|
|
|
| Authored by: foulis on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 09:29 PM EDT |
<p
align=right><b>PLAINTIFF'S<br>EXHIBIT<br><u>4490</
u></b><br>Comes v. Microsoft</p>
<b>From:</b> Joachim Kempin<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 27, 1996 11:34 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Marshall Brumer<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Intel payments for logo usage</p>
they continue to play hardball.</p>
<blockquote>-------<br>
<b>From:</b> Marshall Brumer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 26, 1996 9:03 AM<br>
<b>To:</b>Joachim Kempin<br>
<b>Subject:</b> FW: Intel payments for logo usage</p>
do you know status of this? It is coming up in the press now.</p>
-------<br>
<b>From:</b> Bill Gates<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 09, 1996 10:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b>Joachim Kempin<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Maritz; Marshall Brumer; Rich Tong; Jonathan
Roberts; David Heiner<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Intel payments for logo usage</p>
I decided to send this issue to a small group.</p>
Intel pays out about $500M per year in advertising incentive money for people to
use their logo. It is serious money. When Compaq decided to join the program it
cost them a lot. They sort of hope IBM doesn't joint[sic] since that would also
cost them a lot.</p>
They have adopted a policy that if there is more than one logo then they pay a
lot less. I told Andy that they should just reduce payments after 2 logos
(theirs and one others). He tried to say the lawyers thought that was a problem
and I told him that was real nonsense since they wouldn't be saying anything
about the second logo and whose it is. He said he is the decision maker on this
issue. He said he will talk to the lawyers again. I told him I didn't want him
to hide behind the lawyers since dropping payments after 2 is certainly as open
as dropping payments after 1. We may have to get our lawyers to talk to their
lawyers at some point. Joachim – go ahead and talk to Ottelini. If we can't get
it structured this way I will want the lawyers to give their opinion and I will
make one more appeal to Andy.</p>
If it turns out we can't get this solved I have another idea. Its an idea that
might make sense even if the logo thing stays intact. We could use MDA incentive
to convince Oems to refer to the PCs they license Windows on as WindowsPC's
rather then IBM compatible. We could incent[sic] them to use this designation
sort of like we do the logo. If we were successful the world would change the
way it talks about PCs to WindowsPCs.</p></blockquote>
<p
align=right>MS-PCA-2618927<br>HIGHLY<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
[ Stamped ]
[ PLAINTIFF'S ]
[ EXHIBIT ]
[ 1340 ]
[ Comes v. Microsoft ]
To: worksmgr
Subject: FW: AOL positive comments on version 2.0
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 92 10:05:17 PDT
| >From rosiek Tue Jun 2 10:00:13 1992
| X-MSMail-Message-ID: 04B3F54B
| X.MSMail-Conversation-ID: 04B3F54B
| X-MSMail-WiseRemark: Microsoft Mail - 3.0.620
| >From: Rosie Khoo <rosiek@microsof.com>
| To: lpcdg1 mwteam
| Date: Tue, Jun 02 92 09:57:59 AM
| Subject: FW: AOL positive comments on version 2.0
| Cc: heidib
|
| Little bit of background...Chris handles questions on America OnLine
| >from out Works 2.0 users, Ptease read on!! rosie
|-------
| >From: Chris Perry
| To: Rosie Khoo
| Subject: AOL positive comments.
| Date: Tue, Jun 2. 1992 6:44AM
|
| Subj: Missing Data 92-05-28 23:21:26 EDT
| >From: Norm V
|
| Attn: Chris Perry Microsoft/PSS
|
| Thanks for the quick response. I just returned to Charlotte & will try
your
| suggestions in the morning. We appreciate the support Microsoft is providing
| on Works. Unlike some others - we do not intend to switch to the competition.
| We have used Works so long & have much time & $ invested in our
business
| Databases to "try out" the new kids on the block! We also maintain
our
| customers in a competitive field with good product & technical support.
I'm
| glad our competitors are short sighted & have not caught on to this very
| important part of sales - post sales support.
|
| Regards,
|
From mikemap Tue Jun 2 13:33:29 1992
To: susanb tomr
Subject: DR-DOS
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 92 01:32:15 PDT
Mail-Flags: 0000
We dont want to loose any works deal because of DRDOS. We need
[ Stamped ]
[ EXHIBIT ]
[ 9 (handwritten)]
[ Boeschen (handwritten)]
[ 9.2701 (handwritten)]
[ Stamped ]
[ MS-PCA 1800670 ]
[ ]
[ HIGHLY ]
[ CONFIDENTIAL ]
to keep the efforts seperate unless there is a compelling
strategic reason.
From donnag Tue Jun 2 13:28:34 1992
To: johnsage tomr
Subject: FW: RE: Important - DR DOS rumor
Date: Tue Jun 02 13:27:49 PDT 1992
In the continuing saga .....
