Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Misrepresentation in DOJ's Response? 18

Posted by Cliff from the this-smells-fishy dept.
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!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Misrepresentation in DOJ's Response? More

Misrepresentation in DOJ's Response?

Comments Filter:

  • What you have to realize ... (Score:3, Flamebait)

    by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Monday March 04, 2002 @07:29PM (#3109162) Homepage Journal

    ... is that it doesn't matter what you said. The DOJ did a deliberately slapdash job of assembling and responding to the comments because ... wait for it ... they don't care. They've been determined to let Microsoft go with a slap -- no, not a slap, a gentle pat -- on the wrist ever since GWB took over the White House. You could have written a letter saying, "I have absolute proof that Bill Gates eats babies for breakfast and Steve Ballmer is really Osama bin Laden," and they'd still have written (in Word, on their Windows PC's) "That's our settlement and we're sticking by it."

  • Remember... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wholesomegrits ( 155981 )
    This is the Bush administration. When they're not jerking off on ways to kill people with bombs, hiding in underground bunkers, or throwing out all scientific evident pointing to global warming, they're cutting the leashes on as many monopolies as possible. Unfortunately, when Ashcroft is all about restriction of government FOIA requests, I doubt that there's anyone who can help. It's too late.
  • ... or whatever it is they say on Mtv.

    I hope somebody else can sort out the legalese for you. All I have to offer is a thank you for taking the time to write such an excellent letter.

    Hopefuly there are a few you out there feeling bad you didn't do your part and submitted your comments... I know I do.

    Thanks again and keep us posted.
  • I mailed my comment to the DOJ [mailto] on Wed, 23 Jan 2002 05:12:11 -0800. They have not acknowledged it, according to their alphabetical list [usdoj.gov] of commenters.

  • Let the litigating states know (Score:3, Informative)

    by John Q. Public ( 113556 ) on Monday March 04, 2002 @08:16PM (#3109487) Homepage
    I've been contacted twice by my litigating state Attorney General's office (California) [mailto] and have found them very interested in misbehavior. Duh. They are quite active in pressing this on, and any weapons you can give them will be very good. Now, they may decide that there is nothing to use but at least they will have looked at your information and seen if it can be a hammer in their hands.

    I'd suggest using your own personal state address if you're a resident of the 9 sane states... you will be able to get their attention easier.

    Good luck!
  • Most likely, someone else said what you've been incorrectly credited as saying, and the DOJ just got the attribution wrong. There were thousands of comments, after all.

    I sympathize with your annoyance, but I'm not sure whether a lot of effort is called for in bringing this to the government's attention. The misattribution doesn't seem all that germane to the case, but it's natural that you feel frustration. One wants to receive proper credit for one's ideas.

    • That's acceptable if just referring to 'the arguments'. But when a specific argument is cited in a footnote as backing a particular point... It is a little more than 'bad attribution'. Especially considering this a document by/for lawyers. Attribution is everything.

  • I don't understand what you wish to complain about. They summarized your complain with very slightly harsher language. SO WHAT?

    You said you were worried that your competitors would be rewarded. That *is* the same thing as punishing you.

  • in other news (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "local resident Rob Timlin found dead; apparent suicide by nasal insertion of a 21" monitor."

    Be careful out there.

  • Prof: Don, I checked your citations in your thesis. There are a few that are incorrect.
    Don: Hey, I did just as good of a job as the Department of Justice! If the government can't get it right, why do I have to?
  • ...in which less-scrupulous team members would make up citations out of whole cloth, knowing no one would care enough to actually consult them.

  • Thanks, and what I did... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ok, I missed the posting completely since it didn't show up on the main page, but I wanted to thank those that responded.

    I ended up e-mailing the DOJ (at both the main Antitrust and the MS Case addresses) notifying them of the error and requesting that it be fixed. I've not heard back yet (it's been three days).

    I'll give them a couple more days then contact them again. If they continue to ignore it, I plan on sending a letter to the Clerk of the D.C. District Court notifying them of the error AND the DOJ's apparent refusal to acknowledge and correct it.

    Unfortunately, I don't live in one of the litigating states, else I would contact my AG. Thanks to John Q. Public for CA's address for the case though - it's the first contact info I've seen for the states.

    The reason this bothers me is they're effectively putting words into my mouth in Federal Court. That's wrong no matter how you look at it. They could just delete the reference to my comment and I'd be satisfied.

    Oh well. If anything does happen, I'll post here (if anybody's around to read it!)

    -Robb Timlin (I'll create an account one of these days...)

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Close