|
|
|
| Authored by: foulis on Sunday, July 15 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
<p
align=right><b>PLAINTIFF'S<br>EXHIBIT</b><br><u>
;1497</u><br>Comes v. Microsoft</p>
<p align=center>Compaq Confidential<br>Need to know</p>
<p align=right>HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL<br>Subject to Protective Orders
in <i>Coordinated Proceedings<br>Microsoft I-V Cases,</i>
J.C.C.P. No 4106 (S.F Super. Ct)<br>and <i>In re Microsoft Corp.
Antitrust Litigation</i></p>
<center>Notes from December 15, 1992 Compaq/Microsoft Executive
Briefing</center></p>
The MS key attendees included Paul Maritz, Brad Silverberg and Carl Stork. Rob
Glaser stopped in for only a few moments. Bill Gates joined the briefing at
10:30am. The OEM account team was represented by Joachim Kempin, Mark Baber and
Tom Davis. Other MS attendees included Bill Miller and Dennis Adler (Chicago
Product Manager?).</p>
Compaq attendees included Gary Stimac, Lorie Strong, John Paul, Mike Clark, Vic
Mahadevan, Bob Jackson, Deepak Sharma and Dave Hocker.</p>
The meeting was preceded by a spirited hall discussion with Steve Ballmer over
our plans to pre-install both NetWare Lite (NWL) and WfW. Steve could understand
why we would want to pre-install the NetWare client product, but he was
astounded that we woould even consider pre-installing what he thought was a
grossly inferior product. He stated bluntly that it would be hard for him to see
us as a partner if we were pre-installed NWL because it was a direct competitor
and it was counter to MS strategy. He stated that it appeared we were going in
different directions, as our strategy did not seem to embody plug and play.
Steve was his usual, ebullient self during the entire discussion.</p>
I opened the formal briefing by reviewing the agenda. Lorie picked up form[sic]
there and lead the discussion through our mutual goals, PCMCIA and plug 'n'
play. The discussion tended to center around what Compaq wanted.</p>
There was plenty of agreement on the goals of beating Apple. Brad Silverberg
commented that everyone on the Windows team had a copy of the Apple
advertisement we showed. He also commented that we weren't the only ones
(besides MS) that wanted to take definitive action to combat Apple's campaign.
Brad said there were at least 4-5 other OEMs that were poised for
action.</p>
We also agreed on the goals of PCMCIA and plug 'n' play:</p>
<blockquote>1. We need to take action sooner rather than later, namely in
1993.<p>
2. What ever we do in 1993 needs to be seen as the first step of a longer term
plan, with the second step being Chicago.</p></blockquote>
However, we are going to have a difficult time figuring out how to get the
timing right on these projects. MS sees both tied tightly together. They also
see that it takes 12-15 months for the industry to respond to new standards. As
a result they feel that the specs for these items will need to be released in
3/93. We have a hard time figuring out how we will obtain our desired
"ROI" for involvement in shaping these standards if the gun is fired
on 3/93. At this time, it is unclear as to how we might resolve these issues,
but MS is willing to see if we can work to some agreement. Lorie and I took the
action item to determine how we work out this issue.</p>
The issue of advantageous royalty was boxed tightly by MS. they feel we are
getting what we want in the new business agreement and they</p>
<p align=right>COMPAQ012219</p>
<hr>
<br>
have no interest in negotiating financial issues on a project by project basis.
