|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01463.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1463<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<p>
From collinsh Wed Oct 21 18:39:25 1992<br />
X-MSMail-Message-ID: AF288A4E<br />
X-MSMail-Conversation-ID: AF288A4E<br />
X-MSMail-WiseRemark: Microsoft Mail - 3.0.729<br />
To: billmi jonl steveb<br />
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 92 18:38:40 PDT<br />
Subject: FW: novell and wfw
</p>
<p>
----------<br />
From: <COLLEENL@or.wagged.com><br />
To: <PAMED@or.wagged.com>;
<microsoft!collinsh><br />
Cc: <KELLEYL@or.wagged.com>;
<PAMK@or.wagged.com>;
<RAYB@or,wagged.com>; <CLAIRE@wa.wagged.com>;
<susanh@wa.wagged.com>;
<microsoft!bradsi>; <microsoft!russs><br />
Subject: FW: novell and wfw<br />
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1992 5:32PM
</p>
<p>
Notes from richt and claire.
</p>
<p>
Novell product FUD points: broken, uncertified, illiegal,
dangerous, void
netware warranty and crash your network.<br />
Novell business FUD points: stolen, unfair,
anti-competitive, bad faith,
raises spector of FTC investigation and costing us lots of
money in support.
</p>
<p>
Critical piece: We need to have a very clear answer to
questions on why we
didn't give novell beta early on in the process.
</p>
<p>
To address Novell FUD, we recommended a three pronged
approach touching on
the product, support and corporate components of the
issue.
</p>
<p>
Product side:<br />
MS put into WFW what
customers want and need<br />
Good for Netware
customers<br />
Product is incredibly well
tested<br />
12K beta sites<br />
Just Windows 3.1 plus
networking<br />
Solid legal ground<br
/>
Novell is hurting the
industry--not just MS<br />
Hurting customers<br />
Competitive ploy<br />
Similar to apple
lawsuit<br />
Compete in courtroom--not in
the market<br />
Action will close down
innovation--need to explain technical issues
behind licensing
</p>
<p>
Everyone else in the industry has open standards for what
Novell is
complaining about--xerox, IBM, digital, U.S. Gov with
TCP/IP, NFS and MS
NDIS. Novell has licensed the code broadly in the
industry to OEMs, ISVs
and IHVs. Why isn't Novell pulling code from these other
companies?
</p>
<p>
ACTION: Find out what companies have licensed from Novell
the IPX
protocol/Netware redirector?
</p>
<p>
Corporate Stragegy:<br />
PR is only one component of the corporate communications
stratgegy.. We need
to rally the industry behind us so that they will be our
advocates--OEMs,
ISVs, international, sales, etc.
</p>
<p>
Our view: Novell's actions are hurting the industry, not
just
Microsoft--closing down innovation.
</p>
<p>
Support Strategy:
</p>
<p>
As we did with the undocumented calls announcement, We
need to explain the
technolggy and rationale behind a licensing
aqreement---<br />
what is a license?<br
/>
why do companies distribute
licenses?<br />
what is novell upset
about?<br />
what's a netware protocol?
how does it work?<br />
who has licenses? why? what
do you do with one?<br />
How has MS has been working
with Novell over the years?<br />
what is MS willing to do re:
NetWare support--handle all calls for
Novell? Distribute Windows
resource kits free to all wfw users?
</p>
<p>
----------<br />
From: collinsh<br />
To: billg; bradsi; mikemap; paulma; steveb; tonya<br />
Cc: billmi; billp; collinsh; johnlu; jonl: martyta;
pamelago; richt: russs,
w-clair1: w-coll; w-pamed; w-rayb<br />
Subject: RE: novell and wfw<br />
Date: Wed, Oct 21, 1992 12:18PM
</p>
<p>
Pam, Colleen, and I have discussed the "state of PR" re:
the looming
Novell threat. We're alarmed over worst-case possibility.
