Internet Windows and effectively ‘‘locks out’’ to consumers. Such applications might have browsers, word processing, spreadsheet, and competitors, to be illegal. Yet, the proposed offered consumers additional choice on how presentation programs) used with those settlement conspicuously omits mention of they wished to equip and configure their operating systems. From the beginning of this an enforceable remedy. The settlement also case, the Court has rejected Microsoft’s computers. This de facto homogenization of gives Microsoft the power to unilaterally defense that the nature of the software market the PC by Microsoft has led to other problems determine what is defined as a ‘‘Window in which it competes naturally leads to the such as the acceleration of the spreading of Operating System product.’’ Based on its dominance of one player. As one consumer viruses. For example, if one computer previous behavior, Microsoft is likely to have advocate has noted, ‘‘If a monopoly were becomes infected, many become infected, as an inclusive definition. The company now really the natural state of affairs in this they share the same programming code with dominates the Internet browser market, as its market, then Microsoft would not have had identical loopholes. 2 Remedies Brief of Internet Explorer application has become an to engage in so many unnatural acts to Amici Curiae, United States v. Microsoft, 84 integral part of the Microsoft operating preserve it.’’ 1 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.DC 1999) system. The unanimous decision of the United (Nos. CIV. A. 98–1232, 98–1233). 3 Mark In yet another example of how consumers States Court of Appeals for the District of Cooper, ‘‘Antitrust as Consumer Protection in gain little from the settlement, Microsoft is Columbia affirmed that Microsoft has used its the New Economy: Lessons from the also granted a loophole through which it can leverage to repeatedly engage in Microsoft Case,’’ pp. 847–851, Cooper continue to pay other vendors when anticompetitive behavior and, in the process, Hastings Law Review, 200106, November 27, ‘‘reasonably necessary’’ not to develop or has committed numerous violations of 2001. distribute competing products. As a result, antitrust law. According to the Competitive Microsoft is now pursuing online innovation will continue to be stifled and Impact Statement issued by the U.S. applications in banking, news, travel, consumers will not see or be able to choose Department of Justice, the Court of Appeals advertising and other areas. Of paramount products that Microsoft has paid to keep off found that Microsoft: concern is the fear that Microsoft will use its of store shelves. Rather than fostering an (1) undertook a variety of restrictions on Internet browser and these applications to environment that encourages personal computer Original Equipment dominate the online business world in the entrepreneurship, growth and healthy Manufacturers ‘‘OEMs’’); (2) integrated its same manner as it leveraged its operating business competition, the settlement will Web browser into Windows in a non- system to control the PC desktop. This reinforce Microsoft’s dominant role in the removable way while excluding rivals; (3) cannot be allowed to happen. The success of industry. engaged in restrictive and exclusionary the Internet and those who do business on it dealings with Internet Access Providers, depends largely upon freedom of access C. Additional Remedies Needed Independent Software Vendors and Apple through a multitude of competitive In an attempt to address the settlement’s Computer; and (4) attempted to mislead and applications. Such a vision would not likely shortcomings, nine states and the District of threaten software developers in order to be realized were Microsoft to become the Columbia have offered remedial proposals. contain and subvert Java middleware Internet’s sole gatekeeper. These proposals are now consumers’’ last VerDate 11 chance at true reform in this case. Unlike industry and allow consumers to reap the not deserve profit, but see what the billions those included in the settlement, the benefits. paid for Windows every year buys us: In proposals will, if enacted, contribute to Many on both sides of this case have significant cases, less than what the reduced software prices and ensure that complained about the length of the trial and remaining competition now gives away for consumers are at minimum given the option the settlement process. An effective solution free, because Microsoft has such a lock on the of making choices when equipping their now appears to be within reach. We urge the market. The profits are squandered every computers. Specific proposed remedies Court not to allow a settlement that does not year on power. would require Microsoft to: live up to the Judgment of the Court of There are dozens of competing products Offer a stripped-down, unbundled version Appeals and settle for settlement’s sake. We that could have easily taken that position had of Windows. Without built-in software such urge that the Court consider and adopt the they controlled the power they had in their as the Internet browser, media player, or proposals put forth by the litigating states times as unscrupulously as Microsoft does. email applications, consumers will be able to and the District of Columbia as a much more Corporate survival and hunger for power and better custom order PCs with only the thorough and enforceable solution, one that profits are the reason we have antitrust laws. installed applications which they choose to will bring all of the above benefits to In this case, the public shame is greater, purchase. Share its code for its Internet consumers who represent the public interest. because it is the Copyright laws—an browser with other software developers, Respectfully Submitted, artificially- granted government monopoly— thereby allowing for new products with new Dirck A. Hargraves that establishes the Microsoft Monopoly. innovations and ensuring that consumers do Counsel If it were possible to still compete in this not rely on Microsoft as the predominant way Telecommunications Research and Action market against that Corporation, you would to the Internet. Center clearly be seeing much lower prices—the Auction the right to create different Post Office Box 27279 Microsoft take increases, but somehow the versions of its Office software suite for use Washington, DC 20005 economies of scale in software production on other operating systems, such as Linux. Harry C. Alford never lowers the price of the software, and Again, this provision eliminates Microsoft’s President & CEO there is never even consideration that you application barrier to entry and gives more The National Black Chamber of Commerce paid for dozens of versions you can no longer choice to consumers. 1350 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 825 use because Microsoft has made them Include ‘‘middleware’’ software in Washington, DC 20036 incompatible. Microsoft’s latest operation system, Windows Joe Byrd Microsoft is not an indispensible part of XP. This will enable software applications to President the market. If they vanished, within 5 years, universally, across non-Microsoft platforms, The National Native American Chamber of there would be no trace left, and there would expanding interoperability of products and Commerce be competition for a little while until another consumer options. Post Office Box 663 corporation showed that it was the most Consumers also support the nine Okmulgee, OK 74447 vicious of those remaining and consolidated Attorneys’’ General and Corporation power. MTC–00028894 Counsel’s efforts to advocate for a court- I and thousands of people like me have appointed master with real enforcement From: Ray Whitmer started writing new software that is not abilities. The U.S. Department of Justice To: Microsoft ATR susceptible to this overbearing corporate settlement proposed a three-person technical Date: 1/28/02 6:49pm eternal ownership—which I have to believe committee to oversee Microsoft’s compliance Subject: Microsoft Settlement is extremely different from what the framers with the settlement. The findings of this To whom it may concern, regarding the of the Constitution thought they were doing committee would neither be made public nor proposed settlement of the microsoft case. in granting limited copyright and patents. revealed to the Court. In contrast, a court- I am not a lawyer, and have no sound legal We have the technology to design around appointed master would be able to more advise to offer, and the time has past for that. the original intent of these laws, and it is effectively respond if Microsoft violates the I have been an employee of a number of time that you look at seriously reigning in the terms of the settlement. companies who have found it impossible to moster that has evolved. Law of the mega- Finally, the settlement offers no effective compete with Microsoft because competing corporation, by the mega-corporation, and for punishment to deter Microsoft from acting in with them had little to do with quality of the mega-corporation is not in anyone’s best bad faith. As it stands, the penalty for non- product and everything to do with control. interest long-term, even if the mega-corporate compliance with the agreement is only an You do not have to look far at all for many advertising of today has the same persuasive extension of the monitoring period. The overt acts that I think any reasonable person power as the mega-Churches of old over the litigating states have proposed an alternative would call criminal. This is because of the masses, tribunals, and courts of law. punishment with far greater consequences: high- pressure eminating from the top of the The case against Microsoft was poorly the revealing of Windows’’ source code. company, to win at any costs. made, and hardly justified, not that there Together, these steps are needed to In my 20 years developing products across wasn’t a huge case to be made. But your effectively oversee and enforce any many operating systems and corporate remedies are worse than ineffective. They agreement with Microsoft, a company that structures, I have worked for WordPerfect will do more harm than good. You have has leveraged its dominance in the market to corporation, Novell, and Corel, among others, overturned the breakup, which might have get what it wants at the expense of its and it has become increasingly obvious that had some effect, but likewise didn’t get at the competitors and consumers. quality has nothing to do with winning in the root of the problems, which I have tried to marketplace. describe here. It is not Microsoft that is V. CONCLUSION It is all about who controls the information wrong but VerDate 11 rubbing salt in our wounds to offer There’s no remorse. No head bowed Microsoft Settlement something that hurts more than it helps and seeking the government’s forgiveness. Does U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division claim you have acted in our behalf. this tell you anything! 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Human rights are more important than It’s in your court now! Don’t shame the rest Washington, DC 20530 copyrights or corporate rights. Many of us HONEST Americans by holding Dear Microsoft Settlement: technology companies go under every year. It Microsoft and it’s bullying practices up to a The Microsoft trial squandered would be better, though if there was a better different standard of law than the rest of us! taxpayers’ dollars, was a nuisance to connection between profits and service. If Thanx for listening! consumers, and a serious deterrent to you do not, the next revolution is on the Gene E. Merritt investors in the high-tech industry. It is high horizon. You cannot lock up everyone for Brimfield, Ma. time for this trial, and the wasteful spending violations of intellectual ‘‘property’’ any accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will MTC–00028896 more than the Church could, however much indeed see competition in the marketplace, the corporations want to control everything. From: Vicky Stables rather than the courtroom. And the investors And corporations do not need an absolute To: Microsoft ATR who propel our economy can finally breathe eternal copyright as much as they might Date: 1/28/02 1:58pm a sigh of relief. claim. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the And America will become the ‘‘old world’’ I think the settlement proposal is a bad federal government should not have broken while other countries such as Russia have idea. Please find a better solution that up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, their patriots thrown in prison in America for provides better protection to consumers and companies like Microsoft can get back into crimes of conscience by the dozens of new the software industry. the business of innovating and creating better FBI/DOJ departments created for this new Vicky products for consumers, and not wasting opression — certainly not for any overt act Vicky Stables, CPA valuable resources on litigation. Competition depriving a corporation of it’s profit in the Anacortes, Washington, USA means creating better goods and offering recent Sklyarov case. Do you really want to MTC–00028897 superior services to consumers. With be the ‘‘Department of Justice’’ which government out of the business of stifling From: Lydia G. Rich presided over such a debacle? Where is progress and tying the hands of corporations, To: Microsoft ATR justice for we, the people? consumers—rather than bureaucrats and Date: 1/28/02 6:50pm Ray Whitmer judges—will once again pick the winners and Subject: USAGRich—Lydia—1068—0108 (1) [email protected] losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the 35 Hyatt Drive high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will MTC–00028895 Warren, PA 16365–3527 be encouraged to create new and competitive January 10, 2002 From: Gene Merritt products and technologies. Thank you for Attorney General John Ashcroft To: Microsoft ATR this opportunity to share my views. US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Date: 1/28/02 6:49pm Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft settlement Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530–0001 Viki L. Williams Spending any amount of time on an Dear Mr. Ashcroft: computer one cane encounter MANY areas of MTC–00028899 I am writing to express my support in the UNDUE influence by Microsoft. From: Andrew recent settlement between Microsoft and the This now even extends to websites such as To: Microsoft ATR federal government. It is with sincere hope STARBUCKS. I had an account with them Date: 1/28/02 2:10pm that this is the end of any litigation on the until they formed a partnership with Subject: Microsoft Settlement federal level. Considering the terms of the Microsoft and redesigned their (Starbucks’) To the Department of Justice: agreement, Microsoft did not get off easy at website based on Microsoft Passport! My old I am writing to express to you my horror all. In fact, due to this agreement, Microsoft account is no longer valid. (and I use that word deliberately) at the has to make several important changes to the And, even more, one cannot even approach way that they handle their business. proposed settlement to the current Microsoft or get onto or even contact the Starbucks site For example, Microsoft has agreed to antitrust case. I believe the proposed unless one accepts Microsoft Passport disclose and document for use by its remedies are in no way commensurate with cookies! Not even being allowed on the site competitors various interfaces that are the crimes of which Microsoft has been without Microsoft’s surveillance! I consider internal to Windows’’ operating system found guilty. this WAY TOO MUCH POWER AND products. This alone is a first in an antitrust Almost all of the subsections under the INFLUENCE! And this is only one example! settlement. Prohibited Conduct section contain gaping I’ve sent several emails to Starbucks * * * Microsoft has also agreed to make available loopholes. For instance, one subsection finally got to them through to its competitors, any protocols provides for the removal of references (on the Planetfeedback* * * and still no getting near implemented in Windows’’ operating system Desktop and in menus) to Microsoft the site. products that are used to interoperate applications, but in no way provides for the Microsoft is extending it’s web of power natively with any Microsoft server operating removal of the application itself. Such an and influence AND CONTROL into so many system. application could still be activated by other areas of public and private communication. With the many terms of the agreement, I means, and, by its presence on the system, MSNBC. Newsweek. Just to name a few. This see no reason for the government to pursue could interfere with the proper operation of may, now, look rather harmless, but* * * further litigation on any level against non-Microsoft applications. Microsoft has they what about the future. One company Microsoft. Not only would it be a waste of already proven itself to be very adept at should not have so much control over so time, but a waste of money as well. I fully exploiting such loopholes and a truly fair and many facets of our daily lives. And the trust that you would agree. Thank you. effective Final Judgement must seek to close government, in this matter, doesn’t look to Sincerely, them. clean in this case, either. I remember seeing Lydia Rich At —best—, the remedies in the PFJ will news footage of Gates in Washington set to cc: Senator Rick Santorum help to slow the growth of Microsoft’s meet with government officials WHILE monopoly, but will do nothing to diminish MICROSOFT’S CASE WAS BEING MTC–00028898 it. At worst, such a Final Judgement would HANDLED BY THE GOVERNMENT! I the, From: Viki Williams actually help to protect Microsoft from immediately, thought about CONFLICT OF To: Microsoft Settlement further legal action if they continue their INTEREST! Talk about impropriety!!! Date: 1/28/02 6:46pm anticompetitive practices. And it would be Microsoft seems to have no qualms Subject: Microsoft Settlement foolish to believe that they would not do so. whatsoever about tossing around their Viki Williams In our society, criminals theoretically are incredible weight and thumbing their nose in 11522 Small Dr. supposed to serve jail time and/or the air at us regular Americans* * * and for Mesquite, TX 75180 compensate their victims for their suffering. that matter, the laws of this great country! January 28, 2002 This settlement requires neither of Microsoft. VerDate 11 Microsoft has over the years repeatedly raped others. For specific examples, see http:// To: ‘‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ OEMs, ISVs, consumers, and others, all the www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/ Date: 1/28/02 6:52pm while thumbing its nose at America’s laws innovation.shtml . Bill Gates, often cited as Subject: Microsoft Settlement and system of justice. Now it is time for some ‘‘genius’’ rather than the megalomaniac I, as a member of the computing and Microsoft and its corporate officers to pay the that he is, did not even see the relevance of electronics industries for more than 20 years, price. I am counting on the Department of the internet until he saw Netscape’s market am completely opposed to the proposed Justice to see to it that the American people penetration. Microsoft settlement, which will do nothing, are properly protected and compensated. I personally recall purchasing a Netscape in my opinion, to open the marketplace to Andrew T. Smith browser upgrade several years ago. (My first competition nor innovation. Computer Science major copy was in my starter kit when I joined My definition to a satisfactory settlement 1127 Humboldt St., Apt. C Earthlink—and I assume Earthlink paid a will be the lowering of market prices for Santa Rosa, CA 95404 license for the privilege of distributing the Microsoft operating systems and associated Phone: 707–546–6120 browser, as it was not free at the time.) Once applications to ‘‘reasonable’’ levels for Microsoft ‘‘woke up and smelled the businesses and consumers. $450 for a word MTC–00028900 internet’’ they began giving Internet Explorer processing package, per computer, which a From: [email protected]@inetgw away to eat away at Netscape’s market share. consumer has to buy to maintain To: Microsoft ATR The effect was immediate, and Netscape had interoperability with professional standards? Date: 1/28/02 6:51pm no choice but to follow suit. I would also add $350 for an Operating System? Subject: Microsoft Settlement that at the time Microsoft began giving away This pricing level is ridiculous, and I believe that the AOL suit against their browser, Netscape had the Microsoft’s margins reflect this! They can Microsoft is not warranted and is doing technologically superior product, which had only command this price because of Microsoft an injustice by prolonging this already incorporated the ability to handle monopoly. Microsoft’s margins are not a litigation. I could very well use Netscape as javascripts. At the time Microsoft made their reflection of their innovation—Microsoft my browser, but prefer Internet Explorer infamous deal with AOL, Internet Explorer software quality and security is known to be which is an excellent product. AOL and the still did not handle javascripts, which is one among the worst ever in the marketplace and other companies that are seeking this suit of the reasons people used to hate browsing they’ve only ‘‘innovated’’ when forced—but through AOL. I also recall how I complained know that Microsoft has cash and are just of their sheer market saturation and the need to AOL about their tactics—they would trying to get some of it into their own for people to have compatible products in ‘‘nag’’ me at log-on and log-off to download pockets. It would be better if they stopped order to exchange information successfully. the IE browser—obviously part of the this nonsense. They should get down to the The dynamic of the software marketplace contract. business of running their own companies is much different from, let’s say, automobiles, But that wasn’t enough for Microsoft. Their better and using innovations of their own to as the key for marketability is version of innovation was to force Netscape produce better software and not trying to interoperability. If you cannot exchange and every other browser into obsolescence by blame Microsoft for their own mistakes and information in standard formats, such as ‘‘welding’’ Internet Explorer into the problems between word processors of different authors, Windows operating system so that it cannot Judy Stein be deleted. While I’m sure that there are the application is useless. Microsoft has obtained a monopoly on many aspects of MTC–00028901 many in the pro-Microsoft camp that will give very impressive reasons for why this is operating systems and applications through From: Mary—Paul—[email protected]@ necessary and innovative—I don’t believe a brute force and interoperability with inetgw single one. I consider myself to be a fairly Windows features, which they control. To: Microsoft ATR savvy computer user, versed in both PC and The settlement does not address two key Date: 1/28/02 6:52pm Mac platforms, but I have yet to find a single areas neccessary for success—splitting of the Your Honor, benefit to the consumer that was created by Microsoft OS and Applications divisions, I know there is a deadline for comments tying these two products together. To be and complete opening of internal OS APIs and I am not the most eloquent arguer on specific, I cannot see any difference in such that compatible and interoperable short notice, but here are some of the reasons functionality between the bundled Internet applications AND operating systems can be I feel Microsoft must be severely punished. Explorer on the Windows computer I use at easily built. The dynamics of launching a Microsoft is not a company we can trust work versus running Internet Explorer on the competitor to Microsoft applications like with our technological future. They have a Mac I use at work for graphic development. Office would be formidable without drastic history of ‘‘thumbing their nose’’ at the legal Both programs work as they are supposed to, measures to equalize the marketplace, so system through an expert legal team of opening HTML pages and connecting me to unless those measures are taken, we will ‘‘loophole finders.’’ the internet. There is only one reason that continue to be held hostage to Microsoft’s Netscape was only one in a long line of Microsoft bundled these products* * * to monopoly. All the other measures of the Microsoft casualties. Remember when Lotus wipe out Netscape and dominate the internet. settlement, such as educational software 1–2–3 and Word Perfect were king? And what will Microsoft gain? Well, look donation, are completely self-serving to What Microsoft is good, perhaps even at where they are focusing their energy today. Microsoft, which wants to overcome Apple’s ‘‘innovative’’ at: bundling their products for Now they are forcing anyone who buys their penetration in education anyway. Someone competitive advantage, giving them away, recent upgrade packages to apply for their in Redmond will be congratulating either for free or a ridiculously low price, internet ‘‘Passport’’ account. $400 Rebates/ themselves if this settlement is adopted. The then once the competition is gone, and/or incentives are driving consumers to sign up rest of us lose* * * their stranglehold on the market is secure, for MSN as Microsoft takes aim at AOL’s Sincerely, they charge customers hideous prices for market domination. Microsoft has one aim, to Dave Medin marginal upgrades. (Mostly over-rated ‘‘bug control every exchange of personal, 1305 Brockman Ave. fixes’’.) Several years back, Microsoft consumer, and financial information. Since I Marion, Iowa 52302 shrewdly invited everyone with pirated have watched a never-ending stream of MTC–00028903 copies of their various office product to examples of unethical and anticompetitive become ‘‘legal’’ though a free registration. behavior from this company, I can say this From: Mark Pruner The amnesty plan worked, and the now legal without reservation: This is not the company To: Microsoft ATR owners, feeling they had ‘‘one up on I want peeking into my wallet and tracking Date: 1/28/02 6:52pm Microsoft’’ happily paid for the never-ending my visits on the internet. This company is Subject: Web Counsel comments upgrades. Big Brother incarnate. Ms. Hesse’’ In general however, Microsoft is most Respectfully yours, Attached as a WordPerfect file is our definitely NOT a technologically innovative Mary L. Paul Stewart comments on the proposed DOJ/Microsoft company. With few exceptions, (the ‘‘talking settlement. Please confirm receipt at your paper clip’’ for one) their announced MTC–00028902 earliest convenience. ‘‘innovations’’ are directly copied from From: David Medin Mark Pruner VerDate 11 MTC–00028903—0001 Spyglass, a small innovative software sell their valuable material, because IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT company. The license required Microsoft to Microsoft wants to control any micro- COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA make licensing payments to Spyglass, but payment system. As a result web content UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Microsoft held up these payments, which providers could only rely on advertising Plaintiff, were vital to Spyglass to continue developing revenue, even though they could sell VS. its browser. Only when Spyglass made it millions of articles and graphic images with MICROSOFT CORPORATION, clear that it would no longer actively develop a proper micropayment system. The Defendant. its browser did Microsoft make the payment necessary APIs have to be made public and STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. it was contractually required to make. barriers to the use of non-Microsoft payment Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et al., II. Web innovation has stalled since systems with Microsoft software have to be Plaintiffs, Microsoft got a monopoly in web browsers removed at both the browser level and the O/ VS. Prior to Microsoft entering the market for S level. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, web browsers Netscape and many other Page editing is difficult—Billions of Defendant. companies, such as Spyglass, were additional dollars are wasted every month, Civil Action No. 98–1232 developing innovate new features and because web pages are so difficult to create. Civil Action No. 98–1233 services in their browsers. The first casualty The difficulty of creating pages for the IE WEB COUNSEL, LLC’S of the Microsoft monopolist entering the browser increases sales of Microsoft’s page COMMENTS ON DOJ’S REVISED browser battle was not Netscape, but the editing program, Frontpage. Typical of PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT many smaller innovators, that had been Microsoft’s efforts to exclude competitors, Web Counsel, LLC is an interactive pushing Netscape to make its product better. Frontpage is designed to write proprietary marketing company that will be harmed if Microsoft created a concept called codes that can’t be read by other browsers or the Proposed Final Judgement agreed to by ‘‘embrace and extend’’, which should be that causes these browsers to crash. the Department of Justice and Microsoft more properly called ‘‘copy and crush’’. Bookmarks work poorly—The IE browser Corporation is approved. We believe that the Microsoft at its option will copy another bookmark feature (called ‘‘Favorites’’ by proposed judgement is not in the public company’s software, buy the company or Microsoft) is cumbersome, requiring a multi- interest, and while not perfect, the dissenting license the software. It then adds a few step process. Bookmarks can only be to a file, states proposal is much closer to the remedy features and uses its monopoly profits and not a spot in a file, so finding information in that the U.S. Supreme Court has required to tie-ins with its other monopoly products to very long files can be very time consuming. ‘‘unfetter a market from anticompetitive crush the competitor. The result of this Others have better bookmark systems, but MS conduct,’’ to terminate the illegal monopoly, process is that the monopolist dives the small has no incentive to incorporate them or deny to the defendant the fruits of its innovators out of the market. As a result improve its bookmarks. While a minor point, statutory violation, and ensure that there innovation is stifled. this functionality, like other cumbersome remain no practices likely to result in The Microsoft browser illustrates the features in IF.. is used billions of times each monopolization in the future.’’ monopolist’s lack of innovation. Anyone who day world-wide, so even a small We fully support the remedies proposed by uses Microsoft’s Internet Explorer software improvement would huge amounts of time California, Connecticut and the other will find dozens of things that need when added together. dissenting. Their comments are incorporated improvement or that would normally Integration of the browser with other herein by reference and the material set forth motivate a user to switch to a competitor, but functions & with XML—Microsoft has below is meant to complement and extend there are no viable alternatives. To illustrate discouraged efforts to easily move the remedies proposed by the dissenting some of the many areas in which Microsoft information, between web pages and other states. WE THEREFORE, submit these has failed to innovate set forth below are only applications, except where Microsoft comments as allowed by the Tunney Act. some of the problems with the Microsoft products are involved. Extensible Mark-Up Microsoft will push the limits of any browser. IE is unreliable and insecure. IE Language (XML) has been around for several judgement and will not be cooperative with crashes more often than any other software years, but since Microsoft has a monopoly in any voluntary enforcement mechanism. on our computer. The lost work and wasted browsers they need not worry about a Microsoft has shown a history of not living time costs the U.S. billions of dollars. IE is competitor developing this technology, due up to the spirit of their prior settlements and unreliable, because Microsoft as a monopolist to the barriers to the entry found by the trial agreements. As examples: does not have abide by industry standards. It court. At the present time, browsers can 1. Microsoft’s first settlement with the creates its own standards and changes them, display text and graphics, but humans have Justice Department included a two word regardless of the costs imposed on third to organize the information displayed. XML phrase that Microsoft used as a loophole to totally gut the settlement’s effect in the parties. The browser is also very insecure and is like the West Key System organizing marketplace. The proposed DOJ/Microsoft is constantly having to be patched. Were information into categories for easy retrieval settlement is replete with phrases such as Microsoft not a monopolist of the OS, the and use. MS is trying to monopolize this ‘‘provided that’’, ‘‘except that’’, ‘‘so long as’’ browser and the office suite, many standard also and with their three etc. Microsoft will certainly use these phrases organizations would have rejected it for these monopolies is likely to succeed. to thwart the few significant restrictions in reasons. This lack of security has now risen Browsers on non-PCs—Microsoft has tried the proposed settlement. to the level of a national security issue. to force variations of IF. browser onto 2. The Tunney Act provides that Microsoft Hackers, terrorists and foreign governments personal digital assistants (e.g. Palms) and is to report all contacts with government can exploit this insecure product to the cell phones, even though they are not suited officials. Microsoft as usual has taken a very detriment of the U.S. government, its for these devices. As a monopolist Microsoft narrow reading of this requirement and not economy and its citizens. has no incentive to develop a different type reported many contacts, particularly with Micropayments—Micropayments are of browser for non-personal computers. If a legislative branch official. crucial for websites that sell information, company does develop such a non-PC 3. Bill Gates’’ was very uncooperative in both text and images. People will pay from system, Microsoft can move quickly to stop his deposition. What should have taken a day 10 cents to $2.00 to read an article or look them, as they did with Web TV. Because of stretched to 3 days. He did his best to avoid at an image or chart, but there is no its huge monopoly profits, Microsoft was able answering questions, by arguing such things widespread payment system to make these to pay an extremely high price for this system as the definition of the word ‘‘is’’. small payments. The Microsoft payment that displayed website on TV. Once it 4. Microsoft fabricated or was grossly systems is clunky and invades a user’s controlled this potential competitor, negligent in presenting their evidence. At privacy, as a result, few people use it and Microsoft efforts to further develop this several times in the trial, they had to retract even fewer buy articles. Because, Microsoft system fell short of the level expected when testimony after DOJ’s counsel was able to has kept third parties from accessing the a non-monopolist invests that amount of show that the facts did not comport with the necessary APIs and other parts of the system, money. Microsoft witness’’ testimony. the Microsoft monopoly has a has put Printing sophisticated pages—Printed web 5. Microsoft’s first browser was not created thousands of web content providers out of pages and web pages on computer screens do by Microsoft, but rather licensed from business. These content providers can not not look the same. This causes tremendous VerDate 11 difficulties for Web Counsel and other web settlement is accepted the perverse result threatening not only its competitors, but its developers. Web developers are restricted to will be that potential competitors will be customers, something that only a monopolist basic layouts, even when there would be even more discouraged, because they will see can do (e.g. threat to Compaq to cut off sales significant advantages to a more that Microsoft got no monetary penalty and of Microsoft operating systems, see trial sophisticated layout. The primary solution in was rewarded with a monopoly for using courts finding of facts.) Enforcement must this area is a non-Microsoft solution, Adobe unlawful tactics. Even now venture include an anonymous reporting feature and Acrobat .pdf files. Microsoft does not see this capitalists reject out of hand any business substantial penalties swiftly enforced, system as a threat, because .pdf files are very plan that Microsoft might see as competing otherwise Microsoft will continue its difficult to create and use. Microsoft efforts against their core monopolies. intimidation and accept its conduct penalty, to make printing web pages is minimal. Since Microsoft has 3 inter-locking if any, many years later after it is irrelevant. Customizing feature—Microsoft makes monopolies, the remedies must be more V. The DOJ/Microsoft proposal will only adjusting and customizing the Internet comprehensive and certain, particularly, lead to more litigation Explorer browser very difficult. If a company since Microsoft has shown that they will not Microsoft and its abuse of its monopoly creates a browser based service that needs a live up to the spirit of the settlement have injured many parties, and regardless of customized browser, they must hire language and are likely to violate the actual how you rule, there will be substantial expensive programs and even then, letter of the settlement. While I support all litigation as evidenced by the recent action customization is very limited. MS restricts of the relief requested by the nine dissenting brought by AOL/Time Warner against API information, uses restrictive licensing states, I believe that Microsoft should also be Microsoft. The AOL suit, however, also and insists on maintaining IE’s appearance. subject to a substantial fine so that they do illustrates what will happen if the court From the individual’s user perspective, not benefit from, nor use their ill- gotten adopts the proposed DOJ/Microsoft proposed gains to unlawfully further their monopolies. finding the places and understanding settlement. Litigants, as has AOL, will move obscured references such as ‘‘Use TLS 1.0’’ IV. Enforcement to further restrict the monopolist’s actions; or ‘‘Show Friendly URLs’’ means that most The proposed Microsoft/DOJ enforcement litigants will bring actions in the courts people will have to use their browsers the procedure will do little to prevent improper instead of through arbitration and Microsoft way Microsoft wants them to use it. actions by Microsoft. The voluntary dispute will delay this litigation for years. The Microsoft, like all monopolists, does not resolution procedure will not work. resulting uncertainty will hurt the United innovate, because they have no economic Microsoft will either not volunteer to be States leadership in software at all levels. incentive to do so. Microsoft used to add punished or more likely they will drag out The software industry is not prone to innovative features to its browsers, albeit such procedures and Microsoft will win litigation, but companies will be left with no mostly copied from other companies, because of the delay. options to protect themselves, if this court principally Netscape. Microsoft stopped Microsoft traditionally comes out with a making significant improvements once major new OS about every three years (e.g. does not provide an adequate enforcement Netscape stopped innovating. Netscape Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows XP mechanism and fair settlement, that is stopped innovating, because Microsoft had [2001]). The success of these systems are perceived to be fair. used its monopoly to make sure that there determined in the first year, so as we have VI. Java should be required was no money to be made in browsers. seen Microsoft has tried to constantly delay The public interest and competitive Microsoft already owns the browser the present litigation and it has succeeded. fairness require that Microsoft provide a market, why should they try to do something The original complaint was filed by DOJ in quality Java interpreter with every copy of innovative, when their market share is much May of 1998. In the meantime, Microsoft has their web browser. Much of the functionality, more likely to go down, than up. come out with the minor OS upgrades that we and other web developers have built Ill. Microsoft’s monopolies prevent fair Windows ME and Windows 2000 and the into their websites is based on the Java competition and must controlled major new OS, Windows XP. None of these language. If Microsoft gets away with not Microsoft has monopolies in not only the OS’s have been restricted, by the DOJ and providing Java support in their browser, as OS and the browser, but also in the Office during this time Microsoft has continued to they have already done with Windows Suite software. (This claim was originally make extraordinary profits even during the XP, the results with not be in the public made in the state’s complaint, but later recent down economy. interest: tens of billions of dollars that have dropped to harmonize its complaint with the The new Windows XP has several features gone into programming sites in Java will be DOJ complaint.) These inter-locking that continue to unlawfully leverage wasted tens of thousands of website will lose monopolies give Microsoft even greater Microsoft monopolies, e.g. the Passport some or all of their functionality, and power than a normal monopolist. system. While it is theoretically possible to Microsoft will have another monopoly, this Microsoft’s confidence in the power of run Windows XP without the Passport time in web languages. If nothing else, the their monopoly can be seen from their bail- system, the average user will not be able to DOJ/Microsoft proposed settlement, must be outs of their competitors. Microsoft invested figure this out and the software repeatedly amended to require Java support. millions of dollars in Apple, the only demands that the user sign-up for the WE, THEREFORE request that you reject significant operating system alternative, Passport system and provide their private the revised proposed final judgment by the (although Apple’s OS won’t run on Intel information to be put under Microsoft’s U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft processors.) Microsoft claimed it was an control. Corporation, and that you adopt the proposed investment to support Apple, whose users If the court wants to do justice now, the judgement by California, Connecticut and the bought Microsoft Office suite software for final settlement must have a quick and other dissenting states, that you impose a their Apple Macintoshes. While unlikely, certain arbitration procedure. Failure to substantial monetary penalty on Microsoft for Microsoft’s true motivation became evident include such a provision will result in their unlawful acts, and that you grant such when they tried to prop-up Corel’s Microsoft complying with the orders, but other relief as is requested herein and you WordPerfect office suite. Microsoft’s effort to only after they are irrelevant. A clear may determine to be in the public interest. co-opt this competitor was so blatant, that example of this is the ‘‘concessions’’ that DATED this 28th day of January, 2002 regulators opposed Microsoft’s investment Microsoft has made as to the web browser in Mark Pruner and Microsoft withdrew there offer. the proposed DOJ/Microsoft settlement. President Microsoft’s competitors know that the Microsoft made the concessions because, its Web Counsel, LLC Microsoft’s monopolies have created a $36 unlawful acts have won the browser battle. Stamford E-Center billion treasure chest of monopoly profits. Microsoft is happy to concede, here and in 59 Broad Street They also know that Microsoft will use these other areas of the proposed settlement, points Stamford, CT 06901 funds and the unlawful tactics outlined by that don’t restrict what it actually wants to 203/969–7900 the trial court to oppose anyone that should do or that are irrelevant in the marketplace. 203/969–7904 (fax) try to compete with them in their monopoly Not only is speed essential, but the 203/550–0929 (cell) areas. These funds and Microsoft’s hardball enforcement procedures must provide a way [email protected] tactics scare away potential competitors and to expose Microsoft’s efforts to intimidate http://www.webcounsel.com innovators. If the DOJ/Microsoft proposed third parties. Microsoft is notorious for Our latest site http://www.gibbonslaw.com VerDate 11 MTC–00028904 define what is and what is not an operating thanks to this ‘‘commodotization’’, the From: rclay773281 system, is the focus of this letter. growth of the Internet, in terms of To: Microsoft ATR Computing and Commodities individuals accessing it since the inception Date: 1/28/02 6:52pm Commodities. They are the foundation of of the web, has increased faster than any Subject: microsoft settlement the computing industry. However, based on other medium preceding it, truly yielding Robert Clayton context, they can often go by other names immense consumer benefit. 14085 Olympic View Road such as objects, standards, and libraries. The PC Operating System Commodity Silverdale WA 98383 Simply put, commodoties create an Following the same logic, there is no 1/28/02 environment in which something can be reason that consumers cannot realize the To Attorney General John Ashcroft reused multiple times and interchanged same degree of consumer benefit and US Dept. of Justice easily. They are the cornerstone of the innovation from competition in the PC 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW success of the IBM PC, the World Wide Web, operating system market. The PC OS can be Washington D.C. 20530 object-oriented programming, and grid ‘‘commodotized’’ in the same way as the Dear Mr. Ashcroft computing. They enable competition and open PC hardware architecture, the PC I am writing you today to express my promote innovation, often at amazing speed. processors, and the web servers mentioned opinion in regards to the microsoft antitrust They form the basis for the goal of permitting above, yielding the same benefit to dispute.l am a microsoft supporter ,an d l any device to work with any data at any time consumers and accelerating innovation. The would like to see this costly litigation ended at any location and the hope of writing a methodology for sending data to and from a against Microsoft.lt will serve in the best program one time and have it run anywhere PC OS can be standardized following the public interest to permanently resolve this and on any device. same patterns as those detailed in the issue.This settlement was reached after When an individual goes out to purchase examples. When a consumer wants to run an extensive negotiations with a court appointed a personal computer, that person can choose application such as a word processor, mediator.Microsoft has agreed to all terms from multiple PC vendors including Dell, speadsheet, or personal finance manager, he and conditions of this agreement .Under this Compaq, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Sony, to or she should not need to be concerned about agreement ,microsoft m,ust document its name a representative few. More often than the underlying operating system any more envied interfaces so other companies can use not, he or she does not have to worry about than he or she is concerned about the brand them to develop more sophisticated soft whether or not the printer they purchased or of the underlying PC or processor. It is an ware. Microsoft has also agreed to grant the scanner they already own will work with unnecessary level of complexity. This computer makers broad new rights to the new PC in which they are investing. That approach does not preclude competition in configure windows so that other companies is because the PCs from all of these the PC OS space any more than it does in the can promote their products while windows manufacturers are based on a common, open PC, processor, and web server markets boots up. Microsoft is more than willing to architecture. The open architecture of these mentioned in the examples. In fact, it follow these procedures so they can get back machines ‘‘commodotizes’’ the machine promotes it. to work.This settlement will serve in the best itself, allowing them to be interchanged However, while such ‘‘commodotization’’ public interest.Our resources and time easily. This allows for a large degree of of the PC OS yields the greatest consumer should be devoted to more pressing issues competition between the vendors, lowered benefit in lowered prices, increased Thank you for your support.l might add prices for consumers, and expedited competition, and accelerated innovation, it that l have much more confidence in your innovation. In fact, according to the does not allow Microsoft to retain the ability than your predecessor Department of Commercel, PC prices fell 26 monopoly grasp on that market that it Sincerely percent per year between 1995 and 1999 due currently holds and the resultant high profit Robert Clayton to this rampant competition. When that margins. Consequently, rather than working [email protected] individual is examining those PCs, they can in pursuit of this goal on behalf of choose between processors from both Intel consumers, Microsoft continually works in MTC–00028905 and AMD. Generally speaking, he or she does opposition of it actually working to From: Mike Searcy not have to worry about whether or not the undermine it, leveraging its monopoly and To: Microsoft ATR spreadsheet program they purchased or the using tactics such as ‘‘application Date: 1/28/02 6:54pm service provider they are using to access the integration’’ to thwart this goal resulting in Subject: Microsoft Settlement Internet supports the processor they are reduced consumer benefit, slowed Microsoft has lost focus on the best examining, as long as the Windows operating innovation, and maintainence of artificially interests of consumers. The company now system supports it. In this case, the Windows high prices. places its own ends above those of the operating system ‘‘commodotizes’’ the Achieving PC OS ‘‘commodization’’ is consumer. With some companies, this is processor. Once again, the consumer benefits pursued in two different ways: (1) the often understandable and acceptable. from intense competition between the development of middleware and (2) the However, Microsoft, as ruled by the court, processor companies yielding lower prices restriction of what is and what is not a monopolizes an integral component of the and greater innovation. Processors run faster component of the operating system. computing industry, an industry that has and cheaper now than ever before, and the Middleware is software that sits between the become a primary driving force in the bar seems to be raised by this competition on application and the operting system. national economy. Consequently, until almost a weekly basis. Software developers write their applications Microsoft’s monopoly is either no longer in When most people think of the Internet, to the middleware rather than to a particular place or is no longer viable, the interests of they are actually thinking about only one OS. This allows an application to be written the consumer public must take precedent, component of the Internet, the World Wide a single time and run on any operating and it is up to the government, as Web. The success of the web is based on system supported by the middleware. representatives of the people, to ensure that universal standards for the delivery and However, as the advantage of middleware is the best interests of consumers are pursued. access of information. These standards to allow portability of applications across And, while the current settlement agreement ‘‘commodotize’’ the sender and receiver of operating systems, it is imperative that the between the Department of Justice, nine state that information. If the standards are middleware be separate from the OS. Attorneys General, and the Microsoft followed, the end user, the consumer, does Examples of middleware are Java and the Corporation, does take some significant not have to worry if the server he or she is Internet browser. Applications written in strides, it contains multiple loopholes that accessing is running Microsoft Internet Java or to the browser, should be accessible would cause little to no adjustment in the Information Server (IIS), Netscape Enterprise on multiple operating systems without tactics of Microsoft, a company that has been Server, Lotus Domino, IBM WebSphere, or needing rewrites. However, as mentioned, proven to abuse the monopoly it holds and Apache. The standards ‘‘commodotize’’ the such an approach, while benefiting has been seen to exploit such ambiguities web server. This enables significant consumers and application developers, does often with brazen disregard for the intent of competition in the web server space, not benefit Microsoft. Consequently, the agreement in which they reside. One allowing the buyer, the presenter of the data, Microsoft has strived to undermine the significant loophole, the failure to adequately to choose from any number of servers. And, former and control the latter. Bill Gates, VerDate 11 himself, realizes the benefits of middleware part that works specifically on a 2002 Ford technologies. If there were not basic uniform and articulates the intent of Microsoft to Thunderbird. The benefit is that the part operating systems the information technology undermine it when he states in an email in works wonderfully on that one car, as it is business would not exist. If Microsoft was January 1997, the following in regards to Java custom-made for that vehicle. However, how more aggressive and kept a ‘‘closed system’’ support in Windows. ‘‘To avoid middleware much better off is the consumer if the part similar to Apple Computer where would taking over an operating system you have to is made to work on 50 different vehicles as competition be? Apple has a significant share make sure the integrated services are opposed to the one? Immensely. Integrating of the PC market. Where are the others? If different from the middleware—otherwise application code into the OS is no different Microsoft were not innovative and added the middleware approach has no and yields the same results. Consumers features we could still using Visacalc and be disadvantages and it wins. I think the path benefit only in the short term and only as playing Pong. we were going down of building on [Java’s long as they continue to use the one OS to Many of the software companies calling Abstract Window Toolkit (AWT)] was a sure which the application code has been welded. foul should have approached this business disaster—it was creating a situation where Is the integration necessary? Not at all. Is it problem with a different tact. Their efforts to pure 100% Java applications would look just self-serving to the OS owner? Most definitely. tag along behind the leaders will always be as good as pure Windows applications which Is it in the best interests of consumers? Not a disadvantage. The government must not we have to avoid.’’ So, while pure Java a chance. punish the leaders of an industry just to help applications looking as good as pure Not only is the integration unwise from a the weak companies that are just along for Windows applications would be a boon to usability perspective, it also leads to higher the ride. In the beginning I was a very strong consumers, it was undermined by Microsoft prices. How much cheaper can a single part Apple supporter, but I needed integrated to protect its monopoly. An internet browser be mass-produced for 50 different vehicles as products that could be used economically so that could run on any operating system opposed to a custom part for each one? The I switched to PCs and Microsoft software. would present a universal platform for custom, integrated part is always more The need for uniformity and connectiveness application development and a universal expensive. However, in this case, the breeds the necessity to be able to work across ‘‘client’’ for the consumer. However, such a consumer is blissfully ignorant of these different platforms. Users need products that universal client would undermine the unnecessarily higher prices for no other work and are also convenient. (To save time Windows monopoly. Whereas Microsoft reason than we are all driving Thunderbirds, and expense.) could have adjusted the OS to utilize the and the excessively high price of the part is Harry Yamamoto universal client, maintaining a separate ‘‘integrated’’ in the cost of the overall car. To 5573 Road U SE browser client that could be ported to date, the measuring stick for allowing Warden, WA 98857 multiple operating systems, Microsoft chose Microsoft to integrate code into its OS is Phone (509) 349–2435 instead to modify the browser client to whether or not the integration benefits accomodate the OS, thus eliminating the consumers. This is the wrong approach. As MTC–00028907 universal promise of the browser and we have seen, there will always be an From: Neal Stobaugh destroying the resultant consumer benefit it argument for how the integration benefits the To: Microsoft ATR would bring. These tactics could only be consumer. However, the question should be, Date: 1/28/02 6:55pm successful in an environment where there is ‘‘Of all of the options available, does the Subject: Microsoft Settlement no competition for the OS. Otherwise, integration option present the best option for 4030 148th Avenue NE consumers would flock to the OS that consumers?’’ Using this question as a guide, Redmond, WA 98052 benefits them the most. In today’s forced integration into an OS will rarely, if January 28, 2002 environment, Microsoft decides what is and ever, be the best option for consumers. Attorney General John Ashcroft what is not beneficial to the consumer. The With the above in mind, a specific US Department of Justice consumer has no choice. definition of a PC operating system is 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Inter Alia, Among Other Things necessary. I am not presumptuous enough to Washington, DC 20530 The current settlement agreement believe that I am capable of providing such Dear Mr. Ashcroft: concentrates on addressing the middleware a definition. However, I would envision that I am writing to express my full support of issue. However, it avoids addressing the a group of experts taken from multiple areas the recent settlement between Microsoft and second requirement of reaching the of the industry could generate such a the US Department of Justice. I am glad to see ‘‘commoditized’’ OS, a situation that is definition given the task. Undoubtedly, such they had reached a settlement and that exploited by Microsoft in an increasingly a definition would require modifications to Microsoft will be allowed to start focusing on frequent manner showing no indication of Microsoft’s existing operating systems or business, not politics. abating. To reach the goal of the could be enforced for all future versions. I do believe that the terms of the settlement ‘‘commoditized’’ 0S, a strict definition is However, having such a definition in place, are fair and will ultimately have a positive needed of what is and what is not part of the along with the allowance of middleware, effect on the consumer and small operating system. Without such a definition, could open the door wide for true businessperson. Microsoft’s concessions, with its monopoly in place, Microsoft can competition in the PC OS space while setting such as agreeing not to retaliate against continually ‘‘integrate’’ what is generally the foundation for immense, long-term computer makers and software developers deemed as application software into the consumer benefit, benefits that will easily fall who develop or promote products that operating system in the same manner they by the wayside without it. compete with Microsoft, or granting have done with the browser. Two words in Regards, computer makers broad new rights to the text of the settlement agreement permit Michael P. Searcy configure Windows so that non-Microsoft this tactic of Microsoft to continue unabated Tampa, FL products can be promoted more easily, to the detriment of consumers. ‘‘Inter Alia’’. should appease all the competitors. They are found in the definitions section of MTC–00028906 I urge your office to do what is right for the the agreement within the definition of an From: Harry Yamamoto American public. Implement the settlement. ‘‘Operating System’’ (Section VI, Paragraph To: Microsoft ATR Thank you. P.). With these two words in place, Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 6:47pm Sincerely, can ‘‘integrate’’ anything and everything it Subject: Microsoft Settlement Neal Stobaugh sees fit into the operating system. This is To Whom It May Concern, easily seen in the latest iteration of its The remedies for the Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028908 Windows operating system, Windows XP, must be fair but not so disruptive that From: Lynnie D. Velarde where Microsoft has ‘‘integrated’’ its version competitive innovations would have no To: Microsoft ATR of media ‘‘application’’ software into the OS. platform to work from. If the government Date: 1/28/02 6:55pm While there are benefits of integration, they kills off Microsoft the cost will be Subject: Microsoft Settlement are shortsighted and self-serving and do not tremendous for everyone to switch to ????? Dear Attorney General: Attached is my present the greatest benefit to consumers. For The ‘‘unfair competition’’ seems inherently a letter of opinion for the settlement between instance, a manufacturer could produce a part of the nature of these relatively new the Department of Justice and Microsoft. VerDate 11 Sincerely, MTC–00028910 hopeful this matter will come to a speedy Manuel B. Velarde From: [email protected]@inetgw resolution. Thank you. Manuel B. Velarde To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, 8902 Leemore Court Date: 1/28/02 6:56pm Frank Murphree Louisville, KY 40241 Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028913 January 23, 2002 I urge you to accept this settlement. Attorney General John Ashcroft From: John Brugger US Department of Justice MTC–00028911 To: Microsoft ATR 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 6:59pm Washington, DC 20530 To: Microsoft ATR Subject: microsoft settlement Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Date: 1/28/02 6:55pm it is my opinion that the settlement I am writing to show my support for the Subject: Microsoft Settlement proposed by the company is ultimately the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. Ms. Renata B. Hesse, best solution for all concerned. Your efforts in supporting the settlement I Antitrust Division MTC–00028914 gratefully welcome. Microsoft has basically 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 From: Lydia G. Rich agreed to what was asked of it, as well as Washington, DC 20530–0001 To: Microsoft ATR agreed to some terms that were not even Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: Date: 1/28/02 7:01pm addresses in the original complaints. Now is Please put a stop to the economically- Subject: Microsoft Settlement the time to move on toward renewed draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This 35 Hyatt Drive innovation and improvement in the has gone on long enough. Warren, PA 16365–3527 American computer technology industry. Microsoft has already agreed to hide its January 10, 2002 The settlement will lead to Microsoft Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the Attorney General John Ashcroft working more closely with its partners in the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania software industry than it already does. more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Avenue, NW Microsoft will document and disclose the Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel Washington, DC 20530–0001 internal code for the interfaces of its going to those supposedly harmed by Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Windows programs some other industry Microsoft: the computer user. I am writing to express my support in the companies can make their programs work This is just another method for states to get recent settlement between Microsoft and the more efficiently with Windows. Microsoft free money, and a terrible precedent for the federal government. It is with sincere hope will provide computer makers a list of future, not only in terms of computer that this is the end of any litigation on the established, uniform terms and prices so technology, but all sorts of innovations in the federal level. Considering the terms of the everyone will know what the deal is, rather most dynamic industry the world has ever agreement, Microsoft did not get off easy at than negotiate privately. A technical seen. all. In fact, due to this agreement, Microsoft committee of software experts will monitor Please put a stop to this travesty of justice Microsoft to ensure that the terms of the has to make several important changes to the now. Thank you. way that they handle their business. settlement are met. These are big concessions Sincerely, and compromises of Microsoft’s legal rights For example, Microsoft has agreed to Tom Howe to cooperate with its industry and resolve the disclose and document for use by its 1033 NW 9th court case. competitors various interfaces that are Moore, OK 73160–1811 I appreciate, and thank you for, your efforts internal to Windows’’ operating system to see that this beneficial settlement is MTC–00028912 products. This alone is a first in an antitrust approved. Your leadership is appreciated. settlement. Microsoft has also agreed to make From: Frank Murphree Sincerely, available to its competitors, any protocols To: Microsoft ATR Dr. Manuel B. Velarde implemented in Windows’’ operating system Date: 1/28/02 6:55pm products that are used to interoperate MTC–00028909 Subject: Microsoft Settlement natively with any Microsoft server operating From: John A. Beatson III 828 Cooke Street system. To: Microsoft ATR West Helena, AR 72390–1409 With the many terms of the agreement, I Date: 1/28/02 6:55pm January 14, 2002 see no reason for the government to pursue Subject: Microsoft Settlement Attorney General John Ashcroft further litigation on any level against Thank you for this opprotunity to voice my US Department of Justice Microsoft. Not only would it be a waste of opinion. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW time, but a waste of money as well. I fully The Microsoft settlement solution offered Washington, DC 20530–0001 trust that you would agree. Thank you. by the Justice Department is a sham, window Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Sincerely, dressing to cover a decision to back out of the I am happy to hear the Microsoft case has Lydia Rich whole enterprise. The settlement is so weak settled. I urge the Judge reviewing the case cc: Senator Rick Santorum as to be meaningless. Remeadiation to those to approve the settlement so all parties may who were harmed virtualy non-existant. focus on more important matters. MTC–00028915 Enforcement mechanizms are flimsey and While I do not agree with the government’s From: [email protected]@inetgw will be ineffectual. taking action against Microsoft in the first To: Microsoft ATR The Justice Department tried to enforce an place, I am in favor of the settlement. Its Date: 1/28/02 7:00pm agreement with Microsoft with a weak terms are reasonable, and are in the public Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT settlement in the past. They failed because interest. Consumers will benefit from the James W. McCoy the enforcement mechanizms relied on good settlement, as Microsoft will be free to go RR 3 Box 3412 faith by Microsoft instead of effective rules about its business producing quality Naples, TX 75568 and procedures. The result was a further software. Microsoft’s competitors will clearly January 28, 2002 solidification of the Microsoft monopoly, benefit from the agreement. They will be Attorney General John Ashcroft companies and products driven from the made privy to Microsoft’s otherwise US Department of Justice market place, and an outrage from the confidential operating information. They will 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW government that was embarassing given that also benefit from Microsoft’s agreement to Washington, DC 20530 a blind man could have seen it coming. make it easier for computer manufacturers to Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Don’t repeat history. The only effective install other company’s software on their I write to you today to express my support settlement is one where the remedy fixes the computers. of the recent settlement reached between the problem and the required remedial actions The settlement will also provide much Department of Justice and Microsoft. It is my can be enforced. Enforcement can not rely on needed certainty to the tech industry. This understanding that at the end of January the good faith by Microsoft, not then, not now, can only help our American economy, Attorney General will decide whether or not not ever. especially in a time of recession. I am to enact the terms of the settlement. This is VerDate 11 a very important decision. I believe that marketing incentives (on an equitable basis) in denying Microsoft’s request to limit the enacting the settlement would be the most to include Windows on every machine, or to scope of the remedies without an evidentiary beneficial course for our country, economy, decline to sell ‘‘naked PCs’’. We currently are hearing, and the DOJ was premature in and technology industry. in the worst economic recession in at least dropping their case in-main on product The terms of the settlement call for the a decade. It’s doubtful that some of todays bundling. Microsoft is engaged in world-wide creation of a technical review committee. OEMs will even survive. Nonetheless, many trade and the DOJ and European antitrust This committee will have the job of of these same ‘‘equipment manufacturers’’ regulators seem uncoordinated and out of overseeing Microsoft’s action. They will won’t sell their equipment at any price step. The European regulators have taken up ensure that Microsoft complies with the without pre-installed software from complaints that Microsoft has withheld terms of the settlement agreement. This Microsoft. This is hardly the behavior of an access to Windows server software API’s that should ease those who fear Microsoft’s unfettered market. Microsoft should be are necessary for interoperability with other compliance. required to post the costs of it’s OEM network operating systems, and the bundling I hope that the Department of Justice enacts products on a public web site, and they of Windows Media Player in Windows XP. this settlement quickly. should be precluded from offerring any Microsoft is not so quietly announcing it’s Sincerely incentives to OEMs to curtail the sales of plans for a single Internet logon James McCoy ‘‘naked PCs’’. authentication service it’s calling ‘‘.NET’’. To paraphrase the Appeals Court by the The stated objective of this initiative is to MTC–00028916 time this case is resolved the facts will be leverage the Windows monoply in order to From: Harlan Wilkerson ancient history, but the effects of the illegal create a new (Internet) monopoly. While To: Microsoft ATR, dennispowell@ acts will have caused harm nonetheless. The these practices may or may not be lawful, it’s earthlink.net@inetgw proposed remedy does nothing to ‘‘deny to doubtful that all of the practices likely to Date: 1/28/02 7:02pm the defendant the fruits of its statutory result in monopolization in the future have Subject: Proposed Settlement (with violation’’. Microsoft staunchly denies any been eliminated without a single hearing on corrections) wrong doing in it’s public statements, retains the issues here in our courts. Most non- I feel that adoption of the proposed billions in capital, and isn’t even held liable Microsoft operating systems provide a boot settlement is not in the public interest. for the people’s costs in prosecuting the case. manager that allows consumers to use several The Appeals Court ordered the District In crafting a remedy that terminates the operating systems. In fact, Microsoft includes Court to craft a remedy that would ‘‘unfetter illegal monopoly or eliminates practices a boot manager that allows consumers to use [the] market from anticompetitive conduct,’’ likely to result in monopolization in the multiple (older) versions of Windows e.g. to ‘‘terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to future it is important that hearings be held Windows 2000 and Windows 98. The act of the defendant the fruits of its statutory to investigate how we got here in the first installing a Microsoft operating system violation, and ensure that there remain no place. The Federal Trade Commission and doesn’t invalidate a consumers licenses for a practices likely to result in monopolization DOJ took up Microsoft’s trade practices competitors products. Yet installing (or in the future.’’ involving OEM per-machine-licensing of reinstalling) Microsoft Windows will always Windows has gained it’s market position MSDOS. During this case a private antitrust result in a consumers other operating systems not by consumer demand, but by Microsoft’s suit was brought against Microsoft by becoming inaccessible. This is almost total control of production. In the Caldera. That suit was settled but provided anticompetitive behavior. Microsoft should past, Microsoft has used exclusive OEM no relief for the millions of consumers who be required to automatically add other licensing and marketing incentives to pass purchased Digital Research’s Disk Operating operating systems to it’s boot manager in the along the so-called ‘‘Microsoft tax’’ to every System. Digital publicly complained that same manner that it adds it’s own products. PC consumer. Most of the top 20 OEMs they had sufferred from Microsoft’s The DOJ and Microsoft appear to have simply don’t offer PC systems without the anticompetitive per-machine-licensing forgotten that this case is about Personal Windows operating system pre-installed. scheme and were wrongly excluded from the Computers if a consumer shops for a PC, and Microsoft has urged (and rewarded) the Windows 3.1 beta testing program—even makes a purchase based on the software OEMs to ‘‘just say no’’ to buyers who request though they were participants in beta testing selection, it makes no sense to provide a so called ‘‘naked PC’’ (a PC with no pre- earlier versions of Windows. Digitat’s Microsoft the arbitrary right within fourteen installed software). This is ironic since the Operating system didn’t compete with days (or some other later date) to delete icons OEM’s associated support costs should Windows, but did compete with MSDOS. At or programs and substitute their own because actually be reduced. The OEMs that do offer the time these were separate Microsoft retail they have judged the competitors product alternatives to Microsoft’s Windows charge products. The respected magazine and online lacking in some quality or state they deem essentially the same price for non-Windows publication Dr Dobbs Journal revealed that essential. models. This is true even for those with pre- the Windows 3.1 beta contained code that Microsoft has stated that their power to installied versions of absolutely free was only useful for detecting Digital Research innovate or bundle applications into operating systems e.g. Linux, or the BSDs. DOS. This code gave the user error messages Windows XP is essential to the economic These operating systems can be freely or simply halted a users machine whenever recovery of the PC industry. The PC OEMs downloaded and installed on all of a Digital Research DOS was detected. Windows have testified that there is no viable consumers PCs without any licensing fee version 4 and MSDOS version 7 were alternative to Windows. In the past year whatsoever. Consumers who have opted to eventually bundled into Windows 95 which alone private business LANs and Internet install these free operating systems (on their carried exclusive OEM license agreements companies have suffered billions of dollars in own) are usually frustrated in any attempt to that didn’t permit OEMs to use or dual boot damages caused by trojan or virus programs obtain refunds from the OEMs for their other operating systems like Digital’s DOS. that specifically targeted Windows PCs. The unused Windows licenses. This despite For example, some Hitachi PCs had a hidden Executive and Legislative branches of the provisions for a refund from the OEM that are copy of the BeOS that consumers could only Federal Government have recognized the contained in the Microsoft Windows EULA. discover and activate using instructions on Internet as a vital piece of our national and It’s no accident that consumers can’t Hitachi’s web site. Digital, Hitachi and BeOS international infrastructure. They have determine the fair price of a PC under these have since exited the PC OEM and PC established agencies tasked with it’s circumstances. This was highlighted during Operating system business. For it’s part the protection. Indeed one reason for pursuing the trial by a grass roots movement that DOJ has complained publicly that Microsoft the proposed settlement after September 11 culminated in a ‘‘Windows Refund Day’’. violated the first consent agreement. The was ‘‘the national interest’’ It’s hard to Consumers who purchase Microsoft practice of monopolies denying companies understand why much of Microsoft’s ill Windows through an OEM usually have no that compete in any software category timely gotten monopoly shouldn’t be considered an standing in class action suits brought against access to APIs, and the practice of bundling essential public facility. Certainly consumers Microsoft. separate retail products for anticompetitive have a right to migrate their own itellectual Nothing in the proposed settlement reasons, and/or using exclusive licensing property out of proprietary Microsoft file prohibits Microsoft from continuing to offer agreements to harm competitors is a common formats. Microsoft should be required to OEMs existing forms of advertising or and recurring theme. The judge was correct publish the file format information needed VerDate 11 for other applications to interoperate with To: Microsoft ATR has been possible because of the abuse of the files created by MS Office. This is certainly Date: 1/28/02 7:03pm monopoly position that Microsoft has in the the case with regard to Apple Computer users Subject: Microsoft Settlement PC operating system arena. who have already been threatened with the Mary Breivik If very strong corrective measures are not cancellation of the Apple version of MS 25010–38th Avenue South implemented in the very near future, Office. In conclusion, the court combined the Kent, WA 98032 Microsoft will have achieved a monopoly individual State and DOJ cases. A settlement January 28, 2002 position over all software used by most PC, that doesn’t include half the plaintiffs is at Attorney General John Ashcroft Internet, and Communications Device users best not a settlement. US Department of Justice, with the result that competition and thus Sincerely, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW innovation will be extremely limited, and Harlan L. Wilkerson Washington, DC 20530 costs and capabilities will be determined Hutchinson, KS. 67501 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: solely by Microsoft instead of the free market. I am in favor of Microsoft and the MTC–00028917 The current settlement proposal by the Department of Justice settling in the case. USDOJ is not adequate, and should be From: Peggy Broyles The settlement agreement the two sides To: Microsoft ATR enhanced to include the original demands reached in November adequately addresses made by the prosecutors of this suit. Date: 1/28/02 7:00pm the concerns raised by the case’s plaintiffs. Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT There is really no need to spend any more MTC–00028921 Dear Mr. ASHCROFT; money on litigating this case. It is good to see the Justice Department has From: hap I really appreciate the way Microsoft has To: Microsoft ATR ended its long and very costly antitrust handled itself throughout the case. It has lawsuit against Microsoft. Microsoft has Date: 1/28/02 7:03pm answered the allegations of unfair business Subject: Microsoft settlement produced wonderful software for the world. tactics by making fundamental changes to They should be allowed to continue. 109 Hosmer Street key aspects of its operations. It will license Hudson, MA 01749–3246 No more action should be taken at the Windows to the 20 largest computer- January 28, 2002 federal level against Miicrosoft. manufacturing companies at the same price Attorney General John Ashcroft Thank you , and on the same terms. Additionally, US Department of Justice Arthur & Peggy Broyles Microsoft agreed to grant computer 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW manufacturers the right to change the MTC–00028918 Washington, DC 20530–0001 configuration of Windows. This will allow From: Howard Griffen Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: the manufacturers to replace features of To: Microsoft Settlement I am wish to express my support for the Windows with software programs designed Date: 1/28/02 6:55pm settlement reached in the government’s case by Microsoft’s competitors, which will give Subject: Microsoft Settlement against Microsoft. It’s time to end this this. consumers a greater choice of products. Howard Griffen The settlement agreement is the I want the government to stop hounding 1436 Baytowne Circle E Microsoft so they can continue to innovate, Destin, FL 32550 appropriate remedy to the complaints lodged against Microsoft, and, in fact, it goes beyond create more jobs, provide more innovative January 28, 2002 products, and otherwise help our economy Microsoft Settlement the scope of the original suit. Microsoft has demonstrated good faith in agreeing to the recover just like President Bush wants us to. U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division Before Microsoft created the Windows 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW settlement terms. Nothing more will be gained by dragging this case back to the product only the technically adept were able Washington, DC 20530 to use a computer not to mention the Dear Microsoft Settlement: courts. Thank you for your attention. internet. Lets be fair but let’s not overly The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? punish a company for being aggressive and dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Sincerely, Mary Breivik competitive. I urge that the government serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech accept the settlement as it has been drafted. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the MTC–00028920 Let’s get on with business we certainly have wasteful spending accompanying it, to be many other important challenges to tackle. over. Consumers will indeed see competition From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR Let’s work together to improve our economy in the marketplace, rather than the and keep the United States free of terrorism. courtroom. And the investors who propel our Date: 1/28/02 7:03pm Please help us economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Dear Sirs: Richard Lefebvre federal government should not have broken As an IT (Information Technology) email copy: Representative Marty Meehan up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, professional for 35 years, I offer the following opinion. companies like Microsoft can get back into MTC–00028922 the business of innovating and creating better Microsoft has never been an innovator, but From: [email protected]@inetgw products for consumers, and not wasting always an imitator who targets successful To: Microsoft ATR valuable resources on litigation. technologies developed by others and then Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm Competition means creating better goods competes with them on the heavily skewed Subject: Microsoft Settlement and offering superior services to consumers. playing field of Microsoft’s monopoly control With government out of the business of of the PC operating system. Dear Department of Justice: stifling progress and tying the hands of Because of the explosive rate of change in Please accept the settlement of the corporations, consumers—rather than IT hardware so far, there has always been Microsoft case. This country has been bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick room for innovation by outsiders despite through enough distractions. Let’s see if the winners and losers on Wall Street. With attempts by any entity to control or Microsoft can use their engery to create the reins off the high-tech industry, more monopolize any technology. This has created software to help in this war on terrorism. I entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create an unprecedented climate of innovation and bet they will be on the cutting edge of this new and competitive products and competition in most IT areas, empowering fight on terrorism and military deployment technologies. users with the tools to maximize their output. logistics, etc. Thank you for this opportunity to share my However, in the specific field of PC They do not need any more time and views. operating systems, this has not happened. money spent in court to defend their Sincerely, Most users have been hobbled with operating company. Howard Griffen systems from Microsoft which are far behind Thank you and God Bless America. other systems available in ease of use, ease Carl Munson, MTC–00028919 of maintenance, portability, stability, CEO Bay Coffee Service, From: [email protected]@inetgw transparency, security, efficiency, etc. This Corpus Christi, Texas VerDate 11 MTC–00028923 260 Fernledge Drive MTC–00028926 From: Carl Schnurr New Kensington, PA 15068–4614 From: Robert Habas To: Microsoft ATR January 27, 2002 To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm Attorney General John Ashcroft Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement US Department of Justice Subject: Antitrust Settlement with Microsoft Enclosed please find my comments on the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW The government antitrust settlement with ongoing MS litigation. Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft lacks effective enforcement and it Carl Dear Mr. Ashcroft: fails to prohibit a number of anticompetitive Carl Schnurr I am writing today to encourage the licensing practices. It’s taking away the Group Program Manager, Microsoft Department of Justice to accept the Microsoft chance for real competition in the operating Salt Lake Games antitrust settler member of the technology system market. industry, I warn to see Microsoft and the 8071 S 865 E MTC–00028927 Sandy, UT 84094–0697 industry to move on The suit on for over From: saeed bhatti January 24,2002 three years and has caused great damage [o To: Microsoft ATR Attorney General John Ashcroft the. entire industry. Some say that Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 7:05pm US Department of Justice is being treated leniently In fact the Subject: Microsoft settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW agreement is quite tough Microsoft document Judge Kollar-Kotally, Washington, DC 20530–0001 and disclose, for use by its competitors, My name is Saeed Bhatti and am resident Dear Mr. Ashcroft: various interfaces flint are internal to of New Jersey. I came to know through a very I find it hard to believe that the state of Windows’’ system products. Microsoft is close friend about some of the aspects of the Utah has the time or the money to pursue virtually handing over their company secrets Proposed Settlement made by the Justice to their competitors, getting off easy in order litigation against Microsoft. Our projected Department with Microsoft, and I am very deficit for this year is nearly two hundred to move forward Microsoft b giving in to a unhappy. Firstly, how could the Justice million dollars, and no good can come of lot The terms of the settlement are fair and Department grant Microsoft a government- further time in the federal courts. My state, t. accepted. mandated monopoly of the software industry along with eight more of the eighteen CC Senator Rick Santorum, Representative and even worse—other technology markets? plaintiff states in the Microsoft antitrust case, Melissa A. Hart Definitely such decision would seriously are currently seeking to overturn a perfectly MTC–00028925 jeopardize all serious competitors—both now reasonable settlement in the hopes of making and in the future. We’re living in a free and more of a profit for themselves. I am writing From: John Heine open market society, and one of the to express my dismay, not only that the suit To: Microsoft ATR advantages of having such a system is that has gone on this long, but also that there is Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm people have the right to choose from among the possibility that it may drag out even Subject: Microsoft Settlement several brands of one single item, and in this longer. Microsoft, the Justice Department, John J. Heine case, software. I would want to see a healthy and the plaintiff states are not the only 751 Emerald Drive competition of several software companies, parties that have felt the negative effects of Lancaster, PA 17603 in order to make prices competitive as well. this suit—the economy has declined even January 28, 2002 Secondly, how could the Justice Department further, the consumer has suffered, and Attorney General John Ashcroft condone Microsoft for violating the antitrust progress within certain aspects of the US Department of Justice law and even for its illegal conduct e.g. technology industry has lagged. I do not 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW bribing other competitors in order to stop believe that the pursuit of further litigation Washington, DC 20530 their operation. What is the Justice is in anyone’s best interest. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Department’s motive behind this action? The settlement that Microsoft and the I am e-mailing to you today to express my Your Honor, I would want Microsoft be Justice Department have managed to reach is support of the recent settlement between brought to justice upholding to democratic fair and reasonable. Microsoft has agreed, for Microsoft and the Department of Justice. values. Sadly to say that monoplies are the example, to reformat future versions of After three long years, the settlement is long trade mark of monarchs and communist Windows so that non-Microsoft software will overdue. As a corporation, Microsoft made governments. be supported within the Windows operating concessions above and beyond what was Very Truly, system. Moreover, Microsoft plans to necessary. Although litigation was Saeed Bhatti document and disclose various source code, unnecessary in the first place, it is best to let interfaces, and protocols integral and native MTC–00028928 the issue rest with this settlement. to the Windows operating system to facilitate From: ruthweeb Again, the settlement sets terms that are customizability within Windows and to To: Microsoft ATR beyond the scope of the original litigation. allow non-Microsoft servers to interoperate Date: 1/28/02 7:05pm The disclosure of internal interfaces is an natively with Microsoft servers. Microsoft’s Subject: Microsoft Settlement example of the generous nature of this competitors will be able not only to use January 27, 2002 Windows as a platform to market their own settlement on behalf of Microsoft. Under this Attorney General John Ashcroft software, they will also have the opportunity provision, Microsoft is documenting all of US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania to reconfigure Windows so as to promote the internal interfaces on the Windows’’ Avenue, NW their own programs. I believe the settlement operating system products. These documents Washington DC 20530–0001 is just. I see no need to pursue additional are being forwarded to competitors of Dear Mr. Ashcroft: litigation on the federal level. This has gone Microsoft for their review. This is I am writing in full support of the recent on far too long already. I urge you to support unprecedented in any type of antitrust settlement between the US Department of the settlement and finalize it as soon as legislation. Further, it is proof of Microsoft’s Justice and Microsoft in the antitrust case. I possible. desire to settle the issue. This haste is feel this case has gone far too long and I can Sincerely, imperative. hardly believe what we as taxpayers have Carl Schnurr Letting the settlement stand will enable paid to have this continued. I believe the Microsoft, the technology industry, and our terms of the settlement is very fair and MTC–00028924 economy to recover. In this time of economic certainly does not let Micro- soft off easy. From: Donald Delahaut unrest, this should be the focus of our They stipulate that Microsoft will have to To: Microsoft ATR government’s efforts. I trust that no more disclose interfaces and protocols that are Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm action against Microsoft should be taken at internal to Windows operating system Subject: Microsoft Settlement the federal level. products. They also will be granting The attachment was faxed to Mr. Ashcroft Sincerely, computer makers broad new rights to on 1/27/02 about 9:30pm. John J Heine configure Windows so that non- Microsoft Donald Delahaut cc: Senator Rick Santorum products can be promoted more easily. VerDate 11 The nine states that want to continue Subject: Microsoft antitrust deal Thank you for considering my comments litigation should be reprimanded and the To: Renata Hese on this matter. settlement should be implemented as soon as I’m writitng this letter in response to the Sincerely, possible. Please do what is best for the microsoft anti trust case that is still pending. Charles Dorian American public by ending this dispute. I have to say as a consumer there’s no MTC–00028933 Thank you. question that Microsoft still has a monopoly Sincerely, on the personal computer and the verdict’s From: JACK MILLS Ruth I. Weeber established by the DOJ did little to stop To: Microsoft ATR 3557 Sunridge Drive South microsoft from controlling the OS system Date: 1/28/02 7:08pm Salem, Oregon 97302 market. I really think the DOJ should of done Subject: Microsoft Settlement [email protected] more to protect the consumer from falling PLEASE ACCEPT THE ATTACHMENT IN into the hands of microsoft’s control. My SUPPORT OF THE MICROSOFT MTC–00028929 solution to this problem is that law’s should SETTLEMENT. From: Renate Wilford be set on how pc computers are sold and REGARDS, To: Microsoft Settlement what applications can be preloaded so that JACK MILLS Date: 1/28/02 7:01pm consumers can have more choice. If you go MTC–00028934 Subject: Microsoft Settlement into a store to buy a pc obviously you going Renate Wilford to have to buy MS windows O/S whether you From: C. Dean Larsen 3548 Florian Terrace like it or not. Because Microsoft control’s the To: Microsoft ATR Palm Harbor, FL 34685–2663 operating system they control the software Date: 1/28/02 7:06pm January 28, 2002 market. Laws should be set that computers Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft Settlement have to be sold with out the Windows system I don’t think the federal government and U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division installed so that consumers can purchase the some of the other states which are included 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW windows software they wan’t not what comes should settle with Microsoft under the Washington, DC 20530 on the computer. In the software market if current proposed terms. Microsoft has been a market predator! It has and continues to use Dear Microsoft Settlement: you don’t get your product’s pre-installed on its vastly superior position to unfairly The Microsoft trial squandered computers you can’t compete in a fair open dominate and illegally disadvantage small taxpayers’ dollars, was a nuisance to market. This to me is the solution to the software companies. Microsoft will continue consumers, and a serious deterrent to problem and everybody want’s to compete in to do so after the current proposed settlement investors in the high-tech industry. It is high a fair market. I hope this brings some closure just as the tobacco industry has done. time for this trial, and the wasteful spending to this case and everybody can win from it. Fortunately, there are still many states accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will Thank You for your time. unwilling to settle under the current indeed see competition in the marketplace, Roy Ringgenberg rather than the courtroom. And the investors proposed terms. who propel our economy can finally breathe MTC–00028932 Sincerely yours, Dean Larsen a sigh of relief. From: Charles Dorian Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028935 federal government should not have broken Date: 1/28/02 7:06pm From: Floyd, Terry (DHS) up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Subject: Microsoft Settlement companies like Microsoft can get back into To: ‘‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Charles Dorian Date: 1/28/02 7:07pm the business of innovating and creating better 3521 255th Lane SE #19 products for consumers, and not wasting Subject: Microsoft Settlement Issaquah, WA 98029 I am a Microsoft Certified Systems valuable resources on litigation. January 28, 2002 Competition means creating better goods Engineer whose livelihood depends on the Attorney General John Ashcroft continuing success of the company. As such, and offering superior services to consumers. US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania With government out of the business of you’d think I’d be one of the people cheering Avenue, NW stifling progress and tying the hands of most loudly for Microsoft to prevail in this Washington, DC 20530 corporations, consumers—rather than long and difficult antitrust case. My own self- Dear Mr. Ashcroft: bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick interest aside, however, I truly believe that I support the Department of Justice’s recent the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Microsoft has done a great deal of harm to efforts to settle the Microsoft antitrust the reins off the high-tech industry, more their competitors and the information lawsuit. Continued litigation of this case is entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create technology industry as a whole through their not in anyone’s best interest. I urge you to new and competitive products and insidious behavior. Beyond that, the more I take steps to ensure an expedient resolution technologies. learn about Microsoft’s products, the less of this lawsuit. Thank you for this opportunity to share my impressed I am with the quality of their views. The terms of the settlement agreement are technology. Just because they are the most Sincerely, fair and reasonable. Microsoft has agreed to successful software company in the world Renate Wilford a wide range of restrictions on the way it does not mean they make the best products. conducts business. They have agreed not to In many cases, their competitors have MTC–00028930 retaliate against those who promote software superior products, but they have so little From: [email protected]@inetgw that competes with Windows. They have also power in the marketplace that they are To: Microsoft ATR agreed to implement a uniform price list for struggling to survive in the current economic Date: 1/28/02 7:05pm the licensing of Windows and to be climate. Subject: Microsoft Settlement monitored by a technical review committee It has been proven beyond doubt that I feel the provisions of the agreement are that will ensure Microsoft’s compliance with Microsoft violated the law with many of their fair. The case should be settled and let the settlement agreement. The settlement business practices. Many other questionable Microsoft go about their business—which is agreement accomplishes the goal of practices that I have seen them implement one of the most successful businesses in the increasing competition. Pursuing this case over the past five to ten years were not even United States. Get off their back. through more trial will not produce a better addressed during the antitrust trial. Microsoft Aline Gregory result. Accordingly, it is strongly is even now trying to prevent a competing 6451 E. Sugarloaf St. recommended that the Department of Justice product named Lindows from ever coming to Mesa, AZ 85215 approve the settlement agreement. market. Lindows is a new distribution of the I am a computer owner for more than open source Linux operating system that will MTC–00028931 twenty years who has used many companies have embedded WINE capabilty, allowing it From: [email protected]@inetgw programs in my business and personal to run Windows applications in a Linux To: Microsoft ATR activities. I am knowledgeable of the issues environment. This is a truly innovative Date: 1/28/02 7:06pm involved in this case. product with the potential to be quite VerDate 11 successful. But Microsoft has filed a lawsuit Subject: Microsoft Settlement Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the against the small company that is developing Microsoft is a company who is doing federal government should not have broken Lindows, claiming that the very name of the business and has people’s trust. Making up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, product infringes upon their trademarked Microsoft uglier and pay to competitor will companies like Microsoft can get back into Windows operating system. Personally, I can not save the economy that has been not good the business of innovating and creating better see no way this suit can succeed, and I hope for two years. Should dotcoms or any products for consumers, and not wasting the judge who hears the case throws it out ‘‘bubble’’ company sue Microsoft for their valuable resources on litigation. as being without merit, but Microsoft has the lose since anybody was/is using computer Competition means creating better goods power and the resources to crush any and all software? Many bad news from big and offering superior services to consumers. of their competitors. Lindows is a small start- companies have already been damaged With government out of the business of up company with a great idea, but few people’s confident about the economy. Get stifling progress and tying the hands of resources. Microsoft could use its legal the Microsoft case to be settled as soon as corporations, consumers—rather than warchest consisting of almost limitless possible. bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick money and attorneys to keep the product We need go on. the winners and losers on Wall Street. With from ever being available to customers. So Xiaoping Ji the reins off the high-tech industry, more much for our freedom of choice. MTC–00028937 entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Moreover, I believe Microsoft has violated new and competitive products and other provisions of the Tunney act to lobby From: Chris Maynard technologies. the government on its behalf. Last week, I To: Microsoft ATR Thank you for this opportunity to share my received in the mail a brochure from a group Date: 1/28/02 7:09pm views. named ‘‘Americans for Technology Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, Leadership’’ which urged me to send an Good Evening, Rodney Snow email to [email protected] to support I am writing to comment on the Microsoft Microsoft against attacks by their trial. While I had planned to send my own MTC–00028940 competitors. I normally throw these kinds of comments, I found them already written at From: ‘‘SSISA’’ Daniel Garber junk mail brochures in the garbage, but later the website below. http://www.kegel.com/ To: Microsoft ATR that same day, I received a telephone call remedy/remedy2.html In short, I do not Date: 1/28/02 7:09pm from someone at Americans for Technology believe that the proposed settlement will be Subject: Microsoft Settlement Leadership who also urged me to send an successful in stopping Microsoft from In my judgment, free choice of the best email to voice my support for Microsoft and enjoying and profiting from their monopoly. software product has been hindered. its struggle to ‘‘innovate.’’ Now, being a Thank you, I have not had the benefit of free choice of curious fellow, I decided to visit the website Chris Maynard all of the alternatives in the market. of Americans for Technology Leadership at Systems Admin Flippin, I want to be able to choose a product other http://www.techleadership.org. I guess I Densmore, Morse, & Jessee than Microsoft, if I should decide to do so. [email protected] shouldn’t have been surprised that the site Daniel Garber was cluttered with Microsoft advertisements. MTC–00028938 Surgical Services Information Systems This group, a supposedly ‘‘independent’’ From: Robert Habas Administrator (SSISA) organization of companies and individuals To: Microsoft ATR Harborview Medical Center Operating dedicated to limiting government regulation Date: 1/28/02 7:08pm Room of technology, is actually funded primarily Subject: Antitrust Settlement with Microsoft 325 9th Avenue, Box #359890 by Microsoft. I have a feeling that ATL had The government antitrust settlement with Seattle, WA 98104 USA access to the names, addresses and phone Microsoft lacks effective enforcement and it 206–731–4520 voice numbers of all Microsoft Certified fails to prohibit a number of anticompetitive 206–731–6577 fax Professionals and was calling us to rally our licensing practices. It’s taking away the 206–986–7505 pager support behind the company. chance for real competition in the operating MTC–00028941 I don’t really know whether or not this system market. activity violates any laws, but I resent being Robert Habas From: Donald Loptien used as a pawn in this legal circus. I urge you Computer Connections To: Microsoft Settlement to take strong action against Microsoft to St. Helens, Oregon Date: 1/28/02 7:03pm prevent them from using their monopoly (503) 397–6726 [email protected] Subject: Microsoft Settlement power to prevent other companies from http://www.columbiapc.com Donald Loptien developing and marketing products and 7450 Deerfield Rd services that compete with their offerings. I MTC–00028939 Longmont, CO 80503–8788 believe in free minds and free markets and From: Rodney Snow January 28, 2002 in the long run, I do believe the best products To: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft Settlement will prevail. If these products happen to Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division come from Microsoft, then they deserve to Subject: Microsoft Settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW succeed. But if such products come from Rodney Snow Washington, DC 20530 Novell, or Red Hat, Caldera, or Sun, or Oracle 81 Lemon Grove Dear Microsoft Settlement: or even Lindows, then these products at least Irvine, Ca 92618–4510 The Microsoft trial squandered deserve an equal chance to succeed. January 28, 2002 taxpayers’ dollars, was a nuisance to I for one, will be one of the first in line to Microsoft Settlement consumers, and a serious deterrent to purchase Lindows if Microsoft will ever U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division investors in the high-tech industry. It is high allow it to reach the marketplace. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW time for this trial, and the wasteful spending Terry Floyd, MCSE, MCDBA, CNA Washington, DC 20530 accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will Associate Information Systems Analyst Dear Microsoft Settlement: indeed see competition in the marketplace, California Department of Health Services The Microsoft trial squandered rather than the courtroom. And the investors Division of Communicable Disease Control taxpayers’ dollars, was a nuisance to who propel our economy can finally breathe Information Technology Unit consumers, and a serious deterrent to a sigh of relief. Phone: (510) 540–2866 investors in the high-tech industry. It is high Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Pager: (510) 382–4814 time for this trial, and the wasteful spending federal government should not have broken accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, MTC–00028936 indeed see competition in the marketplace, companies like Microsoft can get back into From: dunmu ji rather than the courtroom. And the investors the business of innovating and creating better To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ who propel our economy can finally breathe products for consumers, and not wasting Date: 1/28/02 7:12pm a sigh of relief. valuable resources on litigation. VerDate 11 Competition means creating better goods Subject: MICROSOFT Settlement continuous and incessent attacks against and offering superior services to consumers. Harry Dullys Microsoft With government out of the business of 722 Valley Street stifling progress and tying the hands of Orange, NJ 07050 MTC–00028946 corporations, consumers—rather than January 28, 2002 From: Jr. Christopher Horton bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Attorney General John Ashcroft To: Microsoft ATR the winners and losers on Wall Street. With US Department of Justice Date: 1/28/02 7:15pm the reins off the high-tech industry, more 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: Microsoft Settlement entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Washington, DC 20530–0001 I am a Win98 user who is ‘‘fed up’’ with new and competitive products and Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Microsoft’s bullying behavior. Linux and technologies. Microsoft has been involved for more than other operating systems wouldn’t be so Thank you for this opportunity to share my three years in the resolution of its antitrust popular if Microsoft actully ‘‘listened’’ to views. case. I believe that the time has come to put their customers for once. I am all in favor of Sincerely, this matter behind us. I also believe that the restoring consumer choice to the computer Donald Loptien current terms serve the best interests of the market. Customers should be allowed to MTC–00028942 public. As the settlement agreement stands, choose what operating system they want on the company will be more competitive in the their PCs, not the ‘‘big box’’ computer stores, From: Spencer, Pamela S marketplace, and as a result, consumers and certainly ‘‘not’’ Microsoft! To: ‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’ worldwide will benefit. Jr. Christopher Horton Date: 1/28/02 7:11pm It is my understanding that Microsoft has [email protected] Subject: Microsoft Settlement consented to design future versions of January 28, 2001 Windows that make it easier for software MTC–00028947 Attorney General John Ashcroft developers to install non-Microsoft programs From: [email protected]@inetgw US Department of Justice in the operating system—among many other To: Microsoft ATR 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW concessions. Surely this indicates the Date: 1/28/02 7:17pm Washington, DC 20530 corporation’s commitment to comply with Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Mr. Ashcroft: the law and the general needs of consumers I strongly urge the Department of Justice to As a fellow Republican in Rep. Tom and those in the IT field. accept the proposed settlement as outlined Delay’s district I wish to express my support I hope that the Department of Justice will by the appeals court. This litigation should of the settlement reached last November see fit to ensure that the agreement remains never have been brought in the first place. I between the Department of Justice and the in its current form, lest three additional years use Microsoft products daily and in no way Microsoft Corporation. It has now been 3 of negotiations become necessary. Thank you do I feel they have taken unfair advantage in years since the Justice Department began the for your attention. their business practices. I also use Netscape litigation process against Microsoft. During Sincerely, as my internet browser so I know there is a this time countless dollars have gone to court Harry Dullys mediators who endlessly debated the merits choice. Please accept the agreement so the of this case. In times where budgetary MTC–00028945 country and Microsoft can move on. Dean Waldenberger resources are becoming increasingly scarce From: Bob (038) Adie Santore this action is increasingly appalling. Three To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028948 years has been too long. I cannot imagine Date: 1/28/02 7:13pm From: Hathai Sangsupan there is anything more to discuss. Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Once more, the settlement that was TO : Renata B. Hesse, Date: 1/28/02 7:16pm reached contains many concessions on behalf Antitrust Division, Subject: Microsoft Settlement of Microsoft. in an attempt to settle the US Department of Justice I just wanted you to know that I feel dispute Microsoft has been willing to agree FROM : Robert Santore, Concerned Citizen to these terms despite their lack of guilt in strongly that the proposed Microsoft I believe America needs closure on this the case. Microsoft has agreed to design Settlement is a TERRIBLE IDEA! matter once and for all. How long has it been, Windows XP with a particular mechanism how much money will it take...and how long MTC–00028949 that will allow users to add competing will it continue to be? From: Joe R. Wood, Jr software into the system. This will The Federal Government must state it’s To: Microsoft Settlement revolutionize the way our operating systems case, derive it’s penalties, seek resolution, Date: 1/28/02 7:08pm are configured. and end it’s relentless efforts to drag this Subject: Microsoft Settlement I believe that if Microsoft is willing to matter on any further—perhaps into the next Joe R. Wood, Jr make these changes, the settlement should be administration. They need to set a time limit. 607 Ridgeview Cir enacted. I strongly support the settlement and look forward to the end of this case. The longer the Justice Department takes to Rocklin, CA 95677 Sincerely, administer it’s justice, the public will be January 28, 2002 Pamela Spencer thoroughly disgusted, and America once Microsoft Settlement 3006 Oakland Dr. again will receive her enormous share of U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division Sugar Land , TX 77479–2451 worldwide ridicule. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW cc: Representative Tom DeLay This action is a waiste of precious taxpayer Washington, DC 20530 resources, and most of us believe the action Dear Microsoft Settlement: MTC–00028943 by the previous administration was The Microsoft trial squandered From: Greg Brockway politically motivated, fueled by Microsoft’s taxpayers’ dollars, was a nuisance to To: Microsoft ATR competiton. No one has yet to prove that the consumers, and a serious deterrent to Date: 1/28/02 7:12pm American citizen or the software industry has investors in the high-tech industry. It is high Subject: Microsoft Settlement been hurt by the alligations of anti-competive time for this trial, and the wasteful spending Leave Microsoft alone. We are a lot better behavior. Is it worth the cost? And, while the accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will off with them than without them. Maybe they Government continues it’s aggressive indeed see competition in the marketplace, should move to Canada and give them the pursuits, we have real serious problems to rather than the courtroom. And the investors taxes. contend with...such as the Enron case, where who propel our economy can finally breathe Greg A. Brockway thousands of employees and investors were a sigh of relief. sucker-punched, collapse of a major Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the MTC–00028944 corporation, lost employment and federal government should not have broken From: Harry Dullys retirements. That’s the real crime. And that’s up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, To: Microsoft ATR precisely where the Justice Department companies like Microsoft can get back into Date: 1/28/02 7:13pm should be spending it’s efforts. The the business of innovating and creating better VerDate 11 products for consumers, and not wasting development practices (via its Certification instigated by envious ‘‘losers’’. I have seen valuable resources on litigation. programs); broken the pre-existing ‘‘mentor’’ this ‘‘looser’’ attitude over and over in this Competition means creating better goods practice for software development (by hiring, industry. Microsoft has set a standard that and offering superior services to consumers. exclusively, college graduates or college most competitors don’t like to compete With government out of the business of students) thus circumventing ‘‘best against. Though their rivals have mostly been stifling progress and tying the hands of practices’’ indoctrination in the industry; victims of bad marketing strategies and/or corporations, consumers—rather than demolished pre-existing ‘‘competitive but mediocre products, Microsoft is planning to bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick cooperative’’ market practice among take several steps to level the playing field the winners and losers on Wall Street. With competing products (eg ability to import/ further. I believe they will offer the top 20 the reins off the high-tech industry, more export among differing word processing computer manufacturers with equal pricing entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create packages); and established ‘‘anti-marketing’’, for licenses of the Windows operating system new and competitive products and the practice now coined ‘‘Fear Uncertainty without adding any restrictions on the technologies. and Doubt’’ (FUD), synonomous with distribution or promotion of competitive Thank you for this opportunity to share my Microsoft but used in other business sectors. products, while allowing broad capabilities views. Additionally, the failure to adequately to arrange its platform with a custom Sincerely, address many aspects of what an operating combination of Microsoft and non-Microsoft Joe R. Wood, Jr. system is itself designed to handle, such as software. They will also provide disclosure of networking, security, file names, memory their internal interfaces and server protocols MTC–00028950 protection, etc, have been dismal failures or to assist software developers in the design From: [email protected]@inetgw ignored completely—things which in a truly process. As you can see with the above To: Microsoft ATR competitive market would have spelled the examples, Microsoft is making serious efforts Date: 1/28/02 7:18pm end of a company failing at such a basic to appease the rest of the marketplace. This Subject: Microsoft Settlement level. All of these behaviors are anti- is a company that has helped move our The proposed settlement, while appearing competitive. All are harmful to consumers. economy forward by helping hundreds of to address the anticompetitive behaviour All have had the effect of reducing millions of consumers join the information identified in the 1998 complaint, is deficient competition, raising prices, and limiting or age, and that should be respected with a in several ways. eliminating development of new features. All measured judgment. Any further action First and foremost, the complaint itself of these need to be addressed, effectively, in would be unwarranted and more costly and was, it may be inferred, limited in scope, for any settlement or consent decree, or other difficult to implement, so please proceed the purposes of greater probability of gaining court action against Microsoft. with this very fair solution. Thank you. a conviction or settlement, and for the If the court were to see fit to also impose Sincerely, purposes of shortening the proceedings. minimum standards on any software deemed Dan Lucky As such, there is much, reasonably well an effective monopoly, be it the operating CC:Microsoft’s Freedom To Innovate documented and widely known in the system, browser, complier, network stack, or Network industry, past behavior of an anticompetitive similar, the protection of consumer interests nature on Microsofts part, which was not and businesses alike would be well serverd. MTC–00028952 included in the complaint. This behavior I hope these comments are useful in the From: [email protected]@inetgw continues, and should be addressed in any settlement process. To: Microsoft ATR settlement or imposed finding by the court. Sincerely, Date: 1/28/02 7:21pm Specific activity, which is ongoing, was not Brian Dickson Subject: Microsoft Settlement identified, and which must be stopped, Arlington, VA Dear Judge, includes the purchasing of software 703–564–7246 I am a student at the University of companies dominant in their specific niche Southern California, and use computers as markets and providing multi-platform MTC–00028951 one of the primary tools for education and software; purchasing the companies or From: DanLucky(a)MediaOne learning. I do not feel that allowing microsoft ‘‘poaching’’ critical assets (eg employees) of To: Microsoft ATR to abuse the anti trust laws is allowing me companies making development software (eg Date: 1/28/02 7:16pm to gain all of the possible learning tools for the Borland, past developers of ‘‘C’’ compiler Subject: Microsoft my major. If they have a monopoly over which competed with Microsoft’s product, Dan Lucky software, I am limited to make my own whose entire development staff was hired by 2455 S Ponte Vedra Boulevard decisions in applications. PFJ is not enough. MS, effectively crushing Borland); and the Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 Thank you for taking the time to read this. contractual tying of distribution rights for 904–827–0098 God Bless, Explorer, to the use of Microsoft Software on January 28, 2002 Campbell Coulter portal internet sites (among ISPs who operate Attorney General John Ashcroft 1247 W 30th St. #110 servers and also supply browser software to US Department of Justice Los Angeles, CA. 90007 customers, effectively falsely boosting server 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW CC:[email protected] market share as well as extortionary pricing). Washington, DC 20530 @inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo. Another impact, not addressed, is the Dear Mr. Ashcroft: potential employment market for software I am writing on the occasion of the Justice MTC–00028953 developers. By establishing, through its Department’s public comment period on the From: Rosemary Motisi predatory practices, an unnatural market Microsoft settlement. As an objective member To: Microsoft ATR with uncompetitive salaries, Microsoft of the technology industry with 35 years of Date: 1/28/02 7:20pm effectively established a salary cap in the experience, working with a competitive Subject: Microsoft Settlement software industry, which has directly platform vendor (IBM) to the Windows To Whom It May Concern: affected every single software developer, as operating system, it seems that this case I came across today’s deadline to comment well as limiting the potential market for developed as a naive attempt of politicians to on the Microsoft settlement quite by developers, by establishing a closed market placate the complaints of businesses (Sun, accident. I have not been following the case in many software solution areas, as well as Oracle, Apple, etc.) in their districts that closely and consider myself no expert in ‘‘closed shop’’ sectors in further areas and have failed to gain their desired market share these affairs. However, when I did work in placing high barriers to entry to competitors in the software industry. The ensuing attempt the software industry some years ago, who might have opened these sectors with at a break-up was a punch in the face to free Microsoft was well-known for taking the enabling software (OS’s, languages, middle- enterprise by a government interfering where spirit of competition too far. Amusing ware, and open standards in the Open Source it doesn’t belong, so I believe accepting this pranks—such as programmers on loan to Software areas). compromise would be a major step forward competing software developers—purposely In addition to its bad corporate practices, for getting this economy back on track and embedding errors into software to cause Microsoft has: established its own bad moving on from this horrible legal charade distruption in the competing product’s VerDate 11 release. If true, and these stories were Department in Microsoft case and I am not areas, for instance Personal Gaming Consoles widespread, Microsoft has lacked a measure satisfied with this proposed settlement. It is (X-Box), Set top video digital recorders of integrity for a long time. The fact that the not fair to give one company the rights of (Ultimate TV) and Broad band access (see company is offering chances at a ‘‘prize’’ for software monopoly. We are living in a free http://news.com.com/2100–1033– writing letters in support of Microsoft and country and I think same rules applies to the 277203.html?legacy=cnet) not seeing that in any fashion as a ‘‘bribe’’ software companies. I believe in the free To this end, I would like to add the is typical. market where I can choose the product I want following commentary to my own. http:// I hope in our efforts to ‘‘promote business’’ offered by different and a competitive price. www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html In we do not overlook integrity and honesty and And it is fair with the software industry. conclusion, while the DOJ proposal is what fair dealing. Your honor, I would want Microsoft be I would deem a good first rough draft, there What’s good for Microsoft is not brought to justice upholding to democratic are some issues with it as it stands. It keeps necessarily what’s best for America. values. Sadly to say that monopolies are the key technologies from the only group of Thank you— trade mark of monarchs and communist programmers who can currently and readily Rosemary Motisi governments. benefit from them, then return these benefits Asmat Khan. back to the consumer in the shortest amount MTC–00028954 CC:[email protected]@inetgw of time. And it does go far enough to curtail From: The Okumuras Microsoft’s incursion into other markets. MTC–00028956 To: Microsoft ATR With a $35 billion ‘‘War Chest’’ whatever Date: 1/28/02 7:23pm From: [email protected]@inetgw technology they can not Co-opt by anti Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov competitive practices, they will simply buy. Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, Date: 1/28/02 7:24pm As last example I would like to offer the I am a concerned citizen writing to you Subject: Microsoft Settlement following piece. This has just happened about the Microsoft settlement. I ask that you To whom it may concern. within the last several weeks. This is after the ensure that the punishment is commensurate As a Certified IT professional with 19 years DOJ had made the current proposal. http:// with the criminal offenses of which Microsoft experience in Unix Systems administration, www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/ has been convicted. Consider the amount of I would offer my comments on the Proposed 23708.html money they made in dealing unfairly and Final Judgment in the case of the US vs. Very Sincerely, brutally with other industry members in the Microsoft. Kevin Hudson pursuit of profit. Does the current settlement First I would like to applaud the DOJ on 706 Oakley Dr. Lake penalize them to the degree of the profit they it’s finding Microsoft as a monopoly who has Dallas, TX 75065 reaped? I do not think so. used illegal and unethical practices in order Ph. (940) 498–0284 The current penalty does not seem to have to maintain and increase it’s monopoly E-Mail: mailto:[email protected] any way of changing the way this company power. If Microsoft is allow to continue it’s PS. To the Bush administration: For whom operates. Any corporation that has used current criminal behavior, it will extend it’s I did vote. If you are really serious about unfair sales practices to gain an advantage monopoly into yet other markets. Broadcast eliminating terrorism where ever it occurs, cannot be trusted to police itself. They have communications, Internet broad band here is you chance to prove to the world that lost the right to be self-regulating by the gross services and Personal game consoles are this isn’t just just words to justify revenge offenses of which a court has found them already on the Microsoft monopoly radar. I against under armed third world countries. guilty. Any penalty that does not change the have read the proposal. I will say it is a good Exact judgement against a well known way they do business is nothing more than start with a couple of glaring exceptions. corporate terroirst bred right here on a 21st century version of jury nullification. As a Unix systems administrator, I have American soil. Bring these terroirst AKA Doesn’t our pledge of allegiance end with frequently used an ‘‘Open Source’’ Microsoft to justice. Real justice not just a ‘‘liberty and justice for ALL?’’ Justice should application called SAMBA to provide file petty slap on the rest. be executed upon all lawbreakers regardless system sharing services between Unix and MTC–00028957 of how much money they have or even the Windows machine. This software is written impact it might have on the economy—as in large by volunteers around the world. From: Kathryn Irene Capps bizarre as that may sound. My fear is that Submissions are excepted by a central To: Microsoft ATR when such crimes go relatively unpunished, committee on merit of the submitted code Date: 1/28/02 7:26pm it sends the message that there is no justice. alone. The code is checked for any obvious Subject: Conerns about Microsoft monopoly Our economy will recover but our values and malicious code. But the backgrounds of the I am a software engineer working in Silicon morals—the bedrock of society—will not individuals submitting the code is never Valley. Over the last 10 years I have worked recover if the courts refuse to uphold the law. investigated to see if they have a ‘‘history of for 4 start up companies. I’m writing to In fact, without commensurate penalty, you software counterfeiting or piracy or willful express my concern about Microsoft and the are creating the very environment that allows violations of intellectual property rights.’’ monopoly it holds in the OS market. In companies like Microsoft to continue A volunteer group of coders does not have particular, I’m very concerned about the chill breaking the law. the resources to provide such a guaranty. But Microsoft’s monopoly has placed on PC As a judge, you have an obligation to Microsoft, with a legendary legal department application development. I believe that this uphold the law. I urge you to do so. Do not of at least 600 lawyers does. Microsoft would market has been stagnant for some time, nullify the judgment of guilt by meaningless use this as a reason to keep this vital because investors will not put money into a penalties that neither right past wrongs nor documentation from the only real venture that might compete with Microsoft. ensure future wrongs will not be committed. competition remaining in the Windows File Microsoft has squashed competitors to Word, Sincerely, and print services space. And, since the Excel, Powerpoint, etc. Microsoft’s products Kirk Okumura SAMBA group is have to figure out much of have been sometimes better, sometimes 130 Ashbrooke Ln the undocumented SMB API’s (Much of it is worse, and sometimes equivalent. The point Aston, PA 19014–1003 documented, but many key aspects are is that they did not win the market and kill 610.358.3337 undocumented), Microsoft could declare that all competition in these categories because the SAMBA team as a whole are, they were better, they won the market MTC–00028955 ‘‘counterfeiting, ...intellectual property’’ because they bundled the applications with From: [email protected]@inetgw Another group to which these exceptions the OS that has a monopoly over the market. To: Microsoft ATR apply is the ‘‘WINE’’ group. These volunteers I see this as a clear abuse of that monopoly. Date: 1/28/02 7:24pm are trying to port the Windows win32 API to Why try to create an improved spreadsheet Subject: Is it fair? the Linux and other Unix platforms to enable if you can’t charge a reasonable price? Why Judge Kollar-Kotally application written for Windows to run on create a new application at all if you know My name is Asmat Khan and I live in New Linux and other Unix computers. Also, there that Microsoft can and will enter the market Jersey. I heard about the some aspect of the is nothing in the proposal to hinder Microsoft and undercut your price, forcing users to Proposed settlement made by Justice from extending their monopoly into other purchase their product when they purchase VerDate 11 the OS? I’ve seen folks pitch ideas to venture Understanding the above, you will also be was learned that Microsoft had changed the capitalists and be cut down because they able to understand that the only monopolies rules for hardware certification, namely that might compete with Microsoft. Please that can possibly exist are government- DirectX must be supported and not OpenGL. consider this issue carefully! Please think granted monopolies. The U.S. Postal Service What makes this especially diabolical is one through the long term costs of letting may be the most anti-consumer company in of the changes made to turn OpenGL into Microsoft be the *only* company developing America. Rising costs, slower delivery—that DirectX was a change to the algorithm which PC applications. is a monopoly. In this state you need only determines if a pixel is turned on. This Katie Capps visit a liquor store (with perhaps routine is implemented in hardware. The Software Engineer inconvenient hours and most likely out-of- result is that it is impossible to pass the January 28, 2002 the-way locations) to understand how a hardware certification with hardware monopoly can treat consumers. Klein says designed for OpenGL. Intel would have to MTC–00028958 that he ‘‘will debate any Libertarian, redo their hardware, including producing the From: Jean Lauver anywhere, anytime’’ on the subject of chips all over again. Intel would also have to To: Microsoft Settlement monopolies. As a member of the Libertarian support the new microsoft DirectX API if Date: 1/28/02 7:22pm Party, I am proud to say that I share Klein’s they wanted to be granted hardware Subject: Microsoft Settlement disdain for monopolies. As the person who compatability status. So why does Intel care Jean Lauver is forced to pay both Klein and Jackson, I am if they receive hardware compatibility status? 1061 Stonehenge Drive outraged that they do not understand simple Easy, because microsoft requires all PC Hanahan, SC 29406–2416 free-market economics. As a Microsoft manufactures to only include microsoft January 28, 2002 shareholder, I hope that the company certified hardware in PC’s they sell. In this Microsoft Settlement defends capitalistic freedom with the way, Microsoft can control hardware U.S. Department of Justice determination that the Founding Fathers of companies. Of course, the reverse is true. Antitrust Division this country did. Normal rules don’t seem to apply to 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thomas Hobbes wrote, ‘‘There are few so microsoft, and the settlement should reflect Washington, DC 20530 foolish that they had not rather govern this in my opinion. Dear Microsoft Settlement: themselves than be governed by others.’’ Jason Bishop The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ True capitalism can exist only without fools Union City, CA dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a in power. If Klein wants to debate this, bring serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech the fool on. MTC–00028961 industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Tim Perman From: Sawley wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Redmond To: Microsoft ATR over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 7:30pm MTC–00028960 in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement courtroom. And the investors who propel our From: Jason Bishop The AOL lawsuit against Microsoft is a economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. To: Microsoft ATR pathetic attempt to try to gain public Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Date: 1/28/02 12:35pm sympathy in court against a competitor that federal government should not have broken Subject: Microsoft Settlement they can’t compete against in the public up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, I would like to relate a story that a friend market companies like Microsoft can get back into told me a year or so ago. I believe that the Lewis W. Sawley the business of innovating and creating better setting for this story was ‘‘97 +/- 1 year. At (my previous email may have been products for consumers, and not wasting the time, he was working for Intel in a addressed improperly) valuable resources on litigation. fledgling group for intel’s first foray into MTC–00028962 Competition means creating better goods consumer 3D graphics. At the time, there was and offering superior services to consumers. really only one 3D graphics standard, SGI’s From: Ray Whitmer With government out of the business of OpenGL. To: Microsoft ATR stifling progress and tying the hands of This story became especially fascinating, Date: 1/28/02 7:31pm corporations, consumers—rather than because at this same time, SGI independently Subject: Microsoft Settlement. bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick was interested in extending the reach of I am adding my full address and other info, the winners and losers on Wall Street. With OpenGL to the consumer PC. They which I forgot when I first sent this message: the reins off the high-tech industry, more contributed the software source code for the Ray Whitmer entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create rendering engine and all library routines that [email protected] new and competitive products and make up OpenGL to Microsoft in the hopes 575 E. Center Street technologies. that there might be a place for OpenGL in the Orem, Utah 840975603 Thank you for this opportunity to share my desktop operating system. 801–225–3488 views. At this same time, it appears that Microsoft Forwarded message Sincerely, was starting to notice that 3D graphics was Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:49:39 -0700 Jean Lauver becoming an ‘‘interesting market’’. I’m not (MST) going to second-guess Microsoft thinking, but From: Ray Whitmer MTC–00028959 I will relate the results. OpenGL source code VerDate 11 systems and corporate structures, I have which might have had some effect, but companies like Microsoft can get back into worked for WordPerfect corporation, Novell, likewise didn’t get at the root of the the business of innovating and creating better and Corel, among others, and it has become problems, which I have tried to describe products for consumers, and not wasting increasingly obvious that quality has nothing here. It is not Microsoft that is wrong but valuable resources on litigation. Competition to do with winning in the marketplace. It is VerDate 11 entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create January 28, 2002 personal vendetta from the first place and has new and competitive products and Microsoft Settlement been extremely unfair to Bill Gates. technologies. U.S. Department of Justice The terms of the settlement do not let Thank you for this opportunity to share my Antitrust Division Microsoft off easy. Microsoft has to disclose views. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW internal interfaces, design future version of Sincerely, Washington, DC 20530 Windows so that competitors can promote Donna J. Fox Dear Microsoft Settlement: their own products, and improve their MTC–00028966 The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? relations with computer makers and software dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a developers regardless of their competitors’’ From: Bettye Bailey serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech practices, efficiencies, or strategies. These To: Microsoft ATR industry. It is high time for this trial, and the restrictions go against free market economy Date: 1/28/02 7:33pm wasteful spending accompanying it, to be principles to choose your partners, vendors, Subject: microsoft settlement over. Consumers will indeed see competition and consumers. It is time to leave Microsoft alone. There in the marketplace, rather than the At any rate, I think it is in the best interest are many things more important than courtroom. And the investors who propel our of the American public to end this lawsuit bedeviling a company so important to our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. and finalize the settlement as soon as economy. Please allow them to get back to Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the possible. Our tech sector needs to the work. I have a M.A. in Economics from federal government should not have broken brilliant innovation of Microsoft and their Stanford and do know I speak from up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, workers to jumpstart the industry and help experience. companies like Microsoft can get back into out our ailing economy. Get to the things that really need doing. the business of innovating and creating better Sincerely, Bettye Bailey products for consumers, and not wasting Velora Upstone MTC–00028967 valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating better goods and offering MTC–00028971 From: Stanley‘ Curtis From: John Wilson To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 7:26pm government out of the business of stifling Date: 1/28/02 7:33pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, Subject: Microsoft Settlement Stanley‘ Curtis consumers—rather than bureaucrats and I do not agree with the settlement terms as 207 Falcon Crest judges—will once again pick the winners and they exist at this point. I appreciate with Warner Robins, Ga 31088 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the Microsoft’s contention that they should be January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will free to innovate, but they should be forced to Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive compete with the rest of the industry on a U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. level playing field through the quality of Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. their products, rather than by flexing their Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, monopolistic muscles. Windows XP is a clear Dear Microsoft Settlement: Marylynne Wagner Kirkland indication that they have no intentions of playing by the rules, even after all they have The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00028969 dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a been through. Windows XP is just as unstable serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: ccoulter as Win2K (both are far more stable than the industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft ATR Win95/98 series), and they have once again wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 7:32pm bundled their ‘‘cornerstone’’ software in such over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: Microsoft Settlement a way that it becomes impossible to separate. in the marketplace, rather than the Dear Judge, You cannot shut down Messenger when MS courtroom. And the investors who propel our If we want to preserve the right to have a Office is running, for example. The error economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. free choice on products, goods, and a message states that ‘‘There are other Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the freedom to makre our own choices, the the applications currently using features federal government should not have broken Proposed Final Judgement is not enough. I provided by Windows Messenger.These up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, hope that you will see that Microsoft has applications may include Outlook, Outlook companies like Microsoft can get back into been controlling us and has controlled the Express, MSN Explorer and Internet the business of innovating and creating better technology world. Please consider a harsher Explorer’’. This is precisely the same thing products for consumers, and not wasting punishment to stop thier control over a free they did when making IE part of the OS. valuable resources on litigation. Competition market. Clearly they haven’t learned their lesson, means creating better goods and offering Sincerely, which means the current settlement terms do superior services to consumers. With Coulter Campbell not go nearly far enough. government out of the business of stifling Coulter Campbell Please make them play fair. That is your progress and tying the hands of corporations, 910 Knob Hill Ave job. You are not helping the industry by consumers—rather than bureaucrats and Redondo Beach, CA. 90277 making it easy on Microsoft, you are hurting it. judges—will once again pick the winners and MTC–00028970 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the MTC–00028972 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will From: [email protected]@inetgw be encouraged to create new and competitive To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw products and technologies. Date: 1/28/02 7:32pm To: Microsoft ATR Thank you for this opportunity to share my Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 7:35pm views. 2859 Hearthstone Way Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, Rockford, Illinois 61114 An important understanding of *modern* Stanley T. Curtis January 12, 2002 economic models would help in crafting a Attorney General John Ashcroft suitable remedy. MTC–00028968 US Department of Justice The best lay-persons explanation of what From: Marylynne Kirkland 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW kind of competitive behavior should be To: Microsoft Settlement Washington, DC 20530 encouraged, can be seen in the current movie Date: 1/28/02 7:27pm Dear Mr. Ashcroft: ‘‘A Beautiful Mind’’. Subject: Microsoft Settlement I think the lawsuits against Microsoft have In a bar, John Nash explains to his fellow Marylynne Kirkland gone on way too long. I am glad to see that students the impact of Adam Smith style P.O. Box 755 Microsoft is not being broken up, but I economics, versus his new model, where it Panguitch, UT 84759–0755 thoroughly believe that this suit has been a concerns competing for limited resources. VerDate 11 Watch the movie, and apply the concept to Date: 1/28/02 7:36pm MTC–00028979 any proposed remedy. If there is not more Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw than one happy party, the result is bad for Attorney General John Ashcroft To: Microsoft ATR everyone. If both sides (and all parties with US Department of Justice Date: 1/28/02 7:39pm a direct interest, including AOL Time 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: Microsoft Settlement Warner, Sun, Oracle, etc, as well as Washington, DC 20530 406 Winston Avenue Microsoft) do not praise the result, it is Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Baltimore, MD 21212 practically by definition, bad for consumers, I am writing to give my thoughts on the January 25, 2002 bad for business, and bad for America and settlement between the US Department of Attorney General John Ashcroft the entire western world. Justice and Microsoft Corporation. I want you US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania The current proposed settlement, by this to know that I support the settlement that Avenue, NW reasoning, is *very* *very* bad. was reached back in November. It is in the Washington, DC 20530–0001 Sincerely, best interests of the government to accept the Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Brian Dickson settlement, and move onto more pressing It is sad that Microsoft has had to spend Arlington, VA matters. I believe we have wasted far too three years in court in the antitrust case. This MTC–00028973 much taxpayer money and government time is a great American company that contributed as it is, to pursue an issue that never was in so much to our recent economic growth, and From: Debra J. McDonald could help us get out of this current To: Microsoft ATR the consumers best interest. The terms of this settlement are reasonable, recession. Date: 1/28/02 7:34pm That is why I was very happy to learn that Subject: Microsoft Settlement and were reached after a great deal of effort with the help of a court appointed mediator. a settlement was reached in this case. Although I firmly believe that the microsoft Microsoft has paid its dues and agreed to a anti-trust suit was a misuse of our hard Microsoft is not getting off easy like it’s opponents might lead you to believe. The good settlement. The settlement will give earned tax dollars, I believe the proposed non-Microsoft firms access to Microsoft code. settlement (under the circumstances) is company has agreed to make a number of specific changes to its business practices that With this information, non-Microsoft firms reasonable and we should move in a more will be able to build better software. positive direction. Finish the deal and gag all will prevent future antitrust violations. For example, Microsoft has agreed to document Unfortunately, some with animosity other parties who have personal separate toward Microsoft opposes this settlement, agends. and disclose various interfaces that are internal to Windows’’ operating system and they should be ignored. It is time MTC–00028974 products for use by its competitors. Microsoft is released from federal court. Sincerely, From: joe chensky Also, a technical committee comprised of Merle Sturm To: Microsoft ATR three software engineering experts will CC:[email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 7:35pm monitor Microsoft’s compliance with the Subject: microsoft settlement settlement, and assist with dispute MTC–00028980 Sirs; bring this to closure. the states are not resolution. From: Walter & Janice Schneider interested in finality, they are concerned Sincerely, To: Microsoft Settlement about power and notoriety. it is time to go Melissa Melvin Date: 1/28/02 7:34pm on with business and free enterprise. 11001 Dogleg Trace Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerly Joseph L Chensky. a concerned Tega Cay, SC 29708 Walter & Janice Schneider citizen cc: Senator Strom Thurmond 1603 Riverdale Ave MTC–00028976 CC:[email protected]@inetgw Sheboygan, WI 53081 January 28, 2002 From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00028978 To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft Settlement From: Tim Schulteis U.S. Department of Justice Date: 1/28/02 7:33pm To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement Antitrust Division Date: 1/28/02 7:37pm 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division Subject: Microsoft Settlement 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530 Judge Kollar-Kotally, Dear Microsoft Settlement: Washington, DC 20530–0001 The U.S. is giving away the store in the Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ proposed U.S. vs. Microsoft final judgment, dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Please put a stop to the economically- and the settlement should be rejected. The draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech proposed settlement has serious flaws. The industry. It is high time for this trial, and the has gone on long enough. courts have convicted Microsoft of many Microsoft has already agreed to hide its wasteful spending accompanying it, to be anti-trust violations resulting in many Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the over. Consumers will indeed see competition billions of dollars of profits, yet the proposed fact is, this case against Microsoft is little in the marketplace, rather than the solution would allow the company to keep more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other courtroom. And the investors who propel our almost all of that money and would provide Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. no protection against future abuse of going to those supposedly harmed by Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Microsoft: the computer user. Microsoft’s power. federal government should not have broken This is just another method for states to get Forcing Microsoft to give away software up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, free money, and a terrible precedent for the (and even hardware) to schools is barely a companies like Microsoft can get back into future, not only in terms of computer punishment, either, as it allows Microsoft to the business of innovating and creating better technology, but all sorts of innovations in the further expand its dominance into perhaps products for consumers, and not wasting most dynamic industry the world has ever the one market it doesn’t yet fully control-the valuable resources on litigation. seen. education market. And setting up a structure Competition means creating better goods Please put a stop to this travesty of justice whereby Microsoft would essentially police and offering superior services to consumers. now. Thank you. itself is entirely the wrong approach to With government out of the business of Sincerely, protecting us. stifling progress and tying the hands of maxine pollard I ask you to reject the proposed final corporations, consumers—rather than 132 No. Roby Dr. judgment on these grounds. bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Anderson, IN 46012 Sincerely, the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Tim Schulteis the reins off the high-tech industry, more MTC–00028977 3229 Azalea Circle entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create From: Melissa Lynn Haven, FL 32444 new and competitive products and To: Microsoft ATR 850–747–0336 technologies. VerDate 11 Thank you for this opportunity to share my an expert in anti-trust litigation) precedents 119 Gladys Avenue views. have been established that have identified Mountain View, CA 94043 Sincerely, the standards for monopoly remedies to be of MTC–00028984 Janice and Walter Schneider the nature of denying the defendant gains from their illegal acts, protecting against From: Michael Jaehrling MTC–00028981 abuses in the future or eliminate the To: Microsoft ATR From: David Mott monopoly. The proposed settlement by the Date: 1/28/02 7:42pm To: Microsoft ATR DOJ does none of these three things. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 7:40pm As a citizen of the United States I have To whom it may concern: Subject: Microsoft Settlement seen the following occur to my ‘‘practical Yesterday I sent you a brief message stating The proposed DOJ settlement with freedom of choice’: My options for a personal my opinion regarding the Microsoft case. Microsoft IS A BAD IDEA! In order to have computer operating systems has been Today I would like to give you more reasons a chance of restoring competition in the reduced to one, Microsoft Windows. My to leave Microsoft in peace: I use Microsoft Operating System market for PCs, the options for application software (word products, and appreciate them enormously. I restrictions must be much stronger. processing and spreadsheets) have been resent the government’s stance on the basis Restrictions proposed by the 9 ‘‘rogue’’ reduced to Microsoft Word and Microsoft that it presumes I am not fit to make states are more reasonable. Excel. My option for Internet browsing is decisions about which software I buy, and why. If Microsoft is punished, that means MTC–00028982 practically eliminated to one, Microsoft Explorer. I DO NOT want to have my choices they have been found a threat—how can a From: Ardy Forouhar of Internet hosts to be reduced to one, an succssful company’s products be a threat to To: Microsoft ATR Internet connection to one, an Internet media anyone other than it’s competitors. And if the Date: 1/28/02 7:42pm provider to one or an Internet news service latter is the problem, then the USA cannot Subject: Microsoft Settlement to one. This is the path that Microsoft is claim to be a free market or a free country. Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, going toward, to monopolize computing. See Please bear in mind that consumers did not I am a concerned citizen and software Microsoft for what it is, based on their complain about microsoft, nor any industry employee. I wanted to take this previous actions as to where they are going. community groups. Its competitors opportunity to let you know that as a silicon Recently, when Microsoft was planning the (unsuccssful ones), rather than competing valley professional, I don’t think the release of the Windows XP operating system fairly, resorted to seeking government favor judgement goes far enough in addressing decided to leave out a function to Explorer to help them. You cannot allow failed Microsoft’s past wrong doings. that was called ‘‘smart tags’’. This function companies to set terms that will throttle a I realize that I’m a small voice among large would have allowed Microsoft to essentially competitor just because the former was companies and powerful representatives. I ‘‘override’’ the content of internet pages and unable to match up. am a staffing professional hired full-time by supplement the content with content that Governments should not protect some companies to help assist in staffing their Microsoft desired, essentially censoring business at the expense of others. As organizations on a short and long term basis. internet content. Do we want a company that someone once said—‘‘when politicians As someone working closely with start-ups, has demonstrated that it abuses its monopoly determine what gets bought and sold, the I’ve come to learn that bullying tactics from position in personal computer operating first thing to get bought and sold is the industry leader in software technology is systems to have this amount of power? Do we politicians’’. Success, self-made and honest not healthy for the diversity of skill set trust that they will not abuse this type of entrepreneurship such as that displayed by among industry professionals on a domestic power? I think not, I hope not, I hope the Bill Gates, should not be punished, but and global basis. United States aggressive sees to it that it will embraced and ecouraged. Imagine how Also, the proposed settlement would allow not occur. Recently I had a problem with my successful America would be if we had more the company to retain almost all of the profits Windows 2000 Professional system and had men like him.... If all of the above is not earned from dominant tactics. to use a backup (much older) pc to try to enough, then look to your constitution. A There are no guarantees that Microsoft company, like an individual, has the right to access Microsoft’s Internet site to help won’t continue to break anti-trust laws by its property. This right is inviolable. Please, determine the problem. But I found out that bullying competitors as it always has. for all our sakes, uphold Microsoft’s right to since it was a machine that had Netscape as Microsoft is left to police itself under the compete freely and as it sees fit—do not a browser that Microsoft prevented me from proposed final judgment (conflict of interest penalize the good for being good. viewing the information. This is only one by definition). Sincerely, example of where Microsoft dictates terms to The proposed settlement would amount to Michael Jaehrling its customers something that you would a government endorsement of Microsoft’s General Manager expect it would want to serve. Any monopoly. They could carry on as before. Hyatt Regency Cheju justifications to such actions is only to Please do your very best to ensure that 3039–1 Saekdal-dong future jobs of entrepeneurs within the area further their goals to maintain or increase Seogwipo-si are not further affected through industry their monopoly, not to serve their users, not Cheju-do monopolization and that the high tech to serve the public’s best interest. As an Korea industry can be revived and not crushed extremely knowledgeable computer user I Tel: 82 64 733–1234 when the economy makes an eventual turn find Microsoft’s tactics to not be in the user’s Fax: 82 64 738–0900 around. interest, only in their corporate interest. I am www.hyatt.com Regards, not against corporate America, in fact I am Ardy Forouhar a strong proponent of it, but monopolies that MTC–00028985 143 Monte Villa Ct. abuse their power must be held accountable. From: James R Bain Campbell, Ca 95008 I could, if need be, help architect a remedy To: Microsoft ATR Tel: 408–626–9517 to this case. Do I think Microsoft has to be Date: 1/28/02 7:42pm broken up? No. I believe that Microsoft will Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00028983 never agree to a remedy that addresses the I think it is time to end this costly and From: Peter Liesenfelt precedents that have been established for damaging litigation against Microsoft. To: Microsoft ATR antitrust remedies. I strongly urge Judge Dragging out this legal battle, in which only Date: 1/28/02 7:42pm Kollar-Kotelly to not accept the proposed the lawyers will benefit serves no useful Subject: Microsoft Settlment settlement. I fear that the DOJ under the Bush purpose. The proposed settlement is The proposed settlement between the DOJ administration will not seek remedies that equitable and should end this legal battle as and Microsoft is grossly insufficient in either are sufficient in depth or breath to prevent soon as possible. penalizing Microsoft for the antitrust issues future abuses by Microsoft and that Judge James R Bain they have been found guilty of or to provide Kollar-Kotelly will need to independently sufficient protection against further actions determine a course of remedies that will. MTC–00028986 by Microsoft. As I understand it (not being Peter Liesenfelt From: Bruce Miller VerDate 11 To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the coercion. I applaud the Justice Department in Date: 1/28/02 7:43pm federal government should not have broken their efforts to resolve this situation, but Subject: JUDGE KOLLAR-KOTELLY: AVOID up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Microsoft should have no mechanisms to THE CURRENT MICROSOFT companies like Microsoft can get back into revive their evil ways. The settlement should SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL the business of innovating and creating better be strict and long lasting, not 5 years, or we Bruce Miller products for consumers, and not wasting will be in this same situation again. Box 31134 valuable resources on litigation. Competition Sincerely, Seattle, WA 98103 means creating better goods and offering Cynthia P. Haven 28 January 2002 superior services to consumers. With Houston, TX U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar- Kotelly government out of the business of stifling [email protected] Renata Hesse, trial attorney, progress and tying the hands of corporations, Antitrust Division, consumers—rather than bureaucrats and MTC–00028989 U.S. Department of Justice judges—will once again pick the winners and From: [email protected]@inetgw Dear Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly: losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the To: Microsoft ATR I have comments about the proposed high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Date: 1/28/02 7:43pm settlement terms with Microsoft. I think the be encouraged to create new and competitive Subject: Microsoft Settlement proposed settlement is very flawed and must products and technologies. Attorney General John Ashcroft be re-written to ensure the public and other Thank you for this opportunity to share my US Department of Justice companies are not harmed further by the views. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Microsoft’s monopoly. The proposed Sincerely, I am writing to express my opinion about settlement only serves the interests of sam perelli the recent settlement between Microsoft and Microsoft. the US Department of Justice. I think the Microsoft’s unfair business practices must MTC–00028988 lawsuit has dragged on long enough and be addressed to protect all Americans and all From: Cynthia Haven should have by this time covered all the computer users. To: Microsoft ATR bases necessary. Our government needs to be 1. Microsoft must be prohibited from Date: 1/28/02 7:43pm facing other more pertinent issues than trying giving unfair preference and position for its Subject: Microsoft settlement to break up a company that creates jobs and own products when bundled with its 28 January 2002 wealth. operating system products, especially in Subject: Microsoft Settlement The terms of the settlement are more than deals with PC companies. To whom it may concern, fair and should appease all competition since 2. Microsoft must be prohibited from being I cannot let the opportunity to pass for they stipulate that competitors will be given able to bundle whatever they want to include comment on the settlement with the interfaces and protocols that are internal to as part of their operating system, because Microsoft company pass without taking my Windows operating system products. They current separately sold software products opportunity to make some public comment. also will be given broad new rights to could be bundled with Windows in the There are many out there who think this suit confiqure Windows so that non-Microsoft future and thus, undercut and eliminate against Microsoft (aka Microshaft) is simply many other technology companies. products can be promoted more easily. the vendetta of some bitter competitors. But 3. Because Microsoft is a monopoly, I urge your office to do what is best for the the immoral, illegal, and greedy acts of Microsoft must publicly disclose their American public, IT sector, and national Microsoft over the years have come at the Windows source code in order to level the economy and implement the settlement. I cost to consumers of choice, innovation, and playfield for all American consumers and would also request that no further state or affordable software. They decided long ago businesses. federal action is taken unless there is a major that if they can’t beat their competitors with Please adopt these 3 proposed terms into violation on Microsoft’s behalf. better quality they would cheat them or beat the currently proposed settlement terms with Thank you for your time. them into submission. Microsoft. My proposed terms are fair, Sincerely, There should not be an expiration date to unburdensome to Microsoft and the U.S. Bob Strong this settlement, unless it is more than 30 Federal and State governments and American MTC–00028990 public, and will be very effective to correct years. Microsoft management has proven that and reverse the wrongs Microsoft has they don’t care about the rules and would be From: Kim Coker committed. anxiously waiting in the wings for the next To: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, attack. They need to be punished for the Date: 1/28/02 7:35pm Bruce Miller wrong they have done to the American Subject: Microsoft Settlement consumer. If they claim they have not stifled Kim Coker MTC–00028987 competition, why does Microsoft Office cost 2251 Leon Road From: sam perelli $500 dollars. That is NOT a competitive Jacksonville, FL 32246 To: Microsoft Settlement price. I can buy the same functions in ‘‘Apple January 28, 2002 Date: 1/28/02 7:35pm Works’’ for $80. And why is it still so hard Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement to get rid of Internet Explorer as your default U.S. Department of Justice sam perelli browser? At work, I have to get technical Antitrust Division po 103 assistance to change it. And why, as I just 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW cedar grove, nj 07009 found out, that the default search engine for Washington, DC 20530 January 28, 2002 IE is MSN (as in Microsoft Network). Try Dear Microsoft Settlement: Microsoft Settlement seeing how intuitive it is is to pick another I have to agree with and concur with the U.S. Department of Justice search engine, like Google, which is much following: The Microsoft trial squandered Antitrust Division better. Fortunately, at home, I have chosen to taxpayers’ dollars, was a nuisance to 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW use non-Microsoft products, even if it costs consumers, and a serious deterrent to Washington, DC 20530 me money. This is, however, something investors in the high-tech industry. It is high Dear Microsoft Settlement: Microsoft presumes most people won’t do, time for this trial, and the wasteful spending The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ and they are usually right. accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Microsoft is not a group of school boys to indeed see competition in the marketplace, serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech be slapped on the hand with a promise not rather than the courtroom. And the investors industry. It is high time for this trial, and the to misbehave again. They are corrupt, greedy, who propel our economy can finally breathe wasteful spending accompanying it, to be selfish jerks with nobody’s interest but their a sigh of relief. over. Consumers will indeed see competition own here. The public is not passive about Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the in the marketplace, rather than the this situation. We want fair play and true federal government should not have broken courtroom. And the investors who propel our competition based on market rules and true up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. innovation. Not marketing gimmicks and companies like Microsoft can get back into VerDate 11 the business of innovating and creating better To: Microsoft Settlement addressed in order to protect all Americans products for consumers, and not wasting Date: 1/28/02 7:38pm and the U.S. and world economy. valuable resources on litigation. Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1. Microsoft must be prohibited from Competition means creating better goods L. E. JOHNSON, JR. giving unfair preference and position for its and offering superior services to consumers. 401 Green T Lake Blvd W own products when bundled with its With government out of the business of Hernando, MS 38632 operating system products, especially in stifling progress and tying the hands of January 28, 2002 deals with PC companies. corporations, consumers—rather than Microsoft Settlement 2. Microsoft must be prohibited from being bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick U.S. Department of Justice able to bundle whatever they want to include the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Antitrust Division as part of their operating system, because the reins off the high-tech industry, more 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW current separately sold software products entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Washington, DC 20530 could be bundled with Windows in the new and competitive products and Dear Microsoft Settlement: future and thus, undercut and eliminate technologies. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ many other technology companies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a 3. Since Microsoft is a monopoly, views. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Microsoft must publicly disclose their Sincerely, industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Windows source code in order to level the Kim Coker wasteful spending accompanying it, to be playing field for all American consumers and MTC–00028991 over. Consumers will indeed see competition businesses. in the marketplace, rather than the Please adopt these 3 proposed terms into From: Terry Frost courtroom. And the investors who propel our the currently proposed settlement terms with To: Microsoft ATR economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Microsoft. My proposed terms are fair, un- Date: 1/28/02 7:48pm Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the burdensome to Microsoft and the U.S. Subject: Microsoft Settlement federal government should not have broken Federal and State governments and American Dear Mr. Ashcroft: up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, public, and will be very effective to correct I am writing you to express my concern companies like Microsoft can get back into and reverse the wrongs Microsoft has over the extended delay in the settlement of the business of innovating and creating better committed. the Microsoft antitrust case. I see no products for consumers, and not wasting Sincerely, justifiable reason to prolong this case. The valuable resources on litigation. Joel Hodgell major parties have reached an agreement on Competition means creating better goods MTC–00028995 both the nature of the matters at issue and and offering superior services to consumers. the future remedial steps Microsoft will take With government out of the business of From: Paul Speranza to remedy past perceptions of wrongs and stifling progress and tying the hands of To: Microsoft ATR alter its present monopolistic-like corporations, consumers—rather than Date: 1/28/02 7:45pm advantages. I see no reason to prolong this bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Subject: Microsoft Settlement litigation. The computer field has new the winners and losers on Wall Street. With January 28, 2002 innovations occurring frequently and rapidly. the reins off the high-tech industry, more Attorney General John Ashcroft Microsoft has agreed not only to forego any entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create U.S. Department of Justice future anti-competitive practices but also to new and competitive products and 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW actively work to reduce its dominance in its technologies. Washington, DC 20530 field. For example, Microsoft will now Thank you for this opportunity to share my Dear Mr. Ashcroft, configure its Windows systems in a manner views. I am writing in response to the public that will allow its competitors to readily use Sincerely, comment period for the Microsoft antitrust and even exploit its platforms. Microsoft will L. E. JOHNSON, JR. trial. I would like to urge you to please end alter its licensing practices with computer this lawsuit as soon as possible manufacturers so as to encourage the use of MTC–00028994 The settlement will definitely promote non-Microsoft software. Microsoft will From: Joel Hodgell competition in the technology industry, if not submit now to an ongoing review of its To: Microsoft ATR hindering Microsoft’s own competitive practices by a new federal oversight Date: 1/28/02 7:46pm abilities. Microsoft will divulge their committee. The company has agreed to Subject: COMMENTS ABOUT THE interfaces and protocols, and will share it embrace competition for the benefit of the CURRENT MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT with competitors., and consumers will be entire industry. PROPOSAL; MY PROPOSED CHANGES given more choices when using the Windows Please work toward an acceptance of this TO IT operating system. plan and a cessation of this litigation. Joel Hodgell This witch-hunt needs to be ended, and Sincerely, Terrance J Frost 12712 Lake City Way NE 3 our computer industry needs to be restored. Seattle, WA 98125 Please uphold this settlement. MTC–00028992 28 January 2002 Attached please find an email that I From: Susan Gilvary U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar- Kotelly originally sent to my state attorney general, To: Microsoft ATR Renata Hesse, trial attorney, Mr. Richard Blumenthal, who never even Date: 1/28/02 7:43pm Antitrust Division, saw to it that I at least received an Subject: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice acknowledgment. The proposed settlement with Microsoft Dear Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly: Sincerely, does the citizens of the United States a grave I am writing to you to comment on the Paul Speranza disservice by failing to protect our rights as proposed settlement terms with Microsoft. Vice President consumers. Microsoft has accumulated and As is, I think the proposed settlement is All Systems Go, Inc. abused monopoly power, stifling competition very fatally flawed and must be written to CC:[email protected]@inetgw and reducing our choices. The Justice ensure the public and other companies are Mr. Blumenthal, Department should withdraw this proposed not further harmed by the monopolistic I would like to comment on some of the settlement. The citizens and businesses of practices of Microsoft. The current proposed proposed remedies that you and the other this country deserve an open market, not a settlement terms only serve the interests of eight states have suggested in the Microsoft market dominated by an unresponsive, self Microsoft and related special interest groups anti-trust case. Please bear in mind that I am protecting monopoly. that gave substantial campaign contributions referring to an Infoworld.com article for the Susan Gilvary to the Bush campaign and the GOP party. points that I am addressing. Even though I live in Seattle, I believe the 1) Allowing other companies to port Office MTC–00028993 unfair monopolistic business practices of to other platforms. This is no small feat. That From: L. E. JOHNSON, JR. Microsoft must be punished and adequately is probably why Microsoft has a separate VerDate 11 Macintosh team that develops Office for the their products but put whatever competitor’s standards body. All of the newest browsers Mac. They have to do this because code products you want in also. support those features. As a matter of fact, running on Windows will not run on the 3) Make IE an open source product. Why? the new Netscape boasts that they are 100% Macintosh or any other platform. Did you That browser is still the best browser out standards compliant, but they have know that the Mac version is always months there. Mozilla is open source and is free. implemented a few non standard Microsoft behind the newest Windows version? Since Why aren’t people downloading that in features that they feel are very useful. the Mac is a completely different operating droves? Why should they release an open source system that means that the developers get no Here is a little software history for you. version of it? Did you know that under help from the core Windows developers (The Wordstar was the leading word processor. Windows developers can build IE right into Chinese Wall?). Here Microsoft has They got fat and happy with their product their applications? That means a developer succeeded only because they have the best and did not update it. Along comes Word can use Microsoft’s product to enhance their product of its type on the Mac. There is no Perfect with many new features. Bye, bye own. Not one of the other browsers does that! way to stop anyone from cloning Office. Wordstar. You see, where Netscape targeted the Good luck to anyone that tries. The product Microsoft releases Windows 3.1. Word consumer, Microsoft targeted the consumer is so massive you would need a small army Perfect does not create a windows version. as well as the developer that has to create the of developers to do it. There is a clone of Microsoft releases Word for Windows and it applications the consumer uses. Outlook for the Linux operating system from is a hit. Word Perfect releases a Windows So what has Microsoft done wrong here? Ximian (http://www.ximian.com). Microsoft version 2 years later full of bugs. Bye, bye Oh, yeah, they gave us a free browser with has not stopped them from doing so. By the Word Perfect. Corel owns Word Perfect now. Windows. way, this company is cloning Microsoft’s They tried to create a Java version of it so it So in closing I would like to say that I new .Net Framework for Linux, and as far as would run on any computer. You know what think the nine states are really going radical I know Microsoft is somehow lending they found? Although Java is great for here, and I now think it is a witch hunt. I support. backroom systems, the front end interface almost want to compare it to what happened Why would you want to allow someone to that a user sees is way to slow to be usable. with the tobacco companies. Microsoft is clone software from other companies? Where Sun Microsystems? Star Office, which works sitting there with 30 billion dollars in the is there innovation in that? Sun on any computer, still needs to have direct bank and people want some of it. To me the Microsystems offers Star Office for free, ties to the platform it is running on to be feds have gotten about all that is worth developed by open source developers. It is usable. Shame on Microsoft for writing great getting. I could go on and on but I won?t. I compatible with the Office file formats which software that runs on Windows. hope that you will at least consider my Microsoft publishes. Why aren?t companies Microsoft releases Windows 3.1. Lotus, comments. In case you didn?t notice, I am a dumping Office for Star Office in droves after being begged by Microsoft to do a software developer. My experience is mostly when Microsoft charges several hundred Windows version to prove the value of with Microsoft products, but I have done dollars? It’s because over the years programs Windows, does not. Microsoft releases Excel development using Sun and Netscape like Word have evolved to be much more for Windows, which was already on the products also. I would appreciate a than a word processor. The programs in Macintosh for years, and it is a hit. Lotus confirmation that you have received this Office work together to build entire releases a Windows version 2 years later full email. If you would like to contact me please applications based on all of the pieces. You of bugs. Bye, bye Lotus 123. Ashton Tare had feel free to do so. can open up a Word document and in it a program called dbase III Plus. They got fat Paul Speranza could be an Excel spreadsheet that you can and happy with their product and did not Vice President update without ever knowing you were using update it. Along comes Foxpro from Fox All Systems Go, Inc Excel. This has evolved over the years and software and Clipper from Nantucket (203)469–2315 is by no means trivial to do. software. Bye, bye dbase. Microsoft did buy As far as the logic that it is too expensive Fox many years later. Computer Associates MTC–00028996 for companies to change to a free product bought Clipper. Borland bought dbase, From: Randy Pipal because of training costs, I?m not buying that. released a lousy version 4, tried to release To: Microsoft ATR Is that supposed to be Microsoft’s fault? In a version 5. Date: 1/28/02 7:45pm recent interview, Scott McNealy from Sun See the pattern yet? Stay with me now. Subject: Microsoft Microsystems said that large corporations Netscape releases Navigator, a web browser Randall M. Pipal aren?t using Star Office mainly because it is and sells millions at 50 bucks a pop, gets fat 2350 E. Apricot Dr. free and the customers didn?t think Sun and happy with their product and did not Meridian, ID 83642 would be committed to supporting a free update it. Microsoft releases a better browser January 27, 2002 product. So now Sun is contemplating called IE 4. Netscape, still fat and happy with Attorney General John Ashcroft charging for it. their product, does not update it. AOL builds US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania 2) Allow for a stripped down version of their client software around IE. Microsoft Avenue, NW Windows at a cheaper price. What for? releases IE 5 with excellent functionality and Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft spends a lot of R&D time and great hooks for developers trying to build Dear Mr. Ashcroft: money developing the extras that they give browser applications. Netscape, still fat and As a businessman, I don’t understand why you for free. So if you got a version without happy with their product, does not update it the government needed to interfere with the the freebies does this mean Microsoft has to but decides to give it away. Netscape gets business practices of Microsoft. After all, pay for not putting in programs that they are bought by AOL. Microsoft releases IE 5.5 Microsoft is a solid company that puts out a giving away? Here is the problem with with even better features and developer good product, is vital to the economy, and is including only products from other hooks. AOL releases another version of their vital to the tech industry. If Microsoft is not companies? Microsoft’s updates to IE, Media client using IE, not their own. Netscape/AOL allowed to stand strong, I am afraid for what Player, etc. are always free for the releases version 6. Full of bugs and slow as effect it could have on the economy. downloading. RealPlayer, for example, offers hell. A year later Netscape/AOL releases 6.1, Microsoft has been more than willing to a functional yet hobbled version of their slightly better. AOL client 7.0 released, still come to an agreement in order to facilitate software and then gets you to pay for using IE I think. Netscape/AOL releases 6.2, this suit. It seems their efforts are futile since upgrades and newer versions. So does Opera finally acceptable. no one seems to want to end this case. Not with their web browser. So where is the Oh, and before I forget. Because Netscape only did Microsoft agree to the establishment consumer winning here? With MS I get the 4.x was such a lousy browser, companies of a technical committee that will monitor feature complete versions of a browser and waste millions in development costs trying to Microsoft’s compliance with the settlement Media Player for free, with the competitors keep websites and web applications and assist with any disputes, they also agreed what initially is free may not be over time if compatible with it and the newer browsers. that if a third party’s exercise of any options I want versions with more features. As for the innovative features and in the settlement would infringe on any of I think what Microsoft did with the PC improvements that Microsoft put into their Microsoft’s intellectual property rights, manufacturers was a great idea: Include all of browser, most have been adapted by the W3C Microsoft would provide them with a license VerDate 11 to the necessary intellectual property on non- decisions for myself. I use Microsoft products January 28, 2002 discriminatory terms. That seems more than because they are the best available to me. If Microsoft Settlement fair to me. Netscape, Oracle, or Linux met my needs I’d U.S. Department of Justice Let’s move on. The economy needs it. use them; but they don’t. Microsoft is a Antitrust Division Thanks. company that should be commended for its 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW cc: Senator Larry Craig success and supported by the government, Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, not beaten down by it. Dear Microsoft Settlement: Randall Pipal It is because of the above I say, ‘‘Leave The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ CC:[email protected]@inetgw Microsoft Alone.’’ and do not place dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a regulations or restrictions upon them. They serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00028997 are a company that has made my life better, industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: [email protected]@inetgw not worse. The likes of Oracle, Sun, wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft ATR Netscape, Linux, and the other whiners over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 7:47pm would do well to take a lesson from in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: microsoft settlement Microsoft’s playbook: Innovate, the consumer courtroom. And the investors who propel our This case should be settled immediately appreciates that. America needs that. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. before any further damage is done to the Sincerly, Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the economy. Jeff Beitzel (Concerned American and federal government should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, MTC–00028998 Consumer) CC:[email protected]@inetgw companies like Microsoft can get back into From: Jeff Beitzel the business of innovating and creating better To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00028999 products for consumers, and not wasting Date: 1/28/02 7:47pm From: Anthony Mangan valuable resources on litigation. Competition Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft Settlement means creating better goods and offering As a programmer and system Date: 1/28/02 7:43pm superior services to consumers. With administrator, the Microsoft judgement will Subject: Microsoft Settlement government out of the business of stifling impact me greatly. I have been working with Anthony Mangan progress and tying the hands of corporations, both Microsoft and non-Microsoft products 155 Quail Hollow Drive consumers—rather than bureaucrats and for over 5 years, and in that time I have seen San Jose, Ca 95128–4544 judges—will once again pick the winners and a trend in the software being used. As a January 28, 2002 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the system administrator, the integration that Microsoft Settlement high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Microsoft offers makes my administrative U.S. Department of Justice be encouraged to create new and competitive tasks easier. Setup, as well as maintenance, Antitrust Division products and technologies. is easier in Microsoft products than in some 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my of competitors, like Oracle, Sun, Netscape, Washington, DC 20530 views. and Linux. The time savings I gain make me Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, more productive. As a programmer, Microsoft The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? Charles L. Buzbee products show a tremendous amount of dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a MTC–00029001 innovation not seen elsewhere. Microsoft has serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech often been accused of breaking standards, but industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Nancy Ward it should be noted that they typically wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft ATR embrace and extend. They take off where over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 7:50pm standards fall short, they allow the products in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement I write to be better. To me, that innovation courtroom. And the investors who propel our Dear Ms. Hesse: they provide is of utmost importance. Also, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. I write, as a private citizen, to oppose the when doing web-development, Netscape is a Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Justice Department’s proposed Microsoft horrendous product to work with. Microsoft federal government should not have broken Settlement, currently under review.. I believe didn’t kill Netscape, Netscape committed up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, that Microsoft has a history of stifling suicide by refusing to improve its product companies like Microsoft can get back into innovation in computer technology, thus and listen to its customers. On a more the business of innovating and creating better harming individual consumers and the personal side, I am often recruited to help out products for consumers, and not wasting national economy. An atmospher in which non-computer literate friends and family, valuable resources on litigation. witnesses of Microsoft’s violations are afraid they need the ease of use, and pricing of Competition means creating better goods to inform law enforcement officials of their Micorosft. Without Microsoft PCs would not and offering superior services to consumers. knowledge, which has existed in this be commonplace, but relegated to the With government out of the business of country, is harmful to the computer hobbists and professionals. Microsoft has stifling progress and tying the hands of tecchnological industry, as well as law made this a connected world because they corporations, consumers—rather than enforcement and belief in the efficacy of the have given us what we want. bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick justice system in our country. This whole anti-trust situation that has me the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Since the settlement does virtually nothing greatly troubled, as a consumer, person, and the reins off the high-tech industry, more to protect computer manufacturers and somone who creates. It is that the entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create others from Microsoft’s retaliation, those who government has abandoned its duty to new and competitive products and defy Microsoft’s behavior and views of the protect successful people and their property, technologies. technological world are left to become and chosen to persecute them. The fact is Thank you for this opportunity to share my martyrs to what the legislation prohibiting Microsoft, by its own blood, sweat, and tears views. monopolies was designed to prevent. created its products, and by right has sole Sincerely, Remedies proposed by the nine state ability to decide what to do with its property. Anthony Mangan attorney generals who are still plaintiffs The government has proceeded on a witch would genuinely constrain Microsoft from its hunt led by Microsoft’s failed competitors MTC–00029000 unfair business practices and liberate the under the guise of ‘‘protecting the From: Charles Buzbee technological industry from Microsoft’s consumer’’, the only people trying to be To: Microsoft Settlement shadow of fear. Left unchecked that shadow protected are lacking competitors who would Date: 1/28/02 7:43pm will grow and expand into other areas—why rather pull success down than actually work Subject: Microsoft Settlement wouldn’t it, if there’s nothing to stop it, for success. I resent the implication made by Charles Buzbee nothing to challenge the unfair and illegal those arguing against Microsoft that I am a 2188 SW 55th. St. behavior? The existence of such a helpless victim incapable of making Redmond, OR 97756 monopolistic entity is a threat to the well- VerDate 11 being of all who challenge it in the future, Sincerely, companies like Microsoft can get back into and all who would strive for a different and Joseph W Pfahnl the business of innovating and creating better better industry. products for consumers, and not wasting Send a message, that justice in the USA is MTC–00029004 valuable resources on litigation. Competition not dead, a commodity sold to the highest From: Brian Trotter means creating better goods and offering bidder, or a kickback to the highest political To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With contributor. Help us be free of this Date: 1/28/02 7:46pm government out of the business of stifling monstrous, harmful entity. Let innovation Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, flourish in this once dynamic field. By Brian Trotter consumers—rather than bureaucrats and freeing the development and exchange of 304 Chambers Rd. judges—will once again pick the winners and ideas in the technological field, you will help Arab, AL 35016 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the us all to flourish. January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Thank you for the opportunity to present Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive my comments. U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. Nancy Ward Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my 9802 SE Dundee Drive 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. Portland, OR 97266 Washington, DC 20530 A Very Concerned American!! email: [email protected] Dear Microsoft Settlement: Don Alvarez From: J Surlow The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ To: Microsoft ATR dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a MTC–00029006 Date: 1/28/02 7:50pm serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: Allen L Plitt Subject: Microsoft Settlement industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft ATR Jan 28, 2002 wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 7:53pm To Whom It May Concern, over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: microsoft settlement The Microsoft settlement does nothing to in the marketplace, rather than the Dear Sirs: end the monopoly that they are. If nothing is courtroom. And the investors who propel our Please end all litigation quickly. The longer done about that now, will anything ever be economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. this goes on, the more rediculous it gets. We done? Can anything stop the predatory Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the are now asking a company’s competitors practices of this monopoly? federal government should not have broken what punishment they desire levied because James D. Surlow up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, they cannot produce a better product. What Broomfield, CO 80020 companies like Microsoft can get back into good is that? the business of innovating and creating better MTC–00029003 products for consumers, and not wasting MTC–00029007 From: Joseph W Pfahnl valuable resources on litigation. Competition FROM: Richard Duncan To: Microsoft Settlement means creating better goods and offering TO: MS ATR Date: 1/28/02 7:44pm superior services to consumers. With DATE: 1/28/02 7:53pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement government out of the business of stifling SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement Joseph W Pfahnl progress and tying the hands of corporations, Richard J. Duncan 2197 Glenkirk Dr consumers—rather than bureaucrats and 9302 red-Wood Road, A-304 San Jose, CA 95124 judges—will once again pick the winners and Redmond, WA 98052 January 28, 2002 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the 425–830–2202 Microsoft Settlement high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Attorney General John Ashcroft U.S. Department of Justice be encouraged to create new and competitive US Department of Justice Antitrust Division products and technologies. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20530 views. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, I am in favor of the Microsoft antitrust The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? Brian Trotter settlement agreement. the terms of the dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a settlement agreement are reasonable, and will serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00029005 appropriately address the concerns raised industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Don Alvarez about anticompetitive business practices. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft Settlement Continued litigation will not produce a better over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 7:46pm result. Addressing the allegation that they in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement have acted in a predatory manner, Microsoft courtroom. And the investors who propel our Don Alvarez has agreed not to enter into contracts that economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 7640 N. Quail Ridge Dr. will obligate third parties to exclusively Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Tucson, AZ 85743 distribute Windows. They have also agreed federal government should not have broken January 28, 2002 not to take retaliatory action against those up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Microsoft Settlement who promote software that competes with companies like Microsoft can get back into U.S. Department of Justice Windows. The net result of the settlement the business of innovating and creating better Antitrust Division agreement will be a more level playing field products for consumers, and not wasting 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW for Microsoft’s competitirs. additionally, a valuable resources on litigation. Washington, DC 20530 technical committee will be established to Competition means creating better goods Dear Microsoft Settlement: monitor Microsoft’s compliance wit the and offering superior services to consumers. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ settlement agreement. any party who believes With government out of the business of dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Microsoft has violated the terms of the stifling progress and tying the hands of serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech settlement agreement may lodge a complaint corporations, consumers—rather than industry. It is high time for this trial, and the with the technical committee. These types of bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick wasteful spending accompanying it, to be safety mechanisms will ensure no further the winners and losers on Wall Street. With over. Consumers will indeed see competition violations of antitrust laws occur. the reins off the high-tech industry, more in the marketplace, rather than the Given the vast array of concessions that entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create courtroom. And the investors who propel our have been made by Microsoft, no further new and competitive products and economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. litigation is warranted. I am hopeful the technologies. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Department of Justice will remain committed Thank you for this opportunity to share my federal government should not have broken to settling this case. views. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Thank you for your time and attention. VerDate 11 Sincerely, Dear Mr. Ashcroft: is much the same as the proverbial used car Richard Duncan I am writing during the public comment salesman who insists that the speedometer period in support of the settlement reached has not been turned back. However, the final MTC–00029008 in the Microsoft antitrust case. liability of Microsoft’s behavior is yet to be From: David Horrocks The options for you are, as I understand known. To: Microsoft ATR them, to accept the settlement agreement URL’s to substantiate the above points Date: 1/28/02 7:54pm reached or to return to Court for further provided upon request. Since this is a matter Subject: Microsoft Settlement litigation. In light of the state of our of justice, and the ‘‘J’’ in DOJ stands for To: Judge Kollar-Kotally economy, continued litigation makes little justice, I find it necessary to remind you that Re:Microsoft remedy sense. We cannot afford to keep Microsoft on Abraham Lincoln declared that ‘‘All men are As an IT professional I am writing to the sidelines. created equal’’ and that we have a pledge of express my concern about the proposed Microsoft has agreed to make changes in allegiance to our flag which, although altered Microsoft settlement. I work extensively with the way it conducts business, which will be a few times over the past several decades, Microsoft at the local level in Philadelphia, conducive to increased competition within still ends with the phrase ‘‘With liberty and and have given considerable thought to their the software industry and to economic justice for ALL’’! Therefore, I encourage you market position. We depend on their growth. Microsoft’s agreeing to allow to do your job and enforce the laws of the products, and to some extent their good computer makers the right to reconfigure United States of America with equality and graces, for consulting revenue. Windows operating systems so as to promote due justice. (Long overdue justice in my I offer these thoughts: non-Microsoft software should prove to be of opinion). And, unlikely as it might be, it As an MBA student, I have analyzed immediate benefit to the economy. would sure be nice to require the company Microsoft’s channel strategy (document Please go forward with the settlement as responsible for all the damage to pay for it attached). It is clear that market dominance soon as possible. It is in the public’s best (retroactive). If Mr. Gates/Microsoft think (i.e. monopoly) has led to changes in interest. they are stimulating a faltering economy, Microsoft’s approach to the channel. The Sincerely, then perhaps their vision is only short-term. changes are generally not good for those of David Bowman In any case, isn’t it a great way to erode us on the receiving end. I don?t suggest that consumer confidence? What difference is this is illegal, but offer it as evidence of the MTC–00029010 there between capitalism and communism effects of monopoly. From: russell a cox when you are down to only one product and I believe an OS is a natural monopoly ? and To: Microsoft ATR that product is not only seriously flawed, but product with a decreasing marginal cost of Date: 1/28/02 7:55pm also a threat to your own national security? production would be expected to be, and Subject: Microsoft settlement Regards, software’s marginal cost of production is Please accept the settlement offer that has Ronald E. Wike pennies per copy. So Microsoft’s current been presented. It is time to move forward, MTC–00029013 monopoly position is not necessarily the not backwords. result of illegal activity. In fact, I would argue Thankyou From: Forest, Carl that their product positioning, marketing MJCox To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ decisions, and coding talent have been the Date: 1/28/02 7:56pm primary source of their success. Those are all MTC–00029012 Subject: Microsoft Settlement admirable traits. From: Ron Wike Dear Sirs and Madams: Because the OS is a monopoly I would To: Microsoft ATR I used WordPerfect from 1987 through disagree strongly with Microsoft’s critics Date: 1/28/02 7:56pm 2001 because it was by far the best word would argue for a breakup. That would not Subject: Just a few comments about the processing software available. Beginning serve the market or the consumers, and Microsoft situation sometime in the early to mid-90’s, each time would only postpone the natural 1. If you remove the deterrent from a crime, I bought a new computer, it came with monopolistic state. One of the split up firms you might as well declare open-season on Microsoft Word. Each time I bought a new would win eventually. that same crime. computer, I asked if the vendor would send But, other natural monopolies are more 2. It is a sad day for the United States of me the computer without Word and give me heavily regulated, such as power delivery. America when, on the day after a Christmas a small decrease in price. The sales people Microsoft should be thoughtfully regulated. when almost every PC given as a present, is always said they could not do this. So, I got The proposed settlement is very minimal running software that has essentially been a computer with Word, and bought regulation, and not enough to protect the declared ‘‘broken’’ by the Federal Bureau of WordPerfect to put on it. Even though I tried legitimate competitors Microsoft can, by Investigation of the United States of America. Microsoft Word each time I bought a new virtue of its OS position, crush at will. 3. Let us not forget who ultimately picks computer, since the computer always had I would hope that regulatory oversight up the tab every time one of our major Word installed, I never used it because it was would focus on protecting competitors from corporations, including the Pentagon of the obviously inferior to WordPerfect. However, bundling that leverages the OS position. United States of America and Microsoft itself, most other people, particularly corporations Force them to sell products rather than is at the mercy of anyone who is willing to who watched their budgets, use the ‘‘free’’ bundle them. Clearly bundling is just a take the time to read a book. Word program. Eventually, because it was means to defending market power. 4. Isn’t it time to do something about this ‘‘free’’, Word became the dominant word Examples of products that could be problem when the worldwide monetary processing software. Then Microsoft began integrated but ought to be regulated include: damages caused by the vulnerabilities of charging for it. terminal services (Citrix), media services Microsoft’s software exceeds the total Last year my company was purchased by (Real Player), offline storage, virus population of the world by several billion? a company that insisted that everyone use the protection, systems management, and others. 5. Do we really want the future leaders of same word processing software. As a result, Thank you for your consideration of these our country, who are currently coming up I now accomplish about 20% less on the issues, through the grades of our educational system, average when using word processing because David Horrocks to be using software that has been declared Word is not capable of easily doing what 1010 Windsor Ave a threat to the infrastructure of our own WordPerfect can do seamlessly. Examples: 1. Dresher, PA 19025 country by the National Infrastructure When you copy something from one Word Mobile: (215)–353–1531 Protection Center of the United States of document in say, Arial font, into another America? Word document with Arial Font, Word will MTC–00029009 6. Microsoft marketed their latest change the font on you. You then have to From: David Bowman ‘‘innovated’’ product known as Windows XP highlight and change the font back to what To: Microsoft ATR as the most secure operating system ever. It it should be. 2. Paragraph numbering and Date: 1/28/02 7:55pm should be quite evident to you by this time bullets are so erratic in Word, that no one Subject: Microsoft Settlement that this is not the case. In fact, this situation uses these functions—with word, we regress VerDate 11 back to the 80’s for automatic paragraph MTC–00029015 valuable resources on litigation. Competition numbering. For example, when you insert a From: William Lang means creating better goods and offering section in front of a newly numbered To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With paragraph with nothing next to it, Word will Date: 1/28/02 7:51pm government out of the business of stifling attach it to the previous paragraph. When Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, you save a document and reopen it, Word William Lang consumers—rather than bureaucrats and will often renumber the paragraphs in some 976 Ferngate Drive judges—will once again pick the winners and bizarre way. 3. Word has many automatic Franklin Square, NY 11010–1804 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the functions that change things in the text, January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will without your asking, and these are nearly Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive impossible to turn off. 4. Word has inferior U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. lists of symbols. Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my The above are just a few of the problems 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. with Word. Yet it is the dominant Word Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, processor, not because it is better, but Dear Microsoft Settlement: Larry See because of clear anti-trust activity. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029017 I believe that if the Government would do dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a something so WordPerfect or some other serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: Morton Abramson word processor could really compete fairly industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft ATR against Microsoft, the productivity of this wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 8:01pm country would increase about 10%. over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT Carl A. Forest in the marketplace, rather than the My wife and I feel that it was a disgraceful Partner and Regional Manager, Boulder courtroom. And the investors who propel our waste of taxpayer money to initiate an Office economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. antitrust suit against Microsoft three years ago. Patton Boggs LLP Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the However, since a settlement exists that will 867 Coal Creek Circle, Suite 200 federal government should not have broken finally end this case, we ask that you Louisville, CO 80027 up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, continue to support this settlement after the Tel: (303) 379–1114 companies like Microsoft can get back into Tunney comment period. Fax: (303) 379–1155 the business of innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not wasting Some competitors and a few in the MTC–00029014 valuable resources on litigation. Competition government are trying to have this settlement From: Bill & Sue Morgan means creating better goods and offering withdrawn and Microsoft brought back to To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With court until a finish to this case that satisfies Date: 1/28/02 7:47pm government out of the business of stifling them is reached. Those opposed to the Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, settlement contend the settlement is not harsh enough against Microsoft. However, Bill & Sue Morgan consumers—rather than bureaucrats and this settlement will cause Microsoft to 4391 Nelson Siding Road judges—will once again pick the winners and disclose more formerly secret design code Cle Elum, WA 98922 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will information than any computer company has January 28, 2002 be encouraged to create new and competitive ever disclosed to others. Microsoft Settlement products and technologies. Why, other than for selfish reasons, do U.S. Department of Justice Thank you for this opportunity to share my opponents of the settlement think that this is Antitrust Division views. inadequate? Why do they want to harm 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, Microsoft? Punishment of success is not the Washington, DC 20530 William E.Lang American way! We urge you to ignore the Dear Microsoft Settlement: anti-settlement argument. MTC–00029016 The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Three years and millions of dollars later, dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: Larry See this case should end now at the federal level. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft Settlement America has suffered enough industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/28/02 7:50pm embarrassment over this politically- wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: Microsoft Settlement motivated case. over. Consumers will indeed see competition Larry See Sincerely, in the marketplace, rather than the 3770 Presidential Corridor West Morton & Marlene Abramson courtroom. And the investors who propel our Caldwell, Tx 77836 426 Green T Lake Blvd. West economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. January 28, 2002 Hernando, MS 38632 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Microsoft Settlement Phone 662–429–9488 federal government should not have broken U.S. Department of Justice up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Antitrust Division MTC–00029018 companies like Microsoft can get back into 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW From: Mark Mindenhall the business of innovating and creating better Washington, DC 20530 To: Microsoft ATR products for consumers, and not wasting Dear Microsoft Settlement: Date: 1/28/02 7:58pm valuable resources on litigation. Competition The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? Subject: Microsoft Settlement means creating better goods and offering dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a I urge the court to reject the proposed superior services to consumers. With serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech settlement reached between Microsoft and government out of the business of stifling industry. It is high time for this trial, and the the DOJ, and instead proceed with the progress and tying the hands of corporations, wasteful spending accompanying it, to be settlement proposed by the nine states which consumers—rather than bureaucrats and over. Consumers will indeed see competition did not join the DOJ settlement. judges—will once again pick the winners and in the marketplace, rather than the I believe the nine states’’ proposal losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the courtroom. And the investors who propel our constitutes a most reasonable remedy which high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. will dramatically reduce Microsoft’s be encouraged to create new and competitive Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the monopoly power and dramatically enhance products and technologies. federal government should not have broken competition. Personally, I am more Thank you for this opportunity to share my up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, concerned about Microsoft’s desktop views. companies like Microsoft can get back into monopoly (Win95, Win98, WinME, Win2000 Sincerely, the business of innovating and creating better Prof, WinXP Prof, WinXP Home, etc.) and Sue & Bill Morgan products for consumers, and not wasting office productivity monopoly (Microsoft VerDate 11 Office) than the strength of their server U.S. Department of Justice inferior to Microsoft1s. It didn1t bother to operating systems. These two monopolies are Antitrust Division promote the acquisition to its massive AOL tightly coupled, and each helps to preserve 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW audience, preferring to blame its ineptitude the other. Office is so strong that its file Washington, DC 20530 on a rival. This reflects a strategy used by the formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt primarily) have Dear Microsoft Settlement: fallen Enron Corp., which extolled the become de facto standards for exchange of The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ virtues of a deregulated energy market while complex information between individuals dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a lobbying government for legal restrictions on and businesses. Any company wanting to serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech its market rivals. Enron1s demise has yet to compete with Office needs to fully support industry. It is high time for this trial, and the show serious economic damage. But the reading, editing, and writing documents wasteful spending accompanying it, to be assault against Microsoft, in our judgment, using these file formats. However, Microsoft over. Consumers will indeed see competition has contributed to the current technology provides little documentation of these file in the marketplace, rather than the sector depression and to recession in the formats, which results in competitors having courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy as a whole. It is time to call it off. to ‘‘reverse engineer’’ the files to understand economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Economic success rests not only on how the information is stored. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the prudential government regulation, but on a By simultaneously forcing Microsoft to federal government should not have broken company1s motivation to continually reveal the details of their file formats, while up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, improve its products and make innovations also making Office available on competing companies like Microsoft can get back into that will attract more consumers. Software platforms such as Linux and varieties of the business of innovating and creating better users, whether individuals or business, have Unix, I think the states’’ proposal would products for consumers, and not wasting gradually been leaving the tech market for dramatically increase competition in the valuable resources on litigation. Competition the past few years because a lack of desktop OS market. Also, other applications means creating better goods and offering innovation has decreased any incentive to would be able to ensure 100% compatibility superior services to consumers. With upgrade their equipment. Massive discounts with Office documents, which would create government out of the business of stifling on computers and accessories can stem the viable alternatives for creating and progress and tying the hands of corporations, technology exodus for only so long. exchanging documents using the de facto consumers—rather than bureaucrats and The proposed settlement has been careful standard Microsoft file formats. judges—will once again pick the winners and to limit the damage to Microsoft while Mark Mindenhall losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the redressing its legal breaches in software high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will design and marketing, and any further MTC–00029019 be encouraged to create new and competitive litigation is likely to devolve into jockeying From: Merton Singer products and technologies. for advantage between rival corporations, To: Microsoft ATR Thank you for this opportunity to share my absent of any public interest. For the sake of Date: 1/28/02 7:51pm views. both the tech sector and the economy that Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, responds so sensitively to its sways, this TO: Department of Justice G. M. Andreen practical and evenhanded settlement should RE: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00029021 be enacted expeditiously. In my opinion, the settlement proposed for Bruce Chapman, President Microsoft is sufficient. In fact, it is already From: Greg Piper Greg Piper, Director of Communications overkill. It must be kept in mind that the To: Microsoft ATR changes in our legal system have not, and Date: 1/28/02 8:00pm MTC–00029022 cannot keep pace with the rapidly evolving Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Robert L. Brown changes in high technology. Microsoft might To the Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly: To: Microsoft ATR,Ford James F. have somehow been in technical violation of The Discovery Institute would like to Date: 1/28/02 8:01pm our ‘‘traditional’’ anti-trust laws. I’ll admit affirm to the court its support for the Subject: Microsoft Settlement that. proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement. Our The settlement is, in itself, a reward for However, had Microsoft been forced mission is to ‘‘make a positive vision of the Microsoft’s anti competitive activities. I hope throughout its history to restrain itself in a future practical,’’ and we believe that while the court holds Microsoft to a trial to hear the literal sense to these laws, it undoubtedly any settlement is far from perfect, this evidence of Damages. The company is would have never created all the outstanding particular settlement is very practical and unbelievable, as the evidence showed during computer systems and concepts, which most will contribute positively to economic the trial. If the company can not be broken homes, businesses, medical facilities, stabilization and growth in America as well up it should be punished so severely, based schools, etc., in America can now afford. as to technological innovation in the public upon it’s assets, that no other company will To punish Microsoft more severally than interest—causes we have advocated from the consider doing the same as Microsoft in its outlined in the present settlement proposal is Institute1s debut 12 years ago. aggressive anti competitive actions. analogous to rewarding other companies for Microsoft is the leading player in the This is just my opinion based upon the their lack of vision, mediocrity, and/or lack software industry, and its actions as well as many pages of material I read about the trial of means or desire to compete in an actions against the company will have a and my own thoughts as to why some extremely intangible, and risky market. substantial ripple effect throughout the programs like WordPerfect were caused Microsoft is too important an entity to be technology sector and economy at large. Its problems by the Operating System while shackled because others cannot, for whatever success has led the way in a growing and ‘‘Word’’ was not. reason, keep pace. stable market for software products that has Robert L. Brown Sincerely, carried through the collapse of most dot-com [email protected] Steve Singer enterprises and contributed to record P. O. Box 358 105 Biltmore Drive #203 government surpluses until now. Microsoft1s Arnold, MO 63010 San Antonio, TX 78213 competitors have the right to challenge its 636–296–8260 market supremacy with their own products FAX 636–296–0925 MTC–00029020 and innovations, but in recent years the From: Gilbert Andreen nature of their competition has largely MTC–00029023 To: Microsoft Settlement revolved around government intervention From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 7:55pm initiated and prodded on by the competitors. To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement AOL Time Warner lately has invested at least Date: 1/28/02 7:58pm Gilbert Andreen as much time and energy in lobbying Subject: Microsoft Settlement 235 Rockhill Drive Washington as in developing attractive and Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division San Antonio, TX 78209 useful products. It purchased Microsoft1s 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 January 28, 2002 rival Netscape, which makes a browser that Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft Settlement is more expensive than and inarguably Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: VerDate 11 Please put a stop to the economically- Marilyn Baldwin supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This computer user. MTC–00029025 has gone on long enough. Microsoft has This is just another method for states to get already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer From: Rody P. Cox free money, and a terrible precedent for the icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case To: Microsoft Settlement future, not only in terms of computer against Microsoft is little more than Date: 1/28/02 7:56pm technology, but all sorts of innovations in the ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement most dynamic industry the world has ever competitors, with not a nickel going to those Rody P. Cox seen. supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the #5 Connaught Ct. Please put a stop to this travesty of justice computer user. Dallas, Tx 75225 now. Thank you. This is just another method for states to get January 28, 2002 Sincerely, free money, and a terrible precedent for the Microsoft Settlement Dr. David Fisher future, not only in terms of computer U.S. Department of Justice 12921 Dale St #82 technology, but all sorts of innovations in the Antitrust Division Garden Grove, CA 92841–5034 most dynamic industry the world has ever 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW seen. Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00029028 Please put a stop to this travesty of justice Dear Microsoft Settlement: From: [email protected]@inetgw now. Thank you. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Date: 1/28/02 8:06pm Roger Yurczyk serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Subject: Microsoft Settlement 23033 164th SE industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Why does a Microsoft Certified Kent, WA 98042 wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Professional oppose the proposed Microsoft- over. Consumers will indeed see competition DOJ settlement? MTC–00029024 in the marketplace, rather than the [1] Because Microsoft is an unabashed From: [email protected]@inetgw courtroom. And the investors who propel our monopolist that squelches competition—and To: Microsoft ATR economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. innovation—in a field that I chose to enter Date: 1/28/02 8:02pm Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the back in the ‘‘DOS Days’’; when I (still) Subject: Microsoft Settlement federal government should not have broken aspired to be affiliated with a company that Marilyn Baldwin up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, ‘‘demystified’’ personal computers, and 19 Seaview Avenue companies like Microsoft can get back into helped to bring them into small companies Cranston, RI 02905 the business of innovating and creating better and people’s homes at an affordable price. January 25, 2002 products for consumers, and not wasting Sadly, those days are long gone... Attorney General John Ashcroft valuable resources on litigation. Competition [2] I could write a LONG list of the US Department of Justice means creating better goods and offering companies and products that died in the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, superior services to consumers. With Microsoft stranglehold, but I believe DOJ government out of the business of stifling DC 20530 already has that information in hand from the progress and tying the hands of corporations, Dear Mr. Ashcroft: legal proceedings. consumers—rather than bureaucrats and The case against Microsoft has been [3] I urge DOJ to force Microsoft to make judges—will once again pick the winners and controversial. As a concerned citizen, I have all of it’s API and related code information losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the followed the case against Microsoft with for Windows 98 / Me / 2000 / XP open to high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will much interest. While I use Microsoft developers; or, those code and ‘‘hidden’’ be encouraged to create new and competitive products, I do believe that at its pinnacle API’s in the Office 2000 / XP suite that products and technologies. Microsoft may have engaged in prevent seamless integration with other Thank you for this opportunity to share my anticompetitive practices. The settlement suites (Corel, Lotus, Star, etc.). views. agreement reached last November is Sincerely, (As an aside, I am so outraged by equitable indeed, and if enacted, will have Dr. and Mrs. Rody P. Cox Microsoft’s behavior that I have become a many benefits for the technology sector. very vocal advocate for open source Thus, I urge the Justice Department to enact MTC–00029026 operating systems and office automation the settlement at the end of January. From: [email protected]@inetgw applications, and I run these on every To expand, the terms of the settlement will To: Microsoft ATR machine that I can. But even the Linux benefit consumers, developers, and Date: 1/28/02 8:07pm zealots can’t overcome the Microsoft manufacturers in the technology industries. Subject: microsft settlement ‘‘machine’’!) With the interim release of Windows XP, I do not believe there is anything wrong Jeffrey W. Stewart, MCP (#2110349) users of the operating system will be able to with Micrsofts approach to the market, infact [email protected] reconfigure their desktop according to their I think Microsoft’s is extremely customer Montgomery, AL own needs. Thus, users will be able to delete oriented & offers valuble products to all of us [BBsPC/PII266] Microsoft software from Windows and add that use computers & the internet. competing software at their own discretion. MTC–00029029 In addition, developers will benefit from the MTC–00029027 From: Shiven Malhotra information disclosure of the protocols and From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR interfaces internal to Windows. This To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 8:08pm information enables developers to produce Date: 1/28/02 8:03pm Subject: Microsoft’s Monopoly software that is more compatible with the Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom It May Concern: Windows operating system. Further, PC Ms. Renata B. Hesse, I have been a Microsoft user since I was ten manufacturers will be given broad new rights Antitrust Division years old. For th longest time I believed that to market competing software without fear of 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 computers were meant to be used only by Microsoft retaliation. Washington, DC 20530–0001 those who can understand, or know how to Much, then, will change with the Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: use them. But as I grew older I realised that implementation of the settlement. Given the Please put a stop to the economically- technology has no place in our world unless decline in the technology markets in recent draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This it can be applied to our everyday lives and years, I believe that this settlement will has gone on long enough. Microsoft has to do that technology has to be accessable to encourage confidence in the markets once already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer those who don’t want to understand how the more. Again, I urge the Justice Department to icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case technology achieves the outcome. enact the settlement. Thank you for your time against Microsoft is little more than I switched to the Macintosh Operating regarding this issue. ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft System once I reached college. I realised that Sincerely, competitors, with not a nickel going to those Microsoft has never been an innovator in VerDate 11 computer technology but it has always side are the consumers. To get to the MTC–00029031 known how to market its products well. But consumers the innovators and competitors From: Louie Swalby marketing an inferior product is not illelage have to survive the dragon’s displeasure. To: Microsoft ATR PREVENTING COMPETITION IS!! Even if they manage to get past the dragon, Date: 1/28/02 8:08pm Innovation comes form those how feel that the state in which they get past no longer Subject: Comment on MS Antitrust case the status quo is not meeting the needs of the makes them viable competitors who can The Honorable US District Judge Colleen common man. Innovators give us a brand make a material difference in the the market. Kollar-Kotelly, new way at looking at ideas and concepts. Microsoft is an innovator is an I wish to express my concern over When a company comes uo with an idea that OXYMORON!! Microsoft’s initial proposal to satisfy its threatenes the status quo, the status quo tries Throughout history people in power have antitrust penalty by providing second hand to prevent the spread of the idea. Microsoft been scared by new ideas. They have tried to computer hardware in schools and then its achieves this by crushing the competition, or discredit the idea or discredit the person own operating system and associated just making the competitive product with the idea. Gallalio discovered that the software applications. incompatible with the Microsoft Operating Earth goes around the Sun. He was burned This is pathetic of them to believe that the System. at the stake for sticking to the truth. judicial system as well as the public would In Saudi Arabia a years ago WordPerfect PLEASE DON’T LET MICROSOFT believe that this is fair. Rather, it only was going to release an arabic version of its PREVENT REAL CHANGE FROM COMING furthers their monopoly both in the schools word processor that was far superior to THE INDUSTRY!! THEY HAVE FINANCIAL and the future job market, where these Microsoft Word. Microsoft decided to POWER, DON’T BACK THEM UP WITH ‘‘Microsoft schooled’’ students will know of preempt WordPerfect by releasing its version LEGAL FREEDOM!! no other choices. of Word in Arabic first. The only problem ‘‘Nothing in this world is so powerful as Let Microsoft provide hardware (either was that though the box of the software was an idea whose time has come’’—Victor Hugo PCs, or MACs), and let them provide the in arabic, inside THE VERSION WAS IN It’s time we let Microsoft know that their hardware for providing networking to the ENGLISH. Microsoft provided a slip for a free schools. Let the schools choose the operating version of the arabic software once it had Monopolistic Strategies will not be tolerated by the United States!! system (MAC, Linux, or Microsoft). I completed it. BUT it took nearly 3 years for encourage you to seriously consider the offer the Arabic version to come out!!! People Thank You, Shiven Malhotra by Red Hat’s president to provide the free bought the software believing that the Linux OS to all schools. software inside was in their native language MTC–00029030 The United States is synonymous with the but were deceived!! From: Paul Holwadel idea of choices, a democracy provides for In Bill Gates book, ‘‘The Road Ahead’’, in To: Microsoft Settlement choices. the original version he believed that the Date: 1/28/02 8:01pm Microsoft has one choice: theirs. I urge you Internet was insignificant!! Yet when Subject: Microsoft Settlement to reject the proposal put forward by Netscape posed a real challange to Microsoft, Paul Holwadel Microsoft in this antitrust settlement. Mr. Gates went on the offensive by making Respectfully, the Netscape browser less compatible with 1391 S.O. Blvd. the Microsoft Operating System, while its Pompano Bch. , Fl 33062 MTC–00029032 January 28, 2002 browser was brought to the market. From: W R Jackson, Jr. Mr. Gates says that WindowsXP is the Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft Settlement ‘‘most secure Operating System’’ that U.S. Department of Justice Date: 1/28/02 8:03pm Microsoft has ever built, yet hackers have Antitrust Division Subject: Microsoft Settlement proven him wrong at every turn. Hackers 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW W R Jackson, Jr. even hacked into Microsoft’s ow website. The Washington, DC 20530 55 Burbank Lane FBI issued a statement that the Microsoft Dear Microsoft Settlement: Yarmouth, ME 04096 Operating System was not to be used, The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ January 28, 2002 because of security concerns. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Microsoft Settlement Competition breeds quality in products serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech U.S. Department of Justice deliverd and services rendered. I am industry. Antitrust Division originally from India. I have been witness to It is high time for this trial, and the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW the changes in the quality of products and wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Washington, DC 20530 services in my country. The lack of over. Consumers will indeed see competition Dear Microsoft Settlement: competition had made our companies in the marketplace, rather than the The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? compalicent. The level of services the courtroom. And the investors who propel our dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a monopoly companies provided was the only economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech level of service the consumer experienced. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the industry. There is no surprise that the consumer federal government should not have broken It is high time for this trial, and the believed that the level of service was good. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, wasteful spending accompanying it, to be After all SOME SERVICE IS BETTER THAN companies like Microsoft can get back into over. Consumers will indeed see competition NO SERVICE!!! the business of innovating and creating better in the marketplace, rather than the Today competition is starting to flourish in products for consumers, and not wasting courtroom. And the investors who propel our India. This has woken up these sleeping valuable resources on litigation. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. giants. They now have to compete with the Competition means creating better goods Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the innovators and new entrants into the market, and offering superior services to consumers. federal government should not have broken or become part of history. The consumer, With government out of the business of up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, once given a choice will go to the supplier stifling progress and tying the hands of companies like Microsoft can get back into he or she feels best meets their needs. But corporations, consumers—rather than the business of innovating and creating better they will not have this option if they cannot bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick products for consumers, and not wasting see past the one supplier market!! the winners and losers on Wall Street. With valuable resources on litigation. Microsoft’s main aim is to sheild the the reins off the high-tech industry, more Competition means creating better goods consumers from ever seeing any other entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create and offering superior services to consumers. possibilities in the market, and from new and competitive products and With government out of the business of preventing these possibilities from ever technologies. stifling progress and tying the hands of materialising. Thank you for this opportunity to share my corporations, consumers—rather than This brings to mind a picture of a dragon views. bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick protecting a bridge. One one side are the Sincerely, the winners and losers on Wall Street. With innovators and the competition and the other Dr. Paul Holwadel the reins off the high-tech industry, more VerDate 11 entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create personal computer operating system (‘‘OS’’), maintain an advantage over competing new and competitive products and called LindowsOS, that has the ability to run operating system manufacturers such as technologies. applications written for both the Linux and Lindows.com and software developers Thank you for this opportunity to share my Microsoft Windows operating systems. because it fails to disclose information views. Before LindowsOS, a Linux application sufficient to allow competitors to design Sincerely, would run only on a Linux-based operating software which fully supports the APIs of the W R Jackson Jr system, and a Microsoft Windows-based application software, disk formats and file application would run only on a Microsoft formats. As a result, competing operating MTC–00029033 Windows operating system. system software manufacturers are forced to From: James Wyatt 3. In cooperation with the many open engage in an expensive process of blindly To: Microsoft Settlement source community programmers, attempting to decipher Microsoft’s APIs Date: 1/28/02 8:03pm Lindows.com’s software engineers have through trial and error. Most companies Subject: Microsoft Settlement developed a Linux-based operating system abandon the process after costly investments James Wyatt with over ten million lines of code, which and the few that have produced products are 7563 Wesselman Road will incorporate the performance, stability, very limited in their functionality. Cleves, Oh 45002–8604 and secuirty of Linux while being able to run 7. Microsoft also exerts enormous anti- January 28, 2002 popular Microsoft Windows-compatible competitive influence over OEM hardware Microsoft Settlement applications, as well as all Linux manufacturers’’ configurations of their own U.S. Department of Justice applications. LindowsOS is the commercial hard drives which are controlled by Antitrust Division culmination of years of computer science Microsoft’s operating system. Since the vast 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW research by Lindows.com and other software majority of computers shipped over the last Washington, DC 20530 companies, seeking to harmonize use of the 10 years have Microsoft Windows operating Dear Microsoft Settlement: two most common, but incompatible, system preinstalled, the accompanying hard The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? computer operating systems. disks are configured with either vfat or NTFS dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a 4. Computer and electronics hardware and configurations. The specifications for NTFS serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech software cannot function as standalone and vfat are not published and known only industry. products. They are integral pieces of a by Microsoft. As with the APIs, because only It is high time for this trial, and the complex environment that businesses and Microsoft has access to and dictates the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be consumers use to be productive, connected, specifications for controlling the hard drives over. Consumers will indeed see competition or entertained. Each piece is required to installed in these computers, competing in the marketplace, rather than the interoperate with the other to be useful to a operating systems are effectively blocked courtroom. And the investors who propel our computer user. Microsoft’s software from information critical to designing economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. dominance over the last ten years has taken effective and stable systems. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the what was once a rich ecosystem of software 8. To restore competition, the ‘‘Microsoft federal government should not have broken and hardware innovation and homogenized it dictionary’’ should be made public. If the up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, as competitors have been legally and illegally language is secret, potential competitors will companies like Microsoft can get back into put out of business. This ‘‘ethnic cleansing’’ not be able to speak the common language the business of innovating and creating better of computer software has left Microsoft and used by computer hardware and software, products for consumers, and not wasting its Win-32 based language, the universal and Microsoft alone will continue to exert valuable resources on litigation. Competition operating system to which any company enormous influence by selecting who can means creating better goods and offering hoping to penetrate computing OS markets (and can’t) know this language. Microsoft superior services to consumers. With must conform. In other words, for a software must not be able to gain advantage by government out of the business of stifling company to compete they must speak delaying publication of the common progress and tying the hands of corporations, ‘‘Microsoft’’ If steps are not put into place language, so that competitors will have fair consumers—rather than bureaucrats and now to allow others to obtain a dictionary of opportunity to meet Microsoft to market with judges—will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the the language AND be able to speak it without products. Full disclosure of all current and high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will suffering repercussions, there will be no future proposed file formats (including VBA be encouraged to create new and competitive competition to Microsoft for the foreseeable scripting language for full PowerPoint products and technologies. future. If companies other than Microsoft are compatibility), as well as future updates in Thank you for this opportunity to share my allowed to speak this language, there will be advance of commercial releases are necessary views. a resurgence of competition and innovation to restore balance. Sincerely, in computer and electronic software and 9. Requiring Microsoft to share the James A Wyatt hardware. language its interfaces use does not dilute the 5. This ‘‘dictionary’’ which Microsoft value of what Microsoft creates, as Microsoft MTC–00029034 maintains is not the source code to its is allowed to maintain the proprietary nature From: Michael Robertson operating system or middleware, but rather of the code for its various programs. To: Microsoft ATR the blueprint for communicating with those Requiring Microsoft to disclose the common Date: 1/28/02 8:08pm products—the APIs. Microsoft’s knowledge language its programs use to interact with Subject: Microsoft Settlement and control unpublished APIs has allowed it other programs and with computer hardware Statement of Michael Robertson, CEO, to exert enormous control over how well permits independent companies to use this Lindows.com, Inc. applications running on a Windows-based common language to create innovative 1. I am the Chairman and Chief Executive platform work. For instance, Microsoft’s applications which can fairly compete with Officer of Lindows.com, Inc. ‘‘Word’’ word processing program now Microsoft in the open marketplace, avoiding (‘‘Lindows.com’’) and have been employed in dominates the word processor market simply excessive government monitoring and that capacity since the company’s inception because Microsoft itself had nearly exclusive entanglement. in 2001. I have previously served as founder, access to its own APIs for years, giving it an 10. While Microsoft argues that it is CEO and Chairman of MP3.com, an Internet- advantage in designing its products to continuing to innovate, the fact is that all based digital music storage, management, perform well with its operating system. It has operating systems vendors are innovating, delivery and promotion company MP3.com, exercised this same ‘‘API control’’ strategey but because Microsoft controls 95% of the since March of 1998. MP3.com was sold to with many other applications, dominating, market already, and has been held to have Viviendi/Universal on August 29, 2001. I for instance, the spreadsheet (Excel) Internet consistently abused that market power to have personal knowledge of the facts set forth browser (Explorer), presentations maintain its monopoly, Microsoft is the de herein and, if called as witness, I could and (PowerPoint), and media player (Media facto standard regardless of the comparative would competently testify thereto. Player) applications. benefits of its product. Indeed, recent lapses 2. Lindows.com, Inc. is a software 6. Even though Microsoft today publishes in the security of Microsoft’s XP products company currently developing a new a tiny number of APIs, it continues to have spotlighted just one of the many VerDate 11 comparative deficiencies of Microsoft’s Thank you for this opportunity to share my Ken Demark operating system. Yet, despite the fact that views. CEO Linux-based operating systems are more Sincerely, BOLD Technologies, Inc. secure, more stable, and more affordable for Steve Riddle MTC–00029038 many applications, Microsoft’s system MTC–00029036 continues to dominate. This can only be due From: [email protected]@inetgw to the absence of fair market conditions. From: Harry Alford To: Microsoft ATR 11. Ultimately consumers will benefit as To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Date: 1/28/02 8:13pm they see enjoy more product choices, which Date: 1/28/02 8:03pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement will control pricing through natural market Subject: Microsoft filing Kansas from To Judge Kollar-Kotelly and whom it may forces. The open source community National Black Chamber of Commerce concern, developing applications for the Linux 1350 Connecticut Ave NW Suite 825 I have been Microsoft Certified operating system is a prime example of the Washington, DC 20036 Professional since 1993. I’ve used many myriad of programs and applications which 202–466–6888 202–466–4918 fax Microsoft products in that time. I will interface sharing can inspire. Thousands of January 28, 2002 continue to do so; either by personal choice programs currently exist in this environment, Email Address: VerDate 11 Dear Microsoft Settlement: Robert H. Mellor, II not accomplish this end. Please support this The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Information System Support Coordinator settlement so we can focus on more dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a CHEP important issues. Thank you for your time. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Computer Network Systems Technology Sincerely, industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Student at ITT Technical Institute Francis Clark wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Graduating June, 2002 over. Consumers will indeed see competition MTC–00029044 in the marketplace, rather than the MTC–00029042 From: Joan Eslinger courtroom. And the investors who propel our From: [email protected]@inetgw To: Microsoft ATR economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 8:13pm Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Date: 1/28/02 8:12pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement federal government should not have broken Subject: Microsoft settlement I am writing to express my opposition to up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, As chairman of Citizens Against Higher the proposed settlement to the ongoing companies like Microsoft can get back into Taxes, a Pennsylvania public-interest group, antitrust case between Microsoft and the U.S. the business of innovating and creating better I’d like to offer a brief comment on the Government. I obtained a B.S. in engineering products for consumers, and not wasting proposed Microsoft settlement. I am a long- from the University of Illinois in 1981. I’ve valuable resources on litigation. time user of Word Perfect and despise worked in the computer industry in Illinois Competition means creating better goods Microsoft Word; it really gripes me that Word and California for most of the time since and offering superior services to consumers. has run rings around Word Perfect in the then, with experience in operating systems, With government out of the business of marketplace. I’m sure millions of other users networking, security, applications, and stifling progress and tying the hands of of non-Microsoft products feel as I do. But we standards compliance. I’m currently corporations, consumers—rather than lost, fair and square, in the marketplace of employed by Silicon Graphics (SGI) as a bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick consumer choice. Just because Microsoft is a software engineer. I have also followed this the winners and losers on Wall Street. With successful company and produces an antitrust case with great interest, reading the the reins off the high-tech industry, more operating system and software that most various documents made available to the entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create people want to buy, is no reason to punish public including the findings of fact and new and competitive products and that success and hurt consumers. findings of law, because I have observed technologies. I have looked over the proposed settlement Microsoft’s effect on the computing Thank you for this opportunity to share my terms and it certainly seems to me that they landscape for the past several years. views. clearly meet any reasonable standard of I believe the proposed settlement will do Sincerely, curbing potential anti-competitive actions nothing to deter Microsoft from any of its William Aldridge while still preserving relatively free business practices which have already been consumer choice. proven to be predatory and to maintain and MTC–00029041 I would hope that the settlement is upheld, extend their monopoly. I can’t imagine what From: Robert Mellor so an innovative and successful company can possessed the USDOJ to agree to such a thing. To: Microsoft ATR go about the business of providing ever- The settlement does not address the most Date: 1/28/02 8:10pm newer and better products that appeal to important point for the survival of other Subject: Microsoft Settlement many people (though not especially to me). operating systems: interoperability. One key Your Honor, James H. Broussard, Chairman way Microsoft maintains and extends their As a computer fanatic, student, and Citizens Against Higher Taxes monopoly is related to the file formats professional, I have watched Microsoft’s produced by Microsoft’s Word and Excel practices with interest over the years. In MTC–00029043 applications. Almost every business in this 1995, Netscape was the superior browser and From: [email protected]@inetgw country has found itself forced to use these held the lion’s share of the browser market. To: Microsoft ATR applications (and others) to interact with I feel that it is still the superior browser, but Date: 1/28/02 8:13pm other businesses. (I understand there are also do to some shady tricks and arm-twisting by Subject: Microsoft Settlement government agencies contributing to the Microsoft, the market share has been 10 Red Oak Court monopoly by requiring documents be reversed. As the complaint states, this is Voorhees, NJ 08043 submitted in these formats, and by because Netscape and its support for January 25, 2002 disseminating information in these formats). applications that are not OS (operating Attorney General John Ashcroft And Microsoft makes deliberate changes to system) dependant could threaten Microsoft’s US Department of Justice the applications and their file formats monopoly hold on the operating systems 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW periodically, often disabling backward market. Operating systems like Linux Red Washington, DC 20530 compatibility ‘‘accidentally’’, to drive Hat and Apple could actually gain a Dear Mr. Ashcroft: widespread upgrades. The best way to defeat respectable share of the market, if not an I am writing you today to express my this monopoly-maintenance mechanism even one. opinion in regards to the Microsoft antitrust would be to require Microsoft to publish I actually like a lot of the products that dispute. I support Microsoft in this dispute, these file formats so that other companies can Microsoft puts out. But I have watched other and I feel that the litigation that has gone on write applications that will correctly read products that I like as well become victims for three years is expensive and will and write Microsoft Office documents. This of (what I believe to be) illegal contractual negatively impact consumers. I support the does not mean Microsoft has to expose any arm-twisting to prevent manufacturers of settlement that was reached in November as of their source code. I know many people hardware from offering any ‘‘rival’’ software. a means to end this dispute. have called out to require Microsoft to make I hope that you will be able to do something This settlement will serve in the best their source code available. I don’t believe about this injustice, as this country became public interest. Microsoft has agreed to all that is a useful remedy, and Microsoft has great on the concept of competition. The terms of this agreement, including: sharing made clear they would never agree to such industry as a whole would progress at a information with competitors regarding a thing. Publishing file formats is nothing substantially increased rate, and consumers certain internal interfaces included within like opening up source code. The TCP/IP would also benefit from competitive pricing Windows and any protocols implemented in protocols that the Internet is built on are and an increased number of choices. I hope Windows. Microsoft has also agreed to design described in plain English (with some that you can reach a decision that will future versions of Windows to make it easier specialized jargon), and many companies strengthen this country’s historical to install non-Microsoft software. This have used that English description to write commitment to fair and open market settlement will benefit the entire technology networking code that works with everyone competition, something that this proposed industry. else’s networking code. I believe the settlement does not accomplish. During these difficult times, one of our government could make a big difference in Thank you for this opportunity to express highest priorities should be to boost our the world of document exchange merely by my opinion, lagging economy. Restricting Microsoft will specifying that all correspondence be done in VerDate 11 openly-documented file formats. I believe Why are vendors not allowed to advertise internet and use innovative software this is one of the most important non-Microsoft Middleware more prominently products to make their computer experience requirements the goverment could insist on than Microsoft Middleware (III.C.3.)? easier and more enjoyable. The settlement in this case. Vendors should be free to configure the itself is tough on Microsoft, but is a fair The second most important problem is the systems they sell any way they wish. III.F.2. outcome for all parties—particularly senior secret and not-so-secret deals Microsoft is worthless. Most companies that work with consumers. Most important, this settlement makes with hardware manufacturers to Microsoft are at a severe competitve will have a very positive impact on the ensure Microsoft products (and only disadvantage if they don’t sign up for co- American economy and will help pull us Microsoft products) are available to marketing agreements. The co-marketing from the recession we have experienced over consumers by default. One way this comes agreements will effectively cancel this the past year. about is that almost every contract Microsoft provision. Sincerely Forrest C. Milligan signs with another company contains a non- Microsoft should not be permitted to MTC–00029046 disclosure clause. Microsoft uses Operating poison existing and future standards. System pricing as the key in such contracts. Microsoft is currently investing a lot of From: Bob (038) Adie Santore If a company agrees to lock-out Microsoft money in network protocol design. The To: Microsoft ATR competitors, Microsoft will lower their cost obvious inference is that they plan to replace Date: 1/28/02 8:13pm to purchase Windows. The uniform licensing the open protocols of the Internet with their Subject: Microsoft Settlement terms of the proposed final judgement are a own proprietary ones. TO : Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division, US good start, but do not go far enough. There III.H. gives Microsoft permission to pre- Department of Justice is nothing to prohibit Microsoft from making empt non-Microsoft middleware if there is a FROM : Robert Santore, Concerned Citizen other deals that lead to a vendor receiving feature missing. Microsoft can always arrange Please disregard my previous letter, as that cash or goods or services from Microsoft if it for Microsoft Middleware to have new was a draft and not ready to be sent. I accidentally pressed the wrong button. So just happens that the vendor does not offer features not available in competitor’s here are my thoughts: I believe the Justice any products from Microsoft’s competitors. products (and some features, like ActiveX, Department and America needs closure on I’m not an accountant, but I expect it would deliberately avoided by other products due to this (Microsoft) matter once and for all. How require analysis of not just Microsoft’s security problems). By the time an ISV could accounting records, but also those of the long has it been, how much money will it add support for the new feature, the damage take...and how long will it continue on? vendor’s to detect such a scheme. Frankly, I would already be done. This clause will not The Federal Government must state it’s don’t think anything will ensure uniform change anything. Microsoft can always refuse case, derive it’s penalties, seek resolution, pricing other than having the hardware to document an API by claiming it is and end it’s relentless efforts to drag this vendors publish the cost of Microsoft’s security-related. By the time a Technical matter any further, perhaps into the next software as a line item visible to the Committee member is able to view the administration. The Government needs to set consumer, in addition to giving the consumer related code, Microsoft can change the API so a time limit. The longer the Justice the right to request a machine with no that it actually does implement some security Department takes to administer it’s justice, Microsoft software for the cost of the function. The free operating systems Linux the public will be thoroughly disgusted, and machine without that line item. Vendors will and BSD, currently Microsoft’s competition, America once again will receive her be less likely to lie about the cost of will not be able to license such code. enormous share of worldwide ridicule. Microsoft software if they know a consumer The definitions of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ This action is a waste of precious taxpayer can knock that full amount off the price and ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ are resources, and most of us believe the action when buying a machine with no OS. such that Microsoft can easily work around by the previous administration was There are many, many loopholes in the any restrictions on them. In three years the politically motivated, fueled by Microsoft’s agreement that I’m sure other people are problems will not center around ‘‘Internet competitors. No one has yet to prove that the writing in about, so I won’t go into them in Explorer, Microsoft’s Java Virtual Machine, American citizen, or the software industry detail. The DOJ should know, however, that Windows Media Player, Windows has been hurt by the allegations of anti- Microsoft is famous in the industry for Messenger, Outlook Express and their competitive behavior. Is it worth the cost? writing contracts they can wriggle out of. successors’’ or ‘‘Internet browsers, email And, while the Government continues it’s One such loophole I haven’t seen client software, networked audio/video client aggressive pursuits, we have real serious discussed concerns the three-person software, instant messaging software’’; they problems to contend with, such as the Enron Technical Committee. The committee will center around elements of .Net and new case, where thousands of employees and members are required to be ‘‘experts in applications. investors were sucker-punched....collapse of software design and programming.’’ They are With the new subscription software model, a major corporation, lost employment and not required to know anything about the definitions of OS revisions, upgrades, retirements. That’s the real crime. And that’s accounting, business practices, contract law, alpha and beta periods, and distribution will precisely where the Justice Department or criminal investigation. They are permitted change radically, to the extent that parts of should be spending it’s efforts. The to hire staff members, but they also must be the proposed final judgement will not make contentious and incessant attacks against software experts. Several sections of the final any sense (and will no longer apply to Microsoft must stop. judgement have nothing to do with software anything). Remember that old saying, ‘‘it’s the but with contracts and business I hope you will take these comments under economy...... ’’? I believe the actions of relationships. Why are there no lawyers or consideration when evaluating the President Clinton and his administration, the accountants on this committee? appropriateness of the proposed settlement. I Democratic Congress, the raising of interest Here’s just a short list of some of the do not believe this settlement to be in the rates by the Federal Reserve, the Justice problems I’ve seen in the settlement: best interests of consumers or the future of Department versus Microsoft, the collapse of Microsoft is allowed to retaliate against computing. Enron (and other big business), the lack of vendors who ship a Personal Computer with Joan Eslinger security in the airlines and the attacks of 9/ no Microsoft software. [email protected] 11 are the result of America being diverted Microsoft is allowed to make extra from really serious issues. ‘‘It’s the payments to vendors who comply with any MTC–00029045 Government.....!!!’’ unofficial rules they may have (III.A.), as long From: [email protected]@inetgw It’s the Government which is creating an as it takes the form of a payment for positive To: Microsoft ATR unhealthy economic environment. It’s the action (promotion) rather than a negative Date: 1/28/02 8:12pm Government that knew our airlines and action (withholding marketing funds). Intel Subject: ‘‘Microsoft Settlement.’’ Fax: 1–202– airports were vulnerable. And it’s the and Microsoft have both used the marketing 307–1454 or 1–202–616–9937 Government which will ultimately drag the funds budget over the years to promote their The Seniors strongly believes that the country into a deepening recession. Let’s end monopolies. The current form of the proposed settlement offers a reasonable this obsession with Microsoft, let the Technical Committee is unlikely to be able to compromise that will enhance the ability of Government fuel the market and get this police this effectively. seniors and all Americans to access the economy going again. Let’s rock...... VerDate 11 Sincerely; in the marketplace, rather than the Date: 1/28/02 8:15pm Robert J. Santore courtroom. And the investors who propel our Subject: Microsoft Settlement economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. √√5012 West Little Water MTC–00029047 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Peak Drive From: Richard H Carlson federal government should not have broken Riverton, Utah 84065 To: Microsoft ATR up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, January 17,2002 Date: 1/28/02 8:13pm companies like Microsoft can get back into Attorney General John Ashcroft Subject: Microsoft Settlement the business of innovating and creating better US Department of Justice I believe that you should accept the products for consumers, and not wasting 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW settlement and cease the litigation. valuable resources on litigation. Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, Competition means creating better goods Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Richard Carlson and offering superior services to consumers. I think the anti-trust lawsuit filed against MTC–00029049 With government out of the business of Microsoft Corporation should finally be stifling progress and tying the hands of closed and satisfied. The suit charged From: LESTER (038) PAM TAYLOR corporations, consumers—rather than Microsoft with unfair business practices that To: Microsoft ATR bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick limit competition, but really the issues were Date: 1/28/02 8:14pm the winners and losers on Wall Street. With new ground. The technology industry is Subject: Microsoft Settlement the reins off the high-tech industry, more continually producing new products and Ir–A YJ OR AWGUS R–AWCH .Lester entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create procedures that challenge the rest of the andTam Tayfor HC 89,BOX 225 new and competitive products and world to keep up, including legislation. Nt. Pteasant, AR 72561 technologies. Moving forward, Microsoft has agreed to January 28, 2002 Thank you for this opportunity to share my change their policies and procedures to Attorney General John Ashcroft views. conform to the agreed terms of the settlement US Department of Justice Sincerely, of the lawsuit. They have actually agreed to 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Joe De Fazio more conditions than were at issue in the Washington, DC 20530 lawsuit, and they did so to get the lawsuit RE: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00029051 behind them and to resume business. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: From: Ernesto Starri I think Microsoft has shown their intent to We understand that the public comment To: Microsoft Settlement conform to the ruling and the terms of the period on the proposed settlement agreement Date: 1/28/02 8:09pm settlement. No further court action should be between the Department of Justice and Subject: Microsoft Settlement taken against Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft closes today, January 28, 2002. We Ernesto Starri Sincerely, are writing to cast our votes in favor of P.O. Box 1934 Brandon Wright settlement. Given the record of Corona, CA 92878 accomplishment so far in this case, it makes MTC–00029053 January 28, 2002 no sense to continue litigation when you From: Tweetsy have the chance to conclude the case in a Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR manner beneficial to the economy. The U.S. Department of Justice Date: 1/28/02 8:17pm primary complaint against Microsoft was that Antitrust Division Subject: Microsoft Settlement consumers who chose to use Windows 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Dear Attorney General Ashcroft and his operating systems for their computers were Washington, DC 20530 Colleagues, precluded from utilizing non- Microsoft Dear Microsoft Settlement: How do you do? My name is Carina software programs for such services as The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Flores*, and I would like to present MY Internet browsers and messaging services dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Views on the Microsoft Settlement: within Windows. Microsoft has agreed to end serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 1. Microsoft has SIGNIFICANTLY this practice, and open its Windows systems industry. It is high time for this trial, and the to such competition. With the major wasteful spending accompanying it, to be contributed to the Gross National Product of complaint answered, there is no need to over. Consumers will indeed see competition this Country and to the direct and indirect further litigate. Please end this case, and put in the marketplace, rather than the Livelihood of MILLIONS of people even Microsoft back to work. The country needs to courtroom. And the investors who propel our beyond these patriotic shores; heal. Thank you for your kind consideration economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 2. Microsoft has GENEROUSLY in this matter. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the contributed to MANY Charitable and Sincerely, federal government should not have broken Educational Agencies dedicated to uplifting 114-&A 0. Lester A. Taylor Cpa’’@ up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, the lives of MILLIONS of people in this a. Pamela 3. Taylor companies like Microsoft can get back into country AND in this planet; the business of innovating and creating better 3. Microsoft has dramatically ALTERED MTC–00029050 products for consumers, and not wasting the landscape of Democracy by making it From: Joe De Fazio valuable resources on litigation. possible for information technology to be To: Microsoft Settlement Competition means creating better goods more accessible to a greater number of people Date: 1/28/02 8:09pm and offering superior services to consumers. and helping us make MORE informed Subject: Microsoft Settlement With government out of the business of Decisions in the process; Joe De Fazio stifling progress and tying the hands of 4. Microsoft KNOWS how to keep its 6805 Douglas Blvd. #43 corporations, consumers—rather than Employees happy, productive and Granite Bay, Ca 95746 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick instrumental in FUELLING the Economy of January 28, 2002 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With this Society, and Microsoft, don’t you ever Microsoft Settlement the reins off the high-tech industry, more doubt, is in it FOR THE LONG HAUL; U.S. Department of Justice entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create 5. Mr Bill Gates of Microsoft IS one of the Antitrust Division new and competitive products and most ADMIRED people in this Country and 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW technologies. in the World, and he and his Colleagues Washington, DC 20530 Thank you for this opportunity to share my HAVE set NUMEROUS, fine examples of Dear Microsoft Settlement: views. Ingenuity, Wealth-building AND Wealth- The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Sincerely, Creation for the Youths of Today, and the dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Ernesto Starri MANY more Generations to come; serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 6. This beloved country of ours is industry. It is high time for this trial, and the MTC–00029052 admittedly FOUNDED on upholding the Law wasteful spending accompanying it, to be From: Brandon Wright and discouraging unethical AND illegal over. Consumers will indeed see competition To: Microsoft ATR behaviour, but NOT —- repeat —- NOT on VerDate 11 punishing Success, which is what Microsoft’s computer from anyone without an operating in the marketplace, rather than the Detractors WOULD like to happen because system if I want it. courtroom. And the investors who propel our they are counting on you NOT to make that Please bring an end to the hectoring of one economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Distinction. of two or three great U.S. companies Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the 7. This Country and the World IS, by far, providing inexpensive computing to virtually federal government should not have broken BETTER OFF, because Microsoft exists today. anyone with a job. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Thank you, and may right be done. Sincerely, companies like Microsoft can get back into Sincerely George and Valerie Pease the business of innovating and creating better Carina F Flores products for consumers, and not wasting Box 19780 MTC–00029057 valuable resources on litigation. Competition Stanford, California From: William Tedrow means creating better goods and offering 94309 To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With * I’m a FORMER Microsoft Contractor who Date: 1/28/02 8:12pm government out of the business of stifling left Microsoft with a great deal of respect Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, AND Admiration. William Tedrow consumers—rather than bureaucrats and It is not enough to conquer, one must know hcr 32 box 399 judges—will once again pick the winners and how to seduce.—- Voltaire moyie springs, idaho, ID 83845 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the MTC–00029054 January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive From: John Dunn U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. To: Microsoft ATR Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my Date: 1/28/02 8:17pm 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, MS has done complied with everything Dear Microsoft Settlement: Robert Stafford that the DoJ has asked. AOL is just looking The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? MTC–00029059 for a free ride. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Finalize the decree and let’s MS spend serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: Albert Briggs their dollars on productive efforts. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft ATR John Dunn wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 8:18pm MTC–00029055 over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: Microsoft Settlement in the marketplace, rather than the P≤Albert Briggs From: [email protected]@inetgw courtroom. And the investors who propel our 7571 Links Court To: Microsoft ATR economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Sarasota, FL 34243 Date: 1/28/02 8:15pm Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the January 28, 2002 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Attorney General John Ashcroft Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division federal government should not have broken US Department of Justice, 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530–0001 companies like Microsoft can get back into Washington, DC 20530 Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: the business of innovating and creating better Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Please put a stop to the economically- products for consumers, and not wasting It is unfortunate that some states wish to draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This valuable resources on litigation. Competition push for further litigation against Microsoft. has gone on long enough. Microsoft has means creating better goods and offering In my estimation, the states’’ representatives already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer superior services to consumers. With on this case are spending more time listening icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case government out of the business of stifling to money-hungry Microsoft opponents than against Microsoft is little more than progress and tying the hands of corporations, ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft consumers—rather than bureaucrats and looking closely at the factors in the case. I competitors, with not a nickel going to those judges—will once again pick the winners and have never supported Microsoft to the supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the exclusion of competition. They have in no computer user. high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will way done anything that has negatively This is just another method for states to get be encouraged to create new and competitive affected me professionally or personally. I free money, and a terrible precedent for the products and technologies. have worked in the computer industry for future, not only in terms of computer Thank you for this opportunity to share my over thirty years, and Microsoft is a true technology, but all sorts of innovations in the views. leader. I currently am a satisfied user of AOL/ most dynamic industry the world has ever Sincerely, Time Warner’s ?Roadrunner? cable service to seen. WilliamA. Tedrow the exclusion of MSN. I did choose Microsoft’s ?Internet Explorer? product after Please put a stop to this travesty of justice MTC–00029058 now. Thank you. a disappointing experience with ?Netscape?. Sincerely, From: Robert Stafford Microsoft’s support and development Stephen Bogdan To: Microsoft Settlement programs get my vote, However, one does not 307 Ashmead Rd. Date: 1/28/02 8:12pm need to be an expert in the computer field Cheltenham, PA 19012–1506 Subject: Microsoft Settlement to see all that Microsoft has done for the Robert Stafford computer industry. Another factor that MTC–00029056 5062–B Foothills Dr. proves Microsoft’s high caliber has been their From: Pease Lake Oswego, Or 97034 willingness to cooperate throughout this To: Microsoft ATR January 28, 2002 lawsuit and to comply with the terms of the Date: 1/28/02 8:19pm Microsoft Settlement proposed settlement. They have agreed to Subject: MicroSoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice give their competitors access to Microsoft Dear Sirs: Antitrust Division codes and protocols in order to facilitate I fully support the proposed settlement of 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW competitiveness. In addition, Microsoft has the Microsoft antitrust action. Microsoft, for Washington, DC 20530 agreed to have their compliance to terms of all its faults, continues to be the one Dear Microsoft Settlement: the settlement monitored by a technical standardizing force in a market that easily The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ committee. Any person who has a dispute fragments into many special segments dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a with Microsoft may make their complaints serving only cognoscenti of that segment. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech known to this committee. Microsoft is aggressive and competitive and industry. It is high time for this trial, and the I am truly hopeful that your office will deserves the restraints imposed by the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be remain determined to resolve this matter. I settlement, e.g., I should be able to by a over. Consumers will indeed see competition thank you for all the work you have done VerDate 11 thus far and for keeping the public’s interest over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: Microsoft Settlement at heart. in the marketplace, rather than the Lois Amacher Sincerely, courtroom. And the investors who propel our 4800 Marconi Avenue #128 Albert Briggs economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Carmichael, CA 95608 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the January 28, 2002 MTC–00029060 federal government should not have broken Microsoft Settlement From: David Beck up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, U.S. Department of Justice To: Microsoft ATR companies like Microsoft can get back into Antitrust Division Date: 1/28/02 8:19pm the business of innovating and creating better 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: pro comp and the trial products for consumers, and not wasting Washington, DC 20530 I think when all is said and done the boys valuable resources on litigation. Competition Dear Microsoft Settlement: of procomp and the companies whose means creating better goods and offering The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ product they represent will go down in superior services to consumers. With dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a history as the equal of enron and Anderson. government out of the business of stifling serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech I hope you suffer as big a loss as the rest of progress and tying the hands of corporations, industry. It is high time for this trial, and the us trying to just get by. consumers—rather than bureaucrats and wasteful spending accompanying it, to be MTC–00029061 judges—will once again pick the winners and over. Consumers will indeed see competition losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the in the marketplace, rather than the From: Sheevaun O’Connor high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will courtroom. And the investors who propel our To: Microsoft ATR be encouraged to create new and competitive economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Date: 1/28/02 8:20pm products and technologies. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Subject: Microsoft settlement Thank you for this opportunity to share my federal government should not have broken Dear DOJ Group views. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Thank you for this opportunity to share Sincerely, companies like Microsoft can get back into some thoughts about this settlement. It is not Seann Maxwell the business of innovating and creating better often that we are asked or have opportunities products for consumers, and not wasting such as this. MTC–00029063 valuable resources on litigation. Competition As far as the details of the settlement I From: Robert Smith means creating better goods and offering cannot be specific but in summary I would To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With say that this particular solution is allowing Date: 1/28/02 8:14pm government out of the business of stifling one conglomerate to sidestep the law. Not Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, only sidestep the law but to impinge on fair Robert Smith consumers—rather than bureaucrats and trade for other systems. If a company has a 1715 Chip n Dale judges—will once again pick the winners and superior product that product should not be Arlington, TX 76012 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the sabbotoged just because the larger more well January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will funded company wants that market share. Let’s be realistic for a moment in a fair Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive trade arrangement, meaning all companies U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. have equal opprotunities, there would be a Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my better competitive market. Just look at what 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. the IBM suit brought about, PC’s on every Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, desk and much more. Dear Microsoft Settlement: Lois Amacher The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ I’ve began my teen life as a programmer at MTC–00029065 the age of 14 and though that is not my dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: Nick Parlante vocation today I have always felt that there serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft ATR were better systems out there. Allowing one industry. It is high time for this trial, and the company to monopolize one or more markets wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 8:22pm is certainly not giving the public the tech over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: need for competition growth opportunities that are truly out there. in the marketplace, rather than the I’m writing to express my concern that Think for a moment how the FDA handles courtroom. And the investors who propel our Microsoft’s current position is a frightful drag products that are ingested by humans. Why economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. on innovation and investment in computer is it so difficult to see that we are stunting Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the science, and that the proposed remedy falls the growth of other products by allowing federal government should not have broken far short of fixing the situation. The obvious MicroSoft such an easy out. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, concern is that Microsoft can use the market Sincerely, companies like Microsoft can get back into power of its monopoly operating system to Sheevaun Moran the business of innovating and creating better achieve dominance in other domains—such products for consumers, and not wasting as with the Netscape browser, or the Real and MTC–00029062 valuable resources on litigation. Competition Quicktime media formats. Obviously, we From: Seann Maxwell means creating better goods and offering want microsoft to compete on price and To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With features in those new domains, rather than Date: 1/28/02 8:15pm government out of the business of stifling leveraging its existing dominance. Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, Rather than repeat those arguments, I Seann Maxwell consumers—rather than bureaucrats and would like to come at the point from a new 4324 Ridgemoor Drive N. judges—will once again pick the winners and direction. Palm Harbor, FL 34685–3171 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the What is the most exciting and valuable January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will technology to come about in computer Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive science in the last 10 years? The Internet! At U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. the time the Internet burst on the scene, Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my roughly 90% of the world’s computers were 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. using Microsoft operating systems to run Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, Microsoft applications to produce and Dear Microsoft Settlement: Robert W Smith exchange microsoft formatted files. If The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? Microsoft controlled the operating systems dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a MTC–00029064 and the applications and the document serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: Lois Amacher formats, why did the Internet not develop as industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft Settlement a Microsoft feature? Why did the measly wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 8:16pm other 10% come up with the best technology VerDate 11 of the last decade? There are two answers to Microsoft would like to bring these new MTC–00029068 this question: domains under its control is, of course, the From: Bethany Hanson 1. Microsoft position has created, topic of the trial.) The point I would like to To: Microsoft ATR inevitably, an atmosphere of complacency. emphasize, is how vibrant, how amazingly Date: 1/28/02 8:24pm The result has been a series of overpriced, innovative and valuable computer science Subject: Microsoft Settlement insecure, and just generally crummy can be when prompted with a competition. Microsoft has had a stranglehold on our products with high prices. It always stuns me We are so accustomed to the Microsoft operating system market for too long. The how breathless the marketing prose is for hegemony, that we think of it as high tech settlement proposed goes way too easy on these things when they are patently so lame. and innovative, whereas the Internet showed them. Or rather, how low our standards have us that the Microsoft domain is stationary Please reconsider. become for the price/performance of compared to a real competitive domain. bjh software. We have become accustomed to Computer science has so much potential to MTC–00029069 lack of competition. Look at PowerPoint create value when pressed with competition. today vs. 5 years ago. Compare that to a I fear that Microsoft’s monopoly will weight From: [email protected]@inetgw domain where there is competition, such as down that potential to look more like the To: Microsoft ATR hard drives, or databases. pathetic history of PowerPoint. Date: 1/28/02 8:25pm The rest of computer science proceeds Subject: Microsoft Settlement I would recommend that Microsoft be through ruthless competition, and the January 28, 2002 divided into three parts: Operating systems, contrast to the Microsoft products without Ms. Renata B. Hesse competition is stunning. With competition, applications, and internet applications. Each Antitrust Division PowerPoint would be far cheaper now than part should have to compete in its domain on United States Department of Justice it was 5 or 10 years ago. The atmosphere of its merits, without technical, financial, or 601 D Street NW complacency inhibits something as useful as marketing ties to influence the competition Suite 1200 the Internet from being developed inside of in the other two domains. Disclaimer: I own Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft—it threatens the status quo. Microsoft stock. I think if forced to compete, Dear Ms. Hesse: 2. Microsoft develops products to they would do fine on their merits. As a consumer advocate and consumer, strengthen its monopoly—each product tries Regards, myself, of computer products, I am to tie in to the other Microsoft products. Nick Parlante compelled to file my comments concerning Using such ties, both technical and Lecturer in Computer Science the proposed settlement agreement in the marketing, the Microsoft products lock into Stanford University Microsoft case. This case, which as taken each other to protect the franchise from a (650) 725–4727 years of government resources and much of product that might compete in a single CC:[email protected]@inetgw the public’s attention, is at its most important juncture. It is in the public interest for the domain. From a technical point of view, the MTC–00029066 practice enables some neat features, but also Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, to a series of disastrous security holes. From a From: [email protected]@inetgw uphold the spirit of competition by requiring marketing point of view, it has been entirely To: Microsoft ATR changes in Microsoft’s business conduct. effective. For example, PowerPoint could Date: 1/28/02 8:23pm These requirements should be swift and never stand on its own in the market with its Subject: Microsoft Settlement specific, ensuring free competition in the price/performance ($314 street price, Jan I have reviewed the provisions of the computer sector, not creating further outlets 2002), however bundled with Word and agreement between the Justice Department for Microsoft’s anti-competitive behavior. I Excel it does ok. and Microsoft Corp. I believe the provisions believe that sustaining a company like Besides all that, the habit of linking are reasonably fair and that Microsoft is Microsoft in the current economic climate is useful for empowering the American products together exactly prevented giving adequate accommodations to their economy and foreign economies to which the Microsoft from developing the Internet. The competitors. It is my opinion this case has company is attached. However, there must be Internet is all about any-any connections. been carried on long enough and should be a reasonable approach to the problem of its This works by having a freely available settled, in order that all parties involved can move on with their respective programs. It is monopolistic behavior. standard, such as TCP/IP or HTTP, and The proposed settlement appears to ignore having all systems implement the standard in also my opinion that a final settlement would be and is in the absolute best interest of the the barriers to entry issue that was at the a non-discriminatory way. So A PC can make heart of the entire investigation and resulting entire country. a web (HTTP) connection to a Unix machine, lawsuit. To eliminate or minimize the Thank you for the opportunity to comment or a Macintosh, or whatever. In the early 90’s, barriers to market which Microsoft is guilty on the settlement of this case. Microsoft created technology for PC-to-PC of would provide more freedom of choice for networking, but it goes against the Microsoft Sincerely, consumers and would open competition for linking strategy to create good PC-Unix, PC- Louis L. Studer other manufacturers to provide ways to run Mac etc. versions. CC:[email protected]@inetgw existing Windows applications on different The Internet is the philosophical opposite MTC–00029067 operating systems. Creating a way to allow of Microsoft’s ‘‘linkage’’ strategy. Because other manufacturers to develop new products Internet connections are based on standards, From: Stephen McDaniel will have a profound and lasting effect on the they lead to —competition—. If you don’t To: Microsoft ATR US economy, as they compete to produce like the brand X HTTP server, you can swap Date: 1/28/02 8:22pm better products with the consumer in mind, in the brand Y HTTP server and it still works Subject: Microsoft Settlement and then in turn, distribute them through the since the two are following the HTTP The settlement is a joke. chain of distribution of their choosing. This standard. Looking back at the development of Microsoft is bad for business (except for will further affect the economy as new the Internet, one of the key technical themes MS business) and , most importantly, they businesses spring up to handle the increase is: standards promote competition which are bad for a world gone wired. They write and variety of new products. leads to continuous improvement in price/ bloated buggy software and force you into Furthermore, requiring that Microsoft share performance. The emergence of the Internet their upgrade scheme in much the same its technology with industry participants will is exactly a peek at what the world would fashion that they screwed computer makers give the power of choice to consumers and look like without Microsoft domination. The with their fascistic licensing practices. remove Microsoft from single-handedly Microsoft domain is so leaden, so stationary, Everything they do runs counter to the ethics dictating use of information technologies. that the tiny, non-profit driven standards of good coders. The handling of Microsoft can have projects, such as TCP/IP or HTTP or HTML, Split em up. And let real programmers implications in many areas of our way of life, created whole new domains while Microsoft have a shot at the title. such as allowing for the expansion of markets stood still. This reflects both the great Thank you. and promoting consumer choice, two things dynamism that competition creates as well as Stephen G. McDaniel that consumers like me look to the the sodden rule of a monopolist. (That [email protected] Department of Justice to ensure. VerDate 11 Sincerely, MTC–00029072 makers to promote non-Microsoft software; Jaylene Sarracino From: Joyce Kelly Microsoft has agreed to release important Attorney (DC & MD) To: Microsoft Settlement internal information about Windows so that 11160 Veirs Mill Rd. L–15, Suite 201 Date: 1/28/02 8:21pm developers can more easily write competing Wheaton, MD 20902 Subject: Microsoft Settlement products. Enough is enough. I ask that you approve this settlement and MTC–00029070 Joyce Kelly 216 Tom Bell Rd. 153 let our country get back to business. From: Billie Staib Murphys, CA 95247 Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR January 28, 2002 Scott Brennan Date: 1/28/02 8:26pm Microsoft Settlement MTC–00029074 Subject: microsoft U.S. Department of Justice 86 Waterdale Road Antitrust Division From: David Goldschmidt Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17702 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR January 28, 2002 Washington, DC 20530 Date: 1/28/02 8:29pm Attorney General John Ashcroft Dear Microsoft Settlement: Subject: Microsoft Settlement US Department of Justice The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Gentlemen: 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a I strongly object to the proposed settlement Washington, DC 20530 serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech with Microsoft. It’s less than a rap on the Dear Mr. Ashcroft: industry. It is high time for this trial, and the knuckles to the company which has been Let me start off by saying that the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be completely stifling competition in user government had no business bringing a case over. Consumers will indeed see competition software for over a decade. against Microsoft in the first place. That in the marketplace, rather than the Microsoft’s anti-competitive approach to having been said, I appreciate everything that courtroom. And the investors who propel our its business is most clearly shown by it’s has been done to end this case quickly and economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. abhorence of internet standards. The get on with business as usual. The settlement Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the company line is that they are ‘‘improving the is fair; Microsoft will take steps to increase federal government should not have broken standard and making the products better for competition in the marketplace by allowing up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, consumers.’’ This is total nonsense. They its competitors to place their own programs companies like Microsoft can get back into know that open standards promote on the Windows operating system. the business of innovating and creating better competition and make for a more level Now, more than ever, we need companies products for consumers, and not wasting playing field. This is anathema, of course. like Microsoft back at full strength, helping valuable resources on litigation. Competition What they want, and have so far been able the economy. Stop punishing them and let means creating better goods and offering to achieve for the most part, is to make all them help get us out of this recession. I’m superior services to consumers. With common data formats Microsoft proprietary. sure that there are more important things for government out of the business of stifling The way to do this is to make their internal the Justice Department to be worrying about progress and tying the hands of corporations, data formats as complicated and difficult to right now as well. consumers—rather than bureaucrats and understand as possible. This makes it more Thank you for taking the time to listen to judges—will once again pick the winners and difficult for potential competitors to make my opinion on this and I hope it will have losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the their products compatible with Microsoft some effect. high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will products. Sincerely, be encouraged to create new and competitive One technique in particular which they use Billie Staib products and technologies. to obfuscate very effectively is executable cc: Senator Rick Santorum Thank you for this opportunity to share my content. Like all their other so-called CC:mailto:[email protected]@ views. ‘‘innovations’’, this is yet another attempt to inetgw Sincerely, prevent other software developers from Joyce M. Kelly marketing compatible products. It has also MTC–00029071 turned out to be a security nightmare for the MTC–00029073 From: [email protected]@inetgw internet. This detestable policy of To: Microsoft ATR From: Scott Brennan purposefully over-complicating data formats Date: 1/28/02 8:24pm To: Microsoft ATR by including executable code is by far the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 8:28pm single most significant security problem on Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division Subject: MicroSoft Settlement the internet. It has enabled worms and 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Scott Brennan viruses to proliferate ad nauseum. It has cost Washington, DC 20530–0001 2473 Tonquin Street business and industry billions of dollars. Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: East Meadow, NY 11554–5331 The latest strategy is to try to dominate the Please put a stop to the economically- January 24, 2002 web by inducing developers to use Microsoft draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This Attorney General John Ashcroft web development tools which, of course, has gone on long enough. Microsoft has US Department of Justice generate web pages which only work with already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Internet Explorer. This simultaneously puts icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case Washington, DC 20530–0001 the other browsers out of business and forces against Microsoft is little more than Dear Mr. Ashcroft: the remaining developers to pay big bucks for ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft Microsoft and the Department of Justice the Microsoft development tools. competitors, with not a nickel going to those have come to an agreement ending the three- There is zero benefit to consumers in all of supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the year-long antitrust case against Microsoft. this, Microsoft’s pious claims to the contrary computer user. This came after round-the-clock negotiations notwithstanding. The company must be This is just another method for states to get ordered by a U.S. District Judge. I feel this broken up and its monopoly power free money, and a terrible precedent for the agreement should be honored. The two eliminated once and for all. future, not only in terms of computer parties agreed to this settlement, the federal Very truly yours, technology, but all sorts of innovations in the judge accepted this decision, so why should David M. Goldschmidt most dynamic industry the world has ever there be any further discussion? I do not seen. think it is in the best interests of our country MTC–00029075 Please put a stop to this travesty of justice to endlessly review these decisions. Why do From: Larry Seel now. Thank you. we have courts, after all? To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, Further, Microsoft has been more than fair Date: 1/28/02 8:30pm Karen Duffy in its settlement. Microsoft has agreed to Subject: Microsoft Settlement 194 Carnavon Pky design future versions of Windows with a Larry M. Seel Nashville, TN 37205 mechanism to make it easier for computer 1444 North High Street VerDate 11 Apartment B9 the ordinary citizen’s future interest in innovation by requiring Microsoft to make Columbus, Ohio 43201 having the best computer software available available its intellectual property and source January 5, 2002 at the best price. If the Microsoft settlement code on reasonable, non-discriminatory Attorney General John Ashcroft allows the installation of used and terms. US Department of Justice refurbished computers with Microsoft This agreement is the product of three 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW operating systems into schools it will provide years and three months of a judicial debacle Washington, DC 20530 Microsoft with an otherwise unavailable and this should be the end of it. I strongly Dear Mr. Ashcroft: market destination for disposing of old PC urge your office to accept this settlement and As someone who works in and is extremely equipment and a monopoly for Microsoft to take no further federal action. familiar with the computer industry, I am provide technical support and operating Thank you. writing you to express my opinion on the system software. Sincerely, Microsoft settlement issue. I believe that this Further it will enhance Microsoft’s ability Danny Fischer settlement is long overdue, and I am relieved to require the use of computers using the 608 Barrington Place to see this dispute resolved. Microsoft operating system by children at an Matthews, NC 28105 With the economy faltering and the IT early age based on a forced environment industry in retreat on many fields, I feel it is rather than based on a selection of systems MTC–00029081 best to allow Microsoft to devote its resources having the best overall value. From: Don G. Primeau to designing innovative software. This Ted To: Microsoft Settlement settlement allows all of us in the industry to Date: 1/28/02 8:26pm get on with the business designing and MTC–00029079 Subject: Microsoft Settlement providing IT services. Even with the heavy From: Bruce Bernott Don G. Primeau sanctions this settlement places on Microsoft, To: Microsoft ATR 8200 Greeley Blvd sharing of technical information, government Date: 1/28/02 8:33pm Springfield, VA 22152–3043 review committee, etc., Microsoft will still be Subject: help consumers, stop persecuting a January 28, 2002 able to be the leading force in the technology productive US company Microsoft Settlement sector. Dear Sirs: U.S. Department of Justice Thank you for settling with Microsoft. I I am writing in support of the Microsoft Antitrust Division believe we should devote our time and positions in the Justice Department lawsuits. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW energy to more pressing issues at hand. I have been a professional programmer for Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, 37 years. Microsoft has done the most of any Dear Microsoft Settlement: Larry Seel software provider to lower the costs of useful The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? software for consumers. There is just no dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a MTC–00029077 honest refutation of this fact. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: Scott Brennan I have personally seen $12,000 price tags industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft ATR on developer’s toolsets for Sun Microsystems wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 8:30pm Solaris operating systems, at the same time over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: MicroSoft Settlement as Microsoft charged less than $2,000 for a in the marketplace, rather than the fyi: i just e-mailed my letter...hope it helps, toolset that included not only a comparable courtroom. And the investors who propel our & wasn’t to late. developer’s tool, but also a complete database economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. sb system. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Renata B. Hesse I urge the Justice Department to settle or federal government should not have broken Antitrust Division drop its suits against Microsoft as soon as up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, U.S. Department of Justice possible, for the benefit of us consumers. companies like Microsoft can get back into 601 D Street, NW Antitrust laws written to stop abuse of fixed the business of innovating and creating better Suite 1200 land-based distribution of commodities like products for consumers, and not wasting Washington, DC 20530–0001 power, telephone service, and fuel just do not valuable resources on litigation. To Whom It May Concern: make sense for software which is easily Competition means creating better goods It is my hope that the Department of Justice distributed. and offering superior services to consumers. will reconsider the decision to settle the Regards, With government out of the business of Microsoft antitrust lawsuit and follow the Bruce A. Bernott stifling progress and tying the hands of lead of the nine state attorneys general who CC:Faye Bourret corporations, consumers—rather than have rejected the decision to let Microsoft off bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick with a slap on the wrist. I am proud that my MTC–00029080 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With state’s Attorney General, Tom Miller, rejected From: [email protected]@inetgw the reins off the high-tech industry, more this Microsoft agreement. I believe that he To: Microsoft ATR entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create and the other eight state attorneys general Date: 1/28/02 8:33pm new and competitive products and recognize the many problems with this Subject: Microsoft Settlement technologies. agreement. January 28, 2002 Thank you for this opportunity to share my The decision to prematurely end litigation Attorney General John Ashcroft views. against Microsoft is a real error in judgment. US Department of Justice Sincerely, A real opportunity exists for the Department 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Don G. Primeau of Justice to take a stand and protect our free Washington, DC 20530 market society and its consumers. Further Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: MTC–00029082 litigation could effect real change. Please As a small business owner, I strive From: gfda ghgf continue to pursue Microsoft. everyday to accomplish what Microsoft has To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, in the past fifteen years. I have never agreed Date: 1/28/02 8:35pm Scott Brennan with the government’s pursuit of Microsoft Subject: Microsoft settlement #813940 for its successes. I am satisfied that this Dear DOJ, settlement will bring the lawsuit to an end. I am a retired accountant that has MTC–00029078 This settlement, and its several provisions consulted with over a hundred companies in From: Ted Fronefield satisfy Microsoft’s, the American IT my carrier. I have set up computer systems To: Microsoft ATR industry’s, the government’s and most for a majority of these companies working Date: 1/28/02 8:32pm importantly, the American public’s interest with all the different platforms of their day. Subject: Microsoft Settlement in this matter. The agreement creates a non- To make this brief I believe that Microsoft I oppose the currently proposed Microsoft hostile competitive environment for other has its market share not by a monopoly but settlement as being one that does not further companies besides Microsoft and fosters because they are the best. ANY restrictions VerDate 11 on them would only be used by the Dear Microsoft Settlement: effectively prohibit PC manufacturers from competition to make our computer world The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ even offering BeOS as an option. move to mediocrity. I would encourage you dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Worse yet, Microsoft is continually for the sake of this Great Nation to end this serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech attempting to further its monopolistic nonsense as soon as possible. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the position by asserting dominance over the Keith Vrede wasteful spending accompanying it, to be internet by using standards in its software over. Consumers will indeed see competition not compatible with open standards (HTML, MTC–00029083 in the marketplace, rather than the SHTML, Java, etc. Web sites must support the From: Dr. Andrew E. Mossberg courtroom. And the investors who propel our Microsoft applications. Since other To: Microsoft ATR economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. companies do not presently have the means Date: 1/28/02 9:36pm Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the to compete with Microsoft, allowing Subject: Microsoft Settlement federal government should not have broken Microsoft to continue to do this threatens to Reply requested by 9/24/01 up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, give undue control over the internet to To: Renata B. Hesse companies like Microsoft can get back into Microsoft. This is extremely serious for the Antitrust Division the business of innovating and creating better nation’s welfare and that of almost all private U.S. Department of Justice products for consumers, and not wasting businesses and industries. 601 D Street NW valuable resources on litigation. The fact that Microsoft acts in violation of Suite 1200 Competition means creating better goods anti-monopoly laws has been established. Washington, DC 20530–0001 and offering superior services to consumers. The proposed settlement etween the Dept. of Ms. Hesse, With government out of the business of Justice and Microsoft is patently against the Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment stifling progress and tying the hands of public interest and should not be accepted by on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I agree corporations, consumers—rather than the court. No settlement will be effective with the problems identified in Dan Kegel’s bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick unless it completely severs any link analysis (on the Web at http:// the winners and losers on Wall Street. With whatsoever between packaging and www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), the reins off the high-tech industry, more distribution of Windows OS and Internet namely: entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Browser; requires dual-boot OS on ALL pcs 1. The PFJ doesn’t take into account new and competitive products and marketed with Microsoft OS; and applies Windows-compatible competing operating technologies. affirmative obligations on Microsoft to systems Thank you for this opportunity to share my remedy its past actions. (Such as requiring 2. The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly views. Microsoft to make the necessary proprietary Narrow Definitions and Provisions Sincerely, codes fully available to competitors such as 3. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Helen F. Lydic Netscape). Anticompetitive License Terms currently The best remedy would be a break-up of used by Microsoft MTC–00029085 Microsoft into three separate companies. 4. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional From: [email protected]@inetgw Failing that, any remedy should have Incompatibilities Historically Used by To: Microsoft ATR proactive measures to restore competitive Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 8:35pm balance in software markets, particularly for 5. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Subject: Microsoft Settlement web-browsers (such as requiring dual-boot on Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs Please settle Microsoft suit. all pcs marketing with Microsoft OS); bar system. Robert A Childs at [email protected] Microsoft from packaging its web-browser 6. The PFJ as currently written appears to CC:[email protected]@inetgw with its OS; and provide for continued lack an effective enforcement mechanism. MTC–00029087 oversight by the Dept. of Justice or better yet, I also agree with the conclusion reached by the court. that document, namely that the Proposed From: Maynard Sipe Thank you for considering my comments, Final Judgment, as written, allows and To: Microsoft ATR - Maynard Sipe encourages significant anticompetitive Date: 1/28/02 8:37pm practices to continue, would delay the Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00029088 emergence of competing Windows- The Microsoft settlement proposed by the From: [email protected]@inetgw compatible operating systems, and is Dept. of Justice is totally unacceptable and To: Microsoft ATR therefore not in the public interest. It should should be rejected by the court. It does not Date: 1/28/02 8:36pm not be adopted without substantial revision go far enough in any of its provisions. It Subject: Microsoft Settlement to address these problems. allows Microsoft too much room for self- January 24,2002 Sincerely, determination over whether it is meeting Attorney General John Ashcroft Dr. Andrew E. Mossberg, terms of the agreement, it fails to sever the US Dept of Justice President, Inicom, Inc. link between pre-market loading of 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW CTO, Asoki Corporation Microsoft’s OS and it’s Internet Explorer Washington, DC 20530–000l CIO, CruisExcursions.Com, Inc web-browser, and it does not take any Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Director, Institute of Maya Studies, Inc. affirmative-action type steps to reestablish I am writing to you in support of Microsoft Dr. Andrew Mossberg some competitiveness in the marketplace and the settlement recently reached in the Inicom, Inc.—www.inicom.com which is essential. anti-trust case. cell: (305) 724–5675 It is clear that innovative companies with With microsoft agreeing to allow products far superior to Microsoft’s have competition from both computer makers and MTC–00029084 been driven out of business or had their share software developers, there is no further From: Helen Lydic of the market reduced significantly by reason to pursue legal action against them. To: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft’s uncompetitive practices. The If the lawsuit is allowed to continue, Date: 1/28/02 8:31pm obvious example is Netscape. Because despite the concessions granted by Micro- Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft could spend almost limitless funds soft, then it shall prove that the lawsuit had Helen Lydic developing Internet Explorer and then induce more to do with jealousy than justice. 264 Haskell Rd. PC manufacturers to carry Internet Explorer, I support Microsoft and do not wish to see Coudersport, PA 16915–7945 they were able to practically destroy the company divided into separate January 28, 2002 Netscapes market share. This would not have companies (Baby Softs?) Microsoft Settlement been possible without the use of unfair and Sincerely, U.S. Department of Justice anti-competitive business practices. Carole Rosenbach Antitrust Division Another example is Be. The BeOS was 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW superior in almost every way to Windows, MTC–00029089 Washington, DC 20530 but Microsoft used their market strength to From: Lee Berger VerDate 11 To: Microsoft ATR I personally really like the idea of Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Date: 1/28/02 8:39pm separating into two companies—OS and federal government should not have broken Subject: Microsoft Settlement applications. It seems there is enough up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, I wish to express my support for Microsoft demand to keep two companies healthy and companies like Microsoft can get back into and my disgust and disappointment in a thriving. I believe that we would even see the business of innovating and creating better government that seeks to punish a successful real advances in OS rather than the products for consumers, and not wasting business for its very success. superficial changes brought about by many valuable resources on litigation. Microsoft undertook to make the benefits ‘‘new’’ versions of Windows. If the OS Competition means creating better goods of the computer and internet available to the company were truly separated we wouldn’t and offering superior services to consumers. average citizen. This was good for the buyer, see programs like Outlook having freedom to With government out of the business of who 10 years before could not have afforded couple so closely; hence, some of the stifling progress and tying the hands of to own such a system, and it was good for horrendous security problems would be corporations, consumers—rather than Microsoft, who generated a larger customer overcome. Applications like IE, Outlook and bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick base. Historically, this is the way the world Office should need to work with the the winners and losers on Wall Street. With has benefited from new inventions and novel operating system through the same interface the reins off the high-tech industry, more applications (the Model T Ford, for example). as non-Microsoft programs. entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Someone finds a way to make the new I know you must get tons of email so let new and competitive products and invention inexpensive enough for the average me boil it down to ‘‘No favoritism for in- technologies. man, who snaps it up eagerly. house products’’. Thank you for this opportunity to share my The excitement when Windows 95 was Thank you for your time. views. launched demonstrated this eagerness to Earlene Bryan Sincerely, enhances one’s life. Windows has Billy M. Parker MTC–00029091 streamlined and enriched my own life MTC–00029093 immeasurably. I freely made this choice and From: Jerry D. Snead From: schinnell1 password will continue to control what I put on my To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR computer. Microsoft (or any other company) Date: 1/28/02 8:39pm Date: 1/28/02 8:43pm has the right to offer its wares and the rest Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: USAGSchinnell—Debbie—1048— of us, to purchase them or not. Sirs: 0108 There has been no damage to consumers. Please allow the proposed settlement Debbie Schinnell We have received a boon! We each freely reached by the Justice Department and 117 Northridge Drive chose to buy these products for our own Microsoft to be the final act of this farcical Centralia, WA 98531 reasons. In a free society, the sight of one suit. The Attorneys General of these states January 11, 2002 person’s success should inspire a redoubling that wish to continue the harassment of Attorney General John Ashcroft of effort on the part of every other worker, Microsoft for their small groups of United States Department of Justice not envy and a wish to destroy the innovator. constituents should not be afforded any more 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Our Constitution guarantees protection of our time or monies. Stop these proceedings Washington, DC 20530–0001 property rights. Where is the protection for NOW! Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Microsoft? Can any of us feel confidence in Microsoft has brought a tolerable I am writing you today to voice my opinion our government in the face of such a blatant environment to personal computing, one that in regards to the Microsoft settlement that misuse of power? I do not wish to live in a did not exist until there was a market force was reached in November. This issue has country that penalizes our best minds. It is as large as Microsoft to enforce de facto worn out its welcome, and it is time to time for us to wake up and recognize the standards. Without these standards, personal resolve this issue permanently. The uniqueness of our Constitution and the computing would be only a small fraction of settlement is a decent and realistic superb moral mechanism of the free market the pervasiveness it enjoys today. Get off alternative to another three years of litigation, system. Microsoft’s back, and let the consumers reap and it provides the benefits that Microsoft’s Leora K. Berger the benefits of stable, standardized competitors feel they need to compete. That 2014 Browning Avenue South computing environments. Perhaps then the is why I support this settlement, and I Salem, Oregon 97302 technical sectors of our economy will return sincerely hope there will be no further action to their previous stature. MTC–00029090 against Microsoft at the federal level. Thank you for considering this opinion. Among other things, the settlement gives From: [email protected]@inetgw Jerry Snead software companies like Sun the protocols To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00029092 and interfaces to redesign their products to Date: 1/28/02 8:40pm run more efficiently on the Windows Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Billy Parker operating system. Microsoft is literally giving I only wanted to add one wee voice to the To: Microsoft Settlement away the sorts of codes that made them heavyweight voices already writing you. Date: 1/28/02 8:37pm known all over the world. Moreover, Please work to have the Windows Operating Subject: Microsoft Settlement hardware companies will be able to System separated from the applications side. Billy Parker reconfigure Windows after they receive their I don’t need Office ported to Linux or any 39542 Chappellet Cir. licensing agreements, and Microsoft cannot such silliness but having the operating Murrieta, CA 92563–4853 prevent them from changing the ‘‘desktop’’ system so strongly biased toward in-house January 28, 2002 software or cannot take any retaliatory action, applications seems to be the root of the many Microsoft Settlement so consumers will ultimately dictate what problems. It is unfathomable to me that I had U.S. Department of Justice sort of software they will want on their to give up using Netscape (which I was more Antitrust Division computers before the computer is sent. This familiar with and preferred) because the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW settlement does something for everybody owner of the OS wants me to use Internet Washington, DC 20530 interested. Explorer. I am only an average PC user but Dear Microsoft Settlement: Microsoft is a company that has done so I can remove most programs from my The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? much to impact our society and the computer without mishap except Outlook dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a technology industry. Microsoft has made it Express or Internet Explorer. Removing either serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech easier for the average consumer to afford and of these causes the machine to develop industry. It is high time for this trial, and the use software, which in turn has made it serious operating problems. This is wrong. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be easier to conduct business. This company Where will it end? By having Windows will over. Consumers will indeed see competition should not be stifled or restricted for I eventually be required to discard other in the marketplace, rather than the following the American Dream. Please programs when Microsoft decides to enter a courtroom. And the investors who propel our support this settlement and work in the best new market? economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. interest of the public. VerDate 11 Sincerely, Dear Renata Hesse, market supporter to the point of Debbie Schinnell Fearing my letter might not reach you in Libertarianism, this is not the sign of a time I decided it might be wise to send an healthy market. It is the sign of a market that MTC–00029094 email. has been skewed by the power and money From: Fr. Ray Ryland I appreciate this opportunity to speak out, that Microsoft controls. From my point of To: Microsoft ATR regarding Microsoft. For me, the domination view as a network administrator and IT Date: 1/28/02 8:43pm of Microsoft in the software industry has manager, Microsoft is the embodiment of the Subject: Microsoft Settlement been a disaster. I consider myself an above old ‘‘800 pound gorilla’’ joke. I urge the Department of Justice to proceed average computer user, and yet I could not Please come up with a settlement with with its projected settlement with Microsoft sufficiently combat the tide of instability some teeth, or we will be doomed to travel in the anti-trust action brought agaisnt caused by the poorly written software this same road again in the future. Microsoft. It’s high time to let Microsoft get developed by Microsoft. I have lost countless Bill Seward back to its business of serving the world with hours to troubleshooting crashes caused by MTC–00029098 its outstanding products. the companys products. Worst of this breed Ray Ryland of overwrought catastrophes is Internet From: Joyce Smith 900 Granard Parkway Explorer. Not a day would go by without this To: Microsoft ATR Steubenville, OH 43952 application bringing my entire system to a Date: 1/28/02 8:45pm (740) 282–3009 screeching halt. I often wonder what the face Subject: Microsoft settlement MTC–00029095 of the industry would be had the company Dear Mr. Ashcroft: not been able to use their monopoly power With a potential settlement in the From: Marcia Jones on the OEMs to muscle Netscape and other Microsoft case, I wanted to voice my position To: Microsoft Settlement competitors out of the picture. A bully is still of support on ending further litigation by Date: 1/28/02 8:36pm a bully, at any age. I shudder to think of the completing the deal. The antitrust lawsuit Subject: Microsoft Settlement consequences of raising a new generations of was misguided from the start,caused by rivals Marcia Jones kids to rely on inferior tools in their own who only have themselves to blame for their 125 Hildreth Rd schools, thanks to the marketshare being lack of headway in the industry. The growing Hot Springs, AR 71913 handed to Microsoft by their own proposed pattern of government intervention in the January 28, 2002 Seattlement. There is just too much business community was evident with the Microsoft Settlement complacency, too much power, and too little tobacco lawsuit, where states joined a giant U.S. Department of Justice brains going into the products at Microsoft money-grab because they dont like the results Antitrust Division for the company to justify the monopoly its of people’s individual choices. This time, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW established by its frequent use of political people have made the choice of Microsoft as Washington, DC 20530 leverage and scare tactics. But beyond my their preferred software maker and delivered Dear Microsoft Settlement: own animosity for the company, there is a them with a dominant market share, so the The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayer’s government sees an opportunity to make dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a genuine and immediate need for changes in money by punishing a company in the name serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech the balance of power in the technology of competition. The deal offers computer industry. It is high time for this trial, and the industry. In my opinion, the answerthe only makers oopen access to selecting the software wasteful spending accompanying it, to be answeris intervention on the part of a higher providers of their choice and will be over. Consumers will indeed see competition authority to remove the advantage that has constantly monitored by a group of experts, in the marketplace, rather than the trapped the computing populous in a so Microsoft’s rivals should declare this a courtroom. And the investors who propel our seemingly endless cycle of unintended brand victory and start creating products that economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. loyalty. consumers want. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Thank you for taking the time to read this. I ask that you go ahead with this proposal federal government should not have broken Sincerely. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Laura A. Caigoy and let Microsoft continue to be a strong companies like Microsoft can get back into 6439 Valmont Street advocate for innovation in the PC industry, the business of innovating and creating better Tujunga, CA 91042 as our economy and financial markets coujld products for consumers, and not wasting email: [email protected] definitely use the boost. It is time to leave government on the sideline and let the valuable resources on litigation. MTC–00029097 Competition means creating better goods litigation be ended. Thank you for hearing and offering superior services to consumers. From: Bill Seward my feedback. With government out of the business of To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely. stifling progress and tying the hands of Date: 1/28/02 8:44pm Joyce Smith Subject: proposed Microsoft settlement corporations, consumers—rather than MTC–00029099 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Dear Sir or Madame: the winners and losers on Wall Street. With I would like to request that you revisit your From: [email protected]@inetgw the reins off the high-tech industry, more proposed settlement with Micrsoft on the To: Microsoft ATR entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create question of penalties for their behavior. Date: 1/28/02 8:45pm new and competitive products and Recent actions by Microsoft (their new Subject: ZMM: Fwd: Attorney General John technologies. licensing ‘‘agreement’’ and their Product Ashcroft Letter Thank you for this opportunity to share my Activation) seem to be more of the ‘‘same old, MTC–00029100 views. same old’’. From: Raymond Best Sincerely, While I do not think a breakup of the To: Microsoft Settlement Marcia Jones corporation is called for, I do beleive that it will require far more stringent measures to Date: 1/28/02 8:40pm MTC–00029096 reform Microsoft. Their well-document Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: L. A. corportate culture is one of ‘‘win at all costs’’, Raymond Best To: Microsoft ATR and part of the cost has been a marketplace 2364 W. Charteroak Dr. Date: 1/28/02 8:42pm with true alternatives to their products. Prescott, AZ 86305 Subject: Microsoft Trials While there are Unix, the Apple Macintosh January 28, 2002 Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney and the Open Source movement groups, the Microsoft Settlement 1/28/02 fact is that Microsoft operating systems are U.S. Department of Justice Suite 1200, Antitrust Division on over 50% of the servers and over 90% of Antitrust Division Department of Justice the desktops in the US. Their browser and 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 601 D Street NW various office automation products control Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20530 similarly extreme shares. While I am a free Dear Microsoft Settlement: VerDate 11 The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029102 up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: Austin Gonyou companies like Microsoft can get back into serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft ATR the business of innovating and creating better industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/28/02 8:47pm products for consumers, and not wasting wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: Please be more stringent on valuable resources on litigation. over. Consumers will indeed see competition Microsoft. Competition means creating better goods in the marketplace, rather than the Please be more stringent on Microsoft. and offering superior services to consumers. courtroom. And the investors who propel our They need to inter-operate with the rest of With government out of the business of economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. the world, not vice versa. Any judgement stifling progress and tying the hands of Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the which is passed that, in any way, allows corporations, consumers—rather than federal government should not have broken Microsoft to expand it’s grasp of the desktop, bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, server, embedded, or other markets, I would the winners and losers on Wall Street. With companies like Microsoft can get back into consider a mis-carriage of the law. the reins off the high-tech industry, more the business of innovating and creating better The main reason I’d feel that way is entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create products for consumers, and not wasting because Microsoft has been anti-competitive new and competitive products and valuable resources on litigation. for far too long. They have stifled the technologies. Competition means creating better goods creativity of individuals, development Thank you for this opportunity to share my and offering superior services to consumers. communities, and other corporations. That in views. With government out of the business of itself, since they have been found guilty of Sincerely, stifling progress and tying the hands of in fact being anti-competitive —and— being Marcia A. Cooperman a monopoly, warrants harsh punishment that corporations, consumers—rather than MTC–00029104 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick should reflect in the following ways: 1. Monetarily—Micorosft Corp.’s bottom the winners and losers on Wall Street. With From: Carol Olyer line. the reins off the high-tech industry, more To: Microsoft Settlement 2. Opened Sources without fear of: Date: 1/28/02 8:42pm entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create a. forced compensation to MS under Subject: Microsoft Settlement new and competitive products and penalty of law. Carol Olyer technologies. b. lack of future products not being inter- 2814 Brookwood Rd. Thank you for this opportunity to share my operable with older products, from MS, after Orange Park, Fl 32073 views. sources have been opened. January 28, 2002 Sincerely, 3. Shame—MS has no shame, and they Microsoft Settlement Raymond Best should. Imagine the following: U.S. Department of Justice MTC–00029101 a. If your car broke down as often as Antitrust Division windows, you’d be upset. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW From: Kim (038) Jay b. If an airplane ran on ‘‘Windows(tm)’’ To: Microsoft ATR Washington, DC 20530 alone. Dear Microsoft Settlement: Date: 1/28/02 8:45pm c. If you woke up and everything you The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayer’s Subject: Microsoft Settlement owned was in fact owned, operated, and dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Kim Ogden distributed by a single company. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 12884 Hamilton Place Drive 4. Not only Opened Sources, but licensing industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Fort Mill, South Carolina 29708 which accepts liability, and possibly wasteful spending accompanying it, to be January 28, 2002 damages, for the company’s lack of integrity over. Consumers will indeed see competition Attorney General John Ashcroft due to it’s poorly designed software and in the marketplace, rather than the US Department of Justice practices. courtroom. And the investors who propel our 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for your time. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Washington, DC 20530 Austin Gonyou Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. federal government should not have broken I am writing you in support of Microsoft’s up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, antitrust settlement with the federal Phone: 512–698–7250 email: [email protected] companies like Microsoft can get back into government. They have spared us the the business of innovating and creating better taxpayer of a lengthy and costly legal battle. MTC–00029103 products for consumers, and not wasting This settlement is very reasonable. valuable resources on litigation. Microsoft agreed that if any third party’s From: marcia cooperman To: Microsoft Settlement Competition means creating better goods exercise of any options provided for by the Date: 1/28/02 8:43pm and offering superior services to consumers. settlement would infringe any Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement With government out of the business of intellectual property right, Microsoft will marcia cooperman stifling progress and tying the hands of provide the third party with a license to the 1563 se bidwell corporations, consumers—rather than necessary intellectual property on reasonable portland, or 97202 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick terms. Also, the settlement establishes an January 28, 2002 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With oversight committee to monitor its Microsoft Settlement the reins off the high-tech industry, more compliance with the settlement and assist U.S. Department of Justice entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create with dispute resolution. Additionally, Antitrust Division new and competitive products and Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW technologies. software and hardware developers who Washington, DC 20530 Thank you for this opportunity to share my develop or promote software that competes Dear Microsoft Settlement: views. with Windows or that runs on software that The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? Sincerely, competes with Windows. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Carol W Olyer Microsoft has and will continue to be a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech good corporate citizen. I think this settlement industry. It is high time for this trial, and the MTC–00029105 shows that the consumer interest has been wasteful spending accompanying it, to be From: Ed Smith addressed. I urge you to approve this over. Consumers will indeed see competition To: Microsoft Settlement settlement, so Microsoft can get back to work. in the marketplace, rather than the Date: 1/28/02 8:43pm Sincerely, courtroom. And the investors who propel our Subject: Microsoft Settlement Kim E. Ogden economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Ed Smith cc: Senator Strom Thurmond CC:senator@ Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the 130 Somerset Drive thurmond.senate.gov@inetgw federal government should not have broken Brooklyn, MI 49230 VerDate 11 January 28, 2002 to create. This will make it easier for products for consumers, and not wasting Microsoft Settlement competition server systems to interoperate valuable resources on litigation. U.S. Department of Justice with the Windows operating systems and Competition means creating better goods Antitrust Division Microsoft server systems. and offering superior services to consumers. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Please accept this settlement for the benefit With government out of the business of Washington, DC 20530 of our struggling economy. The computer stifling progress and tying the hands of Dear Microsoft Settlement: industry contributes so much to the corporations, consumers—rather than The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ economy. Upholding this settlement will bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a strengthen the entire computer industry and the winners and losers on Wall Street. With serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech will be a benefit to consumers. the reins off the high-tech industry, more industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Sincerely, entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Ranvir Floura new and competitive products and over. Consumers will indeed see competition technologies. in the marketplace, rather than the MTC–00029107 Thank you for this opportunity to share my courtroom. And the investors who propel our From: fremontsmith views. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Sincerely, Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Date: 1/28/02 8:51pm Christina Weiss federal government should not have broken Subject: Microsoft Settlement up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, I believe the settlement proposed by the MTC–00029109 companies like Microsoft can get back into DOJ has more the feel of a Microsoft From: Dora Ratliff the business of innovating and creating better promotional document than a serious attempt To: Microsoft Settlement products for consumers, and not wasting to prevent Microsoft from further abusing its Date: 1/28/02 8:48pm valuable resources on litigation. monopoly. I feel it is completely inadequate Subject: Microsoft Settlement Competition means creating better goods to protect other markets from the same abuse Dora Ratliff and offering superior services to consumers. that Microsoft placed upon the web browsers. 663 N Cherry St With government out of the business of I feel it does little or nothing to keep Germantown, OH 45327 stifling progress and tying the hands of Microsoft from continuing to enjoy the January 28, 2002 corporations, consumers—rather than benefits of past abuses. I cannot believe that Microsoft Settlement bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick the very limited enforcement possibilities U.S. Department of Justice the winners and losers on Wall Street. With included in this agreement will have any Antitrust Division the reins off the high-tech industry, more hope of materially changing the behavior of 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Microsoft. Microsoft has ignored or broken Washington, DC 20530 new and competitive products and many agreements in the past. I would fully Dear Microsoft Settlement: technologies. expect Microsoft to interpret this agreement The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Thank you for this opportunity to share my as allowing them to do practically anything dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a views. they wanted to do. I am particularly serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Sincerely, dismayed by the inclusion of clauses that industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Ed Smith would allow Microsoft to use security as a wasteful spending accompanying it, to be pretext to withhold API information, or to over. Consumers will indeed see competition MTC–00029106 prevent OEM’s from unbundling Microsoft in the marketplace, rather than the From: Floura, Ranvir middleware. I certainly do not feel accepting courtroom. And the investors who propel our To: Microsoft ATR this agreement would be in the best interest economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Date: 1/28/02 4:35pm of the general public. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, federal government should not have broken Attorney General John Ashcroft Fremont Smith up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, US Department of Justice Software Engineer companies like Microsoft can get back into 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW the business of innovating and creating better Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00029108 products for consumers, and not wasting Dear Mr. Ashcroft: From: Christina Weiss valuable resources on litigation. Competition I am writing to voice my opinion on the To: Microsoft Settlement means creating better goods and offering settlement between Microsoft and the Date: 1/28/02 8:48pm superior services to consumers. With Department of Justice. I don’t see how this Subject: Microsoft Settlement government out of the business of stifling case has benefited anyone. Microsoft has run Christina Weiss progress and tying the hands of corporations, a successful business and contributed a great 1648 Brentwood CT consumers—rather than bureaucrats and deal to our society. Why is the government Plainfield, IN 46168 judges—will once again pick the winners and wasting our money punishing a company for January 28, 2002 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the fulfilling the American dream? Microsoft Settlement high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will I am a Network Engineer and use a variety U.S. Department of Justice be encouraged to create new and competitive of software products in my job. I obviously Antitrust Division products and technologies. use Microsoft, but I also use their 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my competitors’’ products and have never had Washington, DC 20530 views. any problems in doing so. It is not Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, Microsoft’s fault that their competitors The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Dora Ratliff couldn’t create products that were equal or dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a better. There is a reason that consumers have serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00029110 repeatedly chosen Microsoft’s products over industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Cecil THREADGILL other companies’’. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft Settlement Nonetheless, the proposed settlement is a over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 8:49pm very reasonable agreement that could end in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement this pointless lawsuit. Although Microsoft is courtroom. And the investors who propel our Cecil THREADGILL giving up way more than should be expected, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. P. O. BoX 1236, 308 E. Main the settlement would certainly bring on Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Pilot Point, TX 76258 stronger competition in the computer federal government should not have broken January 28, 2002 industry. Microsoft is giving away their up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Microsoft Settlement source codes and server protocols that are companies like Microsoft can get back into U.S. Department of Justice integral to the technology they’ve taken years the business of innovating and creating better Antitrust Division VerDate 11 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Washington, DC 20530 views. federal government should not have broken Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Arnold Mead companies like Microsoft can get back into dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a the business of innovating and creating better serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00029112 products for consumers, and not wasting industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Joy Hiner valuable resources on litigation. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft Settlement Competition means creating better goods over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 8:47pm and offering superior services to consumers. in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement With government out of the business of courtroom. And the investors who propel our Joy Hiner stifling progress and tying the hands of economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 365 Roxbury Park corporations, consumers—rather than Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Goshen, IN 46526 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick federal government should not have broken January 28, 2002 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Microsoft Settlement the reins off the high-tech industry, more companies like Microsoft can get back into U.S. Department of Justice entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create the business of innovating and creating better Antitrust Division new and competitive products and products for consumers, and not wasting 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW technologies. valuable resources on litigation. Washington, DC 20530 Thank you for this opportunity to share my Competition means creating better goods Dear Microsoft Settlement: views. and offering superior services to consumers. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Sincerely, With government out of the business of dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Warren L. Smith stifling progress and tying the hands of serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech corporations, consumers—rather than industry. It is high time for this trial, and the MTC–00029114 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick wasteful spending accompanying it, to be From: John Spilker the winners and losers on Wall Street. With over. Consumers will indeed see competition To: Microsoft ATR the reins off the high-tech industry, more in the marketplace, rather than the Date: 1/28/02 8:56pm entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create courtroom. And the investors who propel our Subject: Microsoft Settlement new and competitive products and economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. January 28, 2002 technologies. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Attorney General John Ashcroft Thank you for this opportunity to share my federal government should not have broken US Department of Justice views. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, companies like Microsoft can get back into Washington, DC 20530–0001 Cecil R. THREADGILL the business of innovating and creating better Dear Mr. Ashcroft: products for consumers, and not wasting Now that the economy is in a recession, MTC–00029111 valuable resources on litigation. with massive layoffs all over the US, and the From: Arnold Mead Competition means creating better goods NASDAQ is way down with no relief in To: Microsoft Settlement and offering superior services to consumers. sight, why pursue additional litigation with Date: 1/28/02 8:49pm With government out of the business of Microsoft? Let the settlement stand the way Subject: Microsoft Settlement stifling progress and tying the hands of it is. It is more than fair for the competition. Arnold Mead corporations, consumers—rather than Microsoft went out of its way to reach an R. R. # 5 Box 5449—C bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick agreement, beyond what would be expected Moscow, PA 18444 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With in any antitrust case. They agreed to January 28, 2002 the reins off the high-tech industry, more everything from disclosing various internal Microsoft Settlement entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create interfaces to making it easier for computer U.S. Department of Justice new and competitive products and companies, consumers and software Antitrust Division technologies. developers to promote their software within 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my Windows. I do not know a lot of software Washington, DC 20530 views. companies that would risk their proprietary Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, information and their business, unless they The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Joy Hiner really wanted to settle their antitrust court dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a cases. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00029113 Let’s get our economy back in shape and industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Warren Smith quit running after Microsoft. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft Settlement Thanks for your attention to this matter. over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 8:47pm Sincerely, in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement John Spilker courtroom. And the investors who propel our Warren Smith economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 164 Harvard Rd MTC–00029115 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Watervliet, NY 12189 From: Jim/Marcia Bennett federal government should not have broken January 28, 2002 To: Microsoft ATR up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 8:57pm companies like Microsoft can get back into U.S. Department of Justice Subject: Microsoft Settlement the business of innovating and creating better Antitrust Division I am writing to express my opposition to products for consumers, and not wasting 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW the proposed settlement between the U.S. valuable resources on litigation. Competition Washington, DC 20530 Department of Justice and Microsoft. This means creating better goods and offering Dear Microsoft Settlement: arrangement would, I firmly believe, let superior services to consumers. With The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Microsoft off much too easy. The seriousness government out of the business of stifling dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a of the violations of law, and the clear anti- progress and tying the hands of corporations, serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech competitive effect of Microsoft’s practices consumers—rather than bureaucrats and industry. It is high time for this trial, and the warrant a correspondingly severe set of judges—will once again pick the winners and wasteful spending accompanying it, to be penalties. If the Department of Justice lacks losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the over. Consumers will indeed see competition the will to perservere in reaching a truly just high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will in the marketplace, rather than the solution, then I look to the judge who has be encouraged to create new and competitive courtroom. And the investors who propel our jurisdiction to make a properly effective products and technologies. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. ruling. VerDate 11 I am writing as a concerned citizen and serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft ATR consumer, who looks forward to a future industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/28/02 8:58pm where competing technologies can have a wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: Microsoft Settlement chance to contend on a level playing field, over. Consumers will indeed see competition 2201 Ventnor Court which has not been the case in some of the in the marketplace, rather than the Arlington, TX 76011 markets dominated by or targeted by courtroom. And the investors who propel our January 14, 2002 Microsoft. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Attorney General John Ashcroft Thank you for your consideration. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the U.S. Department of Justice Sincerely, federal government should not have broken 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW James A. Bennett up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Washington, DC 20530 608 Barret Ave. companies like Microsoft can get back into Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Louisville, KY 40204 the business of innovating and creating better It is with great pleasure that I write to you CC:[email protected]@inetgw products for consumers, and not wasting today regarding the Microsoft antitrust valuable resources on litigation. Competition settlement. After three years of litigation, the MTC–00029116 means creating better goods and offering case is finally closed against Microsoft. I From: Richard Brandon superior services to consumers. With believe that the case was unwarranted to To: Microsoft Settlement government out of the business of stifling begin with, yet I am pleased to see its end. Date: 1/28/02 8:51pm progress and tying the hands of corporations, Microsoft has made many concessions Subject: Microsoft Settlement consumers—rather than bureaucrats and throughout the process. Microsoft has agreed Richard Brandon judges—will once again pick the winners and to disclose the internal interface designs of 8393 W Cloverleaf losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the Windows. It has also agreed to license Hayden, ID 83835–7200 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Microsoft at a uniform price to computer January 28, 2002 be encouraged to create new and competitive manufacturers. These developments come at Microsoft Settlement products and technologies. great cost to the Microsoft Corporation. Why U.S. Department of Justice Thank you for this opportunity to share my is Microsoft willing to do so? Because it is Antitrust Division views. in everyone’s best interest that this matter be 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, resolved. Washington, DC 20530 Robert J. Hepburn II Sincerely, Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029118 MTC–00029120 dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: DAVID FEARIS III From: Shannon Casteel serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft Settlement industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/28/02 8:51pm Date: 1/28/02 8:54pm wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement over. Consumers will indeed see competition DAVID FEARIS III Shannon Casteel in the marketplace, rather than the 401 CLARK LANE 1902 E.Calle De Arcos courtroom. And the investors who propel our WAXAHACHIE, TX 75165 Tempe, Az 85284–3474 economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. January 28, 2002 January 28, 2002 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Microsoft Settlement Microsoft Settlement federal government should not have broken U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Antitrust Division Antitrust Division companies like Microsoft can get back into 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW the business of innovating and creating better Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20530 products for consumers, and not wasting Dear Microsoft Settlement: Dear Microsoft Settlement: valuable resources on litigation. Competition The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ means creating better goods and offering dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a superior services to consumers. With serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech government out of the business of stifling industry. It is high time for this trial, and the industry. It is high time for this trial, and the progress and tying the hands of corporations, wasteful spending accompanying it, to be wasteful spending accompanying it, to be consumers—rather than bureaucrats and over. Consumers will indeed see competition over. Consumers will indeed see competition judges—will once again pick the winners and in the marketplace, rather than the in the marketplace, rather than the losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the courtroom. And the investors who propel our courtroom. And the investors who propel our high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. be encouraged to create new and competitive Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the products and technologies. federal government should not have broken federal government should not have broken Thank you for this opportunity to share my up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, views. companies like Microsoft can get back into companies like Microsoft can get back into Sincerely, the business of innovating and creating better the business of innovating and creating better Richard P. Brandon products for consumers, and not wasting products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition valuable resources on litigation. Competition MTC–00029117 means creating better goods and offering means creating better goods and offering From: Robert Hepburn II superior services to consumers. With superior services to consumers. With To: Microsoft Settlement government out of the business of stifling government out of the business of stifling Date: 1/28/02 8:52pm progress and tying the hands of corporations, progress and tying the hands of corporations, Subject: Microsoft Settlement consumers—rather than bureaucrats and consumers—rather than bureaucrats and Robert Hepburn II judges—will once again pick the winners and judges—will once again pick the winners and 305 Brookmeade Dr. losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the Gretna, La 70056 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will January 28, 2002 be encouraged to create new and competitive be encouraged to create new and competitive Microsoft Settlement products and technologies. products and technologies. U.S. Department of Justice Thank you for this opportunity to share my Thank you for this opportunity to share my Antitrust Division views. views. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, Sincerely, Washington, DC 20530 DAVID P. FEARIS III, M.D. Shannon Casteel Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029119 MTC–00029121 dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: Clif / Helen Shumate From: Jay VerDate 11 To: Microsoft ATR American way. From a government that has 626 Springfield Circle Date: 1/28/02 9:00pm gone mad over tobacco, it is clear that what Roseville, CA 95678 Subject: Microsoft Settlement speaks is the almighty dollar. If tobacco were January 28, 2002 It is time for this to end. I am not a so bad, make it illegal. The government will Microsoft Settlement politician, lawyer, lobbyist, employee of not do that because there is too much money U.S. Department of Justice Microsoft, etc. I am just a computer user and in it. Microsoft is being penalized for being Antitrust Division systems engineer who has been involved successful. Period. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW with the computer industry for over 30 years I am ashamed of the Reno DOJ and the Washington, DC 20530 and the micro-computer phase since its Clinton administration for their shameful Dear Microsoft Settlement: beginning. In all those years I have used attacks of Microsoft and the way it continues. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ many varieties of software products, both If somebody can build a better mousetrap dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Microsoft and non-Microsoft. I was never met than Microsoft let them. Where is the serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech by armed Microsoft police preventing me incentive to try to build a product people industry. It is high time for this trial, and the from purchasing ANY and ALL pieces of want only to have it all destroyed because of wasteful spending accompanying it, to be software that I wanted at the time. Through success? That is NOT the American way. over. Consumers will indeed see competition the years, Microsoft has tamed the wild west I implore this entire mess to be dropped, in the marketplace, rather than the that micro-computer systems had become not only for the continued success of courtroom. And the investors who propel our and gave us a STANDARD that made a Microsoft (in which I have NO financial economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. significant increase in the productivity of interest, other than possibly a mutual fund Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the computer users world wide in general and which I’ve not checked), but also for the federal government should not have broken the United States in particular. The nine future Microsofts of America on the horizon. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, states (plus AOL, ORACLE, SUN, and other David Thum companies like Microsoft can get back into envious competitors of Microsoft) that reject Avon Lake, OH the business of innovating and creating better the DOJ—Microsoft proposed settlement are MTC–00029124 products for consumers, and not wasting creating an unnecessary burden on computer valuable resources on litigation. Competition From: Carol Enright users and the economy. In my opinion, bring means creating better goods and offering To: Microsoft Settlement this to an end. superior services to consumers. With Date: 1/28/02 8:57pm Jay Zittle government out of the business of stifling Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, MTC–00029122 Carol Enright consumers—rather than bureaucrats and From: [email protected]@inetgw 837 12th ave judges—will once again pick the winners and To: Microsoft ATR Port Arthur, Tx 77642 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the Date: 1/28/02 9:01pm January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Subject: microsoft settlement Microsoft Settlement The Microsoft settlement should remain in U.S. Department of Justice be encouraged to create new and competitive place. One of the most successful and Antitrust Division products and technologies. prosperous businesses in the US should now 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my be permitted to continue to prosper and Washington, DC 20530 views. innovate for the millions of consumers that Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, owe their new knowledge and way of living The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Lance Robertson to this great American corporation.The dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a MTC–00029126 settlement is faair for all parties. It is not the serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: Neal Dalton consumer who is instigating further industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft ATR litigation. Look to the lawyers and conpeting wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 9:05pm corporaitions wanting to increase their own over. Consumers will indeed see competition fortunes with less effort or innovation. in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Hope you take this small voice into courtroom. And the investors who propel our I do not feel the settlement UNITED consideration. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. STATES OF AMERICA vs. MICROSOFT Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the CORPORATION is a fair one. Over the year MTC–00029123 federal government should not have broken Microsoft has settle their disputes only to From: David Thum up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, begin encroaching on the same area there To: Microsoft ATR companies like Microsoft can get back into agreed not to do. Even now Microsoft is Date: 1/28/02 9:02pm the business of innovating and creating better eating up parts of the market, muscling out Subject: Microsoft products for consumers, and not wasting the competition by the market power they I am writing to express my utter feelings valuable resources on litigation. Competition have as the provider of the OS. Other parts of shame at the way our government has gone means creating better goods and offering allow for access to Microsoft internal, but after Microsoft. In times where it seems superior services to consumers. With only for those who won’t disclose them. The capitalism are under attack, it is imperative government out of the business of stifling open source world (their primary competitor) that it is understood that the very freedoms progress and tying the hands of corporations, would not benefit from this agreement. They we enjoy in this country are what are consumers—rather than bureaucrats and would have no access to the internal, because responsible for the success companies like judges—will once again pick the winners and the writing of their application to Microsoft, J&J, the big three, Pfizer, losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the interoperate with Microsoft code would be a McDonald’s, and even Flowers.com. I high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will violation. So to would people who derive mention varying types of companies because be encouraged to create new and competitive their income from supporting open source be all had the freedom to dream, to plan for the products and technologies. crippled by this ruling. dream and to follow through. Thank you for this opportunity to share my I would like to see Microsoft force to Microsoft was the victim of a government views. publish the APIs/internal, so that they can body gone mad over the American dream. Sincerely, not restrict their competition. I believe also Microsoft has no monopoly. If they had a Carol Enright that Microsoft’s power as a OS and monopoly, there would be no other way to application leader (which they gained run a computer than with Microsoft software. MTC–00029125 illegally) is too great a power for a company Any body else can develop their own From: Lance Robertson that has a history and continues to use strong software and market it. If they succeed, great To: Microsoft Settlement arm tactics to crush their completion. Thus as that is the American way. If they fail, it Date: 1/28/02 8:58pm putting small businesses and other is either through poor design, marketing or Subject: Microsoft Settlement completion at risk. product support, which, in a way, is also the Lance Robertson Neal VerDate 11 MTC–00029127 business practices in these new areas? No. courtroom. And the investors who propel our From: SaraConrad This is a major flaw in the proposed economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. To: Microsoft ATR settlement. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Date: 1/28/02 9:04pm 2) The proposed settlement assumes a federal government should not have broken Subject: Attn: Renata Hesse—Trial Attorney business model where all of Microsoft’s up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, ATTENTION—THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ‘‘competition’’ comes from for-profit companies like Microsoft can get back into IS FROM A SOCCER MOM WHO VOTES!!! businesses. However, in reality Microsoft is the business of innovating and creating better micro$oft is a monopoly—plain and simple. being threatened by the developers of the products for consumers, and not wasting When you go to buy a computer you have no Linux operating system and other open valuable resources on litigation. Competition choice what operating system you get on source programs. The proposed settlement means creating better goods and offering your computer even though there are others does not recognize these open source projects superior services to consumers. With (that work better) Linux, Solaris. as competitors, and provides no requirement government out of the business of stifling You have no choice but to use microsoft for Microsoft to disclose technical progress and tying the hands of corporations, products, internet exploder, they have pretty information to the developers of these open consumers—rather than bureaucrats and much wiped netscape out. And the scary, source projects. This, again, is a major flaw judges—will once again pick the winners and scary thing is the future. People who are as in the proposed settlement. losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the technically savvy as I are going to be I appreciate your consideration of these high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will registering with microsoft and their comments. be encouraged to create new and competitive ‘‘passport’’ program. This will track Donald L. Wegeng products and technologies. everything this unsuspecting people do on Fairport, NY Thank you for this opportunity to share my views. the web. And as far as microsoft saying they MTC–00029129 will donate stuff to schools, that is just Sincerely, another way for them to hook kids! My From: [email protected]@inetgw Irene DeMpss children use Apples, Unix and windows.. To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00029131 Unix is not platform specific. They use Date: 1/28/02 9:05pm shared code. All games, all software should Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Americo A. Fusco be able to be used on any computer I would like to go on record as stating that To: Microsoft Settlement regardless of the operating system. Micro$oft I believe Microsoft should be severely Date: 1/28/02 8:59pm doesn’t allow this. They say—use us or don’t punished for its anti-competitive activities. A Subject: Microsoft Settlement use the others. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. break up of the company into separate groups Americo A. Fusco You people have a very important decision seemed most appropriate. The remedy 39535 Hood Street in front of you. Do the research, don’t rely worked out between MS & DOJ is totally Sandy, OR 97055–8403 on what microsoft tells you (even if they offer inadequate, and in fact rewards MS by January 28, 2002 to pay you), find out what it is like with allowing them to write off hardware & Microsoft Settlement Solaris, Apple X, Red hat... don’t let software ‘‘donated’’ to schools as a remedy. U.S. Department of Justice microsoft own everything. Let the people Most elementary schools use Apples or Antitrust Division have a choice, even if they don’t know the Macintosh products. Rather than eliminating 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW difference between a keyboard and a monopolistic behavior, it will literally put Washington, DC 20530 mouse...This country is about choice and Apple out of business in favor of ‘‘free’’ PCs Dear Microsoft Settlement: right now, we don’t have one as far as & Microsoft software. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Operating Systems are concerned. Check into Further, schools that receive this ‘‘gift’’ dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a the claims that microsoft is tracking peoples’’ will end up paying exorbitant amounts on serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech usage. It is a well known fact in the IT subscription and maintenance fees after the industry. It is high time for this trial, and the business that they keep tabs on who is ‘‘remedy’’ period is over. This is a travesty. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be running their software, what they do online The company has not changed. It’s licensing over. Consumers will indeed see competition and where they go. Can you say, ‘‘invasion costs are sky-rocketing, and customers have in the marketplace, rather than the of privacy’’??? lost any ability to retrieve any damages due courtroom. And the investors who propel our Don’t take my word for it...and don’t roll to defective software released by MS. I have economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. over for them. Thank you for doing the right used their products for almost 20 years now. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the thing. In my opinion, they are out of control, and federal government should not have broken Sincerely, only the strongest of remedies, i.e. breakup up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Sara D. Conrad of the firm, will stop their deceitful, companies like Microsoft can get back into 2310 Glenwood Drive predatory business practices. the business of innovating and creating better Boulder, CO 80304 products for consumers, and not wasting 303–444–5357 MTC–00029130 valuable resources on litigation. Competition [email protected] From: Irene DeMpss means creating better goods and offering Technical support engineer/girrrl geek To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With Date: 1/28/02 8:59pm government out of the business of stifling MTC–00029128 Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, From: Don Wegeng Irene DeMpss consumers—rather than bureaucrats and To: Microsoft ATR 3320 Parksie Drive judges—will once again pick the winners and Date: 1/28/02 9:05pm San Bernardino, Ca 92404–2408 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comment January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will I appreciate the opportunity to comment Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive on the proposed settlement. I oppose the U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. proposed settlement for two reasons: Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my 1) It provides no controls that will prevent 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. Microsoft from engaging in illegal business Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, practices in areas that are beyond the original Dear Microsoft Settlement: Mr. & Mrs. Americo A. Fusco charges. The computer software and Internet The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ industries have changes quite a bit since the dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a MTC–00029132 original antitrust case was filed, and serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: Bruce Radebaugh Microsoft is clearly changing it’s business industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft Settlement plans to engage these new business wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 9:00pm opportunities. Will the proposed settlement over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: Microsoft Settlement provide any means to control Microsoft’s in the marketplace, rather than the Bruce Radebaugh VerDate 11 178 Fern Avenue judges—will once again pick the winners and Date: 1/28/02 9:07pm Collingswood, NJ 08108–1938 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Joseph S. Minnie Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive P.O. Box 642 U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. Brooksville, Fl. 34605 Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my January 19, 2002 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. Attorney General John Ashcroft Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, US Department of Justice Dear Microsoft Settlement: Roy Simmons 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00029135 dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Dear Mr. Ashcroft: serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: MSJC I am greatly pleased to hear that a proposed industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft ATR settlement has been reached in the Microsoft wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 9:08pm antitrust case. over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: Microsoft Settlement This case has endured for over three years in the marketplace, rather than the Renata B. Hesse, and should be brought to quick finalization. courtroom. And the investors who propel our The Microsoft settlement should be Microsoft has agreed to all terms of this economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. completed. The government had no business proposed settlement and they have agreed to Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the in trying to break up Microsoft in the first design future versions of Windows to allow federal government should not have broken place. Our entire capitalistic system is competitors to easily attach their software up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, supposed to reward those that come up with products. Additionally, Microsoft will use a companies like Microsoft can get back into a better mouse trap, and if they do, they uniform pricing list when licensing Windows the business of innovating and creating better should reap the rewards for their hard work out to the twenty largest computer companies products for consumers, and not wasting and creative ideas. in the United States. Microsoft has also valuable resources on litigation. Competition Regards, agreed to allow their progress toward compliance with all provisions to be means creating better goods and offering Mark E. Sitterle monitored. superior services to consumers. With MTC–00029136 As the terms of this agreement far exceed government out of the business of stifling From: bfriedman(a)excite. co m the issues originally raised in the suit over progress and tying the hands of corporations, To: Microsoft ATR three years ago, I feel the case should be consumers—rather than bureaucrats and Date: 1/28/02 9:07pm closed soon. Thank you. judges—will once again pick the winners and Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT Sincerely, losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the I am a computer programmer and Joseph S. Minnie high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will instructor at a community college. Joseph Minnie be encouraged to create new and competitive I resent the way that Microsoft has products and technologies. conducted itself with regard to the antitrust MTC–00029138 Thank you for this opportunity to share my settlement. This company continues to From: Donald Cross views. disregard this country’s laws, and should To: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, receive appropriate penalties. Date: 1/28/02 9:04pm Bruce R. Radebaugh Their ‘‘settlement proposal’’ to donate Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00029133 software to schools is ludicrous. A piece of Donald Cross software with a retail price of $600 or more 1239 San Pedro St. From: Roy Simmons costs about $10 in packaging and materials. Pittsburgh, PA 15212–1564 To: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft proposes to spend a few million January 28, 2002 Date: 1/28/02 8:59pm dollars (in real cost), donate this to schools, Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement and then not support the hardware or U.S. Department of Justice Roy Simmons software in the future. (Thus creating future Antitrust Division 17647 Inwood Lane licensing fees for itself in the future from the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Neosho , Mo 64850 same schools.) Washington, DC 20530 January 28, 2002 The computer industry in general has Dear Microsoft Settlement: Microsoft Settlement shown much more good will to the US than The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ U.S. Department of Justice many others. In the past, many computer dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Antitrust Division scientists shared information, algorithms, serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW etc., in the hope of advancing the art and industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Washington, DC 20530 technology. Microsoft has dominated an wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Dear Microsoft Settlement: industry, and uses that position as a bully over. Consumers will indeed see competition The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ pulpit. They are destroying the previous in the marketplace, rather than the dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a trends of goodwill within the computing courtroom. And the investors who propel our serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the I do not think that the people in Redmond Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be should be let off with a slap on the wrist. As federal government should not have broken over. Consumers will indeed see competition a corporation, Microsoft should be penalized up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, in the marketplace, rather than the for their monopolistic and illegal practices. companies like Microsoft can get back into courtroom. And the investors who propel our And personally, I do not feel that their the business of innovating and creating better economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. proposed gift to schools comes close to being products for consumers, and not wasting Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the an appropriate punishment for misconduct. valuable resources on litigation. Competition federal government should not have broken Sincerely, means creating better goods and offering up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Brent A. Friedman superior services to consumers. With companies like Microsoft can get back into P O Box 13145 government out of the business of stifling the business of innovating and creating better Minneapolis, MN 55414 progress and tying the hands of corporations, products for consumers, and not wasting of I consumers—rather than bureaucrats and valuable resources on litigation. Competition 01/30/2002 2:38 I judges—will once again pick the winners and means creating better goods and offering 7 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the superior services to consumers. With high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will government out of the business of stifling MTC–00029137 be encouraged to create new and competitive progress and tying the hands of corporations, From: Joseph Minnie products and technologies. Thank you for consumers—rather than bureaucrats and To: Microsoft ATR this opportunity to share my views. VerDate 11 Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft Settlement interoperability with other software and thus Don Cross Final Judgment for a variety of reasons. I prevents competitors from getting a toehold shall briefly expound on but a few of them: into markets that Microsoft already MTC–00029139 1) The potential breakup of Microsoft monopolizes. From: Robert McArtor should be maintained as a future remedy to * Nothing prevents Microsoft from To: Microsoft Settlement insure Microsoft’s compliance. retaliating against OEMs that ship PCs with Date: 1/28/02 9:04pm 2) Lack of punitive damages. Lacking a competing OS (but not Windows). Please Subject: Microsoft Settlement provisions for an evolving industry, the do not accept the existing settlement Robert McArtor Proposal seems focused on limited measures proposal. 6430 Princeton Drive for a future that is only a simple Thanks, Alexandria, VA 22307–1347 extrapolation of yesterday’s market. There are Dan Mosedale January 28, 2002 no penalties for Microsoft’s outrageous Microsoft Settlement conduct in the marketplace and before the MTC–00029143 U.S. Department of Justice Court. This sends the wrong message to From: Stephen Patterson Antitrust Division anyone considering similar behaviour. To: Microsoft Settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 3) The Termination of the Decree should Date: 1/28/02 9:05pm Washington, DC 20530 NOT occur before ten (10) years from date of Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Microsoft Settlement: entry. Further, the length of any extension Stephen Patterson Please allow the Microsoft settlement to should be five (5) years, rather than two. 21959 C. R. 254 stand so we may return to those days when Given that the present proceedings before the West Lafayette, Oh 43845 we truly encouraged enterprise. We have Court have consumed almost four (4) years January 28, 2002 squandered enough time and money with no action, it is not inconceivable that Microsoft Settlement discoraging free enterprise. Thank you Microsoft could similarly delay and obstruct U.S. Department of Justice Sincerely, a three person panel for the proposed five (5) Antitrust Division Robert C. McArtor years. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MTC–00029140 4) The construction of the Technical Washington, DC 20530 Committee (hereafter, TC) is faulty. Dear Microsoft Settlement: From: Shams Kairys Potentially, two of the three members of the The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ To: Microsoft ATR TC will be answerable only to Microsoft and dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Date: 1/28/02 9:11pm not to the Plaintiffs. This provides a majority serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Subject: Microsoft Settlement which could veto any action or decision of industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Renata B. Hesse the TC. The TC should consist of a minimum wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Antitrust Division of five (5) persons, none of whom is over. Consumers will indeed see competition US Dept of Justice appointed by Microsoft. The Defendant’s in the marketplace, rather than the 601 D St NW interests could be represented by a non- courtroom. And the investors who propel our Suite 1200 Washington, D. C. 20530–0001 voting, non-directing liaison to the TC. Also, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Dear Ms. Hesse, the TC should be composed of persons with Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the I am quite concerned that the Department significant experience as auditors or federal government should not have broken of Justice (DOJ) has moved to settle with inspectors general, who will be assisted by up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Microsoft (MS) in a manner that leaves software experts. companies like Microsoft can get back into consumers inadequately protected. I have 5) MOST IMPORTANT. According to the business of innovating and creating better found MS information technology (IT) stifles Section IV.D.4.d of the Stipulation, no products for consumers, and not wasting outside innovation and inter-operability, and member of the TC may direct any findings to valuable resources on litigation. Competition hope you will provide a resolution of the MS any other tribunal. This is UNACCEPTABLE! means creating better goods and offering case that maximizes competition and The Congress, other Courts and other States superior services to consumers. With consumer in the best public interest. cannot be constrained by this Proposal in any government out of the business of stifling Minimally, I believe that Windows of their future proceedings. In particular, this progress and tying the hands of corporations, applications should run on other operating Section would disallow a member of the TC consumers—rather than bureaucrats and systems without modification; should be from informing authorities of a violation of judges—will once again pick the winners and transparent to other software, so that it would law, including, but not limited to, the losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the be able to exchange files, data, and services Sherman Act. high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will with any MS product; should be able to run The Proposed Final Judgment is seriously be encouraged to create new and competitive properly on computers with different flawed and should be withdrawn from products and technologies. microprocessors. Otherwise, consumers will consideration. DOJ should rejoin with Utah, Thank you for this opportunity to share my continue to face unnecessary costs, limited et al and use their proposals as a starting views. choices, operational complexity, and point for further negotiations. Sincerely, reliability problems. Enforcement provisions Sincerely, Stephen L. Patterson David Rhoads in the proposed settlement are also MTC–00029144 inadequate and could very well allow MS to Fort Washington, Maryland From: cyberkristie continue to stifle competition, creativity, and MTC–00029142 cost-effectiveness. I urge the DOJ to announce To: Microsoft ATR public proceedings at the earliest opportunity From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 9:13pm as provided by the Tunney Act so that To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement concerned consumers can speak to these Date: 1/28/02 9:11pm Ok, enough is enough, let’s move on and issues. Subject: proposed monopoly settlement accept the settlement with Microsoft. Then Sincerely, inadequate go after someone that is really in total control Shams Kairys The current proposed Microsoft monopoly and unfairly taking advantage of the Executive Director, Berkeley EcoHouse settle does a completely inadequate job of consumers. The Cable companies! It’s just 507 Cornell Ave. protecting consumers from future abuses by plain usury what the cable companies charge Albany, CA 94706 Microsoft. In particular, for what they provide and now they are 510–525–1465 * Open source and free software concerns doing the same with the cable internet are ignored; which will allow MS to tighten access. If it weren’t for Bill Gates and MTC–00029141 its software monopoly by licensing it to Microsoft we wouldn’t be communicating by From: DRhoads public institutions. email because most of us couldn’t afford to To: Microsoft ATR * Microsoft is not required to open up the own a computer much less have the software Date: 1/28/02 9:11pm details of its file formats, which harms to use it to it’s full advantage. I’ve been VerDate 11 around since mainframes were the only thing Dear Microsoft Settlement: Charles and Barbara Martin and pc’s weren’t even in the realm of home The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029148 use. Gates made it all affordable and even dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a today his software is affordable and the best serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: Don Young to be had. Dragging this thing on just hurts industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft Settlement our economy more that it is already hurting. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 9:10pm So put it to rest and look into why the money over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: Microsoft Settlement from the tobacco companies settlements isn’t in the marketplace, rather than the Don Young going to where it was meant to go. Get courtroom. And the investors who propel our Rt. 1 Box 282 A-10 involved with issues that really effect the economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Scroggins, TX 75480 population. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the January 28, 2002 Kristie Ghioni federal government should not have broken Microsoft Settlement 3012 W Viewmont Way W up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, U.S. Department of Justice Seattle, WA 98199 companies like Microsoft can get back into Antitrust Division 206–283–3504 the business of innovating and creating better 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW products for consumers, and not wasting Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00029145 valuable resources on litigation. Competition Dear Microsoft Settlement: From: Ludwik Kozlowski SR., M.D. means creating better goods and offering The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Date: 1/28/02 9:09pm government out of the business of stifling serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Ludwik Kozlowski SR., M.D. consumers—rather than bureaucrats and wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 7608 Geronimo Circle judges—will once again pick the winners and over. Consumers will indeed see competition N. Little Rock, Arkansas 72116 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the in the marketplace, rather than the January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will courtroom. And the investors who propel our Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my federal government should not have broken 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, companies like Microsoft can get back into Dear Microsoft Settlement: Billy J. Long the business of innovating and creating better The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ products for consumers, and not wasting MTC–00029147 dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a valuable resources on litigation. Competition serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: Charles and Barbara Martin means creating better goods and offering industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 9:10pm government out of the business of stifling over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, in the marketplace, rather than the Charles and Barbara Martin consumers—rather than bureaucrats and courtroom. And the investors who propel our 503 51 Ave W judges—will once again pick the winners and economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Bradenton, Fl 34207 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will federal government should not have broken Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. companies like Microsoft can get back into Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my the business of innovating and creating better 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. products for consumers, and not wasting Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, valuable resources on litigation. Competition Dear Microsoft Settlement: Don E. Young means creating better goods and offering The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029149 superior services to consumers. With dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a government out of the business of stifling serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: John Russell progress and tying the hands of corporations, industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft ATR consumers—rather than bureaucrats and wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 9:14pm judges—will once again pick the winners and over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: Microsoft Settlement losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the in the marketplace, rather than the John Russell high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will courtroom. And the investors who propel our 14763 West Trevino Drive be encouraged to create new and competitive economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Goodyear, AZ 85338 products and technologies. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the January 28, 2002 Thank you for this opportunity to share my federal government should not have broken Attorney General John Ashcroft views. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, U.S. Department of Justice Sincerely, companies like Microsoft can get back into 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Ludwik J. Kozlowski SR., M.D. the business of innovating and creating better Washington, DC 20530–0001 products for consumers, and not wasting Dear Mr. Ashcroft, MTC–00029146 valuable resources on litigation. Competition I am writing to express my opposition to From: Billy Long means creating better goods and offering the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With Although I realize that the lawsuit is no Date: 1/28/02 9:10pm government out of the business of stifling longer an issue, what is before your Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, department is the court mediated settlement Billy Long consumers—rather than bureaucrats and that can end this debacle. Millions of 1021 Wales Dr judges—will once again pick the winners and taxpayer dollars have been used in what La Plata, MD 20646 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the essentially is a needless persecution of a January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will competitive company. What is before your Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive department is an exhaustive settlement that U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. has terms that extend well beyond the Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my products and procedures that were originally 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. at issue in the litigation. Microsoft has agreed Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, to these terms in the interest of servicing the VerDate 11 public good and allowing for a fair, agreeable been a great benefactor to the U. S. economy go after a company that is turning around and end to this process. and technology in general. contributing so much to our society. Mr. This settlement, which has been reached Please let this settlement rest! Gates distributes his wealth to a multitude of by the Department of Justice, and approved Lovella Richardson, charities. People like that are very hard to by nine of the participating states, contains 7706 Hodges Ferry Road, Knoxville, TN find. Thank God for someone who is doing several provisions that extend significant 37920 something to help people that truly need it restrictions and changes to how Microsoft in our troubled society. does business. The settlement requires MTC–00029152 Sincerely, Microsoft to improve its relationship with From: Lucas Rockwell Erika Neumann computer and software manufacturers, by To: Microsoft ATR CC:[email protected]@inetgw ensuring that Microsoft will not retaliate Date: 1/28/02 9:17pm against manufacturers who ship non- Subject: Renata B. Hesse MTC–00029154 Microsoft products and to create uniform Renata B. Hesse From: Gregg Bair pricing, allowing consumers to get the best Antitrust Division To: Microsoft ATR price for the product. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice Date: 1/28/02 9:15pm agreement allows any of Microsoft’s 601 D Street NW Subject: Microsoft competitors to file a claim against Microsoft Suite 1200 Please leave the decesion whether in federal court if they believe that any part Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft illegally snuffed the of the settlement has been violated, thereby Dear Renata B. Hesse, COMPETITION where it belongs. With the forcing Microsoft to be in contempt of court. I am writing to register my opposition to consumer/ we will decide who has the better I strongly urge the Department of Justice to the proposed Microsoft Settlement with the product. I have been screwed by Microsoft’s view this settlement as having served the Department of Justice. My reasons for this are competition many times. I would not buy public interest and to end this litigation. many, but I will list just one for the purposes anything else. They have made the computer Nine states have approved this, and with the of this letter. Microsoft is a convicted age affordable , away from the monopolies of federal government’s leadership, this process monopolist and allowing them to donate $1 Apple and IBM. may finally be over. In the overall public billion worth of software to schools is ‘‘not’’ In my opinion the legal system in this interest, please cease any further action at the a punishment. First, $1 billion to Micrsoft is country should be investigated for the federal level on this matter. not a lot of money. Recently, Microsoft had damage it has caused the consumer. The Sincerely, $30 billion in cash on hand. Second, attorneys have raped this country and John Russell Microsoft will experience years of benefits in conned many people into believing they are sales from this deal as schools will seek to victims. I ask you this question, how many MTC–00029150 upgrade their aging ‘‘free’’ MS products. times does your apple lock-up or what does From: Tyson Murray Also, when children learn software in school, it cost to fix the Apple? I applauded To: Microsoft ATR parents have a compelling reason to purchase Microsoft and Bill Gates. Date: 1/28/02 9:15pm the same software at home. This settlement Gregg Bair Subject: Microsoft Settlement is a dream come true for Microsoft. I HOPE MY VOTE COUNTS. BECAUSE IT January 28, 2002 Please, reject this settlement offer. WILL CERTAINLY COUNT IN THE NEXT Attorney General John Ashcroft I thank you very much in advance for your POLITICAL ELECTION US Department of Justice time. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW -lucas MTC–00029156 Washington, DC 20530 Lucas Rockwell From: [email protected]@inetgw Dear Mr. Ashcroft: UAS Systems Group To: Microsoft ATR The three-year lawsuit against Microsoft 510.642.6465 Date: 1/28/02 9:17pm has been continuing for too long. I am [email protected] Subject: Microsoft Settlement amazed and appalled that the Government 164 Chesapeake Estate #64 would attempt to bring litigation against its MTC–00029153 Thomasville, PA 17364–9661 strongest asset in the tech sector. Microsoft From: The—Neumanns January 10, 2002 creates jobs and wealth for our nation and To: Microsoft ATR Attorney General John Ashcroft does not deserve to be a victim of federal and Date: 1/28/02 9:17pm US Department of Justice, state litigation. Subject: Microsoft Settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW The terms of the settlement do little to To whomever it may concern, Washington, DC 20530–0001 protect consumer rights. In fact, they just give I am aware of the settlement agreement for Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Microsoft’s competitors an edge that they Microsoft and agree that the settlement is fair I am writing to you today to express my could not attain through innovation. Of for all parties involved. To assume that all support of the recent settlement reached particular interest to me are the terms by end users are so uneducated that can not between the Department of Justice and which Microsoft has agreed to disclose make an educated decision for themselves is Microsoft. After three years of litigation, the interfaces that are internal to Windows disturbing in the first place. Even a teenager settlement marks an overdue end to the operating system products. This is a first in knows that if he purchases a car and does not litigation battle. an antitrust settlement and a violation of like the speaker system that comes While the antitrust dispute was Microsoft’s intellectual property rights. preinstalled on the vehicle that they can unnecessary in the first place, it is great to Although flawed and unjustified, I urge your purchase a new speaker system from a see this period come to an end. It is time for office to finalize the settlement because it is variety of vendors. But then perhaps the Microsoft, the IT industry, and the American in the best interest of our economy and older you get the less aware you are... This economy to focus on productivity again. technology industry to end this dispute. settlement has more than enough covenants The settlement reached is more than Sincerely, in it. Let’s not go overboard on the equitable for Microsoft competitors. Tyson Murray restrictions. Microsoft has been more than generous We live in an age where the computer throughout this process. MTC–00029151 industry is a thriving industry. More people Most important among these concessions is From: Lovella S Richardson than ever are using computers on a daily Microsoft allowing for the establishment of a To: Microsoft ATR basis. People know that Netscape is out there. regulatory committee. The technical Date: 1/28/02 9:15pm I have IE and Netscape on my PC and use oversight committee, which will be run by Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement them interchangeably. So, where have my three people, assures that the stipulations The judge’s recent decision settling the choices been limited? Nowhere! This topic mandated in the settlement are carried out. Microsoft lawsuti seems fair to all to me. I really makes me mad. This shows Microsoft’s willingness to appreciate having a good browser that I don’t Microsoft is a good company. I do not appease its competitors in their commitment have to pay extra for. I feel that Microsoft has understand why people feel like they should to put this issue at bay. VerDate 11 Thus, it is important that this settlement developing their own products to better serve professionals agree that Internet Explorer is stands. It is time for Microsoft and the larger our nation. far better than the Netscape browser, and the IT industry to return to business as usual. This long battle is consuming to much Netscape browser cost money, it was not Sincerely, money and time and is unproductive and to offered free. Also, Microsoft has always Marie Hollabaugh our economy and our reputation as a nation. striven to establish standards in its software CC:[email protected]@inetgw We need to develop more integrity in the which would ensure its interoperability with many different applications and prevailing MTC–00029157 business world. Yours truly, programs. Netscape’s product could not boast From: [email protected]@inetgw Shirley Mundinger the same attributes. To: Microsoft ATR Also, today, as in the past, there is ample Date: 1/28/02 9:18pm MTC–00029160 competition for Microsoft, in operating Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Bob Essman systems such as Unix, Linux, Java, etc., and 14202 W Via Manana To: Microsoft ATR in internet applications and access providers Sun City West, AZ 85375 Date: 1/28/02 9:18pm such as AOL time Warner, Earthlink, and January 28, 2002 Subject: Microsoft many others. Microsoft is not a monopoly in Attorney General John Ashcroft Renata B. Hesse my view, it is instead a great American US Department of Justice Antitrust Division success story which has driven the local and 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW U.S. Department of Justice national economy, provided thousands of Washington, DC 20530–0001 601 D Street NW high-paying jobs, and has given much back Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Suite 1200 to the community in raised living standards I think the antitrust case filed against Washington, DC 20530–0001 and charitible donations. Microsoft should finally be settled. Dear Renata B. Hesse, Please bring this legal challenge to a close, I wonder why this case is being dragged I do not believe that the so called as it is not helping to protect consumers, it on. Not only has Microsoft made bold ‘‘Antitrust’’ laws are constitutional except, is not helping our economy to rebound, and concessions in order to get back to business, perhaps under the constitution of the now it is not justified by the sour grapes failures they have also promoted a more unified IT defunct U.S.S.R. or The Talibans of of Microsoft’s inadequate competitorswho seek the government’s aid in doing what they sector along the way. This settlement clearly Afghanistan. were unable to do in fair business promotes a technology industry that works Although I do not believe that Microsoft is competition. together which will allow the US to maintain clean of all possible charges, the process Sincerely, our position in the global market. followed under this law is and should be Baron Borrelli Microsoft has made many concessions unproductive and futile. I’ve niether seen nor Bellevue, WA. within the settlement that include changes in heard of any real evidence. I’ve only heard product design, licensing and marketing. The accusations. MTC–00029162 terms are meant to open competition to non- If Microsoft has broken a law, it should be Microsoft software while still allowing From: Zoe Alvarez charged with fruad or theft or some real Microsoft to prosper. The settlement To: Microsoft Settlement crime and not for persuing it1s inalienable promotes a teamwork environment in the Date: 1/28/02 9:14pm right to persue commerce and make money. technology industry and allows all to prosper Subject: Microsoft Settlement Doing business better than your competetors in the process. Microsoft’s efforts to end the Zoe Alvarez is a pure American ideal and should be litigation should be applauded. 1432 NW 26 Avenue encouraged instead of picked at like a bunch I strongly urge that you close this case. The Miami, FL 33125–2130 of spoiled children fighting over candy. longer we wait for a settlement, the longer we January 28, 2002 Get on with the real work that the stray from focusing on innovation. Microsoft Settlement taxpayers pay you to do and get to Enron Sincerely, U.S. Department of Justice Joan Fedor and/or Anderson where the evidence of Antitrust Division CC:[email protected]@inetgw wrongdoing is apparent. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00029158 Bob Essman Dear Microsoft Settlement: From: Juan E. Ramirez MTC–00029161 The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ To: Microsoft ATR dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Date: 1/28/02 9:19pm From: [email protected]@inetgw serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR industry. Microsoft is the 800 lb. Gorilla. They Date: 1/28/02 9:20pm It is high time for this trial, and the control OS software on 95% of all PCs sold Subject: Microsoft Settlement wasteful spending accompanying it, to be in this country. If this is not a ‘‘monopoly’’ As a consumer and individual investor over. Consumers will indeed see competition then the following companies were not: who owns stock in many Tech. companies, in the marketplace, rather than the US Steel including Microsoft, AOL Time Warner, Sun courtroom. And the investors who propel our AT&T microsystems, etc., I have followed the economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Thanks, developments of the government’s case Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Juan E. Ramirez against Microsoft, and the complaints filed federal government should not have broken [email protected] by individual States and Microsoft’s up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, competitors. I continue to believe the companies like Microsoft can get back into MTC–00029159 settlement already reached between the business of innovating and creating better From: Shirley R Mundinger Microsoft, the Justice Dept., and several products for consumers, and not wasting To: Microsoft ATR States Should be the final judgement on the valuable resources on litigation. Date: 1/28/02 9:18pm matter. No one, especially Microsoft’s Competition means creating better goods Subject: Microsoft settlement competitors, has yet demonstrated any injury and offering superior services to consumers. I hope you will close this long period of to consumers by Microsoft’s business With government out of the business of bickering among some of the Microsoft practices. Although Microsoft successfully stifling progress and tying the hands of competitors and allegations against won away customers from AOL’s Netscape corporations, consumers—rather than Microsoft. They, Microsoft, have offered by giving their Web Browser away for free, bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick much to the public to make computer use one can hardly say this ‘‘injured’’ consumers. the winners and losers on Wall Street. With faster and more useable. Please let those Getting a superior product for free is not the reins off the high-tech industry, more fighting them, know that nothing more can be what I would call being abused, nor is this entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create accomplished by dragging this on through an example of being deprived of choice. new and competitive products and the courts. Let them get on with their work There was a choice, and consumers took the technologies. Thank you for this opportunity and those that are complaining get busy superior choice. Most savvy computer to share my views. VerDate 11 Sincerely, Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Ellen Green PO Zoe Alvarez federal government should not have broken Box 747 York, AL 36925 up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, January 28, 2002 MTC–00029163 companies like Microsoft can get back into Microsoft Settlement From: Brad Chapman the business of innovating and creating better U.S. Department of Justice To: Microsoft Settlement products for consumers, and not wasting Antitrust Division Date: 1/28/02 9:14pm valuable resources on litigation. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: Microsoft Settlement Competition means creating better goods Washington, DC 20530 Brad Chapman and offering superior services to consumers. Dear Microsoft Settlement: 4963 S 4055 W With government out of the business of The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ SLC, UT 84118–4044 stifling progress and tying the hands of dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a January 28, 2002 corporations, consumers—rather than serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Microsoft Settlement bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick industry. It is high time for this trial, and the U.S. Department of Justice the winners and losers on Wall Street. With wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Antitrust Division the reins off the high-tech industry, more over. Consumers will indeed see competition 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create in the marketplace, rather than the Washington, DC 20530 new and competitive products and courtroom. And the investors who propel our Dear Microsoft Settlement: technologies. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Thank you for this opportunity to share my Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a views. federal government should not have broken serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Sincerely, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, industry. Sallie Landry companies like Microsoft can get back into It is high time for this trial, and the the business of innovating and creating better wasteful spending accompanying it, to be MTC–00029165 products for consumers, and not wasting over. Consumers will indeed see competition From: Dona Sheets valuable resources on litigation. in the marketplace, rather than the To: Microsoft Settlement Competition means creating better goods courtroom. And the investors who propel our Date: 1/28/02 9:14pm and offering superior services to consumers. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Subject: Microsoft Settlement With government out of the business of Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Dona Sheets stifling progress and tying the hands of federal government should not have broken 3 Pichini Trace corporations, consumers—rather than up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Cherokee Village, AR 72529 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick companies like Microsoft can get back into January 28, 2002 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the business of innovating and creating better Microsoft Settlement the reins off the high-tech industry, more products for consumers, and not wasting U.S. Department of Justice entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create valuable resources on litigation. Antitrust Division new and competitive products and Competition means creating better goods 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW technologies. and offering superior services to consumers. Washington, DC 20530 Thank you for this opportunity to share my With government out of the business of Dear Microsoft Settlement: views. stifling progress and tying the hands of The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Get off of Microsoft’s back. Settle this case! corporations, consumers—rather than dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Sincerely, bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Ellen Green the winners and losers on Wall Street. With industry. MTC–00029167 the reins off the high-tech industry, more It is high time for this trial, and the entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create wasteful spending accompanying it, to be From: [email protected]@inetgw new and competitive products and over. Consumers will indeed see competition To: Microsoft ATR technologies. in the marketplace, rather than the Date: 1/28/02 9:24pm Thank you for this opportunity to share my courtroom. And the investors who propel our Subject: (no subject) views. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 164 ChesapeakeEstate #64 Sincerely, Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Thomasville,PA 17364–9661 Brad Chapman federal government should not have broken January 10, 2002 up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Attorney General John Ashcroft MTC–00029164 companies like Microsoft can get back into US Department of Justice, From: Sallie Landry the business of innovating and creating better 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft Settlement products for consumers, and not wasting Washington, DC 20530–0001 Date: 1/28/02 9:14pm valuable resources on litigation. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Subject: Microsoft Settlement Competition means creating better goods I am writing to you today to express my Sallie Landry and offering superior services to consumers. support of the recent settlement reached 7414 Tanager With government out of the business of between the Department of Justice and Houston, TX 77074 stifling progress and tying the hands of Microsoft. After three years of litigation, the January 28, 2002 corporations, consumers—rather than settlement marks an overdue end to the Microsoft Settlement bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick litigation battle. While the antitrust dispute U.S. Department of Justice the winners and losers on Wall Street. With was unnecessary in the first place, it is great Antitrust Division the reins off the high-tech industry, more to see this period come to an end. It is time 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create for Microsoft, the IT industry, and the Washington, DC 20530 new and competitive products and American economy to focus on productivity Dear Microsoft Settlement: technologies. again. The settlement reached is more than The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Thank you for this opportunity to share my equitable for Microsoft competitors. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a views. Microsoft has been more than generous serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Sincerely, throughout this process. Most important industry. Dona Sheets among these concessions is Microsoft It is high time for this trial, and the allowing for the establishment of a regulatory wasteful spending accompanying it, to be MTC–00029166 committee. The technical oversight over. Consumers will indeed see competition From: Ellen Green committee, which will be run by three in the marketplace, rather than the To: Microsoft Settlement people, assures that the stipulations courtroom. And the investors who propel our Date: 1/28/02 9:17pm mandated in the settlement are carried out. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Subject: Microsoft Settlement This shows Microsoft’s willingness to VerDate 11 appease its competitors in their commitment Subject: Microsoft Settlement like into the operating system. I use windows to put this issue at bay. Thus, it is important January 28, 2002 98 now, and don’t use IE, except when I have that this settlement stands. It is time for Attn: Renata B. Hesse to. BUT, I can’t really remove it from my Microsoft and the larger IT industry to return Antitrust Division system without permantly damaging the to business as usual. U. S. Department of Justice operating system. Sincerely, 601 D. Street NW, Suite 1200 3. Stop Microsoft from pointing me to Thomas A. Hollabaugh Washington, DC 20530–0001 microsoft companies. When I got my pc, it CC:[email protected]@inetgw To Whom It May Concern: insisted on bootup, that I either cancel the I would like to make known to the window or login to the microsoft network. MTC–00029168 Attorney General my comments concerning This was not only annoying, but unless I sat From: Zerbin Belles the Microsoft settlement. I believe that the and watched the machine boot and closed To: Microsoft Settlement Court of Appeals ruling is reasonable and fair the window, the machine would not Date: 1/28/02 9:18pm to all parties involved. I would like my voice complete booting. It took my quite a while, Subject: Microsoft Settlement to be heard and that is why I am writing this and with some risk, to get this feature Zerbin Belles letter. I think that it would be very unfair to disabled. 106 Brown Lane Microsoft if this settlement is rejected. 4. All of the above would not be so bad, Lexington, SC 29073–8302 Yours truly, if it all worked, but it doesn’t! I must reboot January 28, 2002 Debra K. Trantham my home machine very often, and must Microsoft Settlement MTC–00029171 reboot my system at work at least once a U.S. Department of Justice week to keep things functioning. This is not Antitrust Division From: Gary Oja to mention all the e-mail viruses and the like 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR that plague MS software. Washington, DC 20530 Date: 1/28/02 9:24pm Thank you for your time. Please help us Dear Microsoft Settlement: Subject: Microsoft Settlement consumers get this monopolist out of our hair The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Dear DOJ, and allow real innovation in the computing With billions of dollars at its disposal, a dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a world. fine would be insignificant to Microsoft serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Mark Donohoe (although highly recommended). Any industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 1012 Hewitt Dr. settlement which includes the distribution of wasteful spending accompanying it, to be San Carlos, Ca. 94070 Microsoft products would just worsen their over. Consumers will indeed see competition ([email protected]) monopoly. Please open up the arena to allow in the marketplace, rather than the CC:[email protected]@inetgw courtroom. And the investors who propel our other vendors software programs economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. (applications and operating system utlities, MTC–00029173 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the including Web browsers) to be substituted for From: Sandra Bottorff federal government should not have broken Microsoft products and force Microsoft to To: Microsoft Settlement unbundle their software to permit equal up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Date: 1/28/02 9:18pm access. This would allow fair competition in companies like Microsoft can get back into Subject: Microsoft Settlement the marketplace and benefit all consumers. the business of innovating and creating better Sandra Bottorff Thank you. products for consumers, and not wasting 12750 170th Avenue Gary Oja valuable resources on litigation. LeRoy, MI 49655 Principal Software Engineer Competition means creating better goods January 28, 2002 Worcester MA and offering superior services to consumers. Microsoft Settlement [email protected] With government out of the business of U.S. Department of Justice stifling progress and tying the hands of MTC–00029172 Antitrust Division corporations, consumers—rather than 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick From: Mark Donohoe Washington, DC 20530 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With To: Microsoft ATR Dear Microsoft Settlement: the reins off the high-tech industry, more Date: 1/28/02 9:25pm The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Subject: Microsoft Settlement dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a new and competitive products and To whom it may concern, serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech technologies. I am writting this e-mail to let you know industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Thank you for this opportunity to share my that as a consumer I feel frustrated, boxed in wasteful spending accompanying it, to be views. and limited by Microsofts monopoly. I have over. Consumers will indeed see competition Sincerely, little or no choices when it comes to Zerbin D. Belles operating systems or applications to use on in the marketplace, rather than the my home PC. This lack of choices limits my courtroom. And the investors who propel our MTC–00029169 use of the PC and causes daily productivity economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. From: Austin Gonyou loss. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the To: Microsoft ATR In the application area, there are few if any federal government should not have broken Date: 1/28/02 9:24pm choices in word processors, speadsheets or up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Subject: One last thing. other applications. This is simply not right in companies like Microsoft can get back into http://linuxtoday.com/news— our competitive and free society we claim to the business of innovating and creating better story.php3?ltsn=2002–01–29–008–20- have in the U.S.A. I was hoping the products for consumers, and not wasting NW-MS — goverment would do something but feel less valuable resources on litigation. Austin Gonyou so in light of the recent actions by the Competition means creating better goods Systems Architect, CCNA goverment. The doj could help by imposing and offering superior services to consumers. Coremetrics, Inc. the following on Microsoft. With government out of the business of Phone: 512–698–7250 1. Force them to publish and keep current stifling progress and tying the hands of email: austin;@coremetrics.com the api’s to their applications and file formats corporations, consumers—rather than ‘‘It is the part of a good shepherd to shear for those applications. With the published bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick his flock, not to skin it.’’ API’s, others could write competing the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Latin Proverb applications that could convert existing the reins off the high-tech industry, more microsoft files into the format used by the entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create MTC–00029170 competing application. Today this is not new and competitive products and From: [email protected]@inetgw possible or is twarted by MS. technologies. To: Microsoft ATR 2. Stop microsoft from further integrating Thank you for this opportunity to share my Date: 1/28/02 9:25pm features like browsers, media players and the views. VerDate 11 Sincerely, Robert M. Galvin there can be no assurance that Microsoft’s Sandra J. Bottorff Renee DuBord anticompetitive conduct will stop. A. DAY CASEBEER MADRID & Competition in the market for PC operating MTC–00029174 BATCHELDER LLP 20300 systems must be restored From: Dave Garman Stevens Creek Blvd. Suite 400 The adjudicated facts establish that To: Microsoft ATR Cupertino, CA 95014 Microsoft illegally maintained a monopoly Date: 1/28/02 9:26pm (408) 255–3255 over the market for PC operating systems by Subject: microsoft settlement Jeffrey S. Kingston undermining the ability of rival software Judge Kollar-Kotally- James L. Miller platforms to compete in that or closely I am a scientist at a small biotechnology BROBECK, PHELGER & HARRISON LLP related markets. By offering consumers the company involved in developing Spear Street Tower ability to run compelling applications on therapeutics to help people. I am writing this One Market Street operating systems other than Microsoft’s letter in protest of the proposed Microsoft San Francisco, CA 94105 Windows operating system, the Navigator settlement. We use Microsoft products (415) 442–0900 browser and Java platform threatened to because we are forced to. For the research we Michael H. Morris reduce or eliminate the applications barrier do, computer applications are often only Lee Patch to competition that sustains Microsoft’s generated for the Windows platform because SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. monopoly.2 Microsoft fully recognized the no other operating system has enough market 901 San Antonio Road threat these middleware platforms posed to share to justify development. In itself, this is Palo Alto, CA 94303 its continued monopoly over PC operating not a significant problem. However, there are (650) 960–1300 systems and contrived to maintain that so many problems and issues with the Introduction monopoly by restricting consumer access to Windows operating system and Microsoft Microsoft illegally maintained its these and any other non-Microsoft Office that we have been forced to hire a full monopoly over Intel-compatible personal middleware platforms. time Information Technology employee for a computer ‘‘PC’’) operating systems by acting The commercial appeal of any computing staff of only 15 people. This expense, in to undermine the distribution and platform is dependent in very large measure conjunction with software and hardware commercial appeal of alternative computing on the numbers of consumers who own or costs forced by Microsoft compatability platforms like Netscape Corporation’s use the platform. The greater the number of issues, costs us more than $200,000 dollars Navigator browser and Sun Microsystems, users, the greater the demand for applications a year. This is a huge expense for a small Inc.’s JavaTM technology.1 By eliminating capable of running on that platform. The business. the ability of alternative platforms to compete greater the demand for applications, the The proposed settlement seems like a with Windows, Microsoft has not only greater the number and variety of government endorsement of the Microsoft maintained its monopoly over PC operating applications developed for the platform. monoplay. This will only make our situation systems, it also has dramatically increased And the greater the number and variety of worse, with no competition to control the economic power that it derives from that applications developed for a platform, the inflation of prices. I hope you will reconsider monopoly, such that Microsoft now has the greater the consumer demand for a given and take a tougher stance against Microsoft. power to control competition in a number of computing platform.3 Once started, this Sincerely, adjacent and downstream markets as well. In ‘‘feedback’’ effect can and will sustain the Dave Garman, Ph.D. the emerging world of networked devices and adoption and commercial success of platform Scientist services, the commercial appeal and success software, such as Microsoft’s Windows 5084 McCoy Ave of adjacent or downstream devices and operating system, Netscape’s Navigator San Jose, CA 95130 services such as servers, personal digital browser or Sun’s Java platform. The key to (408) 364–1984 assistants (‘‘PDAs’’), telephones, video game successful competition in platform software systems, television set-top boxes, and web- is thus distribution.4 Unless a platform MTC–00029175 based services are in very large measure enjoys widespread and sustained From: Galvin, Rob dependent on their ability to interoperate distribution, such that large numbers of To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ with PCs via the Internet or other networks. computer users have the platform installed Date: 1/28/02 9:25pm Microsoft’s expanded monopoly power over and available for use on their computer Subject: Microsoft Settlement PC operating systems and web browsers systems, the feedback cycle of application Renata B. Hesse affords it the power to deny competing development and platform adoption will not Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice devices and services the same ability to take effect. 601 D Street NW Suite 1200 interoperate fully and completely with PCs as As the District Court found, and the Court Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft’s networked devices and services of Appeals affirmed, Microsoft engaged in a Ms. Hesse, enjoy. Microsoft is in fact exercising the series of illegal acts to choke off the Attached are the Comments to the Revised power it derives from its PC monopoly in just distribution channels for the Navigator and Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. this way to exclude competition in each of Java platforms.5 By restricting and disrupting Microsoft Corporation, No. 98–1232, these adjacent markets. Unless and until that the distribution of the Navigator browser and submitted on behalf of Sun Microsystems, power is effectively checked and ultimately the Java platform, Microsoft sought to limit Inc. Copies of the comments are submitted in eliminated, Microsoft’s past practices and the numbers of computer users with access both Word and .pdf formats. In addition, we insatiable ambition demonstrate that it will to these alternative platforms and thereby have sent a copy via facsimile. Please call if continue to destroy competition in each of also limit the demand for, and economic you have any difficulties opening or these enormously important markets. incentives supporting, application processing these attachments. Unfortunately, the Revised Proposed Final development on the Navigator and Java Robert Galvin Judgment (‘‘RPFJ’’) does little or nothing to platforms. By decreasing the distribution of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder LLP eliminate the unlawful monopoly maintained non- Microsoft platforms, such as the 20300 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 400 by Microsoft over PC operating systems. Nor Cupertino, CA 95014 does it redress the harm that Microsoft’s 2 United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d (408) 342–4578 illegal acts have caused to competition in 9, § 68 (D.DC 2000) (‘‘Findings of Fact’’) (explaining Comments to the Revised Proposed Final that market. And while the RPFJ apparently how middleware technologies such as the Navigator Judgment in United States v. Microsoft recognizes the threat to competition posed by browser and the Java platform have the ability to weaken the applications barrier to entry). Corporation, No. 98–1232 Microsoft’s exclusionary behavior in adjacent 3 See Findings of Fact, 84F. Supp. 2d. at §§ 39– State of New York, et al. v. Microsoft and downstream markets, the remedies it 40. Corporation, No. 98–1233 proposes to redress this threat are plagued 4 See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 55–60, 60–61, 70– Submitted By with so many loopholes and ambiguities that 71; findings of fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at §§ 36–52, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 143–144. Pursuant to the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16 1 United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 5 See Microsft III, 253 F.3d at 61, 72, 75–76; Lloyd R. Day, Jr. 46 (DC Cir. 2001) (‘‘Microsoft III’’). Findings of Facts, 84F. supp. 2d at §§ 357, 395–402. VerDate 11 Navigator browser and the Java platform, seeks to interoperate with Microsoft’s opportunity, but not the ability, of Microsoft knew that it could also decrease monopolized PC operating systems or competitors to compete at some future date the number and variety of applications browsers. Microsoft’s unbridled monopoly with Microsoft’s middleware products. It developed for such platforms, and thus their over a critical node on the digital network— does nothing directly to dislodge Microsoft’s relative commercial appeal to consumers. PCs—provides it the power to allow only PC operating system monopoly or to restore But for Microsoft’s unlawful attack on the such servers, PDAs, telephones, television the market for PC operating systems to the distribution of the Navigator and Java set-top boxes, videogame systems, or web competitive dynamics the market would have platforms, the installed base of these services that implement Microsoft’s possessed ‘‘but for’’ Microsoft’s illegal alternative platforms would have been very proprietary interfaces and protocols to conduct. different today. So too would the economic interoperate effectively with Microsoft’s While promising in principle, the incentives and choices of consumers and monopoly products. By illegally exploiting disclosure remedies in the RPFJ (Sections software developers. its PC operating system monopoly to acquire III.D. and III.E) are likely to fail in practice Consumers would have had the and utilize a chokehold over networked to achieve the procompetitive objectives opportunity to choose among a variety of connections to PCs, Microsoft is dramatically identified by the United States Justice competing platforms— not just Microsoft’s expanding its power to deny consumers the Department (the ‘‘Department’’) in its Windows platform—based upon benefits of choice and competition in Competitive Impact Statement. Key performance, cost or personal preference. adjacent and downstream markets as well. provisions in the RPFJ contain critical Developers too would have had the C. The RPFJ fails to remedy the monopoly loopholes and glaring ambiguities. Given opportunity to choose among a variety of illegally maintained by Microsoft Microsoft’s past disdain for compliance with competing platforms on which to develop In the face of this record, the law requires the strictures of its prior antitrust consent applications with the features, performance that any remedial decree ‘‘terminate’’ the decree with the Department, these and cost that consumers demand. monopoly, ‘‘unfetter’’ the market from ambiguities will likely lead to future Indeed, because the Navigator and Java anticompetitive conduct, ‘‘deny to the litigation, particularly since Microsoft has platforms were ‘‘cross-platform’’—that is, ran defendant the fruits’’ of its illegal acts, and repeatedly refused to answer any questions on top of a variety of operating systems, not ‘‘ensure’’ no repetition of such abuse in the regarding whether it agrees or disagrees with 6 just Microsoft’s Windows operating system— future. Measured against this standard, the the interpretations of the RPFJ proposed by consumers would have had the ability to run proposed settlement between the United the Department in the Competitive Impact applications written for the Navigator States and Microsoft reflected in the RPFJ Statement. Instead, it is clear that Microsoft’s browser and Java platform on anyoperating falls far short. strategy is to say as little as possible about system, not just Microsoft’s Windows Rather than act directly to restore the meaning or application of the RPFJ prior competition to the market for PC operating operating system. By dramatically lowering to entry of judgment, hoping that any systems, and redress the harm to competition ambiguities in the language will ultimately the cost to switch applications from one inflicted by Microsoft’s past misconduct in be interpreted in its favor. In order to protect operating system to another, the Navigator that and adjacent markets, the RPFJ actually the public and ensure that the Department and Java platforms directly attacked the accedes to Microsoft’s monopoly, and does has actually secured a settlement that is applications barrier to competition that little or nothing to eliminate or check the consistent with its representations to the protects Microsoft’s monopoly over PC enormous power it provides. Incredibly, the Court, the Department must force Microsoft operating systems, and greatly reduced the RPFJ barely proscribes behavior already held to identify any disagreements that it has with cost to consumers and developers alike of to be unlawful without remedying the far- the Department’s interpretations prior to switching away from Microsoft’s monopoly reaching and continuing anticompetitive entry of the judgment. Unless such minimal platform. In short, but for Microsoft’s effects that have been caused by that steps are taken, the RPFJ will certainly fail anticompetitive conduct, consumers today behavior.7 Even though Microsoft effectively to secure even the modest objectives it seeks would have enjoyed far greater freedom, at destroyed competition for web browsers and to attain. far less cost, to choose among competing blocked the distribution of upgraded, The RPFJ is further flawed because it operating systems based on their comparative compatible versions of the Java platform for allows Microsoft to profit from its illegal acts features, performance, and price, rather than the PC, the RPFJ fails to remedy directly by exacting royalties as a condition for simply the number of applications they these anticompetitive acts or disgorge making interoperability disclosures. support. B. Microsoft’s unlawful power to Microsoft of the power it now enjoys as a Moreover, it gives Microsoft far too much exclude competition in adjacent and result of those acts. discretion about how it will ‘‘comply’’ with downstream markets must be stopped and Instead, the RPFJ relies on Microsoft’s the RPFJ. Given its past record of eventually dissipated partners—PC manufacturers—to indirectly anticompetitive conduct, a remedial scheme By disrupting and eliminating the undermine Microsoft’s monopoly by which relies on Microsoft acting distribution of competing platforms, distributing non-Microsoft middleware. ‘‘reasonably’’ is doomed to fail. After having Microsoft has not only maintained its Relying on Microsoft’s distributors to achieve successfully prosecuted its case against monopoly over PC operating systems, it also the Department’s goals is fundamentally Microsoft, that there exists no commercially has increased the economic power that it flawed, since the PC manufacturers have viable alternative to which they could switch derives from that monopoly. By secretly little or no economic incentive or ability to in response to a substantial and sustained manipulating the interfaces and protocols work with Microsoft’s competitors, absent price increase or its equivalent by needed to interoperate with Windows, fundamental changes to the competitive Microsoft.’’).It would be tragic for the Microsoft can control which products and landscape in the PC operating system market, Department to shirk its duty under the law, services in adjacent or downstream markets which the RPFJ fails to seek.8 At best, the and through entry of the RPFJ, allow are capable of interoperating with PCs. Not RPFJ will marginally increase the Microsoft to maintain and expand its only does this permit Microsoft to enhance monopoly power. II. Sun Microsystems’’ the relative appeal and functionality of its 6 6 Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 103. Interest Regarding the Terms of the RPFJ’’ products and services at the expense of its 7 See Schine Chain Theatres, Inc. v. United States, Since its founding in 1982, Sun has been competitors, it denies consumers the benefits 334 U.S. 110, 128 (1948) (concluding that injunctive propelled by an innovative vision—‘‘The of competition. Instead of choosing a server, relief which merely ‘‘forbid[s] a repetition of the Network Is The Computer.’’ TM Sun is a telephone, application, or web service based illegal conduct’’ is legally insufficient because leader in the design, manufacture, and sale solely on its competitive merits, Microsoft is defendants would ‘‘retain the full dividends of their of computer hardware, software, and increasingly forcing consumers to purchase monopolistic practices and profit from the unlawful services. Sun directly competes with such products and services based upon their restraints of trade which they inflicted on Microsoft across a wide variety of markets competitors’’). ability to interoperate with its unlawfully 8 including operating systems, ‘‘middleware’’ monopolized platforms. Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at § 54 (stating that ‘‘[w]ithout significant exception, all OEMs pre- platforms, software development tools, office Microsoft is now abusing the power it has install Windows on the vast majority of PCs that productivity suites, directory services, and over PC operating systems and web browsers they sell, and they uniformly are of a mind. enterprise software. by seeking to extend its control to embrace loopholes in the RPFJ must be eliminated and its Sun’s experience and expertise place it in any device, application, or web service that important ambiguities clarified a unique position to assess the true VerDate 11 competitive impact of the RPFJ. As one of developers today effectively enjoy no such ability to erect or maintain entry barriers.’’ 13 Microsoft’s leading competitors and as the choice. Rather than restore the market to the To achieve this objective, the Department creator and licensor of the Java platform, Sun state it would have enjoyed but for originally sought to divide Microsoft into an was a prime target of the anticompetitive Microsoft’s illegal conduct, or even attempt Applications Business and an Operating conduct at issue in United States v. to dissipate Microsoft’s illegally maintained Systems Business in order to ‘‘create Microsoft. In addition, because Sun designs, power over that market,the RPFJ accedes to incentives for Microsoft’s Office and its other manufactures, and sells a wide variety of and accepts Microsoft’s monopoly over PC uniquely valuable applications to be made products and services that must interoperate operating systems, and does nothing to available to competing operating systems with Microsoft’s products and services, Sun’s directly and immediately restore that market when that is efficient and profitable—in real- world experience regarding the to competition. other words, in response to ordinary market difficulties and barriers to effective Indeed, the RPFJ does not even focus its forces—instead of being withheld interoperability with Microsoft’s products principal remedies on the relevant market: strategically, at the sacrifice of profits and to affords Sun unique insights into whether the the market for PC operating systems. Instead, the detriment of consumers—in order to various technical disclosures and licensing it focuses its principal remedies on entirely protect the Windows operating system practices mandated under the RPFJ will different markets: the market for distribution monopoly.’’ 14 actually achieve the results intended by the of Microsoft operating systems and the But now that the Department has reversed Department. market for middleware. In light of the record its prior position and seeks to rely solely on Sun’s comments on the RPFJ are not established and affirmed in this case, the conduct remedies, the remedies it has intended to be exhaustive. Instead, the Department’s reliance on Microsoft’s own proposed are even less likely to rectify the comments focus on key shortcomings or distributors -entities whose commercial harm done to competition than the interim problems with the RPFJ, which most directly viability is dependent on and inextricably conduct remedies previously adopted by the impact Sun, its distributors, developers, and tied to Microsoft’s success—to promote non- District Court. The conduct remedies of the customers. Others, including trade Microsoft middleware products capable of RPFJ are simply not tailored to rectify the organizations of which Sun is a member, are threatening Microsoft’s monopoly position is continuing harm or lower the barriers to likely to raise additional problems with the misplaced at best, and foolhardy at worst. competition for competing operating system RPFJ, which should be addressed prior to 1. The Department previously vendors. For example, the RPFJ does not entry of the judgment. By omitting such acknowledged that an effective remedy had even attempt to redress the competitive harm subjects from its submission, Sun does not to eliminate the applications barrier caused by Microsoft’s interference and wish to convey to the Department the protecting Microsoft’s monopoly In disruption of the distribution channels for impression that it believes the remainder of recognition of the Department’s obligations the Navigator browser or the Java platform, the RPFJ is satisfactory to Sun. Rather, Sun under the law and the extent of Microsoft’s even though Microsoft correctly perceived has merely focused its comments to highlight misconduct, the Department originally set its that widespread distribution of these particular areas of concern. remedial objectives much higher than those platforms would lower the barriers to III. The RPFJ Fails To Remedy the proposed in the RPFJ. In fact, both the competition protecting its monopoly. Nor Continuing Harm to Competition Caused By Department and the District Court concluded does the RPFJ take any direct steps to loosen Microsoft’s Illegal Acts that a combination of structural relief and Microsoft’s chokehold on the PC operating A. The RPFJ fails to dissipate Microsoft’s conduct remedies was necessary to lower the system market and facilitate the development monopoly power in the market for PC applications barrier to entry and to restore of applications from both Microsoft and operating systems competition in the market for PC operating others that could run on competing operating A remedies decree in an antitrust case systems.10 As the Department itself systems. If, as the Department previously ‘‘must seek to unfetter a market from acknowledged, conduct remedies, by contended, the ‘‘key to a remedy’’ in this case anticompetitive conduct, to terminate the themselves, are likely to be insufficient in is to reduce or eliminate Microsoft’s ability illegal monopoly, deny the defendant the this case to remedy the past harm to to create and maintain barriers to fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure competition: competition, the RPFJ does not attempt to that there remain no practices likely to result [C]onduct remedies can do little to rectify serve, much less achieve, that remedial 9 in monopolization in the future.’’ The the harm done to competition by Microsoft’s objective. market over which Microsoft has unlawfully illegal conduct in the past. For example, the Although the Court of Appeals vacated and maintained its monopoly power is the market evidence shows and the Court found that remanded the District Court’s divestiture for PC operating systems. It is that market— Microsoft’s illegal conduct prevented order, it affirmed the central liability findings the market for PC operating systems— that Navigator and Java from eroding the against Microsoft. Rejecting Microsoft’s must be restored to competition, and in applications barrier to entry ‘‘for several numerous challenges, the Court of Appeals which Microsoft’s power must be eliminated. years, and perhaps permanently’’ because concluded that Microsoft had monopoly The RPFJ, however, fails to serve this they could not facilitate entry unless they power over the PC operating system market, fundamental objective. The first and most became almost ubiquitous and thus became that Microsoft’s monopoly was protected by important flaw in the RPFJ lies in its failure attractive platforms for ISVs. A conduct an applications barrier to entry, and that to do anything to restore competition in the remedy cannot undo the demise of Navigator Microsoft engaged in a panoply of illegal acts market for PC operating systems. But for and the concomitant rise of Internet Explorer, to maintain that monopoly in light of the Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct, the nor can it ensure that there will be other competitive threat posed by the Navigator market would today provide consumers and middleware threats comparable to Navigator browser and the Java platform? Furthermore, software developers with the benefits of in the future.11 According to the Department, it set forth the legal standard against which competitive choice among at least three ‘‘[c]ompetition was injured in this case any remedy for such violations should be 16 alternative computing platforms for desktop principally because Microsoft’s illegal measured. computers: the Windows operating system, conduct raised entry barriers to the PC While the Department certainly had the Navigator browser, and the Java platform. operating system market by destroying discretion to choose not to pursue a As a direct result of Microsoft’s developments that would have made it more divestiture remedy on remand, the Court of anticompetitive conduct, consumers and likely that competing operating systems Appeals’ affirmance of the core liability would gain access to applications and other findings against Microsoft provided no 9 Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 103 (internal needed complements.’’ 12 Thus, ‘‘the key to a excuse for seeking watered-down conduct quotations and citations omitted). Although the remedy in this case is to reduce Microsoft’s remedies that are likely to be even less Department acknowledges the required remedial effective than the interim conduct remedies objectives under the law, it fails to achieve them in previously ordered by the Court. This is not 10 United States v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F. Supp. practice. See Competitive Impact Statement (‘‘CIS’’) a case where the Department entered into a at 24 (‘‘Appropriate injunctive relief in an antitrust 2d 59 (D.DC 2000), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and case should: (1) end the unlawful conduct; (2) remanded, 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001). ‘‘avoid a recurrence of the violation’’ and others like 11 11 4/28/00 Plaintiffs’’ Memo. in Support of 13 Id. it; and (3) undo its anticompetitive Proposed Final Judgment at 7–8 (citations omitted). 14 Id. consequences.’’). 12 id. at 30. 16 Id. at 103. VerDate 11 settlement with a defendant in lieu of trial. simultaneous emergence of both the * retaliating against distributors of or Here, the District Court held, and the Court Navigator browser and the Java platform. By developers for Non-Microsoft Operating of Appeals affirmed, that Microsoft violated easily connecting consumers to resources Systems and Non-Microsoft Middleware the antirust laws. By failing to remedy the across the Internet and providing a new (Sections III.A and III.F); effects of Microsoft’s illegal acts, disgorge platform for software development, these * entering into certain restrictive Microsoft’s ill-gotten gains, and attack the new, widely- distributed platforms agreements relating to the distribution of or barriers to competition protecting Microsoft’s threatened Microsoft’s monopoly power development for Non-Microsoft Operating monopoly, the Department has shirked its because they afforded consumers the ability Systems and Non-Microsoft Middleware duty under the law. to run applications on many different (Sections III.C, III.F.2, III.G); or 2. The RPFJ fails to address the effects of operating systems, not just Windows. * preventing end-users and OEMs from Microsoft’s distribution power Customers could chose between different enabling non-Microsoft Middleware Products Any remedy designed to restore browsers as well as different over Microsoft Middleware Products (Section competition in the PC operating system implementations of the Java platform. They III.H). Although such provisions are certainly market must account for the economic were not reliant on a single vendor for their appropriate in light of Microsoft’s past realities of software platform development. platform software. At this inflection point in conduct, they merely enjoin Microsoft from Distribution is the key to competitive the market, the barriers to competition continuing to break the law in the future, and viability in the market for PC platform protecting Microsoft’s monopoly looked do nothing to repair the damage to software? The applications barrier to entry increasingly precarious. competition caused by Microsoft’s past acts. which forms a ‘‘positive feedback loop’’ for Microsoft’s internal documents 4. The RPFJ assumes that Microsoft’s Microsoft and a ‘‘vicious cycle’’ for demonstrate how serious that threat really Windows distributors will promote Microsoft’s competitors was a centerpiece of was. Despite its dominant market position, competitive middleware products the Department’s case: the number of Microsoft believed it was necessary to engage Sun questions whether the Department’s installed units of a platform determines its in a campaign of illegal conduct to crush this reliance upon Microsoft’s primary commercial appeal to applications competition. As a result of that conduct, distributors, PC manufacturers, to re-start developers; the number and variety of consumers no longer have any real competition in the PC operating system applications available for a platform competitive choices for browsers for PCs, market is fundamentally misplaced. In its determines its commercial appeal to other than Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. As Competitive Impact Statement, the consumers; and the commercial appeal of the a practical matter, PC consumers also have Department contends that the RPFJ will platform to consumers in turn drives its been denied access to the latest, compatible ‘‘restore the competitive threat that installed base and market share.18 As the versions of the Java platform as a result of middleware products posed prior to Court of Appeals concluded, ‘‘[b]ecause the Microsoft’s conduct. Instead, Microsoft first Microsoft’s unlawful undertakings.’’ 22 The applications barrier to entry protects a offered an incompatible version of the Java Department’s assumption seems to be that by dominant operating system irrespective of platform, and now seeks to roll-out their giving PC manufacturers greater contractual quality, it gives Microsoft power to stave off ‘‘knock-off’’ middleware runtime, the .NET freedom to distribute non-Microsoft even superior new rivals.’’ 19 In large Framework/Common Language Runtime, that Middleware Products, a rich market of measure, the Navigator browser and the Java copies many of the features of the Java competing middleware products will arise platform threatened Microsoft’s monopoly platform with one critical difference—it runs that could eventually give rise to alternative because they had achieved widespread only on Windows. computing platforms capable of undermining The question that should be asked distribution on both Windows and non- Microsoft’s application barrier to entry. regarding the RPFJ is whether it will disgorge Windows platforms, thereby becoming a The RPFJ, however, does nothing to ensure from Microsoft the fruits of its illegal acts and potentially more attractive platform for that such alternative platforms are actually restore a competitive marketplace where application development than Windows. If distributed to consumers. If PC consumers will have the ability to choose developers increasingly chose to develop their platform software from an array of manufacturers choose not to distribute such their applications to the Navigator and Java competitive choices. A critical review of the software, consumers will never have the platforms, rather than the Windows platform, RPFJ makes plain it does not. 3. The RPFJ choice that they had, prior to Microsoft’s consumers would have greater freedom to does little more than attempt to enjoin illegal acts, when alternative platforms like switch away from the Windows operating Microsoft from continuing to engage in the the Navigator browser or the Java platform system because they would still be able to conduct already found to be unlawful were ubiquitously distributed. The key run the applications that they desire using Rather than attempting to undo the damage question then is whether PC manufacturers competing operating systems. to competition resulting from Microsoft’s will aggressively distribute non-Microsoft To restore competition in the PC operating actions and pry open the PC operating system platforms. Unfortunately, the Department’s system market, an appropriate remedy market to competition, the RPFJ is purely Competitive Impact Statement offers no should attempt to place the market back in forward- looking, focusing primarily on the explanation or empirical evidence to support the position it would have been ‘‘but for’’ precise Microsoft conduct already found to this critical assumption. Microsoft’s illegal conduct. In other words, be unlawful. Given the limited nature of the relief an appropriate remedy would ensure, to the Injunctive relief which simply ‘‘forbid[s] a proposed in the RPFJ, Sun is not as sanguine extent possible, that alternative platforms repetition of the illegal conduct’’ is as the Department about such prospects. achieve the distribution that they would have insufficient under Section 2 because it would First, despite the retaliation restrictions received ‘‘but for’’ Microsoft’s illegal allow Microsoft to ‘‘retain the full dividends contained in the RPFJ, because Microsoft’s conduct. Moreover, an appropriate remedy of [its] monopolistic practices and profit from market power is left largely untouched and also would seek to open up Microsoft’s the unlawful restraint of trade which [it] had PC manufacturers remain dependent solely distribution channels to expand consumer inflicted on competitors.’’20 As the Supreme on Microsoft for a critical component for choice by ensuring that alternative platforms Court has made plain, an antitrust remedy their products, it is very likely that, in could compete on the merits with Microsoft’s ‘‘does not end with enjoining continuance of practice, many PC manufacturers will remain products, rather than having Microsoft’s the unlawful restraints’’ but must also seek reluctant to risk incurring Microsoft’s wrath illegally maintained distribution powers to undo the effects of the illegal acts and by supporting competing platforms. effectively foreclose such choices. ensure that they do not reoccur. 21 Microsoft simply retains too many formal To evaluate the potential efficacy of the Most of the RPFJ is oriented towards and informal tactics to reward its ‘‘friends,’’ RPFJ, one must compare the competitive prohibiting a narrow set of future illegal and punish its ‘‘enemies.’’ One need only landscape before and after Microsoft’s illegal conduct by Microsoft. For example, the RPFJ look at PC manufacturers’’ treatment of acts. Prior to Microsoft’s acts, the contains provisions which would prohibit Microsoft’s Internet Explorer for guidance on marketplace was undergoing dramatic Microsoft from: how the terms of the RPFJ are likely to be changes as a result of the nearly applied in practice. In July 2001, Microsoft 20 Schine, 334 U.S. at 128. announced that PC manufacturers, for the 18 Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at §§ 39–40. 21 See United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 19 Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 55–56. U.S. 131,171 (1948). 