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."
It is funny to see, when 4 out of 5 posts so far comments on the broken link in the story, and 3 of them posts the real one (a toughy to figure out).
:)
Now I am gonna sit around waiting for someone to actually have an opinion about the matter too.
I have been talking about sending in email for a long time. I kept thinking about it, but I didn't send it till Monday night.
Microsoft is probably paying people to send email in support of them. We need to stand up and fight back. When Lawrence Lessig was interviewed he said that the people on slashdot are politically apathetic. This has to change. This is not that hard to do, now is the time to tell your feelings to the judge or whoever reads those comments. It is just one email. We can't just stay on the side making comments about how much Microsoft sucks. If we do that, and don't participate then we are helping M$. Even if it doesn't change the ruling, it will change what is in the public record. If there are 10,000 times the number of bad as good in that record, then no matter what ruling is made, M$ has had a loss. You have to compete against hundreds of dead emailers, but lets at least try to compete.
If you roll your eyes at this and say, whatever, then you have just decided not to stand up to M$. M$ will be proud of you for taking their side, by opting out.
Tantris
Feel free to copy/paste/send:
---
Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of Microsoft's business practices.
Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product lines, before regulation is lifted.
Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a state of competition.
Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than merely the loss of competition.
Thank you for your time.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
I have read over the proposed Microsoft Settlement, and am NOT in favor of
it, in its current state. The settlement does not, in any way, penalize
Microsoft for its past infringements of the law. For many years, OEMs have been under control of this corporation, and simply "formalizing" this law in a document is not enough. Microsoft has been declared guilty of past wrongs, and must now be held accountable in some measure. The current proposed settlement is unacceptable. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
My name
My addr.
"Just tell him ya did it! That's what he wants to hear anyway..."
I hope you will all give this one a seriously consideration before actually doing something against the company that is the epitome of greatness and capitalism. You can see very clearly from Jeremy's page what he really cares about:
"4.Compose a simple, polite, email describing the problem and how you feel about it."
How do *you* feel about it ? As if your feelings are some valid form of cognition, as if this represents *morality*. It is infact the anti-trust laws which are completely immoral, they paralyze a company who is constantly under threat that it *may* have broken the law by being TOO GOOD, but it can never know until after the fact. Imagine if the criminal law was like this: imagine if you were paralyzed realizing anything you did good could end up causing you to be sentenced to jail.
So please, before you do something stupid (like this guy) think about it, think about the immorality of the anti-trust laws. And then proceed to do the RIGHT thing: writing a letter supporting the achievements of Microsoft, and their right to exist and keep all the profit they have earned and DESERVE, by moral right.
That's a good question. It's a little annoying that issues like this that affect most of the world are handled by just one country. Maybe the EU can do something, other than worrying about how curved bananas are, and clamping down on the heinous crime of selling said bananas by the pound.
Or maybe not.
Does anyone know if comments from non-US citizens are accepted?
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Some guy who worked for a company hired by Microsoft called my office and asked to speak to the head of IT. He then said that I would be getting something in the mail if I hadn't already detailing the settlement for Microsoft. He then said this trial is costing taxpayers every day that it continues and it should be stopped. He told me about the public comment period and to go to their site which would submit a comment for me to the DOJ. I told him I would be much happier if Microsoft just crumbled and told him where he could put his propaganda. He said, "But taxpayers are the ones suffering here." and I said "Well Microsoft could just close their doors now and save us all the pain." He hung up. I forgot the name of the website but if I get that info in the mail I will put the info up somewhere. Jerk.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly position in the operating system market. This is especially important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past transgressions.
Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a "punishment" instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in general.
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
Sincerely,
My Name
It took me about 15 minutes to compose my thoughts and send the email, and I feel that it was well worth it.
What's the big deal? I've been pretending to be a US citizen ever since the heady days of the RSA export embargo. Ticking the "Yes, I am a loyal US peon, and not some godless foreign evil super genius with an indeterminate accent, a fluffy white cat, and access to a might BBC 'B' Microcomputer" is no harder now than it was then - and is still about as effective in determining intention and eligibility.
If you truly believe (as I do, and as Jon Johansson and Dmiti Sklyrov might agree) that US tech law has de facto jurisdiction in most of Europe, and that Microsoft clearly dictates the market (except perhaps in Germany), then it shouldn't bother you even on moral grounds to contribute in this case. What happens to Microsoft in the US has a great deal of relevance to me, serving as I do on "USS Great Britain".
In case anyone is in any doubt about this, consider one of the causes of the American Revolution (Mel Gibson's Patriot shennanigans aside): taxation without representation*. And consider that in my life as a computer professional, private citizen, and taxpayer (to a government that gets out its chequebook and spreads its ass cheeks every time Bill drops his arrestor hook and stops over while the MicroJet is refuelled), the illegal Microsoft monopoly in the US amounts to taxation for me in Britain. Is that putting it too strongly?
* Despite saying "one of the causes", I'm sure someone will start on about how it was all about "Love the Kingdom, Hate the King" (which is was), or about "all equal, inalienable rights" or such (which it wasn't, white male slave owning landowners only club, government by lawyers for lawyers, hereditary political class, last legal slavery transaction in 1995, yadda yadda yadda).
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I've been recieving weekly urges to comment from MS's FIN lobby...
.
Update: Settlement News; Public can Comment in Antitrust Matter; Class-Actions Suit Returns to Litigation; Deadline Nears for Public Comment on Antitrust Settlement
The Tunney Act review period, during which the Department of Justice seeks public comment on its proposed antitrust settlement with 9 states and Microsoft, closes Monday, January 28. The settlement is not guaranteed until after the review ends and the District Court determines whether the settlement is indeed in the public interest.
The provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all parties involved, and go beyond the findings of Court of Appeals ruling. Still, while consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them and the American economy, and overwhelmingly want to move beyond this litigation, nine states have refused to join the settlement. Some, including Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, are urging citizens via email or Web site to submit their comments to the DoJ during the Tunney review period. While Microsoft commends these public officials for involving citizens in a decision that will affect them so profoundly, your voice is more important now than ever before to ensure that the DoJ hears the full spectrum of opinion on this matter. Concerned citizens already have begun submitting their comments about whether the Microsoft case should be settled or further litigated. The Department of Justice will take all public comments and viewpoints and include them in a report for the District Court to consider. Please send your comments directly to the Department of Justice via email or fax no later than January 28th. Whatever your view of the settlement, it is critical that the government hears directly from consumers. Please take action today to ensure your voice is heard. Email: mailto:microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov . In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
To find out more about the settlement and the Tunney Act review period, go to the Department of Justice Website at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
Thanks for taking the time to make a difference.
Class-action Lawsuit Returns to Litigation
Friday, January 11, U.S. District Judge J. Fredrick Motz rejected a settlement that would have resolved more than 100 private class-action lawsuits filed against Microsoft in the wake of the 1999 decision issued by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson during the trial court phase of the federal antitrust lawsuit. Under the proposal?s terms, Microsoft would have given disadvantaged public schools more than $1 billion in funding, software, services and training, and around 1 million Windows licenses for renovated PCs.
Microsoft, who sought input from educators on specific terms of the agreement, will review the court?s opinion and at the same time move forward with the next steps in the litigation while we continue to look for reasonable ways to resolve the matter.
For more information on the class-action lawsuits, go to the Freedom to Innovate Web site at www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate .
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
The comments required by the tunney act are a big deal. If cogent objections are made, the prosecution has to justify to the judge how the current remedy addresses those objections or the judge can reject the remedy.
m
.Net, and other applications. This opens an important window
y _f iling.pdf
t m# vh
m
y _f iling.pdf
For whatever it's worth, here are the comments I submitted in mid december. There's some good links, as well as some discussion of specific issues with the proposed final remedy.
------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter presents my response to the revised proposed Final Judgement
to resolve the United States' civil antitrust case against Microsoft,
which is currently up for public review. I am a citizen of the united
states, and a resident of Ithaca, NY.
I. Critique of Proposed Final Judgement
The proposed Final Judgement that the US and Microsoft agreed to on
November 6th appears to have the best intentions, and addresses many of
the major issues raised by the case. Unfortunately, I feel that it falls
short of being an effective remedy.
I agree with many of the points in the following critique of the proposed
final judgement, and it is more complete than my own statement will be.
Please review the statement on the antitrustinstitute.org website at:
http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/149.cf
There is much to consider in that document, the points in the proposed
final remedy that I consider most important to review are that:
1) it makes no attempt to address "ill-gotten gains" garnered by
microsoft through its anticompetitive practices. This is a serious
shortcoming because the company's illegal tactics have placed it in a
very advantageous position in the industry. In order to make anticompetitive
behavior unprofitable, there must be substantive punishment that reduces
those gains.
