[Am-info] Tunney Act Public Comments

[echo]

--Apple-Mail-1-616534861
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed

Two-thirds, an overwhelming majority, of 22000 "substansive" comments=20
opposed the Microsoft-DOJ settlement. What's the spread against the=20
convicted corporate felon on the top-tier filings "characterized as=20
containing a degree of detailed substance"? The silence is deafening.

Because the Tunney Act exists for mass public comment, I find it=20
disturbing that the Department of Justice, the prosecutor with a legal=20=

obligation to ensure that Sherman "violation shall be enjoined or=20
otherwise prohibited" (Sherman =A74), would try to cover their asses as=20=

well as MSFT's in such an obviously tainted method. Governments that do=20=

not respect the will of the speaking public do not last long and any=20
comment, even "I hate Microsoft" if sent in response to the framework of=20=

the settlement proposal, is a comment that should affect the DOJ's=20
treatment of Microsoft.  At the same time, it is not the public that is=20=

responsible for framing an appropriate settlement that limits=20
Microsoft's ability to monopolize future product types through bundling=20=

and standards pollution.

Given that Microsoft has shamelessly attempted to obfuscate the issues=20=

and facts at hands by citing the "technical" nature of this case (vs.=20
the real economic nature of this case) it is appropriate that=20
competitors, ie other software developers, are involved in crafting=20
remedy.  The consumer is not protected if the competition does not gain=20=

some advantage - in the same way as Microsoft has benefitted from its=20
illegal activity and bundling practices - and instead goes out of=20
business in response to having to wage war with a predatory monopolist=20=

using bundling, OEM lockouts, exclusionary contracts, existing 90%=20
marketshare, and proprietary standards as weapons of technological mass=20=

destruction.

Neither the public, Microsoft's competitors, or states carry the burden=20=

of proof arguing for the passage of this settlement.

I'm looking forward to the DOJ responding to my Tunney Act filing. Given=20=

the obvious pro-Microsoft tilt exhibited in their posturing, it is the=20=

DOJ's comments that require substantiation.

--Apple-Mail-1-616534861
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param>Two-thirds, an overwhelming majority,
of 22000 "substansive" comments opposed the Microsoft-DOJ settlement.
What's the spread against the convicted corporate felon on the
top-tier filings "characterized as containing a degree of detailed
substance"? The silence is deafening.


Because the Tunney Act exists for mass public comment, I find it
disturbing that the Department of Justice, the prosecutor with a legal
obligation to ensure that Sherman "violation shall be enjoined or
otherwise prohibited" (Sherman =A74), would try to cover their asses as
well as MSFT's in such an obviously tainted method. Governments that
do not respect the will of the speaking public do not last long and
any comment, even "I hate Microsoft" if sent in response to the
framework of the settlement proposal, is a comment that should affect
the DOJ's treatment of Microsoft.  At the same time, it is not the
public that is responsible for framing an appropriate settlement that
limits Microsoft's ability to monopolize future product types through
bundling and standards pollution.


Given that Microsoft has shamelessly attempted to obfuscate the issues
and facts at hands by citing the "technical" nature of this case (vs.
the real economic nature of this case) it is appropriate that
competitors, ie other software developers, are involved in crafting
remedy.  The consumer is not protected if the competition does not
gain some advantage - in the same way as Microsoft has benefitted from
its illegal activity and bundling practices - and instead goes out of
business in response to having to wage war with a predatory monopolist
using bundling, OEM lockouts, exclusionary contracts, existing 90%
marketshare, and proprietary standards as weapons of technological
mass destruction.


Neither the public, Microsoft's competitors, or states carry the
burden of proof arguing for the passage of this settlement.


I'm looking forward to the DOJ responding to my Tunney Act filing.
Given the obvious pro-Microsoft tilt exhibited in their posturing, it
is the DOJ's comments that require substantiation.

</fontfamily>=

--Apple-Mail-1-616534861--