We need to
be prepared for two levels of action, where No. 1 is what
we're already
doing and No. 2 is what we are unprepared for today:
</p>
<p>
1. Things roll along with Novell grumping and we get a
few more dings
in the press but ultimately things get resolved, if not
this week then
in a couple of weeks. In this case, we stay the current
course: We
find 8-10 good Netware users who talk about how great this
is for users
(in process); we talk w/lab people and techeds on same
issue and
confirm that product is good for them on NetWare
(Colleen/Ray -- start
this); we talk w/lewis and a couple of other key analysts
about how
this is good for customers, and try to create a
groundswell of "this is
good for customer" stories to help prevent Novell from
nuking us if
things finally break down in a couple of weeks. We
proceed w/launch as
usual.
</p>
<p>
2. We prepare for Novell nuking us any time from noon
Thur to noon
Tue; we assume events of last week are a deliberate effort
to sabotage
the launch. Agency and I agree we should start scrambling
now and not
wait till possible noon Thur call -- we are NOT prepared
now should
they "Apple us" and file suit late Thur or, say, Fri at 5
p.m. w/all
our key execs out of pocket in Euro or at company meeting
or en route
to NY; or if Novell does this the a.m. of the announce.
</p>
<p>
We need to assign a SWAT team to prepare for this
possibility as
otherwise we will not get focus during the last crazy days
getting
ready for the launch itself; and we need to develop a
position on the
biz/legal issues and folo w/whatever materials, response,
press
statement/release that we may deem necessary.
</p>
<p>
If you read all the press since Strategy Day, it's all
been about how
MS is out to kill them and LANtastic; sabotaging WFW
launch is a
not-so-unrational response -- esp. since they control many
of the small
net resellers who will want to sell WFW. It wouldn't take
a lot of FUD
to bring us to a halt. They'll position this again as
big, bad MS --
can't trust 'em, can't do biz w/them, they're yanking us
around, didn't
even bother to test it w/NW, it'll break on NW and they'll
blame us, etc.
</p>
<p>
Most of the issues are larger than PR itself. We need to
get Steveb,
Billp, Bradsi, TonyA, RussS or delegatees in a room
together NLT Thur
a.m. Pam and I are ready to leap into this -- PE can be
here in the
a.m.; I can start working w/people today and also meet
tomorrow. I
suggest Tony drive getting the right people together ASAP,
NLT thur a.m.
</p>
<p>
The issues we need to have a POV on are:</p>
<p>
1. What will MS do if Novell seeks an injunction? Would
a judge
likely grant one? What would be more reasonable steps a
judge would
do, short of that, and what would be our response? Do
they have any
ground to stand on re: license itself or testing issue?
If the issue
is testing or support, would MS offer to do this for
Novell? If so,
should we proactively offer to do it this week, as good
guys interested
in the customer? ("MS announced today that it will
provide free
support to all Novell users for the first X days after WFW
ships,
announced that it's making its KnowledgeBase available
free to Novell,
offered to send Y engineers to Provo to answer calls,
etc.")
</p>
<p>
2. What are the legal and perceptual issues re: our
failure to have
Novell test product until last minute? Who else did we
exclude from
the beta who might ding us, and why?<br />
(Who else will call the press and say, "they cheated us
too.")
</p>
<p>
3. In addition to direct public response WRT press, what
will we do
WRT resellers, customers, OEMs, international? Who will
he in place to
handle those communications? Esp. if this breaks late
Friday.
</p>
<p>
4. Any other actions MS might take if Novell files suit
or publicly
threatens to, or otherwise takes a nasty hard line in
public that would
create serious FUD on Tue. What actions (legal or biz,
not just PR)
could MS take, and how would we position this publicly?
What other
proactive BIZ things could we do to fix this or make it
clear that the
issue is harmless to Novell and good for customers?
</p>
<p>
At mininun we need to have in our back pockets:
</p>
<p>
1. Updated Q&A addressing such issues as: why didn't
ve give them beta
so they could test? Why is it incompat w/NW 4.0? How
will we fix?
Essentially address the things we need to re: "test" issue
in contract.
