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 9376 | 201 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Comes 9245 sent by email
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 07:32 PM EDT
PJ,

I think 9245 is too long to paste as a comment. Please let me know if it doesn't
arrive in your email and I'll try again.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 9258
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 10:41 PM EDT
From: Lisa Georgi<br>
Sent: Thursday. February 14, 2002 3:58 PM<br>
To: Mike Oldham; Richard Fade; Jason Kap; Kurt Kolb<br>
cc: Andree Gagnon (LCA)<br>
Subject: FW: Clarification Questions Regarding New Uniform Terms
<p>
Attachments: MS Uniform Terms and Conditions table.doc
<p>
Mike-Per your request, attached is GW's feedback to the BTD and DTOS 4.0.
Andree and I went through this document with GW and answered all of their
questions. They
primarily have 2 issues that they don't agree with which I've outlined below. GW
is
preparing a more formal feedback document to submit by March 15 and we don't
expect them
to raise any additional issues that aren't already included in this
document.
<p>
BTD
<p>
1. COA returns: How will Gateway get credits for Products distributed with
returned
systems or those for which a repair requires a chassis replacement? Current
language only
allows GW to return COAs that have been damaged, not from customers returning
the PC.
<p>
2. GW is concerned about limitation on MS's liability for defense of patent
claims
<p>
---- original Message ----<br>
From: Fama, Tony [mailto:Tony.Fama@Gateway.com]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 10:04 AM<br>
To: Andree Gagnon (LCA): Lisa Georgi<br>
Cc: Homeister, Chris; Kahl, Gui; Leonard, David J - Supply Management; Johnson,
Scott;
Gattis, Jeffrey; Nolte, Jolene<br>
Subject: Clarification Questions Regarding New Uniform Terms<br>
Importance: High
<p>
Hi Andree and Lisa,
<p>
As promised, attached below is our list of questions and concerns regarding the
new
uniform terms. The comments regarding the Logo License Agreement are based on
LLA 4.0,
since we just received version 4.1 this morning.
<p>
We look forward to talking with you this afternoon.
<p>
&lt;&lt;M5 Uniform Terms and Conditions tab1e.doc
<p>
Tony Fame<br>
Group Counsel, Partner Management<br>
X13927
<p>
14303 Gateway Place<br>
Mail Stop SD-21<br>
Poway, CA 92064<br>
(B58) 843-3927 - phone<br>
(858) B48-2671 - fax<br>
<p>
<div style="text-align: center; padding: 10px; margin: 10px">
1
</div>
<div style="text-align: center; padding: 10px; margin: 10px">
<b>MS Uniform Terms and Conditions:<br>
Questions and Concerns<br>
January 21, 2002</b>
</div>
<p>
<b>Business Terms Document</b><br>
<table border=2 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5>
<tr>
<th align=center><b>Section</b></th>
<th align=center><b>Question/Concern</b></th>
<th align=center><b>Resolution</b></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;&sect;1(j), 1(m), and 2(i)</td>
<td>There is no order of precedence specifying which
document controls in the event of a conflict between
the BTD, a License Agreement, the OEM Resource
Guide, and any terms or conditions that accompany
Supplements.</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2(c)</td>
<td>As written, this section would seem to preclude any
use of MS trademarks in marketing and training
materials. Does &sect;2(b) LLA 4.0 fix this issue? Can
we still use screen shots and box shots in accordance with MS's web site?
</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2(i)</td>
<td>What is a "large account customer"?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2(j)</td>
<td><ul><li>Need to confirm that our arrangement wit NCR
does not violate this provision</li>
<li>Under sub-paragraph (ii), does MS expect a specific warranty from
Gateway at the time
we do a co-branding deal, or is the statement in this section
sufficient?</li></ul></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;3(d)</td>
<td>On what basis will MS determine that COMPANY's
orders constitute quantities that "are greater than
COMPANY will be able to" distribute or make "timely
payment"</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;3(h)(ii)(B)</td>
<td>What happens if the AR does not issue an RMA? Will
the AR accept an RMA issued by Gateway?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;3(h)(v)</td>
<td>How will Goteway get credits for Products distributed
with returned systems or those for which a repair
requires a chassis replacement?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;7(c)</td>
<td>What happens if MS cannot procure a license or
replace or modify the infringing Product? Will MS
refund any royalties previously paid for Products in
inventory?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;7(d)</td>
<td>Why were Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia.
Philippines, and Singapore not included in the
“Included Jurisdictions"?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;8(a)(ii)</td>
<td>Why should MS's liability for IP infringement be more
limited than its overall limitation of liability under
Section 8(a){i), i.e., why should the cap for IP
infringement be less than all amounts paid
under the applicable License Agreement?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;8(c)</td>
<td>Why is the exclusion of damages not mutual, subject to
carve-cuts?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<td>&sect;8(d)</td>
<td>why should the covenant not to sue be applicable if
MS manufactures or markets a hardware product that
infringes a COMPANY Patent?
</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;11(a)</td>
<td>Does COMPANY not have an express right to terminate if MS breaches
a License Agreement?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;12</td>
<td>Does the term "Internet mail" include use of the
MOO?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
GATEWAY CONFIDENTIAL
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
MICROSOFT CONFIDENTIAL
<p>
<b>DTOS</b><br>
<table border=2 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5>
<tr>
<th align=center><b>Section</b></th>
<th align=center><b>Question/Concern</b></th>
<th align=center><b>Resolution</b></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2(c)</td>
<td>Does the prohibition on marketing of replacement
media preclude general statements about the
availability of replacement media, particularly in
product warranty documents?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2(d)</td>
<td>How would we take credits for the 500 royalty-free
systems we deploy internally, since we would have to
purchase COAs up front for the Products installed on
those systems?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2(e)</td>
<td>Why are desktop systems sold directly to educational
institutions treated differently with regard to where the
COA is applied?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2(f)</td>
<td>Same concern indicated for BTD &sect;&sect;1(m) and 2(i)
regarding an order of precedence to govern conflicts.</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2(h)(1)</td>
<td>Can we use a customer-created software image if the `
customer has MOLP, Select or Enterprise Agreements
in place with MS?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2(h)(3)</td>
<td>Why can backup media not be sent? For example, if a
customer initially elects to downgrade the OS in
accordance with &sect;2(h)(2), then later upgrades to XP,
what media would the customer use to do the later
upgrade?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2(r)</td>
<td> Why is this provision limited to "leases intended for
security," i.e., "finance leases"?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2(t)</td>
<td>With regard to the last sentence, we have the same
concern as indicated for BTD &sect;3(h)(v).</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;3(b)</td>
<td>-When will we receive the format for the required
inventory report?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>