They see it as nickel-and-diming. One thing we did learn, is that MS does not
really recognize how important cost is to us. They don't think we should be
quibbling over a dollar or two. In a side conversation with Paul Maritz, I asked
him what percent of product cost went to MS software. He said he thought it was
about 10%. The fact is that two years ago it was well under 1%, but today it is
about 6%-8%. He didn't seem to get the point that we fell[sic] that's too
high.</p>
There were some interesting comments made by Brad Silverberg during the working
relationship discussion. He stated very clearly that he didn't think they really
understood what our contribution has been, nor do they clearly understand what
our future contribution might be. He said it in context that made it very
difficult to tell if he thought we over value our contributions, or if we under
value them. He also commented that there are 4-5 OEMs capable of doing what we
can do for plug 'n' play and PCMCIA. The same 4-5 are just as interested in
doing something about the Apple threat.</p>
On the Apple advertising problem, Brad commented that Apple had to withdraw
their advertisements in Australia because too much of the content was
false.</p>
After the discussion on PCMCIA and plug 'n' play, Gary gave an update on the
current situation around PCI. It was agreed that we all would encourage AMD, TI,
etc. to have the PCI steering committee ask Intel to publicly state its policies
for licensing the patents needed to practise PCI.</p>
Bill joined the discussion a little after 10:30am. At that time Lorie reviewed
where we had been. Bill made additional commentary about the market leadership,
royalty and time to market issues, but they were basically the same as the rest
of the MS key attendees. Lorie took everyone through the Adams model. Bill
commented that it was a superior design, providing of course the real product
matched the model.</p>
Bill commented on the MSKK situation, acknowledging that Win 3.1J has slipped to
5/93. He knows they are being hurt just as must[sic] as we are by the slippage,
but he feels all that can de done is being done.</p>
Lorie reviewed the portable and desktop product line charts to give MS an idea
on where we were headed in 1993. Questions were asked about our plans for a
sub-notebook, when we would have NICs down, and when we would do something with
CD-ROM. MS expects to ship 20 CD-ROM titles in '93.</p>
After the product line overview, Bill gave his view of MS' key strategies and
thrusts for '93. It was an impressive list of efforts:</p>
<blockquote>WfW will pave the way to Chicago. "Chicago will be better
than the Mac". Chicago is a bigger effort then Windows/NT, the most
ambitious undertaking in MS history. They plan to be quiet on Chicago until late
'93 because they don't want to confuse the Win/NT message. (Editor's note: does
this sound like a 1Q94 product?).</p>
They will do a heavy DOS 6 upgrade promotion.<br></blockquote>
<p align=right>HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL<br>Subject to Protective Orders
in <i>Coordinated Proceedings<br>Microsoft I-V Cases,</i>
J.C.C.P. No 4106 (S.F Super. Ct)<br>and <i>In re Microsoft Corp.
Antitrust Litigation</i></p>
<p align=right>COMPAQ012220</p>
<hr>
<br>
<blockquote>Spring Comdex will be a virtual Windows/NT World.</p>
Office integration will be a major thrust for '93. It will involve FAX, PBX and
multifunction printers. They are planning to bring in the big name PBX vendors
so they can get interfaces designed that will allow PBX's to send Email, Vmail
and other data directly to a PC. They are looking to enable a PC to replace a
telephone (Bill: "TeleCompaq was ahead of its time"). They will work
with major FAX makers to create new capabilities for higher quality
FAX.</p>
OLE 2.0 enabled apps will appear. Excel 5.0 will lead the parade, with WinWord,
Project and PowerPoint following. All of these apps will sport an "object
Basic" interface for customization and user programability.</p> A
significant number of consumer apps will be released, including some "kids
stuff" that Bill thinks is pretty neat.</p>
On-line financial services.</p>
A wave of about 20 or so multimedia titles.</p>
Bill sees "threats" to MS dominance in a number of product areas, such
as PDA, CD interactive, Apple, Novell client, OS/2. Lotus Notes was described as
an unconventional competitor. Newton was described as good news and bad news.
Bad because of their campaign, good because they started from scratch on Newton
and Taligent. Also, good news because they haven't figured out where to put a
pen on the rest of the Mac line. The PowerPC is seen as significant to Apple
because they are so far behind the performance curve. Broad licensing of Apple
systems software for PowerPC would pose a significant problem.</p>
An[sic] finally, about Sun, Bill commented "who's going after whose
market?".</p></blockquote>
At 12:30pm, we wrapped up the meeting. I took one additional action item for
Pradeep Singh. He would like to know whatever we are willing to tell him about
how we are going to implement PCMCIA (in hardware).</p>
<br>
<p align=right>HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL<br>Subject to Protective Orders
in <i>Coordinated Proceedings<br>Microsoft I-V Cases,</i>
J.C.C.P. No 4106 (S.F Super. Ct)<br>and <i>In re Microsoft Corp.
Antitrust Litigation</i></p>
<p align=right>COMPAQ012221</p>[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 06:06 PM EDT |
http://groklaw.net/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01175.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1175<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<p>
From robg Sun Jan 5 17:00:12 1992<br />
To: bradsi<br />
Subject: retailing MS-DOS<br />
Cc: billg jonl steveb<br />
Date: Sun Jan 5 17:00:00 1992<br />
Status: RO
</p>
<p>
I know it's just north of heresy but incidents like the
one described in
the attached message make me think that we should change
our policies so
we can sell packaged product full MS DOS through
distribution besides
OEM in at least some cases. It may be that in the
attached case we can
get by selling just a RUP but I have seen a number of
cases where DRI
merchandises the fact that only they sell and support a
full DOS.