Why doesn't DR-DOS work and did we do anything to break
it?
</p>
<p>
1a. Add more to the "injunction" section where we flesh
out some of
the things judges are known to do short of "pull it off
the shelves."
Develop a position that shows worst-case almost never
happens, and that,
plenty of rational solutions exist that would satisfy
Novell and help
customers.
</p>
<p>
2. Timeline from when we first signed contract to things
like design
previews where Drew Major was present; PDC and other
devcons where we
talked about it; good selection of clips over several
months where NW
support is described; damning Windows Mag article where
their guy is
bragging about NW client; etc. Show that they clearly
knew about this.
(Tony and billp were working on this for possible legal
use, but we
need a synopsis for possible press use.)
</p>
<p>
3. Relevant pages of contract where use is permitted in
win3.1
products and consider showing or giving to the press.
</p>
<p>
4. Claire is composing notes on the road about editor
opinions as to
what Novell will do -- we'll throw these in the pot for
consideration
as well (should have by end of day today) -- what would
our response to
those actions be?
</p>
<p>
We may or may not use some of this but we need to have it
ready to go
and a team to deal with this.
</p>
<p>
5. Continue doing all the other "good for customer" stuff
in Scenario 1.
</p>
<p>
collins
</p>
<p>
----------<br />
From: Tony Audino <tonya@microsoft.com><br />
To: billg; bradsi; mikemap; paulma; steveb<br />
Cc: billp; collinsh; johnlu; jonl; martyta; russs; tonya;
w-clair1<br />
Subject: novell and wfw<br />
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1992 5:08PM
</p>
<p>
i talked with john edwards this afternoon. i.have been
trying to reach
him since last friday. there was no softening in his
tone about the
issue in fact he was more belligerent than ever. he said
that he has
had his testing team running wfw thru the paces since he
recd the
product from me last thurs-- according to him they are
working around
the clock. he said they have about 28 different
configurations on
which they are running wfw in conjunction with netware.
they currently
have 12 items on their list of concerns and they aren't
finished yet.
most of their concerns center around our use of a
dedicated IPX driver
in wfw vs their preference for the ODI driver. they have
discontinued
use of a dedicated IPX driver and are no longer supporting
it. he
mentioned 3 major concerns:<br />
1) they cannot support our use of IPX in WFW; it will
cause major
support problems for them.<br />
2) during driver detection we reload MSIPX and no longer
use the ODI
drivers. then reboot the system and it hangs. part of the
problem is
we bypass netconfig.sys. WFW works OK but some of the
other novell
services are hosed.<br />
3) our use of dedicated IPX driver will cause of some
their SPX apps to
crash (this sounds like it may be the same issue as (2)
but he
mentioned it separately).
</p>
<p>
he said that his testers will be finished by tomorrow and
he will call
me from austin with a complete list of their concerns. at
that time we
can decide when/where our technical people can meet. he
also mentioned
that he is very concerned about receiving a shrink-wrapped
package from
me. this obviously means we are building the product and
shipping it
out to the channel. i told him we are preparing for our
launch event
but otherwise didn't comment on our building of the
product. he also
said that we have broken our pledge not to talk with the
press since
the story initially broke. he mentioned that his PR
people have a list
of at least 20 people in the press of have talked with
people from MS
UK about this issue. so he no longer feels obligated to
stick with
this pledge. he said he has had the press lined up at
his door and
hasn't talked with them but feels he may need to respond.
</p>
<p>
i think there is at least a 50/50 chance they are
preparing a case for
getting an injunction against us. edwards shows no signs
of wanting to
resolve this issue and continually mentions how we
breached the
agreeement by not providing them with a version for
testing until just
the other day. we shold be prepared for this worst case.
billp is
meeting with outside counsel today to brief them on the
issue. clair
will be arranging a time for PR and product people to meet
to talk
about a worst cast scenario and how we should respond.
i'm trying to
arrange a conference call between noorda and billg for
thurs at noon.
i'm waiting to hear back from noorda's office. i will
send mail after
talking with edwards tomorrow. i will also follow up with
phil buggins
in the UK to find out what if anything was said there.
