decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
COMES 1467 (Fax to Commodore, per copy licensing for PC Works) | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Comes 1700 ("system/apps retreat")
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 21 2012 @ 02:04 PM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01700.pdf


<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1700<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Laura Jennings<br />
<b>To:</b> Daniel Petre; Darryl Rubin; Tom
Evslin<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Mike Maples<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: system/apps retreat<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wednesday, June 16, 1993 11:26AM
</p>

<p>
I strongly agree with Darryl that there will be enough
confusion in the
marketplace without having two different mail
clients(which is actually 3 or
4 including the Mail box itself), development work aside.
Let's be
realistic--what would we cut out? It's not like we have a
ton of separable
features in Capone (and remember that Capone is now the
basis for W16 as
well). Rules and extraneous features aren't in there, just
good, core,
useful mail features. We made this mistake once before on
WFW and the spell
checker. It cost us more in fulfillment, PSS calls and
field and customer
confusion than we saved by not shipping the spell-checker
in every WFW box.
</p>

<p>
Yes, the one that goes in Office should be 16-bit, or even
better, we should
include both 16 and 32-bit versions to minimize confusion.
(Really confusing
for us to have a different Windows requirement for the
Mail client than for
the rest of Office.) My assumption has been that once the
Mail clicnt was
in every version of Chicago, it wouldn't need to be in
Office and we can
consider that as an option still as well. But artificially
crippling the
client in Chicago to have there be more features in the
Office version does
not make sense. Minor feature additions to a minor
component of Office
will hardly motivate many more people to buy Office, and
we will pay more
for this in terms of customer confusion than we will gain,
even if there was
no additional development work required.
</p>

<p>
And FYI, the July issue of the WPG MicroNews is on WGA.
Some MBU UE folks
and Billspe in SIMBU collaborated on the article.<br />
----------<br />
From: Darryl Rubin<br />
To: danielp; lauraj; tomev<br />
Cc: mikemap<br />
Subject: RE: system/apps retreat<br />
Date: Wednesday, June 16, 1993 10:07AM
</p>

<p>
I think the mail clients in Chicago and the Office should
be the same.
I don't thank that extra mail features are going to have
anything
significant to do with a person's decision to buy Office.
Also, the
distinction between the Chicago shell and the office shell
will only be
regarding extensibility. The idea of having mail be shell
integrated
in chicago is still valid, and still the right idea in my
opinion.<br />
----------<br />
From: Tom Evslin<br />
To: Daniel Petre; Laura Jennings<br />
Cc: Darryl Rubin; Make Maples<br />
Subject: system/apps retreat<br />
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 1993 5:46AM
</p>

<p>
Pls don't forward.
</p>

<p>
A few things came up of importance to wgd.
</p>

<p>
1. A very interesting plan was developed and tentatively
adopted to bundle
the extensibility of Chicago shell and some of the shell
sizzle with Office
rather than release with Chicago itself. This makes these
features a
compelling reason to buy Office rather than icing on the
cake of an OS we
can't make as much profit on. Implication is that the mail
client in
Chicago might not want to be as full featured as the mail
client in Office
or Mail itself. Perhaps this is even the 16 bit client if
Explorer is not
extensible in Chicago itself. This was not discussed in
any detail but we
should he thinking about it. Pls give me your thoughts so
I can write
followon mail. I think we should push for full MAPI to be
in Chicago but
that may be controversial.
</p>

<p>
It is too soon to pass this on to the client teams or
other people in wgd
who I know will welcome another change like a hole in the
head but it is
likely to become the Chicago POR around midJuly.
</p>

<p>
2. DavidV presented a far more developed plan for
unification of database
strategy including Cairo, EMS, and a to be developed
engine. Although he
presented it as immediate replacing all efforts. It is
much more realistic
two or three years out. I spoke to PaulMa, RogerH,
DavidFu, and MikeMap
after and all agreed that ems must go forward as planned
(Paul the weakest
on this) and that we will review the db strategy as it
develops to make sure
we have a convergence plan. I especially asked those four
to make sure
this does not spread as rumor of the demise of ems and all
agreed. It is
very clear that EMS' value is strongly linked to it
delivery date. It's all
we have in that timeframe to compete with NOTES and it's
key that it stay in
that timeframe.
</p>

<p>
3. Darryl presented EMS to general interest but some
skepticism that we can
get it all done. There was no objection when he presented
exposing MAPI in
the 16bit client altho I'm not sure everybody understood
the implicatron of
this.
</p>