</p>
<p>
I think I understand the downside of selling full MS-DOS
direct -- we
don't want to erode our OEM channel or do anything that
would make OEMs
think they don't have to take MS-DOS per system. HOWEVER,
the reality
of the "new world" is that a la carte systems are getting
more
prevalent, not less. I believe it would be a mistake for
us to wait for
a cataclismic event like IBM bundling DR-DOS to trigger us
using these
channels. As the attached example shows Novell has a very
strong
distribution capability and they will likely be applying
it more and
more in service to promulgating DR-DOS.
</p>
<p>
Another datapoint (also anecdotal) came up when I was
travelling in
Australia. I dropped by the MS PTY headquarters in sydney
just to say
hi and spent a few minutes talking to the OEM guys. They
estimate that
perhaps as much as 20-30% of the Australian PC market is
made up of no-
name local assemblers (apparently none of the U.S. direct
guys like dell
or gateway have yet set up shop in australia). There are
a number of
reasons that the no-name market is so large (for instance
they import
motherboards at artifically low transfer prices which
saves them
hundreds of dollars in import duties).
</p>
<p>
Anyway within this no-name segment (say 30K machines a
month!) we have
very few per-system deals, and the local guys estimate
that our market
share for true purchased MS-DOS is about 20%. Piracy is a
major problem
of course (worse than any other major english speaking
country unless
you count india) but to my surprise the PTY guys also
mentioned concerns
about DR-DOS (evidently Novell is pretty strong in
australia).
</p>
<p>
Net net what I guess I am suggesting is that we establish
a major
account policy in the U.S. that allows us to bid and
provide MS-DOS
directly in any deal of more than say 1K units. I would
make this a
very low key thing (I certainly wouldn't announce it
although we
probably should tell big OEMs who are still very close to
MS such as
Tandy and Compaq) but I think there really is a need to be
more
aggressive in the trenches against DRI/Novell.
</p>
<p>
Rob<br />
-----<br />
>From lynnej Sun Jan 5 13:01:42 1992<br />
To: comptalk<br />
Subject: DOS 5 upgrade<br />
Date: Sun Jan 5 15:58:01 1992
</p>
<p>
Hi Folks -
</p>
<p>
Here's a midsize deal we are working on in upstate NY. The
end user
has 2500 pcs, but is only upgrading 1000 because he is
upgrading
hardware concurrently and will add later as he needs
additioanl.
copies. I am in the reseller channel in beautiful downtown
Albany.
</p>
<p>
I got a call from a reseller who has serviced a large NY
State Agency for years - they are faithful customers of
his
(Logical Micros). He is a small indirect, about $5,000
annual MS.
This State Agency was going to upgrade 1,000 pcs to DR DOS
because they got a great quote (DR DOS is pushing hard for
a big install in State Govt. here in NY). My reseller
blanched
and told the customer to wait til he heard from MS because
Logical Micros does not want to support another DOS.
</p>
<p>
The corp rep (Connie Dean) and I are trying to get a quick
PO
on this sale, but the strategies for allowing a small
reseller to
sell to an account this size are not there from MS. I was
told that
volume purchases from MS were set up to help "the larger
or direct
reseller who are the only ones who will be selling to
these
accounts". MS cannot sell direct to the end user for this
deal either.
</p>
<p>
Question - shouldn't we be making it easy for ANYONE to
sell our
products anywhere at any time?
</p>
<p>
We will let you know when this closes. Please advise
whomever put
together the two documents about DR DOS, the press blurb
list and
the multipage tech expose, that THEY saved this deal (so
far) for
Microsoft. I gave it to the reseller and he gave it to the
client.
</p>
<p>
We will also let you know about any other deals DR is
trying to
get here in this area. I had heard a rumor that they were
offering to "seed" certain state agencies at no cost.
</p>
<p>
As FUD is our witness, we will never go hungry again.