22 CIS at 3. VerDate 11 first time, would be free to remove access to * Commingling of software code to make Microsoft’s monopoly. Browsers have been a Internet Explorer. Since that time, not one PC it technologically difficult to remove, Internet vital distribution channel for a variety of manufacturer has removed the Internet Explorer from Windows; 28 middleware products, including the Java Explorer icon from retail PCs. * Anticompetitive deals with Apple platform, media players, instant messaging Second, under the terms of the RPFJ, Computer.29 products, etc. If Microsoft did not control this competing middleware vendors are at such a Not only did Microsoft effectively destroy distribution channel, competitors could have competitive disadvantage to Microsoft that it Navigator as a viable alternative platform, by continued to use competing browsers as a will remain extremely difficult to secure seizing control over the web browser, vehicle for distributing non-Microsoft distribution of these competing products Microsoft greatly expanded its market power. middleware. through PC manufacturers. Under the RPFJ, By dominating web browsers and effectively Consequently, the continuing competitive Microsoft’s ability to bundle middleware excluding all competitors, Microsoft secured harm flowing from Microsoft’s unlawful products into its Windows operating system the power to set and control the protocols conduct is substantial. The RPFJ, however, would remain essentially unfettered. PC and interfaces used for connecting with and does nothing directly to address it. Instead, manufacturers would have the legal right to communicating over the Internet. it leaves Microsoft to enjoy the spoils of its remove or disable certain Microsoft Imagine, for example, that a single illegal conduct. At best, the RPFJ attempts to middleware products, but what commercial company monopolized the manufacture and make it easier for PC manufacturers to now incentive will the PC manufacturers have to supply of telephones, such that it supplied distribute competing browsers. But given the remove or disable the Microsoft products if 95% of the world’s telephones. If that dominant position that Internet Explorer has they have already paid for such products in company were permitted to change the dial now achieved, who will develop and market order to license the Windows operating tone on its phones, or the keypad, in ways a competing browser? Because Microsoft system? Moreover, while Microsoft retains that permitted only phones made by it to call bundles Internet Explorer with its monopoly the ability to bundle its middleware product and interact with its installed base of operating system, a competitor would have to (e.g., a browser, media player, etc.) into every telephones, the telephones made and sold by compete against a product with a marginal copy of Windows (absent an affirmative act its competitors would have very little or no cost to PC manufacturers and consumers of by a PC manufacturer to exclude such value, since they could no longer essentially zero, since Microsoft can recoup product), a competitor would have to interoperate effectively with 95% of all its costs from its monopoly products. Even if individually approach scores, if not telephones. And if that company also altered the competing browser were technically hundreds, of different PC manufacturers the telephones it made so that they worked superior, Microsoft can regularly introduce around the world and negotiate a separate best—or indeed only—with the telephone new interfaces and protocols to interfere with agreement with each to achieve a comparable switches and answering machines that the the competing browser’s ability to compete, degree of distribution. In addition, because monopoly telephone company also made, forcing the competitor to chase each new the marginal cost to the PC manufacturer for then that company would quickly obtain a proprietary standard Microsoft announces. the bundled Microsoft middleware product is monopoly over the telephone switch and Unless Microsoft is first stripped of the effectively zero, PC manufacturers may be answering machine markets as well. fruits of its illegal conduct, real competition reluctant to pay non-Microsoft middleware Microsoft’s control over the browser and in the browser market is unlikely to occur. vendors a sufficient price to recoup the costs PC operating system provides Microsoft with Absent such remedial relief, it is akin to such middleware vendors would incur to just such unbridled power to dictate holding a 100-yard dash in which Microsoft make and sell competing products. unilaterally the interfaces and protocols by has an 87-yard lead after jumping the gun Finally, since the vast majority of PC which other devices and applications can and intentionally tripping all of its manufacturers are in the business of selling interoperate with Microsoft’s products and competitors. Consumers are directly harmed Windows PCs, some manufacturers might services over the Internet. The role played by as a result. Instead of a marketplace offering believe it is against their own commercial the browser in communicating with devices, many different browser choices, consumers interests to support alternative middleware are increasingly faced with only one choice platforms. For example, if a middleware applications, and web services over the -Microsoft’s browser. C. The RPFJ does not platform (e.g., the Java platform) truly lowers Internet is directly analogous to the role remedy the substantial harm to competition barriers to entry and allows consumers to run played by the consumer telephone in the caused by Microsoft’s illegal acts against the applications on any operating system (e.g., telephone network. Java platform Apple Mac operating system, etc.) that As a result of Microsoft’s illegal acts, The District Court found, and the Court of supports that middleware platform, Microsoft can now exclude competing Appeals affirmed, that Microsoft engaged in consumers eventually might chose to products and services from being able to numerous anticompetitive acts directed purchase their computers from vendors other communicate over the Internet with against the Java platform: than Windows PC vendors. Thus, the RPFJ Microsoft’s browser, or Microsoft can * Exclusionary ISV deals;30 fails to account for the fact that many PC mandate interfaces and protocols which favor * Anticompetitive threats to Intel to stop manufacturers may derive substantial benefit its products over competitors’’ products. Java platform development;31 from maintaining the applications barrier to Thus, by virtue of its anticompetitive * Deceiving developers into using entry protecting Microsoft’s Windows conduct, Microsoft has secured the power to Microsoft’s incompatible implementation of monopoly. B. The RPFJ does not remedy the potentially appropriate a public asset of the Java platform;32 33 34 continuing competitive harm to web immeasurable value—the Internet—through * Blocking distribution of Netscape browsers use of proprietary interfaces and protocols. Navigator—a prime distribution channel for Prior to Microsoft’s illegal campaign, Control of the browser also was essential the Java platform to PCs? Netscape’s Navigator browser was the market to protecting Microsoft’s PC operating system Prior to Microsoft’s anticompetitive acts, leading web browser by a wide margin.23 monopoly. By controlling this ‘‘killer Sun had secured two major distribution Today, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser application,’’ Microsoft can determine which channels for delivering the Java platform to dominates the market, accounting for over competing operating systems, if any, will be PCs—Netscape’s Navigator browser and 87% of all users. 24To achieve this dramatic able to run Internet Explorer. Without first- Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser and turn of events, the District Court found, and rate browser support capable of the Court of Appeals affirmed, that Microsoft communicating with the content available engaged in a series of unlawful, across the Internet, competing PC operating 30 See id. at 76. anticompetitive acts: systems simply will not be able to attract 31 See id. at 78. * Exclusionary contracts with OEMs,25 consumers away from Microsoft’s monopoly 32 See id. at 77. IAPs,26 and ISVs;27 operating system. 33 See Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at § 397 Finally, control of the browser was (explaining how Microsoft used some of its ‘‘surplus monopoly power’’ to suppress distribution 23 important in order for Microsoft to be able to See Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at § 360. of Netscape Navigator and inflict further 24 2/21/01 StatMarket Report Regarding Global control a key distribution channel for competitive damage on the distribution of the Java Browser Usage Share. middleware that potentially threatened platform). 25 See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 64. 34 See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 980 F. 26 See id. at 71. 27 See id. at 72. Supp. 537, 539 (D.DC 1997). VerDate 11 Windows operating system. By its illegal platform lost as a result of Microsoft’s Statement. The language of the Revised acts, Microsoft effectively blocked the conduct, particularly now that Microsoft will Proposed Final Judgment was carefully distribution of compatible, upgraded versions attempt to compete against the Java platform negotiated and means what it says. The of the Java platform through both channels, with its .NET Framework. Department’s Competitive Impact Statement and substantially slowed the development of Instead of attempting to undo this damage has the same legal force and effect in this desktop applications written to the Java to competition, the RPFJ would allow case as in any other. Beyond that I cannot go platform. Microsoft to bundle its competing .NET in light of the facts that the Tunney Act First, by blocking distribution of Netscape Framework with Windows, while forcing proceeding is currently under way before Navigator and dramatically reducing its Sun and its licensees to try and re-create the Judge Kollar-Kotelly and that the non-settling market share, Microsoft effectively closed distribution channels that Microsoft states are attempting to raise various issues this alternative channel for distributing unlawfully destroyed. compatible versions of the Java platform to Absent real remedial relief, Microsoft will concerning the Competitive Impact PCs. Second, by developing and distributing continue to reap the benefits of its unlawful Statement as part of the ongoing ‘‘remedies’’ its own incompatible version of the Java conduct, and consumers will have no litigation also before Judge Kollar-Kotelly. platform which was tied to Windows, meaningful alternative computing platform Once that litigation is completed, I may be Microsoft fragmented the Java platform in available on PCs that is not controlled by in a better position to discuss these issues order to re-create its applications barrier to Microsoft. IV. Critical Terms In The RPFJ Are with the Committee. entry, ensuring that PC consumers only had Undefined or Ambiguous A. Significant Microsoft’s clear strategy is to refuse to Microsoft’s version of the Java platform. By ambiguities in the RPFJ must be cured to reveal anything about its interpretations of refusing to distribute compatible upgrades of avoid further litigation the RPFJ prior to the Court’s entry of the the Java platform, Microsoft effectively froze The dispute between Microsoft and the judgment, lest it become clear to both the desktop development for the Java platform by Department regarding the prior consent Department and the public that Microsoft’s continuing to distribute an ‘‘old’’ version of decree demonstrates the need to carefully understanding of its potential obligations the technology, which did not have the richer define technical terms to avoid future under the RPFJ is substantially different from set of functionality available in later versions. litigation and ensure the parties agree with the Department’s. Then, when disputes with Finally, by means of exclusionary deals, respect to Microsoft’s obligations. As the the Department about the scope of its threats, and incompatible developer tools, Department is well aware, the 1995 consent obligations arise, as they inevitably will, Microsoft attempted to either deceive or decree with Microsoft prevented Microsoft Microsoft will be free to argue that the RPFJ coerce developers away from developing from requiring PC manufacturers to license is ambiguous, and therefore must be compatible applications written to the Java other products as a condition of licensing the construed, as a matter of law, in Microsoft’s platform that could run on operating systems Windows operating system? However, the favor? other than Windows. consent decree specified that this obligation While it certainly is in Microsoft’s interest Since the trial, Microsoft has continued to did not ‘‘prohibit Microsoft from developing attack the Java platform to the detriment of integrated products,’’ though the term to pursue such a strategy, the Department consumers. In its most recent version of ‘‘integrated products’’ was left undefined? should not risk being complicit in a scheme Windows, Windows XP, Microsoft no longer In 1997, the Department asked the District that would effectively mislead the Court and included even the old version of the Java Court to find Microsoft in contempt for the public about the true nature and impact platform which it previously had been requiring PC manufacturers who licensed the of the RPFJ. The Department should insist shipping as part of Windows in accordance Windows operating system to also license that Microsoft identify any and all with the terms of a settlement agreement Internet Explorer. Although the District Court disagreements that it has with the with Sun. As a result, millions of consumers found that the Department’s proposed interpretations offered by the Department in purchasing Windows XP will no longer be definition was probably correct, the court the Competitive Impact Statement prior to able to access web pages that contain declined to find Microsoft in contempt entry of the RPFJ. Absent such an inquiry applications written to the Java platform because Microsoft offered a ‘‘plausible and a record of Microsoft’s position, the unless they engage in a time-consuming interpretation,’’ and any ambiguities had to District Court, Sun, and the public at large download of the entire Java platform. be resolved in Microsoft’s favor? have no assurances that the terms of the RPFJ In addition, Microsoft recently unveiled its Given that any ambiguities are likely to be will actually be construed in the manner own competing middleware runtime—the resolved in Microsoft’s favor in any future proposed by the Department in its .NET Framework—as part of its .NET enforcement proceeding, Sun believes it is Competitive Impact Statement. B. initiative. During the time that Microsoft essential that any and all material ‘‘Interoperate’’ and ‘‘interoperating’’ must be effectively halted the development and ambiguities be clarified prior to the entry of defined distribution of the Java platform for the PC the RPFJ. The key disclosure provisions contained in for several years, it simultaneously was busy Although the Department offers its own the RPFJ rely on the terms ‘‘interoperate’’ and developing its own middleware runtime that interpretation of some of the RPFJ’s ‘‘interoperating’’ to define the scope of copied the design and architecture of the Java ambiguous terms in the Competitive Impact Microsoft’s obligations, but these critical platform with one glaring difference—the Statement, Microsoft has repeatedly refused terms are not expressly defined. .NET Framework runs only on Windows. to reveal whether it disagrees with those Section III.D of the RPFJ would require Thus, not only did Microsoft’s illegal interpretations. For example, following Microsoft to disclose ‘‘for the sole purpose of conduct allow it to blunt the competitive recent testimony by Microsoft’s counsel, interoperating with a Windows Operating threat which the Java platform posed to Charles Rule, before the Senate Judiciary System Product... the APIs and related Microsoft’s Windows monopoly, it also Committee, members of the Committee posed Documentation that are used by Microsoft allowed Microsoft the time to try and catch a series of questions to Mr. Rule regarding up with many of the compelling features that, whether Microsoft agreed with the Middleware to interoperate with a Windows at the time, only the Java platform offered. Department’s interpretation of the RPFJ as set Operating System Product.’’ (emphasis The RPFJ, however, does not seek to forth in the Competitive Impact Statement. added). remedy the continuing competitive harm Mr. Rule’s responses were telling. When Section III.E would require Microsoft to: caused by Microsoft’s actions. For example, asked a series of questions directed to make available for use by third parties, for the RPFJ does nothing to attempt to put the whether ‘‘Microsoft disagree[d] with the sole purpose of interoperating with a marketplace in the position it would have anything stated in the Department’s Windows Operating System Product, on been ‘‘but for’’ Microsoft’s conduct— Competitive Impact Statement concerning reasonable and non-discriminatory terms .... ubiquitous distribution of an upgraded, the meaning and scope of the proposed Final any Communication Protocol that is... (i) compatible Java platform on top of every Judgment,’’ Mr. Rule refused to answer the implemented in a Windows Operating Windows operating system as an available, questions directly, instead repeatedly System Product installed on a client alternative platform for software referring to the same ‘‘non-answer’’: computer, and (ii) used to interoperate applications. Nor does it account for the Microsoft did not participate in the natively (i.e., without the addition of time-to-market advantage that the Java preparation of the Competitive Impact software code to the client operating system VerDate 11 product) with a Microsoft server operating that Microsoft Middleware uses to functionality of one another in all of the ways system product. (emphasis added).35 36 37 38 39 interoperate with any Windows Operating they are intended to function. For example, Depending on the definition of these terms, System Product .... Microsoft will not be able a non- Microsoft operating system installed the scope of Microsoft’s obligations under to hamper the development or operation of on a server computer ‘‘Interoperates’’ with a these provisions could vary dramatically. potentially threatening software by Windows Operating System Product installed Therefore, in order to avoid a reprise of the withholding interface information or on a Personal Computer if such non- litigation surrounding the 1995 consent permitting its own products to use hidden or Microsoft server operating system can (a) be decree with Microsoft, the Department undisclosed interfaces.’’ 42 substituted for a Microsoft operating system should clarify the meaning of these terms in In light of these comments, the Department running on a server computer connected to the text of the RPFJ, particularly since any appears to be interpreting ‘‘interoperate’’ to a Personal Computer running a Windows ambiguity is likely to be construed in mean the ability of two different products to Operating System Product, and (b) provide Microsoft’s favor in any enforcement action access, utilize, and support the full features the user of the non-Microsoft server operating brought by the Department. and functionality of one another. Under the system the ability to access, utilize and/or An explicit definition of these terms is Department’s interpretation, the disclosures support the full services, features and essential because Sun believes the would be of sufficient detail to allow a non- functionality of the Windows Operating Department and Microsoft likely attach very Microsoft server operating system to System Product that are accessed, utilized different meaning to these terms. implement the Microsoft Communication and/or supported by such Microsoft server For example, in the Competitive Impact Protocols in a manner such that the non- operating system without any disruption, Statement, the Department offers a number of Microsoft server operating system could be degradation or impairment in such services, broad characterizations regarding the scope substituted for a Microsoft server operating features and functions. C. The scope of of these interoperability disclosures: system without any disruption, degradation, Microsoft’s ‘‘Communication Protocols’’ * ‘‘[I]f a Windows Operating System or impairment of all the features, disclosure should be clarified and Product is using all the Communications functionality, and services of any Microsoft exemplified Protocols that it contains to communicate PC operating system connected to such non- As a vendor of server operating systems with two servers, one of which is a Microsoft Microsoft server operating system. that must connect and communicate with server and one of which is a competing By contrast, in proceedings before the Microsoft’s monopoly PC operating system, server that has licensed and fully European Commission, Microsoft has the disclosure and licensing provisions in implemented all the Communications asserted a much narrower interpretation of Section III.E relating to Microsoft’s Protocols, the Windows Operating System ‘‘interoperate’’ than the Department’s Communications Protocols are especially Product should behave identically in its interpretation. In that forum, Microsoft has important to Sun’s business. Although the interaction with both the Microsoft and non- maintained it already discloses all term Communications Protocols is expressly Microsoft servers.’’ 40 information necessary to achieve defined, the RPFJ lacks any explicit examples * ‘‘Section III.E. will permit seamless interoperability between Microsoft’s PC regarding which Microsoft technologies interoperability between Windows Operating operating system and non-Microsoft server would currently be required to be disclosed System Products and non-Microsoft servers operating systems. Since Microsoft contends or what the extent of such disclosure would on a network. For example, the provision that they already disclose all of the be in practice. While the terms of the RPFJ requires the licensing of all Communications information necessary to satisfy this narrow must be written to anticipate Microsoft’s Protocols necessary for non-Microsoft servers definition of ‘‘interoperate,’’ if this definition future conduct, there is no excuse for to interoperate with the Windows Operating were to prevail, Microsoft will disclose misunderstandings regarding Microsoft’s System Products’’ implementation of the nothing new. Its conduct will remain obligations with respect to known, existing Kerberos security standard in the same unchanged. interoperability barriers. Because the manner as do Microsoft servers, including Under Microsoft’s narrow definition, technical terms surrounding this provision the exchange of Privilege Access Certificates. interoperability is a one-way street that is are potentially subject to varying Microsoft must license for use by non- satisfied if all of the functionality of a non- interpretations, the RPFJ would be Microsoft server operating system products Microsoft server operating system can be substantially improved if it gave better the Communications Protocols that Windows accessed from a Windows PC operating guidance on how these provisions would Operating System Products use to enable system. In contrast to the Department’s actually be applied in practice. network services through mechanisms such position, Microsoft has repeatedly taken the For example, in its Competitive Impact as Windows server message block protocol/ position that interoperability does not require Statement, the Department identifies some of common Internet file system protocol a disclosure sufficient to allow a Windows the specific protocols it believes Microsoft communications, as well as Microsoft remote PC operating system to behave identically will be required to disclose under Section procedure calls between the client and server when connected to both Microsoft and non- III.E to the extent such protocols are operating systems.’’ 41 Microsoft server operating systems. implemented in Microsoft’s PC operating * ‘‘Section III.D of the proposed Final Moreover, Microsoft has previously claimed system products, including: protocols Judgment requires Microsoft to disclose to that ‘‘interoperability’’ relates only to those relating to Microsoft’s Internet Information ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs and OEMs all of the protocols and interfaces which Microsoft has Services (‘‘IIS’’) web server and Active interfaces and related technical information chosen to document and make available to Directory, Microsoft’s implementation of the third parties, and should not include Kerberos security standard (including the protocols and interfaces that Microsoft exchange of Privilege Access Certificates), the 35 Id. at 539–40 (emphasis added). reserves for itself to use to connect its PC and Windows server message block protocol, the 36 Id. at 541–42. server operating system products. Absent an Windows common Internet file system 37 Responses of Charles F. Rule to Judiciary Committee Questions at 13. explicit definition of this critical term in the protocol, Microsoft remote procedure calls 38 See Microsoft, 980 F. Supp. at 541 (‘‘The Court RPFJ, Sun believes the disclosure provisions between the client and server operating must resolve any ambiguities in the terms of the of the RPFJ are doomed to fail. To avoid systems, and protocols that permit a runtime Final Judgment in favor of Microsoft, the party future disputes over the meaning of this term environment (e.g., the Common Language charged with contempt.’’); see also Cause v. Nuclear and to ensure that the public actually Runtime) to receive and execute code from a Regulatory Comm’n, 674 F.2d 921,927–28 (DC Cir. receives a remedy that is consistent with the server.43 1982). Department’s representations in the Microsoft, however, has refused to say 39 See also Section III.H (providing that a Competitive Impact Statement, Sun proposes whether it agrees with the Department’s Windows Operating System Product may invoke a that the RPFJ should be amended to include interpretation. To avoid future disputes and Microsoft Middleware Product in any instance in the following definition: ensure that the parties agree on the kinds of which ‘‘that Microsoft Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use in interoperating with a ‘‘Interoperate’’ or ‘‘Interoperating’’ means protocols that will fall within the scope of server maintained by Microsoft (outside the context the ability of two different products to access, the term ‘‘Communications Protocols,’’ the of general Web browsing)’’). utilize and/or support the full features and RPFJ should be amended to identify 40 CIS at 38. 41 CIS at 38–39. 42 CIS at 33. 43 CIS at 37–39. VerDate 11 particular examples of protocols that provisions of Section III.J should be clarified flawed because it grants Microsoft discretion Microsoft would be required to disclose. Particularly troubling to Sun is the to limit its obligations merely based on the Furthermore, in advance of entry of the RPFJ, possibility that the ‘‘carve-out’’ provisions of way it chooses to trademark its products. For Microsoft should be required to fully detail Section III.J might be broadly construed by middleware functionality that is distributed what it will disclose with regard to existing Microsoft to exclude many of the kinds of after entry of the Final Judgment, except for Communications Protocols that pose a barrier disclosures that would otherwise fall within a small, specified class of middleware to interoperability. At a minimum, the the scope of Sections III.D and III.E. Section applications (e.g., Internet browsers, email Department should require Microsoft to III. J. 1 provides that no provision of the Final client software, etc.), Microsoft’s obligations identify any disagreements Microsoft has Judgment shall: [r]equire Microsoft to under the RPFJ are not triggered unless it with the Department’s interpretation of this document, disclose or license to third parties: chooses to distribute the middleware product provision prior to entry of the RPFJ. Unless (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or under a trademark other than ‘‘Microsoft??’’ the Department and Microsoft go through the portions or layers of Communications or Functionality that Microsoft describes or exercise of attempting to apply this provision Protocols the disclosure of which would markets as being part of a Microsoft in practice, the public cannot be assured that compromise the security of a particular Middleware Product (such as a service pack, there truly has been a ‘‘meeting of the minds’’ installation or group of installations of anti- upgrade, or bug fix for Internet Explorer), or regarding the scope and meaning of this piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital that is a version of a Microsoft Middleware important provision. fights management, encryption or Product (such as Internet Explorer 5.5), shall Not only should the Department clarify the authentication systems, including without be considered to be part of that Microsoft RPFJ with examples of particular protocols limitation, keys, authorization tokens or Middleware Product. that Microsoft currently would be required to enforcement criteria .... (emphasis added). ‘‘Windows??.’’ 46In other words, after entry disclose, the Department also should clarify In the Competitive Impact Statement, the of the RPFJ, if Microsoft bundles its new the kinds of information Microsoft will be Department characterizes this exception as a middleware runtime alternative to the Java required to disclose regarding its ‘‘narrow one, limited to specific end-user platform, the .NET Framework (also known Communications Protocols. Although the implementations of security items such as as the Common Language Runtime) with term Communications Protocols appears to actual keys, authorization tokens or Windows, it only would have to make be defined broadly in Section VI.B of the enforcement criteria, the disclosure of which disclosures about the APIs used by the .NET RPFJ, in practice, the actual application of would compromise the security of ‘‘a Framework or allow OEMs and consumers to these provisions is likely to give rise to many particular installation or group of remove access to it, if it chose to distribute potential questions and disputes. For installations’’ of the listed security the .NET Framework under the trademarked example, features.’’44 But nowhere in the RPFJ is the name ‘‘.NET Framework.’’ If it simply * Is everything that is shipped with term ‘‘compromise the security of a particular distributed the product under the name Microsoft Windows server operating system installation or group of installations’’ ‘‘Microsoft* .NET Framework,’’ its activities products (e.g., Windows 2000 Server, defined. What will this provision mean in would appear to be unconstrained by the Windows 2000 Advanced Server, etc.), practice? With respect to known RPFJ. To allow Microsoft to evade its obligations under the RPFJ based on arbitrary including Microsoft’s Active Directory or IIS, interoperability problems relating to Active trademarking practices is absurd. part of the ‘‘server operating system,’’ and Directory, Microsoft’s Kerberos security To avoid this result, the definition of therefore potentially the subject of disclosure model, Windows Media Player, or the ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ should be to the extent it comprises a Passport authentication/authorization amended as follows: the ‘‘Trademarked’’ ‘‘Communications Protocol’’? service, what portions of those protocols and requirement of Section VI.K.2.b.iii should be * Are Active Directory, Kerberos security interfaces can Microsoft refuse to disclose stricken; the terms ‘‘.NET Framework’’ and protocol, COM+, Dfs, DLT, CIFS extensions, pursuant to this provision? If Microsoft ‘‘Common Language Runtime’’ should be RPC, the Win 32 APIs, or Passport examples refuses to disclose such information, will added to Section VI.K.1; and the term of ‘‘Communications Protocols’’ that must be competitors be able to fully interoperate with ‘‘middleware runtime environment’’ should disclosed and licensed pursuant to Section all of the features and functionality of the Windows operating system, or will the value be added to Section VI.K.2.a. III.E of the RPFJ? V. Section III.I’s Licensing Provisions * Where Microsoft has extended an of the disclosure provisions be effectively eviscerated? What steps has the Department Allow Microsoft to Profit from Its Unlawful industry standard like Kerberos, will Acts Microsoft be required to disclose both the taken to ensure that, in practice, this exception will not swallow the intended A. Microsoft should not be allowed to standard portion of its implementation and demand royalties as a condition for making its proprietary extensions? effect of the disclosure provisions? Again, unless such questions are clarified interoperability disclosures * Will Microsoft be required to disclose the The licensing provisions of the RPFJ are details regarding its proprietary in advance of entry of the RPFJ, Microsoft is likely to use this purportedly narrow fundamentally flawed because they would implementation of the Kerberos security require the public to pay royalties to protocol in Windows 2000 and Windows XP exception to eviscerate its disclosure and licensing obligations under the RPFJ. E. The Microsoft in order to interoperate with Professional, including the information Microsoft’s illegally maintained monopoly necessary for a non-Microsoft server to be definition of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ should be amended products. If Microsoft had not engaged in its able to generate, exchange, and process the pattern of illegal conduct, its monopoly authentication and authorization data in The definition of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ 45 in the RPFJ is fundamentally would have begun to dissipate, and it would Privilege Access Certificates? have been unable to collect this * What does ‘‘make available for use by ‘‘interoperability’’ tax. As the Department 44 CIS at 39. third parties’’ mean in practice in the context itself previously recognized, ‘‘[i]f Microsoft of Section III.E? Will Microsoft be required to 45 The RPFJ defines ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ as follows: 1. the functionality provided were in a competitive market, it would just disclose fields, formats, etc., or will it be disclose its confidential interface information required to disclose sufficient information to by Internet Explorer, Microsoft’s Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows to other server software developers so that allow a competitor to create its own Messenger, Outlook Express and their successors in their complementary software would work implementation of the Communications a Windows Operating System Product, and 2. for optimally with, and thereby enhance the Protocol that will allow a competitor’s server any functionality that is first licensed, distributed value of, Microsoft’s PC operating operating system to seamlessly interoperate or sold by Microsoft after the entry of this Final systems.’’ 47It is only because Microsoft has with the Windows PC operating system in Judgment and that is part of any Windows illegally maintained its PC operating system the same manner as a Microsoft server Operating System Product a. Internet browsers, email client software, networked audio/video client operating system? Operating System Product; ii. is similar to the Unless such questions are resolved and software, instant messaging software or b. functionality provided by Microsoft software that— functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft clarified in advance of entry of the RPFJ, the i is, or in the year preceding the commercial release Middleware Product; and iii. is Trademarked. disclosure and licensing obligations of of any new Windows Operating System Product 46 See RPFJ, Sections VI.K and VI.T. Section III.E will not provide any meaningful was, distributed separately by Microsoft (or by an 47 4/28/00 Plaintiffs’’ Memo. in Support of relief. D. The scope of the ‘‘carve-out’’ entity acquired by Microsoft) from a Windows Proposed Final Judgment at 28. VerDate 11 monopoly and wishes to expand its continue to delay making disclosures to key order to interoperate with Microsoft’s monopoly to server operating systems that competitors by dragging out negotiations and monopoly product. If Microsoft wished to Microsoft has an incentive to withhold insisting on commercially unacceptable obtain rights to practice or use a competitor’s information from competitors regarding terms. intellectual property, it could do so simply complementary software. Thus, the RPFJ, in Does the Department intend to review by incorporating that technology into effect, authorizes Microsoft to collect a ongoing negotiations to ensure Microsoft is Windows, then insisting on both a royalty portion of its monopoly rents through this taking reasonable positions in the and a grant-back license as the consideration licensing regime. negotiations? How will the Department that competitor must provide in order to Furthermore, not only is Microsoft ensure that Microsoft does not exploit the authorized to collect royalties for the negotiating process to facilitate delay and enable its products to interoperate with ‘‘privilege’’ of interoperating with its illegal disadvantage key competitors? Will Microsoft’s monopolized PCs. monopoly, the RPFJ places no limits on how Microsoft’s competitors be forced to sign Indeed, Microsoft’s competitors would high a royalty Microsoft can demand, other license agreements before they know the have to license Microsoft the right to than the royalty must be reasonable. scope of information that Microsoft will or whatever intellectual property Microsoft may However, since competitors’’ products must will not disclose? Does the Department have incorporated into Windows even before be able to interoperate with Microsoft’s expect that the proposed Technical they know what intellectual property monopoly PC operating systems, they may be Committee will be involved in resolving such Microsoft has stolen or infringed. No other constrained to essentially pay whatever disputes? If so, will Technical Committee company has such power, let alone Microsoft demands. members have the requisite licensing and governmental blessing and endorsement, to To ensure Microsoft does not continue to legal experience to assess whether Microsoft extort such concessions. enjoy the fruits of its illegal conduct, Section is insisting upon commercially unreasonable Sun therefore proposes that the RPFJ be III.I of the RPFJ should be amended to require terms? amended to strike Section 111.I.5 in its Microsoft to grant any licenses required To ensure Microsoft cannot circumvent the entirety. under the RPFJ on a royalty-free basis. intent of the RPFJ, Sun proposes that the VI. Conclusion B. Microsoft has too much discretion over RPFJ be amended to include a publicly The RPFJ fails to remedy the continuing licensing terms under the RPFJ Although available template identifying the terms Section III.I of the RPFJ places some under which Microsoft will license its competitive harm resulting from Microsoft’s limitations on the terms under which technology pursuant to the RPFJ. In actions, and instead improperly accedes to Microsoft must license its technology to principle, this approach is analogous to Microsoft’s illegally maintained and facilitate the disclosure obligations of the Section III.B which requires Microsoft to expanded monopoly power. The Department RPFJ, Microsoft retains broad discretion, have uniform license agreements with OEMs should withdraw its support for the RPFJ, which it is likely to exploit. in accordance with published, uniform and instead pursue remedies that will restore For example, Section III.I. 1 requires that royalty rates. Requiring Microsoft to identify competition to the PC operating system all license terms be ‘‘reasonable.’’ this license template in advance would serve market, prevent Microsoft from expanding its A reasonableness standard, however, two important objectives. First, it would help monopoly in that market into adjacent and provides little practical guidance, and is a limit Microsoft’s ability to evade the intent of downstream markets, and redress the harm to particularly poor choice in the case of a the RPFJ through negotiation tactics. Second, competition caused by Microsoft’s illegal monopolist like Microsoft who has it would allow the public to understand the acts. At a minimum, the Department should repeatedly broken the law to secure true costs and conditions of licensing under seek to remedy directly the specific harm to commercial advantages over its competitors. the RPFJ in advance of entry of the RPFJ. competition caused by Microsoft’s illegal acts Similarly, the fact that licenses must be Unless the material licensing terms are against the Navigator browser and the Java ‘‘non- discriminatory’’ could actually be specified in advance, neither the Department platform, which formed the very heart of the exploited by Microsoft to ensure that its nor the public can accurately assess the Department’s case against Microsoft. strongest competitors are denied access to actual commercial significance of the Because critical terms in the RPFJ are Microsoft’s disclosures. For instance, a small proposed disclosure obligations. undefined or ambiguous, the Department also start-up company with no revenues and no C. Microsoft should not be allowed to force should assure the public that Microsoft is existing intellectual property rights might be third parties to forfeit their intellectual bound by the interpretation of the RPFJ set willing to agree to terms that would be property claims against Microsoft forth in the Department’s Competitive Impact commercially unacceptable to significant Section 111.1.5 provides that third parties Microsoft competitors like Sun, IBM, or ‘‘may be required to grant to Microsoft on Statement. Novell. reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms a Finally, the Department should delay The terms of the RPFJ also allow Microsoft license to any intellectual property rights it seeking entry of the RPFJ until the the ability to substantially delay making any may have relating to the exercise of their completion of trial on the remedies sought by interoperability disclosures. Under Section options or alternatives provided by this Final the Department’s co-plaintiffs, the Litigating III.E, Microsoft does not even need to make Judgment.’’ In other words, Microsoft would States. Sun believes that the evidentiary its Communications Protocols available until be free to infringe a third party’s patents or record from that trial is likely to demonstrate nine months after submission of the RPFJ. copyrights, or steal its trade secrets, and then the substantial flaws and inadequacies of the But since Microsoft can insist that third by virtue of its monopoly position, force such RPFJ and cause the Department to seriously parties enter into a license agreement before third party to grant Microsoft a license to do re-consider whether its support for the RPFJ they receive any disclosures, Microsoft can so as the price that third party must pay in is in the public interest. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. I. Introduction ...... 1 A Competition in the market for PC operating systems must be restored ...... 2 B. Microsoft’s unlawful power to exclude competition in adjacent and downstream markets must be stopped and eventually dis- sipated ...... 4 C. The RPFJ fails to remedy the monopoly illegally maintained by Microsoft ...... 5 D. The loopholes in the RPFJ must be eliminated and its important ambiguities clarified ...... 7 II. Sun Microsystems’’ Interest Regarding the Terms of the RPFJ ...... 8 III. The RPFJ Fails To Remedy the Continuing Harm to Competition Caused By Microsoft’s Illegal Acts ...... 9 A. The RPFJ fails to dissipate Microsoft’s monopoly power in the market for PC operating systems ...... 9 1. The Department previously acknowledged that an effective remedy had to eliminate the applications barrier protecting Microsoft’s monopoly ...... 10 VerDate 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page No. 2. The RPFJ fails to address the effects of Microsoft’s distribution power ...... 13 3. The RPFJ does little more than attempt to enjoin Microsoft from continuing to engage in the conduct already found to be un- lawful ...... 15 4. The RPFJ assumes that Microsoft’s Windows distributors will promote competitive middleware products ...... 16 B. The RPFJ does not remedy the continuing competitive harm to web browsers ...... 19 C. The RPFJ does not remedy the substantial harm to competition caused by Microsoft’s illegal acts against the Java platform ...... 22 IV Critical Terms In The RPFJ Are Undefined or Ambiguous ...... 24 A. Significant ambiguities in the RPFJ must be cured to avoid further litigation ...... 24 B. ‘‘Interoperate’’ and ‘‘interoperating’’ must be defined ...... 27 C. The scope of Microsoft’s ‘‘Communication Protocols’’ disclosure should be clarified and exemplified ...... 30 D. The scope of the ‘‘carve-out’’ provisions of Section III J should be clarified ...... 32 E. The definition of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ should be amended ...... 34 V. Section III I’s Licensing Provisions Allow Microsoft to Profit from Its Unlawful Acts ...... 35 A. Microsoft should not be allowed to demand royalties as a condition for making interoperability disclosures ...... 35 B. Microsoft has too much discretion over licensing terms under the RPFJ ...... 36 C. Microsoft should not be allowed to force third parties to forfeit their intellectual property claims against Microsoft ...... 38 VI. Conclusion ...... 39 MTC–00029176 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft is a good company and I was From: Eric Harden I have been associated with the computer very glad when the antitrust lawsuit filed To: Microsoft Settlement revolution since the early 1960’s I have seen against them was finally settled There is no Date: 1/28/02 9:21pm the growth and witnessed through my work need for further litigation in this issue I truly Subject: Microsoft Settlement on the Space Program the tremendous things believe that the resolution is both fair and in Eric Harden that can be done with the computer Attached the interest of the people of this country 105 LaFavers Road is a letter expressing my sincere thoughts that The provisions of this settlement are Russell Springs, KY 42642 the current Microsoft Settlement is fir and unique to this type of lawsuit This is the first January 28, 2002 should be implemented without futher delay lawsuit ever that requires a company to Microsoft Settlement Please feel free to contact me if needed disclose internal information about its U S Department of Justice Thomas A Burke interfacing new software with its current Antitrust Division Phone: 321–259–2284 systems The Microsoft settlement also 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW E-Mail: tburk6@cfl rr com includes provisions that restrict Microsoft Washington, DC 20530 Melbourne, Florida 32935 from entering into any kind of agreements Dear Microsoft Settlement: 28 January 2002 that would limit competition among software The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Attorney General John Ashcroft companies This settlement truly addresses all dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a US Department of Justice the concerns of the people, and keeps serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW competition viable within this market industry Washington, DC 20530 But clever people like me who talk loudly It is high time for this trial, and the Dear Mr Ashcroft: in restaurants, see this as a deliberate wasteful spending accompanying it, to be I have been associated with the computer ambiguity A plea for justice in a mechanized over Consumers will indeed see competition revolution since the early 196’s I have seen society. in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom the growth and witnessed through my work I see no need for further litigation Vast And the investors who propel our economy on the Space Program the tremendous things amounts time and resources have already can finally breathe a sigh of relief that can be done with the computer My been spent on pursuing Microsoft and I think Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the graduate work dealt with many papers, it’s time that no more be used The resolution federal government should not have broken which visualized the many possibilities that now on the table is a fine one I urge you to up Microsoft If the case is finally over, computers offered to civilization Re-reading support it and let it stand as is I thank you companies like Microsoft can get back into these notes today I see that I did not come for your time and I am sure that you will do the business of innovating and creating better close to understanding what the computer what you feel is best for people and economy products for consumers, and not wasting revolution held for our society Thank God for of this country valuable resources on litigation visionaries associated with Microsoft who But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the Competition means creating better goods have taken conceptual ideas not dreamed of box No, there isn’t room, the ambiguity’s put and offering superior services to consumers in the early days of computers and made on weight. With government out of the business of them into today/Es standards Looking ahead Sincerely, stifling progress and tying the hands of for the next forty years I firmly believe that Thomas Burke corporations, consumers—rather than we will see that we have only begun to MTC–00029179 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick scratch the surface of what technology and the winners and losers on Wall Street With social development driven by computers can From: Joyce Greer the reins off the high-tech industry, more achieve Most of the growth of this revolution To: Microsoft Settlement entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create has occurred during the past 10 years when Date: 1/28/02 9:21pm new and competitive products and Microsoft released the power of the computer Subject: Microsoft Settlement technologies and the Internet through the introduction of Joyce Greer Thank you for this opportunity to share my the Windows operating System pIt would be 45 Northridge Dr. views a crime of the greatest magnitude to stymie Cody, Wy 82414 Sincerely, this innovation because competitors lack the January 28, 2002 Eric Harden vision to move with the concepts being Microsoft Settlement developed for our future The government U.S. Department of Justice MTC–00029177 rather than holding back these ideas should Antitrust Division From: Tom Burke recognize that this technology has reached 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR this pinnacle without major government Washington, DC 20530 Date: 1/28/02 9:28pm intervention Why start now? Dear Microsoft Settlement: VerDate 11 The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Thank you for this opportunity to share my matter. Your decisions have great dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a views. significance for the health of the US serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Sincerely, economy’s most vital industries, by industry. James B. Rassi eliminating Microsoft’s ability to illegal It is high time for this trial, and the constrain markets and innovation. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be MTC–00029181 Thank you for the opportunity to comment over. Consumers will indeed see competition From: [email protected]@inetgw on this important matter. in the marketplace, rather than the To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely yours, courtroom. And the investors who propel our Date: 1/28/02 9:29pm Gil Friend economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Subject: Microsoft settlement President & CEO Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Let them off the hook. They and their stock Natural Logic, Inc. federal government should not have broken holders have suffered enough. Let the PO Box 119 up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, lawyers seek new bait. Berkeley CA 94701 companies like Microsoft can get back into Ed Brant MTC–00029183 the business of innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not wasting MTC–00029182 From: Steve Mueller valuable resources on litigation. From: Gil Friend To: Microsoft ATR Competition means creating better goods To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 9:28pm and offering superior services to consumers. Date: 1/28/02 9:27pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement With government out of the business of Subject: Microsoft Settlement Hi: stifling progress and tying the hands of Renata B. Hesse I’m writing about the proposed settlement corporations, consumers—rather than Antitrust Division between Microsoft and the U.S. government bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick United States Department of Justice (and some of the states). I am a professional the winners and losers on Wall Street. With 601 D Street NW software developer with BS and MS degrees the reins off the high-tech industry, more Suite 1200 in Computer Science from the University of entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Washington, DC 20530–0001 Michigan, Ann Arbor. My last four jobs over new and competitive products and Dear Ms. Hesse, six years have been writing programs for technologies. I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft’s Windows operating system. I am Thank you for this opportunity to share my Microsoft/DOJ anti-trust settlement. As a not affiliated with Microsoft or any views. business executive at a company both highly companies lobbying for responses. I hope it Sincerely, dependent on computing technology and isn’t too late to consider my comments; it is Joyce Greer specifically involved in software still Monday here on the West Coast. development, I’ve come to the conclusion I feel the settlement is inadequate. MTC–00029180 that this settlement is not in the public Microsoft’s anti-competitive behavior has From: James B. Rassi interest, and fails to remedies the problems been proven in court and upheld on appeal. To: Microsoft Settlement that provoked the action in the first place. Microsoft had previously entered into a Date: 1/28/02 9:22pm The settlement leaves the Microsoft consent decree with the government in the Subject: Microsoft Settlement monopoly intact, with numerous mid-90s (I believe), and still was found to be James B. Rassi opportunities to the company to effectively anti-competitive. Clearly, this is a company 111 Schramm Drive exempt itself from crucial provisions. The that doesn’t learn and doesn’t care. Pekin, IL 61554–2539 recently proposed ‘‘donation’’ to schools is As a professional software developer, I January 28, 2002 just one example of how Microsoft can turn know what an operating system is supposed Microsoft Settlement matters to their own advantage (in this case to do. It is supposed to manage low-level U.S. Department of Justice by decimating Apple’s position in the computer resources (memory, files, Antitrust Division education market). peripherals, networking, etc.), and it is to 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW In addition, the proposed settlement fails provide a platform on which applications can Washington, DC 20530 to address the critical ‘‘applications barrier to be written. It does *not* contain applications Dear Microsoft Settlement: entry’’ associated with the installed base of itself, although I have no problems with the The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ 70,000 Windows applications, enabling inclusion of simple applications to allow the dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Microsoft to maintain an effective ‘‘lock’’ on operating system to be useful (such as serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech the operating systems market by denying Notepad, Write, Calculator and Solitaire in industry. competitors with other operating systems the Windows). It is high time for this trial, and the information needed to run these other Microsoft contends, for example, that the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be applications on other operating systems. Any Internet Explorer Web browser is a basic part over. Consumers will indeed see competition settlement must make it easier—not harder— of the operating system. If it is, that is *only* in the marketplace, rather than the for competitors to run the Windows because Microsoft forced it to be. There is no courtroom. And the investors who propel our applications. intrinsic reason for the browser to be economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Consumers, not Microsoft, should decide included as part of the operating system. As Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the what products are on their computers. The a software developer, though, I could easily federal government should not have broken settlement must eliminate Microsoft’s various combine any two functions that are normally up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, barriers—business and technical—to not related into one file and then claim that companies like Microsoft can get back into allowing combinations of non-Microsoft I could not remove one piece without the business of innovating and creating better operating systems, applications, and software damaging the other, and so Microsoft’s products for consumers, and not wasting components to run properly with Microsoft protestations to that effect seem disingenuous valuable resources on litigation. products. at best. Competions means creating better goods The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff In fact, when Windows 95 was first and offering superior services to consumers. Litigating States are in the public interest and released, Internet Explorer was not part of the With government out of the business of absolutely necessary, but they are not operating system, but was included in the stifling progress and tying the hands of sufficient without these remedies. Windows 95 Plus Pack, so at one time the corporations, consumers—rather than The Tunney Act provides for the Court to separation was possible. If it is not now bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick hold public proceedings, with citizens and possible, it is only because the program was the winners and losers on Wall Street. With consumer groups afforded an equal intentionally written to make it difficult to the reins off the high-tech industry, more opportunity to participate, along with remove. entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Microsoft’s competitors and customers. I Microsoft could include the low-level new and competitive products and hope you will encourage those proceedings, functions (the API) to support Web browsing technologies. and consider carefully how to proceed in this in the operating system without including VerDate 11 the Internet Explorer browser itself as an removed from all base versions of Windows MTC–00029187 application. Microsoft is shading the truth if (Microsoft would be free to sell a ‘‘premium’’ From: Grace Fortuna they claim the API and low-level support and version that included Internet Explorer, To: Microsoft Settlement the browser application and user interface much like they have Windows XP Home and Date: 1/28/02 9:23pm are one and the same. Professional editions). Subject: Microsoft Settlement Furthermore, not only does Microsoft have Thank you for taking the time to read these Grace Fortuna a proven monopoly in the operating system comments, 20820 Persimmon Place area, but they also have a de facto monopoly Steve Mueller Estero, FL 33928 in office software. Note that even though Monday, 1/28/2002, 6:09 PM PST January 28, 2002 office software is just as important as Web MTC–00029184 Microsoft Settlement browsing, Microsoft does not include its U.S. Department of Justice Office suite of products in Windows 9x/ME/ From: Rick Zahn Antitrust Division XP. Why not? Because Office already has a To: Microsoft ATR 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW clear market lead and is extremely profitable, Date: 1/28/02 9:28pm Washington, DC 20530 so there’s no need to bundle it with Subject: Opinion Dear Microsoft Settlement: Windows. I believe the only real ‘‘crime’’ Microsoft The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Internet Explorer was a distant second to has committed is producing a product that it dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Netscape at one time, so Microsoft started is at the same time superior and cheaper than serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech including it in the operating system, not even the products offered by their competitors. By industry. It is high time for this trial, and the in a Plus Pack. This resulted in Netscape punishing Microsoft, we are, in essence, wasteful spending accompanying it, to be losing market share as Internet Explorer was sending the message that it is better to over. Consumers will indeed see competition a browser that was good enough for most produce an inferior product and then hire a in the marketplace, rather than the people. lawyer to force people to buy. courtroom. And the investors who propel our Also note that Microsoft’s Office suite had Frederick Zahn economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. an example of bundling. At one point, MTC–00029185 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Microsoft PowerPoint was not the leading federal government should not have broken presentation package (Lotus and Harvard From: Robert Wigger up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Graphics had superior solutions), so To: Microsoft ATR companies like Microsoft can get back into Microsoft bundled it into Office. While you Date: 1/28/02 9:28pm the business of innovating and creating better can buy the Office applications separately, it Subject: Microsoft Settlement products for consumers, and not wasting is not economical to do so. I am writing this note to ask that you valuable resources on litigation. Finally, let me focus on one more anti- would support the Microsoft Settlement. Competition means creating better goods competitive move Microsoft— the removal of Thank you, and offering superior services to consumers. Java from Windows XP. Java had been Robert Wigger With government out of the business of included in previous versions of Windows, MTC–00029186 stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers—rather than but has been removed from Windows XP. From: gegco Doesn’t it seem odd that Microsoft can so bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick To: Microsoft ATR the winners and losers on Wall Street. With easily remove Java from Windows XP, but Date: 1/28/02 9:29pm claims that Internet Explorer can’t be the reins off the high-tech industry, more Subject: In Support of Microsoft entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create removed? 5217 Starwind Point This removal has little to do with Java not new and competitive products and Hermitage, TN 37076 technologies. being useful—many Web sites use Java. It is January 24, 2002 more likely a combination of Microsoft trying Thank you for this opportunity to share my Attorney General John Ashcroft views. to get back at Sun for losing when Sun sued US Department of Justice Microsoft for incorporating non-standard Java Sincerely, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Grace Fortuna features in Microsoft’s implementation of Washington, DC 20530 Java (contrary to their agreement), and a way Dear Mr. Ashcroft: MTC–00029188 to promote using Microsoft technologies for The purpose of this letter is to voice my From: Dave Zapple improved browser experiences (ActiveX support of the Microsoft settlement. As a To: Microsoft ATR controls or C#, for example). concerned citizen, I watched the case against Date: 1/28/02 9:30pm Microsoft’s Passport and .NET services will Microsoft with great interest. Three years Subject: Microsoft Settlement rely on C# (and, in fact, I’ve read that have now passed since the inception of this Date: January 28, 2002 Passport is now bundled in Windows XP, case. During this time, I have been To: Renata B. Hesse providing yet another source of monopolistic increasingly annoyed by the amount of Antitrust Division concerns for identity validation on the money wasted in disputing this issue. The U.S. Department of Justice Internet). court mediated settlement agreement reached 601 D Street NW Therefore, given that Microsoft has last November is very equitable. I would Suite 1200 engaged in anti-competitive practices in the hope that the Justice Department recognizes Washington, DC 20530–0001 past, continued to do so after a consent this and enacts the settlement at the end of To Whom it may concern, decree, and (in my opinion) is still doing so, January. Further, I believe that the terms of I have worked in the information I believe that Microsoft needs to be punished the settlement will provide for great change technology industry for 18+ years. Currently, severely and quickly. I suggest breaking in the tech industry. Under the stipulations I’m a senior systems analyst with Georgetown Microsoft into two or three companies—one of the agreement, Microsoft will disclose the University. I disagree with the settlement that dealing with the Windows operating system; protocols and interfaces of the Windows the Department of Justice has brokered with one dealing with applications, including system. The result of this action will be to microsoft and feel that it does NOT Office; and possibly one dealing with enable software and hardware developers to addresscompletely/ restrict the anti Internet software and technologies, like design new software that assimilates into the competitive practices that microsoft has Internet Explorer, Passport, WebTV and Windows operating system. This should made extensive use in the past or today. MSN. increase productivity in the sector. The fact that the settlement does not If such a break up is not considered Finally, I would hope that the federal remove ANY of the monies or competitive appropriate, the dissenting states’’ plan government decides to enact the settlement edges that microsoft gained by using anti sounds like a reasonable second alternative, reached in November. competitive/illegal practices should be although I would add the requirement that Thank you. enough to not allow this settlement to the Internet Explorer browser (the Sincerely, happen in its current form. application and user interface parts, not the Gayle E. Gotshall I believe in free enterprise and competition low-level networking and browsing APIs) be Gayle Gotshall dearly, which is why I can not agree with this VerDate 11 settlement. Where was the freedom to Dan Eisenberg Interface (API). Microsoft has repeatedly and compete when microsoft used illegal 1465 Morning Crescent St unashamedly refused to obey orders given to practices to crush young company’s that did Henderson, NV 89052–4040 them by the DOJ. They laugh at the in fact have innovative products? Where is/ January 28, 2002 governments power to stop them. They do was the justice for these former companies Microsoft Settlement not respect lawful authority and fair and technologies? U.S. Department of Justice competition. This has got to be stopped. There are a number of very serious issues Antitrust Division Please count this as a no vote on the involved with microsofts illegal practices 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW proposed settlement and a yes vote to the that can not be allowed to continue if Washington, DC 20530 independent software developers who will be America is going to continue to be a/the Dear Microsoft Settlement: allowed to develop unique non-Microsoft technology leader in the future. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ solutions to business problems, and then Please do allow this settlement to stand in dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a actually have an opportunity to sell their the form it is in currently, it will prove serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech solutions to corporate America without fear devastating to the computing industry in this industry. It is high time for this trial, and the of incompatibilities. country in the future I am sure. If you would wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Sincerely, like more information from me, or if I need over. Consumers will indeed see competition Doug Needham to be more specific please let me know and in the marketplace, rather than the Independent Software Consultant. I will be more than happy to. courtroom. And the investors who propel our MTC–00029192 Sincerely, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Dave Zapple Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the From: [email protected]@inetgw David Zapple federal government should not have broken To: Microsoft ATR 214 Manassas Drive up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Date: 1/28/02 9:34pm Manassas Park, VA. 20111 companies like Microsoft can get back into Subject: Microsoft Settlement [email protected] the business of innovating and creating better The Attorney General H 703–369–0358 products for consumers, and not wasting From everything I have read on this subject W 202–687–2958 valuable resources on litigation. Microsoft has gone beyond the findings of the C 703–898–1958 Competition means creating better goods Court of Appeals ruling,it is fair to all Dave Zapple and offering superior services to consumers. involed. I also beleive it is in the public Senior Systems Analyst With government out of the business of interest for a settlement at this time. Advanced Research Computing (ARC) stifling progress and tying the hands of Oliver Gumley Office of Information Services corporations, consumers—rather than Anna Gumley bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Georgetown University MTC–00029193 PreClinical Science Bulding, LB-1 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With 3900 Reservoir Road, NW the reins off the high-tech industry, more From: John Trueblood Washington, DC. 20007 entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create To: Microsoft Settlement Voice : 202–687–2958 new and competitive products and Date: 1/28/02 9:26pm FAX : 202–687–2585 technologies. Subject: Microsoft Settlement E-Mail: [email protected] Thank you for this opportunity to share my John Trueblood views. 8916 196 th. Street MTC–00029189 Sincerely, McAlpin, Fl 32062 From: Faye Bourret Dan Eisenberg MD January 28, 2002 To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft Settlement MTC–00029191 Date: 1/28/02 9:32pm U.S. Department of Justice Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Doug Needham Antitrust Division Tunney Act review To: Microsoft ATR 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Please accept the following comments in Date: 1/28/02 10:44pm Washington, DC 20530 your review: Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Microsoft Settlement: As a consumer of computer products, I ask To Whom it May Concern The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ that the Court accept the settlement terms as Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a currently presented by the Department of to comment on the proposed settlement of serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Justice, the states Attorneys General, and the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Microsoft. Microsoft has provided me, the My Background is in software development. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be consumer, with software products that are I have been a software developer since I over. Consumers will indeed see competition integrated. This is what I want as a consumer ended my enlistment in the Marine Corps. in the marketplace, rather than the because the alternative, a number of products One of the things that disturbs me about the courtroom. And the investors who propel our upon which I would need to do the proposed settlement is that it does very little economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. integration, is not a product I want to buy. to actually stop Microsoft from continuing to Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Microsoft has led the drop in prices of do the things that they have done. I federal government should not have broken consumer software products over the past 10 remember a time when it was possible for a up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, years. It’s competitors have been compelled person with a good Idea and some companies like Microsoft can get back into to follow. This leadership by Microsoft has programming ability to create something new the business of innovating and creating better been an advantage to the consumers. An and begin to package and sell a unique products for consumers, and not wasting example most recently is the action which software product . It is still possible to do valuable resources on litigation. Sun took to drop the prices of its servers to this so long as you pledge allegiance to Competition means creating better goods a price point that would allow it to compete Microsoft and pay them exporbitant fees as and offering superior services to consumers. with comparable Microsoft products. The the price of entry into the professional With government out of the business of consumer is and has been the winner when development communtiy. The productst they stifling progress and tying the hands of Microsoft has competed vigorously. make are not the best, they are the only thing corporations, consumers—rather than Sincerely, out there because so many businesses refuse bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Faye Bourret to build any software product on a non- the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Microsoft solution. Where are the compilers the reins off the high-tech industry, more MTC–00029190 for Windows applications? They do not exist entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create From: Dan Eisenberg because software projects that attempted to new and competitive products and To: Microsoft Settlement produce a competing product where cut off technologies. Date: 1/28/02 9:28pm by Microsofts changing or not fully Thank you for this opportunity to share my Subject: Microsoft Settlement documenting their Application Programming views. VerDate 11 Sincerely, position. I would have given anything to be thousands or dollars in CAL fees or John Trueblood as good. However, I found plenty to do and alternatively, disadvantaged schools missing feel good about my place in society wtihout out on the benefits of centralized school MTC–00029194 having to be the top dog at what I do board services. As to the larger question of From: John G. Williams (although I still try). the suitability of the entire remedy; that To: Microsoft Settlement In all due respects to the participants depends on what specifically was alleged in Date: 1/28/02 9:26pm including Big M, life (including business) is court and proven in court. In theory, I could Subject: Microsoft Settlement complex. To the best interests of this country support a drastic structural remedy based on John G. Williams and the long term picture of mutual what I have read in the trade press over they 407 Diamond Oaks Dr. cooperation, we should try to meet a level of decades. As a practical matter most of what Vacaville, CA 95688–1039 mutual understanding. However, I don’t was alleged over the years in the trade press; January 28, 2002 think that this includes giving everthing was not alleged, let alone proven, in court. Microsoft Settlement away that one has worked so hard for. In Therefore, I will try to do the best that I U.S. Department of Justice some unkown situatons, it may jeopardize can for our local schools—even through my Antitrust Division one’s own existence. After all, today’s hot impression is that the antitrust suit as a 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW technology is tomorrow’s burnt toast (and it whole was a fiasco on all sides. Washington, DC 20530 doesn’t take much). James B. Callahan (Jim) MBA, BA Dear Microsoft Settlement: All do respects and your humble servent, Economics & MCSE The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Browd Owner of a Mac 1927 Grand Isle Circle, #723-B dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Orlando, FL 32810 serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00029196 (407) 234–3744 industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Joseph Schwartz CC:[email protected]@inetgw wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00029198 over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 9:35pm in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw courtroom. And the investors who propel our 1/28/2002 To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 9:36pm economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Joseph L. Schwartz Subject: MISROSOFT SETTLEMENT Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the 2116 Lombard St. MICROSOFT HAS DONE MORE THEN federal government should not have broken Phila, PA 19146 ANY ORHER CO. TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 215–985–1047 ME TO USE THE COMPUTER AND THEIR companies like Microsoft can get back into [email protected] PROGRAMS RUN I CANT SAY THAT FOR the business of innovating and creating better Renata B. Hesse ANY OTHER CO. GIT OFF THEIR BACK. products for consumers, and not wasting Antitrust Division FRED HEFTON valuable resources on litigation. U.S. Department of Justice Competition means creating better goods 601 D Street NW Suite 1200 MTC–00029199 and offering superior services to consumers. Washington, DC 20530–0001 From: Peggy Ann Carrick With government out of the business of [email protected] To: Microsoft Settlement stifling progress and tying the hands of I want to register my comments on the Date: 1/28/02 9:31pm corporations, consumers—rather than Microsoft Antitrust Case. Subject: Microsoft Settlement bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick I believe the agreement is reasonable and Peggy Ann Carrick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With fair to all parties involved. The settlement is 3901 E. Pinnacle Pk #339 the reins off the high-tech industry, more in the best interest of everyone and allows Phx., AZ 85050–8126 entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create the industry to move forward. I urge the January 28, 2002 new and competitive products and Justice Department to settle this case. Microsoft Settlement technologies. Sincerely yours, U.S. Department of Justice Thank you for this opportunity to share my Joseph L. Schwartz Antitrust Division views. MTC–00029197 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Sincerely, NW Washington, DC 20530 John & Faye Williams From: [email protected]@inetgw Dear Microsoft Settlement: To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00029195 The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Date: 1/28/02 9:36pm dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: dennis huard Subject: Microsoft Settlement serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft ATR From: James B. Callahan, Orlando, FL (407) industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/28/02 9:33pm 234–3744 wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: settlement Gentlemen, I am a Microsoft Certified Systems over. Consumers will indeed see competition This case is about money. Make no bones Engineer in Orlando, Florida. I looked into in the marketplace, rather than the about it. (I only wish I had some of it- the the possibility of our local school system, courtroom. And the investors who propel our money not the bones.) If there were utopia, Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. we would all be in heaven and not have to receiving software in schools where 70% or Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the lift a finger. Apple, Sun and several others more of the students participate in the school federal government should not have broken wish they had something they dont- a bigger lunch program. My concern is that donation up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, piece of the pie. of software which can be used as clients does companies like Microsoft can get back into However, since we live in a real world of not trigger additional (Microsoft) licensing the business of innovating and creating better World Trade Center bombers, I can only say fees. Specifically, I am concerned about a products for consumers, and not wasting that we can not all start from ground zero and licensing fee known as ‘‘Client Access valuable resources on litigation. build over again. I think it would be self Licenses (CAL)’’ that might be required if a Competition means creating better goods destructing to believe that we could knock new computer at a disadvantaged school and offering superior services to consumers. down one of he the biggest symbols of accesses a centralized server at school board With government out of the business of American business like there was nothing to headquarters for file and print sharing (MS stifling progress and tying the hands of it and not feel some remorse. Windows 2000 Server) e-mail (MS corporations, consumers—rather than I am one for competition and fair play. Exchange), database (MS SQL Server) or thin bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick This has been the cornerstone of the client (MS Terminal Services). the winners and losers on Wall Street. With American way of life since before the time I I would like to see Microsoft CALs the reins off the high-tech industry, more participated in Little League. There were explicitly included in the software donation. entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create many times that I wished that I had been I would hate to see ‘‘free’’ or low cost new and competitive products and better than the person that won out at my computers costing the school system technologies. VerDate 11 Thank you for this opportunity to share my partners, and the general public. To try and serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech views. stop some of the most egregious of these industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Sincerely, behaviors, I would recommend: wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Peggy Ann Carrick 1) That Microsoft be split into 3 separate over. Consumers will indeed see competition companies: in the marketplace, rather than the MTC–00029200 A) Operating Systems courtroom. And the investors who propel our From: Robert Schleiger B) End-User Applications (Microsoft economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. To: Microsoft ATR Office, Money, TripMaker, games, etc.....) Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Date: 1/28/02 9:36pm C) Development Tools (Computer federal government should not have broken What is the most recent antitrust issues languages, databases, etc...) up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, regarding microsoft? Each company should be a separate and companies like Microsoft can get back into distinct entity, with separate management, the business of innovating and creating better MTC–00029201 board of directors, etc. All interface products for consumers, and not wasting From: [email protected]@inetgw information ( API— Application Program valuable resources on litigation. To: Microsoft ATR Interface ) shall be made public to all Competition means creating better goods Date: 1/28/02 9:37pm software development companies. In other and offering superior services to consumers. Subject: Microsoft Settlement words, there shall be no ‘‘hidden’’ or With government out of the business of January 28, 2002 ‘‘undocumented’’ functions or features which stifling progress and tying the hands of Renata B. Hesse allow one Microsoft company an unfair corporations, consumers—rather than Antitrust Division advantage over any other competitor, due to bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick U.S. Department of Justice intimate knowledge of the workings of the winners and losers on Wall Street. With 601 D. Street NW, Suite 1200 another Microsoft company’s products, the reins off the high-tech industry, more Washington, DC 20530–0001 which other companies do not have access entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Now that an agreement has been made, I to. new and competitive products and believe that we need to move forward and let 2) Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Balmer, and technologies. Microsoft do what they need to do. I feel that other current top-level management should Thank you for this opportunity to share my it would be wrong to reject this settlement. be transferred to the Development tools views. This has gone on for too long and it would company. They can own stock in the other Sincerely, be a terrible injustice to keep dragging it on two companies, but should be prohibited Virginia B. Kennedy for any longer. from ANY other activities in the other two MTC–00029205 Sincerely, companies for a period of at least 10 years. From: [email protected]@inetgw Richard L. Trantham 3) All Microsoft contracts and agreements To: Microsoft ATR which require the second party to either: MTC–00029202 Date: 1/28/02 9:39pm install Microsoft software products on each From: Greg G. Arakelian Subject: (no subject) To: Microsoft ATR and every machine that the second party is 619 Chartier Drive Date: 1/28/02 9:38pm providing, or which prohibit the second Saint Louis, MO 63135 Subject: Microsoft Settlement party from installing Microsoft’s competitor’s January 24, 2002 REQUIRE MICROSOFT TO PUBLISH ALL software products on the machines, or any Attorney General John Ashcroft ‘‘FILE FORMATS’’ SPECIFICATIONS: It is similar contracts which require the use of US Department of Justice imperative that Microsoft release detailed Microsoft products, should be ordered null 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW technical ‘‘file format’’ specifications to the and void. Washington, DC 20530 public. 4) Microsoft has a long history of stealing Dear Mr. Ashcroft: We, the companies that compete with other company’s intellectual property (Stack I believe that it is time to end the anti-trust Microsoft, can do so, if we can build Electronics is a prominent example), of lawsuit against Microsoft. I fully support the products which work well with the files predatory pricing (selling at a loss, or even settlement that has been reached because it people currently use (i.e. Microsoft Word ‘‘bundling for free’’) to drive other is fair and in the best interests for the whole documents, Microsoft Excel files, and so competitors from the market (too many software and computer industry. Microsoft forth). companies and products to list), of playing has standardized the whole industry. Microsoft should be required to publicly ‘‘dirty tricks’’ to ‘‘break’’ a competitor’s Without Microsoft, software might be document ‘‘all’’ files used by ‘‘all’’ of their product and keep it from running (Caldera composed of hundreds of different, non- application. If in fact, WordPerfect won a lawsuit against Microsoft), and on and interchangeable programs and companies. corporation had not published their file on and on. I think that the individual lawsuit Microsoft has ensured that all software format specification many years ago, judgements were too small, because each one developers must adhere to certain high Microsoft Word would have had a much was considered separately, instead of being standards of quality. In the settlement, other harder time gaining acceptance in the seen as part of a systematic pattern of abuses. rival software developers have been given the marketplace since WordPerfect files were the The DOJ needs to keep some active oversight opportunity to produce rival software defacto standard file format. People may be over Microsoft to insure that these abuses do without fear of reprisal. For this reason alone, willing to switch products, but they need to not occur again. the settlement should be agreed to. be able to take their data with them. That is MTC–00029204 Microsoft has agreed to not respond to rival the ‘‘real’’ way Microsoft keeps people products. It has agreed to many other imprisoned. From: Virginia B. Kennedy concessions that will undoubtedly affect Thanks for listening, To: Microsoft Settlement profit. The Justice Department should Greg Date: 1/28/02 9:33pm recognize what Microsoft has sacrificed and Subject: Microsoft Settlement agree unconditionally to the settlement. MTC–00029203 Virginia B. Kennedy Sincerely, From: — 5104 Eastgate Drive William Dehmer To: Microsoft ATR Tyler, TX 75703–9113 CC:[email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 9:38pm January 28, 2002 Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft Settlement MTC–00029206 Hello— U.S. Department of Justice From: [email protected]@inetgw Thank you for the opportunity to express Antitrust Division To: Microsoft ATR my opinion on the proposed antitrust 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Date: 1/28/02 9:40pm settlement against Microsoft Corporation. Washington, DC 20530 Subject: Microsoft Settlement I sincerely believe that Microsoft has a long Dear Microsoft Settlement: Mr. Attorney General: and demonstrated history of un-ethical The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ I urge you to consider the state of the behavior towards its competitors, its business dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a United States’’ current environment of VerDate 11 cohesiveness in spirit and united in spirit entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create run within the operating system, a first in an and in need to support our infrastructure of new and competitive products and antitrust settlement. The agreement also corporate and government cooperation. technologies. establishes a technical review committee that Further, that the majority of all issues as Thank you for this opportunity to share my will monitor Microsoft and ensure its related to the original suit have, in time, in views. adherence to the settlement. Therefore, this free enterprise, and in expanded technology, Sincerely, settlement should be finalized. have resolved themselves. Macy C. Courtney The country is in an economic recession, And so I ask that you endorse and support and there are more important things to be settlement of litigation between the United MTC–00029209 pursuing with tax dollars. Microsoft should States Government and Microsoft From: [email protected]@inetgw be allowed to go back to software innovation Corporation. To: Microsoft ATR instead of capital expenditure on legal bills. Thank you for considering my request. Date: 1/28/02 9:44pm In my opinion, no more action should be Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft Settlement taken against this settlement. Our tax dollars Peggy Belflower Chris Solberg and our precious human resources should be 4331 S Mamer Road used to tackle the truly pressing issues of our MTC–00029207 Spokane, WA 99206–9384 day. From: Chester D. Hall (509) 926–6966 Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR January 26, 2002 Leland Hildebrand Date: 1/28/02 9:43pm Attorney General John Ashcroft cc: Senator Strom Thurmond Subject: Microsoft Settlement US Department of Justice, CC:[email protected]@inetgw It is time the US Government get out of the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW free enterprise business. Without Microsoft I Washington, DC 20530–0001 MTC–00029211 would not be sending you this message. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: From: Andreanne Herring Microsoft is a very creative highly I write today to express my support of the To: Microsoft Settlement competitive organization. Clinton and Reno settlement reached between Microsoft and Date: 1/28/02 9:40pm attacked Microsoft for two reasons: the Justice Department. As a Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1] Line the trial lawyer and the DNC supporter, I watched the case against Andreanne Herring pockets. Microsoft with heightened interest. Three 840 Brawley School rd, 2] Make computer usage more expensive years have now passed since the inception of Mooresville, NC 26117–6852 and not widely used. Lets face it Socialists this lawsuit. During this time a vast amount January 28, 2002 want to control the news media. They cannot of federal resources have gone in the pursuit Microsoft Settlement control the Internet. of this case. I believe that the settlement U.S. Department of Justice Bring this issue to a close. agreement comprises a generous amount of Antitrust Division C. D. Hall compromise on behalf of Microsoft. The 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, 4400 Gattis School Rd. settlement agreement should be enacted at NW Washington, DC 20530 Round Rock, TX. 78664 the end of January. Dear Microsoft Settlement: To expand, the terms of the settlement are The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029208 enormously equitable. Microsoft has agreed dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: Macy Courtney to share much of the information regarding serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft Settlement the Windows operating system to its industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/28/02 9:36pm competitors. Namely, Microsoft will now wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: Microsoft Settlement disclose the protocols in Windows. In over. Consumers will indeed see competition Macy Courtney addition to this Microsoft will also disclose in the marketplace, rather than the 4352 Fairfax the internal interfaces of the Windows courtroom. And the investors who propel our Avenue Dallas, TX 75205 system. This information disclosure will economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. January 28, 2002 allow competing companies to develop more Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Microsoft Settlement compatible software. federal government should not have broken U.S. Department of Justice I believe that the settlement is fair. Further, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Antitrust Division it is time that the issue is finally resolved. companies like Microsoft can get back into 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you so much for your time regarding the business of innovating and creating better Washington, DC 20530 this issue. products for consumers, and not wasting Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, valuable resources on litigation. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Chris Solberg Competition means creating better goods dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a and offering superior services to consumers. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00029210 With government out of the business of industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Leland Hildebrand stifling progress and tying the hands of wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft ATR corporations, consumers—rather than over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 9:44pm bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement the winners and losers on Wall Street. With courtroom. And the investors who propel our 403 Prestwick Drive the reins off the high-tech industry, more economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Florence, South Carolina 29501 entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the January 28, 2002 new and competitive products and federal government should not have broken Attorney General John Ashcroft technologies. Thank you for this opportunity up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, US Department of Justice to share my views. companies like Microsoft can get back into 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, the business of innovating and creating better Washington, DC 20530 Mrs Andreanne Herring products for consumers, and not wasting Dear Mr. Ashcroft: valuable resources on litigation. Help! Microsoft has endured three long MTC–00029212 Competition means creating better goods years of litigation. Microsoft and the From: Lindner,James and offering superior services to consumers. government have already agreed to a To: ‘Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’ With government out of the business of settlement that has profound implications on Date: 1/28/02 9:41pm stifling progress and tying the hands of business matters for all software publishers. Subject: Microsoft Settlement corporations, consumers—rather than The agreement forces Microsoft to document I think that it is kind of sad that companies bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick and disclose for use by its competitors trying to compete against Microsoft resort to the winners and losers on Wall Street. With various interfaces that are internal to legal action instead of trying to make a better the reins off the high-tech industry, more Windows which allow Microsoft programs to product to compete against Microsoft. VerDate 11 Microsoft is a monopoly due to the fact that January 28, 2002 the reins off the high-tech industry, more they have created a far superior product, not Microsoft Settlement entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create because what they have done is anti- U.S. Department of Justice new and competitive products and competitive. All companies try their hardest Antitrust Division technologies. to get consumers to buy their product, and 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my Microsoft is no exception. I work for a Washington, DC 20530 views. company that gives huge discounts for our Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, customers if they buy all of our products and The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ David Watson dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a none from our competitors. That is MTC–00029216 competition. Our competitors do the exact serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech same thing. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Scott K Bramwell In my eyes, Microsoft needs to be watched, wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft ATR just like any large company, but anything over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 9:49pm more than just setting up a watch group in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement would be a terrible thing for consumers. courtroom. And the investors who propel our Dear District Court Judge: Microsoft help create what computers are economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. I am writing to congraulate you on the today. They are very easy use, powerful Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the prosecution of Microsoft. I am an avid fan of devices that even the most novice user can federal government should not have broken Netscape and prefer using it over Microsoft’s use with very little learning curve. What was up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, default browser that is installed on my a computer like before Microsoft? An archaic companies like Microsoft can get back into system without my right to choose. device that users to had to type hand the business of innovating and creating better I know Microsoft will never go away commands in at a command prompt. If products for consumers, and not wasting entirely, but perhaps in the near future, they computers were still like that today, do you valuable resources on litigation. will let me decide wether to install their actually think so many people would use Competition means creating better goods browser or not. Sincerely them every single day like they do now? I and offering superior services to consumers. Scott Bramwell think not. Microsofts competitors are just With government out of the business of CC:[email protected]@inetgw jealous. They know they do not have a good stifling progress and tying the hands of enough product to compete against corporations, consumers—rather than MTC–00029217 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Microsoft, so they resort to law suits to try From: Dwain Fick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With to bring a bad image to an otherwise very To: Microsoft Settlement the reins off the high-tech industry, more good, generous company. Microsoft has come Date: 1/28/02 9:41pm entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create up with so many different technologies that Subject: Microsoft Settlement new and competitive products and better the user experience. It would be a Dwain Fick technologies. travesty to punish them for this. 612 W Turnpike James Lindner Thank you for this opportunity to share my Bismarck, ND 58501 Chief Software Architect views. January 28, 2002 Cerner Corporation Sincerely, Microsoft Settlement William A. Foster MTC–00029213 U.S. Department of Justice MTC–00029215 Antitrust Division From: [email protected]@inetgw 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW From: David Watson To: Microsoft ATR Washington, DC 20530 To: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 9:45pm Dear Microsoft Settlement: Date: 1/28/02 9:39pm Subject: Microsof Settlement The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Sir or Madam, dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a I want to voice my opinion regarding the David Watson serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech upcoming Microsoft settlement. I would like 931 Sun Circle Way Baltimore, MD 21221 industry. It is high time for this trial, and the this settlement to be made as soon as January 28, 2002 wasteful spending accompanying it, to be posssible so that Microsoft and our nation Microsoft Settlement over. Consumers will indeed see competition can get on with business, that business that U.S. Department of Justice in the marketplace, rather than the will ultimately help our nation out of its Antitrust Division courtroom. And the investors who propel our current recession and put people back to 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. work. I want to dispense with the delaying Washington, DC 20530 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the tactics that the complainants are using and Dear Microsoft Settlement: federal government should not have broken get this thing over with, once and for all. This The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, premise of this lawsuit is ridiculous. It is dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a companies like Microsoft can get back into simply a way for companies with inferior serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech the business of innovating and creating better technology to try to shift blame for their industry. It is high time for this trial, and the products for consumers, and not wasting failures to Microsoft. This is about wasteful spending accompanying it, to be valuable resources on litigation. subsidizing their inferior technology to make over. Consumers will indeed see competition Competition means creating better goods it more palatable to the public. It is about in the marketplace, rather than the and offering superior services to consumers. getting government support without having courtroom. And the investors who propel our With government out of the business of to be accountable. Let’s stop this insanity economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. stifling progress and tying the hands of now and get this thing over with! Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the corporations, consumers—rather than Patricia Ross federal government should not have broken bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick 13526 Shadow Falls Ct., Houston Tx, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, the winners and losers on Wall Street. With 77059 companies like Microsoft can get back into the reins off the high-tech industry, more PH 281–286–0753 the business of innovating and creating better entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create products for consumers, and not wasting new and competitive products and MTC–00029214 valuable resources on litigation. technologies. From: William Foster Competition means creating better goods Thank you for this opportunity to share my To: Microsoft Settlement and offering superior services to consumers. views. Date: 1/28/02 9:40pm With government out of the business of Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft Settlement stifling progress and tying the hands of Dwain Fick William Foster corporations, consumers—rather than 7203 Lindenmere Dr. bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick MTC–00029218 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With From: mary jane newell VerDate 11 To: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 9:42pm Date: 1/28/02 9:49pm The Microsoft court case is one of the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement biggest money wasters in US Government mary jane newell I think that the best solution is to cause history. If the US Government had spent it’s pob 43 south paris, me 04281 Microsoft to compete with itself. efforts on defense of the country instead of January 28, 2002 The should be forced to GPL license the suing Microsoft and impeaching Bill Clinton, Microsoft Settlement version of the code that is three or more years we wouldn’t be in this war on terrorism U.S. Department of Justice old, of the consumer and professional today. Antitrust Division versions of Microsoft Windows, and The reason why Microsoft is so strong is 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft Office Professional. Therefore, they simple. Their products work. Compare a MS Washington, DC 20530 will always be competing with an older operating system (where there are thousands Dear Microsoft Settlement: version of their own products, and they will of applications and thousands of pieces of I am very upset with my government suing then have all the ‘‘Freedom to Innovate’’ hardware) with the ‘‘competition.’’ IBM’s OS/ microsoft in my (the consumers) name. I have they’d ever want. 2 a disaster; the operating system ran fine but used Microsoft products for ten years and This means that a commercial copy of applications don’t. Call the IT department at they have never harmed me or prevented me Windows XP would need to be that much American Express and ask them. from using Netscape..In fact I had both better than the freely available copy of Linux is a disaster, there are few drivers programs on my computer until the Windows 98. Their new version of Office XP included with the operating system and no Government sued Microsoft. Then I removed would have to be that much more compelling place to call to get drivers. Unless you can Netscape. My government is using unfair than the freely available Office 97 write your own hardware drivers, you can’t business practices, by sueing a major Professional. run Linux with most devices. (They call that company that has on my opinion done With this, we shouldn’t need to worry the beauty of ‘‘Open Source’’...it should be nothing wrong. I suggest you drop the case about them breaking yet another consent called ‘‘No Source.’’) Buy a digital camera and settle. Mary Jane Newell POB 43 South decree. Also, we have sort of this system in and try to run it on Linux. Paris, Maine 04281 207–539–4547 the world of prescription medication. After a Unix is great if you’re buying everything Sincerely, few years, the generics become available, and from one vendor who’ll provide the Mary Jane Newell then there is true competition again. hardware, all the applications, and the MTC–00029219 -Scott administration. But, you can’t buy anything else to run on that system. And, it’s very, From: Edward D’Ovidio MTC–00029221 very expensive. To: Microsoft Settlement From: Thomas Leung Try that digital camera on Unix... Date: 1/28/02 9:43pm To: Microsoft ATR Apple/Mac runs great, but developers Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 9:51pm won’t write for Apple because of their Edward D’Ovidio Subject: Microsoft Settlement policies. There is also little compatibility 835 Hermitage Ridge To whom it may be concern between the different versions of their Hermitage, TN 37076 operating systems and the different hardware January 28, 2002 Starting from 1975, Microsoft continually that they sell. And, on a related point, Apple Microsoft Settlement generates exceptional products and makes is a total monopoly. Apple is the only source U.S. Department of Justice such products available in ever-improved for their hardware, their operating system, Antitrust Division versions, at ever-lower prices. The and most of their applications. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW superiority of its products is so widely Other companies cannot compete at all. Washington, DC 20530 recognized that they are used in almost every Try to buy an ‘‘iMac com patible’’ computer. Dear Microsoft Settlement: industry, thereby raising productivity and Novell 3.x and 4.x was good at file/printer The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ living standards across the globe. If you were sharing, but that was about it. Novell is also dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a a typical success-loving people, you would very, very expensive to own and administer serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech regard it as self-evident that this company industry. It is high time for this trial, and the ought to be applauded. because everything is text based. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be However, Microsoft is denounced as an Netscape was a very good product in the over. Consumers will indeed see competition evil exploiter. The company’s ability to gain beginning, but they got lazy and stopped in the marketplace, rather than the market share by creating the best products is serious development after version 4.x. IE was courtroom. And the investors who propel our condemned as predatory. Actually, Microsoft lousy in the beginning, but MS spent economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. has more than 85% of the world’s personal millions of dollars in development. IE is Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the computer operating system business. That is superb now and has been since version 4.x federal government should not have broken certainly a dominant position, however, it is So, MS writes a great operating system, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, not a monopoly. If consumers want, they can integrates great utilities into the system, sells companies like Microsoft can get back into buy a computer from Apple. Or they can use tools to write any application, develops the the business of innovating and creating better PCs that run 0S/2, Solaris, Linux or other largest knowledgebase in the world about products for consumers, and not wasting operating systems. their products, and they become dominant. If valuable resources on litigation. As a consumer in a free market and a free Apple had done the same thing, I’d be Competition means creating better goods society, we do not want to see that working on Apple’s. At any time, the and offering superior services to consumers. achievement is resented and attacked; computer industry can change. All it takes is With government out of the business of innovator and entrepreneur have to fear a critical application on a platform that stifling progress and tying the hands of persecution from dictatorial regulators and Microsoft does not support and the market corporations, consumers—rather than judges. Microsoft is a threat to a very small will leave Microsoft. Look at how well Palm bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick number of IT vendors with high prices and took off. the winners and losers on Wall Street. With high profit margins, but not to consumers. MS may have a monopoly now, but it’s the reins off the high-tech industry, more Please support the consumers of the world by because the American Consumer wants it entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create giving Microsoft the peace they need to that way. As it is now, there is a standard new and competitive products and innovate. The world needs that! system that any developer can write for and technologies. Thomas Leung compete in the marketplace. That standard is Thank you for this opportunity to share my Managing Consultant a PC with Microsoft Windows. If you mess views. Infocan Computer (Hong Kong) Ltd. this up because IBM, Linux, Unix, Apple, Sincerely, Netscape, and Novell were poorly ran MTC–00029222 Edward D’Ovidio companies, you’ll hurt the US economy. Stay From: Wayne Hedrick out of the market. Let the consumer choose. MTC–00029220 To: Microsoft ATR Wayne Hedrick From: Scott Slack Date: 1/28/02 9:52pm JK Technologies VerDate 11 757–291–5545 Robert C. Friedmann ground of Web services is already 22 Cinnamon Ridge significantly influenced by the monopoly MTC–00029223 Old Saybrook, CT 06475 that Microsoft currently has on the operating From: David Sheehan system and browser markets. Something MTC–00029225 To: Microsoft Settlement explicitly should be done to reverse the Date: 1/28/02 9:45pm From: Eugene Maslar momentum that exists and ensure that Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft does not simply obtain another David Sheehan Date: 1/28/02 9:53pm anti-competitive position in these new 1208 Wine Spring Lane Subject: Microsoft Settlement markets. Baltimore, MD 21204 Attorney General John Ashcroft Sincerely, January 28, 2002 US Department of Justice, Andrew R Rolfe Microsoft Settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530–0001 MTC–00029228 Antitrust Division Dear Mr. Ashcroft: From: stinsonman 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW The purpose of this letter is to inform you To: Microsoft ATR Washington, DC 20530 of my support for the recent settlement Date: 1/28/02 9:53pm Dear Microsoft Settlement: reached between the Justice Department and Subject: Microsoft Settlement The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Microsoft. Microsoft has always had my Good day Ms. Hesse, dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a support as a company. I believe that Bill It is time! It is time that we move on to serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Gates has brought his company enormous implement the provisions of the agreement industry. It is high time for this trial, and the success. He has probably done more for the on the Microsoft case and get the matter wasteful spending accompanying it, to be productivity of this country than any behind us!. over. Consumers will indeed see competition individual in American history. The case It is time! It is time to move on and say in the marketplace, rather than the against him is highly unmerited. I am pleased to those people that have nothing better to do courtroom. And the investors who propel our to see the end of this ridiculous suit, than than figure out out how to filch money economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. however. out of the pockets of those who have deep Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the The settlement includes many terms that pockets. Get over it! It is time! It is time to federal government should not have broken will be beneficial to consumers and let a company that has created more up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, developers. Developers will be given broad technology than any other in recent history, companies like Microsoft can get back into new rights and access to Microsoft create! It is time! It is time to say to a the business of innovating and creating better information. Developers can now design their company that has helped people move products for consumers, and not wasting software in such a way as to be more toward their financial goals and future. Keep valuable resources on litigation. compatible with the system. Consumers can helping! It is time! It is time, when our Competition means creating better goods also utilize these changes, as the new design economy needs to get off its backside, that we of Windows will allow them to reconfigure and offering superior services to consumers. get off Microsoft’s backside! their systems at the users’’ discretion. But With government out of the business of It is time! It is time that we reward clever people like me who talk loudly in stifling progress and tying the hands of innovation, rather than throw it in a restaurants, see this as a deliberate corporations, consumers—rather than courtroom! It is time to help the american ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick citizen recover the losses that this idiotic society. The time has come to resolve this the winners and losers on Wall Street. With chase has cost! Billions in losses, which issue once and for all. Please enact the the reins off the high-tech industry, more started when the justice department decided settlement as soon as possible. entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create to go after the Microsoft Corporation, because Sincerely, new and competitive products and they smelled easy money. This is not about Eugene Maslar technologies. justice!It’s about cash money! Microsoft has Thank you for this opportunity to share my MTC–00029226 it, the government wants it! Everyboby sees views. From: [email protected]@inetgw an easy mark here! Let’s get going! Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR Implement the agreement! David J. Sheehan Date: 1/28/02 9:53pm Thank You, Stan Brown 253–927–6402 MTC–00029224 Subject: microsoft settlement, we approve of the present settlement.do no MTC–00029229 From: bob friedmann prolong this issue any further. To: Microsoft ATR ed bratton,mckinney texas From: Mary Kiekhofer Date: 1/28/02 9:51pm To: Microsoft Settlement Subject: microsoft settlement MTC–00029227 Date: 1/28/02 9:47pm Renata B. Hesse From: Andrew Rolfe Subject: Microsoft Settlement Antitrust Division To: Microsoft ATR Mary Kiekhofer U.S. Department of Justice Date: 1/28/02 9:53pm 1669 220th St. 601 D Street NW Suite Subject: Comments on the proposed final Emerald, WI 54013–7910 1200 Washington, DC 20530–0001 judgment in the Microsoft case January 28, 2002 The proposed remedy is insufficient to As a computer professional who has been Microsoft Settlement prevent further monopolistic practices by the directly affected by the anti-competitive U.S. Department of Justice defendant, Microsoft. An adequate judgment actions of Microsoft, I wish to voice my Antitrust Division should make sufficient changes in disapproval of the Proposed Final Judgment 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft’s operations to assure that the (PFJ). Washington, DC 20530 opportunity to revert to the noted illegal Knowing how Microsoft has attempted to Dear Microsoft Settlement: activities is prevented. Their operating use their influence on my former employer The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ systems, past, present, and future should be (Bank of America, GCIB), I do not see how dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a open to the extent that software innovation the PFJ would have any deterrent effect on serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech and improvement are possible by similar Microsoft actions in the future. It is industry. It is high time for this trial, and the competitors. Hardware manufacturers and my opinion that the PFJ actually puts them wasteful spending accompanying it, to be alternative software sources should be able to at an increased advantage with respect to over. Consumers will indeed see competition display or not display whatever they choose competition in the academic market place. It in the marketplace, rather than the on the desktop without having to interact does nothing that I can see to enhance courtroom. And the investors who propel our more than once with the operating system competition in either the operating system or economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. installed. browser marketplaces. In addition, Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Regards, technology moves on, and the new battle federal government should not have broken VerDate 11 up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft Settlement companies like Microsoft can get back into industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/28/02 9:51pm the business of innovating and creating better wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: Microsoft Settlement products for consumers, and not wasting over. Consumers will indeed see competition Richard Davenport valuable resources on litigation. Competition in the marketplace, rather than the 54 Brunswick Drive means creating better goods and offering courtroom. And the investors who propel our Warwick, RI 02886–5147 superior services to consumers. With economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. January 28, 2002 government out of the business of stifling Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, federal government should not have broken U.S. Department of Justice consumers—rather than bureaucrats and up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Antitrust Division judges—will once again pick the winners and companies like Microsoft can get back into 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the the business of innovating and creating better Washington, DC 20530 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will products for consumers, and not wasting Dear Microsoft Settlement: be encouraged to create new and competitive valuable resources on litigation. Competition The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ products and technologies. means creating better goods and offering dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Thank you for this opportunity to share my superior services to consumers. With serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech views. government out of the business of stifling industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Sincerely, progress and tying the hands of corporations, wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Mary L. Kiekhofer consumers—rather than bureaucrats and over. Consumers will indeed see competition MTC–00029230 judges—will once again pick the winners and in the marketplace, rather than the losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the courtroom. And the investors who propel our From: Richard Deahl high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. To: Microsoft ATR be encouraged to create new and competitive Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Date: 1/28/02 10:02pm products and technologies. Thank you for federal government should not have broken Subject: Microsoft Settlement The Deahls this opportunity to share my views. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 712 Lakewinds Boulevard Sincerely, companies like Microsoft can get back into Inman, South Carolina, 29349 Mr. & Mrs. George Godwin the business of innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not wasting January 27, 2002 MTC–00029232 Attorney General Ashcroft valuable resources on litigation. Competition From: Sharon Wood US Department of Justice means creating better goods and offering To: Microsoft Settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue superior services to consumers. With Date: 1/28/02 9:50pm Washington, DC 20530 government out of the business of stifling Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Mr. Ashcroft, progress and tying the hands of corporations, Sharon Wood As supporters of Microsoft, we are writing consumers—rather than bureaucrats and to help support the enforcement of the recent 3401 Granny White Pike D–208 judges—will once again pick the winners and settlement. After three years of negotiations, Nashville, TN 37204 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the it is time to move forward and get our January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will technology industry back to business. Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive Let us use this agreement as a guideline for U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. Thank you for advancement for our IT sector. The terms are Antitrust Division this opportunity to share my views. not only fair and reasonable, but urge the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, technology industry to work to maintain its Washington, DC 20530 Richard Davenport Dear Microsoft Settlement: position in the global market. MTC–00029234 Microsoft has agreed to make a range of The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ changes, including some bold alterations in dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: Virgie Bryant design and licensing. By redesigning versions serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft ATR of Windows, non-Microsoft software industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/28/02 10:00pm companies will be able to install their wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: Judgement software much easier. This, along with the over. Consumers will indeed see competition I am for leaving Microsoft alone. This is fact that Microsoft will be monitored in the marketplace, rather than the one company that is doing the world a throughout the process, truly shows that courtroom. And the investors who propel our helping hand in the computer industry. If it Microsoft is working hard to work with the economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. was not for Microsoft technology would not IT sector. We urge you to support this Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the be where it is today. Clinton only went after settlement and help get our technology federal government should not have broken Microsoft instead of going after Ben Laden industry back on track. We thank you for up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, and doing some other bad problems your support. companies like Microsoft can get back into including the bombing of the ship. There was Sincerely, the business of innovating and creating better 5 serious things that he should have done, Richard & Linda Deahl products for consumers, and not wasting but he only chose to go after Microsoft. valuable resources on litigation. Competition When the government got into the MTC–00029231 means creating better goods and offering telephone business and made them split From: George Godwin superior services to consumers. With there what did we get a bunch of places that To: Microsoft Settlement government out of the business of stifling drive you crazy ringing your phone off with Date: 1/28/02 9:48pm progress and tying the hands of corporations, telemarketers. Let Microsoft continue and not Subject: Microsoft Settlement consumers—rather than bureaucrats and have to keep spending so much money and George Godwin judges—will once again pick the winners and also the government spending our tax dollars 1212 Summit St losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the a trying a case. They have done nothing Dothan, Al 36301 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will wrong. They have done more for the January 28, 2002 be encouraged to create new and competitive economy than any one else. Government just Microsoft Settlement products and technologies. can’t stand to see anyone be a success. Bill U.S. Department of Justice Thank you for this opportunity to share my Gates has given millions out to help the Antitrust Division views. needy and charities. LEAVE HIM ALONE. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, Washington, DC 20530 Sharon L. Wood MTC–00029235 Dear Microsoft Settlement: From: [email protected]@inetgw The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029233 To: Microsoft ATR dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: Richard Davenport Date: 1/28/02 10:00pm VerDate 11 Subject: Microsoft Settlement valuable resources on litigation. Competition during the mid to late 1990’s. Why go after 6656 Evening Street means creating better goods and offering a company that has been so good to this Worthington, OH 43085–2487 superior services to consumers. With country? I hope that the oversight committee January 12, 2002 government out of the business of stifling that has been created to monitor Microsoft’s Attorney General John Ashcroft progress and tying the hands of corporations, compliance to the settlement will make United States Department of Justice consumers—rather than bureaucrats and critics happy. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW judges—will once again pick the winners and Put this issue to bed and move on to more Washington, DC 20530–0001 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the important issues. I support the settlement Dear Mr. Ashcroft: high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will between Microsoft and the DOJ. Thank you. I am writing in regard to the settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive Sincerely, reached in the antitrust case brought against products and technologies. Stuart Anderson Microsoft. I believe the terms of the Thank you for this opportunity to share my settlement are fair and reasonable, and I do views. MTC–00029239 not think that the case should be dragged out Sincerely, From: Bradford L. Barrett more than it already has been. Microsoft has Charles F. Boyle To: Microsoft ATR been very reasonable and has made Date: 1/28/02 10:01pm concessions in the case that did not even fall MTC–00029237 Subject: Microsoft Settlement within the scope of the suit. I know that From: [email protected]@inetgw Dear Sirs, Microsoft’s competitors are currently To: Microsoft ATR I have been a professional in the computer attempting to extend the case and even Date: 1/28/02 9:58pm industry since the late 70’s and have first subject Microsoft to further impositions. I do Subject: Microsoft Settlement hand seen the damage Microsoft has imposed not believe this is necessary. Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division upon our industry. I feel that the proposed I have always been satisfied with the 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 settlement is nothing more than a slap on the service and product that Microsoft provides. Washington, DC 20530–0001 wrist for Microsoft and will do little to alter I was impressed with the compliance that Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: their behaviour. It seems to me that the Microsoft has shown in this case and has Please put a stop to the economically- Government in general, and the DOJ in made concessions to other computer makers draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This particular, consider the Windows platform to that are unprecedented in previous antitrust has gone on long enough. Microsoft has be a ‘‘standard’’. Windows is not a standard, suits. For example, Microsoft has agreed not already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer it is a propritary platform that is used as a to take retaliatory measures against computer icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case tool by a monopolist to extend their makers who produce software that is in against Microsoft is little more than monopoly. Standards are open to all who direct competition with Microsoft ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft want to participate, with documented and technology. Microsoft has also agreed to competitors, with not a nickel going to those freely available specifications so that anyone allow its competitors access to interfaces that supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the may have access. If the DOJ truely wants to are integral to the Windows operating system computer user. This is just another method restore competition and allow access to and its products. Microsoft was not let off the for states to get free money, and a terrible required APIs, then the documented APIs hook. precedent for the future, not only in terms of should be open and free to anyone, without It is not the responsibility of the computer technology, but all sorts of condition, and without the requirement of Department of Justice to bog itself down with innovations in the most dynamic industry Microsofts blessing. needless litigation. There are better things to the world has ever seen. I can understnad how, not being in the be done with their resources. Microsoft has Please put a stop to this travesty of justice industry, many people have not been able to paid whatever debt to society that they may now. Thank you. see the damange and harm Microsoft has have owed. Sincerely, done over the years. I have been there, and Best regards, Kevin Campbell I have seen it, first hand. I have seen how Marianne Grant 106 W. Apache St. Microsoft locks out others from using hidden St. Marys, KS 66536–1857 and undocumented APIs in their operating MTC–00029236 system, while their own code makes From: Charles Boyle MTC–00029238 extensive use of them. I have seen how they To: Microsoft Settlement From: Stu and Mary Anderson leverage their monopoly to extenguish any Date: 1/28/02 9:53pm To: Microsoft ATR and all competitors, and weld their wealth to Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 10:00pm buy those who otherwise would provide Charles Boyle Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement competition. The proposed settlement is a 104 McConnel Drive P.O. Box 1985 Kingston, WA 98346 sham, and appears to have been written by Jackson, MI 49201–8636 January 28, 2002 Microsoft themselves, as it really does January 28, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft nothing to alter their current actions, and Microsoft Settlement US Department of Justice provides no punishment for infraction. U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Please, please take note of the words of other Antitrust Division Washington, DC 20530 more prominent individuals who have spoke 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Dear Mr. Ashcroft: out on this matter, such as Mr. Ralph Nader, Washington, DC 20530 Finally after more than three years of and reject this proposal in favor of a more Dear Microsoft Settlement: drawn-out litigation, the Justice Department harsh and appropriate remedy. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ and the Microsoft Corporation have agreed to Thank You. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a terms on a settlement that brings an end to Bradford L. Barrett serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech the antitrust suit. I am writing this letter to Senior Systems Architect industry. It is high time for this trial, and the show my support for the settlement, and to USBid Inc. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be urge the DOJ to approve it as soon as Miami, Florida over. Consumers will indeed see competition possible. in the marketplace, rather than the Microsoft has been hounded long enough. MTC–00029240 courtroom. And the investors who propel our There is no need to punish one of America’s From: William Robinson economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. most successful corporations any longer. To: Microsoft Settlement Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Microsoft has been responsible for thousands Date: 1/28/02 9:57pm federal government should not have broken of high- tech jobs, has donated millions upon Subject: Microsoft Settlement up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, millions of dollars to various charities, and William Robinson companies like Microsoft can get back into has created scholarship funds for college P.O.Box 710/410 Fort Rock Rd. the business of innovating and creating better students. Plus, they played a huge part in the Seligman, AZ 86337–0710 products for consumers, and not wasting success of the stock market and economy January 28, 2002 VerDate 11 Microsoft Settlement disservice by forcing users to grow Date: 1/28/02 10:06pm U.S. Department of Justice accustomed to the fact that Microsoft (and Subject: microsoft settlement Antitrust Division maybe Apple) is all that there is. Dear Mr. Ashcroft, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Manufacturers should be allowed to provide, Please strongly urge the final settlement of Washington, DC 20530 NAY! encouraged to promote, side-by-side the Microsoft case. As a not for profit Dear Microsoft Settlement: operating system comparisons on the same organization we have benefitted greatly by The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ machine. For better or worse, let the people Microsofts generosity and software dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a decide! So again, please rescind your innivation. This suit has undermined the free serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech agreement. Make Microsoft act properly. enterprise system our country was built on. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Besides, I doubt that it’s going to break them! Thank you, Mark Rourke wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Sincerely, Director, Bement Center Vic Tello over. Consumers will indeed see competition MTC–00029247 in the marketplace, rather than the 8103 Parkdale courtroom. And the investors who propel our Austin TX 78757 From: [email protected]@inetgw economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 512–453–4981 To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 10:06pm Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the MTC–00029243 federal government should not have broken Subject: Microsoft settlement up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, From: [email protected]@inetgw Dear Mr. Ashcroft: companies like Microsoft can get back into To: Microsoft ATR Attached are my thoughts on the Microsoft the business of innovating and creating better Date: 1/28/02 10:16pm settlement. I appreciate the opportunity to products for consumers, and not wasting Subject: Microsoft Settlement express my opinion on the matter. valuable resources on litigation. Competition Dear Sir/Madam: Thank you for your time and effort. means creating better goods and offering This ‘‘settlement’’ is laughable. I speak as Sincerely, superior services to consumers. With a former Microsoft employee and as a current Katharine Cahill government out of the business of stifling Microsoft stockholder. Microsoft can reach Katharine Cahill progress and tying the hands of corporations, into its pocket and pull out a couple of 2 Sagner Court consumers—rather than bureaucrats and $billion. That won’t hurt the company one Frederick, MD 21701 judges—will once again pick the winners and bit. The only way to stop Microsoft and January 25, 2002 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the prevent the company from benefitting from Attorney General John Ashcroft high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will its illegal activities is to prevent it from US Department of Justice be encouraged to create new and competitive producing any Web server, Web browser, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW email server, office productivity (e. g. MS products and technologies. Washington, DC 20530 Office), or any other general application Thank you for this opportunity to share my Dear Mr. Ashcroft: software. If Microsoft is to be fined, it should views. The Department of Justice is walking a fine be for, at a bare minimum, 25% of the gross Sincerely, line in the Microsoft antitrust case. While I worth of the company, preferably more. William A. Robinson wholeheartedly support existing antitrust Remember, the wealth that they gained was legislature, America is supposed to be the MTC–00029241 gained illegally. home of free enterprise. The federal courts From: Doug Warner Further, the source code for *all* Microsoft are stifling Microsoft’s ability to innovate. In To: Microsoft ATR software should be open to the public for spite of the fact that a more than reasonable Date: 1/28/02 10:04pm inspection. All file formats and their settlement was proposed last November, specifications, particularly those used for any Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft’s opponents and the nine plaintiff office productivity software and any I think the proposed settlement is bad idea. states in which they hold sway have patently multimedia (e. g. Word document, Excel Please see to it that Microsoft is not given the refused to settle and are actively seeking to spreadsheet, movie files, etc.), should be means to turn around and capture the overturn the agreement and bring additional released into the public domain, similar to education market. litigation against Microsoft. I believe the PKWare, Inc.’s ZIP format. Given their I would be very grateful if an alternative proposed settlement is more than fair. complete dominance of the desktop and how method of settlement could be reached. I believe Microsoft has been generous in its they’re using that dominance to lock up the Allowing Microsoft to flood the education agreement to such a wide variety of server market, these steps are appropriate, in market would be helping them not restrictions and obligations. In order to come spite of (MS chief counsel) Bill Neukom’s disciplining them. to a swift settlement, Microsoft agreed to opinions to the contrary. I remind you that rather stringent conditions. For instance, Respectfully yours, I am a MS stockholder and a former Microsoft has agreed to disclose source code, Doug Warner employee. I can tell you, from experience, interfaces, and protocols integral to the Austin, Texas that nothing less will stop Microsoft or even Windows operating system for use by its slow them down. MTC–00029242 competitors. In essence, Microsoft has been Sincerely, From: Victor Tello made potentially vulnerable to legalized Terrell Prude’’, Jr. To: Microsoft ATR plagarism. Its competitors will now be able Network Engineer/Administrator Date: 1/28/02 10:05pm to introduce their own software and products I have been a resident of the United States MTC–00029244 using Windows as a platform, but the code, since birth and a user of Microsoft products From: Gerald Plischke the very thing that makes Windows unique, for some twelve years. I believe that you To: Microsoft ATR is now made available to any third party in should withdraw your consent to the revised Date: 1/28/02 10:05pm the agreement. Microsoft has also agreed to proposed Final Judgment settlement. This Subject: Microsoft Settlement furnish parties acting under the terms of the settlement will not provide a sufficient microsoft offer should be accepted settlement with a license to applicable influence on Microsoft to abandon its intellectual property rights, to prevent monopolistic practices. Microsoft should MTC–00029245 infringement. Should any party feel that NOT be allowed to use its popularity to limit From: Mary Huckaby Microsoft is not fully compliant with the choice among computer manufacturers and To: Microsoft ATR settlement, they will be free to lodge a formal therefore, computer users across the world. Date: 1/28/02 10:06pm complaint with any of several parties set up Here’s why: Subject: microsoft settlement to resolve disputes. Microsoft, however, has There are several good operating systems I support the Microsoft settlement. no established recourse, should they feel that out there today. Each has its own strengths the terms of the settlement are being abused. and its own weaknesses. None of them are MTC–00029246 Ultimately, however, I believe it is best to the perfect solution to every problem. I From: [email protected]@inetgw settle now and move on, rather than drag this believe that we all do ourselves a great To: Microsoft ATR settlement out any longer. The case already VerDate 11 had a tremendous negative impact on the towards Microsoft. Microsoft will be Microsoftp roducts simply means that their economy and the technology industry. I disclosing interfaces that are internal to products are efficient and economical. Noc would like to see the case closed, so some windows operating system products and onsumer harm has ever been shown, even by semblance of normalcy can return. I urge you granting computer makers broad new rights the attorney arguing the case. That is why and your office to support the finalization of to configure Windows. This is a first in an that I hope the judge will approve this the settlement. antitrust case. settlement since Microsoft will allow Sincerely, Although the settlement is flawed and in monitoring and agree to guarantee equity to Katharine Cahill some cases unfair, I urge you office to suppliers and others. In fact, Microsoft was willing to settle with the government a year MTC–00029248 implement the settlement since the alternative of further litigation could be ago, but the state attorneysg eneral blocked From: Steven Power detrimental to Microsoft and the IT sector. Do the settlement and Microsoft stock fell To: Microsoft Settlement what is right for our country and show that sharply. Date: 1/28/02 10:01pm the new administration has made a As a person who believes in the less Subject: Microsoft Settlement commitment to innovation. government intervention the better, I don’t Steven Power I am a loyal AOL customer and have used want any company to ever get in a situation 2286 East Tolbert Road their product since 1993. I also use many of where their economic future is mandated by Wooster, OH 44691 Microsoft’s products and many of their the federal government. If the company January 28, 2002 competitor’s products. Please let Microsoft cannot perform in the marketplace, has lousy Microsoft Settlement move on and let them do what they do best products or is outgunned by competitors, so U.S. Department of Justice which is innovation. be it. But that’s the way it’s supposed be— Antitrust Division They raise the bar of excellence for all. not getting lambasted by the Department of 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, Justice. Washington, DC 20530 Catherine Hamlin Walker Thanks for your time in reviewing my Dear Microsoft Settlement: views on this issue The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029250 Sincerely, dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: Richard Mendes Mark Baker serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft ATR 2965 Rhonswood Dr. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/28/02 10:10pm Tobaccoville, NC 27050 wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: Microsoft mugsyb;@peoplepc.com over. Consumers will indeed see competition Microsoft has been exercising monopoly 336–969–4913 in the marketplace, rather than the power for years, and is continuing to do so courtroom. And the investors who propel our MTC–00029252 today. Contrary to what Bill Gates says, the economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. results of their business practices has not From: Timothy C. York Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the been good for consumers. Windows is To: Microsoft Settlement federal government should not have broken riddled with software defects, inelegant Date: 1/28/02 10:02pm up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Subject: Microsoft Settlement companies like Microsoft can get back into design and security holes you can drive a Timothy C. York the business of innovating and creating better Mack truck through. Microsoft’s dominance 7139 Hampstead Lane products for consumers, and not wasting is almost an historical accident, stemming Indianapolis, IN 46256–2315 valuable resources on litigation. Competition from IBM’s contract with Gates to develop January 28, 2002 means creating better goods and offering DOS. Microsoft retained the right to develop Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With and market the operating system, and the PC U.S. Department of Justice government out of the business of stifling with a Microsoft operating system sold Antitrust Division progress and tying the hands of corporations, beyond everyone’s expectations. This 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW consumers—rather than bureaucrats and stemmed from corporate MIS departments Washington, DC 20530 judges—will once again pick the winners and accepting the PC because it was ‘‘blessed’’ by losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the IBM, and the follow-on consumer sales to Dear Microsoft Settlement: high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will people who wanted the same environment at The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ be encouraged to create new and competitive home that they had in the office. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a products and technologies. Whether you consider their position a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Thank you for this opportunity to share my ‘‘natural’’ monopoly or one stemming from industry. It is high time for this trial, and the views. cutthroat marketing, the result is monopoly wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Sincerely, which is unhealthy and illegal. over. Consumers will indeed see competition Steven Power Richard Mendes in the marketplace, rather than the [email protected] courtroom. And the investors who propel our MTC–00029249 economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. MTC–00029251 From: [email protected]@inetgw Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the To: Microsoft ATR From: Stephen Baker federal government should not have broken Date: 1/28/02 10:10pm To: Microsoft ATR up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 10:11pm companies like Microsoft can get back into January 28, 2002 Subject: Microsoft settlement the business of innovating and creating better Attorney General John Ashcroft Having kept up with events regarding the products for consumers, and not wasting US Department of Justice Microsoft case, I wanted to comment for the valuable resources on litigation. Competition 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Federal Register in this regard. My view is means creating better goods and offering Washington, DC 20530 that Judge Kollar-Kotelly should approve the superior services to consumers. With Dear Mr. Ashcroft: settlement between Microsoft, the government out of the business of stifling I am writing in full support of the recent Department of Justice and nine attorneys progress and tying the hands of corporations, settlement between the US Department of general and that this will serve the taxpayers consumers—rather than bureaucrats and Justice and Microsoft. The lawsuits have of American very well. judges—will once again pick the winners and gone on for too long now and have wasted Earlier as this case unfolded, I losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the millions of taxpayer dollars. Microsoft is not communicated to elected officials from North high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will a monopoly and has not infringed upon my Carolina my opposition to the initial case as be encouraged to create new and competitive rights as a consumer. In fact their innovation I believe it showed undue interference from products and technologies. has been the catalyst behind the Technology the federal government against a company Thank you for this opportunity to share my Industry being revolutionized. which was one of the most successful the views. The terms of the settlement are more than world has ever known. The fact that nearly Sincerely, fair and actually verge on being too harsh all home and business users depend on Timothy C. York VerDate 11 MTC–00029253 711 W Smith Road MTC–00029257 From: Leo Stevenson Medina, Ohio 44256 From: Walt To: Microsoft ATR January 14, 2002 To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 10:11pm Attorney General John Ashcroft Date: 1/28/02 10:15pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement US Department of Justice Subject: Microsoft Settlement Renata B. Hesse 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Memo Antitrust Division Washington, DC 20530 To: Attorney General John Ashcroft U.S. Department of Justice Dear Mr. Ashcroft: US Department of Justice, Please accept the settlement for Microsoft. As a supporter of Microsoft, I write you 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Let’s move on without further litigation. Our with concern regarding the recent settlement. Washington, DC 20530–0001 national economy needs to move on. The terms of this settlement were part of a From: Walt Chambers Accepting the Microsoft settlement will help well thought out process, which was Date: 1/28/02 our national economy move forward. monitored throughout the entire time. It Re: Microsoft Settlement. seems impossible that there could be any Dear Mr. Ashcroft: MTC–00029254 more room for scrutiny. Let us let these terms I am writing to express my support for the From: Richard Ludwig speak for themselves and help get our settlement that was reached between To: Microsoft Settlement technology industry back to business. Microsoft and the Justice Department. First Date: 1/28/02 10:05pm As our economy continues to take a dip, let me state that I have been in the Industry Subject: Microsoft Settlement we must do all we can to support our since 1976 and have worked with Major Richard Ludwig technology industry. Since it acts as a large retailers such as Zales Corp., Major credit 104 Hunstanton part of our economy, we need to help solidify card processors such as MBNA. Major banks Williamsburg, VA 23188–9144 its place in the global market. The terms of such as American Savings, Australian New Zealand Bank, State Bank of South Australia. January 28, 2002 this agreement help to create a more unified Major manufacturers such as Alp’s Electric. Microsoft Settlement IT sector, which can only help us to work I have worked as a consultant for Arthur U.S. Department of Justice together to keep our place in this global Antitrust Division Andersen Consulting, Cap Gemini Sorgetti, market. By delaying the process, we only and Computer People Australia. In my 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW open the doors for our competitors, while we Washington, DC 20530 various positions with these firms I have focus on litigation. Please help to support Dear Microsoft Settlement: been involved with contract negotiations this settlement by stopping any further action The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ with IBM, Microsoft, Fujitsu, Honeywell, etc? against the agreement. Help us to help our IT dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a In all my dealings with Microsoft I have sector get back to business, I thank you for serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech never witnessed any unfair dealings and they your support. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the were usually the industry norm or even a Sincerely, wasteful spending accompanying it, to be little less competitive than say IBM. over. Consumers will indeed see competition Keith Duemling The consumers were in my opinion already well protected by Microsoft from Hardware in the marketplace, rather than the MTC–00029256 courtroom. And the investors who propel our manufacturers which were trying to make From: Brent Wilde economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. their configurations of Microsoft proprietary To: Microsoft ATR Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the and lock business consultants like myself Date: 1/28/02 10:14pm federal government should not have broken out? If you look back to when PC’s first came Subject: Microsoft Settlement up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, out this was the biggest problem.. Until M. Brent Wilde, MAI Microsoft stepped up to the plate and forced companies like Microsoft can get back into 1980—112th Ave. NE, Suite 270 conformity so that the user would have a the business of innovating and creating better Bellevue, WA 98004 consistent experience across all platforms products for consumers, and not wasting January 28, 2002 and vendors. I feel the settlement would end valuable resources on litigation. Competition Attorney General John Ashcroft the waste of time and money by our means creating better goods and offering government. In my opinion the whole legal superior services to consumers. With US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW battle was never really about the consumer government out of the business of stifling but was focused on corporate access to progress and tying the hands of corporations, Washington, DC 20530 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: government lobbyist’s by hardware and other consumers—rather than bureaucrats and software manufacturers who weren?t smart judges—will once again pick the winners and I am writing, today, the last day of the public comment period, to show my support enough to compete. losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the I believe the settlement which ends the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will for the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. This case has gone on long enough. The wasteful court battles is good for consumers be encouraged to create new and competitive and the entire computer industry. The terms products and technologies. Thank you for antitrust case against computer company, IBM, dragged on through the 1960s, 1970s of the settlement indicate an extensive this opportunity to share my views. agreement that requires many concessions and into the 1980s. Nothing like that should Sincerely, from Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to grant happen again. The new judge in the case Richard M. Ludwig computer makers broad new rights to appointed a mediator who helped the parties MTC–00029255 configure Windows so as to promote non- to negotiate together for three months. The Microsoft software programs that compete From: Keith Duemling settlement should be approved in the best with programs included within Windows. To: Microsoft ATR interest of the American people. The And Microsoft will not retaliate against any Date: 1/28/02 10:13pm settlement will make its easier for other computer maker who takes advantage of Subject: Microsoft Settlement companies to work with Microsoft in using these new rights. Microsoft will also be Dear Attorney General John Ashcroft, its software codes and changing the programs monitored by a three-member Technical Please see attached to this email a included in its very popular Windows Committee that will assure the company Microsoft Word document which adequately operating system installation. There will be meets its obligations. summaries my opinions regarding the a technical committee of experts who will As a member of the computer industry, I Microsoft Settlement. Thank you for your inspect Microsoft’s software and its facilities know the importance of Microsoft not only time. to see that the agreement is complied with. to our industry but also to the entire Keith Duemling The committee will also hear and investigate economy. Concluding this settlement will [email protected] complaints file by third parties. I would provide certainty to the industry and give MSN Messenger: kduemling appreciate your continuing support for the Microsoft the freedom to design new Support the Freedom To Innovate: http:// Microsoft antitrust settlement. Thank you. technology. I hope you will continue to www.freetoinnovate.com/ //end Sincerely, support the settlement and take no further CC: [email protected]@inetgw Brent Wilde action in litigating this case VerDate 11 Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft settlement Date: 1/28/02 10:10pm Walt. Attorney General John Ashcroft Subject: Microsoft Settlement CC:[email protected]@inetgw US Dept. of Justice Ryan Bender c/o email [email protected] P.O. box 774 MTC–00029258 Dear Sir Ashcroft: Topeka, IN 46571 From: [email protected]@inetgw I am a Microsoft user. I want to say I fully January 28, 2002 To: Microsoft ATR support the recent Microsoft-Department of Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 10:15pm Justice settlement. It’s great Microsoft will U.S. Department of Justice Subject: microsoft settlement not be broken up. However, the lawsuit was Antitrust Division it is my opinion that the case between too costly and long. The terms agreed upon 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW states and microsoft should be settled as per seem to violate Microsoft’s intellectual Washington, DC 20530 the DOJ.- Thank you. property rights, by being forced to disclose Dear Microsoft Settlement: MTC–00029259 internal info about the Windows operating The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ system and requiring future design versions dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: Steve Townsend making it easier for competitors to promote serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft ATR their products within Windows. Our industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/28/02 10:17pm economic future depends on intellectual wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement innovation and it is to be protected to insure over. Consumers will indeed see competition Information future incentive and financial success. I in the marketplace, rather than the To Whom It May Concern, strongly urge your office to imlement the courtroom. And the investors who propel our The terms of the settlement with Microsoft settlement, as the alternative ..more economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. are completely unacceptable. I hope that it is litigation, will only impact our tech economy Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the apparent to those persons in power to make and stifle our markets. federal government should not have broken such decisions that Microsoft will not be Respectfully submitted, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, stemmed from their monopolistic practices Sandra M. Helmich/signature companies like Microsoft can get back into with any settlement that allows them such the business of innovating and creating better freedom of interpretation. cc: Rep. Jeff Flake products for consumers, and not wasting They (Microsoft) have shown their MTC–00029261 valuable resources on litigation. Competition contempt for and avoidance of any measures From: Jerry Schultz means creating better goods and offering attempting to restrict their behavior. It was To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With obvious from the demeanor of CEO Bill Gates Date: 1/28/02 10:09pm government out of the business of stifling during the trial and the continuation of Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, monopolistic practices by Microsoft during Jerry Schultz consumers—rather than bureaucrats and the trial and after the findings of guilt that 7007 L.5 Lane judges—will once again pick the winners and anything short of structural changes to the Escanaba, MI 49829 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the company will be ineffectual in limiting their monopolistic tendencies. January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Microsoft is positioning to extend its reach Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive into key areas of our emerging economy. The U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. operating system monopoly that they enjoy is Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my allowing them to push their .Net product. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. Microsoft, who’s record on security issues is Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, horrendous, is looking to become part of all Dear Microsoft Settlement: Ryan Bender The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ internet financial transactions by forcing the MTC–00029263 .Net infrastructure and wants us to entrust dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: Sarah Carroll them with our sensitive data. Their browser serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech monopoly will insure that the interface for industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft Settlement virtually all internet shoppers will be wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 10:09pm controlled by Microsoft. Their monopolistic over. Consumers will indeed see competition Subject: Microsoft Settlement might is forcing restrictive marketing of the in the marketplace, rather than the Sarah Carroll MSN network product. courtroom. And the investors who propel our P.O. Box 490 Microsoft has a history of pushing ahead economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Valders, WI 54245 with it’s own ‘‘standards’’ circumventing the Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the January 28, 2002 international standards committees that help federal government should not have broken Microsoft Settlement to provide a secure and level playing field. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, U.S. Department of Justice The fact that 99.99% of all viruses and data companies like Microsoft can get back into Antitrust Division security threats that exist thrive on Microsoft the business of innovating and creating better 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW technology. The holes in Microsoft programs products for consumers, and not wasting Washington, DC 20530 that are left to provide businesses easy valuable resources on litigation. Competition Dear Microsoft Settlement: marketing opportunities are included at the means creating better goods and offering The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ expense of public privacy and security superior services to consumers. With dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a concerns. government out of the business of stifling serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech In a marketplace free of the heavy handed progress and tying the hands of corporations, industry. It is high time for this trial, and the monopolist NO customer would opt to consumers—rather than bureaucrats and wasteful spending accompanying it, to be expose themselves to the additional risk judges—will once again pick the winners and over. Consumers will indeed see competition involved in using Microsoft internet losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the in the marketplace, rather than the products. Whatever the final solution, it must high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will courtroom. And the investors who propel our prevent the continued free reign by this be encouraged to create new and competitive economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. megalomaniacal corporation. products and technologies. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Sincerely, Thank you for this opportunity to share my federal government should not have broken Stephen J. Townsend views. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Cottage Grove, MN Sincerely, companies like Microsoft can get back into Jerry L. Schultz the business of innovating and creating better MTC–00029260 products for consumers, and not wasting From: Sandra Helmich MTC–00029262 valuable resources on litigation. Competition To: Microsoft ATR From: Ryan Bender means creating better goods and offering Date: 1/28/02 10:17pm To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With VerDate 11 government out of the business of stifling 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, progress and tying the hands of corporations, Washington, DC 20530 Bernard Katz consumers—rather than bureaucrats and Dear Microsoft Settlement: judges—will once again pick the winners and The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029268 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: George Lawrence Storm high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft ATR be encouraged to create new and competitive industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/28/02 10:20pm products and technologies. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: Microsoft Settlement Thank you for this opportunity to share my over. Consumers will indeed see competition I am opposed to the Microsoft settlement. views. in the marketplace, rather than the If accepted it would penalize those schools Sincerely, courtroom. And the investors who propel our involved, greatly reward the monopolistic Sarah L. Carroll economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. practices of Microsoft and highly penalize Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the the only creative computer developer left in MTC–00029264 federal government should not have broken the US. From: Mark MacNeil up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, As the current settlement stands Microsoft To: Microsoft ATR companies like Microsoft can get back into will pay virtually nothing by donating Date: 1/28/02 10:11pm the business of innovating and creating better obsolete equipment which has already been Subject: Microsoft Case Comment products for consumers, and not wasting written off and donating software that they DOJ, valuable resources on litigation. Competition never would have sold. This settlement I think your case against Microsoft Corp. means creating better goods and offering places a significant financial penalty on those was a disgrace to the American Legal System. superior services to consumers. With schools that would be foolish enough to It seems you allowed a group of businessmen government out of the business of stifling accept this farce. It is a fact that support costs from the likes of Sun Microsystems and AOL, progress and tying the hands of corporations, for the windows platform are on the order of who couldn’t compete with Microsoft on the consumers—rather than bureaucrats and ten to one. If we were to accept the notion field of software design and customer service, judges—will once again pick the winners and that this ‘‘donation’’ was one billion dollars and allowed them a chance in a courtroom losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the the schools involved would need to raise ten high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will to do what they could never have done billion dollars to support the hardware, be encouraged to create new and competitive through any work of their own. I use all software and training needed to support it products and technologies. Microsoft products because of their good during the very short life remaining in it. Thank you for this opportunity to share my design and customer service. I think you If however a cash fine of one billion was views. should point your legal gun somewhere made with that cash going to the purchase of Sincerely, else...and perhaps you should read new Macintosh hardware and software those Diane Collins Greenspan’s work entitled: AntiTrust. Found same schools would only need to raise three in Ayn Rands collection of works ‘‘For the MTC–00029267 billion, six hundred million, a bit more than New Intellectual’’. a third the support cost. Additionally the life Mark MacNeil From: Bernard Katz To: Microsoft Settlement of the equipment would offer more than MTC–00029265 Date: 1/28/02 10:08pm twice the longevity of Microsoft’s proposed From: RWB Subject: Microsoft Settlement donation. This would further reduce the To: Microsoft ATR Bernard Katz strain on school budgets by extending the Date: 1/28/02 10:15pm 17 Riesling Ct. support costs over a five year verses a two- Subject: Microsoft Settlement Commack, NY 11725–1735 year period of time. The proposed settlement does not begin to January 28, 2002 (The factors of 10 and 3.6 are a few years address the market arrogance and bullying Microsoft Settlement old and need to be researched to see if they behavior which characterized Microsoft’s U.S. Department of Justice have changed recently.) If we are to teach our marketing over the past decade. The public Antitrust Division children the values of honesty and integrity destruction of Netscape by giving away it’s 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW it should be that these values are important. browser for free and then simply including Washington, DC 20530 Letting the proposed settlement stand only it in the operating system are just one of Dear Microsoft Settlement: teaches them that success is based on lies many acts which the company has taken to The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ and theft. reduce or destroy competition. The dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a If you want to teach justice the only way beginnings of a sufficient remedy would serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech is to impose the severest of penalties which include requiring Microsoft to cease to offer industry. It is high time for this trial, and the must include significant jail time for all those a browser at all and to agree to never sell a wasteful spending accompanying it, to be involved. Anything less is to reward the product at less then a competitive product over. Consumers will indeed see competition criminals involved. even if they have a minority market share. in the marketplace, rather than the Sincerely, The agreement not to sell must be adjusted courtroom. And the investors who propel our George Lawrence Storm for the effects of ‘‘bundling’’ which Microsoft economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. George Lawrence Storm has used not only against Netscape but also Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the 1916 Pike Place / Suite 12 / #441 WordPerfect and many others. federal government should not have broken Seattle, Washington 98101 Rodger Barkus up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Telephone: (206) 334—7236 (formerly Software Association of Oregon companies like Microsoft can get back into E-mail: [email protected] the business of innovating and creating better board member and the COO of a software MTC–00029269 company.) products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition From: Wayne Borean MTC–00029266 means creating better goods and offering To: Microsoft ATR From: Diane Collins superior services to consumers. With Date: 1/28/02 10:20pm To: Microsoft Settlement government out of the business of stifling Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 10:09pm progress and tying the hands of corporations, The Proposed settlement will have Subject: Microsoft Settlement consumers—rather than bureaucrats and virtually no effect on Microsoft. The Diane Collins judges—will once again pick the winners and settlement is deeply flawed, and needs to be 944 Ark 175 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the totally recast to have any real and lasting Hardy, Ar 72542 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will effect on the monopolistic practises of January 28, 2002 be encouraged to create new and competitive Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Settlement products and technologies. Wayne Borean U.S. Department of Justice Thank you for this opportunity to share my President Antitrust Division views. forkliftguy.com VerDate 11 MTC–00029270 new and competitive products and and the Department of Justice fails to From: Sirena Lau technologies. eliminate the benefits to Microsoft of its To: Microsoft ATR Thank you for this opportunity to share my illegal conduct, fails to restore competition in Date: 1/28/02 10:22pm views. the market, and fails to strengthen the Subject: microsoft settlement Sincerely, possibilities of competition and deter the Stella L. Lau Patricia Deibler exercise of monopoly power now and in the future. 1139 Bacon Street MTC–00029272 San Francisco, CA 94134 Arrow noted that the Court of Appeals January 24, 2002 From: Jeff Clearwater ruled that Microsoft violated federal antitrust Attorney General John Ashcroft To: Microsoft ATR law by impermissibly maintaining its US Department of Justice Date: 1/28/02 10:22pm monopoly through anticompetitive actions 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: Microsoft Settlement against Netscape and Java. ‘‘Given that Washington, DC 20530 Your Honor, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, finding, the remedies in this case should Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Please do what you can to stop this eliminate the benefits to Microsoft of its The purpose of this letter is for me to go juggernaut from doing more damage to an illegal conduct; should restore, if possible, on record as favoring the settlement agreed already over monopolized industry! the possibility of competition in operating to by Microsoft and the Justice Department. I agree totally with the filing by ProComp systems; and should not allow Microsoft to It is about time that the two sides came to regarding the Microsoft ‘‘settlement’’. This is protect its illegally maintained monopoly an agreement, and I only hope that this a travesty of justice. Microsoft clearly has from current and future competition in settlement is approved without any delay. grossly violated antitrust legislation and has related markets, such as server operating Competition in the computer industry is monopolized the market in ways that clearly systems and Web services,’’ Arrow said in his going to benefit greatly from this decision. suppresses innovation and competition in affidavit. ‘‘In my opinion, the PFJ (proposed Microsoft will be producing future versions the operating system, browser, and scripting final judgment) fails to accomplish these of Windows that will allow other computer software industries. The filing by Procom objectives.’’ makers and software developers to add their says it the best. I reproduce an article with Arrow said the market position that own versions of software that compete with the specifics below. Microsoft has today—with 92 percent of the programs included within Windows. They ‘‘This proposed decree is so ineffective that PC operating systems market and 91 percent will also be able to remove easily Windows’’ it would not have prevented Microsoft from of the browser market—‘‘makes it difficult for software. Companies will now be free to destroying Netscape and Java, the very acts any set of conduct remedies to lead to compete with one another, and the quality of that gave rise to this lawsuit,’’ said Judge significant middleware competition. Neither software will rise as a result. Robert H. Bork. ‘‘It is so ineffective in the PFJ nor any other set of conduct remedies This settlement is just what is needed, and controlling Microsoft that it might as well can re-create the technological disruption or I stand behind it 100%. have been written by Microsoft itself.’’ competitive head start that existed before Sincerely, The ProComp filing explained that Judge Microsoft acted illegally.’’ Stella Lau Kollar-Kotelly must make a truly ProComp’s Tunney Act filing also notes independent determination of whether the that the proposed settlement fails to MTC–00029271 proposed settlement is in the public interest, adequately deal with competitive issues that From: Patricia Deibler with the public interest standard defined by will determine the future of the software To: Microsoft Settlement the Court of Appeals ruling in this case. industry, and does not contain the safeguards Date: 1/28/02 10:15pm Sincerely, needed to prevent Microsoft from extending Subject: Microsoft Settlement Jeff Clearwater its monopoly into more markets. Patricia Deibler Reference Article: ‘‘The proposed decree hardly deals at all 25742 Cervantes Judge Bork and Judge Kenneth W. Starr with Microsoft’s likely future anticompetitive Mission Viejo, CA 92691–5604 were among those signing a Tunney Act conduct. Microsoft’s prodigious market January 28, 2002 filing on the settlement submitted today by power is now directed at the next threat to Microsoft Settlement the Project to Promote Competition and the Windows platform— applications and U.S. Department of Justice Innovation in the Digital Age (ProComp), a services provided via the Internet and other Antitrust Division leading opponent of the settlement. networks—not the Netscape/Java threat of 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW The ProComp filing also included an 1995–99,’’ according to the ProComp filing, Washington, DC 20530 affidavit critical of the proposed settlement which was signed by Bork, Starr, ProComp Dear Microsoft Settlement: from Nobel Prize-winning economist President Mike Pettit and others. ‘‘Microsoft The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Kenneth J. Arrow, a professor at Stanford has destroyed those revolutionary dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a University, who had supported the 1995 technologies that are a source of operating serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech consent decree between the federal systems competition and has moved on to industry. It is high time for this trial, and the government and Microsoft. other areas that the proposed decree all but wasteful spending accompanying it, to be The ProComp filing explained that Judge ignores.’’ over. Consumers will indeed see competition Kollar-Kotelly must make a truly The ProComp Tunney Act filing notes that in the marketplace, rather than the independent determination of whether the the proposed settlement’s strong-sounding courtroom. And the investors who propel our proposed settlement is in the public interest, provisions are often undercut by other economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. with the public interest standard defined by sections that give Microsoft broad discretion Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the the Court of Appeals ruling in this case. in interpreting the agreement. For example, federal government should not have broken ‘‘Because this proposed settlement does the proposed settlement permits Microsoft to up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, not follow the mandates of the Court of design and bundle its products in different companies like Microsoft can get back into Appeals judgment, it must be rejected. ways to evade the disclosure requirements by the business of innovating and creating better Neither the Department of Justice or the giving Microsoft ‘‘sole discretion’’ to decide products for consumers, and not wasting District Court have the constitutional what software is part of a ‘‘Windows valuable resources on litigation. authority that does not satisfy the Court of Operating System Product.’’ Competition means creating better goods Appeals ruling,’’ Starr explained. ‘‘This ‘‘The API disclosure provisions are riddled and offering superior services to consumers. proposed settlement not only fails to meet with numerous deficiencies that render them With government out of the business of the Court of Appeals standard, it doesn’t ineffective in promoting competition,’’ the stifling progress and tying the hands of even purport to do so. It is simply based on ProComp filing said. ‘‘These are not corporations, consumers—rather than an inappropriate legal standard, and we don’t loopholes, but triumphal arches that allow bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick believe it satisfies even this modest Microsoft to proceed uninhibited by the the winners and losers on Wall Street. With standard.’’ antitrust laws.’’ Judges Bork and Starr and the reins off the high-tech industry, more In his affidavit, Professor Arrow said the the others supporting the ProComp filing entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new proposed settlement between Microsoft urged Judge Kollar-Kotelly to defer a decision VerDate 11 on the proposed decree until after the hearing practices’’ while allowing Microsoft to the underlying operating system and force on the stronger remedies proposed by the continue to developing software that is the company to release the source code for nine states which have objected to the useful. The fact that the Department of versions of its’’ popular Office suite of proposed settlement. Justice and 9 states have signed on shows programs to the general public. Such a ‘‘The proposed decree supported by that it has merit. No alternative has been remedy would begin to allow more Microsoft and the Department of Justice is shown to be better in the long run. Those competition in the marketplace. hopelessly vague and inherently pushing for such alternatives are those who I do not, however, believe that the unenforceable,’’ Starr said. ‘‘We believe that truly wish to put Microsoft out of business company should be broken up. divestiture remains the preferable and most which is not the best course of action for Sincerely, effective remedy for Microsoft’s antitrust either the industry or our country in the long Christopher A. Peters violations.’’ run. Hopefully, cool heads will prevail and (Microsoft Certified System Engineer) Jeff Clearwater the rhetoric of those who wish for harsher Ecovillage Design Associates sanctions can be seen for what they are. MTC–00029277 2525 Arapahoe Ave, Suite E4, #280 Sincerely, From: Shannon Littlefield Boulder, CO 80302 John G. Ata To: Microsoft Settlement 303–546–0460, Date: 1/28/02 10:21pm [email protected] MTC–00029275 Subject: Microsoft Settlement [email protected] From: [email protected]@inetgw Shannon Littlefield To: Microsoft ATR 202 W Lockesburg Street MTC–00029273 Date: 1/28/02 10:21pm Nashville, AR 71852 From: Marilyn Laurie Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 28, 2002 To: Microsoft Settlement Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 10:15pm 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 U.S. Department of Justice Subject: Microsoft Settlement Washington, DC 20530–0001 Antitrust Division Marilyn Laurie Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 6520 Walden Pond Ln. SE Please put a stop to the economically- Washington, DC 20530 Southport, NC 28461 draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This Dear Microsoft Settlement: January 28, 2002 has gone on long enough. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Microsoft Settlement Microsoft has already agreed to hide its dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a U.S. Department of Justice Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Antitrust Division fact is, this case against Microsoft is little industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Washington, DC 20530 Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel over. Consumers will indeed see competition Dear Microsoft Settlement: going to those supposedly harmed by in the marketplace, rather than the The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Microsoft: the computer user. courtroom. And the investors who propel our dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a This is just another method for states to get economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech free money, and a terrible precedent for the Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the industry. It is high time for this trial, and the future, not only in terms of computer federal government should not have broken wasteful spending accompanying it, to be technology, but all sorts of innovations in the up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, over. Consumers will indeed see competition most dynamic industry the world has ever companies like Microsoft can get back into in the marketplace, rather than the seen. Please put a stop to this travesty of the business of innovating and creating better courtroom. And the investors who propel our justice now. Thank you. products for consumers, and not wasting economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Sincerely, valuable resources on litigation. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Raymond L. Put Competition means creating better goods federal government should not have broken 10845 Link Rd. and offering superior services to consumers. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Fountain, CO 80817–3380 With government out of the business of companies like Microsoft can get back into stifling progress and tying the hands of the business of innovating and creating better MTC–00029276 corporations, consumers—rather than products for consumers, and not wasting From: CHRISTOPHER A PETERS bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick valuable resources on litigation. To: Microsoft ATR the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Competition means creating better goods Date: 1/28/02 10:24pm the reins off the high-tech industry, more and offering superior services to consumers. Subject: Microsoft Settlement entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create With government out of the business of Dear Sirs, new and competitive products and stifling progress and tying the hands of I am writing to express my belief that the technologies. corporations, consumers—rather than proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti- Thank you for this opportunity to share my bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick trust case is too weak and should be rejected views. the winners and losers on Wall Street. With by the Court. The remedies proposed would Sincerely, the reins off the high-tech industry, more not, in my opinion, go nearly far enough to Shannon Littlefield entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create restrain the company from it’s proven new and competitive products and monopolistic behaviour. I write this as an IT MTC–00029278 technologies. professional with over 10 years of experience From: David Rose Thank you for this opportunity to share my in the field. To: Microsoft Settlement views. I am also a conservative who believes in Date: 1/28/02 10:17pm Sincerely, limited government regulation. However, in Subject: Microsoft Settlement Marilyn K. Laurie this case, I believe that it is in the best David Rose interest of the U.S. taxpayers that harsher 2721 NW Cascade MTC–00029274 penalties be handed down to Microsoft. By East Wenatchee, Wa 98802 From: John G. Ata leveraging its’’ near-monopoly on desktop January 28, 2002 To: Microsoft ATR operating systems, Microsoft has damaged Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 10:24pm competition and reduced consumer choice. U.S. Department of Justice Subject: Microsoft Settlement In my opinion, the settlement announced Antitrust Division This letter is written to urge the acceptance in October by the nine states and the Dept. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW and adoption of the proposed settlement of Justice with Microsoft would be nothing Washington, DC 20530 between the Department of Justice, Microsoft more than a slap on the wrist. A proper Dear Microsoft Settlement: and nine states. This agreement addresses remedy would begin with requiring that The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ perceived concerns of ‘‘monopolistic Microsoft ‘‘unbundle’’ its’’ Web browser from dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a VerDate 11 serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech it cannot be trusted to do anything beneficial extremely frustrating teaching experience, industry. It is high time for this trial, and the with it. and severely limited the ways in which we wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Thank you for your attention. could use the computers in our lab. over. Consumers will indeed see competition Jeffrey Horn, Ph.D. Thanks for listening, in the marketplace, rather than the Assistant Professor of Computer Science Matt courtroom. And the investors who propel our Department of Mathematics and Computer Matt Gainer economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Science (323)660–2846 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Northern Michigan University MTC–00029282 federal government should not have broken Marquette, Michigan 49855 up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, CC:[email protected]@inetgw From: [email protected]@inetgw companies like Microsoft can get back into To: Microsoft ATR the business of innovating and creating better MTC–00029280 Date: 1/28/02 10:27pm products for consumers, and not wasting From: Alix Barstow Subject: Microsoft Settlement valuable resources on litigation. To: Microsoft ATR Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Competition means creating better goods Date: 1/28/02 10:24pm Antitrust Division and offering superior services to consumers. Subject: Microsoft Settlement 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 With government out of the business of 1) Thank you for bringing this suit on my Washington, DC 20530–0001 stifling progress and tying the hands of behalf as an American! Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: corporations, consumers—rather than 2) I am very concerned that the final Please put a stop to the economically- bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick settlement be effective, not just in punishing draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Microsoft for past wrongs, but in creating an has gone on long enough. the reins off the high-tech industry, more environment that hinders future wrongdoing Microsoft has already agreed to hide its entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create by truly enabling vigorous competition in the Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the new and competitive products and middleware as well as operating systems fact is, this case against Microsoft is little technologies. markets. Microsoft has a near monopoly with more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Thank you for this opportunity to share my its Microsoft Office suite and I would like to Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by views. see stronger competition for these programs Microsoft: the computer user. Sincerely, in particular. This is just another method for states to get David M. Rose MTC–00029281 free money, and a terrible precedent for the MTC–00029279 From: Matt Gainer future, not only in terms of computer From: Jeffrey Horn To: Microsoft ATR technology, but all sorts of innovations in the To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 10:26pm most dynamic industry the world has ever Date: 1/28/02 10:26pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement seen. Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern, Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you. United States Justice Department: First, even as I type this e-mail in Microsoft Sincerely, As an assistant professor of Computer Entourage I want to thank you for pursuing Henry Mastran Science, with a Ph.D. in Computer Science an aggressive action against the Microsoft 400 Mark Drive and four years of industry experience as a corporation. There is no disputing the quality Tallmadge, OH 44278 computer networking consultant, it is my of Microsoft’s products, and the extent that opinion that the currently proposed we have come to depend on them; but how MTC–00029283 settlement between Microsoft and the US Microsoft positioned itself as a leader is From: Susan Dillard Justice Department is fundamentally flawed. definitely worthy of debate, and hopefully To: Microsoft ATR As a researcher and developer in the field of critical action as well. Date: 1/28/02 10:30pm computers, I have seen first hand, time and Thank you for the opportunity to share the Subject: Microsoft Settlement again, how Microsoft has used its monopoly following brief story with you: In 1997 I 11720 81st Avenue NE status to stifle competition and innovation. It finished Graduate school in Los Angeles and Marysville, WA 98271 is clear to me that Microsoft, in its corporate accepted my first part time teaching job at a January 23, 2002 philosophy, is not interested in innovating, small, private two-year catholic college Attorney General John Ashcroft but rather it seeks power and control (and located in Palos Verdes, California. US Department of Justice profit). I won’t bother with the details of I was the first lecturer hired to teach Digital 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW examples, as they have been well- Imaging in the school’s new computer lab. Washington, DC 205301 documented, but I will simply list some From what I understand, the main computer Dear Mr. Ashcroft: examples: the elimination of the browser as lab, along with the college’s central server Although not a member of technology an alternative desktop, the attempt to were at least partially (perhaps completely) industry, I would like to voice my thoughts eliminate the platform-independent funded by Microsoft...with the agreement on finalizing the Microsoft anti-trust case. To programming language Java (which supports that non-microsoft software was not allowed claim that Microsoft is operating as a OS independent processing), the attack on on any of the machines if a microsoft brand monopoly, with apparently so many the open-source model of software software existed for a particular task. For competitors available that they can bring on development, etc. instance, I was not allowed to install this lawsuit, comes off as an overblown It is my considered opinion that without netscape on any of the machines since attack on a company that has succeeded Microsoft, or at least without its monopolistic Internet Explorer could perform the same through consumer support, not monopolistic influence, the computer industry, the user- tasks. practices. computer interface, and indeed our entire Other teachers complained that they were As I’ve seen in the telephone industry, understanding of the how computers can also forced to use microsoft products when there are many more monopolies causing help people, would have progressed much there were better alternatives available. The much more harm to the consumer than further than we actually have so far. I issue was not money...since some of the Microsoft has ever done. Now that a strongly recommend a restructuring of the software, like netscape, were available as free settlement has been reached, the conditions corporation, and not simply punitive downloads. The reason that we were not seem highly favorable to the Justice measures. Microsoft has demonstrated allowed to use non microsoft product to Department, even surpassing some of the repeatedly that it cannot change its corporate teach with was because microsoft had initial complaints. So, with so many other culture. Instead, the operating system itself defined the parameters of what could be distractions of greater importance on the must be made open to support of third-party done in the lab when they donated the government’s plate, it would seem time to products, to include new paradigms of equipment. finally end this process. computation. Microsoft must not be allowed I’m not sure if the agreement with With regular oversight of a technical to keep the entire software ‘‘pie’’ to itself, as microsoft was legal or not, but it made for an committee to ensure compliance, Microsoft VerDate 11 will provide ample opportunities for their like Carnegie’s vertical monopoly on steel, he serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech rivals to succeed with this deal, including had made so much money, he still had his industry. It is high time for this trial, and the more flexible configuration of the Windows monopoly on steel. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be platform, access to its internal source code What should be done is Microsoft should over. Consumers will indeed see competition and licensing of its intellectual property. break up into two competing companies. in the marketplace, rather than the Please move forward with this process and Thus they will not be able to form trusts courtroom. And the investors who propel our allow these companies to go compete in this more overtly than what they’re doing now. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. new environment without further Another solution would be to force Microsoft Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the intervention. to have two versions of Windows available; federal government should not have broken Sincerely, one with all the features and software it has up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Susan Dillard now, and one with just the operating system companies like Microsoft can get back into CC:[email protected]@inetgw itself. However, I believe this aspect is not an the business of innovating and creating better issue because Microsoft just has a better products for consumers, and not wasting MTC–00029284 product. The Operating System doesn’t valuable resources on litigation. From: CHARLES DELANEY prevent one from installing Netscape or Competition means creating better goods To: Microsoft Settlement anything of that nature, it’s equal opportunity and offering superior services to consumers. Date: 1/28/02 10:20pm for all ventures. With government out of the business of Subject: Microsoft Settlement In addition to it being too easy for large stifling progress and tying the hands of CHARLES DELANEY companies to get away with monopolies, corporations, consumers—rather than 1219 GLENRIDGE LANE other companies also bundle up their bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick ELKHORN, WI 53121 software, such as Apple. So in reality they the winners and losers on Wall Street. With January 28, 2002 are also cutting off the market because Apple the reins off the high-tech industry, more Microsoft Settlement requires you to purchase their software and entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create U.S. Department of Justice hardware because it won’t work any other new and competitive products and Antitrust Division way. technologies. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW For example, the Mac Operating System Thank you for this opportunity to share my Washington, DC 20530 obliges you to also buy a Mac printer, Mac views. Dear Microsoft Settlement: compatible word processors, Mac games, Mac Sincerely, The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ compatible browsers, etc.. They are cutting Donald R. Kochanek dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a off the market from Microsoft and other MTC–00029288 serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech companies, who can’t put too much software industry. on it because it’s not compatible or else pay From: Janet Gillette It is high time for this trial, and the Apple to get it on. Because Microsoft doesn’t To: Microsoft Settlement wasteful spending accompanying it, to be want to waste their money, they just place it Date: 1/28/02 10:24pm over. Consumers will indeed see competition on their own OS. It’s exactly the same idea: Subject: Microsoft Settlement in the marketplace, rather than the Microsoft bundles up Office and IE, just the Janet Gillette courtroom. And the investors who propel our same way Apple bundles up their software. 3419 El Serrito Dr economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. However, if Apple receives the lawsuit, they Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the will suffer a lot more than Microsoft, who January 28, 2002 federal government should not have broken won’t get affected by the lawsuit because Microsoft Settlement up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, they have so much money. U.S. Department of Justice companies like Microsoft can get back into Antitrust Division the business of innovating and creating better MTC–00029286 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW products for consumers, and not wasting From: ALEXANDER R KOBIEC Washington, DC 20530 valuable resources on litigation. To: Microsoft ATR Dear Microsoft Settlement: Competition means creating better goods Date: 1/28/02 10:20pm The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ and offering superior services to consumers. Subject: microsoft settlement dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a With government out of the business of REQUEST THAT MICROSOFT SUIT BE serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech stifling progress and tying the hands of SETTLED IN A TIMELY AND FAVORABLE industry. It is high time for this trial, and the corporations, consumers—rather than OUTCOME IN MICROSOFT’S FAVOR. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick I AM A MICROSOFT USER AND FEEL over. Consumers will indeed see competition the winners and losers on Wall Street. With THAT THEIR PRODUCTS ARE FAIR AND in the marketplace, rather than the the reins off the high-tech industry, more REASONABLE. TO RULE AGAINST THEM courtroom. And the investors who propel our entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create WOULD STIFLE INNOVATION. I FEEL economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. new and competitive products and VERY STRONGLY IN MICROSOFT’S Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the technologies. FAVOR. federal government should not have broken Thank you for this opportunity to share my SINCERELY, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, views. ALEXANDER R. KOBIEC companies like Microsoft can get back into Sincerely, the business of innovating and creating better CHARLES R. DELANEY MTC–00029287 products for consumers, and not wasting From: Donald Kochanek valuable resources on litigation. MTC–00029285 To: Microsoft Settlement Competition means creating better goods From: Tanuj T Date: 1/28/02 10:25pm and offering superior services to consumers. To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement With government out of the business of Date: 1/28/02 10:30pm Donald Kochanek stifling progress and tying the hands of Subject: Microsft Settlement 757 W. 406 S. corporations, consumers—rather than This is too easy a way out for Microsoft, Marion, IN 46953 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick predominantly because Microsoft has so January 28, 2002 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With much money, the charges Microsoft need to Microsoft Settlement the reins off the high-tech industry, more pay to settle its monopoly won’t even scratch U.S. Department of Justice entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create the company. This is meaningless because Antitrust Division new and competitive products and large companies will continue to get 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW technologies. monopolies and pay them off without any Washington, DC 20530 Thank you for this opportunity to share my problems. The settlement needs to go farther Dear Microsoft Settlement: views. than that, to prevent large companies from The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Sincerely, getting away with monopolies easily. Just dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Janet W. Gillette VerDate 11 MTC–00029289 (Windows may invoke MS Middleware) I bet makes me very mad. I applaud Microsoft From: Dora Cividino that the line ‘‘designated Non-Microsoft winning through quality and innovation, but To: Microsoft Settlement Middleware Product fails to implement a they keep pursuing API lock-in and Date: 1/28/02 10:24pm reasonable technical requirement’’ can be monopoly as their favorite means of Subject: Microsoft Settlement used to disqualify any middleware MS competition. Dora Cividino disagrees with. If you need any further help, I’d be happy 14457 Indian Springs Road B) to fly out to Washington, testify, do more Penn Valley, CA 95946 The only real threat to MS was that the competitive analysis, code review, etc. January 28, 2002 web would make OS irrelevant. This can Thank you for your time, Microsoft Settlement only happen if there is browser competition. Aleksandar Totic U.S. Department of Justice With IE, MS will make sure that surfing the 2023 Pacific Avenue web on Windows is the only good web San Francisco, CA 94109 Antitrust Division experience. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW That’s all as far as my complaint about the MTC–00029291 Washington, DC 20530 settlement goes. Now here is my From: [email protected]@inetgw Dear Microsoft Settlement: documentation of Microsoft continuing to To: Microsoft ATR The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ clean up any remaining competition in Date: 1/28/02 10:33pm dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a browser wars in October 2001. Subject: Microsoft Settlement serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech DOCUMENTATION OF ANTI- As a user of Microsoft’s products, I object industry. It is high time for this trial, and the COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR, OCTOBER 2001 to the company being punished for its wasteful spending accompanying it, to be I was one of the founding engineers of success. The suit was brought by Microsoft’s over. Consumers will indeed see competition Netscape, employee #11, followed Marc from competitors, who were not able to produce a in the marketplace, rather than the Illinois. I was one of the authors of the Plugin product as good as Microsoft’s. Business courtroom. And the investors who propel our API for Netscape, back in 95. must be allowed to function in a free society, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Microsoft cloned our API right away in IE, and to function competitively. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the and then removed in October of 2001 as a The consumer always has the choice to buy federal government should not have broken part of Service Pack 2 for IE5.5/IE6. This from Microsoft, or not. Noone is being up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, caused all Plugin API plugins to stop cooerced. I stand for Microsoft’s right to companies like Microsoft can get back into working, including QuickTime. Some of the produce the best product it can. And it’s right the business of innovating and creating better Apple’s engineers spent a few sleepless to own that which it produces. products for consumers, and not wasting nights, frantically rewriting the Quicktime Susan Crawford valuable resources on litigation. plugin to support ActiveX. Silver Spring, Md. Competition means creating better goods To understand how sinister this move was, and offering superior services to consumers. you need to know a bit about the Plugin API. MTC–00029292 With government out of the business of It is a standard by which 3rd party From: Ronald Hall stifling progress and tying the hands of developers can extend browser functionality, To: Microsoft Settlement corporations, consumers—rather than allowing movies, complex animations to be Date: 1/28/02 10:29pm bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick played in web pages. Flash, RealPlayer, and Subject: Microsoft Settlement the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Quicktime are examples of plugins. The Ronald Hall the reins off the high-tech industry, more Plugin API was cross-platform, and was PO Box 2020 entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create widely used, implemented in other browsers, Hew Hartford, NY 13413 new and competitive products and such as Opera. January 28, 2002 technologies. Microsoft cloned Netscape’s Plugin API Microsoft Settlement Thank you for this opportunity to share my under competitive pressure in IE 2, and also U.S. Department of Justice views. created a competing standard called ActiveX. Antitrust Division Sincerely, ActiveX of course was available only on 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Dora Cividino Windows, and no other browsers ever Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00029290 supported it. Dear Microsoft Settlement: ActiveX and Plugin API were competing The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ From: Aleks Totic standards. Despite MS much more extensive dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a To: Microsoft ATR support for ActiveX, Plugin API was widely serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Date: 1/28/02 10:32pm used, because it was simpler to use, and industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Subject: Microsoft Settlement cross-platform. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: The Antitrust Division When MS removed it, movies stopped over. Consumers will indeed see competition My name is Aleksandar Totic. I am writing playing for millions of movie watching in the marketplace, rather than the to comment on the proposed Microsoft consumers that relied on Quicktime. In one courtroom. And the investors who propel our settlement, and document anti-competitive stroke, MS killed PluginAPI, and hurt economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. MS behavior that occurred in October 2001. Quicktime, a competitor of Movie Player. The Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the I believe that the behavior I’ve documented move inconvenienced the consumers, who federal government should not have broken clearly demonstrates that MS will had to go to Quicktime site to upgrade or up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, inconveniences the consumer if it helps to start using Microsoft movie, developers. The companies like Microsoft can get back into protect its monopoly. only benefit was to Microsoft, to lock people the business of innovating and creating better In ‘‘Competitive Impact Statement’’, you into using IE. And this occurred in October products for consumers, and not wasting claim that the settlement will ‘‘restore the 2001, after they were found guilty. valuable resources on litigation. competitive threat that middleware products Microsoft statement about removing the Competition means creating better goods posed’’. I do not believe that the settlement API can be found at: ‘‘Netscape-Style Plug- and offering superior services to consumers. will achieve this goal. This is because: ins Do Not Work After Upgrading Internet With government out of the business of A) Explorer’’ http://support.microsoft.com/ stifling progress and tying the hands of There are many exceptions in the support/kb/articles/q303/4/01.asp The list of corporations, consumers—rather than settlement that Microsoft can use to hinder plugins supporting the Plugin API: http:// bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick competition: browserwatch.internet.com/plug-in/plug-in- the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Section III.D big-ah.html the reins off the high-tech industry, more Why make interoperating with Windows Later, they also decided not to ship Java, entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create the sole purpose of the disclosure? MS could further destroying the cross-platform promise new and competitive products and use this to deny Linux developers access to of the web. technologies. the APIs. The APIs should be public, without As one of the original visionaries of the Thank you for this opportunity to share my any strings attached. Section III.H.2 web that transcends Operating Systems, this views. VerDate 11 Sincerely, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MTC–00029299 Ronald D. Hall Washington, DC 20530 From: Vincent Papa Dear Mr. Ashcroft: MTC–00029293 To: Microsoft Settlement I want to take a moment to express my Date: 1/28/02 10:32pm From: Lester Hixson support for the settlement reached between Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft and the Department of Justice in Vincent Papa Date: 1/28/02 10:27pm November. I believe the settlement is 1313 Mockingbird Ln. Subject: Microsoft Settlement reasonable and fair to all sides involved in Mineola, ny 11501 Lester Hixson this case. January 28, 2002 173 San Marcos Dr The agreement requires significant changes Microsoft Settlement Lodi, CA 95240 in Microsoft’s practices. For example, U.S. Department of Justice January 28, 2002 Microsoft will have to design future versions Antitrust Division Microsoft Settlement of Windows that provides a mechanism to 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW U.S. Department of Justice make it easy for computer makers, consumers Washington, DC 20530 Antitrust Division and software developers to promote non- Dear Microsoft Settlement: 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft software within Windows. This The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Washington, DC 20530 will give consumers who do not like dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Dear Microsoft Settlement: Microsoft products the freedom to change serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ their configuration at any time. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a And to assure compliance with the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech agreement, Microsoft has agreed to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition industry. It is high time for this trial, and the monitored by a Technical Committee formed in the marketplace, rather than the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be by the Justice Department. courtroom. And the investors who propel our over. Consumers will indeed see competition As a frequent user of Microsoft products, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. in the marketplace, rather than the I know firsthand of the innovation Microsoft Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the courtroom. And the investors who propel our has brought to consumers over the years. federal government should not have broken economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. This settlement allows Microsoft to shift their up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the focus back to innovation and away from companies like Microsoft can get back into federal government should not have broken litigation. This alone makes the settlement the business of innovating and creating better up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, definitely in the public interest. products for consumers, and not wasting companies like Microsoft can get back into Thank you for the opportunity to give my valuable resources on litigation. the business of innovating and creating better public comment on this matter. Hopefully Competition means creating better goods products for consumers, and not wasting with your office’s continued support of this and offering superior services to consumers. valuable resources on litigation. settlement, a final conclusion can be reached With government out of the business of Competition means creating better goods in the near future. stifling progress and tying the hands of and offering superior services to consumers. Sincerely, corporations, consumers—rather than With government out of the business of Brad Smith bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick stifling progress and tying the hands of the winners and losers on Wall Street. With corporations, consumers—rather than MTC–00029297 the reins off the high-tech industry, more bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick From: warren (038) florence schreiner entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create the winners and losers on Wall Street. With To: Microsoft ATR new and competitive products and the reins off the high-tech industry, more Date: 1/28/02 10:37pm technologies. entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Subject: Microsoft settlement Thank you for this opportunity to share my new and competitive products and I am a relatively newcomer to the PC scene technologies. views. ( about five years) and have followed the Thank you for this opportunity to share my Sincerely, judicial proceedings re the charges involving views. Vincent Papa monopolistic practices on the part of Sincerely, Microsoft. As a user of windows 95, 98 and MTC–00029300 Lester N Hixson soon XP Home Edition I have only the From: Huland B. Gardner MTC–00029294 highest admiration for the products Microsoft To: Microsoft Settlement From: Frank West has put out and cannot believe the country Date: 1/28/02 10:33pm To: Microsoft ATR would benefit from the Draconian measures Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 10:37pm some have called for. The settlement now Huland B. Gardner Subject: Microsoft Settlement proposed between the US government and 4300 Tartt ‘‘s Mill Rd Just a short comment. Microsoft seems to me to be entirely Wilson, NC 27893–7927 Why pick on Microsoft when the real reasonable from my standing as a consumer. January 28, 2002 ‘‘monopolies’’ consist of Big Government’s When I had some dissatisfaction with the Microsoft Settlement overstuffed ‘‘Bureaucracies’’! Of course, all browser and email programs bundled with W U.S. Department of Justice the shysters in congress need something to 95 I switched to the Navigator software. Antitrust Division turn the attention away from themselves Anyone was and is free to do the same. The 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW since ‘‘statesmanship’’ is so lacking in this sane was true of the McAfee virus protection Washington, DC 20530 modern age. software from which I switched to Dear Microsoft Settlement: F T West Symantec’s. Since then Microsoft has The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Elyria, OH improved its products and in XP I’ll rely on dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Explorer and Contact Express. Microsoft serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00029296 maintains an upgrading system and is industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: brad responsive to complaints about bugs in its wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft ATR product by providing free patches. I urge you over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 10:35pm to proceed and finalize the settlement along in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement the lines as I understand them from media courtroom. And the investors who propel our Brad Smith reports. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 5011 Dixie Highway NE, Suite A-308 Respectfully yours, Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Palm Bay, Florida 32905 Warren C. Schreiner federal government should not have broken January 21, 2002 2351 Stag Run Blvd up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Attorney General John Ashcroft Clearwater, FL 33765 companies like Microsoft can get back into US Department of Justice 727 791 1179 the business of innovating and creating better VerDate 11 products for consumers, and not wasting languished. By all accounts it has been the overcharge the consumer and create products valuable resources on litigation. misdirection and lack of creativity of the that have no competition. How does Competition means creating better goods Palm management that has allowed Microsoft wounding Microsoft help the customer under and offering superior services to consumers. to take some market share and create a viable these circumstances? With government out of the business of product. Why should Palm be allowed to be I am not an Attorney and therefore I can stifling progress and tying the hands of the only product in the market? If this not even consider the possibility of forming corporations, consumers—rather than economy can support more than one my thoughts into a cohesive legal brief. I bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick automobile company, it can have the Pocket therefore appreciate the chance to express my the winners and losers on Wall Street. With PC alongside the Palm. feelings about the case rather than crafting a the reins off the high-tech industry, more Netscape legal argument. entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Netscape lost the browser war because they Thank you. new and competitive products and did not have the better product. It doesn’t get Larry Young technologies. any simpler than that and now AOL wants Thank you for this opportunity to share my treble damages for making a product that MTC–00029302 views. Let this stand!!! Enough is ENOUGH could not compete and was allowed to From: Myron Schreiner !!! languish for years without any effort directed To: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, at fixing the product. Where is the justice? Date: 1/28/02 10:36pm Huland B Gardner FTP Software Subject: Microsoft Settlement If any company should have brought Myron Schreiner MTC–00029301 Microsoft to court it is this one. When U.S. Department of Justice From: Larry Young Microsoft bundled TCP/IP software in the Antitrust Division To: Microsoft ATR operating system this company could not 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Date: 1/28/02 10:40pm survive. Today it is unthinkable to consider Washington, DC 20530 Subject: Microsoft Settlement that an operating system can exist with out Dear Microsoft Settlement: Please settle the Microsoft case based on TCP/IP services. In fact the UNIX operating The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ the terms agreed between the Justice systems had this before Microsoft, suggesting dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Department and Microsoft. that this was indeed a service that belonged serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech I believe this case has always been about in the operating system. In the early years industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Oracle, Sun and AOL not wanting to compete Microsoft didn’t even have memory wasteful spending accompanying it, to be in the marketplace. These companies would management. That also was provided by a over. Consumers will indeed see competition rather stifle competition by wasting court third party. In this case Norton, now owned in the marketplace, rather than the time. For sure there are some actions on by Symantec, has been able to morph into courtroom. And the investors who propel our Microsoft’s part that can be altered, such as other areas. Symantec is a company that economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. publishing all of the API’s to the knows how to create software the market Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the development community. Making sure needs without running to the courts. The federal government should not have broken Microsoft treats all companies the same and point I am trying to make is that government up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, not withholding information to competitors, and the courts should not micromanage the companies like Microsoft can get back into another issue that should be addressed and bundling of products in the operating system. the business of innovating and creating better is addressed in the Government agreement If it was done years ago then memory products for consumers, and not wasting with Microsoft. However many of the same management and TCP/IP services would not valuable resources on litigation. policies and procedures are practiced by the have become a part of the operating system. Competition means creating better goods companies that initially brought attention to This would have been an incredible injustice and offering superior services to consumers. Microsoft. Oracle is now bundling their to Microsoft and the consumer. If we cannot With government out of the business of software and is attempting to prevent the see into the future or look at the present to stifling progress and tying the hands of Oracle user from installing products not sold determine if the customer is damaged then corporations, consumers—rather than by Oracle. Sun wants to tie all of its products we should look at the past. Companies like bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick to Java. AOL refuses to open their Instant Symantec would not have become a strong the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Messenger software to other companies. How competitor. The operating system capable of the reins off the high-tech industry, more can AOL accuse Microsoft an antitrust supporting consumers and the business entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create violator when AOL may also be an antitrust community would not exist. The computer new and competitive products and violator? Now AOL wants all of its users to would still be behind glass walls, out of technologies. stay on servers owned and maintained by reach of the consumer. I only suggest that Thank you for this opportunity to share my AOL instead of having them surf the Internet. Microsoft be required to either sell a feature views. While Microsoft is attempting to promote as a standalone product or be aloud to Sincerely, sites that have a relationship with Microsoft include the feature in the operating system. Myron M Schreiner they are also big defenders and promoters of The number of software companies that the Internet. If AOL has its way the Net will have formed and flourished because of MTC–00029304 die on the vine the way Main Street withers Microsoft is probably greater than any other From: Ron Peterson when a Wal-Mart comes to town. Please company. The number of Microsoft managers To: Microsoft ATR allow Microsoft to remain strong to prevent and developers that have left to form their Date: 1/28/02 10:42pm AOL from destroying the open commerce own companies is greater than any other Subject: Microsoft Settlement that is thriving today on the Net. Oracle, Sun company. Microsoft has not only brought As Microsoft has already been found guilty and AOL are laughing while the courts computing to the masses but enabled an of abusing it’s monopoly power, I shall enhance their self interest by at best stifling industry to become world class. These confine my comments to the remedy phase and at worse destroying a competitor they actions have enabled consumers to realize a of the trial. At minimum, I hope the court can wish not to compete with in the open market marketplace rich in products and services restore competition to those markets where place. that would not have happened if Microsoft Microsoft’s abuse of their operating system Palm did not exist. All Sun and Oracle want to do monopoly has given them unfair advantage. Palm believes Microsoft is destroying their is sell expensive products that only This would be a minimal remedy, in the business. Consider that initially 3Com companies can afford. Sun, Oracle and AOL sense that it restores things to the way they refused to create a separate company thereby do not want to compete fairly in the should be, without imposing any punitive forcing the hand of the original developers to marketplace. AOL won’t open their damages for Microsoft’s illegal conduct. leave the company. After the original messenger product. Oracle bundles and is Speaking as a career systems manager, I live developers left and started Handspring, creating an operating system under their by a commonplace aphorism: ‘‘Buy 3Com created the separate company. Now products. How can Oracle justify that type of computers for the applications’’. Not for the with the loss of prime talent, Palm has bundling? All these companies want to do is packaging. Not for the fancy hardware. No, VerDate 11 not for the operating system. For the ways Proposed Final Judgment filed by Microsoft, Microsoft has to a significant extent they extend people’s capabilities. For the the Department of Justice and certain foreclosed the distribution of competing applications. plaintiff states. middleware products. At every step of this These days, that doesn’t leave me much In the event you have any questions or process, Microsoft has wielded its monopoly choice. Like Microsoft, I value the ‘‘freedom problems relating to the transmission of this power to threaten, coerce and retaliate to innovate’’. I also believe this freedom document, please call Dave Stewart at (206) against parties that resist its demands. should extend to everyone, not just 892–6122. As a result, Microsoft has effectively Microsoft. I don’t have that freedom. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT denied consumers the choice of buying a Microsoft’s competitors don’t have that COURT personal computer that is not laden with freedom either. FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Microsoft middleware products. This harms I buy computers that will most cost UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not only today’s computer users, but effectively run Microsoft operating systems Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 98–1232 tomorrow’s purchasers of personal and Microsoft applications, because I must. (CKK) computers, cellular telephones, personal If I do not, the people I serve will not be able MICROSOFT CORPORATION, digital assistants, digital home entertainment to effectively communicate with collegues, Defendant. centers, set-top boxes, and game consoles, all clients, patrons, vendors, friends, and family. STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,) of whom may have their choices Microsoft’s dominance in the applications Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 98–1233 substantially limited if Microsoft’s arena hinges on its proprietary data formats. (CKK) anticompetitive curbs on innovation are not I cannot reasonably ask my patrons to run MICROSOFT CORPORATION, constrained today. It is long settled that such applications that cannot faithfully, reliably, Defendant. broad findings of liability demand even and consistently both read and write COMMENTS OF REALNETWORKS, INC. broader, forward-looking remedies designed Microsoft documents. However, applications ON THE REVISED, PROPOSED FINAL to prohibit Microsoft from continuing its that meet these criteria do not exist, because JUDGMENT SUBMITTED BY MICROSOFT anticompetitive acts and finding new ways to Microsoft controls the format, but does not CORP., THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF hinder the growth of other innovative divulge the operational details. If a JUSTICE AND CERTAIN PLAINTIFF middleware products. The failure of the last competitor comprehends the format, STATES DATED: JANUARY 28, 2002 consent decree agreed to between Microsoft Microsoft changes it. Microsoft gets an I. INTRODUCTION and the Department of Justice (DDOJN˜ ) in upgrade fee; the competitor starts over. The United States Court of Appeals for the 1995 serves as a stark reminder of the waste There is only one way to restore District of Columbia Circuit has held that, of judicial resources and harm to competition competition to the market for computer over the last seven years, Microsoft has that results from a narrow, backward-looking applications. Microsoft *must* be compelled engaged in a broad range of anticompetitive remedy. Neither consumers nor competition to divulge its applications’’ file formats. conduct seeking to stifle the development will be served through imposition of yet Without this restriction, Microsoft will and distribution of innovative middleware another flawed, ineffective remedy that will continue to monopolize the market for technologies. Microsoft’s actions have been make the next antitrust suit a foregone computer applications indefinitely. directed at entrepreneurial competitors that conclusion. Considering that these applications intrude have, through innovation and ground- Unfortunately, the Revised Proposed Final into almost all aspects of our daily lives— breaking competition, invented new Judgment offered by Microsoft, the DOJ and even, as I’m sure you are aware, into the very products, such as internet browsers, certain states (‘‘RPFJ’’) fails to heed the all- operation of government—this situation electronic mail, instant messaging, digital too-recent lessons of history. As discussed *must* end. imaging, digital media and voice recognition, herein, the contours of the RPFJ reflect the Additionally, Microsoft must be compelled that have given rise to entirely new concessions required to gain Microsoft’s to divulge the format of its network industries and new sources of consumer agreement rather than the safeguards protocols. Microsoft understands full well welfare. By imposing an effective remedy to required to constrain Microsoft’s that compatibility is the key to the kingdom. curb Microsoft’s anticompetitive abuses, this anticompetitive conduct. The loophole-laden If they control proprietary de-facto standards Court can help ensure that the varied markets RPFJ is full of exceptions and ambiguities for file formats and networking protocols, for innovative middleware products remain that will not only fail to terminate Microsoft’s they control everything. Please don’t be fertile ground for competition and anticompetitive conduct, but will ensure that mislead by so-called ‘‘compromise’’ positions innovation. extended judicial proceedings will be advanced by Microsoft that would open their Driven by a desire to maintain the required to clarify, if not enforce, its ‘‘API’s’’ or Application Programming dominance of its operating system monopoly, provisions. Interfaces. This position is simply a ruse to Microsoft has, as the trial court’s factual For the reasons set forth below, promote further adoption of Microsoft findings and the Court of Appeals’ opinion RealNetworks respectfully submits that entry applications. demonstrate, consistently used its monopoly of the RPFJ would not be in the public If you compell Microsoft to open their file power in a manner that harms consumers interest. formats and their networking protocols, you and competition. By manipulating the design II. REALNETWORKS AND THE DIGITAL will invigorate the marketplace. You will of its operating system and its own MEDIA MARKET compell competition on the merits, rather middleware products, Microsoft has RealNetworks, which was founded in than binary compatibility. You will restore effectively denied personal computer Seattle, Washington in 1994,1 is a pioneer in the market to where it should have always manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) the ability to choose the development of digital media technology been. And you will establish a worthy whether or not they want to include and services that enable people to create, precedent for how to deal with similar future Microsoft middleware products on the deliver, discover, and play digital audio and abuses of monopoly power in the software computers they sell and similarly denied video content over the Internet and other marketplace. consumers the ability to remove such networks, both through downloading and Best wishes software from the computers they buy. By through a method RealNetworks developed Ron Peterson imposing broad, exclusionary licensing called ‘‘streaming.’’ Streaming allows digital Network & Systems Manager restrictions by fiat, Microsoft has denied media files to be compressed and broken into Mount Holyoke College OEMs the opportunity to configure their packets, then delivered and decompressed http://www.mtholyoke.edu/rpeterso personal computers in the way they choose, seriatim, so that consumers can enjoy being required instead to favor Microsoft’s uninterrupted, real-time broadcasts over the MTC–00029305 middleware products over those offered by Internet. For example, following the events of From: Dave Stewart competitors. By entering into exclusive September 11, 2001, CNN streamed its To: Microsoft ATR contracts with a broad range of parties, such newscast via the Internet 24 hours a day to Date: 1/28/02 10:43pm as Internet Access Providers (DIAPsN˜ ), ˜ Subject: Microsoft Settlement Internet Content Providers (DICPsN), 1 RealNetworks was originally named Progressive Attached please find the comments of Independent Software Vendors (DISVsN˜ ) and Networks. It changed its name to RealNetworks in RealNetworks, Inc. addressing the Revised Independent Hardware Vendors (DIHVsN˜ ), September 1997. VerDate 11 provide people with immediate access to the and security experience across multiple that have the effect of hindering competing breaking news from their desktops. operating systems, transport technologies, middleware developers from gaining the Innovation in the market for media players media formats and digital devices. This critical mass of users necessary to attract has consistently been driven, not through RealSystem technology works on over 20 developer attention away from Windows as integration of functionality into operating different operating systems (e.g., Unix, Linux, the platform for software development— systems, but by independent developers Windows, Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, Symbian), other than Microsoft’s efforts to improve the creating a new market for sophisticated delivers and plays over 50 different formats quality of its own products violate Section 2 digital media technologies with robust and or datatypes (e.g., MP3, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, of the Sherman Act.9 integrated features and functions. MPEG-4, Quicktime, Macromedia Flash, Among other things, the court condemned RealNetworks developed the first streaming RealAudio, RealVideo), and works with a Microsoft’s conduct that falls within the media player and the first streaming media wide variety of digital devices (e.g., personal following four broad categories: (1) licensing server in 1995. Since then, RealNetworks has computers, Sony PlayStation2, Hewlett restrictions limiting the ability of personal continued to lead innovation in the digital Packard’s Digital Entertainment Center, computer original equipment manufacturers media delivery market, consistently bringing Nokia cell phones, portable music players (OEMs) to configure their personal computers industry-leading innovations—such as a and personal digital assistants). Applications in the manner they determine to be built-in radio tuner, delivery of stereo audio built using RealNetworks’ technology are appropriate;10 at 28.8 kbps modem speeds, bookmarking of operating system independent, so that (2) Microsoft’s design of the Windows favorite streams, links to media consumers, content providers, businesses, operating systems and Microsoft Middleware programming, support for animation, and network operators, and others using such in a manner that limits the ability of OEMs automatic updating and just-in-time applications do not need to install Windows and consumers to remove Middleware code installation of codecs—to consumers ahead operating systems on either their personal from the operating system; 11 of Microsoft. Rather than being a source of computers or on the servers that deliver (3) Microsoft’s entry into exclusive innovation, Microsoft’s commingling of its media. contracts designed to limit usage of media player into its operating system has The opportunities for digital media are competing middleware products 12 and (4) constituted a means by which it has sought enormous. The current U.S. market for audio Microsoft’s threats and intimidation designed to suppress, rather than spur, innovation and and visual media amounts to over $200 to limit the development and distribution of competition. RealNetworks’ technology falls billion per year.3 middleware.13 squarely within the Court of Appeals’ Current estimates for spending in the In condemning Microsoft’s actions, the definition of middleware as ‘‘software streaming digital media sector alone exceed Court of Appeals rejected Microsoft’s 4 products that expose their own APIs,’’ or $10 billion by 2010. assertions that integrating Middleware into Application Programming Interfaces.2 The pace of innovation and adoption of the operating system or otherwise attempting RealNetworks makes available software digital media is rapidly increasing as more to keep developers focused upon its APIs development kits to enable software content is digitized, more consumer somehow provides any procompetitive developers to build applications and electronics equipment supports digital justification for Microsoft’s actions.14 extensions using RealNetworks’ technologies formats and broadband growth continues to A. The Breadth Of The Court Of Appeals’ to create, deliver and playback digital media. accelerate. By 2007, there will be an Liability Holding Demands Imposition Of estimated 120 million streaming media users Broad Remedies Over 500 ISVs are developing applications 5 using RealNetworks SDKs and websites that in the U.S. alone. The guiding principles underlying our provide access to content in RealNetworks’ There are over 10 million broadband antitrust laws make clear that the broad customers in the U.S., a number expected to grounds of liability affirmed by the Court of RealAudio and RealVideo formats utilize 6 RealNetworks’ middleware. Microsoft grow to over 35 million by 2006. Appeals demand imposition of an even competes with RealNetworks in seeking to Broadband use is important because it broader range of remedies. The Supreme convince software developers and content greatly improves and facilitates streaming Court has repeatedly held that, in enacting media resulting in significantly higher the Sherman Act, Congress sought to providers to build applications using their 7 respective technologies. Applications created streaming media usage rates. ‘‘preserv[e] free and unfettered competition using RealNetworks’ technology include III. THE COURT HAS BROAD as the rule of trade.’’ 15 news broadcasts, distance learning, financial AUTHORITY TO ENSURE THAT THE This need to safeguard free competition is reporting, security for streamed and REMEDY IMPOSED PROHIBITS a direct result of the fundamental premise of downloaded content, radio broadcast MICROSOFT FROM AGAIN LIMITING THE our economic system that unrestrained services, music subscription services, video- DEVELOPMENT OF MIDDLEWARE IN AN interaction of competitive forces will yield on-demand services, web conferencing, e- ILLEGAL MANNER. the best allocation of our economic resources, commerce services and more. One need only In affirming the trial court’s holding that the lowest prices, the highest quality and the look as far as the extensive use of Microsoft illegally maintained its operating greatest material progress, while at the same RealNetworks’ technology in the pervasive system monopoly, the Court of Appeals time providing an environment conducive to Internet coverage of the events of September broadly condemned a wide range of actions the preservation of our democratic political through which Microsoft attempted to reduce and social institutions.16 11th to see how important and pervasive 8 such technologies are becoming. usage of competing middleware products. This policy is embodied in two types of alNetworks offers a universal platform Under the reasoning of the Court of legal standards—those applied to the liability Appeals’ decision, actions taken by Microsoft designed to provide the highest quality phase of antitrust cases and those governing digital media creation, delivery, playback the relief phase. As the Supreme Court has 3 See ‘‘Market Opportunity’’ Adapted from observed, the formulation of adequate source: Kagan World Media estimates 2001. 2 United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, remedies is the most significant phase of the 4 See ‘‘Streaming Media Market Growth,’’ Source: 53 (DC Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 151 L. Ed. 2d 264, Paul Kagan Associates Streaming Media Investor. 122 S. Ct. 350, 70 U.S.L.W. 3267 (2001). APIs are 9 Id. at 60, 62. 5 See ‘‘Total Active Streaming Media Users,’’ interfaces exposed by operating systems and 10 Source: Kagan World Media, June 2001. Id. at 59–64. middleware that support the functions of software 11 Id. at 64–67. programs, called ‘‘applications,’’ that perform 6 See ‘‘Consumer Broadband Adoption Blooms 12 Id. at 70–73, 75–76. specific user-oriented tasks. APIs ‘‘are synapses at over the Next Five Years,’’ Source: Jupiter MMXI. 13 which the developer of an application can connect 7 See ‘‘Percent of U.S. home Internet users Id. at 77–78. to invoke pre-fabricated blocks of code in the accessing streaming media,’’ Source: Nielsen/ 14 See id. at 71. operating system. These block of code in turn NetRatings, July 2001. 15 Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, blocks of code in the operating system. These 8 See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 60. Assistant 356 U.S. 1, 4 (1958). See also National Society of blocks of code in turn perform crucial tasks, such Attorney General Charles A. James acknowledged Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. as displaying text on the computer screen.’’ United that this 679, 692 (1978); United States v. Crescent States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9, N 2 was a middleware case, a middleware case, a Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173, 187 (1944). (D.DC 1999), aff’d, 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001), cert. middleware case. Mark Wigfield, Antitrust Chief 16 Northern Pacific Railway, 356 U.S. at 4. See denied, 151 L. Ed. 2d 264, 122 S. Ct. 350, 70 Defends Government’s Settlement with Microsoft, also National Society of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S.L.W. 3267 (2001). DOW JONES NEWSWIRES, Nov. 16, 2001. U.S. at 695. VerDate 11 case.17 Courts have broad discretion during Congress has directed the Court here to the remedies to be imposed to redress proven the relief phase to ensure that the antitrust determine whether entry of the RPFJ is in the violations of the Sherman Act, the Court’s remedies imposed ‘‘effectively pry open to public interest. In making that determination, evaluation of this proposed decree should be competition a market that has been closed by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act guided by the well-settled principles defendants’’ illegal restraints.’’ 18 authorizes the Court to undertake a wide- governing the adequacy of antitrust remedies. An antitrust decree must ‘‘break up or ranging inquiry into two broad areas of As set forth below, careful review of the render impotent the monopoly power found evaluation. First, the Court is to consider the proposed consent decree demonstrates that it to be in violation of the Act.’’ 19 competitive impact of the proposed consent falls woefully short of meeting these In other words, the decree must leave the decree, including whether the proposed standards, which were reflected in the Court defendant without the ability to resume the decree would actually terminate the of Appeals’ admonition that the remedy for actions which constituted the antitrust defendant’s violations and whether the Microsoft’s illegal acts must seek to violation in the first place.20 proposed decree’s enforcement provisions unfetter [the] market from anti-competitive For these reasons, the decree should not be are adequate. In making this determination, conduct, to terminate the illegal monopoly, limited to past violations; it must also the statute expressly authorizes the court to deny to the defendant the fruits of its effectively foreclose the possibility that consider the anticipated effectiveness of statutory violation,32 similar antitrust violations will occur or alternative remedies, as well as any other IV. THE RPFJ NEITHER FREES THE recur. As the Court noted in International considerations bearing upon the adequacy of MARKET FROM MICROSOFT’S Salt, it is not necessary that all of the such judgment.26 ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT NOR untraveled roads to [anticompetitive Second, the statute authorizes the court to DENIES MICROSOFT THE FRUITS OF ITS conduct] be left open and that only the worn consider the impact of the proposed decree ILLEGAL CONDUCT. one be closed. The usual ways to the on the public generally and on those The RPFJ fails to satisfy the Court’s clear prohibited goals may be blocked against the individuals harmed by Microsoft’s violations and simple standard. The RPFJ neither 21 27 proven transgressor. of the Sherman Act. Highly relevant to both terminates Microsoft’s illegal monopoly nor In evaluating the adequacy of an antitrust of these areas of inquiry is the clarity ofthe denies it the fruits of its statutory violations. remedy, the court’s inquiry necessarily looks proposed decree. As the Court of Appeals has It fails to ensure that no practices remain that forward, considering evidence that was not recognized, the district judge who must are likely to result in future monopolization. necessarily placed in the trial record and, preside over the implementation of the Certainly, Microsoft’s current dominance in indeed, may not have even been in existence decree is certainly entitled to insist on that the browser market for personal computers is at the time of trial.22 degree of precision concerning the resolution a fruit of its illegal conduct. The RPFJ reads It is long settled that the Court may at the of known issues as to make [her] task, in like a tacit approval of Microsoft’s newly relief stage prohibit practices that have not resolving subsequent disputes, reasonably imposed browser monopoly; indeed, it is not been found unlawful if such a prohibition is manageable.28 even mentioned in the DOJ’s Competitive necessary to avoid the recurrence of In this way, Congress intends the courts to monopolization.23 be an ‘‘independent force’’ in reviewing the Impact Statement (CIS). Nor does the CIS In addition, restraints may be imposed adequacy of proposed consent decrees.29 As address how the RPFJ is designed to upon the defendant that are designed to broad as this language is, it is clear that the terminate the illegal monopoly or restore allow the development of nascent statute which references alleged violations JAVA to the position it would have held competition within the relevant market.24 rather than violations proven at trial, as well absent the illegal conduct. The CIS is silent Such a remedy is critical here, given the as benefits to be derived from a regarding the market conditions that would Court of Appeals’ explicit conclusions determination of the issues at trial 30 currently exist were it not for Microsoft’s regarding the nascent potential of —primarily contemplates review of anticompetitive acts market conditions that middleware to erode the applications barrier consent decrees settling claims that have not should be restored as part of any adequate to entry that protects Microsoft’s operating yet been adjudicated. Where, as here, federal remedy. The RPFJ fails to understand and system monopoly.25 and state antitrust enforcers have actually address the long-term impact of Microsoft’s B.The Antitrust Procedures And Penalties proven during the course of a 76-day bench conduct. Act Authorizes The Court To Engage In A trial that Microsoft illegally maintained its Moreover, the RPFJ’s provisions are vague, Broad Inquiry To Determine The Adequacy operating system monopoly in violation of internally inconsistent and replete with Of The Proposed Decree the Sherman Act, and that holding has been exceptions and loopholes that will allow a affirmed on appeal, the court’s powers of determined and proven illegal monopolist to 17 United States v. Glaxo Group, Ltd., 410 U.S. 52, review are at their maximum level. Unlike delay and even avoid the remedies. Indeed, 64 (1973). Judge Sporkin’s review of the DOJ’s previous, the many instances in which the CIS reads 18 International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. ill-fated consent decree with Microsoft, into the RPFJ substantial additional terms/ 392, 401 (1947). See also 2 P.A REEDA & H. H which settled claims that had not been restrictions necessary to create a reasonable OVENKAMP, A NTITRUST LAW 325 (2000) proven, this is not a case in which the court’s interpretation of the provisions foreshadows [hereinafter A REEDA. review will implicate the DOJ’s prosecutorial the difficulty of enforcing the RPFJ. 19 United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, discretion in framing the complaint and in Disagreements at this stage between the 577 (1966). See also United States v. United Shoe appraising whether to pursue its claims parties to the RPFJ will pale in comparison Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 251 (1968); Schine through trial, nor does it raise the to the disagreements that will arise between Chain Theatres, Inc. v. United States, 334 U.S. 110, constitutional concerns of impinging upon 128–29 (1948). Microsoft on the one hand and antitrust 20 the prosecutorial discretion of the executive regulators and impacted parties on the other United States v. AT&T, 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 branch.31 (D.DC 1982), aff’d sub nom., Maryland v. United hand as the Court seeks to enforce the RPFJ. States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). Because the Court’s determination here is Because it provides insufficient remedies 21 International Salt, 332 U.S. at 400. See also concerned solely with the proper extent of relating to middleware, OEM/ISV flexibility, National Society of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S. information disclosure and enforcement, it is at 697–98; United States v. United States Gypsum 26 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). likely that Microsoft will be able to continue Co., 340 U.S. 76, 88 (1950); Associated Press v. 27 Id. at 16(e)(2). with many of its current anticompetitive United States, 326 U.S. 1, 22 (1945); Crescent 28 United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, practices virtually unchanged. In addition, it Amusement, 323 U.S. at 188; United States v. 1461–62 (DC Cir. 1995). in effect imposes upon Microsoft’s United Shoe Machinery Corp., 110 F. Supp. at 346– 29 Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act: competitors several restrictions and 47. Hearings on S. 782 and S.1088 Before the 22 2 A REEDA at 325c. conditions on doing business and innovating Subcomm. on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate that do not exist today. This following 23 United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., Comm. On the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1 110 F. Supp. 295, 346–47 (D. Mass. 1953), aff’d, 347 (1973) (statement of Sen. Tunney). discussion outlines only some of the U.S. 521 (1954). See also Hartford-Empire Co. v. 30 See id. at 16(e)(1–2). deficiencies in the RPFJ. It is not intended to United States, 323 U.S. 386, 409 (1945). 31 See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 24 Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, at 1455, 1457–59. and ensure that there remain no 32 253 F.3d at 103 (quoting Ford Motor, 405 U.S. 575, 578 (1972). practices likely to result in monopolization in the at 577, and United Shoe Machinery, 391 U.S. at 25 253 F.3d at 53–55. future. 250). VerDate 11 be an exhaustive review of the deficiencies under the definition of Microsoft deny technology access to small, and implications of the proposed settlement. Middleware, Microsoft may even argue that entrepreneurial companies with innovative A. The RPFJ’s Definitions Are Confusing, the Windows Media Player 8.0 does not new technologies—just the type of company Inadequate And Create constitute Microsoft Middleware, despite the Microsoft was in its earliest days. Finally, the Loopholes And Exceptions To The Actual trial court’s recognition that media players RPFJ does not 14 address how new versions Remedial Provisions. are middleware,33 because it is no longer of existing middleware products will be Unfortunately, the definitions set forth in distributed separately from the operating counted. Must they accumulate one million the RPFJ severely undermine the RPFJ’s system.34 distributions of each new version before they proposed remedies by offering a number of The consequence of this provision is that are protected? This type of unanswered significant loopholes and exceptions to the Microsoft would not have to disclose any question creates substantial ambiguity and application of the remedial provisions. By APIs relating to any middleware that is not room for disagreement going forward. contrast, the Litigating States have proposed Microsoft Middleware. Moreover, Microsoft 6. The definition of Top-Level Window is a set of definitions that do not allow could freely engage in exclusive dealing with limited to windows that have their own Microsoft to avoid application of the IAPs and ICPs with respect to such window controls, like move and resize, remedial provisions and that are designed to middleware under Section III.G.2 because enable sub-windows, and contain user create a more certain and fair remedial that provision relates only to Microsoft interface elements under the control of at framework. A sample of some of the more Middleware. Microsoft should be required to least one independent process. This obvious definitional problems are addressed clearly state its position in this regard before definition is critical because it determines below. the efficacy of the remedy can be judged. whether middleware is entitled to certain 1. Incredibly, the definition of ‘‘Windows 4. The definition of Microsoft Middleware remedial provisions pursuant to Section III.H Operating System Product’’ states that: The Product, which is pivotal to a number of of the RPFJ. This loophole allows Microsoft software code that comprises a Windows provisions relating to middleware relief (e.g., substantial control over whether competing Operating System Product shall be III.C, III.G., III.H, definition of Microsoft middleware will get the benefit of the determined by Microsoft in its sole Platform Software), contains substantial remedies. Microsoft could engineer its discretion. This provision appears to allow loopholes and exceptions. For example, middleware to launch without using all of Microsoft to avoid any future claim for Microsoft Middleware Products must be the Top-Level Window components and illegally tying applications to the operating Trademarked or they are free of the RPFJs argue that competing middleware cannot system, which clearly could not have been remedial provisions. The definition of avail itself of the remedy. Whether or not the DOJ’s intent nor would this be consistent Trademarked is itself problematic, as Microsoft’s middleware enables sub- with established legal doctrine concerning described below. Any product using a windows certainly should not be the illegal tying. However, as written, Microsoft generic or descriptive word with the determining factor as to whether competing could declare that Microsoft Office, including trademarks Microsoft and/or Windows would middleware is entitled to a remedy. Word and Excel, is part of the operating not be a Microsoft Middleware Product. 7. The definition of Trademarked does not system with apparent impunity. This There is no valid, pro-competitive reason to include [a]ny product distributed under provision also allows Microsoft to apply a remedy according to how Microsoft descriptive or generic terms or a name gerrymander whether a given set of functions chooses to name its middleware. In addition, comprised of the Microsoft and/or Windows will be placed in the operating system, the Microsoft Middleware Product is limited trademarks together with descriptive or middleware or an application depending on to Microsoft middleware that was distributed generic terms. This definition is critically whether Microsoft is attempting to avoid the separately in the past year and is similar in important because whether any Microsoft requirements of the remedies. For example, functionality to other middleware on the product can be Microsoft Middleware or a because Microsoft need only disclose APIs market. Thus, if Microsoft’s middleware is Microsoft Middleware Product inexplicably relating to Microsoft Middleware, Microsoft first to market, it could be argued that it is depends upon whether the product is could declare that applications that would not a Microsoft Middleware Product. This Trademarked. Under the definition, products otherwise qualify as Microsoft Middleware creates unnecessary ambiguity, and the named Microsoft Windows Radio, Microsoft rationale for this loophole is unclear. It is are instead part of the operating system. This Windows TV, Microsoft Windows Theater, also unclear why the definition of Microsoft provision creates a serious loophole in the Microsoft Windows Music, etc. arguably Middleware Product is limited to RPFJ and also conflicts with the definitions could not be either Microsoft Middleware or functionality provided by certain products, for middleware contained in the RPFJ. Microsoft Middleware Products, regardless of rather than the products themselves. There is no indication in the CIS as to how functionality because they would not be Microsoft can use this subtlety to further these issues would be addressed under the Trademarked. The inclusion of the limit the application of the RPFJ’s remedial RPFJ. 2. The definition of Timely Manner requirement that any Microsoft Middleware provisions. leaves it to Microsoft to decide when it will or Microsoft Middleware Product be 5. The definition for Non-Microsoft disclose APIs. Because it is triggered by the Trademarked before it is included in the Middleware Product is unreasonably limited date Microsoft first releases a beta version of to products of which more than one million definition provides Microsoft a handy its operating system to more than 150,000 copies were distributed in the prior year. loophole to avoid the RPFJ’s remedial testers, Microsoft can simply limit the This is a huge number of copies (and affected provisions. The Litigating States have not number of testers to 149,999 and thereby consumers) that will take a great deal of time, allowed this type of loophole in their remedy avoid disclosing APIs until it is too late for money and resources for most middleware proposal. competing ISVs to make effective use of the companies to reach. This will allow 8. The definition of API is unduly narrow information. This is strikingly easy to Microsoft to engage in its anticompetitive and limited to Microsoft Middleware rather manipulate. By contrast, the Litigating States acts against small middleware providers than including Microsoft Middleware have proposed a reasonable solution that during their most vulnerable beginnings. Products and other Microsoft applications generally requires Microsoft to disclose Moreover, if a middleware distributor that call on functionality included in, or information to third parties at the same time delivered 900,000 copies year after year to bundled with, the operating system. The it makes the information available to its own new customers, they would never be definition is circular in that, rather than developers or to any third party, reflecting protected under the settlement despite the requiring Microsoft to disclose to competing the importance of early access to APIs to fact that they may have millions of middleware developers the same interfaces foster fair competition. customers. This provision is distinctly anti- and related information that it discloses to its 3. The definition of Microsoft Middleware, innovation, because it allows Microsoft to own application developers, it allows upon which the application of Sections III.D Microsoft to manipulate the interfaces that it (Information Disclosure) and III.G.2 will define in an API and thereby limit all 33 84 F. Supp. 2d at 78, 104–114. (Exclusive Dealing) depend, is designed to related information. In addition, the related 34 Although previous versions of the Windows exclude a large body of Microsoft Media Player are distributed separately from the term, Documentation, is also unduly limited middleware. Moreover, there is a confusingly Windows operating systems, Microsoft now to only the documentation that Microsoft similar, though subtly different, definition for requires consumers to purchase Windows XP to currently makes available on its Microsoft Microsoft Middleware Product. Incredibly, acquire Windows Media Player 8.0. Developer Network (MSDN) network. VerDate 11 Competing middleware providers should be competing middleware to play back CDs, consumer choice for default middleware as entitled to all of the documentation and Windows XP prompts the user to change to long as Microsoft uses one of its own servers information available to Microsoft’s Windows Media Player when a CD is to communicate with its own competing application developers and in no event less inserted. The prompt includes Windows middleware. This allows Microsoft to use its than that typically made available on MSDN. Media Player as the preselected application Passport, MSN, Dot.net, Hotmail and other B.The RPFJ Does Not Effectively Prevent at the top of the list. servers to avoid and override the explicit Microsoft From Using Anticompetitive The exception provided in the last choices made by OEMs/ISVs and consumers. Tactics Against Competing Middleware. The paragraph of Section III.H. limits application Section III.H.1 has no procompetitive Court of Appeals held that Microsoft’s of that section to Microsoft Middleware justification and once again places competing restrictions limiting the ability of OEMs to Products that exist more than seven months middleware at an unfair disadvantage. The configure their personal computers in a prior to the last beta test version of the RPFJ would grant Microsoft the right to manner that promotes the use of non- operating system. This loophole allows require consumers who expressly choose to Microsoft middleware violates the Sherman Microsoft to engineer its releases of new use Non-Microsoft Middleware to Act.35 middleware to be less than seven months subsequently confirm their choices to In any effective remedy, OEMs, ISVs and from the final beta in order to completely Microsoft. Some Non-Microsoft middleware others must be free to bundle, distribute and avoid the remedial provisions in Section products provide consumers with an promote non-Microsoft middleware III.H. For instance, because Windows Media opportunity to choose whether to establish applications with their products and Player 8 was released within 7 months of the the middleware product as the default for completely remove Microsoft middleware. final beta for Windows XP, Microsoft can be certain functions and, if so, to authorize the They, and end users, must be free to expected to argue that competing middleware middleware product to protect against automatically launch competing middleware would not be entitled to the protections of attempts by Microsoft to override the at any time and must be free to set that Section III.H. Certainly, this could not be the consumer’s choice. Rather than requiring middleware as the default applications under intended result of the language and the Court Microsoft to honor such consumer choices, any circumstances, irrespective of what must ensure that the parties to the RPFJ Section III.H.2 would allow Microsoft to Microsoft’s middleware does or does not do. clarify the interpretation of the exception to require the consumer to confirm his or her Microsoft should not be able to use its avoid such unintended results. Oddly, the choice every time Microsoft attacks it. operating system monopoly to override the RPFJ’s limitations protect Microsoft’s C. The RPFJ Does Not Provide OEMs With considered decisions of consumers, OEMs middleware from innovative competitors. For Appropriate Freedom To Choose Competing and ISVs without explicit consumer consent, instance, Section III.H.2 allows OEMs to set Middleware, Remove Microsoft Middleware, or to automatically prompt consumers competing middleware as the default only if And Customize The User Interfaces, Menus, override such choices. Whether Microsoft has Microsoft has a Microsoft Middleware Desktop And Other Windows Elements. competing middleware is utterly irrelevant to Product that would otherwise launch in its The need for an effective remedy that the threat posed to Microsoft’s monopoly own separate Top-Level Window. There is no prevents Microsoft from illegally abusing its operating system by middleware and should legal or procompetitive justification for so operating system monopoly to harm not form the basis for the many exclusions limiting OEMs, ISVs or end users based on competitors is beyond dispute. The provided in the proposed Settlement. The the existence or performance of Microsoft undisputed facts, as found by the trial court Litigating States have in fact suggested middleware products. As the Court of and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, remedies that accomplish these goals without Appeals recognized, middleware is important establish in detail the broad power that providing Microsoft a litany of loopholes. because it has the potential to erode Microsoft possesses over OEMs and the broad Section III.H purports to provide some Microsoft’s operating system monopoly and manner in which it has abused that power to limited additional freedom to allow OEMs the applications barrier to entry that protects maintain its monopoly in violation of the and third parties to use competing it.36 Sherman Act. As the DOJ and the plaintiff middleware. Unfortunately, the provision is Conditioning middleware protections on States proved in this litigation, Microsoft’s undermined by exceptions and limitations actions within Microsoft’s control obviously operating system monopoly grants it that fail to comply with the Court of Appeals’ presents Microsoft with the ability to tremendous sway over OEMs. For example, admonitions regarding OEM freedom and manipulate its software design, as it has in in June 1996 Compaq executives opined that protection for competing middleware. the past, in a manner that will further impede their firm could not continue in business for Section III.H.3 limits Microsoft’s ability to the development and distribution of long without a license for Windows.38 use its Windows Operating System Product competing middleware products. Whether This is consistent with Hewlett Packard’s to override the freedoms granted to OEMs, Microsoft has competing middleware and by lament to Microsoft in March 1997 that [i]f but that limitation only lasts for fourteen extension the performance characteristics of we had a choice of another supplier, based days, after which Microsoft is completely free that middleware is irrelevant to the nascent on your actions in this area, I assure you [that to use its commingled and bundled threat that middleware poses to Microsoft’s you] would not be our supplier of choice.39. middleware to override the OEM operating system monopoly and ignores its Based on such statements, the trial court configurations. Microsoft can use this gaping past anticompetitive efforts to harm found that OEMs had no commercially viable loophole to override OEM/consumer choice competing middleware. Third party alternative to pre-installing the Windows instantly, automatically, and without notice innovators should not be excluded from the operating system on their personal to consumers to OEMs as long as Microsoft application of the RPFJ until and Microsoft computers.40 does so through its commingled middleware, first develops its own competing product. In Moreover, Microsoft’s power has actually rather than through its operating system. the CIS, the DOJ states that Microsoft increased since the trial court made its Furthermore, a mere fourteen days after an Middleware is the concept that triggers findings in 1999: according to the end user starts using his or her personal Microsoft’s obligations, including those International Data Corporation, from 1999 to computer, Microsoft can use its monopoly relating to Microsoft’s licensing and 2000 Microsoft’s share of the client operating operating system to recommend that the user disclosure obligations without providing any system market, including Apple’s Mac OS, change his or her default settings to favor rationale.37 increased by 10.6% to 95.4% (when Microsoft middleware to the exclusion of The applicability of the remedies set forth measured by shipment and upgrade revenue) competing middleware. Thus, on day fifteen in Sections III.C.3, H.1 and H.2 should not and by 11.1% to 92.6% (when measured by we can expect Windows to start a daily depend upon the presence or performance of new license shipments).41 As the trial court process of exhorting the user to reject Microsoft’s middleware in any way, nor competing middleware. Windows XP should any other provision. 38 38 84 F. Supp. 2d at 206 currently uses similar behaviors to Section III.H.1 of the RPFJ allows Microsoft 39 Id. at 214 (bracketed text in original). consistently attempt to reclaim default status to override OEM configurations and 40 Id. at 158. for its favored Microsoft middleware. For 41 INTERNATIONAL DATA CORPORATION, example, even after a user has selected 36 Id. at 53–55. WORLDWIDE CLIENT AND SERVER OPERATING 37 Pl. DOJ’s Competitive Impact Statement at 17– ENVIRONMENTS MARKET FORECAST AND 35 Id. at 59–64. 18 (Nov. 15, 2001) [hereinafter CIS]. Continued VerDate 11 found, Microsoft has used its monopoly from Windows operating systems is a series of new operating system licensing power to impose its will on OEMs.42 anticompetitive because it deters OEMs from restrictions on OEMs explicitly intended to First, Microsoft has used its monopoly pre-installing rival browsers, thereby restrict the ability of OEMs to reconfigure the power to force OEMs to take its middleware reducing the rivals’ usage share and, hence, Windows operating system desktop and boot applications with its operating system and, developers’ interest in rivals APIs as an sequence in a manner that would improve by forbidding them to remove or obscure alternative to the API set exposed by usage of non-Microsoft middleware. These Microsoft middleware, has ensured ubiquity Microsoft’s operating system.49 restrictions included the following: for its middleware while increasing the costs Moreover, the Court explicitly rejected First, Microsoft formalized the prohibition of competing middleware developers.43 Microsoft’s assertions that such integration is against removing any icons, folders, or Second, Microsoft has used its power to highly efficient and provides substantial ‘‘Start’’ menu entries that Microsoft itself had impose restrictions on OEMs that have had benefits to customers and developers, placed on the Windows desktop. Second, the effect of restricting consumer access to concluding instead that See also Order (DC Microsoft prohibited OEMs from modifying competing middleware and increasing the Cir. Aug, 2, 2001)(per curiam)(denying the initial Windows boot sequence. Third, costs that competing middleware developers Microsoft’s petition for rehearing on the Microsoft prohibited OEMs from installing must incur to promote their products.44 commingling issue). Indeed, in denying programs, including alternatives to the Third, Microsoft has used its power to Microsoft’s petition for rehearing on this Windows desktop user interface, which threaten and retaliate against OEMs that did issue in the clearest possible terms, the Court would launch automatically upon not accede to its wishes.45 pointedly advised the parties that [n]othing completion of the initial Windows boot Finally, Microsoft has offered OEMs in the Court’s opinion is intended to sequence. Fourth, Microsoft prohibited OEMs valuable consideration, which OEMs must preclude the District Court’s consideration of from adding icons or folders to the Windows accept in order to remain competitive with remedy issues. Id. Microsoft was simply desktop that were not similar in size and other OEMs, as a means of coercion in protect[ing] its operating system monopoly shape to icons supplied by Microsoft.52 connection with these efforts.46 from a middleware threat in violation of Indeed, Microsoft went so far as to threaten As the trial court found, the OEMs obeyed Section 2 of the Sherman Act.50 to terminate Compaq’s operating system [Microsoft’s] restrictions because they Notwithstanding the clarity of the Court’s license based on its removal of such icons for perceived no alternative to licensing ruling on this issue, the RPFJ would Microsoft’s Internet-related middleware 53 Windows for pre-installation on their PCs.47 essentially endorse Microsoft’s products. As a result, the trial court concluded that anticompetitive commingling of its own The Court of Appeals broadly condemned Microsoft’s actions have stifled innovation by middleware into Windows in a manner that such actions, which reduce usage of OEMs that might have made Windows PC prevents OEMs from removing it from the competing middleware products, not by systems easier to use and more attractive to operating system. This is not an idle concern improving [Microsoft’s] own product but, consumers,48 which is diametrically opposed because Microsoft still prevents OEMs from rather, by preventing OEMs from taking to Microsoft’s legitimate interests as an removing middleware, such as Internet actions that could increase rivals’ share of 54 operating system developer. Explorer and the Windows Media Player, usage. Plainly, any effective remedy for from the Windows operating systems. Nor Notwithstanding these clear legal findings Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct must put would the deceptively named add/remove and conclusions, Section III.C of the RPFJ an end to such practices. The RPFJ, however, remedy enable OEMs or consumers to allows Microsoft to continue to retain falls woefully short of either unfettering actually remove Microsoft middleware considerable control over how and whether OEMs from Microsoft’s control or ensuring functionality or even disable the middleware, OEMs can make competing middleware that Microsoft will not continue to impose as it simply hides icons without actually accessible to consumers of its personal restrictions on OEMs that harm the removing the middleware code from the computers through display of icons, menu development of competing middleware. operating system. With the middleware code entries and shortcuts. Section III.C.1 allows 1. The RPFJ does not require Microsoft to intact, there are many ways in which Microsoft to set rules restricting the manner allow OEMs to remove its middleware from Microsoft’s middleware can still be launched in which OEMs display icons, menu entries Windows and take default status for all middleware and shortcuts for non-Microsoft middleware. The RPFJ does not even allow OEMs and functions. Without appropriate remedies like The discretion afforded to Microsoft provides end users to completely uninstall and remove those proposed by the Litigating States, it with yet another method of limiting the Microsoft’s middleware once they have Microsoft will leverage its ability to bundle prominence that OEMs can assign to acquired the bundled products. In affirming and bind its middleware with every copy of competing middleware on personal the trial court’s conclusion that Microsoft the operating system to attempt to convince computers running Windows operating illegally maintained its operating system developers to write to the Microsoft’s systems. Section III.C.1 allows Microsoft to monopoly in violation of the Sherman Act, middleware APIs rather than competing dictate which Non-Microsoft middleware can the Court of Appeals twice held that middleware APIs. Allowing Microsoft to be accessible in which places in the Microsoft’s design of Windows in a manner commingle its middleware and refusing to Windows operating systems, without that denied OEMs the ability to remove allow OEMs to remove Microsoft middleware justifying its functionality-based distinctions. middleware specifically, Internet Explorer flies directly in the face of the Court of There is no valid, pro-competitive reason to Appeals decision. 2. The RPFJ enshrines, take this control away from OEMs. As the rather than prohibits, Microsoft’s ability to trial court found, [s]ince OEMs share ANALYSIS SUMMARY 2001–2005 at 11–12 (Aug. 2001). require OEMs to provide access to Microsoft Microsoft’s interest in ensuring that 42 For example, Microsoft delayed release of Middleware while restricting the end-user consumers can easily find the features they Windows 98 so as to miss the holiday shopping access that OEMs can provide for Non- want on their Windows PC systems, season in 1996 contrary to the OEMs’ economic Microsoft Middleware The findings of fact in Microsoft would not have prohibited OEMs interests, as well as Microsoft’s own economically this litigation establish beyond dispute that from removing icons, folders, or Start’ menu rational interests solely to ensure that Internet Microsoft has required OEMs to include entries if its only concern had been consumer Explorer 4.0 could be commingled into the certain icons, Start Menu entries and other satisfaction.55 Nor does the RPFJ protect the operating system, regardless of the economic forms of end-user access for Microsoft ability of OEMs to choose which middleware suffering imposed on OEMs in terms of lost sales. middleware products while it has at the same products to establish as the default on its 84 F. Supp. 2d at 167 (Maritz agreed with Allchin’s point that synchronizing the release of Windows 98 time restricted the ability of OEMs to personal computers. In light of the trial with Internet Explorer was the only thing that promote competing middleware products court’s finding that Microsoft reduced the makes sense even if OEMs suffer.’’) during the Windows operating system boot Windows royalty price for certain OEMs, 43 Id. at 203–08, 213, 241. sequence.51 Specifically, the trial court found including Gateway, that set Internet Explorer 44 Id. at 241, 240. that, in the spring of 1996, Microsoft imposed 45 Id. at 230, 235–38, 241. 52 52 Id. at 213. 46 Id. at 213–15, 230–31, 236–37, 241. 49 253 F.3d at 64–66. 53 Id. at 204–08. 47 47 Id. at 215. 50 253 F.3d at 66–67. 54 253 F.3d at 60–64. 48 48 Id. at 241. 51 84 F. Supp. 2d at 203. 55 84 F. Supp. 2d at N 222. VerDate 11 as the default browser on their personal menu. It threatened similar punishment for anticompetitive conduct. For example, it is computers,56 such protection is required. The OEMs who added programs that promoted no longer disputed that Microsoft offered proposed decree, however, safeguards the third-party software to the Windows boot’ IBM substantial benefits, including soft ability of OEMs to designate competing sequence.61 Such retaliatory efforts extended dollars and marketing assistance, in return middleware as the default only in those so far as threatening to terminate Compaq’s for shipping its systems without any software situations where the Windows operating license for Windows 95, demonstrating that that competed with Microsoft.67 system would otherwise launch Microsoft’s Microsoft was prepared to go to the brink of The trial court also found that Microsoft application in a Top-level Window that losing all Windows sales through its highest- grant[ed] Hewlett-Packard and other OEMs displays all of the user interface elements.57 volume OEM partner in pursuit of its discounts off the royalty price of Windows as For instance, this significant loophole would anticompetitive ends.62 Microsoft’s operating compensation for the work required to bring allow Microsoft to continue to prevent OEMs system monopoly enabled it to take such their respective alternative user interfaces from launching competing middleware in a actions with impunity, indifferent to the fact into compliance with Microsoft’s variety of instances in which the middleware that such threats soured Microsoft’s relations requirements restricting their ability to is invoked as an embedded component in with OEMs and stymied innovation that reconfigure the desktop and boot sequence in another application, like Internet Explorer. might have made Windows PC systems more Windows 95 and Windows 98.68 Similarly, by allowing Microsoft to prevent satisfying to users.63 Similarly, Microsoft used incentives and OEMs from launching any non-Microsoft In light of this sustained practice of threats in an effort to secure the cooperation middleware product that does not display a intimidation, the DOJ correctly points out of individual OEMs to promote the Internet user interface or that displays a user interface that it is critical that the OEMs, through Explorer to the exclusion of Navigator.69 that is similar to or smaller than the user whom the large majority of copies of Indeed, the court found that Microsoft interface of Microsoft’s middleware product, Microsoft’s Windows Operating System agreed to give OEMs millions of dollars in co- Section C.3 of the proposed settlement would Products reach consumers, are free to choose marketing funds, as well as costly in-kind hand Microsoft the ability to exercise to distribute and promote middleware assistance, in exchange for their carrying out significant control over the design of without interference from Microsoft.64 other promotional activities for Internet middleware products and other software The RPFJ, however, fails to place any Explorer.70 applications. This loophole is particularly restriction on Microsoft’s ability to inflict Consistent with this, Microsoft reduced the unjustifiable given the trial court’s finding financial retaliation on OEMs. Indeed, Windows royalty price for certain OEMs, that Microsoft had previously prohibited Section III.A. of the proposed decree including Gateway, that set Internet Explorer OEMs from adding icons or folders to the explicitly limits application of its anti- as the default browser on their personal Windows desktop that were not similar in retaliation provisions to newly introduced computers and that displayed Internet size and shape to icons supplied by forms of non- monetary Consideration. Explorer’s logo and links to Microsoft’s 58 Microsoft. Neither Microsoft nor the DOJ offers any Internet Explorer update page on their own A proposed remedy that endorses, rather justification for failing to restrict Microsoft home pages, and offered to compensate than condemns, anticompetitive conduct is from employing financial penalties to Gateway if it would replace Navigator with 71 not in the public interest. More generally, threaten or retaliate against recalcitrant Internet Explorer. there is no procompetitive justification for OEMs.65 The RPFJ, however, would not prevent allowing Microsoft, which maintained its Moreover, in the face of the extensive Microsoft from continuing to use discounts, operating system monopoly in violation of record in this litigation of Microsoft’s past market development allowances and other U.S. antitrust law, to have a substantial course of threats and retaliation, Section III.A such programs as part of its efforts to coerce impact on the design decisions of does not even prohibit Microsoft from OEMs into favoring Microsoft’s middleware competitors that have been disadvantaged by withholding existing forms of non-monetary over competing software. Given the Microsoft’s anticompetitive practices. consideration from OEMs that seek to loopholes that pervade the proposed decree, Because these conditions would restrict the develop, distribute or use non-Microsoft Section III.B.3 simply requires that Microsoft ability of OEMs to increase the usage of middleware, distribute competing operating identify the criteria on which discounts are middleware products that compete with systems, or otherwise seek to exercise their based and make them available to all OEMs Microsoft, it is apparent that, were they purported rights under the RPFJ. Instead, covered by the decree. While this may imposed by Microsoft independently, they Section III.A applies only to newly somewhat limit Microsoft’s ability to would be found to violate the Sherman Act introduced forms of non- monetary discriminate among OEMs, it does not under the reasoning of the Court of Appeals consideration. Such gaping loopholes simply prevent Microsoft from using such decision.59 cannot be reconciled with the DOJ’s assertion inducements to coerce OEMs into 3. The RPFJ does not prohibit Microsoft discriminating against competing from continuing to threaten and retaliate that Section III.A ensures that OEMs have the contractual and economic freedom to make middleware products. against OEMs that have resisted doing For example, the RPFJ would not prevent Microsoft’s bidding The trial court’s findings decisions about distributing and supporting non-Microsoft software products that have Microsoft granting discounts or other of fact amply document Microsoft’s repeated financial benefits to all OEMs that ship and brazen efforts to threaten and retaliate the potential to weaken Microsoft’s personal computer operating system monopoly Microsoft middleware products as the default against OEMs when they have resisted doing on their personal computers. This would Microsoft’s bidding.60 without fear of coercion or retaliation by 66 place any OEM that wanted to establish For example, the trial court concluded that, Microsoft. 4. Similarly, the RPFJ does not prohibit middleware as the default at a potentially as part of its efforts to ostracize Navigator serious disadvantage compared to any from the vital OEM distribution channel, Microsoft from continuing to employ discounts and other financial inducements to competing OEMs that take the Microsoft Microsoft threatened to terminate the payoff. Moreover, because Microsoft controls Windows license of any OEM that removed accomplish its anticompetitive ends The undisputed factual record in this case pricing of its monopoly operating system, it Microsoft’s chosen icons and program entries could establish the price of versions of from the Windows desktop or the Start’ similarly documents Microsoft’s extensive use of discounts and other financial Windows without its middleware set as the inducements as a critical component of its default at some artificially high price and use 56 Id. at 231. the difference between the artificially high 57 See RPFJ at Section III.H.2. 61 price and the actual price Microsoft wanted 58 84 F. Supp. 2d at 213. Id. at 203. 62 to receive as a cash incentive to pay OEMs 59 See 253 F.3d. at 61–62. Id. at 206, 208. 63 to carry Microsoft’s middleware as the 60 84 F. Supp. 2d at 230 (Microsoft used Id. at 203. incentives and threats in an effort to secure the 64 64 CIS at 11. 67 84 F. Supp. 2d at 237. cooperation of individual OEMs in its efforts to 65 Indeed, the Competitive Impact Statement is 68 ensure that personal computer users would have notably bereft of any attempt to justify Section Id. at 215. See also id. at 213–14. ready access to Internet Explorer). See also id. at III.A’s failure to prohibit financially based threats 69 Id. at 230. 235–38 (describing pressure exerted on Gateway and retaliation. See id. at 11–12. 70 Id. at 231. and IBM). 66 Id. at 11. 71 Id. at 231, 236. VerDate 11 default application. This does not correct the opportunity for gerrymandering. There is provisions related to middleware in Sections present judicially condemned situation. certainly no procompetitive justification for III.D and H. Microsoft essentially has been D.The RPFJ Contains Insufficient this restriction. The Litigating States’ blessed to continue wield its monopoly Provisions To Ensure Adequate And Timely proposed remedy, on the other hand, requires power for long periods of time to the Information Disclosure Microsoft to provide all APIs that are used by detriment of consumers and competition. Microsoft has a history of refusing to Microsoft’s own application developers to Instead, relief should be immediately disclose APIs, delaying disclosure of APIs, interoperate with either the operating system available. If Microsoft does not have the and selectively disclosing APIs to favored or middleware. It does not provide a complex technology ready, it should nevertheless be ISVs at the expense of disfavored ISVs.72 web of limitations and restrictions that are required to allow others to implement the For example, Microsoft has refused to bound to create further unnecessary provisions on their own while Microsoft disclose APIs relating to Secure Audio Path litigation. The provision regarding server delays disclosing the APIs. There is no (SAP) 73 and has actively used its exclusive interoperability excludes communications competitive justification for giving Microsoft access to this technology to market against its between Microsoft Middleware Products nine or twelve months to disclose and license competitors beginning at least as far back as even those that are commingled and bound interfaces that are readily available to, and October 2000. The RPFJ does not end this with the Windows operating system—and now in use by, Microsoft’s own application type of head start and exclusive access. Microsoft servers. This is an enormous developers. In fact, Microsoft is already Microsoft uses its control over Windows loophole. As written, Microsoft is likely to relying on the 12 month delay provision to interfaces to thwart competition from better, argue that the provision does not allow ISVs avoid disclosing APIs to SAP. Despite more compelling middleware applications. to obtain any access to Microsoft’s repeated requests, Microsoft has not provided For instance, Microsoft has refused to communications protocols between Microsoft RealNetworks with any information or even disclose critical interface and other technical servers and applications such as Internet confirmation that it would provide access to information used by it in Windows XP Explorer, Windows Media Player and instant SAP. In a January 2002 communication to relating to a number of functions, including messaging. Again, this does not seem RealNetworks, Microsoft simply pointed to direct access to SAP and to the Play all and consistent with the intent of the RPFJ. the twelve-month time frame and claimed it Burn CD features in the My Music folder. In an amazing reversal of fortune, the RPFJ was in compliance. Access to all of the APIs and technical would actually require law-abiding ISVs to F. The RPFJ Does Not Materially Affect interfaces available in the monopoly license their technology to Microsoft an Microsoft’s Ability To Engage In Windows OS is critical to ISVs and should illegal monopoly if they want to take Anticompetitive Exclusive Dealing be in Microsoft’s best interest given its stated advantage of Microsoft’s APIs. The fact that The RPFJ does not effectively prohibit top goal of providing a platform upon which an ISV might license and use technology Microsoft from using deals with an IAP, ICP, all ISVs can build. Because of Microsoft’s from Microsoft, as allowed under the ISV, an independent hardware vendor past anticompetitive behavior, it is important proposed settlement, should not entitle (‘‘IHV’’), or OEM to limit competition. to have a clear and broad remedy provision Microsoft to get a license to the ISV’s Microsoft has long relied on such deals in an requiring full disclosure of any technical technology relating to the exercise of their attempt to limit the development of interfaces, appropriately defined, between options or alternatives. By ensuring that competing middleware solutions. For Microsoft’s operating system, bundled Microsoft will obtain contractual rights to example, Microsoft has entered into middleware and any other Microsoft technologies that it deems to be strategic, the agreements specifically limiting or forbidding applications. The RPFJ contains several RPFJ provides assistance to Microsoft’s use of middleware that threatens its major exceptions and loopholes that allow continuing anticompetitive efforts to restrict operating system monopoly. Microsoft has Microsoft to delay and avoid disclosing the the development and distribution of entered into agreements requiring technical information necessary to allow competing middleware by bundling its own independent content providers to use competing middleware providers to fully versions of those technologies with its technology designed to detect whether the interoperate with Microsoft’s software. operating system in an attempt to dominate end user has Microsoft middleware installed Section III.D of the RPFJ only requires the market to the detriment of its more on his or her computer and then using that Microsoft to disclose APIs relating to innovative competitors. Because Microsoft is technology to the exclusion of competing Microsoft Middleware a very narrowly not doing any development on behalf of the middleware, even when the consumer had defined term that does not include any ISVs as part of the RPFJ, it does not need chosen the competing middleware as their middleware bundled with the operating licenses to ISV technology to perform its default. Such conduct flies in the face of system (unless separately distributed as an obligations. This provision in effect operates Microsoft’s own statements that it is trying to update). This subtlety in the RPFJ allows as a poison pill that presents substantial create a platform for ISVs; Microsoft’s actions Microsoft to easily avoid the information disincentives for competing middleware are damaging to any ISV who build disclosure requirements. As long as Microsoft developers to qualify for the protection of the competing middleware on Microsoft’s bundles its middleware with its operating very provisions of the RPFJ that are designed platform. Section III.G allows Microsoft to system, rather than distributing it separately, to foster competition in these nascent demand parity with any third party product it will no doubt argue that there is no markets. that Microsoft considers to be a competitor to information disclosure requirement, although Microsoft Can Continue Its its Platform Software in any deal with an that would seem contrary to the intent of the Anticompetitive Practices For Up To One IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV, or OEM that distributes, RPFJ. Year And Intends To Do So. promotes, uses, or supports the third party Limiting Section III.D to Microsoft The RPFJ’s time periods for Microsoft’s product. This provision seems designed to Middleware makes it easy for Microsoft to compliance with a variety of provisions, prevent competitors from getting ahead of avoid disclosing APIs for a host of features including those related to information Microsoft. and functions made available to Microsoft’s disclosure, place competing application In addition, Microsoft is sure to continue application developers. This is especially developers at a serious disadvantage. to use its investments as a vehicle to demand true given the fact that the RPFJ allows Middleware ISVs should have as much time exclusivity or preference for its products to Microsoft, in its sole discretion, to decide as Microsoft’s own application developers to the detriment of competing middleware. what is in the operating system and what is use the APIs and other technical information Microsoft can enter into any agreement with not. This provides virtually unlimited necessary to access, utilize and support the an ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM provided that full features and functionality offered by the each contributes either significant developer 72 Id. at 90–92. Windows operating systems. Indeed, the or other resources prohibiting the entity from 73 Secure Audio Path is a technology designed to extended time provided to Microsoft to competing with the object of the agreement maintain the security of a file as it moves through comply with the RPJF is in direct for a reasonable (undefined) period of time. the operating system for eventual playback by a contradiction of one of the DOJ’s stated This would bless and legitimize Microsoft’s sound card. It is designed to prevent interception of secure content along the route to the sound card. reasons for entering into the settlement: current anti- competitive behavior through Microsoft has been exhorting content providers to prompt relief. For example, Microsoft has a which Microsoft leverages other assets to use its Windows Media middleware in part because full year to comply with the bulk of the maintain its illegal monopoly. Moreover, of its exclusive access to Secure Audio Path. information disclosure provisions and other Microsoft can apparently avoid even these VerDate 11 requirements simply by licensing intellectual effort, and expense devoted to the straightforward in application, the States’ property as part of the deal (see Section Committee’s processes would need to be proposed remedy is appropriately tailored to III.G.2). Section G appears to allow Microsoft duplicated in future compliance efforts. redress the anticompetitive conduct to license third party intellectual property Inexplicably, Microsoft is allowed to appoint identified by the Court of Appeals, while under whatever scenario it desires. This a member of the Technical Committee, a sort preserving Microsoft’s ability to compete presents a gaping loophole to the entire of permanent seat on the security council to with other operating systems and other section, as does the exception for any oversee its overseers. Rather, the proposed middleware products on the merits. joint development or joint services’ decree needs to establish a Special Master, For the reasons set forth herein, arrangement. Virtually any technology deal that can make prompt recommendations RealNetworks respectfully submits that entry could be styled as such. directly to the Court. This litigation has been of the RPFJ would not be in the public The prohibitions of Section III.G.2 are going on for over three years. Microsoft has interest. strangely applicable only to contracts with reaped the rewards of its illegal conduct IAPs and ICPs (not IHVs, ISV or OEMs) to during that time, and continues to do so. The MTC–00029306 obtain placement in Windows. In fact, it RPFJ would provide Microsoft with an From: Jessica Hollings should simply prohibit Microsoft from additional 12 months to comply with several To: Microsoft ATR entering any contract conditioned on any provisions that should require immediate Date: 1/28/02 10:44pm third party’s agreement to refrain from or compliance. The proposed time frames Subject: Microsoft settlement limit distribution, promotion or use of greatly overstate the difficulty of providing The proposed settlement is not in my competing middleware. As written, the ISVs with technical information that interest. provision would allow Microsoft to require Microsoft has been using itself to develop Signed, any ISV or IHV to refrain from distributing Middleware and other applications. Any Jessica Hollings or promoting competing middleware as a purported hardship imposed by more Athens, Ohio condition for placement in Windows, or for appropriate deadlines would certainly by placement on MSN, or for access to Dot.Net justified by Microsoft’s history of illegal MTC–00029307 or for anything else. Surely, this could not conduct. Consumers deserve swift and From: CHARLES A. CRAWFORD have been the intent of the DOJ, yet it is the certain relief. To: Microsoft ATR result of the language in the RPFJ. V.CONCLUSION Date: 1/28/02 10:44pm G. The Enforcement Provisions Are Weak As set forth above, entry of the ambiguous Subject: microsoft settlement And Ineffective and loophole-laden RPFJ would engender I ask that the current settlement be The Court of Appeals conclusively significant uncertainty as to its terms and followed , and that the dissenters be silenced established that Microsoft is an illegal actual effect and would, in many respects, by the court. monopolist. Yet, remarkably, Microsoft has potentially assist Microsoft in its Charles A. Crawford not modified its anticompetitive behavior in anticompetitive efforts to restrict the [email protected] any meaningful way despite the Court’s clear development and distribution of competing, conclusions, just as previously the consent innovative middleware. The full MTC–00029308 decree entered by the DOJ failed to end anticompetitive harm that would result from From: Maggie Hayes Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct. The a failure to effectively redress the To: Microsoft ATR necessary enforcement mechanisms must anticompetitive conduct identified by the Date: 1/28/02 10:49pm reflect the harsh reality that Microsoft has Court of Appeals cannot, however, be fully Subject: Microsoft Settlement repeatedly shown its complete disrespect for understood simply by examining Microsoft’s Maggie Hayes the judicial process and directives of the anticompetitive conduct to date, as 13759 Morningbluff Lane courts. Unfortunately, the enforcement substantial as that is. As the trial court found San Antonio, TX 78216 mechanisms in the RPFJ are completely in this litigation, the full effects of January 26, 2002 ineffectual and are destined to fail. Any Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct extend Attorney General John Ashcroft conduct-based remedies in this complex well beyond today’s consumers of personal US Department of Justice environment will be effective only to the computers to chill tomorrow’s innovations 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW extent they are capable of prompt, rigorous and the new products and markets that such Washington, DC 20530 enforcement. innovations will make possible: Dear Mr. Ashcroft: For instance, the proposed settlement fails Most harmful of all is the message that Thank you for the exceptional service you to put in place a meaningful mechanism for Microsoft’s actions have conveyed to every have provided our country. In the interest of preventing, identifying and resolving enterprise with the potential to innovate in furthering the cause of private enterprise, the violations of the proposed agreement in an the computer industry. . . Microsoft has foundation upon which our country has been expedited manner. The voluntary dispute demonstrated that it will use its prodigious built, I am compelled to speak out on the resolution mechanism is designed for delay market power and immense profits to harm Microsoft settlement. As both a customer and rather than deterrence. It is essential that any any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives a stockholder, I hold strong opinions on the decree establish clearly defined procedures, that could intensify competition against one outcome of this case. with prompt, prescribed time deadlines, to of Microsoft’s core products. Microsoft’s past Microsoft has long been a leader in the enable the government and the court to success in hurting such companies and technology industry. They have earned their address violations of the decree in a full and stifling innovation deters investment in place of leadership in the technology expeditious manner. By contrast, the technologies and businesses that exhibit the industry through their focus on excellence. ‘‘voluntary dispute resolution’’ provisions of potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate Due to this commitment Microsoft has the proposed settlement are as inadequate as result is that some innovations that would consistently outperformed the competition the name suggests. The only ‘‘penalty’’ for truly benefit consumers never occur for the by providing consumers with user-friendly willful and systemic violations of the sole reason that they do not coincide with products. As a believer in free enterprise I proposed settlement is a one-time, two-year Microsoft’s self-interest.74 was outraged by the case against Microsoft. extension on the already truncated five-year By contrast, the Court has before it an Nonetheless the resolution of this case is the term, much of which does not even become eminently superior remedy proposed by the most important matter at this time. effective for an entire year. The time frames Litigating States. Bereft of the ambiguity and Enacting the settlement will allow for investigating complaints are loose or non- loopholes that benefit the monopolist they Microsoft to get back to business. In addition existent, with no clear or prompt recourse to are ostensibly intended to restrain, the States’ the stipulations of the settlement will benefit the court for resolution. Moreover, the proposed remedy highlights the extent to users as well. With the release of Windows ‘‘Technical Committee’’ is housed at which the RPFJ fails to effectively end XP, Microsoft will be putting in a new Microsoft, cannot independently go to the Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct. mechanism that will allow users to add and court for redress and cannot present any of Forward- looking in scope and delete programs into the system with greater its findings or information to the court, ease. The settlement goes above and beyond which ensures that the substantial time, 74 84 F. Supp. 2d at V 412. the original scope of the case. The Justice VerDate 11 Department must enact the settlement at the brought up many issues regarding antitrust Windows to remove Microsoft products and end of laws and the tech industry. The settlement to install competing products. Furthermore, January. that was reached represents a good Microsoft has agreed to disclose various Sincerely, compromise. I believe that it should be interfaces to its competitors—a first in an Maggie Hayes acceptable to everyone involved. anti-trust settlement. Now that the Windows’’ operating system Further, Microsoft has agreed to not force MTC–00029309 will be made available to producers at a third parties to distribute or promote From: J. Daniel Moss uniform price, computer makers will not Windows exclusively or as a fixed To: Microsoft ATR have to gain favor with Microsoft in order to percentage; nor will Microsoft prevent Date: 1/28/02 10:46pm receive discounted prices. This evens the computer makers or software developers Subject: Microsoft Agreement playing field among computer makers. from developing competing operating To Whom It May Concern, Further the review committee that is to be systems or software that runs on competing As a citizen, taxpayer, and shareholder created will guarantee that everyone plays operating system. concerned with the element of fairness, I fair too. For these reasons, I encourage you to want you to know that I support the The settlement comes at a good time. It support this settlement as good for the settlement agreement worked out between represents both sides of the issue. The consumer, and so that Microsoft can return the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft. government needs to move on to more to the business of developing good software. I want to add my name to the support important matters. Thanks for listening. Sincerely, enlisted for the agreement. Sincerely yours, Allan Osborne Joseph Daniel Moss Harold Hall MTC–00029313 500 Fisher Avenue MTC–00029311 Catawissa, PA 17820 From: Dolores Dembus 1–570–356–2138 From: daRcmaTTeR To: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 10:41pm MTC–00029310 Date: 1/28/02 11:00pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw Dolores Dembus To whom it may concern, To: Microsoft ATR 3133 Connecticut Ave NW Please do this country a big favor and split Date: 1/28/02 10:46pm Washington, DC 20008 them up, take them apart...do what ever you Subject: Microft Settlement January 28, 2002 have to do to make them play by the same In a message dated 1/28/02 6:45:37 PM Microsoft Settlement rules everyone else has to if you can’t put Central Standard Time, fin@ U.S. Department of Justice them out of business. We’re all so tired of MobilizationOffice.com writes: << Antitrust Division watching and being able to do nothing while [email protected] >> 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MS gets rich over the dead bodies of smaller Below is the letter we have drafted for you Washington, DC 20530 based on your comments. Please review it companies that are just trying to make a living at what they do. MS stinks, their Dear Microsoft Settlement: and make changes to anything that does not products stink and the way in which they The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ represent what you think. If you received this treat the end users by marketing and selling dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a letter by fax, you can photocopy it onto your inferior products stinks! Please give this serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech business letterhead; if the letter was emailed, country and the world the Technological industry. It is high time for this trial, and the just print it out on your letterhead. Then sign enema that it so desperately deserves and wasteful spending accompanying it, to be and fax it to the Attorney General. We believe needs and stick it to Microsoft. Though it over. Consumers will indeed see competition that it is essential to let our Attorney General won’t even begin to make up for the way they in the marketplace, rather than the know how important this issue is to their have stuck it to countless others at least it’s courtroom. And the investors who propel our constituents. The public comment period for better then letting them get away with it economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. this issue ends on January 28th. Please send unpunished. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the in your letter as soon as is convenient. Mark Weaver federal government should not have broken When you send out the letter, please do Written from A Microsoft FREE up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, one of the following: environment companies like Microsoft can get back into Fax a signed copy of your letter to us at the business of innovating and creating better 1–800–641–2255; MTC–00029312 products for consumers, and not wasting Email us at [email protected] to From: Allan G. Osborne valuable resources on litigation. Competition confirm that you took action. To: Microsoft ATR means creating better goods and offering If you have any questions, please give us Date: 1/28/02 10:47pm superior services to consumers. With a call at 1–800–965–4376. Thank you for Subject: Microsoft Settlement government out of the business of stifling your help in this matter. 5829 NE 198th Place progress and tying the hands of corporations, The Attorney General’s fax and email are Kenmore, WA 98028 consumers—rather than bureaucrats and noted below. Fax: 1–202–307–1454 or 1– January 28, 2002 judges—will once again pick the winners and 202–616–9937 Email: microsoft.atr@ Attorney General John Ashcroft losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the usdoj.gov US Department of Justice, high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will In the Subject line of the e-mail, type 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW be encouraged to create new and competitive Microsoft Settlement. Washington, DC 20530 products and technologies. For more information, please visit these Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Thank you for this opportunity to share my websites: www.microsoft.com/ I encourage you to support the recent views. freedomtoinnovate/ www.usdoj.gov/atr/ antitrust settlement Microsoft has reached Sincerely, cases/ms-settle.htm with the DOJ. I can only imagine how much Dolores Dembus 8850 McClellan Boulevard this lawsuit has cost the little people in this Anniston, AL 36206–7548 country—not Bill Gates, but the people MTC–00029314 January 13, 2002 throughout the country, especially those who From: Thomas Leszczynski Attorney General John Ashcroft are in pension funds. To: Microsoft Settlement US Department of Justice Furthermore, I feel this attack on success Date: 1/28/02 10:41pm 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW is forcing Microsoft to agree to terms that go Subject: Microsoft Settlement Washington, DC 20530–0001 far beyond the original scope of the lawsuit Thomas Leszczynski Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: so it can continue to develop software 4539 Greystone Dr I appreciate the Justice Department finally undisturbed by the government. Richfield, WI 53076–9405 coming to a settlement over the Microsoft As an example, Microsoft has agreed to January 28, 2002 issue. The three year long dispute has provide the code so competitors can alter Microsoft Settlement VerDate 11 U.S. Department of Justice smart enough. Microsoft lets me easily buy a We the undersigned would like to submit Antitrust Division complete system that works great. our comments on the Microsoft Settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Cost. Per line of code, there is no maintaied before the Antitrust Division. We are Washington, DC 20530 software package that is cheaper. displeased to note that much effort has been Dear Microsoft Settlement: Do we really want to put overzealious expended by the government to listen to The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ tethers on the company that had a large part envious competitors, who unable to compete dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a in creating the golden egg economic era of in the open market, attack a productive serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech the 1990’s. I would think twice about that. company so that its innovative ways can be industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Thanks for the opportunity to comment. hindered. We have been using Microsoft wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Loyd D. Jacobs products for over a decade and have never over. Consumers will indeed see competition P.S. I am a Boeing retiree. had any complaints about their performance. in the marketplace, rather than the Over the years their products have kept MTC–00029316 courtroom. And the investors who propel our improving. We are therefore opposed to any economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. From: RAJESH SATPUTE settlement, in which the company which has Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the To: Microsoft ATR become successful by dint of innovation, is federal government should not have broken Date: 1/28/02 10:49pm penalized for being too successful. We would up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Subject: Microsoft Settlement also like to state for the record that as free companies like Microsoft can get back into Dear Sir/Madam, individuals, participating in the marketplace, the business of innovating and creating better This settlement is in favour of the public. we have chosen Microsoft products without products for consumers, and not wasting This settlement is good for the industry, coercion. Therefore we think that it is not the valuable resources on litigation. economy and above all the nation. As a US duty of the Government do decide or restrict Competition means creating better goods Citizen I do agree this steelement. the marketing of Microsoft’s products at what and offering superior services to consumers. Regards, ever price the market will bear. Also we With government out of the business of Raj Satpute think that as free individuals we have an stifling progress and tying the hands of MTC–00029317 inalienable right to purchase and keep on our corporations, consumers—rather than computers software of our choice without From: Hugh Inness-Brown bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick government interference. In other words, the To: Microsoft Settlement the winners and losers on Wall Street. With government should not violate our personal Date: 1/28/02 10:45pm the reins off the high-tech industry, more liberties in the realm of what we can buy and Subject: Microsoft Settlement entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create keep in our computer. Since the business of Hugh Inness-Brown new and competitive products and Microsoft is producing software, we fail to 5351 State Hwy 37 technologies. see how it is a threat to anyone. A free Ogdensburg, NY 13669 Thank you for this opportunity to share my market, in essence requires that a company January 28, 2002 views. be productive and offer a better product at Microsoft Settlement the lowest price. Microsoft has been able to Sincerely, U.S. Department of Justice Thomas Leszczynski Antitrust Division do this—- a testament to it’s success. One important point to note here is that MTC–00029315 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Microsoft has been brought to court by its From: Loyd D. Jacobs Dear Microsoft Settlement: competitors, who when unsuccessful in the To: Microsoft ATR The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ open market, sought to use government force Date: 1/28/02 10:48pm dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a to not only shackle but also to set the terms Subject: Micrsoft Antitrust Settlement serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech by which businesses in future must compete I believe the subject settlement is more industry. It is high time for this trial, and the in the market place. Failed businesses must than fair. Microsoft was largely responsible wasteful spending accompanying it, to be not be allowed to set the terms of the for the tremendous economic gains of the over. Consumers will indeed see competition operation of the market place. Penalizing 1990’s. Yet the goose that laid the golden egg in the marketplace, rather than the successful businesses can only have a is severly attacked. By whom? By a gang of courtroom. And the investors who propel our chilling effect on future iconoclastic competitors who could not compete in a free economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. businessmen and industrialists from trying to market. By a gang of competitors who met Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the be innovative if they conclude that the price together to costruct a case against Microsoft federal government should not have broken of success is the breakup of a company and and ask the federal goverment to prosecute it. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, suffering long drawn out court battles and Collusion? companies like Microsoft can get back into fines and unreasonable penalties. The Yes Microsoft is agressive. In business you the business of innovating and creating better government should foster an environment do not go far without being agressive. products for consumers, and not wasting whereby any American entrepreneur with a Agressive action and words can stir up valuable resources on litigation. new idea can start a business by upsetting (if emotional responses, but that does not make Competition means creating better goods required, just as Henry Ford upset the horse them illegal? and offering superior services to consumers. and buggy industry, or what Edison’s The general public has not been harmed by With government out of the business of invention of the light bulb did to the candle Microsoft. To the contrary. Microsoft has stifling progress and tying the hands of makers) current businesses and starting a made it easy for the novice to use computer corporations, consumers—rather than new field of production just as the computer systems. They have provided a much needed bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick industry replaced and automated many labor standard. Compare that to the incompatable the winners and losers on Wall Street. With intensive functions of U. S. industry. After all wireless telephone systems. My wireless the reins off the high-tech industry, more a business has a right to its own property and telephone will not work in Europe. Old time entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create it is the constitutional duty of the computer users complain about Microsoft. new and competitive products and government is to secure and protect those They know how to work around computer technologies. rights. problems and do for themself. The general Thank you for this opportunity to share my CC:[email protected]@inetgw public does not. Microsoft provides a views. MTC–00029319 standard, a tool the general public can easily Sincerely, use. Hugh Inness-Brown From: [email protected]@inetgw Bunding. I want blundling. I do not want To: Microsoft ATR to buy my operating software system a piece MTC–00029318 Date: 1/28/02 10:51pm at a time. Only special applications do I want From: Swapan Gupta Subject: Microsoft Settlement to buy one piece at a time. I also do not want To: Microsoft ATR Dear Mr. Ashcroft: to make the piece by piece selection of what Date: 1/28/02 10:52pm The free enterprise system in the United goes in my basic operating system. I am not Subject: Microsoft Settlement States has been the catalyst for making the VerDate 11 United States the greatest country in the entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create in the marketplace, rather than the world. Within the system, there will be new and competitive products and courtroom. And the investors who propel our winners and losers. Microsoft is perhaps the technologies. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. biggest winner of all time; they have created Thank you for this opportunity to share my Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the and marketed a product that satisfies the views. federal government should not have broken needs of an expanding market all over the Sincerely, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, globe. Howard G. Hall companies like Microsoft can get back into The government has no business meddling the business of innovating and creating better into the affairs of Microsoft, or any other MTC–00029321 products for consumers, and not wasting business. Microsoft used its own ingenuity From: barbara ward valuable resources on litigation. and market know-how to achieve the level of To: Microsoft Settlement Competition means creating better goods success it has. The entire lawsuit between Date: 1/28/02 10:49pm and offering superior services to consumers. Microsoft and the US government has Subject: Microsoft Settlement With government out of the business of become a forum for Microsoft’s competitors barbara ward stifling progress and tying the hands of to tear a piece of Microsoft’s success away. box 404 corporations, consumers—rather than Microsoft has agreed to permanent carrizozo, NM 88301 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick government oversight in the form of the January 28, 2002 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With three-person ‘‘Technical Committee.’’ This in Microsoft Settlement the reins off the high-tech industry, more and of itself should silence most any critic U.S. Department of Justice entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create of Microsoft, but the settlement also agrees to Antitrust Division new and competitive products and make trade secrets such as operating system 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW technologies. protocols and interfaces available to its Washington, DC 20530 Thank you for this opportunity to share my competition as well. Dear Microsoft Settlement: views. I have strong reservations about this The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Sincerely, settlement, but if this is what Microsoft dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a NANCY LONG wants, than I will support the company. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Microsoft performed as any company would industry. It is high time for this trial, and the MTC–00029323 in the open market, and has been duly wasteful spending accompanying it, to be From: Jerome Isham rewarded. The federal government needs to over. Consumers will indeed see competition To: Microsoft ATR end the litigation and let free enterprise and in the marketplace, rather than the Date: 1/28/02 10:57pm the market determine the final outcome for courtroom. And the investors who propel our Subject: USAGIsham—Jerome—1002—0125 Microsoft and its competitors. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 10047 Main Street Apt #213 Sincerely, Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Bellevue, WA 98004 Richard Kissell federal government should not have broken January 26, 2002 3903 23rd Ave. W. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Attorney General John Ashcroft, DOJ Bradenton, FL 34205 companies like Microsoft can get back into 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW the business of innovating and creating better Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00029320 products for consumers, and not wasting Dear Mr. Ashcroft, From: Howard Hall valuable resources on litigation. Today I take the time to encourage the To: Microsoft Settlement Competition means creating better goods Department of Justice to accept the Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 10:49pm and offering superior services to consumers. antitrust settlement. The DOJ and Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement With government out of the business of have slugged this battle out for over three Howard Hall stifling progress and tying the hands of years. It is time to put an end to it. A 9 Josefa Place corporations, consumers—rather than settlement is available and the terms are fair. Moraga, CA 94556 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick It is rally about time that the government January 28, 2002 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With accepted it. In order to put this issue behind Microsoft Settlement the reins off the high-tech industry, more them, Microsoft has agreed to many terms. U.S. Department of Justice entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create They have consented to design future Antitrust Division new and competitive products and versions of Windows to be more compatible 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW technologies. with non-Microsoft software, making it so Washington, DC 20530 Thank you for this opportunity to share my that features like Explorer and Windows Dear Microsoft Settlement: views. Messaging can be replaced by Netscape and The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Sincerely, IM. They have also agreed to change several dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a barbara ward aspects in the way they do business with serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech computer makers. Microsoft has given up a industry. It is high time for this trial, and the MTC–00029322 lot in order to settle the issue. It is time for wasteful spending accompanying it, to be From: NANCY LONG the government—and the courts—to accept over. Consumers will indeed see competition To: Microsoft Settlement the settlement and move on. Microsoft and in the marketplace, rather than the Date: 1/28/02 10:52pm the technology industry need to move courtroom. And the investors who propel our Subject: Microsoft Settlement forward, and the only way to move forward economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. NANCY LONG is to put this issue in the past. Please accept Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the 3601 CHADSWORTH WAY the Microsoft antitrust settlement. federal government should not have broken SACRAMNETO, CA 95821 Sincerely, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, January 28, 2002 Jerome Isham companies like Microsoft can get back into Microsoft Settlement the business of innovating and creating better U.S. Department of Justice MTC–00029324 products for consumers, and not wasting Antitrust Division From: Dale Boe valuable resources on litigation. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR Competition means creating better goods Washington, DC 20530 Date: 1/28/02 10:59pm and offering superior services to consumers. Dear Microsoft Settlement: Subject: 280 Yew Street Road With government out of the business of The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ 280 Yew Street Road stifling progress and tying the hands of dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Belingham, WA 98226 corporations, consumers—rather than serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech January 26, 2002 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Attorney General John Ashcroft the winners and losers on Wall Street. With wasteful spending accompanying it, to be US Department of Justice the reins off the high-tech industry, more over. Consumers will indeed see competition 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW VerDate 11 Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20530 ‘‘rewarded’’ by the Justice Dept. for their Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Dear Microsoft Settlement: continued ‘‘best business practices’’ ... I wanted to take this moment to write you, The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ business practices at their worst. during the 60-day public comment period, to dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a I have been supporting Computer hardware express my concern on this tedious lawsuit serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech / software for 40 years from mainframes to plaguing the Microsoft corporation. For the industry. It is high time for this trial, and the PCs, including Microsoft products. There is past three years (in its most recent version, wasteful spending accompanying it, to be ‘‘no room’’ in a democratic society ... for anyway) Microsoft has concentrated its time, over. Consumers will indeed see competition software code (and a company) that wants to energy and money under public and federal in the marketplace, rather than the ‘‘imbed’’ itself ‘‘everywhere’’ ... to the scrutiny and it has been the unfair and courtroom. And the investors who propel our ‘‘exclusion’’ of ALL others. This fact is even unjustified bullying of an enterprise that economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. intuitively obvious to the most casual built itself on American ideals, the dreams Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the observer ... and also ought to be obvious to that all Americans are made of. The current federal government should not have broken a ‘‘US Justice Dept’’ as well. proposed settlement, although harsh on up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, There is no dispute that Microsoft has Microsoft, needs to be the ending of this companies like Microsoft can get back into stifled innovation, creativity and competition lawsuit once and for all. If the case goes back the business of innovating and creating better ... and in the process ‘‘sucked’’ the life out to the federal court, not only does the products for consumers, and not wasting of an Entire industry / culture. For years, fundamental principle of freedom of valuable resources on litigation. Microsoft has ‘‘rushed to market’’ buggy / enterprise fly out this nation’s window, but Competition means creating better goods inept, bloated software code / APIs, our nation’s economy will suffer further from and offering superior services to consumers. applications ... Operating systems (OS) ... in the loss of potential capital. How can our With government out of the business of order to circumvent previous, WEAK Justice Dept settlements. country criminalize a business that brought stifling progress and tying the hands of Just look at the security flaws in their this world out of the technological ‘‘stone corporations, consumers—rather than ‘‘latest & greatest’’ XP OS ... rushed to market age?’’ It is beyond me how people that have bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick to ‘‘procreate’’ and ‘‘imbed’’ itself ... before it prospered from Microsoft’s success are also the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more works ... and before the ‘‘law’’ can catch up the ones trying to put them out of business. with it ... yet one more time. In Windows 9X, entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Is this the message we are instilling in our Internet Explorer (IE) was blatently imbedded new and competitive products and own people that too much success is a crime into the Windows OS, with requirements that technologies. and can legally be taken away from you? IE be the ‘‘default’’ browser in order for Thank you for this opportunity to share my By accepting the proposed settlement, OTHER Microsoft) applications (such as views. Microsoft and the American consumer can Outlook) to work properly ... to the exclusion Sincerely, put this behind them, get back to business as of other applications, including Netscape. Carol Wray usual, and keep Microsoft as an investment Microsoft ‘‘is’’ the ultimate blood-sucking this country needs to stay at the top of the MTC–00029328 virus. It’s time to get out the RAID ... and a global market. From: Dave La Bounty BIG flyswatter ... or gavel!!! Your time and consideration in this matter Surprise me ... do something right ... for a To: Microsoft ATR is greatly appreciated and I hope your actions change, Date: 1/28/02 10:59pm will speak for the American people and not Dave La Bounty, Subject: Microsoft Settlement the jealous competitors trying to take San Jose, Ca, To whom it may concern: ingenuity away from the Microsoft Computer Engineer / Technologist (40 I am very much against the proposed corporation. years) Sincerely, Microsoft Antitrust Settlement ... it doesn’t Dale Boe go far enough to level the playing field MTC–00029330 against Microsoft or in punishing Microsoft. MTC–00029326 From: [email protected]@inetgw In it’s present form, it appears that the DOJ To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw proposed settlement (once again) lets Date: 1/28/02 11:01pm To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft off the hook, and lets them Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/28/02 10:59pm continue their rampant / unabaited, Lester Ward Subject: Microsoft Settlement unethical, predatory / monopolistic practices 5604 Newman Davis Road Greetings. ... it’s ALL in the details and crafting of the Greensboro, NC 27406 I believe in the free enterprise society. Let words ... by highly paid Microsoft lawyers ... January 27, 2002 the inventors invent. I want Microsoft to give once again, there is no ‘‘meat’’ to it. Attorney General John Ashcroft me the best of the best. I want all the ‘‘Nothing’’ surprises me anymore ... but US Department of Justice, components in one pack of software. America and the world deserves better. There 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Please let Mr. Gates advance our IS an alternative ... ALL you have to do is Washington, DC 20530–0001 technology. Stop all the legal action against read the incisive, brilliantly presented Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Microsoft. descriptions of the problems ... and solutions I have been using computers since 1976. Regards, at the following web sites ... to realize how That is about adecade before even the first Valerie Rogers woefully inadequate the DOJ settlement PCs. (even before DOS). I could use 3428 Hillvale Rd proposals truely are. computers even without Microsoft. The Louisville, Ky 40241 http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html, question is would I want to do so. Imagine 502–423-STAR http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ the millions of Americans today that use remedy2.html computers and the Internet without even a MTC–00029327 http://www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/ clue as to how difficult things once were. From: Carol Wray tunney.html I am writing this letter in hopes of restoring To: Microsoft Settlement The solutions proposed at these sites have some sense to the current course of affairs. Date: 1/28/02 10:55pm some ‘‘meat’’ to them, and should just be a I sold my Microsoft stock shortly after Judge Subject: Microsoft Settlement starting point of ‘‘minimum necessary Jackson began to try to write himself into the Carol Wray requirements’’. These proposed solutions, history books. The reason Microsoft is so 10133 Ga.Hwy.42 South would finally, at least, force Microsoft to be successful is because we the consumers want Fort Valley, GA 31030–9313 more forthright and honest. Hire these guys it to be. I do not want to purchase a January 28, 2002 as consultants!!! IF there is ‘‘any justice’’, the menagerie of software operating systems and Microsoft Settlement DOJ verdict and settlement ought to user applications that very likely will not U.S. Department of Justice ‘‘punish’’ Microsoft ‘‘severely’’, with more work together. I know this started during the Antitrust Division than just a weak slap on the wrist ... Clinton Administration. I feel that it is time 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft should not continue to be to put a halt to this auto-immune attack VerDate 11 Microsoft is an important part of the U.S. Revere Beach, MA 02151 wasteful spending accompanying it, to be economy. Please let Microsoft get back to over. Consumers will indeed see competition MTC–00029333 software production. In these difficult in the marketplace, rather than the economic times, we need to move forward. From: Robert Boyer courtroom. And the investors who propel our I would find it difficult to do my job without To: Microsoft ATR economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. the innovations that Microsoft has provided. Date: 1/28/02 11:03pm Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the I will continue to depend on Microsoft. Subject: Microsoft Settlement federal government should not have broken Microsoft has agreed to a settlement that Attorney General John Ashcroft up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, should provide any necessary compliance to Us Dept of Justice companies like Microsoft can get back into regulations and prevent any further 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW the business of innovating and creating better perceived need for anti-trust actions. Washington, DC 20530 products for consumers, and not wasting I hope that my opinion makes a difference. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: valuable resources on litigation. Thank you for your attention in this matter. I have been following the Microsoft Competition means creating better goods cc: Representative Howard Coble antitrust case in the papers and media and and offering superior services to consumers. Sincerely, I think it is time to come to a settlement. With government out of the business of Lester Ward Microsoft has met all , and more, of the stifling progress and tying the hands of competitors demands. We should meet the corporations, consumers—rather than MTC–00029331 simple request of Microsoft to have the bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick From: Kiyoshi Yu settlement approved, so Microsoft can go the winners and losers on Wall Street. With To: Microsoft ATR back to the business of innovating. the reins off the high-tech industry, more Date: 1/28/02 11:01pm I appreciate your efforts to have the entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft approved by the Court as in the new and competitive products and Renata B. Hesse best interest of the American public. technologies. Antitrust Division Thank you for your attention to this matter. Thank you for this opportunity to share my U.S. Department of Justice Billie Jo and Robert Boyer views. 601 D Street, NW 2126 New Bedford Dr. Sincerely, Suite 1200 Sun City Center, Fl 33573 linda rasband Phone- 813–634–1181 Washington, DC 20530–0001 MTC–00029336 Via email: [email protected] MTC–00029334 Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Gretchen Huizinga Dear Ms. Hesse: From: Kedar Soman To: Microsoft ATR As a consumer whose activities both at To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 10:57pm work and at home rely heavily upon the use Date: 1/28/02 10:57pm Please see attached letter regarding the of personal computer software, I welcome the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft Settlement. chance to comment on the proposed Dear Madam / Sir, Gretchen Huizinga This is in regard to Microsoft antitrust Millennium Arts Inc. settlement between Microsoft and the settlement case. I sincerely feel if Microsoft 18404 148th Avenue NE Department of Justice. continues to follow the current practices, it Woodinville, WA 98072 I feel that this agreement, as is, will leave will pose a grave challenge to the principle January 23, 2002 Microsoft to continue in its anticompetitive on which the capitalism is based, free and Attorney General John Ashcroft ways. It will not prevent the monopoly from healthy competition. US Department of Justice, using strong-arm tactics in licensing deals Simply put, if not curbed right now, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW with computer makers, nor will it stop following thing will happen. Your children Washington, DC 20530–0001 Microsoft from keeping competitive products will wake up listening microsoft radio station Dear Mr. Ashcroft: from coming to market. As a result, on microsoft radio. They will wear clothes I would like to take this time to voice my consumers like myself will be forced to made by microsoft, travel in microsoft made opinion on the Microsoft case. The continue to pay for Microsoft’s expensive car to office, where they work on windows government had no right to intervene with operating systems and software suite and the and MS OFfice. Later in evening, they will private business, but now that the case has upgrades required to keep them functional. come back and watch Microsoft televison. been allowed to drag on for three years, the In addition, our choice of software products Before sleeping, they will read microsoft American public needs to see that the case will continue to be limited and for those of printed Bible. And when they will open is finally ended. Microsoft is a good us who do use non-Microsoft operating microsoft printed dictionery to read the company; they’ve provided consumers with systems or Internet browsers, compatibility meanings of words freedom and customer superior products and have changed our with other Microsoft products will continue choice, they will hate you with their whole lives, contributing so much to our nation’s to suffer. heart. economy. I run a production company and The additional proposal put forth by Thanking you, use Microsoft’s products in my office. I am Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly Kedar Soman not forced to do so; I use their products along with eight other states and the District because I prefer to. of Columbia is a far better remedy than one MTC–00029335 The proposed settlement will be more than proposed by the Department of Justice. This From: linda rasband favorable to Microsoft’s competitors and will proposal includes key provisions that will To: Microsoft Settlement consequently foster competition. Microsoft put an end to Microsoft’s illegal business Date: 1/28/02 10:57pm has agreed to tone down its supposedly dealings, help ensure compatibility of Subject: Microsoft Settlement aggressive marketing techniques and will software products and bring consumers like linda rasband allow their competitors to create and promote myself the benefits of greater choice and 670 west 91st ave. non-Microsoft software in Windows. They lower prices. Moreover, unlike the anchorage, AK 99515 are also going to give away a lot of their Department of Justice’s settlement, this January 28, 2002 technical secrets to their competitors. proposal will provide an enforceable solution Microsoft Settlement This settlement is more than reasonable with real penalties to guarantee compliance. U.S. Department of Justice and is the right thing to do. Our economy is Therefore, it is my hope that the Court will Antitrust Division struggling and our technology industry needs find the Department of Justice’s settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to be restored. Ending this case is a perfect with Microsoft not to be in the public interest Washington, DC 20530 way to do that. Thank you for your time. and rather adopt the proposal of Tom Reilly Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, and the other State Attorney Generals. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’? Gretchen Huizinga Sincerely, dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Kiyoshi Yu serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00029337 388 Ocean Ave. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Johannes Garcia VerDate 11 To: Microsoft ATR Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Microsoft to publicly document all of its Date: 1/28/02 11:04pm federal government should not have broken communication protocols, including, but not Subject: Microsoft Settlement up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, limited to, all of its file formats. This solution Ladies & Gentlemen: companies like Microsoft can get back into is the fairest because it allows all We must continue to promote the best the business of innovating and creating better competitors, including Microsoft, to innovate technology and give the opportunity to those products for consumers, and not wasting with respect to application features and who wants the freedom to innovate in all valuable resources on litigation. performance, letting the market determine area of business and industries. Lets keep the Competition means creating better goods the price. It also frees users who wish to courts and the politicians out of technology and offering superior services to consumers. communicate within a particular space from especially in this critical time ‘‘The New With government out of the business of the compulsion of purchasing Microsoft World Economic’’. If AOL wants to continue stifling progress and tying the hands of products. to played this role in promoting policy (and corporations, consumers—rather than The simplest and best method for enforcing politics) over technology especially as they bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick this behavior is to require the government to have done in the last three years and the winners and losers on Wall Street. With confiscate any and all revenue derived from contributing in the impeding of new the reins off the high-tech industry, more each and every Microsoft product that technology. Let us remember man is the entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create directly utilizes, or contains any sub maker of his destiny and we are all guilty if new and competitive products and component which utilizes, any allowed it to happen. Why should the technologies. communication protocol that is not American people be punished to pay for the Thank you for this opportunity to share my completely documented, including, but not legal cost of this platform? views. limited to, file formats. As we all know AOL has promised to open Sincerely, up their instant messenger as Microsoft has jack l. eich MTC–00029342 done, so that we all can have a platform to From: James W Duffett MTC–00029341 build services for it, but has AOL complied? To: Microsoft Settlement NO. They say one thing and do another. From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/28/02 11:04pm Microsoft has done bad things in the past To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement but is not the evil some people make it out Date: 1/28/02 11:05pm James W Duffett to be. If you had studied them in some depth, Subject: Microsoft Settlement 11690 County Farm Road you’d understand that. It is a common misperception that Lexington, Mo 64067–7101 Microsoft has done great things for the Microsoft built it’s monopoly upon the January 28, 2002 United States Economic and World Economic proprietary nature of its Windows operating Microsoft Settlement and their contribution to ordinary people is system. In truth, Microsoft built its monopoly U.S. Department of Justice the real story. Let’s keep our head over water upon the proprietary and secret nature of its Antitrust Division and we should continue to review all the communication protocols. One historically 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW facts and put every things on the balanced important example of a proprietary Washington, DC 20530 (World Economic) before we make the biggest communication protocol is the secret file Dear Microsoft Settlement: mistake in this new World Economic. format utilized by Microsoft application The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Johannes Garcia programs such as Microsoft Word and dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Microsoft Excel. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00029338 Because Microsoft wholly controls its industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Bertram Rogers secret communication protocols it has the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft ATR ability to modify a specific protocol with over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 10:56pm each upgrade to an application program that in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft settlement uses said protocol. For example, when courtroom. And the investors who propel our Dear Renata Hesse, Microsoft issues an update for an application economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. I would like to see the Microsoft litigation program such as Microsoft Word it has the Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the settled amicably ASAP. Microsoft is one of ability to modify the file format used to federal government should not have broken only a few US companies that can compete encode Microsoft Word documents. Because up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, in the world market. I would not like to see Microsoft holds a monopoly within the companies like Microsoft can get back into it so cripple that it can no longer compete. application space that Microsoft Word the business of innovating and creating better Best wishes, competes the change in file format triggers a products for consumers, and not wasting B. H. G. Rogers chain reaction of events. Once a critical mass valuable resources on litigation. Competition of users adopts the new application program means creating better goods and offering MTC–00029340 using the modified communication protocol superior services to consumers. With From: jack eich (in this case the Microsoft word file format) government out of the business of stifling To: Microsoft Settlement other users are compelled to purchase the progress and tying the hands of corporations, Date: 1/28/02 10:59pm new version of the application program consumers—rather than bureaucrats and Subject: Microsoft Settlement because the older version cannot understand judges—will once again pick the winners and jack eich and use the new protocol. People who wish losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the 18763 felton to communicate within this particular space high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will morrison, IL 61270 but who do not own Microsoft Word are be encouraged to create new and competitive January 28, 2002 compelled to purchase it, not because products and technologies. Microsoft Settlement because the program offers innovative new Thank you for this opportunity to share my U.S. Department of Justice features, but simply because the application views. Antitrust Division program uses a proprietary protocol. Sincerely, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft possesses both a monopoly and a Wayne Duffett Washington, DC 20530 secret proprietary protocol in many Dear Microsoft Settlement: application spaces. This fact compels users to MTC–00029343 The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ purchase Microsoft products instead of From: Janice Johnson dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a potentially superior competing products, and To: Microsoft ATR serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech it allows Microsoft to set the price for these Date: 1/28/02 11:10pm industry. It is high time for this trial, and the products at artificially high levels. Subject: Microsoft Settlement wasteful spending accompanying it, to be This situation amounts to a de facto I wrote to Attorney General Ashcroft about over. Consumers will indeed see competition arbitrary tax on communication imposed by my feelings about the settlement. Now, I in the marketplace, rather than the a private entity. would like to tell you how I feel. courtroom. And the investors who propel our The simplest and fairest solution with the I hope so much that there will soon be a economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. best opportunity for success is to compel settlement to this long drawn out affair. The VerDate 11 settlement that was outlined in the necessary information for computer makers be beneficial to all involved, with the newspaper a few weeks ago seems fair and to remove Microsoft products from Windows possible exception of Microsoft which can just to me. As a retired educator, I was and to install competing products in their only stand to be in some way restrained from particularly pleased to see that it involved places. Further, Microsoft has agreed to not previous illegal activity. gifts of materials and software to schools. It take actions against computer makers who Sincerely, seems like a wonderful way to help children decide to take this route, nor will Microsoft Mike Mammarella who are the consumers of the future. As an prevent computer makers or software P.S. A note about proprietary hardware ‘‘older’’ consumer, I have grave doubts about developers from shipping or promoting interfaces—in the days of DOS, when a the fact that this continued bickering has competing operating systems or software that hardware manufacturer made a perhipheral anything to do with the consumer at all. It runs on competing operating systems. device, whether an adaptor card or a printer, appears to me to be an unjust form of For these reasons, I encourage you to they disclosed information needed in order competition by some rival companies i.e. Sun support the recent settlement as good for for the operating system or individual Microsystems, AOL, Oracle etc. and they are Microsoft, good for its competitors, and good programs to communicate and use that using to court system which I fund as a for the consumers. device. With the advent of Windows and its taxpayer to further their own ends. Sincerely, driver interfaces, hardware manufacturers Please, make a fair and equitable end to the Robert Bezona stopped releasing this information, claiming squabble. Microsoft is a good company who its proprietary nature. Technically, this was really has done a wonderful job of focusing MTC–00029346 the decision of hardware vendors, but on the consumer. From: Mike Mammarella Microsoft was in the position to encourage Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR them to continue to disclose their protocols Janice Johnson Date: 1/28/02 11:10pm and it instead encouraged the opposite. The 9308 190th ST SW Subject: Microsoft Settlement effect of all this is that other operating Edmonds, WA 98020 I believe that the terms of the revised systems cannot support these devices unless the manufacturer writes a driver for that MTC–00029344 proposed final judgement are too ambiguous; there is ample room for loopholes depending operating system as well, which due to From: Scott Dallmeyer on the way Microsoft chooses to define, for Microsoft’s monopoly is much less likely. To: Microsoft ATR instance, ‘‘digital rights management.’’ This further increases the barriers for entry Date: 1/28/02 11:10pm Microsoft has recently received a patent for into the operating system market. Subject: Microsoft Settlement digital rights management operating systems, MTC–00029347 The proposed settlement should not be which means that it would be not approved as is. I do not believe that the unreasonable to claim that the entire From: Missy Nielsen proposed settlement does anything to rectify operating system (of some future version of To: Microsoft ATR the situation created by the found criminal Windows) is a digital rights management Date: 1/28/02 11:10pm antitrust activities of Microsoft Corporation. system and therefore exempt from API Subject: Microsoft Settlement The reason for antitrust laws is to maintain disclosure. I support the Microsoft/DOJ settlement. healthy competition and markets to promote The terms must be more well-defined, but I do not agree with the nine holdout states. more and better products. The settlement as also not so narrowly as to be specific to the I believe their uncompetitive constituents are proposed only legitimizes the technology of today. Microsoft will soon be manipulating their AG... I remember how anticompetitive behavior that has killed off boasting a new platform called ‘‘.NET’’, difficult it was to access the internet. I so many potential innovators in the software which could escape the terms of a too- remember how difficult it was to use industry. narrowly defined ‘‘operating system’’ and multiple software applications because none The proposed settlement is not in the best therefore also be exempt from many of the would work with the others. interests of the consumers of software, in terms of the judgement. Furthermore, I Microsoft has made my life as a consumer spite of the posturing of Microsoft. Nothing believe that simply limiting Microsoft’s much, much easier and productive. Yes, they do or propose can be taken as being in Microsoft is a monopoly, but they are a illegal monopoly abuse is insufficient. the interests of the consumers. They make so- monopoly that uses their position to benefit Microsoft has been accused of the same called ‘‘standards’’ and patent them (their consumers. practices before, and reprimanded as a result. message block structure for Windows XP to Please tell Sun, AOL, Oracle, etc. to spend However, this does not seem to have stopped kill off Samba) and poison emerging their money on becoming competitive Microsoft from continuing the abuse of its standards such as Java all in the interest of instead of fighting Microsoft. operating system monopoly. A more drastic Microsoft, not the consumer. Melissa Nielsen I am totally opposed to this settlement as measure could be in order; however this now structured. measure must be carefully considered. I’d MTC–00029348 Thank you for the opportunity to comment, personally love to see Microsoft dissolved From: [email protected]@inetgw Scott Dallmeyer entirely for its support of proprietary PC To: Microsoft ATR Winnetka, IL hardware interfaces (see P.S.), but I realize Date: 1/28/02 11:10pm that this is both unrealistic and uncalled for. Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT MTC–00029345 However, a split between the operating ATTORNEY GENERAL , SIR From: Bob Bezona system division and the software (and Please be advised as a Microsoft share To: Microsoft ATR middleware) divisions would help to prevent holder and also user of the products, I am Date: 1/28/02 11:10pm future monopoly abuse; both companies urging the settlement of the law suit. I vote Subject: microsoft settlement would also be well placed in their respective to settle this suit knowing the provisions are 2219 Lummi Shore Road markets from the beginning. There would tough, reasonable, fair to all parties involved Bellingham, WA 98226 need to be restrictions on their interaction, in and goes beyond the findings of the Court of January 28, 2002 order to prevent what happened to the AT&T Appeals ruling. It is prudent in my opinion Attorney General John Ashcroft fragments (they eventually joined together to settle this suit now. US Department of Justice again) after that famous split. Sincerely a shareholder. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW This is not the only possible solution. Mary Ann Myers Washington, DC 20530 Others include requiring the disclosure of 4310 N. Camino de Carrillo Dear Mr. Ashcroft: some or all of Windows’’ source code, or that Tucson, Arizona 85750—6305 I encourage you to accept the recent anti- of Internet Explorer. These solutions could trust settlement between Microsoft and the even be combined in full or partial strength. MTC–00029350 United States Justice Department because it’s I am certainly no legal expert, however as From: Barbara Sanders good for Microsoft’s competitors and good for a software engineer and system administrator To: Microsoft Settlement those who purchase software. I feel I am qualified to make the statements Date: 1/28/02 11:06pm Microsoft has agreed to make the software I have put forth here. I hope that they will Subject: Microsoft Settlement market more competitive by providing the be of use and that the eventual decision will Barbara Sanders VerDate 11 RR 1, Box 50A-1 facts and put every things on the balanced designs. Think of the many millions of errors Terra Alta, WV 26764 (World Economic) before we make the biggest windows is getting rid of for current and January 28, 2002 mistake in this new World Economic. future developers of software... Microsoft Settlement Johannes Garcia Whenever building blocks are rewritten U.S. Department of Justice with new interfaces, previous interface(s) are Antitrust Division MTC–00029352 still available to let older designs work as 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW From: Carl C. Lochen building blocks change. This is true of COM+ Washington, DC 20530 To: Microsoft ATR and any of the API’s that come with Dear Microsoft Settlement: Date: 1/28/02 11:12pm Windows. It beats trying to design The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Subject: Microsoft Settlement applications to hook up to zillions of dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Carl Lochen applications not using support from the OS. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 30010 Rancho California Road The Internet building blocks Internet industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Apartment 124 technology built into Windows, assists wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Temecula, CA 92591–2952 applications using various Windows over. Consumers will indeed see competition January 28, 2002 technologies in communicating and sharing in the marketplace, rather than the Attorney General John Ashcroft data with each other over the Internet. This courtroom. And the investors who propel our U.S. Department of Justice degree of integration between applications/ economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW components is only possible by having these Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Washington, DC 20530–0001 technologies built into the platform they are federal government should not have broken Dear Mr. Ashcroft, running on. Internet Explorer built into up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, As an independent developer and Windows facilitates in building web companies like Microsoft can get back into supporter of Microsoft, I write you in regard browsers. Any developer can build their own the business of innovating and creating better to the recent Microsoft Settlement. After Web Browser with their own customized products for consumers, and not wasting three years of negotiations, it seems strange controls. In less than a day they can design valuable resources on litigation. Competition that there may even be more delays in the their own Web Browser that is equal in means creating better goods and offering implementation of this plan. The process was power to Internet Explorer. Just download superior services to consumers. With extremely well thought out and well the MFCIE project from Microsoft Developer government out of the business of stifling monitored throughout. Because of this, the Network (has been available a couple of progress and tying the hands of corporations, terms that were reached benefit all involved. years). In less than a day you implement consumers—rather than bureaucrats and As we go through these economically remaining Internet Explorer Functions judges—will once again pick the winners and stressful times, it is crucial that we support through the OLE/COM+ interface. In a matter losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the our technology at all levels. By holding up of days any organization can design their high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will this settlement, we take a backseat in the own Internet portals that access primarily be encouraged to create new and competitive global market. Our entire technology industry sites of their own choosing. products and technologies. needs to get back to business, and because of Documentation for developing software Thank you for this opportunity to share my the agreement, we are ready to do so. Let us Microsoft develops the functionality and the views. support our IT sector and allow the terms to building blocks needed for applications and Sincerely, speak for themselves, including anti- distributed components to interact with each Barbara A. Sanders retribution and retaliation acts, and the other on the Windows platform. Microsoft sharing of selected intellectual property. also provides Documentation and Developer MTC–00029351 Splitting up Microsoft information for all developers to take From: Johannes Garcia Specifically the non-Windows platform advantage of these features. Preventing To: Microsoft ATR community has attacked Microsoft for adding Microsoft from freely expanding these Date: 1/28/02 11:12pm to much functionality to its OS, and therefore features to provide the latest technologies, Subject: Microsoft Settlement stifling competition. They argue splitting up will damage the industry’s ability to develop Ladies & Gentlemen: Microsoft, would make it easier to compete comprehensive integrated software solutions We must continue to promote the best with Microsoft. This ignores the large amount for the Windows platform. Instead you will technology and give the opportunity to those of developers and companies that have made end up with incompatible proprietary who wants the freedom to innovate in all available more than 100 000 programs solutions and a less versatile Windows area of business and industries. Lets keep the available on the Windows platform. Splitting platform. courts and the politicians out of technology up Microsoft, will for them mean disrupting I urge you to support our economy at this especially in this critical time ‘‘The New the dynamics of developing cutting edge time, and help this settlement go through as World Economic’’. If AOL wants to continue technology for Windows. it stands. I thank you for your support. to played this role in promoting policy (and Windows Building blocks Sincerely, politics) over technology especially as they Splitting up Microsoft into pieces, will Carl Lochen have done in the last three years and create smaller companies developing cc: Representative Darrell Issa contributing in the impeding of new solutions/libraries that will not be included technology. Let us remember man is the in Windows and therefore be keeping secrets MTC–00029353 maker of his destiny and we are all guilty if from other independent developers who will From: John Cowhig allowed it to happen. Why should the have to develop their own incompatible To: Microsoft ATR American people be punished to pay for the solutions. Splitting up Microsoft, destroys Date: 1/28/02 11:12pm legal cost of this platform? Windows’s ability to offer solutions for Subject: Please be fair and don’t reward As we all know AOL has promised to open connecting together building blocks with the Microsoft for breaking the law. up their instant messenger as Microsoft has latest technology. Solutions that are now I believe the proposed settlement is not done, so that we all can have a platform to incorporated in Windows and documented punitive enough for past behavior nor will it build services for it, but has AOL complied? for everyone, will end up as proprietary be very effective to deter future strong arm NO. They say one thing and do another. solutions outside Windows. Making it less tactics by Microsoft. At this point, the Microsoft has done bad things in the past feasible for smaller developers to keep up company has assured itself a comfortable but is not the evil some people make it out with the latest in technology. distance ahead of all major competitors. to be. If you had studied them in some depth, Microsoft is giving us pre-tested building However, as the linux and Macintosh OS you’d understand that. blocks guaranteed to be interchangeable and community continue to try to gain market Microsoft has done great things for the compatible with each other. Developers using share, Microsoft has moved onto conquer United States Economic and World Economic these building blocks for their own designs, new frontiers. and their contribution to ordinary people is know that their programs will be compatible It is important for the DOJ to focus on the the real story. Let’s keep our head over water with combinations of future designs trying to future. The past damage is done, but and we should continue to review all the link up with or work together with their Microsoft continues to use tactics which act VerDate 11 against the spirit of the law. The masses will business and their operating system would illegal profits going untouched. I’m also continue to take the route Microsoft and AOL have become obsolete. What one perceives as worried that Microsoft will continue to harm plan for them. However, there are many product improvement and natural migration the high tech industry and the American innovative small companies and grass roots in an evolving market may be perceived by consumer by using anti-competitive bullying type programmers who would like to a competitor in a different manner. It is up tactics. This convicted monopolist must be continue to innovate. Please don’t allow to the consumer to decide which is which dealt stronger punishment for the good of the Microsoft to continue to place barriers in and not for the government to interfere and public. their way. make that determination for them. We are Sincerely, Thank you, advocates of the law, not software engineers, Rosemary Brubaker John Cowhig designers nor marketers. In a dynamic and 1502 Esbenshade Road MTC–00029354 fluid market as this case has shown, what is Lancaster, PA 17601 being argued about is history not current (408) 295–7374 From: Mayer Etkin events nor the current state of the software To: Microsoft ATR business. MTC–00029357 Date: 1/28/02 11:14pm Let’s hope the Judge has the courage to rule From: [email protected]@inetgw Subject: RE: My comments on the settlement. as suggested and let companies do their To: Microsoft ATR Please see attached 01–02–062 SEA battle with each other in the marketplace free Date: 1/28/02 11:15pm Clear Day of government and judicial impediments. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Capital Solutions, Inc. Have a great day. Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division Offices & Affiliates Worldwide Sincerely yours, 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Email [email protected] Capital Solutions,Inc. Washington, DC 20530–0001 Seattle Office: Mayer Etkin, President Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: 6719 Seward Park Avenue South Please put a stop to the economically- Seattle, WA. 98118 MTC–00029355 draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This Tel 206–723–9353 From: Dearallie has gone on long enough. Microsoft has Fax 206–723–9354 To: Microsoft ATR already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer January 28th 2002 Date: 1/28/02 11:14pm icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case WPI # CSI APT 001 Subject: Microsoft Settlement against Microsoft is little more than 01–02–062 SEA PHYLLIS CONANT ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft Confidential email of 2 pages to Microsoft.atr 65 Kirkland Avenue Apt. 202 competitors, with not a nickel going to those @usdoj.gov Kirkland, WA 98033–6442 USA supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the Ms. Renata Hesse Ph/FAX 425 828–9474 computer user. Trial Attorney January 28, 2002 This is just another method for states to get Antitrust Division Attorney General John Ashcroft free money, and a terrible precedent for the US Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice future, not only in terms of computer RE: Comments on the Microsoft Settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW technology, but all sorts of innovations in the Dear Ms. Hesse, Washington, DC 20530 most dynamic industry the world has ever I am writing this email to you in my Dear Mr. Ashcroft: seen. support of brining an end to this travesty of Now that the Department of Justice and Please put a stop to this travesty of justice justice. The United States Department of Microsoft have reached an agreement, why now. Thank you. Justice was suckered into persecuting can’t we just move on? It doesn’t make sense Sincerely, Microsoft under the guise of an antitrust that all of these states and companies are Bruce Davis action. jumping on the bandwagon. I think that they R. R. 2, Box 769–2 If I were the Judge and it were up to me, are all liberal opportunists that are looking Locust Grove, OK 74352–9626 I would make the following ruling. for a quick buck. What benefit does all of this * The court fines Microsoft the sum of have on the economy? Zero. MTC–00029358 $1.00 Microsoft has gone out of its way to settle From: Robert L. Jenkel * The court specifically precludes any this case, beyond what was required in the To: Microsoft Settlement plaintiff from using the case record in suit. They agreed to make available to the Date: 1/28/02 11:14pm support of their civil motions or claims competition, protocols implemented from Subject: Microsoft Settlement against Microsoft if any. parts of its operating system that are used to Robert L. Jenkel The purpose of antitrust jurisprudence is operate with their server. Microsoft also 587 E. Conestoga Circle not to enable a competitor to gain what they agreed to the creation of a technical Grand Junction, CO 81504–7004 what they otherwise fait to gain in an open committee that will monitor Microsoft’s January 28, 2002 and competitive marketplace nor is the compliance with the settlement and assist Microsoft Settlement purpose to enable the plaintiffs bar to file a with any disputes. U.S. Department of Justice bogus class action law suit and legally extort Now that Microsoft has agreed to such Antitrust Division $100 million dollars from a defendant generous terms, shouldn’t we agree to let the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW because it’s cheaper to settle then to litigate. settlement stand. Our Government has more Washington, DC 20530 * If it were up to me to rescind the pressing issues that they need to focus their Dear Microsoft Settlement: conclusions of law and findings of fact in this attention on. I trust that you will do the right The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ case, I would do so and dismiss the case. thing. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Finally, I accept and approve of the Thanks for your support in these efforts. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech settlement that the Federal Government and Sincerely, industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Microsoft have agreed to and I order the Phyllis Conant wasteful spending accompanying it, to be states that have not joined in it to accept it over. Consumers will indeed see competition and to drop all further litigation against MTC–00029356 in the marketplace, rather than the Microsoft. From: Rosemary Brubaker courtroom. And the investors who propel our My reasons for making the above rulings To: Microsoft ATR economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. are simple, go into any computer store and Date: 1/28/02 11:16pm Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the there are choices to be made. A consumer has Subject: Microsoft Settlement federal government should not have broken the opportunity to decided for themselves Judge Kollar-Kotally, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, exactly what their choice should be. If As a concerned citizen, I urge you to reject companies like Microsoft can get back into Microsoft had not taken the actions that they the proposed final judgment in the U.S. vs. the business of innovating and creating better had, they would have run the risk of Microsoft antitrust case. Microsoft is getting products for consumers, and not wasting becoming an also ran in the software off easy, with most of its many billions in valuable resources on litigation. Competition VerDate 11 means creating better goods and offering 1068 Badger Road judges—will once again pick the winners and superior services to consumers. With North Pole, AK 99705 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the government out of the business of stifling January 28, 2002 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will progress and tying the hands of corporations, Microsoft Settlement be encouraged to create new and competitive consumers—rather than bureaucrats and U.S. Department of Justice products and technologies. judges—will once again pick the winners and Antitrust Division Thank you for this opportunity to share my losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW views. high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, be encouraged to create new and competitive Dear Microsoft Settlement: Norman E. Lasko products and technologies. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029363 Thank you for this opportunity to share my dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a views. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech From: Leland Younkin Sincerely, industry. It is high time for this trial, and the To: Microsoft ATR Robert L. and Joyce Jenkel wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Date: 1/28/02 11:22pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement MTC–00029359 over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, rather than the Microsoft has developed their products for From: Chetan Prabhudesai courtroom. And the investors who propel our several years. It has produced programs and To: Microsoft ATR economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. systems that has greatly benefited millions of Date: 1/28/02 11:19pm Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the consumers, businesses and Subject: Microsoft Settlement federal government should not have broken governments.Without Microsoft’s Dear Mr. Ashcroft, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, innovations and market savvy we would still As a user of both Microsoft and Apple companies like Microsoft can get back into be in the dark ages of the computer world computer products, I have to say that I feel the business of innovating and creating better Now comes a horde of lawyers (like vultures) Apple Computer has the edge in technology. products for consumers, and not wasting seeking to gain large settlements for their The fact that Microsoft has a commanding valuable resources on litigation. Competition benefit. I am convinced that they are not lead over Apple can be attributed to means creating better goods and offering acting to benefit consumers. Just for their own greed Let us put this whole case to rest Microsoft’s superior marketing. Promoting superior services to consumers. With and let Microsoft continue to be innovative one’s product has never been illegal before, government out of the business of stifling and produce their superior products for all and definitely should not be now. progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers. However, as I write this, I sit surrounded consumers—rather than bureaucrats and Sincerely; by Microsoft products: Windows, Internet judges—will once again pick the winners and Leland A. Younkin Explorer, MSN Messenger, etc. I am typing losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the 335 Glendora Circle this message on MSN Hotmail. Microsoft high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Danville, CA 04526–3912 does have competitors in all of its business be encouraged to create new and competitive Email address BEONESEVEN@ segments, but by packaging its inferior products and technologies. products together, it can make its software worldnet.att.net Thank you for this opportunity to share my bundles seem superior to these competitors. views. MTC–00029364 My father owns stock in Microsoft, yet I Sincerely, still do not fully support the company. It may From: [email protected]@inetgw Sharon I. Rutland not have committed a physical crime like To: Microsoft ATR murder, but it has damaged America’s MTC–00029362 Date: 1/28/02 11:23pm economy by not allowing free trade. Subject: MICROSOFT JUDGEMENT From: Norman Lasko SEE ATTACHED But perhaps economic crimes are not as To: Microsoft Settlement bad as we think. Most companies recover MTC–00029364_0001 Date: 1/28/02 11:17pm 2010 Crestwood Drive from recessions, wars, etc. Subject: Microsoft Settlement In my opinion, the only solution to the Richmond, Texas 77469 Norman Lasko Microsoft case is to stop it from bundling January 8, 2002 13400 Lakeview Dr. N software. We cannot let Microsoft off too Attorney General John Ashcroft Omaha, AR 72662 easily, but we should not punish it too hard. US Department of Justice January 28, 2002 Terrorism is a far more important topic for 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft Settlement the Supreme Court right now than a company Washington, DC 20530 U.S. Department of Justice that supposedly stifled innovation. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Antitrust Division Sincerely, I am happy to hear that the Department of 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Chetan Prabhudesai, 15 Justice is ending its three-year antitrust Washington, DC 20530 lawsuit against Microsoft with a strong and MTC–00029360 Dear Microsoft Settlement: binding agreement. This costly affair should From: [email protected]@inetgw The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ have been ended a long time before this. To: Microsoft ATR dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Microsoft did not get off easy. The Date: 1/28/02 11:21pm serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech settlement was arrived at after extensive Subject: Microsoft Settlement. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the negotiations with a court-appointed I think the settlement with Microsoft is full wasteful spending accompanying it, to be mediator. The company agreed to terms that and fair. At no time in history have over. Consumers will indeed see competition extend well beyond the products and consumers had access to such full-featured in the marketplace, rather than the procedures that were actually at issue in the software at such low cost. I have reviewed courtroom. And the investors who propel our suit- for the sake of wrapping up the suit. the settlement and it seems to protect the economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. The agreement requires Microsoft to public interest, while limiting Microsoft’s Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the document and disclose, for use by its actions in the future. It also seems to go federal government should not have broken competitors, various interfaces that are beyond the original case, evidencing up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, internal to Windows’’ operating system Microsoft’s good faith in the matter. companies like Microsoft can get back into products that are used to communicate Rebecca Ward the business of innovating and creating better directly with the basic Windows system. products for consumers, and not wasting Microsoft has also agreed not to retaliate MTC–00029361 valuable resources on litigation. Competition against software or hardware developers who From: Sharon Rutland means creating better goods and offering develop or promote software that competes To: Microsoft Settlement superior services to consumers. With with Windows or that runs on software that Date: 1/28/02 11:17pm government out of the business of stifling competes with Windows. Subject: Microsoft Settlement progress and tying the hands of corporations, Microsoft has been distracted for long Sharon Rutland consumers—rather than bureaucrats and enough. This agreement will very much VerDate 11 benefit its competitors. I do not believe any Subject: Microsoft Settlement Java (attempted hijack of the Sun standard) more litigation beyond this settlement is It was unclear whether the deadline for ??% necessary. submission was midnight on 27 January or News—MSNBC (CNN, Fox, others) #3 Sincerely, midnight on January 28, so please accept this eGreeting Cards MSN#4 Janey Schumacher submission. The following is my opinion and Expedia Travel #2 cc: Representative Tom DeLay understanding of Microsoft based upon over Webmail Hotmail Tied #1 20 years of experience with computers and MTC–00029365 Finance MSMoney#5 electronics. I am not affiliated with any Housing MSN Home Advisor #4 From: Douglas Schmutz Microsoft competitor or free competition PC Games AgeOfEmpires #2 To: Microsoft Settlement group. Microsoft has significantly impacted As one can see, Microsoft has way too Date: 1/28/02 11:19pm my choices and capabilities in a much control of too much of our computing/ Subject: Microsoft Settlement TREMENDOUSLY negative way. The impact electronics-related way of life. There are also Douglas Schmutz includes monetary, quality of life, and numerous other areas in which Microsoft has 9404 Oakland AVe NE purchasing freedom. Due to their anti- a least some interest and which we are not Albuquerque, NM 87122–3806 competitive practices, I have been forced into yet even aware of. EVERYONE knows that January 28, 2002 using an inferior, OVERLY EXPENSIVE, and Microsoft Settlement VERY COMPLEX product in my workplace once Microsoft decides they want to U.S. Department of Justice and where unavoidable, at home. dominate an area, there are few companies IN Antitrust Division Microsoft via either restrictive licensing THE WORLD which will be able to compete 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW and/or their initially ‘‘free’’ products coerces with them. This is due to NOT JUST THEIR Washington, DC 20530 enough people using their product that they PRACTICES, but is also due to their ABILITY Dear Microsoft Settlement: can later drive the market. People then must and willingness to unethically (and illegally) This is just a note to say that I feel the either use the Microsoft product or get left leverage areas which they already have currently contemplated settlement with out of significant capabilities which control. Microsoft is a miscarriage of justice. The Microsoft did not initially create, but which Please break Microsoft’s applications company has been and continues to be guilty they have since taken over via either driving development from their operating system of monopolistic business practices and is the real innovator out of business, purchasing development. I believe this is the ONLY largely responsible for a great amount of the the real innovator (or a competitor), or thing that can prevent Microsoft from insecurity of the WEB. The only reason they restrictive licensing. They have the money to continued restriction of competition. I have a fairly productive office suite is do any of the three and have clearly done all strongly look forward to purchasing freedom because they had to compete with of them more times than any other company and use of alternate operating systems and WordPerfect. They did not innovate, it was in history. With only a few exceptions, applications, both at home and at work. WordPerfect that was the innovator, but MICROSOFT IS NOT AN INNOVATOR AND Thanks, because Microsoft controlled the operating NEVER HAS BEEN. n Bill Eller system and could do it. they kept secrets that Here are some (not exhaustive) examples of Greenville, TX allowed them to make their product appear Microsoft’s successes or at least attempts to to perform better and made WordPerfect have own or control nearly all aspects of the MTC–00029368 incompatibility problems. They finally computer/electronics industry (percentages From: [email protected]@inetgw practically ruined WordPerfect by dropping or rankings are my guess and better numbers To: Microsoft ATR prices and forcing computers to bundle their should be easily obtained and will likely be Date: 1/28/02 11:24pm products instead of WordPerfect. The result large or increasing): Subject: Microsoft Settlement is that now, they can (and do) raise the prices Operating System (have nearly killed Apple) My comments are attached. and of their products since the competition 60% Deborah Gouge is almost nonexistent and they ship buggy Word Processing (have nearly killed MTC–00029368—0001 software, full of security holes. I think it is Wordperfect, killed Wordstar and others) 522 Woodland Road in the interest of the consumer and the 80% Sewickley, Pennsylvania 15143 industry to place huge monetary penalties on Spreadsheets (killed Lotus, I7...) 80% January 28, 2002 the company and that money be distributed Presentation 80% Attorney General John Ashcroft to software companies that used to compete Project Management (hurt FastTrack) 80% US Department of Justice so they can get back in business. Also they DB (measurable impact to Oracle, Sybase) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW should be banned from producing software 40% Washington, DC 20530 applications that run under Windows, so that Browser (have nearly killed Netscape, killed Dear Mr. Ashcroft: they would have no interest in undermining Mosaic) 79% This is in regard to the settlement that has the performance of thirdparty vendors. Audio Player (will hurt RealPlayer, been reached in the government’s three- year Sincerely, antitrust case against Microsoft. I want to let Doug Schmutz Quicktime) ??% Movie Editor (intent to hurt iMovie and Final you know that I support the settlement that MTC–00029366 Cut Pro) ??% has been reached by the parties involved. From: robert shenk Network-MSN (hurt AOL, others) 30% The continued pursuit of this case would be To: Microsoft ATR Information—.NET, Passport ??% a waste of time, money, and human Date: 1/28/02 11:23pm Servers (significant impact to Solaris, IBM, resources. Microsoft will be making a number Subject: Microsoft Settlement and HP Unix Servers) ??% of specific changes due to the settlement. For Not only does the agreement lack effective PDA Pocket PC OS (significant impact to instance, Microsoft has agreed to allow enforcement, but it seriously fails to address PalmOS vendors) 45% computer makers to remove the means by past, present, and future anticompetetive Gaming—XBOX (targets are Playstation, which consumers access various features of practices. We should also not reward Nintendo, others) ??% Windows, Windows Messenger, Microsoft’s companies that embrace standards for the Satellite TV—Ultimate TV (target TiVo) ??% Internet Explorer, and Windows Media purpose of perverting them. The end result SW Development.—VisualBasic, C++, Classes Player. is that the settlement preserves Microsoft’s (one area which they helped originate)??% Also, the company has agreed to document status quo. As a Senior Software Engineer I Web Development.—Frontpage ??% and disclose various interfaces that are find this rather frightening. PIMs—Entourage (target Now-Up-To-Date internal to Windows’’ operating system Robert Shenk and others) ??% products for use by its competitors. I ask that Encyclopedia—Expedia (target Groliers, the government accept the settlement, and MTC–00029367 others) ??% stop continued litigation against Microsoft. From: Bill E-Mail SW—Outlook (killed Quickmail, hurt Sincerely, To: Microsoft ATR Lotus) ??% Deborah Gouge Date: 1/28/02 10:51pm Design—bought Visio ??% cc: Senator Rick Santorum VerDate 11 MTC–00029369 U.S. Department of Justice new and competitive products and From: Hamachek,Don Antitrust Division technologies. To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my Date: 1/28/02 11:20pm Washington, DC 20530 views. Subject: MicroSoft Settlement Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, 12360 Edenwilde Drive The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Karen E. Martin dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Roswell, GA 30075 MTC–00029374 January 25, 2002 serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Attorney General John Ashcroft industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Joseph Wojtowicz US Department of Justice wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft Settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 11:22pm Washington, DC 20530 in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Mr. Ashcroft: courtroom. And the investors who propel our Joseph Wojtowicz I would like to see the Microsoft settlement economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 1390 Northfield Drive agreement finalized. The litigation has Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Mineral Ridge, OH 44440–9420 dragged on for long enough, to the detriment federal government should not have broken January 28, 2002 of the entire technology industry. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Microsoft Settlement I work in the tech industry as a consultant companies like Microsoft can get back into U.S. Department of Justice for Cerner Company. I have witnessed the business of innovating and creating better Antitrust Division firsthand how this case has negatively products for consumers, and not wasting 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW affected the technology world. Settling the valuable resources on litigation. Competition Washington, DC 20530 case is in the best interest of everyone. means creating better goods and offering Dear Microsoft Settlement: The terms of the settlement agreement are superior services to consumers. With The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ reasonable. Microsoft has agreed to license government out of the business of stifling dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Windows to the 20 largest computer progress and tying the hands of corporations, serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech companies at the same price. They have also consumers—rather than bureaucrats and industry. It is high time for this trial, and the agreed not to retaliate against those who judges—will once again pick the winners and wasteful spending accompanying it, to be promote or develop software that competes losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the over. Consumers will indeed see competition with Windows. These types of concessions high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will in the marketplace, rather than the will help allay fears of anticompetitive be encouraged to create new and competitive courtroom. And the investors who propel our business practices. products and technologies. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. I appreciate your efforts at concluding this Thank you for this opportunity to share my Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the litigation. Thank you for your consideration views. federal government should not have broken of my comments regarding this issue. Sincerely, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Sincerely, Thomas Keplar companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and creating better Electronically signed MTC–00029373 Donald Hamachek products for consumers, and not wasting From: Karen Martin valuable resources on litigation. MTC–00029370 To: Microsoft Settlement Competition means creating better goods From: Kattner Date: 1/28/02 11:22pm and offering superior services to consumers. To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement With government out of the business of Date: 1/28/02 11:24pm Karen Martin stifling progress and tying the hands of Subject: Microsoft Settlement 897 S. Washington PMB 227 corporations, consumers—rather than Please accept settlement upon which you Holland, MI 49423 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick have requested public input. January 28, 2002 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Microsoft Settlement the reins off the high-tech industry, more MTC–00029371 U.S. Department of Justice entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create From: Abe Lum Antitrust Division new and competitive products and To: Microsoft ATR 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW technologies. Date: 1/28/02 11:25pm Washington, DC 20530 Thank you for this opportunity to share my Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Microsoft Settlement: views. I was pleased to hear that the Department The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Sincerely, of Justice and a number of states have made dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Joseph T. Wojtowicz efforts at settlingthe Microsoft antitrust case. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00029375 I am writing today to urge the court to industry. It is high time for this trial, and the approve the settlement agreement. Nothing wasteful spending accompanying it, to be From: Harry Chandler can be gained by continuing litigation in this over. Consumers will indeed see competition To: Microsoft Settlement case. Microsoft has been more than fair in in the marketplace, rather than the Date: 1/28/02 11:22pm agreeing with changing some of their courtroom. And the investors who propel our Subject: Microsoft Settlement practices. I hope to see the agreements economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Harry Chandler finalzed in the near future. I thank you for Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the 1109 Dixon Dr. your time and attention. federal government should not have broken Chula Vista, CA 91911–3304 Abe Lum up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, January 28, 2002 5004–29th So. companies like Microsoft can get back into Microsoft Settlement Seattle Wash 98108 the business of innovating and creating better U.S. Department of Justice products for consumers, and not wasting Antitrust Division MTC–00029372 valuable resources on litigation. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW From: Thomas Keplar Competition means creating better goods Washington, DC 20530 To: Microsoft Settlement and offering superior services to consumers. Dear Microsoft Settlement: Date: 1/28/02 11:21pm With government out of the business of The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Subject: Microsoft Settlement stifling progress and tying the hands of dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Thomas Keplar corporations, consumers—rather than serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 2710 Emmet Dr. bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Logansport, IN 46947 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With wasteful spending accompanying it, to be January 28, 2002 the reins off the high-tech industry, more over. Consumers will indeed see competition Microsoft Settlement entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create in the marketplace, rather than the VerDate 11 courtroom. And the investors who propel our Subject: Fwd: Attorney General John by which all other computer companies were economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Ashcroft Letter measured. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the 349 Gardiners Avenue At the last minute, the Feds broke up the federal government should not have broken Levittown, NY 11756–3701 phone company. Today, our computers are up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, January 26, 2002 world-class and our patchwork quilt phone companies like Microsoft can get back into Attorney General John Ashcroft system is on par with Afghanistan. the business of innovating and creating better 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW The Federal government is now trying to products for consumers, and not wasting Washington, DC 20530–0001 destroy Microsoft, probably using the same valuable resources on litigation. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: legal blunderbusses, the same hapless but Competition means creating better goods As a retired accountant who has been deep-pocketed taxpayers, and for the same and offering superior services to consumers. following the Microsoft antitrust case, I’m misguided reasons: it’s too big, it’s a With government out of the business of still trying to come to terms with the fact that monopoly, they make too much money, stifle stifling progress and tying the hands of it was determined that Microsoft was acting competition... et cetera, et cetera. corporations, consumers—rather than as a monopoly. How has the public been hurt Do you folks not learn from past screw- bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick by the practices of Microsoft? I remember ups? the winners and losers on Wall Street. With when the price of computers and software As a professional software engineer, let me the reins off the high-tech industry, more was prohibitive for the consumer. Because of explain Windows to you. Windows is typing. entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Bill Gates’’ technical and business acumen, Nothing else is involved. No natural new and competitive products and DOS standardized and unified computer resources were consumed, no wildlife was technologies. systems, and Windows popularized the endangered, no wetlands were compromised, Thank you for this opportunity to share my graphical user interface, dramatically and no child labor laws were violated views. increasing user-friendliness and computer (although I’ve known some pretty immature Sincerely, literacy. Thanks in large part to these teckkies in my day!) A bunch of ill clad, anti- Harry C. Chandler Jr. developments; computers are now social, frequently unwashed engineers of commonplace and cheap, reliable and easy to dubious morals and execrable personal MTC–00029376 use, and versatile and useful in all kinds of habits, gather in consort... and they type. From: Albert Bryson ways. And the public buys it. If you don’t like it, To: Microsoft Settlement Now that a settlement has been reached, don’t buy it. Are you with me? Date: 1/28/02 11:23pm there is now the threat of more litigation? It’s A few years ago, some twit at the Subject: Microsoft Settlement a desperation move on the part of Microsoft’s Department of Justice crowed about having Albert Bryson competition. Since they lack the knowledge created a ‘‘level playing field’’ with respect P.O. Box 365 and the fortitude to compete in the market, to Microsoft. (Sports metaphors are very Cochranville, PA 19330–0365 they’re suing instead. And the attorney much in vogue at the DOJ.) January 28, 2002 generals of the nine states that want The next day there was great rejoicing in Microsoft Settlement increased litigation are only trying to further the streets of Bonn, New Delhi, Tokyo, U.S. Department of Justice their careers by getting more money for their Taipei, and London. They just *love* level Antitrust Division respective states. This is grossly unfair. playing fields! 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft has gone out of its way to It is the nature of the computer business Washington, DC 20530 cooperate even beyond what was expected. that one company must dominate and set the Dear Microsoft Settlement: What other company has agreed to license its standards that define the industry. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ operating system to the 20 largest computer Previously, that company was IBM; today, it dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a companies on identical terms, conditions and is Microsoft. If you damage Microsoft, you serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech price? will foment an unimaginable Tower of Babel industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Microsoft did. How many companies have chaos. Do you have any idea of the trillions wasteful spending accompanying it, to be agreed to disclose various internal interfaces of dollars of American wealth that have been over. Consumers will indeed see competition of their operating system to the competition? created and leveraged by Microsoft’s in the marketplace, rather than the Microsoft did. I guess that’s not enough?! craftsmanship? Where would Mike Dell be? courtroom. And the investors who propel our This lawsuit has got to stop. It has dragged Intel? Seagate, Maxtor, and Western Digital, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. on for over three years and may take another if there were no Windows? How many Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the three years to resolve. I’m afraid for what this printers do you think HP would sell if there federal government should not have broken could do to the economy if it is allowed to were no PCs to plug into? The Internet would up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, continue. More poor people have moved up revert to what it once was: an academic play- companies like Microsoft can get back into the ranks toward middle and upper middle toy. the business of innovating and creating better class because of Bill Gates. have full faith in Someday, the natural evolutionary forces products for consumers, and not wasting Microsoft’s ability to come back on top if this of technology will cause Microsoft to be set valuable resources on litigation. litigation ends quickly. Otherwise, if the aside into an honored, hallowed place in Competition means creating better goods company is allowed to be destroyed, it will industrial fossil history, and to a well- and offering superior services to consumers. have devastating effects on this already deserved rest. My teckkie brethren and I will With government out of the business of fragile economy. then create a new enterprise. stifling progress and tying the hands of Sincerely, Sadly, no one in government has any corporations, consumers—rather than Andrew Calapai understanding in this arena except to meddle bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick and create unimaginable mischief. MTC–00029378 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Please do us all a favor and just go away. the reins off the high-tech industry, more From: Walt Birdsall Walt Birdsall entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create To: Microsoft ATR Retired software engineer new and competitive products and Date: 1/28/02 11:29pm MTC–00029379 technologies. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Thank you for this opportunity to share my From 1979 to 1982, the Federal From: ALBERT M. JACHENS views. government squandered millions of taxpayer To: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, money trying to destroy one of the finest Date: 1/28/02 11:25pm AlbertvBryson companies the American industrial genius Subject: Microsoft Settlement has ever produced: International Business ALBERT M. JACHENS MTC–00029377 Machines, commonly known as IBM. With its 4492 W. SIERRA From: [email protected]@inetgw reputation for boat-anchor reliable hardware FRRESNO, CA 93722–2916 To: Microsoft ATR and its legendary and meticulous obsession January 28, 2002 Date: 1/28/02 11:27pm with customer service, IBM was the standard Microsoft Settlement VerDate 11 U.S. Department of Justice To: Microsoft Settlement products for consumers, and not wasting Antitrust Division Date: 1/28/02 11:24pm valuable resources on litigation. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: Microsoft Settlement Competition means creating better goods Washington, DC 20530 Gail Hemmerich and offering superior services to consumers. Dear Microsoft Settlement: 4464 Mosquito Lake Road With government out of the business of The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Deming, Wa 98244 stifling progress and tying the hands of dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a January 28, 2002 corporations, consumers—rather than serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Microsoft Settlement bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick industry. U.S. Department of Justice the winners and losers on Wall Street. With It is high time for this trial, and the Antitrust Division the reins off the high-tech industry, more wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create over. Consumers will indeed see competition Washington, DC 20530 new and competitive products and in the marketplace, rather than the Dear Microsoft Settlement: technologies. courtroom. And the investors who propel our The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ It should also be noted that the explosive economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a growth in the host count on the Internet, the Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech boom in new technology and innovative new federal government should not have broken industry. business models (such as the one from which up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, It is high time for this trial, and the I am sending this message) were made companies like Microsoft can get back into wasteful spending accompanying it, to be possible by Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, not the business of innovating and creating better over. Consumers will indeed see competition Netscape. The Internet was a fledgling, hard- products for consumers, and not wasting in the marketplace, rather than the to-use network closed to the ‘‘average valuable resources on litigation. courtroom. And the investors who propel our American’’ before Microsoft included I.E. in Competition means creating better goods economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Windows 95. It was nothing more than a and offering superior services to consumers. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the hobbyists pastime until then. With government out of the business of federal government should not have broken Thank you for this opportunity to share my stifling progress and tying the hands of up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, views. corporations, consumers—rather than companies like Microsoft can get back into Sincerely, bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick the business of innovating and creating better Jeff Jarrard products for consumers, and not wasting the winners and losers on Wall Street. With MTC–00029383 the reins off the high-tech industry, more valuable resources on litigation. entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Competition means creating better goods From: George Gribben new and competitive products and and offering superior services to consumers. To: Microsoft Settlement technologies. With government out of the business of Date: 1/28/02 11:27pm Thank you for this opportunity to share my stifling progress and tying the hands of Subject: Microsoft Settlement views. corporations, consumers—rather than George Gribben Sincerely, bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick 580 Highland Hills Dr. ALBERT M. JACHENS the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Howard, OH 43028 the reins off the high-tech industry, more January 28, 2002 MTC–00029380 entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw new and competitive products and U.S. Department of Justice To: Microsoft ATR technologies. Antitrust Division Date: 1/28/02 11:29pm Thank you for this opportunity to share my 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: Microsoft DOJ Settlement views. Washington, DC 20530 8426 Academy Street Sincerely, Dear Microsoft Settlement: Houston, Texas 77025 Gail Hemmerich The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ January 28, 2002 dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a MTC–00029382 Attorney General John Ashcroft serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech US Department of Justice From: Jeff Jarrard industry. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft Settlement It is high time for this trial, and the Washington, DC 20530 Date: 1/28/02 11:25pm wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Subject: Microsoft Settlement over. Consumers will indeed see competition I am writing to say that I am pleased that Jeff Jarrard in the marketplace, rather than the the Justice Department and Microsoft have 601 S Washington St. Apt. 407 courtroom. And the investors who propel our finally agreed upon a settlement. Seattle, WA 98104 economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Microsoft’s philosophy of a computer in January 28, 2002 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the every home with everyone having access to Microsoft Settlement federal government should not have broken the Internet at a reasonable price has made U.S. Department of Justice up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, this country the most computer literate in the Antitrust Division companies like Microsoft can get back into world. I understand this settlement will force 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW the business of innovating and creating better Microsoft to make a number of specific Washington, DC 20530 products for consumers, and not wasting changes to its products and business Dear Microsoft Settlement: valuable resources on litigation. practices. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Competition means creating better goods I only hope that this ‘‘government’’ control dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a and offering superior services to consumers. will not stifle Microsoft from continuing to serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech With government out of the business of develop new products at reasonable prices industry. stifling progress and tying the hands of and advancing computer communication and It is high time for this trial, and the corporations, consumers—rather than usage. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Sincerely, over. Consumers will indeed see competition the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Rex Morris in the marketplace, rather than the the reins off the high-tech industry, more 8426 Academy St. courtroom. And the investors who propel our entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Houston, Tx 77025 economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. new and competitive products and 713–592–6549 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the technologies. [email protected] federal government should not have broken Thank you for this opportunity to share my up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, views. MTC–00029381 companies like Microsoft can get back into Sincerely, From: Gail Hemmerich the business of innovating and creating better George A. Gribben, Jr. VerDate 11 MTC–00029384 I am writing to tell you what I think of the 1527 S.E. Schiller St. From: Gayle Drake Microsoft Case. This case is certainly not Poreland, Or 97202 To: Microsoft Settlement serving the public interest; it wasn’t even January 28, 2002 Date: 1/28/02 11:26pm brought on by the public. It was brought on Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement because of their competitors’’ influence and U.S. Department of Justice Gayle Drake is now being paid for with tax money. This Antitrust Division 10211 Old Fort Rd. case is a ridiculous waste of tax money. Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Klamath Falls, OR 97601 People are suing Microsoft because they can’t Washington, DC 20530 January 28, 2002 compete. I think there is something wrong Dear Microsoft Settlement: Microsoft Settlement when the law allows that. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ U.S. Department of Justice Microsoft is passing on their technology dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Antitrust Division secrets to their competitors and has even serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Pennsylvania Avenue, NW promised not to retaliate when competitors industry. Washington, DC 20530 create products from that technology that It is high time for this trial, and the Dear Microsoft Settlement: would compete with Microsoft. If that’s not wasteful spending accompanying it, to be The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ fair, then I don’t see what would be. Breaking over. Consumers will indeed see competition dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a up the company would be disastrous to our in the marketplace, rather than the serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech country’s economy. courtroom. And the investors who propel our industry. This settlement is long past due and needs economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. It is high time for this trial, and the to be accepted immediately. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Accepting this settlement is the right way federal government should not have broken over. Consumers will indeed see competition to end this mess. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, in the marketplace, rather than the Thank you for your time. companies like Microsoft can get back into courtroom. And the investors who propel our Sincerely, the business of innovating and creating better economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Wayne Quinton products for consumers, and not wasting Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the The Highlands valuable resources on litigation. federal government should not have broken Seattle, WA 98177 Competition means creating better goods up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, and offering superior services to consumers. MTC–00029389 companies like Microsoft can get back into With government out of the business of the business of innovating and creating better From: Karen Horovitz stifling progress and tying the hands of products for consumers, and not wasting To: Microsoft ATR,06karenh@ corporations, consumers—rather than valuable resources on litigation. students.harker.org@inetgw,... bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Competition means creating better goods Date: 1/28/02 11:35pm the winners and losers on Wall Street. With and offering superior services to consumers. Karen Horovitz the reins off the high-tech industry, more With government out of the business of Period 2 entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create stifling progress and tying the hands of 1/28/01 new and competitive products and corporations, consumers—rather than To Whoever it may concern- technologies. bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick I think that the government should accept Thank you for this opportunity to share my the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the settlement from Microsoft. Although views. the reins off the high-tech industry, more Microsoft is a monopoly, in our history there Sincerely, entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create have been many other monopolies. One of Joe Beyer them, Rockafeller’s oil monopoly, had given new and competitive products and MTC–00029391 technologies. him huge profits. Rockafeller had gotten rich Thank you for this opportunity to share my on a trust fund. Now the new issue is From: [email protected]@inetgw views. Netscape vs Internet Explorer. To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, AOL Time Warner is suing Microsoft Date: 1/28/02 11:34pm Gayle Drake because they claim that they have been Subject: Microsoft Settlement bundling their software with Internet January 28, 2002 MTC–00029385 Explorer browser and that this has reduced Attorney General John Ashcroft From: John Hughes the internet market share for Netscape. US Department of Justice To: Microsoft ATR Well I don?t think Netscape should be 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Date: 1/28/02 11:32pm blaming Microsoft when they are actually the Washington, DC 20530 Subject: Microsoft Settlement ones who are bundling. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am against the current settlement between They bundle their product with both the The intention of this letter is so that I may the justice department and the nine states hardware and software, making the buyer express my feelings about the antitrust suit with Microsoft. As a consumer of computer actually get two things in one. against Microsoft, and the settlement that products I feel that Microsoft has abused it’s Not only this, but AOL Time Warner is a was reached last November that ended that monopoly power and will continue to do so. huge company. They own many sub- suit. The Department of Justice and Microsoft As a consumer I feel that I should be allowed companies. These companies include Warner agreed to terms on a proposed settlement, choices of the features that my operating Bros., AOL, and many other entertainment and I support that proposition. system on my computer should have. companies. Because of this, they probably are I do believe however, that Microsoft should Sincerely, just suing Microsoft because they want to be have been left alone in the first place. There John Hughes the biggest company. Microsoft spokesperson are many other corporations that should have [email protected] Jim Desler says, ?AOL Time Warner has been received the attention from the government using the political and legal systems to that Microsoft did. There are terms in the MTC–00029387 compete against Microsoft for years?? This settlement that go a little far, especially the From: Wayne Quinton just shows that they sued Microsoft to ones that force Microsoft to turn over their To: Microsoft ATR compete against Microsoft. Microsoft may not intellectual property to competitors. They Date: 1/28/02 11:32pm be the only ones violating the antitrust act. will be documenting various interfaces and Subject: Microsoft Settlment source code that is internal to the Windows’’ January 23, 2002 MTC–00029390 operating system, and giving that to their Attorney General John Ashcroft From: Joseph Beyer competitors. This is a travesty of justice. US Department of Justice, To: Microsoft Settlement The antitrust suit against Microsoft was Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Date: 1/28/02 11:29pm uncalled for, but I guess that the settlement Washington, DC 20530–0001 Subject: Microsoft Settlement is the best thing that could have happened. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Joseph Beyer It could have been much worse. I support the VerDate 11 settlement because I do not wish to see any Asheville, NC 28805–9796 Troy, MI 48083–5784 further legal action taken against Microsoft. January 23, 2002 This entire law suit was brought about Attorney General John Ashcroft MTC–00029396 because of sour grapes on the part of a few US Department of Justice From: F. John Leonard people, namely Sunmicro system’s CEO. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft Settlement With his connections with a few Senators, Washington, DC 20530–0001 Date: 1/28/02 11:33pm namely Warren Hatch from Utah. He was Dear Mr. Ashcroft: After three long years, Subject: Microsoft Settlement able to get a senate hearing, and the rest is the Department of Justice and Microsoft have F. John Leonard history. reached an agreement ending the antitrust 69 Farr Lane Gosh darn it, the Federal Government can suit brought against Microsoft. I want to give Elmira,, NY 14903–7907 do us a great deal more good by going after my support to this settlement and ask that January 28, 2002 such corporations as big oil. Look at what you do also. Microsoft Settlement they are doing with the price of oil, at this Microsoft has been more than fair in U.S. Department of Justice very moment, with market control of prices dealing with this issue. Microsoft has agreed Antitrust Division almost varying by zip code. And they talk of to work with companies to achieve a greater 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Bill gouging the public for his Windows degree of reliability with regard to their Washington, DC 20530 programs and getting by with it due to a lack networking software; Microsoft has agreed to Dear Microsoft Settlement: of competition— please, give me a break. grant computer makers license to configure The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Sincerely, Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Harry Riddle software. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech P.O. Box 88 The list goes on and on. Microsoft and the industry. No. Lakewood, WA 98259 Department of Justice obviously want to put It is high time for this trial, and the CC:[email protected]@inetgw this case behind us. Further litigation will wasteful spending accompanying it, to be only be counterproductive. over. Consumers will indeed see competition MTC–00029392 Give your support to this agreement. Thank in the marketplace, rather than the From: David Little you. courtroom. And the investors who propel our To: microsoft.atr Sincerely, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Date: 1/28/02 11:34pm Virginia Stone Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comment federal government should not have broken To: Renata B. Hesse MTC–00029394 up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Antitrust Division From: Sandy Graham companies like Microsoft can get back into U.S. Department of Justice To: Microsoft ATR the business of innovating and creating better 601 D Street NW Date: 1/28/02 11:36pm products for consumers, and not wasting Suite 1200 Subject: Microsoft Settlement valuable resources on litigation. Washington, DC 20530–0001 January 28, 2002 Competition means creating better goods 28 January 2002 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: and offering superior services to consumers. Ms. Hesse, I am writing to express my support in the With government out of the business of This letter presents my comments to the recent settlement between Microsoft and the stifling progress and tying the hands of Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft federal government. I sincerely hope that no corporations, consumers—rather than Settlement. I object to the PFJ on the further litigation is being pursued at the bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick following grounds: federal level. the winners and losers on Wall Street. With -It fails to require the release of the Office It is my opinion that any further action the reins off the high-tech industry, more file formats. As I IT professional I’ve seen the would be completely unnecessary. Saundra entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create lack of alternative Offices packages as a key Graham [email protected] new and competitive products and source of the Microsoft’s hold on the desktop technologies. since the ability in exchange documents in MTC–00029395 Thank you for this opportunity to share my binary form is a key to collaboration both From: [email protected]@inetgw views. inside and outside the organization. To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, -It fails to address Enterprise License Date: 1/28/02 11:34pm Mr. F. John Leonard Agreements. Microsoft’s licensing of both the Subject: Microsoft Settlement OS’s and Office require payment for all Ms. Renata B. Hesse, MTC–00029397 computers. As computers are scrapped due to Antitrust Division From: John Moon age the licenses can’t be moved the newer 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 To: Microsoft ATR machines since OEM’s require an OS to be Washington, DC 20530–0001 Date: 1/28/02 11:38pm installed. Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: Subject: Microsoft Settlement -It fails to provide an effective enforcement Please put a stop to the economically- Attorney General John Ashcroft mechanism. Microsoft has shown its draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This US Department of Justice willingness to circumvent agreements in the has gone on long enough. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW past. Without a strong enforcement Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Washington, DC 20530 mechanism I believe they will do so again. Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the Dear Mr. Ashcroft: There have been several lists of issues fact is, this case against Microsoft is little I recently learned the federal government publish but these are the ones I consider the more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other and Microsoft settled their antitrust lawsuit. most important. Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel As the CTO of a custom software applications Thank you for the opportunity to comment. going to those supposedly harmed by firm utilizing Microsoft technology, I would David H. Little, Jr. Microsoft: the computer user. like to express my satisfaction with the PO Box 90111 This is just another method for states to get settlement of this matter out of court. Raleigh, NC 27675 free money, and a terrible precedent for the Continued litigation on this matter would [email protected] future, not only in terms of computer not be productive and would only serve to technology, but all sorts of innovations in the make the lawyers rich at the expense of MTC–00029393 most dynamic industry the world has ever innovation, among other things. That is why From: [email protected]@inetgw seen. Microsoft wants to settle—not to mention it To: Microsoft ATR Please put a stop to this travesty of justice has been forced to spend untold millions on Date: 1/28/02 11:34pm now. Thank you. defending itself for the past three years. Subject: microsoft Sincerely, Settling this lawsuit will lift the cloud of Virginia Stone Terese Marks apprehension and nervousness that has 215 Shope Creek Road 3122 Heritage plagued many tech firms since its inception. VerDate 11 The positive affects of settling this matter are The Department of Justice made a good Dear Microsoft Settlement: quite clear. It will enable my company to pitch to Americans at the start of the ‘‘U.S. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ continue designing custom applications vs. Microsoft’’ lawsuit. We were told that the dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a without the headache of triple-sourcing consumer needed government intervention to serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech which is what a Microsoft breakup would avoid being injured by Microsoft’s unethical industry. have caused. This may sound like a minor business practices. However, three years of It is high time for this trial, and the thing, however, it is not. It would be an litigation have proven enormously expensive wasteful spending accompanying it, to be inefficient administrative nightmare that for Microsoft and for the federal government. over. Consumers will indeed see competition would affect the performance of the The inevitable result will be that any in the marketplace, rather than the company. substantive benefit the settlement brings to courtroom. And the investors who propel our It is my hope that the settlement is the consumer will be balanced or outweighed economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. finalized at the conclusion of the public by the great burden that the suit has been for Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the comment period. It is in everyone’s best the IT industry as a whole. Microsoft will federal government should not have broken interest. have to reveal portions of Windows code to up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, —John Moon competitors and by being subject to the companies like Microsoft can get back into [email protected] permanent scrutiny of a three person the business of innovating and creating better 310/300–1701 committee formed to review Microsoft’s products for consumers, and not wasting digital builders, inc. actions for years to come. This should be valuable resources on litigation. 310/DIGITAL considered a fair resolution. Competition means creating better goods 310/300–1600 fax PLEASE—let’s stick to the agreement!! and offering superior services to consumers. www.digitalbuilders.com Anymore time and resources spent in With government out of the business of persuing Microsoft at the federal level can stifling progress and tying the hands of MTC–00029398 only serve to raise the price of the lawsuit to corporations, consumers—rather than From: Rolland Brengle Jr customers and taxpayers. It is high time to bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick To: Microsoft ATR see this matter put behind us. The the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Date: 1/28/02 11:38pm Department of Justice must end this lawsuit the reins off the high-tech industry, more Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT as soon as this period of public comment is entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create I believe the settlement Microsoft offered concluded. new and competitive products and should be accepted by the DOJ. Consumers Very sincerely, technologies. are the ones that will benefit from using Richard Smith Thank you for this opportunity to share my Microsoft products. views. R. M. Brengle, Jr. MTC–00029401 Sincerely, 3325 Center From: James Brubaker Pat Ier Highland MI 48357 To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/28/02 11:41pm MTC–00029403 MTC–00029399 Subject: Concern re the Microsoft Settlement From: James T Pulaski From: Leland Younkin Honorable Judge, To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR I’m writing to ask you to reject the Date: 1/28/02 11:42pm Date: 1/28/02 11:40pm proposed final judgment in the U.S. vs. Subject: My comments on the MS antitrust Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft case. Microsoft has been found to settlement Microsoft has developed their products for have violated our nation’s antitrust laws, My view is that no one operating system several years. It has produced programs and reaping many billions of dollars of profits in should entirely dominate the market. systems that has greatly benefited millions of the process. Not Windows, Mac OS, OS 2 Warp, Linux, consumers, businesses and This proposed settlement would allow the Unix, nor Be OS. governments.Without Microsoft’s company to retain almost all of that. I am also So I think Windows needs to be around, innovations and market savvy we would still concerned that there are no provisions to but Microsoft has just gotten to big! be in the dark ages of the computer world protect us from Microsoft’s continuing I only want to make a few quick Now comes a horde of lawyers (like anticompetitive behavior. There is no suggestions. These comments should be in vultures) seeking to gain large settlements for indication Microsoft will cease its antitrust addition to other remedies already decided. their benefit. I am convinced that they are not violations, and the company is left to police Microsoft (MS) should be forced to make acting to benefit consumers. Just for their itself! a choice between the software business and own greed Let us put this whole case to rest Actually, the proposed final settlement the operating system (OS) business. and let Microsoft continue to be innovative would amount to a government validation of If they want to be in the software business, and produce their superior products for all the monopoly. I urge you to reject the Windows should be made open source. This consumers. proposed final judgment as it is not in the would prevent MS from taking over the Sincerely; best interest of the public. market by virtue of being first to the OS table. Leland A. Younkin Respectfully, It would foster innovation by making the 335 Glendora Circle James Brubaker playing field even. Danville, CA 04526–3912 1502 Esbenshade Rd. If they want to be in the operating system Email address BEONESEVEN@ Lancaster, PA 17601–4450 business, then all other software divisions worldnet.att.net 717–295–7374 should be spun off into separate entities (or one big software entity). This again would MTC–00029400 MTC–00029402 take away the incentive for MS tying software From: RICHARD SMITH From: Pat Iler inexorably to their operating system. To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft Settlement In addition, I like the idea of giving Date: 1/28/02 11:40pm Date: 1/28/02 11:37pm something to education. I think they should Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement donate $800 million cash to the nations 11531 Reltas Ct. Pat Iler schools to be used for computer training and Cincinnati, OH 45249–1707 3510 W. Shady Side Road equipment. The schools would be free to January 28,2002 Angola, IN 46703 choose what-ever brand of computer and The Hon. John Ashcroft; January 28, 2002 operating system they prefer. Attorney General; Microsoft Settlement That is my two cents! Good luck! U.S. Department of Justice; U.S. Department of Justice Jim Pulaski 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW; Antitrust Division Washington, DC 20530–0001 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MTC–00029404 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Washington, DC 20530 From: Todd Buckley VerDate 11 To: Microsoft ATR recent deal, Microsoft paid Apple 100 Thank you for this opportunity to share my Date: 1/28/02 11:43pm million dollars and Apple has agreed to drop views. Subject: Microsoft Settlement such contentious issues and cross license Sincerely, I am writing this letter to voice my concern core technologies. Potentially, of course, the Philip E Brazil over the monopoly power that Microsoft market for QuickTime or a Windows Corporation has used in order to retard equivalent is enormous. MTC–00029406 innovation in the computer industry. I have Another example of Microsoft abuse is the From: Kevin Schumacher been a computer user for almost 20 years and user interface. Apple filed patent 5,959,624, To: Microsoft ATR I have seen many technologies come and go, in January 1997 which enabled many Date: 1/28/02 11:44pm but never have I witnessed a company with innovations in the user interface for the Subject: Microsoft Settlement such zeal and destructive power. I am sure desktop computer. Microsoft copied many of I am a private citizen, not employed by any Microsoft truly believes that it is innovating these things. Microsoft did not innovate. computer-industry company, organization, or and improving the quality of life for the There is no justification for Microsoft1s group, writing about my concern the effects general computer user, but I find it behavior. The massive power and influence of Microsoft’s business practices have had on interesting that the patents held by Microsoft of Microsoft has hurt the consumer by the ‘‘free market’’. I have not been asked to are significantly smaller than patents held by limiting innovation. There are numerous write on behalf of anyone, or any company. other companies, such as Apple Computers, more examples I could site, but I want to Microsoft is a moving target, a company Inc. keep this letter to the point. Microsoft is a who the courts have recently agreed, has Where has the innovation come from? monopoly. Microsoft has harmed the ‘‘won’’ by cheating, a company who has a Microsoft is excellent at copying and mass consumer directly through its actions. history of using dirty tricks, intimidation, marketing technology, but they do not Microsoft has not innovated on the and taking advantage of every possible innovate for the good of humanity. Quotes consumers1 behalf. As this settlement loophole. They also made a mockery of their like this sum it up, ‘‘Through its conduct continues please, keep these things in mind. last ‘‘agreement’’ with the DOJ by violating it toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and Microsoft should not be allowed to continue at every opportunity, and what has the others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it with ‘‘business as usual’’, but they should be government learned from these experiences? will use its prodigious market power and punished accordingly. The punishment —Not enough, apparently. immense profits to harm any firm that insists should not be a simple solution, but a If you will indulge me for a moment, my on pursuing initiatives that could intensify complete solution that will enable an ‘‘prediction’’ for the future is that Microsoft competition against one of Microsoft’s core industry to grow and thrive like a balanced will be spending more & more of their time products,’’ Jackson wrote in his findings of eco-system. in courts all over the world, not just in the fact in November 1999. Thank you, US. Have you seen Microsoft’s FY2001 last This is completely true. I have first-hand Todd Buckley quarter’s charge of $600,000,000.00 for ‘‘legal experience working with Microsoft and it CC: [email protected]@ expenses’’? This trend will be growing isn1t pleasant. I have watched companies inetgw,attorney.gener... —exponentially, and ‘‘rightly’’ so. The such as Apple Computer, Real Networks, and MTC–00029405 Chinese, UK, and French governments have BE, Inc. create new, beneficial products for From: Philip Brazil realized how firmly they are in Microsoft’s the market, but to only get strong armed by To: Microsoft Settlement grip, and how much of their national wealth Microsoft. And another quote that Date: 1/28/02 11:39pm is being paid to this (American) gorilla...so demonstrates Microsoft1s behavior. ‘‘Many of Subject: Microsoft Settlement much so that the Chinese government’s the tactics Microsoft employed have also Philip Brazil policy is to move to Linux. Others will harmed consumers indirectly by unjustifiably 5205 Sabin Ave follow. distorting competition.’’ Fremont, CA 94536 I’m quite sure that Sun will continue to There are numerous things that Microsoft January 28, 2002 develop Star Office. I also think that Apple’s has introduced that have badly hurt the Microsoft Settlement Mac OS X will be adopted in more business consumer such as Security. Look at how U.S. Department of Justice environments, but only because it does work many viruses have been spread. This directly Antitrust Division well in a WinTel-dominated networking equates to reduced productivity. Where is the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW world. Apple must improve OS X’s innovation? Think about Digital Video. Washington, DC 20530 interoperability with Windows networking Apple1s Quicktime was the first computer Dear Microsoft Settlement: environments to have any real hope of program to use moving images and sound on The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ growing their market share. This assumes a broad level for computer users. That was dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a that Microsoft’s moving target strategy, 1990. This lead to Real Networks, or serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech combined with their -embrace, -extend, Progressive Networks at the time, which industry. It is high time for this trial, and the -extinguish, tactic (‘‘because our customers created the ‘‘streaming’’ audio and video wasteful spending accompanying it, to be demand it!’’), or the ever-present FUD (Fear, market over the Internet. It wasn1t until over. Consumers will indeed see competition Uncertainty, and Doubt) factor effect, or much later that Microsoft finally realized this in the marketplace, rather than the finally their last big gun, the would be an important part of an end-users courtroom. And the investors who propel our $36,000,000,000,000 in their savings account, experience. Microsoft did not innovate. They economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. —doesn’t slow Apple down so much that it’s used their desktop OS volume to force feed Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the impossible for them to succeed...a BIG consumers with a second rate technology. federal government should not have broken assumption. In the end, even if a few other After many, seven, development cycles up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies produce a great new product, Microsoft has managed to release a good companies like Microsoft can get back into Microsoft will simply BUY THEM, —if the product, but there were good products the business of innovating and creating better DOJ allows...just like they bought SGI’s available before. This behavior does not products for consumers, and not wasting intellectual property, i.e. OpenGL...which, by benefit the end-user. valuable resources on litigation. the way, Apple’s OS X uses (what a Apple contracted with a 3rd party to help Competition means creating better goods coincidence!), or simply develop a clone and develop QuickTime for Windows. Unable to and offering superior services to consumers. then pollute the original. —Java, anyone? countenance Apple’s success with a With government out of the business of Here’s a quote from a very recent article Windows add-on and incapable of stifling progress and tying the hands of published on the web: developing an equivalent technology within, corporations, consumers—rather than ‘‘The second most common critique had to the Microsoft camp hired the same company bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick do with my comments about Apple being a to bail out Video for Windows. Lo and the winners and losers on Wall Street. With niche player. Many readers brought up behold, Apple programmers discovered the reins off the high-tech industry, more examples of strong companies that amazing similarities in Microsoft’s code. entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create themselves enjoy no more—and sometimes Apple filed an injunction and forced new and competitive products and less—than 4.5 percent overall market share. Microsoft to rework their code. As part of the technologies. But that reaction is (pardon the expression) VerDate 11 like comparing Apples to oranges. BMW and making —file formats— a ‘‘government & volume of licenses they move and not on Ben & Jerry’s are viable companies with ISO-mandated World Standard’’...so that at their software bundling strategies. Indeed relatively small market share. But neither of the very least, Microsoft won’t be able to OEM’s will have much flexibility in what them is competing in a market dominated by constantly use their embrace/extend/ they can do and will only need be mindful one proprietary technology platform. There is extinguish tactics —’’because our customers of whether these things are actually what no 95 percent gorilla in the jungle of the demand it!’’ consumers want instead of casting eyes automobile or ice cream market. But there is Consider splitting the company into an warily toward Redmond. The proposed one in the personal computer world, and it’s Applications Group, and an Operating settlement offers similar flexibility to Internet called Wintel.’’ No, no, no! It’s called Systems Group. This is NOT as radical a Service Providers. ‘‘Microsoft’’, not ‘‘WinTel’’! AMD is a major solution as some have made it out to be. The proposed settlement also promises alternative/competitor, to be fair, and there Consider forcing Microsoft to make Apple something for application developers by are several minor players as well, but, (or some other third party company) a mandating full disclosure by Microsoft of the —there’s only ONE Microsoft. This point is licensee of MS Office Suite for Macintosh, to API’s in their so called ‘‘middleware’’ critically important! Microsoft is the world- remove the doubt & worry from the products whilst at the same time protecting dominating, company-killing machine; it’s marketplace put there by Microsoft, that Microsoft’s intellectual property rights, after Microsoft steering the boat...Intel is a very maybe, one day, we’ll stop publishing it for all Microsoft is going to be an important grateful passenger, trying very hard not to the Mac...then where will all of you poor player in the competitive ecosystem, offering rock the boat (too much). Remember when Mac-users be? the only credible competition to the likes of Intel tried to ‘‘do their own thing’’ by Sincerely, AOL, Sony and Palm whilst the likes of these developing their own multimedia software, Kevin Schumacher companies keep Microsoft on its toes and the and how Microsoft responded? Nothing 771 13 th St only change in play should come from new happens without Bill’s approval, combined San Diego, CA 92101–7303 players rising on their merits and not the with ‘‘plausible deniability’’. Sound familiar? stifling of any player through litigation. This Requisite knowledge for CEO’s, these days. MTC–00029407 proposed settlement also offers to consumers Apple has suffered through a decade of From: John Thurlow the real prospect of being able to chose if negative press, who constantly produce To: Microsoft ATR they wish to remove certain components headlines asking the same question, ‘‘Can Date: 1/28/02 11:46pm from Windows which are currently Apple Survive Another Year? ...why not ask Subject: Microsoft Settlement mandatory, it also offers protection for Non- the other, more relevant question, —’’How Dear Sirs, Microsoft ‘‘middleware’’ and requires the Does Microsoft Constantly Defeat All Other I truly hope this settlement will be consumers consent before any Microsoft Companies?’’...and then ask why consumers, accepted so that this whole matter can be put ‘‘middleware’’ can remove any Non- Microsoft icons or alter any default and the US Government, don’t seem to care behind us and we can move on. As a associations to Non-Microsoft ‘‘middleware’’. one iota until they find bloody corpses consumer I have often felt that some of the To oversee this proposed settlement it is littering corporate America? Netscape, DR- more extreme remedies proposed by some of proposed there be Technical Committee of DOS, VisiCalc, Apple (and the innovator, the Attorney’s General and Microsoft’s three persons to keep a vigilante eye and -QuickTime!). Microsoft copies everyone, opponents amounted to something of a sword ensure the spirit and the letter of the adds it to their OS, which kills the hanging over my head a punishment for all agreement are being enforced, I think the innovators. ...RealNetworks, and Java, next? those years ago having abandoned the Apple nature of its composition should also ensure Or, Microsoft ‘‘competes’’ with Sony’s II in favour of a Gateway PC because I could that it does not overly favour one party or Playstation by buying up the gaming not afford to buy into Apple’s Macintosh another, something the appointment of a developers to ensure Xbox-only titles. ‘‘monopoly’’. I could see in Microsoft a special master may run the risk of. It is also Sounds a lot like one of the tactics used to company which had offered me a way good to see that either party can have a ensure the ‘‘success’’ of Windows. If forward when I was stuck on an aging recourse should they feel that any of the TC Microsoft can’t/isn’t allowed (anti-trust architecture (the Apple II) being carved and members is not performing as they should issues) to buy them up, Intel steps in for the quartered in a way that meant the products and that they are clear procedures defined for assist; look to the audio & video companies I currently use and depend on would be their replacement. The proposed settlement for some recent examples (Terran & Avid). Is negatively impacted. Suffice to say that also makes provision for a Microsoft Internal this the way companies win? Is this whilst I believe Microsoft is not totally Compliance Officer, someone within ‘‘competing’’ in America? blameless, I have never bought into the Microsoft who would have the responsibility I have two questions, and I hope you will notion that they are a purely malevolent force for overseeing Microsoft’s compliance with think about them before coming to a decision and the scourge of the industry, the fact is the proposed settlement, giving the buck regarding an appropriate settlement with that Microsoft was never handed a somewhere to stop; we also see where they Microsoft: ‘‘monopoly’’ it had to earn that position of would be responsible for a web site that 1. (If) I have a great new idea for a piece dominance from scratch and the sad truth is would clearly state how third parties can of software, an idea so good that it is certain that attaining that position had as much to issue complaints to the TC and it also lays to change the way computers are used by do with their competitors ineptitude and out how the TC would deal with and process everyone...business, consumers, schools, greed as it did with Microsoft’s innovation these complaints. Five years seems like etc... How Likely Is It, That I Could Ever and savvy. I will not dwell on my differences adequate time for this proposed agreement to Hope To Bring It To Market Where The 900 with the monopoly ruling and all that run its course but should time prove Pound Gorilla Rules? stemmed from that and some of the crass otherwise a two year extension is readily 2. Why do the real innovators in today’s opportunism on the part of Microsoft available, during which time any new computing world fare so poorly? How is it competitors and lawyers that continues to remedies could be explored if necessary. possible to have great ideas/products/ flow from that decision, but will focus on my Though I support this agreement over management/funding, etc...and still fail two cents worth regarding this settlement. continued litigation, I fear the later may completely? So completely, that there’s room The proposed settlement offers not only a prevail as many powerful interests now seem enough only for Microsoft? way to bring this protracted process to a to have a lot vested in the course of litigation Consider that Apple’s very future relies on close, but also addresses the concern of and I fear it is us consumers who will end Microsoft continuing to publish MS Office choice and flexibility in the market by giving up paying for this tiresome business through Suite for Macintosh, and that, should OEM manufacturers a greater choice in how having Microsoft continually drawn away Microsoft ever want to put Apple out of they configure their PC’s without the fear of from innovation and toward the court and business overnight, they could by retaliation from Microsoft. Further the eventually through it having to recover the discontinuing this one product. Think I’m agreement promises to bring a level of expenses off this exercise and its penalties exaggerating? openness and transparency to Microsoft’s through its products and quite possibly our How is it possible to arrive at a just dealing with OEM’s by having a published wallets. remedy, without first addressing these schedule which lays down equal terms for On a whole I must say that whilst I view issues? As you search for a remedy, consider them within defined bands based on the antitrust as well intentioned I feel it is time VerDate 11 we started to put our minds to more creative up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, To: Microsoft ATR and dynamic alternatives, I myself intended companies like Microsoft can get back into Date: 1/28/02 11:49pm to post something for discussion on my the business of innovating and creating better Subject: Comments of SBC Communications website once I purchase it and get the products for consumers, and not wasting Inc. on the Proposed Final Judgment software to put it up. On a whole I feel the valuable resources on litigation. January 28, 2002 antitrust process takes far too long and lacks Competition means creating better goods Renata Hesse, Esq. the dynamism of the market and runs the risk and offering superior services to consumers. Trial Attorney of losing its objectivity to political ambition With government out of the business of Antitrust Division and commercial intrigue, I think we could do stifling progress and tying the hands of U.S. Department of Justice much to make the market more self corporations, consumers—rather than 601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200 regulating, competitive and innovative if we bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Washington, DC 20530 could address the monopoly created by the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Re: United States v. Microsoft Corp. patent without robbing the inventor of the the reins off the high-tech industry, more Dear Ms. Hesse: rewards that often drive his innovation. Such entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new thinking could address not only cases in Pursuant to the instructions in the new and competitive products and Competitive Impact Statement in United the Computer Industry but also technologies. Pharmaceuticals and other controversial States v. Microsoft Corp., we are submitting Thank you for this opportunity to share my to the Department of Justice as an attachment industries and also allow truly brilliant ideas views. and concepts to become universal and to this e-mail the Comments of SBC Sincerely, Communications Inc. on the Proposed Final broadly applied to the benefit of the Harold A Harvey consumer and the inventor. Unfortunately Judgment. We would appreciate your sending that is not for this forum at this time, thank MTC–00029410 a reply to this email at your earliest convenience to confirm your receipt of SBC’s you for taking my submission, I hope my From: Thomas Dell submission. support will help put this issue to rest. To: Microsoft Settlement In addition, to guard against the risk of a Sincerely, Date: 1/28/02 11:44pm faulty email transmission, we are tonight John Thurlow. Subject: Microsoft Settlement sending a hard copy of SBC’s Comments to MTC–00029408 Thomas Dell 4902 W 24 Th. Pl. you via U.S. Postal Service Express Mail. From: Raul Cayado Kennewick, WA 99338 Thank you for your consideration. To: Microsoft ATR January 28, 2002 Very truly yours, Date: 1/28/02 11:48pm Microsoft Settlement David A. Barrett Subject: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Dear Sir, Antitrust Division FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I feel that this matter should be laid to rest. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW X For the good of our Nation and our economy. Washington, DC 20530 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. How long will they maliciously try to extort Civil Action No. 98–1232 (CKK) money from a company that has done so Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. much for our economy. In my opinion STATE OF NEW YORK ex. rel. Microsoft has already paid and settled. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et al., Sincerely, Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 98–1233 v. Raul A Cayado industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be (CKK) MTC–00029409 over. Consumers will indeed see competition MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. X From: Harold A Harvey in the marketplace, rather than the COMMENTS OF SBC COMMUNICATIONS To: Microsoft Settlement courtroom. And the investors who propel our INC. ON THE PROPOSED FINAL Date: 1/28/02 11:42pm economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. JUDGMENT Subject: Microsoft Settlement Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Harold A Harvey federal government should not have broken PAUL K. MANCINI 2019 Sage Valley Drive up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Vice President & Assistant General Counsel Richardson, TX 75080–2359 companies like Microsoft can get back into PATRICK J. PASCARELLA January 28, 2002 the business of innovating and creating better Senior Counsel Microsoft Settlement products for consumers, and not wasting WILLIAM R. CALDWELL U.S. Department of Justice valuable resources on litigation. Competition Senior Counsel Antitrust Division means creating better goods and offering SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW superior services to consumers. With 175 East Houston Washington, DC 20530 government out of the business of stifling San Antonio, Texas 78205 Dear Microsoft Settlement: progress and tying the hands of corporations, DONALD L. FLEXNER The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers, consumers—rather than bureaucrats and DAVID A. BARRETT dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a judges—will once again pick the winners and STEVEN I. FROOT serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the NICHOLAS A. GRAVANTE, JR. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will HARLAN A. LEVY wasteful spending accompanying it, to be be encouraged to create new and competitive BORES, SCHILLER & over. Consumers will indeed see competition products and technologies. FLEXNER LLP in the marketplace, rather than the Thank you for this opportunity to share my 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW courtroom. And the investors who propel our views. Washington, DC 20015 economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Sincerely, Telephone: (202) 237–2727 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Thomas R. Dell Facsimile: (202) 237–6131 federal government should not have broken From: David Barrett January 28, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Table of Authorities ...... viii Index of Abbreviations Used to Refer to Court Decisions and Pleadings In This Case ...... xi Index of Abbreviated Terms Used In These Comments ...... xiii VerDate 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page No. I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 II. A MONOPOLIZATION REMEDY MUST BE TAILORED TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE OFFENSE, THE DURABILITY OF THE UNLAWFUL MONOPOLY, THE IMPORTANCE OF RESTORING COMPETITION TO THE AFFECTED MARKET AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRING ACTS OF MONOPOLIZATION ...... 12 A. The Court Of Appeals Sustained A Finding Of Successful And Longstanding Monopolization In A Crucial Technology Industry 12 1. Microsoft Has Monopolized A Critical Industry ...... 12 2. Microsoft’s Monopoly Has Endured For More Than A Decade ...... 12 3. Microsoft’s Increasing Monopoly Power Is Protected By Significant Barriers To Entry ...... 14 4. Microsoft’s Monopoly Has Self-Perpetuating Incentives ...... 14 5. Microsoft Has Shown Itself Able And Willing To Extinguish Competitive Threats As Fast As They Emerge In A Rapidly Changing Technological Environment, And Willing To Harm Consumers And Degrade Its Own Products In Order To Exclude Competitors From The Market ...... 15 a. License Restrictions ...... 16 b. Commingling Source Code ...... 16 c. Exclusionary Agreements ...... 17 d. Actual And Attempted Coercion And Retaliation To Exclude Competitors ...... 18 e. Efforts To Subvert Sun-compliant Java Technologies ...... 19 B. The Remedy In This Section 2 Case Must Be Broad And Prophylactic, To Prevent Microsoft From Denying Consumers The Ben- efit Of Competition By Retaining Illegally-Maintained Monopoly Power ...... 21 1. Purpose Of Relief ...... 21 a. End Anticompetitive Practices And Prevent Their Recurrence ...... 21 b. Restore Competition (Deny The Fruits Of Wrongdoing) ...... 23 2. The Law Requires Effective Measures To Accomplish These Results ...... 24 a. Relief Must Neutralize Monopoly Power At Its Source And Eliminate The Monopolist’s Incentive To Exclude Competitors From The Market ...... 24 b. Relief Must Anticipate New Forms Of Exclusion, Commensurate With The Evidence Of Microsoft’s Incentive To Exclude And Its Willingness To Do So At The Expense Of Consumers And Its Own Product Quality ...... 24 c. Relief Must Prevent Regulatory (Decree) Evasion ...... 25 d. Relief Must Be Of Sufficient Duration To ‘‘Pry Open’’ The Monopolized Market By Allowing Competitive Products To Take Root ...... 26 i. It Takes Years For Competitive Alternatives—Web Portals, Servers And Middleware—To Develop, Even Assuming Lack Of Obstruction ...... 26 ii. Software Developers And Other ‘‘Investors’’ Need Confidence That The Decree Will Provide Protection Long Enough To Give Their Investments A Fair Chance To Be Viable ...... 27 C. The Tunney Act Requires Courts To Reject Seriously Deficient Decrees ...... 28 III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT FAILS IN EVERY MATERIAL RESPECT TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF RELIEF REQUIRED BY THIS CASE AND AFFIRMATIVELY PROVDES A ‘‘GREEN LIGHT’’ AND AN INCENTIVE TO ENGAGE IN EXCLUSIONARY CONDUCT ...... 32 A. The Government Has Abandoned Its Prior Effort To Use Injunctive Relief To ‘‘Pry Open’’ The Monopolized Market, Conceding That Its Purpose Is Now Merely To Protect ‘‘Nascent’’ Threats To The Windows Monopoly ...... 32 B. The Proposed Settlement Is Riddled With Loopholes That Invite Evasion, Does Not Anticipate And Prohibit New Forms Of Ex- clusionary Conduct To Protect The Windows Monopoly, And Discourages The Development Of Competition To Windows ...... 35 1. The Proposed Settlement Provisions To Protect Middleware Do Not Adequately Address Microsoft’s Past Illegal Conduct, Much Less Prevent Its Recurrence In The Future ...... 35 a. The Definitions In The Decree Effectively Leave Compliance At Microsoft’s Discretion ...... 36 i. The Definitions Of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ And ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ Encourage Microsoft To Continue Binding Middleware To Its Monopoly Windows Operating System ...... 36 ii. The Definition Of ‘‘Non-Microsoft Middleware Product’’ Is Too Narrow To Protect The Ability Of Products And Competi- tors To Gain Equal Access To The OEM Distribution Channel ...... 40 iii. The Definition Of ‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’ Grants Microsoft Unfettered Discretion To Decide What Is And What Is Not Part Of Its Operating System ...... 42 b. The Settlement Fails To Prohibit Tactics Used By Microsoft To Foreclose OEM Distribution Of Competing Products And Allows That Unlawful Behavior To Continue ...... 43 i. A Prohibition Against Commingling Of Code Is Necessary To Prevent Microsoft From Continuing To Exclude Competition That Threatens The Windows Monopoly ...... 44 ii. The Proposed Settlement Omits Any Requirement That Microsoft Offer A Stripped-Down Version Of Windows At A Price That Reflects The Value Of The Removed Middleware Products ...... 48 iii. The Provisions In The Proposed Settlement That Putport To Foster OEM Flexibility In Product Configuration And Middleware Choices Contain Fatal Ambiguities And Loopholes ...... 50 c. Provisions That Putport To Allow End-Users And OEMS To Enable Or Remove Middleware Products Are Severely Flawed 54 i. Inability To Actually Remove Microsoft Products From The Operating System Cripples The Effectiveness Of The Decree .. 54 iii. The Exceptions And Limitations Contained In The End User/OEM Control Provisions Swallow The Relief Provided And Permit Microsoft To Override OEM Or End-User Selections Of Preferred Middleware Products ...... 55 (a) Microsoft Can Alter End-User/OEM Choices ...... 56 (b) Microsoft Can Override End-User/OEM Middleware Default Choices ...... 57 iii. The Timing Of Implementation Of Section III.H Allows Microsoft To Reap The Fruits Of Its Past Illegal Conduct With- out Adequately Limiting Its Conduct Today Or In The Future ...... 60 2. Provisions Designed To Protect Interoperability Between Microsoft Products And Non-Microsoft Products Are Seriously Flawed ...... 62 a. The Government’s Original Remedy Required Broad And Meaningful Interoperability Disclosure By Microsoft ...... 63 b. The Proposed Settlement’s Interoperability Disclosure Requirements Are Wholly Inadequate ...... 69 VerDate 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page No. i. Important Areas Of Potential Competition In The Monopolized Market Are Not Included In The Interoperability Disclo- sure Provision ...... 69 (a) The Proposed Settlement Will Not Achieve Server Interoperability ...... 70 (b) The Settlement Fails To Require Disclosure To Enable Interoperability Between Internet Explorer And Non-Microsoft Servers ...... 72 (c) The Proposed Settlement Does Not Contain An Interoperability Disclosure Provision To Cover Server-To-Server Com- munications ...... 76 (d) The Proposed Settlement Does Not Contain Interoperability Disclosure Provisions To Cover ‘‘Embedded Devices’’ ...... 77 (e) The Technical Information That Is Required To Be Disclosed Under The Proposed Settlement Is Insufficient To Achieve Interoperability ...... 78 (f) The Timing Of The Required Disclosure Under The Proposed Settlement Will Impede, Not Promote, Competition ...... 80 (g) Important Terms In The Proposed Settlement Are So Loosely Defined That They Enable Microsoft To Avoid Disclo- sure ...... 84 ii. The Mandatory Licensing Provisions Are Illusory ...... 85 iii. The Limitation Upon Disclosure Based On Alleged Security Concerns Is A Massive Loophole ...... 88 3. The Proposed Settlement Fails To Remedy The Proven Pattern Of Unlawful Retaliation, Inducements, And Exclusive Dealing Arrangements Used By Microsoft To Maintain Its Monopoly ...... 91 a. The Government’s Settlement Substitutes Weak And Narrow Protections Of Third Parties For The Strong And Broad Provi- sions Justified By Microsoft’s Conduct ...... 93 i. The Range Of Parties Protected From ‘‘Retaliation’’ Is Too Limited ...... 95 ii. ‘‘Retaliation’’ Is Not Defined ...... 96 iii. The Party Injured By Retaliation Must Prove Causation ...... 97 iv. Retaliation Not Involving Windows Or Middleware Is Allowed ...... 97 v. Loopholes Vitiate Even The Existing Limitations ...... 97 vi. Unnecessary And Ambiguous Savings Clauses Undermine The Decree ...... 98 vii. There Is No Prohibition On Agreements Limiting Competition ...... 98 viii. There Is No Protection Against Retaliation For Participating In This Lawsuit ...... 99 b. The Proposed Uniform Licensing To OEMs Is Insufficient ...... 99 i. Allowing ‘‘Market Development Allowances’’ Invites Evasion ...... 101 ii. Microsoft Is Allowed To Keep License Terms Secret ...... 101 iii. There Is No Independent Verification Of ‘‘Volume’’ Discounts ...... 102 iv. License Terminations Without Cause Are Allowed ...... 102 c. The Proposed Settlement Fails To Address Exclusive Dealing Adequately ...... 103 i. The Exclusive Dealing Prohibition Is Limited To Identified Parties Only ...... 105 ii. Paying Third Parties To Refrain From Using Non-Microsoft Products Is Allowed ...... 105 iii. Microsoft Can Pay Others To Distribute Its Monopoly Software ...... 106 iv. The Exclusive Dealing Provision Is Riddied With Loopholes ...... 107 4. The Term of the Settlement Is Too Short—Even If Its Deficiencies Were Corrected ...... 107 5. The Proposed Settlement Nullifies Effective Enforcement ...... 111 a. The Technical Committee Proposal Is Misguided ...... 111 b. All Relevant Employees Should Be Required To Be Trained In The Decree, But Are Not ...... 113 c. The Proposed ‘‘Dispute Resolution’’ Mechanism Encourages Delay ...... 114 IV. DEFICIENCIES IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CREATE SIGNIFICANT RISKS FOR SBC’S COMMUNICATIONS AND DATA BUSINESSES, INCLUDING SBC’S INTERNET-RELATED BUSINESSES. WHICH DEPEND UPON OPEN ARCHITECTURE AND COMPETITIVE ALTERNATIVES ...... 115 A. How SBC Competes, Or Will Compete, With Microsoft ...... 116 1. Telephone, Cellular And Internet Service—5 ...... 116 2. Unified Messaging ...... 118 B. UMS Is An Integral Part Of The Movement To A Server-Based Computing Model That Will Erode The Applications Barrier To Entry That Currently Shields Microsoft’s Monopoly Power ...... 120 C. The Proposed Settlement Would Allow Microsoft To Render SBC’s Internet-Based Businesses Significantly Less Competitive .... 