<p>
4. There will be greater emphasis on synergy including a
billg memo that
there is no Chinese wall nor any legal or ethical reason
for having one.
All groups Including us need to be more proactive in
planning and working
together. A couple of specifics - we need to plan with
JimAll's people how
the directories will eventually converge: we need to see
if it is possible
to get NT 1.1 to include support for Netware 4.0
directories and then have
EMS inherit this from NT rather than support Netware
directly. I'll get the
right contacts in systems to work on this but we are going
to have to spare
some time of valuable people.
</p>

<p>
5. The respect people have for wgd has increased greatly
in the last year
thanks to 3.0. But there is not general knowledge that we
now lead our
catagory or that we have released anything since 3.0. Has
there been
anything in MicroNews about 3.2, remote, new gateways,
eforms designer - I
don't remember? Anyway, we need to be more IYF.
</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

COMES 1467 (Fax to Commodore, per copy licensing for PC Works)
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 21 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01467.pdf


<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1467<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>

<p>
Facsimile Transmittal
</p>

<table>
<tr><td>Microsoft Corporation</td><td>Phone:(206)
882-8080</td></tr>
<tr><td>One Microsoft Way</td><td>Telex:160520 MSFT
BVUE</td></tr>
<tr><td>Redmond, WA 98052-6399</td><td>FAX:(206) 93 MS
FAX
(936-7329)</td></tr>
<tr><td>United States of America</td></tr>
</table>

<table>
<tr><td>Date: 10/25/92</td></tr>
<tr><td>To: Mr. Tony Ricci</td></tr>
<tr><td>CC:</td><td>cc: Fax
Phone:</td></tr>
<tr><td>From: Thomas Henningsgard</td></tr>
<tr><td>Phone (215) 431-9282</td><td>Fax Phone:
(215) 431-9431</td></tr>
<tr><td>Total number of pages (including this cover
sheet): 2</td></tr>
<tr><td>If sending problems occur please call Tom
Henningsgard Phone: (206) 936-3693</td></tr>
</table>

<p>
___URGENT ___ FOR YOUR REVIEW _____REPLY ASAP ____
PLEASE COMMENT
</p>

<p>
Tony,
</p>

<p>
Just a note confirming the topics discussed on October 20,
1992.
</p>

<p>
Best regards,
</p>

<p>
Thomas Henningsgard
</p>

<p>
HIGHLY<br />
CONFIDENTIAL
</p>

<em>[Ed: United States Postal Service confidentiality
statement omitted.]</em>

<p>
October 25, 1992
</p>

<p>
Mr. Tony Ricci<br />
VP and Controller<br />
Commodore<br />
1200 Wilson Drive<br />
West Chester, PA 19380-4231
</p>

<p>
Dear Tony:
</p>

<p>
I think it is benficial, in light of our discussion on
Tuesday, to confirm Microsoft's pricing structure for
OEM licensing deals.
</p>

<p>
Microsoft is able to offer its best pricing to those OEM
customers who elect to report and pay Microsoft a
software royalty based on each Customer System they ship.
As we discussed, MS offers this "best pricing"
if Commodore selects 100% of specific systems to ship with
Microsoft software. Microsoft offers this type
of pricing so that you can add value to your systems in
the end-users' eyes, and help Microsoft penetrate
markets we may not have access to without your promotion
of the Microsoft Product. This type of pricing
has additional advantages; it minimizes the cost of
accounting, and inventory control, since only systems
need to be counted for royalty calculation purposes (not
individual copies of software). It also simplifies
the decision process in manufacturing, since all systems
get preloaded with the software.
</p>

<p>
As an example, in our discussion on Tuesday, we touched on
PC Works 3.0 pricing, whereby Commodore
would commit to shipping 50K units in a twelve month
period and pay a $12 royalty. As we discussed
Commodore would designate 100% of a particular Customer
System, or set of Customer Systems, to ship
with the Microsoft software. These systems must include
the software, preloaded on the hard drives, to
receive this low royalty.
</p>

<p>
Microsoft does offer "per copy" pricing. The shortcoming
of per copy pricing is that Commodore includes
the Microsoft software, if customers request it. Per copy
pricing is significantly higher since it generally
takes sales away from our retail channel and doesn't
create an incentive for Commodore to actively
promote the software. Should Commodore choose to continue
with a "per copy" royalty for PC Works and
upgrade the license to PC Works 3.0, the royalty will be
$24.50 per copy. Here again, the software must
be preloaded on the hard drive, to prevent unbundling at
the dealer.
</p>

<p>
Tony, in regard to Windows per system justification, you
disagreed with my analysis and agreed to send
me a more detailed set of figures, which more clearly
identify those systems you ship with Windows. I
look forward to this.
</p>

