MS Trial: DOJ Selected Comments Skate by Reality

Erick Gustafson, Direct of State and Federal Campaigns issued the following statement:

“After reviewing a substantial number of the public comments submitted to the Department of Justice in accordance with the Tunney Act, it is clear that the DoJ’s process for selecting the ‘substantive’ comments sent to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on February 14th was as rigged as Olympic figure skating.

“Not only did the DoJ staff select comments hostile towards Microsoft, it selected comments that tended to view the proceeding as a chance to offer theories of how antitrust should be employed to manage competition to the benefit of competitors. Instead of addressing the settlement in light of the specific legal issues raised and the Appeals’ Court’s narrowed scope of liability, many of these comments explained the effect of their proposed micromanagement of the software industry with such paternalism that they read like a wish list of a Microsoft competitor.

“Additionally, media reports indicated that of the 30,000-plus comments received by the DoJ, comments opposed to the settlement outnumbered those in favor by 2 to 1. But when taking into account those comments that reject antitrust law generally, or believe humans incapable of prospectively restructuring markets to benefit consumers, the breakdown is essentially even. None of the more than 1,000 comments contributed by CSE’s grassroots activists nor the lengthy and substantive comment of our Chairman, C. Boyden Gray, former Whitehouse Counsel to President George Bush were made a part of the representative sample for the Tunney Act proceedings.

“The most disturbing thing about this mess has been the DoJ’s dismissive attitude towards the comments of real, everyday Americans. The DoJ has given the impression that the thoughts of software consumers are unworthy of attention because they are not part of the Beltway intelligentsia.”