122 1. The Proposed Settlement Will Allow Microsoft To Block Consumers’ Access To Competing Products And To Impede Their Functionality ...... 122 i. Blocking Access to UMS ...... 122 ii. Degrading the Performance of UMS ...... 123 iii. Denying UMS Access to the Windows Desktop ...... 123 2. Microsoft Can Foreclose Competition By Using Its Ability To Raise Its Rivals’ Costs ...... 124 3. Consumers Who Want To Access The Internet Will Have To Have A Windows Operating System, Which Will Increase The Cost To The Consumer For UMS ...... 125 4. The Proposed Settlement Will Stifle Innovation And Force Competitors To Sacrifice Quality In Certain Critical Markets ...... 126 5. Delayed Disclosure Will Harm Competition ...... 129 V——: WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CANNOT SATISFY THE PUBLIC INTEREST STAND- ARD ...... 131 A. Changes Must Be Made to RPFJ § III.A (OEM and Other Licensee Retaliation) ...... 132 B. A Provision Prohibiting Retaliation By Microsoft Against Any Party Who Participates In The Litigation Must Be Added ...... 135 C. A Provision Requiring Microsoft To Port ‘‘Office’’ To Apple’s Operating System Must Be Added ...... 135 D. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § III.B (Uniform Licensing) ...... 136 E. A Provision Requiring Equal Access to Microsoft Licensing Terms And Conditions Must Be Added ...... 136 F. A Provision Prohibiting Microsoft From Enforcing Agreements That Are Inconsistent With The RPFJ Must Be Added ...... 137 G. Changes Must Be Made to RPFJ § III.C (Restrictions on OEM Configuration of PCs) ...... 137 H. A Provision That Prohibits Microsoft From Commingling Must Be Added ...... 141 VerDate 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page No. I. A Provision Determining The Relative Prices Of Unbundled Versions of Windows Must Be Added ...... 142 J. A Provision Requiring That Microsoft Continue To Offer Predecessor Versions Of Windows Must Be Added ...... 143 K. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ §§ III.D And III.E (Interoperability Disclosure) ...... 144 L. A Provision That Requires Mandatory Distribution of Java Must Be Added ...... 145 M. A Provision Prohibiting Interference With Or Degradation Of Non-Microsoft Middleware Must Be Added ...... 145 N. A Provision Requiring Microsoft to Comply With Industry Standards Must Be Added ...... 146 O. A Provision Requiring Open-Source Licensing for Internet Explorer Must Be Added ...... 148 P. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § III.F (Retaliation Against Any Third Party) ...... 149 Q. A Provision Prohibiting Microsoft From Entering Agreements That Limit Competition Must Be Added ...... 151 R. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § III.G (Ban on Exclusive Dealing) ...... 151 S. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § III.H (OEM/End User Control of the Desktop) ...... 154 T. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § III.I (Mandatory Licensing) ...... 156 U. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § III.J (Limitations on Mandatory Licensing) ...... 156 V. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ §§ IV And V (Compliance And Enforcement) ...... 157 W. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § VI (Definitions) ...... 158 VI. CONCLUSION ...... 160 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page No. Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562 (1972) ...... 7, 21, 24, 26 Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386 (1945) ...... 26 Int’l Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (1947) ...... 7, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27 N. Pac. Ry. v. United States, 365 U.S. 1 (1958) ...... 29 Nat’l Soc’y of Prof’l Eng’rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) ...... 21, 22 Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973) ...... 26 Schine Chain Theaters, Inc. v. United States, 334 U.S. 110 (1948) ...... 10, 23, 28 United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d sub nom ...... Maryland v. United States, 460 US 1001 (1983) ...... 6, 11, 24–32, 116– 117 United States v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., Civ. No. 74–3600 (RJK), 1980 WL 2013 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 1980) .. 110 United States v. Business Inv. & Dev. Corp., No. MO-81-CA-20, 1982 WL 1866 (W.D. Tx. July 16, 1982) ...... 113 United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173 (1944) ...... 26 United States v. Delta Dental of R.I., No. Civ. A. 96–113P, 1997 WL 527669 (D.R.I. Feb. 15, 1991) ...... 113 United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316 (1961) ...... 21, 23, 25 United States v. General Elec. Co., 115 F. Supp. 835 (D.N.J. 1953) ...... 86, 87 United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973) ...... 26, 28 United States v. Greyhound, Civ. No. 95–1852 (RCL), 1996 WL 179570 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 1996) ...... 110 United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966) ...... 23, 24, 29 United States v. GTE Corp., 603 F. Supp. 730 (D.D.C. 1984) ...... 111 United States v. Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ...... 13, 112 United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ...... 29, 30, 31, 131, 132 United States v. Playmobil USA, Inc., Civ. No. 95–0214, 1995 WL 366524 (D.D.C. May 22, 1955) ...... 110 United States v. Republic Services, Inc., Civ No. 00–2311, 2001 WL 77103 (D.D.C. Jan. 18, 2001) ...... 110 United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 340 U.S. 76 (1950) ...... 22, 23, 28, 30 United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 295 (D. Mass. 1953), aff’d, 347 U.S. 521 (1954) ...... 21,24 United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244 (1968) ...... 22, 26 United States v. Western Elec. Co., 569 F. Supp. 1057 (D.D.C. 1983), aff’d sub nom...... California v. United States, U.S. 1013 (1983) ...... 26, 86 United States v. Western Elec. Co., Civ. No. 82–0192 (HHG), 1991 WL 33559 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 1991) ...... 113 United States v. Western Electric Co., 673 F. Supp. 525 (D.D.C. 1987) ...... 116–117 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. 395 U.S. 100 (1969) ...... 25 Statutes: 15 U.S.C. § 16 ...... i, 1, 28, 29 42 U.S.C. §§ 251–59, 271 ...... 125 Other Authorities: Benjamin Woodhead, Microsoft’s Australian Monopoly? Let the U.S. Handle It, iTNews (Nov. 17, 1999), at http:// 38 www.itnews,com.au/story.cfm?ID=507. Browser Bruiser, Chicago Sun Times, October 27, 2001 ...... 80 Byron Acohido, Challenging Microsoft? It Could Take Moxi, USA Today, Jan. 16, 2002 ...... 4, 118 Byron Acohido, Microsoft Memo to Staff: Clobber Linux, USA Today, Jan. 4, 2002 ...... 90 T. Capers Jones, Estimating Software Costs Function Point Analysis: Measurement Practices for Successful Soft- 143 ware Projects (1998). David Garmus and David Herron, Function Point Analysis: Measurement Practices for Successful Software 143 Projects (2000). Department of Justice, Antitrust Division Manual ...... 108 Don Clark, AOL Sues Microsoft Over Netscape in Case That Could Seek Billions, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 23, 47 2002. Experience the Connected Home: Share One or Many Computers (May 9, 2001), at http://www.microsoft.com/ 43 windowsxp/home/evaluation/experiences/connectedhome.asp. VerDate 11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Cases Page No. Is Apple Out of the Running in the Operating Systems War? (Jan. 8, 2002), at http://www.websidestory.com/ 14 cgibinwss.cgi?corporate&news&press 1—163. Jesse Berst, Office Suites for Free, ZDNet AnchorDesk (March 7, 1997), at http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/ 38 story/story—743.html. Lee Gomes, Linux Campaign Is An Uphill Battle For Microsoft, Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2001 ...... 90 Microsoft Unveils New Home PC Experiences with ‘‘Freestyle’’ and ‘‘Mira’’, (Jan. 7, 2002), at www.Microsoft.com/ 4, 127 presspass/Press/2002/Jan02/01. MSN Shuts Out Other Browsers, Associated Press, October 28, 2001 ...... 80 Rebecca Buckman, Microsoft is Suing Linux Start-up Over Lindows Name, Wall Street Journal, December 24, 90 2001. Wayne Epperson, NT Insurance at a Premium, HostingTech (August 2001), at www.hostingtech.com/security/ 91 01—08—nt. INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS USED TO Revised Proposed Final Judgment, filed the record demonstrates the exact opposite. REFER TO COURT DECISIONS AND in the District Court on May 26, 2000. Microsoft’s continuing ability to commingle PLEADINGS IN THIS CASE Romer Decl. Declaration of Paul M. Romer, its browser and operating system, which the CA Decision of the United States Court of in support of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in settlement ignores, leaves Microsoft with the Appeals for the District of Columbia Support of Proposed Final Judgment, incentive and ability not only to destroy Circuit on Microsoft’s appeal from the filed in the District Court on April 28, traditional middleware threats to its Final Judgment. United States v. 2000 (corrected May 2, 2000). operating system monopoly, but also to Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. RPFJ Revised Proposed Final Judgment. exercise anticompetitive control over the 2001) (en banc). The proposed settlement entered into by Internet, where server networks currently not CIS Competitive Impact Statement, flied by the government and the Settling States dependent on Windows pose the greatest the Department of Justice in United with Microsoft, filed in the District Court threat to the Microsoft monopoly. The States v. Microsoft Corp., Nos. 98–1232, on November 15, 2001. consequences of failing to restrain an ever- 98–1233 (CKK). 66 F.R. 59492 (Nov. 28, Shapiro Deck Declaration of Carl Shapiro in expanding Microsoft operating system 2001). support of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in monopoly—now at over 95% market share— D.Ct. CL Conclusions of Law entered by the Suppert of Proposed Final Judgment, do not, however, fall solely upon software District Court on April 3, 2000. United filed in the District Court on April 28, producers whose competitive assaults might States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp.2d 2000 (corrected May 2, 2000). erode that overwhelming market domination. 30 (D.DC 2000). Nothing in the proposed settlement would INDEX OF ABBREVIATED TERMS USED IN stop the threat that Microsoft’s adjudicated D.Ct. at Findings of Fact entered by the THESE COMMENTS District Court on November 5, 1999. and unlawfully-maintained monopoly poses United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. API Application Programming Interface to the very heart of consumer choice in the Supp.2d 9 (D.DC 1999). HTML Hypertext Markup Language American economy. The settlement ignores Felten Decl. Declaration of Edward Felten IAP Internet Access Provider Microsoft’s ability to effectively destroy free in support of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in ICP Internet Content Provider consumer choice among the far greater array Support of Proposed Final Judgment, IE Internet Explorer of businesses that use electronic means of filed in the District Court on April 28, ISP Internet Service Provider communication—such as 2000 (corrected May 2, 2000). ISV Independent Software Vendor telecommunications services (local, long Final Judgment Final Judgment, entered by JVM Java Virtual Machine distance and cellular), Internet access, voice the District Court on June 7. 2000. OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer messaging, instant messaging, video and United States v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F. OLS Online Service Provider music services, e-commerce, interactive Supp. 2d 59, 64–74 (D.DC 2000). PC Personal computer games, to name a few. The settlement would Gov’t CA Brief Brief for Appellees United PDA Personal Digital Assistant allow Microsoft to abuse its illegally- States and the State Plaintiffs, filed in SBC Communications Inc. (‘‘SBC’’) maintained control of operating systems by the Court of Appeals for the District of respectfully submits the following comments becoming the ultimate ‘‘gatekeeper,’’ Columbia Circuit on February 9, 2001. pursuant to Sections 2(b) and 2(d) of the controlling the bottleneck that both gives Gov’t D.Ct. Memo Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 businesses in these critical related markets in Support of Proposed Final Judgment, U.S.C. § 16(b)–(h), relating to the revised (whether established or still emerging) access filed in the District Court on April 28, proposed Final Judgment that was agreed to to potential customers, and gives consumers 2000 (corrected May 2, 2000). on November 6, 2001, by the United States the means to reach the providers that they Gov’t D.Ct. Reply Memo Plaintiffs’ Reply and certain state plaintiffs in these actions on choose to deal with. Memorandum in Support of Proposed the one hand, and defendant Microsoft Just as Microsoft has for years successfully Final Judgment, filed in the District Corporation (‘‘Microsoft’’) on the other (the imposed on consumers its own products and Court on May 17, 2000. ‘‘proposed settlement’’). services, irrespective of the comparative Gov’t D.Ct. Sum. Resp. Plaintiffs’ Summary merits of competing products it has excluded 1. INTRODUCTION Response to Microsoft’s Comments on from the market, Microsoft will—without the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, filed The history of Sherman Act enforcement kind of strong relief required to break its in the District Court on June 5, 2000. has witnessed few unlawful monopolies as operating system monopoly—be in a position Henderson Decl. Declaration of Rebecca durable, resilient and exclusionary as to repeat its anticompetitive strategy in other Henderson in support of Plaintiffs’ Microsoft’s. This much is clear from the trial markets. Unchecked, Microsoft will favor its Memorandum in Support of Proposed record, the District Court’s monopoly own and its partners’ services, exclude Final Judgment, filed in the District maintenance findings and the Court of competitors’ products and services from Court on April 28, 2000 (corrected May Appeals’ affirmance. Far from providing access to consumers, and degrade its rivals’’ 2, 2000). reassurance that changes in technology will services and raise their costs (by charging a Litigating States’ Plaintiff Litigating States’ end Microsoft’s stranglehold over operating toll, imposing a tee for listing as an available Remedial Proposal, filed in the District system and middleware competition, or that service or creating an interoperability Court on December 7, 2001. the company’s monopoly will be subject to obstacle). Because potential customers will Microsoft D.Ct. Com. Defendant Microsoft serious competitive pressures when the have to pass through a Microsoft operating Corporation’s Comments on Plaintiffs’ proposed settlement’s five-year term expires, system (whether embedded in a PC, a cellular VerDate 11 phone, a set-top box or a PDA), Microsoft American homes may use such devices next exclusion. D.Ct. at ¶174 (finding that by will retain the ability to exclude or year and 25 million by 2006. See Byron commingling ‘‘Microsoft has unjustifiably marginalize all manner of telephone services, Acohido, Challenging Microsoft? It Could jeopardized the stability and security of the messaging products, video or music offerings, Take Moxi, USA Today, Jan. 16, 2002, at B– operating system’’), ¶¶408–12 (highlighting Internet services, and other ‘‘utilities’’ of 3. Microsoft has already announced that it is harm inflicted upon consumers); CA at 62, 65 modem life. In this way, the Microsoft developing an extension to Windows XP that (affirming district court findings of consumer monopoly threatens to destroy the vast will allow PCs to function in this manner. harm). It is also revealed in a ‘‘take no panoply of consumer choice among the Id.; Microsoft Unveils New Home PC prisoners’’ approach in which deception, myriad sources that create and distribute Experiences with ‘‘Freestyle’’ and ‘‘Mira’’ threats, attempts to conspire and degradation communications and entertainment products (Jan. 7, 2002), at www.Microsoft.com/ of middleware connections were used to and services. The proposed settlement does presspass/Press/2002/Jan02/01. Unfettered stifle competition. CA at 73, 75–77. Nothing virtually nothing to lessen Microsoft’s ability by the proposed settlement, Microsoft can in the foreseeable future, much less in the to maintain its operating system monopoly thus use its illegal operating system monopoly maintenance record, suggests that and to prevent its enhancement by monopoly to become the literal marketplace or technological developments Microsoft’s impeding effective competition communications gateway into and out of the alone will suffice to curb Microsoft’s market for all the products and services that will American home or office. It then will have power, its incentive to exclude and its have to be accessed through Microsoft’s enormous power over the products and proven ability and willingness to do so monopoly platform. services consumers use to communicate with ruthlessly. SBC is one of the businesses that will be each other, to do their work and to entertain Finally, Microsoft’s monopoly affects the significantly impacted. Through its affiliates, themselves. country’s most powerful engine of national SBC provides voice and data In this memorandum, SBC addresses the economic prosperity and productivity—the communications services throughout the numerous ways in which the proposed processing and communication of United States and internationally. Some of settlement fails to meet a paramount goal of information. Where monopolization has these services are Internet-based; others are relief in this case: To ‘‘pry open to injured industries of comparable importance, not. Some of SBC’s services (such as its competition’’ in the PC operating system the future of competition has never before unified messaging service, discussed below) market that Microsoft has dominated for over been entrusted to illusory promises by the would erode Microsoft’s operating system a decade by using blatantly exclusionary offending firm or to uncertain marketplace monopoly; others will not. All, however, are tactics. developments, unprotected by judicial at risk if Microsoft is not prevented from The following facts are now beyond supervision from recurrent acts of exclusion. maintaining and expanding its operating dispute in this proceeding’. See United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 system monopoly. Thus, while SBC devotes First, Microsoft’s monopoly has been F. Supp. 131,215–17 (D.DC 1982), aff’d sub a significant portion of its comments to extraordinarily durable, having prospered for nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. explaining why curing the palpable over a decade (D.Ct. at ¶35), having increased 1001 (1983) (‘‘AT&T’’) (rejecting proposed deficiencies in the proposed settlement is steadily to over a 95% share even during the consent decree and ordering its modification essential to protect Internet-based services litigation (CA at 54; D.Ct. at ¶35), and having based, in part, on the ‘‘complexity and that could erode the Microsoft monopoly, enjoyed the continuing protection of magnitude’’ of the decree and the decree’s including SBC’s own ventures, those significant barriers to entry. See CA at 54–56 effect ‘‘on the largest corporation in the deficiencies are of equal importance to SBC’s (‘‘Because the applications barrier to entry world ... the entire telecommunications core communications businesses. protects a dominant operating system industry, the computer industry... and thus The reason why the effects of the Microsoft irrespective of quality, it gives Microsoft the interests of literally millions of monopoly reach so far can be summed up in power to stave off even superior new rivals’’); individuals’’). a single word—‘‘convergence.’’ Convergence D.Ct. at ¶¶36–44, 61 (‘‘Microsoft could That is why in monopolization cases the refers to the development, for home or office significantly restrict its investment in law demands that relief must decisively end use, of devices or platforms that will provide innovation and still not face a viable the anticompetitive practices, prevent their consumers with multiple communications, alternative to Windows for several years recurrence and extension into new markets, computing and entertainment products and .... ‘‘). and restore competition. ‘‘Antitrust relief services. In order to perform these functions, Second, Microsoft’s monopoly has created should unfetter a market from all such devices or platforms—including not only the power, but also the incentive, to anticompetitive conduct and ‘pry open to personal computers, PDAs, wireless phones exclude competition: every technological competition a market that has been closed by and set-top boxes—need to utilize operating innovation that emerged to challenge defendants’ illegal restraints.’’’ Ford Motor systems, whether installed in the device itself Microsoft’s dominance was met with a Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577–78 or residing on Internet servers. By successful strategy of anticompetitive (1972) (citation omitted). If a decree does not maintaining and expanding its operating exclusion. Microsoft was able to effectively pry a market open to competition, system monopoly across platforms, Microsoft ‘‘extinguish,’’ perhaps permanently, the two ‘‘the Government has won a lawsuit and lost can establish its position as ‘‘gatekeeper’’ to greatest innovative threats to its dominance a cause.’’ Int’l Salt Co. v. United States, 332 all such forms of communications, that arose in the 1990’s—Netscape and Java. U.S. 392, 401 (1947). To restore competition, computing and entertainment services. And CIS at 16–17; see also CA at 76–80 therefore, the relief must take account of all as gatekeeper, Microsoft will be in a position (‘‘Microsoft’s ultimate objective was to thwart the factors relevant to the offense, including to direct customers using these platforms Java’s [and Netscape’s] threat to Microsoft’s in particular the likely duration of the toward its services, to degrade or block monopoly;’’ it adopted as strategic goals to monopoly power, which, of course, is the access to competitors’ services, and to ‘‘kill cross-platform Java’’ and interfere with wellspring of the incentive as well as the impose costs on those competitors it cannot the ability of Netscape’s browser to ability to exclude. See Ford Motor Co., 405 completely eliminate. By controlling all of interoperate with Microsoft products); D.Ct. U.S. at 575 (affirming ten-year ban on Ford’s these communications gateways, Microsoft at ¶¶68–77. So long as Microsoft retains the manufacture of spark plugs; prohibition was will not only preserve its operating system power and incentive to exclude the a ‘‘necessary step toward the restoration of monopoly against all serious threats, it will competitive threats of the 21st century, the status quo ante’’ in the market). The substantially lessen competition in the economic theory predicts, and history government has repeatedly embraced the provision of innovative new ‘‘convergent’’ demonstrates, that it will seek to evade any foregoing standards in this case (see, .c.g., services. regulatory barriers placed in its path. Thus, Govt. D.Ct. Memo. at 24; CIS at 3), but its For example, competition is now growing the prospect of innovation offers no solace to proposed settlement fails their purposes. The to reach consumers, through ‘‘gateway’’ restoring competition, only a sure target for ,government has abandoned, without devices such as PCs or television set-top Microsoft’s exclusionary conduct. explanation, injunctive relief that it urged boxes, with broadband communications Third, Microsoft’s incentive to engage in upon the District Court as essential to curb signals that can carry everything from TV calculated predation is so strong that it Microsoft’s appetite for anticompetitive programming to Internet content to telephone readily harms consumers and degrades its conduct and has agreed to a decree filled conversations. An estimated 10 million own products to achieve anticompetitive with loopholes. For example, although the VerDate 11 Court of Appeals found commingling of operating system in order to utilize retain its ‘‘unlawfully built empires’’). Under browser and operating system code to be Microsoft’s browser. Nothing in the decree the Tunney Act, the ‘‘public interest,’’ see 15 unlawful acts of monopoly maintenance, and prevents this scenario, because Microsoft is U.S.C. § 16(e), is not served by a settlement the government advocated that such free to use its illegally maintained monopoly that allows a monopolist to pursue conduct commingling be prohibited as ‘‘an especially power to force servers to interoperate only already adjudicated illegal, that leaves open potent competitive weapon for Microsoft... to with Windows, such that Microsoft becomes easy escape routes from the proposed target competing middleware threats,’’ Gov’t the Internet gatekeeper of a once open and decree’s proscriptions, and that utterly fails D.Ct. Reply Memo at 61, the proposed competitive system. Microsoft’s operating to restore competition to the monopolized settlement does not prohibit such conduct. system monopoly would thereby become still market. Similarly, although the Department of Justice more powerful and durable, as another threat When, as here, there is an adjudicated Antitrust Division Manual provides that the to its dominance is destroyed. In this way, record of serious competitive harm government ‘‘should not negotiate any decree the applications barrier to entry that protects (monopolization) and wrongdoing of less than ten years’ duration’’ and the the Windows monopoly will extend to the (anticompetitive exclusion), the government in this case objected to Internet. responsibility to protect the public from an Microsoft’s initial proposal for a four-year The reality of this threat for the future inadequate settlement is high, and a decree because ‘‘there is no sound competitiveness of Internet-based businesses reviewing court has broad power to do so. justification for entering a decree of shorter has a direct bearing on a wide range of AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 151–53. As the duration,’’ the remedies in the proposed Microsoft’s potential and actual competitors, District Court has said, ‘‘The Supreme Court settlement are to last only five years. including SBC. Through its affiliates, SBC has vested this court with large discretion to The government’s retreat from established provides Internet access and Internet services fashion appropriate restraints both to avoid a antitrust policy and from its prior opposition to customers. SBC is currently developing recurrence of the violation and to eliminate to Microsoft’s remedial proposals has grave several new Internet-based businesses, most its consequences.’’ United States v. Microsoft implications for a competitive economy and importantly its Unified Messaging Service Corp., Civ. Nos. 98–1232, 98–1233 (CKK), for SBC. Not only is Microsoft allowed to (‘‘UMS’’), which will compete directly with Transcript of Proceedings at 9 (Sept. 28, repeat conduct, previously found specific Microsoft products and services. 2001). anticompetitive, to protect its operating UMS will allow retrieval of voice, e-mail and For the reasons set forth below, approval system monopoly from middleware sources fax messages from anywhere in the world, of the proposed decree cannot be squared of competition, but it is free to do so where using any computer or device running on any with ten years of government litigation that the courts have already recognized an even operating system. The proposed settlement, culminated in resounding appellate holdings more powerful threat exists, namely from the however, allows Microsoft to make SBC’s of major antitrust offenses. The fact that Internet. D.Ct. at ¶¶56, 59–60 (cited with UMS product significantly less competitive adverse antitrust consequences will result is approval in CA at 79). Since Internet servers by taking the two simple steps outlined clear from the face of the proposed can perform computing functions formerly above. In these circumstances, only Microsoft settlement, as well as by comparison to the accomplished only by PCs, networks of server operating systems would be injunctive provisions defended by the servers and PCs that freely interoperate (or interoperable with the vast majority of other government in its earlier proposed litigated ‘‘talk’’ to each other)—regardless of the type devices that access the Internet, and judgment. In fact, adoption of this proposed of operating system software that they use— Microsoft would be able to use its server settlement would be worse than no decree at are a platform for applications not dependent control to discriminate against its all, for its negotiated omissions and on Windows. This means that the competitors. concessions allow conduct found illegal in combination of inexpensive computers or As this example shows, the omissions and the past to continue—such as commingling of handheld devices (like a ‘‘dumb’’ PC. a loopholes in the proposed settlement are of code—and thus would appear to prevent cellphone, or a PDA) and smart server no small importance; they have drastic even the government from attacking such networks connected to the Internet can break consequences for a competitive economy. So decree-sanctioned behavior during its term. the monopoly power of Microsoft’s PC too does the decision to limit the settlement Such ambiguity surrounding the operating system by offering a server network to only five years. The trial court recognized government’s enforcement intentions is in alternative that will work with any operating in findings sustained by the Court of Appeals itself affirmatively harmful to the public system and provide more and better that competitive alternatives to the Microsoft interest. application choices at less cost. D.Ct. at operating system, such as web portals, II. A MONOP0LIZATION REMEDY MUST ¶¶22–27 (cited with approval in CA at 52), servers and middleware, take years to RE TAILORED TO THE NATURE AND ¶¶56, 59–60 (‘‘[T]he rise of the Internet... has develop as viable threats, yet the proposed SCOPE OF THE OFFENSE, THE fueled the growth of server-based computing, decree ends almost as soon as it starts—in DURABILITY OF THE UNLAWFUL middleware, and open-source software only five years overall, with some provisions MONOPOLY, THE IMPORTANCE OF development. Working together, these in effect for only four years. No sensible RESTORING COMPETITION TO THE nascent paradigms could oust the PC competitor would invest in technology AFFECTED MARKET AND THE operating system from its position as the improvements to the maximum extent LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRING ACTS OF primary platform for applications necessary to challenge Microsoft— MONOPOLIZATION development and the main interface between innovations that require years to succeed A. The Court Of Appeals Sustained A users and their computers.’’). absent predation—when the decree is neither Finding Of Successful And Longstanding Yet nothing in the government’s settlement strong enough, nor long enough, to protect Monopolization In A Crucial Technology prevents Microsoft from turning an open them. Yet the government breaks with its Industry Internet into a closed Microsoft environment own policy of requiring decrees with ten-year The proposed settlement in this case must simply by doing two things: (1) commingling terms, despite the fact that Microsoft’s be evaluated in light of the Court of Appeals’ its browser, Internet Explorer (‘‘IE’’), with its monopoly has existed for more than a decade affirmance of the District Court’s conclusion, Windows operating system; and (2) changing and its unlawful conduct has spanned a supported by an overwhelming factual the protocol its browser uses to ‘‘talk’’ to period nearly as long. record, that Microsoft is guilty of a panoply Internet servers to an undisclosed proprietary Equally important, there is nothing in the of illegal activities to maintain and extend its standard that will only work effectively with decree to jump start competition, much less monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible Microsoft servers. Because of the dominance to ‘‘pry open’’ the monopolized market to PC operating systems. Microsoft’s conduct of Microsoft’s browser (currently 91% of all give consumers the benefit of competition inflicted significant harm on consumers and browser usage), all web servers would then that would have existed from the likes of competition in violation of Section 2 of the be forced to have a Microsoft server operating Netscape and Java had Microsoft’s Sherman Act. CA at 50–80. system in order for the servers, and the web exclusionary conduct not ‘‘extinguished’’ 1. Microsoft Has Monopolized A Critical sites they host, to be accessible to the vast them. See Schine Chain Theaters, Inc. v. Industry majority of users. In turn, all consumers and United States, 334 U.S. 110, 128 (1948) (an Microsoft is the world’s largest supplier of businesses that wish to access the Internet injunction against future violations is computer software for PCs and, in particular, will be forced to purchase a Windows inadequate when it allows the monopolist to dominates the market for Intel-compatible PC VerDate 11 operating systems software world-wide. D.Ct. at ¶35.1 to extinguish competitive threats to its Although it has the second-largest market 3. Microsoft’s Increasing Monopoly Power monopoly as fast as they emerged in a capitalization among American companies, Is Protected By Significant Barriers To Entry rapidly changing technological environment. Microsoft’s importance extends beyond its The Court of Appeals held that not only Microsoft’s conduct also evidenced a financial success, because it is a linchpin of was Microsoft’s operating system monopoly remarkable willingness to hurt consumers the computer industry (including hardware, virtually complete as measured by market and degrade its own products where peripherals, software and data services), and share, but also that the monopoly’s necessary to accomplish the exclusion of the computer industry is critical to the increasing power and scope derives from a competitive threats to its dominance. functioning of a competitive American structural barrier—the ‘‘applications barrier Both Netscape and Java threatened to economy. See, e.g., Henderson Decl. ¶¶87– to entry’’—that protects the company’s future facilitate competition in operating systems by 98; Romer Decl. ¶17. monopoly position even as against superior permitting software applications developers rivals. The Court held that this barrier to 2. Microsoft’s Monopoly Has Endured For to write programs for the application entry More Than A Decade programming interfaces (APIs) exposed by Microsoft’s operating systems monopoly is stems from two characteristics of the these middleware products, which in turn were capable of running not only on an enduring one, persisting for over a decade software market: (1) most consumers prefer Windows, but on other operating systems. If despite what the Court of Appeals has operating systems for which a large number of applications have already been written; such middleware were permitted to thrive, described as a ‘‘technologically dynamic and (2) most developers prefer to write for such ‘‘cross-platform’’ applications would market.’’ CA at 49. Over that same period, the operating systems that already have a have the potential to overcome the government has been forced to spend substantial consumer base. This ‘‘chicken- applications barrier to entry upon which resources on a continuous basis to and-egg’’ situation ensures that applications Microsoft’s operating system monopoly rests. investigate, and then to prosecute, Microsoft will continue to be written for the already CA at 53, 60. for its illegal conduct. The FTC began dominant Windows, which in turn ensures The Court of Appeals upheld the District investigating Microsoft’s acquisition and that consumers will continue to prefer it over Court’s findings and conclusions that maintenance of monopoly power in the other operating systems. Microsoft engaged in the following unlawful operating systems market in 1990, although CA at 55 (citations omitted). The Court of conduct in violation of Section 2 of the it did not bring charges against the company. Appeals went on to hold that even if Sherman Act for the purpose of maintaining United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d at Windows may have gained its initial its PC operating system monopoly: 1448, 1458 (DC Cir. 1995). Using the FTC’s dominance through superior foresight or a. License Restrictions extensive investigation file as a starting quality, Microsoft had maintained its Microsoft prevented OEMs from removing point, the Antitrust Division of the Justice position through means other than visible means of user access to Microsoft’s Department initiated its own investigation, competition on the merits. ‘‘Because the browser, IE, which thwarted the distribution and in July 1994 filed a civil complaint under applications barrier to entry protects a of rival browsers, primarily Netscape Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, dominant operating system irrespective of Navigator. CA at 59–61. charging, inter alia, that Microsoft unlawfully quality, it gives Microsoft power to stave off Microsoft prohibited OEMs from modifying maintained a monopoly of operating systems even superior new rivals.’’ CA at 56. the initial boot sequence, from adding icons for Intel-compatible PCs. Id. That case was 4. Microsoft’s Monopoly Has Self- or folders different in size or shape from settled by a consent decree, thereby avoiding Perpetuating Incentives those supplied by Microsoft, and from using trial on the merits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District the desktop to promote rival products, Three years later, the Justice Department Court’s findings regarding a variety of thereby preventing OEMs from promoting filed a civil contempt action against anticompetitive acts by Microsoft that were either browsers or Internet access providers Microsoft on the ground that it had violated designed to maintain its monopoly by that competed with Microsoft’s own Internet the decree. On appeal from the grant of a preventing the effective distribution and use access service and that often used Navigator preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeals of middleware products—including rather than IE. Microsoft’s anticompetitive ruled that Microsoft had not violated the Netscape’s ‘‘Navigator’’ browser and the Java conduct reduced consumer choice for the relevant provision of the consent decree, but cross-platform technologies—that might sole purpose of thwarting a middleware threaten the Windows operating system reserved the question of whether the threat to Microsoft’s monopoly. CA at 61–64. monopoly. The Court of Appeals noted with company’s bundling of Internet Explorer b. Commingling Source Code approval the District Court’s conclusion that with the Windows operating system violated By placing computer code specific to the Microsoft’s monopoly gives the firm web browsing function in the same computer the antitrust laws. United States v. Microsoft incentives to perpetuate the monopoly by a Corp., 147 F.3d 935,950 n.14 (DC Cir. 1998). program ‘‘files’’ as code supplying operating pattern of exclusionary conduct. CA at 58. As system functions (i.e., by ‘‘commingling’’ the The complaint that gives rise to the instant the District Court concluded, ‘‘over the past proceeding was filed in May 1998 by the computer code), Microsoft ensured that the several years, Microsoft has comported itself deletion of files containing browsing-specific Justice Department and a group of State in a way that could only be consistent with plaintiffs, again alleging, inter alia, unlawful routines would also delete vital operating rational behavior for a profit-maximizing firm system routines and cripple Windows’ maintenance of a monopoly in the PC if the firm knew that it possessed monopoly operating system market in violation of performance. By preventing OEMs from power, and if it was motivated by a desire to deleting IE, Microsoft deterred OEMs from Sherman Act ¶2. CA at 47. preserve the barrier to entry protecting that The Court of Appeals affirmed the District pre-installing a second browser because power.’’ D.Ct. CL at 37. doing so would increase the OEM’s product Court’s finding that Microsoft’s Windows 5. Microsoft Has Shown Itself Able And operating system accounts for over 95% of and support costs. Had removal of IE been an Willing To Extinguish Competitive Threats option, OEMs could have decided to pre- the Intel-compatible PC operating system As Fast As They Emerge In A Rapidly market. CA at 54. As the District Court found: install Navigator. CA at 66. This Changing Technological Environment, And technological binding of IE to Windows not Willing To Harm Consumers And Degrade Its Microsoft possesses a dominant, persistent, only reduced consumer choice in the browser Own Products In Order To Exclude and increasing share of the worldwide market, but also forced consumers to buy a Competitors From The Market market for Intel-compatible PC operating ‘‘loaded’’ and arguably slower operating In its successful efforts to thwart Netscape systems. Every year for the last decade, system. The Court of Appeals found that this and Java, Microsoft demonstrated its ability Microsoft’s share of the market ... has stood had no purpose other than to maintain above 90 percent. For the last couple of years, Microsoft’s monopoly. 1 the figure has been at least 95 percent, and As recently as January 2002, Microsoft When Microsoft modified Windows 95 to analysts predict that the share will climb controlled over 96% of the entire PC operating produce the Windows 98 operating system, it system market, and Apple’s Macintosh operating even higher over the next few years. Even if took IE out of the Add/Remove Programs Apple’s Mac OS were included in the system had only a 2% share. Is Apple Out of the Running in the Operating Systems War? (Jan. 8, utility, which prevented the removal of IE relevant market, Microsoft’s share would still 2002), at http://www.websidestory.com/cgi- from the operating system. This had the stand well above 80 percent. binwss.cgi? corporate &news&press_l_163. effect of further curtailing end-user control VerDate 11 over the desktop, and reducing usage of rival division agreement whereby Microsoft would ultimately threatened Intel that if it did not browser products for the protection of its treat Netscape as a ‘‘preferred ISV’’ in abandon its support of Sun- compliant Java, operating system monopoly. CA at 65. exchange for Netscape developing Navigator Microsoft would begin supporting Intel c. Exclusionary Agreements to rely on Microsoft’s platform-level Internet competitors and refuse to distribute Intel To extinguish the competitive threat posed technologies. (At the time of Microsoft’s technologies bundled with Windows. Intel to Microsoft’s monopoly by Internet, Access proposal, Navigator was the only browser finally capitulated in 1997. CA at 77–78. Providers (lAPs) and online services—the product with a significant share of the market B. The Remedy In This Section 2 Case other major channel through which browsers and the potential to weaken the applications Must Be Broad And Prophylactic, To Prevent could be distributed to consumers— barrier to entry.) When Netscape refused this Microsoft From Denying Consumers The Microsoft entered into agreements with 14 of unlawful arrangement, Microsoft punished Benefit Of Competition By Retaining the 15 largest IAPs in North America under Netscape by delaying disclosure of the Illegally-Maintained Monopoly Power which the IAPs offered their subscribers IE as technical information needed to make 1. Purpose Of Relief either the default browser or the only Navigator interoperable with Windows, As the government acknowledges in the browser. CA at 68. which forced Netscape to postpone release of Competitive Impact Statement, appropriate Microsoft agreed with AOL (the largest its new browser. As a result, Netscape was injunctive relief here must accomplish three IAP) to place the AOL icon in the online excluded from most of the 1995 holiday things: ‘‘(1) end the unlawful conduct; (2) service folder on the Windows desktop, in selling season. D.Ct. at ¶¶79–91. avoid a recurrence of the violation’ and return for which AOL was forced to agree not e. Efforts To Subvert Sun-compliant Java others like it; and (3) undo its to promote any non-IE browser, or software Technologies anticompetitive consequences.’’ CIS at 24 using a non-IE browser, except at the Sun Microsystems created Java,2 a type of (citing Nat’l Soc’y of Prof’l Eng’rs v. United customer’s request, and even then not to middleware that would support all States, 435 U.S. 679, 697 (1978); United supply more than 15% of its subscribers with applications regardless of the operating States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 a browser other than IE. Because AOL system they were written for. CA at 74. U.S. 316, 326 (1961); Int’l Salt Co., 332 U.S. accounted for a substantial portion of all Programs calling upon Java’s APIs will run at 401); CA at 107. See also Gov’t D.Ct. Memo existing Internet access subscriptions, these on any computer that itself is configured for at 24 (‘‘Permanent injunctive relief ordered in provisions were highly exclusionary. CA at Java; thus, Java enabled software developers a Sherman Act case must be both forward- 70–71. to write applications programs that could be looking and remedial. The decree must (i) During the period 199%9, Microsoft made run on different operating systems with end the violation, (ii) ‘avoid a recurrence of dozens of ‘‘First Wave’’ agreements with relative ease. In May 1995, Netscape agreed the violation’ and others like it and (iii) Internet Software Vendors (‘‘ISVs’’), giving with Sun to distribute Java with every copy restore competition to the market.’’). Any them free licenses to bundle IE with their of Navigator, which at that time was the remedy must be broad in scope and software and preferential support in the form dominant browser. Microsoft violated § 2 in prophylactic in nature so that competition is of access to technical information and the three separate ways in a successful effort to restored and Microsoft is effectively right to use Microsoft seals of approval. In extinguish Java as a competing middleware precluded from further exercise of its exchange, the ISVs agreed to use IE as the platform: monopoly power, even as new products are default browsing software for any software ‘‘First Wave’’ Agreements: The First Wave developed and circumstances in the market that they developed with a hypertext-based Agreements were contracts between change. user interface and to use Microsoft’s ‘‘HTML Microsoft and ISVs for the distribution of a. End Anticompetitive Practices And Help,’’ accessible only with IE, to implement Microsoft’s proprietary version of the Java Prevent Their Recurrence their applications’ help systems. The effect of Virtual Machine (‘‘JVM’’). The agreements Any settlement here must be structured to those deals was to ensure that many of the required developers to make Microsoft’s JVM end anticompetitive practices and not merely most popular Internet applications relied on the default in the programs they developed, to prevent repetition of the same illegal browsing technologies found only in in exchange for Microsoft’s technical support conduct. As the Court of Appeals pointedly Windows, which increased the likelihood and other inducements. CA at 75–76. instructed: that millions of consumers using applications Deception of Java Developers: Microsoft [A] remedies decree... must seek to designed by those ISVs would use IE instead offered software developers various ‘‘unfetter a market from anti- competitive of Navigator. The agreements with ISVs development tools that purportedly would conduct .... terminate the illegal monopoly, further foreclosed rival browser distribution assist ISVs in designing Java applications, but deny to the defendant the fruits of its and curtailed the middleware threat to the concealed the fact that aspects of the code statutory violation, and ensure that there Windows monopoly. CA at 71–72. generated by the design tools could only be remain no practices likely to result in d. Actual And Attempted Coercion And executed properly by Microsoft’s JVM. The monopolization in the future.’’ Retaliation To Exclude Competitors result was that many developers, relying on CA at 103 (citations omitted) (quoting Ford Microsoft coerced Apple to drop Navigator Microsoft’s public commitment to cooperate Motor Co., 405 U.S. 562; United States v. as the standard browser installed on its PCs, with Sun, unwittingly used the programming United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244 and to substitute IE as the default browser on tools to write Java applications that ran only (1968)). In the proceedings on remand, the its Macintosh operating system. Microsoft on Windows, and not other platforms. District Court has already recognized that any threatened to cut off production of its Microsoft maintained this deception in order remedy, in order to be adequate, must go ‘‘Office’’ business productivity software for to ‘‘kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the beyond merely prohibiting the conduct in Apple PCs (90% of Apple Office suite users polluted Java market.’’ CA at 76–77. This which Microsoft has previously engaged: relied on the Microsoft version of Office conduct injured consumers by fraudulently designed for the Macintosh operating inducing development of corrupted versions The Supreme Court long ago stated that it’s system), an action that had no purpose but of otherwise successful cross-platform entirely appropriate for a district court to to maintain Microsoft’s operating system middleware, for the sole purpose of order a remedy which goes beyond a simple monopoly while hurting consumers. Apple protecting the Microsoft monopoly. Id. prescription against the precise conduct was forced to agree to bundle the most Microsoft’s Threat to Intel: Intel and Sun previously pursued .... [T]he remedy may current version of IE to the Macintosh had entered into an agreement to create a range broadly through the practices operating system for as long as Microsoft high-performance, Windows-compatible connected with the acts actually found to be continued to support Mac Office, and JVM, and by 1996, Intel had developed a JVM illegal. The Supreme Court has vested this promised not to promote Navigator on its that complied with Sun’s cross-platform court with large discretion to fashion desktop. CA at 72–74. standards. Starting in 1995, Microsoft’s appropriate restraints both to avoid a Microsoft retaliated against Netscape when senior management repeatedly requested that recurrence of the violation and to eliminate Netscape refused to capitulate to Microsoft’s Intel stop its cooperation with Sun, and its consequences. demands that it forgo development of Microsoft, Transcript of Proceedings at 9 Navigator technology as a middleware 2 When this document refers to ‘‘Java’’ without (paraphrasing Nat’l Soc’y of Prof’l Eng’rs, 435 platform. Microsoft sought to convince any adjectives or other modifiers, it refers to Sun U.S. at 697; and United States v. U.S. Netscape to enter into an illegal market Microsystems’ product. Gypsum Co., 340 U.S. 76, 88–89 (1950)). VerDate 11 The public interest is not served merely by Schine Chain Theaters, Inc., 334 U.S. at divestiture, preclusion from specific markets, eliminating past anticompetitive practices; 128. and compulsory, royalty-free licensing) (‘‘it is the remedy must eliminate the future 2. The Law Requires Effective Measures To unlikely that, realistically, an injunction recurrence of illegal conduct: Accomplish These Results could be drafted that would be both [T]he end to be served is not punishment a. Relief Must Neutralize Monopoly Power sufficiently detailed to bar specific of past transgression, nor is it merely to end At Its Source And Eliminate The anticompetitive conduct yet sufficiently specific illegal practices. A public interest Monopolist’s Incentive To Exclude broad to prevent the various conceivable served by such civil suits is that they Competitors From The Market kinds of behavior that AT&T might employ effectively pry open to competition a market A decree must ‘‘break up or render in the future’’); Zenith Radio Corp. v. that has been closed by defendants’ illegal impotent the monopoly power found to be in Hazeltine Research, Inc. 395 U.S. 100, 132 restraints. If [the] decree accomplishes less violation of the Act.’’ Grinnell Corp., 384 (1969) (court may exercise its ‘‘broad power than that, the Government has won a lawsuit U.S. at 577. It must ‘‘leave the defendant to restrain acts which are of the same type and lost a cause. without the ability to resume the actions or class as the unlawful acts which the court Int’l Salt Co., 332 U.S. at 401 (emphasis which constituted the antitrust violations in has found to be committed or whose added). the first place.’’ AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 150. commission in the future, unless enjoined, b. Relief Must Anticipate New Forms Of may fairly be anticipated from the A trial court upon a finding of... a Exclusion, Commensurate With The defendant’s conduct in the past’’); CA at 103 monopoly has the duty to compel action... Evidence Of Microsoft’s Incentive To (court must ‘‘ensure that there remain no that will, so far as practicable, cure the ill Exclude And Its Willingness To Do So At practices likely to result in monopolization effects of the illegal conduct, and assure the The Expense Of Consumers And Its Own in the future’’). The ‘‘broad power’’ the Court public freedom from its continuance .... Product Quality Acts entirely proper when viewed alone has to fashion an effective remedy includes may be prohibited. U.S. Gypsum Co., 340 Because an antitrust remedy, in order to be the authority to prohibit exploitation of U.S. at 90 (citations omitted); see also United adequate, must neutralize the monopolist’s monopoly power in any manner and to order Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. at 252 (relief power to resume the action constituting the provisions designed to create and foster new should ‘‘render impotent the monopoly’’); adjudicated violation, any remedy ‘‘must competition, including the disclosure of Nat’l Soc’y of Prof’l Engn’rs, 435 U.S. at 697 effectively foreclose the possibility that proprietary information, mandatory (‘‘the District Court was empowered to antitrust violations will occur or recur.’’ Id. licensing, exclusive dealing bans and many fashion appropriate restraints on the at 150. Again, the Supreme Court has given other remedies. Gov’t. D.Ct. Memo at 26 Society’s future activities to avoid a instruction that is directly relevant here: (citing United States v. Crescent Amusement recurrence of the violation and eliminate its When the purpose to restrain trade appears Co., 323 U.S. 173 (1944); Hartford-Empire Co. consequences’’). from a clear violation of law, it is not v. United States, 323 U.S. 386 (1945); United In this case, the government has recognized necessary that all of the untraveled roads to States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 the need to go beyond enjoining current that end be left open and that only the worn (1973); Int’l Salt Co., 332 U.S. 392; Ford violations to assure that Microsoft’s one be closed. The usual ways to the Motor Co., 405 U.S. at 572). violations do not recur. See Gov’t D.Ct. prohibited goal may be blocked against the In order to prevent evasion of antitrust Memo at 24 (‘‘Forbidding the continuance of proven transgressor and the burden put upon proscriptions put in place by a consent the violation—here, for example, the him to bring any proper claims for relief to decree, courts routinely retain jurisdiction in anticompetitive bundling of Internet Explorer the court’s attention. order to modify decrees, resolve disputes, with the Windows operating system—is Int’l Salt Co., 332 U.S. at 400. As the and ensure there is a forum for timely necessary but not sufficient to rectify the District Court has recognized, even practices adjudicating whether defendants are in harm caused and threatened by Microsoft’s not found to be unlawful should be compliance. See, e.g., Int’l Salt Co., 332 U.S. illegal conduct.’’). prohibited where necessary to avoid at 401–02; Otter Tail Power Co. v. United b. Restore Competition (Deny The Fruits Of recurrence of monopolization. AT&T, 552 F. States, 410 U.S. 366, 381–82 (1973); United Wrongdoing) Supp. at 150 n.80 (citing United States v. Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. at 251–52; AT&T, As the government has acknowledged, United Shoe Mach. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 552 F. Supp. at 215–17 (ordering ‘‘[r]estoring competition is the ‘key to the 295,346–47 (D. Mass. 1953), aff’d, 347 U.S. modification of proposed consent decree to whole question of an antitrust remedy.’’’ CIS 521 (1954)). Similarly, the court must impose include provisions relating to Court’s at 24 (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., additional restraints to allow development of continuing ability to enforce decree). 366 U.S. at 697); see also U.S. Gypsum, 340 new competition in the relevant market. Id. d. Relief Must Be Of Sufficient Duration To U.S. at 90 (‘‘The conspirators should, so far (citing Ford Motor Co., 405 U.S. at 575). ‘‘Pry Open’’ The Monopolized Market By as practicable, be denied future benefits from Given the record in this case, the remedy Allowing Competitive Products To Take Root their forbidden conduct.’’); United States v. must anticipate new forms of exclusion such i. It Takes Years For Competitive Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563,577 (1966) (‘‘We that, in view of Microsoft’s incentive to Alternatives—Web Portals, Servers And start from the premise that adequate relief in exclude and demonstrated willingness to do Middleware—To Develop, Even Assuming a monopolization case should... deprive the so, the company may not further restrain Lack Of Obstruction defendants of any of the benefits of the illegal trade illegally and is prevented from The applications barrier to entry that conduct, and break up or render impotent the repeating its past unlawful practices in new Microsoft enjoys through its operating system monopoly power found to be in violation of contexts. monopoly will, as the District Court found the Act.’’); CA at 103 (a remedies decree must c. Relief Must Prevent Regulatory (Decree) (and the Court of Appeals agreed), make it ‘‘deny to the defendant the fruits of its Evasion extraordinarily difficult for a new operating statutory violation’’) (citations omitted). As Where the monopoly in question is as system to attract enough developers and the Supreme Court put it in a holding that powerful and persistent as that maintained consumers to be a viable alternative to is particularly cogent here: over the last decade by Microsoft, there is a Windows in any reasonable time frame. D.Ct. [A]n injunction against future violations is real danger that the monopolist will evade at ¶¶30–31; D.Ct. CL at 36; CA at 54–56. The not adequate to protect the public interest. If the particular provisions of any consent overwhelming majority of consumers will all that was done was to forbid a repetition decree that is entered. In order to cope with only use Windows because there are already of the illegal conduct, those who had the threat of regulatory evasion, antitrust a large variety of applications written for that unlawfully built their empires could preserve judgments must contain broad proscriptions operating system. Given that it is expensive them intact. They could retain the full of anticompetitive conduct that will, by their to port applications from one operating dividends of their monopolistic practices and generality, cover new forms of exclusion. system to another, software developers will profit from the unlawful restraint of trade See, E.I. du Pont, 366, U.S. at 1254 (An generally write applications only for the which they had inflicted on competitors. ‘‘injunction can hardly be detailed enough to operating system that is used by the Such a course would make enforcement of cover in advance all the many fashions in dominant share of PC users. the Act a futile thing unless, perchance, the which improper influence may manifest Software developers and ISPs are now United States moved in at the incipient itself.’’); AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 167 forced, given the economics of the industry, stages of the unlawful project. (approving consent decree ordering to use Windows, an operating system that VerDate 11 they would not necessarily choose, but that Rather than being narrowly drawn, the routine Tunney Act proceedings involving is virtually the sole conduit available to remedy in this case must be broad, settlements without adjudicated findings of deliver their product to the end-user. Given prophylactic, flexible and forward-looking in liability, the proposed consent decree in this these circumstances, ‘‘it remains to be seen order to provide competition a safe harbor case is subject to a more searching standard whether server or middleware-based from Microsoft’s exclusionary power. of review by the trial court. See also U.S. development will flourish at all.’’ D.Ct. at C. The Tunney Act Requires Courts To Gypsum Co., 340 U.S. at 89 (‘‘[C]ourts should ¶32. Reject Seriously Deficient Decrees give weight to the fact of conviction as well In order to allow alternative operating Pursuant to the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16, as the circumstances under which the illegal systems to develop, the public interest in evaluating an antitrust settlement, a court acts occur. Acts in disregard of law call for demands a decree that will ‘‘pry open to may not ‘‘rubber stamp’’ a proposed consent repression by sterner measures than where competition a market that [is] closed’’ by the decree, but must instead ‘‘make an the steps could reasonably have been thought enormous applications barrier to entry and independent determination as to whether or permissible.’’). by Microsoft’s continuous course of illegal not entry of a proposed consent decree [is] The AT&T case provides strong support for conduct. See Int’l Salt Co., 332 U.S. at 401. in the public interest.’’ Microsoft Corp., 56 applying a higher degree of scrutiny in this Given the time necessary for a competitive F.3d at 1458 (quoting S. Rep. No. 298, 93d case than in the typical Tunney Act operating system or middleware product to Cong., 1st Sess. 5 (1973)); accord AT&T, 552 proceeding. In AT&T, while noting that overcome the applications barrier to entry (if F. Supp. at 149 & n.74.3 ordinarily a degree of deference to the it is possible at all), any sustainable decree In determining whether the consent decree Department of Justice’s view that a settlement must assure consumers, programmers and is in the public interest, the Court must begin is in the public interest is appropriate, the potential competitors of a lengthy time frame by defining the public interest in accordance District Court held that such deference was in which to develop new products that can with the antitrust laws, AT&T, 552 F. Supp. not warranted where the court had heard compete with Windows. Without an at 149 (citing S.Rep. No. 93–298 at 3; H.R. ‘‘what probably amounts to well over ninety adequate time frame for competing products Rep. No. 93–1463 11–12), and ensure that the percent of the parties’ evidence both to take hold, consumers will be unwilling to provisions of the decree will ‘‘preserve free quantitatively and qualitatively, as well as all scrap the investment in applications, and unfettered competition as the rule of of [the parties’] legal arguments.’’ 552 F. training, and hardware that they have already trade.’’ Id. (citing N. Pac. Ry. v. United States, Supp. at 152. The District Court thus made in Windows. 365 U.S. 1 (1958)). The consent decree’s concluded that it was ‘‘in a far better position ii. Software Developers And Other provisions must ‘‘break up or render than are the courts in the usual consent ‘‘Investors’’ Need Confidence That The impotent the monopoly power found to be in decree cases to evaluate the specific details Decree Will Provide Protection Long Enough violation of the Act.’’ Id. at 150 (quoting of the settlement.’’ Id. The Court of Appeals, To Give Their Investments A Fair Chance To Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. at 577) and ‘‘must in its first Microsoft opinion, embraced this Be Viable leave the defendant without the ability to distinction and specifically contrasted the Without a decree that is broad enough to resume the actions which constituted the AT&T consent decree proceeding with the ensure that Microsoft does not continue to antitrust violation in the first place,’’ id. Not first Microsoft decree, which was presented benefit from its past practices and erect new only must the decree remedy past violations, before any evidence had been taken. See barriers to market entry, the very purpose of ‘‘it must also effectively foreclose the Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d at 1461. antitrust relief in monopolization cases will possibility that antitrust violations will occur The circumstances now justify a searching be thwarted. Without a strong and long- or recur.’’ Id.; see also id. at 151 (‘‘[I]t does and demanding review of whether the decree lasting decree, Microsoft’s entrenched not follow that courts must unquestionably is in the public interest. The settlement here dominance and the threat of further accept a proffered decree as long as it is not before the Court ‘‘in the first instance,’’ exclusionary conduct will preclude somehow, and however inadequately, deals or even with ‘‘ninety percent of the parties’’ entrepreneurs and other innovators from with the antitrust and other public policy evidence’’ presented (as in AT&T,) but rather improving products and services. As the problems implicated in the lawsuit.’’). after a full trial on the merits and multiple government has acknowledged, ‘‘an In its first decision involving Microsoft, the findings that Microsoft violated the Sherman injunction which simply bars the precise Court of Appeals recognized that a more Act. The District Court now has before it all illegal conduct proven at trial would leave deferential review standard is appropriate of the trial evidence, as well as Findings of the defendant with the full dividends of [its] under the Tunney Act in cases where there Fact and Conclusions of Law, affirmed by the monopolistic practices and profit from the has been no trial and hence ‘‘there are no Court of Appeals, regarding the relevant unlawful restraints of trade which [it] has findings that the defendant has actually market and Microsoft’s illegal, inflicted on competitors.’’ Gov’t D.Ct. Reply engaged in illegal practices.’’ Microsoft Corp., anticompetitive conduct. The Court may Memo at 10 (quoting Schine Chain Theaters, 56 F.3d at 1460–61. It follows, therefore, that therefore make a fully informed and 334 U.S. at 128 (internal quotation marks where there are express findings based on a independent determination concerning omitted)). full trial record ‘‘that the defendant has whether the settlement is truly in the public If the decree leaves any room for doubt actually engaged in illegal practices,’’ id., a interest. whether Microsoft will retain its freedom and more intensive Tunney Act review is As in AT&T, close scrutiny of the required. Accord AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 152. power to exclude competitors, then software settlement is also necessary because of its In the instant case, there have been both a developers will, in their economic self- importance to the national economy. In lengthy trial on the merits and exhaustive interest, continue what they have been doing refusing to narrow the scrutiny given the findings of illegal monopoly maintenance by for years—writing applications that operate consent decree, the District Court in AT&T Microsoft—findings that the Court of Appeals solely on Microsoft’s platform—thereby noted that given the ‘‘potential impact of the expressly affirmed. Thus, unlike in more perpetuating the very monopoly that this proposed decree on a vast and crucial sector case has found to be illegal. Such a result of the economy and on such general public 3 violates the fundamental tenet that an The provisions of the Tunney Act allow the interest as the cost and availability of local antitrust remedy must effectively ‘‘restore Court to consider a wide variety of factors in telephone service, the technological determining whether a consent decree is in the future freedom of trade.’’ See U.S. Gypsum, public interest, including: (1) the competitive development of a vital part of the national 340 U.S. at 90 (reversing an injunction impact of such judgment, including termination of economy, national defense, and foreign trade, limited to sale of gypsum board in Eastern alleged violations, provisions of enforcement and the Court would be derelict in its duty if it United States and directing entry of modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated adopted a narrow approach to its public injunction covering all gypsum products effects of alternative remedies actually considered, interest review responsibilities.’’ AT&T, 552 throughout the country because the ‘‘relief, to and any other considerations bearing upon the F. Supp. at 152. be effective, must go beyond the narrow adequacy of such judgment; (2) the impact of entry The proposed settlement here is of no less limits of the violation’’); see also Glaxo of such judgment upon the public generally and importance. This settlement has broad individuals alleging specific injury from the Group Ltd., 410 U.S. at 64 (ordering violations set forth in the complaint including ramifications for the national economy, compulsory patent licensing on appeal where consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be especially in technology development, and necessary to assure ‘‘the public freedom derived from a determination of the issues at trial. impacts millions of American consumers— from... continuance of the illegal conduct’’). 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1)–(2). ramifications with little precedent in the VerDate 11 history of antitrust jurisprudence. In such could have facilitated the introduction of that the Court of Appeals, like the District circumstances, the Court’s careful, competition into the market for Intel- Court, found that Microsoft’s commingling of independent review is essential to ensure the compatible personal computer operating its browser and operating system codes decree serves the public interest. systems. constituted illegal monopoly maintenance. Finally, the proposed settlement also CIS at 16–17. Although the CIS CA at 64–67. Yet the settlement would allow requires heightened scrutiny because half of acknowledges that merely prohibiting future such conduct to continue. And as long as the States that joined in prosecuting the case instances of Microsoft’s past exclusionary, such commingling is allowed, Microsoft has do not agree that the settlement would monopolistic conduct is not sufficient to the power to prevent the next generation of protect the interests of their citizens. The restore competition, in reality that is all the computing on web and network servers, government is now expressing views proposed settlement attempts to do, and even nascent or otherwise, from overcoming its substantially inconsistent with its expressed those minimal efforts are unavailing. operating system monopoly. Thus, the decree positions at earlier stages of the case. Where indeed, in the earlier remedy proceedings, does not even bar ‘‘repetition of the precise elected representatives of the public are the government characterized Microsoft’s acts in the precise contexts that were at issue sharply divided on whether the settlement view of appropriate relief (which the in the trial.’’ Gov’t D.Ct. Reply Memo at 49. actually serves the public interest, any government has now largely adopted) as a B. The Proposed Settlement Is Riddled questions concerning whether the settlement ‘‘crabbed view of antitrust remedies:’’ With Loopholes That Invite Evasion, Does is fair to the public must be subject to Not Anticipate And Prohibit New Forms Of [E]specially in an industry like the exacting scrutiny. ‘‘None of this means, of Exclusionary Conduct To Protect The software industry, which as Microsoft has course, that the Court would be justified in Windows Monopoly, And Discourages The repeatedly emphasized is rapidly changing, a simply substituting its views for those of the Development Of Competition To Windows remedy limited to barring repetition of the parties. But it does mean that the decree 1. The Proposed Settlement Provisions To [should] receive closer scrutiny than that precise acts in the precise contexts that were Protect Middleware Do Not Adequately which might be appropriate to a decree at issue in the trial could not possibly serve Address Microsoft’s Past Illegal Conduct, proposed in a more routine antitrust case.’’ the required purposes of preventing Much Less Prevent Its Recurrence In The AT&T, 522 F. Supp. at 153. recurrence of the violations and restoring Future THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT FAILS IN competition. One of the principal threats to the EVERY MATERIAL RESPECT TO ACHIEVE Gov’t D.Ct. Reply Memo at 49. It is dominance of Microsoft’s operating system THE OBJECTIVES OF RELIEF REQUIRED BY therefore ironic that the government now monopoly was middleware, which refers to THIS CASE AND AFFIRMATIVELY embraces in the proposed settlement many of ‘‘software products that expose their own PROVIDES A ‘‘GREEN LIGHT’’ AND AN the same substantive decree provisions it APIs.’’ CA at 53; D.Ct. ¶¶28, 68. Since INCENTIVE TO ENGAGE IN earlier dismissed as woefully inadequate. middleware exposes APIs for which software EXCLUSIONARY CONDUCT Presaging the current dispute over developers can write programs, it can A. The Government Has Abandoned Its remedies, the government stated in a provide a less time-consuming and cheaper Prior Effort To Use Injunctive Relief To ‘‘Pry pleading before the District Court almost two means of writing applications that can run on Open’’ The Monopolized Market, Conceding years ago: various operating systems. Id. Anything that That Its Purpose Is Now Merely To Protect In crafting an effective Sherman Act reduces the need to adapt, or ‘‘port,’’ an ‘‘Nascent’’ Threats To The Windows remedy, a court must use the record of a application to competing operating systems Monopoly backward-looking trial to fashion forward- threatens to overcome Microsoft’s monopoly The Court of Appeals affirmed findings looking relief. Looking forward, the Court in the PC operating systems market by that Microsoft extinguished all tangible must anticipate that Microsoft, unless eliminating the applications barrier to entry. threats to its operating systems monopoly. restrained by appropriate equitable relief, CA at 54–56; D.Ct. at ¶¶68–78. Unfortunately, the provisions that address CA at 79; D.Ct. at ¶¶68–77. The findings also likely will continue to perpetuate its middleware are so limited and rife with support the conclusion that if Microsoft had monopoly by the same anticompetitive exceptions as to be virtually meaningless. pursued competition on the merits rather methods revealed at trial, although directed Sections III.C and III.H of the proposed than anticompetitive conduct, significant at whatever new competitive threat arises. settlement are inadequate in at least the erosion of its monopoly would have Neither the Netscape browser nor Java following respects: (a) the definitions of key occurred. See generally CA at 58–79. continues to have the prospect of lowering terms invite easy evasion and make Certainly, that is what Microsoft’s CEO the applications barrier to entry, and it is not Microsoft’s compliance virtually believed when he envisioned the Windows certain where future threats to Microsoft’s discretionary; (b) while the settlement is operating system being ‘‘commoditized’’ by operating system will arise. fairly specific in limiting Microsoft’s ability Netscape. D.Ct. at ¶72. The proposed Gov’t D.Ct. Memo at 27–28. The to restrict OEMs from promoting competing settlement does nothing to deprive Microsoft government then went on to describe as software, it is silent on a crucial tactic— of either the ‘‘fruits’’ or the source of its potential middleware or platform threats to technological binding 4—that Microsoft was successful strategy of extinguishing Microsoft’s operating system monopoly such proven to have used to the same exclusionary competition, nor does it restore to consumers products and technologies as Microsoft’s own ends; and (c) the settlement undermines its the benefits of the choices that they would Office suite; applications such as voice own purported goals by including exceptions have had if Microsoft’s illegal conduct had recognition software, media streaming to each prohibition that largely negate the never occurred. technology and email programs; server relief ordered. In its narrowness, the At this stage of the proceedings, the operating systems (and the need for settlement also ignores new products, the government states that its goal is merely to interoperability between PCs and servers); potential for future innovation, and novel ‘‘restore the competitive threat that and non-PC devices such as PDAs and hand- methods by which similar anticompetitive middleware products posed prior to held computers. See id. at 28–29. results may be achieved. As such, the decree Microsoft’s unlawful undertakings.’’ CIS at 3. A settlement such as this one, which limits fails either to remedy past effects or prevent These were, as the government admits, itself to protecting the next generation of future anticompetitive acts from occurring. merely ‘‘nascent threats,’’ id. at 24, 25, not emerging threats instead of ‘‘prying open’’ a. The Definitions In The Decree the fully-developed alternatives that would the monopolized market (thereby effectively Effectively Leave Compliance At Microsoft’s have existed today but for Microsoft’s blessing the extinction of the first generation Discretion conduct. The competitive threats to the and the preservation of Microsoft’s Microsoft monopoly were stillborn, not as a monopoly), cannot claim to serve even this 4 The terms ‘‘binding’’ or ‘‘commingling of code’’ result of fair competition but, as the minimal goal without anticipating and refer to including software or a link to web-based government acknowledges, because of prohibiting, with both specificity and software in an operating system product in such a Microsoft’s predation: generality, the many ways in which way that either an OEM or end-user cannot readily remove or uninstall the code without degrading the Through its actions against Navigator and Microsoft can thwart new forms of performance or impairing the functionality of the Java, Microsoft retarded, and perhaps competition from novel or different operating system. ‘‘Bundling’’ refers to the sale or extinguished altogether, the process by technologies, such as those listed by the marketing of different software products in a single which these two middleware technologies government. In this regard, it is noteworthy package, but without commingling of their codes. VerDate 11 i. The Definitions Of ‘‘Microsoft settlement’s provisions.5 This means that The fourth requirement is that the code Middleware’’ And ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Microsoft can distribute any product that must be ‘‘self-contained.’’ This too Product’’ Encourage Microsoft To Continue may have other intellectual property encourages commingling of Microsoft Binding Middleware To Its Monopoly protections, such as copyright or patent middleware with the operating system, Windows Operating System protection, but that is not trademarked, because it allows Microsoft to create cross- The definition of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ without the product being considered dependent products solely to avoid is of crucial importance because, if a program ‘‘Middleware.’’ Of course, if Microsoft complying with the provisions applicable to constitutes ‘‘Microsoft Middleware,’’ chooses to bind a product to the operating ‘‘Middleware.’’ If Microsoft is allowed to Microsoft is then subject to requirements that system and not distribute it separately, there commingle the code for the products in such it disclose the programming interfaces and would be no need to trademark the product. a way as to create cross-dependencies communications protocols by which the The third requirement, which refers to the between the operating system and functionality of a ‘‘Microsoft Middleware middleware interoperates with the Windows middleware (as it did illegally for IE), it can Product,’’ further limits the scope of the operating system. The definition also triggers avoid compliance with many of the ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ definition. This is 8 Microsoft’s obligation to allow OEMs to re- substantive provisions in the decree. because the definition of ‘‘Microsoft In the CIS, the government explains that configure the PC desktop to give purportedly Middleware Product’’ lists by name several equal access to competing middleware. See the definitions of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ products traditionally considered and ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ include CIS at 17–18; RPFJ §§ III.C, III.D, III.E. As middleware, including Internet Explorer, shown below, these disclosures and the ‘‘functionality’’ of a number of existing Microsoft’s Java Virtual Machine, Windows Microsoft middleware products, including IE, obligations are not adequate to accomplish Media Player, Windows Messenger, Outlook their avowed purpose. The government’s Windows Media Player, and Outlook Express, and their successors in the Windows Express. See C1S at 17–20. What is not stated goal is to ensure the viability of the operating system. See RPFJ § VI.K. But mentioned, however, is that the government OEM distribution channel for competing limiting the definition of Microsoft previously advocated a definition of middleware products and the ability of those ‘‘Middleware’’ only to those products which middleware that was truly based on the products to achieve ‘‘seamless in the past were distributed as middleware function of middleware and, as such, there interoperability’’ with the Windows fails to account for future development of new products. In addition, the definition was no need to distinguish between operating system. CIS at 38. ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ and ‘‘Non- The proposed settlement defines omits important existing products, such as Microsoft Office 66 and Internet telephony Microsoft Middleware.’’ See Final Judgment ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ as software code § 7(q).9 Nor does the CIS discuss the fact that that: (1) is distributed separately from the products, that perform functions analogous to the listed ‘‘middleware’’ products.7 in the event that a particular item of software Windows Operating System Product; (2) is code fails to meet any one of the four trademarked; (3) provides functionality definitional requirements in the settlement, it 5 Even the settlement’s definition of ‘‘trademark’’ similar to a Microsoft Middleware Product; will not be regulated at all by sections III.C, and (4) has the code necessary to be is so broad as to further limit the scope of the decree: ‘‘Trademarked’’ means distributed in III.D, and III.E of the decree. This is considered a self-contained product. See commerce and identified as distributed by a name significant, because the definition as it stands RPFJ § VI.J. Because each element of this other than Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) that now neither comports with the traditional definition is too narrow or too easily evaded Microsoft has claimed as a trademark or service definitions of middleware, nor with the way by Microsoft, the obligations that are mark by (i) marking the name with trademark the courts in this case have used the term. triggered by the definition are largely notices, such as ?? or TM, in connection with a See, e.g., CA at 53. illusory. product distributed in the United States; (ii) filing an application for trademark protection for the ii. The Definition Of ‘‘Non-Microsoft The first part of this definition bears name in the United States Patent and Trademark Middleware Product’’ Is Too Narrow To directly upon Microsoft’s practice of initially Office; or (iii) asserting the name as a trademark in Protect The Ability Of Products And distributing a middleware product the United States in a demand letter or lawsuit. Any Competitors To Gain Equal Access To The separately, then bundling it for sale with product distributed under descriptive or generic OEM Distribution Channel Windows, and finally binding it to the terms or a name comprised of the Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) trademarks together with descriptive or operating system. See D.Ct. at ¶¶155–74 the operation of the product, also limits the generic terms shall not be Trademarked as that term effectiveness of section III.H of the proposed (discussing employment of these tactics with is used in this Final Judgment. Microsoft hereby settlement, which relies heavily upon the definition IE). Binding, or commingling of source code disclaims any trademark rights in such descriptive of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Product’’ to set the was held by the Court of Appeals to be illegal or generic terms apart from the Microsoft(r) or parameters of non-Microsoft middleware access to conduct used by Microsoft to eliminate the Windows(r) trademarks, and hereby abandons any such rights that it may acquire in the future.’’ RPFJ the OEM distribution channel. browser threat. See CA at 64–67; D.Ct. at 8 § VI.T. Thus, Microsoft may release a new An example of cross-dependency is the link ¶¶159, 170–74. It is unnecessary technically between IE and Microsoft Word in the Windows and has no procompetitive justification. Id. middleware product entitled WindowsTM Telephone, for example, and because the name is Operating System Product. Even if an end-user has The practical effect of the settlement’s descriptive rather than trademarked, it would not selected Navigator as her default browser, IE may definition, however, is to allow Microsoft to be considered ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ under the automatically launch if the user clicks on a URL, achieve the same anticompetitive results terms of the decree. (i.e., an Internet address) that is contained in a merely by omitting the first of the three steps 6 Significantly, by omitting Microsoft Office from Word document. 9 mentioned above. Simply by bundling the list of middleware products, the government has The Final Judgment contained the following definition for Middleware, which it applied to both middleware applications with the operating eliminated from the proposed settlement a middleware product that provides Microsoft with a Microsoft and Non-Microsoft Middleware: system from the outset (so that they would de facto monopoly in the middleware market. As ‘‘Middleware’’ means software that operates, not be ‘‘distributed separately’’), Microsoft of March 1997, Office’s market share had reached directly or through other software, between an may render any provision regulating its use 90%, a figure that has likely grown since that point. Operating System and another type of software of ‘‘Middleware’’ a nullity. Because the See Jesse Berst, Office Suites for Free ZDNet (such as an application, a server Operating System, settlement contains no limitations on AnchorDesk (March 7, 1997), at http:// or a database management system) by offering bundling or commingling of Microsoft www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story—743.html; services via APIs or Communications Interfaces to see also, Benjamin Woodhead, Microsoft’s such other software, and could, if ported to or middleware with the monopoly operating Australian Monopoly? Let the U.S. Handle It, interoperable with multiple Operating Systems, system, the definition actually encourages iTNews (Nov. 17, 1999), at http:// enable software products written for that Microsoft to engage in anticompetitive www.itnews,com.au/story.cfm?ID=507 (referring to Middleware to be run on multiple Operating practices—i.e., commingling of code—in the lack of recent statistics on Office Suite’s market System Products. order to avoid application of the decree. share, ‘‘We don’t bother to measure that market Examples of Middleware within the meaning of Second, the definition of ‘‘Microsoft anymore because Lotus and Corel have been this Final Judgment include Internet browsers, e- Middleware’’ requires that the product must squeezed out of it ... No one will pay for that sort mail client software, multimedia viewing software, of research because everyone knows what the be trademarked. Simply by not seeking a Office, and the Java Virtual Machine. Examples of answer is.’’). software that are not Middleware within the trademark, Microsoft can ensure that its 7 Describing the functionality of a product in meaning of this Final Judgment are disk middleware will not be covered by the terms of the categories of applications, rather than compression and memory management. VerDate 11 From the outset, the government has § VI.U. The definition also leaves in b. The Settlement Fails To Prohibit Tactics supported injunctive relief designed both to Microsoft’s ‘‘sole discretion’’ the Used By Microsoft To Foreclose OEM give OEMs control over how to configure the determination of what software code Distribution Of Competing Products And PCs they sell and to provide end-users with constitutes future versions of the Windows Allows That Unlawful Behavior To Continue the ability to remove Microsoft middleware Operating System Product. Id. The CIS fails The proposed settlement effectively from their computers. See Gov’t D.Ct. Reply to explain why the definition in the proposed endorses, through its silence, tactics Memo at 45–47, 60–64. Sections III.C and settlement does not establish an objective previously employed by Microsoft to prevent III.H rely on the definition of ‘‘Non-Microsoft standard, but instead entrusts such OEMs from becoming an effective Middleware’’ to identify the competing determinations to Microsoft’s ‘‘sole distribution channel for competing software products that Microsoft must allow discretion.’’ Additionally, rather than middleware products. Among the OEMs to include on the Windows desktop if explaining how the definition impacts upon deficiencies in section III.C of the settlement they so choose and to distribute to the objectives of the decree and why it was are: (i) its failure to prevent Microsoft from consumers. The intention was to open the drafted in this way, the CIS merely states that binding middleware to its operating system; OEM channel to distribution of competing the definition leaves ‘‘packaging’’ (read: (ii) its failure to require Microsoft to set software and thereby remove one of the bundling or binding) decisions in Microsoft’s meaningful price differentials between ‘‘fully barriers Microsoft had erected to protect its hands. CIS at 23–24. loaded’’ and ‘‘stripped down’’ (without Windows monopoly. Indeed, the definition The government fails to reconcile this Microsoft Middleware) versions of the of ‘‘Non-Microsoft Middleware Product’’ definition with the Court of Appeals’ finding Windows operating system that could ‘‘pry encompasses those technologies that that Microsoft utilized commingling of code open the market’’ for competing bundles of Microsoft ‘‘extinguished’’ (such as the to maintain its monopoly. Nor does it explain software and middleware offered by OEMs Netscape browser) as it defines the products how the definition meets the government’s and third-party customizers; and (iii) the entitled to protection. Before a new program avowed goal that the settlement put an end inclusion of limitations and loopholes that receives this protection, however, the to Microsoft’s past monopolistic conduct. undermine the purpose of the decree settlement’s definition of ‘‘Non-Microsoft The definition gives Microsoft incentives to provisions. Middleware Product’’ requires that at least integrate middleware into its operating i. A Prohibition Against Commingling Of one million copies of the product must have system to avoid having middleware products Code Is Necessary To Prevent Microsoft From been distributed in the previous year. RPFJ classified as such. Continuing To Exclude Competition That § VI.N. This onerous requirement defeats the Of particular importance for the future, the Threatens The Windows Monopoly government’s express purpose of giving new definition fails to take into account that The Court of Appeals affirmed the District products an adequate chance at the OEM Microsoft manufactures non-PC and non- Court’s findings that Microsoft’s distribution channel. desktop PC operating systems, such as an commingling of the code for IE with the code The CIS asserts that this level of operating system for personal digital for Windows and its refusal to allow end- distribution is ‘‘minimal’’ and ‘‘necessary’’ so assistants (PDAs) and other handheld users to remove the IE browser from the that Microsoft’s affirmative obligations will devices. These systems include Windows CE Windows desktop constituted exclusionary not be triggered by ‘‘minor’’ or ‘‘non- 3.0, Windows NT ?? Embedded 4.0, Windows acts in violation of Section 2. See CA at 66– 67. Binding the IE middleware product to the existent’’ products. CIS at 20–21. There is no CE for Automotive, Windows 2000 with the Windows operating system injured both support in the record, however, or in Server Appliance Kit, Windows for Smart Netscape and consumers by degrading the antitrust law generally for the notion that Cards, Windows CE .NET and Windows XP ability of Netscape to effectively interoperate only large competitors deserve protection. Embedded. Any settlement that serves the with Windows, thus reducing consumer ‘‘Minor’’ new products, i.e., the nascent public interest must cover new products that options in browser choice, and by ensuring competition that the CIS claims will be Microsoft can and will use to protect its PC that deletion of files containing browser- restored, deserve protection no less than operating system monopoly. There is an specific functions would also delete vital older, more significant ones. One thing that extensive set of devices which are the target operating system routines, thus crippling the history of the software industry proves is for these systems beyond PDAs and pocket PCs, including smart phones, smart TVs, Windows. CA at 65–66 (citing D.Ct. at ¶164). that some of the most popular products and Microsoft’s anticompetitive purpose so services were created by the ingenuity of gaming devices, web pads, Internet appliances, media appliances, digital dominated its business decisions that it small firms working alone without means of degraded its own products by binding, since distributing their products. Most, even with cameras, printers, scanners, retail point of sale devices, Windows based thin-client commingling of code decreased the security the OEM distribution channel opened to and reliability of Windows. CA at 62, 65; them, failed to distribute one million copies terminals, set-top boxes, residential gateways, automobile computing systems, D.Ct. ¶174.11 the first year on the market, and the CIS cites home servers, industrial control devices and no evidentiary support for setting the In response to these acts, the government smart cards. In short, the proposed distribution trigger at the extraordinary level initially advocated a prohibition against the settlement’s definition ignores both past and of one million copies. binding of software to the operating system, future operating system products. A proper in order to prevent Microsoft from repeating Through this definition, the settlement definition of ‘‘Windows Operating System the illegal conduct that the Court found it creates a major obstacle to new products or Product’’ would both recognize Microsoft’s undertook with respect to the browser. See, competitors being able to obtain wide release past product releases and include all e.g., Findings ¶¶164, 166–74, 176; see also and distribution of innovative products. Microsoft operating systems for any hardware Zenith, 395 U.S. at 132 (a remedy should Moreover, it has the additional pernicious device, including PCs, servers and handheld prevent defendant from repeating the ‘‘same effect of allowing Microsoft ample time to computing devices.10 develop and promote or announce a ‘‘distributed commercially by Microsoft for use with preemptive offering before the non-Microsoft 10 product reaches the one million distribution The definitions of ‘‘Windows Operating System Personal Computers,’’ RPFJ § VI.U, and the Product’’ and ‘‘Personal Computer,’’ read together, definition of ‘‘Personal Computer’’ means ‘‘any mark. Final Judgment § 7(q). also create an ambiguity that places in doubt computer configured so that its primary purpose is iii. The Definition Of ‘‘Windows Operating whether future versions of Microsoft’s operating for use by one person at a time,’’ RPFJ § VI.Q, if XP System Product’’ Grants Microsoft Unfettered system will even qualify as a ‘‘Windows Operating or its successors are distributed primarily for Discretion To Decide What Is And What Is System Product’’ under the proposed settlement. multiple users or employed for construction of Not Part Of Its Operating System Windows XP is Microsoft’s first PC operating mini-networks or servers, successor products could The settlement defines ‘‘Windows system designed for shared or multiple person use. fail to meet the definitional requirements to be Operating System Product’’ as a closed Microsoft has promoted XP’s ability to facilitate covered under the decree. See RPFJ § VI.Q universe of past operating system products home networks where many people can share (expressly excluding servers and other computing devices and Internet connections. devices from the definition of Personal Computer). that is comprised of the software code of See Experience the Connected Home: Share One 11 ‘‘Binding harmed consumers who did not want Microsoft’s currently-distributed versions of or Many Computers (May 9, 2001), at http:// Internet Explorer, by causing ‘performance its PC operating system, including Windows www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/evaluation/ degradation, increased risks of incompatibilities, 2000 Professional and Windows XP Home experiences/connectedhome.asp. Because Windows and the introduction of bugs.’’’ Felton Decl. ¶84 and Professional, and their successors. RPFJ Operating System Product is defined as software (citing D.Ct. at 173). VerDate 11 type or class’’ of unlawful conduct). Forced The settlement’s failure in this respect is such as Netscape’s Navigator, will displace bundling injures consumers directly and underscored by Microsoft’s recent user dependence on Windows, because injures competition by increasing the costs introduction of Windows XP, which plainly without Passport, Navigator may end up rival software vendors must incur to get their demonstrates its intent to continue defending being of little utility for e-commerce. products distributed effectively. It is an the Windows monopoly by binding even Nothing in the proposed settlement would especially potent competitive weapon for more applications and services to its new prevent this chilling repetition of Microsoft’s Microsoft because Microsoft is able to target operating systems, notwithstanding the monopolizing conduct. By failing to competing middleware threats—like the determination that doing so is illegal. adequately address the old tactics used browser—by bundling its own version with Windows XP has more Microsoft middleware (binding middleware to the operating system) its operating system monopoly, thereby products and services bound to or included and limiting the scope of the remedy in a protecting that monopoly. with the operating system than any previous manner which excludes new products and Gov’t D.Ct. Reply Memo at 60–61 version of Windows. One of the services services, the proposed settlement fails in a (emphasis added). Indeed, the government’s integrated into XP is Passport, a web critical way to end Microsoft’s monopolizing chosen remedy on this issue in the Final authentication, security and credit card conduct, let alone to deny Microsoft the Judgment not only required abolition of verification service that allows consumers, fruits of its PC monopoly.14 commingling, but required the price of using a single log-in, to shop on thousands ii. The Proposed Settlement Omits Any Windows to be reduced in proportion to the (and ultimately, Microsoft hopes, millions) of Requirement That Microsoft Offer A amount of unbundled programming that was websites that accept Passport. Because Stripped-Down Version Of Windows At A removed by an OEM: Microsoft’s past unlawful conduct allowed it Price That Reflects The Value Of The g. Restriction on Binding Middleware to maintain a PC operating system monopoly Removed Middleware Products Products to Operating System Products. and acquire a de facto monopoly in the As the Court of Appeals held, there is an browser market (IE is used to access the Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System economic disincentive for OEMs to offer, Internet by approximately 91% of Product distributed six or more months after install and service a second middleware consumers),13 Microsoft is in a uniquely the effective date of this Final Judgment, product such as a browser. CA at 66. advantaged position to encourage Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows However, nothing in the proposed settlement subscription to Passport whenever a user Operating System unless: provides OEMs with an economic incentive connects to the Internet from her XP desktop. to become a viable and effective means of Microsoft also offers an otherwise identical This is so because XP comes fully loaded distribution for alternative middleware version of that Operating System Product in with prominently displayed prompts for products. Only by requiring Microsoft to which all means of End-User Access to that Passport throughout the program, starting provide OEMs with an economically-viable Middleware Product can readily be removed with the initial boot sequence and continuing ‘‘stripped-down’’ version of Windows— (a) by OEMs as part of standard OEM each time the user logs on to her computer. including the ability to completely remove preinstallation kits and (b) by end-users As Microsoft succeeds in generating Microsoft middleware from the operating using add-remove utilities readily accessible Passport subscriptions through its monopoly system, see Final Judgment § 3(g)(i)—will in the initial boot process and from the distribution of Windows XP, retailers with OEMs ever have an incentive to offer users Windows desktop; and ii. when an OEM web portals selling products and services on products containing Non-Microsoft removes End-User Access to a Middleware the Internet will be forced to accept Passport middleware alternatives. Product from any Personal Computer on as their authentication system. In this way, Even if Microsoft were required to provide which Windows is preinstalled, the royalty Microsoft will be able to nullify threats to the OEMs with an unbundled operating system, paid by that OEM for that copy of Windows Windows monopoly by precluding other it would only be possible for OEMs to offer is reduced in an amount not less than the web-based alternatives to Passport. consumers a choice of an alternative product of the otherwise applicable royalty Furthermore, by defending its PC monopoly middleware/software package for the PC if and the ratio of the number of amount in with Passport, Microsoft will also insert itself Microsoft’s price to the OEM were reduced bytes of binary code of (a) the Middleware on both sides of a web transaction. Because to reflect the lower value of a software Product as distributed separately from a of the ‘‘network effect,’’ the final outcome— package that does not include Microsoft Windows Operating System Product to (b) absent strong and effective injunctive relief— middleware that the OEM wishes to replace the applicable version of Windows. See Final is likely to be that most e-commerce will be with competing products. Put another way, a Judgment § 3(g). In the CIS, the government conducted with either the consumer or market for alternative middleware acknowledges that the Court of Appeals vendor, or both, paying a fee to Microsoft for configurations will only arise if such found that Microsoft unlawfully ‘‘integrated the use of Passport. alternatives can be priced competitively with its web browser into Windows in a non- To the extent Passport gains a foothold as the ‘‘fully loaded’’ version of Windows. If the removable way while excluding rivals,’’ CIS an authentication gateway to Internet cost of alternative middleware bundles is at 3, but then makes no further mention of commerce, this will erect a new barrier to always higher than that of the Microsoft the commingling issue. entry for competing operating systems. Windows bundle, the market for non- Notwithstanding the government’s stated Consumers will be reluctant to switch to a Microsoft middleware will be limited or conviction (backed by the Court of Appeals’’ non-Windows PC operating system, because nonexistent. holding) that binding violates Section 2, the the personal information stored on Passport OEMs must have more than the Hobson’s proposed settlement gives a green light to is readable only by Microsoft web servers, choice of either buying Windows XP fully Microsoft’s continuing to bind middleware which in turn can be designed to interact bundled at $200, for example, or paying $199 products to its operating system. This gap in most effectively with the Windows operating for a stripped down version of Windows and the settlement’s coverage, coupled with the system and its embedded middleware, such then incurring the additional capital and definitions of Microsoft Middleware and as IE. At the same time, by erecting a fence labor costs of replacing a Microsoft Microsoft Middleware Product, not only (Passport) between PC users and the Internet middleware product with a competing allows Microsoft to continue its past generally, Microsoft will make it far less anticompetitive conduct, but also provides likely that a competing middleware platform, 14 Microsoft with an incentive to use the same It is noteworthy that the binding of applications is not limited to browsers and internet-related techniques to extend its monopoly into other accept additional products as part of the Windows 12 services, but also includes common applications areas. Operating System Product that are included with such as word processing. For example, Microsoft the operating system. As a result, under the has used its operating system monopoly to motivate 12 In addition to the settlement’s failure to proposed settlement, OEMs can be forced to accept consumers to use Microsoft Word instead of Corel’s prohibit commingling of code, the settlement also a complete package of Microsoft products with each Word Perfect. Regardless of the quality or perceived condones Microsoft’s bundling of products with its license of the Windows operating system. attributes of Word Perfect versus Word, many operating system. Section III.C presents OEMs with 13 Don Clark, AOL Sues Microsoft Over Netscape businesses and individual consumers use Word a laundry list of options they may adopt in in Case That Could Seek Billions, Wall Street simply to avoid incurring the additional trouble and installing, displaying, and distributing Non- Journal, Jan. 23, 2002, at B4 (citing Browser Market expense of licensing a second word processing Microsoft Middleware, but nothing in the proposed Shares StatMarket (2002), at application when the PC operating system already settlement prevents Microsoft from forcing OEMs to www.websidestory.com). comes equipped with such a function. VerDate 11 product bought at an additional, separate Microsoft ... refused to permit OEMs to Microsoft Middleware Product that provides cost. remove the Internet Explorer icon, even similar functionality would otherwise be Consequently, any remedial proposal that when their customers wanted them to do so. launched automatically at that time,’’ which seeks to open the OEM distribution channel This provision of the Final Judgment thus would again limit the settlement’s reach to to competing middleware must address the prohibits Microsoft from preventing OEMs products with which Microsoft already pricing of the Windows operating system. from undertaking competitively valuable competes.16 The Final Judgment recognized the need for alterations to the first screen, bootup Subsection 5 allows OEMs to configure the such a pricing mechanism. It required that sequence, and icon display and will help the Windows desktop to promote a non- the price of versions of Windows from which OEM channel for distribution of non- Microsoft Internet access provider (‘‘IAP’’) in Microsoft middleware functions had been Microsoft software, thereby giving consumers the initial boot sequence. The provision is disabled or removed be reduced in greater choices not only in how their problematic for two reasons. First, it permits proportion to the relative amounts of computers look, but in what innovative Microsoft to require that such offers meet computer code bytes found in the operating software OEMs can offer them (Shapiro pp. ‘‘reasonable technical specifications system and middleware products in question. 17–20, 24). established by Microsoft,’’ which are never See Final Judgment § 3(g)(ii). Alternative Gov’t D.Ct. Memo at 39. In response to defined. formulations based on the relative product Microsoft’s objections, the government Second, because it refers only to IAP offers, development costs are also available. See reiterated that the purpose of the provisions the proposed settlement prevents OEMs from Litigating States’ § 1. was to prevent Microsoft from restricting offering any other type of product or service Connected to the pricing issue is the failure OEMs’ in the initial boot sequence. In striking of the proposed settlement to allow any party contrast, the initial boot sequence for ability to customize their PCs in certain ways Windows XP offers a wide range of Microsoft that is not an OEM (§ III.C) or end-user to promote non-Microsoft software. [It] will (§ III.H) to alter the configuration of the products and services, including Passport, simply enable them to configure their Hotmail, Instant Messenger and Internet Windows platform. This omission has the systems so that non- Microsoft software can effect of preventing third parties, who might telephony. Competition cannot be restored launch automatically, OEMs can offer their unless all competing middleware products, fill a niche as customizers, to directly offer own internet access provider or other start- OEMs or end-users specific software/ not just IAPs, are put on equal footing with up sequence, and non- Microsoft Middleware Microsoft products. Because the proposed middleware packages that could be added to can be made the default. a stripped-down Windows operating system. settlement allows Microsoft to retain the For example, it is likely that absent Gov’t D.Ct. Reply Memo at 45–46. advantages of its operating system monopoly Microsoft’s illegal binding of its middleware Notwithstanding the logic of the in the boot sequence by having an exclusive to the Windows operating system, an government’s past proposals, the proposed chance to promote its products and services, industry of independent bundlers settlement replaces clarity with ambiguity it fails to serve the public interest. specializing in the sale of customized and loopholes. Section III.C.1 states that Finally, nothing in the proposed settlement software packages would have developed. ‘‘Microsoft may restrict an OEM from discusses OEMs’ ability to offer an alternative Using the operating system as a platform, displaying icons, shortcuts and menu entries desktop. Prior to Microsoft’s prohibiting the these vendors could create customized for any product ... to products that provide practice, OEMs would change the appearance software/middleware packages based on the particular types of functionality,’’ but of the desktop in ways they found beneficial. need of particular consumer market nowhere defines ‘‘functionality.’’ Without D.Ct. at ¶214. Some OEMs replaced the segments, such as stock market buffs, such definitions, Microsoft is free to decide Windows desktop with a user interface of antiques dealers or mathematicians.15 what categories of middleware their own design or one that conformed with As it stands now, the proposed settlement ‘‘functionality’’ qualify for display. Thus, that of the OEM’s selected browser. CA at 62– creates no incentive for OEMs to pursue any nothing prevents Microsoft from excluding 64. The government previously advocated a non-Microsoft middleware products for of the objectives of section III.C. Yet, if the provision in the Final Judgment that assured which no Microsoft counterpart exists—an OEM distribution channel is not reopened, OEMs the ability to offer an alternative to the obvious deterrent to competing middleware the decree will have no chance to succeed in Windows desktop, subject to the proviso that products that are more innovative than its most important goal—to restore an OEM may not completely block access to Microsoft’s own products. competition in the monopolized market—as the Windows desktop. See Final Judgment Section III.C.2 ostensibly allows OEMs to no ISV will have equal access to consumers. § 3(a)(iii)(3) (OEMs may ‘‘display any user distribute and promote non-Microsoft iii. The Provisions In The Proposed interfaces, provided that an icon is also middleware through the display of shortcuts Settlement That Purport To Foster OEM displayed that allows the user to access the on the Windows desktop, but provides that 17 Flexibility In Product Configuration And Windows user interface’’). In the CIS, the provision will apply only ‘‘so long as however, there is no explanation for the Middleware Choices Contain Fatal such shortcuts do not impair the Ambiguities And Loopholes functionality of the user interface.’’ However, Although the government originally 16 Section III.C.4 allows OEMs to offer alternative by never stating who determines when the operating systems. While seemingly supported straightforward remedy provisions ‘‘functionality’’ of Microsoft’s operating governing OEM flexibility as to what procompetitive, the government fails to system is impaired, the provision gives acknowledge that there currently is no market for products could be offered with a PC Microsoft free reign to decide which non- alternative operating systems. See CIS at 32. As the operating system, it now retreats to Microsoft products may be promoted by an Court of Appeals explained, due in large part to complicated provisions whose limiting OEM. network effects, there is no incentive for consumers language undercuts the purported relief. Section III.C.3 permits OEMs to configure to use or for ISVs to write programs for PC operating Compare Final Judgment § 3(a)(iii) with RPFJ competing middleware products to launch systems other than Windows. See CA at 49–50, 55. § III.C. When the government initially Moreover, it is unclear that it is technologically automatically at the conclusion of the initial feasible to include multiple operating systems on proposed provisions that would allow OEMs boot sequence or upon connection or to reconfigure the products they offered to the same PC without sacrificing significant amounts disconnection from the Internet. CIS at 31. It of storage capacity or speed. No similar provision meet consumer demand free from Microsoft’s also appears to prohibit ISVs and OEMs from appeared in the Final Judgment, a fact which restrictions, it stated: palming-off competing products by imitating suggests that it is mere window-dressing (no pun Microsoft’s trade dress. Nonetheless, the intended) and does nothing to eliminate the barriers 15 The proposed settlement contains one ambiguous wording of the provision would to competition erected by Microsoft. exception to its blanket prohibition on third party let Microsoft decide, in the first instance, 17 The Court of Appeals found no justification for alterations: it would permit a Non-Microsoft which competing products may be displayed the restrictions on OEM configuration generally, but Middleware producer to designate that its product and what form the user interfaces (e.g., icons) did hold that ‘‘a shell that automatically prevents be invoked automatically in place of a Microsoft the Windows desktop from ever being seen by the Middleware Product. However, the mechanism by may take. Moreover, as in § III.C.1, the user is a drastic alteration of Microsoft’s which the producer may accomplish this is at provision’s benefits are tied to a copyrighted work, and outweighs the marginal Microsoft’s discretion, and Microsoft may require ‘‘functionality’’ determination made by anticompetitive effect of prohibiting the OEMs from confirmation from the end-user that he or she Microsoft. The automatic launch of substituting a different interface automatically upon would like to accept this option. See RPFJ § III.H.2. competing Middleware is only assured ‘‘if a completion of the boot process.’’ CA at 63. VerDate 11 omission in the proposed settlement of this Because section III.H of the proposed gained a great deal of familiarity with the and other OEM configuration options that the settlement fails to require Microsoft to enable computer. Depending on how the question is government strongly advocated before the OEMs and end-users to remove unwanted asked and the user’s level of sophistication, District Court and on appeal. Microsoft middleware from Windows, it the user may not understand that he or she c. Provisions That Purport To Allow End- facilitates commingling of code, raises rivals’ is removing the programs installed by the Users And OEMS To Enable Or Remove costs, and renders product substitution computer’s manufacturer and replacing them Middleware Products Are Severely Flawed illusory. with Microsoft products that may not work Section III.H of the proposed settlement ii. The Exceptions And Limitations as well. Furthermore, the prompt is purports to allow end-users the freedom to Contained In The End User/OEM Control unnecessary, because if a user wanted a add and remove middleware as they see fit. Provisions Swallow The Relief Provided And different configuration, she would be free to In actuality, the provision fails to do so Permit Microsoft To Override OEM Or End- buy the computer from another OEM or because: (i) Microsoft is never required to User Selections Of Preferred Middleware purchase additional software on her own. permit an end-user or OEM to remove a Products Nor is any limitation placed on the number Microsoft Middleware product from the PC’s On the subject of OEM/end-user control, of times Microsoft may ‘‘suggest’’ that the memory, only to ‘‘disable’’ the functionality the proposed settlement replaces a provision user alter the configuration. But regardless of and ‘‘remove’’ the icon or other visual means of less than fifty words in the Final Judgment how often Microsoft asks—every day, every of access; (ii) Microsoft continues to have full with a series of interlocking provisions that fourteen days, once a year, or only once—the control over whether and when its products run over six hundred words. Compare Final fact that it can raise the question at all not may override or launch in place of competing Judgment § 3(g)(i) with RPFJ ¶III.H(1–3). only undermines the OEM configuration, but products; and (iii) the timetable for None of these limitations and exceptions also the goal of providing end-users with ‘‘a implementation renders the provision almost were present in the interim relief the separate and unbiased choice with regard to useless as a means of restoring competition. government advocated before the District each Microsoft Middleware Product or Non- i. Inability To Actually Remove Microsoft Court previously, and the CIS is silent Microsoft Middleware Product.’’ RPFJ Products From The Operating System regarding the rationale for the avalanche of ¶III.H.1(b) (emphasis added); see also CIS at Cripples The Effectiveness Of The Decree restrictions that it now proposes. Nor does 48 (purpose of section III.H.3 is to prevent The Court of emsp; Appeals held that the government suggest that the changes are automatic alteration of OEM configuration, Microsoft’s removal of IE from the add/ needed in response to any holdings by the such as ‘‘sweeping the unused icons that the remove utility Windows had the effect of Court of Appeals. OEM has chosen to place on the Windows reducing usage of rival browser products and What the proposed provisions do is create desktop’’). There is no justification for violated Section 2. CA at 65. Loading the so many exceptions, limitations, and permitting Microsoft to undercut this aspect operating system with Microsoft middleware loopholes as to vitiate the broad of relief. Microsoft should be prohibited from that cannot be removed imposes greater pronouncements in the CIS. Two aspects of ever prompting users to scuttle their OEM burdens on OEMs that choose to install section III.H exemplify the manner in which selections or desktop choices. competing middleware products? It also the proposed settlement undermines its own (b) Microsoft Can Override End-User/OEM prevents consumers from receiving full efficacy: (a) permitting Windows to Middleware Default Choices access to the products and services of their automatically ask an end-user if he or she Although section III.H.2 of the proposed choice. CA at 62, 65; D.Ct. at ¶¶174. Binding wants to alter the computer’s desktop settlement ostensibly enables end-users and middleware products to the operating system configuration to restore Microsoft OEMs (and middleware producers also has a significant effect on the ability to middleware that was previously removed by themselves) to designate non-Microsoft remove Microsoft middleware, as it is an OEM; and (b) permitting Microsoft middleware products (including web difficult or impossible to remove the virtually unbridled discretion as to when to browsers) to be invoked automatically in lieu products without degrading Windows. CA at override an end-user’s selection of a default of a Microsoft product, loopholes and 66–67; D.Ct. at ¶159. web browser or other middleware. conditions destroy this provision’s utility as The government recognized that not being (a) Microsoft Can Alter End-User/OEM a remedial device. able to remove Microsoft middleware had the Choices As an initial matter, the default election effect of ‘‘foreclosing customer choice and As discussed above, the proposed procedure is made reciprocal—requiring that excluding competition,’’ Gov’t D.Ct. Memo at settlement does not allow OEMs or end-users identical removal options be afforded 6, and that Microsoft used this as a means of to actually remove Microsoft middleware Microsoft with respect to non-Microsoft increasing the barriers to entry for from their computers, instead limiting them middleware that would otherwise be the middleware. Id. at 42; Shapiro Decl. at 25– to merely deleting icons and menu entries; default. The government does not explain 26. Consequently, the relief initially the middleware itself remains physically in why such parity is being offered to an requested by the government required that the computer, or in many cases, antitrust violator at the expense of those who any Microsoft middleware product that was technologically bound to the Windows have not violated the law.19 technologically bound to the operating operating system. Even a conscious decision More troubling are the ‘‘Notwithstanding’’ system must be removable to create a by an OEM or end-user to remove Microsoft clauses that follow subsection 3, which ‘‘stripped down’’ version of Windows via the icons and menu items is subject to directly limit the benefits extended by add/remove utility. See Final Judgment interference by Microsoft under the proposed section III.H.2. Part 1 of the first clause ¶3(g)(i). No such requirement exists in the settlement. Section III.H.3(a) allows allows Microsoft to invoke a Microsoft current settlement, however. Although the Microsoft to include in the Windows Middleware Product if it is necessary for the CIS states that section III.H ‘‘ensures that operating system a prompt that would ask the computer to interoperate with a server OEMs will be able to choose to offer and end-user, fourteen days after the initial boot maintained by Microsoft. RPFJ § III.H. promote, and consumers will be able to up of the computer, for permission to Because so much middleware—be it a web choose to use, Non-Microsoft Middleware automatically erase the OEM’s or end-user’s browser or a Java formulation—now interacts Products,’’ CIS at 45, the government now configuration of the system and reinstate the with commercial web servers, which are to discusses the provision in terms of Microsoft middleware that was previously a large extent Microsoft web servers, the ‘‘removing access’’ to the middleware deleted. RPFJ ¶III.H.3(b). loophole created by this provision is product without explaining that ‘‘removing This provision is troublesome for a variety access’’ does not mean removing the product of reasons, not least its Orwellian reminder 19 Although the Court of Appeals did not affirm itself. Id. of Microsoft’s omnipresence. Most the District Court’s blanket conclusion that IE’s importantly, it allows Microsoft to override of competing default browsers was illegal 18 OEMs incur increased costs as a result of undermine the configuration choices made in all circumstances (for example, when accessing customer ‘‘hotline’’ calls to the OEM. CA at 61. The by OEMs that may include significant Windows ‘‘Help’’ resources and updates on the additional program code also reduces the storage Internet), CA at 65–67, the proposed settlement capacity of the computer and the speed of the promotion of competing middleware. It swings much further in the other direction in processor. This is yet another way that Microsoft is allows Microsoft to do this fourteen days permitting Microsoft to write the rules of when able to erode OEM and consumer incentives to use after an end-user first boots up the computer, such an override of a user’s designated default competing middleware products. at a time when the end-user may not yet have middleware product will be permitted. VerDate 11 enormous. As computing moves off the terms of the proposed settlement, section of millions of dollars,’’ and would result in desktop onto Internet servers, III.H will not be implemented until twelve a ‘‘far inferior’’ OS cannot be reconciled with communication with servers is becoming the months after submission of the settlement to the record in this case and the district court’s norm. Moreover, because IE has captured the Court or at the release of the first service findings. over 90% of the market as a result of pack for Windows XP, whichever comes Gov’t CA Brief at 132; Gov’t D.Ct. Reply Microsoft’s illegal conduct, Microsoft is now earlier. Because Microsoft is not bound by Memo at 63–64 (referring to its expert positioned to dominate the server operating any of the provisions until that time, it has witness’s ability to create a removal program system market by changing the protocols its no incentive to release the first service pack that did not damage or degrade the operating browser uses to communicate with servers, prior to December 2002. The provision is system in a relatively short amount of time from the current industry standard to its own thus rendered meaningless for a fifth of the and the fact that Microsoft already provided proprietary protocols. This will leave those lifespan of the decree. a ready means of removing at least 80 who host web servers with little choice but Microsoft has no grounds to complain components, many of which it considered to use a Windows server operating system. about burdens caused by making section III.H ‘‘integrated’’ features of Windows). There is See pp. 70–76 infra. Should this occur, the immediately effective. To the contrary, the no reason, technical or otherwise, why the first ‘‘notwithstanding’’ clause of the year delay in implementation would reward government should not insist upon timely proposed settlement’s section III.H will allow Microsoft for its bad faith release of Windows and effective measures to prevent Microsoft Microsoft to override users’ default browser XP, before a settlement was in place, with from continuing to commingle its selections in the vast majority of situations. full knowledge that (notwithstanding the middleware with its operating system in The ultimate outcome will be that the illegal monopoly maintenance holding by the Court blatant disregard of the Court of Appeals Windows monopoly will again be protected of Appeals) XP contains more bundled ruling. from the threat to its dominance posed by middleware, more commingled code, and 2. Provisions Designed To Protect non-Microsoft web-based computing. more prompts for Microsoft-related products Interoperability Between Microsoft Products The second ‘‘Notwithstanding’’ clause in and services than any prior version of And Non-Microsoft Products Are Seriously § III.H allows a Microsoft Middleware Windows. At the very least, the release of XP Flawed Product to launch if the designated Non- violates the spirit of the settlement by which In the earlier remedy proceedings, the Microsoft Middleware Product fails to Microsoft claims it is already abiding. No government explained the indispensable implement a ‘‘reasonable technical minimally adequate settlement would fail to competitive importance of requirement (e.g., a requirement to be able to provide relief to the marketplace as soon as ‘‘interoperability’’: 22 host a particular ActiveX control).’’ RPFJ practicable. Microsoft’s Operating System monopoly § III.H. Because the proposed settlement The proposed settlement also contains gives it the ability to favor Microsoft products leaves it to Microsoft to determine what a another glaring temporal loophole. The last in other markets, by refusing to disclose some ‘‘reasonable technical requirement’’ would paragraph of section III.H states that only the of the Interfaces supported by Windows. be, the loophole created by this provision is Microsoft Middleware Products that existed Such a refusal would allow Microsoft to also enormous. To the extent the clause seven months prior to the last beta test on a prevent some products from interoperating provides an example of such a failure to meet new version of Windows will be subject to fully with Windows. Permitting all products a technical requirement, the exception is the requirements of the provision. This to interoperate fully with Windows is overly broad. ActiveX is a programming means that any new Microsoft product or necessary to ensure that that those products environment that allows programs provided service, developed six months or less prior to realize their full potential in terms of by servers to run locally on a PC inside the the date of the last beta test 21 of a new performance and functionality. web browser. Its use replaces in part the Windows operating system release or major Felton Decl. ¶¶51–52 (emphasis added). cross-platform capabilities of Java and the upgrade, would not be subject to the Indeed, full interoperability has long been open standard communication protocols requirements that its icon or menu entry be recognized by Microsoft, quite correctly, to used by most servers. Thus, by determining removable from the operating system desktop be a primary threat to its monopoly position that the hosting of ActiveX is a ‘‘reasonable or the requirement that the automatic in the PC operating system market because it technical requirement,’’ the proposed launching of the product be disabled in favor would allow multiple, competing operating settlement ensures that anytime a Microsoft of a competing middleware product. web product or service is launched or any The government offers no justification for system platforms to perform essentially all product or service that relies on a Microsoft a proposed settlement that guts the section the functions of a Windows PC. CA at 52– server is downloaded, Microsoft will be able III.H ‘‘removal’’ provision with myriad and, 54; D.Ct. ¶¶68–93; Henderson Decl. ¶¶12–18, to override a user’s choice of browser. This in some cases themselves anticompetitive, 29–40; Shapiro Deck at 20–21. Middleware, provision grants Microsoft license to limitations and loopholes, and then delays such as Netscape and Java, posed the initial automatically override an end-user’s browser their implementation for significant portions competitive threat in using interoperability to choice when that user accesses a program or of settlement’s proposed five-year duration. shift computing away from the Windows PC service that requires interaction with a In contrast to the current settlement’s (the ‘‘middleware threat’’). Microsoft server. Far from restoring abundant accommodations to Microsoft, two But, as recognized in District Court competition, this pernicious provision years ago, the government categorically findings cited with approval or undisturbed protects Microsoft’s ill-gotten operating rejected Microsoft’s complaints that it would by the Court of Appeals, server-based system monopoly from web-based be enable to comply with the ‘‘unbinding’’ computing, which would shift many competition.20 provisions the government then advocated computing tasks from the Windows PC to a iii. The Timing Of Implementation Of (i.e., requiring that OEMs and end-users have server on the Internet, also poses a significant Section III.H Allows Microsoft To Reap The the ability to engage the Add/Remove utility threat to the Microsoft operating system Fruits Of Its Past Illegal Conduct Without to delete IE): monopoly. D.Ct. at ¶¶24–27 (see CA at 52). By preventing full interoperability, however, Adequately Limiting Its Conduct Today Or In Microsoft’s assertion that offering an Microsoft can neutralize the server threat. The Future ‘‘unbinding’’ option for OEMs and end-users Despite the government’s claim that the In addition to the foregoing serious for the few covered middleware products in deficiencies, the timetable in section III.H for existing operating systems would take ‘‘far proposed settlement achieved ‘‘seamless implementation of the substantive provisions longer than six months, would cost hundreds interoperability between Windows Operating by itself renders the provision meaningless as System Products and non-Microsoft servers on a network’’ (CIS at 38), the proposed a vehicle for restoring competition. Under the 21 ‘‘Beta test’’ refers to the last round of testing for settlement would, in reality, enable Microsoft a new software product that is typically performed 20 The last part of the ‘‘technical requirements’’ by sending the software product out to consumers to withhold the disclosures necessary to clause, moreover, puts the onus on ISVs to request and industry insiders both as a means of ironing out the reason for the technical failure. Because ISVs the kinks in the product and obtaining publicity for 22 As a general matter, interoperability is the are unlikely to be immediately aware that there is the impending release. There is no set date within ability of different computers, servers or other a technical failure on the part of their middleware, the industry of when these ‘‘tests’’ are performed. devices, regardless of whether they use the same the burden must be placed on Microsoft to explain They can occur months before or immediately software and hardware, to freely transmit and such overrides. proceeding a pending product release date. receive information to and from each other. VerDate 11 achieve interoperability and thus defeat this shared by thousands or millions of to force websites on the Internet to use goal. The proposed settlement would do consumers. Microsoft server operating systems, even if nothing to achieve interoperability between a The government recognized the overriding they are otherwise not the most desirable non-Microsoft server operating system and importance of server software and choices. To do this, Microsoft can withhold Windows or IE. Instead, the only disclosure communications protocols in supporting the disclosure of communications interfaces and requirements are both ineffectual and too original Final Judgment: protocols for IE, at the same time as it narrow: They apply only to PC middleware As computing continues to move off the changes them from previously disclosed and certain client protocols, disclosures desktop and into the internet, middleware interoperable formulations. The objective is which are insufficient, on their own, to create threats could develop on servers, in either to make IE fully interoperable only with a interoperability between a PC and a server or server operating systems or server Microsoft server operating system, and to among servers. Thus, instead of preserving applications. Microsoft cannot defeat these restrict server-to-server communication only threats to the Microsoft monopoly from all threats by bundling its own version of such to Microsoft server operating systems. In sources, the settlement gives Microsoft a free software into its PC operating systems, but it addition, Microsoft can fail to disclose to shot at disabling server competition. could use its operating system monopoly in competitors the server protocols that a. The Government’s Original Remedy other ways to crush any such middleware facilitate full interoperability between a Required Broad And Meaningful threats. For example, Microsoft’s new Windows PC and a Microsoft server Interoperability Disclosure By Microsoft Windows 2000 operating system, to which operating system, or between servers. As a During the initial remedy proceedings Microsoft intends to migrate its existing result, Microsoft’s server operating system before the District Court, the government Windows users, is designed with proprietary will always interoperate better with a recognized that new threats were emerging to features and interfaces that enable Windows PC operating system or Microsoft Microsoft’s monopoly in the PC operating Microsoft’s server operating systems to server operating system than any system market. Gov’t D.Ct. Memo at 29. The interoperate with PCs more effectively than competitors’ operating systems. These two government recognized the likelihood that, in other server operating systems. If Microsoft actions, taken together, will enable Microsoft the future, most computing will be done were in a competitive market, it would server operating systems to dominate the through networks and on servers housed at disclose its confidential interface information Internet, because website owners will need a server that interoperates with the more than remote locations, with personal computer use to other server software developers so that 90% of all Internet users that use IE, while diminishing. The government acknowledged their complementary software would work consumers will continue to buy the Windows that, as a result, software for communicating optimally with, and thereby enhance the PC operating system because of the with servers, operating systems for servers, value of, Microsoft’s PC operating systems. applications barrier to entry. In this manner, and middleware designed to function on But, if faced with a middleware threat on the Microsoft will easily defeat the threat that servers, had become a principal competitive servers, Microsoft is likely to continue to web-based computing poses to the PC threat to the Microsoft PC operating system withhold that information from competitors operating systems monopoly by dominating monopoly. Id.; see also Henderson Decl. in order to protect its operating system server operating systems and server ¶¶13–16; Shapiro Decl. at 20–21. monopoly. Gov’t D.Ct. Memo at 29 (emphasis applications software. Any ‘‘dumb PC,’’ cell The ‘‘server threat’’ arises from the added). following circumstances, as the government phone or handheld device, which relies on The government’s expert in the remedy recognizes. Instead of using an expensive, a server on the Internet to perform the actual proceedings underlined the importance of ‘‘intelligent PC’’, which contains a Windows computing functions, will either have to use the server-based computing model as a operating system, a substantial hard drive Microsoft operating system software or face critical emerging threat to Microsoft’s PC and a powerful microprocessor, consumers elimination from the marketplace. operating system monopoly. Rebecca increasingly use simpler or smaller, more During the original remedy proceedings, Henderson, a professor from MIT with a convenient devices, such as cell phones, the government’s expert economist, Carl doctorate in Business Economics from PDAs (such as ‘‘Palm’’ or ‘‘Blackberry’’ Shapiro, explained the importance of a Harvard University, testified: devices), TV-set-top boxes, or ‘‘dumb PCs,’’ powerful conduct remedy that would require all of which are typically equipped only with Server-based computing could reduce the Microsoft to provide timely disclosure of all more basic (and often non-Microsoft) applications barrier to entry in the PC APIs, protocols and other technical operating systems, a browser, smaller (if any) operating system market. If server-based information necessary to allow all server hard drives, and a microprocessor. D.Ct. at applications are supported in a way that operating systems to fully interoperate with ¶¶22–27; Henderson Decl. ¶¶13–16, 91–92; permits end-user access to full-featured a Windows PC operating system and Shapiro Decl. at 3–4. The consumer will then application functionality on a truly cross- Microsoft middleware, particularly IE: use this device’s browser to connect to the platform basis, users will be able to access Mandatory disclosure of interface network of servers on the Internet. them through any PC operating system they information also will prevent Microsoft from By accessing servers on the Internet, the choose. Indeed, server software already acts using its Windows monopoly power to gain consumer can perform most of the same as cross-platform middleware for a few control of complementary applications and computing functions (access/browse the network-centric applications. Web-based e- middleware... Two especially important Internet; word processing; e-mail; instant mail programs, for example, can be hosted on software products today that are messaging, etc.) that are provided by a almost any server operating system and used complementary to the Windows operating Windows PC, but at lower cost and much to send e-mail to and from a wide range of system on personal computers are operating greater convenience. For example, under the clients, including Windows PCs, handheld systems on handheld devices and operating PC computing model, to compose and spell- computers and wireless phones. As the systems on servers... Indeed, a good case can check a document, the PC’s processor is used bandwidth available to PC consumers be made that the most significant threat to to process the relevant software program to expands, server software could become an Windows in the next several years will come perform the functions. Under the server- increasingly attractive platform for from client/server architectures. Making sure network computing model, however, the developers interested in writing full-featured that Microsoft cannot subvert this threat same function (compose and spell-check a applications for PC owners. For example, an using undisclosed proprietary interfaces is document) is accomplished through the accounting package could be ‘‘hosted’’ on a thus central to an effective remedy in this server, which processes the relevant software web server. If it were designed to be case. program and then transmits the document sufficiently cross-platform, and if technology Shapiro Decl. at 20–21 (emphasis added). back to the PC. The PC operating system permits, consumers could access its For this reason, the government proposed, under this scenario does little more than functionality using either a Windows PC or and the District Court granted a remedy, transmit and receive the data. The actual an alternative device. requiring disclosure of ‘‘all APIs, technical computing functions are largely performed Henderson Decl. ¶¶14–15. information and Communications Interfaces’’ by the server’s operating system and Microsoft recognizes the server threat to its that enabled: hardware. Similarly, far more complex PC operating system monopoly. D.Ct. at 60. any Microsoft software installed on one applications can be offered on the Internet Its strategy has been to use its monopoly computer (including but not limited to server through high-powered servers effectively control over the PC’s operating system and IE operating systems and operating system for VerDate 11 handheld devices) to interoperate with a for servers and embedded devices (i.e., cell marketed as its successors installed on a Windows operating system (or middleware phones, PDAs, set-top boxes) 2323; (2) the server computer. distributed with such operating system) technical information that is required to be Department of Justice, Proposed Final installed on a Personal Computer. disclosed is too limited to be effective; (3) the Judgment, Draft of November 2, 2001 at Final Judgment § 3(b)(iii). timing of required disclosures is either too § III.E. (emphasis supplied)’ Pursuant to this The effect of this provision was to promote late or too vague; and (4) the definitions of provision, Microsoft would have been competition in the PC operating system major terms (API, operating system, required to disclose both its client protocols market by using interoperability disclosure to middleware) would enable Microsoft to avoid and the server protocols which enable a PC support the server and middleware threats to disclosure to competitors, by claiming certain and a server operating system to accept and Microsoft’s monopoly. These crucial middleware or application products are part transmit data to each other? 24 interoperability disclosure provisions of the operating system. The proposed settlement, however, deleted required full disclosure of: i. Important Areas Of Potential the requirement that server protocols be (1) all technical information, including Competition In The Monopolized Market Are disclosed. This was accomplished by both client protocols and server protocols Not Included In The Interoperability removing the words ‘‘or server’’ from the which allow a Windows PC and a Microsoft Disclosure Provision provision quoted above. RPFJ § III (E), server operating system to fully interoperate The proposed settlement fails to provide November 6, 2001. This directly contradicts with each other; and essential disclosure of technical information the view of the government’s technical (2) all technical information that enables necessary to ensure interoperability in at expert, who testified that if Microsoft were Microsoft Middleware, such as IE, to fully least four critical areas: (a) between Windows able to withhold from disclosure the server interoperate with a Microsoft server PC operating systems and non-Microsoft protocols: operating system. server operating systems; (b) between [it] would give Microsoft the power to Microsoft’s claim that remedies which Microsoft middleware, particularly IE, and choose which server operating system affect the PC/server and server/server non-Microsoft server operating systems; (c) products could interoperate with Windows relationships are outside of the Sherman Act between Microsoft and non-Microsoft server .... A customer who felt compelled to buy § 2 monopolization claims before the Court is operating systems; and (d) between Microsoft client Windows Operating System Products insupportable. Defendant Microsoft PC or server operating systems and non- would therefore additionally be compelled, Corporation’s Remedial Proposal at 6–7 (Dec. Microsoft embedded devices. The absence of due to his desire for interoperability, to buy 12, 2002) (brief filed in response to the such protection effectively encourages his server Operating System Products from Plaintiff Litigating States’’ Remedial Microsoft to dominate server operating Microsoft or another vendor to whom Proposals). To the contrary, both sides systems and software in order to protect its Microsoft chose to disclose the new protocol. presented evidence on this issue in the prior PC operating system monopoly. Microsoft’s refusal to disclose the [server proceedings, and both this Court and the (a) The Proposed Settlement Will Not protocol] would prevent some competing Court of Appeals were particularly concerned Achieve Server Interoperability server Operating System Products from to ensure that the nascent middleware threats Although the government continues to interoperating fully with Windows, and thus to Microsoft’s PC operating system monopoly espouse the public interest goal of ‘‘seamless would put them at a significant disadvantage. be protected from further anticompetitive interoperability’’ for servers, CIS at 38, the Felton Decl. 53–57. conduct. See, e.g., CA at 79 (‘‘it would be proposed settlement does not if fact achieve By removing the server protocol disclosure inimical to the purpose of the Sherman Act that result. The failure to ensure this requirement, the proposed settlement to allow monopolists free reign to squash essential remedial goal contrasts sharply with virtually ensures that non-Microsoft server nascent, albeit unproven, competitors at the District Court’s findings of fact and operating systems will never be viable, will—particularly in industries marked by conclusion of law, which were entirely competitive alternatives to the Windows PC rapid technological advance and frequent affirmed or undisturbed by the Court of operating system monopoly. The client paradigm shifts’’); D.Ct. at ¶¶24–27, 56, 60. Appeals, establishing that Microsoft’s protocols that Microsoft is required to Indeed, when Microsoft made the same conduct, in selectively disclosing or entirely disclose will only allow the server to receive argument during the original remedy withholding such technical information, data or services from the PC. The other half proceedings, the government tersely exposed plainly violated Sherman Act § 2. CA at 71– of the transaction, whereby the server its fallacy: 73; D.Ct. at ¶¶90–92, 338–40. responds and sends data to the PC, cannot be Microsoft can hardly argue that client/ As late as November 2, 2001—four days accomplished without the server protocols. server interoperability issues are unrelated to before it reached the present settlement As a result, ISVs will not be able, on their the trial. In the first place, its own expert, agreement with Microsoft—the government own, to develop server operating systems that Dean Schmalensee, testified that control over still insisted that server interoperability was can fully interoperate with Windows PC. The the browser could enable a firm to ‘‘severely’’ essential to any settlement. The government’s government’s expert has admitted that this affect the functionality of server settlement proposal on that date expressly eliminates the possibility that non-Microsoft applications... Second, having argued during required server interoperability disclosure: Microsoft shall make available for use by the trial that Microsoft lacked monopoly 24 power in the operating-systems market third parties, for the sole purpose of A protocol is a piece of an operating system’s software code that allows the operating system to because of the future potential of server- interoperating with a Windows operating translate, and thus understand, the language of based applications, Microsoft can hardly system product ... any communications another computer or server that is attempting to contend now that it should be free to protocol that is... (i) implemented in the transmit data. When a PC (‘‘client’’) and a server are frustrate the threat to the Windows monopoly Windows operating system product installed transmitting and accepting information or services posed by such server-based applications by on a client computer, and (ii) used to between each other over the internet, server withholding critical information needed for interoperate natively (i.e., without the protocols allow the server operating system to those applications to interoperate with addition of software code to the client or accept and understand the information or services Windows. server operating system products) with being transmitted from the client. In other words, the server protocols allow the server to transmit Gov’t D.Ct. Reply Memo at 49 (internal Windows 2000 server products or products information to the PC by converting the information citations omitted). from the server’s computer language to the PC’s b. The Proposed Settlement’s 23 With regard to server interoperability, the computer language. The client protocols perform Interoperability Disclosure Requirements Are proposed settlement only requires ‘‘client the opposite task, allowing the PC to fully Wholly Inadequate protocols’’ to be disclosed. As is fully explained interoperate with the server. In order to process The interoperability disclosure provision below, to achieve full interoperability between a PC information from PC to server, and from server to in the proposed settlement is seriously (‘‘client’’) and a server, there must be disclosure of PC, it is essential that both server and client both client and server protocols, so that the server protocols be provided. Without knowledge of the deficient in the following ways: (1) no can accept and transmit data and services to the PC. appropriate server protocols necessary to interoperability disclosure protection is By disclosing only the client protocol, only one-half interoperate with a Windows PC, an ISV cannot afforded to important competitive threats to of the transaction (PC to server) is achieved, thus design an operating system for a server which will Microsoft’s PC operating system monopoly, defeating the server’s ability to fully interoperate properly interoperate with the Windows PC including non-Microsoft operating systems with the PC. See pp. 70–72 infra. operating system. VerDate 11 servers would ever become a competitive Henderson Decl. 81–86 (internal citations to website owners will be forced to purchase threat to Microsoft’s PC operating system trial record). The proposed settlement, Microsoft server operating systems to ensure monopoly: however, completely abandons the disclosure that their website remains fully accessible by [T]he two provisions relating to the provision necessary to prevent Microsoft the more than 90% of consumers who use IE. disclosure of APIs, interfaces and technical from using its control of IE to eliminate Second, for this reason among others, the information ... are exceptionally urgent ... [a]s demand for non-Microsoft server operating vast majority of applications that are already long as Microsoft retains its monopoly systems as a competitive alternative to written exclusively to interoperate with Windows will be increased, as ISVs’ power, the ability to withhold information Microsoft’s PC operating system monopoly. commercial need to write their Internet-based and to deny interoperability in this way will Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft applications to be compatible with IE and be a fearsome threat. The development of has no obligation whatever to disclose any technical information—APIs, ActiveX will increase. As time goes on, the server-based full-featured PC applications, communications interfaces or otherwise— number of servers which interoperate with for example, would be completely crippled if that would permit a non-Microsoft server Java and other browsers will continue to fall. these applications could not be accessed operating system to interoperate with Moreover, consumers who want to browse from a Windows PC, or could only be Microsoft’s Middleware, including IE. The the Internet, that is, to access what will accessed in a disadvantaged way, since no only disclosure obligation under the become the overwhelming majority of one would be willing to invest in building proposed settlement involving Microsoft websites run on a Microsoft server operating them. Requiring Microsoft to disclose its Middleware requires disclosure of APIs system, will have to use IE and to get it, they interface information... provides a necessary relevant to interoperability with a ‘‘Windows will need a Windows PC operating system or check on Microsoft’s ability to exploit its Operating System Product,’’ a term which is another device that runs on Microsoft illegally obtained position to exclude defined to include only ‘‘the software software. In the end, the prospect of ‘‘dumb competitors. code...distributed commercially by Microsoft PCs,’’ cell phones and handheld devices Henderson Decl. ¶¶115–121 (emphasis for use with a personal computer.’’ RPFJ equipped with non-Microsoft operating added). §§ III.D, VI.U (emphasis added). For example, systems and browsers also will be Quite simply, because Microsoft will not this provision would not require any eliminated. have to disclose any server protocols, this disclosure for the purpose of allowing SBC’s own website provides an example of disclosure provision will not achieve competing server operating systems to the exclusionary effect this lack of disclosure ‘‘seamless interoperability’’ between a interoperate with IE, the very product that will have on non-Microsoft server operating Windows PC and a non-Microsoft server the Court of Appeals held was used by system. SBC uses non-Microsoft operating operating system or aid in restoring even a Microsoft to illegally maintain its monopoly systems on its website servers, and the vestige of competition to the PC operating power. CA at 64–68. website is designed to be compatible with system market. As a result, under the proposed settlement, Java. Because Windows XP (unlike earlier (b) The Settlement Fails To Require only Microsoft server operating systems will Windows versions) does not contain Java, Disclosure To Enable Interoperability be guaranteed access to the proprietary APIs when Windows XP users attempt to access Between Internet Explorer And Non- and communications interfaces necessary for SBC’s website, they receive a message that Microsoft Servers a server to interoperate with IE. If a website ‘‘to display this page correctly, you need to During the original remedy proceedings the owner purchases a non-Microsoft server download and install the following government acknowledged the crucial operating system, the more than 90% of components: Java Virtual Machine.’’ importance of requiring full disclosure of all consumers who use IE on their Windows PC However, to make this (free) download on a technical information relevant to the would be unable to access that website normal dial-up connection will take the interoperability between Microsoft’s unless Microsoft had agreed to separately consumer over 30 minutes in normal middleware products, particularly IE, and license the technical information required for conditions (i.e., low network congestion and server operating systems. interoperability. latency), and an hour or more during times As explained by a government expert, if Of equal significance is Microsoft’s recent of peak usage. Thus, by dropping Java from Microsoft maintains control over the decision not to distribute Java as part of Windows XP and failing to disclose its browser-server interaction (as it would under Windows XP. Java had been included in browser interfaces (which would enable SBC the proposed settlement), it can maintain its prior versions of Windows. Java is a software to obtain programs that could achieve PC operating system monopoly by foreclosing program that is an open industry standard; it ‘‘seamless interoperability’’ with Windows the ability of a web server to interoperate allows websites both to operate on numerous XP), Microsoft has compelled the consumer with IE: non-Microsoft operating systems and to to undertake a confusing and lengthy Owning the dominant browser gives display rich colors and graphics to enhance download process. This creates an Microsoft great influence over the evolution the website’s appearance. CA at 74–75; D.Ct. anticompetitive barrier to consumers’ use of SBC’s website and entrenches the Windows of important Internet interfaces. As Paul at ¶¶386–405. Approximately 50% of all 25 Maritz recognized, ‘‘By controlling the client, websites currently on the Internet, including monopoly. (e) The Proposed Settlement Does Not you also control the servers.’’ GX 498, at SBC’s website, are Java-compatible. Microsoft Contain An Interoperabillty Disclosure MS980168614. See also GX279 (discussing dropped distribution of Java in favor of Provision To Cover Server-To-Server the role of standards in establishing Internet promoting ActiveX, which is Microsoft’s Communications platform, Maritz explained, ‘‘The key is to proprietary software that competes with Java Another corollary to the potential win the client (patch up the server later)’’). by allowing a web server to process an transition from the PC to a server-based This set of interfaces goes beyond the Internet-based application in a fashion computing environment is the need for a browser APIs to which developers can similar to Java. ActiveX is a proprietary vastly increased volume of server-to-server directly write applications, to include the set browser interface that is installed as part of communication transmissions. The proposed of interfaces that constitute the the software code for IE. As a result, the only settlement contains no provision requiring communications protocols between the way a non-Microsoft server operating system disclosure of any technical information browser and the network. For information to can obtain the proprietary interfaces for whatever to facilitate such be received and viewed in Internet Explorer, ActiveX (or for Internet Explorer generally) is communications—‘‘interoperability’’— the developer has to follow these interfaces. through a license from Microsoft. If Microsoft between Microsoft and non-Microsoft server The ability to influence development of chooses to make IE’s protocols a completely operating systems. The government offers no web-based applications is a highly valuable undisclosed, proprietary standard, which it is explanation for its absence, which will have tool for future anticompetitive campaigns free to do under the proposed settlement, should Microsoft choose to mount them. As Microsoft’s PC operating system monopoly 25 web-based applications grow in importance, will be perpetuated, because the already In October 2001, Microsoft dispelled any doubt whatever that it would use its control of Internet so does Microsoft’s ability to steer them formidable applications barrier to entry will Explorer and Microsoft server operating systems to towards being IE-centric, and, given its be increased, and the server threat will be exclude competing browsers, when it blocked control over the browser-to-operating system further diminished. This will occur as a access to its MSN.com server for Netscape’s and interface, Windows-centric as well. result of two interrelated effects. First, Opera’s competing browsers. See p. 80 infra. VerDate 11 the predictable effect of further diminishing (e) The Technical Information That Is system and a server operating system. the server threat to Microsoft’s PC operating Required To Be Disclosed Under The Moreover, there is substantial additional system monopoly, while also restraining Proposed Settlement Is Insufficient To technical information that far exceeds a competition in the server operating system Achieve Interoperability ‘‘communications protocol.’’ Such additional market itself. All of the same deficiencies in Even in those situations where the information includes APIs, software tools, interoperability discussed above with respect proposed settlement does require Microsoft file formats and other technical information to PCs and servers also apply to server-to- to disclose certain technical information without which a non-Microsoft server server communications as well. For this (interoperability between Microsoft operating system will never achieve reason, the same outcome is certain to occur: middleware and Windows PC operating ‘‘seamless interoperability’’ with a Windows an overwhelming percentage of servers on system; client protocols), the type and extent PC, let alone operate as well as a Microsoft the Internet will be forced to use a Microsoft of the disclosure is inadequate to promote server operating system. operating system. If Microsoft is not required competition, because it fails to achieve the The possibility that Microsoft will to disclose any of the technical information ‘‘seamless interoperability’’ that the maintain its PC monopoly in this manner is necessary interoperate with Microsoft’s government admits is essential to provide an not hypothetical. In fact, in the absence of server operating system, the demand for non- effective remedy for Microsoft’s antitrust strong remedial provisions, not only is Microsoft server operating systems will be violations. Microsoft certain to use disclosure, or the significantly reduced. As a result, the While the government now claims to have lack thereof, to create and maintain an Internet-based threat to Microsoft’s PC achieved equal access to the ‘‘same interfaces advantage over its competitors, but it has operating system monopoly will be and related information’’ for non-Microsoft already used the very same control over neutralized.26 and Microsoft middleware developers (CIS at communications protocols and the like to (d) The Proposed Settlement Does Not 33), this is not correct. Specifically, the disrupt competing browsers’ ability to Contain Interoperability Disclosure proposed settlement only requires disclosure communicate with its own servers over the Provisions To Cover ‘‘Embedded Devices’’ of ‘‘the APIs and related documentation’’ Internet. At the time of the release of Like a ‘‘dumb PC,’’ an ‘‘embedded device’’ used by Microsoft Middleware to Windows XP just last October, Microsoft (such as a cell phone, PDA or set-top box) interoperate with a ‘‘Windows Operating secretly changed the MSN web server also can provide a viable, competitive System Product.’’ RPFJ <§ III.D. This limited program codes to specifically prevent the alternative to a Windows PC. The disclosure is in stark contrast to the competing browsers Netscape Navigator and government once again admitted this in prior disclosure the government sought, and Opera from interoperating with the MSN web remedy proceedings when it included obtained, in the Final Judgment. Final server.28 Browser Bruiser, Chicago Sun embedded devices in the interoperability Judgment § 3(b). At that time, the government Times, October 27, 2001, at 36 (‘‘Microsoft’s disclosure provisions: required disclosure of ‘‘all APIs, technical premiere web portal, MSN.com, denied entry It is also possible that some of the information and communications interfaces’’ to millions of people who use alternative middleware now being developed for to achieve interoperability. Id. (emphasis browser software such as Opera and told alternative client devices—such as the added). them to get Microsoft’s products instead.’’); handheld computer, the Personal Digital For example, by limiting disclosure to MSN Shuts Out Other Browsers, Associated Assistant (PDA), the so-called ‘‘Internet APIs, the government has left out important Press, October 28, 2001 (‘‘Microsoft’s Appliance,’’ or the wireless telephone— additional technical information that is premiere web portal, MSN.com, denied entry might one day attract developers in large indispensable for a middleware product to to millions of people who use alternative numbers. If ported to the PC, this middleware achieve ‘‘seamless interoperability’’ with a browser software such as Opera...The could then begin to erode the applications Windows PC operating system. In addition, blockage coincided with Microsoft’s barrier to entry to the PC operating system the definition of what constitutes an ‘‘API’’ showcase launch of its Windows XP market. is drawn too narrowly in the proposed operating system. Instead of getting MSN’s Henderson Decl. 16. See Final Judgment settlement; it does not include items like news, games and shopping features, Opera § (3)(b)(iii) (requiting full disclosure of all registry keys, file formats, communications users were given links to download technical information relevant to protocols and other necessary technical Microsoft’s browsers.’’). interoperability between operating systems of information that is critical for an ISV to (f) The Timing Of The Required Disclosure handheld devices and Windows PCs). develop a middleware product that is fully Under The Proposed Settlement Will Impede, The government’s position at the time interoperable. See RPFJ § VI.A. This stands in Not Promote, Competition rested squarely on District Court findings that sharp contrast, once again, to what the To restore competition in the PC operating such devices could present an alternative to government advocated in the Final Judgment, system market, proper timing is no less a Windows PC in the future. D.Ct. ¶¶at 22– when its own expert explained that important than the substance of the required 23. Those findings were not disturbed on disclosure of all APIs, communications disclosures. The District Court made multiple appeal and remain binding today. CA at 52 interfaces and other related technical findings of fact, affirmed by the Court of (handheld devices could, but do not yet, information was essential to promote full Appeals, which established that delayed perform enough functions to be an alternative interoperability. Felton Decl. ¶¶15–28. The disclosure of technical information to to a Windows PC.) government offers no explanation for its achieve interoperability effectively nullifies In the proposed settlement, this essential change of position. See Final Judgment § 7(b); its value. D.Ct. at 338–40; CA at 71–73. The salutary provision has been removed without Litigating States’ § 22(c). ‘‘time to market’’ in developing software is of explanation by the government. The result is The same deficient definitions apply to the the utmost importance. Id. The ability of an to eliminate another potential threat to type of technical information that Microsoft ISV even to attempt to compete with Microsoft’s PC operating system monopoly, must disclose to promote interoperability Microsoft is ‘‘highly dependent’’ on while also giving Microsoft a significant between a non-Microsoft server operating Microsoft’s release of its technical advantage in the closely connected market system and a Windows PC operating system. information relevant to interoperability. Id. for operating systems for such embedded RPFJ § III.E. Such disclosure is now limited Netscape learned this lesson in 1995 when devices.27 only to ‘‘client protocols,’’ while the Final Microsoft, in the face of repeated demands Judgment required disclosure of ‘‘all APIs, from Netscape for technical information 26 The Litigating States’ proposal properly Technical Information and Communications regarding interoperability with Windows 95, requires full disclosure of all technical information Interfaces’’ necessary to achieve full withheld this technical information from necessary to design a non-Microsoft server interoperability. Final Judgment § 3(b); operating system that would be fully interoperable Litigating States’ § 4. The proposed 28 When browsers connect to a web server, they with a Microsoft server operating system. Litigating settlement’s limited disclosure obligation has send information identifying specifically which States’’ § 4. grave negative ramifications for ISVs seeking browser it is and the capabilities of that browser. 27 The Litigating States’ proposal justifiably Programmers often code their web servers to be requires full disclosure of all technical information to achieve full interoperability. First, as aware of browser differences so that the web server relevant to the interoperability between a Microsoft stated above, both the client and server can provide a richer end-user experience. It is PC or server operating system and any embedded protocols are necessary to achieve unusual, to say the least, to use browser and web device. Litigating States’’ § 4. interoperability between a PC operating server capabilities in this way to deny access. VerDate 11 Netscape for approximately three months. testers. RPFJ § III.D. With respect to the such a way as to effectively access, utilize D.Ct. at ¶¶90–92. While Netscape was disclosure of client protocols, Microsoft is and support the full features and functions of waiting for this information, Microsoft not subject to any time limit whatever. RPFJ one another. See Litigating States’ § 22(q). brought to market its competing product— § III.E. These provisions effectively immunize In addition, the definition of ‘‘Windows Internet Explorer. Id. The result of this delay continued anticompetitive conduct. Operating System Product’’ provides that was to destroy any fair competitive challenge Microsoft is essentially given free rein to ‘‘[t]he software code that comprises a Netscape might mount against Internet choose when it will be most advantageous in Windows Operating System Product shall be Explorer. Id. terms of marketing its products to make the determined by Microsoft in its sole The government has previously required disclosures; and prior to disclosure discretion.’’ RPFJ § VI.U (emphasis supplied). acknowledged that the proper timing of it is free to develop and position its products Essentially, this provision grants Microsoft disclosure of technical information related to for maximum competitive advantage. the ability to avoid disclosure to competitors interoperability is critical to restore Once again, the CIS provides no of technical information—even that competition to the PC operating system explanation why Microsoft’s disclosure necessary to achieve the government’s market. Gov’t D.Ct. Reply Memo at 21–23. As obligations should not commence a result, the government sought provisions in immediately, and why at all times thereafter, promised ‘‘seamless interoperability’’— the Final Judgment that required the timing should not be made as soon as information merely by embedding a middleware product of all disclosures to be made when Microsoft is available to Microsoft’s own programmers. in the Windows PC operating system code. disclosed the information to its own CIS at 34–35. For example, the ‘‘beta test’’ Microsoft can then argue that the product at developers, and well in advance of when any standard in the proposed settlement is far too issue is not middleware, but rather part of new Windows product is brought to market. late to be competitively meaningful. A beta Windows, and thus outside all disclosure Final Judgment § 3(b). test is one of the last steps taken by a obligations. Having manipulated for its own software developer before placing a new The definition of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ competitive advantage the timing of product on the market. It is often viewed as demonstrates the intentional nature of the interoperability disclosures in the past, it is more of a marketing tool (to create a ‘‘buzz’’ government’s concession on this point and not surprising that Microsoft demanded very among technology writers and other serves no function other than to dilute the liberal and vague timing in the proposed cognoscenti), rather than a true development effectiveness of the proposed settlement. settlement. The government, however, having step. Thus, if Microsoft is allowed to wait That definition, which is essentially the flip- litigated and prevailed on the timing issue, until this point, it will be able to do to other side of the ‘‘Operating System’’ coin, also now largely gives up. The proposed software developers exactly what it did to allows Microsoft the flexibility to define settlement does not require the disclosure of Netscape in 1995—ensure that a competing whatever it wants to as middleware, by either technical information related to product is so late to market that it faces an not obtaining a trademark for the product or interoperability of Microsoft Middleware insurmountable barrier to overtake by simply bundling it with the Windows PC products to begin until the ‘‘earlier of the Microsoft’s lead. D.Ct. at ¶¶90–92. operating system. RPFJ § VI.J. In either release of Service Pack I for Windows XP or The Final Judgment and Litigating States’ instance, the effect is the same: twelve months after the submission of this proposal are much more rational, and likely Notwithstanding the conclusion of the Final Judgment.’’ RPFJ § III.D. If Microsoft to lead to meaningful disclosure that would District Court and the Court of Appeals that intends to introduce a new Middleware promote interoperability and competition. Microsoft bound middleware to its operating Product, it does not have to disclose any All disclosures under the Final Judgment and system for the purpose of defending its technical information related to Litigating States’ proposal are required to be operating system monopoly in violation of interoperability until the product’s ‘‘last made in a ‘‘timely manner,’’ which is § 2, the company will remain free to continue precisely defined as, at a minimum, the major beta test.’’ Id. All other disclosures the same conduct. earliest of the following times: must be made in a ‘‘Timely Manner,’’ which ii. The Mandatory Licensing Provisions is defined as the ‘‘time Microsoft first (i) When the information is disclosed to Are Illusory releases a beta test ... that is distributed to Microsoft’s own application developers; The proposed settlement provides that 150,000 or more beta testers.’’ Id. § VI.R. (ii) When the information is used by Microsoft must license to its competitors the Similarly, the disclosure of client protocols Microsoft’s ‘‘own platform software intellectual property fights for any technical contained in the Windows PC operating developers in software released by Microsoft information it is required to disclose. The CIS in alpha, beta release candidate, final or other system are not required to begin until nine explains that ‘‘[t]he overarching goal of this form’’; months after the submission of the final section is to ensure that Microsoft cannot use (iii) When the information is disclosed to judgment, and all subsequent disclosures are its intellectual property fights in such a way not regulated as to time, and thus left solely any third party; or that undermines the competitive value of its within the discretion of Microsoft. RPFJ (iv) Within ninety days of the final release disclosure obligations.’’ CIS at 49. § III.E. of the Windows operating system product, Limitations on Microsoft’s licensing The inadequacy of these timing but ‘‘no less than five days after a material obligations, however, make the provision’s requirements is patent. There is no change is made between the most recent beta impact largely illusory. Indeed, they may conceivable justification, and none has been for release candidate version and the final offered, for delaying disclosure with respect release.’’ well benefit Microsoft to the exclusion of its competitors and competition generally in the to Microsoft’s current products for nine to Final Judgment § 7(ee); Litigating States’ twelve months from the date of the § 22(pp). PC operating system market. settlement. By definition, Microsoft knows, (g) Important Terms In The Proposed First, Microsoft is permitted to charge a and its programmers have access to, current Settlement Are So Loosely Defined That ‘‘reasonable royalty’’ to any competitor who product information today. The delay built They Enable Microsoft To Avoid Disclosure requests disclosure related to into the settlement simply allows Microsoft The definitions of important terms relevant interoperability. RPFJ § III.I.1. This provision time to exploit its proven monopoly for to interoperability are so vague that Microsoft is anticompetitive. On its face, it allows another year so that Microsoft’s products will can largely avoid its disclosure obligations. Microsoft to enjoy the fruits (i.e., licensing have an even greater advantage when Among other things, the proposed royalties) of its proven illegal monopoly. disclosure finally begins. settlement’s definitions of ‘‘Microsoft Moreover, it gives Microsoft the opportunity With respect to new middleware products Middleware’’ and ‘‘Windows Operating to use a ‘‘royalty’’ charge to control crucial and others, the timing of disclosure also fails System Product’’ give Microsoft the ability to technical information in a way that restrains to serve the public interest. Disclosure for a completely circumvent even the otherwise its competitors—a practice Microsoft has new middleware product is not required paltry disclosure requirements. See pp. 36– already shown a willingness to undertake.29 until the new product’s ‘‘last major beta test’’, 40, 42–43 supra. Just as important, the The government earlier acknowledged that which is also an undefined term. RPFJ § III.D. critical term ‘‘interoperability’’ is not defined As to all other middleware disclosures, in the proposed settlement. It should be 29 Under the proposed settlement, there is no Microsoft is free to decide when to conduct defined as the ability of a system or product practical way for competitors who must pay the fee the required beta test to 150,000 or more beta to work with other systems or products in to challenge its reasonableness. VerDate 11 these dangers can be avoided only by proposal of General Electric for reciprocal and the need must be related to a product requiring any license to be royalty-free: licensing will be declined. that is currently being planned or shipped; The disclosure of APIs, Communications General Elec. Co., 115 F. Supp at 847. (iii) that the licensee meet ‘‘reasonable, Interfaces and Technical Information The government’s present justification, that objective standards established by Microsoft required by the Final Judgment will enable this provision is necessary to ensure that for certifying the authenticity and viability of third parties to make their products Microsoft would not be exposed to its business’’; and interoperate effectively with Windows, ‘‘infringement liability’’ as a result of the (iv) that the licensee agree to submit any thereby increasing the value of Windows as interoperability disclosures, is difficult to program using the disclosed technical a platform ..... There is thus no need or understand. CIS at 50. No competitor should information to a third party, approved by justification to charge a royalty for access to be forced to disclose its own proprietary Microsoft, to ‘‘ensure verification and the same information about interoperation information in order to exercise rights put in compliance with Microsoft specifications.’’ RPFJ § III.J.2. with Microsoft Platform Software on a place to restore competition in a The government did not permit any such Personal Computer that Microsoft’s own monopolized market. Again, the government ‘‘security’’ exception in its proposals for the developers receive. does not explain why it was wrong when it earlier concluded that such a provision has Final Judgment. The government now Gov’t D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 14. no pro-competitive benefit: attempts to justify this provision as a The relevant case law also supports the ‘‘narrow exception’’ that is necessary to position that royalty-free licenses are There is no justification for requiting third parties to disclose to Microsoft the APIs’ and maintain the integrity of the security-related necessary to prospectively remedy features of Windows. CIS at 10. To the Microsoft’s illegal monopolization of the PC Communications Interfaces in their products that interoperate with Windows. Microsoft contrary, the broad language and significant operating system market. See United States v. discretion given to Microsoft create loopholes General’’ Elec. Co., 115 F. Supp. 835,844 has monopoly power in the market for PC operating systems, and third-party for Microsoft to withhold information (D.N.J. 1953) (royalty-free licenses an essential to interoperability from disclosure essential remedy to prevent a continuance of developers of middleware that might challenge that monopoly are thus dependent generally or from specific rivals it wishes to monopoly). The government made this same prejudice. legal point when it recognized that the on access to Windows APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information. First, virtually all APIs, communications instant case is analogous to United States v. Microsoft has previously withheld access to interfaces or other technical information that Western Elec. Co., 569 F. Supp. 1057, 1082– APIs and interfaces to defeat such threats in are relevant to interoperability, on some level 1091 (D.DC 1983), aff’d sub nom. California the past, and the restoration of competition will perform ‘‘authentication’’ or v. United States, 464 U.S. 1013 (1983), where requires that it not be permitted to do so in ‘‘encryption’’ functions related to the security compulsory, royalty-free, sublicensable the future. No comparable concern has been of an operating system. Accordingly, the licenses were required to remedy past anti- raised in this case about access to allegedly ‘‘narrow’’ security exception in competitive conduct. Gov’t D.Ct. Reply information regarding third parties’ products. reality gives Microsoft a virtual carte blanche Memo at 27–29. As the government pointed In any event, third parties that get access to to withhold information necessary for out, this provision was one of several that APIs, Communications Interfaces, and interoperability, simply by citing this section insured that ‘‘telecommunications [would] Technical Information are doing so to create and claiming the code at issue provides continue to operate in an engineering sense complements to Microsoft’s operating ‘‘authentication’’ or ‘‘encryption’’ functions. as one national network.’’ Id. at 29 (internal system. The language requiring that a person quotation marks omitted). The same seeking disclosure must meet ‘‘reasonable, functional interoperability is necessary to Gov’t D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 14–15. In addition, the disclosures required by objective standards established by Microsoft ensure maximum innovation and for certifying the authenticity and viability of competition in all aspects of the computer cross-licensing would enable Microsoft to get a jump on developing its own product to its business’’ invites abuse by Microsoft. RPFJ industry. § III.J.2.c (emphasis added). For example, Moreover, as in the AT&T case, whether compete with that which the licensee was forced to disclose. The settlement would Microsoft could exercise its veto power over royalty-free licenses are necessary is not an a disclosure request from an open source issue of remedying a monopolist’s past thereby further increase Microsoft’s timing advantage over its licensee in selling a new developer, on the ground that Microsoft does anticompetitive use of its intellectual product. Nothing requires giving a proven not consider ‘‘its business’’ to be ‘‘authentic’’ property per se, but rather a matter of making monopolist such a benefit. or ‘‘viable’’. The open source community sure that the relief granted (in this case, iii. The Limitation Upon Disclosure Based typically operates on a not-for-profit basis, disclosure of certain APIs and On Alleged Security Concerns Is A Massive and has long been a competitive adversary of communications protocols) is not impeded Loophole Microsoft. Rebecca Buckman, Microsoft is by onerous license terms. Thus, requiring The provision in the proposed settlement Suing Linux Start-up Over Lindows Name, royalty-free licensing is merely in aid of a that limits Microsoft’s interoperability Wall Street Journal, December 24, 2001 remedy for antitrust violations that are not disclosure obligations based on security (Microsoft brings trademark action against directly related to Microsoft’s licensing of its considerations is another loophole that open source operating system developer); Lee intellectual property. Microsoft can use to justify withholding Gomes, Linux Campaign Is An Uphill Battle The public interest also is not served by crucial technical information. Under this For Microsoft, Wall Street Journal, June 14, giving Microsoft the tight to condition the provision, if technical information would 2001 (‘‘A Microsoft Corp. effort to vilify grant of any license of its own software upon ‘‘compromise the security of a particular Linux and other open-source software the licensee’s ‘‘cross-licensing’’ any installation or group of installations of anti- appears to be backfiring ... Microsoft Chief intellectual property rights it may have ‘‘that piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital Executive Steve Ballmer ... [called] Linux ‘‘a are related to the licensee’s exercise of its rights management, encryption or cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual tights’’ under the settlement. RPFJ § III.I.5. It authentication systems, including without property sense to everything it touches.’’); was established long ago that cross-license limitation, keys, authorization tokens or Byron Acohido, Microsoft Memo to Staff: requirements are inconsistent with restoring enforcement criteria,’’ it is exempt from Clobber Linux, USA Today, Jan. 4, 2002 competition to a monopolized market: disclosure. RPFJ § III.J.1. In addition, (‘‘Microsoft is escalating its war against [A] provision for reciprocal licensing Microsoft is also given the right to require Linux.’’). would tend to perpetuate the situation of that the following conditions be met prior to Similarly, the requirement that the industry dominance by General Electric licensing APIs or communications protocols prospective licensee have a ‘‘reasonable which the decree is designed to end... Were related to the foregoing subjects: business need’’ for the information also gives General Electric granted the right of (i) that any licensee never have Microsoft anticompetitive powers. Microsoft reciprocity, since it would be the participated in software counterfeiting or could dispute the asserted ‘‘need’’ or use to overwhelmingly largest source from which to piracy, and never have willfully violated its own competitive advantage the demand licenses, once again it would be in intellectual property rights; information that licensees would presumably a position of being able to channel all (ii) that the licensee have a ‘‘reasonable submit to it to demonstrate their ‘‘need,’’ development through itself. Therefore the business need’’ for the technical information, since the provision effectively gives VerDate 11 Microsoft advance notice of its competitors’ anticompetitive tactics in the future, ‘‘highlight[] the potential for misuse of new products. For this reason, the provision precisely because the specific tactics that monopoly power that must be prevented if will discourage competitors from even Microsoft might employ in the future are potential rivals to Windows and new exercising disclosure rights. Finally, hard to predict today in the face of changing innovations in software can be expected to Microsoft is given the gratuitous fight to products and technology.’’ Id. (emphasis in emerge.’’ Gov’t D.Ct. Memo at 38. The require all competitors’ programs that use original) government specifically admitted that the Microsoft’s APIs to be verified by a third Having recognized these elements as broad anti-retaliation provision was needed party, who is ‘‘approved by Microsoft,’’ to essential to any remedy that would serve the ‘‘both to prevent subtle or varied forms of ensure compliance with ‘‘Microsoft’s public interest, the government now coercion and to avoid difficulties in specifications for use of the API or interface.’’ proposes to settle on terms that do virtually determining the scope of the restriction in an RPFJ § III.J.2.d. nothing to anticipate and prohibit new forms enforcement proceeding.’’ Id. at 38–39. Microsoft’s alleged concern for security is of exclusion. Indeed, in many instances, the With respect to banning retaliation against a pretext to create a loophole, as well as to government has given up or severely limited ISVs and IHVs, the government said it was allow Microsoft to obtain an unwarranted provisions in the original Final Judgment that necessary to ‘‘ensure that Microsoft does not advantage by having early access to its were fully justified by the Court of Appeals’ use its operating system monopoly to nip competitors’ trade secrets, The fact that affirmance. On a number of such issues, the new competitive threats in the bud.’’ Gov’t certain code may provide a security function proposed settlement accepts positions that D.Ct. Memo at 41. The provision was a is not a legitimate reason to withhold Microsoft sought to include in the Final ‘‘safeguard to prevent Microsoft’s continued disclosure. Although Microsoft has not been Judgment, but the government then use of the wide array of opportunities required to license this information in the specifically rejected. The government presented by its monopoly position to bribe past, its software security record is arguably rejected Microsoft’s proposals precisely and coerce third parties to favor its own one of the worst in the industry. See, e.g., because they ‘‘consist[ed] largely of changes products and exclude others.’’ Gov’t D.Ct. Wayne Epperson, NT Insurance at a that would create loopholes and permit Reply Memo at 55. Premium, HostingTech (August 2001), at Microsoft to continue to engage in Moreover, because Microsoft repeatedly www.hostingtech.com/security/01_08_nt. anticompetitive practices like those found by sought anticompetitive agreements, such as (reporting that insurer J.S. Wurzler the Court or otherwise to frustrate or its attempted market allocation agreements Underwriting Managers had discovered ‘‘that undermine the purposes of the Final with Netscape and Intel, the Final Judgment clients who used Microsoft Windows NT Judgment.’’ Gov’t D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 6. included a provision that flatly prohibited software in their Internet operations were at However, the recent CIS does not attempt to agreements that limit competition (Final a greater risk of loss to computer hackers justify the government’s acquiescence in Judgment § 3(h)) ‘‘to ensure that the defendant will be unable to repeat its than were the insured Unix or Linux users what were once viewed as ‘‘loopholes’’ and a license to resume ‘‘anticompetitive unlawful conduct.’’ Gov’t D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at .... After 5 months of analysis, Wurzler practices.’’ 17. ‘‘Prohibiting anticompetitive activity that Underwriting Managers made the decision to a. The Government’s Settlement could stifle the emergence of other forms of charge its NT clients an extra premium for Substitutes Weak And Narrow Protections Of middleware as potential platforms is insurance coverage.’’). On the other hand, Third Parties For The Strong And Broad necessary both to prevent recurrence of past several of the most effective security Provisions Justified By Microsoft’s Conduct s misconduct and to restore competitive programs, such as Kerberos and ‘‘Pretty Good The Court of Appeals held that Microsoft conditions.’’ Gov’t D.Ct. Reply Memo at 65. Privacy,’’ are available on an open-source had engaged in exclusionary acts and threats Even today, the government recognizes the basis and freely accessible by the public. of retaliation in violation of § 2. CA at 73, 77– need to prohibit retaliation based on the These examples prove that even full public 78. In its efforts to promote IE and restrict the specific findings of illegal conduct upheld by disclosure is not inimical to security. What distribution of Navigator, Microsoft the Court of Appeals. In its attempts ‘‘to disclosure does prevent, however, is the successfully made threats against Apple. To protect the applications barrier to entry, exercise of monopoly power. For purposes of halt the development of cross-platform Microsoft embarked on a multifaceted this proceeding, therefore, the ‘‘security’’ interfaces for Java, Microsoft threatened to campaign to maximize [IE]’s share of usage loopholes are not in the public interest. retaliate against Intel. Microsoft also made and to minimize Navigator’s.’’ CIS at 13. Not 3. The Proposed Settlement Fails To threats and retaliated against others who content to merely develop its own browser, Remedy The Proven Pattern Of Unlawful posed potential threats to its monopoly. D.Ct. ‘‘Microsoft decided to constrict Netscape’s Retaliation, Inducements, And Exclusive at ¶¶83–84, 91, 101, 102. access to the two distribution channels that Dealing Arrangements Used By Microsoft To The government has recognized the led most efficiently to browser usage; Maintain Its Monopoly established and urgent need to prevent installation by OEMs on new personal As determined by the District Court in Microsoft from engaging in acts or threats of computers and distribution by [IAPs].’’ Id. findings upheld by the Court of Appeals, retaliation. The original Final Judgment ‘‘To ensure that developers would not Microsoft threatened to and did withhold prohibited Microsoft from ‘‘tak[ing] or Comments of SBC Communications Inc. view critical technical information from software threaten[ing] any action [that] adversely Navigator as truly cross-platform developers; Microsoft provided or withheld affect[s] any OEM... based directly or middleware,’’ Microsoft also pressured Apple financial benefits depending on a party’s indirectly, in whole or in part, on any actual ‘‘to make Navigator less readily accessible on willingness to aid in its anticompetitive or contemplated action by that OEM to use, Apple personal computers.’’ CIS at 14. campaign; and Microsoft contractually distribute, promote, license, develop, Additionally, as part of ‘‘its effort to prohibited third parties from distributing produce or sell any product or service that hamper distribution of Navigator and to competing software. CA at 71–73, 76–77. Yet, competes with any Microsoft product or discourage the development of software that the proposed settlement fails in many service.’’ Final Judgment § 3(a)(i). The Final used non-Microsoft technology, Microsoft respects to protect third parties from new Judgment further prohibited Microsoft from also targeted [ISVs] by contractually versions of such past conduct which may be ‘‘tak[ing] or threaten[ing] any action affecting requiring ISVs to use [IE]-specific used by Microsoft to protect its operating any ISV or IHV... based directly or indirectly, technologies in return for timely and system monopoly. in whole or in part, on any actual or commercially necessary technical In earlier proceedings, the government contemplated action by the ISV or IHV to information about Windows, and precluded recognized that any remedy must be use, distribute, promote or support any important ISVs from distributing Navigator ‘‘directed towards future competition and Microsoft product or service, or develop, use, with their products.’’ CIS at 14–15. innovation,’’ and that while the remedy was distribute, promote, or support any software Ultimately, ‘‘Microsoft’s actions succeeded in based on historical experience, the analysis that runs on non-Microsoft Middleware or a eliminating the threat that the Navigator was ‘‘done on a forward-looking basis.’’ See non-Microsoft Operating System or that browser posed to Microsoft’s operating Shapiro Decl. at 2. The government further competes with any Microsoft product or system monopoly... Navigator lost its ability acknowledged that in this fast-moving service.’’ Final Judgment 21§ 3(d)(i) and to become the standard software for browsing industry, any remedial conduct provisions 3(d)(ii). the Web because Microsoft had must ‘‘be broad enough to prevent Microsoft With respect to OEMs, the government successfully—and illegally—excluded from engaging in a number of categories of recognized that Microsoft’s retaliatory actions Navigator from that status.’’ CIS at 15. VerDate 11 The proposed settlement (RPFJ §§ III.A,F) which Microsoft may not ‘‘retaliate.’’ It only inconsistent’’ with the settlement. RPFJ §§ III. fails to implement the procompetitive goals prohibits ‘‘retaliation’’ that occurs ‘‘because’’ A and III. F. 3. Given the ambiguities in the that the government has repeatedly of conduct by the OEM, ISV or IHV. By settlement, this loophole, too, will invite expressed, and substitutes weak and narrow imposing a causation requirement on the aggressive interpretation by Microsoft, and protections for broad prohibitions to interdict injured party, the government again gives a further litigation. new forms of exclusionary conduct adopted proven wrongdoer the benefit of a doubt to vii. There Is No Prohibition On Agreements by Microsoft in response to new forms of which it is not entitled. The prior Final Limiting Competition competition. Judgment struck the correct balance by The provision in the Final Judgment i. The Range Of Parties Protected From prohibiting any adverse action by Microsoft banning agreements to limit competition ‘‘Retaliation’’ Is Too Limited based directly or indirectly on any actual or (Section 3(h)) has been completely The settlement would only protect OEMs, contemplated action by the protected party. eliminated, leaving Microsoft free to seek to ISVs and IHVs against ‘‘retaliation.’’ Final Judgment §§ 3(a)(i), 3(d); see also enter market allocation agreements such as Microsoft’s record of retaliatory conduct, Litigating States’ § 8. the ones it proposed to enter with Netscape however, demonstrates that the ban against iv. Retaliation Not Involving Windows Or and Intel. D.Ct. at ¶¶83–84, 97, 101. The retaliation must apply to all third parties.30 Middleware Is Allowed proposed settlement (§ III.G) only prohibits Microsoft has demonstrated that it will take The proposed settlement’s ban on Microsoft from entering into agreements with any action necessary against any entity that ‘‘retaliation’’ currently only applies to a certain entities to use or distribute Microsoft poses a threat to its monopoly, by making protected party where it is developing, Platform Software exclusively or in fixed threats, offering inducements, coercing or distributing, promoting or using products percentages. There is no provision that limits contractually restricting others. The that compete with Microsoft Platform Microsoft’s ability to enter into agreements government offers no justification whatever, Software or middleware.31 Given the with competitors providing that they refrain let alone any persuasive reason, to limit the multitude of ways in which new threats can from developing or distributing products that types of third-parties against which Microsoft (and did) develop to contest the Windows compete with the Windows operating system cannot engage in unlawful retaliation. The operating system, the ban on retaliation will or a Microsoft middleware product. This CIS settlement’s failure to ban retaliation broadly not be truly effective unless it protects any does not explain this glaring omission. is all the more troubling because this action or contemplated action involving viii. There Is No Protection Against provision does not impose any affirmative products or services that compete with any Retaliation For Participating In This Lawsuit duties on Microsoft. The only ‘‘burden’’ is Microsoft products or services. Nothing in the proposed settlement that Microsoft must refrain from punishing v. Loopholes Vitiate Even The Existing protects individuals or entities from those who might challenge Microsoft’s illegal Limitations retaliation by Microsoft for participating or monopoly. The settlement contains broad savings cooperating in this litigation. In a letter to the ii. ‘‘Retaliation’’ Is Not Defined clauses and exceptions that give Microsoft Senate Judiciary Committee, former Solicitor The proposed settlement states that loopholes for abuse and are not justified by General Robert H. Bork expressed the Microsoft ‘‘shall not retaliate,’’ but never the Court of Appeals’ findings. The OEM realistic concern that ‘‘any potential witness defines ‘‘retaliation.’’ Although the retaliation provision permits Microsoft to with knowledge of anticompetitive conduct government stated that its intention was to provide ‘‘Consideration’’ to any OEM with in a monopolized market has to weigh the ‘‘prevent subtle or varied forms of coercion respect to any Microsoft product or service if potential benefit of his or her testimony and to avoid difficulties in determining the the ‘‘Consideration is commensurate with the against the likely response of the defendant scope of the restriction in an enforcement absolute level or amount of that OEM’s monopolist. The [government’s] proposed proceeding’’ (Gov’t D.Ct. Memo at 38–39), the development, distribution, promotion, or meaningless remedy would insure that no vague language of the settlement fails to meet licensing of that Microsoft product or witness would ever testify against Microsoft that goal. Without a definition of ‘‘retaliate,’’ service.’’ RPFJ § III.A. Similarly, Microsoft in any future enforcement action.’’ See Letter such as a prohibition against ‘‘taking or may enter agreements with ISVs limiting from Robert H. Bork to Senate Judiciary threatening adverse actions’’ (see Final their ability to develop, promote or distribute Committee of 12/11/01, at 4. Again, the CIS Judgment §§ 3(a)(i), 3(d)), Microsoft will be competing software, if the limitations are does not address this issue of obvious free to argue that no violation has been ‘‘reasonably necessary to and of reasonable concern, given Microsoft’s track record of established on a particular set of facts. Given scope and duration in relation to a bona fide anticompetitive abuse. the extraordinary record of Microsoft’s contractual obligation of the ISV to use, b. The Proposed Uniform Licensing To ingenuity in abusing its monopoly power, distribute or promote any Microsoft software OEMs Is Insufficient any definitional doubt must be resolved or develop software for, or in conjunction The District Court made findings of fact, against the wrongdoer by imposing a broad with, Microsoft.’’ RPFJ § HI F.2. which were not questioned by the Court of definition of ‘‘retaliate.’’ These vague provisions are an invitation Appeals, that provide examples of incentives Moreover, with respect to OEMs, Microsoft for abuse. Microsoft has repeatedly used and threats used by Microsoft to induce is only prohibited from ‘‘retaliating against these very practices to maintain an illegal OEMs to promote IE and not pre-install or an OEM by altering Microsoft’s commercial monopoly for over a decade. Under these promote Navigator. Thus, Microsoft gave relations with that OEM or by withholding circumstances, a broad prohibition that puts reductions in price to OEMs who set IE as the newly introduced forms of non-monetary the burden entirely on Microsoft to prove the default browser on their PC systems; Consideration.’’ See RPFJ § III.A (emphasis bona fides of any ‘‘consideration’’ or Microsoft gave further reductions to OEMs added). The use of the words ‘‘newly exclusivity is not only appropriate, but who displayed IE logos and links on their introduced’’ is ambiguous in that it suggests essential to revive competition. home page; and Microsoft gave OEMs that Microsoft is permitted to withhold vi. Unnecessary And Ambiguous Savings millions of dollars in co-marketing funds in existing forms of non-monetary Clauses Undermine The Decree exchange for carrying out other promotional compensation. The CIS offers no explanation The retaliation provisions also include activities for IE. D.Ct. at ¶231. for this ambiguity concerning whether broad savings clauses that provide that Microsoft may continue to engage in conduct The original Final Judgment contained a nothing in the provisions ‘‘prohibit Microsoft strong ban on discriminatory license terms. It previously adjudged illegal. CIS at 25–26. from enforcing any provision of any iii.The Party Injured By Retaliation Must compelled Microsoft to license Windows to agreement with any [OEM, ISV or IHV] or all covered OEMs on uniform terms and Prove Causation any intellectual property right, that is not The proposed settlement too narrowly prohibited Microsoft from offering market limits the type of conduct by third parties for development allowances or discounts. Final 31 Microsoft Platform Software is defined as Judgment § 3(a)(ii). Microsoft was further Microsoft Middleware and the Windows Operating 30 required to give OEMs equal access to, inter The listing of categories of protected parties, System. The limitations of those defined terms alia, licensing terms, discounts, technical and instead of applying the ban to all third parties, also which, among other things, exclude applications presents a significant risk of omitting some (including applications on Internet-based servers marketing support and product and technical competitors (e.g., SBC and Sun Microsystems) from that would threaten the Windows monopoly), information; and to give written notice and the decree’s protection because their businesses do render the ‘‘retaliation’’ ban far too narrow. See pp. an opportunity to cure before terminating an not fit neatly into any standard category. 36–40, 42–43 infra. OEM’s license. Id. VerDate 11 The government recognized the necessity package; those discounts enable the OEMs to Server. D.Ct. at ¶255,256. Microsoft also for this provision requiring ‘‘transparent and be competitive with other PC manufacturers. entered into agreements with AT&T, uniform pricing to the largest OEMs... so that However, if an OEM tries to negotiate WorldNet, Prodigy and CompuServe limiting Microsoft cannot retaliate against an OEM for anything out of the package, Microsoft their ability to promote non-Microsoft supporting non-Microsoft software.’’ Gov’t significantly increases the price, making the browsers. D.Ct. at ¶305. D.Ct. Memo at 39. Uniform terms and pricing OEM non-competitive. OEMs do not know The Court of Appeals also held that were also seen as necessary to ‘‘terminate[] what terms are negotiable and are afraid to Microsoft’s illegal agreements with ISVs Microsoft’s practice of charging substantially negotiate aggressively out of fear they will be further foreclosed rival browsers from the different prices for Windows licenses to punished by Microsoft. market. CA at 72, 76. Microsoft entered reward cooperative OEMs, effected in part by For this reason, when Microsoft previously dozens of ‘‘First Wave’’ agreements with its market development allowances, and will requested deletion of the equal access ISVs, promising to give them preferential thus make it easier for OEMs to promote non- provision, the government rejected the idea support in using Windows in exchange for Microsoft products in response to consumer because it ‘‘would allow [Microsoft] to ISVs agreeing to use IE as the default browser demand.’’ Id. The government found that this reward or punish Covered OEMs with in any software they developed. The ‘‘First uniformity was ‘‘necessary to prevent different Windows prices and non-price Wave’’ agreements with ISVs also required Microsoft from employing the myriad forms licensing terms and conditions and thus to the ISVs to use Microsoft’s JVM rather than of coercion and reward that’’ have been held evade the purpose of the Final Judgment.’’ Sun’s JVM. This directly protected to injure competition. Gov’t D.Ct. Reply See Gov’t D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 10. Moreover, Microsoft’s monopoly from the middleware Memo at 43–44. ‘‘Such coercion is difficult the government’s view then was that ‘‘the threat. CA at 76. to detect, and the mere threat of its use may burden should not be on OEMs to know of To redress these exclusionary agreements, be sufficient to accomplish the desired, and affirmatively seek out equal treatment; the government, earlier in this case, anticompetitive result.’’ Id. at 44. Microsoft could take advantage of a Covered advocated a general and broad prohibition In the context of the present settlement, the OEM’s ignorance of what has been provided against any and all manner of exclusive government continues to define as a to other Covered OEMs to reward or punish dealing by Microsoft. In the Final Judgment, ‘‘critical’’ objective ensuring that OEMs are that OEM and thus to evade the purposes of Microsoft was generally prohibited from truly ‘‘free to choose to distribute and the Final Judgment.’’ Id. at 10–11. The offering a third party any consideration in promote middleware without interference government provides no satisfactory rationale exchange for that party’s agreement to restrict from Microsoft.’’ CIS at 25. It recognizes that for changing that view. development, production, distribution, Windows’’ license royalties and terms are iii. There Is No Independent Verification promotion or use of, or payment for, any non- ‘‘inherently complex and easy for Microsoft Of ‘‘Volume’’ Discounts Microsoft Platform Software; distributing, to use to affect OEMs’’ behavior, including The proposed settlement allows Microsoft promoting or using any Microsoft Platform what software the OEMs will offer to their to provide reasonable volume discounts Software exclusively; degrading the customers.’’ CIS at 28. By purportedly based upon the actual volume of licenses. performance of any non-Microsoft Platform requiring uniform licensing, the govemment (RPFJ § III.B.2) Unless the provision requires Software; and with respect to IAPs or ICPs, says that the proposed settlement eliminates that the volume discounts be based on the distributing, promoting or using Microsoft ‘‘any opportunity for Microsoft to set a independently determined actual number of software in exchange for placement with particular OEM’s royalty or license terms as shipments, however, Microsoft will continue respect to any aspect of a Windows Operating a way of inducing that OEM to decline to to have the power that it exercised in the past System. Final Judgment § 3(e). promote non-Microsoft software or retaliating to manipulate discounts. The government recognized that such a ban against that OEM for its choices to promote iv. License Terminations Without Cause was necessary because Microsoft had non-Microsoft software.’’ CIS at 28. The Are Allowed ‘‘coerced and bribed’’ third parties into government’s stated goal is ensuring ‘‘that The proposed settlement creates an becoming, willingly or unwillingly, OEMs can make their own independent unnecessary exception to the written notice participants in strengthening the applications choices.’’ CIS at 28. requirement for termination of OEM licenses. barrier to entry. Gov’t D.Ct. Memo at 41. The Here, as in many other respects, the It provides that Microsoft need not provide government stated that to prevent recurrence, proposed settlement fails to fulfill the notice or opportunity to cure if Microsoft has Microsoft had to be barred from any government’s stated objectives. given two prior written notices. This exclusive dealing or percentage contracts that i. Allowing ‘‘Market Development exception invites Microsoft to abuse the require a third party to limit its dealings in, Allowances’’ Invites Evasion notice provision and then arbitrarily revoke or to degrade the performance of, non- Unlike the Final Judgment (§ 3(a)(ii)), an OEM’s license. Moreover, Microsoft is not Microsoft products, to deal solely in which prohibited market development even required to show ‘‘good cause’’ for Microsoft software, or, in the case of IAPs or allowances (‘‘MDAs’’) outright, the proposed termination. Again, the government provides ICPs, to exchange promotion of Microsoft settlement would permit MDAs (RPFJ no rationale why a proven monopolist should products for placement in the Windows § III.3.B3), if certain restrictions are met, be given any such advantages. operating system. Id. Significantly, the despite the fact that MDAs have been c. The Proposed Settlement Fails To government advocated a general ban because repeatedly used by Microsoft to induce OEMs Address Exclusive Dealing Adequately Microsoft had dealings with a wide range of to take actions that protect Microsoft’s The Court of Appeals held that Microsoft’s companies and because ‘‘it is difficult to monopoly. As the government earlier exclusive contracts with IAPs are predict precisely which trading partners acknowledged, making any MDAs exclusionary devices in violation of § 2. CA Microsoft might otherwise seek to tie up permissible creates a loophole that will allow at 71. By ensuring that the vast majority of under exclusive arrangements in the next the very discrimination against OEMs that IAP subscribers were offered IE as their several years.’’ Shapiro Decl. at 19. Only a the provision is intended to prevent. See default browser or as the only browser, general ban on exclusionary contracts would Gov’t D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 10 (the use of Microsoft’s deals with IAPs had a significant ‘‘serve to lower entry barriers more undefined and unbounded ‘‘objective’’ effect in maintaining its monopoly by effectively than would more limited pricing criteria will permit Microsoft to keeping usage of Navigator below the critical provisions directed at specific categories of reward or punish OEMs by charging them level necessary for it or any other rival to trading partners.’’ Id. different prices). threaten Microsoft’s monopoly. CA at 71. In the CIS, the government continues to ii. Microsoft Is Allowed To Keep License In addition to the evidence specifically recognize the necessity of preventing Terms Secret relied on by the Court of Appeals, the District ‘‘Microsoft from using either money or the The proposed settlement does not require Court made findings, not reversed, of other wide range of commercial blandishments at that Microsoft provide equal access to unlawful exclusive agreements. For example, its disposal.., to hinder the development and licensing terms, discounts, technical support, in exchange for an agreement by IAPs to adoption of products that, over time, could etc. Without this information, OEMs cannot promote and distribute IE preferentially over emerge as potential platform threats to the fairly negotiate license terms. In the current Navigator and to convert existing subscribers Windows monopoly.’’ CIS at 42. However, market, Microsoft offers significant discounts from Navigator to IE, Microsoft gave fourteen the exclusive dealing provision in the to OEMs that take the entire Windows IAPs placement in its Windows Referral proposed settlement (RPFJ § III. G) fails to VerDate 11 meet the goals that the government IAPs and ICPs that condition their placement competition. CIS at 60. This assertion is recognizes are essential. Nor will it prevent in Windows on their agreement to distribute inconsistent with the Department of Justice’s Microsoft from engaging in the same types of or promote Microsoft Platform Software. own Antitrust Manual, which states that ‘‘the conduct that were found to be unlawful. RPFJ § III.G.2. When Microsoft argued against Division’s standard decree language requires i. The Exclusive Dealing Prohibition Is this provision in the original Final Judgment, that the consent decree expire on the tenth Limited To Identified Parties Only the government rejected its proposal because anniversary of its entry by the court. [T]he The provision is limited to the listed phrasing it the way Microsoft proposed (and staff should not negotiate any decree of less entities (IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM), but as it is now phrased in the proposed than 10 years’ duration, although decrees of should be extended to all third parties. The settlement) would allow Microsoft to achieve longer than 10 years may be appropriate in government has specifically acknowledged the same anticompetitive purpose, by simply certain circumstances.’’ Department of that a ‘‘general ban’’ is necessary precisely amending its agreements to require Justice, Antitrust Division Manual, ch. IV at because it is too difficult to predict which distribution of Micr0s0ft’s browser instead of 54 (3d ed. 1998) (emphasis added). As the entities Microsoft might seek to tie up under limiting distrution of competing browsers. government argued in earlier urging entry of exclusive arrangements in the next several See Gov’t D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 16; Microsoft a ten-year decree: years. Only a general ban may effectively D.Ct. Com. at 12. The government has not Ten years is customary in antitrust cases lower entry barriers, as compared to ‘‘more explained why it has now completely and in any event four years is too short a time limited provisions directed at specific reversed its position. for the Final Judgment to remain in effect. categories of trading partners.’’ Shapiro Decl. iv. The Exclusive Dealing Provision Is Despite [Microsoft’s] assertion that ‘‘[t]en at 19. Riddled With Loopholes years is an extraordinarily long time in the ii. Paying Third Parties To Refrain From The various exceptions built into the software industry,’’ Microsoft has had the Using Non-Microsoft Products Is Allowed exclusive dealing ban render it potentially dominant position in the operating-systems The proposed settlement only prohibits meaningless. While purportedly prohibiting business for at least a decade (see Findings Microsoft from entering into agreements with exclusive or fixed percentage arrangements, (¶35), and under the circumstances there is certain third parties that grant consideration such agreements are actually permitted when no sound justification for entering a decree on the condition that the entity ‘‘distributes, Microsoft: obtains a representation that it is of shorter duration. promotes, uses, or supports, exclusively or in ‘‘commercially practicable’’ for the entity to Gov’t D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 20 (emphasis a fixed percentage, any Microsoft Platform provide equal or greater distribution of a added). Software.’’ RPFJ § III.G.1. The Final Judgment competing product; if Microsoft enters into The government offers no ‘‘sound prohibited Microsoft from entering into an any type of loosely defined ‘‘joint venture’’ justification’’ for its acceptance of a agreement with any third party that grants agreement; or if Microsoft licenses in settlement that would last only five years. consideration to ‘‘distribute, promote or use intellectual property from a third party. (RPFJ RPFJ § V.A. The CIS only states that five any Microsoft Platform Software exclusively’’ § III.G). When Microsoft proposed to include years ‘‘provides sufficient time for the (Final Judgment § 3(e)(ii) and ‘‘to restrict its a similar joint venture exception in a related conduct remedies contained in the Proposed development, production, distribution, provision of the Final Judgment (Final Final Judgment to take effect in this evolving promotion or use of, or payment for, any non- Judgment § 3(h), Ban on Agreements Limiting market and to restore competitive conditions Microsoft Platform Software’’ (Final Competition), the government rejected the to the greatest extent possible.’’ CIS at 60. Judgment § 3(e)(i)). Microsoft attempted to proposal as ‘‘unnecessary’’ and because it There is no factual support cited for the ipse delete the provision that prohibited ‘‘would enable Microsoft to enter into dixit that this is ‘‘sufficient time,’’ while it is agreements with a third party to restrict the anticompetitive market division agreements certain that the standard ten-year decree development, production, distribution, regarding such products by labeling them, as would restore competition to a greater extent. promotion or use of non-Microsoft Platform it attempted to label at trial the June 1995 The government’s present position also software, but the government rejected the Netscape meeting, ‘‘joint development conflicts with other assertions that it proposal. See Microsoft D.Ct. Com. at 12. agreements’’ or ‘‘agreements ancillary to previously made in this case. See Gov’t D.Ct. The proposed settlement does not prohibit lawful joint ventures.’’ Gov’t D.Ct. Sum. Memo at 27 (‘‘Looking forward, the Court Microsoft from granting consideration to a Resp. at 18. Once again, the government has must anticipate that Microsoft, unless party that agrees to refrain from using or agreed to a loophole that can only benefit restrained by appropriate equitable relief, distributing products or services that Microsoft by inviting abuse and further likely will continue to perpetuate its compete with Microsoft.321 RPFJ § III.G.1. litigation. monopoly by the same anticompetitive Microsoft would thus be allowed to grant 4. The Term of the Settlement Is Too Short, methods revealed at trial, although directed consideration (in the form of money, Even If Its Deficiencies Were Corrected at whatever new competitive threat arises.’’). technical information or support, or As demonstrated above, without correction Moreover, the government’s only recourse otherwise) in exchange for the party’s of numerous deficiencies, the proposed under the proposed settlement—the agreement not to use or distribute a settlement will not restore competitive possibility that the proposed decree could be competing product. Such an agreement conditions because it largely permits extended ‘‘one time’’ for a ‘‘maximum of two would be the functional equivalent of the Microsoft to conduct business as usual and years’’—is so short as to be virtually ‘‘First Wave’’ agreements with ISVs found to it effectively rubberstamps further meaningless. RPFJ § V.B. And, even to obtain be illegally exclusionary by the Court of anticompetitive conduct. Even if all of the the ‘‘one-time’’ two year extension, the Appeals. The CIS does not articulate a other deficiencies were corrected, however, government would first have to demonstrate satisfactory basis for omitting from the the term of the proposed settlement is too through a complex, lengthy and burdensome settlement a prohibition on the types of short to restore meaningful competition with enforcement procedure, that Microsoft actions that were adjudged illegal. the Windows monopoly. Although this engaged in ‘‘a pattern of willful and iii. Microsoft Can Pay Others To Distribute Court’s finding that Microsoft illegally systematic violations’’ of the decree. Id. The Its Monopoly Software maintained its decade-long monopoly has government should be seeking—as it Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft now been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, originally sought—more than just conduct is permitted to enter into agreements with Microsoft has availed itself—up to and remedies ‘‘tak[ing] effect.’’ CIS at 60. It including the present—of every opportunity should instead be trying to ensure that, once 32 The proposed settlement does purport to limit to maintain and extend its monopoly through the remedies ‘‘take effect,’’ they remain in Microsoft’s ability to enter into agreements with anticompetitive actions. For example, effect for a period sufficient to restore ISVs which require the ISV to refrain from Windows XP, designed during the height of competition to the greatest extent possible. ‘‘developing, using, distributing, or promoting any Microsoft’s litigation with the government As the government told the District Court, software that competes with Microsoft Platform and released just before the settlement was ‘‘[t]en years is customary in antitrust cases Software.’’ RPFJ § III.F.2. However, as discussed announced, commingles code in the exact and in any event fore’ years is too short.’’ supra at pp. 97–98, that same section creates an exception that permits such agreements with ISVs manner found unlawful by the Court of Gov’t D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 20. There is if they are in relation ‘‘to a bona fide contractual Appeals. nothing in the Court of Appeals’ decision obligation of the ISV.’’ Therefore, even as to ISVs, The government now claims that a five- that justifies the government’s decision to the restriction is rendered potentially meaningless. year decree will be sufficient to restore depart from its own formal policy. VerDate 11 As a matter of law, the government’s enforcement provisions,’’ ‘‘including the any matter relating to the Final Judgment. previously stated position was correct. The power to seek criminal and civil contempt RPFJ § IV.D.4.d. Each of those prohibitions case law demonstrates that in cases where a sanctions and other relief in the event of a denies the Court information from the monopolist has committed a Section 2 violation.’’ CIS at 5. It also states that independent technical personnel who are violation, it has been ‘‘customary’’ for courts Plaintiffs’ right, under certain circumstances, uniquely knowledgeable about the nature of to impose remedial decrees lasting ten years. to request a one-time extension of the final the violation. Indeed, although the decree In over 70 cases since the Department of judgment of an additional two years ‘‘is proposal allows Microsoft to offer any Justice’s Antitrust Manual was adopted in designed to supplement the government’s evidence it wants, it shuts off from the Court 1978 to change the prior policy of seeking traditional authority to bring contempt the evidence in the possession of the decrees of unlimited length, the government actions.’’ CIS at 60. technical committee members who rejected has required consent decrees having a The reality, however, is to the contrary. Microsoft’s explanations. minimum ten year duration. See e.g., United The compliance and enforcement provisions b. All Relevant Employees Should Be States v. Greyhound, Civ. No. 95–1852 (RCL), in the proposed settlement are entirely Required To Be Trained In The Decree, But 1996 WL 179570 (D.DC Feb. 27, 1996) (bus inadequate to prevent Microsoft from Are Not companies); United States v. Playmobil USA, engaging in future anticompetitive conduct. The proposed settlement only requires that Inc., Civ. No. 95–0214, 1995 WL 366524 The provisions in the proposed settlement the officers and directors of Microsoft receive (D.DC May 22, 1995) (toy companies); United will result in time delays, inefficient copies of the decree and be ‘‘annually briefed States v. Republic Services, Inc., Civ No. 00– administration of the decree, and ultimately on [its] meaning.’’ RPFJ § IV.C.3. In order to 2311, 2001 WL 77103 (D.DC Jan. 18, 2001) give Microsoft the opportunity to continue its be effective, however, all managers (not just (waste collection companies). 33 The anticompetitive acts unabated. The most corporate ‘‘officers’’) and all employees who government also imposed restrictions on critical deficiencies include: have positions that enable them to initiate or broadcasters’’ purchase of television program a. The Technical Committee Proposal Is implement anticompetitive conduct must be rights for a period of 15 years. See United Misguided required to read, understand and comply States v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., By agreeing that a ‘‘Technical Committee’’ with the decree. Of the published consent Civ. No. 74–3600 (RJK), 1980 WL 2013 (C.D. comprised of computer programming and decrees that require employees of the Cal. Nov. 14 1980). software experts should perform a company to certify that they have read, In contrast to these settlements, the monitoring role (RPFJ §§ IV.B.1 and IV.B.2), understood, and will comply with the decree, proposed decree here is to last only five the government seemingly recognizes the most extend compliance certification beyond years, although this case has significantly difficulty of monitoring and enforcing officers and directors of the company, to also more importance to the national economy. In Microsoft’s compliance with the decree. The include other managers and employees who addition, Microsoft’s prior conduct, the government also appears to recognize the have responsibility for overseeing the importance of this case to the national obvious—that ‘‘Internal Antitrust business activities of the antitrust violator. economy, and the explicit findings, upheld Compliance’’ by Microsoft, though necessary, See, e.g., United States v. Western Elec., Civ. on appeal, of Microsoft’s illegal is insufficient. Unfortunately, the No. 82–0192 (HHG), 1991 WL 33559, at *5 monopolization activities mandate, if government fails to recognize that its own (D.DC Feb. 15, 1991) (requiring certification anything, that Microsoft’s conduct be concessions make the compliance task vastly of compliance from each officer and supervised for a period longer than the more difficult. management employee); United States v. standard ten-year term. The Technical Committee contemplated by Delta Dental of R.I., Civ. No. Civ. A. 96–113P, At bottom, a five-year injunction is too the settlement is simply not an adequate 1997 WL 527669, at *2 (D.R.I. July 2, 1997) short to allow meaningful competition to answer, much less a substitute for self- (requiring certification of compliance from develop in the operating system market. It enforcing prohibitions, The person charged all officers, directors, and employees who has been over ten years since the government with responsibility for monitoring and had responsibility for approving, first began to investigate Microsoft’s enforcing Microsoft’s compliance must be an disapproving, monitoring, recommending, or practices, and it took six years from experienced antitrust lawyer or former implementing any provisions in agreements Microsoft’s first anticompetitive act cited by federal judge. He or she can then hire with participating dentists); United States v. the District Court for this case to reach the software and programming experts to render Business Inv. & Dev. Corp., No. MO-81-CA- appellate level. The effects of Microsoft’s past assistance, but the responsibility for 20, 1982 WL 1866, at *2 (W.D. Tx. July 16, and present anticompetitive actions, which determining whether the specific provisions 1982) (requiring certification of compliance have already continued for over a decade, of a complex court order have been violated from all officers, directors, employees and will likely last much longer. The government must be made by an individual with franchisees). itself concedes that Netscape and Java are impeccable legal credentials and long Moreover, the Chairman, CE0 or other likely dead and no longer pose credible experience in antitrust law and decree responsible senior officer of Microsoft should threats to Microsoft’s operating system interpretation. No novel device such as a be required to certify periodically to the monopoly. CIS as 16–17. Even if the ‘‘Technical Committee’’ is required. The Court that Microsoft is in compliance with its proposed decree’s numerous loopholes were mechanism of a special master under Rule obligations. The record evidence that plugged, it will take considerably longer than 53, Fed. R.Civ.P., is readily available and Microsoft’s highest officials were not only five years for strong new competitors to entirely appropriate. See United States v. aware of, but actively encouraged, initiated emerge. Most important, the ability of those Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935,954 (DC Cir. or directed Microsoft’s anticompetitive competitors to become viable depends upon 1998) (recognizing ‘‘well-established practices, see, e.g., CA at 73, 77; D.Ct. at the existence of judicial protection. See tradition allowing use of special masters to ¶¶80–87, 100, 108, 112–13,124–29, 340–349, United States v. GTE Corp., 603 F. Supp. 730, oversee compliance’’). 