2) the anti-retaliatory clause is insufficient. Section 3.A.1 specifies
that Microsoft shall not retaliate against and OEM for "developing,
distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that
competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that
distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware;".
Section 6.L defines Microsoft Platform Software as "(i) a Windows
Operating System Product and/or (ii) a Microsoft Middleware Product."
As I read this clause, it still allows retaliation against OEM's for
developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing,
software that competes with other Non-Platform Microsoft Products, such
as Office,
for Microsoft to continue its anticompetitive practices.
3) the api disclosure provision in section 3.D is impossible to enforce.
The only way to ensure that microsoft isn't hiding undocumented API's is
to audit the source code. No body with sufficient manpower has been
appointed to do this. A more appropriate solution would be to require
disclosure to API's AND source to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs. They
could then audit suspect code themselves, and present an informed
complaint to the Technical Committee, which could verify and investigate.
4) The only punitive measure specified to discourage Microsoft from
non-compliance is a 2 year extension of the terms of the judgement. If
Microsoft is not complying with the judgement anyway, this is an
extraordinarily ineffective punishment.
II. Support for Plaintiff Litigating States' Remedial Proposals
(December 7, 2001)
The proposal filed by the state on December 7th, 2001 is a much more
complete remedy. The proposal is available on the web at:
http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/ms-remed
1) It addresses the Microsoft's ill-gotten gains in section H by Open
Sourcing the code to Internet Explorer. The Court's Findings of Fact,
issued on 11/5/99, state that Microsoft successfully used its monopoly
power to increase the market share of Internet Explorer. These findings
of fact can be found on the US Department of Justice webpage at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.h
By Open Sourcing the code to Internet Explorer, Microsoft is deprived of
the gains associated with their anti-competitive behavior. Additionally,
consumers and the entire computing industry benefit by augmenting the
publically available software infrastructure of the internet.
2) Section E offers a stronger anti-retaliatory clause which covers all
microsoft products, and not just Platform Products.
3) Section C offers an API Disclosure provision that is enforceable. ISV's,
OEM's, etc are provided access to source as well as API documentation.
This will allow them to inspect suspicious code and present well informed
complaints to the Technical Committee.
4) Section O offers excellent punitive measures in the event that
Microsoft does not comply with the Judgement.
Additionally, section L of this document provides excellent protection
against Microsoft co-opting and breaking standards compatibility, as the
findings of fact show it did with the JAVA standard. This topic is not
addressed in the Proposed Final Judgement.
III. General suggestions
Unbundling microsoft middleware/products/services is a superior solution
than requiring alternatives be bundled as well. The latter has the effect
of favoring a small number of well established middleware/products/services
by creating large barriers of entry to new middleware/products/services
that are not included in the OS distribution.
Mandating that Microsoft offer licenses to third-party companies to port
its applications to alternative Operating Systems is a superior solution
than requiring that Microsoft maintain ports of particular products to
particular OS's. Determining whether a port of a given application to a
given platform can be profitable is difficult and should be decided by
the market. Microsoft should not be allowed to lock-out existing markets
by not porting applications and not allowing others to do so. However, is
it not feasible to expect Microsoft to port every application to every
platform. There is not always a demand.
There should be a reward in the event that microsoft makes every effort
in good faith to comply with the judgement. Perhaps make the judgement
applicable for 10 years, with an option to terminate the measures in 5 if
microsoft makes efforts in good faith to comply.
IV. Relevant Links
1) The Proposed Final Judgement (11/6/2001)
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
2) The commentary on the Proposed Final Judgement at antitrustinstitute.org
http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/149.cf
3) Plaintiff Litigating States' Remedial Proposals (12/7/2001)
http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/ms-remed
V. Closing
Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope an appropriate set of
remedial measures can be decided upon soon.
Mike Lococo
Coordinator Computer Facilities
College of AA&P
Cornell University
The proposed settlement will not prevent Microsoft from maintaining its monopoly in the computer industry. The findings of fact clearly described a pattern of corporate behavior that evidenced little respect for antitrust law or public sentiment. Though the proposed remedies themselves may be adequate, the enforcement measures will not provide enough incentive for Microsoft to fundamentally alter its behavior. History demonstrates that Microsoft will not alter its behavior unless it is clearly in its competitive interests to do so. The proposed remedies attempt to force Microsoft to change its behavior in order to reduce its power in the market place. This will not succeed.
