Under the Tunney Act, individuals may submit comments to federal courts about proposed settlements. Specifically, if you think Micro$oft is getting a free ride (with complementary peanuts) in the proposed federal settlement of its antitrust trial, you can let the Court know about it.<\/p>\n
This site<\/a> provides some information on the process, some resources about the settlement (and its gaping flaws), as well as some easy steps you can follow to submit your own comments to the Court.<\/p>\n The deadline for comments is the morning of Monday, 28 January. If you have comments (even just something like, “This settlement sucks”) send them in now<\/i>.<\/b><\/p>\n To that end, here’s the letter I’m sending:<\/p>\n Renata B. Hesse You don’t need to write something that detailed. Just let the Court know what you think. Be polite, be specific, be heard.<\/p>\n Will it do any good? No idea. But not<\/i> doing anything is a guarantee that your voice won’t be heard.<\/p>\n
\nAntitrust Division
\nU.S. Department of Justice
\n601 D Street NW
\nSuite 1200
\nWashington, DC 20530-0001
\nI work as an advanced IT standards developer and researcher at a multi-national engineering company. I am, however, writing as a private citizen. I would like to comment on the proposed settlement of the anti-trust suit against Microsoft.
\nMicrosoft’s past behavior, as proven multiple times in court, including in the case at hand, demonstrates its unwillingness to take any corrective action, change its activities, or in any other way comply with legal judgments except as specifically and strongly enforced.
\nIf Microsoft were truly competing in the open market, based on the technical strengths of its products, I would have no problem if the majority of consumers freely chose its systems and tools. My concern is that Microsoft, by becoming a virtual monopoly, and by engaging in anti-competitive practices as a monopoly (the conclusions of the Court in this case) stands opposed to both technical competition and free choice among consumers.
\nAny settlement outcome from this case which does not provide real, powerful, and punitive checks on Microsoft’s anti-competitiveness, or which does not prevent it from engaging in similar behaviors in the future, will be a grave disservice to the industry and to consumers, and serve notice to all corporations that our anti-trust laws can be circumvented as long as you can afford the legal fees. Allowing Microsoft any control over the remedial processes will be a similar disservice.
\nIn terms of specific concerns over the settlement, I would like to include, in its entirety, the petition to be submitted by Dan Kegel, which I have signed, and which can be found at http:\/\/www.kegel.com\/remedy\/letter.html<\/a>, and his more detailed essay at http:\/\/www.kegel.com\/remedy\/remedy2.html<\/a>.
\nFinally, any monetary damages imposed upon Microsoft as a result of the Finding of Fact by the Court ought to be collected as monetary damages, and either added to the general fund of the Federal Government, or else distributed in some fashion to consumers, who have borne the final brunt of Microsoft’s actions. Allowing Microsoft to administer the nature or distribution of these damages (e.g., providing free software into markets they do not presently control, or valuating contributed software or hardware based on retail purchase price rather than actual cost) will again provide no punishment to Microsoft, no relief of their past actions, and may actually serve to further enhance Microsoft’s monopolistic advantage.
\nThank you for your time in reading these comments.
\nSincerely,
\nDavid C. Hill
\n[address and phone number]
\ndave@hill-kleerup.org<\/p>\n