396, 406–07, makes it all the more necessary 742–43 (D.DC 1984) (rejecting as too short Aside from its dual, repetitive investigative to include such certification provisions to five-year expiration date for decree and reporting procedures (Technical ensure that Microsoft takes seriously its provisions in section 2 case). Committee to the government, then the responsibilities under any decree to abide by 5. The Proposed Settlement Nullifies government to the Court, see pp. 114–115 the antitrust laws. Effective Enforcement infra.) (RFFJ § III.D.4), the proposed c. The Proposed ‘‘Dispute Resolution’’ The government claims that the various settlement is flawed because it imposes Mechanism Encourages Delay obligations imposed upon Microsoft in the substantial constraints upon how the Because of the extraordinarily rapid pace proposed settlement are supported by ‘‘strong Technical Committee’s findings may be used of technological and business developments to assure compliance. The settlement in the computer industry, avoiding delays in 33 Based on a review of the published cases, every prohibits the admission into evidence of the compliance is a critical element in effectively consent decree that the government has entered in Technical Committee’s findings ‘‘in any eliminating Microsoft’s unlawful behavior a Section 2 case since 1978 has been ten years or longer in duration, with the exception of the first enforcement proceeding before the Court for and restoring competition. Whether the Microsoft decree. That decree was not entered after any purpose;’’ and prohibits any technical monitoring function is performed by a a full trial on the merits and a finding of unlawful committee member from testifying in any Technical Committee or Special Master, the monopoly maintenance. proceeding or before any tribunal regarding monitor should simultaneously report to both VerDate 11 the Court and the Plaintiffs. In defending its flexibility, convenience and, most its Voice over Internet Protocol (‘‘VoIP’’) decisions to make numerous substantive importantly, more choice. through its ‘‘Net2Phone’’ business. This concessions to Microsoft during the With these initiatives, together with its service is being embedded in Windows XP, settlement process, the government has cited expanding telephone, wireless and Internet with the aim of convincing customers to use the substantial time it might take to litigate operations, SBC is prepared to compete the Internet for long distance and local calls. this case to conclusion if it held out for vigorously during the coming decade as the Microsoft also provides an Internet access stronger relief than Microsoft would accept. ‘‘convergence’’ of communications and service, MSN, which takes advantage of CIS at 61. Those same time considerations computing technologies continues to Microsoft’s operating system monopoly by militate against the time-consuming accelerate. That highly competitive virtue of its being bundled with Windows. By enforcement process contained in the environment, however, is threatened by bundling additional products and services proposed settlement. Microsoft’s ability—unless restrained by a such as its ‘‘.NET’’ initiative and its Passport The proposed decree contemplates an strong and effective decree in this case—to service with Windows XP, Microsoft is also elaborate procedure whereby the Technical use its Windows operating system monopoly using its monopoly power to give itself an Committee, after receiving a complaint about to control the electronic ‘‘gateways’’ that link unfair advantage in new markets for Internet Microsoft’s conduct, would be required to the Internet and its myriad service and and e-commerce business solutions. meet with Microsoft’s internal compliance content providers to consumers’ homes and Even in businesses in which Microsoft is officer, and allow Microsoft to respond to the offices. That control of the gateways, in turn, not now a direct competitor of SBC, however, complaint, before it determines whether the will enable Microsoft to entrench the such as local, long distance and cellular complaint can be resolved informally. RPFJ Windows monopoly even more firmly. telephone service, Microsoft’s operating § III.D.4.b. There are no time limits on most A. How SBC Competes, Or Will Compete, system monopoly poses grave risks to the of these procedures. If, after completing that With Microsoft competitive marketplace that Congress procedure, the Technical Committee believes SBC currently has, or is developing, several sought to ensure in the Telecommunications the dispute cannot be resolved and that businesses in competition with Microsoft, Act of 1996. If Microsoft is permitted by the Microsoft’s conduct violated the decree, the which, together with other similar proposed settlement to maintain and expand Technical Committee would then report the businesses, directly or indirectly, threaten or its PC operating system monopoly, it will violation to the government in the first are threatened by the Windows operating become the gatekeeper for competitors to instance. RPFJ § III.D.4.c. It then would be up system monopoly. offer and for consumers to access key to the government, in turn, to evaluate 1. Telephone, Cellular And Internet communications and entertainment products Microsoft’s conduct and determine whether Services and services, including telephone, Internet the violation should be reported to the Court. SBC affiliates Southwestern Bell, access, voice messaging, instant messaging, This process guarantees that considerable Ameritech, Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell, and music, video services, e-commerce, and time will lapse between a violation of the SNET are the Incumbent Local Exchange interactive games. Without strong remedial decree by Microsoft and the Court’s eventual Carriers that provide telephone service in measures designed to break its operating review of the problem. First, the process for thirteen states.34 In addition, SBC owns a system monopoly (which the proposed ‘‘Voluntary Dispute Resolution’’ sixty percent interest in Cingular Wireless, settlement does not contain), Microsoft will contemplated by the proposed decree will which provides nationwide cellular be in a position to favor its own and its substantially delay, and, in some telephone and Internet-related services. partners’ communications, entertainment and circumstances, entirely eliminate, the Various SBC affiliates, including Prodigy, related services, to exclude competitors’’ reporting of violations to the Court. However, provide ISP services, as well as dial-up and services from access to consumers, to impose effective enforcement requires that any broadband (via DSL) Internet access services costs on rivals and to degrade their services violation of the decree should be reported by nationwide. SBC recently finalized a joint (whether through a toll, a charge for being the Technical Committee or Special Master venture with Yahoo, whereby Yahoo will listed as an available service or an immediately and directly to the Court. Action provide SBC’s Internet portal (home page). In interoperability obstacle), all with the effect by Microsoft to ‘‘voluntarily’’ cease the addition, SBC owns an ‘‘Internet Data of squelching competition and harming unlawful conduct may then, along with other Center’’ which rents server usage to consumers. No provisions in the proposed factors, be considered by the Court in businesses and e-commerce clients. settlement even address, let alone bar, such determining the severity of any sanction Microsoft is an actual competitor of SBC in anticompetitive conduct. imposed. all of these businesses, including voice Just as Microsoft has for years successfully in sum, for any remedy to be effective in telephony. Microsoft is actively developing imposed on consumers its own software this case, it must be imposed quickly—not products and other services, irrespective of after months or years of further ‘‘dispute 34 the comparative merits of competing resolution.’’ Under the enforcement scheme 34 Prior to 1996, SBC was subject to line of products it excluded from the market, contemplated by the proposed settlement, business restrictions imposed by the AT&T Consent Microsoft will be able to repeat its however, that simply cannot happen. Decree or Modified Final Judgment (‘‘MFJ’’). These anticompetitive strategy in collateral markets IV. DEFICIENCIES IN THE PROPOSED prevented SBC’s entry into markets such as long including the key communications and SETTLEMENT CREATE SIGNIFICANT distance telephone and imposed numerous entertainment markets described above. This affirmative obligations to assist actual and potential RISKS FOR SBC’S COMMUNICATIONS competitors. See U.S.v. AT&T, 522 F. Supp. at 186– is not speculation; Microsoft has already AND DATA BUSINESSES, INCLUDING 95 (setting forth line of business restructions); announced that it is developing an extension SBC’S INTERNET-RELATED BUSINESSES, United States v. Western Electric Co., 673 F. Supp. to Windows XP, named Freestyle, that will WHICH DEPEND UPON OPEN 525 (D.DC 1987) (upholding ‘‘core’’ line of business make its Windows PC the communications ARCHITECTURE AND COMPETITIVE restrictions on local telephone companies), aff’d in gateway to the home. See Byron Acohido, ALTERNATIVES part, rev’d on other grounds, 900 F.2d 283 (DC Cir. Challenge Microsoft? It Could Take Moxi, SBC is one of the world’s leading 1990). These provisions, which were of indefinite USA Today, Jan. 16, 2002, at B-3; Microsoft businesses in the provision of data and voice duration, were ultimately superseded by the Unveils New Home PC Experiences with Telecommunications Act of 1996, which replaced communications and Internet access. SBC’s the MFJ with detailed regulatory obligations to ‘‘Freestyle’’ and ‘‘Mira’’ (Jan. 7, 2002), at affiliates serve nearly 60 million telephone preserve non-discriminatory access to the local www.Microsoft.com/presspass/Press/2002/ access lines nationwide and 21 million telephone network, to require SBC to share its Jan02/01. wireless customers. SBC and its affiliates are network elements at regulated prices, and to take 2. Unified Messaging major providers of DSL high-speed and dial- affirmative actions to open its local network to SBC’s Unified Messaging Service (‘‘UMS’’) up Internet service, voice messaging services, competition as the price for entry into the long is a good example of a new business placed and if directory advertising and publishing distance market. See Telecommunications Act of at serious risk because of the anticompetitive products. SBC, through its affiliates, has 1996, 42 U.S.C. §§ 251–59, and § 271 et seq. The actions that the proposed settlement Would duration, detail and substantial scope of those committed substantial resources to the affirmative requirements and prohibitions, even allow UMS is currently in the final development of a host of computer- and when they were embodied in the MFJ, stand in development stages, with a projected market Internet-related businesses. These businesses marked contrast to the trivial and temporary introduction in late 2002. UMS will allow are designed to provide consumers with prohibitions applied to the Microsoft monopoly. customers to retrieve their voice, e-mail and VerDate 11 fax messages from a single ‘‘mailbox’’ that of which performs separate functions and ensure that UMS will function smoothly on will be accessible by phone (wire or wireless) employs different technologies. At a Windows, or even have proper access to the or via the Internet. In the future, SBC plans minimum, when a UMS customer seeks to Windows desktop, it could significantly to add other services to UMS, including retrieve a message, either by phone or harm the ability of UMS to compete with instant messaging and video messaging. through the Internet, the voice or data Microsoft products providing similar UMS is the first in a new generation of transmission will travel between and through services. The danger, of course, is not limited services that will create a convergence of all several separate SBC servers (gate, mail, just to UMS, but applies equally to related voice, video and data services into one LDAP (lightweight directory access protocol), communications and entertainment products application. Central to UMS is the principle directory and web server). Each of these and services that are being developed and of ‘‘any device, anywhere.’’ SBC has designed servers performs independent functions. As a offered by other companies. UMS to be fully accessible through any type result, it is critical to UMS that any type of i. Blocking Access to UMS of telephone, personal computer, or PC, Internet browser, cell phone or handheld The inadequate interoperability/disclosure handheld device. UMS will operate on any device be fully interoperable with all of provisions in the proposed settlement would software operating system and with any SBC’s servers. UMS also has the potential to allow Microsoft to completely block all combination of other software applications be used in a home network, thus requiring access to a competing product, like UMS, for and services. UMS is also ‘‘agnostic as to full interoperability to extend to set-top all users of a Windows PC and IE. Because provider,’’ meaning that it will function boxes. the proposed settlement does not require any regardless of the provider of Internet access, In short, for SBC and other companies to disclosure to ensure interoperability between phone or wireless service. For example, deliver Internet-based services like UMS, IE and a non-Microsoft server operating consumers can access UMS as easily and they absolutely must have a ‘‘protected chain system, Microsoft is able, and indeed effectively through an inexpensive cellular of interoperability’’ extending throughout all encouraged, to change, and then withhold phone that makes no use of Microsoft computers, servers, and other devices which disclosure of, IE’s protocols in order to technology as they call through an expensive participate on the Internet—including the prevent interoperability with those SBC Windows PC using Internet Explorer as its Internet browser and PC. If only one link on servers that run on non-Microsoft operating browser. the chain is not fully interoperable with the systems. In that case, all UMS customers UMS and similar services offered by other entire network, UMS will not be able to would be unable to access their UMS account companies will compete by giving consumers process its voice and data transmissions, and from a Windows PC operating system the ultimate in choice and convenience, thus the convenience and vast array of equipped with IE. enabling them to access all UMS services choices UMS could bring to consumers as an Should SBC decide to convert the entire from virtually any phone or computing alternative to the Windows PC operating UMS network of servers to Microsoft device anywhere in the world. UMS will be system monopoly will be eliminated. operating systems, Microsoft would still, a direct competitor of Microsoft’s e-mail There is little doubt that Microsoft will under the proposed settlement, be able to service (Hotmail), and with MS Messenger, a continue to recognize the danger that server- block access to UMS for some users. In this video and instant messaging service, both of based computing, and multi-platform, multi- event, Microsoft could merely program its which are promoted through integration with device products like UMS, pose to the server operating system so that it could not Windows. applications barrier to entry. D.Ct. at ¶60 interoperate with a non-Microsoft browser. In B. UMS Is An Integral Part Of Movement (cited with approval in CA at 79). Such fact, Microsoft employed this very strategy To Server-Based Computing Model That Will alternative server-based computing pathways recently, when it reprogrammed its web Erode The Applications Barrier To Entry on the Internet, which rely on open operation servers for the MSN website to block all That Currently Shields Microsoft’s Monopoly and architecture, like Java, will attract access by consumers using the competing Power applications used for Internet Netscape and Opera browsers. See p. 80 Because UMS will function with any communications. In the past when such supra. operating system or Internet browser, and threats to the applications barrier to entry ii. Degrading the Performance of UMS will provide a number of the same functions that protects the Microsoft monopoly have Should Microsoft choose not to completely (voice/data messaging, e-mail, instant emerged, Microsoft has responded with block access to UMS, the proposed messaging) that are or will be provided by a anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, the actions settlement permits Microsoft to substantially Windows PC, UMS presents a significant taken by Microsoft to eliminate Netscape and degrade UMS’ functionality on a Windows competitive threat to Microsoft’s PC Java, found to be illegally exclusionary by the PC operating system. The degradation can be operating system monopoly. UMS is part of District Court and the Court of Appeals, had accomplished by programming Microsoft’s the ‘‘movement off the desktop’’ taking place the sole purpose of protecting the PC operating system in such a way that UMS’ in the computer industry, which offers applications barrier to entry. As shown functions are purposefully disadvantaged. increased flexibility and choice to the below, however, the deficiencies in the For instance, by altering the program codes consumer. proposed settlement are so pervasive that for IE or Microsoft’s version of Java, Central to this innovation is that the vast SBC’s competitive, Internet-based offering Microsoft can hinder the performance of majority of actual computing functions will and similar products from other companies UMS on a Windows PC operating system, be performed away from the consumer’s are threatened with the same fate as Netscape including the speed at which UMS processes computing devices, on servers connected and Java. requests, its efficiency and the graphical through the Internet. A consumer will no C. The Proposed Settlement Would Allow presentation the user sees. longer need a Windows PC, containing a Microsoft To Render SBC’s Internet-Based iii. Denying UMS Access to the Windows large hard drive and powerful Businesses Significantly Less Competitive Desktop microprocessor. Instead a simpler, 1. The Proposed Settlement Will Allow SBC’s strategy for UMS is largely inexpensive device, such as a cell phone or Microsoft To Block Consumers’ Access To dependent on having access to and visibility PDA, with a very basic operating system and Competing Products And To Impede Their on the desktop, as well as on OEMs and end- an Internet browser, when coupled with Functionality users being able to change default settings in products like UMS, will allow the consumer Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft the Windows operating system to select the to perform many of the functions of a could use its monopoly power to (i) prevent SBC home page or set the pre-login screen to Windows PC at a significantly reduced price UMS and related products from being allow for message notification. Without and with much greater flexibility and accessed by anyone using a Windows PC and provisions in the settlement guaranteeing convenience. D.Ct. at ¶¶22–27, 56, 59–60 IE; (ii) degrade or impede the ability of UMS these rights, Microsoft can prevent UMS from (cited with approval in CA at 52, 79). to function on a Windows PC; and/or (iii) having its own icon on the Windows In order for UMS to function, however, and deny UMS access to the Windows desktop. desktop, or being on the Windows start to present a competitive alternative to the Moreover, Microsoft could avoid the menu. Furthermore, the proposed settlement Windows PC operating system monopoly, requirements of the proposed settlement by would allow Microsoft to prevent UMS SBC must have the ability to effectively simply claiming UMS was a ‘‘service.’’ See customers from choosing to set the SBC- process voice and data transmissions through pp. 46–48 supra. Because the proposed Yahoo homepage as their default homepage a complex network of different servers, each settlement does not require Microsoft to on IE. Likewise, nothing in the proposed VerDate 11 settlement would stop Microsoft from UMS is designed to save consumers change will be driven by the proposed denying SBC equal access to the pre-login money, because they can access the service settlement’s failure to ensure interoperability. indicators on the desktop for message through a ‘‘dumb PC’’ or handheld As a result, consumers and businesses will be notification. Only through such notification computing device, equipped only with a few forced to purchase the Windows PC could UMS compete with Microsoft’s features, like UMS, that will allow the operating system, IE, and Microsoft server Hotmail or Messenger, which have such consumer to use the Internet to perform operating systems, or at least license indicators on both the desktop and the pre- essentially all major computing functions Microsoft intellectual property, in order to login screen for the purpose of notifying the currently offered by a Windows PC at a guarantee full interoperability. The fact that subscriber that messages are waiting. fraction of the cost. Microsoft server products, especially in 2. Microsoft Can Foreclose Competition By Assuming full interoperability, a ‘‘dumb relation to the particular needs and functions Using Its Ability To Raise Its Rivals’ Costs PC’’ with a browser would be able to access of SBC, are more costly but by no means By not requiring ‘‘seamless and browse the Internet as well as a superior in quality or functionality, will no interoperability,’’ the proposed settlement Windows PC. Moreover, by purchasing a longer be determinative. would allow Microsoft to raise substantially product like UMS to accompany the ‘‘dumb In the longer term, as competitive choices the fixed costs associated with a competing PC,’’ even more of the functions of a in these markets are diminished, Microsoft product or service, as well as the ultimate Windows PC (voice/data messaging, instant will be able to unilaterally control the pace cost to the consumer, to the point that such messaging, e-mail), would be available and of innovation. Currently, many different products are unable to compete. The the total price would remain substantially companies are working to innovate and anticompetitive initiatives Microsoft can below a Windows PC. The cost savings to the develop different product functions and pursue under the proposed settlement will consumer, when coupled with the other niche uses. SBC can take advantage of force Internet-based businesses to move positive attributes of UMS, would make it a specialized innovations that are essential to toward using Microsoft server operating very attractive alternative to the comparable supporting or improving its operations. In the systems and software exclusively. At the Microsoft products the consumer can only world created by the proposed settlement, same time, the settlement will channel obtain by purchasing a Microsoft operating however, Microsoft will be the sole arbiter of consumer access to the Internet through system. what areas, products or uses should or Windows PC operating systems, which By preventing full interoperability should not be explored for technological consumers will have to purchase in order to throughout the network of servers (including advancement. Microsoft would be free to obtain IE. the browser), however, Microsoft can destroy stifle innovation in a particular area that may For example, SBC currently uses Microsoft any cost savings provided by UMS, because be crucial to developing a product or service server operating systems for less than 5% of the consumer will have to buy a Windows PC which competes with Microsoft. its UMS server network, and anticipates this or another device with a Microsoft operating The government made this very point to percentage will approach zero within the system in order to obtain IE. That operating the District Court through the testimony of next few years—provided there is full system already will have integrated or one of its expert economists, who stated that interoperability among servers, PCs, PDAs, bundled Microsoft products that compete Microsoft’s exclusionary practices had phones and all other computing devices. If with UMS (MS Messenger; Outlook Express, the proposed settlement is approved, interfered with the process of innovation in Hotmail) which are included in the cost of however, SBC will probably have no choice three distinct ways. First, consumers did not but to replace its entire UMS server network the operating system. Thus, to use UMS, the get the innovative products that the at considerable cost with Microsoft server consumer will have to pay an ‘‘add-on’’ or technology being developed by Netscape and operating systems and software. double cost in addition to the cost of the Sun might have delivered. Second, Microsoft’s server operating systems are Microsoft operating system. The competitive Microsoft’s predatory acts had a chilling currently significantly more expensive than disadvantage, for both SBC and the effect on innovative efforts by all people who those of its competitors, and this price consumer, is plain. might have developed other software differential is likely to grow as Microsoft 4. The Proposed Settlement Will Stifle technologies that Microsoft found solidifies its position in the server market. Innovation And Force Competitors To threatening. Third, Microsoft harmed the Even at current prices, replacing the UMS Sacrifice Quality In Certain Critical Markets innovative process because it limited server network with Microsoft server SBC, or any Internet-based business, is competition, and competitive markets are, on operating systems would significantly highly dependent on the quality and speed balance, the best mechanism for guiding increase SBC’s overall costs for UMS of technological innovation in markets that technology down a path that benefits (including the cost of hardware, software, supply the hardware and software used in consumers. maintenance of hardware and software, staff, new ventures, such as UMS, or established Romer Decl. ¶5. network management, and disaster recovery). services. This is particularly true for UMS, The effect of the proposed settlement on In addition, if SBC were required to replace which will rely on an extensive network of UMS is illustrative. SBC currently uses the hardware in its entire current server servers, computers and related devices and between 15 and 20 different providers for network within the next few years, this technologies to deliver its range of services. different products, including software, would dramatically increase costs for UMS SBC’s policy is to use a wide variety of throughout the UMS network. In the during its critical first years on the market. suppliers for different products, including ‘‘Microsoft world’’ that would be created by Taken together, these cost increases will software, throughout the UMS networks and the proposed settlement, SBC expects that it make UMS a much less appealing alternative its other computer systems. To take full would be limited to a total of 5 to 10 to the Windows PC, as the consumer’s cost advantage of technological innovation, SBC providers. Each of the lost providers will savings will be much smaller. chooses the ‘‘best in class.’’ This term reflects have to be replaced by Microsoft products UMS is not the only SBC network service SBC’s philosophy to choose the provider for because of interoperability obstacles created to be negatively impacted. SBC’s telephone each particular product or service that best by Microsoft commingling and network also utilizes many servers for performs the specific functions needed by nondisclosure. various functions. For instance, SBC has SBC. In this way, SBC can obtain maximum SBC currently uses three separate server servers that perform ‘‘operation support benefit from the speed and diversity of operating systems in its UMS operations, systems,’’ as well as ‘‘operations innovation to create the most competitive based on the particular needs and functions administration maintenance and products possible. of different servers throughout the network. provisioning.’’ Like UMS, under the In certain crucial markets, the proposed The three products are a UNIX operating proposed settlement these network support settlement will convert this world of choice system which is run on servers produced by systems would be at risk, and the cost to into a world of one choice—Microsoft. In the several companies; Linux operating systems convert them all to Microsoft server eperating process, SBC’s ability to employ its ‘‘best in which run on a variety of servers; and, for systems would be significant. class’’ strategy would be severely reduced. certain limited functions, Microsoft server 3. Consumers Who Want To Access The Indeed, technological innovation itself will operating systems (which are run on less Internet Will Have To Have A Windows be gravely hindered, particularly for server than five percent of the UMS network). In Operating System,Which Will Increase The operating systems and server software—two SBC’s view, the Microsoft server operating Cost To The Consumer For UMS critical product areas for any network. This systems are substantially less effective than VerDate 11 competitors’’ systems in performing the that UMS will have over 5 million customers found to be exclusionary, the proposed functions needed by the UMS network. by 2007, if UMS is not fully interoperable settlement in fact injures the public interest. Among other things, Microsoft products have with Windows PCs for even one day, many For these reasons, the District Court must a poor security performance history, see pp. UMS customers would be ‘‘dropped.’’ The reject it. 90–91 supra, and thus it is SBC’s policy that negative consequences should customers be Indeed, the proposed settlement fails to no server that faces the Internet is based on unable to access their UMS mailboxes for any meet the public interest standard on all of the a Microsoft server operating system. As a period of time are obvious. bases set out in the 1995 Microsoft decision. result of the need for interoperability, By making it impossible for server As discussed above, and in further detail however, under the proposed settlement, operating systems which run websites on the below in the context of recommended SBC could be forced to use Microsoft server Internet to interoperate with non-Windows changes and additions to the proposed operating systems throughout the UMS operating systems, Microsoft will be able to consent decree, the settlement now advanced network. force all businesses and all consumers to by the government (1) is ‘‘ambiguous’’ in SBC’s choices will be similarly conform to the Windows world. With over many respects and fiddled with loopholes circumscribed for server software. For its 90% of the operating system and browser and exceptions to key provisions; (2) presents mail server and directory server, SBC markets, for example, Microsoft can make its numerous ‘‘difficulties in implementation’’ currently uses a range of non-Microsoft Passport product the dominant intermediary that arise because so many provisions leave software products. For the functions needed between consumers and e-commerce web compliance in Microsoft’s sole discretion; (3) by the UMS network, these products better sites, and can effectively impose a tax or toll has been subject to widespread meet SBC’s requirements, and are less costly on all transactions. If it wishes to, Microsoft condemnation by ‘‘third parties [who] than, comparable Microsoft products. For will be able to use its browser dominance to contend that they would be positively SBC’s web server, which is the critical ensure that any web portal in which it has injured by the decree,’’ including SBC; and primary link to the Internet and the Internet a stake receives preferential display. And if (4) in view of the remedies the government browsers, SBC uses server software from it chooses to, Microsoft will be able to use said were absolutely essential only two years Apache. The Apache software is also its browser dominance to control the flow of ago—after the District Court’s detailed preferable to comparable offerings from information or content on the Internet by findings as to monopolization were upheld Microsoft for this purpose. using its Internet gate-keeper position to on appeal—but which have now been Similarly, in the areas of network prefer one type of message over another, for omitted from the proposed decree, ‘‘on its management and voice over Internet protocol example, blocking access to sites that are face and even after government explanation, (‘‘VoIP’’), SBC could well be forced to switch critical of Microsoft. In all of these ways, appears to make a mockery of judicial to Microsoft products under the proposed Microsoft can use the developing world of power.’’ Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d at 1462. For these reasons, SBC submits that the settlement. Network management products Internet technology to protect and strengthen proposed decree should not be entered. The essentially ensure that SBC’s telephone its PC operating system monopoly. proposal made by the Litigating States network runs effectively and reliably, by V. WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, would, if adopted in its entirety, adequately monitoring the system for failures, analyzing THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CANNOT serve the public interest in SBC’s view. configuration, and developing utilization SATISFY THE PUBLIC INTEREST Alternatively, SBC respectfully offers the STANDARD statistics. The network management software following detailed revisions that, if fully currently used by SBC is more efficient and As shown, the proposed settlement allows incorporated into the proposed settlement, less costly than comparable Microsoft Microsoft to continue exclusionary practices, would provide an appropriate remedy for products. In the VoIP area, SBC’s ‘‘gateway,’’ like commingling, to easily evade virtually Microsoft’s adjudicated wrongdoing: which translates voice conversations into all of the proposed settlement’s proscriptions A. Changes Must Be Made to RPFJ § III.A VoIP, uses a non-Microsoft, ITU and affirmative obligations, and, by simply (OEM and Other Licensee Retaliation) (‘‘International Telecommunications Union’’) doing what the settlement allows, or fails to Sections 8 and 9 of the Litigating States’ H.323-compliant gateway, or translator. If the enjoin, ensuring that the next generation of proposal provide an adequate remedy proposed settlement were approved, nothing threats to the operating system monopoly in prohibiting retaliation by Microsoft against would prevent Microsoft, by changing its the form of Internet servers and web-based others. Alternatively, the following revisions server or browser programs to a non- computing never leaves its crib. By the time should be made to the proposed settlement: compliant format, from forcing SBC to the proposed settlement expires, Microsoft § III.A The retaliation provision should not replace this translator with a Microsoft middleware will be the firmly entrenched be limited to OEMs, but should also prohibit product or a product that incorporates medium of Internet communication, retaliation against any third party that is a Microsoft-licensed intellectual property to displacing open architecture with a closed licensee or potential licensee of Microsoft ensure the interoperability required for SBC’s proprietary system; all competition will be products or services. Given Microsoft’s telephone network to function. forced to use Microsoft’s proprietary proven propensity to root out and extinguish 5. Delayed Disclosure Will Harm standards instead of the open architecture competition wherever it develops, the risk of Competition currently thriving as the medium for program retaliation could affect many sources of The flexibility provided to Microsoft to development and communication; and OEMs competitive pressure on Microsoft besides delay the disclosure of technical information will be even more beholden to Microsoft’s OEMs. One example would be third-party could also significantly harm the competitive demands. This is the teaching of an software system integrators, who pull prospects of UMS and related products. As exhaustive trial record and a careful together products from numerous different explained above, Microsoft can delay the appellate review that affirmed the lower vendors to give customers a software or total release of technical information related to court’s findings of a decade-long scheme of computing package that is tailored to their interoperability with a new Windows monopoly maintenance in violation of specific needs. product or a change in an existing Windows Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The term ‘‘retaliation,’’ which is not product until very close to the time when the Under the law of the District of Columbia defined in the proposed settlement, must be new or altered product is placed on the Circuit, the proposed settlement falls far defined broadly to include ‘‘any threats or market. See pp. 80–85 supra. SBC, and other short of providing any meaningful remedy for any actions that directly or indirectly have an competitors, thus face the very real this most serious of antitrust violations and adverse effect’’ on OEMs or other licensees. possibility that there will be insufficient time for that reason alone does not satisfy the The phrase ‘‘by altering Microsoft’s to ensure that a competing product, like public interest standard. United States v. commercial relations, or by withholding UMS, will be fully interoperable when a new Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1458 (DC Cir. 1995) newly introduced forms of non-monetary or altered Windows product is introduced. If (The Court must ‘‘make an independent Consideration’’ should be eliminated, UMS is not fully interoperable, the result determination whether the proposed consent because it unnecessarily limits the scope of would be that certain UMS customers who decree [is] in the public interest.’’). Worse the term retaliation. Microsoft’s proven attempted to access their mailbox from a still, because the proposed settlement ability to devise new forms of Windows PC would be ‘‘dropped’’—meaning operates to perpetuate this unlawful anticompetitive restraints to meet new their request for data or voice information monopoly by permitting the continuation competitive threats amply justifies this broad would not be processed. Since SBC plans without sanction of conduct previously definition. VerDate 11 The scope of the conduct by OEMs and C. A Provision Requiring Microsoft To Port measure is justified by Microsoft’s proven other licensees which cannot be subject to ‘‘Office’’ To Apple’s Operating System Must history of evasion of antitrust regulation and retaliation by Microsoft must be broadened. Be Added anticompetitive conduct. The provision should prohibit adverse action Litigating States’ proposal § 14 should be G. Changes Must Be Made to RPFJ § III.C by Microsoft based on the OEM or other included in the decree to require Microsoft (Restrictions on OEM Configuration of PCs) licensee undertaking or contemplating ‘‘any to continue making and updating a version Section III.C attempts to address business activity that promotes or distributes of its ‘‘Office’’ business productivity suite Microsoft’s past illegal imposition of software, products or services that may be that can be ported to the Apple operating restrictions on OEM configuration of the competitive with Microsoft products or system, and to require Microsoft to auction desktop. These restfictions closed the OEM services.’’ See Final Judgment § 3(a)(i)(1). licenses to third parties to facilitate the distribution channel to non-Microsoft Again the record of Microsoft’s constantly creation of versions of Office that port to middleware. Because the provision fails to evolving panoply of anticompetitive actions operating systems other than Windows. Such address Microsoft’s commingling of code, justifies the broad prohibition to ‘‘pry open’’ a provision is necessary because the Apple contains no affirmative requirement to offer the market to competition. The burden Macintosh operating system at present is the a stripped-down version of Windows with a should be on Microsoft, as the convicted only viable alternative to Windows as an corresponding price reduction, and is fiddled lawbreaker, to seek an exception to the Office platform, but if others develop, they with loopholes and ambiguities that allow decree’s prohibitions if it believes there is a should have access to this widely-used Microsoft to override both OEM and end-user reasonable, procompetitive justification for a application software. Such a provision is choices regarding competing middleware particular adverse action. justified by the specific findings, affirmed on products, section III.C fails to accomplish its §§ III.A.1, III.A.2 and III.A.3 Each of these appeal, that Microsoft used the threat of goal. To effectively close these loopholes and subsections should be deleted because they dropping support for the Apple version of reopen the OEM distribution channel in an limit the scope of the conduct by OEMs for Office to coerce Apple into using IE as its effort to revive middleware competition, SBC which Microsoft is prohibited from default browser. recommends the following: retaliating. D. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § III.B The Litigating States’ proposal is adequate The provision in the second half of § III.A (Uniform Licensing) to satisfy SBC’s concerns regarding the addressing license termination should The subject of uniform licensing is effectiveness of OEM configuration options. require that Microsoft show good cause adequately addressed in ¶2(a) and ¶2(b) of SBC recommends that the Litigating States’ before terminating the license of an OEM or the Litigating States’ proposal. Alternatively, proposals addressing restrictions on OEM other licensee, in addition to giving written the RPFJ should be revised as follows: options be adopted to replace section III.C of notice and an opportunity to cure. See § III.B the proposed settlement. See Litigating Litigating States’ § 2(a). The provision should For the reasons discussed in connection States’ §§ 1, 2(c), 3, 8, 10. In the alternative, also be changed to give the licensee 60 days’ with RPFJ § III.A., the provision must apply SBC recommends the following opportunity to cure. Id. The exception not only to Microsoft’s licensing to OEMs, modifications to the proposed decree: allowing Microsoft to terminate an OEM’s but to all third party licensees. § III.B.2 § III.C license if it has previously given two or more The proposed decree should allow Following the words ‘‘OEM licensee’’, the written notices should be deleted because it Microsoft to provide reasonable volume phrase ‘‘or Third Parties’’ should be added. is too easily subject to abuse. All of these discounts only if they are based upon an ‘‘Third Parties’’ should be defined as ‘‘any changes are necessary to ensure that independent determination of the actual persons offering to purchase from Microsoft Microsoft, given its sorry history of abuse, volume of shipments. See p. 102 supra; at least 10,000 licenses of a product or deals fairly with licensees. Litigating States’ § 2(a)(ii). § III.B.3 products offered and licensed to OEMs, The exception in § III.A that permits This provision and its three subsections including without limitation ISVs, systems Microsoft to provide ‘‘consideration to any should be eliminated. Instead, the provision integrators, and value-added resellers.’’ See OEM with respect to any Microsoft product should include an outright prohibition, such Litigating States’’ § 22(oo). As described in or service where that consideration is as that included in Final Judgment § 3(a)(ii) these comments, this would allow third party commensurate with the absolute level or or Litigating States’ § 2(a), against Microsoft’s software customizers to develop as a amount of that OEM’s development, offering market development allowances competitive force in the industry, as they distribution, promotion or licensing of the (‘‘MDAs’’) or discounts to OEMs or third may well have absent Microsoft’s illegal Microsoft product or service’’ should be party licensees. This loophole allowing conduct. deleted. It provides Microsoft the MDAs makes it possible, as a practical Add after the word ‘‘alternatives’’ in the opportunity to provide unlawful incentives matter, for Microsoft to engage in the very first sentence of the provision ‘‘..., which are to licensees based on undefined criteria discrimination that the provision is intended set forth below, by way of example and not (‘‘absolute level or amount’’) that Microsoft to prevent. limitation: .... ’’This prevents the list of items alone determines. Proposed Additions to Follow RPFJ § III.B that follows from becoming an exclusive list Proposed Additions to Follow RPFJ § III.A A provision should be added to the of the restrictions Microsoft cannot impose B. A Provision Prohibiting Retaliation By proposed decree that would require that on OEMs. Broad language is necessary so that Microsoft Against Any Party Who Microsoft provide OEMs and other licensees the remedy can be adapted to technological Participates In The Litigation Must Be Added with equal access to ‘‘licensing terms, changes. A provision, such as Litigating States’ discounts, technical, marketing and sales Added to the list should be an option that proposal 9, should be added following § III.A support, product and technical information, states OEMs are free to display alternative to specifically prohibit Microsoft from information about future plans, developer non-Microsoft desktops, provided that an retaliating against any individual or entity tools or support, hardware certification and icon or other means of user access is who participates or cooperates in any way in permission to display trademarks or logos.’’ provided to the Microsoft desktop. This any aspect or phase of antitrust litigation gee Litigating grates’ § 2(b); Final Judgment allows OEMs the freedom to offer consumers involving Microsoft. Such a provision will § 3(a5(ii5. Without this provision, Microsoft completely separate non-Microsoft interfaces ensure that Microsoft does not retaliate will be able to keep such information secret, without interfering with, changing the against any individual or entity that has which will allow Microsoft to continue to appearance of, or precluding access to, the participated thus far, and will afford take advantage of licensees’ ignorance about Microsoft desktop. protection to any individual or entity that what terms are available. § III.C.1 wishes to come forward with complaints F. A Provision Prohibiting Microsoft From This subsection is meant to ensure that against Microsoft based on the consent Enforcing Agreements That Are Inconsistent OEMs are free to install competing decree that is ultimately entered. In view of With The RPFJ Must Be Added middleware products and services and to Microsoft’s continuing dominant position, its A provision should be added that prohibits place icons and shortcuts to those products history of retaliation, and the fear it has Microsoft from enforcing any contract terms on the desktop. CIS at 30. To fulfill that engendered throughout the marketplace, or agreements that are inconsistent with the purpose: such a provision is both necessary and decree. See Litigating States’ 2(a); Final Eliminate everything after the words reasonable. Judgment § 3(a)(ii). This prophylactic ‘‘generally displayed.’’ The exception that VerDate 11 follows those words may be misconstrued as decision to launch a non-Microsoft product allowing OEMs to choose whether to make providing Microsoft discretion to prohibit or service. Microsoft’s Middleware Products or rival OEMs from featuring middleware products as The provision should include the phrase software directly available to end-users, to which Microsoft may not offer a competing ‘‘..., application or service (including any OEMs will have the incentive to experiment product or a product with the same security/authentication service)’’ after the to best serve consumers’ interest.’’). ‘‘functionality.’’ The deletion of the language first appearance of the term ‘‘Non-Microsoft I. A Provision Determining The Relative prevents any misunderstanding. Middleware’’. This would allow ISVs to Prices Of Unbundled Versions of Windows Section III.C. 1 should also make clear that compete with Microsoft’s new products and Must Be Added Microsoft may not restrict OEMs from services such as NET and Passport to which Either as part of the provision dealing with offering an alternative desktop, provided that Windows XP contains embedded prompts in the binding of middleware or elsewhere in an icon linking the user to the Windows the initial boot sequence and on the MSN the decree, there must be a provision desktop is also displayed. This would default homepage. requiring Microsoft to differentiate its expand options for consumers, while at the As now drafted, the provision can be read product prices based on an OEM’s selection same time reducing the burden on OEMs of as limiting competition 0nly to the categories of the Microsoft middleware products, if any, attempting to conform to Microsoft’s desktop of middleware product that existed when the that it chooses to bundle with the Windows requirements. litigation began, i.e., browsers and media operating system. Such a mechanism must § III.C.2 players. ensure that ‘‘stripped-down’’ versions of Related to section III.C.1 is subsection 2, The settlement should require that, as part Windows cost less than the fully loaded which prevents Microsoft from restricting an of ensuring that a Non-Microsoft Middleware version in a proportion that properly reflects OEM’s ability to distribute and promote non- Product can launch automatically in place of the value of middleware products not Microsoft Middleware by displaying a Microsoft Middleware Product, the non- included. Failure to provide a pricing shortcuts on the desktop. However, the Microsoft product will replace the Microsoft mechanism, such as those contained in provision limits this ability to those product in such cross-dependent scenarios as States’ proposal ¶¶1 and 3(b), removes any middleware products that do not impair the when clicking on a URL in Microsoft Word. incentive OEMs have to create software ‘‘functionality’’ of Windows. At the end of In the past, regardless of a user’s selection of packages composed of competing the provision, the following language should default browser, IE would launch in its place middleware products. be added: ‘‘Whether the functionality is when the user attempted to reach the Internet Several such mechanisms are possible. The impaired shall be determined by the in this fashion. Microsoft should not be Final Judgment provided that pricing be Technical Committee upon Microsoft’s permitted to automatically invoke its guided based on bytes of code. See Final written submission to the Committee as to middleware products despite a contrary Judgment § 3(g)(ii). SBC believes it would be preferable to allocate costs between the how the OEM modification impairs the choice by a consumer or OEM. operating system and the removed functionality of the Windows Operating § III.C.5 middleware based on measurements of System.’’ Nowhere in the decree is the term In this section concerning an OEM’s ‘‘function point code.’’ The International ‘‘functionality’’ defined. So as not to leave freedom to promote a competing IAP, the Function Point Users Group Counting the determination as to whether a change settlement must either identify what a Practices Manual is a generally accepted, ‘‘reasonable technical specification’’ is or impairs the ‘‘functionality’’ of Windows in objective industry standard for measuring Microsoft’s discretion, either the term should otherwise remove that determination from non-multimedia software (which excludes be defined in the definitions section of the Microsoft’s sole discretion. Otherwise, games and training software) and estimating decree, or the aforementioned language Microsoft will be able to block OEMs from software costs using an existing code base. should be added. featuring competing IAPs for virtually any See T. Capers Jones, Estimating Software § III.C.3 reason, or else impose anticompetitive Costs Function Point Analysis: Measurement Subsection III.C.3 requires Microsoft to requirements, such as the use of Microsoft’s Practices for Successful Software Projects permit OEMs to configure the desktop in a proprietary protocols, before a competing IAP (1998); David Garmus and David Herron, manner that allows non-Microsoft products is allowed on the desktop. Proposed Function Point Analysis: Measurement to launch automatically at the conclusion of Additions to Follow RPFJ Practices for Successful Software Projects, the tint or subsequent boot sequences or § III.C 34–61 (2000). Alternatively, SBC supports upon connection or disconnection from the H. A Provision That Prohibits Microsoft the use of a pricing mechanism based on the Internet. To accomplish this: From Commingling Must Be Added fully allocated product development costs for Eliminate everything after ‘‘a user A provision that reads similarly to the the operating system product and interface’’ and replace it with ‘‘that may be Litigating States’ proposed ¶1 should be middleware products in question. See seen as attempting to imitate the trade dress adopted to prevent Microsoft from repeating Litigating States’ ° 1. of or otherwise appear identical to the the illegal conduct that the Court of Appeals J. A Provision Requiring That Microsoft corresponding Microsoft Middleware found it engaged in by commingling the code Continue To Offer Predecessor Versions Of Product.’’ While subsection 3 attempts to of its IE browser with the code for its Windows Must Be Added prevent ISVs from palming-off their products Windows operating system. A restriction on SBC recommends adoption of Litigating as Microsoft products, as currently written, the practice of binding middleware to the States’ proposed ¶3. Section 3 mandates that the provision appears to give Microsoft operating system is essential to restoring Microsoft continue to license for 5 years its discretion to decide, in the first instance, competition by making the OEM distribution immediate predecessor version of Windows, which competitors’’ icons and interfaces, and channel a viable option once again for at a price no higher than the last price at in what form, may be displayed. The change software vendors. See Litigating States’ 1. which the predecessor version was offered. clarifies the intent. Such a provision will have the salutary This is a further means of preventing As in Section III.C.1 above, this provision collateral effect of preventing the exceptions Microsoft from commingling its middleware contains imprecise language describing when contained in RPFJ § III.H from rendering the products with Windows without offering and whether a Non-Microsoft Middleware substance of sections III.C and III.H OEMs, end-users and third parties the chance Product can launch automatically (‘‘if a meaningless, as well as supporting to buy a version of the operating system that Microsoft Middleware Product that provides innovation. See Shapiro Decl. at 23 (stating is both cheaper and without Microsoft similar functionality would otherwise be that an anti-binding provision in the Final products bound to it. Prior versions of launched automatically at that time’’) that Judgment, similar to the one proposed here, Windows typically have less Microsoft can be interpreted as allowing Microsoft to ‘‘strikes an excellent balance between the middleware product bundled with or bound stop OEMs from launching innovative consumer benefits that can arise when to the operating system, and rely more middleware products as to which Microsoft Microsoft adds functionality to its operating heavily on accepted industry standards. As a has not developed a competing product. This system and the benefits that consumers enjoy result, predecessor versions may be more language should be deleted both to avoid any when new and improved software is easily configured to include non-Microsoft possibility of such an interpretation and also developed independently of Microsoft, middleware products. because Microsoft’s business choices should especially if that software may serve a role K. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ §§ III.D not determine or in any way limit OEMs’ in eroding Microsoft’s monopoly position. By and III.E (Interoperability Disclosure) VerDate 11 Full interoperability is necessary to The government’s own expert explained small modification can severely impede the prevent Microsoft from perpetuating its the need for an affirmative prohibition ability of a competing operating system or monopoly of the PC operating system market against such interference by Microsoft as middleware product from interoperating with by exercising control over server operating necessary to prevent one of the more a Windows operating system product.35 systems and software, and Internet browsers, insidious methods of monopoly Second, any new or modified standards and using that control to eliminate the maintenance: implemented by Microsoft become, as a nascent competitive threats posed by non- Microsoft has demonstrated its ability and practical matter, an industry standard within Microsoft server operating systems and incentive to hinder the adoption of rival a very short period of time because of the embedded devices. middleware through a variety of exclusionary high percentage of Windows users. Section 4 of the Litigating States’ proposal tactics such as it employed against Microsoft’s Brad Silverberg explained this achieves full interoperability between (i) a Netscape’s browser. Once Microsoft is Microsoft strategy in the context of a Windows PC operating system and non- enjoined from employing the tactics it has previous standards battle with Novell’s Microsoft Middleware; (ii) a Windows PC already used, Microsoft will have an Netware: operating system and a non-Microsoft server incentive to switch to new, substitute tactics It seems very clear to me that if you are operating system; (iii) Microsoft Middleware, having the same effect. One such tactic is to currently on the losing end of a standard including Internet Explorer, and a non- intentionally degrade the performance of battle, your strategy needs to be: (a) adopt the Microsoft server operating system; and (iv) rival middleware interoperating with standard so you don’t force customers to Microsoft and non-Microsoft server operating Windows. choose between you and the standard, (b) systems. Litigating States’ § 4. bootstrap that so you have a reasonable To achieve full interoperability, the Shapiro Decl. at 22. The Final Judgment and Litigating States’ proposal explicitly prohibit installed base, (c) begin to change the disclosure must include ‘‘all APIs, standard on top of it to get people dependent communications interfaces and other Microsoft from knowingly impeding or on ‘‘you.’’ Once people are dependent on you technical information related to degrading the performance of non-Microsoft .... you ‘‘start to turn the crank.’’ interoperability.’’ Litigating States’ § 4. Only Middleware on a Windows PC. Final in this way can the ‘‘seamless Judgment § 3(c); Litigating States’ § 5. Henderson Decl. ¶35 (internal citations interoperability,’’ recognized by the The Litigating States’ proposal also omitted). government in the CIS as the operative goal, properly requires that if Microsoft takes any To ensure that Microsoft’s practices are be achieved. CIS at 38. action that would ‘‘interfere with or degrade changed and to ensure full interoperability, The timing of required disclosure under the performance of non-Microsoft the settlement must include a provision that the proposed settlement is equally deficient, Middleware,’’ it must give 60 days advance requires: because it provides Microsoft sufficient notice to the affected ISV. Litigating States’ (i) that Microsoft continue to use and flexibility to use the timing of a disclosure to 8 5. The proposed settlement does not promote all open or industry-recognized gain a competitive advantage for its own contain a knowing interference provision. standards; software. Microsoft should be required to Since the Court of Appeals specifically (ii) that Microsoft not alter or modify an disclose the technical information related to affirmed the findings upon which this industry standard in any way, except to the interoperability in a ‘‘timely manner,’’ which remedy was based, the decision to delete it extent that such modification is compliant should be defined as the earliest of the is difficult to understand. CA at 65–66. To with, and approved by, an independent, following: (i) when it is disclosed to the contrary, the proposed settlement internationally recognized industry standards Microsoft’s applications developers; (ii) actually gives Microsoft the incentive to organization; when it is used by Microsoft’s Platform make slight changes to its operating system (iii) that Microsoft disclose any change it Software developers; (iii) when it is disclosed product, as part of a ‘‘minor upgrade,’’ that implements to an open or industry- to any third party; or (iv) within 90 days of would have the effect of impeding the recognized standard, in a ‘‘timely manner,’’ a final release of a new version of Windows, interoperability of non-Microsoft middleware as that phrase is defined in the Litigating and no less than 5 days after a material with a Windows PC operating system. See States’ Proposal § 22 (pp); change is made by Microsoft after the most RPFJ §§ III(D), VI(J). If the change is a part of (iv) that Microsoft assist any other software recent beta or release candidate version. This a ‘‘minor upgrade,’’ Microsoft is not required provider to achieve interoperability with any is the timing provision employed by both the to disclose the APIs and other technical protocol Microsoft uses in any such situation District Court’s Final Judgment and the information required to ensure full in which Microsoft is the holder of the Litigating States’ proposal. Final Judgment interoperability. Id. reference protocol implementation; and ¶3(b); Litigating States’ § 22 (pp). N. A Provision Requiring Microsoft to (v) that Microsoft work with all other Proposed Additions To Follow RPFJ § III.E Comply With Industry Standards Must Be holders of reference protocols to achieve and L. A Provision That Requires Mandatory Added ensure interoperability with any protocol Distribution of Java Must Be Added To create a level playing field and foster Microsoft uses, in any situation in which The Litigating States’ proposal properly competition, a provision must be added to Microsoft is not the holder of the reference requires Microsoft to distribute Java, free of ensure that open or industry standards protocol implementation. charge, for ten years. Litigating States’ § 13. continue to be promoted and used by There are over 300 separate standards used The copy of Java that is distributed must be Microsoft as part of the Windows PC by any PC operating system to function ‘‘a competitively performing Windows- operating system environment. An industry within a local area network or on the compatible version of the Java runtime standard is any technical standard that has internet. The following protocol families are environment (including the Java virtual been approved by (or has been submitted to among those that are particularly important machine and class libraries) compliant with and is under consideration by) any to Internet-based computing: (1) the TCP/IP the latest Sun Microsystems Technology independent, publicly recognized protocol family, which is universally used to Compatibility Kit.’’ Id. The proposed organization or group that sets standards. If transmit data and services on the Internet; (2) settlement does not require Microsoft to Microsoft can replace an open industry standard with its own proprietary codes, it distribute a version of Java that is compliant 35 For example, if Microsoft made subtle changes with the latest technology from Sun will prevent full interoperability and thus to the industry-recognized audio Codec standard, Microsystems, and that is fully compatible reinforce the applications barrier to entry. applications that used audio features, such as Real with the most recent version of Windows. As a result of Microsoft’s monopoly power Player, would not be able to interoperate with a This requirement is critical to ensure full in the PC operating system market, it is able Windows PC operating system. If Real Player interoperability between IE and all non- now, and in the foreseeable future, to depart continued to employ the industry-standard Codec Microsoft server operating systems, and will from industry-recognized standards for its in its program, Windows PC users would be able also help to erode the applications barrier to own competitive advantage. This is to download that Codec to their Windows operating accomplished in two ways. First, Microsoft system, but would face the very real possibility that entry that shields Microsoft’s monopoly the program would not function with their power. has in the past made subtle, undisclosed Windows PC operating system as well as the M. A Provision Prohibiting Interference changes to a number of recognized industry competing Microsoft product, Media Player, which With Or Degradation Of Non-Microsoft standards that are used to execute functions would, of course, be designed to run with Middleware Must Be Added by the Windows operating system. Even a Microsoft’s modified Codec. VerDate 11 the H.323 protocol family as defined by the § III.F.2 production, distribution, promotion or use of, ITU, which supports video and voice At a minimum, the exception in this or payment for, any non-Microsoft product or communications and is often referred to as a provision must be deleted. It would allow service; distribute, promote or use any Voice over IP (VoIP) protocol; (3) the SIP Microsoft to enter agreements that limit an Microsoft product or service exclusively or in protocol family, which supports video and ISV’s ability to develop, promote or a minimum percentage; or interfere or voice communications, as well as instant distribute competing software, ‘‘if those degrade the performance of any non- messaging; and (4) the HTML/HTTP protocol limitations are reasonably necessary and of Microsoft product or service.’’ See Litigating family, as defined by the World Wide Web reasonable scope and duration in relation to States’ § 6; Final Judgment § 3(e). The Consortium (W3C), which supports web a bona fide contractual obligation of the ISV proposed settlement would prohibit only browser and server protocols. to use, distribute or promote any Microsoft agreements that grant consideration for the A Provision Requiring Open-Source software.’’ RPFJ § III.F.2. This creates a entity to agree to distribute, promote or use Licensing for Internet Explorer Must Be loophole for Microsoft to restrict an ISV’s Microsoft Platform Software exclusively or in Added ability to develop products that compete with a fixed percentage. The settlement terms do Microsoft’s control of IE is an integral part Microsoft products. Given its proven history not prohibit restricting the development or of the anticompetitive conduct that has of anticompetitive conduct, Microsoft should use of non-Microsoft products or services and maintained Microsoft’s monopoly over the not be entitled to an automatic opportunity interfering or degrading the performance of PC operating system market. As the Litigating to use its market power to obtain even non-Microsoft products or services. Yet such States propose, to remedy these ‘‘reasonable’’ exclusive dealing agreements. If conduct is blatantly anticompetitive and anticompetitive acts and prevent recurrence, Microsoft and an ISV believe a particular entirely consistent with Microsoft’s record of the source code for IE must be disclosed on agreement has procompetitive justification, proven illegal conduct. a royalty-free and non-discriminatory basis. they can seek prior approval from the The exception allowing exclusive or fixed See Litigating States’ § 12. government. In the alternative, this entire percentage arrangements if Microsoft obtains P. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § III.F provision may be deleted if a provision as a representation that it is ‘‘commercially (Retaliation Against Any Third Party) discussed in ¶V.Q below is added. See also practicable’’ for the entity to provide equal or Sections 8 and 9 of the Litigating States’ Litigating States’ § 11; Final Judgment § 3(h). greater distribution of a competing product, proposal adequately address retaliation § III.F.3 should be eliminated. This loophole permits issues. Alternatively, the following revisions This broad savings clause, which provides Microsoft to demand parity with any product should be made in the RPFJ: that Microsoft is not prohibited from that it considers a competitor in an § III.F.1 enforcing agreements with any ISV or IHV, or agreement with a third party that promotes The retaliation provision must be revised any intellectual property right, that is not or distributes a competing product. As a to prohibit retaliation not only against the inconsistent with the proposed settlement, proven monopolist, Microsoft should not be limited category of ISVs and IHVs, but should be removed. It is unnecessary and given what is effectively an affirmative right against any third party. For the reasons vague, and invites further litigation. Given to demand that others carry its products. The discussed in connection with Section III.A the overwhelming record of Microsoft’s opportunities for coercion are far too great. above, the continually evolving nature of anticompetitive conduct, the burden should § III.G.2 computer and software technology and not be placed on the government or a third The proposed settlement must be changed business practices means that, as a practical party to prove that Microsoft did something to prohibit Microsoft from entering into matter, new threats to Microsoft’s operating ‘‘inconsistent’’ with the decree. agreements with IAPs and ICPs that system monopoly could come from as-yet Proposed Additions to Follow RPFJ § III.F condition their placement on the Windows unidentified entities. In light of Microsoft’s Q. A Provision Prohibiting Microsoft From desktop on their agreement ‘‘to distribute, record of past retaliatory conduct, and the Entering Agreements That Limit Competition promote or use any Microsoft product or durability of its monopoly power, such Must Be Added service.’’ See Litigating States’ § 6(e); Final ‘‘nascent’’ threats must be protected A provision should be added, such as Judgment § 3(e)(iv). The proposed settlement wherever and however they emerge. Litigating States’ proposal 11, prohibiting only prohibits agreements that condition The term ‘‘retaliation’’ must to be defined Microsoft from offering consideration to any placement of the IAP or ICP on the Windows broadly to include ‘‘any threats or any competitor in exchange for the competitor’s desktop upon the IAP or ICP’s refraining actions that directly or indirectly have an agreeing to refrain from developing or from promoting or using software that adverse effect’’ on third parties. See distributing any product or service that competes with Microsoft Middleware. This discussion of RPFJ § III.A supra. competes with any Windows Operating creates a loophole permitting Microsoft to The scope of conduct by third parties for System or Middleware Product. See also condition desktop placement on the IAP or which Microsoft may not retaliate must be Final Judgment 3(h). Such a provision is ICP agreeing to distribute, promote or use broadened. The provision should prohibit necessary to prevent Microsoft from seeking other Microsoft products or services adverse action by Microsoft based ‘‘directly anticompetitive contracts that divide markets exclusively. Given Microsoft’s proven history or indirectly on any actual or contemplated or otherwise limit competition, regardless of of anticompetitive exclusionary conduct, it action’’ by the protected party. See whether the ‘‘terms’’ are reasonable. See should be barred from any kind of exclusive discussion of RPFJ III.A supra. discussion of RPFJ § III.F.2 .supra. dealing arrangement. The ban on retaliation should be based on R. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § III.G The provision that permits exclusive any action or contemplated action by a third (Ban on Exclusive Dealing) dealing arrangements for joint ventures, joint party ‘‘to develop, use, distribute, promote, SBC believes that Section 6 of the developments or joint services arrangements or support any non-Microsoft product or Litigating States’ proposal is consistent with should be deleted. It would permit Microsoft service.’’ See Litigating States’ § 8. The the public interest on the issue of exclusive to avoid the general prohibitions on proposed settlement prohibits retaliation dealing. Alternatively, the following changes exclusive dealing, which are essential to based on a party’s ‘‘developing, using, should be made in the RPFJ: restoring competition, merely by distributing, promoting or supporting any § III.G.1 restructuring prohibited agreements as ‘‘joint software that competes with Microsoft The provision governing exclusive dealing ventures.’’ Once again, if Microsoft believes Platform Software or any software that runs must be extended to third parties. See it has a legitimate, procompetitive basis to on any software that competes with Microsoft Litigating States’ § 6; Final Judgment § 3(e). enter into a true joint venture agreement, it Platform Software.’’ Based on the inherent The government previously acknowledged can seek authorization to do so. problems with the definition of Microsoft that a general ban is necessary because it is The provision that excludes licensed-in Platform Software, this limitation narrows too difficult to predict which entities intellectual property should be deleted. Like the types of products within its scope. For Microsoft might seek to tie up in exclusive the ‘‘joint venture’’ loophole, it would allow example, it would be permissible for arrangements over the next several years. See Microsoft to evade the exclusive dealing ban Microsoft to retaliate for a party’s distribution Shapiro Decl. at 19. by including in an agreement, licensed-in or use of an application that competes with Microsoft should be prohibited from intellectual property of nominal value. Office, because Office is not ‘‘Microsoft granting consideration to any third party that g. ChanGes Must Math To RPFJ § III.H Platform Software.’’ agrees to ‘‘restrict its development, (OEM/End User Control the Desktop) VerDate 11 Section III.H focuses on OEMs’ ability to The ‘‘Notwithstanding’’ Clauses In This and impose a strict, rapid, no-nonsense offer and promote and end-users’ ability to Provision Must Be Deleted timetable for the formal resolution of all choose competing middleware products. Yet The ‘‘Notwithstanding’’ clauses at the end complaints about Microsoft’s conduct. See the provision undermines this purpose in of section III.H allow Microsoft to disregard Litigating States’ ¶18(f). several ways, including: (1) preventing either OEM and consumer choice whenever A critical deficiency in the proposed OEMs or end-users from removing Microsoft Microsoft decides that its products must be settlement is the lack of a requirement that products from the operating system; (2) invoked to operate with its servers or when anyone at Microsoft, including its designated permitting Microsoft to override or alter OEM the Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails Internal Compliance Officer, certify and end-user choices of competing to implement a ‘‘reasonable technical periodically to the Court that Microsoft is in middleware products; and (3) delaying the specification’’ (a term that is left to Microsoft compliance with its obligations. Indeed, no implementation of the provision to such an to define). The clauses should be eliminated one is in a better position than Microsoft to extent as to render it meaningless for a fifth in their entirety. The exceptions contained in know whether it is in compliance. For these of the lifespan of the decree. To remedy these these clauses are so broad that they threaten reasons, the Court should require that any flaws, the following changes are suggested: to render the substance of section III.H decree include a self-reporting requirement, § III.H meaningless by permitting Microsoft to providing that a senior executive of Microsoft The first sentence, which delays the override an OEM’s or end-user’s middleware certify periodically under oath to the Court applicability of the section for the earlier of default choice at will. that Microsoft is in compliance with its 12 months after submission of the settlement T. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § III.I obligations, Such a provision would further to the Court or the release of the first service (Mandatory Licensing) ensure that Microsoft takes its obligations pack for Windows XP, should be revised to The proposed settlement allows Microsoft seriously. delete the introductory phrase. Microsoft to charge a royalty for the required license of Instead of limiting training in the decree to should be required immediately to technical information concerning officers and directors (RPFJ § IV.C.3.a), the implement the changes necessary to comply interoperability, and to obtain a cross-license provision must require officers, directors and with the OEM/end-user control provisions. to the licensee’s technical information used all other employees that are in positions that This would also maximize the amount of to interoperate with a Windows PC operating enable them to initiate or implement time the provision is in force before the relief system or Microsoft Middleware. As the anticompetitive conduct to read, understand expires. government recognized in the earlier remedy and comply with the decree, as is customary The last sentence of this section, which proceedings, royalty and cross-licensing in antitrust consent decrees. See Litigating follows the ‘‘Notwithstanding’’ clause, requirements are anticompetitive. Final States’ § 17(c); Final Judgment § 4(e). should also be eliminated. All Microsoft Judgment § 3(i); see also Gov’t D.Ct. Sum. W. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § VI Middleware Products should be required to Resp. at 14. As the Litigating States have (Definitions) comply with the substantive provisions of proposed, Microsoft should be required to The way the proposed settlement defines sections III.C and III.H. There is no license the necessary technical information key terms significantly restricts, and in many justification for a temporal cut-off point of on a royalty-free basis, and without the tight instances eliminates, the effect of the any kind (such as seven months prior to the to a cross-license from the licensee. Litigating proposed settlement’s substantive provisions. last beta test of an operating system release, States’ ¶15. SBC generally recommends the adoption of contained here) for new products, which U. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ § III.J should be developed with a focus on (Limitations on Mandatory Licensing) the definitions contained in the Litigating meeting, not evading, the requirements of the Section III.J of the proposed settlement is States’ proposal § 22. Some of the problems relief. a loophole and must be deleted. All APIs, posed by the proposed settlement’s § III.H.1 communications interfaces and technical definitions relating to middleware are as Subsection 1 allows OEMs and end-users information that must be disclosed to ensure follows: to enable or disable the automatic invocation interoperability serve, at least in part, an The definition of‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ of a Microsoft middleware product or to authentication or encryption function related in section VI.J must be eliminated. The term remove the icon for that product. A to the security of the operating system. is defined in so restrictive a way that it subsection (c) should be added that allows Microsoft should not be given an excuse to would exclude, among other things, any end-users and OEMs to add or remove any withhold disclosure of crucial technical middleware which is bound to the operating Microsoft Middleware Product from the information for potentially anticompetitive system or as to which Microsoft has not operating system, not just the icon for that purposes. Neither the Final Judgment nor the sought trademark protection. It should be product. The additional language will Litigating States’ proposal contains a similar replaced with a straightforward definition eliminate the problem of automatic provision. that applies to middleware irrespective of invocation of Microsoft middleware under V. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ §§ IV whether it is Microsoft or non-Microsoft certain circumstances and open up hard And V (Compliance And Enforcement) middleware, such as the definition of drive space to add additional programs. This In contrast to the proposed settlement, Middleware contained in the Final Judgment provision will only be effective, however, if certain aspects of the Litigating States’ § 7(q). See also Litigating States’ § 22(w). there is a prohibition against the binding of proposal would be far more effective in The proposed settlement’s definition in middleware to the operating system. ensuring that the intent and spirit of the final section VI.K of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware § III.H.3 relief entered in this action be effectively Product’’ limits what are considered The CIS states that section III.H.3 prevents enforced: Microsoft middleware products to specific automatic alteration of an OEM configuration As mandated by the Antitrust Division categories of products. It should be replaced (CIS at 48), but subsection III.H.3(b) Manual and conceded by the government as by Litigating States’ proposal § 22(x), which undercuts this commitment. It would permit being ‘‘customary in antitrust actions’’ (Gov’t is both a broader and more accurate Microsoft to prompt an end-user to ‘‘sweep D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 20), the final decree description of a Microsoft Middleware the desktop’’ of all selected icons and should remain in effect for ten years, not five, Product, as it accounts for both middleware middleware choices 14 days after the initial as prescribed by RPFJ § V. See Litigating products currently in existence and products boot-up of the computer and thereafter. States’ § 21 (b); Final Judgment § 6(c). that will be developed in the future. Because of the possibility of consumer Pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules Subsection (ii) of the definition of‘‘Non- confusion, this has the potential to undo the of Civil Procedure, the Court should appoint Microsoft Middleware Product’’ requires that very OEM and end-user control Section III.H a Special Master, who would be in a position one million copies of the product be is intended to allow. Subsection (b) therefore to immediately report violations directly to distributed in the previous year for the should be eliminated. There is no need for the Court and also periodically report to the product to be considered a competing Microsoft ever to seek end-user confirmation Court regarding Microsoft’s compliance with middleware product. See RPFJ § VI.N. This that he or she wants to reverse an OEM its obligations, instead of the Technical definitional limitation excludes new configuration that includes competing Committee prescribed by the proposed competing products from a number of the products, or ever to prompt the end-user to decree. See Litigating States’ § 18. proposed settlement’s protections, including ‘‘sweep away’’ all previous non-Microsoft Any decree should set forth specific those relating to the important OEM product choices. sanctions for different levels of violations distribution channel. VerDate 11 The last sentence of the definition of depressing the equity markets. Consequently, Dear Ms. Hesse: ‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’ grants jobs were lost and innovative products never Please register my emphatic opposition to Microsoft ‘‘sole discretion’’ to determine made it to market. the subject Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) what constitutes a Windows Operating Because of the coercion used by the [in re the conjoined Civil Actions No. 98– System Product, and should be deleted. See government, I have several objections to the 1232 (CKK) and 98–1233 (CKK), collectively RPFJ § VI.U. The definition should be proposed settlement. termed the Microsoft Antitrust Case]. My objective and should roughly correspond to First, the settlement imposes restrictions reasons for opposing this PFJ are based upon the definition of ‘‘Operating System Product’’ on Microsoft’s ability to make contracts. This review and thoughtful consideration of the in the Final Judgment § 7(v). The definition infringement on Microsoft’s right to enter following: of ‘‘Windows Operating System Product’’ contracts on its own terms is akin to the a) Microsoft’s extensive and consistent should also include prior versions of ‘‘badges of slavery’’ prohibited by the 13th record of gross anticompetitive abuses in the Windows, including Windows 95 and Amendment. Consequently, while Microsoft software industry that gravely harmed Windows 98, as well as versions of retains title to its property, the government competitors, eliminated consumer freedom of Microsoft’s operating system developed for is specifying the terms under which it may choice, and erected illegal barriers to non-PC products, such as Windows CE. See exercise its own property. Thus, our innovation by competitors—abuses for which Litigating States’ § 22(rr). government is pursuing fascist economic Microsoft has been adjudicated to be guilty VI. CONCLUSION policies that obliterate the rights of private of violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act in For the reasons stated herein, the proposed property. this Case—which Microsoft will gladly settlement with Microsoft is contrary to the Second, the settlement mandates the continue; public interest and should be substantially disclosure of proprietary information by b) the provisions of the PFJ, which appear modified or rejected entirely. Microsoft. This attack on intellectual on the surface to offer substantive remedies January 28, 2002 property rights undermines our economy. but in fact, upon careful reading, provide no Respectfully submitted, Further, it contradicts the foreign policy of effective or enforcable restrictions to prevent PAUL K. MANGINI Vice President & our government that seeks to protect the Microsoft from continuing its anticompetive Assistant General Counsel intellectual property rights of Americans practices to extend its monopoly illegally - PATRICK J. PASCARELLA Senior Counsel abroad. Although there is some recourse to precisely the offense that requires remedy; WILLIAM R. CALDWELL Senior Counsel prevent the dissemination of information c) the glaring omissions of the PFJ, which SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC. affecting security, the settlement makes no is blind to current conditions in the software 175 East Houston adequate provisions for resolving disputes industry and Microsoft’s continuing San Antonio, Texas 78205 between Microsoft and the government on predatory tactics there and in contiguous DONALD L. FLEXNER these security claims to protect consumers. markets such as Internet enabled ecommerce, DAVID A. BARRETT Therefore, this settlement puts the property mass media delivery and digital rights STEVEN I. FROOT and privacy of Microsoft customers in management, and definition of worldwide NICHOLAS A. GRAVANTE, JR. jeopardy. network standards, and which further offers HARLAN A. LEVY Third, this settlement infringes no forward looking constraints to prevent BORES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP constitutional protections Microsoft, and all Microsoft from proliferating such 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Americans, have from unreasonable searches. oppressions of suppliers, customers, Washington, DC 20015 The presence of government agents in the competitors, and ultimately consumers and Telephone: (202) 237–2727 Microsoft facility at the company’s expense fair markets both within the US and Facsimile: (202) 237–6131 with unlimited access to confidential internationally. Microsoft has proven that it From: [email protected]@inetgw Microsoft information is an affront to our is willing to use any means or pretense to To: Microsoft ATR sense of ordered liberties. If this settlement avoid or circumvent restrictions on its Date: 1/28/02 11:49pm were instead a warrant, the court would deny practices (see the earlier Consent Decree). Subject: Microsoft settlement it as overly broad and unreasonable. In Microsoft is like a twice-convicted burgler To whom it may concern, addition, the settlement does not specify proposing to bargain for parole by promising As part of the public comment on the sanctions against the government for not to commit burglary again—except if (i) proposed Microsoft settlement, I am objecting potential violations of the confidentiality the front door is open, (ii) a window is to the prosecution of Microsoft by the agreements. unlocked, or (iii) the back door can be Department of Justice and the various Finally, if the government was serious jimmied open easily. Microsoft can’t be Attorney Generals’ offices. I understand that about the danger Microsoft pose to trusted to abide by any restrictions on its with a gun to its head Microsoft wants this consumers, the Justice Department and the business acts in good faith. The Judgement of settlement. However, the settlement is unjust. state Attorney Generals’ offices should have the Court should therefore be in imperative As a consumer, Microsoft has benefited me. promised to not use Microsoft products terms without any loopholes Microsoft can Sometimes I buy Microsoft, but not always. during the term of the settlement. That would use to subvert the Court’s intent. I use operating systems and browsers let the government work in an environment Unfortunately, the PFJ is as far from such a produced by other companies. However, of incompatible software products that the clear standard as Microsoft might wish. No Microsoft’s leadership in creating software market has freely chosen to avoid. In wonder Microsoft agreed to this. Far from that has been selected by the marketplace as summary, the government’s prosecution of offering even minimally adequate remedies, the dominant products created a computing Microsoft and this settlement is a threat to the PFJ is a perverse gift to Microsoft in that revolution that has changed my life through our individual liberty because it permits the it would enshrine in a legal settlement the higher income. In contrast, the government’s government to destroy the wealth created by permission to continue, extend, and expand prosecution of Microsoft has harmed me. our citizens arbitrarily. Microsoft’s predatory actions and The club-fisted actions by the government Jim Woods anticompetitive behaviors. For every in this matter have adversely affected the 21560 Iredell Terr. declaration of prohibited future conduct or development of products that would have Ashburn, VA 20148 requirements to treat other market players benefited me. First, the government’s attack From: [email protected]@inetgw and consumers fairly there are entire on Microsoft distracted their expansion in To: Microsoft ATR paragraphs and clauses, definitions and the enterprise server software market which Date: 1/28/02 11:49pm exclusions, which Microsoft can and is dominated by companies that have Subject: Microsoft Settlement predictably will employ to subvert both the supported the government’s efforts. January 28, 2002 letter and intent of these supposed remedies. Resources Microsoft could have been used to Renata B. Hesse Furthermore, the face-to-face contact enhance products that would have benefited Antitrust Division between Steve Ballmer (he is Microsoft’s CEO me professionally were diverted to pay for U.S. Department of Justice and President) and Dick Cheney (Vice attorneys instead of programmers. Second, 601 D Street NW President of the US) as negotiations were the government’s attack on Microsoft caused Suite 1200 ongoing to draft the PFJ but not reported by the high tech meltdown in the economy by Washington, DC 20530–0001 either party in violation of the Tunney Act, VerDate 11 deserve censure of both sides by the Court, data ‘seamlessly.’’ In my opinion, this Regards, if not appointment of a Special Prosecutor to interconnectivity argument is flawed, as Rick Hornbeck investigate political and adminstrative virtually the same quantity and quality of Rick Hornbeck, M.S., J.D. corruption. interconnectivity has existed amongst Hornbeck Consulting Don’t sell the software industry down the Microsoft’s products for many years. 556 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 346 river, allow a monomaniacal company to Microsoft is notorious for inflating the value Pasadena, CA 91105 unfairly wield its monopoly to take over of its product’s features in the media, in (cell) 323–363–2151 several additional sectors of the economy, advertising, and in supposedly objective THE TROUBLING TRUTH ABOUT destabilize international standards for articles written by shills in technical ‘‘TRUST’’ ON THE INTERNET interoperability in ecommerce and journals. However, it has failed to introduce An objective survey of the security risks communications, and continue to prey upon significant new interconnectivity feature associated with ActiveX and its impact on businesses, marketplaces, and consumers enhancements over the past few years, and it Microsoft’s share of the Web browser market. worldwide. Reject this PFJ. Write a fitting is unlikely that any new advancements or (by Rick Hornbeck, M.S., J.D. 1997)* Judgement, with teeth! features in this area are forthcoming. BACKGROUND Respectfully submitted, In addition, the other major vendors in the Where did ActiveX Come From and Why Robert A. Munro desktop software market already offer the Doesn’t It Go Away? U.S. Citizen same level of interconnectivity between their By now it is generally accepted that From: Rick Hornbeck own products and Microsoft’s products, in Microsoft and Netscape are engaged in a great To: Microsoft ATR the only area that really matters—cutting- World-Wide-Web (WWW) browser war. It is Date: 1/28/02 11:50pm and-pasting between applications. also generally understood that Microsoft’s Subject: Microsoft Settlement Nevertheless, any government or court- almost limitless revenue from its Windows To Whom It May Concern: ordered solution must confront Microsoft’s operating system software and related I have attached three documents that strong public relations and marketing products will allow it to keep giving it’s explain my position on the Microsoft machine, which means that the product line- Internet Explorer browser away free for the Antitrust Case, along with a proposed based breakup model is at best a steep, uphill next 20 years, while Netscape has to charge solution. I also attached a copy of my resume battle. customers for it’s products. What is less well to establish my credibility and to assist you Proposed alternative solution—impose understood is why ActiveX and the in determining the value that you should structural changes to Microsoft’s business Authenticode securitymodel represent the place on my recommendations. I do not processes, not its organization. other two prongs of Microsoft’s Internet believe that the Technical Committee will My recommended solution requires marketing strategy. have the necessary access to key Microsoft looking at the situation from a different As recently as early 1995 Microsoft was personnel or the enforcement authority, perspective—instead of imposing structural still unsure of the Internet’s significance and either directly or indirectly, to make a changes on the organization, impose the role it would play in the PC desktop difference. structural changes to Microsoft’s business market. Microsoft believed it could continue Although the Proposed Settlement contains processes. its phenomenal year-on-year profit growth several good measures for curtailing some of My recommended solution is as follows: relying solely on new sales and paid for Microsoft’s anti-competitive actions, it does 1. Require Microsoft to develop and upgrades of its existing products. However, not go far enough. support versions of its major office products these sales must in turn rely on its ability to I believe that the solution I propose in the that are fully functional on other popular, maintain its grip and influence on the first attached document will level the playing current and future operating systems, such as distribution channel, on the corporate field to the degree needed to make a long- Linux, Java, and Mac OS; purchasers, the original equipment term positive impact. 2. Until item (1) is achieved, impose a manufacturers (OEMs) and on the standards Regards, moratorium on the development and release process. (For example, according to the Rick Hornbeck of the following: Microsoft 1996 Annual Report, OEM channel Hornbeck Consulting a. New Microsoft operating systems or revenues were $1.18 billion in 1994, $1.65 556 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 346 significant upgrades to existing operating billion in 1995, and $2.50 billion in Pasadena, CA 91105 systems (except for security-related 1996.)The primary source of OEM revenues Rick—[email protected] enhancements or upgrades); is the licensing of desktop operating systems. (cell) + 1 323 363–2151 b. Internet Explorer browser (except for As such, Microsoft’s OEM channel revenues (efax) + 1 208 275–1245 security-related enhancements or upgrades); are highly dependent on Windows- January 28, 2002 c. Office suite product upgrades (except for compatible PC shipment volume. During U.S. Department of Justice security-related enhancements or upgrades). 1995 armies of software developers and Anti-trust Division 3. Obviously this approach will impose a consumers launched a blitzkrieg against [email protected] significant burden on the court or its Microsoft’s PC desktop dominion, To Whom It May Concern: designated representative to develop and penetrating the Windows defenses I am writing to convey my proposed rigorously apply a method for monitoring everywhere with dynamically distributed solution to the Microsoft anti-trust case. The Microsoft’s development activities, both at its Java applets and gaining over 70% of the dilemma is how to prevent Microsoft from own facilities, and at its subcontractor’s market for Internet browsers. using its monopolistic power in the future, to facilities. Nevertheless, I believe this Microsoft quickly realized that the weaken competition, consumer choice, and approach, although not without its confluence of Java with Netscape’s browsers innovation. Breakup along product lines is challenges, is reasonable and realistic, and, if had the makings of a platform-independent problematic due to Microsoft’s successful properly enforced, through a process or de-facto industry standard, which would public relations disinformation campaign mandatory quarterly reporting to the court, is empower users to buy more non-‘‘Wintel’’ Microsoft has astutely intertwined its various likely to achieve the desired objective. (Windows operating system on an Intel products so tightly that any breakup of the Some amount of financial profit from the processor) desktop PCs. The Internet gave corporation is unrealistic, if it occurs along licensing of its products on alternative Microsoft a vision of it’s impending product lines, requiring each new operating systems is appropriate, as further mortality. In response, on Pearl Harbor Day, organization to become its own, independent encouragement for Microsoft’s enthusiastic December 7, 1995, Bill Gates declared war, profit center. At least that is what Microsoft cooperation. announcing that ‘‘[t]oday, the Internet is the would have us believe. This letter represents a rough outline of my primary driver of the new work we’re doing Although such a restructuring is possible, proposal. If you would like to discuss it across our entire product line.’’ Microsoft’s argument would be that it would further, please feel free to contact me. You The Microsoft Web servers took 8,000,000 reduce the value of each product by are free to use my ideas that I have enclosed hits on the first day of their campaign. After approximately 30% because it would in this letter in your prosecution of his two-hour public presentation Gates told eliminate the benefits derived from their Microsoft’s anti-competitive behavior, or in a National Public Radio in an interview, ‘‘Well, capability to ‘‘interconnect,’’ and exchange related matter. we’ve got to make sure that we’re leading the VerDate 11 way on the opportunities the Internet Because ActiveX does not contain its own the software they are considering represents.’’ ‘‘Netscape has two great internal security mechanism to restrict the downloading is ‘‘safe.’’ Bill Gates’ vision of strengths,’’ Gates admitted. ‘‘They’ve got very actions of the program, Microsoft was able to the future is a seamless integration of the high browser market share, and they’ve got introduce the Authenticode trust model as a Internet, the World-Wide-Web and the the attention of the world .... It’s very viable protection solution. Because Windows operating system. According to important to increase the popularity of our Authenticode uses public-key digital Gates, when someone wants to e-mail a browser.’’ signatures in combination with trusted third- spreadsheet or other file to someone else over Microsoft executive vice president Steve party Certification Authorities, and only runs the Internet, they are not interested in going Ballmer put it bluntly when he said, ‘‘[h]ave on Internet Explorer, Microsoft sought to out and buying 14 different products to make no confusion in your head: Job one for us ‘‘increase the popularity of its browser’’ by sure the file will be compatible with the right now is the Internet and defeating touting its use of this ‘‘cutting-edge’’ recipient’s software. Instead what they want Netscape.’’ Of his Mountain View, Calif., technology as evidence of its leadership in is a desktop environment that can provide rival in Internet software, Ballmer says, the Internet software industry. At the same spreadsheet and any other kind of robust ‘‘They’re simply our smartest competitor.’’ time it actively castigated Netscape and other functionality, without concern for the It was against this backdrop that Microsoft browser vendors for allegedly leaving their software or hardware on which it operates. launched its triumvirate Internet marketing users vulnerable to the hazards of ActiveX. Most Internet software developers’ share strategy, using the parasitic relationship Unfortunately, the people that suffer from this vision however they don’t share Gates’ between Authenticode and ActiveX to this Machiavellian marketing strategy the vision for implementing it, Microsoft believes increase the popularity of Internet Explorer. most are the innocent netizens who this seamless integration should be based on INTRODUCTION ‘‘reasonably’’ allow unproved and potentially Windows and Microsoft’s Internet Explorer ActiveX and Java are ‘‘mini-programs’’ that dangerous controls to be downloaded to their (IE) browser whereas the rest of the software can be downloaded from a Web site and PCs leaving themselves vulnerable to the industry favors Java because of its true executed directly on a user’s PC. vagaries of malicious programmers. platform-independence. Today Java can run Unfortunately ActiveX mini-programs, or It would be too harsh to accuse Bill Gates on virtually any hardware or software ‘‘components’’ or ‘‘controls’’ can reformat a of raising Microsoft to is position of platform in existence, including such varied user’s hard drive, or copy personal files to a dominance through villainy or malice against platforms as IBM mainframes and Personal remote server on the Internet, or do any his customers, given the trends of modern Digital Assistants (PDA’s). number of harmful things to a user’s PC business practices. However, his continued Yet Microsoft continues increasing the without the user’s authorization or promotion of Authenticode without popularity of its proprietary browser by: knowledge. A malicious hacker or terrorist acknowledging its serious security defects Marketing the benefits of ActiveX while could write one of these downloadable and would seem to indicate that its effectiveness simultaneously cross-marketing Internet executable programs and the user-victim has in mitigating security risks is subordinated to Explorer (IE) because IE is the only platform no reasonable way of either stopping it’s creating the impression that Microsoft is a capable of directly running ActiveX controls; attack once the control has gained access to leader in the Internet/Electronic Commerce Continuing to give its IE browser away for their PC or reliably preventing it from gaining industry. According to Eric Schmidt, Novell free; access in the first place. CEO, ‘‘if Bill Gates continues with his . Failing to live up to its promises made in The user has several ‘‘unreasonable’’ means of minimizing her risk: she can strategies he could become the most powerful the fall of 1996, to disclose ActiveX’s permanently disconnect her PC from the person in the world, and that’s not specifications to an independent standards Internet, depriving herself of its benefits. She necessarily a good thing.’’ Simson Garfinkel body, thereby preventing other browser could browse only those Web sites that she wrote recently, ‘‘Microsoft’s ActiveX manufacturer’s from supporting it in their ‘‘knows’’ do not contain harmful or malicious technology is the single greatest products; controls (‘‘safe zones’’), although the technological threat to the future of the . Marketing IE as the only means available possibility of a hacker either spoofing a Web World Wide Web. Microsoft’s ActiveX for user’s to purportedly protect themselves site, or covertly placing harmful controls into promoters are either so blinded by their own from the potential damage threatened by its a ‘‘known’’ Web site exists. She could rhetoric that they don’t see the danger of this own hazard, ActiveX, and configure her Internet Explorer browser to new technology, or else they are so cynical . Cross-marketing Authenticode as a prevent all ActiveX controls from that they would destroy the very essence of general-purpose Internet security solution, downloading to her PC, and hope she does the Internet rather than compromise their thereby further reinforcing the perceived not encounter one that is able to bypass her market dominance.’’ need for IE, because it is the only browser browser’s security configuration, which has In a different industry, Microsoft’s actions capable of supporting Authenticode. been demonstrated in practice. Finally, she could be analogous to a pharmaceutical/bio- A BRIEF COMPARISON AND CONTRAST could take her chances using Microsoft’s engineering company releasing a virus or BETWEEN ActiveX, JAVA AND PLUGINS. ‘‘Authenticode,’’ or Netscape’s or Sun disease into the general population so it (1) Origin of ActiveX Microsystems’’ ‘‘code-signing’’, trust-based could profit from the sale of its potential ActiveX adds to the user’s Internet security models that use public-key digital cure. At the same time the pharmaceutical Explorer-based Web browsing experience by signatures and independent third-party company could also enhance its reputation ‘‘jump-starting’’ Web site content, providing Certification Authorities (CAs). Each of these by advertising that it’s anti-virus was created a variety of multimedia effects, enhanced unreasonable alternatives represents a through the use of cutting-edge genetic page layouts, and executable applications, all different point on the risk/benefit scale engineering techniques thereby establishing of which are downloaded and run in real- which each user should consider before itself as a leader in this field. However, for time over the Internet. According to exploring the WWW. this analogy to be consistent the anti-virus Microsoft, over 1,000 ActiveX controls However, this analysis is only necessary must only be effective for a small percentage already have been written in C, C++ and because Microsoft created a previously non- of the population. The rest of those exposed other languages for applications such as existent security risk by introducing ActiveX. to the virus would remain susceptible to its audio, video and live chat, all of which As will be explained below, other software deadly effects at any time. complement the core technologies of today’s tools exist to provide software developers This article will explore the very real Web environment such as HTML, plugins, with the same capabilities as ActiveX, with damage that can be caused by harmful Java, cgi scripts and more. virtually no security risk. Still, Microsoft has ActiveX controls, it will explain how According to Fred Langa, writing in successfully obfuscated the seriousness of Authenticode is supposed to mitigate these Windows Magazine, ActiveX is ‘‘... the fifth these self-created security issues and security risks, and why it does not. It will and most recent step in a long-developing successfully redirected consumers attention’ also explain why digital signature technology evolution [by Microsoft Laboratories] of data- away from Netscape and Java. In doing so as currently applied under the Authenticode sharing and interoperability among Microsoft has also successfully achieved its model cannot assist most users in adequately applications.’’ Essentially it is a trimmed goal of creating the perception, in a very reducing their risk of injury from ActiveX down version of Microsoft’s OLE (Object short period of time, that it is a player in the because it does not provide the user with the Linking and Embedding) system which a Internet game. necessary means of assessing whether or not Windows ‘‘power’’ user will recall enables VerDate 11 several applications to collaborate on a single A third means of ‘‘activating’’ a Web site to more closely fit the needs of the modern ‘‘compound document.’’ For example, OLE is through the use of Netscape ‘‘plugins.’’ Internet environment] that users rely on provides the ‘‘glue’’ that allows data to be Both Netscape and Internet Explorer today. Since the purpose of our industry is copied from a WORD document and pasted browsers are packaged from the factory with to provide more value and power to users, into a PowerPoint document. The a built-in set of ‘‘standard’’ features such as rather than limiting functionality, Microsoft PowerPoint document can then be inserted graphics viewers, which a Web site developer and most other major software manufacturers into an Excel document and later opened as can then take advantage by including are advocating a trust-based security model. a PowerPoint document from within the graphics in his Web site. However, in order [read: we could rewrite it if we wanted to but Excel document. ActiveX is the next step in for a Netscape browser to take advantage of because it doesn’t suit our interests we won’t] the development of this seamless interaction any non-standard features which the Web This ‘‘genetic’’ deficiency allows ActiveX amongst applications. However, where site developer has programmed into his Web controls to interact without constraint with ‘‘Distributed OLE’’ only lets the user share site, the ‘‘plugin’’ version of the entire both the operating system and the PC data, links and control over a local or wide- application that is used to run it must first hardware. In a sense, it is as if ActiveX was are network, ActiveX has taken the be downloaded to the user’s PC from the born without an auto-immune system, technological ‘‘leap’’ into Cyberspace by developer’s Web site and then executed. This making it incapable of combating viruses or enabling the user to share data, application is because the application is not embedded malicious programming written by evil links and control between a Web page on the with the program, as in the case of ActiveX. programmers that might invade the control Internet and the user’s Internet Explorer For example, assume that both an ActiveX and use it to enter and harm an innocent, browser running on his PC. Java has taken control and a non-ActiveX program using unsuspecting host. the same leap but with much less risk to the plugin technology are created to enable users ActiveX’s predecessors did not have to be user. to download and view a short animation concerned with such an auto-immune system ActiveX controls automatically download sequence from a commercial Web site. The because they were virtually guaranteed of and install themselves, and they persist ActiveX developer will include both the living out their lives in a ‘‘sterile’’ (remain available) on a user’s system. This animation sequence and the ‘‘viewer’’ environment. In other words, prior to the feature provides two advantages over other program in the same control. However, the advent of the Internet the operating programs: the user doesn’t have to download developer using plugin technology must environment in which PC software was and install software manually, and she only create a built-in hyperlink in the code to the executed was always under the complete and has to download the control once. This is viewer developer’s Web site. When the user exclusive control of the PC user. Each user good news to those who don’t like waiting for clicks on the link on the Web site to view the was able to decide whether they wanted to controls to download every time they visit a animation sequence, the code will load a particular program on to their PC, and certain site. However, these controls can be automatically notify the user that she must go once loaded whether and when to execute it. downloaded without user awareness or to the vendor’s Web site and manually This environment remained ‘‘sterile’’ consent which means the user doesn’t know download the entire ‘‘viewer’’ software regardless of whether or not the PC was a what she is downloading. application before she can see the animation. standalone or networked because no external (2) JAVA ActiveX components are inherently much source, including a network operating system Java applets can be thought of in the same smaller because they contain only a limited could place something onto the users PC way but with some important differences. subset of the entire application needed to without his or his network administrator’s Java applets run either inside the Java Virtual perform the function at hand, and therefore permission. Machine (JVM), a software application that is can be downloaded more quickly. Once the Today, however, through the wonders of built into newer browsers, or they can be run ActiveX component is resident on the user’s downloadable and executable software separately using the Java Development Kit PC it can be reused, on-demand precluding technologies, a program can automatically (JDK). The JDK is a sort of software future downloads. download to a user’s PC from a Web site or interpreter that converts Java code into code According to Microsoft, the excessive a network server and execute without the that is recognizable by the particular platform amount of time needed by a user to user’s awareness or consent. Thus, the on which it is running. JDKs are now download the actual application ‘‘plugin’’ operating environment in which Microsoft’s available for virtually all software and file (.exe) poses a significant deterrent to the next generation software tool is living is hardware platforms in existence. However, use of Netscape’s browsers. However, as completely different than the environment of because JDK is another layer of software described in an article in the May 27, 1997 its forefathers. Yet Microsoft has chosen not between Java and the actual operating issue of Fortune magazine, Netscape’s new to take this congenital auto-immune system, Java tends to run more slowly. ‘‘The Communicator browsers will also deficiency seriously and has failed to major fear is that Java is not going to have automatically install ‘‘plugins.’’ reengineer ActiveX’s ‘‘DNA’’ to create a the performance it promises, and its going to ACTIVEX’s SECURITY DEFECTS ARE reasonable security model thus leaving users fade away like a bad TV show.’’ Built into ‘‘GENETICALLY INHERITED’’ vulnerable to exposure to the dangerous both the JVM and the JDK is a set of security Because ActiveX is the product of many code. Such an unprotected and infected controls colloquially called the ‘‘sandbox.’’ years of ongoing research and development at control acts like a cyber ‘‘Typhoid Mary’’ as Java’s security model automatically prevents Microsoft laboratories it represents the latest it infects everyone it meets with the virus of any code from accessing portions of the in a long line of remarkable software harmful code. By way of explanation, operating system or the PC hardware that is technologies. However its predecessors, OLE suppose Mr. And Mrs. Jones owned and lived outside the parameters of the ‘‘sandbox.’’ In and COM, have burdened ActiveX with their in a house during the same time the other words if a Java applet wants to ‘‘play’’ ‘‘genetic blueprint,’’ legacy code written for Microsoft software engineers were on your PC it has to keep its toys inside the earlier generations of software and hardware developing the ancestors of ActiveX. Mr. sandbox. In contrast, ActiveX controls are not platforms. In other words this latest progeny Jones worked diligently on his house, making restricted, which means they have direct is constrained by its ‘‘gene pool’’ consisting improvements and refinements so it would access to the PC hardware, software and of thousands of lines of code which have be more comfortable for he and his wife. Now operating system. As a result, ActiveX accumulated over the course of years of suppose Mr. And Mrs. Jones decide they controls run faster and do more, but at a development and evolution and over which want to start a family and Mr. Jones asks a substantial price in security. Also, because ActiveX is unable to break free. The most contractor for a cost estimate to build a ActiveX controls are distributed in native significant constraint imposed on ActiveX by second-story bedroom. The contractor tells binary code, separate controls have to be this genetic blueprint is a deficient security the Jones’’ that because their house was built written for each operating system. Java model. According to Microsoft: using an ‘‘A frame’’ design a second story applets, on the other hand are distributed in We are doing everything possible to create cannot be added. Thus, the Jones’’ are a one-size-fits-all or ‘‘write once, run the technical safeguards that will make constrained from meeting their needs for anywhere’’ fashion meaning that developers software safe. However, in order to remove another bedroom by the limitations of their only have to produce one version to run on trust from the equation, we would have to rip house’s original design, which did not take any platform. away significant amounts of functionality into consideration the future need for a (3) Plug-ins [read: code that could actually be rewritten second story. Similarly, ActiveX is VerDate 11 constrained from incorporating a security ‘‘legally’’ affirm that to the best of his jurisdiction. Transacting in a physical model by the limitations imposed on it by the knowledge the control is incapable of causing location has advantages for the seller as well. software designs of its predecessors. damage to a user’s PC. Verisign issues the The merchant can demand physical However, if Bill Gates were the owner of developer either an electronic ‘‘individual identification which can usually be verified this ‘‘A frame’’ and he wanted to add a Software Publisher’s Certificate’’ or an through on-line databases combined with second story because he and his wife wanted electronic ‘‘Commercial Software Publisher’s visual scrutiny of a photo ID, the purchaser’s to start a family, he could easily afford to tear Certificate’’ depending on whether they are demeanor and dress and other non-verbal down the existing structure and build registering as an individual or corporate cues which can be stored by a video camera whatever design fits his current needs. software developer. Different identity for future retrieval and proof of the Similarly, Mr. Gates and Microsoft have the verification criteria are used to establish the transaction should the purchaser later resources to re-write ActiveX or develop a developer’s identity depending on the type of attempt to repudiate. Telephone-based sales replacement. Indeed, one can only speculate certificate requested. represents a hybrid marketplace with why he has chosen not to develop an Internet One way Microsoft successfully propagates portions of the physical world and software product that fits the current needs the Authenticode myth is through Cyberspace. From the consumer’s standpoint, of his customers, given that the environment contradictory and vague announcements and if she dialed an 800 or 888 number she has in which his software executes (the Internet) bulletins. The following excerpts little assurance of who she was actually has changed, and is now ‘‘open’’ and demonstrate the range of conflicting calling, where they are located what laws ‘‘insecure.’’ Without providing an answer to statements about Authenticode that come apply, and whether the ‘‘order taker’’ works this rhetorical question, Jesse Berst also from both Verisign and Microsoft for the company she is purchasing the observes in PC Week, ‘‘ActiveX is.. the key management. product from, or an outsourced tele- to its future. Microsoft will be damned before The following excerpt from Verisign’s Web marketing firm. The risks to the consumer are it acknowledges that ActiveX has a security site explains the service it provides to its only that she may be giving her credit card problem.’’ Berst goes on to explain that customers: number to someone other than a legitimate ‘‘[r]ather than help users understand and When customers buy software in a store, merchant who will use it fraudulently. minimize the risks [associated with ActiveX], the source of that software is obvious. However, her exposure is minimal because Microsoft contented itself with pointing out Customers can tell who published the most credit card companies limit the that similar problems were theoretically software, and they can see whether the consumer’s liability to $50, assuming timely, possible with Netscape products.’’ Quoting package has been opened. These factors, good faith reporting efforts. PC Week Editorial Director and former along with others, enable customers to make The merchant suffers greater risks through director of PC Week Labs, David Berlind, judgments about what software to purchase telephone-based sales, although the tradeoff is less overhead than a storefront. If the Berst writes, ‘‘Frankly, I want to puke.’’ and use, and how much to ‘‘trust’’ those consumer dials an 800 or 888 number, ‘caller Microsoft will not give up ActiveX because products and the companies and individuals id’’ will notify the merchant of the phone it is the key to ‘‘Increas(ing) the popularity who publish them. When customers number used by the purchaser to make the of its browser.’’ Without ActiveX there would download software from the Internet, all they call which can be used in connection with be no need for Authenticode, and without see (at most) is a message warning them reverse phone directories and address cross- about the dangers of using the software. The Authenticode and ActiveX there would be no checking databases to provide additional way of significantly distinguishing IE from a Internet lacks the subtle information identity verification. However, the merchant Netscape browser, except that it is given provided by packaging, shelf space, shrink is unable to demand visual identification, away at no immediate up-front cost. wrap, and the like. Without an assurance of and is legally protected only by on-line credit THE AUTHENTICODE SOLUTION—Myth the software’s integrity, and without knowing card clearing services, which can only benefit and Reality who published the software, it’s difficult for the merchant after the credit card theft has (1) The Myth customers to know how much to trust been discovered and reported. The majority In his article Jesse Berst explains that software. It’s difficult to make the choice of of credit card thieves use the card as quickly Authenticode is ‘‘... like requiring people downloading the software from the Internet. as possible after the theft to take advantage who send mail bombs to put their names on Verisign Digital IDs in conjunction with of delays in reporting, Because of the the package.’’ Were that approach effective, Authenticode (software validation) limitations on identify verification, and the even the alleged ‘‘Unabomber’’ would have technology provide customers with the delays in theft reporting, the likelihood of been apprehended many years earlier, information and assurance they need when fraudulent telephone-based transactions because according to news reports many of downloading software from the Internet. increases significantly. his mail bombs had postmarks from the small Authenticode communicates to customers Internet-based sales represent the greatest town where he lived. Obviously this the real identity of the publisher and assures opportunity for fraud to both parties. The approach is ineffective because the names them that the product has not been altered merchant is unable to establish the caller’s would be blown up, just as any evidence of or damaged. (emphasis added) Contrast this telephone number and related identifying an Authenticode digital certificate could also language with the statement of Cornelius information. Telephone records cannot be destroyed by a malicious ActiveX program Willis, Microsoft’s group product manager- provide evidence that the phone call took after causing other damage to a user’s PC. Internet developer marketing, ‘‘Authenticode place because access will be through an And yet on August 7, 1996 a Verisign Press does not guarantee that users will never independent Internet Service Provider dial- Release quoted Verisign president and CEO download malicious code to their PC .... We up service. Although Web servers can gather Stratton Sclavos as stating, ‘‘With this don’t claim ActiveX is a (a) The Problems of user information through cookies this is not service, users can feel confident that the Establishing Identity in Cyberspace The always reliable. The opportunity for using quotes Sclavos as stating that, ‘‘Under the advantage of knowing the publisher’s true stolen credit cards is at least the same as with Authenticode program, developers must go identity is that if provides the relying party telephone sales. (See ‘‘The Essential Role of through an application and verification with recourse in the event the software turns Trusted Third Parties in Electronic process to ensure that certificates are issued out to be ‘‘harmful.’’ In the physical world Commerce,’’ Michael Froomkin) only to the appropriate party. This eliminates this is generally not a problem, as a Also, it is possible for a Web site to be any worry that developers could be falsely purchaser can usually assume that the store’s ‘‘spoofed’’ or misrepresented by a hacker, represented by an impostor.’’ physical location will not change. The causing the unsuspecting user to enter their Microsoft’s Authenticode security model benefit of having a physical location to return credit card and other relevant identifying requires that all software developers to serves several purposes. First, the store information on-line. Although a technical (commercial and independent) must register owner’s physical assets can be attached; discussion of ‘‘Web spoofing’’ is beyond the their ActiveX components with a second, the unsatisfied consumer can create scope of this article, a ‘‘spoofed’’ Web site Certification Authority such as Verisign, a scene inside the store, or in the community, can look exactly like the original to anyone before Internet Explorer browsers will allow creating bad publicity for the owner and an but the most cautious of users. The them to be downloaded to a user’s PC from incentive for prompt resolution; third, the unsuspecting consumer personal data would a Web site, if the browser’s security setting physical location will be an indicator of the be turned over to the thief who would is on ‘‘High.’’ The software developer must laws that will apply in the particular quickly use it. VerDate 11 Because of these and similar identity an outside source and Bob’s public key is component is of unknown origin and may authentication problems consumers and transmitted from the CA to Alice in the form present a security risk, and then allow the merchants cannot know with certainty, even of a Digital ID or public-key certificate. In user to make the choice whether to allow the with Digital Ids, the actual identity of order to ensure the authenticity of the component to be downloaded to their PC or someone on the Internet. Greater security certificate, Bob’s Digital ID will be digitally not. measures are needed before consumers can signed by the CA. In order for Alice to If the component has been digitally signed reasonably trust the Internet as a medium for establish a ‘‘trusted’’ relationship with the the browser will determine which safe commerce. CA she must have access to the CA’s public- Certification Authority (CA) authenticated AUTHENTICODE—THE REALITY WHAT key from another trusted third-party: the certificate, and if it doesn’t already have IS THE ROLE OF THE CERTIFICATION In practice, most if not all CAs have chosen a stored copy, it will automatically obtain the AUTHORITY? to provide their public-key certificates to software publisher’s public key from that CA The purpose of a Certificate Authority is to Netscape or other browser developers, who via the Internet. bind a public key to the common name of the embed them into their browsers for easy The browser will then use the public key certificate, and thus assure third parties that access. In the event Bob has registered his to decrypt the ‘‘message digest’’ portion of some measure of care was taken to ensure public-key with a new, or unregistered CA, the certificate. The browser will then run the that this binding is valid. A measure of a the browser software will notify the user and same digital signature ‘‘hashing algorithm’’ Certificate Authority is their ‘‘Policy give him the opportunity to accept the CAs on the component again and match the Statement’’ which states what measures they public-key ‘on the spot.’’ This presents the resulting message digest against the one in take for each class of certificate they offer to user with a predicament, and also presents the certificate. ensure that this binding of identity with CAs with a strong incentive to pre-register If the component has not been modified, public key is valid. with the Netscape, IE and other browsers. either intentionally or inadvertently since it 2. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF A DIGITAL ID The fundamental problem comes down to was signed, the new digest should match the (PUBLIC KEY CERTIFICATE)? how good a job the CA did in authenticating old one. If they don’t match, either the code Although the actual digital signature the subscriber identity. The CA’s response was modified or the public and private keys process will not be covered in detail, the will be that it made a good-faith effort aren’t a matched pair. Either way, the following brief explanation will highlight consistent with the terms of the agreement or component becomes suspect and the browser some of the important points. Traditional CPS to which both parties are bound. notifies the user that it should be discarded. encryption for confidentiality uses only a However, close scrutiny of the agreement 4. PROCESS WHEREBY SUBSCRIBER single, ‘‘secret’’ key and is called symmetric will reveal that (1) very little detail is CONTRACTS WITH A CERTIFICATION cryptography. Digital signatures use a provided about the authentication methods AUTHORITY FOR A DIGITAL ID. mathematically related key pair, (a ‘‘public’’ used or the reliability of its sources of The subscriber must provide the information, (2) the level of effort invested in key and a ‘‘private’’ key) and employ a Certification Authority with enough the identity verification process is a function technology called asymmetrical identifying information to satisfy the CA’s of the Level or Class of Digital Id. In other cryptography. A mathematical formula or authentication requirements, depending on words, a subscriber’s Digital Id that costs $20 algorithm is used in conjunction with a the Certificate Class. For example, the will not receive as much identify ‘‘random-number’’ generator to create the following information must be provided to authentication effort as will the subscriber to public and private keys. The design of the a $400 Digital Id. The following examples are Verisign during the enrollment process, encryption algorithm relates the two keys in cited by Verisign as representative of the either through their on-line enrollment forms such a way as to allow either key to decrypt sorts of transactions that could reasonably be or through regular mail. a message encrypted by the other. However, performed using the various Levels of Individual Software Publishers (Class 2): it is ‘‘computationally infeasible’’ to Certificate: . Individual Publisher’s name, address, and determine the value of the private key based These examples, as well as any attempt to e-mail address on the public key and the digitally signed standardize on a generalized template of . Date of birth message. Additional information on digital reasonable reliance is of marginal utility. It . Social Security Number signature is available at www.rsa.com and quickly breaks down when faced with simple . Previous address (if you have moved in www.abanet.org/scitech/ec/isc. counter-examples such as the following. the past 2 years) The utility of a digital signature as an According to the Verisign Digital Id . Credit card information for billing authenticating tool is limited by the ability of Certificate model, a Class 1 Digital Id is Commercial Software Publishers (Class 3): the recipient to ensure the authenticity of the acceptable for use in confirming the identify . Company name, address, e-mail, phone, key used to verify the signature. The of e-mail correspondents and transactions of and fax following explanation will demonstrate this very low value. Assuming an organization . information for a technical contact and an truth. The traditional labels used to represent chose to use the Class 1 Id for transactions . organizational contact. the different parties in this sort of discussion that are limited to a value of $.01, but the . company’s DUNS number, if any. are Bob, the sender, and Alice, the recipient. number of these transactions exceeds one . Billing information (credit card, P.O. or For purposes of this discussion a third party, million per day. Under these facts the check), and billing contact information, if Mallet, will play the role of evil hacker. If company any. As of June 1997, pricing for Software Bob digitally signs a message using his 3. HOW DOES THE INTERNET EXPLORER Publisher Digital IDs are as follows. Digital private key and sends it to Alice the only BROWSER PROCESS THE DIGITAL ID? Ids for different purposes are also available, way she has to verify that Bob really sent it The following step-by-step explanation of at different prices. is if she knows Bob’s public key. However, what happens when an Internet Explorer Class 2 Digital ID for Validating Software: Alice must be able to retrieve Bob’s public browser visits a Web site containing an $20 annually [for Individual Software key from a source other than Bob’s message ActiveX component will provide an overview Publishers) because if Mallet is forging Bob’s message he of the basic steps involved in the public-key Class 3 Digital ID for Validating Software: will send his own public key, claiming that digital signature process, as applied in $400 annually [for Commercial Software it actually belongs to Bob. Microsoft’s Authenticode model. Additional Publishers, i.e. companies] Mallet has the private key corresponding to introductory material on the subject is widely The following excerpt from the Verisign the public key sent to Alice, her attempt to available on the WWW, including the Web site explains their procedure for authenticate the message will result in a Verisign, RSA, and American Bar verifying a company or individual identity. positive confirmation even though it was not Association, Information Security Committee Based on Microsoft code signing program really from Bob. However, if Alice has access sites. criteria, VeriSign will attempt to verify that to Bob’s real public key from an outside When the IE browser arrives at a Web site your company meets a minimum financial trusted third-party source, and uses it to that contains an ActiveX control the browser stability level using ratings from Dun & verify the message signed with Mallet’s will first check to see if the component has Bradstreet Financial Services, or attempt to private key, the verification will fail, been digitally signed. verify your personal information through a revealing the forgery. In short, the If not, the browser will display a warning credit reporting agency such as Equifax for Certification Authority (CA) fills the role of message to the user, stating that the individual software publishers. Your VerDate 11 certificate will indicate if you have met this components they download from the Internet Digital Id for Servers to establish their site’s level. Some software, such as the Microsoft by ensuring ‘‘accountability.’’ authenticity to visitors. Later in this same Internet Explorer 3.0, offers end users an The approach here is accountability—to Microsoft document mentioned above, under option to bypass making an explicit choice to cease having publication of software on the ‘‘Qualifying for the Individual Software trust code from each new software publisher. Internet be an anonymous activity. If an Publishing Certificate’’ Microsoft rhetorically If an end user checks an option to trust all organization or individual wants to use the asks the question, ‘‘What is the value of the software signed by vendors who have met the public Internet to publish software, they Individual Software Publishing Certificate?’’ financial criteria, code signed by these should be willing to take public The document responds: vendors will be run without any user responsibility for the code they author and it would seem that users aren’t going to intervention. publish. If the code proves to have errors or trust individuals they don’t know, and 5. THE UTILITY OF AN AUTHENTICODE even malicious faults, these organizations businesses aren’t going to let code signed by DIGIIAL ID and individuals should be willing to answer students at a local university into their All properly authenticated digital for them just as they would take credit for corporate domain. While this may indeed be signatures can demonstrate to a high degree good code. This approach is founded on the the case, the value of this type of certificate of certainty the following three attributes: idea that accountability is an effective is in the information it provides to the user Integrity—The component has not be deterrent to the distribution of harmful code. so that he/she can make the decision on how modified since it was signed, either (emphasis added) to run the code. Knowing who authored the intentionally or inadvertently. The same argument can be made that code, and that the bits have not been altered Authentication—The purported identity of license plates should act as deterrents to from the time the code was signed to the the party who registered as the component’s either prevent or curtail the use of cars in the present is indeed comforting information. author, based on the certificate’s level of commission of crimes. Because the license Additionally, the implementation provides assurance and Verisign’s corresponding plate establishes the owner’s identity (with links from the user interface (UI) to Web identity verification criteria. possibly more certainty than a software pages so the user can obtain detailed Non-repudiation—The component’s publisher’s certificate) it makes him information about the signed code, the registered author cannot later repudiate his accountable for his acts using the car and author, and the certificate authority. After identify as the component’s registered author therefore cars will not be used in the learning about this code and the author, the should it cause damage to a user’s PC or commission of crimes. Still, stolen cars are user may decide to run the code, and/or all other computer-related product (assuming used every day, to smuggle drugs, transport future code signed by this certified the author registered the component using criminals to and from crime scenes, and individual. (emphasis added). his own identity). perform other illegal acts. Leaving aside the remarkable statement However, because Authenticode will only Obviously accountability is not an effective that corporations would inevitably not allow work on Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, users deterrent to the use of cars to commit crimes. software developed by local university of any other browser will be unable to gain Likewise, accountability is not an effective students into their domain, Authenticode whatever benefit might be provided by this deterrent against the malicious use of fails to provide an objective means for users information. For example, if the ActiveX ActiveX, because stolen credit cards are to evaluate this supposedly detailed plugin from NCompass Labs, Inc. is used readily available. What is the solution to this information about the signed code and its with a Netscape browser, any ActiveX problem? There is probably no single author that is being made available to them. component encountered on a Web site by the solution short of eliminating ActiveX One is left with the gnawing suspicion that browser will be downloaded without entirely. However, a number of individual Microsoft intends for there to be a direct Authenticode’s intervention. Netscape’s solutions are appearing which, when used in relationship between a software developer’s generic software download alarm will aggregate have the potential to reduce the advertising budget, the purported probably display a warning, giving the user threat of injury to an acceptable level. Several ‘‘trustworthiness’’ of his software, and the an option to proceed or quit, but the of these potential solutions are discussed frequency with which users will download it existence of a Digital ID will not be a factor below. over the Internet. In other words the more a in the user’s decision. 6. DIGITAL AUTHENTICATION FOR WEB developer can achieve brand name and Digital Certificates can only attempt to SERVERS. product name recognition amongst Internet vouch for the authenticity of someone’s Verisign, Xcert, GTE and other companies users the more frequently his products will identity, not for their good intentions. are also in the business of selling Digital Ids be downloaded. Not surprisingly, Microsoft Neither the digital signature technology nor for Servers. According to Verisign, their has one of the biggest advertising budgets in the Certification Authority (CA) make any product would enable the server owner to the world. warranties as to the safety of the ActiveX establish his authenticity to Web browsers 7. PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER WITH component. The Authenticode system merely visiting his site. in the marketing literature SSL. ... ALMOST. relies on the assurances made by the describing Digital Ids for Servers on its Web We have seen that browsers can component’s developer to the CA when they site, Verisign explains: authenticate software publisher Digital Ids initially apply for a Digital ID subscription. In the virtual world of the Internet, and that Web servers can authenticate client In the patois of logic this appears to be however, the web-site of an unscrupulous browser Digital ??ds, assuming the circular reasoning. The party whose con-artist might look just as professional as subscriber’s identity is established with trustworthiness is in question is providing that of a legitimate business. The low cost- reasonable certainty. However, this the means for assuring the user of his of-entry and the ease with which graphics authentication is only performed once, at the trustworthiness. Furthermore, CA’s have and text can be copied make it possible for beginning of the transaction. After the initial neither the mandate, resources, nor the almost anyone to create sites that appear to ‘‘handshaking’’ takes place and the browser incentive to actively monitor the behavior of represent established businesses or software is convinced that the other party is millions of its certificate holders. Although organizations. To protect your organization who she claims to be, no further checking is they do have a duty to suspend or revoke a and your customers from such impostors, performed. This would leave either or both subscriber’s Digital ID based on reported you need a way to establish you site’s parties vulnerable to eavesdropping, replay breaches of a specific set of criteria, they are authenticity. and spoofing attacks during the remainder of not obligated to perform an independent Interestingly, in one context Microsoft and the communication, if not for SSL. monitoring function. Verisign guarantee that users will be able to Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) is an industry The possibility of undiscovered fraud is garner enough information by visiting the standard communications protocol that significant due to the ubiquity of stolen developer’s Web site to make an informed attempts to remedy these problems by credit cards and access to personal judgment of both the developer’s and his creating unique signature keys that are information on the Internet combined with program’s trustworthiness. However, in this exchanged throughout the entire the limited authentication of the user’s context Verisign is saying that because communication ‘‘session.’’ In other words, identifying information. Authenticode is almost anyone can create Web sites that after the client is certain the server is not supposed to provide the means for a user or appear to represent established businesses or spoofing its identity, the server and client corporation to ‘‘trust’’ the ActiveX organization that Web site owners should use exchange ‘‘session-keys’’ that will be used to VerDate 11 sign the data during the data exchange. With ‘‘certificate revocation list’’ (CRL) to interoperable with popular Web servers that SSL 2.0, the same signature keys must also determine whether the certificate has been support secure sockets layer (SSL) 3.0 client be used for encryption, if confidentiality is suspended or revoked for fraudulent or authentication. Microsoft is working to needed, however with SSL 3.0 signatures can criminal abuse. As this technology evolves, extend the complete set of technology use different keys than the encryption these barriers will be eliminated, bringing us components necessary for webmasters to engine. SSL’s main function is to protect closer to the goal of authenticated, safe incorporate client authentication in their users from attack by eavesdroppers or communication on the Internet. The problem Web applications. This includes extending message interceptors. Both the client and the in the near term however, is that most users Windows NT(r) Server operating system server provide part of the random data used are not made aware of the risks associated support for challenge and response and the to generate the keys for each connection and with these technological shortfalls. SSL 2.0 protocol used by Microsoft Internet that same random data is also used to 8. CERTIFICATION REVOCATION LISTS information Server to also ‘‘include support generate the master secret key associated (CRLs) for client authentication through the SSL 3.0 with that session. A certificate revocation list (CRL) is a protocol. (a) Caching data during secure repository of information that presents the 7. RELYING PARTY AGREEMENT connections. One important drawback to this current state of any public-key certificate to The greatest potential victim of any defects SSL scheme is the fact that the Netscape anyone who accesses it. The CRL can be in the Authenticode model is arguably the browser can store in local cache on the user’s implemented in different ways but the relying party who attempts to verify the hard disk any data that has been sent by it approach Verisign uses for the Authenticode Digital ID and make the decision to during the secure connection. Navigator 3.0 Digital Ids is to only include those download. A detailed discussion of the many has an option to allow caching of data certificates that have a current unrevoked legal uncertainties surrounding CAs and fetched over SSL connections, however the status. In other words, it is possible for a certificates is beyond the scope of this article. default setting is to not cache data. in certificate to either be in an active, Suffice it to say that a legal outcome will in Navigator 2.0, documents fetched using SSL suspended or revoked state. If the certificate part depend on the jurisdiction hearing the were cached in the same way as non-SSL has been revoked it should not be relied on claim and the ‘‘reasonableness’’ of the documents. However, the command under any circumstances. However, if the reliance. Verisign has attempted to address ‘‘Pragma: no-cache’’ in the HTTP header can certificate is temporarily suspended it is many of these issues in its ‘‘Relying Party be used to disable caching for a particular possible that removal of that status is Agreement’’ which, according to its language, page. Interestingly, in Navigator 1.0 imminent and the potential relying party is binding as soon as the third party ‘‘relies,’’ documents fetched with SSL were not should contact the Certification Authority either intentionally or otherwise. This cached. directly for further details. Regardless of the reliance is supposed to be triggered Most importantly the cached data is not unique circumstances it is essential the automatically when the party inspects a encrypted and is available to ‘‘prying eyes’’ potential relying party have access to the Verisign Certificate Revocation List or in cleartext form. As long as the cache certificate status or he will be making an accepts a Verisign Digital ID. This agreement remains on the user’s hard disk, any uninformed decision regarding reliance. also attempts to remove the ‘‘choice of law’’ information such as credit card numbers or Implementation of the CRL is another or jurisdiction question by specifying that all private keys that were sent over the secured contentious subject that again trades off parties are bound by California laws. SSL connection are ripe for the picking by between the development costs to provide However, a more fundamental question must anyone either physically accessing the PC or customer ease-of-use and informed decision first be addressed. Under California’s using an intermediate agent such as an making. Unless the potential relying party Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) statutes ActiveX control. knows how to access and use the CRL they however, if a certificate is considered a good (b) Handling previously unknown are unable to benefit from its contents. rather than a service, any disclaimer of certification authorities while Web browsing However, instructions on its location and use warranties must consist of a conspicuous Whenever a previously unknown CA is are not conspicuously displayed when the writing attached to the good being sold. It is encountered by a browser their Root keys for potential relying party is presented with the difficult to envision how this should be Certificate Authority certificates are loaded publisher’s Authenticode-based Digital Id. accomplished, yet Verisign’s incorporation through an automatic process using an SSL This is generally because this option has only by reference may not meet the California connection. This means that conceivably a recently been made available to HTML standard for conspicuousness. Furthermore, ‘‘rogue’’ CA can load its certificate into programmers and so a significant retrofitting the relying party is expected to read this browsers and begin authenticating harmful of all certificates is needed to implement it. agreement before ‘‘us(ing) or rely(ing) upon ActiveX controls without any restrictions. When implemented properly a button will any information or services provided by Netscape states that presumably in the future appear on the Document Info page for servers VeriSign’s Repository or website ’’ or loading a root certificate through a local whose certificate supports the appropriate ‘‘search(ing) for a certificate, or ( ) verify(ing) process, such as from disk, LDAP, or other extensions or commands. When the button is a digital signature’’ in Verisign’s repository out-of-band mechanism, will be a supported pressed the CA will be queried via HTTP and that by doing the verification the user is addition or in place of the present method of GET, and will display a dialog to indicate to agreeing to the terms of the agreement, connecting to a trusted server and the user if the certificate is good or not. This including acknowledging that she has downloading the certificate chain. This button does not appear in the Authenticode ‘‘access to sufficient information to ensure presumption is an acknowledgment of the Digital Id but instead must be ‘‘manually’’ that [she] can make an informed decision as severe security risks associated with the selected from the ‘‘View’’ pull-down menu to the extent to which [she] will chose [sic] current approach, and also an on the browser. If a user attempts to use a to rely on the information in a certificate.’’ acknowledgment of the technological client certificate that has expired, a dialog The relying party is supposedly bound by complexity of the more secure approach. will be displayed warning them that their the agreement which affirms that she has (c) Vendor Incompatibles The successful certificate has expired, and if this extension enough information to decide to what extent application of these SSL keying standards is exists, a button will be on the dialog that will she will rely on the information in a also completely dependent on the bring up a window displaying the URL. certificate, and also that she is solely capabilities of both the client browser and There is no automatic revocation check. As responsible for deciding whether or not to the Web server. However because different mentioned above, a button allowing manual rely on the information in the certificate. In software vendor’s products support different checks is displayed on the Document Info other words Verisign is making no statements implementations and versions of SSL, page. According to Netscape this feature was about what the information in the certificate fundamental barriers still exist to prevent a added because some people needed represents and instead shifts the burden to universally ‘‘secure’’ Web browsing revocation, but they did not have time to the relying party to make the download experience. Other obstacles to trustworthy support full CRLs. However, in a future decision without providing them with the applications include the inability for Web release they will support CRLs, and possibly necessary tools and resources. servers to automatically check every other forms of revocation technology. There are at least two flaws with this certificate for currency, either by checking its Client authentication as implemented by approach: (1) It presupposes the relying party expiration date, or checking an on-line Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 is can agree that sufficient information will be VerDate 11 on the certificate to make the determination Assume for example that a component is provide them with the information needed to as to whether she will rely on it or not, signed by the real author, who was certified make an informed decision while at the same without having seen the publisher’s Web site, by a competent CA to be a reputable software time assuring them that it is at their disposal. and (2) The relying party must be able to developer. The user reviews the certificate at (e) The Myth That Commercial Software receive authentication of a subscriber’s install time, and accepts it on the basis of the Publishers and Others Will Be Deterred From public-key from a trusted-third-party (TTP) reputation of the developer. The user then Writing and Distributing Malicious Software or the entire model is useless. forgets about the code for some weeks to Because of the Polential Risks of Economic 8. FACTUAL EXAMPLE OF FLAWS IN come. Later on, he or she visits a page of a Loss and Legal Liability THE AUTHENTICODE SOLUTION hacker, or a page of a web site that has been Historically hefty financial barriers to entry (a) Unforeseen Interactions broken into by a hacker, and the IE browser into the software development market using Consider two ActiveX controls. One invokes the code with arguments supplied by traditional distribution channels have provides a control similar to the Win95 the hacker. The code may appear to do what restricted the number of market entrants. ‘‘Start’’ button with all the commands on the it’s supposed to, or appear to do nothing at However the Internet provides a very low user’s computer presented in a list to choose all while it’s erasing the web browser’s entry-cost distribution mechanism that is not from. Suppose it keeps these command history file. The user may not even be aware without an increase in associated risks. names in a preferences file such as that code is executing. The user goes on to Lowering the entry cost increases the C:\windows\commands. The file may contain about 50 other Web pages that night, and potential for abuse. Furthermore, automating a list such as: Word, Excel, format c:, IE3, etc. shuts off their machine with no evidence of the process increases the chance that the Consider a second ActiveX control that a problem. When they reboot they may have abuse may go unnoticed. No longer can it be performs certain ‘‘housekeeping’’ functions a huge problem, depending on what the code assumed that software developers will not on the PC at regular intervals. It was reprogrammed to do. The Authenticode risk loss of their potentially small financial automatically wakes up at a specified time scenario suggests that the user can now call investment by loading malicious controls and executes a list of commands such as their lawyer to sue someone, but who do they onto the Web that, if undetected, would serve backup, defrag, etc. Suppose it keeps its list sue? The hacker that the FBI can’t track? The their ends. of commands in, for instance well intentioned but pressured software (f) Average User Lacks the Training and C:\windows\commands. At the next developer who wrote the harmless control Resources Necessary to Make Appropriate scheduled interval the second control that was manipulated by the hacker to cause Downloading Decision Based on Information dutifully finds the file written by the first one the damage? The certification authorities like Provided by Developer’s Web Site and fires up Word, Excel, and then formats Verisign that have forty page disclaimers of The average user is probably only able to the C drive. Commands after this one are of liability? And even if someone could be sued, recognize a handful of big name Internet- diminishing consequence. The user’s hard is this an acceptable remedy for being related software development companies and disk is wiped clean and so are the even fewer companies that develop ActiveX without their computer system? ‘‘fingerprints’’ for Authenticode. Even if they components. And yet users are being asked (c) No Consideration is Given to the are somehow located, who should the user to decide whether or not they should Author’s Competence as a Programmer point the law enforcement people towards? download a particular company’s ActiveX In cases where a program such as ActiveX Both controls did exactly what they were component based on whether they are has the ability to act on untrusted data, it designed to do, exactly what they advertised ‘‘known’’ (which, according to Microsoft’s to do. Who is the user going to sue? isn’t valid to make a judgment of its security definition means ‘‘trustworthy’’). Assuming Obviously neither ‘‘misbehaved.’’ What simply on the basis of trusting that the writer the developer is ‘‘unknown’’ to them, the happened was an unforeseen interaction of the program is not malicious. user has no idea what information on the between the two, and was only possible Consideration of how competent they are at developer’s Web site is needed to making this because ActiveX is given unrestricted access writing ‘‘safe programs’’ is also important. critical decision and yet Microsoft clearly to those system-level tasks. With only a bit Users of ActiveX are being encouraged to states that the user ‘‘can make the decision of planning it would be possible to come up accept or reject controls based on whether on how to run the code’’ based on the with a cooperating gang of ActiveX controls they think the signer is trustworthy or not. information provided in the certificate, to do deliberate theft via collusion where No consideration is given to the stronger, and Furthermore, the average user will each program is only doing what it’s more relevant criterion of the author’s probably be reluctant to spend much time ‘‘supposed’’ to, yet the total of their activity competence as a programmer. seriously evaluating the trustworthiness of a is much greater than the sum of the parts. Because third parties can provide software developer and will instead base Current methods of tracking events through potentially hostile input to Active X their decision on the site’s professional logfiles are unable to accurately reflect the controls—at least for those classified as ‘‘safe appearance or some other intangible and non-linearity that is clearly at work here in for initialization‘‘—the ‘‘appropriate possibly irrelevant factor. According to the interaction of the components, the only diligence’’ for such a control is much greater Michael Sullivan-Trainor, director of way to avoid this would be to strictly de- than that required for an ordinary International Data Corp.’s Internet program, couple the controls, by not allowing any to application. Even though a well intentioned ‘‘The problem with the Web is that the share information with the other, such as author creates a ‘‘safe’’ program, unless it has sleaziest company in the world can put up giving each its own private file-space to write been written using the appropriate security a site as slick as the most respected in. Although this is the approach used by safeguards it can be made to cause damage corporation. Shopping [and downloading Java’s sandbox, alas it is not possible in the through the actions of another ActiveX software] on the Web requires a little more ‘‘security-free’’ world of ActiveX. control. investigation.’’ Because a professional (b) Proving the Origin of the Malicious (d) Microsoft Justifies the Inherent Security appearance can easily be created by the most Code Can be Almost Impossible Risks of ActiveX by Arguing that Users Want criminal of software developer’s it cannot be In the event the malicious code does not and Demand a Rich Computing Experience. used as a measure of the developer’s either reformat the user’s hard disk or destroy It has been argued that the Java sandbox trustworthiness and yet Microsoft provides its digital certificate outright there is still a approach is too restrictive, and that users no guidelines to assist the user in making this great deal of uncertainty as to how the want and demand a rich computing analysis. Nevertheless they continue to particular malicious code at fault can be experience. This may be true, but these same assert, as stated above, that ‘‘the value of this identified as the cause of any particular users would prefer to use the name of their type of certificate is in the information it harm. Certainly it would be easy if the favorite movie star or basketball player as a provides to the user so that he/she can make damage occurred immediately after the password. It is up to the computer the decision on how to run the code’’ and ActiveX control was downloaded. But if it professionals to maintain a balance between that this should be ‘‘comforting information.’’ does something indirect; or waits until adequate security protection and ease of use. (g) Contrary to Microsoft’s Claim, executed the 100th time; or modifies some Users should be encouraged to take informed Downloading Software From ‘‘Known’’ other program so that it later does something risks, but they must be given the guidance Software Vendors Does Not Necessarily nasty; then tracking down the source of the and tools to accurately perform the risk/ Eliminate Risk original corruption will be extremely benefit analysis. Authenticode deters users Implicit in the Authenticode trust model is difficult. from taking informed risks because it fails to the belief that all ActiveX components VerDate 11 created by ‘‘known’’ software developers will back seat. ’’ McNamara lists some of the . * Creates a shadow copy of a web page; be harmless and can therefore be trusted and security holes that have been discovered . * Then, funnels all access to the web page downloaded without reservation. The recent recently in many of Microsoft’s products through the attackers machine; track records of several software developers ranging from Windows NT, Windows 95, . * And finally, tricks the unwary including Microsoft, seriously undermine WORD macro viruses, to Internet Explorer, consumer into revealing sensitive or private this notion. According to an article called Authenticode and ActiveX. Joel observes that data, such as PIN numbers, credit card ‘‘Microsoft Security Flaws Run Deep,’’ in the ‘‘Microsoft’s testing methodology appears to numbers or bank account numbers March 6, 1997 issue of CNET’s NEWS.COM be more oriented toward discovering classic, Web spoofing requires that the attacker be authors Nick Wingfield and Alex Lash state show-stopping bugs rather than searching for able to interject his machine between the that ‘‘ActiveX is not the only security more subtle, exploitable security holes.’’ He server and client, in a man-in-the-middle headache Microsoft is suffering. There are concludes that, ‘‘[i]f people continue to buy attack. Although under some situations problems with its Internet Explorer browser.’’ products with marginal security, why spend certain visual cues may be used to detect the The article goes on to explain how earlier the extra time and money implementing presence of a spoofed Web page, these can be that week a group of students (does not high-end security .... Unfortunately, the eliminated by the skilled programmer. The specify whether they were students from the marketplace usually needs to yell, scream only real solution is to check the ‘‘View local university) found that by planting and ??reaten to walk away before it gets what Source ’’ option and read the html source ‘‘Shortcuts’’ on a Web site they could trigger it wants. So, until then, expect to see security code for the Web page the user is currently resident Windows 95 and NT programs to as little more than just another check on a browsing to know for certain whether their delete and manipulate files on a user’s marketing features list.’’ A user can be browser is connected to the correct site. Even computer when browsing the Web site. exposed to significant security risks even a server and client using SSL can be spoofed According to the article Microsoft developers when downloading software from a ‘‘known’’ if the hacker is able to intercept the client’s worked around the clock to fix the security developer such as Microsoft. initial request for authentication to the server hole. (h) Relevance of Authenticode ‘‘Trust- and before a secure link is established. Once In response to this IE ‘‘Shortcuts’’ security Model’’ for users outside the United States the unsuspecting user is connected to the hole Stephen Cobb, director of special Software developers located outside the attacker’s bogus Web page, all transactions projects at the National Computer Security United States but who wish to allow their between the user and the certification Association (NCSA) states, ‘‘1 would say that components to be downloaded in the U.S. authority can be intercepted and fraudulently you have to seriously question the integrity According to the Verisign Web page, manipulated. Thus, a harmful ActiveX of Internet Explorer at this point because this ‘‘Digital Ids for Servers: High-level Security program could easily be made to look as was such a big hole.’’ Cobb goes on to at a Low Cost:’’ though it came from a ‘‘known’’ and comment that ‘‘Microsoft’s statement that If your company has a Dun & Bradstreet trustworthy developer. After the program has (DUNS) number, you can complete your they did a lot of testing [on Internet Explorer] downloaded to the user’s PC and done its Digital ID request online. If you do not wish is worrying, because if they did a lot of damage there is no way for the user to to use a DUNS number, or your company is testing and didn’t find this problem, their identify the developer because the program not in the US, you can complete the testing is very flawed.’’ In all fairness, it must never had a Digital ID in the first place. enrollment form electronically and fax or be pointed out that security holes are being Furthermore, the knowledgeable hacker will mail Verisign any of the following pieces of found in other software developer’s products documentation to establish your company’s delete or modify the browser’s history file so as well, however the significance of identity: no record would remain of the user’s visit to Microsoft’s track record in this particular . * Articles of Incorporation the spoofed Web site. According to Ed Felten, case is that they are the ones that are making . * Partnership Papers co-founder of the Princeton Internet the argument that if the software developer . * Business license Programming research team, there have been is ‘‘known’’ then their ActiveX components . * Fictitious Business License reports of the FBI investigating false sites and must be trustworthy, and that the only . * Federal Tax ID Confirmation forcing them to shut criteria that is important is whether or not Even assuming, for the sake of discussion, (j) Obtaining a Digital ID Through the user recognizes the software developer. that Verisign’s document authenticator’s are Fraudulent Means The same CNET article also points out that familiar with the Articles of Incorporation or Fred Mclain, software developer, even if no one’s computer is actually foreign equivalent for every country, and is consultant, and author of the now infamous damaged by a security hole that is able to make a reasonable effort to detect a ActiveX ‘‘Exploder’’ control (see below), subsequently discovered after the user has faxed fraudulent document, how will the provides the following perspective on the downloaded software, individuals and user who relies on the Digital ID know Authenticode ‘‘code signing’’ process, from a companies still have to spend time and whether that foreign country even has any FAQ on his personal Web site located at money to install the security patches on their laws that will allow him some measure of www.halcyon.com/mclain/. systems. Stephen Cobb concludes that ‘‘[I]t’s recourse in the event that he suffers injury Code Signing simply attempts to identify difficult for Microsoft to weasel its way out caused by the developer’s software? who signed the control. Anyone can go out with the ‘‘it does no damage’’ excuse, Software developers located outside the and get a code signature. It’s a pretty much because [in the case of the ‘‘Shortcuts’’ bug] United States but who wish to allow their automatic process. You go to a web site, give systems administrators are already looking at components to be downloaded both in the them a name, address, credit card number a big cost hit,’’ There is no empirical U.S. and overseas. Verisign has begun and some other stuff (none of which have to evidence to support Microsoft’s assertion that ‘‘franchising’’ overseas Certification be yours), click ‘‘1 Agree’’ on a page full of downloading software from ‘‘known’’ origins Authorities who wish to base their practice legal jargon, and pretty soon you get an e- is less risky than from ‘‘unknown’’ sites. Nor statements on the Verisign ‘‘Certification mail with the information you need to sign does this assertion take into consideration Practice Statement’’ (CPS). Although several the control in it. Once you have your Digital the possibility of a hacker placing a are under development, BelSign ID, you can sign any unsigned ActiveX malicious control on a ‘‘known’’ Web site, or (www.belsign.be) is the first franchisee to go control. Nobody reviews these controls! In the possibility of a hacker ‘‘spoofing’’ a productional, , and their stated territory is other words, a signature doesn’t tell you who ‘‘known ’’ Web site. Either of these can be limited to Belgium and Luxembourg. So far wrote the control and it doesn’t tell you if the done without detection either by the user or little details are available about identity control is safe or not. Heck, with the number by the Authenticode system. authentication procedures and other practical of hot credit card numbers out on the net, it Joel McNamara explores this same issue in considerations and responses to e-mail doesn’t even tell you for sure who signed it. the June 1997 issue of Infosecurity News. In inquiries have not been forthcoming. A danger is that seeing that a control is an article titled, ‘‘Security-Market Dynamics’’ (i) Web sites Can Be Spoofed or Hacked signed will give folks a warm fuzzy feeling he writes, ‘‘As security professionals, we like In December, 1996 the Secure Internet about the control, and encourage them to run to think that security ranks right up there on Programming team at Princeton University it, even though it does not guarantee their everyone’s most-important list. But when published a technical report describing an safety! security isn’t the primary purpose of the Internet security attack called ‘‘Web A recent Associated Press news item from product, security features all too often take a spoofing.’’ In this scenario, an attacker: San Francisco dated May 22, 1997 VerDate 11 demonstrates the prevalence of credit card Publisher’’ thereby allowing all code from site who uses Intuit’s Quicken for electronic theft on the Internet and the accessibility to InfoSpace to be downloaded automatically banking, the control will add an extra those stolen numbers. The article reports that without requesting the user’s consent. The electronic fund transfer command to the according to Bureau spokesman George operation is akin to inviting a guest over to pending transfer list. The next time the user Grotz, the FBI recently arrested a hacker who your house for dinner before you leave town does his or her banking online, the bogus used a ‘‘sniffer’’ program to eavesdrop on for a month-long vacation and having them transaction will get executed along with the electronic transactions between customers copy the key to your front door without rest without alerting the user. and a dozen companies selling products permission. If the guest enters your house The Computer Club’s stated purpose in through a major Internet provider. The sniffer while you’re gone and a neighbor questions holding this public demonstration was to software gathered 100,000 credit card him about it, the guest only has to show the alert people about the risks associated with numbers along with enough information to neighbor the copy of the key as confirmation doing business on the Internet and use them. The hacker was arrested for he has your permission to enter. Whenever specifically with ActiveX. allegedly attempting to sell the information the user’s browser detects an InfoSpace intuit, the company that develops Quicken, to an undercover FBI agent who saw the program it will automatically be downloaded responded by recommending that users hacker’s advertisement on a computer without the user’s awareness or consent, disable the ActiveX controls in their Internet bulletin board. because Authenticode has been told to Explorer browsers or switch to the Netscape FBI statistics indicate that the majority of automatically trust all InfoSpace developed Navigator if they are concerned about the computer crimes go undetected, and, until programs. ‘‘Clearly their software is doing safety of ActiveX controls. The company also recently, most of the ones that are detected something a tad aggressive,’’ said Rob Price, stated that of the 9 million copies of Quicken are never reported. Therefore it is safe to a group program manager for Internet currently in use worldwide, the present U.S. assume that there are many other sources of security at Microsoft.’’ (With Authenticode), version of Quicken can only be used to fraudulent credit card information gathered users are making a one-time trust decision, transfer money from ‘‘pre-authorized’’ from the Internet that are available to persons this is a persistent trust decision.’’ accounts as approved by the user. A future registering ActiveX controls. Frequently the (2) Symantec Corporation’s Norton Utilities German version of the software will have credit card owner will not realize their Victimized by Malicious ActiveX Control encryption features to prevent hackers from number has been stolen for several weeks or According to information posted on their breaking in. To its credit, Intuit did an months, depending on the thief’s spending Web site (www.symantec.com), on April 7, excellent job of public relations ‘‘damage patterns. As a result, if a stolen credit card 1997, Symantec was notified that a malicious control’’ and used wide, the Web, because it is used to acquire a Digital ID using fake Web site had been created that uses an is the the situation as an opportunity to identification, the fraudulent charges will go ActiveX control to gain access to a user’s PC educate consumers on how to take proper through undetected and because there is no if they use Norton Utilities 2.0 for safeguards to protect themselves on the retroactive follow-up on the part of Verisign Windows95 and get on the World Wide Web. Internet in general and from similar or Microsoft, the certificate will remain valid Because a specific component situations in the future. even after the card theft has been discovered (TUNEOCX.OCX) of the Norton Utilities RECENT MICROSOFT SECURITY and the card invalidated, unless the System Genie is marked as a script file, ENHANCEMENTS defrauded consumer makes the effort to ActiveX-aware WWW scripts can make use of (1) Microsoft’s Authenticode 2.0—Band- contact them which is unlikely. it as an ActiveX control. The result is that a Aid for a severed artery FACTUAL EXAMPLES OF ACTIVEX- malicious user could use the script to run Microsoft recently announced RELATED SECURITY RISKS any command, such as delete, format or ftp, Authenticode 2.0, a significant upgrade to the (1) InfoSpace Program Compromises on the local host. Symantec responded to the initial version which was first released less Authenticode Security news quickly and responsibly, posting a fix than one year ago. On the plus side the new On September 23, 1996 CNET-Online and for the problem within 24 hours. upgrade includes a number of features other publications reported that Lycos, a (3) ‘‘Exploder’’ Control Microsoft says will make downloading code WWW Search engine company posted a Software developer and consultant Fred safer, including time-stamping support to program on its Web site that would allow Mclain created a live demonstration of ensure that code was signed with a valid downloadable programs with InfoSpace ActiveX’s capabilities in late summer of digital certificate. Various Microsoft bulletins Digital Ids to bypass the Authenticode 1996. Mclain created an ActiveX control and announcements inconsistently report security controls in Internet Explorer. which he called ‘‘Exploder’’ and which he that It also supports access to certificate Nick Wingfield’s article ‘‘Program placed on his Web site with the explanation revocation lists (CRLs), a feature that checks compromises IE security’’ explains that that it would perform an automatic in with an online list of revoked certificates because the program which was created for ‘‘graceful’’ shutdown of any user’s PC before downloading code. Lycos by InfoSpace, a startup Internet running Windows95 who chose to However, on the negative side the logistics company, circumvents IE’s security warning voluntarily click on the control link and of the upgrade are cumbersome, time- window, InfoSpace could sneak programs automatically download it to their PC. consuming and will potentially result in onto a user’s personal computer without Because the control caused a ‘‘graceful’’ delays while unsuspecting users are forced at warning. shutdown no damage was caused to the the last minute to download either the InfoSpace executives denied that there was user’s PC, but the damage to Microsoft’s upgrade. Software publishers who have any malice intended in its program, adding image was immediate and irreversible. As signed their code prior to June 1997 must re- that it has provided Lycos with an updated recently as April 1997, Sun Microsystems sign their code by June 30, or before their version of the code. Lycos planned to post CEO Scott McNealy was still demonstrating current Digital ID expires. According to the new program later that evening, MClain’s Exploder control to crowds of Java Microsoft, because Authenticode 2.0 checks according to InfoSpace. ‘‘It was a bug that got enthusiasts. the revocation list to determine whether the incorporated into the production code,’’ (4) Germany’s Chaos Computer Club Live Digital ID is still valid, it will notify a user InfoSpace CEO Naveen Jain said. Although Demonstration To Make Bogus Money who wants to download an control that has the InfoSpace program apparently was not Transfers From Intuit’s Quicken Online not been re-signed as either unsafe to created with malicious intent, according to Banking Customers download (if their security is set to High), or Wingfield ‘‘it underscores the fragility of The Chaos Computer Club (CCC), a German out-of-date (if their security is set to Internet Explorer’s security defenses, as well hackers group from Hamburg, demonstrated Medium). Only code that has been re-signed as broader security issues related to on national TV in February 1997 that they will appear in the revocation list as safe to downloading over the Internet.’’ ‘‘Code can use an ActiveX control to steal money download. signing is not a guarantee of code quality,’’ from one account and put it into another This upgrade is significant as a validation Charles Fitzgerald, a product manager at without the use of a Personal Identification of Microsoft’s willingness to obfuscate the Microsoft said. ‘‘It’s on accountability trail.’’ Number (PIN) during an online banking facts and fabricate its own reality, in its The InfoSpace ‘‘bug’’ modified the transaction. single-minded pursuit of market share. Prior Windows 95 Registry configuration setting by CCC showed that once the ActiveX control to this upgrade a user was expected to simply registering InfoSpace as a ‘‘Trusted is downloaded by a user browsing their Web navigate the maze of menus and options on VerDate 11 the Verisign Web site to locate CRL Although certain legal issues and standards gather concrete evidence of the software information. No explanation or instructions must be addressed before ‘‘burning’’ anyone developer’s intention and competence in were presented to the user when the out of existence, this approach could serve as advance. By testing their software against subscriber’s certificate appeared on their a model for a more effective means of industry benchmarks and providing guidance screen, informing him that he must inquire keeping Cyberspace free from harmful code. to the uninformed user interested in of this proprietary database to find out (2) Better-Business-Bureau OnLine ascertaining the safety of the software they whether the Id used to sign the certificate he (BBBOnLine) want to download this entity will bridge the was viewing and potentially relying on was The Council of Better Business Bureaus, gap between identity verification and a still valid or whether it was suspended or best know for their certification of local software publisher’s intentions and revoked. Also, without the time stamping businesses in the physical world, have competence. capability, it was impossible for the user to developed a new U.S. online service, The ‘‘Software Accrediter’’ will validate tell whether the certificate appearing on his ‘‘dedicated to helping consumers identify that an ActiveX component is both harmless screen was signed using an expired Digital Id ethical marketers on the Internet and thereby and ‘‘safe’’ to operate in an ‘‘open’’ or not. Although Microsoft and Verisign make the Internet a safer, more reliable place environment by testing it against a set of engineered this upgrade prior to the time to get information and conduct business.’’ industry-wide programming and Internet most Digital Ids and certificates would have According to information on their Web site, security standards. For a control to be expired, there was no advance companies that display an encrypted ‘‘harmless’’, it must be unable to cause acknowledgment of this limitation. One can BBBOnLine CARE seal on their Web pages damage by itself. For it to be ‘‘safe’’ the only hope that other essential attributes of have demonstrated their commitment to a control must be designed and written with a this ostensibly trustworthy Authenticode series of strict business standards for level of programmer competence that security model are not still on the drawing customer service and marketplace ethics. prevents other controls from being able to board to released later as enhancements. Consumers can hyperlink from the seal to the advantage of programming flaws and force it (2) ‘‘Security Zones’’ BBBOnLine home page to get a reliability to cause harm. This new feature will let users or their report on the member company, including The Software Accrediter will take on network administrators arbitrarily divide the their management, time in business, relevant significance in the use of downloadable and Web sites into four predefined zones: aspects of its goods and services, complaint executable content to authenticate its intranet, trusted extranet, general Internet experience and other evidence of responsible conformity to the norms of programming and and untrusted. Web sites can then be marketplace behavior. Several large Internet security practice. For instance, assigned to a particular zone, and be subject corporations involved in Internet-related where a Software Publisher Digital ID is to the corresponding level of security markets are co-sponsoring this service executed and digitally signed by a protection. For example, ActiveX controls including, Hewlett-Packard, Xerox, Netscape, Certification Authority, the ‘‘Software and Java applets coming from the Internet AT&T, and GTE.... Accrediter’’ will issue a message of might be assigned to untrusted zones, and the Some examples of their rigorous accreditation attached to the Digital ID which administrator could prevent them from being Participant Standards include: Provide the validates the harmlessness and safety of the downloaded by configuring that zones BBB with inform ation regarding company program within certain parameters. The security protection accordingly. location, background, etc. which will be validation will identify the level of risk In a sense this is just a ‘‘macro’’ version of verified by the BBB in a visit to the associated with the control and the user can Java’s ‘‘sandbox’’ security model. The company’s physical premises; make an informed decision whether or not to sandbox prevents Java applets from gaining Be in business a minimum of one year download the control, based on the potential access to sensitive system functions that are (with limited exceptions); Respond promptly injury he could suffer. Neither the mere outside its boundaries. IE’s security zones to all consumer complaints; Agree to binding application of a digital signature, or the can also prevent Java and ActiveX programs arbitration, at the consumer’s request, for restriction to ‘‘safe zones’’ satisfies from gaining access to sensitive system unresolved disputes involving consumer accreditation requirements for these types of functions, depending on the way the security products or services advertised or promoted dangerous programs. The ‘‘Software protections are configured. However, the user online. Accrediter’’ will combine the benefits of or administrator is Unable to override or (3) PC-based Browser Add-on Security digital signatures with industry-accepted misconfigure Java’s default sandbox Products software accreditation to provide high quality protection, whereas the IE security zone Several vendors including Finjan Inc., and international control authentication in a protection can be turned off or improperly Safe Technologies have recently released measure far exceeding current practices. configured, leaving the user completely products that promise to provide protection Public key cryptography, or digital vulnerable. against all Internet threats, whether they are signatures, can be used to sign application THE FUTURE OF ACTIVEX AND hostile ActiveX controls or Java applets, software and certify it as ‘‘safe’’ as judged by DOWNLOADABLE AND EXECUTABLE eSafe Protect not only recognizes a set of some certifier, only if the software is held up CONTENT—Will it ever be safe to ‘‘trust’’ known security holes and rogue controls, but against a set of industry standards—where again? it also has the ability to run in a learning one of the ‘‘safety’’ properties would be that If Microsoft is unwilling, users must mode. This allows the program to see where the application cannot be corrupted by organize and develop alternative means of the user’s browser and e-mail clients usually malicious external programs or data. protecting themselves from ActiveX. Some read or write data or execute other Microsoft offers Authenticode as a way of examples of proposed alternatives include: applications and develop a pattern of empowering the user to determine whether (1) Web of Distrust acceptable behavior (similar to an individual downloadable executable Web One author is calling for an online, ‘‘intelligent’’ sandbox model). After the content is safe to use. It purports to provide independent watchdog organization that learning period is completed (usually about the user with information which will be ‘‘provides users with timely alerts on one day), any activity outside of the normal ‘‘comforting’’ to them in their analysis. hazardous or questionable software.’’ This range will generate an alarm, and require Unfortunately, Authenticode simply moves group would act as a clearinghouse for user intervention to proceed. As a result it the burden of assurance on to the user, reports of all harmful or suspicious also provides protection against yet-to-be- without making the analysis any more downloadable and executable content. The discovered security holes in popular Web tractable. It places an unreasonable burden information could be distributed by browsers or other unknown hazards. on users, who must decide which developers newsletters to subscribers, or available to any Independent Software Accrediter is are trustworthy based on insufficient data user by hyperlink access before they make Necessary to Determine Software and inadequate tools. Because even major the ‘‘fateful’’ decision to download. Kobielus ‘‘Harmlessness’’ Digital signatures can mass market application software (e.g., writes, ‘‘Our best defense against malignant measure the authenticity of a person, but not Quicken) appears susceptible to attacks by controls is to pool our experiences, expose their intentions or competence. Until malicious controls, it is not clear what this the offending code-mongers to the entire software developers see it is in their best type of certification technique could add. online ‘‘.... Net community and thereby burn interest to invest more resources into writing Netscape’s Hybrid ‘‘Code-Signing’’ them out of existence.’’ secure software a separate entity is needed to Solution VerDate 11 Netscape has recently released its own little hope for Bill Gates’’ vision of a single, of Microsoft NT, ME, and WZK may install implementation of an Authenticode-like seamless Windows-based PC desktop and an ‘‘upgrade patch’’ that will allow them to Product that has much more robust security Internet interface. manually download new root certs, and to protection against harmful downloadable and CONCLUSION use a limited subset of the XP-based executable programs. In addition to the This article has presented some good capability. generic characteristics of a digital signature; points and bad points about ActiveX and To better protect Microsoft customers from authentication, integrity and non- Authenticode both of which have only been security issues related to the use of public repudiation, ‘‘code-signing’’ also determines in existence for less than two years. It is key infrastructure (PKI) certificates and what an ActiveX control or Java applet wants inevitable that both security protection for enhance the experience for Windows users, to do on the user’s machine, Netscape’s downloadable and executable programs and Microsoft is moving to standardize and Communicator checks to see if the software Certification Authority policies and practices clarify the criteria for root certification is signed and attempts to verity the signature. will evolve gradually. Nevertheless, in the authorities in Windows XP. This standard If the applet is unsigned or if the signature interest of minimizing the risk exposure to also applies to root certification authorities in is unverified the applet is automatically the user, it would be prudent for software Internet Explorer and any other Microsoft restricted to running inside the ‘‘sandbox.’’ developers to acknowledge these risks up product. When the downloaded program wants to front and allow users to understand them and (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/ get access to a PCs system resources a dialog begin making informed decisions based on security/news/rootcert.asp) box is displayed that shows the user what accurate information, or paying customers Let me repeat, as of the release of XP next kind of access it wants, the identity of the must demand something better. Risks week, the ability for consumers using non- signer, and the associated risks. With this associated with downloading any software Microsoft operating systems to perform information the user then decides to allow or from the Internet are unavoidable, but ‘‘secure’’ transactions via Internet Explorer deny the access that the Java applet has Microsoft chooses not to explain those risks (IE) will be severely curtailed, and over the requested. to users or give them the tools to properly coming months, entirely eliminated. ActiveX controls can be packaged in such manage those risks. Instead what Microsoft When a user visits a secure Web site (that a way as to fulfill the Java specifications does provide is confusing, contradictory is, by using HTTPS), reads a secure e-mail necessary to allow code-signing. This process FAQs, bulletins and marketing (that is, S/MIME), or downloads an ActiveX is accomplished using the JAR Packager tool announcements that even go so far as to state, control that uses a new root certificate, the which creates an envelope around the control ‘‘Because Microsoft must respond to Windows XP certificate chain verification that results in a cross-platform JAR file. The changing market conditions, this document software checks the appropriate Windows JAR Packager is a tool that allows developers should not be interpreted to be a Update location and downloads the necessary root certificate. To the user, the to sign, envelope and compress Java applets, commitment on the part of Microsoft, and experience is seamless. The user does not see plugins, and any other type of file. The JAR Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any security dialog boxes or warnings. The file format was a joint effort between JavaSoft any information presented after the date of download happens automatically, behind the and Netscape. publication.’’ scenes. In the future, an evolving combination of Microsoft understandably wants to be the Microsoft has no plans to provide an first to market with each of its latest Internet these and other approaches will be used to ‘‘upgrade patch’’ for the non-Microsoft provide protection. Security guru Gary software products so it can gain whatever versions of IE that it currently supports (e.g., McGraw believes the long-term solution advantage it can over its competitors. But Solaris, Linux, HP-UX, and Mac.). Microsoft combines ‘‘code-signing authentication and they are cutting corners at the customer’s properly considers Auto Root Update and some sort of security model, like a [Java] expense by leaving necessary security Windows Update to be Windows Sandbox.’’ He believes it will be ‘‘much features out and the customer needs to be technologies for conveniently keeping users easier to [add code-signing] to extend Java .... informed to decide whether it is an up to date with certificates in the Microsoft than it will be reverse engineer Sandbox into acceptable expense. In the wake of Love Root Program (the user doesn’t have to take ActiveX.’’ Canal, Three-Mile Island, Hanford Nuclear many steps to install the roots). However, it SUMMARY Reactor, Rocky Flats and other life- has no plans to provide these convenience The general outlook for ActiveX as a threatening breaches of the public trust we mechanisms for non-Windows platforms at computer security problem is unclear. The have matured as a nation to the point where this time. potential vulnerabilities are legion. Bearing even the courts support our right to receive The result is that the only way that CAs or in mind the FBI’s computer crime statistics advance notice before toxic chemicals are on-line merchants can get their certificates indicate that over 80% of all detected pumped into our back yards and personal into the IE browsers of non-Microsoft computer crimes go unreported, and many spaces. Yet Microsoft is allowing toxic consumers is by forcing the consumer to more of them go undetected, during its initial ActiveX components to be downloaded into manually download and install the certificate 18 months in existence exploitation of our PCs without reasonable notice and directly from a Web site. This eliminates any ActiveX has been virtually non-existent. disclosure of all the risks by pretending that level of trust assurance that may have Unfortunately, as the economic incentive for it’s fake security system Authenticode can resulted from IE’s existing root certificate creating malicious ActiveX controls provide reasonable detection and defense. accreditation process. increases, it seems likely that attackers will The most effective long-term technical Under this new regime, when a consumer attempt to exploit its security vulnerabilities. solutions appear to require systemic changes using IE on a non-Microsoft platform enters Given the obvious security risks presented in the way computer software is built and the a secure Web site to make a secure on-line by ActiveX, combined with the absence of way software standards are developed and purchase, he is prompted to download and broad-based support for Authenticode, the enforced. The safest near-term alternatives trust the CA root certificate of any merchant only possible explanation for Microsoft’s for the majority of users all involve giving up whose root is not already in that browser, continued pursuit of this folly is a last-ditch many of the ‘‘bells and whistles’’ that make The same is true if a Web site wants to effort to keep its hand in the Internet game Web browsing so entertaining by configuring download an ActiveX control, which is and maintain its share of the desktop Internet Explorer browsers to restrict all signed by an unknown and hence ‘‘un- computing software market. Microsoft is ActiveX controls from being downloaded to trusted’’ Publisher, Eliminating future access Committed to maintaining its monopolistic the desktop. to new root certificates in its IE browser will hold on the PC and Internet software * Copyright Rick Hornbeck, 1997. deprive consumers using non-Microsoft industry by marketing its auto-immune Microsoft recently announced on TechNet platforms from the ability to conveniently deficient ActiveX software product, and its that, as of the release of XP, the only way that and ‘‘securely’’ make purchases at a secure parasitic partner Authenticode. Even with consumers and businesses can make on-line Web site (HTTPS), read secure e-mail (S/ the intellectual horsepower at its disposal it purchases, or submit private data (e.g., on- MIME), or download signed ActiveX controls appears to be unwilling to develop a secure line banking) through a ‘‘secure’’ (SSL- with the same level of trust assurance that he alternative because then there would be little enabled) Web site, is by using new features experienced prior to this new regime. incentive for users to purchase its internet that are available exclusively on Windows This change will adversely affect the Explorer Web browser, and there would be XP, via the Windows Update Web site. Users consumer, the on-line merchant, and the CA, VerDate 11 as each of them has a stake in making the on- * Security Policy, Certificate Policy, and First Interstate Bank commercial loan line experience as smooth, secure, and Certification Practice Statement consulting database with Wells Fargo data following convenient as possible. This latest and development; Internet and network bank merger. manipulation of the Internet software market security policy consulting; PKI legal issue Orange County Superior Court (’intern, by Microsoft will provide consumers with a spotting and consulting. Representative part-time)—Santa Ana, California, 1996. strong incentive to migrate to a Windows topics include privacy; identity —Court Technology Department—Drafted platform, so they can continue to use the authentication; ‘‘qualified’’ certificates, new court rules for electronic filing of Web with the same degree of ease, and sense security services, jurisdiction, and digital and pleadings via the Internet for pilot family law of security as before. electronic signatures; and local, national, and electronic filing project. In addition, some commercial PKI international regulations and case law in —Law and Motion Research Department— applications and products are designed both civil and common law jurisdictions. Reviewed, researched, and summarized legal around consumer access to their root Customers include: motions for judge’s Law and Motion certificates in Microsoft’s IE. Eliminating * ENSURELINK CERTIFICATION hearings. consumer access to their root certificates AUTHORITY—San Diego, California 2000— LAX SHUTTLE TRANSPORTATION from IE will force them to restructure their Present. PKI Consultant—Certificate Policy, CONSORTIUM, El Segundo, California 1996. applications, and in some cases their whole Certification Practice Statement, and PKI- Arbitralion Hearing Officer (’part-time)— product strategy. Of course, Microsoft will related consulting. Arbitrated appeals from personnel argue that these vendors were receiving a * ALPHATRUST CERTIFICATION disciplinary actions. ‘‘free ride,’’ while it developed the AUTHORITY-Dallas, Texas 2000. PKI Legal ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, technology to tighten up its PKI solution. Consultant-Certificate Policy, Certification DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, STATE OF However, Microsoft’s PKI solution is Practice Statement, and PKI-delated legal CALIFORNIA—Los Angeles, California anything but ‘‘tight,’’ and in fact, it is still consulting. 1995–96. Legal Intern (part-time)—Wrote quite immature. In addition, it will remain so * EXPERIAN—Orange, California 2000. briefs, motions, and memos; performed legal for several years, to the detriment of the PKI Legal Consultant—Consulted with in- research in support of Deputy Attorneys consumer, and the industry. house legal counsel, defining and General; assisted in trial preparation. This tactic is virtually identical to the one documenting application-specific, PKI- COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION— that Microsoft used to eliminate competition related legal issues. El Segundo, California 1993—95. Senior in the browser market. It offered features ENTRUST TECHNOLOGIES—Plano, Texas Management Consultant—Developed similar to Netscape’s, but at no charge, 1999—2000. Senior Security Consultant- Information Systems Strategic Plan and because it could afford to use its income from Developed Security Policies, Certificate Architecture for United States Air Force, OS sales to offset the loss it took on its Policies, and Certification Practice Materiel Systems Command, Los Angeles Air browser product. Initially, Microsoft’s Statements for large national, multi-national, Force Base (LAAFB). Delivered an integrated, browser was inferior to Netscape. However, and international organizations. Worked base-wide strategic plan encompassing over time, as the marketing power of the directly with senior client management to reengineered business processes, network Windows desktop gradually surmounted determine 1heir PKI requirements. Worked operating systems, e-mail, and network Netscape’s marketing channels, and as with sales force on national opportunities. security for over 25 unique, on-base Air Microsoft commandeered many of the Worked with consulting partners to out Force organizations with disparate computer existing Internet browser standards, IE source PKI consulting work during peak and network platforms. achieved a superior market position. This periods and on joint projects. Provided on- TRW SPACE & DEFENSE (ELECTRONIC time Microsoft provided consumers and the site classroom training programs lasting 3–4 SYSTEMS GROUP), Redondo Beach, CA. industry with ‘‘free’’ access to CA root days for consulting partners and customers 1988–93. Network Systems Engineer-Led certificates embedded in IE. However, now on Entrust-specific security and PKI team in design, development, and that it believes it has eliminated any consulting methodology and concepts. implementation of a reengineered purchase competition for this service, Microsoft Customers include: Experian, Bell Atlantic, order processing system using state-of-the-art intends to force consumers to purchase XP or MCI WorldCom, Hoffman-LaRoche, State client-server technology linked with the another Windows platform, so they can Farm Insurance, First American Real Estate corporate network. Implemented software continue to enjoy the same convenience and Information Services (FAREIS), Ernst & upgrade for Procurement EDI application benefits from digital certificates as before. Young, Price Waterhouse Coopers, People’s .and integrated with batch FTP transfer from Although Microsoft will certainly claim Bank of China, Capital One, US Department mainframe. Responsible for implementation, otherwise, I believe it is well within its of Agriculture, Fidelity Investments, Illinois administration, and security of multiple, power to continue to support the storage of Secretary of State, First Data Corporation .... inter-connected local area network servers new root certificates in non-Microsoft OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, running SCO UNIX, AT&T System V.4, and versions of IE. However, Microsoft STATE OF TEXAS—Austin, Texas 1997— SUN OS over TCP/IP, and DOS/Windows representatives have indicated that they have 1998. Strategic Technology Planner- clients. no plans to do so at this time. As are result, Responsible for the implementation of a PRICE WATERHOUSE, OFFICE OF consumer trust in on-line commerce, and the statewide computer and communication GOVERNMENT SERVICES, Los Angeles, viability of many PKI solution vendors will network linking all state courts. Developed California 1987. Senior Consultant Created both suffer in Microsoft’s latest grab for supporting rules, policies, guidelines, and functional model for reengineered another piece of the Internet software market, statutes relating to the electronic filing of application in support of ‘‘Los Angeles PKI. Microsoft’s PKI solution is inferior to court documents. Prepared cost analysis and Employees Retirement Association’’ current alternatives, and it will not achieve preliminary design for the Texas Judicial (LACERA) software development project its promised capabilities for many years, after Committee on Information Technology, based team. using the public as its testing ground. on planned technology. XEROX CORPORATION, PRINTING Is Microsoft trying to corner another piece ELECTRONIC COMMERCE SYSTEMS— SYSTEMS DIVISION, El Segundo, California of the Internet software market by illegally Los Angeles, CA (1995—96); Austin, TX 1985–87. Senior Analyst/Programmer- leveraging its market powers, as the court 1997–1998. Principal-Consulting company Supervised two analyst/programmers and agreed that it has done in the past? The provided electronic commerce consulting coordinated design, development and pattern is virtually identical. services with an emphasis on Internet and implementation of purchase order entry Rick N. Hornbeck Web-based security, public-key infrastructure system for Printing Systems Division. 556 S. Fair Oaks Ave,, Suite 346 (PKI), digital signatures, electronic filing of TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION, Los Pasadena, CA 91105 court records, and electronic payments. Angeles, California 1983–85. Analyst/ [email protected] Customers included: Programmer-Assisted in design, (323) 363–2151 Wells Fargo Bank—Los Angeles, California, development, and implementation of a PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 1996. nation-wide information system enabling HORNBECK CONSULTING—Pasadena, Database Developer-Designed and insurance agents to submit customer California 2000—Present. developed MS-ACCESS database integrating applications for insurance coverage directly VerDate 11 into the mainframe computer in the home * Electronic Filing of Court Records: now has one of the highest unemployment office from field offices across the country. Standards and Open Systems, American Bar rates in the country. Dragging out this issue TEACHING EXPERIENCE: Association Annual Meeting, Presidential further will have an even more detrimental * UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIXON-LINE, CLE 1998. effect on the local economy. It is time to end 2001 * Electronic Filing of Court Records: A this litigation and focus our energies on more Part-time instructor-Risk Management in a Conceptual Framework, 1998 ABA pertinent issues. Thank you for your support. CIS Environment (Computer Security); TechShow; Sincerely, Contracts, Ethics, and Intellectual Property; * Introduction and Intermediate Public-key MaryAnn Goeppele * SANTA MONICA COLLEGE, 2001. Infrastructure (PKI); Digital Signature, and MTC–00029417 Part-time instructor-introduction to Related Standards at the State, Federal, and Computer Systems; International Levels; Certificate Policies and From: Susan Handy * CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS Certification Practice Statements (Entrust) To: Microsoft Settlement ANGELES, 2001. 1999; Date: 1/28/02 11:47pm Part-time insfrucfor-Internet security. * Introduction to UNIX Operating System, Subject: Microsoft Settlement LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, Los Angeles, San Jacinto Community College, Clear Lake Susan Handy California. Texas, (NASA) 1997. 4560 Kings Crossing Drive Juris Doctor—December 1996. FOREIGN LANGUAGES: Kennesaw, GA 30144 January 28, 2002 Dean’s List Honors, 1995. French (Fluent), Spanish (Proficient). California State Bar Foundation—Public Microsoft Settlement Service Grant 1996. MTC–00029415 U.S. Department of Justice UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN From: Robert Heath Antitrust Division CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles, California. To: Microsoft ATR 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Master of Science, Information Systems Date: 1/28/02 11:51pm Washington, DC 20530 Management—May 1990. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Microsoft Settlement: CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS Hello, The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ ANGELES, California. I just wanted to share my opinion on the dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Bachelor of Science in Business, Minor in serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Microsoft Settlement. As it stands, I don1t Business Information Systems—June 1983. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the see how the current proposal of basically Dean’s List Honors, 1982. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be flooding the market with Windows-based PCs ADMITTED TO PRACTICE over. Consumers will indeed see competition would create or foster a competitive State Bar of Utah—May 2000, Active in the marketplace, rather than the environment. I truly hope those making the Member. courtroom. And the investors who propel our decisions think things through and see this ARTICLES, STANDARDS ACTIVITY, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. as what seems to be an underhanded and PRESENTATIONS, AND COURSES Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the sneaky way to comply with a demand TAUGHT: federal government should not have broken PUBLISHED ARTICLES: without really complying at all. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, * Electronic Filing of Court Records: Robert P Heath companies like Microsoft can get back into Standards and Open Systems (West Group Panama City, FL the business of innovating and creating better 1998); MTC–00029416 products for consumers, and not wasting * Electronic Court Filings for Attorneys: valuable resources on litigation. From: [email protected]@inetgw What, Where, When, Why and How (West Competition means creating better goods To: Microsoft ATR Group 1998); and offering superior services to consumers. Date: 1/28/02 11:51pm * Into the Breach.’’ Understanding Security With government out of the business of Subject: Microsoft Settlement Issues Involved in Commerce on the stifling progress and tying the hands of Mary Ann Goeppele Internet—Parts I and II, The DataLaw Report, corporations, consumers—rather than (Clark, Boardman, and Callaghan 1997); 15943 NE 139th Place bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick * The Troubling Truth About ‘‘Trust’’ on Woodinville, Washington 98072 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the Internet, Journal of Electronic Commerce, January 28, 2002 the reins off the high-tech industry, more (EDI Group, Ltd. 1997); Attorney General entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create COMPUTER SECURITY, PKI John Ashcroft new and competitive products and STANDARDS, AND RELATED ACTIVITY: US Department of Justice technologies. * Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my ‘‘RFC 2527,’’ Internet X. 509 Public Key Washington, DC 20530 views. Infrastructure Certificate Policy and Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Sincerely, Certification Practices Framework, attributed I am writing you today on behalf of my Susan J. Handy contributor (March 1999); husband and myself in regards to Microsoft. * GUIDES—Guidelines, Methodologies and We both support this company whole- MTC–00029418 Standards to set up a CA for Digital heartedly, and we believe this litigation From: Michael Hemond Signatures, European should be ended. During a time when we are To: Microsoft ATR Commission, attributed contributor (June facing many pressing national and economic Date: 1/28/02 11:52pm 2000); * American Bar Association (ABA), issues, we should not continue to spend Subject: Microsoft Settlement Information Security Committee, Digital precious time and resources concentrating on To whom it may concern, Signature Guidelines, drafter (August 1996). Microsoft. I am writing to express my concern with * High-Technology Crime Investigation In our opinion, the proposed settlement is the proposed settlement of United States v. Association—Southern California Chapter, more than adequate to deal with the issues Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98–1232. Member. in this case. Microsoft has pledged to share I am a regular user of both Microsoft * Internet Corporation for Assigned Names more information with other companies and Windows and a distribution of the operating and Numbers (ICANN)—Member At Large. be monitored by a technical oversight system known as Linux. I am not a PRESENTATIONS AND COURSES committee for compliance. Microsoft has also professional software developer, but I have at TAUGHT: agreed to design future versions of Windows times written software for both platforms. In * Risk Management in a CIS Environment, to make it easier to install non-Microsoft essence, my concern is that the proposed University of Phoenix On-line, July-August software. This settlement is complete and remedy for Microsoft’s anticompetitive 2001. thorough. behavior will not restore competition even if * Certificate Policies and Certification We are also concerned about the negative its intent is enforced and it is effective in Practice Statements in a Network Trust effect the continuation of this litigation will curbing illegal actions. Model, The Internet Security Conference have on the Seattle area economy. As a result In my view, a key feature of a competitive (TISC), October 1999 Boston, MA; of major Boeing lay-offs, Washington State operating system market is that users have VerDate 11 the option not to purchase or use any given dismemberment of the corporation will In the time between the rulings finding any given operating system (OS). control its behavior. Microsoft guilty of violating antitrust laws, Specifically, competition in the OS market I disapprove of this settlement, and hope Microsoft has increased its dominance of the will be restored only when it is feasible for that the Justice Department presses its case market even further, by continuing to use the most users to elect not to purchase Microsoft once more for a splitting of Microsoft into same type of anticompetive business Windows for a given application. several completely separate companies. practices. Unfortunately, a consequence of Nothing I observed over the years of this Punishing Microsoft for its business Microsoft’s dominance in many markets is case indicates that Microsoft ever intends to practices will not quash innovation as they that its ‘‘file formats’’ have become de facto comply with the intent of a judicial ruling. and their supporters claim. On the contrary, standards. (By ‘‘file formats,’’ I am referring Even if this settlement succeeded in by allowing healthy competition to thrive, it to the methods used by applications such as controlling Microsoft’s behavior for a number will encourage innovation. Microsoft Word to encode data such as text, of years, I am convinced that Microsoft Best regards— document layout, images, etc.) These formats would immediately reknew its David Gallardo are not publicly available. Attempts at anticompetitive actions as soon as its MTC–00029423 deciphering certain formats have been made restrictions ended. From: Bruce C. Pippin by (for example) Sun Microsystems’’ Instead, I hope to see Microsoft split into To: Microsoft ATR StarOffice; however, reverse engineering three, four, or more separate and unrelated complete functionality is extremely difficult Date: 1/28/02 11:55pm companies: operating systems (e.g. Subject: I am backing Microsoft and has not yet been accomplished Windows), software (e.g. Office), hardware successfully for many important formats. Well, I don’t know what comment I could (e.g. XBox), and ISP (MSN). Since Microsoft make that isn’t obvious to at least a large part Furthermore, changes to such formats are not sees fit to attempt to dominate in every difficult for Microsoft relative to the burden of the population. I’m not an historian nor popular technology-related market, there may am I an attorney. I am but a simple consumer. placed on attempted competitors in be other divisions to split off, as well. Only deciphering any new changes. There is little doubt in my mind that every then can we hope for Microsoft to cease using man, woman and child on the planet is aware The result of this ‘‘standardization’’ of its near-monopoly on PC operating systems proprietary formats, combined with of the case against Microsoft. In at least a to leverage its position in every other market. general sense, we all know the jest of the Microsoft’s policy of releasing the Thank you for your attention. case. I think consumers have already applications using these formats only for Sincerely, responded to the case brought forward by a Windows (although there are exceptions, e.g. Michael Greisman small handful of attorney’s. Microsoft Word for MacOS), is that Webmaster Yes, I think we responded well to the potentially competing OS’es cannot run Scanalytics, Inc. needs of a few attorney generals that need to applications that interoperate reliably with 703–208–2230 ‘‘protect us’’ from ‘‘evil’’. Oh yes ... We all these ‘‘standards.’’ Thus, anyone wishing to [email protected] know about the righteous. use these ‘‘standard’’ formats, even for Michael Greisman Before, during, and after this case the purposes of e.g. backwards compatibility Applications Scientist Scanalytics, Inc. general public will continue to appreciate with existing documents, must purchase not [email protected] Microsoft innovations. We will continue to only the relevant Microsoft application but MTC–00029420 purchase their products. I have, over time, also Microsoft Windows. Such a user may used some of Microsoft’s competitors also use other OS’es but is effectively From: Landon Derentz products (Netscape for example). I have no required to purchase Windows. Please note To: Microsoft ATR doubt that these competitors did not fail due that I do not believe that Microsoft’s conduct Date: 1/28/02 11:53pm to practices by Microsoft, but by their own regarding file formats is illegal, and to my Subject: Microsoft Setlment hands. Even when given the choice (which knowledge it has not been found to be so in Dear judge, we have always had) we have made the any court of law. However, I do believe that Microsoft is in my opinion, has broken in choice to pick Microsoft products. it will be impossible to restore competition the past and will continue to break many It is sad that only after millions of dollars to the OS market unless the issue of file anti-trust laws with this back-room deal. The and several years will we all have the formats is addressed, given the dominant PFJ will not only allow Microsoft to have an opportunity to reflect on current events and position held by Microsoft. If the fruits of unfair advantage on the market, but will also realize what nincompoops these attorney’s Microsoft’s illegal behavior are to be negated hinder other companies such as Netscape in are for pursuing a case against Microsoft. I successfully, the final remedy must address having a fair chance at this thing called back dropping this case against Microsoft this issue. An obvious solution would be to capitalism. Please do not allow this deal to without any reservations. One citizen ... And require from Microsoft full disclosure of go through. Thank you. there’s my one vote. information necessary to flawlessly read and Sincerely, No, among other things, I am not an produce files of any Microsoft application. Landon Derentz eloquent writer, but I did feel compelled to Such a remedy could be similar in spirit to, 907 West 28th St. voice an opinion. but more broad than, part III.E of the revised Los Angeles, CA 9007 Regards proposed Final Judgement (requiring CC:[email protected]@inetgw Bruce C. Pippin disclosure of any communications protocols necessary for interoperating with a Microsoft MTC–00029421 MTC–00029424 OS). From: juan alejandro urquizo-Soriano From: Brian Fristensky Thank you for giving me the opportunity To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR for comment. I look forward to a settlement Date: 1/28/02 11:54pm Date: 1/28/02 11:53pm addressing these issues and a more Subject: Microsoft settlement Subject: Comments on Microsoft Antitrust competitive operating system market. Dear Sir: case Sincerely, Microsoft is a real threat,They are the Please see attached HTML file. Michael Hemond biggest monopoly I have ever seen. Please Brian Fristensky ... now Microsoft has a help the people of the world. new version Department of Plant Science I MTC–00029419 Juan out, Windows XP, which according to From: Michael Greisman University of Manitoba I everybody is the To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00029422 ‘‘most reliable Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2 Date: 1/28/02 11:55pm From: David Gallardo CANADA I Windows ever’’. To me, this is Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR [email protected] I like saying that To whom it may concern, Date: 1/28/02 11:54pm asparagus is Office phone: 204–474–6085 I My observations of Microsoft’s outrageous Subject: Microsoft Settlement ‘‘the most articulate vegetable ever.’’ FAX: behaviors in court and in business lead me I am strongly opposed to the settlement. It 204–474–7528 http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/ to believe that nothing short of is too little, too late. frist—Dave Barry VerDate 11 Comments on Civil Action No. 98–1233 2. The fact of monopoly results in de facto contender. As well, server-based solutions (CKK) United States of America vs. Microsoft anti competitive effects such as Sun Microsystem’s iPlanet platform Corporation State of New York et al. vs. a) ‘‘No one was ever fired for buying (http://www.sun.com/software/sunone/ Microsoft Corporation by Microsoft’’. In fact, this quote is based on an overview/platform/ ), make it possible for Brian Fristensky earlier generation quote ‘‘No one was ever both novice users and high-tech users to Associate Professor fired for buying IBM’’. People make decisions replace the desktop computer entirely with a Department of Plant Science not based upon whether a product is better, user-friendly graphic terminal, or to run University of Manitoba but they buy the MS product because it is a applications remotely through a browser. Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2 safe, defensible decision for which they can’t The latter is a viable model as high-speed Phone: 204–474–6085 FAX: 204–474–7528 be criticized. Internet connections proliferate, especially [email protected] Examples: because they eliminate the need for the user http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/frist i) Long after NCSA Mosaic, and its to do any system administration, and insulate Judge Colleen Kollar-Kelly successor, Netscape were introduced, the user from the hardware obsolescence, and [email protected] Microsoft created Internet Explorer (IE). Even allow the user to access their computer files Dear Judge Kollar-Kelly, though IE was clearly an inferior product for and applications from anywhere in the I wish to comment on the Microsoft several years, it quickly gained market share. world. Such alternative solutions are in fact Antitrust case awaiting judgment in your Further leveraging of the Windows platform used by a very small number of users. They court. To keep things brief, I shall focus on resulted in the ultimate domination of the are only slowly gaining ground due to the points that I think have not been adequately browser market, at the expense of Netscape. Microsoft monopoly. The users of these brought out in the proceedings of which I am ii) RealPlayer and other products from alternative platforms would all argue that aware. www.real.com virtually created the market they do so because these platforms are Point of information: for browser-based multimedia. Yet, with the superior to the Windows platform. Whether I am an Associate Professor in the bundling of Windows Media Player (WMP), any or all of these alternatives is actually Department of Plant Science at the University this established platform is losing ground. superior is moot. A putatively-superior of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada. I have Why develop for RealPlayer when you can computing platform simply can not compete been doing research in molecular biology for count on everybody having WMP? with the de facto Microsoft standard. over 20 years. I was also instrumental in the iii) At one time there was a competitive d) The Microsoft monopoly has a negative original development of software for DNA market among word processors, spreadsheets, effect on the quality of alternative systems. sequence analysis, beginning in 1979. I am an and drawing/presentation programs. Corel Even those of us who have chosen to use active contributor to the field of Word Perfect, Quattro Pro, and CorelDraw/ systems other than Microsoft Windows feel Bioinformatics, which has gained recognition CorelPresents were viable competitors to MS the negative impact of the monopoly. In my recently in its role in sequencing the human Word, MS Excell, and Powerpoint. Today, own case, I have operated my research genome. the MS products are overwhelmingly the laboratory, and performed all my teaching Finally, I am an American citizen. only products in widespread use. duties, almost exclusively on the Sun Unix A. The effects of Microsoft’s practices, and In each case, the Microsoft product took system. Detailed examples can be found at the indirect effects of its ‘‘de facto standard’’ over an already existing market, not by being http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/psgendb/nc/. At 1. The Microsoft culture better, but simply, because it was made by home, my family and I exclusively use Linux. It has been well established in court Microsoft. These examples illustrate the While the members of my lab group, proceedings that Microsoft has a long history point that the de facto aspects of the myself, and my students have often been of premeditated anti competitive practices. Microsoft monopoly are far more pernicious ahead of the curve in utilizing networked The main point I want to make is that the than the deliberate anti competitive computing resources, there have been a decision making process at Microsoft is practices. Put another way, everybody buys number of stumbling blocks resulting from centered around leveraging the existing Microsoft because everybody has Microsoft. the Microsoft monopoly. Probably the monopoly to maintain the monopoly. When This phenomenon ensures the continuation greatest problem is the fact that the choice of you have the monopoly advantage, you of the Microsoft monopoly. One might call applications available on the Sun Unix choose different strategies than a company this the ‘‘market share cycle’’. system or Linux is much smaller than on that uses different premises for decision b) Why develop for other platforms when Windows, due to the much smaller desktop making, such as ‘‘we need to be competitive’’ Windows is the only one that anyone uses. market share of these systems. Again, or ‘‘let’s make the best product possible, and Just about any software developer will tell developers won’t write for these systems then figure out how to best market it.’’ you that they develop for Windows because because the market share is small, and the Microsoft’s decision making, as shown in it is the dominant desktop platform. market share stays small because the documents already presented to the court, Although virtually all computer science applications aren’t available. When new has become entrenched in the practice of professors will teach their students that hardware devices are marketed (eg. CD–ROM monopoly. software development should aim to be drives, printers, video cards etc.) the It is this type of mindset that allows platform-independent (for very good manufacturers seldom write drivers for non- Microsoft to treat its customers with reasons), the reality of the marketplace is Microsoft platforms. At the same time, they contempt. The most glaring example is the such that this advice is ignored. Developers, often refuse to make their specifications Mail and News program, Outlook Express not surprisingly, develop for platforms with public, forcing the Linux community to (OE). OE, through its feature of allowing the a large market share. For most software reverse engineer new models in order to user to directly click on any icon in an email developers, even developing for the write device drivers. or news message, resulting in the haunch of Macintosh platform is not worth their while, The market share cycle also influences an application, is fundamentally insecure. because it is such a small percentage of the such fundamental things as the ability to Even after repeated spread of viruses such as market share. The net result is that no one purchase alternative systems. All computer the ‘‘Melissa’’ virus, each time on a world- chooses which platform to develop for, based stores sell computers with MS Windows wide scale, Microsoft has refused to on criteria such as quality of the platform, or preloaded. Only a small number of vendors eliminate this feature from OE. Similarly, the ease of development. There is no choice at will sell Linux pre-loaded, even though integration of Visual Basic into applications all. They develop for Windows. Linux is freely available. In many cases, a such as MS Word makes it possible for Put another way, everybody develops for person wishing to run Linux might actually viruses to propagate via text documents. In Windows because everybody develops for have to buy a Windows machine, thus paying both cases, Microsoft has completely ignored Windows. The process is self-perpetuating. for Windows, and then erase the hard drive security experts who advise that these c) The self-perpetuating Microsoft and replace it with Linux. This phenomenon strategies are fundamentally insecure, and monopoly impedes the evolution of is sometimes referred to as the ‘‘Microsoft remain invitations to an endless stream of computing There are alternatives to the Tax’’. As well, because the user has to take viruses. Only a company with an arrogant desktop computing model of MS-Windows. the extra step of installing Linux, Linux is certainty of market domination could afford While Macintosh is the most visible falsely perceived as being less user friendly. to ignore such obvious flaws in its software. competitor, Linux is also a credible This would not be the case if the consumer VerDate 11 had a choice of buying a pre-installed Linux 5. Applications (graphics, multimedia, etc.) As non-Windows users like myself have system. I believe that breakup into even 2 demonstrated, one can work just as easily on The self-perpetuating Microsoft monopoly companies does not adequately curb the non-Windows platforms. Especially in the therefore results in an arguably flawed monopoly effect. It is too easy for two Open Software sector, there are alternatives operating system maintaining control of the companies to coordinate efforts. It is more for most of the main types of applications direction of computing, even when better difficult for a larger number to coordinate. It available on the Windows platform, alternatives exist. also requires a greater effort on the including applications for office tasks (word B. A behavioral remedy is inadequate customer’s part to end up buying everything processors, spreadsheets, drawing and because: from an MS company, rather than buying presentation, calendars), multimedia (MIDI, * It does not break the market share cycle. some from MS, some from IBM, some from MP3, video etc.), Internet (web browsers, As long as Microsoft remains the ‘‘1 stop Sun, and others from another party. mailers, FTP, telnet etc.) At the enterprise shopping’’ choice for all software needs, no Other stipulations: level, server-oriented tasks such as database alternative platform, whatever its merits, can * None of these companies may use the management, web serving, application compete. Even worse, as the Windows name ‘‘Microsoft’’ or ‘‘Windows’’. Each serving and such are strongly represented on platform continues to scale to midrange company will independently choose new alternative platforms such as Unix or IBM’s servers, that vertical integration will make names (eg. Gatesware, Redmond OS, IIS AS400. As well, a Microsoft breakup doesn’t the Windows platform even harder for IT Systems, .NET inc.) This makes it a little mean that Microsoft will go away. It simply decision makers to avoid. more difficult for the ‘‘Microsoft’’ product to means that the consumer will have to * It guarantees endless litigation. MS has be automatically recognized and chosen explicitly choose Microsoft, rather than managed to make a career out of doing what solely for its name. It should be pointed out having no choice at all. it wants anyway, while tying up cases in that MS really can’t argue that it will be hurt 4) The evolution of computing will not be courts for years while competitors flounder. one bit by a name change. Name changes in driven by a single computing platform. * It still leaves the MS anti competitive very large corporations happen all the time, Regardless of whether or not one believes culture intact. The Microsoft corporate especially in cases of mergers and that the Windows platform is good or culture, as the company is now structured, is acquisitions (eg. Esso to Exxon, AgrEvo to inferior, the fact remains that it is a oriented toward perpetuating the monopoly. Aventis, Allegheny Airlines to USAir) monolithic platform. For the average desktop As long as Microsoft remains intact, the The resultant companies are not permitted user, Windows is synonymous with culture and attitudes of its employees will be free access to resources of other former MS computing. The more deeply intertwined the perpetuated. companies. They must license use of different parts of Windows are allowed to * One of the recommendations of the joint software, or access to source code, on the become, the less chance there will be for DO J/Microsoft settlement released in same terms as any other OEM, developer, or evolution of ANY part in a way other than other partner. That is, if a former MS September is that Microsoft should be that decreed by Microsoft. Microsoft’s current company licenses something from another required to make its software available on strategy is to continue evolving its desktop former MS company, the same licensing other operating systems besides Windows. model of computing to higher levels of terms must be made available to all This might actually result in a further computing, such as enterprise file:///C√/win/ interested OEMs or developers. domination of the desktop market, because, temp/tristens. computing or supercomputing, MS companies are not allowed to dictate due to the ‘‘No one ever got fired for buying terms of inclusion or exclusion of other 3rd where it is a very poor model. Yet, the sheer Microsoft’’ phenomenon. Software that is party software to any OEM or developer inertia of Microsoft’s market share will drive currently common on non-Windows systems wishing to license products of former MS this system even into places in which it is might be pushed out of the market by the companies. not an appropriate solution. A set of smaller perceived ‘‘industry standard’’ application. Current Microsoft corporate structure: companies derived from Microsoft would not The goal should not be to encourage MS to http://www.microsoft.com/press pass/ have the same power over the development grab an even larger market share. corpprofile.asp of computing, allowing for greater diversity, Rather, it should be to eliminate the self- One might argue that a structural remedy which is key to any evolutionary process. propagating domination of the market share is somehow ‘‘unfair’’ or overly punitive. E. Closing remarks that prevents competitors from vying for However, Microsoft holds no sacrosanct Perhaps as good an argument as any from some of that market share. position of privilege. There is no imperative breaking up Microsoft is because computing C. Microsoft should be broken into several that Microsoft must remain as a pillar of the has become central to almost every aspect of smaller companies American way. It is not entrenched in our life in the modem world. Computing is It is my contention that behavioral constitution. It is simply a company that was unlike, say the oil industry, or the food remedies will not correct the fundamental successful at a certain business strategy, at industry. No car runs on just one brand of problems caused by Microsoft’s domination the expense of the ruin of many other gasoline, and people buy a variety of foods of desktop computing. My basic point is that companies. because they like variety. When you couple if the settlement is to be truly fair, then D. Benefits of a structural remedy our great dependence on computers in all Microsoft should be put onto the same level 1) It works automatically, and requires less walks of life, with the monolithic structure playing field as other companies. It must be monitoring. nature of desktop computing as controlled by forced to make its decisions based on a 2) It lets smaller companies compete piece a single company, the result is that the competitive model, not a domination model. by piece with MS, rather than having to company that dominates that computing The structural remedy should be based on compete with the full bundled MS array of infrastructure has some degree of control on the breakup of Microsoft into several products. most aspects of our modem life. The level of companies. There may be many possibilities, Today, an OEM or an IT department really power wielded by Microsoft is frightening. and it must be recognized that the breakup makes few decisions about what to put on The fact that they had sufficient clout to should not make it impossible to do business, their new computers. The choice of OS is a cause the US Justice Department to reverse and should not be structured such that its ‘‘no-brainer’’, because everybody uses its position on a breakup is a chilling implementation would be disruptive to the Windows, and most software is developed for example of that power. The fact that world of computer users, most of whom Windows. MS-Office is usually bundled with Microsoft has maintained its arrogant currently use Windows and MS Office. One Windows, so there’s no choice there. With domination of the computer market, and such structural remedy would see Microsoft WindowsXP, a full multimedia package is been allowed to do so with impunity, should broken into different companies specializing bundled—again no decision is made. If be cause for alarm. in specific product areas: bundling were eliminated, OEMs and IT It is not unAmerican for any branch of 1. Operating system departments might return to making government, executive, legislative or judicial, 2. Office (current MS-Office: WORD, decisions about what kind of components to limit the power of a private corporation, Powerpoint etc.) best meet their needs, rather than just ‘‘voting if that corporation is usurping powers that 3. Internet and Enterprise services (IIS, the straight ticket’’ for Microsoft. should rightly be exercised by the Internet Explorer, Outlook Express) 3) Business and home computer users will government or by the free market. Bill Gates 4..NET—API development tools not be harmed by a Microsoft breakup. was not elected by voters. The management VerDate 11 of Microsoft is not accountable to the public. security experts who advise that these c) The self-perpetuating Microsoft The antitrust laws were wisely enacted in strategies are fundamentally insecure, and monopoly impedes the evolution of recognition of the fact that non-elected remain invitations to an endless stream of computing There are alternatives to the entities such as corporations could viruses. Only a company with an arrogant desktop computing model of MS-Windows. sometimes wield too much power. It is the certainty of market domination could afford While Macintosh is the most visible job of the judiciary to ensure that they are not to ignore such obvious flaws in its software. competitor, Linux is also a credible allowed to do so. 2. The fact of monopoly results in de facto contender. As well, server-based solutions Comments on Civil Action No. 98–1233 anti competitive effects such as Sun Microsystem’s iPlanet platform (CKK) United States of America vs. Microsoft a) ‘‘No one was ever fired for buying (http://www.sun.com/software/sunone/ Corporation State of New York et al. vs. Microsoft’’. In fact, this quote is based on an overview/platform/ ), make it possible for Microsoft Corporation by Brian Fristensky earlier generation quote ‘‘No one was ever both novice users and high-tech users to Associate Professor fired for buying IBM’’. People make decisions replace the desktop computer entirely with a Department of Plant Science not based upon whether a product is better, user-friendly graphic terminal, or to run University of Manitoba but they buy the MS product because it is a applications remotely through a browser. Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2 safe, defensible decision for which they can’t The latter is a viable model as high-speed Phone: 204–474–6085 FAX: 204–474–7528 be criticized. Internet connections proliferate, especially [email protected] Examples: because they eliminate the need for the user http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/frist i) Long after NCSA Mosaic, and its to do any system administration, and insulate Judge Colleen Kollar-Kelly successor, Netscape were introduced, the user from the hardware obsolescence, and [email protected] Microsoft created Internet Explorer (IE). Even allow the user to access their computer files Dear Judge Kollar-Kelly, though IE was clearly an inferior product for and applications from anywhere in the I wish to comment on the Microsoft several years, it quickly gained market share. world. Such alternative solutions are in fact Antitrust case awaiting judgment in your Further leveraging of the Windows platform used by a very small number of users. They court. To keep things brief, I shall focus on resulted in the ultimate domination of the are only slowly gaining ground due to the points that I think have not been adequately browser market, at the expense of Netscape. Microsoft monopoly. The users of these brought out in the proceedings of which I am ii) RealPlayer and other products from alternative platforms would all argue that aware. www.real.com virtually created the market they do so because these platforms are Point of information: for browser-based multimedia. Yet, with the superior to the Windows platform. Whether I am an Associate Professor in the bundling of Windows Media Player (WMP), any or all of these alternatives is actually Department of Plant Science at the University this established platform is losing ground. superior is moot. A putatively-superior of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada. I have Why develop for RealPlayer when you can computing platform simply can not compete been doing research in molecular biology for count on everybody having WMP? with the de facto Microsoft standard. over 20 years. I was also instrumental in the iii) At one time there was a competitive d) The Microsoft monopoly has a negative original development of software for DNA market among word processors, spreadsheets, effect on the quality of alternative systems. sequence analysis, beginning in 1979. I am an and drawing/presentation programs. Corel Even those of us who have chosen to use active contributor to the field of Word Perfect, Quattro Pro, and CorelDraw/ systems other than Microsoft Windows feel Bioinformatics, which has gained recognition CorelPresents were viable competitors to MS the negative impact of the monopoly. In my recently in its role in sequencing the human Word, MS Excell, and Powerpoint. Today, own case, I have operated my research genome. the MS products are overwhelmingly the laboratory, and performed all my teaching Finally, I am an American citizen. only products in widespread use. duties, almost exclusively on the Sun Unix A. The effects of Microsoft’s practices, and In each case, the Microsoft product took system. Detailed examples can be found at the indirect effects of its ‘‘de facto standard’’ over an already existing market, not by being http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/psgendb/nc/. At 1. The Microsoft culture better, but simply, because it was made by home, my family and I exclusively use Linux. It has been well established in court Microsoft. These examples illustrate the While the members of my lab group, proceedings that Microsoft has a long history point that the de facto aspects of the myself, and my students have often been of premeditated anti competitive practices. Microsoft monopoly are far more pernicious ahead of the curve in utilizing networked The main point I want to make is that the than the deliberate anti competitive computing resources, there have been a decision making process at Microsoft is practices. Put another way, everybody buys number of stumbling blocks resulting from centered around leveraging the existing Microsoft because everybody has Microsoft. the Microsoft monopoly. Probably the monopoly to maintain the monopoly. When This phenomenon ensures the continuation greatest problem is the fact that the choice of you have the monopoly advantage, you of the Microsoft monopoly. One might call applications available on the Sun Unix choose different strategies than a company this the ‘‘market share cycle’’. system or Linux is much smaller than on that uses different premises for decision b) Why develop for other platforms when Windows, due to the much smaller desktop making, such as ‘‘we need to be competitive’’ Windows is the only one that anyone uses. market share of these systems. Again, or ‘‘let’s make the best product possible, and Just about any software developer will tell developers won’t write for these systems then figure out how to best market it.’’ you that they develop for Windows because because the market share is small, and the Microsoft’s decision making, as shown in it is the dominant desktop platform. market share stays small because the documents already presented to the court, Although virtually all computer science applications aren’t available. When new has become entrenched in the practice of professors will teach their students that hardware devices are marketed (eg. CD-ROM monopoly. software development should aim to be drives, printers, video cards etc.) the It is this type of mindset that allows platform-independent (for very good manufacturers seldom write drivers for non- Microsoft to treat its customers with reasons), the reality of the marketplace is Microsoft platforms. At the same time, they contempt. The most glaring example is the such that this advice is ignored. Developers, often refuse to make their specifications Mail and News program, Outlook Express not surprisingly, develop for platforms with public, forcing the Linux community to (OE). OE, through its feature of allowing the a large market share. For most software reverse engineer new models in order to user to directly click on any icon in an email developers, even developing for the write device drivers. or news message, resulting in the launch of Macintosh platform is not worth their while, The market share cycle also influences an application, is fundamentally insecure. because it is such a small percentage of the such fundamental things as the ability to Even after repeated spread of viruses such as market share. The net result is that no one purchase alternative systems. All computer the ‘‘Melissa’’ virus, each time on a world- chooses which platform to develop for, based stores sell computers with MS Windows wide scale, Microsoft has refused to on criteria such as quality of the platform, or preloaded. Only a small number of vendors eliminate this feature from OE. Similarly, the ease of development. There is no choice at will sell Linux pre-loaded, even though integration of Visual Basic into applications all. They develop for Windows. Linux is freely available. In many cases, a such as MS Word makes it possible for Put another way, everybody develops for person wishing to run Linux might actually viruses to propagate via text documents. In Windows because everybody develops for have to buy a Windows machine, thus paying both cases, Microsoft has completely ignored Windows. The process is self-perpetuating. for Windows, and then erase the hard drive VerDate 11 and replace it with Linux. This phenomenon 3. Internet and Enterprise services (IIS, best meet their needs, rather than just ‘‘voting is sometimes referred to as the ‘‘Microsoft Internet Explorer, Outlook Express) the straight ticket’’ for Microsoft. Tax’’. As well, because the user has to take 4..NET—API development tools 3) Business and home computer users will the extra step of installing Linux, Linux is 5. Applications (graphics, multimedia, etc.) not be harmed by a Microsoft breakup. falsely perceived as being less user friendly. I believe that breakup into even 2 As non-Windows users like myself have This would not be the case if the consumer companies does not adequately curb the demonstrated, one can work just as easily on had a choice of buying a pre-installed Linux monopoly effect. It is too easy for two non-Windows platforms. Especially in the system. flawed operating system maintaining companies to coordinate efforts. It is more Open Software sector, there are alternatives control of the direction of computing, even difficult for a larger number to coordinate. It for most of the main types of applications when better alternatives exist. also requires a greater effort on the available on the Windows platform, B. A behavioral remedy is inadequate customer’s part to end up buying everything including applications for office tasks (word because: from an MS company, rather than buying processors, spreadsheets, drawing and * It does not break the market share cycle. some from MS, some from IBM, some from presentation, calendars), multimedia (MIDI, As long as Microsoft remains the ‘‘1 stop Sun, and others from another party. MP3, video etc.), Internet (web browsers, shopping’’ choice for all software needs, no Other stipulations: mailers, FTP, telnet etc.) At the enterprise alternative platform, whatever its merits, can * None of these companies may use the level, server-oriented tasks such as database compete. Even worse, as the Windows name ‘‘Microsoft’’ or ‘‘Windows’’. Each management, web serving, application platform continues to scale to midrange company will independently choose new serving and such are strongly represented on servers, that vertical integration will make names (eg. Gatesware, Redmond OS, IIS alternative platforms such as Unix or IBM’s the Windows platform even harder for IT Systems, .NET inc.) This makes it a little AS400. As well, a Microsoft breakup doesn’t decision makers to avoid. more difficult for the ‘‘Microsoft’’ product to mean that Microsoft will go away. It simply * It guarantees endless litigation. MS has be automatically recognized and chosen means that the consumer will have to managed to make a career out of doing what solely for its name. It should be pointed out explicitly choose Microsoft, rather than it wants anyway, while tying up cases in that MS really can’t argue that it will be hurt having no choice at all. courts for years while competitors flounder. one bit by a name change. Name changes in 4) The evolution of computing will not be * It still leaves the MS anti competitive very large corporations happen all the time, driven by a single computing platform. culture intact. The Microsoft corporate especially in cases of mergers and Regardless of whether or not one believes culture, as the company is now structured, is acquisitions (eg. Esso to Exxon, AgrEvo to that the Windows platform is good or oriented toward perpetuating the monopoly. Aventis, Allegheny Airlines to USAir) inferior, the fact remains that it is a As long as Microsoft remains intact, the The resultant companies are not permitted monolithic platform. For the average desktop culture and attitudes of its employees will be free access to resources of other former MS user, Windows is synonymous with perpetuated. companies. They must license use of computing. The more deeply intertwined the * One of the recommendations of the joint software, or access to source code, on the different parts of Windows are allowed to DO J/Microsoft settlement released in same terms as any other OEM, developer, or become, the less chance there will be for September is that Microsoft should be other partner. That is, if a former MS evolution of ANY part in a way other than required to make its software available on company licenses something from another that decreed by Microsoft. Microsoft’s current other operating systems besides Windows. former MS company, the same licensing strategy is to continue evolving its desktop This might actually result in a further terms must be made available to all model of computing to higher levels of domination of the desktop market, because, interested OEMs or developers. computing, such as enterprise computing or due to the ‘‘No one ever got fired for buying MS companies are not allowed to dictate supercomputing, where it is a very poor Microsoft’’ phenomenon. Software that is terms of inclusion or exclusion of other 3rd model. Yet, the sheer inertia of Microsoft’s currently common on non-Windows systems party software to any OEM or developer market share will drive this system even into might be pushed out of the market by the wishing to license products of former MS places in which it is not an appropriate perceived ‘‘industry standard’’ application. companies. solution. A set of smaller companies derived The goal should not be to encourage MS to Current Microsoft corporate structure: from Microsoft would not have the same grab an even larger market share. http://www.microsoft.com/press pass/ power over the development of computing, Rather, it should be to eliminate the self- corpprofile.asp allowing for greater diversity, which is key to propagating domination of the market share One might argue that a structural remedy any evolutionary process. that prevents competitors from vying for is somehow ‘‘unfair’’ or overly punitive. E. Closing remarks some of that market share. However, Microsoft holds no sacrosanct Perhaps as good an argument as any from C. :Microsoft should be broken into several position of privilege. There is no imperative breaking up Microsoft is because computing smaller companies that Microsoft must remain as a pillar of the has become central to almost every aspect of It is my contention that behavioral American way. It is not entrenched in our life in the modern world. Computing is remedies will not correct the fundamental constitution. It is simply a company that was unlike, say the oil industry, or the food problems caused by Microsoft’s domination successful at a certain business strategy, at industry. No car runs on just one brand of of desktop computing. My basic point is that the expense of the ruin of many other gasoline, and people buy a variety of foods if the settlement is to be truly fair, then companies. because they like variety. When you couple Microsoft should be put onto the same level D. Benefits of a structural remedy our great dependence on computers in all playing field as other companies. It must be 1) It works automatically, and requires less walks of life, with the monolithic structure forced to make its decisions based on a monitoring. nature of desktop computing as controlled by competitive model, not a domination model. 2) It lets smaller companies compete piece a single company, the result is that the The structural remedy should be based on by piece with MS, rather than having to company that dominates that computing the breakup of Microsoft into several compete with the full bundled MS array of infrastructure has some degree of control on companies. There may be many possibilities, products. most aspects of our modern life. The level of and it must be recognized that the breakup Today, an OEM or an IT department really power wielded by Microsoft is frightening. should not make it impossible to do business, makes few decisions about what to put on The fact that they had sufficient clout to and should not be structured such that its their new computers. The choice of OS is a cause the US Justice Department to reverse implementation would be disruptive to the ‘‘no-brainer’’, because everybody uses its position on a breakup is a chilling world of computer users, most of whom Windows, and most software is developed for example of that power. The fact that currently use Windows and MS Office. One Windows. MS-Office is usually bundled with Microsoft has maintained its arrogant such structural remedy would see Microsoft Windows, so there’s no choice there. With domination of the computer market, and broken into different companies specializing WindowsXP, a full multimedia package is been allowed to do so with impunity, should in specific product areas: bundled—again no decision is made. If be cause for alarm. 1. Operating system bundling were eliminated, OEMs and IT It is not unAmerican for any branch of 2. Office (current MS-Office: WORD, departments might return to making government, executive, legislative or judicial, Powerpoint etc.) decisions about what kind of components to limit the power of a private corporation, VerDate 11 if that corporation is usurping powers that Subject: Microsoft Settlement was split because it had amonopoly of should rightly be exercised by the James V. Miller basically the entire market. That is one government or by the free market. Bill Gates P.O.Box 12369 extreme past example. was not elected by voters. The management Mill Creek, Wa 98082 CC:ASKDOJ of Microsoft is not accountable to the public. January 26, 2002 MTC–00029429 The antitrust laws were wisely enacted in Attorney General John Ashcroft recognition of the fact that non-elected Us Department of Justice From: Mike Edwards entities such as corporations could 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW To: Microsoft ATR sometimes wield too much power. It is the Washington, DC 20530 Date: 1/28/02 11:55pm job of the judiciary to ensure that they are not Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Subject: Microsoft Settlement allowed to do so. I am writing you today to inform you of my Microsoft is a monopoly. That is the only position regarding the Microsoft antitrust way I can find to describe a company who, MTC–00029426 dispute. I support Microsoft in this dispute for years, has concentrated on squashing From: James R. Bergman and feel that the litigation that has gone on competitors rather than improving their To: Microsoft ATR is costly and a waste of resources. I support shoddy products. Date: 1/28/02 11:54pm the Microsoft settlement reached in I have used Microsoft products in various Subject: Microsoft Settlement November, and I sincerely hope there will be capacities for many years—starting with MS- Renata B. Hesse no further action against Microsoft at the DOS 2.10 on a home PC to Windows NT 4 Antitrust Division federal level. / Windows 2000 in a work environment (as U.S. Department of Justice This settlement was reached after extensive a system administrator, no less). All versions 601 D Street NW negotiations. Microsoft has agreed to all of Microsoft Windows I have used, starting Suite 1200 terms of this agreement, including terms that with 3.0, have experienced severe reliability Washington, DC 20530–0001 extend well beyond the original issues of this problems—and these problems have grown Dear Ms. Hesse: lawsuit, all for the sake of wrapping it up. over time. The rest of their software seems to This is to advise you that I strongly believe Under this agreement, Microsoft has agreed follow this model. that the terms of the proposed settlement— to grant computer makers broad new rights In stark contrast, there have been quite a which have met or gone beyond the findings to configure Windows to promote non- few companies over the years who have tried of the Court of Appeals ruling—are Microsoft software programs that compete to improve upon the deficencies in reasonable and fair to all parties involved. with programs included within Windows. Microsoft’s products, only to be bought out This settlement represents the best Microsoft has also agreed to license its or forced out of the market by unsavory opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to Window operating system products to the 20 business practices (bundling, etc.), thereby move forward. largest computer makers. This settlement will leaving the market barren of competetors. I say this with a 30-year successful benefit companies attempting to compete. Netscape is only the most recent example of business career behind me and, hopefully, Most importantly, this settlement will help predatory practices that Microsoft has been even greater success ahead. But should this boost our lagging economy and will benefit using to boost their position for years. settlement not be finalized and a harsher consumers. Microsoft should be allowed to Microsoft is fond of claiming they penalty imposed on Microsoft, I know, not devote its resources and talent to designing ‘‘innovate’’. I don’t think Microsoft has believe, that it will affect my business and innovative products, rather than litigation. innovated a single thing in their entire most all general, old-economy businesses in Thank you for your support. existence, instead choosing to buy or steal a severely negative and expensive way. Sincerely, technology belonging to others. So much for Similarly, the so-called new economy innovation. MTC–00029428 industries will not benefit though those that Please, don’t let this settlement go through. are envious of Microsoft’s success and those From: [email protected]@inetgw It will just validate Microsoft’s position of who cannot keep up with Microsoft’s To: Microsoft ATR providing the worst products possible. Given efficient execution of its business plan may Date: 1/28/02 11:54pm their history of unreliable software with an feel differently. Subject: MIcrosoft Case amazing number of security holes, I would I strongly request that you support this Jasper Shau think that this is the last thing you’d want to settlement to the greatest degree possible and Eighth Grade do. do all things available to you to assure its I think that Microsoft should be allowed to Mike Edwards being finalized. As both a business owner settle. Because Microsoft used itswindows MTC–00029430 and home user who has and does use many system to distribute Internet explorer, it software programs as well as spends quite a would a kind of monopoly. However, From: Joe Bustamante few hours a week on the Internet, I am Microsoft does not make any money off the To: Microsoft ATR grateful for all the many wonderful things Internet explorer browser. Netscape is being Date: 1/28/02 11:56pm that Microsoft has accomplished and have destroyed because they make their money off Subject: Microsoft Settlement always made available to me at reasonable their browser. If Microsoft pays enough As I understand the meaning and nature of and fair prices that have aided me in my money, and if the money goes to Netscape, the Tunney Act statutory process, its business and family life. Please feel free to it should be allowed to settle.Microsoft had principle goal is to ensure that the people contact me if you wish. Should you be already made several concessions ???We kept who are invariably the principle victims of speaking to Joel Klein, please say ‘‘Hi’’ from making concessions, and the government all antitrust violations, that is to say the an old fraternity brother (we were in Alpha kept coming back with unreasonable general public, have a voice in determining Epsilon Pi, Class of 1967, Columbia College demands, wanting us toinstall Netscape for what is and is not in their own best interests. of Columbia University, NYC). them,??? Gates said. ???It was like hearing It seems self evident that when deciding how Sincerely, ???Netscape this, Netscape that,??? all the to remedy violations of law which harm the James R. Bergman time.??? Obviously the federal government is general public, the first principle of guarding 910 S. Delhi Street pushing Microsoft too hard. Though if the public interest should be to minimize the Philadelphia, PA 19147–3810 Microsoft monopolizes the browser they may recurrence of violations by making certain Phone:(215) 922–9145 charge very high fees for using it,the the consequences to the violator always Fax:(215) 922–4803 government would not allow them then. outweigh the rewards. It is unavailing to Mobile:(215) 284–1676 Even so, Microsoft says that theyhave no resolve the case if the violator is allowed to E-mail:[email protected] intention of doing so: ‘‘’’ Gates says. ‘‘In no profit from his misdeeds in any fashion, way are we eliminating choice.’’ He also since this only encourages others to show MTC–00029427 bristles at the notion that Microsoft wants to even greater contempt for the law. It is From: JVMiller23 turn theInternet into its personal toll road. similarly fruitless to go to great expense To: Microsoft ATR ‘‘We’ll get our revenue from selling great proving in court the facts of eight such Date: 1/28/02 11:53pm software.’’ In the Pac-bell incident, Pac-bell violations and then allow the violator to keep VerDate 11 the rewards of them all, and even continue its monopoly of the operating system in a court to re-explain matters which were committing one or more. Such seems to be manner not attributable either to the already clearly stated by the Court of the case in this matter, the United States v. superiority of the operating system or to the Appeals. Microsoft, Civil Action No. 98–1232 (CKK). acumen of its makers, and therefore was In short, this agreement encourages After carefully reading and researching the anticompetitive. Microsoft to continue and expand on their findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Unsurprisingly, Microsoft offers no illegal practices and encourages others in like District Court, as well as the unanimous procompetitive explanation for its campaign circumstances to do the same. It is totally opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, it is to deceive developers. Accordingly, we contrary to the public interest, in my apparent that the United States Department conclude this conduct is exclusionary, in opinion. of Justice, assisted by the attorneys general of violation of s 2 of the Sherman Act.’’ Jose Bustamante several of the States, made a very compelling Semantically broken, these quotations Austin, TX 78729 and conclusive case to establish that uphold nine distinct acts as violations of the [email protected] Microsoft Corporation had engaged in an Sherman Act: illegal campaign of antitrust violations in 1. OEM license restrictions which MTC–00029432 order to strengthen and defend their prohibited many actions which might From: Joe Byrd monopoly in PC operating system software. promote Netscape software in Microsoft’s To: Microsoft ATR The District Court ruled firmly that dominated market, excepting one which Date: 1/28/02 11:57pm Microsoft had committed a large number of prohibited automatically launching Subject: Microsoft Filing violations, and the Court of Appeals alternative interfaces. The attached document is for the Microsoft unanimously upheld eight of those. In order 2. Exclusion of Internet Explorer from the case. to analyze the effectiveness of the remedy, Add/Remove Programs utility to force users If you have any questions, please contact, the first thing we must do is ensure that to accept IE willy-nilly. Joe Byrd at 918–453–8100. Thank you Microsoft is not allowed to continue or profit 3. Commingling of brower and operting Email Address: [email protected] from any of the eight distinct violations system code to further force users to accept Subject: Microsoft Settlement. identified by the appellate court. I will begin IE willy-nilly. The National Native American Chamber of this analysis with a list of the nine violations 4. Microsoft’s exclusive contracts with Commerce represents Native American and as they were expressed in X sections of the Internet Access Providers to exlude Netscape other minority businesses trying to compete appeals court’s opinion, along with a brief from those distribution channels. in the New Economy. However, with quote of the appeals court opinion regarding 5. Microsoft’s similar (to #4) dealings with monopolistic players and absurd settlements each distinct violation (I preserve the ISV and ICPs to exclude Netscape from still such as this one, we will continue to be heading numbers used by the court, omitting other distribution channels. excluded. That is why we are glad to witness those which were overturned or remanded). 6. Microsoft’s exclusive dealings with that some state Attorneys General, including 1. Licenses Issued to Original Equipment Apple Computer to limit Netscape California’s Bill Lockyer, are resisting this Manufacturers—‘‘In sum, we hold that with distribution for MacOS. regrettable deal and asking the courts to the exception of the one restriction 7. Microsoft’s First Wave Agreements impose a real solution. They deserve our prohibiting automatically launched requiring the use of Microsoft’s JVM. support. alternative interfaces, all the OEM license 8. Microsoft’s threatening of Intel, which The proposed settlement of the Microsoft restrictions at issue represent uses of led to Intel abandoning nascent technologies antitrust case is little more than a collection Microsoft’s market power to protect its related to Java which they had already of loopholes that amounts to tacit approval monopoly, unredeemed by any legitimate invested considerable effort in researching. for the company’s history of mistreating its justification. The restrictions therefore 9. Microsoft’s campaign to deceive their competitors. What is more, much of the violate s 2 of the Sherman Act. own customers in order to trick them into criticism of those opposing the settlement 2. Integration of IE and Windows— writing Microsoft dependent applications misses three points in particular. First, the ‘‘Accordingly, we hold that Microsoft’s when they thought they were writing cross proposed settlement does not prohibit exclusion of IE from the Add/Remove platform Java applications. Microsoft from bundling its software and Programs utility and its commingling of After studying the Proposed Final tightening its grip on Internet applications— browser and operating system code constitute Judgement in this case between the United including MSN portal, instant messaging, e- exclusionary conduct, in violation of s 2.’’ States and Microsoft, I see that points 3 and mail, and streaming-media applications. 3. Agreements with Internet Access 9 are completely unaddressed, and indeed in Second, yes, Microsoft must release some Providers—‘‘Accordingly, we affirm the case 3 Microsoft is being given tacit programming code to competitors, but only District Court’s decision holding that government approval to continue and extend after it has developed its own products. And, Microsoft’s exclusive contracts with IAPs are the practice of commingling operating system third and finally, the independent watchdog exclusionary devices, in violation of s 2 of code with the code of any application they group called for in the settlement is all bark the Sherman Act.’’ wish to dominate. Indeed Microsoft has and no bite—it has no teeth for enforcement. 4. Dealings with Internet Content already done this to some measure in their We, the taxpayers, suffer in the long run. Providers, Independent Software Vendors, latest operating system release, Windows XP. Other antitrust violators monitoring the and Apple Computer—‘‘Microsoft having They are not only continuing to commingle outcome of this case will have a blueprint offered no procompetitive justification for its browser and operating system to make IE furnished for them detailing a course of exclusive dealing arrangements with the inextricable from Windows, but are action that will allow them to skirt out legal ISVs, we hold that those arrangements violate extending the practice to now encompass system. It is a pleasure to side with the state s 2 of the Sherman Act.’’—and— code previously associated with multimedia attorney general in admonishing what Justice ‘‘Accordingly, we hold that the exclusive authoring and editing. How does the Department attorneys hide behind in this deal with Apple is exclusionary, in violation Department of Justice explain this apparent farce, ‘‘the substantial likelihood that of s 2 of the Sherman Act.’’ endorsement of a practice ruled illegal by a Microsoft would avail itself of all 5. Java—‘‘Because the cumulative effect of United States Court of Appeals? opportunities’’ to appeal. the deals is anticompetitive and because As for the other 7 violations, they are only Bill Lockyer is right to reject a settlement Microsoft has no procompetitive justification imperfectly addressed. Virtually every would essentially allow Microsoft to set its for them, we hold that the provisions in the restriction is laden with elaborate and own rules and terms for complying with that First Wave Agreements requiring use of ofttimes contradictory exceptions. Overriding settlement. Such an outcome is Microsoft’s JVM as the default are all of these is the stipulation that Microsoft unacceptable—Microsoft has played ‘‘fast exclusionary, in violation of the Sherman has sole authority to define what is and is not and loose’’ with U.S. antitrust law over and Act.’’—and—‘‘Therefore we affirm the the operating system. This is carte blanche over through the years and has been found conclusion that Microsoft’s threats to Intel for Microsoft to continue their illegal practice guilty in a number of jurisdictions of abusing were exclusionary, in violation of of the of extinguishing nascent technologies its power. Sherman Act.’’—‘‘Microsoft’s conduct related through ‘‘integration’’. This settlement is Sincerely to its Java developer tools served to protect going to require constant referral back to the Robert Ferrell VerDate 11 5230 Pacific Concourse Drive against Microsoft. However, I am not happy Date: 1/28/02 11:54pm Suite 20 about the fact that it took the government Subject: Microsoft Settlement Los Angeles, CA 90045 three years to end its costly, taxpayer-funded Timothy L Smith Email Address: [email protected] lawsuit. Under the agreement, computer 1855 Travis Rd. Subject: Microsoft Settlement. manufacturers were granted new rights to West Palm Beach, FL 33406–5260 The National Native American Chamber of configure systems with access to various January 28, 2002 Commerce represents Native American and Windows features. Microsoft must design Microsoft Settlement other minority businesses trying to compete future versions of Windows to make it easier U.S. Department of Justice in the New Economy. However, with to install non-Microsoft software and to Antitrust Division monopolistic players and absurd settlements disclose information about certain internal 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW such as this one, we will continue to be interfaces in Windows. Washington, DC 20530 excluded. That is why we are glad to witness The company made many more Dear Microsoft Settlement: that some state Attorneys General, including compromises in this agreement. I don’t see a The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ California’s Bill Lockyer, are resisting this need for any future federal litigation against dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a regrettable deal and asking the courts to Microsoft beyond this agreement. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech impose a real solution. They deserve our Sincerely, industry. It is high time for this trial, and the support. Linda Starnes wasteful spending accompanying it, to be The proposed settlement of the Microsoft 33648 7th Place Southwest over. Consumers will indeed see competition antitrust case is little more than a collection Federal Way, WA 98023 in the marketplace, rather than the of loopholes that amounts to tacit approval courtroom. And the investors who propel our for the company’s history of mistreating its MTC–00029434 economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. competitors. What is more, much of the From: Michael Vengrow Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the criticism of those opposing the settlement To: Microsoft ATR federal government should not have broken misses three points in particular. Date: 1/29/02 12:00am up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, First, the proposed settlement does not Subject: Microsoft Settlement companies like Microsoft can get back into prohibit Microsoft from bundling its software Dear Sir, the business of innovating and creating better and tightening its grip on Internet I would like to respectfully submit my products for consumers, and not wasting applications—including MSN portal, instant comments on the Microsoft Settlement. I valuable resources on litigation. Competition messaging, e-mail, and streaming-media believe that the key issue in this case is means creating better goods and offering applications. Second, yes, Microsoft must whether or not it is possible for a company superior services to consumers. With release some programming code to to infringe on the rights of others, e.g., government out of the business of stifling competitors, but only after it has developed customers, competitors, distributors, etc, progress and tying the hands of corporations, its own products. And, third and finally, the simply by offering products or services for consumers—rather than bureaucrats and independent watchdog group called for in sale under certain conditions. Microsoft’s judges—will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the the settlement is all bark and no bite—it has competitors have alleged that Microsoft has high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will no teeth for enforcement. constrained freedom of trade in the software be encouraged to create new and competitive We, the taxpayers, suffer in the long run. industry by using ‘‘unfair’’ practices, such as products and technologies. Other antitrust violators monitoring the obligating distributors of Microsoft programs Thank you for this opportunity to share my outcome of this case will have a blueprint to include certain features with Windows or views. furnished for them detailing a course of to agree to certain licensing arrangements Sincerely, action that will allow them to skirt out legal with Microsoft. I submit that offering Timothy L. Smith system. It is a pleasure to side with the state products under such conditions do not attorney general in admonishing what Justice constitute a breach of anyone’s rights, neither MTC–00029436 Department attorneys hide behind in this distributors nor customers, since no one has From: Bryan Hoskins farce, ‘‘the substantial likelihood that been forced to deal with Microsoft. The only To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft would avail itself of all way to actually infringe on someone’s rights Date: 1/28/02 11:58pm opportunities’’ to appeal. are to initiate physical force against them or Subject: Microsoft Settlement Bill Lockyer is right to reject a settlement to commit an act of fraud against them. The Renata B. Hesse would essentially allow Microsoft to set its fact that Microsoft has outcompeted its Antitrust Division own rules and terms for complying with that competitors, without a single alleged U.S. Department of Justice settlement. Such an outcome is instance of force or fraud, and that its 601 D Street NW unacceptable—Microsoft has played ‘‘fast competitors are now crying ‘‘Not fair!!! Suite 1200 and loose’’ with U.S. antitrust law over and Not fair!! Not fair!!!’’, is no reason for the Washington, DC 20530–0001 over through the years and has been found government to attack Microsoft with a I respectfully submit my opinion on the guilty in a number of jurisdictions of abusing lawsuit. Please keep in mind that the only agreement, the terms of which I believe to be its power. way Microsoft has been successful during its in the best public interest. Sincerely entire history is to offer either better products While the provisions of the agreement are Robert Ferrell or better services or lower prices. No one has stringent, I believe the terms-which have met, 5230 Pacific Concourse Drive been coerced or defrauded by Microsoft. or gone beyond the findings of the Court of Suite 20 Ever. On the contrary, the public (myself Appeals ruling-are reasonable and fair to all Los Angeles, CA 90045 emphatically included) has enormously parties involved. This settlement represents benefitted from the tremendous increase in MTC–00029433 the best opportunity for the industry to move efficiency of daily tasks, in both business and forward. Both our nation’s government and From: Linda Starnes personal life, which Microsoft’s products our nation’s business have more important To: Microsoft ATR have made possible. Given these facts, I urge matters at hand. Date: 1/28/02 11:59pm the court to not punish Microsoft for doing Sincerely, Subject: Microsoft Settlement what the best of America’s entrepeneur’s William B. Hoskins January 28, 2002 have always done—bring to market products Sugar Land, TX Attorney General John Ashcroft and services that improve people’s lives. US Department of Justice Thank you for your attention. MTC–00029437 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Michael Vengrow From: Ken Wronkiewicz Washington, DC 20530 San Diego, CA To: Microsoft ATR Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Date: 1/29/02 12:00am I wish to express my happiness upon MTC–00029435 Subject: Microsoft Settlement hearing of the Attorney General’s decision to From: Timothy L Smith I do not support the proposed settlement end the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit To: Microsoft Settlement with Microsoft. It is too loose on Microsoft VerDate 11 and will not ensure a free market. In order wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft Settlement to remedy Microsoft’s behaviour, it is over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 11:56pm necessary to change the way that Microsoft in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement does business. In the statements of fact, it is courtroom. And the investors who propel our Richard Barton shown that Microsoft has knowingly broken economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 515 Pine St. the law repetedly. Stronger measures are Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Brookings, OR 97415 necessary. federal government should not have broken January 28, 2002 I support Dan Kegel’s open letter, as he is up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Microsoft Settlement far more elequent than I. companies like Microsoft can get back into U.S. Department of Justice Ken‘‘Wirehead’’Wronkiewicz—wh@ the business of innovating and creating better Antitrust Division wirewd.com products for consumers, and not wasting 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW http://www.wirewd.com/wh/ valuable resources on litigation. Washington, DC 20530 Competition means creating better goods Dear Microsoft Settlement: MTC–00029438 and offering superior services to consumers. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ From: Phil Collins With government out of the business of dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a To: Microsoft ATR stifling progress and tying the hands of serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Date: 1/29/02 12:00am corporations, consumers—rather than industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Subject: Settlement—Energy bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick wasteful spending accompanying it, to be A commentator on the comuter technoloyg the winners and losers on Wall Street. With over. Consumers will indeed see competition scene, Dave Coursey of http:// the reins off the high-tech industry, more in the marketplace, rather than the www.zdnet.com/anchordesk, suggested that entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create courtroom. And the investors who propel our in the Microsoft settlement that has been new and competitive products and economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. proposed Microsoft should pay a mult-billion technologies. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the dollar fine as part of the settlement. Thank you for this opportunity to share my federal government should not have broken The condition for approval of the views. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, settlement is that it is in the best interests of Sincerely, companies like Microsoft can get back into the public of America. In the private antitrust Darrell R Clemons the business of innovating and creating better case before Judge Motz in Baltimore the products for consumers, and not wasting proposed settlement would have resulted in MTC–00029440 valuable resources on litigation. an estimated $1 billion for poor schools— From: Marc McEachern Competition means creating better goods which was totally unrelated to the alleged To: Microsoft Settlement and offering superior services to consumers. wrongs complained against Microsoft, but Date: 1/28/02 11:56pm With government out of the business of was presented as in the public interest. Subject: Microsoft Settlement stifling progress and tying the hands of The most pressing need facing America is Marc McEachern corporations, consumers—rather than this cnetury is sustainable energy to replace 7707 Terry Drive bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick the oil supplies of America and the world, La Vista, NE 68128 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With which are dwindling, and could be January 28, 2002 the reins off the high-tech industry, more substantially depleted if other sources are not Microsoft Settlement entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create used intead. America needs oil for self- U.S. Department of Justice new and competitive products and defense—planes, tanks and ships travel on Antitrust Division technologies. fuels derived from oil. As we know too well 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my after the September 11, 2001, attacks, the Washington, DC 20530 views. need of continuing self-defense of America is Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, great. World oil resources are much greater The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Richard L Barton than America’s oil, (and I include gas always dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a MTC–00029442 when I say oil) resourcs. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech IF Microsoft is made to pay billions, as industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Edward Watson Dave Coursey of ZDnet’s Anchor Desk wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft Settlement suggests, the billions should go to research in over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/28/02 11:56pm sustainable energy, particularly, that using in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement the principles discovery by Einstein, adn for courtroom. And the investors who propel our Edward Watson which he was awarded teh Nobel Prize, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 7752 E. Camelback Road including solar cells using the photo-electric Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Scottsdale, AZ 85251–2228 effects, fusion energy, and improvements in federal government should not have broken January 28, 2002 fission energy. This will be in the best up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Microsoft Settlement interest of America. companies like Microsoft can get back into U.S. Department of Justice the business of innovating and creating better Antitrust Division MTC–00029439 products for consumers, and not wasting 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW From: Darrell Clemons valuable resources on litigation. Competition Washington, DC 20530 To: Microsoft Settlement means creating better goods and offering Dear Microsoft Settlement: Date: 1/28/02 11:57pm superior services to consumers. With The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Subject: Microsoft Settlement government out of the business of stifling dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Darrell Clemons progress and tying the hands of corporations, serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 929 cr 4804 consumers—rather than bureaucrats and industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Copperas Cove , Tx 76522 judges—will once again pick the winners and wasteful spending accompanying it, to be January 28, 2002 losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the over. Consumers will indeed see competition Microsoft Settlement high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will in the marketplace, rather than the U.S. Department of Justice be encouraged to create new and competitive courtroom. And the investors who propel our Antitrust Division products and technologies. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Washington, DC 20530 views. federal government should not have broken Dear Microsoft Settlement: Sincerely, up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Marc McEachern companies like Microsoft can get back into dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a the business of innovating and creating better serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00029441 products for consumers, and not wasting industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Richard Barton valuable resources on litigation. VerDate 11 Competition means creating better goods The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Microsoft Settlement and offering superior services to consumers. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a U.S. Department of Justice With government out of the business of serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Antitrust Division stifling progress and tying the hands of industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW corporations, consumers—rather than wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Washington, DC 20530 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick over. Consumers will indeed see competition Dear Microsoft Settlement: the winners and losers on Wall Street. With in the marketplace, rather than the The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ the reins off the high-tech industry, more courtroom. And the investors who propel our dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech new and competitive products and Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the industry. It is high time for this trial, and the technologies. Thank you for this opportunity federal government should not have broken wasteful spending accompanying it, to be to share my views. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, over. Consumers will indeed see competition Sincerely, companies like Microsoft can get back into in the marketplace, rather than the Edward A. Watson the business of innovating and creating better courtroom. And the investors who propel our products for consumers, and not wasting economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. MTC–00029443 valuable resources on litigation. Competition Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the From: [email protected]@inetgw means creating better goods and offering federal government should not have broken To: Microsoft ATR superior services to consumers. With up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Date: 1/29/02 12:04am government out of the business of stifling companies like Microsoft can get back into Subject: Netscape sues Microsoft progress and tying the hands of corporations, the business of innovating and creating better Netscape sues Microsoft consumers—rather than bureaucrats and products for consumers, and not wasting Netscape a company backed by AOL time judges—will once again pick the winners and valuable resources on litigation. Warner sews Microsoft on account of illegal losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the Competition means creating better goods bundling. AOL is more interested in high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will and offering superior services to consumers. dominating the communications industry be encouraged to create new and competitive With government out of the business of than in Microsoft pay money. If we take a products and technologies. stifling progress and tying the hands of close look at what AOL already owns like Thank you for this opportunity to share my corporations, consumers—rather than HBO, Time, Warner Brothers, New line views. bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick cinema we notice that they do not dominate Sincerely, the winners and losers on Wall Street. With in communications, and that all P.C. already Virginia P. Gibson the reins off the high-tech industry, more come with Microsoft , so really there is no entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create point in using AOL when you already have MTC–00029446 new and competitive products and Microsoft. They plan to sue Microsoft so that From: Allen Kay technologies. bundling will stop and sometime in the To: Microsoft ATR Thank you for this opportunity to share my future they will have a chance in the software Date: 1/29/02 12:05am views. field. Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, This case is really about AOL securing Just want to let you know that I strongly Jerry Dowdy it???s place in the future. Truth be told no support the Microsoft & DOJ settlement one needs AOL or Netscape. Microsoft is just agreement. Continuing this court ordeal is MTC–00029450 trying to make Internet use more accessible. bad for the economy and bad for the From: [email protected]@inetgw Carnegy and his ability to make steel faster continuation of technological revolution. To: Microsoft ATR and more accessible to railroads did the same Furthermore, it is important for US Date: 1/29/02 12:09am thing that Microsoft has done with the companies to maintain the competitive edge Subject: Microsoft Settlement Internet. Rockefeller once said that , ???Much we currently enjoy. US government’s O.K. Justice, I believe this Microsoft that one man cannot do alone two can do resources, made possible by the tax payers, vendetta has dragged on long enough. together.??? Windows and Microsoft have should not be used to punish successful US Millions of TAXPAYER dollars have been done together what one man alone cannot do. technology companies. It should instead be wasted in this Clinton era, baseless and Bundling may be found illegal but used to protect its citizens from likes of ludicrous action. It is time to uphold the Microsoft intentions are just in wanting to Enron debacle. Thanks for taking time Microsoft settlement and return to some make the Internet more accessible to the reading my input. semblance of sanity. public. Jim Kenfield MTC–00029448 Elizabeth, CO. MTC–00029444 From: Joyce Korn From: paddona To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00029451 To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/29/02 12:11am From: [email protected]@inetgw Date: 1/29/02 12:03am Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement Attention: Renata B./ Hesse, Antitrust Date: 1/29/02 12:10am Dear Sirs: Division Subject: microsoft settlement I’m urging you to accept the settlement. Dear Ms. Hesse, I have been following the microsoft trials. Thank you Having reviewed the Microsoft settlement, It surprise me that the justice department Peter Addona Jr. I feel that it is just and reasonable and should gave up without any worthwhile penalties for be acceptable to the District Court as stated Microsoft. They should be the lst ones to give MTC–00029445 in the appeal. up especially after Mircosoft was found From: Virginia Gibson Sincerely, guilty of illegat conduct. To: Microsoft Settlement Joyce D.Korn I thought after finding Mircosoft quilty that Date: 1/28/02 11:59pm ([email protected]) the release of Windows XP should have been Subject: Microsoft Settlement CC:[email protected]@inetgw stopped. It contains even more bundling of Virginia Gibson products. Microsoft can afford to put more 3221 Queensgate Way MTC–00029449 ‘‘Free’’ products out as long as it elimates the Mt. Pleasant, SC 29466 From: Jerry Dowdy competition! January 29, 2002 To: Microsoft Settlement Why should a software developer want to Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/29/02 12:04am spent the time and energy on a product when U.S. Department of Justice Subject: Microsoft Settlement Mircosot forces the computer manufactuer to Antitrust Division Jerry Dowdy use only their programs. Even if a better 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 204 Rolling Hills Blvd product was produced it would never see the Washington, DC 20530 Florence, MS 39073 light of day, as Microsoft has been given a big Dear Microsoft Settlement: January 29, 2002 head start by their strong arm tatics. VerDate 11 Some people think that getting the bundle It is not fair to punish Microsoft for it’s Sincerely, programs free is a good thing. This is good success Betty Dunham only for Microsoft because they just add it to Sincerely, David Dunham the price of the basic operating system. C.J. Kvasnak, Gerald W Bryant 4802 Otter Creek Lane, MTC–00029456 Campbell,Ca. Ponte Vedra Beach, Fl. 32082 . From: Alan Edmonson To: Microsoft ATR MTC–00029452 MTC–00029454 Date: 1/29/02 12:13am From: Mark Stewart From: [email protected];inetgw Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR Please do not let Microsoft continue to run Date: 1/29/02 12:10am Date: 1/29/02 12:11am roughshod over competitors and the general Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: United States Department of Justice public. Make them comply with the anti-trust 3043 Pawlings Ford Road antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft regulations. Lansdale, PA 19446 Corporat January 27, 2002 I support Iowa’s Attorney General Tom MTC–00029457 Attorney General John Ashcroft Miller’s work on the Microsoft antitrust case. From: Charles Boyd US Department of Justice, Along with the majority of voters in our state, To: Microsoft ATR 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW I have and will continue to retain his counsel Date: 1/29/02 12:16am Washington, DC 20530–0001 in acting to protect the best interests of Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Mr. Ashcroft: consumers of Iowa. Promoting a competitive I am a computer technology manager and environment among companies producing MTC–00029458 obviously, quite familiar with the recent software will be of long-term benefit to From: dajawhit settlement between Microsoft and the everyone, and rejecting a settlement To: Microsoft ATR Department of Justice. I am writing to ask agreement that is premature is the right thing Date: 1/29/02 12:15am that you give your approval to this agreement to do. Justice will not be the result of a hasty Subject: Letter and allow us to move on. This agreement was decision in this incredibly complex and high- reached after very arduous negotiations, stakes arena. If the proposed agreement is fair MTC–00029459 resulting in what I believe to be a fair and and is in fact in the best solution to the From: [email protected]@inetgw equitable agreement. I firmly believe that the dangers posed by a potentially unfair To: Microsoft ATR original lawsuit is what precipitated the competition situation, it will stand the test of Date: 1/29/02 12:18am downfall of the economy, and further time and the detailed analysis of Mr. Miller Subject: Microsoft Settlement litigation will only continue to hamper our and his associates...which should not be Renata B. Hesse economic recovery. curtailed until their case has been fully Antitrust Divison Because I am in the industry, I believe the developed and considered. U.S. Department of Justice supposed monopoly of the market by David Huston, 601 D Street NW Washington, DC 20530– Microsoft will disappear. Microsoft’s 1512 48th Street, 0001 dominance of the market was with the Des Moines, IA 50311 Dear Ms. Hesse, desktop; but with the appearance of the CC:tormistcommat;ag.ia.us@inetgw It is my opinion that the terms of the Internet, Microsoft will have to struggle to Microsoft settlement are fair and just. I very MTC–00029455 maintain its dominance of the market. much want to see our Justice System settle Further litigation will only hamper any From: Dave and Betty Dunham this case and let our economy get moving possible innovation by Microsoft, which will To: Microsoft ATR again. I am a simple Americian with no not only be Microsoft’s loss, but ours as well. Date: 1/29/02 12:13am political agenda, and I am upset that many Bill Gates, through Microsoft, has taken us Subject: Microsoft Settlement special interest groups have managed to keep much further than we would have gone David & Betty Dunham a settlement from happening. Let’s get our without him. We are depriving ourselves of 2077 Dague Rd Country back on track and help President a very talented, creative force merely to Walla Walla, Wa. 99362 Bush with this as part of his stimulus satisfy the whining of rivals who cannot 509–525–4076 package. compete. The market place is its own Dear Mr Ashcroft, Sincerely, regulator, particularly in technology as it It is with deep respect for you, the present James C. Kline moves so quickly. administration, and the fairness of our great Small Business Owner Microsoft has satisfied many of the country that we write this letter asking you Department of Justice’s demands. Microsoft to accept the Microsoft Settlement. We have MTC–00029460 has agreed to open up to third party watched this entire process with great From: Caroline Goodall developers more of its copyrighted code, to interest and believe strongly that this suit To: Microsoft Settlement aid in the development of third party should never have been brought to court. Date: 1/29/02 12:12am programs; Microsoft has agreed to internal As small business people we hold dearly Subject: Microsoft Settlement interface disclosure; Microsoft has agreed to our right to keep and maintain personal Caroline Goodall a uniform price list; Microsoft has agreed to intellectual innovations and to market those 8112 Bonnafair Dr. a technical committee to oversee future aggressively. Microsoft is a great success Hermitage, Tn 37076–1033 adherence. This is more than fair. story and a testimony to the true spirit of January 29, 2002 I urge you to give your approval to this America. Microsoft has done more for the Microsoft Settlement agreement and not give in to the pettiness small business owner than any other U.S. Department of Justice that is so apparent. company in this century, by enabling our Antitrust Division cc: Senator Rick Santorum employees to work on computers which are 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, affordable and user friendly!!! Instead of Washington, DC 20530 Mark Stewart suing Microsoft and punishing success, our Dear Microsoft Settlement: country ought to be heralding it’s success and The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029453 challenging other companies to strive dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: CJ Neil Kvasnak forward. Through competition such as this serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft ATR comes excellence. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/29/02 12:11am MICROSOFT HAS GIVEN UP MUCH AND wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: Microsoft WE URGE YOU TO ACCEPT THIS over. Consumers will indeed see competition I trust that you will support this settlement SETTLEMENT. in the marketplace, rather than the with Microsoft. I am pleased this settlement Thank you for your time and the courtroom. And the investors who propel our was reached. Please settle this conflict now. opportunity to voice our opinion. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. VerDate 11 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the So Seattle, WA 98198 up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, federal government should not have broken Monday,January28,2002 companies like Microsoft can get back into up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, AmericaOnfine:RichardLCa Page: I the business of innovating and creating better companies like Microsoft can get back into products for consumers, and not wasting MTC–00029463 the business of innovating and creating better valuable resources on litigation. products for consumers, and not wasting From: Lydia Godinez Competition means creating better goods valuable resources on litigation. To: Microsoft Settlement and offering superior services to consumers. Competition means creating better goods Date: 1/29/02 12:15am With government out of the business of and offering superior services to consumers. Subject: Microsoft Settlement stifling progress and tying the hands of With government out of the business of Lydia Godinez corporations, consumers—rather than stifling progress and tying the hands of 3833 Peachtree Rd bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick corporations, consumers—rather than Atlanta, GA 30319 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick January 29, 2002 the reins off the high-tech industry, more the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Microsoft Settlement entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create the reins off the high-tech industry, more U.S. Department of Justice new and competitive products and entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Antitrust Division technologies. new and competitive products and 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for this opportunity to share my Washington, DC 20530 technologies. views. Dear Microsoft Settlement: Thank you for this opportunity to share my Sincerely, The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers views. Gregory L. Lambert dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Sincerely, serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech MTC–00029465 C.I.Goodall industry. It is high time for this trial, and the From: Helen Gamsey MTC–00029461 wasteful spending accompanying it, to be To: Microsoft ATR From: [email protected]@inetgw over. Consumers will indeed see competition Date: 1/29/02 12:23am To: Microsoft ATR in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft settlement courtroom. And the investors who propel our Date: 1/29/02 12:18am Dear Mr. Ashcroft, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Subject: Law suit I hope you accept my response, slightly Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the It is time to bring this ridiculous suit to an late, I couldn’t get my email to work and had federal government should not have broken end and quit making all the attorneys richer. to transfer it to my laptop to send it. up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Lorvey H. Schwinck Helen B. Gamsey companies like Microsoft can get back into 6006 S River Road MTC–00029462 the business of innovating and creating better Norfolk, VA 23505–4711 From: [email protected]@inetgw products for consumers, and not wasting January 27, 2002 To: Microsoft ATR valuable resources on litigation. Attorney General John Ashcroft Competition means creating better goods Date: 1/29/02 12:20am US Department of Justice, and offering superior services to consumers. Subject: Microsoft Settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW With government out of the business of Please see attachment. As you see I had it Washington, DC 20530–0001 stifling progress and tying the hands of addressed incorrectly. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: corporations, consumers—rather than Thanks I am writing you today to voice my opinion bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Richard Carlson in regards to the Microsoft settlement issue. the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Yes, I am a small stockholder of Microsoft I feel that this debate has gone on long the reins off the high-tech industry, more as well as other tech stocks but I feel enough and that it is time to end this entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create compelled to comment on the Microsoft litigation. After three years of litigation, it is new and competitive products and time to focus on more pressing issues. The Settlement. Shame Shame on the Vultures, technologies. \ The go oemment as well as nine states have Thank you for this opportunity to share my nation is under attack and may soon be already agreed to a settlement. But that is not views. involved in a major war. In my opinion, this enough, the remaining states and other Sincerely, lawsuit should never have occurred in the companies are now di\Ang in to strip Lydia Godinez first place. It was orchestrated by Microsoft’s remaining bits of flesh from a down-beaten competitors like Sun Microsystems, Oracle, company as well as pre\enting them from MTC–00029464 AOL, IBM, and others. I have not been a competing fairly under a working capitalistic From: Gregory Lambert shareholder for almost a year but I am still system (Economics 101). The company that To: Microsoft Settlement very concerned about what I feel is gross builds the best product should win. The Date: 1/29/02 12:15am miscarriage of justice in this case. employees and management of Microsoft Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft should be rewarded for all the worked their buts off to be number 1. They Gregory Lambert technological and economic advances their did such a good job that e\en other 3049 E. Enos Ave. products allowed in the last decade. Instead companies and their employees use Springfield, IL 62702 their persecution, instigated by their Microsoft products. The other companies January 29, 2002 competitors persists. I hoped the Appeals should ‘‘get a life,’’ get dd of their high priced Microsoft Settlement Court Judges would vacate Judge Jackson’s ‘‘ambulance chasing’’ lawyers and use that U.S. Department of Justice findings. The Oral arguments certainly money and their own skills to make Antitrust Division indicated this might happen, considering competing products. Its like forcing J.C. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW their horror upon discovering Judge Jackson’s Pennys to remo\oe their buttons from all their Washington, DC 20530 judicial misconduct, and the way they shirts and gi\Ang Sears and others the Dear Microsoft Settlement: mocked the government’s case. Even though opportunity to offer their buttons or even The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ their final decision admitted that ‘‘All zippers perhaps. This would then gi\oe other dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a indications are that the District Judge companies an opportunity to compete serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech violated each of these ethical precepts. The ‘‘equally’’ with Pennys . This so called industry. It is high time for this trial, and the violations were deliberate, repeated, fairness issue is ridiculous. Lets continue wasteful spending accompanying it, to be egregious, and flagrant.’’ Section 455(a) of the with good healthy competition the old over. Consumers will indeed see competition Judicial Code requires judges to recuse them- fashioned way. in the marketplace, rather than the selves when their ‘‘impartiality might Thank you \cry much for allowing me to courtroom. And the investors who propel our reasonably be questioned.’’ The Appeals address this issue. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Court basically did nothing to remedy Richard L. Cadson Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Jackson’s inexcusable conduct beyond giving 21026 6th A\e federal government should not have broken him a verbal tongue lashing, and they failed VerDate 11 to have Jackson recused retroactively from ‘‘The new economy presents unusually case. Dennis Carlton was an original the first time there was evidence of judicial difficult questions of fact, such as where a participant in Project Sherman. ‘‘The Truth, misconduct. plaintiff complains that the defendant has The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Contrary to Microsoft’s competitors changed the interface to make it more Truth’’ http://www.wired.com/wired/ whinings,,,this settlement goes beyond that difficult for the plaintiffs product to work archive/8.11/microsoft.html Mike Morris was suggested by the Appeals Court. The AC with the network, or a defendant contends counsel for Sun Microsystems.. ‘‘Morris had court threw out all of Jackson’s remedies that it disclosing a protocol would allow its been in contact with Joel Klein (in 1998) as which would have broken up the company. competitors by reverse engineering to copy part of a three-way effort to nudge the They rejected the remedies not only because its trade secret, that cannot be protected by government toward a case against Microsoft Jackson erred by not allowing an evidentiary copyright or patent law. Both questions are .... for the past nine months.’’ Wired 11/2000 hearing on remedies; but because those very technical and difficult.’’ ‘‘Antitrust in Page 280. The other two parties were remedies no longer applied to the violations the New Economy. Antitrust Law Journal, Netscape’s Roberta Katz and Sabre’s counsel, they found; which were much less severe 2001, 68, 920–940 Andy Steinberg. Together they had founded than those found by Jackson. They also said There were no impartial neutral experts to ProComp. ‘‘Now Morris was plotting a solo that a structural remedy is rarely indicated help Judge Jackson, nor to advise the appeals mission: to put together a sort of private blue- and only if there was actual proof that Court Judges. Unfortunately, the Appeals ribbon commission of nationally renowned ‘‘exclusionary conduct’’ caused a loss of Court Judges relied on the expertise of antitrust lawyers and economists, have them competition. In other words, there was no antitrust experts who they thought were draw up an outline of the kind of Sherman evidence to show that Netscape and Java impartial, but were actually hired by Act case that would make sense for the DOJ would have become more popular .if not for Microsoft’s competitors.. Jackson admitted to to file, including a discussion of possible big bad Microsoft..They also noted that being completely clueless about technology remedies, and then present the whole thing Microsoft no longer does most of what they and the economics behind any remedies. to Klein and his people. ‘‘According to the found to be in violation. The Appeals Court There is little doubt he had much to do with article, Joel Klein thought this would be judges threw out Judge Jackson entire the Findings of Fact or with the Conclusions useful. From Wired 11/2000 Page 280. remedy, partly because Jackson violated basic of Law. Judge Jackson admitted frequently he ‘‘The political sensitivity of Project procedural rule in not allowing an was not competent in technology issues nor Sherman was, needless to say, extremely evidentiary hearing on the remedy. In their in economic issues involved in any remedies. high, for here was one of Microsoft’s most words; ‘‘It is a cardinal principle of our In other words, Jackson was ‘‘technologically ardent competitors bankrolling a costly system of justice that factual disputes must and economically, challenged. He admitted endeavor to influence the DOJ—an endeavor be heard in open court and resolved through that his secretaries would explain certain undertaken with the department’s trial-like evidentiary proceedings. Any other issues to him. Jackson just rubber stamped encouragement.’’ ‘‘So began a project that course would be contrary ‘‘to the spirit which the remedy submitted by the Government, would span three months and consume $3 imbues our judicial tribunals prohibiting who consulted heavily with Microsoft’s million of Sun’s money: Project Sherman.’’ decision without hearing.’’ competitors. The government in turn ‘‘Morris took care to select people with Yet the Appeals Court ignored their own accepted what Microsoft’s competitors gave impeccable credentials;—mainstream advice, and failed to hold an evidentiary them., they in turn got ProComp and SIIAA credentials, establishment credentials; the hearing to determine when these ‘‘egregious ethical violations’’ occurred. This allowed and CIIAA to do their work.. kind of people who spoke Joel Klein’s them to arbitrarily select a date, which Even the Appeals Court judges admitted language; the kind who might appear conveniently was after Jackson issued his their ignorance of basic technological issues reasonably objective despite the fact that Sun Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which were essential to the essence of this was paying them $600 to $700 an hour.’’ even though evidence was presented that case.. ‘‘THE COURT: I mean I have to say that (From Wired Magazine, 11/2000, p 280) ‘‘The revealed the violations occurred before the I have only done downloading of these things ‘‘superstar’’ cast included economists from Findings of Fact were issued.. The entire with the help of much more skilled people. the firm of Lexecon; an attorney from Arnold decision should at least have been vacated So I took seriously the proposition that that & Porter: a Stanford economist and a former and the case remanded to a different judge was a big barrier. But 60 million people just FTC counsel who handles Sun’s antitrust or the case should have been thrown out in downloaded it? The Appeals Court judges in work in Washington. ‘‘Members of Project toto. Microsoft’s appeal were astonished to learn Sherman met every two weeks for three If this settlement is rejected, I only hope that 160 million copies of Netscape browsers months and then Morris got Gary Reback to the Supreme Court does the right thing and were distributed overall, and that their user assemble industry figures for a hush hush throws it out entirely. The respected base doubled to 33 million., in 1998...when meeting, not knowing they had been paid by mediator from the first trial, Judge Posner, is Microsoft’s competitors were accusing Sun. (From Wired Magazine, 11/2000, p 280) strongly opposed to the participation of the Microsoft of foreclosing competion. ‘‘Apart from McNealey, Morris informed States Attorney Generals who are the reason The Appeals Court judges vacated almost no one at Sun, and the other this case was not settled during the first trial Jackson’s finding of attempted participants were sworn to strict and are the reason why this settlement is monopolization; they remanded the issue of confidentiality.’’ (page 280, Wired November being disputed now. Posner has tying to be decided under new standards, 2000). recommended that future antitrust cases (even thouugh they categorically dismissed According to Heilemann, Reback and brought by the Federal government not allow the charges of tying during the Oral Creighton lobbied the FTC, the Senate the States Attorney Generals to participate. arguments. (They indicated they were told Judiciary Committee, the European Unfortunately, he acknowledged that any (by Microsoft’s competitors, no doubt) that Commission, other Attorney Generals and change to the laws would occur too late to they used the wrong standards. The only anyone who would listen. A few others who help this case be resolved. finding they accepted, and not on all of the helped out were Mike Hirshland, Republican Further, Posner acknowledges ‘‘A original counts was that of illegal monopoly Senate aid to Senator Orrin Hatch; Jim Clark complication is that it is difficult to find truly maintenance. Curiously, this theory of and James Barksdale from Nescape, and neutral competent experts to advise the monopoly maintenance was created by Susan Venture Capitalist John Doer. lawyers judges and enforcement agencies on Creighton.in the original White Paper about ‘‘A few weeks later, Morris and his ‘‘team’’ technical questions in the new economy. Netscape in 19977 Susan Creighton has been flew to Washington to meet with the DOJ There aren’t that many competent experts, a diehard foe and ‘‘card-carrying anti- attorneys: Joel Klein, Melamed, Rubinfeld, and almost all of them are employed by or Microsoft agitator’’ of Microsoft from the Malone, Boise for many hours. ‘‘Morris’s have financial pies to firms involved in or early ‘‘90’s. More curiously, Susan Creighton team ‘‘proceeded to outline the case they potentially affected by antitrust litigation in is now the deputy director for the FTC. I believed the DOJ should file.’’ The charges this sector. It is difficult to find a consultant hope she has recused herself from any were straight from the Netscape White Paper in the new economy who is both competent involvement in this case. written by Susan Creighton ‘‘illegal and disinterested, or ‘‘find neutral experts The judges unknowingly relied on at least monopoly maintenance and monopoly they could help the judge administer a one economist’s novel theories—whose extension; a violation of Section 2 of the consent decree.’’ theories were apparently created just for this Sherman Act’’ They addressed the question VerDate 11 of so called ‘‘harm to consumers;’’ the so laws were meant to protect consumers and to little company ya got there. Shame if called ‘‘damage to innovation’’ and ‘‘then the allow fair competition. Consumers are not anything happened to it.’’ And Microsoft got talk turned to remedies’’ and a range of complaining. However antitrust laws are now the message: If you want to produce conduct remedies’’ was presented as well as being used to protect competitors, and to something in America, you’d better play the the ‘‘case for a structural remedy’’ (From make trial lawyers even richer,,,at the game. In 1995, after repeated assaults by the Pages 282–283 of Wired Magazine, November expense of consumers and the economy. How Federal Trade Commission and the Justice 2000) many companies have been forced into Department, Microsoft broke down and ‘‘In 1975 Microsoft had 3 employees and bankruptcy now by trial lawyers over started playing the Washington game. It hired revenues of $16,000. Over the next 25 years asbestos? 20? 30? 50? AOL, Time Warner, lobbyists and Washington PR firms. Its they grew to 36,000 employees and revenues IBM, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, etc have executives made political contributions. And of $20 billion by obsessively figuring out contributed heavily to politicians for every other high-tech company is getting the what computer users needed and delivering years.long before Microsoft was forced to message, too, which is great news for it to them.’’ ‘‘Over the years Gates and his play this game, as a result of their persistent lobbyists and fundraisers.’’ (but not for colleagues made a lot of people mad, efforts to prosecute and persecute Microsoft. consumers or innovators or successful especially their competitors. Some of those Should the DOJ continue to ‘‘work’’ on companies..) From ‘‘The Theft of Microsoft’’ competitors delivered a 222-page white paper behalf of Attorney Generals who are by David Boaz. http://www.cato.org/dailys/ in 1996 to Joel Klein, head of the Justice receiving large contributions and specific 07–27–00.html Department’s antitrust division, and urged instructions from Microsoft’s competitors via ‘‘What lesson should they draw? The him to do to Microsoft in court what they ProComp and other such organizations? After antitrust laws are fatally flawed. When our couldn’t do in the marketplace. (Susan all, it was Sun Microsystems’’ who paid antitrust laws are used by competitors to Creighton wrote that White Paper). Another antitrust experts like Dennis Carlton to harm successful companies, when our most peculiarity of this case is the presence of U.C. ‘‘produce’’ antitrust charges which would innovative companies are under assault from Berkeley Haas Business School Professor appear credible to the DOJ. Reputable the federal government, when lawyers and Michael L. Katz as chief economist of the DOJ antitrust experts like Carlson produced novel politicians decide to restructure the software, antitrust division Apart from his strong antitrust theories of harm from incomplete credit-card and airline industries, it’s time to support for government regulation, Katz exclusionary conduct. Almost all of the repeal the antitrust laws and let firms wrote papers in support of the DOJ case violations upheld by the Appeals Court were compete in a free marketplace.’’ against Microsoft; including one co-written based on Carlton’s ‘‘novel’’ theories. Others Microsoft’s competitors and these phony with Carl Shapiro, the economic counsel to were based on ‘‘novel’’ theories developed by front groups are using their influence over the States Attorney Generals..hmmmm. Susan Creighton, an ardent Microsoft foe. the media, and their power from Curiously, the Department of Justice I would think that the Enron scandal contributions to politicians to give the worked closely with the competitors like Sun would make politicians and regulators more appearance that they are concerned with Microsystems for four years, often showing wary of the dangers involved from large consumers, when they are only advancing them sentences or paragraphs in drafts of the contributors. I was surprised to learn the their own agenda, which is harmful to most department’s plans and soliciting their extent of Enron’s contributions. They gave of us. Microsoft’s competitors claim to have approval. The politics of the case is a far cry $50,000 to Paul Krugman, from the New York the interest of consumers at heart, when in from the Platonic ideal of rigorous Times, who writes about economic matters, reality their own incompetence lead to their economists devising the best possible and not too surprisingly, Krugman loss of market share. AOL 5 was such a antitrust rules and wise, disinterested judges apparently wrote positive articles in the past terrible product that even computer experts carefully weighing the evidence.’’ Microsoft’s about Enron.. could not deal with the changes it made to competitors have used the Department of It was a complaint from Sun Microsystems the computer. It changed your default Justice to try to take not just their money but that lead the European Union to launch an settings and took over. Mossberg from the their intellectual property as well. From ‘‘The antitrust case against Microsoft by the EU. Wall Street Journal, who has never been a fan Theft of Microsoft’’ by David Boaz. http:// There is something about certain American of Microsoft, acknowledged this at the time www.cato.org/dailys/07–27–00.html I cannot companies that run to other countries to and there were lawsuits over this which imagine that Project Sherman was a legal crush their competition ..if they can’t get the somehow failed to make the news.. Anyone undertaking, and wonder if the Appeals DOJ or FTC to do it. It is telling that Sun who has ever used AOL knows about their Court judges were aware of Joel Kleins Microsystems has 200 lawyers in their legal inferior products and their poor customer meeting with reporter John Heileman. I department, more than many large firms, service. Nonetheless, it is time to end this wonder if the DOJ would have brought the even in Washington. I think their case that should have never been, and to stop case if it was publicly acknowledged at the shareholders might prefer they spent more on being influenced by Microsoft’s competitors time that they were listening to testimony improving their products and competing.as who have been behind the case from the from hired experts paid handsomely by their stock continues to decline. beginning of Microsoft’s persecution by the Microsoft’s. Microsoft was consistently been rated one Department of Justice, starting in the early During these difficult times, it is vital to do of the top corporations to work for and one ‘‘90’s. all we can to boost our economy. Restricting of the most admired companies by Fortune This settlement is the perfect means to end Microsoft will not accomplish this. This until the trial lawyers and AG and MSFT’s this dispute. Microsoft will remain together country is at war with a world wide network competitors started their hatchet jobs and and continue designing and marketing their of Islamic extremists intent on destroying us. made Microsoft into an ‘unsympathetic innovative software, while fostering The Department of Justice needs to focus on target.’’ http://www.techcentralstation.com/ competition and making it easier for other ‘‘fixing’’ the FBI and improving the security 1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051–250&CID= companies to compete. Microsoft has pledged of our nation and protecting American 1051 -012901A to share more information about Windows citizens against more terrorist attacks. Has Microsoft’s competitors lobbied politicians operating system products and has agreed to this short passage of time since September 11 for years before Microsoft was finally forced be monitored for compliance. dulled memories so quickly that we are back to join their game and forced to pay this I sincerely hope the Department of Justice to the old games of using lawyers and ‘‘protection money.’’ ‘‘For about 20 years accepts this settlement and puts an end to politicians and the Department of Justice to Gates and his colleagues just sat out there in this mess and turns their attention to real squash competitors? Are things really back to ‘‘the other Washington,’’ creating and selling. threats to the Nation-the terrorists who want normal? I don’t think so.until the next As the company got bigger, Washington, DC, to destroy the West. Caving into Microsoft’s terrorist attack. Antitrust laws are not meant politicians and journalists began sneering at major competitors who are behind the to protect competitors against their inability Microsoft’s political innocence. A Attorney Generals hurt consumers and the to compete in the marketplace due to their congressional aide told the press, ‘‘They economy further. Let them innovate like own incompetence. Look who is suing? AOL, don’t want to play the DC game, that’s clear, Microsoft does, rather than litigate. Sun Microsystems, Oracle, IBM are and they’ve gotten away with it so far. Thank you for your attention. multibillion corporations, not mom and pop The Problem is, in the long run they won’t Sincerely, outfits threatened by a bully. The antitrust be able t0.’’ Politicians told Bill Gates, ‘‘Nice Helen B. Gamsey VerDate 11 757–440–5910 good fortune to use VAX/VMS and NeXT/ by removal of the ‘‘HP sound solution’’. The Sincerely, NeXTStep systems. I enjoyed a windows- video card is built into the motherboard, yet Helen Gamsey mouse-icon-pointer interface on both, along it cannot be disabled from the BIOS (a very with well-designed software and sensible limited BIOS). MTC–00029466 console environments. Network connections These representative complaints illustrate From: Ron Lansing (TCP/IP) were transparent to userland why Microsoft should not enjoy private To: Microsoft ATR,douglas tharp,Ron & Avis applications and each platform bundled ‘‘customization’’ agreements with so-called Date: 1/29/02 12:27am excellent software development tools for both ‘‘computer vendors’’. A vanilla, full-install of Subject: Microsoft Settlement interpreted and compiled computer Windows 9x/Me/NT/2000/XP and I am opposed to the current settlement, as languages. It was easy to write small accompanying CDs with separate application it actually rewards Microsoft by forcing assembly programs for the VAX and Motorola installers from Microsoft and other software schools to use Microsoft software and Intel processors, respectively. Each type of vendors is hardly too much to ask—after all, based PCs. If they provide a billion dollars computer could handle multiple users at isn’t it easier to do so than to create oddball worth of non Microsoft operating systems, once, being both client and server depending ‘‘custom’’ configurations for supposedly Netscape browsers, Sun Java software, and on the function in use. Graphical commodity hardware and software products? any hardware the schools select, as long as applications could be run on different types If—as many Microsoft and Intel it does not contain Microsoft products, you of computer and from faraway locations. A advertisements promise—computing is easier might have that part of the settlement correct. number of real-time ‘‘chat’’ programs existed than ever, why am I more and more Microsoft should not be allowed to and had many (relatively speaking) users. frustrated each time I attempt to integrate include, Internet Explorer or any software Manuals and documentation for user and hardware and software? Microsoft’s would-be that can function as a browser, it creates, to administrative tasks abounded, as well as for competition failed for various reasons: DEC, be bundled in its Operating System, and be programming. Unfortunately I also had to use IBM, NeXT, Be. I’m not asking that they be required to bundle Netscape Navigator, as the ‘‘desktop’’ computers. These systems were resurrected: only that I be permitted to standard fully functional browser, and Sun either PCs running Windows 3 and Lan determine just what software and hardware Java as the standard fully functional java Manager or Macintoshes running System 7. make up my computing platform without virtual machine in all current and future These computers were used for ‘‘lightweight’’ asking for permission. I took advantage of a releases of any of it’s Operating Systems tasks such as paper-writing and printing. sales deal to buy a PC from CompUSA. I had (OS). They did not work well for their assigned a choice of a 2-years older computer running Microsoft should be required to sell tasks. Signs in the computer labs warned that Linux from a used computer store. Why Internet Explorer, or any such similar viruses were a threat to user documents and should Microsoft get any money when my software products, as un-bundled software that students used the computers at their first act was to boot a Slackware CD and wipe only, and not to be given away or included own risk. Many students brought disks with the disk? (I later did install Windows onto a with, any other purchase. No Microsoft their preferred DOS editors illegally copied small partition from the Recovery CD, only products should be advertised, bundled, since they did not trust the ‘‘served’’ to learn that Windows—NEEDS—to be the included, or pre installed, on any and all applications of the Windows environment. ‘‘C:’’ drive. 15 years of DOS and it still can’t computers before the consumer decides what Likewise printing mostly took place on the handle being moved to slave position.) I have software should be installed. All other OS vax/unix printers, as those set aside for no problem buying a separate, full-install of software must be allowed to be selected for desktop computers had constant network Windows. I have no problem running pre sale installation. This should specifically congestion and strange incompatibilities ‘‘Windows’’ applications. I don’t believe eliminate the Microsoft Network (MSN) regarding fonts and formats. Halcyon days, Microsoft has any business checking what I discount package. Microsoft must dissolve yes—yet I cannot recall a time when do with a purchased product which I OWN itself of all it’s Internet Services (MSN). consumer computers have ‘‘just worked’’ for in my home. If Apple does not care how Companies injured by Microsoft’s actions me. Troubleshooting and diagnosis will many Macs I install OS 8 onto, why does should receive immediate compensation, but always take up most user time, yet the not be limited to seeking further Microsoft care so about PCs? I’m not asking capacity to change and alter system and compensation. All penalties and for technical support—which is the model I application settings, and to remove and compensation must be put in escrow am familiar with from DEC and SCO and reinstall software, has diminished immediately. This would be a good start. Sun. Apologies for the rambling nature of dramatically over the past decade. I confess Ron Lansing this post. Thank you for reading it. that despite long-term exposure to the Lead Software Engineer John Brajkovic Windows ‘‘family’’ of operating systems and PS. Once upon a time Apple Computer MTC–00029467 PC hardware I feel that as the ‘‘owner’’ and spun off a software company named Claris. From: [email protected]@inetgw administrator of my own PC I have less (Some of its developers later designed similar To: Microsoft ATR latitude and ability to troubleshoot my software for Windows, BeOS and Linux). I Date: 1/29/02 12:27am machine than when I was remotely logged understand that Claris’’ developers were Subject: Microsoft Public Comment into a NeXT slab over a serial line. limited to the API and developer The Government and the State Attorney My PC shipped with Windows 98. I do not documentation which non-Apple software Generals proved repeatedly that Microsoft have a copy of Windows 98 to reinstall when developers received. Their products were had knowingly violated the law causing it reaches the point of non-configurability. I well-received and quite popular for a number major damage to the health of the PC and not have applications which can be of years. I fail to see why Microsoft should Internet industries. Yet we’ve seen no sign of reinstalled when they conflict with one not do the same. another. Instead I have a ‘‘Recovery’’ CD justice for the real victims -the SOHO MTC–00029469 computer users. This is the court’s change to which dumps its own Hewlett-Packard flavor show true justice and that it is about big of Windows 98. Its HP-specific drivers From: Sylvia Cooper money and political power. cannot be disentangled from the core OS. I To: Microsoft ATR Alan Bicho cannot cleanly install, remove and reinstall Date: 1/29/02 12:30am applications. The ‘‘Recovery’’ disk writes Subject: Public Comment MTC–00029468 over my hard disk’s Master Boot Record, I don’t know if Microsoft is a Monopoly; From: John Brajkovic forcing me to over-write it once more in order I’m not a lawyer. But i don’t understand how To: Microsoft ATR to boot Berkeley UNIX and Linux. I cannot I’ve ‘‘been harmed’’ by Microsoft giving away Date: 1/29/02 12:30am write assembly language programs without free products (ie: Internet Explorer). Would I Subject: Microsoft Settlement risking a system crash when they are run in have been better off paying for it? It seems Hi, a ‘‘Command Prompt’’ console in Windows. to me that when Microsoft has put out I’ve been orphaned by successive hardware I had to replace the default sound card, as products better than the completion’s (ie: and software platforms over the past decade. Hewlett-Packard chose to add wiring directly Word) they have won, and when the have put My comments will emphasize the time from the power supply to said card, causing out products worse (ie: Money) they have period 1989–1993. Back in college I had the frequent system lockups—a problem solved lost. When someone goes to a job interview VerDate 11 and they know how to use Word or Excel You should turn your energies and guns on MTC–00029475 0001 how many thousdans of dollars in training the crooks a Enron. 488 Brookside Drive and productivity have they saved an Ron Paulk Eugene, OR 97405 employer? If all these people have been [email protected] January 26,2002 ‘‘harmed’’ why do they mention that they can MTC–00029472 Attorney General John Ashcroft use Word, Excel, etc on their resumes? US Department of Justice Lets end the case and move on. From: [email protected]@inetgw 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Andy Heidelberg To: Microsoft ATR Washington, DC 20530 2337 E. Gossamer Lane Date: 1/29/02 12:35am Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Boise, ID 83706 Subject: Microsoft Settlement I am writing to express my displeasure 208–331–3783 Attorney General John Ashcroft with the three years of litigation that have [email protected] US Department of Justice been brought against Microsoft. I am a MTC–00029470 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW proponent of free enterprise, and I hardly Washington, DC 20530 think that aggressive marketing tactics From: Frank Brazil Dear Mr. Ashcroft: warrant tearing down one of the best assets To: Microsoft Settlement I would like to voice my opinion on the our nation has. Microsoft has created jobs Date: 1/29/02 12:29am Microsoft Anti Trust case. It is time that this and wealth for our nation and standardized Subject: Microsoft Settlement case be ended. Upholding the current the Technology Industry. The terms of the Frank Brazil settlement is the right thing to do. I don’t see settlement violate Microsoft’s intellectual 28 Trailside Place any reason to prolong the case in order to property rights, as they stipulate Microsoft Plesasnt Hill, Ca 94523–1036 determine the fairness of the settlement. has to disclose interfaces that are internal to January 29, 2002 After all this time and so many taxpayer Windows operating system products. Microsoft Settlement dollars spent, the goverment should abide by Microsoft will also be required to grant U.S. Department of Justice the agreements already in place and stop any computer makers broad new rights to Antitrust Division further legal maneuvering. configure Windows so that competitors can 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW I am self-employed and use Microsoft for more easily promote their own products. Washington, DC 20530 Even though the settlement is flawed, I urge my business. Although I’m not sure of what Dear Microsoft Settlement: your office to suppress opposition to it and all the details of the settlement are, I do know The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ implement the settlement. It is in the best that Microsoft is supposed to be changing its dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a interests of the American public and the IT serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech business practices and sharing more sector for the dispute to end. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the information with competitors. Hopefully this Yours truly, wasteful spending accompanying it, to be will be enough to satisfy any anticompetitive Ron Faunce over. Consumers will indeed see competition concerns and allow the free markets to in the marketplace, rather than the operate. MTC–00029475—0002 courtroom. And the investors who propel our Sincerely, MTC–00029476 Thomas Powers economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. From: [email protected]@inetgw Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the MTC–00029473 To: Microsoft ATR federal government should not have broken From: Stanton Jorgens Date: 1/29/02 12:39am up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Subject: Microsoft Settlement companies like Microsoft can get back into To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/29/02 12:36am Honorable Judge, the business of innovating and creating better I urge you to reject the proposed settlement products for consumers, and not wasting Subject: Micrrosoft Settlement Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: in the U.S. vs. Microsoft anti-trust suit before valuable resources on litigation. you. Microsoft has violated anti-trust laws Competition means creating better goods We support the Microsoft settlement with the Department of Justice. The time has come and should be forced to play by the same and offering superior services to consumers. rules as everyone else. However, this With government out of the business of to bring this case to a close. The settlement is not really a very good deal for Microsoft proposed final judgment would fail to stifling progress and tying the hands of accomplish that. Not only does Microsoft corporations, consumers—rather than because the company will have to provide information on Windows and how it works retain its monopoly, but the settlement bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick would essentially amount to an endorsement internally, and to allow computer the winners and losers on Wall Street. With of that monopoly. And Microsoft is left to maufacturers to easily remove some of the reins off the high-tech industry, more police itself! Furthermore, Microsoft should Microsoft programs to replace them with entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create be handed more severe penalties as they’re competitors programs. new and competitive products and currently being allowed to retain virtually all The company must also change its technologies. of their illegal profits. Thank you for this opportunity to share my licensing practices, and will not retaliate I am afraid there is insufficient protection views. against the competitors who brought suit and punishment in the proposed final Sincerely, against them originally. The settlement terms judgment, and I ask you to reject it for the Frank G. Brazil Jr. go beyond those which were part of the public good. lawsuit, but Microsoft is still willing to MTC–00029471 Sincerely, accept them. The time has come to stop this Brad Zielinski From: Ron Paulk action and get on with settling this matter. 1288 Martin Avenue To: Microsoft ATR We support the proposed settlement and San Jose, CA 95126 Date: 1/29/02 12:35am hope to see it finalized very soon. 1–408–293–4771 BradZielinski@ Subject: Get off Microsoft’s Back thank you Stanton and Corrita Jorgens Yahoo.com Dear DOJ, I encourage you to accept the agreement MTC–00029475 MTC–00029477 between Microsoft and DOJ. In my opinion From: [email protected]@inetgw From: Doug the agreement is tough on Microsoft, a great To: Microsoft ATR To: Microsoft ATR American company who has provided the Date: 1/29/02 12:39am Date: 1/29/02 12:38am consumer with great software at a great price, Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement but they have agreed and are living up to The Honorable Attorney General of the I don’t think that Microsoft was hit hard their end of the bargain. Get off their back United States: John Ashcroft enough in this settlement. They have hurt the and let them turn their energies to creating Please accept the attached letter that developers of software that I use and respect. great software and new technologies for supports immediate regarding the I believe that they should be split up and American and the world. Microsoft settlement. heavily fined. Thanks Doug Kahler VerDate 11 MTC–00029478 To: Microsoft ATR Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the From: Zeroth mark p sullivan Date: 1/29/02 12:42am federal government should not have broken To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Antitrust up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Date: 1/29/02 12:40am Dear your Honor companies like Microsoft can get back into Subject: Microsoft Settlement Like many others I am asking you to the business of innovating and creating better Bob Cringely makes the wise suggestion of consider your decision and with the previous products for consumers, and not wasting Steve Satchell for one of the three committee courtorders on monopolistic behaivoir. And valuable resources on litigation. members stationed at Microsoft to make sure I ask that you ask Microsoft to comply with Competition means creating better goods they abide by the settlement. these recent decisions so that a fair market and offering superior services to consumers. Scott Rosenberg has written an article that place can be guaranteed for all. With government out of the business of points out the benefit to consumers from Thank you stifling progress and tying the hands of computer markets with healthy competition Sincerely corporations, consumers—rather than and well-known standards:. Livia Evans bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/ 3110 Kinsrow Av. Apt 322 the winners and losers on Wall Street. With 01/16/competition/ Eugene OR 97401 the reins off the high-tech industry, more Please also ensure that non-business (541) 684–3882 entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create entities are able to bring grievances against CC:[email protected]@inetgw new and competitive products and Microsoft and demand information of them. technologies. I am think especially of the Open Source MTC–00029481 Thank you for this opportunity to share my organizations that offer their products for all From: Patrick O’Connor views. to use, learn from, and extend. To: Microsoft ATR Sincerely, 0 how to keep microsoft honest? . . . Zeroth Date: 1/28/02 4:35pm Michael Harper mark p sullivan O Subject: Microsoft Settlement O http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/msulliva/ Dear Ms. Hesse: MTC–00029484 To a wonderful universe 0 Attached please find Comments on the From: [email protected]@inetgw 0 [email protected] I am proud of Proposed Final Judgment filed on behalf of To: Microsoft ATR my universe NetAction and Computer Professionals for Date: 1/29/02 12:47am MTC–00029479 Social Responsibility. A copy of these Subject: Microsoft Settlement comments will also be provided by fax. Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division From: D.Landis Murphy Please feel free to contact me at 202–955– 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 To: Microsoft Settlement 6300 with any questions or concerns. Washington, DC 20530–0001 Date: 1/29/02 12:36am Kind regards, Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: Subject: Microsoft Settlement Patrick O’Connor Please put a stop to the economically- D.Landis Murphy Counsel to NetAction and Computer draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This 147 Suburban Terrace Professionals for Social Responsibility has gone on long enough. Microsoft has Stratford, NJ 08084–1413 already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer January 29, 2002 MTC–00029482 icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case Microsoft Settlement From: Marian Zweber against Microsoft is little more than U.S. Department of Justice To: Microsoft ATR ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft Antitrust Division Date: 1/29/02 12:45am competitors, with not a nickel going to those 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: Microsoft Settlement supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the Washington, DC 20530 Dear Microsoft Settlement: Dear Sirs: computer user. This is just another method The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ As a small business woman I feel that this for states to get free money, and a terrible dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a suit against Microsoft has not been fair. I precedent for the future, not only in terms of serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech think that this settlement is not to their computer technology, but all sorts of industry. It is high time for this trial, and the advantage, but since Microsoft has agreed to innovations in the most dynamic industry wasteful spending accompanying it, to be it, I think it should go forward. the world has ever seen. over. Consumers will indeed see competition Please rule for Microsoft. This has gone on Please put a stop to this travesty of justice in the marketplace, rather than the long enough. now. Thank you. courtroom. And the investors who propel our Sincerely, Sincerely, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Marian W. Garton-Zweber Chester Schaaphok 4457 W. Schaaphok Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the MTC–00029483 federal government should not have broken Phoenix, AZ 85031 From: Michael Harper up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, MTC–00029485 companies like Microsoft can get back into To: Microsoft Settlement the business of innovating and creating better Date: 1/29/02 12:43am From: Robert Power products for consumers, and not wasting Subject: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft ATR valuable resources on litigation. Michael Harper Date: 1/29/02 12:52am Competition means creating better goods 5379 Tumbleweed Dr. Subject: Microsoft Settlement and offering superior services to consumers. Helena, MT 59602 TO: Renata B. Hesse With government out of the business of January 29, 2002 Antitrust Division stifling progress and tying the hands of Microsoft Settlement United States Department of Justice corporations, consumers—rather than U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Antitrust Division I am writing regarding the proposed the winners and losers on Wall Street. With 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft settlement to let you know that I, the reins off the high-tech industry, more Washington, DC 20530 as one who uses computers everday, request entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Dear Microsoft Settlement: that the settlement made between Microsoft new and competitive products and The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ and the Justice Department be designed to technologies. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a benefit consumers, or let the District courts Thank you for this opportunity to share my serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech complete their work. Maybe, in today’s views. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the world, you all keep your power by catering Sincerely, wasteful spending accompanying it, to be to the dictates of large corporations. D.Landis Murphy over. Consumers will indeed see competition Meanwhile, we consumers would like to see in the marketplace, rather than the competition and choice so we, not Microsoft, MTC–00029480 courtroom. And the investors who propel our decide what products are on our computers. From: [email protected]@inetgw economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. The settlement must provide ways for any VerDate 11 combination of non-Microsoft operating Washington, DC 20530 The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ systems, applications, and software Dear Microsoft Settlement: dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a components to run properly with Microsoft The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech products and give access to software dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a industry. It is high time for this trial, and the developers of all tools and information they serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech wasteful spending accompanying it, to be need to enable Microsoft products to run industry. It is high time for this trial, and the over. Consumers will indeed see competition with non-Microsoft products, even across wasteful spending accompanying it, to be in the marketplace, rather than the platforms. over. Consumers will indeed see competition courtroom. And the investors who propel our The proposed settlement is not in the in the marketplace, rather than the economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. public interest. The settlement leaves the courtroom. And the investors who propel our Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Microsoft monopoly intact. It is vague and economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. federal government should not have broken unenforceable. It leaves Microsoft with Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, numerous opportunities to exempt itself from federal government should not have broken companies like Microsoft can get back into crucial provisions. Please change this up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, the business of innovating and creating better settlement so that Microsoft must comply companies like Microsoft can get back into products for consumers, and not wasting with all provisions including the opening of the business of innovating and creating better valuable resources on litigation. its software to enable any of the 70,000 products for consumers, and not wasting Competition means creating better goods Windows applications on other operating valuable resources on litigation. Competition and offering superior services to consumers. systems. Please hold public proceedings means creating better goods and offering With government out of the business of under the Tunney Act, and make sure that superior services to consumers. With stifling progress and tying the hands of these proceedings give citizens and consumer government out of the business of stifling corporations, consumers—rather than groups an equal opportunity to participate, progress and tying the hands of corporations, bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick along with Microsoft’s competitors and consumers—rather than bureaucrats and the winners and losers on Wall Street. With customers in any settlement arrangement. It judges—will once again pick the winners and the reins off the high-tech industry, more is the consumers who are most affected by losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive products and Microsoft’s monopolistic actions. It is time high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will technologies. that this change and consumers have their be encouraged to create new and competitive Thank you for this opportunity to share my voice. Anti-trust actions have been taken. It products and technologies. views. is time to follow through so that consumers Thank you for this opportunity to share my Sincerely, win, and Microsoft finds a new way to win views. Elton C. Garvin as well, without government compromises Sincerely, that ensure their monopoly while looking George Brown MTC–00029491 different. MTC–00029488 From: cs Thank You To: Microsoft ATR Robert Power From: Jean E. Rivers Date: 1/29/02 12:56am 1705 14th Street, #132 To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement. Boulder, CO 80302 Date: 1/29/02 12:54am Microsoft has violated portions of the [email protected] Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sherman antitrust Act and should be Robert Power 2108 S.. Terrace Way appropriately punished. Free trade depends [email protected] Yuma AZ 85364 on adherence to certain minimal rules of January 28, 2002 MTC–00029486 engagement. Microsoft did not conduct its Renata B. Hesse business legally in the browser market, i.e. From: Mark Baenziger Antitrust Division Netscape. To: Microsoft ATR U.S. Department of Justice I urge you to do the difficult thing in these Date: 1/29/02 12:51am 601 D Street NW difficult times and strongly sanction Subject: Microsoft Settlement Suite 1200 Microsoft. Hello, Washington, DC 20530–0001 Chad Smiddy I would like to express my frustration with I think the recent settlement between BA Biology the Proposed Final Judgement (i.e., the Microsoft and the Department of Justice Microsoft Settlement). I am not a legal or should be implemented as soon as possible. MTC–00029492 programming expert, so understanding Microsoft needs to be able to innovate as it From: [email protected]@inetgw elements of the Judgement was certainly has in the past for our technology industry To: Microsoft ATR challenging, but what I did understand and economy to grow. Date: 1/29/02 12:53am demonstrated to me that the US government, I urge your office to finalize the settlement, Subject: Microsoft Settlement and several state governments, are in essence because it is without a question in the best Ms. Renata B. Hesse, allowing Microsoft to continue its interests of the American public for the Antitrust Division monopolistic practices under the guise of a dispute to end. Thank you for your 601 D Street NW, ‘‘settlement.’’ consideration. Suite 1200 I disagree with the Proposed Final Sincerely, Washington, DC 20530–0001 Judgement as it stands. Jean Rivers Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: Please put a stop Thanks, to the economically-draining witch-hunt MTC–00029490 Mark Baenziger against Microsoft. This has gone on long From: Elton Garvin enough. Microsoft has already agreed to hide MTC–00029487 To: Microsoft Settlement its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; From: George Brown Date: 1/29/02 12:51am the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little To: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement more than ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Date: 1/29/02 12:48am Elton Garvin Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel Subject: Microsoft Settlement 8183 Oswego Rd going to those supposedly harmed by George Brown Baldwinsville, NY 13027 Microsoft: the computer user. This is just 1418 Grand Ave January 29, 2002 another method for states to get free money, Ames, IA 50010–5266 Microsoft Settlement and a terrible precedent for the future, not January 29, 2002 U.S. Department of Justice only in terms of computer technology, but all Microsoft Settlement Antitrust Division sorts of innovations in the most dynamic U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW industry the world has ever seen. Antitrust Division Washington, DC 20530 Please put a stop to this travesty of justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Dear Microsoft Settlement: now. Thank you. VerDate 11 Sincerely, I have had first-hand experience resolving http://www.stenstad.net/storage/ballmer— shaun oliver problems with Windows, Mac, and Unix dance.mpg http://www.stenstad.net/storage/ 3319 Lubbock Drive operating systems and applications, and have developers.mpg The display made my blood Hope Mills, NC 28348–9650 noted the time spent resolving problems run cold, especially the close-up images of related to Windows is disproportionate. Most Ballmer’s his face at :35-:36 seconds in the MTC–00029493 were due to system file version conflicts first video. From: Steve Vandergrift caused byMicrosoft’s practice of including These comments in the Talkback section To: Microsoft Settlement Windows ‘‘operating system updates’’ as part indicate I’m not the only one who felt this Date: 1/29/02 12:52am of the installation of applications they way: Subject: Microsoft Settlement produce—MS Office, Internet Explorer, etc. Name: Steve Hawkins Steve Vandergrift I feel Dan Kegel’s letter at http:// Posted At: 12:12 GMT 08/24/2001 11054 Wurdermann’s Way www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html is right Face it.... Microsoft is a sleazy company Orlando, FL 32825 on target and pretty much covered my that will do and say whatever it has to do to January 29, 2002 concerns with the relevant tech issues. (I’d destroy any hint of competition and grab Microsoft Settlement cosign but he’s already sent his comments to every dollar available. THAT is their mission. U.S. Department of Justice you. Oh, well.) Just a personal opinion of course. Say all you Antitrust Division My other concern is the role of powerful want about Ballmer or Gates and their level 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW corporations and government. The recent of passion. Say all you want about wanting Washington, DC 20530 Enron bankruptcy further fuels my concerns. to leave their mark on history. None of this Dear Microsoft Settlement: I’m running short of time so can’t state my means anything when their software sucks The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ concerns personally. Instead I’ve included and their business practices are unethical. It’s dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a links to an article that addresses some of nice that the Microsoft faithful (Baaaa!) get serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech them. themselves into a lather. I’m happy for them. industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Microsoft and Kool-Aid test I do think they need to get a life though. I wasteful spending accompanying it, to be By Robert Lemos ZDNet News August 22, recall seeing newsreels of Hitler whipping over. Consumers will indeed see competition 2001, 5:00 PM PT entire cities of people into a chanting frenzy in the marketplace, rather than the http://zdnet.com.com/2100–1107– as well. Ah Hitler, he sure was passionate. courtroom. And the investors who propel our 530559.html Rob Charlton economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. MORE NEWS: Why Ballmer’s ‘‘monkey Posted At: 00:11 GMT 08/30/2001 Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the boy’’ dance was a tour de force Charles, You wrote ‘‘In business, like in federal government should not have broken By Charles Cooper, Senior Executive News war, half-measures don’t make it. And when up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Editor, ZDNet News, posted Friday, August you go into battle, it helps if the true companies like Microsoft can get back into 24, 2001 believers are in command.’’ Really ?? The the business of innovating and creating better http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/ ‘‘true believers’’ ran Germany in the 1930s, products for consumers, and not wasting story/0,10738,2807333,00.html ‘‘...After did they not ? The problem with Ballmer’s valuable resources on litigation. watching Microsoft since 1985, first as a over the top antics (and Hitler’s Nuremburg Competition means creating better goods reporter and later as an editor, I’ve often rallies) is that they’re designed to motivate and offering superior services to consumers. thought about what it is that makes this the ‘‘true followers’’ to suspend their critical With government out of the business of company stand apart from the pack. I’ve also and ethical faculties to further the aims of the stifling progress and tying the hands of thought about what it is that pushes the corporation (or state). The parallel is one of corporations, consumers—rather than company to the point that its aggressive degree, but the principle is the same. bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick behavior attracts the attention of the Justice Microsoft’s management clearly wants its the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Department and state litigators. After all, ‘‘true followers’’ to disregard the company’s the reins off the high-tech industry, more you’d assume that if Microsoft knows it risks lack of respect for American law whilst it entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create getting into hot water with the legal powers- chases growth and profits at all costs—too new and competitive products and that-be, then somebody upstairs would pass bad if what it does happens to be illegal. technologies. the word to throttle back. BUT THE GENIUS Thanks for letting one person speak out. I Thank you for this opportunity to share my OF MICROSOFT is that it doesn’t throttle want to believe in our government again. views. back, that its leadership is so driven by a flat- Sherrie Andra Keller Sincerely, out, win-all-the-marbles mentality, that this MTC–00029495 Steve Vandergrift is not just software. It’s about a lot more than that. For Ballmer and his boss, Bill Gates, it’s From: Harlan Friesen MTC–00029494 surely about more than the money. Hell, after To: Microsoft Settlement From: (091)S. Andra Keller(093) you pass the $1 billion point in net worth— Date: 1/29/02 12:57am To: Microsoft ATR something both execs did years ago—how Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/29/02 1:00am many more cars do you want to collect? How Harlan Friesen Subject: Microsoft Settlement much better can you eat? How many other 6411 Oakcreek Way E-mail comments to Microsoft.atr@ houses do you want to buy? This is about Citrus Heights, Cal., Ca 95621 usdoj.gov. Please type ‘‘Microsoft securing their place in history. In the same January 29, 2002 Settlement’’ in the subject line. way that biographers and economic Microsoft Settlement Your Honor, historians have devoted their attentions to U.S. Department of Justice My name is Sherrie Andra Johansson John D. Rockefeller and the amazing oil trust Antitrust Division Keller. I just found out about this option to he built by the turn of the last century, future 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW comment this evening. I’d never made the scholars will do the same when they examine Washington, DC 20530 effort to communicate with government this part of the history of the computer Dear Microsoft Settlement: before 9/11, having lost faith with the system industry and the role played by Microsoft..... The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ long ago, but since then have decided to see ....But like Microsoft or not, the unsated dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a if one person’s individual voice might make appetite of this company is a testament to the serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech a difference after all. It’s now 11:50 pm CST; ability and drive of the folks running the industry. It is high time for this trial, and the I hope you’ll consider that my comments show. In business, like in war, half-measures wasteful spending accompanying it, to be made the cutoff. don’t make it. And when you go into battle, over. Consumers will indeed see competition I’ve been a Tech Support Analyst for 5 it helps if the true believers are in in the marketplace, rather than the years -1 1/2 years with Rand McNally, more command.’’ courtroom. And the investors who propel our recently 3 1/2 years at the University of The videos were removed from this site economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Chicago, currently unemployed. I have (and other US news sources), but are still Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the followed the Microsoft trials for the duration. available through a Norwegian mirror site at federal government should not have broken VerDate 11 up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Would you at least have felt better if you Washington, DC 20530 companies like Microsoft can get back into were able to voice your feeling? Windows Dear Microsoft Settlement: the business of innovating and creating better doesn’t let you voice your feeling. I am aware The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ products for consumers, and not wasting that Microsoft is also going to put a certain dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a valuable resources on litigation. percentage of Mac computers in these less serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Competition means creating better goods fortunate schools, which on the exterior industry. It is high time for this trial, and the and offering superior services to consumers. looks like a noble act, however, what kind of wasteful spending accompanying it, to be With government out of the business of support and tech assistance will these over. Consumers will indeed see competition stifling progress and tying the hands of schools receive for those Macs? By not in the marketplace, rather than the corporations, consumers—rather than providing that support for the Mac platform courtroom. And the investors who propel our bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick the schools will be left with a distaste for the economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Mac that is unjustly deserved. This will lead Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the the reins off the high-tech industry, more them to ask for Windows computers. federal government should not have broken entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Lastly, almost everyone knows the story of up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, new and competitive products and the Trojan Horse (which coincidently is a companies like Microsoft can get back into technologies. pseudonym for computer viruses). If the business of innovating and creating better Thank you for this opportunity to share my Microsoft is allowed to go through with their products for consumers, and not wasting views. proposal they are able to break into an area valuable resources on litigation. Sincerely, where they still don’t have control over the Competition means creating better goods Harlan Friesen market under the guise of peace. This gets and offering superior services to consumers. them through the market without a fight. With government out of the business of MTC–00029496 History may repeat itself and we are stifling progress and tying the hands of From: Eric Holliday supposed to learn from it. Well, let’s learn corporations, consumers—rather than To: Microsoft ATR from the Grecian Trojan Horse and and it’s bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Date: 1/29/02 1:04am analogy to computer viruses by not letting the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Subject: Interoperability Microsoft in the door where it can be a virus the reins off the high-tech industry, more To whom it concerns, and take down what other companies have entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create I am an Apple Computer user. Everyone in rightly worked hard for. As a quick side note new and competitive products and the Windows world talks about how Apple we have security to think about too, technologies. needs to become more friendly when Microsoft’s Windows operating system has Thank you for this opportunity to share my networking with Windows computers (see repeatedly been victim to computer viruses views. Business Week 2.0 article at http:// and worms. Sincerely, www.business2.com/articles/web/ Thanks for allowing us to at least step up Gary D Byington 0,1653,37236,FF.html ) as well as other to the platform and voice our feelings, interoperability issues. However, I see the Eric L. Holliday MTC–00029501 interoperability problem being with Oswego, NY From: [email protected]@inetgw Microsoft more than Apple (Especially where MTC–00029497 To: Microsoft ATR Mac OS X is concerned because a lot of work Date: 1/29/02 1:09am went into making that very networking From: Don (038) Cookey Bickle Subject: Microsoft Settlement friendly). Although Microsoft was not found To: Microsoft ATR Mary Marchand to be a monopoly it does many small things Date: 1/29/02 1:03am 3611 Forest Hill Drive that may go unnoticed to keep other Subject: Microsoft Settlement Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 platforms from being inter-operable with it. Attn: Attorney General John Ashcroft January 29, 2002 My biggest example is with the simple use US Department of Justice Attorney General John Ashcroft Department 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW of floppy or ZIP disks, how they are of Jusstice Washington, DC 20530–0001 formatted, and read by Windows machines. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW RE: Microsoft Settlement If you have an IBM formatted disk and put Washington, DC 20530, USA CC:[email protected]@inetgw it into a Macintosh computer the disk will be Dear Mr. Ashcroft: read and files on the disk can be accessed. MTC–00029499 I write you today to encourage the If the file isn’t readable by any Mac software From: delwin hoffman Department of Justice to accept its own it still shows up as a file on the disk. To: Microsoft ATR Microsoft antitrust settlement. It is However, if you have a Mac formatted disk Date: 1/29/02 1:07am unbelievable to me that the governmlent has and try to put it into a Windows machine you Subject: Microsoft Settlement kept this lawsuit going for over three years. will be told that the disk is unreadable and We support the settlement and hope for its Asettlement is available and the terms are needs to be reformatted. With that you are quick and fair implementation. It also is not fair, it is time for the government to accept given the option to eject or initialize the disk. in the best interest of the US as a world it and put an end to the suit. If you have valuable information on that disk leader to not support the innovations that In order to put this issue behind them then initializing it defeats the purpose of have come from the people at Microsoft. The Microsoft has agreed to many concessions. having put your files on that disk. You aren’t have created the world of e business that we They have agreed to give computer makers able to get into My Computer and navigate enjoy today. the flexibility to install and promote any to the drive the disk is located. In order for Sincerely software that their customers want, without a Windows machine to read Mac formatted Del Hoffman threats from Microsoft to retaliate for disks an extra piece of software developed by installing software from other firms. Also, another company is required. MTC–00029500 Microsoft has agreed to design future In regards to Microsoft’s proposed From: Gary Byington versions of Windows to be compatible to settlement about donating many computers To: Microsoft Settlement non-Microsoft software. In addition to these to less fortunate schools the above situation Date: 1/29/02 1:04am two examples, Microsoft has agreed to a long would mean that students who in some way Subject: Microsoft Settlement list of additional concessions. These are shape or form use a Macintosh will Gary Byington guarantees that Microsoft will abide by not continually have to beat their heads into a 1948 Cindy Ct only out of deference to the coercive power wall because if they try to put media into a Burleson, TX 76028 of the newly formed Technical Committee, Windows machine it won’t even try to read January 29, 2002 but because it is the right thing to do. The it. How many times have you approached a Microsoft Settlement terms are fair. The government needs to situation where you felt you had something U.S. Department of Justice accept the settlement and allow Microsoft important to say and how upset did you feel Antitrust Division and the industry to move forward. Please when you weren’t even acknowledged? 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. VerDate 11 Sincerely, that the operating system will be able to Microsoft Settlement Mary Marchand support non-Microsoft software. Microsoft U.S. Department of Justice CC:[email protected]@inetgw has also agreed to reveal source code from Antitrust Division the operating system for use by its 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MTC–00029502 competitors and to furnish them with a Washington, DC 20530 From: p [email protected] license to applicable intellectual property Dear Microsoft Settlement: To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov rights. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Date: 1/29/02 1:11 am If Microsoft is destroyed, another dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Subject: Microsoft mail2web—Check your competitor will rise to the top, and the same serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech email from the web at http:// problem will present itself. Microsoft does industry. mail2web.com/. not pose a threat to the consumer, the only It is high time for this trial, and the MTC–00029502 0001 thing that does is continued litigation. I wasteful spending accompanying it, to be strongly urge you and your office to support over. Consumers will indeed see competition 494 14th Street the settlement. in the marketplace, rather than the Brooklyn, NY 11215 Ecce homo ergo elk. La Fontaine knew his courtroom. And the investors who propel our January 26, 2002 sister, and knew her bloody well. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Attorney General John Ashcroft Sincerely, Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the US Department of Justice Paul Singer federal government should not have broken 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW cc: Representative Anthony David Weiner up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Washington, DC 20530 companies like Microsoft can get back into Dear Mr. Ashcroft: MTC–00029503 the business of innovating and creating better I have followed the Microsoft antitrust case From: Ann G. Baird products for consumers, and not wasting since its inception three years ago, and the To: Microsoft Settlement valuable resources on litigation. attack that has been perpetrated against the Date: 1/29/02 1:06am Competition means creating better goods Microsoft Corporation is ridiculous. It Subject: Microsoft Settlement and offering superior services to consumers. represents a feeding frenzy on the part of Ann G. Baird With government out of the business of Microsoft’s competitors. They are cheering, 339 Carmon Avenue stifling progress and tying the hands of waiting in the wings to descend upon Lovell, WY 82431 corporations, consumers—rather than Microsoft after enough damage has been January 29, 2002 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick done, and to wrest personal profits from the Microsoft Settlement the winners and losers on Wall Street. With grasp of the successful. U.S. Department of Justice the reins off the high-tech industry, more I’ve felt all along that there should be some Antitrust Division entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create kind of settlement in the case. I am dismayed 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW new and competitive products and that the lawsuit has hung over Microsoft for Washington, DC 20530 technologies. so long. The amount of animosity that has Dear Microsoft Settlement: Thank you for this opportunity to share my been displayed towards Microsoft is The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ views. unfortunate, to say the least. Microsoft is dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Sincerely, treated like the enemy! This whole charade serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Robert M. Anderson has been ludicrous. I am in favor of the industry. settlement that has been proposed, not It is high time for this trial, and the MTC–00029505 because it is entirely deserved, but because wasteful spending accompanying it, to be From: Ron Sackman it represents an end to the case, and I believe over. Consumers will indeed see competition To: Microsoft ATR that is in the best interest of everyone. in the marketplace, rather than the Date: 1/29/02 1:19am Enough is enough. courtroom. And the investors who propel our Subject: Microsoft Settlement Unfortunately, Microsoft’s competitors are economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally, not as satisfied as I am with the settlement. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the The proposed settlement in the Microsoft They are seeking to undermine it and to bring federal government should not have broken anti-trust suit before you is seriously flawed additional litigation against the Microsoft up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, and should be rejected. Corporation. This is nothing but companies like Microsoft can get back into Microsoft has been found by every court to opportunism. The big tobacco settlement has the business of innovating and creating better have violated anti-trust laws, yet this left litigants with an unprecedented desire products for consumers, and not wasting proposed settlement is nothing more than a for massive monetary remuneration, and valuable resources on litigation. slap on the hand. The many billions of Microsoft’s opponents clearly want more Competition means creating better goods dollars Microsoft has reaped from its illegal than just technological concessions. The and offering superior services to consumers. activities go relatively untouched. truth is Microsoft was the first on the scene With government out of the business of Furthermore, there’s no provision to when the computer boom began. Microsoft stifling progress and tying the hands of guarantee us that this monopolist won’t had solutions to the problems that presented corporations, consumers—rather than continue to commit anti-competitive themselves in marketing to a relatively bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick activities. computer-illiterate consumer. Computer the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Microsoft has used its Windows operating literacy has increased, and Microsoft’s profits the reins off the high-tech industry, more system dominance to take over other software have done so as well, but they are entitled entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create markets as well. We don’t need a government to those profits. Microsoft has not raised its new and competitive products and mandate of the monopoly—we need the prices significantly over the years, and has technologies. monopoly to cease. managed to provide the consumer with a Thank you for this opportunity to share my Respectfully submitted, comprehensive software package at a views. Ron Sackman reasonable price. But clever people like me Sincerely, 3062 San Luis Rey Ave who talk loudly in restaurants, see this as a Ann G. Baird San Jose, CA 95118 deliberate ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized society. MTC–00029504 MTC–00029506 Now, under the terms of the settlement, From: Robert Anderson From: Robert E Lehnherr Microsoft has agreed to make changes in To: Microsoft Settlement To: Microsoft Settlement product and procedure, some of which Date: 1/29/02 1:08am Date: 1/29/02 1:17am extend to various aspects of the corporation Subject: Microsoft Settlement Subject: Microsoft Settlement that were not found to be in violation of Robert Anderson c/o Larson 6522 Old Robert E Lehnherr antitrust laws. For example, Microsoft plans Colony Bnd Rockford, IL 61108 3631 South 257th Street to reformat future versions of Windows so January 29, 2002 Kent, WA 98032–5669 VerDate 11 January 29, 2002 corporations, consumers—rather than serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Microsoft Settlement bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick industry. U.S. Department of Justice the winners and losers on Wall Street. With It is high time for this trial, and the Antitrust Division the reins off the high-tech industry, more wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create over. Consumers will indeed see competition Washington, DC 20530 new and competitive products and in the marketplace, rather than the Dear Microsoft Settlement: technologies. courtroom. And the investors who propel our The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ Thank you for this opportunity to share my economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a views. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Sincerely, federal government should not have broken industry. Larry Richards up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, It is high time for this trial, and the MTC–00029508 companies like Microsoft can get back into wasteful spending accompanying it, to be the business of innovating and creating better over. Consumers will indeed see competition From: Menard Norton products for consumers, and not wasting in the marketplace, rather than the To: Microsoft Settlement valuable resources on litigation. courtroom. And the investors who propel our Date: 1/29/02 1:21am Competition means creating better goods economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Subject: Microsoft Settlement and offering superior services to consumers. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Menard Norton With government out of the business of federal government should not have broken 2805 Forbes Street stifling progress and tying the hands of up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Jacksonville, FL 32205–7520 corporations, consumers—rather than companies like Microsoft can get back into January 29, 2002 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick the business of innovating and creating better Microsoft Settlement the winners and losers on Wall Street. With products for consumers, and not wasting U.S. Department of Justice the reins off the high-tech industry, more valuable resources on litigation. Antitrust Division entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create Competition means creating better goods 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW new and competitive products and Washington, DC 20530 and offering superior services to consumers. technologies. Dear Microsoft Settlement: With government out of the business of Thank you for this opportunity to share my The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ stifling progress and tying the hands of views. dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a corporations, consumers—rather than Sincerly Stuart Powers serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick industry. the winners and losers on Wall Street. With MTC–00029510 It is high time for this trial, and the the reins off the high-tech industry, more From: Janette Richards wasteful spending accompanying it, to be entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create To: Microsoft Settlement over. Consumers will indeed see competition new and competitive products and Date: 1/29/02 1:23am in the marketplace, rather than the Subject: Microsoft Settlement technologies. courtroom. And the investors who propel our Janette Richards Thank you for this opportunity to share my economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 732 Absaraka St. views. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Sheridan, WY 82801 Sincerely, federal government should not have broken January 29, 2002 Robert E Lehnherr up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Microsoft Settlement companies like Microsoft can get back into MTC–00029507 U.S. Department of Justice the business of innovating and creating better From: Larry Richards Antitrust Division products for consumers, and not wasting To: Microsoft Settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW valuable resources on litigation. Date: 1/29/02 1:20am Washington, DC 20530 Competition means creating better goods Subject: Microsoft Settlement and offering superior services to consumers. Dear Microsoft Settlement: Larry Richards With government out of the business of The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ 732 Absaraka St. stifling progress and tying the hands of dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Sheridan, WY 82801 corporations, consumers—rather than serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech January 29, 2002 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick industry. Microsoft Settlement the winners and losers on Wall Street. With It is high time for this trial, and the U.S. Department of Justice the reins off the high-tech industry, more wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Antitrust Division entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create over. Consumers will indeed see competition 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW new and competitive products and in the marketplace, rather than the Washington, DC 20530 technologies. courtroom. And the investors who propel our Dear Microsoft Settlement: Thank you for this opportunity to share my economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ views. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Sincerely, federal government should not have broken serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Menard Norton up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, industry. companies like Microsoft can get back into It is high time for this trial, and the MTC–00029509 the business of innovating and creating better wasteful spending accompanying it, to be From: G.Stuart Powers products for consumers, and not wasting over. Consumers will indeed see competition To: Microsoft Settlement valuable resources on litigation. in the marketplace, rather than the Date: 1/29/02 1:20am Competition means creating better goods courtroom. And the investors who propel our Subject: Microsoft Settlement and offering superior services to consumers. economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. G.Stuart Powers With government out of the business of Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the 398 Powers Rd. stifling progress and tying the hands of federal government should not have broken Locke, NY 13092 corporations, consumers—rather than up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, January 29, 2002 bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick companies like Microsoft can get back into Microsoft Settlement the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the business of innovating and creating better U.S. Department of Justice the reins off the high-tech industry, more products for consumers, and not wasting Antitrust Division entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create valuable resources on litigation. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW new and competitive products and Competition means creating better goods Washington, DC 20530 technologies. and offering superior services to consumers. Dear Microsoft Settlement: Thank you for this opportunity to share my With government out of the business of The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ views. stifling progress and tying the hands of dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Sincerely, VerDate 11 Janette Richards Overall I have been happy with the MTC–00029514 performance of Microsoft products, such as MTC–00029511 From: Joel West Internet Explorer, and I would like to see To: Microsoft ATR From: Bryan D. Shipp them continue to be allowed to develop Date: 1/29/02 1:45am To: Microsoft ATR, fin@ useful software and contribute to the Subject: Microsoft settlement mobilizationoffice.com@inetgw economic growth of the IT field. For these The district court (upheld by the Court of Date: 1/29/02 1:28am among other reasons I support the settlement. Appeals) held that Microsoft had violated Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, anti-trust statutes in its aggressive attempts to ———Original Message——- Bryan Shipp garner market share. From: Microsoft’s Freedom To Innovate Senator Rick Santorum Normally this would mean that there are Network two types of remedies: [mailto:[email protected]] MTC–00029512 (1) Ongoing monitoring of compliance with Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:57 PM _ From: [email protected]@inetgw a settlement agreement; To: ‘‘bryan [email protected]’’ To: Microsoft ATR (2) A structural change that uses the power Subject: Attorney General John Ashcroft Date: 1/29/02 1:40am of the market (rather than judicial oversight) Letter Subject: Microsoft Settlement to assure ongoing compliance. Attached is the letter we have drafted for 14503 129th Avenue, NE Companies like AT&T and IBM had long you based on your comments. Kirkland, WA 98034 histories of self-enforcement that made Please review it and make changes to January 28, 2002 option #1 possible. On the other hand, anything that does not represent what you Attorney General John Ashcroft throughout its anti-trust problems, Microsoft think. If you received this letter by fax, you US Department of Justice has demonstrated that it will fight to can photocopy it onto your business 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW circumvent or undercut any attempt to rein letterhead; if the letter was emailed, just print Washington, DC 20530 in its conduct. This means that attempts to it out on your letterhead. Then sign and fax Dear Mr. Ashcroft: enforce the court order will either have to be it to the Attorney General and carbon copy very intrusive or will be totally ineffectual. it to your Member of Congress. We believe I am contacting you to show my support of the proposed Microsoft settlement. This In its proposed settlement, the DOJ has left that it is essential to let our elected officials many loopholes in the interpretation of the know how important this issue is to their lengthy litigation has used up plenty of taxpayer money with nothing to show for it, ongoing monitoring that render any attempt constituents. to enforce the settlement meaningless. When you send out the letter, please do and so it appears that this compromise will be the best opportunity for a mutually Microsoft (like any sophisticated high tech one of the following: company) has a superior knowledge of * Fax a signed copy of your letter to us at agreeable resolution. The negotiated terms actually offer many technology and its own direction that will 1–800–641–2255; allow it to effectively control the decisions of benefits to letting struggling rivals gain * Email us at [email protected] the oversight team. further access into the software marketplace. to confirm that you took action. The DOJ must reconsider its proposed The top computer makers will receive a If you have any questions, please give us settlement and come up with something that uniform price list when licensing Windows a call at 1–800–965–4376. is self-enforcing using the power of the Thank you for your help in this matter. The and then select their software vendors market. This would include a divestiture of Attorney General’s fax and email are noted without any future requirements to promote some portion of operations or technology, a below. Microsoft products. Competitors will even be one-time disclosure of technology (to rivals Fax: 1–202–307–1454 or 1–202–616–9937 able to license Windows technologies and or as Open Source), or some other remedy Email: [email protected] access their internal interfaces and server that would settle case without requiring In the Subject line of the e-mail, type protocols. further adjudication and contempt hearings. Microsoft Settlement. Considering the participation of a three- Failure to improve the enforceability of Carbon Copy: member technical committee to observe this action assures that Microsoft will be back Sen. Rick Santorum compliance, this deal should be very in court with some future administration 5 or Fax: 202–224–1229 effective in accomplishing its goals. 10 years hence. This creates a powerful For more information, please visit these Please move to confirm this proposal and uncertainty for the entire U.S. computer websites: end further action against Microsoft. The industry, one that can be resolved now with www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/ economy is in need of a stable technology a clear and decisive remedy. www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm industry, and this court-mediated agreement Joel West, Ph.D. VerDate 11 Del Mar, Ca 92014 In Section III(J)(2), the statement ‘‘(c) meets interest groups have more say than the CC:[email protected]@ reasonable, *objective* standards individual people who use computers on a inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo... *established by Microsoft*’’ (emphasis mine) regular basis. is particularly troubling. Microsoft has been Because of what the Special Interest MTC–00029516 ruled an illegal monopolist, but yet they Groups have done to Microsoft (AOL/Sun From: [email protected]@inetgw (Microsoft) still get to make the rules and Micro/ and all the rest of the Jealous To: Microsoft ATR decide which companies/organizations get companies) the stock market went in the Date: 1/29/02 1:47am access to the APIs, Documentation, and toilet and I have lost of money along with a Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Communication Protocols! Giving Microsoft great many other people in the United States. Her Honor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the ability to determine ‘‘objective’’ standards Everyone say Enron was bad this was worse, Please Judge Kollar-Kotelly make Microsoft does nothing to control or regulate the above but this law suit has caused much more comply with all previous court orders and information. In actuality, it merely damage in individual investors. cease monopolistic practices. Please make a strengthens Microsoft’s hand and allows Stop this silly law suit and send all the fair marketplace for all software developers them to perpetuate their monopoly by using attorney generals home, as well as all the trial and manufacturers. Thank you! statement (c) above as a defense. Microsoft is Lawyers. Criag Hass the illegal monopolist, yet they retain the Microsoft is a good competitor. So let the 38907 Hendricks Pk Rd right to determine ‘‘objective’’ standards? I others companies compete. Springfield, OR 97478 am baffled how this proposed policy made it I love all my programs in one and don’t 541–726–9231 into the settlement and embarrassed for those want separate CC:[email protected]@inetgw of the plaintiffs who feel that this is a Good Luck MTC–00029517 remedy. Diana Rogers Why is it necessary to share APIs, 23221—60th Court So From: Laura Smith Kent,WA 98032 To: Microsoft ATR Documentation, and Communication Protocols unilaterally? Under Microsoft’s 253–373–1569 Date: 1/29/02 12:32am [email protected] Subject: Microsoft Settlement public policy of ‘‘embrace and extend’’, January 28, 2002 (10:30pm MST) Microsoft takes an existing standard, MTC–00029520 modifies it slightly, and implements the RE: Microsoft Settlement From: [email protected]@inetgw modifications in its products. Microsoft then To whom it may concern: To: Microsoft ATR incorporates these into its products, using the I am a software engineer who has been in Date: 1/29/02 1:53am monopolies it enjoys in its product to ensure the technology industry for several years. I Subject: Microsoft Settlement that its modifications (which are have developed software for Microsoft’s I do believe the point has been made. This exclusionary) become the de facto standard. products as well as the products of its company if one of the finest and most free By making and distributing its modifications competitors. The purpose of this in this country, that has promoted that communication is to express my concern only for its own products, Microsoft through out history. The settlement is good, over the proposed Microsoft settlement. perpetuates its monopoly and squeezes out and supports who we are and profess to be. The settlement wording requires Microsoft competition. Be done, the citizenship of the US does not to compete fairly with for-profit companies, The wording of Section III(J)(2)(c) support ongoing court battles at enormous but it says nothing about the rights of Not- effectively gives them the approval of the cost to stiffle and subdue a forward thinking for-profit companies. It should be noted that Justice Department to continue this behavior. and far reaching company like Microsoft. the bulk of the software that ‘‘runs’’ the Please disregard the settlement offer and Douglas Lind Internet (apache, sendmail, perl, BSD, and find a solution that will more effectively keep Kent Wa 98032 others) is freely-available software produced Microsoft’s monopolistic practices in check. by Not-for-profit companies (it is highly Sincerely, MTC–00029521 likely that this email arrived to you thanks Randy Smith From: [email protected]@inetgw to this software). The proposed settlement, [email protected] To: Microsoft ATR which requires no consideration for not-for- Mesa, AZ Date: 1/29/02 1:52am profit companies or organizations, effectively CC:[email protected]@inetgw,rsmith@ Subject: Microsoft Antitrust gives Microsoft ultimate veto power to deny occamnetworks.com Her Honor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, APIs, Documentation, Communication MTC–00029518 Please Judge Kollar-Kotelly make Microsoft Protocols, or other information that it would comply with all previous court orders and otherwise be required to share. From: [email protected]@inetgw cease monopolistic practices. Please make a In particular, Section III(J)(2) makes To: Microsoft ATR fair marketplace for all software developers Microsoft the final authority on which Date: 1/29/02 1:49am and manufacturers. Thank you! businesses have a right to receive the APIs, Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Janet M. Hass Documentation, and Communication Her Honor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 38907 Hendricks Pk Rd Protocols. The wording states that Microsoft Please Judge Kollar-Kotelly make Microsoft Springfield, OR 97478 only has to give the preceding information to comply with all previous court orders and 541–726–9231 a company that ‘‘(b) has a reasonable cease monopolistic practices. Please make a CC:[email protected]@inetgw business need for the API, Documentation or fair marketplace for all software developers Communications Protocol for a planned or and manufacturers. Thank you! MTC–00029522 shipping product, (c) meets reasonable, Glen Hass From: Wade McMullen objective standards established by Microsoft 38907 Hendricks Pk Rd To: Microsoft ATR for certifying the authenticity and viability of Springfield, OR 97478 Date: 1/29/02 1:54am its business’’. This wording gives Microsoft 541–726–9231 Subject: Microsoft Settlement the ability to decide whether or not a CC:[email protected]@inetgw Dear Judge, business is legitimate, and therefore, whether I may not be a complete expert in the finite or not it must make available the preceding MTC–00029519 detail of antitrust laws and regulations, but information. Given that Microsoft competes From: Diana Rogers from what I do know it seems blatantly with many software products produced as To: Microsoft ATR obvious that Microsoft is in violations of not-for-profit, the ability of Microsoft to Date: 1/29/02 1:50am these laws and regulations. Just because decide whether or not these not-for-profit Subject: Public Comment on Microsoft Microsoft and CEO Bill Gates have companies (and their products) are legitimate To US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly practically unlimited resources (fiscally and business concerns only strengthens I am just one of the people over 65 with therefore legally) does not make their Microsoft’s hand. It allows Microsoft to enjoy my computer and like the way violation any less severe or wrong. I love choke the very people and organizations to Microsoft makes it easy for me to use the Microsoft, Bill Gates, and everything that whom the remedies are supposed to protect. computer. I am very upset that special- they have provided to the public, but they are VerDate 11 hindering one of the most respected aspects knowledgeable about the case opposed the some purported ‘spirit’ or ‘purpose’ of the of Ameican freedom: capitalism. Their unfare settlement. See Letter from Rep. John decree to justify an interpretation that is not control over such things as web browsers, etc Conyers, Jr. to U.S. Att’y Gen. John Ashcroft clearly supported by the language.’’ Id. limits the progress of other companies and in (Nov. 6, 2001), available at http// (citation omitted). Microsoft would doubtless turn limits there’s and, while indirect, it :www.house.gov/conyers/pr110601.htm hope to interpret the loophole-ridden RPFJ in limits mine. (visited Jan. 24, 2001). For such reasons, nine the same cynical way. Respectfully, states (the ‘‘Litigating States’’) have refused to On behalf of Novell, we urge the Court to Wade McMullen settle their companion case against Microsoft. protect the public interest by immediately 213–764–1642 This Court has scheduled an evidentiary and resoundingly rejecting the proposed Student hearing for March 2002 to consider the Final Judgment. If, however, the Court is not CC:[email protected]@ remedy proposed by the Litigating States as prepared to jettison the RPFJ outright on the inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo a meaningful alternative to the feckless RPFJ basis of the written comments it receives in championed by Microsoft. this proceeding, then before deciding what, MTC–00029523 As required by the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. if any, additional argument or evidence it From: Brady, Scott W. 16(b)-(h), the DoJ filed a Competitive Impact needs in order to issue a meaningful and To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ Statement (‘‘CIS’’) on November 15, 2001, fully informed ruling under the Tunney Act, Date: 1/29/02 1:56am discussing the proposed settlement. 66 Fed. the Court should await development of the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Reg. 59,452, 59,460 (Nov. 28, 2001). The CIS, record in the imminent trial by the Litigating Attached please find Novell Inc’s Comment which unrealistically portrays the proposed States of the remedies phase of their to the Proposed Settlement between settlement, was published in the Federal companion case. Indeed, by itself putting the Microsoft and the Department of Justice, Register on November 28, 2001. The RPFJ directly at issue in the Litigating States’ pursuant to the Tunney Act. Please following Comments on the RPFJ are action, even Microsoft seems to be acknowledge receipt of this comment at your submitted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(d) on acknowledging the wisdom, and perhaps the convenience. <<0901266.DOC>> behalf of Novell, Inc. (‘‘Novell’’), a leading inevitability, of this approach. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT provider of middleware that has been Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA directly and significantly harmed by Remedial Proposal (Dec. 12, 2001), State of ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,) ) Microsoft’s unlawful actions. New York, ex rel. Spitzer, et al. v. Microsoft Plaintiff,) ) v.)Civil Action No. 98–1232 In evaluating the proposed settlement Corp., No. 98–1233. (CKK) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION,) ) under the Tunney Act, the Court must B. Summary Defendant.) ) ) ) STATE OF NEW YORK, et scrutinize the language of the proposed The RPFJ utterly fails to protect the public al.,) ) Plaintiffs,) ) v.)Civil Action No. 98– remedy, rather than rely upon the interest, because it offers no relief against 1233 (CKK) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION,) pollyannaish interpretation propounded in Microsoft’s monopolistic abuses and it fails ) Defendant.) ) the CIS. The CIS grossly overstates the ability to ‘‘pry open to competition a market that has COMMENTS OF NOVELL, INC. IN of the RPFJ to constrain Microsoft or been closed by defendants’ illegal restraints.’’ OPPOSITION TO THE REVISED PROPOSED dissuade it from further competitive abuses. Int’l Salt Co., Inc. v. United States, 332 U.S. FINAL JUDGMENT Whether as the result of indifference on the 392, 401 (1947). Rather than forcing I. Introduction part of DoJ or crafty negotiating by Microsoft, Microsoft to unlock the gates to meaningful A. Background the RPFJ is replete with competition, the RPFJ simply encourages In a unanimous en banc decision, the As used throughout these Comments, Microsoft to change a few of their locks. The District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the trial middleware refers to the commonly accepted, failings of the RPFJ are numerous and court’s ruling that Microsoft Corporation industry-wide usage of the term, while overlapping. In these Comments, Novell will (‘‘Microsoft’’) violated Section 2 of the Middleware refers to the misguided focus on only five of the RPFJ’s most Sherman Act by unlawfully acting to definition of the term adopted in the RPFJ. prominent defects: maintain its monopoly over Intel-compatible limitations and loopholes that utterly 1. The RPFJ Allows Microsoft to Decide for PC operating systems. See United States v. deprive it of effectiveness. History has Itself the Scope of its Responsibilities to Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001), shown, moreover, that Microsoft will not Restore Competition: The CIS recognizes that cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 350 (2001) hesitate to focus the full force of its ‘‘[a] number of definitions are essential to (‘‘Microsoft’’). The Circuit Court remanded competitive might on exploiting those understanding the proper construction and the case, inter alia, for further remedy loopholes for anticompetitive purposes. the scope of the requirements contained in proceedings primarily to enable the District Indeed, Microsoft has long been proud of the Proposed Final Judgment.’’ CIS, 66 Fed. Court properly to evaluate the proposed its ability to rely on loopholes to continue its Reg. at 59,464. In particular, Microsoft’s divestiture remedy. See id. at 105–07. The anticompetitive practices without being duties under the RPFJ depend on its Circuit Court, by contrast, never suggested hindered by the spirit or purpose of its past definitions of middleware. The RPFJ, that other forceful remedies would be agreements. For example, in 1997, one of however, defines middleware so narrowly as improper or criticized the conduct remedies Microsoft’s lawyers, Charles F. Rule, testified to render its remedies inconsequential. See ordered by the trial court. to Congress that the DoJ was ill-advised in RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,459. To eviscerate On remand, the U.S. Department of Justice seeking to enforce its first consent decree any remnant of protection for competition (‘‘DoJ’’) and Microsoft negotiated terms of a with Microsoft for two related reasons. See and consumers, the RPFJ thereafter guts even Proposed Final Judgment and, along with Competition, Innovation and Public Policy: the limited scope of relief afforded by its several states, a Revised Proposed Final Hearing Before the Senate Comm. On the definitions with exceptions that Microsoft is Judgment (‘‘RPFJ’’) in advance of the hearing Judiciary, 105 th Cong. (Nov. 4, 1997) free to interpret and enlarge however it ordered by the Circuit Court. 66 Fed. Reg. (statement of Charles F. Rule, then at chooses. 59,452 (Nov. 28, 2001). The terms of the RPFJ Covington & Burling, now a partner at Fried 2. The RPFJ Fails to Require Microsoft to have been widely, and appropriately, Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson) (Charles F. Disclose Essential Interface Information in criticized by consumer and industry groups Rule Testimony). Rule argued that in Sufficient Time to Allow for Competition: as a ‘‘sell out’’ or capitulation by the ‘‘arriving at a mutually acceptable decree’’ Microsoft protects its monopoly by hiding government. See, e.g., James Barksdale, A that limited Microsoft’s right to tie its and manipulating interface information that Monopoly Unbound, Wash. Post, Dec. 4, browser to its operating system, the parties is essential to the development of competing 2001, at A25; Lawrence Lessig, It’s Still a agreed to an ‘‘express limitation’’—i.e., a middleware products. For this reason, the Safe World for Microsoft, N.Y. Times, Nov. loophole—that permitted Microsoft to CIS claims that the RPFJ will require 9, 2001, at A27; Analysis of a Sell-Out, the develop ‘‘integrated products.’’ Id. Rule then Microsoft to disclose complete interface Microsoft Deal, Computer & Communications pronounced that ‘‘[a]mbiguities in decrees information. See CIS, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,460. Industry Ass’n (Nov. 21, 2001), available at are typically resolved against the In fact, the disclosure requirements of the http://www.ccianet.org/papers/ms/ Government. In addition, the Government’s RPFJ are illusory, because: (1) they are sellout.php3 (visited Jan. 24, 2001). Indeed, case must rise or fall on the language of the limited in scope and subject to continued reports suggest that DoJ staff members most decree; the Government cannot fall back on manipulation by Microsoft; (2) they are VerDate 11 trumped by an exception for ‘‘security simply too easy for Microsoft to evade, and Microsoft Middleware unless identified as a information’’ that is so broad as to render any Microsoft has demonstrated no reluctance to new major version of that Microsoft remaining obligations trivial; and (3) they fail do just that. The RPFJ, in failing to account Middleware Product. A major version shall to obligate Microsoft to disclose interface for the nature of software and Microsoft’s be identified by a whole number or by a information in time to allow for meaningful proclivity for manipulation and evasion, is number with just a single digit to the right competition. like a busted dam—daunting yet debilitated. of the decimal point. K. Microsoft 3. The RPFJ Fails to Prevent Microsoft from A. The RPFJ Protects Microsoft, Rather Middleware Product means Continuing to Corrupt Industry Standards for than the Public Interest, Because It 1. the functionality provided by Internet Anticompetitive Purposes: To reinforce its Perpetuates Microsoft’s Power to Preclude Explorer, Microsoft’s Java Virtual Machine, control over essential interface information Competition For Middleware The judgment Windows Media Player, Windows and at the same time raise its rivals’’ costs, against Microsoft primarily rests on the Messenger, Outlook Express and their Microsoft has repeatedly lied about its conclusion that Microsoft has unlawfully successors in a Windows Operating System commitment to industry standards for interfered with the development, marketing, Product, and interoperability. The Court of Appeals and use of middleware offered by 2. for any functionality that is first recognized that pollution of Java as a competitors. Any credible remedy, therefore, licensed, distributed or sold by Microsoft standard programming language enabled must deprive Microsoft of the power to after the entry of this Final Judgment and that Microsoft to protect its monopoly against foreclose competition by driving middleware is part of any Windows Operating System threats posed by middleware. See Microsoft, alternatives from the market. Product 253 F.3d at 76–77. Microsoft has employed The RPFJ, moreover, affronts the public a. Internet browsers, email client software, this same tactic time and again to subvert interest to the extent that it reflects networked audio/video client software, industry initiatives to develop standards that Microsoft’s attempt to circumvent the instant messaging software or promote interoperability and reduce the judgment of this District Court, as affirmed b. functionality provided by Microsoft applications barriers to entry. The RPFJ, by the Court of Appeals, that Microsoft has software that i. is, or in the year preceding however, is shockingly silent about such unlawfully acted to maintain its monopoly. the commercial release of any new Windows matters. Microsoft’s hope to succeed in negotiation Operating System Product was, distributed 4. The RPFJ Fails to Prevent Microsoft from where it failed in court is arrogantly separately by Microsoft (or by an entity Continuing Coercive Licensing Practices. proclaimed in the preamble to the RPFJ, acquired by Microsoft) from a Windows Microsoft has a long history of imposing which asserts that this Final Judgment does Operating System Product; Continued on coercive contracts and conditions on its not constitute any admission by any party following page customers to inhibit their ability to buy or regarding any issue of fact or law; and in Indeed, the RPFJ defines ‘‘Microsoft sell competing products. See Microsoft, 253 Paragraph VIII, which proffers that [n]othing Middleware’’ so narrowly as to render any F.3d at 64. With myopic vision, the RPFJ in this Final Judgment is intended to confer safeguards for consumers and competition only addresses Microsoft’s coercive upon any other persons any rights or inconsequential. Worse, the RPFJ allows arrangements with certain intermediaries in remedies of any nature whatsoever hereunder Microsoft—hardly the guardian of the public the market, like OEMs, while ignoring or by reason of this Final Judgment. RPFJ, 66 interest—to decide what future products will, coercive tactics directed at customers. See Fed. Reg. at 59,453, 59,460. The DoJ and and will not, be considered ‘‘Microsoft CIS, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,460, 59,471. Microsoft, however, are not free to expunge Middleware!’’ Thus, the RPFJ puts the fox in 5. The RPFJ Fails To Adopt Effective the record of this case, nor to negotiate away charge of the hen house. Enforcement Procedures. The instant the rights of interested third parties. See 1. The RPFJ’s Vapid Definitions of proceedings serve as their own testament to Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Middleware As noted above, the scope of the power and benefit that Microsoft derives Support of the California Plaintiffs’’ Motion protection afforded by the RPFJ depends from delay and indifference in the to Intervene (Jan. 28, 2002), United States v. entirely on its definition of Microsoft enforcement of the antitrust laws. Having Microsoft Corp., No. 98–1232. Middleware. Rather than defining Microsoft entered a prior consent decree in 1995, and But what is middleware? According to the Middleware in a Continued from previous having been found liable for monopolization CIS, ‘‘Microsoft Middleware,’’ [is]a defined page in 1999, Microsoft might have been expected term, that triggers Microsoft’s obligations, ii. is similar to the functionality provided to moderate its anticompetitive tactics. To including those relating to Microsoft’s by a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product; and the contrary, Microsoft has exploited delay licensing and disclosure obligations.’’ CIS, 66 iii. is Trademarked. and the ambiguity of prior antitrust sanctions Fed. Reg. at 59,464. In other words, if a Functionality that Microsoft describes or to intensify its anticompetitive campaigns. In Microsoft product does not fall within the markets as being part of a Microsoft failing to create a compliance regime that meaning of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware,’’ then Middleware Product (such as a service pack, guarantees Microsoft will face swift and Microsoft has no obligation with respect to upgrade, or bug fix for Internet Explorer), or meaningful sanctions in the event of that product to provide interface information, that is a version of a Microsoft Middleware continued abuse, the RPFJ ensures its own to restrict its abusive licensing practices, or Product (such as Internet Explorer 5.5), shall impotence. otherwise to restrain its monopolistic zeal to be considered to be part of that Microsoft Each of these five deficiencies, standing vanquish rival products. Unfortunately, the Middleware Product. alone, would merit rejection of the RPFJ. RPFJ reveals far greater concern about the L. Microsoft Platform Software means (i) a Together, these failings suggest that the RPFJ types of products to be excluded from Windows Operating System Product and/or reflects a cynical settlement of political ‘‘Middleware’’ (and, hence, excluded from (ii) a Microsoft Middleware Product. expediency that, if adopted, would do far relief) than those to be included. M. Non-Microsoft Middleware means a more to protect Microsoft from the J. Microsoft Middleware means software non-Microsoft software product running on a meddlesome antitrust laws than to protect code that 1. Windows Operating System Product that competition and the public interest from Microsoft distributes separately from a exposes a range of functionality to ISVs Microsoft. Windows Operating System Product to through published APIs, and that could, if II. The RPFJ Is Contrary to the Public update that Windows Operating System ported to or made interoperable with, a non- Interest Product; Microsoft Operating System, thereby make it Fundamentally, the RPFJ fails to protect 2. is Trademarked; easier for applications that rely in whole or the public interest, because it fails to 3. provides the same or substantially in part on the functionality supplied by that acknowledge and address the unique similar functionality as a Microsoft software product to be ported to or run on characteristics of software that Microsoft has Middleware Product; and that non-Microsoft Operating System. exploited to maintain and enhance its 4. includes at least the software code that N. Non-Microsoft Middleware Product monopoly. Microsoft has relied upon the controls most or all of the user interface means a non-Microsoft software product ‘‘fluid’’ nature of software to inundate and elements of that Microsoft Middleware. running on a Windows Operating System overwhelm competition in a sea of ever- Software code described as part of, and Product: (i) that exposes a range of changing products, interfaces and rhetoric. distributed separately to update, a Microsoft functionality to ISVs through published APIs, Limited, ambiguous, or delayed remedies are Middleware Product shall not be deemed and that could, if ported to or made VerDate 11 interoperable with, a non-Microsoft if Microsoft finds it necessary, for some making discretionary and trivial changes to Operating System, thereby make it easier for reason, to distribute new software separately its own business practices.7 Plaintiff applications that rely in whole or in part on from a ‘‘Windows Operating System Litigating States’ Remedial Proposals at 34– the functionality supplied by that software Product,’’ such software still will not fall 35 (Dec. 7, 2001), United States v. Microsoft product to be ported to or run on that non- within the remedy, if Microsoft decides in its Corp., No. 98–1232 (States’ Remedy). Microsoft Operating System, and sole discretion not to seek trademark Continued from previous page Middleware’’ (ii) of which at least one million copies protection for the product. This is absurd.5 are all required, this last element further were distributed in the United States within Finally, even assuming the RPFJ retains limits, rather than expands, the scope of the previous year. RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at some sliver of significance despite its slight relief. 7 The Litigating States would define 59,459. scope, additional broad and pliable middleware as follows: w. Middleware manner that provides a concrete exclusions assure that Microsoft would be means software, whether provided in the foundation for meaningful relief, the RPFJ well protected against any meaningful duty form of files installed on a computer or in the offers a convoluted definition that provides to comply. For example, the RPFJ provides form of Web-Based Software, that operates a foundation no stronger than the shifting that any ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ must directly or through other software within an sands. Specifically, the RPFJ defines ‘‘include at least the software code that Operating System or between an Operating ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ as ‘‘software that controls most or all of the user interface System (whether or not on the same provides the same or substantially similar elements of that Microsoft Middleware.’’ Id. computer) and other software (whether or not functionality as a Microsoft Middleware Thus, Microsoft could avoid any compliance on the same computer) by offering services Product.’’ RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,459. In duties simply by breaking up code for via APIs or Communications Interfaces to turn, the RPFJ specifies two criteria for middleware into small units of code, none of such other software, and could, if ported to ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Products.’’ See id. which ‘‘controls most or all of the user or made Interoperable with multiple First, the RPFJ simply chooses a few types of interface elements.’’6 Likewise, the RPFJ Operating Systems, enable software products software—namely, Internet Explorer, excludes from The ridiculous implication of written for that Middleware to be run on Microsoft’s Java Virtual Machine, Windows this loophole is that there exists some multiple Operating System Products. Media Player, Windows Messenger, Outlook correlation between a decision by Microsoft Examples of Middleware within the meaning Express, and their successors—to be deigned to assert trademark protection for software of this Final Judgment include without ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Products.’’ Id. and Microsoft’s ability to exploit such limitation Internet browsers, network Second, the RPFJ declares that other types of software for anticompetitive purposes. To the operating systems, e-mail client software, software may be considered ‘‘Microsoft contrary, this limitation on the scope of the media creation, delivery and playback Middleware Products’’ if (and only if) three RPFJ is simply a ‘‘give away’’ that enhances software, instant messaging software, voice recognition software, digital imaging conditions are met; specifically, if the the misdirected protection afforded by the software, the Java Virtual Machine, software: RPFJ to Microsoft. calendaring systems, Handheld Computing (i) is, or in the year preceding the Notably, the DoJ appears to have misread, Device synchronization software, directories, commercial release of any new Windows or misunderstood, the import of this element and directory services and management Operating System Product the software was, of its own definition. The CIS asserts that this software. Examples of software that are not last element of the definition is: to ensure distributed separately by Microsoft (or by an Continued on following page entity acquired by Microsoft) from a that the definition captures situations where Remarkably, the DoJ’s own prior Windows Operating System Product; Microsoft chooses to divide up the software submission to the Court belies any arguments (ii) has functionality similar to that code...and to distribute that code not in one that the RPFJ is sufficiently broad in scope provided by a Non-Microsoft Middleware block but in smaller blocks the fourth to protect the public interest. Although Product; and requirement sets a minimum functional Microsoft hopes to limit any relief to forms (iii) is Trademarked. Id. requirement that in no case (regardless of the of middleware that no longer threaten its Together, these definitions of Middleware size, or manner of, distributing the code) monopoly, the DoJ has explained: assure that the protections of the RPFJ will shall the software code constituting Microsoft In crafting an effective Sherman Act never apply to more than a few forms of Middleware be less than that which controls remedy, a court must use the record of a middleware and, in particular, to middleware most, or all of, the user interface elements of backward-looking trial to fashion forward- that Microsoft has already crushed by that Microsoft Middleware. looking relief. Looking forward, the Court anticompetitive means. Indeed, the CIS, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,464. In fact, the must anticipate that Microsoft, unless inconsequential scope of the RPFJ will language of the RPFJ has precisely the restrained by appropriate equitable relief, embolden Microsoft in its continuing quest to opposite effect of what DoJ claims. Because likely will continue to perpetuate its extinguish any new, or competitively the proposed four elements of ‘‘Microsoft monopoly by the same anticompetitive significant, middleware offered to Continued on following page the definition methods revealed at trial, although directed consumers. The RPFJ further ensures its own of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ any ‘‘updates’’ to at whatever new competitive threat arises. futility by allowing Microsoft to decide existing ‘‘Microsoft Middleware Products,’’ Neither the Netscape browser nor Java when, or if, to trigger any duty to comply. unless Microsoft, in its sole discretion, continues to have the prospect of lowering Thus, to qualify as a ‘‘Microsoft Middleware decides to label the update a ‘‘major version’’ the applications barrier to entry, and it is not Product or as ‘‘Microsoft Middleware,’’ of the product. Id. To avoid compliance, certain where future threats to Microsoft’s software must at some time be distributed therefore, Microsoft need only rely on operating system will arise. But there are separately by Microsoft from one of its ‘‘minor’’ updates to impede competition, or several possibilities that ought to be taken ‘‘Windows Operating System Products.’’ Id. call every update ‘‘minor,’’ regardless of into account in crafting an appropriate Nothing in the RPFJ, however, prohibits import. In sum, the RPFJ ultimately allows remedy for Microsoft’s violations. Microsoft from rolling all important Microsoft to decide for itself the scope of its Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of middleware into its operating system duties. In view of Microsoft’s demonstrated Proposed Final Judgment (‘‘DoJ Mem. In products. enthusiasm for legal loopholes, it is hard to Supp.’’) at 27–28, United States v. Microsoft To the contrary, the RPFJ remarkably imagine a remedy proposal of lesser value. Corp., No. 98–1232 (emphasis added). provides that ‘‘[t]he software code that 2. The RPFJ’s Limited Scope Precludes Elsewhere, the DoJ has admitted that comprises a Windows Operating System Protection of the Public Interest The aulty important new middleware technologies that Product shall be determined by Microsoft in (and nearly non-existent) scope of the RPFJ must be protected from Microsoft’s tactics its sole discretion.’’ RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at is made especially clear when it is compared may include ‘‘voice recognition software, 59,459 (emphasis added). To make its scope with the broader definition of middleware media streaming technology and e-mail even more trivial (if that is possible), the proposed by the Litigating States in their software,’’ as well as ‘‘many server-based RPFJ further provides that software code will proposed remedy. In contrast to the RPFJ, the middleware products Continued from not be considered either ‘‘Microsoft Litigating States define middleware in previous page Middleware within the Middleware’’ or a ‘‘Microsoft Middleware conformity with the judgment against meaning of this Final Judgment are disk Product,’’ unless it is ‘‘Trademarked’’ by Microsoft and would not permit Microsoft to compression and memory management Microsoft. See id. at 16. In other words, even continue its abusive practices simply by software. VerDate 11 x. Microsoft Middleware Product means: ‘‘Active Directory,’’ and iPlanet’s ‘‘Directory Operating Systems], ORBs, TP monitors, i. Internet browsers, e-mail client software, Server,’’ have become competitively critical DBMSs, application servers and/or media creation, delivery and playback links between the desktop and network networking layers. Id. software, instant messaging software, voice computing that threaten Microsoft’s Thus, directory services fall squarely recognition software, digital imaging monopoly. For this reason, it is hardly within Microsoft’s admitted definition of software, directories, Exchange, calendaring surprising that Microsoft hopes to insulate middleware. See Microsoft’s Remedial systems, systems and enterprise management directory services software from antitrust Proposal at 9 (citing Microsoft, 253 F.3d at software, Office, Handheld Computing scrutiny. See Defendant Microsoft 53).8 Directory services expose APIs as an Device synchronization software, directory Corporation’s Remedial Proposal at 9 (Dec. alternative to Windows APIs, and serve as services and management software, the 12, 2001), United States v. Microsoft Corp., platforms for diverse applications. Common Language Runtime component of No. 98–1232 (arguing that ‘‘directory services In view of the competitive importance of the .Net framework, and Compact and management software are plainly not directory services as middleware, it is hardly Framework, whether provided in the form of ‘‘middleware’’ within the meaning of the surprising that Microsoft has attempted to files installed on a computer or in the form Court of Appeals’’ decision’’). Yet, Microsoft drive products that compete with its Active of Web-Based Software, or offers only rhetoric to support its wish for Directory software from the market by using ii. Middleware distributed by Microsoft directory services middleware to be excluded the same unlawful tactics that it used against that (1) is, or in the three years preceding this from any remedy in this case. Indeed, Netscape. For example, Microsoft has Judgment has been, distributed separately Microsoft refutes its own claim. Microsoft commingled code to bind Active Directory to from an Operating System Product, any notes that [a]s the Court of Appeals used the its Windows operating systems. In recent successors thereto, or (2) provides term, middleware’ refers to software products versions of Windows, Microsoft has also functionality similar to that provided by that are capable of running on multiple client manipulated interfaces specifically to Middleware offered by a Microsoft operating systems and that could provide a prevent users from replacing Active Directory competitor. States’ Remedy at 34–35. that general-purpose platform for applications, with eDirectory. (Although eDirectory can be have historically been sold or distributed such that developers might begin to rely used with recent Microsoft operating separately by Microsoft or other firms, upon APIs exposed by the middleware for systems, it can only be used concurrently including a directory service (Active basic routines rather than relying upon the with Active Directory.) 9 Second, Microsoft Directory), an application server (Microsoft API set included in Windows’ and the has undermined the use of a standard Transaction Server—MTS), and a web server middleware could take over some or all of See also Windows 2000: Blueprint for (Internet Information Server—IIS)’’. Id. at 28; Windows’ valuable platform functions.’ Id. Domination, Computer & Communications Affidavit of Rebecca Henderson, attached as (citing Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 53). Technology Industry Ass’n at 24 (Apr. 2000), available at Exhibit to DoJ Mem. Of Supp. (‘‘Henderson consumers, middleware competitors, and http://www.ccianet.org/papers/ ms/ Aff.’’). independent experts all agree that directory blueprint—for—domination.pdf (visited Jan. In sum, the RPFJ protects Microsoft, rather services software falls squarely within even 24, 2001) (‘‘CCIA White Paper’’) (‘‘Active than the public, by limiting restrictions on Microsoft’s definition of ‘‘middleware.’’ Directory is the integrated directory service Microsoft monopolistic tactics to forms of For example, Internet2 is a consortium of for Windows 2000. It is the glue that binds middleware that Microsoft has already, and technology consumers that includes over 180 Windows desktops to Windows 2000 Servers. unalterably, made irrelevant. Meanwhile, the universities working in partnership with Active Directory is a critical component for RPFJ will only fuel Microsoft’s zeal to industry and government on advanced any end user, Application Developer, and IT replicate its unlawful victories over Netscape network applications and technologies. manager that is using, developing, or and Java in its continuing efforts to Internet2 explains: managing computers and applications in a extinguish other middleware threats to its [A] key part of [the Internet2] initiative is Microsoft distributed computing monopoly. to promote open standards ‘‘middleware, or environment.’’). 3. The RPFJ Subverts the Public Interest By ‘‘glue’’, [which] is a layer of software between In Windows 2000, Microsoft redesigned its Providing Immunity for Microsoft’s Unlawful the network and the applications. This authentication system and refused to disclose Efforts to Destroy Middleware Alternatives to software provides services such as the APIs necessary for Novell to continue Active Directory Perhaps the most insidious identification, authentication, authorization, ‘‘redirecting’’ Microsoft calls for Active characteristic of the RPFJ is that it appears directories, and security. In today’s Internet, Directory to eDirectory. Novell used a specifically written to impart antitrust applications usually have to provide these technique called ‘‘redirection’’ to allow an immunity to Microsoft for using the same services themselves, which leads to earlier version of its directory services unlawful tactics against competition competing and incompatible standards. By software, called NDS, to interoperate threatened by directory services middleware promoting standardization and effectively with WindowsNT. By moving and that it used to destroy competition threatened interoperability, middleware will make encrypting interface information in Windows by Netscape’s internet browser. Remarkably, advanced network applications much easier 2000 and Windows XP, Microsoft has the RPFJ would not require Microsoft to lift to use. prevented Novell from using redirection and a finger to avail itself of such protection. Likewise, the well-respected Gartner has forced Novell to ‘‘synchronize’’ its With utter disregard for the public interest, Group, a leading provider of technology directory services software, now called the RPFJ attempts to legitimize conduct that research, has emphasized that ‘‘directory eDirectory, with Active Directory. As a result has already been declared unlawful by both services’’ are playing an increasingly of this tactic, customers may not run the District Court and the Court of Appeals. important role as middleware platforms for eDirectory alone, but can only use it as a Specifically, the RPFJ permits Microsoft to integrating diverse applications and other supplement to Active Directory. See CCIA engage in any anticompetitive tactic of choice forms of software, including other White Paper, supra (‘‘The industry protocol against middleware threats, so long as middleware products and operating systems. in this case Light Directory Access Protocol Microsoft chooses to bundle, bind, or even See Conference Presentation, Active or LDAP in favor of proprietary protocols that just market, competitively critical Directory, Gartner Group at 5, available at inhibit development of multi-platform (or middleware with its monopoly operating http://www.gartnerweb.com/public/static/ non-Microsoft) networks.10 system products. Although memories can be win2000/actdirect.pdf (visited Jan. 23, 2002). Third, Microsoft has employed coercive short in the fast-paced technology industry, The Gartner Group notes: licenses, called client access licenses or it defies credulity that the RPFJ ignores six [O]ne of the important parts of integration CALs, to discourage users from installing years of antitrust litigation and the Court of middleware [such as a directory service] is non-Microsoft directory services.11 More Appeals’’ judgment against Microsoft, which the superservice. A superservice presents to than surprising, however, is that the RPFJ directly resulted from Microsoft’s simple, but the application program its own superAPI, will sanction such unlawful conduct for the unlawful, decision to combine middleware effectively masking or superseding the API(s) simple reason that Microsoft has had the with its monopoly operating systems. exposed by other software layers. A foresight (in light of this litigation) to decide As discussed below, there can be no superservice provides services, such as against ever distributing Active Directory question that directory services software, metadirectory, security and/or transaction separately from Windows. Although such as Novell’s ‘‘eDirectory,’’ Microsoft’s management, across two or more OSs [i.e., Microsoft’s decision, standing alone and VerDate 11 without regard to any anticompetitive Windows Operating System Product and a interface information must be sufficiently consequences, will exempt Microsoft’s server operating system product connected timely to enable competing providers of conduct relating to Active Directory from via a network, including, but not limited to, middleware to develop alternatives in a antitrust scrutiny under the RPFJ, the notion a local area network, a wide area network or commercially reasonable time frame. The CIS that such conduct does nothing to entrench the Internet. These rules govern the format, explains: Whenever Microsoft develops an Microsoft’s monopoly is preposterous. semantics, timing, sequencing, and error updated version of a Windows Operating B. The Proposed Final Judgment Would control of messages exchanged over a System Product, it must disclose all relevant Have No Effect, Because it Fails to Require network. * * * APIs and Documentation in a Timely Meaningful Disclosures by Microsoft of E. Documentation means all information Manner, meaning at the time Microsoft first Interface Information The next extraordinary regarding the identification and means of releases a widespread beta test version of that deficiency of the RPFJ is the manner in using APIs that a person of ordinary skill in 12 See, e.g., Jesse Berst, APIs: Microsoft’s which it purports to require Microsoft to the art requires to make effective use of those Hidden Full Nelson, ZDNet (Jun. 28, 2000), disclose critical interface information that APIs. Such information shall be of the sort available at http://www.zdnet.com/ would allow for the way Microsoft’s Active and to the level of specificity, precision and anchordesk/stories/story/ Directory is implement on the client-side detail that Microsoft customarily provides for 0,10738,2595479,00.html (visited Jan. 22, makes it impossible to redirect services to APIs it documents in the Microsoft Developer 2002); Sven B. Schreiber, Undocumented alternative directory service providers such Network (MSDN). RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at Windows 2000 Secrets: A Programmer’s as Novell’s NDS. This means Active 59,458. Cookbook (2001); Prasad Dabek, Sandeep Directory must be present on a network of The first, and most obvious, defect of the Phadke & Milind Borate, Undocumented Windows 2000 machines and that Novell can proposed disclosures is the scope of WindowsNT (1999). no longer compete as a substitute for Microsoft’s duty. Under the definitions of the Windows Operating System Product (i.e., directory services as they did with Windows RPFJ, Microsoft would need only to disclose one made available to 150,000 or more beta NT.’’); Active Directory, Gartner Group, certain interface information affecting testers). If, alternatively, Microsoft develops supra, at 9 (‘‘With [Windows] NT v. interoperability of ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ a new major version of Microsoft 4, Novell has used a redirection model and a ‘‘Windows Operating System Product.’’ Middleware, it must disclose any APIs and with its NDS for NT product to provide a See id. at 59,459. As discussed above, those Documentation used by that middleware to solution for managing heterogeneous NDS terms are defined by the RPFJ to allow interoperate with any Windows Operating and NT domain environments. We believe Microsoft to avoid compliance altogether, System Product not later than the release of this approach will be difficult, if not because ‘‘Microsoft Middleware’’ is defined the last major beta version of that impossible, for Novell to implement with absurdly narrowly and ‘‘Windows Operating middleware (i.e., the version before the Active Directory in Windows 2000.’’). System Products’’ are defined as whatever release of any release candidate version of 10 See CCIA White Paper, supra (‘‘Active Microsoft wants them to be. See id. the middleware). This dual-timing trigger Directory is also used as Microsoft’s vehicle Microsoft’s history makes clear that it will mechanism is important to ensure that ISVs for locking customers into a Microsoft simply evade this remedy by declining ever and other third parties learn of all relevant proprietary standard. Active Directory again to offer middleware products APIs and the information needed effectively supports standard interfaces such as separately from its operating systems (or at to use them well in advance of the actual Lightweight Directory Access Protocol least it will not assert trademark protection commercial releases of the relevant Microsoft (LDAP) and Domain Name Service (DNS). for them). Second, the interface definitions software, so that the third parties can ensure These protocols are subsets of what Active fail to articulate an objective standard for that their own competing products function Directory supports, meaning that no other evaluating Microsoft’s compliance. To date, on and interoperate with Windows. CIS, 66 directory services can substitute for Active Microsoft has never admitted that it has Fed. Reg. at 59,468 (emphasis in original).13 Directory.’’) For a discussion of LDAP, see withheld interface information to Notwithstanding the wishful (and Novell Technical Information competitors; instead it points to volumes of unrealistic) analysis of the CIS, the language Document:GroupWise and LDAP Whitepaper information it provides to independent of the RPFJ fails to offer any meaningful (Feb. 15, 2000), available at http:// developers through its Microsoft assurance of timeliness. The specified date support.novell.com/cgi-bin/search Development Network (MSDN). Meanwhile, for release of interface information for new /searchtid.cgi?/2955731.htm (visited Jan. 22, it is obvious to competitors and independent middleware products is the last ‘‘beta’’ 2002). 11 See discussion of CALs, infra at observers that while Microsoft has often release, which is typically very shortly before Section II.D. published interface information that allows the final version of the software is released development and effective implementation competing products to work with Microsoft’s to the public. Such beta releases are generally of competing middleware products. The operating system products, it frequently made a year or a year and a half after early disclosure requirement of the RPFJ can be refuses to publish information that allows code is provided to Microsoft operating summarized as: (1) too little; (2) too late; and competing products to work well with systems and applications developers. In (3) too full of loopholes. In fact, the RPFJ Microsoft’s products or in the same way as effect, under current practices the proposed would expressly allow Microsoft to continue Microsoft’s products. Indeed, Microsoft has finding would allow Microsoft to give its the same anticompetitive practices that have notoriously allowed its own programmers own middleware developers a year and one- already enabled it to buttress its monopoly. and developers to access and rely upon secret half head start over competitors. 1. Too Little Disclosure: The RPFJ’s or unpublished APIs, calls, or other interface In fact, the head start the RPFJ affords Inadequate Definitions of Interface information to assure full interoperability of Microsoft is likely to be far longer (or even Information—The RPFJ defines interface its products, while forcing competitors to use infinitely long). By triggering the disclosure information so narrowly and incompletely only limited sets of information that allow for obligation on the date of the ‘‘last’’ beta that any compliance by Microsoft with its ‘‘interoperability’’—but only in inefficient release that includes at least 150,000 testers, disclosure requirements would have little, if and constrained ways.12 Nothing in the RPFJ the RPFJ would, once again, allow Microsoft any, effect. The RPFJ includes the following clearly prohibits Microsoft from disclosing to decide if and when (if ever) the disclosure definitions: selective interface information that provides obligation would take effect. Nothing in the A. Application Programming Interfaces for limited interoperability. Indeed, RPFJ would prevent Microsoft from delaying (APIs) means the interfaces, including any paragraph E. of the RPFJ makes clear that the ‘‘final’’ beta release for more than a year associated callback interfaces, that Microsoft Microsoft need not offer any better and a half, or even from deciding to test new Middleware running on a Windows ‘‘Documentation’’ than it does at the present software exclusively in stages released to Operating System Product uses to call upon time. See id. at 59,458. For all the foregoing groups of less than 150,000 testers. that Windows Operating System Product in reasons, the information currently available 13 The RPFJ defines ‘‘Timely Manner’’ for order to obtain any services from that has proven grossly inadequate to allow for disclosure of interface information as ‘‘the Windows Operating System Product. meaningful competition. See id. time Microsoft first releases a beta test B. Communications Protocol means the set 2. Too Late Disclosure: The RPFJ’s version of a Windows Operating System of rules for information exchange to Inadequate Definition of Timeliness The Product that is distributed to 150,000 or more accomplish predefined tasks between a RPFJ acknowledges that disclosures of beta testers.’’ RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,459. VerDate 11 3. The RPFJ’s Security Loophole Precludes the same types of locks that its uses for its Windows Operating System Products that Meaningful Relief The RPFJ has been own products. This tactic unnecessarily might allow it to operate more effectively.’’ described as Swiss cheese without the inhibits interoperability, because information Id. at 59,468. Unfortunately, the RPFJ again cheese. Of the numerous loopholes and security invariably depends not on the type fails to deliver on DoJ’s purported goal. deficiencies of the RPFJ, none is larger than of lock that is used (since a variety of tamper- In contrast to the RPFJ, a meaningful the broad and general exclusion it affords proof locks have been developed), but solely remedy must account for the fact that Microsoft for ‘‘security’’ information, as on protection of the keys.14 Microsoft Microsoft manipulates interface information follows: routine ignores such distinctions to enable it in a variety of ways to preclude competition. J. No provision of this Final Judgment to harm interoperability under the rubric of Although too numerous to recount, shall: security. Microsoft’s tactics include: ? ‘‘Secret 1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose In sum, the ‘‘security’’ exception to the Interfaces’’—Microsoft does not publish all or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs RPFJ harms, rather than protects, the public the interfaces it uses and does not publish all or Documentation or portions or layers of interest. As interpreted by Microsoft, the the interface information that others need to Communications Protocols the disclosure of exception will enable it to withhold develop products that interoperate with which would compromise the security of a information that is irrelevant to securing Microsoft software. ? ‘‘Crippled Interfaces’’— particular installation or group of networks from hacking, viruses and the like, For some functions, Microsoft publishes installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, but highly relevant to securing networks from information about an interface that is inferior software licensing, digital rights meaningful competition. to the interface that Microsoft itself uses to management, encryption or authentication 4. The RPFJ’s Inadequate Disclosure accomplish a function, or publishes systems, including without limitation, keys, Requirements Precludes Protection of the incomplete information about an interface. authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; Public Interest ‘‘Kick Me Interfaces’’—Sometimes, or RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,455–56. As recognized in the CIS and DC Circuit Microsoft publishes information about an DoJ attempts to justify this security Court opinion, Microsoft has prevented interface that Microsoft uses to perform a exception on grounds that ‘‘[it] is a narrow competitors from offering meaningful function, but it ‘‘marks’’ non-Microsoft exception, limited to specific end-user Middleware alternatives in three main ways: software in a way that assures the interface implementations of security items such as (1) Microsoft has taken advantage of the will operate in an inferior way. Microsoft can actual keys, authorization tokens or fluidity of software to continually reconfigure ‘‘mark’’ competitors software through enforcement criteria, the disclosure of which its products in ways that make it difficult or tagging, signing, encrypted passwords, or by would compromise the security of ‘‘a impossible for even superior middleware noting the absence of such features. ? Moving particular installation or group of offerings of competitors to remain viable; (2) Interfaces—If, by some means, a third party installations’’ of the listed security features.’’ Microsoft has refused to disclose interface has been able to obtain adequate interface CIS, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,472. In fact, this information that information that Microsoft doesn’t want it to exception is fatal to the efficacy of the RPFJ. One of the most remarkable aspects of have, Microsoft will simply move the Much of what software developers like modern encryption technology is that it interface. For example, Novell successfully Novell need in order to develop products that allows for virtually complete security of a figured out how to enable its directory efficiently interoperate with Microsoft ‘‘key’’ needed to unlock an encrypted services software to interoperate with Windows products is now being encrypted message. In the world of physical locks and Windows NT. To counter Novell’s success, in by Microsoft. keys, a key is never entirely secure (even if Windows 2000 Microsoft broke up and Under the rubric of security, Microsoft it is never shared), because a locksmith can moved the computer files containing the harms interoperability by manipulating the reproduce a key if he or she is given the lock. interface information used by Novell and encryption, signing or tagging of calls made By contrast, in the world of bits and bytes, marked, or signed, information required for between its operating systems and modern encryption can prevent a ‘‘key’’ from the interfaces so that Novell could neither middleware. Encrypted or signed calls made being copied, even if an expert knows how use Microsoft’s interface information nor by Microsoft’s operating systems can be seen the key was made and is given the locked replace it. by competing middleware, but either cannot (i.e., encrypted) message. The typical result of such tactics is that be read by them or the calls cannot be would enable competitors to offer Microsoft makes competing products appear executed properly and with full function. middleware products that operate effectively; inferior to Microsoft’s products. Microsoft’s Calls made by competing server operating and (3) Microsoft has engaged in coercive actions may make a competing product systems are rejected by Microsoft’s products sales and marketing tactics that force appear slower, require more memory, or because they are not encrypted or signed in distributors and consumers to favor even perform with limited functionality. These the Microsoft way. Microsoft, for example, inferior Microsoft products over those of tactics also enable Microsoft to persuade now encrypts information exchanged competitors. See CIS, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,461. customers to buy Microsoft’s inferior and/or between its directory service (Active Microsoft’s refusal to disclose meaningful more expensive products simply to avoid Directory) and its operating systems. The and timely interface information has been Microsoft’s roadblocks.15 effect of such ‘‘security’’ is to prevent especially damaging to competitors, like 15 Perhaps most remarkable, is the Novell’s eDirectory or other directory Novell, who have repeatedly demonstrated arrogance with which Microsoft exploits its services from replacing Active Directory in a their ability to develop superior alternatives anticompetitive efforts to impede network. Even if Novell discovers, or is to Microsoft products in the increasingly rare interoperability. Microsoft, for example, provided with, the interfaces between Active instances in which they have been able to repeatedly issues marketing materials that Directory and Windows, Microsoft’s obtain, or ascertain on their own, the critical criticize products offered by Novell and other encryption of the information exchanges will interface information that allows for the competitors for technical problems cause by effectively prevent the use of an alternative effective interoperation of their middleware Microsoft’s refusal to allow effective directory service. This tactic, moreover, with Microsoft operating systems. As a result, interoperability with Windows. could be replicated wherever middleware the public is denied the benefits of Thus, in 1998, Microsoft’s Website exchanges information, or calls, with innovation and the opportunity to choose criticized Novell’s directory services product, Windows. Although encryption or signing of among competing alternatives. NDS for NT, because ‘‘[i]t is not integrated calls may, in fact, promote security, there is The CIS recognizes that meaningful with the operating system.’’ Further, no legitimate reason for such security disclosure of interface information by Microsoft proclaimed that Windows NT is methods to harm interoperability. In simplest Microsoft is essential to effective relief. The ‘‘successful,’’ because ‘‘customers have found terms, information security is generally CIS explains: ‘‘[T]he effect of Section III.D [of that Windows NT Server suits most of their afforded by encrypting or ‘‘locking up’’ the RPFJ] is to assure to Non-Microsoft needs now and they are confident that sensitive information and safeguarding the Middleware meaningful access to the same Microsoft will deliver on other functionality ‘‘keys’’ to those locks. Rather then relying on services provided by the operating system as that they need in the near future. Such is the well established technologies to protect the those available to Microsoft Middleware. case with directory services.’’ In other words, ‘‘keys’’ to sensitive information, Microsoft Microsoft Middleware will not have access to in 1998, Microsoft admitted that it did not routinely prevents competitors from using any hidden or proprietary features of yet offer a competitive directory services VerDate 11 middleware product, but it aggressively Microsoft has undermined or corrupted such conditions on its customers to inhibit their discouraged customers from using Novell’s standards to prevent competing middleware ability to buy or sell competing products. See product based on interoperability limitations products from interoperating effectively with RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,453–55. Once again created by Microsoft and its ‘‘promise’’ of its dominant operating systems. For example, with myopic vision, the RPFJ ignores the full improving its software sometime in the Kerberos is an industry standard for scope of Microsoft’s abusive contracts. future. See NDS for NT: Increases Complexity encryption, in which certain fields are Specifically, the RPFJ addresses only and Cost Without Adding Value, available at reserved for optional use. Microsoft, Microsoft’s arrangements with intermediary Continued on following page however, has used one of those fields to technology vendors like OEMs. See id. The remedy proposed by the Litigating produce its own proprietary version of the Microsoft, however, has redirected its muscle States, in contrast to the RPFJ, would prevent standard. In itself, this is unobjectionable. at direct purchasers of its software. Microsoft, continued exploitation and manipulation of Microsoft, however, has gone one step for example, forces networking customers to critical interface information by Microsoft further: it has manipulated its operating purchase Client Access Licenses or ‘‘CALs.’’ and thereby protect the public interest. First, systems and middleware so that they will use A CAL is merely one example of coercive the Litigating States have proposed and accept only the Microsoft version of the licenses directed at users, rather than definitions of interface information that Kerberos standard.16 This is diametrically intermediaries. In connection with Windows clearly obligate Microsoft to provide the same contrary to the purpose for which standards, 2000, Microsoft began to require customers to interface information that is made available even with optional fields, are developed. purchase a CAL whenever the customer uses to its own programmers and developers to Optional fields are included in standards to a device that authenticates (i.e., identifies) allow for ‘‘full’’ and ‘‘efficient’’ enable firms to add information to a message. itself and its relation to other elements of the interoperability of products. See States’ Ordinarily, if an optional field is used in network with Microsoft’s Active Directory Remedy at 31–32. Further, the Litigating creating standard messages, those messages middleware. In other words, in addition to States’’ proposal would provide for can still be sent and received among all requiring users to purchase a license for monitoring and review of Microsoft’s products that comply with the standard. In using Windows 2000 on Continued from disclosure by creating a clean room in which such cases, the information included in the previous page will not allow anyone else to qualified industry representatives could optional field may simply be ignored. use its version unless they purchase a license examine and test the underlying computer Optional fields are never, however, intended from Microsoft. code. See id. at 11–12. Second, the proposed to enable a firm—i.e., Microsoft—to subvert server, Microsoft also requires users to remedy of the Litigating States, in contrast to the standard and preclude its widespread purchase enough CALs to cover the the RPFJ, would require disclosures to be usage. maximum level of devices that will have sufficiently timely to allow for meaningful The CCIA explains that ‘‘[w]hile the concurrent access to that server. The beauty competition. The Litigating States define Kerberos Version 5 Microsoft uses for their of a CAL, from Microsoft’s standpoint, is that ‘‘Timely Manner’’ to mean: security services is a standard, the way they it raises prices for Microsoft software, while at a minimum, publication on a Web site have implemented Kerberos is not a standard at the same time raising the costs to users of accessible to ISVs, IHVs, OEMs and Third- and renders it nearly inoperable with any using non-Microsoft middleware. The Party Licensees at the earliest of the time that other implementation.’’ CCIA White Paper, Gartner Group explains: The most significant such APIs, Technical Information, or supra, at 24. pricing increase for enterprises using Communications Interfaces are (i) disclosed Not content with Microsoft’s corruption of Win2000 will come from Microsoft’s to Microsoft’s applications developers, or (ii) the Kerberos standard, Microsoft has filed for licensing change requiring CALs for all used by Microsoft’s own Platform Software a patent on its proprietary version. authenticated users. This is considerably developers in software released by Microsoft Consequently, not only will Microsoft broader than Microsoft’s previous CAL in alpha, beta, release candidate, final or products fail to interoperate with non- requirement with Windows NT v.4. The most other form, or (iii) disclosed to any third Microsoft products (because of the common scenario for increased costs will party, or (iv) within 90 days of a final release modification), but Microsoft will not allow involve users of Microsoft’s Exchange using of a Windows Operating System Product, no anyone else to use its version unless they Novell for NOS [Network Operating System] less than 5 days after a material change is purchase a liscense from Microsoft. services. These users will typically see made between the most recent beta or release Thus, by polluting industry standards, Win2000 server and CAL fees increase five to candidate version and the final release. Id. at such as Java and Kerberos (among others), eight times over their current server and CAL 36–37. Continued from previous page Microsoft can further impede the use and fees. Previously, users of Exchange were not http://www.strom.com/awards/98a.html development of competing middleware. Any required to Purchase an NT CAL. However, (visited Jan. 13, 2002) (republication of paper calls encrypted with Kerberos sent by since all versions of Exchange require NT appearing on Microsoft’s website until Jan. Microsoft Windows can be read only by other authentication [provided by Active Directory] 22, 1998). Four years later, Microsoft’s Active Microsoft Middleware and not by Novell’s these users will be required to purchase Directory is still generally regarded as middleware. Similarly, Novell’s middleware Win2000 CALs regardless of whether they inferior to Novell’s eDirectory, yet continues cannot send calls encrypted with Kerberos use another vendor’s NOS services. This, in to increase market share at Novell’s expense (the industry standard), because Windows effect, makes the use of Microsoft’s NOS as a result of Microsoft’s anticompetitive acts. will reject them. In contrast to the RPFJ, the services free as compared to other NOSs. The See, e.g., Products of the Year, Network remedy proposed by the Litigating States situation is exacerbated by Microsoft’s server Magazine (May 7, 2000), available at http:// addresses the problems created by logo program requirement that certified www.networkmagazine.com/article/ Microsoft’s manipulation of industry applications must, at a minimum, support NMG20010413S0005 (visited Jan. 15, 2002). standards in two complementary ways. First, Windows 2000 authentication—a move that Third, the Litigating States would close the by requiring meaningful disclosures of increases the number of scenarios in which gaping ‘‘security’’ loophole of the RPFJ by interface information, the Litigating States CALs will be required. requiring disclosure of information that would effectively impair Microsoft’s ability Furthermore, by broadening authentication allows competitors to participate with to corrupt third party standards to include applications ‘‘indirectly’’ using Microsoft in security mechanisms without surreptitiously. Second, the Litigating States’ Win2000 sign-on services, uses of products compromising security. C. The RPFJ Will proposal would expressly preclude Microsoft that tap into Microsoft’s security APIs (e.g., Encourage Microsoft To Continue To Corrupt from misrepresenting its compliance with Novell’s NDS for NT) must purchase CALs Industry Standards for Anticompetitive industry standards or imposing proprietary where they were not charged before. Purposes Although the DC Circuit expressly (i.e., Microsoft-owned) versions of such See Win2000 Licensing: Raising Prices, held that Microsoft acted to protect its standards on the industry. See States’ Squeezing Competitors, Gartner Group (Feb. monopoly through undermining industry Remedy at 20–21. 16, 2000) (italics in original) (boldface standards by deceiving software developers, D. The RPFJ Will Encourage Microsoft To added). the RPFJ fails to address this concern at all. Continue To Use Coercive Licensing Microsoft’s CAL licensing policy forecloses Industry standards are often the key to Practices to Exclude Competition As competition and reduces consumer choice, interoperability among products that must recognized in the RPFJ, Microsoft has a long because it forces customers to pay Microsoft, communicate with each. Time after time, history of imposing coercive contracts and even if they prefer to use non-Microsoft VerDate 11 middleware. For example, if a customer has and each CAL is around $40. This is Goschen, Report to Sir Edward Grey, British fifty personal computers attached to a consistent with the prices shown for the Foreign Secretary, 1914, available at http:// network composed of nine Novell servers server license and ten CALs ($1,199—$799 library.byu.edu/rdh/wwi/1914/ and one Windows XP server, and the plus 10 x $40), for the server license and 25 paperscrap.html (visited Jan. 18, 2002). customer uses Microsoft’s dominant email CALs ($1,799—$799 plus 25 x $40) and for The enforcement provisions proposed by software, ‘‘Exchange’’ (or any other software a 20 CAL pack ($799—around 20 x $40). the Litigating States are far more likely to that authenticates to Active Directory), then In sum, Microsoft has repeatedly devised disarm Microsoft than the RPFJ. Under the the customer will need to buy fifty CALs coercive licenses that raise costs to users of proposal of the Litigating States, a Special from Microsoft—even if the customer would non-Microsoft products. The ability of Master would be required to conduct prompt prefer to use Novell’s eDirectory for all consumers to avoid CALs is ever diminishing investigations of any complaints and to authentication services. as more and more applications that propose resolutions within the short time Why ? Because the customer has no choice: authenticate only to Active Directory are frame necessary to be meaningful in such a (1) Microsoft bundles Active Directory with aggressively promoted by Microsoft. By fast-moving market. See States’ Remedy at Windows 2000 and Windows XP; (2) changing the way it charges for CALs in 24. The proposal of the Litigating States Microsoft has technologically prevented recent versions of Windows, Microsoft contains strict time limits for investigating Novell’s eDirectory from replacing Active assures ‘‘that it makes more money while and resolving any third-party complaints. See Directory to provide authentication services making it difficult to cost-justify the use of id. at 26–27. The Litigating States’ for Microsoft products like Exchange; and, alternative vendors’’ products.’’ Win2000 enforcement provisions, moreover, would therefore (3) virtually all network devices Licensing, Gartner Group, supra. Here again, impose severe penalties on Microsoft in the require ‘‘access’’ to Active Directory which the RPFJ gives Microsoft a mandate to event it perpetuates its monopolist campaign. must be paid for under a Microsoft CAL! monopolize by limiting one set of coercive See id. at 28–29. Further, the CAL policy coerces customers licensing practices while condoning another. III. Legal Standards A. In Evaluating the into replacing all server software with E. The RPFJ Would Fail to Protect the Proposed Final Judgment and the Public Microsoft software. Otherwise, the customer Public Interest, Because It Fails To Adopt An Interest, the Court Must Consider Microsoft’s will be forced to pay a substantial tax to Enforcement Regime That Discourages Non- Status as a Defendant That Has Already Been Microsoft simply to be able to use a Compliance By Microsoft The RPFJ’s Found to Have Abused its Monopoly Power competitor’s networking software. In the enforcement provisions, while elaborate and The Tunney Act was intended as a foregoing example, the customer would need creative, fail to ensure Microsoft’s full and safeguard to ensure that antitrust consent to pay for fifty CALs regardless of the number timely compliance with its obligations. The decrees were within ‘‘the public interest.’’ of its ten servers that it converts to Windows RPFJ fails to impose meaningful time limits The Act provides procedural requirements XP or Windows 2000. Because Microsoft on enforcement proceedings, it fails to for publication of proposed consent decrees loads the bulk of pricing into the CALs, threaten adequate sanctions to deter in the Federal Register and provides a sixty rather than into software licenses for its Microsoft from ignoring its duties, and it fails day comment period during which any server software, the net effect of this strategy to appoint a Special Master to facilitate person may file written comments to the is make it prohibitively expensive for enforcement. These failings virtually consent decree. The government is required customers to continue to operate servers with guarantee Microsoft’s non-compliance. to respond to any filed comments. Tunney non-Microsoft software, such as Novell’s In failing to impose time limits on Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(d). As one commentator NetWare and/or eDirectory, even if they enforcement review and resolution, the RPFJ has noted, ‘‘[t]hese procedural provisions would prefer to do so. In many instances, will allow complaints against Microsoft to were designed to satisfy two of the three Microsoft’s strategy would effectively force a languish. Under the RPFJ, a complaint would major criticisms of prior practice by opening customer to pay twice for networking require an investigation by the DOJ to be up the process to participation by interested software if it had the temerity to rebuff followed, to the extent appropriate, by third parties and by requiring the government Microsoft by insisting on using a competitor’s judicial proceedings before this Court. Any to reveal its justifications for settling the case networking middleware, rather than enforcement matter before the Court would on the terms provided in the consent Windows 2000 or Windows XP (and Active be complex, even with the able assistance of decree.’’ Lloyd C. Anderson, United States v. Directory). the Technical Committee. As those Microsoft, Antitrust Consent Decrees, and the The significance of CALs in the overall cost investigations crept along, Microsoft would Need for A Proper Scope of Judicial Review, to customers is shown by Microsoft’s own persevere. The history of this action shows 65 Antitrust L.J. 1, 9 (Fall 1996). estimated retail prices. Microsoft estimates that Microsoft sees no reason to take a ‘‘time The Tunney Act further provides that a that the Windows 2000 Server license sells out’’ during periods of antitrust review. district court may only approve a proposed at around $799.18 This is also the price of Indeed, Microsoft effectively used the time consent decree if it is in ‘‘the public twenty CALs. Thus, using Microsoft’s own since the entering of the consent decree to interest.’’ The Act lists the following factors estimates, as soon as the customer has more complete its annihilation of Netscape’s threat which may be considered by a district court: than twenty client PCs, the cost of the CALs to its monopoly. (1) the ‘‘competitive impact’’ of the decree; is greater than the cost of the server license As in its campaign against Netscape, by the (2) provisions for enforcement and itself. Most enterprises will use far more than time any sanctions under the RPFJ are modification of the decree; (3) the duration twenty client PCs in a network and the imposed, challenged conduct will have long of the decree; (4) the anticipated effects of greater the number of client PCs, the greater since taken its toll and Microsoft will have alternative remedies; and (5) ‘‘any other the relative significance of CALs to the already repositioned its monopolistic considerations bearing upon the adequacy of customer’s overall cost. As a result, artillery. Given Microsoft’s history of such judgment,’’ as well as ‘‘the impact of the customers with large networks are essentially thumbing its nose at the antitrust laws, any entry of such judgment upon the public forced to pay for Microsoft’s server software, remedy must include severe penalties for generally.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e). whether or not they prefer that software or non-compliance. Absent powerful deterrents, Since the Tunney Act was enacted in 1974, even use it. Eventually, however, many any final judgment in this case will have no courts have used varying standards to customers simply cannot afford to pay the tax more influence over Microsoft than the evaluate consent decrees under the Act based imposed by Microsoft for using even superior Treaty of 1839 had over Germany when it in large part on the posture of the case at the networking software offered by its decided to invade Belgium in 1914. German time the consent decree was entered. See, competitors. Imperial Chancellor Theobald von generally, Anderson, supra. In cases in which The server license and five CALs is shown Bethmann-Hollweg, in an August 4, 1915 the consent decree and DoJ complaint were as costing $999 in Windows 2000. See conversation with Sir Edward Goschen, filed simultaneously, and no evidence was Microsoft Windows 2000 Pricing and British Ambassador to Germany, introduced concerning the allegations in the Licensing, available at http:// characterized the Treaty, which guaranteed complaint, the court’s Tunney Act review www.microsoft.com/ Windows2000/server/ Belgian neutrality and which had been was extremely limited. See United States v. howtobuy/pricing/ (visited Jan. 10, 2002). signed by Germany, as a scrap of paper, at Microsoft, 159 F.R.D. 318 (Sporkin, J.) (D.DC The cost of five CALs is shown separately as the very time that the Imperial German Army 1995), rev’d 56 F.3d 1448 (DCCir. 1995) $199. Thus the server license is around $799 had begun its invasion of Belgium. Sir E. (‘‘Microsoft I’’).19 In cases in which VerDate 11 substantial evidence was adduced at trial It does not follow from these principles, standard as herein defined. AT&T, 553 F. before the consent decree was entered, the however, that courts must unquestioningly Supp. at 153. court’s ‘‘public interest’’ determination 19 In accept a proffered decree as long as it Judge Greene’s reasoning in the AT&T case this instance, Microsoft will no doubt argue somehow, and however inadequately, deals applies with even greater force to the case at that this Court has limited authority to with the antitrust and other public policy hand. Here, as in AT&T, Microsoft and DoJ review the Proposed Final Judgment based, problems implicated in the lawsuit. To do so previously entered into a consent decree in large part, on the DC Court of Appeals’’ would be to revert to the ‘‘rubber stamp’’ role (Microsoft I) which was summarily approved decision overturning Judge Sporkin’s ruling which was at the crux of the congressional and which, in part, enabled Microsoft to which rejected the proposed consent decree concerns when the Tunney Act became law. engage in the prohibited conduct in violation entered by DoJ in Microsoft I. Rather than This consideration is especially potent in of the Sherman Act which is at issue in this undermining the District Court’s authority these cases for several reasons. case. Here, as in AT&T, Microsoft and DoJ here, Microsoft I demonstrates the critical Id. at 151. conducted a full trial on the merits. Here, as importance of a fact-based review of the Judge Greene explained, moreover, that the in AT&T, close scrutiny of the decree is RPFJ. Although the Court of Appeals rejected consent decree in AT&T required ‘‘more than imperative, because of the size and strength Judge Sporkin’s decision in Microsoft I, its normal scrutiny’’ because of the size of of Microsoft, the complexity of the remedies grounds for reversal are inapplicable here. AT&T, the complexity of the proposed 20 It at issue in this case, the clear ‘‘potential for Further, the Court of Appeals emphasized in is important to note that the DC Court of substantial private advantage at the expense Microsoft I that a ‘‘court may (1) insist upon Appeals in Microsoft I clearly cites to the of public interest,’’ and the ‘‘potential impact correction of ambiguous provisions, (2) AT&T case as the most prominent post- of the proposed decree on a vast and crucial require adequate implementation provisions, Tunney Act case, without ever overruling sector of the economy.’’ Id. at 151–52. Unlike (3) consider injury to third parties, and (4) that case. See Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at 1458, the AT&T case, however, here Microsoft has reject decrees that ‘‘make a mockery of et. seq. already been adjudged to have abused its judicial power.’’ Anderson, supra, at 17; decree, the ‘‘potential for substantial monopoly power and it is incumbent upon Microsoft I, 56 F.3d 1448, 1461–62. private advantage at the expense of public this Court, in reviewing the RPFJ, to Judge Sporkin’s decision to reject the interest,’’ and the ‘‘potential impact of the determine whether Microsoft’s confirmed proposed decree in Microsoft I was proposed decree on a vast and crucial sector antitrust liability is sufficiently addressed to overturned, because his decision had no of the economy.’’ Id. at 151–52. Further, protect the public interest. grounding in the record of the case. Rather Judge Greene noted that although ‘‘courts In sum, Microsoft, and relief from its than consider only the complaint and decree would generally not be able to render sound pervasive abuse of monopoly power, are far (the only record before him), Judge Sporkin judgments on settlements because they too important to allow this proceeding to improperly based his decision on facts would not be aware of the relevant facts . . serve merely to ‘‘rubber stamp’’ a remedy alleged in a book about Microsoft. Id. at 1453. .,’’ that concern was not relevant in the AT&T negotiated behind closed doors. To do so, Neither the book, nor the claims asserted in case because the district court ‘‘already heard would render the Tunney Act utterly the book, were properly before the court, and what probably amount[ed] to over ninety meaningless. Equally important: Microsoft Judge Sporkin’s decision to rely on such an percent of the parties’’ evidence both has already been found liable for violating extraneous source of information was quantitatively and qualitatively, as well as all Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The remedies roundly rejected by the Court of Appeals. In reversing Judge Sporkin’s decision, the DC of their legal arguments.’’ Id. at 152. now proposed by DoJ and Microsoft are far Court of Appeals’’ emphasized that Judge Also relevant here, Judge Greene less exacting than the remedies initially Sporkin’s reliance on such information emphasized that greater scrutiny was proposed by either Microsoft or DoJ, are far amounted to unconstitutional usurpation of required because of the ‘‘unfortunate’’ history more lenient than the original remedies the Attorney General’s role. Id. See also in the prior AT&T actions and settlement: fashioned by the district court, and, if Anderson, supra, at 34. was significantly The 1956 Western Electric consent decree adopted would make a ‘‘mockery’’ of the more in-depth based largely on the district that identical settlement, and the identical legal process. See Microsoft I, 159 F.R.D. at court’s evaluation of the record before it. See, parties, are now before the Court. Nor can 318. e.g., United States v. A.T.&T, 552 F. Supp. those events simply be dismissed as ancient B.If the Court Does Not Reject the RPFJ 131 (D.DC 1982) (AT&T).20 Here, in contrast history, irrelevant to the events of 1981- 82 Outright, It Should At a Minimum Await the to Microsoft I, there is a robust evidentiary These circumstances do not foster a sense of Outcome of the Hearing on the Litigating record that must be considered if the Court confidence that the assessment of the States’ Proposed Remedies Before Ruling on is even to contemplate accepting or settlement and its implications may be left the Adequacy of the RPFJ For all the reasons modifying, rather than rejecting outright, the entirely to AT&T and the Department of discussed supra, Novell believes that the RPFJ. Indeed, the principle reason that the Justice. RPFJ is so blatantly inadequate and contrary Court of Appeals remanded this case was to None of this means, of course, that the to the public interest that it should assure that the remedy imposed on Microsoft Court would be justified in simply immediately be rejected out of hand. Cf., In was consistent with the facts established at substituting its views for those of the parties. re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation, MDL trial. In the absence of a meaningful review But it does mean that the decree will receive 1332, Slip Op., Motz, D.J. (D.Md. Jan. 11, of the facts of this case (including the closer scrutiny than that which might be 2002) (rejecting settlement of class action judgment against Microsoft), and appropriate to a decree proposed in a more against Microsoft in the absence of an factual implications of the proposed remedy on the routine case. Id. at 153. record sufficient for assessment of the public public interest, the Court’s proper role under Based on such concerns, Judge Greene held interest). If the Court declines to reject the the Tunney Act will not be fulfilled. In fact, that the appropriate standard of review under RPFJ based on the Tunney Act comments this case requires a far more detailed review the Tunney Act in such cases is to assure, as alone, then the Court must undertake a under the ‘‘public interest’’ standard than a factual matter, that the decree will protect rigorous legal and factual analysis to assess was undertaken by Judge Greene in the AT&T the public interest. He explained: If the how adoption of the RPFJ would affect the case. decree meets the requirements for an public interest. In that case, the Court, as here, was asked antitrust remedy—that is, if it effectively Under the terms of the Tunney Act, in to consider the propriety of a proposed opens the relevant markets to competition making such an analysis, a court may: consent decree issued after trial commenced and prevents the recurrence of (1) take testimony of Government officials and extensive evidence was presented. anticompetitive activity, all without or experts or such other expert witnesses, Foreshadowing the issue squarely before this imposing undue and unnecessary burdens upon motion of any party or participant or Court, Judge Greene explained that upon other aspects of the public interest—it upon its own motion, as the court may deem evaluation of a settlement prior to a finding will be approved. If the proposed decree does appropriate; of liability is a different analysis than not meet this standard, the Court will follow (2) appoint a special master and such ‘‘fashioning a remedy as it would be upon a the practice applied in other Tunney Act outside consultants or expert witnesses as the finding of liability.’’ AT&T, 553 F. Supp. 131, cases and, as a prerequisite to its approval, court may deem appropriate; 151 (emphasis added). Judge Greene further it will require modifications which would (3) authorize full or limited participation in stated: bring the decree within the public interest proceedings before the court by interested VerDate 11 persons or agencies, including appearance testifying before Congress in 1997, reminded Seattle, WA amicus curiae, intervention as a party the Senate Judiciary Committee that pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ambiguities in consent decrees are typically MTC–00029525 examination of witnesses or documentary resolved against the Government (and, From: A.C. Ross materials, or participation in any other assumedly, against the public interest, which To: Microsoft ATR manner and extent which serves the public the Government should represent) and that, Date: 1/29/02 2:05am interest as the court may deem appropriate; in interpreting a decree later, Subject: Microsoft Settlement (4) review any comments including any the Government cannot fall back on some Grossly Inadequate objections filed with the United States under purported ‘spirit’ on ‘purpose’ of the decree I would like to add my voice to those subsection (d) of this section concerning the to justify an interpretation that is not clearly calling for a rejection of the currently proposed judgment and the responses of the supported by the language.’’ Charles F. Rule proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft. United States to such comments and Testimony, supra at 3. If this Court does not Microsoft has demonstrated time after time objections; and act to reject this settlement, for Microsoft it both that it is not reluctant to use the (5) take such other action in the public will be ‘‘been there, done that;’’ for the rest monopoly power it was found guilty of interest as the court may deem appropriate. of us, it will be ‘‘dij? vu all over again.’’ For wielding and that it is entirely unrepentant 15 U.S.C. 16(f). the foregoing reasons, Novell respectfully since the decision was handed down. Because of the impending trial on the requests that the Court reject the RPFJ as I’m a management consultant in the Litigating States’’ proposed remedies, and the contrary to the public interest. computer software industry and have been fact that Microsoft has chosen to proffer the Respectfully submitted, since the mid 1980s. My jobs in that period RPFJ as its own remedies proposal in that —/s/— often included working or negotiating with Litigating States’’ case, the record developed OF COUNSEL: large and small software companies who therein is likely to obviate what would Joseph A. LaSala, Jr. treated Microsoft’s presence as the first major otherwise be the clear need for a full Senior Vice President, General Counsel marketing issue to address. Always, evidentiary hearing if the court were even NOVELL, INC. managers explicitly asked the question, ‘‘Can contemplating adoption or modification the 8 Cambridge Center we survive long enough before Microsoft RPFJ. Novell respectfully suggests that, in Cambridge, MA 02142 embeds software like ours in Windows or ties lieu of holding a separate Tunney Act (617) 914–8169 Windows to it in some way to squeeze us out hearing, this Court refrain from ruling on the Judith L. Harris (DC Bar No. 190579) of the market.’’ Although some companies RPFJ until the conclusion of the hearing in REED SMITH LLP may have lost their competitions through the Litigating States’’ case. In that way, the 1301 K Street, NW their own missteps, there are others, going as Court will have the opportunity, after a full Suite 1100 East Tower far back as STAC, that competed well and exposition of the relevant facts, to order a Washington, DC 20005–3317 won their own court cases, only to be single remedy in the public interest. (202) 414–9276 steamrolled by Microsoft’s market power. IV. Conclusion Ryan Richards Transcripts from the trial show multiple To protect the public interest, antitrust Associate General Counsel instances of Microsoft’s outright efforts to relief must look not only backwards at past NOVELL, INC. 1800 illegally divide up markets (the conversations unlawful conduct, but also forward at South Novell Place over allocating non-Windows platforms to foreseeable risks. An antitrust remedy must Provo, Utah 84606 Netscape noted by Marc Andreeson) and to ‘‘unfetter a market from anticompetitive (801) 861–7000 tie access to the Windows operating system conduct,’’ Ford Motor Co. v. United States, Gary L. Kaplan (DC Bar No. 391616) to Draconian restrictions on the marketing 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972), and ‘‘terminate the REED SMITH LLP decisions of hardware platform vendors. illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the 435 Sixth Avenue I don’t want to reiterate arguments and fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure Pittsburgh, PA 15219–1886 proofs that have been made in the press. My that there remain no practices likely to result (412) 288–4268 summary position starts with the fact that in monopolization in the future.’’ United Counsel for Novell, Inc. Microsoft was found guilty in federal court. States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. Dated: January 28, 2002 The terms of the agreement are so tenuous 244, 250 (1968); see also United States v. and the remedies so weak that I have no Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 577 (1966). The MTC–00029524 confidence whatsoever that Microsoft will RPFJ fails this test. Indeed, the RPFJ even From: Brian Snider feel the need to comply with the spirit and ignores Microsoft’s aggressively To: Microsoft ATR will sail as close to the letter of the law as anticompetitive past. Date: 1/29/02 1:59am possible. Its conduct will be entirely Microsoft has persistently manipulated Subject: Microsoft Settlement unchanged. Indeed, it has clearly indicated interface information to cut lines of mooring I’ve read the first half of the Complaint that it does not agree with the decision, between the middleware of its competitors VerDate 11 To: Microsoft ATR Date: 1/29/02 2:11am 2. Restrict Microsoft’s purchase of other Date: 1/29/02 2:10am Subject: Microsoft Settlement technology companies. Microsoft often states Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 28, 2002 that its most sincere desire is to innovate. To Whom It May Concern: Renata B. Hesse Unfortunately, the record shows that most of I am writing to express my concern over [email protected] Microsoft’s innovation has come in the form the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. Antitrust Division of purchasing (or appropriating) technology I am a professional software engineer with U.S. Department of Justice developed by others, applying its exceptional over 12 years of experience. During my time 601 D Street NW Suite 1200 marketing muscle, and then updating this in industry, I have seen many promising Washington, DC 20530–0001 acquired technology at an often-painfully companies and products hindered by I am writing to you to suggest a possible slow rate once Microsoft has established a Microsoft’s monopoly. Microsoft has set of restrictions on the future conduct of comfortable market lead or monopoly consistently shown a lack of regard for business by Microsoft Corporation that position. Examples of this behavior include: reliability and security in their products. would prevent the company from continuing * MS-DOS (acquired by license, Seattle I do not feel that the proposed settlement its aggressive and monopolistic business Computer Products) goes far enough. I encourage you to practices in the rapidly developing computer * Microsoft Windows (copied from Apple’s reconsider the option of splitting Microsoft industry. While these restrictions may seem Macintosh, in turn derived from work at SRI into separate companies. Only then will it be draconian, I believe that the injury to other and Xerox PARC) possible for smaller companies to compete. parties in the computer software industry has * Microsoft Windows NT OS (and the Sincerely, been severe, and that Microsoft has used its newer XP OS) (appropriated and then Peter DiMarco dominant position not only to compete licensed from Digital Equipment Staff Software Engineer unfairly in the marketplace, but also to stifle Corporation) Integrated Flow Systems innovation. I will keep my comments brief * Microsoft Excel (copied from the original 250 Technology Circle for your convenience. spreadsheet, VisiCalc) Scotts Valley, CA 95066 1. Require full disclosure of all interfaces * Microsoft Internet Explorer (copied from and software elements. It is important that Netscape Navigator) MTC–00029527 parties other than Microsoft have full access * Microsoft FrontPage (company acquired) From: Jim Macey to interfaces and internal characteristics of * Microsoft PowerPoint (company To: Microsoft ATR the monopoly’s software products. To make acquired) Date: 1/29/02 2:09am this effective, I propose that Microsoft be * Microsoft Visio (company acquired) Subject: Microsofe Settlement required to release full development source * Microsoft Hotmail (company acquired) 2603 Louisiana Street code and all internal documentation * Microsoft UltimateTV (company Longview, WA 98632 whenever it releases a product, regardless acquired) January 28, 2002 whether that is a final product or a pre- To truly encourage innovation and reward Attorney General John Ashcroft release (alpha, beta, and release candidate) that innovation in the market, such US Department of Justice version. This code shall be made available at acquisitions should be prevented. Microsoft 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW a reasonable price, not to exceed the end-user should be prohibited from acquiring more Washington, DC 20530 price of one (1) copy of the software. than 40% of any other company, public or Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Microsoft may make this source code private, either directly or via one or more of I wanted to submit this letter to express my available under license that restricts the its major stockholders. approval of the Justice Department’s licensee’s use of the source code so that the 3. Require Microsoft to support at least one settlement with Microsoft Corporation. I have licensee may not directly utilize significant additional viable alternative operating system disagreed with the government’s case from portions of the code to create products that on its desktop applications suite. Many users the beginning, but I see this agreement as the are essentially identical to Microsoft’s own are forced to purchase Microsoft operating best solution for all parties to declare victory. products. systems because they need to utilize Although it is hard to be a real monopoly Full, commented source code and Microsoft’s Office Suite or a subset thereof. when you have so much competition trying complete documentation is the only form of If offered the choice of running these to push their way into more market share full disclosure that will truly enable applications on a different operating system through the tool of litigation, not to mention competitors to produce software that fully such as Linux, many customers would be a constituency of millions of satisfied integrates with Microsoft’s monopoly delighted to opt for that choice. customers, Microsoft is taking several steps operating system and desktop program suites. Microsoft does offer some, but not all, of to create a more dynamic software Releasing specifications of interfaces at a the Office applications on the Apple environment with this deal. Hardware point in time does not affect Microsoft’s Macintosh; however, given Apple’s small developers will have broader rights to ability to arbitrarily change these interfaces market share, the Macintosh Office Suite configure Windows with software that in ways that make competitive or does not constitute a significant fraction of competes with Microsoft, and will benefit complementary products noncompetitive or the market. Microsoft should be required to from no contract restrictions on future non-interoperable. For example, Microsoft’s release a fully comparable version of its distribution or promotion of Windows Common Internet File System (CIFS) was a Office Suite products (Access, Excel, products. The top 20 computer makers will specification released by Microsoft, but FrontPage, Outlook, PowerPoint, Publisher, also receive uniform pricing for licensing Microsoft has continued to change the Word, and supporting applications such as Windows, to provide further incentives to messages sent between computers so that Photo Editor) on a widely-used Linux consider alternative software vendors and maintaining a compatible interface such as distribution such as Red Hat. The first Linux truly level the playing field. Samba is a difficult job, requiring substantial version of these applications must be made As these examples prove, this agreement is reverse engineering. available within 120 days of the conclusion quite generous and actually exceeds some of Another reason that full disclosure is of these proceedings, and subsequent the government’s demands. Microsoft is the required is that Microsoft may choose to versions must be released at the same time most dominant software player because they release only specific, partial information on as or before the Microsoft Windows version have earned it and deserve to continue certain key interfaces. This information of these programs. Retail, corporate, and without further government interference. would allow a software vendor to produce OEM pricing for the Linux version of these Hence, I ask for your support. programs that perform arbitrary, specified programs and packages shall not exceed the Sincerely, functions. A Microsoft version of a similar prices for the same programs and packages James M. Macey program might use a ‘‘hidden’’ interface that on Microsoft Windows, and all [email protected] produces better performance, or Microsoft’s configurations of these programs and knowledge of the internal algorithms that packages offered on Microsoft Windows must MTC–00029528 underlie an interface might allow it to utilize be offered on Linux. Further, these Linux- From: Geoffrey Peck this supposedly public interface in ways that based products must be full and complete To: Microsoft ATR an external developer could not. ports—they cannot use a Windows emulation VerDate 11 library and simply sit on top of Linux with products for consumers, and not wasting that it attempts to do is virtually guaranteed poor interoperability with other Linux tools. valuable resources on litigation. Competition to fail. There are many anti-competitive 4. Compensate past purchasers of Microsoft means creating better goods and offering practices that the proposed judgement does software for the overcharging that was made superior services to consumers. With not address at all. possible by Microsoft’s monopoly and tying government out of the business of stifling For a more detailed critique of the practices. I believe that direct financial progress and tying the hands of corporations, settlement that touches on most of the issues compensation via actual monetary payment consumers—rather than bureaucrats and I highly recommend checking out Don (no coupons, no rebates on future purchases) judges—will once again pick the winners and Kegel’s summary of the flaws on the internet. would be the most equitable solution. If a losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ user registered one or more product(s) with high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will remedy2.html) I agree with each of the points Microsoft, those records can be used to make be encouraged to create new and competitive he makes in the essay. It is a good outline of payment to the original purchasers of each products and technologies. many of the most obvious limitations of this product and/or upgrade. If a user did not Thank you for this opportunity to share my proposed settlement. register, proof of purchase such as original views. Microsoft has been allowed to run CD-ROMS should be accepted. I believe that Sincerely, roughshod over the computer industry for the amount of compensation should be Raymond J. Borys more than a decade. It has danced around the selected so that a substantial fraction (more MTC–00029530 terms of the ‘‘consent decree’’ and than 50%) of Microsoft’s cash on hand is completely subverted them. There are many disbursed to consumers. Although these four From: Steven Apour examples in the Findings of Fact illustrating remedies each may sound quite harsh, I To: Microsoft Settlement an almost complete lack of ethics and total believe that Microsoft’s conduct cannot Date: 1/29/02 2:12am disregard for the law. fundamentally be altered without applying Subject: Microsoft Settlement Only a very restrictive, well-defined, all four remedies simultaneously. Ultimately, Steven Apour comprehensive decree with a real these remedies will result in the resumption 2640 Melendy Drive, Apt. 3 enforcement mechanism has any hope of of competition and market-based innovation San Carlos, CA 94070 accomplishing the goals that a remedy decree January 29, 2002 in many areas of the computer software requires. Microsoft Settlement industry. Without all four remedies, it is The ongoing actions taken by this company U.S. Department of Justice quite likely that Microsoft will be able to while these proceedings take place make it Antitrust Division resume its anticompetitive practices by readily apparent to me that Microsoft has no 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW interpreting the ruling in its own ways. intention of following any court order or Washington, DC 20530 Thank you for your time. honoring any agreement it signs. Dear Microsoft Settlement: Geoffrey G. Peck I strongly urge you to take the necessary The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ San Jose, California steps to accomplish the goals defined by the dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Mr. Peck is a computer scientist who has appeals court. If you manage to do so, you serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech been involved since the late 1960s in industry. It is high time for this trial, and the will help restore the computer industry to the designing and a wide variety of computer wasteful spending accompanying it, to be dynamic and creative environment I fell in software ranging from the file system over. Consumers will indeed see competition love with so many years ago. component of operating systems to end-user in the marketplace, rather than the Sincerely, applications. He graduated from Harvard courtroom. And the investors who propel our Esko Woudenberg College in 1978, and obtained his Masters economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. 391 Montclair Dr. #46 degree in computer science from the Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the Big Bear City, CA 92314 University of California, Berkeley in 1982. He federal government should not have broken Software Developer is currently Chief Technology Officer of a up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, MTC–00029532 Silicon Valley start-up. This letter represents companies like Microsoft can get back into Mr. Peck’s personal views, and does not the business of innovating and creating better From: Ronald Fritz necessarily reflect the views of his employer. products for consumers, and not wasting To: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/29/02 2:14am MTC–00029529 valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating better goods and offering Subject: Microsoft Settlement From: Raymond Borys superior services to consumers. With Ronald Fritz To: Microsoft Settlement government out of the business of stifling 317 Heather Dr. Date: 1/29/02 2:09am progress and tying the hands of corporations, Carmel, IN 46032 Subject: Microsoft Settlement consumers—rather than bureaucrats and January 29, 2002 Raymond Borys judges—will once again pick the winners and Microsoft Settlement 3051 Alexis St. losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the U.S. Department of Justice Portage, IN 46368 high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will Antitrust Division January 29, 2002 be encouraged to create new and competitive 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft Settlement products and technologies. Washington, DC 20530 U.S. Department of Justice Thank you for this opportunity to share my Dear Microsoft Settlement: Antitrust Division views. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Washington, DC 20530 Steven H. Apour serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Dear Microsoft Settlement: industry. It is high time for this trial, and the The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ MTC–00029531 wasteful spending accompanying it, to be dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a From: esko over. Consumers will indeed see competition serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech To: Microsoft ATR in the marketplace, rather than the industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Date: 1/29/02 3:02am courtroom. And the investors who propel our wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Subject: Microsoft Settlement economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. over. Consumers will indeed see competition I am a software engineer with 19 years of Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the in the marketplace, rather than the experience developing software for Apple, federal government should not have broken courtroom. And the investors who propel our Windows, DOS, Unix, and Linux. Having up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. studied the proposed final judgement it is companies like Microsoft can get back into Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the obvious to me that it is not in the public the business of innovating and creating better federal government should not have broken interest. To begin with, there appears to be products for consumers, and not wasting up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, no provision for enforcement. valuable resources on litigation. Competition companies like Microsoft can get back into Additionally there are so many loopholes means creating better goods and offering the business of innovating and creating better in the definitions used that even the little superior services to consumers. With VerDate 11 government out of the business of stifling When it comes to monopolies, the US They need to be punished in a manner that progress and tying the hands of corporations, Government is the biggest monopoly of all would benefit disadvantaged competitors and consumers—rather than bureaucrats and and has, through its inept and unthinking the general public as well. So here might be judges—will once again pick the winners and Federal Reserve Bank Policies, with its rate a method that would serve all the injuried losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the increases, cost hundreds of small companies parties starting back from 1992 when they high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will to go bankrupt. This country needs to stop virtually drove Geoworks from the office and be encouraged to create new and competitive attacking companies and get its act together school suite business. products and technologies. to get the economy headed in an upward Geoworks now is under the control of Thank you for this opportunity to share my direction. We are now in the process, because www.breadbox.com had been developed as a views. of our policies, of letting China take over complete operating suite and sold recently as Sincerely, Global Crossing, thereby giving up the global NewDealOffice 2000 is a service system that Ronald E.Fritz fiber optics business to a foreign country. Do resides on top of any DOS or Win9x NT or we have our heads in the sand? MTC–00029533 linux in a DOSEMU and OS/2 as a cross MTC–00029535 platform suite From: [email protected]@inetgw If microsoft were to be forced to release To: Microsoft ATR From: Mike Schuh both its win9x as a downloadable and its Date: 1/29/02 2:18am To: Microsoft ATR DOS as downloadable in total with the Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/29/02 2:22am associated Knowledgebases and source codes Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Subject: Microsoft Settlement this might enable other companies to Antitrust Division Greetings: continue development of those operating 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 I wish to comment on proposed settlement systems. Washington, DC 20530–0001 in U.S. et al v. Microsoft. I strongly believe If they were forced to give away mac Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: that Microsoft should be penalized for their systems with the associated versions of Please put a stop to the economically- injurious use of their monopoly in desktop software to all the schools in need, that draining witch-hunt against Microsoft. This operating systems. However, I do not think has gone on long enough. Microsoft has that their proposal to give computers and would partially aid another company that already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer software (theirs, of course) to had been harmed greatly. icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case ‘‘impoverished’’ schools is acceptable. It If they were to pay for the rehab of older against Microsoft is little more than would be like allowing a fox, convicted of boxes 386 486 and low end pentium units ‘‘welfare’’ for Netscape and other Microsoft raiding a chicken coop, to stand guard over with the addition of the software suggested competitors, with not a nickel going to those the coop as punishment... One should be above for distribution in the 3rd world of supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the cautious of the remedies proposed by those central and south americas this would also computer user. This is just another method who must fulfill those remedies (‘‘please solve other existing problems. But those are for states to get free money, and a terrible don’t throw me in the brier patch’’ comes my opinions. precedent for the future, not only in terms of quickly to mind, albeit in a slightly different MTC–00029537 computer technology, but all sorts of context). The basic problem with the innovations in the most dynamic industry proposal is that it helps to perpetuate From: bill frack the world has ever seen. Microsoft’s illegal monopolistic practices! In To: Microsoft ATR Please put a stop to this travesty of justice a few years, when the schools have to Date: 1/29/02 2:23am now. Thank you. upgrade (because Microsoft will have Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sincerely, rendered the ‘‘free’’ software obsolete), they’ll 11143 Philadelphia Road Tracey Cutler have to buy from Microsoft. White Marsh, MD 21162 14480 Oak Place Here’s a better idea, and one that I support: January 28, 2002 Saratoga, CA 95070 http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/ Attorney General John Ashcroft 2001/press—usschools.html Among other U.S. Dept. of Justice MTC–00029534 things, the ‘‘retail’’ value of Microsoft 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW From: Marge Evans software is, to Microsoft, approximately zero, Washington, DC 20530 To: Microsoft ATR so the proposal really isn’t much of a penalty. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Date: 1/29/02 2:21am An alternative is for Microsoft to sell off I am writing to you today to express my Subject: AOL/Time Warner/Netscape Suit (and forever stay out) their applications support of the settlement reached with It is time for the attacks on Microsoft to software, then reimbursing everyone who has Microsoft. The November settlement end. As a consumer, I now have and have ever purchased software from them with the represents three years of mediation, and had ample opportunity to choose browsers, proceeds (that is, they don’t get to keep the given the current state of the economy, I internet connectors. The government proceeds from the sale, that being their believe enacting it is in the best interests of approved the union of AOL/Time Warner penalty). Kind of like a giant class action law the country. I urge you to do so. making it a very large media monopoly. AOL suit. The settlement contains many concessions has a majority of the online subscriber If we don’t punish the guilty in a manner on the part of Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed business for the internet to boot. Having used that truly is punishing, then there is no to disclose the internal interface of the the Netscape browser years ago I was disincentive for them (or anyone else) to go Windows system. This information sharing bombarded with unsolicited e-mail as there and just repeat their behavior. In fact, will allow developers to create software that was no way to easily get it blocked. AOL is Microsoft has already done this! Thank you. is more compatible with the Windows a very aggressive company. I feel that these Mike Schuh—Seattle, Washington USA system. In addition to this, Microsoft users suits are NOT creating more choice or http://www.farmdale.com will also have the ability to reconfigure their competition for the industry but rather taking desktops at their discretion with the new from investors, consumers, the right to MTC–00029536 design of Windows XP. Obviously, Microsoft improved products. All the money that has From: jmetz has done its share to end this litigation been spent on lawsuits, legal costs, trials has To: Microsoft ATR process; I trust that the Justice Department taken away from improved products, Date: 1/29/02 2:23am has the sense to enact the settlement. Thank research, jobs. I feel AOL, Oracle, Netscape Subject: microsoft you for your concern regarding this issue. and the rest of the companies that have Sirs Sincerely, banded together against Microsoft should I have only a few thoughts on the matters J. W. Frack better spend their time and their investor’s before the judge. If microsoft is in actuallity monies improving their own products rather a monopoly as most of the tech world belives MTC–00029538 than trying to destroy this company. It is and it has manipulated the law government From: Lewis Zechmeir difficult to believe that any of those and its access to the hardwarre To: Microsoft ATR companies is any less aggressive than manufacturers there are some very simple Date: 1/29/02 2:27am Microsoft. solutions that might be implemented. Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT VerDate 11 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Antitrust Divison, in the marketplace, rather than the I find the proposed Microsoft settlement U.S. Deptment of Justice: courtroom. And the investors who propel our odiferous. To allow them to advance their No one considered Microsoft a monopoly economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. monopoly and call it punishment is before it was so designated by Judge Penfold Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the ludicrous. The very people who were harmed Jackson, who was so prejudiced against federal government should not have broken by their business practices would be harmed Microsoft that a related decision by him was up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, by the proposed settlement. I feel that any overruled by the appeals court. companies like Microsoft can get back into judgment has to be made to level the playing Microsoft’s tactics to protect its share of the the business of innovating and creating better field. market are common business practice, which products for consumers, and not wasting One alternative would be to have Microsoft is illegal only if performed by a monopoly. valuable resources on litigation. donate light wave fibers to local servers and So it cannot be punished for violating the Competition means creating better goods pay to have it laid into rural areas in the Sherman Antitrust Act, before it was legally and offering superior services to consumers. various states that are asking for damages. a monopoly; or it will become an ex post With government out of the business of Any company could connect or provide facto case. stifling progress and tying the hands of service and customers could choose between Also, the Sherman Antitrust Act outlaws corporations, consumers—rather than them. trusts, or combinations of companies, which bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick This would bring high speed internet into conspire to restrain trade. Since when has a the winners and losers on Wall Street. With rural areas and bridge the digital gap. The single company, which won a major share of the reins off the high-tech industry, more affected states would benefit and it would the market because its service was so entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create stimulate the economy fairly. superior to its competitors, been prosecuted new and competitive products and Respectfully, like Microsoft? technologies. Lewis Zechmeir Microsoft founder Gill Gates is giving Thank you for this opportunity to share my billions of dollars for worthy causes. By views. MTC–00029539 contrast, AOL/Times Warner is lavishing vast Sincerely, From: Boyd Bronson sums for politicians and slick lawyers to Mark Horton To: Microsoft Settlement subvert the law for its own benefit. They are MTC–00029543 Date: 1/29/02 2:27am seeking competitive advantages by their list Subject: Microsoft Settlement of demands that violate patent laws—not From: ron Boyd Bronson justice! To: Microsoft ATR 8915 Somerton Circle Hopefully U. S. District Judge Colleen Date: 1/29/02 2:44am Sandy, UT 84093–7022 Kollar-Kotelly uses her common sense and Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 29, 2002 not be confused by the countless, Ron Hardesty Microsoft Settlement questionable details, dredged up by the anti- 12024 147th St. Ct. E. U.S. Department of Justice Microsoft coalition. Puyallup, WA 98374 Antitrust Division Mas Odoi January 28, 2002 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Attorney General John Ashcroft Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00029541 US Department of Justice, Dear Microsoft Settlement: From: Patrick O’Connor 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ To: Microsoft ATR Washington, DC 20530 dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Date: 1/28/02 5:31pm Dear Mr. Ashcroft: serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Subject: Microsoft Settlement I am in favor of Microsoft and the industry. It is high time for this trial, and the Dear Ms. Hesse: Department of Justice settling the antitrust wasteful spending accompanying it, to be Attached please find Comments of case. It is time for the federal government, the over. Consumers will indeed see competition NetAction and Computer Professionals for plaintiff states, and Microsoft to get back to in the marketplace, rather than the Social Responsibility on the Proposed Final the things that really matter. There is a courtroom. And the investors who propel our Judgment in U.S. v. Microsoft. An additional multitude of reasons why this case should be economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. copy has been provided by fax. Please feel settled. To begin with, Microsoft has been Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the free to contact me at 202–955–6300 with any unfairly singled out in this case. Several federal government should not have broken questions or concerns. other high-tech, media conglomerations truly up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, Regards, are monopolistic. Yet, Microsoft has been the companies like Microsoft can get back into Patrick O’Connor only target of antitrust litigation. the business of innovating and creating better Counsel to NetAction and Computer Additionally, the suit was brought under the products for consumers, and not wasting Professionals for Social guise that consumers were being harmed by valuable resources on litigation. Responsibility anticompetitive behavior on Microsoft’s part. Competition means creating better goods To the contrary, Microsoft helped consumers and offering superior services to consumers. MTC–00029542 by producing innovative products at With government out of the business of From: Mark Horton reasonable prices. The lawsuit has driven up stifling progress and tying the hands of To: Microsoft Settlement prices of Microsoft software. Consumers will corporations, consumers—rather than Date: 1/29/02 2:34am clearly benefit from an end to this protracted bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Subject: Microsoft Settlement litigation. The terms of the settlement the winners and losers on Wall Street. With Mark Horton agreement are more than fair. Microsoft has the reins off the high-tech industry, more 690 Fort Washington Ave. #2F agreed not to retaliate against those who entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create New York, NY 10040 promote or distribute software that competes new and competitive products and January 29, 2002 with Windows. They also agreed to begin technologies. Microsoft Settlement designing Windows in such a way so that it Thank you for this opportunity to share my U.S. Department of Justice is easier for computer manufacturers, views. Antitrust Division consumers, and software developers to Sincerely, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW promote non-Microsoft software within Boyd Bronson Washington, DC 20530 Windows. It will be much easier for Dear Microsoft Settlement: consumers to change the configuration of MTC–00029540 The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ their computers. This will result in more From: [email protected]@inetgw dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a choices, and, hopefully, stronger To: Microsoft ATR serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech competition. Date: 1/29/02 2:31am industry. It is high time for this trial, and the I hope to see this settlement agreement Subject: Microsoft andti-trust case. wasteful spending accompanying it, to be finalized as soon as possible. Thank you for To Renata Hesse, trial attorney, over. Consumers will indeed see competition reviewing my comments. VerDate 11 Sincerely, racketeering enterprise run for profit. It is It is possible Microsoft apparent change Ron Hardesty possible there is probable cause for formal focus on ‘‘server side’’ MOSP maintenance (253)229–6186 Cell investigation of these issues within US Title enhancement control, as distinct from ‘‘client 12024 147th St. Ct. E. 18 mandate. side’’ control, breaches a reasonable person Puyallup, WA. 98374 Assertion view of the contract rights under MOSP Use of the Microsoft Operating System purchase, the sovereign property right MTC–00029544 Product (‘‘MOSP’’), and / or Internet entitlement(s) associated with that contract, From: Anonymous connectivity use of the MOSP to other sites and / or the intangible right to honest To: Microsoft ATR or to Microsoft sites, is possibly directly services for an interstate wire transaction. Date: 1/29/02 2:52am linked to the exercise of interstate commerce, As an example, Norton Systemworks on Subject: Microsoft Settlement interstate wire traffic, and causal or Windows 98 appears to do maintenance Introduction facilitated US Mail, thus making US Title 18 upgrades on the ‘‘client side’’, the user tool This document is a sparse skeleton, as the mandates material. using Internet in contacting Symantec for author only discovered the ability to file Assertion current system levels, offering a list of Microsoft final ruling commentary about a Client usage of purchased MOSP tools runs changes for user download and install, then day ago. The 1/28/02 deadline is now known under sovereign state contract law and running that user download and install and the skeleton commentary is submitted to regulation, thus possibly defining contract process. meet that deadline, on Email date/time. and / or property right entitlement(s) However, Microsoft MOSP maintenance The author asserts this timely skeleton is covering that MOSP tool exercise. An from Microsoft support itself appears to run sufficient, as he is claiming US legal mandate involved sovereign state who may have ‘‘server side’’ system level support, not in a comment to the US DOJ, carrying ‘‘coals sovereign state entitlement change in ‘‘client side’’ and appears to possibly force to Newcastle’’ so to speak. However, the progress has a right to a hearing on these security changes in web browser author will continue to make a more detailed possibilities. configuration. The server side browser code argument with references and plans to file Assertion possibly determines the needed maintenance that argument as a collateral DOJ complaint A reasonable person view of MOSP by examining the client, not the client side in about a week, with disclosure to security support, also within full sovereign code examining the server. presumptively interested parties Apple entitlement, is possibly a further, distinct Microsoft develops both the MOSP client Computer, American Online, and the other property right entitlement and / or contract and its own server, has the direct choice of non Judgment participating sovereign states. material issue. Assertion A reasonable person client (MOSP) or server (Microsoft server) The author presumes the DOJ will disclose view of questionable MOSP operating system support, and is possibly doing the reverse of that complaint to Judgement interested maintenance changes, security or otherwise, Symantec. It is possible that server/client parties. The author stands by this skeleton, changes that impact or eliminate legacy choice breaches a reasonable person view of speculates that further argument may be of services or that suddenly mandate new rights and / or entitlements, with the author benefit in the pursuit of justice, plans that interfaces, when viewed by that reasonable stating he would never choose server side further submission within about a week, but person in the current ‘‘operating system support if given a choice. has major collateral duty and makes no world’’ and / or history, may involve It is possible Microsoft in the past and delivery guarantee. property right entitlement and / or contract recently made ‘‘server side’’ changes in its The major issues, see below, are the Apple breach, on that questionable cause. Windows maintenance update process that QuickTime environment change, the ‘‘server Assertion forced ‘‘client side’’ security changes in order side’’ functionality, and the possible secret An undisclosed change to the MOSP that to obtain both maintenance support and Microsoft scheme in iterative maneuvers of substantively both eliminates a prior OEM merely a list of the ‘‘client side’’ system an unwitting user body into periodic, not one function and adds a Microsoft maintenance/ changes possibly needed. Some of these time, computer system licensing fees. This change may be viewed by a reasonable changes may be critical security changes. document is written from memory but is person as an extortionate act. One wants the Assertion believed to be correct. If nothing shows up change and is thus forced to give up the It is possible Microsoft has a secret scheme in two weeks, 2/11/02, the claim of further function . . . to get the change. Alternatively, or artifice to increasingly disregard ‘‘client argument delivery expires. one installs the change with secret OEM side’’ functionality choice, choosing to The author is not computer ‘‘innocent’’, function elimination, possibly evolves into impose ‘‘server side’’ functionality, but for no speaks from decades of computer operating substantive value in the effect of that change, disclosed or apparent MOSP support reason. system development and maintenance suddenly discovers the OEM function It is possible that increasing, undisclosed, experience as well as legal awareness. The elimination, but no longer can simply ‘‘back suspicious change effects, installed by MOSP author has purchased, installed, and used up’’ to the prior maintenance level, because necessary bug maintenance practice, is in fact Microsoft operating system and tool software. of involvement in MOSP change. a pattern and practice scheme to increasingly The author is neither lawyer nor witness, Assertion foster ‘‘server side’’ functionality upon an attributes the entirety of the possible factual It is possible Microsoft made an MOSP unwitting user body, until ‘‘server side’’ issues to media sources, is submitting maintenance change that, in part, knowingly functionality becomes a mandate, not a Federally protected, US Amendment One eliminated the ability of a current Apple choice. At that mandate time, it is possible petition believed to be true, but labeled as QuickTime product to function. It is possible a secret Microsoft plan to now force periodic speculation and not fact, expects full that change was not done for MOSP function software licensing fees upon the user body investigation, and may be entirely wrong. enhancement, but was rather done to harm now will become reality, with the user body, This document is not signed, as the author OEM Apple, to reduce competitor product after repeated, subtle, concealed change over is not witness and has collateral awareness QuickTime usage, to enhance competing time, is now dependent on ‘‘server side’’ of retaliation to complaint. However, US product Microsoft Media Player usage, and to functionality, and is unable to drop Microsoft Amendment Right of Petition specifies no enhance Microsoft profit at the expense of or Windows because of business or personal signature mandate. client MOSP service and choice. It is possible need. Claim a harmful act of this type may be a contract Assertion It is possible Microsoft is guilty of bad faith breach, an interstate wire received, cause of It is possible Microsoft has not in good at a minimum, in knowing, pre-judgement breach, and / or a property right entitlement faith tried to comply with the intent of the violation of Final Judgement III. A. denial. Proposed Final Judgment and the espoused Prohibited Conduct, ‘‘. . . shall not retaliate complaint of opposing parties, has not in . . . .’’ This retaliation is possibly via the MTC–00029545 good faith tried to be consistent with continuing exercise of a scheme or artifice to From: Anonymous reasonable person expectation of MOSP and defraud OEM’s and clients with continual, To: Microsoft ATR computer tool expectation with Proposed anti-competitive, fraudulent conduct Date: 1/29/02 2:55am Final Judgement III. A. retaliation possibly in violation of US Title 18. It is Subject: Microsoft Settlement expectation, but rather is engaging in a secret possible that scheme or artifice is a Assertion scheme or artifice to continually engage in VerDate 11 anti-competitive, fraudulent practices in at Date: 1/29/02 2:58am Where does the proposed settlement, least three ways: Subject: Microsoft Settlement ‘‘terminate the illegal monopoly’’ and ‘‘deny One, to ‘‘tailor’’ MOSP maintenance To whom it may concern: the defendant the fruits of its statutory changes to reduce or eliminate the ability for I am writing to express my disappointment violation?’’ From the Court’s Findings of a possible OEM to offer competing product, over the settlement proposed by the DOJ in Fact, Netscape, Sun, Apple, RealNetworks, such as Apple QuickTime, Microsoft thus US v. Microsoft. As a software engineer, I am IBM, and Intel have all suffered lost business acting not to compete and offer MOST client well aware of the strangle-hold Microsoft because of Microsoft’s anti-competitive choice, but to defraud and to retaliate. holds over the industry, and the stifling effect behavior. From their standpoint, the Two, to use the secret scheme or artifice to it has on innovation. proposed settlement must just look like a later force periodic licensing upon a user In 1994–1995 when Netscape and Mosaic slap on the face. Where does the proposed body that now requires ‘‘server side’’ were the only browsers around, Microsoft settlement ‘‘terminate the illegal monopoly’’ functionality, on evolving business or started whispering about entering the and ‘‘deny the defendant the fruits of its personal need, Microsoft using near- browser market. I was in college at the time statutory violation?’’ These two fundamental monopoly power to secretly—reverse—the (University of Pennsylvania) and had principles of remedy have not been possible entire history of computer usage seriously considered entering the browser addressed at all. Microsoft’s market position financing. market with several of my peers. As soon as will not change if this settlement is Three, speculating on the future, to use rumors of Microsoft surfaced, those plans implemented. Remember what happened to that periodic licensing scheme as an anti- were stopped dead in their tracks. Netscape’s AT&T’s illegal telephone monopoly, and how competitive mechanism, where a user whose 100% market share didn’t discourage us at that break-up brought to the consumer computer is old or wears out has minimal all. Microsoft’s track record of stomping out choice, better service, and lower costs. If this choice for competing product, being forced to rivals—dare say I entire markets—using ill- proposal is accepted, those who buy stay with the now necessary ‘‘server side’’ gotten gains is what sent our creative Microsoft’s products will continue to pay licensing mechanism because of business or energies elsewhere. The ensuing 4–5 years over the top rates to use them. If personal need of that software. While were full of ‘‘browser-war’’ stories, but the implemented, the proposed settlement that Microsoft offers presumptively equal result was a foregone conclusion before the DOJ has succumbed to will not change software on Macintosh and Windows, after Microsoft had released a single product. the industry for the better, but will continue Windows periodic licensing becomes reality, The current software landscape is rather to leave the consumer, government, and the pretextual, competing Macintosh versions bleak. When the bully gets to usurp any and business, over a barrel; to suffer Microsoft’s may become obsolete. all innovative ideas, people eventually stop continued exploitation, whose ill-gotten Assertion being creative. Motivation is tough to come gains (profits) continue to line the pockets of While a vendor certainly has the right to by when you know that the spoils of your those company officers responsible for develop and offer their own delivery of labor will eventually be in the war-chest of creating this illegal monopoly. This can only service, a vendor has no right to use the US said bully. be seen as ‘‘payback’’ for breaking the law, Mail, interstate wire, or interstate commerce Since the settlement does nothing to and sets a terrible precedent for future in a pattern and practice to deny honest fundamentally change this landscape, I can antitrust litigation. Let’s hope that Judge services, to conceal material fact in a secret not support it. I don’t feel that the DOJ has Kollar-Kotelly has the courage, and the law, scheme for future profit, to scheme in represented the public’s best interests.... they to turn payback into blowback. Let’s iterative enticement, lure, or extortion of certainly have not done so with mine. remember that well known and often used unwitting users into future, periodic Blake Mills adage, once bitten twice shy. Microsoft has licensing. chosen, all too often, to stretch forth its hand MTC–00029547 Rewording, offering a ‘‘server side’’, and eat from the forbidden fruit. It is now monthly license fee tool is certainly legal. From: [email protected]@inetgw time that they were punished and expelled Maintaining and extending an operating To: Microsoft ATR,senator—leahy@ from their Eden of milk and honey. Microsoft system is certainly legal. But maintenance leahy.senate.gov@inetg... has to be penalized with penalties that bite, change patterns that have no credible client Date: 1/29/02 2:59am which go way beyond the kindergarten value, that have a secret Microsoft value, that Subject: Microsoft Settlement settlement we have here today. This has to are part of a likely ‘‘setup scheme’’ for the Mario Rodrigues be done for two fundamental reasons. First user, are fraud, in the denial of honest 1921 North H Street symbolic. Microsoft has to be seen to be contract and wire services. APT 48 punished, which has to be commensurate in If questionable change A, precedes B, Oxnard effect to the way it dealt with companies that precedes C, . . . into now necessary ‘‘server CA 93030 it illegally competed against. This side’’ functionality ‘‘P’’, a functionality that Wednesday, January 23rd, 2001 punishment will then draw a line in the facilitates periodic licensing, then each To whom it may concern, sand, which for the future will bring to distinct change, absent credible cause, is Having read the testimony of the Senate remembrance and serious reflection the falsified cause and fraudulent effect. Committee on the Judiciary, and the Court’s serious penalties for stepping beyond the Using a near-monopoly customer base to Findings of Fact, I for one am against the law. Second for competition. The market has impose secret, subtle maintenance changes proposed settlement because it will maintain to be given time to normalize to a for no credible reason, in denying reasonable the status quo. This will mean the continued competitive environment. Regulation, not person expectation of operating system, absence of any compelling competition for another consent decree, will be required until computer tool, and / or competitive product software on the desktop. Any one of a neutral market conditions allow companies of honest services, or using knowingly false disposition, who has read the testimony and substance to hold their own against a MOSP maintenance changes to impose the Court’s Findings of Fact, can clearly see convicted monopolist. Microsoft should not Microsoft benefit at the expense of reasonable the lack of justice when viewed against this be left in a position where it is able to repeat person expectation, is not legal. It is potential landmark judgment. conduct that an ideologically diverse Court of fraud and potential racketeering. The Supreme Court has explained that a Appeals unanimously found illegal. I am not Assertion remedies decree in an antitrust case must a lawyer, but I do feel confident that this This is not a single redress against a single seek to ???unfetter a market from settlement will not meet the requirements of Microsoft. It is a possible class action issue anticompetitive conduct,’’ Ford Motor Co., the Tunney Act. If by chance, there is a for the entirety of Microsoft users of all tools 405 U.S. at 577, to ???terminate the illegal miscarriage of justice, it will not only be very and all products, for the entire world, for all monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits sad day for justice, it will also cloud all interstate mail, wire, and commerce acts, for of its statutory violation, and ensure that future anti-trust litigation. Because of the all Microsoft support downloads. there remain no practices likely to result in courts’’ inability to punish illegal conduct monopolization in the future,’’ United States with justice of equal measure to the crime, MTC–00029546 v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, it will give a green light for more commerce From: [email protected]@inetgw 250 (1968); see also United States v. Grinnell law breaking. The saying will be, ‘‘if you To: Microsoft ATR Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 577 (1966). want to stay in business act like Microsoft, VerDate 11 if you don’t, you’ll end up a loser, like law hasn’t; Software companies still have Date: 1/29/02 3:06am Netscape.’’ almost complete immunity for creating a Subject: Microsoft Settlement If US law should fail to meet out the faulty product. Microsoft software is being Robert Lyle requisite punishment for Microsoft, antitrust placed in a higher, and higher level of trust 3605 Arlington Oaks Dr. litigation against Microsoft will continue every day, as more and more of our lives Mobile, AL 36695–8707 well into the future. AOL filed suit yesterday, become computerized. This places a January 29, 2002 the EEC have a case pending, half the State responsibility on the software companies to Microsoft Settlement Attorneys don’t agree with the settlement create software that is secure to outside U.S. Department of Justice case here, and the judge in the private class attacks. Antitrust Division action lawsuits ruled that settlement anti- If a car maker had a vehicle that was ‘‘fool 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW competitve. There is no argument against proof’’ and was capable of avoiding *ANY* Washington, DC 20530 Microsoft’s guilt, there is plain disagreement accident that would be that vehicle owners Dear Microsoft Settlement: as to what that punishment should be. In his fault, that would be great. But, if the same The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers’ statement to the Senate Committee on the car, when involved in an accident caused by dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a Judiciary, Senator Orrin G. Hatch said, ‘‘The someone else, provided no security, or serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech Microsoft case - and its ultimate resolution— protection for the occupant, that auto industry. It is high time for this trial, and the present one of the most important manufacturer would find themselve in a very wasteful spending accompanying it, to be developments in antitrust law in recent lengthy court battle, and be responsible for over. Consumers will indeed see competition memory. The proposed settlement does not injuries to occupants. Microsoft, and other in the marketplace, rather than the justify the Senator’s statement. software companies do not face such courtroom. And the investors who propel our Let’s remember Proverbs 29:18, ‘‘Where problems, yet create the very same situation economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. there is no vision, the people perish.’’ I hope every day. Their software by itself, does not Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the that Judge Kollar-Kottely is blessed with the pose a threat, but, they deny responsibility federal government should not have broken wisdom and vision to ensure that justice for the actions of others who create havoc up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, meets its obligations. Mario Rodrigues with their software. companies like Microsoft can get back into Thank you. the business of innovating and creating better MTC–00029549 SSgt Majewski products for consumers, and not wasting From: [email protected]@inetgw MTC–00029552 valuable resources on litigation. To: Microsoft ATR Competition means creating better goods From: Tom DeChaine Date: 1/29/02 3:01am and offering superior services to consumers. To: Microsoft ATR Subject: Microsoft Settlement With government out of the business of Date: 1/29/02 3:10am This country and our economy is highly stifling progress and tying the hands of Subject: Microsoft Settlement dependent upon FREE Enterprise and corporations, consumers—rather than To: Department of Justice District Court Judge talented companies like Microsoft that have bureaucrats and judges—will once again pick Microsoft is only ‘‘guilty’’ of aggressive created so many jobs and technology for our marketing; what successful company in the the winners and losers on Wall Street. With betterment. Microsoft must be given the US isn’t! Our irrational anti-trust regulations the reins off the high-tech industry, more freedom to continue their innovation are predicated on the notion that too much entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create unhampered by further litigation. Let the cry- success is unhealthy for our economy— new and competitive products and babies work a little harder and stop hiding which is totally false. And they are used technologies. behind their lawyers. merely as a tool by the envious to devour the Thank you for this opportunity to share my We are weary of all this litigation. Enough! very strength in our economy. I, and every views. Sincerely computer user, is indebted to Microsoft for Sincerely, Marie L. Odenheimer the software they have provided and their Robert E. Lyle MTC–00029551 broader contribution to the advancement of MTC–00029555 computer technology. Our Government— From: Majewski Harry J Jr SSgt 31CS/SCMFG Federal and States—must side with Microsoft Marilyn Ayers To: ‘‘microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov’’ in the legal suits against them. This company 2292 Bitterroot Place— Date: 1/29/02 3:07am is not guilty of a legitimate crime (e.g. fraud); Littleton, Colorado 80129 Subject: Microsoft Settlement it is a positive example of Capitalism at work. January 26, 2002 I beleive that the current settlement on the It is time for our Government to turn back the Attorney General John Ashcroft books for Microsoft allows for the company clock and defend Capitalism whenever US Department of Justice, to continue to abuse its monopolistic possible: defend the principles upon which 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW position on the software market. In order for this country was based. Washington, DC 20530–0001 market fairness to be regained, the company Tom DeChaine Dear Mr. Ashcroft: should be, at the very least, forced to make Penn Valley, Ca. As an active user of Microsoft software it’s browser separate from its operating programs since 1989, I want to express my system, and to not allow the company the use MTC–00029553 views on the Microsoft settlement: Support. of API’s or software libraries that would From: R. Todd Reasonover Complete support. Microsoft has cause another companies competing software To: Microsoft ATR standardized the way we use computers. to run less efficiently (I.E. Netscape Date: 1/29/02 3:10am They continue to give us deals. They Communcator), and be disallowed from using Subject: Microsoft Settlement provide us with new concepts on how to get secret API’s to promote the sale of additional I believe the Justice Department should the most out of our computers. software created by them. I also beleive that NOT settle the lawsuit with Microsoft. I Clearly, the Company wants to put this Microsoft should be forced to compensate for personally believe that Microsoft should be costly legal action behind them and move loss of revenue to other companies due to broken into pieces. There is virtually no forward with developing new products. They faulty software that they themselves competition in the OS market, browser are certainly not getting off easy with the advocated (I.E. advocated the use of their market, and office suite market to name a settlement, and their compliance is software in a specific situation when a survey few. Microsoft has consistently shown that guaranteed thanks to the excessive oversight was requested by one company or another.) they won’t play fair. All in the name of the settlement includes. This, in effect, would bring Microsoft in line innovation; as long as it’s Microsoft’s way. Please accept the terms of the settlement with every other major production Thank you. Thank you. corporation out there. In the late 80’s, Todd Reasonover Sincerely, software was not a critical aspect of our Marilyn Ayers economy/safety, and thus, was afforded a MTC–00029554 different kind of protection under law. From: Robert Lyle MTC–00029556 Unfortunately, times have changed, but the To: Microsoft Settlement 45 Gramercy Park N VerDate 11 New York, NY 10010 on the case approves it. I .just had to add my MTC–00029559 January 25, 2002 voice during the public comment period. 4929 Canterwood Drive NW Attorney General John Ashcroft This settlement is important for America. January 25, 2002 US Department of Justice Sincerely, Attorney General John Ashcroft 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Robert L. Kaufman US Department of Justice Washington, DC 0530 MTC–00029558 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Washington, DC 20530 I support the settlement the Department of 383 Second Ave Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Justice and Microsoft agreed to several Massapequa Park, NY 11762 [have personally founded six small months ago in their three-year-old antitrust Phone: 516 799–8300 -24/7 businesses, each providing software and lawsuit. I think Microsoft has gotten a bad Fax: 516 799–8350 -24/7 related services to companies and consumers. rap because of its market dominance, and I eMail: [email protected] Also, I have worked for five of America’s believe the case should be concluded without Fax: largest businesses, performing turn-around more litigation. To: Attorney General John Ashcroft leadership to help restore them to The settlement’s terms will allow From: Walter C. Schmidt, CPA competitive health. I know what it means to competitors to better integrate their programs US Department of Justice compete here in America, where into Windows. Disclosing internal Fax: 202–307–1454 or 202–616–9937 entrepreneurship and a free market economy programming language to competitors is a Pages: Two including this cover sheet have historically been protected by our generous move on Microsoft’s part, and Phone: government. shows the company’s willingness to put the Date: 01/27/2002 I think it is a shame that the previous situation behind them. Please support the Re: Microsoft Settlement CC: administration punished successful settlement and allow Microsoft to See following... entrepreneurship and stifled creativity—and concentrate on future business endeavo’s. WALTER C. SCHMIOT, CPA. has left your department to bat cleanup. The They have led the way in technological Massapequa Park, NY 11762 24/ Microsoft antitrust suit is the perfect example innovation for two decades now, and should 7:516.799.8300 of this. I am appalled that the negotiated be free to continue doing so. Fax: 516.799.8350 settlement has been rejected by half of the eMail: [email protected] MTC–00029557 plaintiff states—without even giving it a: trial January 26, 2002 period and thus letting six months of Robert L. Kaufman Attorney General John Ashcroft negotiations go to waste. I think before 34 Jade Lane US Department of Justice rejection is considered, it is necessary to give Cherry Hill, NJ 08002–1612 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW the settlement a chance. January 27, 2002 Washington, DC 20530 It is a disgrace that the settlement should Attorney General John Ashcroft Fax: 202–307–1454- 202–6169937 be delayed to give Microsoft’s opponents a US Department of Justice —Email: [email protected] bigger piece of the pie. I think the. settlement 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Subject: Microsoft Settlement. is fair as it stands. Microsoft has agreed not Washington, DC 20530–0001 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: to enter into any contracts that would require Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Microsoft continues in its role as a leader a third party to distribute or endorse Your strong leadership in working to settle in the Information Technology industry. Microsoft products either exclusively or at a the Microsoft antitrust case is certainly in the They do this not by luck, but because they fixed percentage. Microsoft also plans to best interests of America. Federal Judge are the best at what they do. Microsoft has design future versions of Windows so that Thomas Penfield Jackson showed his disdain given us, the business user, the ability to do the operating system will support non- for judicial ethics by revealing his biased things we only dreamt of a decade ago. They Microsoft software. I believe that these terms prejudgment to a member of the press in his have done this efficiently and effectively, are more than reasonable. own judicial chambers long before he issued while at the same time their products have In the long run, I believe the economy and his opinion in the case. Whatever happened developed a network of satisfied users. It the consumer would benefit from a speedy to judges hearing all the evidence and appears other companies are now trying to settlement. arguments before deciding the case? take advantage of Microsoft’s current I urge you to give your support to the Whatever happened to judges who aren’t ego- situation because they are unable to settlement. induced publicity hounds? Judge Jackson did accomplish on their own what Microsoft has 4929 Canterwood Drive NW II damage well beyond the judicial and legal successfully done. To continue litigation, Gig Harbor; WA 98332 community though. His decision to break up already agreed to by the Department of Microsoft into pieces, as though he .saw Justice, nine states and Microsoft, would MTC–00029560 himself as Julius Caesar dividing Gaul, prove to be a waste of time and money. TO: pulled down the whole stock market, in my As an Information Technologies CPA, I FROM: opinion. Technology stocks were badly hurt. continue to use Microsoft products as part of DATE: Fortunately, the Court of Appeals later my day-to-day work routine. I do this after ??OTAL PAGE (Including Cover Sheet): overturned Judge Jackson, and Microsoft and an ever continuing and exhaustive review of Robert She??s your department have reached a settlement available products, and because I feel that I605 60th Place W that will be good for American business and they continue to be the best, the market has Muki??eo WA 98275 the American public. to offer. 425–349–1207 Microsoft will have to show its cards, its The settlement currently under review is January 21, 2002 hidden poker hand. It will show the industry fair. Microsoft has agreed to terms that will Attorney General John Ashcroft its internal interface code and server protocol allow other companies to be better equipped U.S. Department of Justice code, and license its other codes to to compete. So far, the passage of time 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW companies on a non-discriminatory basis. It without litigation resolution has caused little Washington, D.C, 20530 will allow computer makers to sell non- harm. Nevertheless, this issue needs to be Dear Mr. Ashcroft Microsoft operating systems at the same time resolved before it does do serious harm to The federal case against Microsoft is they sell Windows, and set uniform prices either Microsoft, the Information definitely without warrant. The Case is and terms instead of negotiating. This will Technologies industry, or our country’s largely p??litical and has been up in the court allow the industry greater flexibility. I don’t economy. I would hope the Justice system long enough. I find it appalling to ‘‘know how good this will be for Microsoft, Department feels the same way, sees that the consider the amount of taxpayer dollars that although Microsoft has agreed to it to settle proffered settlement is indeed in the public have financed this persecution of Microsoft. the case and move on. However, it will be interest, and submits its final report, Having sated the above, I believe that the very good for the tech industry. recommending acceptance of the settlement. settlement that was reached signifies an Thank you again for your support of the Sincerely, important resolution of the issue. Throughout settlement. Let’s hope the new federal judge Walter C. Schmidt, CPA this process, Microsoft has made many VerDate 11 compromises. Microsoft agrees under the brightest companies working at full steam in MTC–00029564 terms of the, agreement to license Windows these times of economic uncertainty, and COVER PAGE at the same rate to the larger manufacturers continuing this litigation will not benefit this TO: of PCs. Further, Microsoft will relax nation. FAX: contractual restrictions upon PC The settlement is reas??nable; Microsoft FROM: JERRY&BETTY PURCELL manufacturers. These reass??ssed relations will design future versions of Windows to be FAX: 970–181–4009 will definitely change the industry. compatible with the products of other TEL: 970–484–2345 But clever people like me who talk loudly software companies, the company will also PAGE [S] TO FOLLOW in resta??ants, sec this as a de??berate cease any retaliatory action against any of its COMMENT: ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized competitors. A three-person technicla Please, I Ask you To Tell The De?? Jostice society. To conclude, the case against committee will monitor this settlement to That I STRONGLY Support The MicRoSOFT Microsoft is unfair, yet the settlement should ??sure Microsoft’s compliance. These terms ?? ??’s heave well enough ALONE be enacted as soon as possible. go above and beyond the original grievances MTC–00029565 But is suspense, as Hitchcock state‘‘& in of the suit. It is apparent that the parties who the box. No, there isn’t room. the ambiguity’s feel that the settlement does not go far STATE OF MICHIGAN put on weight. enough are not looking for a solution to this SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Robert Shelts DVM case, but rather the perpetuation of their own State Capitol Lansing, Michigan 48913 MTC–00029561 po??cal motives. Please continue you support of this SENATOR DAN L. DEGROW January 26, 2002 settlement, the work that you have done to (517) 373–7708 Attorney General John Ashcroft ensure that there is a place ?? free enterprise 27th District US Department of Justice in the future of this nation has not gone FAX (517) 373–1450 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NVY unnoticed. Thank you. Sincerely, TDD (517) 373–0543 Washington, DC 20530 James R. Smith January25,2002 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Willie Smith Ms. Renata B. Hesse The antitrust suit against Microsoft has Antitrust Division gone on long enough, and I would like to see MTC–00029563 U.S. Department of Justice this whole issue end on a bos??tive note. I Kenway Consultants, Inc. 601 D Street NW—Suite 1200 feel that the settlement that has been reached 2715 E Mill Plain Boulevard Washington, DC 20530–0001 between Microsoft and the Department of Vancouver, WA 98661 Re: Department of Justice Antitrust Lawsuit Justice is as fair as it is going to get, even (360) 696–2553 Settlement with Microsoft though the terms go a little far in imposing January 26, 2002 Dear Ms. Hesse: restrictions and obligations on Microsoft. Attorney General John Ashcroft I write in support of the Department of What we have had here is the federal US Department of Justice Justice (DOJ) proposed settlement that was government punishing success. Microsoft has 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ordered by the United States District Court. agreed to terms that extend beyond what was The terms of settlement have been agreed to Washington, DC 20530 at issue in the initial settlement, and have by Michigan’s Attorney General. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: done so ?? order to get this over with. They It is my understanding that the scope of the I have followed the antitrust suit against have actually agreed to give their competitors settlement addresses not only what the Microsoft for the past three years and feel code and design information that composes United States Court of Appeals for the that it is time this matter was brought to a the Windows operating system. This enables District of Columbia Circuit ruled on but also close. Microsoft has been more than fair with the competition to produce software and issues beyond their findings. Further, this regards to the settlement and I would like to install in within Windows, and Microsoft can settlement will be strictly enforced by an see the Department of Justice finalize it as do nothing about it. Enough is enough. independent committee that will assure soon as possible. I am the president of my The settlement is reasonable enough; Microsoft complies with the judgment. please approve it as soon as possible. Thank own company and have faithfully used The DOJ settlement will resolve the case you. Microsoft products. I have also used non- and allow the industry to move forward, Sincerely, Microsoft software and have had no problems thus, providing innovation for the industry Igor Alexeff running it through the Windows operating and greater competition and protection for system. I understand that one of the terms of consumers. MTC–00029562 the settlement is that Microsoft will have to Sincerely, JAN–27–02 SUN 04:2S PM SMITH license the internal codes to Windows that DAN L. DeGROW Senate Majority Leader 8059676721 will allow competitors to design software Michigan State Senate January 27, 2002 that is compatible to Windows. Obviously DLD To: Attorney General John Ashcroft there are companies who have accomplished aj FAX: 202/307–1454 this without going to court because I use non- From: Mr. & Mrs. James R. Smith Microsoft software and it runs fine. MTC–00029566 FAX: 805–957–6721 I feel that this issue has turned into more 548 Corte Aguacate Re: Microsoft Settlement of a political issue than an economic one. Camaril10, CA,,93010 Please see attached letter. The government has wasted millions of tax January 26, 2002 JAN–27–02 SUN 04:26 PM SMITH dollars on this suit when there are more Attorney General John Ash croft 8059676721 pressing issues at hand. This suit has become US Department of Justice Mr. & Mrs. James R. Smith 340 Princeton a way for other companies such as AOL to 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Avenue Santa Barbara, CA 93111 use Microsoft as a stepping-stone. They are Washington, DC 20530 January 25, 2002 taking advantage of what Microsoft has done Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: Attorney General John Ashcroft US because they were unable to do it themselves. The Department of Justice and Microsoft Department of Justice I have always been under the impression leached an agreement in November settling 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW that this country is one who supports free the antitrust suit brought against Microsoft. I Washington, DC 20530 enterprise, yet this suit has not backed that am writing to say that I support this Dear Mr. Ashcroft: philosophy up. There will soon be a chance agreement, I feel it is fair and reasonable, and The settlement that has been reached in the for the Justice Department to finalize the has already been approved by nine states. I United States of America vs. The Microsoft settlement that has been reached and I hope see no need for further federal action, Corporation is fair, and I believe that settling they do. Thank-you. especially while Microsoft is negotiating with this case is in the best interest of the U.S. Sincerely, the remaining states to reach an agreement. economy as well as the American consumer. Kenway Mead Although the settlement calls for concessions It is vital that for us to have our best and President that make antitrust precedent, Microsoft has VerDate 11 agreed in an effort to end this case sooner several major companies with our antitrust Appleton, WI 549l 1 rather than later. The longer this debacle laws, take a look at Eastman Kodak and (920) 739–1021 ensues, the longer that the IT sector will AT&T before and since government anti-trust Fax # (920) 739–1565 focus on litigation, rather than innovation. involvement, if you think my position is not Fax We must allow the industry and the tenable. The government has now undertaken To: John Ashcroft economy to move forward. I feel that this an attack on Microsoft. This issue needs to From: Jon A G??oves settlement provides that vehicle. Thank you be put to rest. The government needs to get Fax: 202–297–1454 Pages: 2 for your consideration of my opinions. out of private business affairs and allow Phone: Sincerely, business to rise or fall in the marketplace. In Date: Jan. 27 Harry P. Lee order to put this issue behind them Microsoft Re: microsoft Settlement CC: Rep G??ven cc: Representative Elton Gallegly has agreed to many terms. They have agreed One Odana Court, to release part of the Windows base code to Madison, WI 53719, MTC–00029567 their competitors which cost them many (608) 274–7744 MARLENE F. PARTYKA years and millions of dollars to develop. This January 28, 2002 611 Berkshire Lane is exactly what the government did to Attorney General John Ashcroft Des Plaines, IL 60016–7520 Eastman Kodak, in the ‘‘public interest’’ with U.S. Justice Department 847–298–1594 their chemical formulae and Kodak. once a 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW January 27, 2002 world leader in their field, is now struggling Washington, DC 20530 Attorney General John Ashcroft to survive. Where is the public interest in the Dear Mr. Ashcroft, US Department of Justice destruction of successful businesses that This letter documents my ,support for the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW provide income and employment to many proposed settlement of the Microsoft Washington, DC 20530 people and help the balance of payments? antitrust case, in accordance with the Tunney Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Once again, the government is trying to Act. This case has been negotiated for over t am taking the time to write you on behalf correct a perceived wrong (perceived by three years under a court-appointed of myself and thousands of other Americans unsuccessful competitors and their elected mediator, and it is time to implement the representatives) at the expense of the who I know are behind Microsoft. We settlement. innovative and successful. Microsoft and the support efforts at seeing the Microsoft There are many terms in the settlement technology industry need to move forward, Corporation freed of further litigation. The which individually would be enough to make the only way to move forward is to put this past three years have tested Microsoft’s sure that competition is increased; the issue in the past. Please accept the Microsoft ability to produce innovative products, and antitrust settlement and allow them to get on multitude of them should be a fantasy for I expect to see a boost to our economy once with the development of the best software Microsoft’s competitors Microsoft has sworn the law suit ends. Microsoft has not hurt the business m the world. to give its competitors access to all necessary consumer. Sincerely, Windows interface programs so that they can In view of the fact that our nation prides link with and promote their software itself on freedom of enterprise, I have MTC–00029568 0001 products. In addition, Microsoft has agreed to difficulty, understanding why the allow the all-new Technical Committee to MTC–00029569 government initiated this law suit in the first monitor its progress in complying with all place. We are raised to believe that with hard January 2I, 2002 provisions. work and innovation, one can achieve any Attorney General John Ashcroft This case should be finalized soon. Thank success, but obviously, this is not true. The US Department of Justice you for your consideration. price for success is the fear of being 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely, criminalized by one’s own government. Washington, DC 20530 Jon A. Groves Shameful. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: CC: Representative Mark Green I feel the settlement, proposed and I would like to express my support of the accepted by the U.S. District Court and decision by Microsoft and the Department of MTC–00029572 Microsoft, is the only solution at present to Justice to settle the antitrust lawsuit that has January27, 2002 salvage the remaining ingenuity Microsoft occupied federal court for three full years. Attorney General John Ashcroft Through the settlement, Microsoft will pay has brought to this country and the world. I US Department of Justice for its misdeeds by opening parts of its code certainly hope this 60-day public comment 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to other software manufacturers so that they period will make a difference in how the case Washington, DC 20530 may better compete with Microsoft Windows. finally ends. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Microsoft will also have to make itself subject The Microsoft antitrust case was It is time to let Microsoft off the hook and to the constant scrutiny of a technical unnecessary to begin with,, but the fact that get them back m the field of creating committee that will oversee the it has dragged out this long is absolutely software—if we take that freedom away from implementation of the various terms of the ridiculous. I do not believe that the push for them, then what does that say about our settlement. The settlement addresses the additional litigation is in the interest of country? needs and viewpoints of both the plaintiffs Thank you for your time in this matter. and Microsoft well. justice; I am of the opinion that the Sincerely, Some of Microsoft’s opponents would see remaining litigants just want what everybody Marlene F. Partyka the suit continue, this would be a great else wants—to get into Microsoft’s wallet. A cc: Representative Henry Hyde mistake. Consumers and the IT industry have settlement has been proposed that, while it may not be ideal, is acceptable to both MTC–00029568 already suffered too much in the suit. Continuing litigation can only serve to Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Next 20319 82nd Avenue SE further harm consumers. The Justice week, the courts will determine whether the Snohomish, WA 98296 Department must see that the proposed settlement is acceptable. I believe it is in the January 27, 2002 settlement becomes formal as soon as this best interest of the consumer to settle now Attorney General John Ashcroft public comment period concludes. rather than to drag this case on any longer. US Department of Justice Sincerely, Microsoft and the Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Bob Moore have managed, after half a year of Washington, DC 20530 7025 116th Avenue SE ex??ruciatingly complex negotiations, to Dear General Ashcroft: Newcastle, WA 98056 reach a settlement that not only satisfies the I am writing today to encourage the * Lets get this lowsuit over with II has concerns of both sides, but addresses the Department of Justice to accept the Microsoft cln??gged or too longe other compp??es Are issues presented by antitrust laws as well. antitrust settlement. The government needs using this lowsuit to Compete. For example, Microsoft has agreed not to to stay out of private business. The United enter into any contract that would require a States is the only country in the world that MTC–00029570 third party to distribute Microsoft products at destroys its own industry. We have destroyed 215 S. Stale Street a fixed percentage, This would prevent VerDate 11 Microsoft from shutting its competitors out of Dear Ms, Hess, More importantly though, this settlement the market through exclusive contracts. As part of a company that assists represents a vi??tory for the ??omy, Microsoft has also agreed to disclose source educational institutions with the entreprencurs, and consumers. This code and interfaces integral to the Windows development of effective student recruitment, settlement moving forwa?? will once again operating system for use by its competitors. medi?? and promotion, and the open the door of inves??ment and I do not believe that the settlement is in implementation of institutional enhancement innovation. any way deficient. In fact, I believe it would ??es, I have a solid grasp on the importation Thank you. be best for the economy and the American of public image and public pressure. Pat Collins public to finalize the settlement now. I urge When ??sseminating a message to the MTC–00029576 you to take the appropriate action. general public through the media, one key factor to acknowledge is that perception is HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MTC–00029573 rea??y Although consumers may or may not 2 STATE HOUSE STATION FROM : JOHN-BURKE have seen the notions of bundling by AUGUSTA. MAINE PHONE NO. : 13154514195 Microsoft as det?? to the??,. ?? after reading 04333–0002 Jan. 27 2002 07:55PH P1 the results of the proceedings many would (207) 287–1400 5773 Innsbruck Road feel differently. TTY: (207) 287–4469 East Syracuse, NY 13057 Thanks to the revolutionary developments Ken Honey Ph. 315–656–0081 by such ??ology ??es as Microsoft and AOL, Chapel Street Ms. Renata Hesse we have all or the facts and all sides of the F.O. Box 6 Trial Attorney story more ??at our fingertips than any Roothbay, ME 04537 Anti-Trust Division generation before us. We are able to access Telephone: (207) 633–5500 Department of Justice information and communicate via ?? the Fax: (207) 633–5092 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 World Wide web. Through your online sine Renata Hesse Washington, DC 20530 ?? we are able to ?? the proposed settlement Department of Justice Dear Ms. Hesse, that you face and submit our own personal 601 D Strect NW, Suite 1200 This letter is to advocate for a swift judgments to you based on our own research. Washington. DC 20530 Upon reviewing this information of the suit settlement of the federal lawsuit against the Dear Ms. Hesse, and following the proceedings for file few Microsoft Corporation (U.S. v. Microsoft) Please accept my support of the proposed years it has progressed, it is my belief that I work for a company that relies on settlement between United States vs. this is a reason??ble ??fer for a settlement in: technology for its success. We service major Microsoft Corporation. the suit: and should be approved. corporate and manufacturing facilities by Rather than beating Microsoft in the free Sincerely, ?? building and maintaining redundant backup market, AOL and Sun and others engaged the safeguards for their critical energy systems. MTC–00029575 Justice Department to do it for them. Their You could say that our business is to keep STAMATS true intention has clearly been to deny others in business. CON?? INC. consumers their market choices and instead How sad for this already damaged Pat Collins force them into paying higher prices for economy when the federal government jumps Judge Kolar Ko??ely lesser quality products. Competition is the in to assist Microsoft’s competitors in trying c/o Renata Hesse key, not government intrusion. to put one of America’s biggest success U.S. Department of Justice Without competition, the high technology stories out of business by forcing a breakup. 601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200 industry would be completely insignificant. When consumers are damaged by Washington, DC 20530 ?? Microsoft, Sun. AOL, Netscape, and others monopolistic activities, that’s anti-trust. Dear Judge Kolar Kottely: all drive each other to lower prices and better When Microsoft beats its competitors in the Late last year the U.S. Department of products, all the to benefit of consumers. marketplace, that’s capitalism. Justice ??ully reached a settlement with the The time has come to settle this case. I have yet to see a situation where Microsoft Corporation. This settlement is Taking into consideration the poor condition software/Internet consumers did not have a corrently under your review for acceptance, of the economy, the last thing we need is choice, and it would appear to me that many and I am writing to ??ncourage your support additional inane litigation. of the corporate entities screaming for for this agreement. Sincerely, fairness (Oracle, Sun, Apple, AOL/Time I work in a compelitive business where my Ken honey Warner [monopoly- look at my Time Warner hard work ??as paid ??. My success depends State Representative cable bill if you want to see monopoly./]) are on the superior quality of my product and my MTC–00029577 fully prepared to play hardball and are in no ability to sell ??is product to my clients. I danger of starving anytime soon. Billion have a na??al inclination to admire any FROM: CA dollar companies are tough to view as individual or company that finds success by PHONE NO. : 207 848 3685 victims. working hard and having a good product. Jan. 19 2002 09: 35AM P1 We spent eight years under a President Microsoft is a great example of these ideals. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES who liked to punish business success. Today Microsoft continues to be an industry leader 2 STATE HOUSE STATION the President is different, the country is because ?? provides the consumer with AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333–0002 different and the world is different. Let’s do superior products and excellent service. (207) 287–1400 the right thing and help business be I have never understood why the TTY: (207) 287–4469 successful rather than strike them down government seemed determined to prose??nte Donald P. Berry, Sr. when they become successful on their own. a company that provides a reliable product, 115 Sca??smont Road Sincerely, creates countless jobs, and s??lates both the Relmont, ME 04952 Taxpayer economy and innovation. By bringing this Telephone: (207) 342–5675 case the government appeared to be m??ent Fax: (207) 342–3045 MTC–00029574 on nothing more than g??ining ??procedented E-Mail: chema??@northlen??ink.com Jan 27 02 06:55p control over the technology in??ustry. Department of Justice STAMATS Now, over two years since the suit was 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 ?? brought, calmet heads now seem to be Washington, DC 20530 DATE provailing. The DOJ and Microsoft have As a former aducator and current legislator ?? fashioned an agreement that represents a true I am writing to express my support for the Trial Attorney compromise. New reports indicate that proposed settlement reached by Microsoft, Antitrust Division Microsoft will be required to share ??tual the Department of Justice and several of the Department of justice prop??rty and must guarantee flexibility to State. In reviewing the points of the 601 D Street NW, State 12.00 comp??ter manufactures that equip their settlement I see several benefits perticu??arly Washington, DC 20530 products will Microsoft operating systems. for educators and our schools. In accapting VerDate 11 this proposal and ending this costly process our nation needs, we don’t need to see more lawsuit put fear throughout not only the tech for all parties involved we also send a division, but we do need to see positive industry, but also the entire economy itself. message to the American taxpayers that we resolution and I believe that is what this We now hear Congress constantly talking are being responsible. First in holding large settlement can Offer. about ways to bring the economy back, yet companies accountable for their actions and Thank you for consideration of my hamstrings the one company that is the major secondly in knowing when a point has been comments. engine of our economy—Microsoft. Microsoft reached, after which further expenses in non Sincerely, bas been charged with an antitrust suit, the productive. Stavro?? J. Mendros basis of which is abuse of the consumer. Yet, I believe that Microsoft has learned, ?? all State Representative Bill Oates has done nothing more lima help good companies do, that they needed to the consumer with the innovations he has change some of their business practices and MTC–00029579 created. There is a standardization now of policies. Secondly, they have r??ched an HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES computer software where there was none agreement that appears to be beneficial to 2 STATE HOUSE STATION before More people can use and understand many of our nations schools and their AUGUSTA. MAINE 04333–0002 computer programs than before. Prices are students, by providing resources that will (207) 287–1400 lower, Microsoft has contributed so much to help train and prepare them for the future. TTY: (207) 287–4469 our technological expertise; the faro that the This appeals to me because it puts the Terrence P. McKenney company is now being charged with this resources to work, rather than a cash 14 Cry??tal Lane lawsuit is ridiculous, settlement that might allow politicians to Cum??land Center, ME 04021 Further, I am appalled that the legal system wind??all that would not be as productively Telephone: (207) $129–5472 should be brought into what is basically a distributed. Rusiness: (207) 773–8560 battle between technological companies, I also see it as beneficial to the parties Cell phone: 838–9168 First, what do lawyers know about the Involved. The point has been made to E-Mail:: [email protected] computer industry? And how can these self- Microsoft, a fair settlement has been January 18, 2002 same people make decisions affecting the use negotiated and I see no further need for Department of Justice of it? Tilts whole process was a result of added legal expenses to the government or 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Microsoft rivals trying to rein Microsoft in Microsoft. It Is In everyone’s beet Interest to Washington, DC 20530 through the legal system; however, the legal move on Thank you for consideration of my As a businessman and legislator I wish to system is not just. just legal, influenced more comments and for all you do. express my support for the proposed by politics than any real concern over Sincerely. settlement reached by the court appointed questionable business practices. Donald P. Berry, negotiator with Microsoft. and the Microsoft has agreed to many terms Sr. State Representative Department of Justice. I have read the demanded by the Department of Justice that District 109 settlement and find many parts of it to be a go far beyond the original suit, Microsoft tins Belmont, Lincolnville, Morrill, Searsmont, win-win option for all parties, I gee R as a agreed to design future versions of Windows Searsport, hotter alternative than e cash fine that will with a device to, make it easier to promote Swanville and Waldo disappear into the federal government’s non-Microsoft software; Microsoft has agreed Printed on recycled paper coffers. The practical use of technology and to open up to third party developers more of the training of our youth is the key to our its copyrighted coda to aid in development MTC–00029578 future. Our communities will benefit by the of third party programs; Microsoft has agreed HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES opportunities provided by these future to a technical committee to oversee 2 STATE HOUSE STATION leaders properly trained in the latest compliance. This is more titan a lot of AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333–0002 technology. This is a greater benefit to our companies would do. (207) 287–1440 society and workforce than any other I urge you to gave your approval to this TTY: (207) 287–4469 program the government could design. agreement and allow us to move on. Stavros J. Mendros Microsoft has end will benefit from this Sincerely. 135 Hogan Road experience. They as any smart and successful Jack Gambetta, CFP Le??? ME 04240 business will adjust their policies and email: [email protected] Telephone: (207) 783–6475 procedures there is no need to further punish WEB.JACKGAMBETTA.COM E-Mail: [email protected] them. or to wreak havoc on the public P.O. Box 100, January 18, 2002 members who have invested their retirement One Kent Circle, Department of Justice or children’s college savings in Microsoft Terrace Park, OH 45174 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 stock. It is In all Of our interests to resolve Tel/Fax Washington, DC 20530 this matter and move on in a productive way. (513) 248–9400 625 As a businessman involved in the Thank you for consideration of my Eden Park computer field I wish to express my support comments, Drive Suite 500, for the proposed settlement reached by Sincerely Cincinnati, OH 45202–6005 Microsoft, and the Department of Justice. I Terrence P. McKenney (513) 241–5000 have reviewed the settlement and find many State Representative aspects of it to be unique and beneficial to MTC–00029581 all Americans, I have come to realize the MTC–00029580 FORREST H. MUIRE, JR. critical importance of training and ongoing JACK GAMBETTA, CFP 908 PRINCETON MIDLAND, TEXAS 79701– development for our teachers and young Certified Financial Planner 4159 people. Our communities will benefit by the ICFP Registered Practitioner 915–682–5087 opportunities provided by these future Registered Investment Advisor email, [email protected] leaders properly trained in the latest Registered Representative or FAX 685–1091 technology. This is a greater benefit to our Mutual Service Corporation January 23, 2002 soclety and workforce than any other Member NASD and SIPC Attorney General John Ashcroft program the government could design using January 27, 2002 US Department of Justice, a cash penalty assessed on Microsoft. I also Attorney General John Ashcroft: 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW believe Microsoft has and will benefit from US Department of Justice Washington, DC 20550–0001 this experience. They have learned the need 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Dear Mr. Ashcroft: to adjust their policies and procedures; there Washington, DC 20530–0001 Please accept the proposed settlement of is no a greater needs to further punish them. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: the Microsoft anti-trust case. As a long-time It to also, o time to move on from this long I am a financial planner. I have watched user of Microsoft products, I see this drawn-out legal dispute, so the people of this the economy go into a tailspin because of the agreement as the most practical solution for country can see the continued healing their lawsuit brought against Microsoft. This competitors to thrive, short of a break up that VerDate 11 would risk consumers losing a quality, stable Russell P. Treadwell spending tax money to pursue this case than presence in the software industry. we ever were about Microsoft being a Seemingly inspired by a lack of monetary MTC–00029583 monop??y Please give thoughtful support from the last administration, this THE NICHOLS STREET ASSOCIATION consideration to settling this case quickly. government intervention into the business 138 NICHOLS STREET Thank you, world has been off base from the start. With NORWOOD, MA 02062 Lore McManus Solo, APR this deal, Microsoft’s market position is Loretta Fehm Public Relations Director clearly weakened, so any further litigation January 25, 2001 Strategic America would be an even more misguided attempt to I am writing to have my thoughts on the manipulate the marketplace on behalf of the proposed settlement between Microsoft and MTC–00029585 ‘‘consumer.’’ Microsoft will allow computer the United St Department of Justice entered Judge Kolar Kottely manufacturers broad freedoms to configure into the record in accordance with the Tunny Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney Windows with the software of their choice Acts requirement of public Comment on such Antitrust Division without preference in future licensing deals settlements, I think the settlement plan is a U.S. Department of Justice and will provide competitors with extensive good one, and one that reaches the necessary 601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200 access to its internal code, among other balance between antitrust enforcement and Washington, DC 20530 agreed measures to expand competition. the need for as competitive a software market Dear Judge Kolar Kottely: Considering the constant verification by a as the U.S. economy can have, Consumers There is not an American who has not been committee of experts to monitor the deal, I benefit from a competitive market in ways touched by or seen the impact of the slowing ask for you to support for this overly fair that the kind of regulations previously argued national economy. As the chief executive settlement. The IT industry and the economy in this case would nullify. Whereas a free officer of a strategic marketing and will greatly benefit from the return of and competitive market will drive down communications firm, I have witnessed first stability to the software marketplace. Thank prices and hasten the pace of innovation, a hand what the slowing economy has meant you very much for your support. heavily regulated market, or a software for our clients and our employees. Across Sincerely, market including a carved-up Microsoft ??owa, we have seen many of our most Forrest Muire would stow the pace of innovation and allow important employers either close their doors companies to sit on their hands and let prices or endure severe layoffs in these troubled MTC–00029582 gradually rise. economic times. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Consumers deserve the best high tech Almost every decision our government 2 STATE HOURSE STATION market available to them, and the best high makes right now has a direct impact on the AUGUSTA. MAINE tech market is the one that innovates, The health of our national economy, The decision 04333s–0002 innovations of the last decade were primarily whether to accept the Department of Justice’s (207) 287–1400 responsible for the creation of jobs, settlement with Microsoft is no exception. TTY: (207) 297–4469 Investment, and wealth at rates never before Microso?? is one of the most successful Russell P. Treadwell witnessed In any economy anywhere. The corporations in the country. The growth of Da??cus Road success of the ‘‘New’’ Economy In the i990s this company has translated into thousands RR 2. Box 1570 was not a boomlet, in my view, but a of jobs, new innovation and the creation of Car??el. ME 04419 harbinger of things to come In the future, If still more technology-based companies. Telephone: (207) 848–5123 the government will allow consumers and Unfortunately, as the economy began to inch Renata Hesse entrepreneurs to successfully guide the toward recession, the government began its Trial Attorney market toward higher levels of competition legal wrangling with Microsoft. Next came Antitrust Division and innovation. the major decline of technology stocks. The Department of Justice I hope my thoughts can be entered into the creation of new technology based companies 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 record and also hope the court sees fit to and jobs slowed as well. Washington. DC 20530 approve the settlement proposal. It is the best Settling the Microsoft case will help give Dear Ms. Hesse, way for the economy to start to put. this the economy the boost it needs toward I understand we are in a period where you recession behind it and begin to build for the recovery. Plus, the conditions of the are looking for public comment on the future. settlement were fair for all involved. Under proposed settlement with Microsoft. In light Sincerely. this agreement, Microsoft must allow of this I would like to urge you to accept the Loretta Fehm computer makers to remove their software proposed terms and resolve this mater for the and they will be prevented from punishing following reasons. MTC–00029584 companies that promole Windows competing I believe Microsoft has been significantly January 15, 2002 products. A neutral commission will oversee and negatively impacted by this more than Judge Kolar Kottely all elements of the settlement. three year suit. True some of their practices U.S, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division I respectfully urge you to accept the may have been heavy handed and even 601 D Street. NW, Suite 1200 Department of Justice’s settlement with detrimental to competitors, but those same Washington, DC 20530 Microsoft. competitors such as AOL, Sun and Oracle Dear Judge Kottely, Sincerely. have used the weight and resources of the I am writing to express my opinion as a Michael R. Schreurs state and federal legal system to attack and consumer in the case of the U.S. Department Chief Executive Officer distract Microsoft. I say it is time to end this of Justice and state attorneys general versus Strategic America legal attack, and stop the use of taxpayers Microsoft. monies. Microsoft bas agreed to a very This case has been loitering and MTC–00029586 reasonable and, fry for the public and our squandering our hard-earned tax funds for PAULA ENLOW schools, a extre??ly generous and beneficial long enough, As a consumer of Microsoft 702 Laramie Street program to compensate fox any supposed products, I do not feel cheated by the Manhattan, KS 66502 harm that was done. company. Even the limited number and size January 23, 2002 I strongly encourage you to move forward of computer stores here In Des Moines, we Ms. Renata Hesse on resolving this matter and ending the battle nave a choice in brands of spreadsheets, Trial Attorney that has consumed so much time and operating systems, and word processors. U.S. Department of Justice, Anti-trust resource of the government and associated When setting up Internet access on a new Division parties. computer, there was always the choice 601 ‘‘D’’ Street NW, Suite 1200 Thank you very much for all your efforts between Notscape Navigator or Internet Washington, DC 20530 on behalf of the American people and for Explorer as a web browser. This case came Dear Ms. Hesse: reviewing my comments. about for the protection of consumers. Yet, I am writing to express my opinion Best Regards, we as taxpayers are more concerned about regarding the Microsoft anti-trust case VerDate 11 settlement recently proposed by the Bush both .sides of the pendulum- sky level highs 1004 FEARRINGTON POST administration. and rock bottom lows. Many peaks and PITTSBORO, NC 27312 I believe that if the court wishes to act in valleys have stemmed from the Microsoft FAX: 919–542–3090 the best interests of all Americans, it will antitrust case Just prior to the case, and even PHONE: 919–542–1963 approve the settlement, end this case and for so. me time into it, many would argue FAX TRANSMISSION SHEET allow Microsoft and the American tech that loch stocks were infla??ed. It was the TO: industry to move forward unencumbered by belief of several financial analysts that the FAX: ongoing litigation. Continuing to pursue this valleys ca??sed by the case were necessary to FROM: Dorothy Gration matter in court is a waste of precious time deliver a reality check to ??ch investors. All DATE: and energy and sets a very bad precedent for of this may in fact be trite.. Today, however, # PAGES (including cover sheet): undue government interference in private is a different day, a different time, and our MESSAGE: business. Even under the terms of the nation’s economy is facing very different 1004 Fearrington Post Pittsboro, NC 27312 settlement, Microsoft will be operating under challenges. January 16, 2002 a level of scrutiny that I feel is unnecessary Disheartening news continues to surface in Attorney General John Ashcroft given the facts of the case. However, I believe the Wall Street Journal during this time of US Department of Justice that the Bush settlement offers our best hope economic downfall—airline difficulty, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW for moving onward and upward, and I urge telecommunication battles, and the Washington, DC 20530 the court to accept that settlement. technology industry’s downturn. Stories like Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Best regards, the one on Friday take the market on another I am writing to express my gratitude that Paula Enlow sharp decline taking the Dow down 78 points this whole mess involving Microsoft and the and the Nasdaq down 55. federal government looks as though it may MTC–00029587 As part of the investment and insurance finally be coming to an end. I have never TIM HOLLOWAY sector, these are issues that bit very close to agreed with the federal government’s pursuit 600 N. 12TH STREET home both for my clients and myself. With of Microsoft and have long thought of it as INDEPENDENCE, KS 67301 the obvious effects this case has had on the a waste of taxpayer money, as well as an January 21. 2002 market, I believe k is prudent during this attempt to sully the reputation of someone Judge Kolar Kottely time of economic instability to settle this who has lived the American dream. That Attention: Renata Hesse case. being said, this settlement offers an U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division Thank You, opportunity for both parties to walk away 60t D Street, NW, Suite 1200 Brian Hewitt satisfied and should be accepted/ Washington, DC 20530 President implemented as soon as possible. The Dear Judge Kolar Kottely, Group Benefits, Ltd settlement agreement contains provisions I’ve seen firsthand the blows the economy that provide for increased competition, the has been dealt in the last year. As an MTC–00029589 fostering of innovation and greater aeronautical technician, I have seen many in Thomas & Loft Stambaugh accountability. The highlight of this our industry lose their jobs due to cutbacks 8501 Bayview Drive agreement is Microsoft’s agreement to share resulting from the precarious state of the Wildwood Crests NJ 08260 its most valued intellectual property in order economy. (609) 522–2754 to advance the industry. The economy is soft. In addition to layoffs, January 25, 2002 This is a settlement that is three years too the public has also seen a decrease in their Attorney General John Ashcroft late and I strongly urge that it is implemented investment portfolios. The public and our US Department of Justice as soon as possible. Thank you for your economy need to be reassured. Approving 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW efforts in Washington. the current Microsoft settlement proposal is Washington, DC 20530–0001 Sincerely, a step toward that reassurance. That Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Dorothy Gration assurance will restore investor’s faith, I am writing you to inform you of my MTC–00029591 providing cash flow for innovation and a opinion in regards to the Microsoft demand for employment in one of the driving settlement issue. I support the settlement that January 26, 2002 sectors of our economy—high tech. The was reached in November. This settlement The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally boom of the 90’s and even 2000 was driven will end three years of costly litigation and U.S. District Court, District of Columbia by the health of the technology sector. I will give our economy the boost it needs. c/o: Renata B. Hesse believe we can help turn our economy Please support this settlement so Microsoft Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice around if we help the tech industry get back can get back to business. 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 on its feet. In my opinion, settling the case This settlement contains many provisions Washington, DC 20530–0001 against Microsoft is the first step in that that will benefit the technology industry and Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally: direction. companies attempting to compete with I write to express my concerns about the I appeal to you and your wisdom to Microsoft. Under this agreement, Microsoft proposed settlement of the Microsoft cases. support settlement of the suit, allowing has agreed to grant computer makers broad As the executive director of business/trade America’s economy to rebound at this time new rights to configure Windows to promote association, I consider myself to be very pro- when we all could use some encouragement. non-Microsoft software programs that business and generally supportive of free Sincerely, compete with programs included within enterprise and open competition. However, Tim Holloway Windows. Microsoft has also agreed to share in order for the free enterprise system to more information with other companies, properly work, there must be an opportunity MTC–00029588 such as various internal interfaces within for businesses to actually compete against January 22, 2002 Windows and any protocols implemented in each other! I respect Microsoft for what they Ms. Renata Hesse Windows. Microsoft is more than willing to have been able to accomplish, but I believe Department of justice Antitrust Division 60I carry, out all these provisions if it delivers a Microsoft has gone too far in some of its D Street NW, Suite 1200 resolution to this dispute. practices. As a result, a competitive market Washington, DC 20530 Again, I urge you to support this settlement in their sector no longer exists, and Dear Ms. Hesse, so our resources can be funneled into more businesses and consumers are hindered and Last Er??day the drop in the Dew and important issues. Thank you for your frustrated. I understand that a settlement has NASDAQ were the largest since just after the support. been proposed that the Department of Justice attacks of September 11th The catalysts were Sincerely, has found acceptable. I further understand cautious forecasts from two technology stock Thomas & Lori Stambaugh that various attorney generals have also market ??ants IBM and Microsoft. found the proposed settlement acceptable. This sector has see a great deal of change MTC–00029590 The Attorney General of the Stare of Utah is and turmoil over the past several years on DOROTHY GRATION not one of them. I support his position and VerDate 11 believe that the term, of the settlement are Office location Office location the county, but will do little else other than too lenient on Microsoft. Adoption of the Fax number Phone number act to further slow down an already slow proposed settlement would do nothing but (202) 301–145?? (425) 828—8575 business environment. delay the imposition of reasonable sanctions, COMMENTS The terms of the settlement agreement are prohibitions, and conditions on Microsoft The Microsoft proposed settlement seems fair. With the assistance of a mediator, the until the next government action is taken, if more than fair. The #35 million spent to parties engaged in extensive negotiations. As any. In the meantime, Microsoft would punish Mirosoft is an excessive amount of a result, the remedies provided by the essentially walk away with a hand-slap and taxpayer money; especially since the settlement agreement are well thought out the ability to continue its anticompetitive company has done so much for the U.S. and provide adequate solutions to the behavior. This could also set a precedence Economy complaints lodged by the plaintiffs. Upon the that would allow other businesses to take approval of the settlement agreement, similar control of a market, because they MTC–00029594 Microsoft will change many of its business know that they could get away with only January26,2002 practices in an effort to restore fair lenient punishment, if’’ any. Attorney General John Ashcroft competition to the software world. Microsoft I ask the court to conduct hearings to US Department of Justice has agreed not to enter into any contracts that determine an appropriate remedy that will 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW would require third parties to exclusively reasonably penalize Microsoft for past Washington, DC 20530 promote or distribute Windows. They also actions and prevent future violations of Dear Mr. Ashcroft: agreed not to take any retaliatory action antitrust laws. Such an action will only be in I support Microsoft and its desire to settle against those who distribute software that the best interest of all businesses and the antitrust lawsuit that the government competes with Windows. consumers. brought against them, I believe it is in the I see no need for protracted litigation in Sincerely. best interests of our country and the this case, especially in light of what Ann Gambr??o, executive director economy. This lawsuit has brought untold Microsoft is willing to do to resolve the case. Utah Hotel & Lodging Association damage to the economy and it was one of the Thank you for working toward a resolution cc. The Honorable Mark Shurtleff. Utah factors leading to the recession. I am sure you of this case. It is time to move on. Attorney General Jonathon Jaffe, The MWW are aware that Microsoft is a leader in its Sincerely, ?? Group field and spawned many opportunities for Glen A. Phillips other companies. Our country is presently MTC–00029592 the leader in the computer field. Don’t MTC–00029596 January 26, 2002 prolong this any more and allow for the JACQUELYN R. REESER Attorney General John Ashcroft possibility for other countries to take the 5827 Hollyhock Drive US Department of Justice initiative away from our country. It Lakeland, FL 33813 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W potentially has security impacts that can only January 25, 2002 Washington, DC 20530 be measured in future developments. I hate Attorney General John Ashcroft Dear Mr. Ashcroft: to use an old cliche but as Microsoft’s US Department of Justice I am writing to your office because I business goes so goes America’s lead in this 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW support Microsoft and its desire to settle the field. Don’t delay the settlement. Washington, DC 20530 antitrust lawsuit that the government brought As a graduate of the University of Dear Mr. Ashcroft: against them. The case has proven to be very California in electrical and electronic With the pending results of the Microsoft lengthy, and I feel that if the government’s business, I believe that I have an inside view settlement, I am pleased with the outcome. case were solid, they would have been able of the problem. While Microsoft is a fierce This agreement should reestablish Microsoft to prove it by now. In the meantime, competitor on one hand, they still allow on one main issue...business development. Microsoft’s business has been adversely many opportunities for others to enter and As a self-employed person I know that your affected. succeed in the business. Further delay in this reputation can make or break you. The fact The settlement proposed several months suit will only cause further erosion of these that Microsoft extended restrictions and ago offers Microsoft’s competitors an opportunities. Believe me there are many obligations to products and technologies that unparalleled opportunity for market growth. legitimate actions that Microsoft can exercise were not found to be unlawful by the Court Microsoft is boldly agreeing to broad that will decrease these opportunities. Like of Appeals, convinced me that they are more changes, between disclosing Windows any good management plan, i1 must include interested in new growth and development of program codes it developed to other protection of the company and its their company. companies, as well as enabling computer stockholders. Microsoft will now share technology users and manufacturers to remove Internet The settlement proposed should be information with its competitors that will Explorer and other Windows-based programs grabbed and taken to the bank. allow them to place their own products on from their PCs. The most important aspect of the proposal Microsoft’s operating system. Additionally, Most importantly, the settlement does not is that it will not break-up Microsoft. I hope Microsoft will use a uniform pricing list seek the breakup of Microsoft. The company you agree and settle this case now. when licensing Windows out to the twenty, clearly wants to put this dispute behind Sincerely, largest computer companies in the nation. I them. I hope you agree and will settle the Richard Hearth give my full support to Microsoft’s settlement case. 3426 Whitnor Court and wish them the best. Sincerely, Sacramento, CA 95821 Sincerely, ?? Nadine Hearth Telephone: 916–483–7723 Jacquelyn R. Reeser 3426 Whitnor Court Sacramento, CA 95821 MTC–00029595 MTC–00029597 Telephone: 916–483–7723 January 27, 2002 J. R. Mitchell Attorney General John Ashcroft 10315 159th Avenue SE MTC–00029593 US Department of Justice Snohomish, WA 98290 FAX COVER SHEET 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW January 23, 2002 Herbert L. Stevenson Washington, DC 20530 Attorney General John Ashcroft 602 Fifth Street #1003 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: US Department of Justice Kirkland, WA 98033 The Department of Justice’s decision to 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Tex 425 828 8575 settle the Microsoft antitrust case is Washington, DC 20530 Fax 425 889 0659 reasonable and should be supported. The Dear Mr. Ashcroft: SENO TO Company name Depf. Of Justice case has dragged on for long enough, and has I think the Microsoft antitrust case was From Herhert L. Stevenson had a very detrimental impact on the tech ridiculous to begin with; it was all a matter Attention Ms. Renata B. Hesse Ds?? 1—27— industry as well as our economy. Further of Microsoft’s bitter competitors trying to 62 litigation might be good for the litigators of retaliate against Microsoft’s success and VerDate 11 innovation. As part of free enterprise, their Raytheon Missile Systems Company granting Microsoft more monopoly power competitors had die opportunity to be just as P.O. Box 11337 (Bldg: MO2) with which to abuse its competitors. The PFJ successful as Microsoft- However, they just Tucson, Arizona (USA) 85734–1337 should be amended to forbid Microsoft from weren’t as smart and didn’t create such Raytheon Missile Systems Company using its patents offensively. Before exceptional products. That’s certainly no 1511 E. Hermans Road preparing my comments, I read the following fault of Microsoft’s. I use Microsoft’s Tucson, Arizona (USA) 85706 documents in their entirety: products ever3: day in my job as a Computer TO: RENATA B. HESSE NO. OF PAGES: 7 1 Original Complaint Specialist. I could give you several reasons (INCLUDES COVER SHE?? http://www.USDoJ.gov/atr/cases/f1700/ why I prefer Microsoft’s products to anyone TELEPHONE: 1763.htm else’s. FAX: 202–307–1454 DATE: 27 JAN 2002 2 Findings of Fact Microsoft is conceding a great deal in this 202–616–9937 http://www.USDoJ.gov/atr/cases/f3800/ settlement. It is more than fair to their FROM: KENNETH J. HENDRICKSON VOICE msjudgex.htm competitors, if not giving them an unfair TELEPHONE: (520) 7943853 3 Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final advantage that they don’t deserve. Microsoft E-MAIL ADDRESS: Kenneth—J— Judgment is giving away their technology to their [email protected] http://www.USDoJ.gov/atr/cases/f9400/ competitors and has agreed not to retaliate ALTERNATE (520) 794–0603 FAX: (520) 9495.htm against software or hardware developers that 794–4860 4 State’s Proposed Final Judgment come up with competing products. They’ve FAX NUMBERS: (520) 794–9087 http://www.NAAG.org/features/microsoft/ also agreed to make their Windows software CC: ms-remedy—filing.pdf more cross-platform compatible so that users COMMENTS ON PROPOSED MICROSOFT 5 Competitive Impact Statement and OEMs can easily configure Windows SETTLEMENT http://www.USDoJ.gov/atr/cases/f9500/ with other software. Date: 27 January 2002 9549.htm Please accept this settlement for the good To: Renata B. Hesse Justification for my Recommended of the country. Microsoft is not harming Antitrust Division Modifications: consumers and this settlement U.S. Department of Justice Full Disclosure of Algorithms, APIs, unquestionably does not harm their 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Protocols, and File Formats: competitors. Please help put a long-awaited Washington, DC 20530–0001 I was very heartened to note that the PFJ end to this lawsuit. From: Kenneth J. Hendrickson would require that Microsoft must publish Sincerely, ?? 2747 W. Anklam Rd., Apt E. details of its APIs (section III.D. and others). Jimmy R. Mitchell Tucson, AZ 85745–3705 However, as published, this provision will be Dear Renata, largely ineffective, because it does not MTC–00029598 Executive Summary: include Free Software and Open Software JOHN EBERT I strongly urge the Department of Justice development efforts. 5910 PROVMENOR GOUNTRY GIUB DRIVE (DoJ) and the Court to modify the Proposed Microsoft’s own lawyers indicated in 1999 GHARLOTTE, NORTH GAROLINA ?? Final Judgment (PFJ) in order to achieve an that Microsoft views Linux and the GNU GPL January 26, 2002 effective remedy against a continuing license as its greatest threat. Attorney General John Ashcroft Microsoft monopoly, and the harm to http://www.OReillyNet.com/pub/a/ United States Department of Justice consumers that will inevitably continue to mediakit/linux.html 950 Pennsylvania Avenue SW result. Microsoft produced a white paper on the Washington, DC 20530 The modifications I recommend are: GNU GPL license, in an effort to dissuade Dear Mr. Ashcroft, 1 Microsoft must be required to publish companies from trying and/or using Linux. The current status of the American COMPLETE and ACCURATE documentation http://www.Microsoft.com/business/ government’s case against Microsoft for all Application Programming Interfaces downloads/licensing/Gp1—faq.doc Corporation concerns American citizens like (APIs), protocols, and file formats, for *ALL* Although Linux and the Free Software me. It threatens the principles of free Microsoft products. This should include a movement are not yet a true competitor to enterprise in our country. Microsoft has been requirement to publish full and complete Microsoft (as stated in the Findings of Fact), targeted because of its overwhelming success source code. However, as the source is likely Linux offers the best hope for a future and innovation. Other companies have been to be very difficult to understand, Microsoft competitor to Microsoft. In light of this, the saddled with government oversight for the must also be required to fund an independent DoJ and the Court should tailor the PFJ such opposite reason. The American people axe documentation effort to study the source that it does not lock out Free Software and happiest when businesses are allowed to do code and completely and accurately Open Software developers from the fruits of what they do best without outside influence. document it. Such documentation and source the PFJ. Government interference is rarely a solution. code must be made available AT NO Free Software and Open Software Continued action by the government against CHARGE to anybody who wants it, via an developers must be granted access to Microsoft will likely have negative effects on Internet download. In addition, Microsoft COMPLETE and ACCURATE documentation the American consumer. This is no time for must NOT be allowed to require a Non- on *ALL* algorithms, APIs, protocols, and that. Microsoft has attained its position in Disclosure Agreement (NDA) in order to file formats for *ALL* Microsoft products, industry because it is innovative, not obtain this important information. without any cost, and without any predatory. Microsoft has created jobs without 2 Security considerations must NOT be an nondisclosure agreement (NDA) political interference. It is an economic excuse for continuing the harmful practice of requirements. engine without rival. closed, hidden, and/or undocumented APIs, The most complete and accurate The settlement at hand is fair and just. It protocols, and file formats. All algorithms, documentation is the actual source code, and should be embraced so that we an all see APIs, protocols, and file formats, must be so that should be made available. The source Microsoft get back into the business of COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY code, however, is not enough. It is likely that changing people’s lives through innovative documented, *ESPECIALLY* when those the source code will be very difficult to software technology. Our country desperately algorithms, APIs, protocols, and file formats understand; therefore Microsoft must also be needs engines like Microsoft to bee running are needed for security and authentication. required to fund an independent at full capacity again. Please consider Sections III.J1 and III.J2 should be entirely documentation effort to study the source accepting the present settlement. Everyone stricken from the PFJ. code and completely and accurately will receive considerable benefit. Thank you 3 Microsoft must not be allowed to use its document it. Such documentation and source in advance for your attention to this matter. patents offensively. A patent is a government code must be made available at no charge to Sincerely yours, granted monopoly. As Microsoft already has anybody who wants it, via an Internet John Ebert a monopoly (even without government download, without any requirement for an granted patents), and has been convicted of NDA. MTC–00029599 illegally ABUSING that monopoly, the Without this extremely important OUTGOING COMMUNICATION government should not be in the business of provision, the most important potential VerDate 11 competitor to Microsoft’s monopoly will not and encryption methods and algorithms in criteria’’. Furthermore, in light of the fact that be able to compete. In addition, without this order to find weaknesses, and repair those SECURITY THROUGH OBSCURITY IS NO important provision, Microsoft will be able to weaknesses, *before* they are implemented SECURITY AT ALL, there is never any *CONTINUE* using closed and secret APIs, and insecure systems are built and fielded. justification for any ‘‘governmental agency of Protocols, and File Formats to extend, Messrs Schneier and Shostack also competent jurisdiction’’ to ‘‘direct Microsoft enhance, and broaden their existing encourage Microsoft to publish its entire not to’’ COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY monopoly. It is absolutely necessary that the source code, even though they have no hope document *ALL* algorithms, APIs, protocols, PFJ be amended to require that Microsoft that Microsoft will do this. The source code and file formats—without restriction—and COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY document should be published so that the security make the documentation and source code *ALL* of their algorithms, APIs, protocols, community can examine Microsoft’s available to everybody without charge. and file formats, and provide this *implementations* for flaws and Therefore, section III.J1 and III.J2 must be information at no charge and without NDA weaknesses, and suggest remedies for those entirely stricken from the PFJ. As it is requirements to everybody, via a free Internet flaws and weaknesses. The most well necessary to require Microsoft to download. designed security protocols and encryption COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY document Security: algorithms can be made worthless by poor *ALL* algorithms, APIs, protocols, and file The security technique espoused in the PFJ implementation. The only way to check the formats—without restriction—and make the is ‘‘security through obscurity’’. The idea is implementation is to have access to the documentation and source code available to that if nobody knows how authentication or source code. everybody without charge, and without any encryption is accomplished, they will not be It is in the best interests of all those who NDA requirement, it is not reasonable to able to bypass the authentication routines or must use Microsoft products, and all those require ‘‘any of the Plaintiffs to keep secret break the encryption. There is a significant who use computers on networks that include any information or documents obtained from problem with this idea (and thus with the Microsoft products (which includes the Microsoft’’ as detailed in section IV.A.3 of PFJ): IT IS FALSE! It is widely known and entire Internet), that Messrs Schneier’s and the PFJ. This section should also be stricken accepted within the security community that Shostack’s recommendations are adopted by from the PPJ. ‘‘security through obscurity’’ is no security at Microsoft. Paradoxically, it is also in Patents all. Microsoft’s best interests to adopt *ALL* of Patents are a government granted SECURITY THROUGH OBSCURITY IS NO Messrs Schneier’s and Shostack’s monopoly. Microsoft has been judged to have SECURITY AT ALL. recommendations!! a monopoly, and further, to have illegally The following papers detail why ‘‘security If Microsoft is forced to COMPLETELY and abused that monopoly. For this reason, through obscurity’’ is no security at all: ACCURATELY document *ALL* algorithms, Microsoft should be forbidden from using its http://Slashdot.org/features/980720/ APIs, protocols, and file formats—without patents offensively. The government should 0819202.shtml restriction—and make the documentation not continue to grant a preferential monopoly http://www.VnuNet.com/Analysis/ and source code available to everybody to a convicted monopoly abuser. 1126488 without charge, and without any NDA This is especially true in the case of Open http://www.Wide0pen.com/print/101.html requirement, bugs will be found in Software and Free Software. Those who http://www.NightfallSecurity.com/ Microsoft’s code and fixes will be suggested, develop Free and Open Software and give it whitepapers/obscurityeu.html just as they are for other open source OSes away to the world for no charge are greatly http://www.Albion.com/security/intro- such as Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and enhancing the wealth of the entire world. 8.html 0penBSD. Microsoft’s products will improve These people CANNOT afford to participate http://www.eCommerceTimes.com/perl/ as a result of this process. Microsoft will in the patent system. In addition, those who printer/11060/ receive the benefit that all Open Source develop Free and Open Software are often http://Adjacency.org/essays/ software receives: bug fixes, increased philosophically opposed to the patent securitythroughobscurity.html security, and increased stability, all at no cost system, and would not participate even if http://www.Treachery.net/jdyson/ to Microsoft. they could. These people who are greatly toorcon2001/ Microsoft will be opposed to this increasing the world’s wealth, should not Many more examples exist; they can be requirement, arguing that their business will have the patent system used against them by found with a Google search. be destroyed by forcing their code open. This a convicted monopoly abuser. http://www.Google.com/search? is not true! COPYRIGHT LAW AND Microsoft has already threatened to use hl=en&q=%22security+ CONTRACT LAW PROVIDE ALL THE patents as an offensive weapon against through+obscurity%22&btnG=Google+ LEGAL PROTECTION THAT MICROSOFT Linux, the Free Software Foundation, the Search REQUIRES TO MAINTAIN THE VALUE IN GNU Project, and other Free and Open This is perhaps the most important THEIR SOURCE CODE. In the end, however, Software producers. Full details can be found comment I am making, so I will repeat this it does not matter if Microsoft benefits from in the 2nd Halloween document. important point: the PFJ. What does matter is that Microsoft’s http://www.OpenSource.org/halloween/ SECURITY THROUGH OBSCURITY IS NO monopoly abusing powers are restricted, and In order to protect the Free and Open SECURITY AT ALL. that the DoJ and the Court create the Software movement from future monopoly Bruce Schneier and Adam Shostack, two of possibility for competitors to Microsoft to abuse, Microsoft must be forbidden from the world’s foremost experts in the area of arise in the marketplace. using their patent portfolio offensively. This computer and network security, have given a Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing prohibition should *never* expire. A clause list of recommendations for Microsoft to their monopoly. One of the ways that to this effect must be added to the PFJ in follow in order to achieve more secure Microsoft has abused their monopoly is by order to achieve an effective remedy. products, after the recent announcement by using closed and proprietary algorithms, Enforcement Bill Gates that Microsoft will henceforth be APIs, protocols, and file formats, and by A *very* strong enforcement mechanism concentrating on security. changing them from time to time in order to needs to be put in place by the DoJ and by http://www.SecurityFocus.com/news/315 create incompatibilities with non-Microsoft the Court. We have arrived at this juncture IT WILL BE NOTED THAT NOWHERE IN products, and with older Microsoft products today because Microsoft failed to abide by THIS LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS IS that Microsoft wishes to make obsolete. previous consent decrees (1994) of the Court. THERE ANY NOTION THAT ANYTHING Microsoft’s *secret* algorithms, APIs, Microsoft has proven themselves to be SHOULD BE KEPT SECRET. Instead, the protocols, and file formats are part of the obstinate and belligerent. They cannot be recommendations from Messrs Schneier and problem that the DoJ and the Court must trusted to obey this PFJ without strong and Shostack encourage complete openness, full remedy. Such secrecy cannot be part of the effective oversight. If by some unfortunate and accurate documentation, and a waiting solution, even when it comes to ‘‘anti-piracy, circumstance, the DoJ and the Court decide period before Microsoft’s proposed protocols anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights not to require Microsoft to disclose all source and encryption methods are implemented. management, encryption or authentication code, then an especially vigorous This is in order that the security community systems, including without limitation, keys, enforcement mechanism must be put in place may examine Microsoft’s proposed protocols authorization tokens or enforcement to ensure COMPLETE and ACCURATE VerDate 11 documentation of *ALL* algorithms, APIs, January 25, 2002 Washington, DC 20530 protocols, and file formats. I would suggest Attorney General John Ashcroft Dear Mr. Ashcroft: that the PFJ should include a clause US Department of Justice After three long years of court rattles, stipulating that if anybody finds any errors or 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft and the Department of Justice have discrepancies in Microsoft’s documentation, Washington, DC 20530 reached settlement regarding the antitrust then at that point the Technical Enforcement Dear Mr. Ashcroft: suit. I believe that this settlement will be Committee shall have the authority to I was happy to hear that Microsoft had beneficial to both, the IT industry and the immediately force the disclosure of all reached a settlement late last year with the consumers alike It is necessary that those relevant source code, in order to force Department of Justice. I believe the who are involved in the suit put aside their compliance with the COMPLETE and settlement will be good for consumers and differences and work to put this issue behind ACCURATE documentation requirement. the entire computer industry. Microsoft has us. Dan Kegel’s Comments agreed to many concessions in order to wrap Even though the settlement goes farther I would like to add that I am a co-signer up this case and move forward. For example, than what Microsoft would have liked, I to Dan Kegel’s comments. Microsoft has agreed to document and believe that settling the case now is the right http://www.Kegel.com/remedy/letter.html disclose for use by its competitors various thing to do help the industry and the I fully agree with Mr. Kegel’s entire letter, interfaces that are internal to Windows’’ economy move forward. This settlement is including all links therein, and strongly urge operating system products. This type of fair and reasonable and was reached at after that each of the problems noted therein must provision is groundbreaking for an antitrust extensive negotiations with a court- be remedied in the PFJ before the PFJ is settlement. Also, Microsoft agreed to the appointed mediator present. adopted by the DoJ and by the Court. creation of Technical Committee that will be There has been enough money spent, and Thank you, charged with monitoring the company and the current settlement is perfectly acceptable. Kenneth J. Hendrickson assuring they meet all their obligations. I feel it is incumbent upon the government *All web references were current on 26–27 I believe the federal government, especially to put a swift end to dais ordeal so that all January 2002, during the writing of these in the current environment, could make involved parties can return to work. Thank comments. better use of their resources than continuing you. MTC–00029600 this litigation. I commend you for your efforts Sincerely, to resolve tiffs case and hope you will Jake Breedveld GLORIORS EVENTS finalize the settlement soon. 35595-F Curtis Blvd, * East??ake; Ohio January 26, 2002 Sincerely, 44095 * (440) 953–0147 * Fax: (440) 953– Attorney General John Ashcroft Andrew Emerson 0148 United States Department of Justice, cc :Representative David E. Bonior 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MTC–00029605 Washington, DC 20530 MTC–00029603 13537 Glencliff Way Dear Mr. Ashcroft: January 20, 2002 San Diego, CA 92130 I am writing in support of the Microsoft Attention: Renata Hesse January 26, 2002 antitrust settlement agreement. I would Judge Kollar Kottely Attorney General John Ashcroft appreciate your consideration of the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division US Department of Justice following comments about this issue. 601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW The settlement agreement will dramatically Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20530 change the way Microsoft conducts its Dear Judge Kollar Kottely: Dear Mr. Ashcroft: business. Microsoft will license Windows to I am writing regarding the Microsoft anti- I would like the Justice Department to the main computer manufacturers at the trust case and the lessons we should have settle its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. same price, and on the same terms. Microsoft learned from past experiences. I am aware that both sides reached an has also agreed not to retaliate against those As I recall, nearly three decades ago, the agreement in November that would end the who distribute or promote software that competes with Windows. These concessions government initiated another antitrust case, and I support it. I believe if Microsoft should subdue concerns about any lawsuit against a computer industry leader. appears to take the settlement seriously, and ‘‘predatory’’ business practices by Microsoft. Success was not defined by a legal victory the company is taking steps to move on and I find it interesting that the stock market in that case, but rather by the enormous to promote competition. Giving users a took a rum for the worse when this litigation business expenses incurred by the defendant. greater ability to integrate non-Microsoft ensued. In the interest of stimulating the These expenses clearly resulted in allowing programs into Windows will be beneficial to economy, doesn’t it make sense to put an end its competitors to catch up. After three years consumers and software developers to the lawsuit so that Microsoft can focus on of the Microsoft case, it seems we are now everywhere. Additionally, Microsoft will its research and development endeavors? at that point. This lawsuit has gone on long level the tech playing field by using a Thank you for your commitment to settle enough and any legal victory has lost its uniform price listing when licensing this case. relevance because the financial price has Windows out to the largest computer makers Sincerely, been paid. in the nation. Also, Microsoft will not Vetra Bilsland I urge you to move forward by approving retaliate against companies that use, sell, or the proposed settlement. This settlement is in promote non-Microsoft products. I believe it MTC–00029601 the best interest of the industry, the is the time to end the case. 294 E Frog Hollow Road economy, and the consumer. It only makes Please settle the Microsoft case and allow Science Hill, KY 42553 sense to put an end to it. them to concentrate on further innovating the January 27, 2002 Thank you for your efforts on this way man), of us conduct our personal and Attorney General John Ashcroft important case. professional business. US Department of Justice Sincerely, Sincerely, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Rachel Maher Walter Liao Washington, DC 20530 Rachel Maher MTC–00029606 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: 22939 Bauserman Road Thankfully, an end is in sight for this Easton, KS 66020 URGENT whole mess. The Settlement reached in To: John Ashcroft, Esq., MTC–00029604 November answers all the proble??s that were Voice Number: brought against Microsoft at the beginning of ARTISAN DESIGN, INC. Fax Number: 1–202–307–1454 the trial Computer Aided Design & Manufacturing Company: Attorney General USA January 25, 2002 From: MORRIS KAY MTC–00029602 Attorney General John Ashcroft Company: 44260 Riverview Ridge Drive US Department of Justice Fax Number: 305–792–4243 Clinton Township, MI 48038 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Voice Number: 305–792–4041 VerDate 11 Date: 1/27/2002 non-Microsoft companies like AOL Time interest. I am a Microsoft supporter and feel Number of Pages: 2 Warner, RealNetworks, and Symantec. A that this company should not be punished for Subject: Settlement of MICROSOFT pending technical committee will ensure the terms are being successful. action. followed. These terms will provide an Microsoft has agreed to all terms and Message: opportunity for the American computer conditions of this settlement. Under this Honorable Attorney General: industry to make better use of the very agreement, Microsoft must grant computer Attached herein please find a letter widely used Windows operating system, and makers broad new rights to configure expressing my sentiments on the matter will allow Microsoft to get the lawsuit, with Windows so as to promote non- Microsoft related above, its distraction and expense, over with. software programs that compete with Respectfully Yours, I appreciate your strong stand in favor of programs included within Windows. Morris Kay the Microsoft case settlement. Thank you. Microsoft has also agreed to document and 20185 E Country Club Drive, #1701 Sincerely, disclose for use by its competitors various Aventura, FL 33180 interfaces that are internal to Windows’’ Attorney General John Ashcroft MTC–00029608 operating system products. US Department of Justice 01/28/2002 MON 09:05 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW FAX 914 693 2247 MTC–00029610 Washington, DC 20530 THE REMBAR COMPANY INC 001/001 William Young 4142 Dundee Drive Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Michael Misch Murrysville, PA 15668–1010 I am writing today to express my support 39 Chestnut St January 21, 2002 for the recent settlement proposed to Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522 Attorney General John Ashcroft Microsoft by the DOJ. The truth is that I have January 27, 2002 US Department of Justice a terrible time seeing what continued Attorney General John Ashcroft 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW litigation would accomplish if the last three Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530–0001 years were so unproductive. I would really 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Dear Mr. Ashcroft: love to see this lawsuit wrapped up so that Washington, DC 20530–0001 As a supporter of Microsoft, I write you in taxpayers don’t have to waste any more Dear Mr. Ashcroft: reference to the recent settlement. The money. Additionally, wrapping up this case The antitrust case between the federal settlement is fair and reasonable and should will help boost the slowing economy and government and Microsoft has been going on be adopted immediately. After three years of give the IT industry much needed for much too long, and I would like to see negotiations, further delay would be revitalization. the settlement that the two sides reached ridiculous. What more is there to discuss? It I believe that the settlement is a fair one become final so that the matter can be put is time to get on with business and get our that encompasses all points of concern. behind us once and for all. The two sides technology industry back to normal. Microsoft’s adherence to terms of this agreed to a reasonable compromise that will Not only has Microsoft agreed to make contract ensures that future antitrust foster competition in the industry, and I see changes in licensing and marketing, but has violations will not occur. Competitors may no reason to pursue litigation beyond this agreed to design future versions of Windows also put their concerns to rest as a result of point. that will allow for easier installation of non- several of Microsoft’s agreement. Microsoft The technology industry has struggled as a Microsoft software. Also, in an anti-trust first, has agreed to create future versions of result of this lawsuit, and the nation’s Microsoft has agreed to disclose internal Windows that will allow for non-Microsoft economy has been negatively affected as information about the Windows operating products to function therein. Also, Microsoft well. Once this settlement becomes final, system. An outside committee will monitor has agreed to disclose Windows interfaces consumers will have more choices in the Microsoft’s compliance with the agreement. and Intellectual property. marketplace, and independent companies By stopping any further federal action on It is my hope flint Microsoft desire to will have a better chance to compete in the this case, we are allowing our technology comply will help to quell the concerns of the future. Microsoft has agreed to design future industry to get back to business. I urge you dissatisfied states. Please make the necessary versions of the Windows operating system so to help get this agreement moving. I thank decision to wrap this matter up as soon as that computer makers may remove Microsoft you for your help. possible. This will be in the best interest of software and replace it with that of its Sincerely, the IT industry, the economy and consumes. competitors. Microsoft has also agreed to cc: Senator Rick Santorum license its products to the 20 largest Representative Melissa A. Hart MTC–00029607 computer makers at uniform prices. These January 25, 2002 and the many other concessions that MTC–00029611 Attorney General John Ashcroft Microsoft has made in order to achieve this Mr. John Martin US Department of Justice settlement are certainly enough to stop this 3208 SW Sena Drive 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW litigation. Topeka, KS 66604 Washington, DC 20530 I realize that this settlement was reached January 23, 2002 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: after long and arduous hours of negotiations, Renata Hesse, Antitrust Division Public I support the settlement reached in the and [appreciate your decision not pursue this Comment Microsoft antitrust case. The settlement matter any further. I am hopeful that no more U.S. Department of Justice reflects the compromises and concessions of action will be taken against Microsoft in the 6I)1 D Street, NW, Suite 1200 the parties, especially Microsoft, over three future. Washington, DC 20530 months of negotiations with the assistance of Sincerely, Dear Renata Hesse, a court-appointed mediator. I feel that Thank you for accepting my comments approval of the settlement by the Federal MTC–00029609 regarding the rod-trust lawsuit against Court would be in the best public interest of 2401 Zion Hill Road Microsoft. It seems to me that the companies America. The settlement addresses the Weatherford, TX 76088 that pushed the suit against Microsoft their complaints brought against Microsoft simply January 26, 2002 competitors: AOL, Oracle, San Micro are for using all its legal rights. Microsoft’s Attorney General John Ashcroft about the only ones who don’t want to see legally protected innovations in its software US Department of Justice the case settled. I can understand that as rival code for its internal interface and server 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW high-tech companies, they will do ‘‘whatever interoperability protocols will be disclosed to Washington, DC 20530 it takes’’ to compete, but I think this case has the whole industry, while its other Dear Mr. Ashcroft: gone on long enough. copyrighted and patented intellectual I am writing you today to express my The DOJ is on the right track to try to settle property will be licensed on non- opinion in regards to the Microsoft their case against Microsoft. It is my hope discriminatory terms to any company that settlement issue. I support the settlement that that eventually all of the states involved in wants to use it. Computer makers will be was reached in November and believe this the case. will do the same. I hope that the given more flexible contracts to work with agreement will serve in the best public companies that Cave pushed this lawsuit VerDate 11 from the beginning see the writing on the small software development company. I television reception from cable to satellite. wall and start to worry about competing for comment mostly from the perspective of an Even with my PC, I can switch from Dell to customers in fire marketplace rather than the end user of PC software products. As a IBM, Compaq, HP or others, But, I cannot cou??troom. businessman, I have had substantial, switch from my use of the Microsoft I strongly urge you to sign off on the experience negotiating, implementing, and operating system or Microsoft applications settlement terms that have been a agreed to litigating busincss agreements. I have found without cost. so substantial as to be by both sides so that we can at least begin that the best agreements are those that (1) prohibitive. to clean up the mess this case has caused. align the economic interest of the two parties On the surface it may appear that there are Sincerely, (i.e. there is no economic benefit to either alternatives to Microsoft’s operating systems John Martin party to try to circumvent the agreement) and and applications. However, there are six (2) are simple. The proposed settlement barriers which effectively prevent me from MTC–00029612 agreement is neither. using a competitor’s product. First, because iNetXperts As one example, the language in the of Microsoft’s market dominance, there is far January 25,2002 agreement requires Microsoft to provide more support from other vendors for Attorney General John Ashcroft access to certain information only to viable Microsoft’s products. For example, an US Department of Justice, business entities. In paragraph III(J)(2)(c), the application program or peripheral such as a 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW proposed settlement states that Microsoft will printer may not be supported under either Washington, DC 20530–0001 not be required to provide API’s or the Apple or Linux operating systems. Other Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Documentation to an entity that fails to meet vendor’s import/export utilities, Please make haste to settle the lawsuit in ‘‘reasonable, objective standards established synchronization functions or the like may the case of USA vs. Microsoft. I believe that by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity only support dominant Microsoft if the terms of the settlement are enforced and viability of its business.’’ Arguably, this applications such as Word or Excel. strictly they are sufficient to prevent language could allow Microsoft to exclude Similarly, web sites may be designed to Microsoft from engaging in unfair business access to small businesses, start-ups, and function best with Microsoft Internet practices with OEMs and software Linux developers (or other non-profit type Explorer as compared to competing products. companies. software developers) if it was in Microsoft’s As a concrete example, consider my It is better for consumers, businesses and economic interest to do so. brother’s experience with the Apple Imac. the IT industry that this suit is ended. For a second example, the proposed My brother’s children learned to use the Imac Sincerely, settlement requires Microsoft not to growing up because of its superior user Mark Heaney automatically override OEM settings. interface as compared to Microsoft Windows, CTO Paragraph III(H)(3)(b) says Microsoft must not However, my brother is now finding that it iNetXperts Corporation, 113 N. seek permission from the end user for is too difficult to support the Imac on his Washington St. #490, Rockville, MD 20850 ‘‘[automatic] alteration of the OEM’s home network and DSL line. Vendors just do tel 202.262.9348 configuration until 14 days after the initial not provide the same support for Apple that fax 603.947.4732 www.inetxperts.com boot up of a new Personal Computer.’’ What they do for Windows. Additionally, it is too does the agreement mean by initial bootup? difficult to maintain both Windows systems MTC–00029613 Strictly speaking, ‘‘initial bootup’’ could be (for his use) and Apple systems. Therefore, DATE: January 27, 2002 interpreted to mean the first time the unit is he is forced to switch the children to using PHONE: turned on by the manufacture or the local Microsoft Windows. TO: Renata B. Hesse Department of Justice retailer (for testing & verification purposes) Second, if I wish to use a non-Microsoft FAX: 202–307–1454 and not the first time the end user turns on product in an area where Microsoft is FROM: D. Shah the machine. (As an aside, why does entrenched, I will be at a tremendous PHONE: 707–538–5900 Microsoft need to be able to automatically disadvantage when trying to share RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT override any settings? It should be sufficient information. I will be speaking French when FAX: 253–484–2789 to notify the user in the manual or on-line everybody else is speaking English. For Number of pages including cover sheet: 7 help that the user can change his settings by example, given that everybody uses Microsoft Message selecting the proper options in his Excel or Word, what real freedom do I have Pursuant to the Tunney Act, please find application program or Windows operating to select a different word processor or enclosed my comments on the Microsoft system.) If such a simple item is this spreadsheet (even if superior) when I will be settlement. complicated to interpret and enforce, what unable to share files with my clients or January 27, 2002 does it augur for the rest of the agreement? vendors. VIA FACSIMILE & EMAIL While it may not be the perfect solution, Third, I have invested substantial time in Renata B. Hesse separating Microsoft into two independent learning to use and debug my existing Antitrust Division companies meets the criteria stated above for Windows and Microsoft application U.S. Department of Justice a good business agreement. One, a breakup programs. I cannot afford to switch to a 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 is simple, once it is completed, it is done— competing operating system or application Washington, DC 20530–0001 there is no agreement to interpret. Two, a and start at ground zero on the learning Dear Sir/Madame. breakup eliminates any economic incentive curve. The amount of time it takes to learn The Microsoft settlement proposed by the for Microsoft to circumvent an agreement to use a new application is enormous. It far Justice Department should not be. approved because there is no agreement to circumvent outweighs the dollar cost of purchasing the by the court. It does not adequately prevent once the breakup is completed. product. To become as proficient in another Microsoft from abusing its monopoly powers, My strong feelings about this case arise word processor application as I am in It is also a poor solution in that it will be because I constantly find I have no real Microsoft Word after years of use would take complicated to enforce and Microsoft will choice in my selection of PC operating months at the very least. No one can afford have economic incentive to try to circumvent systems and applications. As much as that cost. As applications grow larger and the agreement. Microsoft’s legal counsel and economists more complex, this barrier grows larger and No doubt, there are precise legal standards may argue about the user having choices and larger in Microsoft’s favor. that the court must follow in reviewing the being better off, I find from my personal In an interview, Bill Gates himself points settlement and making its decision. As a experience, that I am not. out that Microsoft’s biggest competitor (when layman, I cannot hope to address the intricate If I am unhappy with my GM car, I can they release a new operating system) is legal issues as to what is explicitly mandated easily switch with my next purchase to a themselves. Users who have already invested by statute and precedence—I can only speak Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, etc. at zero time and money in purchasing and using an in broad terms. My background is that of an cost. If I dislike my Sony television, I can buy older version of Windows are loathe to engineer (M.S. in EECS) with 20 years of a Zenith, JVC, Philips, or Panasonic, etc. switch to a new version because of the cost experience using PC software at work and at without constraint. Nowadays, I have the in dollars and time to install, debug, and home and that of a founder and officer of a freedom to switch phone service or my learn the new version. Imagine then the VerDate 11 barrier posed to a completely new operating Windows. Given the runaway popularity of of a PC) has come down over the years and system or application. JAVA, only a monopoly such as Microsoft this is characteristically untrue of monopoly Fourth, there is risk that if I am using a could risk making that decision. In a pricing. Even if the price of software is in fact non-Microsoft product, the vendor will competitive environment, no operating lower today than 10 years ago, it is a eventually be forced out of business by system vendor would decide to exclude meaningless statistic. The relevant question Microsoft and I will ultimately have to JAVA and pursue its own initiative. is what would the price of software be today switch to the Microsoft product anyway. This Microsoft can afford to do that because it if Microsoft did not enjoy a monopoly was the case with my Lotus and WordPerfect wields such absolute control over the position. As compared to the innovation products. In both case, I was finally forced operating system market. A consumer has no fostered in the microprocessor arena due to to switch to Microsoft products when the alternate choice of operating systems so he is competition, software performance has vendors went out of business. Now, if I need forced to accept Microsoft’s decision to advanced relatively slowly, [here certainly to choose between a Microsoft and competing exclude JAVA from the operating system. has not been a 100-fold increase in the product, the safe decision is to select As a final example, consider the operating performance of Microsoft’s software over the Microsoft because it is likely the competitor system called ‘‘OS/2’’ developed and last 10 years. will be eventually driven out of business. marketed by IBM. There can be no question In considering the proposed settlement, the Fifth, there is a cost to switch to a new that it was a superior operating system and court must balance protecting Microsoft’s application because of prior work (data files) years ahead of Microsoft Windows. It failed rights and our system of free enterprise that has been generated by the old however because of the barrier posed by against the damage to society from continued application. If I have a substantial amount of Microsoft’s installed base of users. The fact abuse by Microsoft’s monopoly position. I prior work saved in data flies produced by that even IBM failed to make any headway think the court must err on the side of the my Microsoft applications, switching to a in the market is further evidence of consumer. On a big-picture scale, there is no competing application means I lose Microsoft’s power as a monopoly. great damage to Microsoft, its shareholders or compatibility with all of my old work. At the Microsoft may argue that the reason for its the concept of free enterprise by breaking very least, I will have to spend time success in all of the above examples is that Microsoft into separate operating companies. converting the data files with the it had the better product or strategy. This is On the other hand, there is potential for great accompanying risk of losing information or patently false. Microsoft was not the first one damage to innovation and free enterprise if formatting. to introduce a windowing operating system, Microsoft is free to remain a monopoly and Sixth, It is risky to use a non-Microsoft an internet browser, the concept of a to use its power to stifle new products and product because Microsoft has the upper spreadsheet, a word processor, etc. Microsoft block the success of other companies. hand. in keeping its applications in step with has only been successful in first copying and In conclusion, the question simply comes operating system upgrades and taking then outlasting the competition. Microsoft down to whether the typical end user is advantage of new operating system features. argues that there is no need to regulate better off because of Microsoft’s monopoly. Microsoft is in a position to improve its Microsoft as a monopoly because technology As a typical end user, I am firmly convinced products faster because it is also in charge of and the product landscape change so fast that that I am not and hope that the courts will the underlying operating system. By the same not even Microsoft can exercise monopoly take strict action. token, Microsoft applications are least likely powers. I think it is just this argument taken Sincerely, to break with operating system upgrades. No in context of Microsoft’s success time after D. Shah competitor has that same advantage. (If time over the last decade that is the smoking Microsoft argues there is no advantage, then gun. No company other than Microsoft has MTC–00029614 it should have no complaint against being been so successful. It is so unlikely that in A??ey General John Ashcroft separated into two independent companies). an area where the pace of change is this fast, United States Department of Justice In summary, I do not have the freedom to that any one company could be so successful 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW choose to use Microsoft products because in every endeavor it undertakes, that it must Washington, DC 50530 they are superior but am forced to use them be taken for granted that the company enjoys Dear Mr. Ashcroft: because the investment in time and potential substantial monopoly power. I am retired from a career in engineering. risk to use competing products is too high. Contrast Microsoft’s situation to that of J have used a vatlet3, of computer systems, There are many examples where Microsoft microprocessors and Intel. Intel is a and I have found computing with Microsoft’s did not have a superior product (or, initially, dominant market leader but faces fierce Windows software to be easier, more even a product), but ultimately succeeded competition from AMD, Motorola, and others affordable and in many way more productive due to its monopoly position. For a non- in the microprocessor market. As a result, we than other systems. Windows has brought exhaustive list, consider the products: Word have seen a 100-fold or more increase in welcome uniformity to the way people work (vs. WordPerfect), Excel (w. Lotus), Internet price vs. performance (comparing a 33MHz with computers. Explorer (vs. Netscape), Microsoft Project (vs. 80386 processor to a 2GHz Pentium II) over It is certainly time to accept the settlement Symantec’s Timeline project management perhaps the last 10 years. Imagine a situation in the Microsoft antitrust case. The lawsuit software) and even Windows (vs. the where Intel enjoyed the same monopoly was, in some ways, a big joke by Microsoft’s Macintosh). In each of these cases, Microsoft position that Microsoft does today. That is to less successful competitors intended to give did not have the first product or even the say, there was effectively no competition Microsoft a raw deal in court. I am glad that better product. Yet, over time in each case from AMD, Motorola, or others. Without you took the lead in directing your Microsoft has either put the other product doubt, we would not have seen the same department to earnestly work with the out of business or become the clear-cut increase in performance vs. price. Intel mediator appointed by the new judge. The market leader. would not have been forced It innovate and settlement will le?? the American computer In these cases, Microsoft did not succeed cut prices at the rate it is forced it do so today industry get back to concentrating on making because it was the innovator; but because it in order to maintain its market leadership. better, innovative products and maintaining had a monopoly in the operating system This is clearly evident from the reported America’s leadership in the world of market. It could use its ownership of the news where each time AMD releases a technology. operating system and its monopoly profits to microprocessor, Intel responds by cutting The anti-Microsoft forces have agreed not enter new markets and eventually push out prices. Of course, there would still have been to pursue the outrageous and ridiculous the competition. No other company, even improvements in microprocessor demand made by a few of them to ‘‘divide dominant ones such as Lotus, WordPerfect, performance if Intel was a monopoly, but and conquer’’ Microsoft. In return, Microsoft and Novell with all their financial resources, nowhere near the current pace. Intel would has agreed to give up much of its legal rights has been able to compete successfully against have made slow improvements at its own to its intellectual properly, and business Microsoft because of the monopoly Microsoft unhurried pace under little pressure from practice. Until now, no company in antitrust enjoys. others. litigation has ever had to give its industry the Another example of the monopoly power Microsoft has at times argued that it is not copyrighted software codes to the internal Microsoft enjoys, is its recent decision not to a monopoly because the price of its operating interfaces to its operating system programs. include JAVA in its latest version of system software (as a percentage of the price Nonetheless, Microsoft has agreed to license VerDate 11 those codes to any party on reasonable and U.S. Department of Justice innovation. The American public is ready for non-discriminatory terms. Microsoft will 601 D Street, IV. W., Suite 1200 closure. I urge you to review the settlement release companies that make computers from Washington, DC 20530 before you, and to concur it’s a suitable exclusive marketing agreements, allowing Dear Ms. Hesse: conclusion for all. them to mix and match Windows with other I understand that you are currently Sincerely, operating systems. Also, even the largest reviewing public comments on the Microsoft Corrie Kangas equipment builders will be offered a uniform settlement and I am pleased to have this MTC–00029618 price and term list, instead of individual chance to participate. negotiations. The Windows desktop program John Ashcroft’s team was smart to 9o after January 28, 2002 included with installation will be made easy a reasonable settlement of this case that has Attorney General John Ashcroft to remove and replace with those made by been hanging around since 1998. My only U.S. Department of Justice others, such as AOL Time Warner, which disappointment is that Kansas was not one of 950 Pennsylvania Avenue owns its own browser and internet messaging the many states that joined this settlement, I Washington, DC 20530 software, With government-sponsored do not understand why our Attorney General Dear Mr. Ashcroft, engineers who are experts in software Carla Stovall has banded together with If you build a better mousetrap the world monitoring the agreement and investigating Microsoft’s competitors to pursue breaking will beat a path to your door. They did, it and, complaints, the public can be assured of up this strong and vibrant company. Ignoring has. compliance. the real benefits of this settlement ignores the I write to you today to express my opinion Thank you for your support of the needs of the technology industry and the that the Microsoft antitrust case lacks merit, settlement. It should be approved, because it national economy. in that, it does not represent the good or the is in the best interest of the American public. I am appalled that private corporations like will of the public, it represents only special Sincerely, Oracle and AOL-Time Warner are so interest groups who, as they are finally Allan J. Hessel committed to continued litigation. finding some acceptance realize that their Hessel Properties Inc. Apparently the decision-makers in this own intellectual properties might be company refuse to see the negative effects challenged by the government. Microsoft MTC–00029615 their actions and this suit have had on the created a better product than their Jo Phylis Esman economy as a whole. They, along with the competitors. It should not be prosecuted for 3864 NE 167th Street AGs still on the case, also seem to believe its success. North Miami Beach, FL 33160 that break-up is the only acceptable solution. Microsoft is not the only operating system. January 25 2002 I believe this shows their true colors. It has many competitors who are rapidly Attorney General John Ashcroft For those who believe Microsoft was guilty closing ground(unix 1innux ect.) Hampered US Department of Justice of some wrong doing this agreement provides by greedy litigation, government regulation, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW many solutions. For example, it provides and time it may not survive. This company Washington, DC 20530 guaranteed flexibility for computer is no Standard Oil or Enron There is only Dear Mr. Ashcroft: manufacturers, Microsoft must is not allowed slight evidence of what is known in the I support your efforts to see that the to punish manufacturers who do not promote parlance of southern lawyers and horse Federal Court approves the settlement of the Windows and Microsoft is required to share traders as ‘‘sharp practice’’. If you buy a Rolls Microsoft antitrust case. I believe that certain sensitive information that will Royce with accessories included, you should approval of the settlement would be in the definitely put their competitors at an not sue the provider because the radio is best interest of the United States. I do not advantage. And to top it all of, a Technology difficult to remove and the Honda radio you think Microsoft ever had or abused a Committee that will make sure Microsoft is want to install may not fit. monopoly. I think Microsoft simply build the living up to all aspects of the settlement will The case against Microsoft should be best, easiest to use, value-priced software. guard the integrity of the agreement. immediately dismissed. The right to create, There have always been software choices to Please accept this settlement. incorporate, innovate and merchandise are be made in buying computers. Microsoft just Sincerely recognized as free enterprise in this country. won out. However, the settlement is good in Sincerely, MTC–00029617 that it gets the lawsuit behind Microsoft and Will Taylor opens up the Windows software to the Corrie A. Kangas 2855 Jordan Woods Dr. industry. I 17.55 W. ?? 12th Street Lawrenceville, Georgia 30044 Just as Microsoft gives up much in the Overland Park, KS 66210 MTC–00029619 settlement, the computer industry gains 913–406–3649 much in being better able to integrate its January 21, 2002 Renata Hesse products with Microsoft’s Windows Renata Hesse Trial Attorney operating system, or avoiding Microsoft Antitrust; Department of Justice Antitrust Division products. Microsoft will disclose its software 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Department of Justice code for internal Windows interfaces and Washington, DC 20530 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 license its other software to any company Dear Ms. Hesse, Washington, DC 20530 that wants to use it. Computer makers will I encourage you to view settlement of the Dear Ms. Hesse, no longer be required to adhere to exclusive Microsoft antitrust suit as a positive solution Late last year the Justice Department and marketing agreements with Microsoft, and designed to benefit all parties involved. The Microsoft reached a long sought after will be able to modify Windows to remove proposed settlement addresses every point of compromise in the anti-trust case. I Microsoft’s program, such as Internet the charges upheld by the court. understand that in order to comply with the Explorer. So, I do not see what Microsoft’s It is certainly a step toward rejuvenating Tunney Act members of the public at= competitors could really still want in a our lagging economy and restoring faith and provided with the opportunity to provide reasonable way. Some competitors, having investment in the ever changing, ever comment on the settlement. been ignored by customers, seem to think lucrative tech sector. There is no doubt that this case against they can become bigger fish in a smaller This competitor driven lawsuit, thinly Microsoft has been art interesting one to pond by seeking to dismember and destroy veiled as consumer advocacy, has actually observe. The issues of this case are fairly Microsoft. That would not be good for done more to harm the consumer than simple to grasp, the government is basically America and its leading place in the protect it. To date, more than 30 million contending that Microsoft has violated anti- worldwide computer industry. dollars of taxpayer money has been spent on trust laws through its business practices and this lawsuit that has affected the consumer has in fact committed consumer harm. MTC–00029616 through little more than financial One interesting aspect of this case is that Renata Hesse implications. The lawsuit has dragged the throughout the last four years that we have Trial Attorney economy down, giving a bearish outlook watched this case unfold and have heard Antitrust Division toward tech investments, thwarting new reports of the impending break-up of VerDate 11 Microsoft we have yet to be shown one sliver exercising my rights and fighting to uphold U.S. Department of Justice or’’ evidence that demonstrates consumer the liberties I maintain as a citizen of this 601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200 harm. great nation. This letter is a small way for me Washington, DC 20530 Another aspect of this case is not so much to use these values to state the reasons I Dear Judge Kotelly: interesting as it is painful. In I998 when this believe settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust For over a year now our country has been case first began, our country was in the midst case is overdue and serves the interests of facing serious economic problems. The stock of a healthy economy. The New Economy Microsoft, their competitors and the market is weak, the economy is waning, and was really beginning to look real. However, consumers of these products. Americans are losing jobs. There is not one as this case began to pick up steam and Though many are wary of government definitive reason why we are facing these break-up rumors were rampant the tech interference in business, the damage this economic hard times and our recovery is economy began to drift downward. lawsuit has caused from an economic and dependent upon several factors. Americans have experienced the impact of developmental standpoint justifies settling It is important that we make smart this lawsuit first hand in their investment under the terms of the current proposal. In decisions about everything that may accounts and lost jobs. an attempt to move on with business, influence our economy. One bright spot on The DOI and Microsoft have deemed this however restricted, Microsoft has offered to the economic horizon is the proposed settlement satisfactory. It outlines remedies be subject to review by an onsite technical settlement between the United States and for Microsoft that appear to he equitable committee, having access to all areas at all Microsoft. This proposal is a fair settlement given what has held up in lower courts. The times—at Microsoft’s expense. This provision for all involved and will provide benefit to compromise now on the table will bring an leaves Microsoft with time and loyalty as the our economy. end to a suit that has already cause only advantage over their competition. While some may argue this settlement is significant damage. I urge you to accept it. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that not a good one, a fair review of its provisions Sincerely, we preserve the freedom to innovate and demonstrates that it strikes a good Sharon Miller promote free commerce. Approval of the compromise. Among other things, Microsoft settlement will allow our industry to move will be required to share its intellectual MTC–00029620 forward, freeing the courts and our nation to property and an independent committee will Joyce O. Thedy focus on some of the more demanding issues be established to ensure that Microsoft is 933 Beverly Garden Dr. of today. following the rules of the agreement. Metairie, La. USA 10002–5001 Thank you, For over twenty years Microsoft has been [email protected] Bonnie Berggren a leader of our national economy and its January 27,2002 growth. When the government threatened to Attorney General John Ashcroft MTC–00029623 assert new and excessive regulations on this US Department of Justice 1622 Plum Street strong corporation its impact was felt 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW San Diego, CA 92106 throughout the economy. By allowing this Washington, DC 20530 January 26, 2002 settlement to take place the case will come Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Attorney General John Ashcroft to a fair conclusion and the best interests of The settlement agreement reached between US Department of Justice our country will be served. the Justice Department and Microsoft was 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Thank you for your time. welcome news, and I hope that it is Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely, implemented after the close of the public Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Ames, Iowa comment period. I am writing to you on behalf of Microsoft MTC–00029625 The agreement will provide additional regarding the antitrust suit of the Department opportunities for software companies to of Justice against Microsoft. I personally feel William Bellamy compete with Microsoft products. Microsoft that this litigation is absolutely a waste of 3919 Highwiew, Road has agreed to allow competition from non- time and energy. 1 feel very strongly on this Chailotte, ?? 28210 Microsoft programs within its Windows issue and believe that companies that cannot January 26, 2002 operating systems, and it has agreed to allow compete in the open free market should not Attorney General John Ashcroft its distributors and licensees to deal in run to the Federal Government for help. US Department of Justice products other than those produced by As a physicist I have used computers at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Microsoft. home and work. Microsoft has not been my Washington, DC 20530 Whether or not these additional favorite supplier of software (too unstable Washington, DC 20530 opportunities for competition will result in and crash prone). Only casually have I Dear Mr. Ashcroft: an increase in products and consumer choice followed the details of the government’s case The purpose of this letter is to voice my remains to be seen. However, the purpose of against Microsoft. However, as a consumer [ support of the settlement. Microsoft has been this case and the settlement are to open don’t feel that Microsoft has done me any at the forefront of the technology industries avenues of competition, not to guarantee the harm. In fact quite the opposite—their for years. It is through their dedication to success of the competitors. bundling of suites of programs with their innovation that Microsoft has been able to Thank you for the opportunity to voice my browser has saved me money, and has forge their way in this industry. Microsoft opinion. furnished the industry with a single has done more for this country than any Sincerely. standard. other company in technology industry. I Joyce Thedy My suggestion is to move on to more believe that raising legal battle in this case is 933 Beverly Garden Drive pressing matters. altogether unwarranted. Despite these Metairie, LA 70002 Thank you for your consideration. sentiments, I am pleased that there has Yours truly. finally been resolution in this issue. MTC–00029622 Myer Geller The terms of the settlement show BONNIE BERGGREN Tel: 619,223.8425 Microsoft’s further dedication to resolve this January 19, 2002 Fax:619.523,8885 issue. One of the most important aspects of Renata Hesse E-Mail: [email protected] this resolution is that Microsoft will now Trial Attorney license Windows at the same rate to the Antitrust Division MTC–00029624 twenty biggest computer makers. PC makers Department of Justice Steve Loney will not have to gain favor with Microsoft in 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 3032 Aspen Road order to receive the same rate on the Washington, DC 20530 Ames Iowa 50014 Windows system. This should give PC Dear Ms. Hesse, January 3, 2002 makers a little more freedom in the As a political activist in Kansas, I do my Judge Kollar Kotelly negotiations process. best to follow current events and to take c/o Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney To summarize, I believe that the terms of seriously my responsibilities as a citizen by Antitrust Division this agreement are fair and should be enacted VerDate 11 with haste. Thank you for your time The success of this company is felt by all American. I think this holds true in the regarding this issue. of us. Microsoft has provided good products government’s case against Microsoft. Sincerely, that make all of our lives easier. These There is no doubt that this pursuit of William Bellamy products are easy to use and relatively Microsoft has negatively affected our inexpensive. The company has worked hard economic health. At a time when many states MTC–00029626 to get where it is today and I am sure works are facing major budget problems, they have January 26, 2002 just as hard to stay there. This is not a crime. also been spending taxpayers’’ money to Sury S Tumuluri What is disturbing is that the pursuit of finance this case. In fact, here in Kansas, our 2475 Brookshire Drive # 80–9 Microsoft has also been felt by all of us. We budget problems are so bad that some Schenectady, NY, 12309 are living in a very strained economy. Prior members of the Legislature are supporting an (H) 518–381–1885 to the onset of this suit, the computer and increase in taxes. At the same time, our (W) 518–385–0581 information industry was truly booming. Attorney General sees fit to continue wasting e- mail: [email protected] Since the suit began, however, this sector of tax money on this case that the public clearly To, our economy stalled dramatically. The effects wants to see brought to an end. Attorney General John Ashcroft of this slow down have been felt throughout When we look back at the fall of the US Department of Justice the markets and have negatively added to our technology industry and the markets overall, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW strained economy. we should not be surprised. Our government Washington, DC 20530 I can only assume that the agreement is a was determined to use the courts to break up Dear Mr. Ashcroft, fair one since both the Justice Department one of the world’s largest companies. Of Please permit me to express my opinion of and Microsoft have agreed to its provisions. course the markets are going to feel the the settlement that was finally reached in the It is my hope that the court will approve this effects of this. Of course investors are going antitrust case against Microsoft. It is my settlement. to wait on the sidelines. Of course struggling opinion that this settlement is fair and Sincerely, technology companies will declare should be accepted by the all parties bankruptcy. And of course the American involved in this case. MTC–00029628 worker and consumer will feel the pinch. The settlement disciplines and restrains Sornson Masonry Construction, Inc. The settlement currently under Microsoft adequately such that it will not 7520 Valley St consideration addresses this matter fully and have a monopoly on the Technology and yet Dalton Gardens, ID 83815 fairly. It represents a true compromise. leaves it free to continue with its excellent January 27, 2002 Allowing the proposed settlement to go and monumental work. I am among those Attorney General John Ashcroft through is the right thing to do legally. It is who felt pleased that Microsoft agreed to US Department of Justice also the right thing to do in order to help design all future versions of Windows to be 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW revitalize our economy and restore faith in compatible with the products of its Washington, DC 20530 the capitalist system we all appreciate. competitors and desist from retaliatory Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Thank you. tactics. There has recently been a settlement to the Rep. Mary Pilcher Cook We should also note that the settlement antitrust lawsuit between Microsoft and the would also be ensured by a technical MTC–00029630 oversight committee that will monitor Department of Justice. While we do not agree GENE RASQUEZ Microsoft’s business practices in future to be with the relentless pursuit of the Microsoft 4708 SW TERRACE sure that they comply with the settlement. Corporation, we are happy to see that a AUGUSTA, KS 67010 I am writing this letter to request you to settlement has been reached. The United January 22, 2002 support this settlement and ensure that the States government needs to move on and Ms. Renata Hesse future of American business in general and worry about more important issues. Trial Attorney, Anti-trust Division IT Industry in particular is not stifled and Microsoft will now be working much U.S. Department of Justice side tracked. closer and communicating much more with 601 ‘‘D’’ Street NW, Suite 1200 Thank You, their competitors. They will be giving their Sincerely, competitors code and other information that Washington, DC 20530 (Sury S Tumuluri) makes-up the Windows operating system. It Ms. Hesse: is also our understanding that they will be I always appreciate an opportunity to MTC–00029627 allowing their competitors to remove participate in government matters that affect Ms. Renata Hesse Microsoft-made software from Windows, and me directly as an American citizen and I U.S. Department of Justice—Antitrust replace it with non-Microsoft software. thank you for conducting this comment Division Enough is enough. period regarding the Microsoft anti-trust 601 ‘‘D’’ Street—Suite 1200 Microsoft agreed to terms that extend well lawsuit. Washington, DC 20530 beyond what was issue in the initial suit, just I simply wish to voice my full support for Dear Ms. Hesse: for the sake of ending this senselessness. We the settlement proposed by the President’s Thank you for this forum to share my support this settlement and would like to see team. This settlement provides a genuine thoughts regarding the continuing case it implemented as soon as possible. solution to a costly lawsuit—the merits of against the Microsoft Corporation. Sincerely, which are hotly debated across the nation. The Microsoft Corporation is one of David W. Sornson There are so many other more critical issues country’s leading producers and is certainly Cheryl A. Sornson facing our government and your court, a worldwide leader in the growing especially in light of the September 11 ’’ MTC–00029629 technology market. I believe this company is attacks, that I cannot see the wisdom in an excellent model for study of the free January 23, 2002 continuing to pursue one of our best and enterprise system. We must always remember Renata Hesse, Esq. brightest organizations. Microsoft’s that Microsoft was not always the giant it is Trial Attorney agreement to operate under the stringent today, instead this company was created Department of Justice, Antitrust Division restrictions imposed by the proposed from virtually nothing. It was the innovations 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 settlement is an indication to me of the and business savvy of its founders that have Washington, DC 20530 company’s good faith and the tech market brought it to the pinnacle of success. Dear Ms. Hesse, could certainly use the boost of confidence It is the nature of the business world that Thank you for the opportunity to express this settlement would provide. when a company finds success it becomes my opinion regarding the anti-trust lawsuit I trust that the court will see the benefits the target of its adversaries in the business against Microsoft. of settling this matter in the manner world. This is part of our system. What I do I was elected to the Kansas State House in proposed and move to accept the Bush not believe is part of our system is when the 2000 and my experiences since that time has settlement agreement. government sets its sites on company simply taught me that the actions of government can Sincerely, because it is successful. often have negative effects on the average Gene Basquez VerDate 11 MTC–00029631 intense negotiations and mediation, they Microsoft has placed a number of concrete Rev David J. Goodrich agreed to terms well beyond what is expected proposals on the table to resolve the case. P.O. Box 1600 in any antitrust case. I understand that They have agreed to changes in almost every Norwich, VT 05055 Microsoft agreed to disclose various internal aspect of their business operations, from Attorney General John Ashcroft interfaces in their operating system to pricing, to distribution, to system design. US Department of Justice, competitors. I cannot think of any other These changes, if implemented, should 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW software company that would risk their provide additional competitive opportunities Washington, DC 20530–0001 proprietary source code bring exposed to the for Microsoft’s competitors and more choice Dear Mr. Ashcroft: competition for their use. Apparently, the for computer users. To provide some personal feedback during sacrifice Microsoft is willing to make is not Please go forward with the settlement and this 60-day public comment period, in my enough. Everyone (the states and the let Microsoft get back to business. opinion it’s about time that the government competition) wants more. Sincerely, reached a settlement in its case against Enough is enough. Microsoft should not be Dawn M. Zachgo Microsoft. I feel the legal action should never penalized because of other companies MTC–00029636 have begun in the first place, and the Justice inability to compete on level ground— Department should stop wasting tax money Whatever happened to free enterprise? Jason t. Rigsbee on this issue. Litigation is bad for the economy. Let us go 9237 Estate Cove Circle America was built by people who worked with the settlement and not pursue any Riverview, Florida 33569–3102 U.S.A. hard to be successful and make money at further litigation. In addition, let’s focus on Home: (813) 740–2979 / Mobile: (813) 787– their businesses, and the government should rebuilding our economy. 5961 not try and stop them. Microsoft built Thank you. Facsimile: (630) 214–4890 themselves from the ground up by making a E-mail: [email protected] better product at a fair price, which has left MTC–00029633 World-Wide-Web: http:llwww.rigsbee.net their competitors desperate enough to push 1512 N. Elsea Smith Road To: U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust for this legal action. By agreeing to several Independence, M064056 Division) terms to encourage a more dynamic January 27, 2002 RE: Microsoft Settlement/Future Litigation marketplace, Microsoft has surpassed even Attorney General John Ashcroft I have no problem [along with the majority the government’s complaints about their US Department of Justice, of all Americans] with what Microsoft has business practices. With an objective group 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW done to better the computer technology of of experts to monitor implementation of the Washington, DC 20530–0001 today. Without the innovations and mindset plan, there should no longer be a need to Dear Mr. Ashcroft: of the president and founder, William Gates, bring this dispute into the legal system. I was pleased to learn that the Justice the many luxuries we all enjoy as one world Our federal and state governments have Department has reached a proposed would cease. Microsoft is not an evil empire better things to spend their money on than settlement agreement in the Microsoft whose goal is to exploit the people of this pursuing this case any further. Please let litigation. country. However, its goal is to enhance and Microsoft get back to developing great You now have the opportunity to clean up bring computer technology to a newer level products without distraction and the the mess created by your predecessor. that will better aid people throughout their government to get back to dealing with the Microsoft was the target of this litigation daily activities. Microsoft must be allowed to real needs of protecting national security. because of its size and because of its great bring the Internet into its operating system, Thank you for your support. degree of success. Your implementation of make set-top boxes for televisions, or create Please know that I have been a Microsoft this settlement will bring an end to the the most dominant product since Windows; user for about 14 years and they have political witch-hunt. otherwise you [the government] have taken provided a very user friendly product at a Microsoft has placed a number of concrete away one of the priceless commodities that reasonable price. Microsoft Word exceeds the proposals on the table to resolve the case. this great nation was founded upon. competition in quality and price. Please stop They have agreed to changes in almost every If you are so bent on stopping a company’s this action which will only hurt the free will to innovate, you should turn your consumer. The cost of this case far exceeds aspect of their business operations, from eyes on America Online. America Online the cost of many good projects and is only pricing, to distribution, to system design. (AOL) planned its big takeover of Netscape a punishment for the business community These changes, if implemented, should and its semi-agreement with Sun who are the real providers of jobs in America. provide additional competitive opportunities Microsystems (by the way...both companies Sincerely, for Microsoft’s competitors and more choice Rev David J. Goodrich for computer users. approached the government to pursue a case 1–802–649–1866 Please go forward with the settlement and against Microsoft) at the same time as the Fax 1–802–649–5601 let Microsoft get back to business. Microsoft lawsuits. Isn’t this a bit odd? If we Sincerely, are so worried about Microsoft’s *LARGE* MTC–00029632 Mark Zachgo empire, shouldn’t we be stepping on AOL’s toes also? If you haven’t been keeping up 5945 154th Place MTC–00029634 Flushing, NY 11355–5508 with current affairs...AOL has one goal, and Attorney General John Ashcroft 1512 N. Elsea Smith Road that is to be number one and to destroy US Department of Justice, Independence, MO 64056 Microsoft. There is *NO* monopoly here. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW January 27, 2002 Sun Microsystems, America Online, and Washington, DC 20530–0001 Attorney General John Ashcroft Oracle are using you [the government] to get Dear Mr. Ashcroft: US Department of Justice, back at Microsoft. They are using you [the As a computer professional in the technical 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW government] to build their business and in industry that has been following this Washington, DC 20530–0001 using you hoping to get one step ahead. If Microsoft antitrust case, I think it is grossly Dear Mr. Ashcroft: you destroy Microsoft’s ability to enhance its unfair that this case was brought about in the I was pleased to learn that the Justice products m any way its competition will see first place. Department has reached a proposed the victory...not the American people you are Microsoft has been great for the economy, settlement agreement in the Microsoft trying to protect. the technical sector, and the NASDAQ. It is litigation. A company [Microsoft] *MUST* be given coincidental that all of these sectors are way You now have the opportunity to clean up the right to enhance its products in any way down now that Microsoft is in the middle of the mess created by your predecessor. possible to benefit its customers. The litigation. If we leave the settlement as it Microsoft was the target of this litigation Microsoft cases have gone on too long. I hope stands and not pursue further litigation, it because of its size and because of its great that you will favor the Justice Department’s would be of great benefit to us in the end. degree of success. Your implementation of recommendation for compromise and Microsoft did not get off as easy as its this settlement will bring an end to the disallow all current litigation against competitor’s would have you think. After political witch-hunt. Microsoft. VerDate 11 Sincerely, Sincerely, Oviedo, FL 32765–8159 Jason L. Rigsbee James Wilkins January 26, 2002 Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call Attorney General John Ashcroft MTC–00029639 upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. US Department of Justice January 27, 2002 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MTC–00029637 Attorney General John Ashcroft Washington, DC 20530–0001 ALAN & NANCY STRAND US Department of Justice Dear Mr. Ashcroft: 20100 156TH AVE. N.E 950 Pennsylvania A?? NW Take a moment to reflect on what the WOODINVILLE, WA 98072. Washington, DC 20530–0001 breakup of ATT did to the phone industry. January 24, 2002 Dear Mr. Ashcroft: It created very poor phone service and Attorney General John Ashcroft The Department of Justice and Microsoft drastically reduced innovation. If ATT were US Department of Justice have ?? three-year-??, I want to ?? my support still together people would be looking and 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to ?? measure and ask that you do so also talking to each other over the connection Washington, DC 20530 This has become more of a personal battle instead of only talking to each other. Dear Mr. Ashcroft: between Microsoft and its rivals such as ?? This hindered innovation is a direct result I am writing today to encourage the Microsystems, and AOL. It should be noted of the breakup of ATT because it caused Department of Justice to accept the Microsoft that ?? stock has gone down, while them to divert their attention from long antitrust settlement. This issue has been drug Microsoft’s sto??k, despite all the legal overdue innovation. out for over three years now and it is time problems, has stinted to rise, again. I believe The same is true in Microsoft’s case. to put it to rest. Microsoft needs the chance Microsoft was one of the ?? of the ?? the Though I am glad that there has been no to move on and put this government over technological world to be embraced by all— decision to break up Microsoft, the mere regulation behind them. providing lens of thousands of high??. It is thought that this was considered is appalling. When I buy a Ford it does not come with on ?? part of ?? nature that there are those The way I see it, if I ran a company that was Chew parts. Chew pans do not fit in Fords who do not like the fact that some people are unable to keep up with my competition then and nobody has a problem with that. Now more successful than they, and they try to the fault is mine and not my stronger Microsoft creates a product and is being sued bring such individuals down. competitor. I should therefore seek to because everyone else’s products do not work But ?? has now been ??, and we should let strengthen my stance in the industry rather perfectly with their products. Microsoft has it stand. Mi?? many changes in their than seek corporate welfare from the agreed to provide their competitors with part operations. Microsoft has agreed to help government. Indeed, seeking the of the Windows base code, in order for their companies ?? greater degree of reliability government’s help to break up a company for competitors to create products that are more with regard to their networking software; M?? your advantage only is a pitiful thing and I compatible with Microsoft’s. This has never agreed to allow computer makers to ship think the government should put a stop to it been done m any other industry and I do not non-Microsoft product to customers; immediately! see why it is being demanded from Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to design future Look at all that Microsoft has conceded in Microsoft has been harassed for too long. versions of Windows with a device to make this case. They have agreed to grant Demands have been made and agreed to that it easier to promote non-Microsoft software. competitors greater access to Windows by have never been made on any other Microsoft has even agreed to a technical creating new versions. In addition, they have company. Now it is time to allow Microsoft committee to monitor future settlement agreed to give computer makers more to move forward. The only way to move adherence. This is more than fair and flexibility to reconfigure Windows for forward is to put this issue in the past. Please reasonable. I urge you to give your support interoperability with non-Microsoft software. accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. to this agreement and allow us to get back to In light of all the varied factors of this case Sincerely, business and Bill G?? to his creativity. and Microsoft’s spirit of cooperation, please Alan Strand Sincerely, put an end to litigation in the interest of Paul?? Dreger MTC–00029638 fairness. James Wilkins MTC–00029640 Sincerely, 1901 Windsor Place Donald Delahaut Louis Theriault Findlay, OH 45840 260 Fernledge Drive MTC–00029642 January 16, 2002 New Kensington, PA 15068–4614 Attorney General John Ashcroft January 27, 2002 James Hahn U.S. Department of Justice Attorney General John Ashcroft 440 E 57th Street 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW US Department of Justice New York, NY 10022 Washington, DC 20530 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW January 27, 2002 Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Washington, DC 20530–0001 Attorney General John Ashcroft After three long years, the antitrust case Dear Mr. Ashcroft: US Department of Justice, against Microsoft has been settled. I applaud I am writing today to encourage the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW this decision. 1 believe the initial lawsuit Department of Justice to accept the Microsoft Washington, DC 20530–0001 was wrong. It was, in my opinion, very antitrust settlement. As a member of the Dear Mr. Ashcroft: counter-productive for the economy. technology industry, I want to see Microsoft Last November, Microsoft and the Microsoft is one of the engines of our and the industry to move on. The suit has Department of Justice reached a settlement in economy; the economic downturn we have dragged on for over three years and has the antitrust case. The settlement is currently experienced can be traced directly to the caused great damage to the entire industry. being reviewed, and soon the courts will antitrust case against Microsoft. Some say that Microsoft is being treated have to decide whether or not the settlement But it is time to go forward. Microsoft has leniently. In fact is quite tough. Microsoft has is acceptable. Microsoft competitors are agreed to a great number of demands from agreed to document and disclose, for use by touting the agreement as lenient towards the Department of Justice; e.g. agreeing to a its competitors, various interfaces that are Microsoft and harmful to the consumer. They technical committee to monitor future internal to Windows’ operating system would like nothing better than to see the actions; agreeing to design future versions of products. Microsoft is virtually handing over settlement overturned and litigation against Windows with the ability to promote non- their company secrets to their competitors. Microsoft continued. I disagree. Continued Microsoft software; agreeing not to retaliate That is no getting off easy. litigation, not settlement, would do the most against computer makers who send software In order to move forward Microsoft is damage to the consumer, and the settlement that competes with Windows operating giving in to a lot. The terms, of the settlement is anything but lenient. system. Microsoft is apparently trying to are fair and they should be accepted. The settlement allows Microsoft to remain settle the case and get back to business. I intact, but prohibits Microsoft from engaging agree with this. I urge you to give your MTC–00029641 in behaviors that would prevent other support to the agreement between Microsoft Louis Theriault computer makers from having a fair chance and the Department of Justice. 643 Yorkshire Drive to compete. For example, the settlement VerDate 11 requires that Microsoft disclose source code MTC–00029644 Trial Attorney from the Windows operating system to its Lesa Stafford Antitrust Division Department of Justice competitors for their use either in working 3395 80th Road 601 D Street NW. Suite 1200 independently or with Microsoft Microsoft Thayer, KS 66776 Washington, DC 20530 will also furnish third parties acting within Renata Hesse Dear Ms. Hesse, the limits of the settlement with a license to U.S. Department of Justice As an employee for a large midwestern applicable intellectual property rights to 601 ‘‘D’’ Street NVV Suite 1200 hospital. I see first hand the benefits of prevent infringement. I do not think that Washington, DC 20530 technology everyday. Whether it is Microsoft has been treated too mil?? in this Dear Ms. Hesse: computerized laser surgical tools or case; in fact, in the interest of wrapping up I am glad to have this opportunity to sophisticated medical record software the se??, Microsoft has agreed to a number of express my opinion regarding the Microsoft packages, my employer relics everyday on terms that extend to aspects of Microsoft not antitrust case. found to be in violation of ?? laws. constant innovation within the technology I was relieved to learn that the Bush field to better serve our patients and The time has come for a decision to be Administration had proposed a settlement made, whether or not it is in the best community. that could soon end this costly endeavor. As The pervasive nature of technology interests of the public to allow a ridiculous a taxpaying citizen, I nave been concerned continues to astound me...it seems as if amount of time and money to be wasted in for quite some time over the high cost of laughably ?? litigation, or if the technology continuing to pursue this case in court, From virtually every thing we encounter has some industry should be permitted to return to all I have read and experienced as a kind of microchip inside. Is it any wonder normal and the economy to recover. I would consumer in the marketplace, I am convinced then, that one of the largest computer like to see the consumer benefit from a return that Microsoft has created no monopoly— companies in the world being involved in a to nor?? in the economy and the computer especially since computer products continue major lawsuit would have an extraordinary industry, and I urge you ?? support the to become more affordable and not more impact on virtually every segment of our settlement. Enough is enough?? expensive economy? Sincerely, I firmly believe that the funds being spent As I understand it, there is a settlement James Hahn to litigate this matter in court are desperately before you that could bring closure to this MTC–00029643 needed in other areas such as education and matter very quickly. While I agree it is vitally law enforcement, Therefore I urge the court important to protect consumers, it is also January 17, 2002 to accept the proposed Microsoft settlement important to do what is prudent to protect Attorney General John Ashcroft and free up tax dollars for matters that are our economy and to continue technological U.S. Justice Department truly critical to all our futures. innovation. research and investment. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Sincerely. The settlement before you addresses the Washington, DC 20530–0001 Lesa Stafford concerns of the original complaint. All Dear Mr. Ashcroft. January 25,2002 interested parties have approved it. Please At long last, this debacle of an antitrust Attorney General John Ashcroft give the settlement your final approval and trial between the government and Microsoft US Department of Justice has sputtered to a settlement. While the 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW help get the economy moving again. settlement is weighed slightly against Washington, DC 20530 Sincerely; Microsoft, it at least has the advantage of Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Terri Hasselman ending the litigation. The settlement reached in the Microsoft Director of Major Gifts This entire lawsuit was, I believe, anti-trust dispute is essential to the Mercy Foundation grounded in much misinformation and continued success of America’s technology 1111 6th Avenue misunderstanding. A company’s industry in the world market. Our IT Des Moines. ‘‘dominance’’ in any particular market does industry has floundered for the past three MTC–00029647 not necessarily mean that it has achieved that years since the inauguration of this anti-trust status through anything other than legal— suit against Microsoft three years ago. This Alba English albeit aggressive—means. I believe this to settlement is fair and is a prime opportunity 14113 Grant St have always been true of Microsoft. Microsoft to put this litigation behind us. Overland Park, KS 66221 never manipulated the marketplace to force Under the terms of the agreement, January 19. 2002 anyone to purchase its system. Rather, its Microsoft has agreed to design all future Ms. Renara B. Hensse pricing policies, its integration, and its versions of Windows to be more compatible Antitrust Division reliability attracted most people to its with the products of its competitors. U.S. Department of Justice product. This is enviable, not despicable. Microsoft has also agreed not to retaliate 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 When our government engages in a mission against any competitor who produces Washington, DC 20530–0001 to ‘‘level the playing field’’ for all, there is products that compete with its own. And, Dear Ms. Hesse, the natural side effect of having to ‘‘dumb finally Microsoft has promised to report to a It was music to my ears to learn that there down’’ those that have been successful, and three person technical committee that will can be a settlement soon in the antitrust case force them to either step aside, or give away monitor Microsoft’s compliance to these against Microsoft Corporation? their hard-earned successes to those less terms. I believe that this settlement is I am confident that this settlement will fortunate souls who are not as creative or as reasonable for the simple reason that it will have a positive impact on the ailing U.S. industrious. This attitude is reflected in the allow Microsoft to get back to business economy. Many of the investments citizens settlement. Microsoft is being forced to give without being pirated and split apart. like my self have are directly related to the up some of its source code to others in order Thank you for you help in this issue and high-tech market place. to satisfy the government need to level the IT for allowing me to express my opinion. Free With less government intrusion into playing field. enterprise is a precious commodity in this private business and mote good old- While it is useless to object, I find that the nation and it must be protected. settlement at least has the advantage of Sincerely, fashioned competition in the marketplace, ending the contentious nature of the trial. For James Lay we can look forward to new growth in the this reason alone, I find myself supporting it. 3400 W Bristol Road U.S. economy. Enough taxpayer dollars have Sincerely, Flint, MI 48507 already been spent attempting to fix a Charles Aunger Made Up To a Quality ... Not Down To a problem that never existed. Chief Technology Officer Price ! I appreciate your consideration of my view PO BOX 470671, as you deliberate. It is important for you to CELEBRATION, FLORIDA, 34747–0671 MTC–00029646 support this settlement. www.vhinternet.com. January 23, 2002 Sincerely, TEL: 407 709 6559 FAX: 407 650 2703 Renata Hesse Alba English VerDate 11