The only measures that can be effective are those that immediately change the competitive landscape, and then free Microsoft to struggle for power in this new, more level playing field. I agree with the court that a structual remedy is cumbersome and not likely to be effective. A technilogical remedy, with objective, quantifiable measures, is the only remedy that can be both effective and in the public's interest.
The competitive advantages of an operating system monopoly are twofold. First, Microsoft negotiates from a very powerful position with OEMs and ISPs. Second, their application software can be developed with special knowledge of the operating system and (optionally) devivered with the operating system to gain better market penetration. Any remedy must address both of these monopolistic advantages.
While I do not claim to be able to construct a better remedy myself, I think it is clear that any remedy must involve forcing Microsoft to open all of its APIs and file formats. Any time two pieces of MS software communicate out-of-process, the protocol for their communication must be public. Enforcement could come in the form of a court-appointed authority that had the right to demand to see the source code of any MS-published software and compare the documented APIs to the source code. If they were not the same or if the source code is not delivered within a few days, MS should be fined 1/356th of it's profit (this can be calculated after the fact at the end of each quarter) per-day until it satisfies the requirements. This would ensure that the applications of Microsoft's competitors have the same opportunity to succeed on the Windows platform as those of Microsoft itself. Microsoft may maintain its operating systems monopoly, but it will not be able to use to establish new monopolies in other market segments.
Thank you very much for reading and considering my comments.
Regards,
Personal information and summary of industry qualifications
I write to express my dissatisfaction with the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) for USA vs. Microsoft. While time limitations prevent me from conducting an exhaustive review of all the aspects of the provisions of the Final Judgment that I find to fail the public interest, allow me to focus on two particular issues that are of crucial importance:
1) The exclusion of Microsoft's handheld version of Windows (i.e. Windows CE and variants, Windows for Automotive, Windows NT Embedded, and Windows XP Embedded from the definition of "Windows Operating System Product" delineated in Section VI, Item U of the PFJ;
2) Provisions of Section III, Item J which give Microsoft broad discretion on determining which parties are eligible to receive API, Documentation or Communications Protocol information.
1) Handheld and embedded operating systems
I have been working as a user of handheld devices for almost ten years and have been an applications developer for three of those ten. It has been very clear to me that portable devices will be a fundamental domain of computing technology, perhaps even replacing the desktop computer as a central unit of processing, in the near term. While there are various players in the handheld and mobile marketplace, Microsoft is a competitor that has historically used its weight to stifle innovation in this marketplace until it was ready to embrace it.
In terms of its APIs, the embedded versions of Microsoft's operating systems are modeled closely--sometimes even ported directly--on its Win32 API for desktop operating system development. These versions of the operating system, designed to be stored in quickly-accessible RAM or ROM rather than on disk, and with an apparently closer connection to the hardware in which they're operating, are not significantly technically different from the existing desktop Windows technology, save for their portability. Microsoft itself, when advocating for the Embedded version of its operating system, argues that this close tie provides one of the main reasons why developers should adopt its solution:
The versions of the Microsoft OS for handheld and mobile devices, (Windows CE and derivatives including Windows CE for Handheld PC, Windows CE for Palm-size PC, Windows CE for Desktop PC) are tied equally closely in Microsoft's eyes:
Microsoft's own behavior in the handheld and mobile marketplace reflects similar actions to those presented in the Court's Findings of Fact, including concerted action to protect applications barrier to entry by performing ongoing modifications to its handheld data storage methodologies, by modifying established connectivity protocols (including the infrared communications protocols between competitors' handheld devices), and by maintaining its own data transfer protocols closed, thus thwarting the efforts of middleware vendors and non-Windows handheld device manufacturers to provide connectivity solutions that make full use of the capabilities of users' desktop computer hardware to connect with mobile devices.
Because of the rising capabilities and reduction in size of microprocessors, along with the quickly falling cost of flashable (rewritable) ROM and high-capacity RAM, it is very likely indeed that what we call embedded or mobile systems today will come to replace wholly desktop-based solutions for everyday users in the near and mid-range future. Embedded systems will (and do) reside in automobiles, household appliances, communications devices, and just about every other type of device that uses electronics to perform complex functions.
Allowing Microsoft to extend its monopoly into the embedded and mobile marketplace while remaining unfettered by the consequences of its previous anti-competitive behavior in the desktop operating systems marketplace is detrimental to the public interest.
