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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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 1808 ("integration with Chicago") | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Comes 1808 ("integration with Chicago")
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 08:28 PM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01808.pdf


<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1808<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Jonathan Lazarus<br />
<b>To:</b> Mike Maples; Paul
Maritz<br />
<b>Subject:</b> FW: integration with
Chicago<br />
<b>Date:</b> Friday, September 24, 1993
8:15AM
</p>

<p>
This is D U M B!!!<br />
----------<br />
From: Tom Evslin<br />
To: Jonathan Lazarus<br />
Subject: RE: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: Friday, September 24, 1993 7:55AM
</p>

<p>
I went over this in some detail with Bill yesterday and he
says "no" since
capone is part of Chicago. If you think this is wrong, you
shouid talk to
him about it (see other mail from yesterday). The Chicago
guys own the
APIs. As of now, there are interfaces used in Capone which
Chicago does not
plan to publish.<br />
----------<br />
From: Jonathan Lazarus<br />
To: tomev<br />
Subject: RE: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: Thursday, September 23, 1993 09:49PM
</p>

<p>
If we use them we have to publish them.
</p>

<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
From: Tom Evslin<br />
To: Doug Henrich<br />
Cc: John Ludwig<br />
Subject: FW: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: 1993-09-23 06:38
</p>

<p>
fyi. I'll discuss with Bill but, if you feel strongly that
these need to
be
public, you may want to discuss with the Chicago guys. I
don't feel
strongly either way.<br />
----------<br />
From: Joe Belfiore<br />
To: tomev<br />
Cc: kenong<br />
Subject: RE: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1993 07:39PM
</p>

<p>
It's unclear whether we'll publish them or not for our
release. Bill is
*very* aware of this as an issue, so you can bring it up
with him. He
may be instrumental in deciding whether or not it's
important for us to
do the work to make these "palatable".<br />
----------
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
From: Tom Evslin<br />
To: Joe Belfiore<br />
Cc: H.K. Ken Ong<br />
Subject: RE: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1993 9:31 AM

<p>
Are you planning to publish them by Chicago release? Ken
is under the >
impression that you are. I'm not sure we have to do this
but I have to
know
very clearly whether we are or not. If we don't, then no
other client
can
integrate with Chicago as closely as Capone does
</p>

<p>
What makes them "not ready for regular use"?
</p>

<p>
I'd appreciate a quick response on this since its one of
the topics on a
list of things for me to discuss with billg tomorrow.
</p>

<p>
Thanks.<br />
----------<br />
From: Joe Belfiore<br />
To: tomev<br />
Subject: RE: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1993 07:56AM
</p>

<p>
There's no schedule (or even plan) to publish any of these
interfaces
now. They aren't ready for regular use...<br />
----------
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
From: Tom Evslin<br />
To: Joe Belfiore<br />
Subject: FW: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1993 6:43PM

<p>
Joe:
</p>

<p>
Are you guys still planning to publish these APIs? Is
there a schedule?
</p>

<p>
Thanks.<br />
----------<br />
From: Ken Ong<br />
To: Tom Evslin<br />
Subject: RE: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1993 06:38PM
</p>

<p>
the pm for the shell is joeb. he'd be the one or at least
he'd know the
right person.<br />
----------
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
From: Tom Evslin<br />
To: Ken Ong<br />
Subject: RE: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1993 6:32PM
</p>

<p>
Who in Chicagoland owns the publishing of those
APIs?<br />
----------<br />
From: Ken Ong<br />
To: Tom Evslin<br />
Subject: RE: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1993 03:54PM
</p>

<p>
nope - what we need we ask them to provide and they'll
publish
as part of their api. we don't change anything of
theirs.<br />
----------
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
From: Tom Evslin<br />
To: Ken Ong<br />
Subject: RE: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: Tuesday. September 21, 1993 3:34PM
</p>

<p>
We didn't modify the source to explorer or anything like
that?<br />
----------<br />
From: Ken Ong<br />
To: Tom Evslin<br />
Subject: RE: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1993 03:30PM
</p>

<p>
if your question is whether capone uses unpublished
chicago api's -
the
answer is no.<br />
----------
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
From: Tom Evslin<br />
To: Ken Ong<br />
Subject: integration with Chicago<br />
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1993 3:17PM
</p>

<p>
Is there anything we've done in integrating capone with
Chicago that a 3d party (Lotus for example) won't be able
to
do? Probably not a problem if so but I would like to know.
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 1293 (not transcribed)
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 01:40 PM EDT
Comes 1293 ("Excel 4.0 Marketing Plan") is a document from 1992 that is 33 pages long and may be worth transcribing. One highlight can be found on page 5:

"Beating 1-2-3 for Windows is really beating Lotus Development Corporation. The battle of Excel vs. 1-2-3 also represents a strategic company mission of reducing Lotus Development Corporation's ability to compete with Microsoft in other product categories. By cutting into the 1-2-3 cash cow, we reduce their ability to invest in new product categories (Ami, Notes, Freelance, cc:Mail, Mac 1-2-3). If we want Lotus to be the Ashton-Tate of the '90s, growing Excel's share to 40% (at Lotus' expense) is the way to do it."

[ 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 )