<p>
I left with you two executable Amendments to your MS DOS
and Windows License. You agreed to get
these executed my Mehdi and sent to me within the week. I
would appreciate closing these, as our
accounting departments need to get the issues on this
Amendment cleared up.
</p>

<p>
Best regards,
</p>

<p>
Thomas Henningsgard
</p>

<p>
Microsoft Corporation is an equal opportunity employer.
</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

COMES 1645 ("Os/2 status")
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 21 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01645.pdf


<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1645<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Bill Gates<br />
<b>To:</b> Brad Silverbergl Paul Maritz<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Chris Peters; Jonathan Lazarus; Lewis
Levin; Mike Maples; Pete Higgins; Steve Balmer<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Os/2 status<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tuesday, May 04, 1993 7:17PM
</p>

<p>
I totally agree with this - it describes the situation
very well.
</p>

<p>
I would add one point of great importance:
</p>

<p>
- keep delivering great applications that take full
advantage of Windows and make sure they are very
popular. This means doing a much much better job of
communication between Systsem and Applications
on things like evolving the UI - I really hate hate hate
the incredible divergences in simple things like MDI
versus SDI, text selection models, tool bar handling and
icons,... Chicago will look great because our
Window applications are there in a big way. This means
being creative about ways these products help
each other. I want to see several ideas from systems about
they will do for this and from applications as
well. I want our chicago applications to lead the way
clearly just like our original Windows applications. As
it is right now I can barely keep things at all sane - we
dont share dialog management, UI ideas or enough
to keep ahead in applications. Microsoft can treat the
best Windows ISV very very well (Microsoft). I wish
the systems guys understood the importance of our
applications more and I wish Applications guys
understood the value of corrdinating with systems. We have
the basic principal of a release timed to be
right after Chicago - lets be smart about this both
technically and marketing wise. Ballmer even suggested
using more than a version number for chicago and then
allowing applications with certain features to be
labeled that way - so if Chicago is Windows FOO then this
new release of Word becomes FOO word or
Word for FOO or Word for FOO windows or Word for Windows
FOO.
</p>

<p>
From: Brad Silverberg<br />
To: Paul Maritz<br />
Cc: Bill Gates; Steve Ballmer<br />
Subject: FW: Os/2 status<br />
Date: Monday, May 03, 1993 6:22PM
</p>

<p>
what i see is that our competitors will try to turn
windows into the new
unix &endash; in a bad way. the unix that frankenberg
called the "bosnia
herzegovina of operating systems".
</p>

<p>
that is, they will "adopt" windows and then split the
windows standard.
they will take the win 3.1 level of api as the standard
and then build
their own middleware layers on top -- for networking, for
object-oriented
frameworks and system object models, for distributed
computing, for compound
documents, for messaging, for directory services, for
administration, for
database access, for document management, etc etc etc.
</p>

<p>
they hope to create mass confusion about exactly what the
windows api's are,
and take them out of microsoft's ownership. every time we
announce some
intention for a new wosa api or other extension to windows
api's, our
competitors will propose some alternative.
</p>

<p>
we are starting to see this from ibm, novell, lotus,
borland, and I'm sure
soon sun.
</p>

<p>
if they can freeze "windows" at 3.1 (or nt) level api,
then they can be the
provider of value added services. it gives them more
freedom to clone
windows -- the definition of "windows" is static. for
novell, it makes it
easier for them to slip dr dos underneath. it lets them
position themselves
as the supplier of connectivity services for windows to
servers - the
"middleware" which builds on windows and thus takes
ownership away from us.
</p>

<p>
this effort to balkanize windows is a clear threat and
requires that we:
</p>

<p>
- reduce the microsoft confusion caused by our various
win32 api sets.
</p>

<p>
- keep integrating our key api extensions directly into
the os. we need to
ensure that these extensions &endash; such as mapi and
ole2 &endash; are really of world
class quality.
</p>

<p>
- our evangelization efforts are critical.
</p>

<p>
- execute on building the best form of windows for the
base set which
everyone agrees is "standard". if we don't we will be
challenged much
harder in our ability to advance the standard.
</p>

<p>
- continue to support the pc company so that they sell
Microsoft Windows.
in general we have to be much more focused than we have in
terms of being
responsive to our oems.
</p>

<p>
From: Bill Gates<br />
To: jonl; paulma<br />
Cc: bradsi; jeffr; joachimk; johnni; mikemap; richta;
steveb<br />
Subject: Os/2 status<br />
Date: Friday, April 30, 1993 3:54PM
</p>

