Slashdot Mirror
Respond To The Tunney Act
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."
I sent this email from my Hotmail.com account ;)
How hard was that? It does specifically what Mr. White asks, which is to submit a vote against the current settlement. It took 5 minutes. Heck, it took longer to write this comment than that.
-- Dan
Do it like this.
Open a new topic: Send Your Comments On The M$ Antitrust Trial
Allow the normal Slashdot moderation process to weed out the bullshit.
Deliver all the 3 to 5 comments to the judge "in personam" printed out on paper.
Use the power of this constituency, its literacy, eloquence and intelligence to make a difference.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
and send an anti-Microsoft/DoJ settlement email to the DoJ. You don't have to be articulate or even polite. Numbers count here, sending just "NO to Microsoft" is enough.
And register it will. By law, all public comments submitted must be published in the Federal Register. And the judge in the case will read them, each and every one. Come on, get off your ass! What's two minutes cost for inscribing your opinion in governmental granite for all posterity? Send all those bastardos up in Redmond a real message!
I noticed, in reviewing the reference materials, that under the proposed settlement, Microsoft gets to keep secret (no obligation to publish or document) anything having to do with security. As soon as I saw that, the recent Gates memo "redirecting" corporate efforts made more sense -- Bill's just herding the troops into a safe harbor sanctioned by the settlement, so they will not need to change their basic practices.
The so called predatory business pratices are also crap, I think about expanding my own business along the ideas in the "Halloween Document" all the time. The only reason MS got shafted for it was their market position.
That is correct. There are things you can do when you're a small business that you can not do when you are a monopoly.
Why?
Because the monopoly already has a substantial advantage and if they were allowed to use that substantial advantage as they saw fit, competitors wouldn't stand a chance.
Remember: It's not illegal to have a monopoly. Getting there is a good sign that you're doing something right. It's illegal to maintain a monopoly through things like predatory pricing ("dumping") and other means. You can not exploit your already enormous advantage to keep other companies out of the running.
Ya see, this argument isn't about giving all products a fair opportunity for success. This is, to use your Affirmative Action argument, about demanding that Microsoft give up a share of its success to others who have not necessarily earned it.
The point is that Microsoft didn't earn its success; it cheated to get it. Its not fair to cheat to get ahead, and then claim that everybody has to play fair.
appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars
22 January, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Suite 1200
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Ms. Hesse,
I am writing to add my name to the list of people opposed to the Proposed Final Judgement in the United States v. Microsoft antitrust case.
As a software developer with 11 years of business experience, I have watched Microsoft's rise to dominance in several markets and been dismayed by many of the techniques it has used to attain and maintain dominance at the expense of other companies, competing software platforms and consumers such as myself. Still, while I have often found Microsoft's techniques distasteful and unethical, I am far less concerned about remedies for its past behavior than I am about ensuring that the same types of behavior are prevented in the future.
From my reading of the Proposed Judgement those remedies that actually work against Microsoft would be ineffective against a company determined to bypass them and would not even constitute significant obstacles in that bypassing process, further in many cases the remedies and definitions seem to have been specifically crafted to make them effectively nonexistent or to actually strengthen Microsoft's position in current or potential future markets. That Microsoft will work to bypass the original intent of the Judgement is clear for both technical and business practices - even during the course of the trial and settlement negotiations it continued to use tactics that should be blocked by a solid agreement.
As an example, the future direction of Microsoft's focus has just this month been declared to be security, while under the Proposed Judgement anything related to security need not be disclosed even if such would otherwise be mandatory. Under a strict reading, if Microsoft adds even rudimentary security interfaces to its APIs then none of those APIs need be disclosed and there is no penalty for not disclosing them -a requirement for receiving documentation for those APIs is that any business needing it must meet Microsoft-developed standards of business viability; non-businesses need not apply at all because access will simply not be available.
Overall, I feel that the Proposed Final Judgement is deeply flawed and should be substantially revised to remove these flaws before being accepted. A software and content monoculture such as Microsoft clearly wishes to have in place harms all of us in the long term, including Microsoft and its investors.
Sincerely,
Alan J. Miller
Des Plaines, IL
fencepost
just a little off