Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Respond To The Tunney Act

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the stop-them-before-it's-too-late dept.

Jeremy White writes "Two nights ago, I was discussing the Microsoft Antitrust trial, and the comment period required by the Tunney Act, with someone who cares as deeply about this case as I do. The person I was talking to had an inside connection that knew the tally and basic shape of the comments actually being sent in about this case. I learned that it's time to stop procrastinating, or Microsoft buys this one."

4 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. Other links by Metrollica · · Score: 5, Informative

    Article here.

    Microsoft says that it does not have lobbyists pushing its interests in the pending antitrust case, but that stance probably glosses over the indirect influence its lobbyists have had on the current administration.

    Link to US DOJ.

    Article by Cringely

    Dont forget to send in comments to the US DOJ

    --



    --Metrollica
  2. It is next monday. by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 5, Informative

    In one of the pages that are linked to, you can read that the deadline is January 28th, 2002.

  3. Re:thoughts on this whole shouting match... by Algorithm+wrangler · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually the EU is still investigating MS for anti-competitive behavir. The EU commission has a history of presenting companies with substantial fines in these cases (They recently fined two danish airlines $36 mill. and $12 mill for fixing prices on the Copenhagen-Stockholm route which "only" has one million passengers per year). The EU law states that companies can be fined as much as 10% of their annual turnover when acting anti-competitive - not a small amount in the case of Microsoft.

    --
    -._''_.-
  4. here's the one I sent in November by Syre · · Score: 5, Informative

    (it was intended to strike a conservative note)

    Dear Sirs:

    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust settlement.

    I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.

    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and productivity in our nation.

    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition.

    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly requires strict measures which address not only the practices they have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.

    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed settlement is strong enough to serve this function.