Misrepresentation in DOJ's Response?

Robb Timlin asks: "Ok, so I'm checking over the DOJ's response to the public comments, and I notice they reference mine, among others, in Paragraph 149 (footnote 162): '149. Section III.B is limited to the twenty OEMs with the highest worldwide volume of licenses of Windows Operating System Products. Some commentors criticize this limitation, arguing that it leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against smaller OEMs, including regional "white box" OEMs.(162)' Problem is, I never said anything like that in my comment! Now it could be a simple error, or it could be deliberate misrepresentation of what I had to say (my criticism of Section III.B of the RPFJ centered on allowing MS to provide rewards to OEMs who toe the line, in lieu of retaliating against those that don't). A friend of mine urged me to bring this to the attention of somebody official, but who?"

"Anybody have any idea as to whom I should contact (if anyone)? The DOJ? State AGs still litigating? The judge's office? (E-mail addresses would be greatly appreciated - there's not much time before the hearing!) I haven't much of a clue when it comes to legal stuff; all I know is the RPFJ stinks and I did my part to fight it, and now I see my effort misrepresented.

By the way, anybody else here who commented might want to check if they're cited in the DOJ's response, and if it actually addresses what you said and not something completely different. If it's just one instance, it could be an honest error. But a pattern of misrepresentation would be a very serious matter indeed.

Thanks!

Comments

Re:This is fishy...

[gmhowell]

Because teddy bears with five port hubs crammed into them generate more hits.