</p>
<p>Lynne Johnson, NY</p>
<p>
From paulma Thu Jan 2 09:28:48 1992<br />
To: jonl mikemap<br />
Cc: jimall<br />
Subject: FW: thoughts about OSF<br />
Date: Sat Feb 10 23:22:09 PDT 1990<br />
Status: RO
</p>
<p>
Fwd at request of jimall...
</p>
<p>
>From jimall Fri Dec 27 18:28:39 1991<br />
To: billg paulma steveb<br />
Subject: thoughts about OSF
</p>
<p>
Date: Fri Dec 27 18:27:07 PDT 1991
</p>
<p>
Early this year we had talked about using DCE as our
weapon against
Novell. As we
have discussed the problems with this are many. We don't
control the
technology, it is very
costly to license the technology, and the technology is
behind what
Novell will have
anyway shortly. I've concluded that our path to win is
the open client
architecture
and embracing DCE, Novell, Artisoft, etc. while at the
same time slowly
dropping
in integrated functionality as fast as possible. Further,
we can raise
the
game to a new level through win4. Of course, this is in
addition to
hitting
Novell from below with Sparta and making NT the competitor
that OS/2
never was.
</p>
<p>
Given this strategy and OSF's position on pricing, etc. I
do not think
there is anything
that can be done.
</p>
<p>
Getting people to port DCE server-side funrtionality,to NT
will also be
problematic
long term, but I think we should not discourage it now and
use whatever
carrots
we have to get people to adopt NT. We should all we aware
however that
we
will conflict with our partners eventually with win4.
Through service
providers
on the client side and gateways on the server side we can
potential work
with anyone. However, the marketplace message will end up
being
confusing
(For example. MS will_end up promoting OSF with integrated
DS support.
We will want
our partners to pick that up no different than any other
piece of
software
from us.) The sad point is that if Novell delivers a
quality 3.2, then
DCE will matter
much less than it does today.
</p>
<p>
Below is some old mail about OSF that details one
conversation that I
had with
Tory on the subject.
</p>
<p>
jim
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
>From jmaii Wed Oct 2 10:12:19 1991<br />
To: billg bobkr mikenash paulma steveb stevem<br />
CC: jimall mjkemur<br />
Subject: <em>[Ed: Text is unclear]</em>
</p>
<p>
Date: Wed Oct 02 10:12:10 PDT 1991
</p>
<p>
I had a long phone call with david on Monday. The purpose
of the call
was to clearly present the MS position on DCE licensing
and our
relationship with them on DCE. The highlights follow:
</p>
<p>
- I discussed our current plans: open client with plug in
modules
for components of DCE that we didn`t support natively.
Native
support was RPC and Kerberos.
</p>
<p>
- Either we would work with another vendor to ensure that
the
other client pieces are developed for DCE interoperability
or
we will ship the client support ourselves. Even though
not fully
the truth, I told him that the decision on what we do
depended on
the price they give us for the client components. In
reality
I want DEC to do it no matter what -- doing it ourselves
is the
last fall back position.
</p>
<p>
- Their current price of $6M/year reduced! to $1M/year is
silly. I
told him that they weren't going to have enough market to
make it
without us and that they should be begging us to ship the
client
in our boxes. That way, they would have seeded demand in
the
marketplace for their server side components. He said
that
if they did this it would prevent Gradient, etc. from
making
a business in the PC space and that would be bad. My
response
was that no one was going to make a business out of the
client
support without demand on the server side using this
approach
and that no one was going to create that demand. In
short,
OSF was going to lose. It was a catch-22.
</p>
<p>
- We agreed that I was presenting a completely new
business model
to him than what they had planned for. He also told me
how
concerned he was about how they were doing. They need
significant
dollars to keep going.
</p>
<p>
- He said he had to go away and think about it and we
would talk
again. He wanted me to tell him what price MS considered
reasonable. I told him that it would be fixed -- not for
a year
but forever. He said .. what do you mean ... a couple
hundred
thousand dollars and I said that we would brainstorm about
it. He really wanted a firm number. In order for a
reasonable
price they would want us to commit to ship DCE client
support
with most all systems. (I told him that would end up
being
a COGS issue.)
</p>
<p>
The next step should be for us to get on with the
relationship
with DEC and get it cemented. I am concerned that we're
not making any progress on this.
</p>
<p>
Dave should be getting back to me about the concept I
suggested.
I don't hold much hope for it however.
</p>
<p>
We should also brainstorm about the price for DCE client
support.
