Last week, I asked readers what they thought of my 10 point plan for dealing with Microsoft, and just over 700 of you bothered to write with various ideas, questions, and criticisms. This volume of messages explains why most didn't receive replies from me, at least not yet. But I did read them all.

To me, the most interesting aspect of this e-mail exercise was that no messages came from those identifying themselves as Microsoft employees, nor were there very many messages in any way defending or justifying Microsoft's actions. It is clear that Bill Gates has told his people to be quiet, something they hardly ever used to do. Microsoft has more discipline than ever, and I get the feeling the company still has hopes this thing will somehow blow over.

Only three of 700 plus messages came from lawyers, none accompanied by invoices.

One thing that pleased me a lot was the almost total lack of folks telling me I deserved to die for my ideas. My ideas were stupid and unworkable to many, but I'll apparently live to write again.

If I made an obvious factual mistake, it was in claiming that monopolies are no-no's. It turns out that only abusive monopolies are no-no's. Makes sense to me.

Many, many, many nerds wrote to explain their definitions of an operating system, though I think the real idea of last week's point Number One was that the lawyers were supposed to agree on a legal definition of an operating system. Still, I learned a lot about operating systems, especially that there are lots of programmers who would get in fistfights if they shared their personal definitions of what an OS is, since they varied so much.

Readers were generally cynical. They found that 10 points were too many and that a single blow with a blunt instrument was preferred. For the most part, they thought Chinese Walls were laughable and that Microsoft having ethics was an oxymoron. "The Chinese Wall ends at the Chinese restaurant," said one writer from Israel, where the Chinese food is especially good.

Many readers thought I was too easy on Microsoft. "I want to know where the naked-upside-down-crucifixion-for-Gates part went," wrote one reader. Did I forget to include that part? Another reader wanted Microsoft to be simply "outlawed."

On the other hand, another reader writing-in from some alternate universe said, "I hope the DOJ doesn't think the same way you do. Microsoft has gotten where it is by being better at business than its competitors. So, to ask Microsoft to practice the methods of these same competitors is ludicrous. It's like telling the smart kid in class to quit studying because his good grades are making the other kids look bad. Bob, when it comes down to it what you are advocating is Communism."

Bob the Commie? Red Bob? I like it! Loyalty oaths, anyone?

My idea of spinning-off the programming languages business got the most attention. Most readers liked it, even if they worried about how it might affect their own careers. This is the part that will probably endure. Heck, maybe even a judge or two will hear about it.

Yes, what I proposed is cumbersome, but consent decrees are ultimately cumbersome and yet they can work. Yes, there are a zillion technical ways around any of these provisions, but I think the same could be said of every other provision, including even outlawing Microsoft.

The best part of all this is that people went from arguing about this case to THINKING about it. And the quality of thought that emerged from many of the messages I received was wonderful. There were new ideas that I certainly hadn't considered — ideas as good or better than mine.

Standardized, or at least fully published, file formats were high on many wish lists. I have written before about Microsoft's use of ever changing and always secret file formats to both stifle competitors and force user upgrades. Lots of folks want Microsoft to be forced to publish the technical details of its file formats and be forced to stick to those formats. The very good idea here is that it would give third-party application vendors a chance to compete on technical merit.

Many readers were opposed to bundling applications with PCs. Some even opposed bundling an operating system, hoping that bare hardware would make it easier for software vendors to compete on pure technical merit. I am not saying they are wrong.

For all the efforts of the Department of Justice and of the Federal Trade Commission before it, one very smart reader pointed out how the U.S. Government has done its best to help Microsoft by mandating Microsoft-only applications and file formats for pretty much everything except Acrobat files. "The Federal government is a near Windows monoculture," said this sage. "Either Congress or the President should require that no one single company have more than 34 percent of the government's operating system business." Clever, but just as with minority Federal contractors, how long would it take Microsoft to find a way around that one?

"It seems to me that there is a simple and fundamental test for every proposed remedy in the anti-trust case," wrote another reader. "Would it result in the release of Microsoft Word, Excel, etc. for Linux? I am not a Linux user or promoter, but don't you think that 'but for' the Windows monopoly Microsoft would be joining the battle for the office productivity market on the Linux platform? Would your Chinese wall system be enough to spur Microsoft's office productivity group to write for Linux?"

Not by itself, no.

So there are lots of ideas, none of them obviously better than the others. But many readers pointed out at least one area in which we can all be thankful. Even without a verdict in this case Microsoft has had to be more careful about how it does business, allowing other businesses to succeed where they might otherwise have been crushed. "My highest hopes have been that this thing will drag along through the court system for several more years while Sun, Red Hat, Sony, Apple, Palm, Nokia — you name it — gradually slide the industry out from under Microsoft making the whole monopoly thing irrelevant," wrote a clever reader.

Would that be Communism, too?