<p>
Who really tries to track what is going on with Os/2?
</p>

<p>
I am a little bit out of touch with what is going on. I do
run into a
measurable number of large accounts with measurable amount
of Os/2 -
banking and financial being most common but many other
types of
companies as well. However, I dont get a sense they are
adding
companies. I also don't know if we can get people to
switch.
</p>

<p>
I also dont get a sense they are picking up many random
power end users
either but this could be wrong.
</p>

<p>
Some data points to look at:<br />
1. OEMS. We can ask OEMs how much they are selling. Dell,
Compaq and
others. I doubt it is much.<br />
2. We can analyze the SPA data. I think if you take tools
out they are
still super small and not growing. This is
interesting.<br />
3. We can look at retail seller lists and talk to dealers
and distributors.<br />
4. We can talk to ISVs and get their attitude and
experience.<br />
5. We can analyze the IBM bundling situation - how many
machines is
OS/2 going out on nowadays.<br />
6. We can try and get a sense whether they still give the
product away.<br />
7. We can get ones of these "workplace Os" presentations
they give and
try and analyze what they are really saying.<br />
8.Someone should look over the survey that CAMP (chicago
business user
group) did that shows amazing numbers of Os/2 in lots of
their
accounts. Does this show accounts we didn't know about and
if so how
deep is that phenomena?<br />
9. Is the situation for Os/2 different outside the US than
inside the US?<br />
10. What revenue is PSP getting from DOS or other products
that allows
them to fund their future plans? Could we be more
agressive at avoiding
this.
</p>

<p>
To give them credit - they are still not humiliated - they
do win
awards - their ads are very direct which ours are not.
Os/2 2.1 will
ship very soon and is a solid product. Amazingly all the
improvements
focus on running Windows applications and it is somewhat
better than
Windows NT at this in certain respects.
</p>

<p>
However we should be able to communicate the following
points clearly:
</p>

<p>
API: This is a KEY KEY point. Os/2 started out as SAA and
the plan was
to attract lots of PM applications. People thought PM
might be more
popular than Windows are we would not be able to have the
best
applications. Today no one believes this will happen -
virtually
nothing is done on Os/2 first and less than 10% do their
applications
in a special version and even those who do often do
inferior versions
that cost more money (Lotus as an example). The
repositioning of Os/2
as a form of Windows puts it in a very different
position - it no
longer is an issue for ISVs or corporate developers - they
know to
develop to the Windows API. It does mean that Microsoft
has to deliver
the BEST form of Windows and this is healthy - we feel we
will be able
to do this very well so this is a great situation -
clarity for
developers about the high volume API they should focus on
(windows) - a
clear challenge to MS to keep Windows moving ahead so that
people buy
Windows itself rather than clones. I make this point
vividly when I
talk about WABI - I say this just shows thanGeven in SUNS
markets the
devlopers want to focus on the Windows API and they have
been forced
to come up with some support for it but we will announce a
better way
to run Windows API on UNIX. I wish a few slides could make
this point
clearly.
</p>

<p>
Grand strategy: When IBM had a grand strategy rather than
independent
businesses they could have their big sales force spend
time explaining
and supporting OS/2. Now they have moved into a new era
and this wont
work. We see this with their software groups providing
increasing
support for Windows. I wish I had a complete list of these
things on a
slide for everyone to use.[I also with I knew which
internal software
is still Os/2 only and what we should be doing to fight
this - we are
still super naive about IBM as an ISV. Mike Maples - do
you know
someone who could help us figure out who is who in
software development
at IBM nowadays so at least we have a chance to do good
evangelization?]
</p>

<p>
Bundling trojan horse: IBM PC hardware will deliver based
on customer
demand.
</p>

<p>
No future - I often dont make this point because so far I
am not very
good at it because I am confused about what they are
promising and it
comes across as rude which is in sharp contrast to the
other points I
make which seem very rational and business oriented. When
I am pushed I
do remind people it will be harder for them to keep up
with us because
they get no code and no user interface license from us and
they lose a
lot of money.
</p>

<p>
Action items:<br />
1. Paul Maritz to pick someone to gather some of the
recent data about
what is going on with OS/2 and have special report sent to
Windows
focus squad. This is not urgent but I would like to see
something in
the next 45 days if possible. I would love to see included
in there
information about our transition plan for Os/2 customers.
My basic
attitude is to get some visible accounts to move over by
helping them
in any way that we can.<br />
2. Jon Lazarus to make sure some group tries to capture
our besst Os/2
messages including the ones I give about into some slides
that can be
used in presentations or in material to brief the sales
force.
</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )