|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|