2) Viable Business requirement
This point is much more brief, but equally important. In giving Microsoft the power to determine that a company "meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business" before receiving API and Documentation, or Communication Protocol information, it effectively gives Microsoft the power to exclude open source and free software developers from building systems that are fully interoperable with existing solutions provided by Microsoft, mostly because these developers are not engaging in "viable business". Indeed, many of these companies are not engaged in business at all, but are working through the concepts of sharing and widely disseminating usable code and applications. Powerful and open public goods such as the Internet and Linux grew through this kind of non-business activity. This item effectively shuts out the public interest in interoperability and standards compliance by giving Microsoft the power to define what is authentic and viable. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's rhetoric regarding Linux as a cancer demonstrates their predisposition to exclude open source systems from any and all consideration for interoperability and access:
Aside from Mr. Ballmer's odd reasoning that an operating system for which the source is open and available to anyone is not in the public domain, his reasoning that open source licenses are not commercially viable makes a statement of predisposition that I have no doubt would be used as legally acceptable parameters, under the PFJ, to thwart public efforts at building an interoperable, free operating system.
I sincerely hope that Microsoft will have to atone for its extensive history of anticompetitive behavior. However, it is clear to me, and to those of us in the technology industry who have seen Microsoft as a company uninterested in cooperating, that this PFJ would do little to force that atonement and would do much to provide Microsoft a legal platform from which to continue its anticompetitive behavior.
Sincerely,
***Foucault is watching you..***
I've sent in my comments regarding the antitrust too, but I thought I'd share a little info on what the federales are likely to pay attention to. I've got a relative at Sequoia / King's Canyon Nat'l Park, and they recently had a comment period on prohibiting snowmobiles in the park. This relative was one of the people sifting through the comments, and we talked then about how it was done. While the federal courts may do things differently, the following was the experience I heard about.
My relative said that form letters / chain letters / spam / one sentence responses were all completely set aside and virtually ignored. Despite the link in the story here where the guy says it's the number of complaints that count, it's complete BS. It's content that counts. What the park superintendent and NPS officials were interested in were the original responses of people who'd thought about the situation and expressed their opinion, no matter what that opinion was. They cared not a bit what the content of the response was, only that it seemed to be something someone thought about. Copies of responses, like the cut & paste jobs people are advocating here, were tossed except for one copy because they really represented the writing of only one person.
Then, these functionary-types sift through all these filtered responses, and place them in about a dozen separate stacks, from vehemently against to completely for, and everything in-between. The numbers of responses in each stack was counted, and a "summary report" of what the people in each stack thought was made, and responses the functionaries agreed should be seen copied and forwarded to the big-wigs. The Superintendent and NPS officials then read the summary reports, the selected reports, and the superintendent, since he's actually at the park, came & read a number of the nonselected responses in the stacks & prepared his short report on the people's response to the proposed rule.
I guess the point is that the comments definitely count, but they shouldn't be forms or cut & pastes, and should represent your own feelings on the matter. Think about it -- if all you're willing to do is cut & paste or pass on someone else's words, what credence should you be given?
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
To: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may Concern,
I would like to add my voice to those in adamant opposition to the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
As a student with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science and about to complete a Master's Degree in Information Systems it is painfully clear to me the extent to which Microsoft has abused the public trust with its monopoly power. Please, for the sake of us all, reject this proposal in favor of a much stronger remedy.
Today's information based society is particularly hard hit by Microsoft's crimes. The most cursory review of my day finds several obvious examples of the price that we all must pay for Microsoft's monopoly. For example; websites often display properly only under Microsoft Internet Explorer because they were created with Microsoft tools. My email accounts are regularly bombarded with spam from the latest Microsoft Outlook virus because there is no program which compete on the Microsoft platform despite Outlook's many security vulnerabilities and weaknesses. Cross platform collaboration with my peers at school is nearly impossible because Microsoft Office continues to incomparable file formats in order to lock in its customer base. When I recommend to my friends and family that they buy a prebuilt computer from a major hardware vendor I must explain that it can only be bought bundled with Microsoft Windows. These problems exist, not because of a lack of consumer demand for a solution, or lack of a willingness to pay, but because Microsoft does not allow it.
The proposed settlement does not come close to recouping the illegal gains which Microsoft has made off American consumers much less come close to penalizing Microsoft for the illegal abuses. While it is doubtful that the true losses can ever be recovered from Microsoft any settlement The beginnings of a fair settlement should include the preeminent opening of all Windows and Office API's and file formats as well as a large cash payment to open source programming efforts which compete with Microsoft products. In this way Microsoft's ill gotten gains can be used for the public good.
Sincerely,
tmarzolf
This Sig has been depreciated.