For the right price I would license it even with DEC doing
the
work. It would help our RPC and Kerberos work.
</p>
<p>
jim
</p>
</div>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
http://groklaw.net/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01188.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1188<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
- PS/2 55sz, 4 megs, VGA, EMM386, Smartdrive, 30 meg HD
with
stacker 2.0.<br />
- Dell 486/33e, with QEMM 6.02<br />
- Gateway 486/33, EISA. SuperVGA doesn't work and the
drivers
that came with it don't. They didn't know the brand.<br />
- Reply 486 microchannel<br />
- IBM PS/2 Model 70, no problems.
</p>
</div>
<p>
################################################# 71<br />
From bradsi Fri Jan 17 17:06:08 1992<br />
To: martyta w-clairl v-maria wpamed<br />
Cc: davidcol petermi richt<br />
Subject: the message<br />
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 17:06:08 PST
</p>
<p><b>MATERIAL REDACTED</b></p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
>From davidcol Fri Jan 17 16:14:57 1992<br />
To: bradsi<br />
Subject: the message<br />
Date: Fri Jan 17 16:14:33 1992
</p>
<p>
Setup has detected that the operating system software
running on this machine is not MS-DOS. Microsoft Windows
was
designed to run with MS-DOS versions 3.1 and higher.
Windows
is tested running on MS-DOS on a vast variety of machine
and
peripheral configurations (see system requirements and
hardware
compatibility list for details). Running Microsoft
Windows on
an operating system other than MS-DOS could cause
defective and
or unpredictable perfomance and is at the customer's sole
risk."
</p>
<p>
Press ENTER to stop, C to continue
</p>
</div>
################################################# 72<br />
From bradsi Fri Jan 17 17:10:14 1992<br />
To: richf<br />
Subject: drdos bug sheet<br />
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 17:10:14 PST
</p>
<p>
can I get another copy (annotated)? i gave mine to byte.
</p>
<p>
################################################# 73<br />
From bradsi Fri Jan 17 17:12:18 1992<br />
To: russs<br />
Cc: sharonh<br />
Subject: Re: EggHead<br />
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 17:12:17 PST
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
>From russs Fri Jan 17 16:48:57 1992<br />
To: bradsi<br />
Cc: sharonh<br />
Subject: EggHead<br />
Date: Tue Jan 14 16:48:47 PDT 1992
</p>
<p>
Brad, FYI I wanted to make sure you had it on your
calendar that Matt
Griffin and Rod Brooks from EggHead will be here on Thurs
Jan 23 at
3:30 for winball presentation and demo. I assune that
SteveB is still
planning to host. I wasn't sure if you knew about it.
</p>
</div>
<p>
i knew he was coming in next week, wasn't sure when.
yes, sharon
should put on my calendar.
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
John and Eric and I are working on the demo. I think that
its
important to get the spin right for the presentation (I
assume I'm
going on do some slides, not Steve).
</p>
</div>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
http://groklaw.net/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01189.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1189<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<p>
Feb 25 12:09 1992 MAIL Page 44
</p>
<p>
From samjad Mon Jan 20 09:34:04 1992<br />
To: conniecl paulma<br />
Subject: DEC's Navy Contract<br />
Cc: chrisph debre kellyw kevinwu paulbu samjad<br />
Date: Mon Jan 20 12:33:27 1992
</p>
<p>
We need to apply some executive pressure within
DEC to get their Navylan contract turned around.
</p>
<p>
Briefly: DEC is selling Netware, Oracle and CC:mail
on the contract. They are about to propose adding
Netware Lite (bundled on the hardware) WordPerfect
and Lotus.
</p>
<p>
This is NOT in response to strong customer pressure.
We have fairly good customer ownership and while
there are some Lotus/WP biqots, we can get the customer
support for MS products.
</p>
<p>
We expect DEC will make the Netware Lite proposal
as sooon as this week. We need the DEC execs to
stop it and pressure the contract team to become
more MS centric.
</p>
<p>
DEC is not meeting their sales quota on Navylan
and searching for something. We can help them
sell a contract better than anyone. (if they
have our products)
</p>
<p>
Paul- do you have time to speak with the DEC VP
on this issue? Connie/Kelly: suggestions on
a strategy? We need to work in concert and quickly
to make something happen.
</p>
<p>
Debre and kevinwu are the contacts here who have
been working with DEC's contract team.
</p>
<p>
Sam
</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
