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."
Well, curl -I http://www.codeweavers.com/~jwhite/tunney.html gives the following information:
Last-Modified: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:25:09 GMT
So I would assume that it is this upcoming monday, January 28th.
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
In one of the pages that are linked to, you can read that the deadline is January 28th, 2002.
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
I have an opinion. I have lots of them. Let's see if I can explain a good opinion of mine:
First and foremost, I can only see the similarity between any 'justice' done to Microsoft in the same light as affirmative action; someone always gets unreasonably favored. That's just the nature of it. One of the most pronounced problems with Microsoft software is the lack of documentation. Many of their products use portions of the Windows and extra commodity-library API's that aren't documented. This is a biggie in the(AOL and the DOJ's, that is) antitrust case as it relates to their preventative measures to keep the competition in their stranglehold.
If Mozilla, or more precisely, Netscape had the same level of integration into the Windows operating system, it'd be much more widespread. In recent news, many Qwest DSL customers are being pushed into MSN because they aren't aware they have a choice in the matter. This is a similar situation: Most computer buyers use what works. Since Internet Explorer is integrated into Windows OS, this provides MS a clear window for them to keep a high percentage of installed computers always using IE. If Windows came with Netscape, it'd be a much more widely used browser. From many of the non-technical people I've talked to, most prefer using Netscape over Internet Explorer. However, when you look at studies done by Netcraft, IE always stays on top.
How about making it easier for 3rd parties to develop software that integrates with Office with the same seamless integration as their own software. Much of this is difficult without a little knowledge. I know one serious flaw with the aspirations for success in Wine: they can't accurately duplicate the API's that they do not know.
I am a proponent of letting the best product win. With one constraint: all products are given a fair opportunity for success. That's it.
{RHETORICAL}Is that too much to ask?{/RHETORICAL}
I already know the answer.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
I just recieved one.....
I send you this file to seek your advice.....
settlement.doc
No wonder they are getting a large number of favorable responses.
O,ok this is getting to be an old bit, but it's funny!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
-._''_.-
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!
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.
Does anyone know if comments from non-US citizens are accepted?
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
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.
Lest I be mistaken, the deadline is 60 days from the date the settlement was printed in the Federal Register. The settlement was printed November 28,2001. December had 31 days, so the deadline would really be January 27. The 27th falls on a Sunday, so you should try to get your comments in before Friday. That's in TWO days!
(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.
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.
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
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.
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