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!
What you have to realize ... (Score:3, Flamebait)
... 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)
Respect! Props! Give it up for Robb! (Score:1)
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.
DOJ fails to acknowledge my comment (Score:1, Redundant)
Let the litigating states know (Score:3, Informative)
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!
Re:Let the litigating states know (Score:3, Funny)
This may not be evil incarnate... (Score:1)
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.
Re:This may not be evil incarnate... (Score:2)
Re:This is fishy... (Score:1)
Re:This is fishy... (Score:1, Offtopic)
What exactly is your complaint here? (Score:1)
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)
Be careful out there.
Brining Back Memories of College Classes (Score:1)
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?
Hmmm, reminds me of High School debate class... (Score:1)
Thanks, and what I did... (Score:1, Informative)
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...)