</p>
<p>
To: bradc bradsi<br />
Subject: win 3.1 beta<br />
Cc: lizsi w-pamed<br />
Date: Thu Nov 7 10:33:51 1991
</p>
<p>
if you are NOT sending dri the win3.1 beta or not giving
them access
that other developers have then we will have a HUGE HUGE
major
pr problem on our hands<br />
we cant go out and claim we are only trying to help
customers
and then trash dri....even if we do it in a devious and
smart way
and then have the press find out that ms has been cheating
and lying<br />
say it isnt so ....we will have ZERO credabilty with the
press
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
150<br />
From bradsi Thu Nov 07 12:15:17 1991<br />
To: josephk richt<br />
Subject: RE: OS/2 2<br />
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 12:15:17 PST
</p>
<p>
i'm sure it will be no problem getting a resource on tool
production.
when doug comes over, it will be very very clear what the
objective
is. we need to think through strategy issues too, not
just tactics.
like issues related to ole 2 or things ibm might put in
os/2 that
we need to respond to.
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
151<br />
From bradsi Thu Nov 07 12:15:47 1991<br />
To: davidcol philba<br />
Cc: sharonh<br />
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 Warning<br />
Date: Thu, O7 Nov 91 12:15:47 PST
</p>
<p>
i am out of town tomorrow. sorry.
</p>
<p>
>From davidool Thu Nov 7 11:28:16 1991<br />
To: bradsi philba<br />
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 Warning<br />
Cc: sharonh<br />
Date: Thu Nov 7 11:27:35 1991
</p>
<p>
Bradsi, you may want to attend this. We will be dicussing
the warning message win 3.1 will postwhen setup on
non-MSDOS systems.
</p>
<p>
----<br />
>From ninamay Thu Nov 7 11:19:41 1991<br />
To: billp davidcol philba richab<br />
Cc: debrav kharrang ninamay petermi<br />
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 Warning<br />
Date: Thu Nov 07 11:19:01 PDT 1991
</p>
<p>
I have scheduled a meeting regarding the above for Friday,
November 8,
1991, at 9am in the LCA Conference Room (8S/1073). If
there are any
conflicts, please let me know. Thanks.
</p>
<p>
Nina
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
152<br />
From bradsi Thu Nov 07 12:16:24 1991<br />
To: davidcol lioneljo<br />
Cc: bobt lioneljo timbr<br />
Subject: Re: Toolhelp and Mansour Safai<br />
Date: Thu, O7 Nov 91 12:16:24 PST
</p>
<p>
he's glad to work on toolhelp.
</p>
<p>
>From lioneljo Thu Nov 7 11:31:41 1991<br />
To: bradsi davidcol<br />
Cc: bobt lioneljo timbr<br />
Subject: Toolhelp and Mansour Safai<br />
Date: Thu Nov 07 12:31:10 PDT 1991
</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
Comes 1463 is pretty interesting from that perspective - I'll post
it after this message. It's all about a possible response if Novell "sabotages"
the Windows for Workgroups launch. Yet some of them seemed to be
able to see things quite rationally, actually! A snippet from what you posted
(above):To: bradc bradsi
Subject: win 3.1 beta
Cc: lizsi
w-pamed
Date: Thu Nov 7 10:33:51 1991
if you are NOT sending dri
the win3.1 beta or not giving
them access
that other developers have then
we will have a HUGE HUGE
major
pr problem on our hands
we cant go
out and claim we are only trying to help
customers
and then trash
dri....even if we do it in a devious and
smart way
and then have the press
find out that ms has been cheating
and lying
say it isnt so ....we will
have ZERO credabilty with the
press Yes, it would be a bad PR thing
to get caught cheating and lying. :D I'm rather impressed that someone was
willing to be so honest about being devious, though.
DRI would probably
be Digital Research, Inc. (DR-DOS) for anyone not following.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