>From joachimk Tue Jun 2 11:40:23 1992
To: bradc susanb
Cc: bradc bradsi donnag johnwil sergiop
Subject: RE: Important - DR DOS rumor
Date: Tue Jun 02 11:14:10 PDT 1992
You are completely out of line BRAD. We cannot tie MS-DOS sales to
APPS sales and that is what You are suggesting. I take their money
for WORKS and continue to turn the DOS situation around which we
lost because we slipped product schedules in the first place.
| >From bradc Fri May 29 17:58:08 1992
|To: susanb
|Cc: bdarc bradsi donnag joachimk johnwil sergiop
|Subject: RE: Important - DR DOS rumor
|
| X-MSMail-Message-ID: 87968F7A
| X-MSMail-Conversation-ID: 87968F7A
| X-MSMail-WiseRemark: Microsoft Mail - 3.0.620
| From: Brad Chase <bradc@microsoft.com>
| Date: Fri, May 29 92 17:54:07 PDT
|
| this is a difficult mail. i am familiar with OEMs effort to convert
| them to MS-DOS and in fact one if my people has been trying to assist
| (Sergio may I pls have an update by end of day tuesday?).
| Moreover, I do not argue your rights as an application group but we do need to
look
| at the larger picture here. Over here in systems we go out and tell the
| world that DR DOS is not MS-DOS (which it is not) and that one of the
| key benefits of MS-DOS is compatibility now and in the future. We
| reinforce that OEMs and ISVs primarily test their applications on
| MS-DOS and not DR DOS (which is true) and that consequently there
| is compatibility risk now and in the future if a user goes with DR DOS.
| This has proven true as DR has already had 5 revs of DR DOS 6 since
| their sept release.
|
| However, if we put ROM Works on this machine it is equivalent to MS
[ Stamped ]
[ MS-PCA 1800671 ]
[ ]
[ HIGHLY ]
[ CONFIDENTIAL ]
| endorsing DR as equivalent to MS-DOS. DR can stand up and tell the
| world (including other OEMs) that even MS apps group thinks DR DOS is
| fine. Even if you do no work in house by agreeing you are saying you
| are comfortable with the quality of Works running on DR DOS.
| Moreover, MS is helping to sell a machine with an OS that is a agressive and
| well funded competitor. Would anyone in this company do a deal with
| IBM and OS/2? I think not.
|
| I realize that if you don't do the deal then it will go to one of your
| competitors and I realize there is short term revenue involved but am
| not sure at the macro level that this is the best thing for the company.
| Feedback is welcome, I will get a complete brief from Sergio so I
| understand all the facts (including the revenue for the Works group)
| and will make sure we re-double our efforts to get ms-dos on this
| palmtop so the issue goes away. In the mean time this deal has me
| very concerned.
|
| thx
| ------------
| | From: Susan Boeschen
| | To: Brad Chase
| | Cc: Brad Silverberg; Donna Garrison; John Williams; Sergio Pineda
| | Subject: Important - DR DOS rumor
| | Date: Fri, May 29,1992. 2:33PM
| |
| | Commodore is creating a palmtop product for the US and Euro markets
| | targeted for shipment during the Fall timeframe. They have opted
| | to go with DR DOS ROM version due to a contractual commitment
| | with DRI and price issues. There is no option to leverage
| | an MSDOS/Apps deal. The OEM team is still working to convert them.
| |
| | They have expressed interest in our ROM Works product, and we have
| | been negotiating for a 100K commitment from them. We are not offering
| | a special version of the product. This is our regular ROM Works product
| | and we have been very clear that we will not change the product to
| | address any DR DOS quirks. We've also told them that our product is
| | untested under DR DOS. As with all ROM Works projects, we will
| | do compatibility testing here on campus to insure proper performance.
| |
| | While we're behind the OEM team in their negotiations to get
[ Stamped ]
[ MS-PCA 1800672 ]
[ ]
[ HIGHLY ]
[ CONFIDENTIAL ]
| | MS DOS on this machine and will cooperate in any way we can,
| | we're an application group and will offer our product on
| | any platform it runs on. We have Mac products and at Bill's
| | directive went pretty far down the development path in the past with
| | both Deskmate and Atari versions as well. In this case we're
| | not offering any special development work as it doesn't make
| | sense from a business perspective but "yes" it's possible we
| | will cut a ROM Works deal for a DR DOS machine unless the OEM
| | group can get them to convert to MS DOS.
| |
| | We cannot leverage an MS DOS deal with apps, and the OEM team is
| | going at them hard to convert.
| |
| |>From susanb Thu May28 16:17:17 1992
| |To: donnag johnwil
| |Subject: ROM Works
| |
| |Date: Thu May 28 16:16:18 1992
| |
| | Can you please give me more details on our ROM Works
| | deal.
| |
| |>From bradc Thu May28 15:30:33 1992
| |X-MSMail-Message-ID: F2E6E4ED
| |X-MSMail-Conversation-ID: F2E6E4ED
| |X-MSMail-WiseRemark: Microsoft Mail - 3.0.620
| |From Brad Chase <bradc@microsoft.com>
| |To: susanb
| |Date: Thu, May 28 92 15:26:13 PDT
| |Subject: Important - DR DOS rumor
| |Cc: bradc bradsi sergiop
| |
| |Susan could you fill me in on a vicious rumor that we are doing a
| |special version of Works in ROM to support the ROM version of DR DOS
| |for a Commodore machine? Is it true? what is the scoop?
| |one if our test mgrs heard this from mugen
| |
| |thx.
| |Brad
| |
| |
From susanb Tue Jun 2 13:02:49 1992
To: cdmgr
Subject: CES Trip report
Date: Tue Jun 2 13:02:40 1992
Mail-Flags: 0000
>From tammyt Mon Jun 1 18:01:39 1992
To: ebumktg susanb worksmkt
Cc: beva karenme klmy kirstye megm tammyt
Sublect: CES Trip report
Date: Thu May 28 17:07:01 PDT 1992
This briefly summarizes an account presentation to Circuit City
[ Stamped ]
[ MS-PCA 1800673 ]
[ ]
[ HIGHLY ]
[ CONFIDENTIAL ]
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
