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.
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!
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.