<p>
<b>MDP</b><br>
<table border=2 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5>
<tr>
<th align=center><b>Section</b></th>
<th align=center><b>Question/Concern</b></th>
<th align=center><b>Resolution</b></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2.1(c)</td>
<td>See comments re Logo License Agreement &sect;&sect;2(a)
and 6(b).</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;3(d)</td>
<td>Please confirm that this section on1y applies to the
specific Customer Systems that are listed in the
"Customer System table" of the DTOS Agreement.</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
GATEWAY CONFIDENTIAL
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
MICROSOFT CONFIDENTIAL
<p>
<b>Logo License Agreement</b><br>
<table border=2 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5>
<tr>
<th align=center><b>Section</b></th>
<th align=center><b>Question/Concern</b></th>
<th align=center><b>Resolution</b></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;&sect;2(a), 10(a)</td>
<td>Does this Agreement replace and supersede all
previous Logo License agreements and eliminate the
right to use our existing Windows 2000/Windows
98/Windows ME combo logos for systems that were
previously certified for use with those logos? If so,
how should we treat remanufactured systems that have
not qualified for use with Windows XP? Will MS
Microsoft drop the Windows 2K logo requirement
from the MDP2001, as has been done to MDP 2002, or
will MS grant a waiver of compliance with Milestone 1
of MDP 2001 for remanufactured systems?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;2(b)</td>
<td>As indicated with regard BTD &sect;2(c) is the change
from "on Product" to "in relation to Product"
intended
to make this Agreement cover the use of MS marks in
marketing materials?
</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;6(a)</td>
<td>If we are precluded from using a Logo, will MS also
reimburse the cost of existing inventory that contains
that infringing Logo?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;6(b)</td>
<td>Will MS grant a waiver of compliance with MDP
Milestone 1 if we are forced to stop using a Logo and
MS does not provide a non-infringing alternative
within the 10-day period following MS's delivery of a
notice to stop using that Logo?</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>

<p>
<b>TFI Agreement</b><br>
<table border=2 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5>
<tr>
<th align=center><b>Section</b></th>
<th align=center><b>Question/Concern</b></th>
<th align=center><b>Resolution</b></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&sect;&sect;1(h), 2(a)</td>
<td>Please that COMPANY has the right to provide the OPK to the
INSTALLER.</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
GATEWAY CONFIDENTIAL
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
MICROSOFT CONFIDENTIAL
<p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 9376
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, August 15 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT
From: Steven Sinofsky<br>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:20 AM<br>
To: John Vail; Ken Myer<br>
Subject: FW: XDocs prelim revenue swag and EPR<br>
Attachments: XDocs EPR Backup v3.ppt
<p>
I'm not quite sure of the process going on here but want to try to bring some of
the parts together.
<p>
I think we need some synergy in the pricing and strategy for xdocs, scribbler,
frontpage, visio, publisher, project.
They all might have different customers and different markets, but if we expect
the penetration to go up
customers need to have some sense that they are interchangeable at some level.
<p>
I definitely agree with judy's comments on RPL.
<p>
---- Original Message<br>
From: Peter Pathe<br>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:09 AM<br>
To: Steven Sinofsky<br>
Subject: FW: XDocs prelim revenue swag and EPR
<p>
Do you have any thoughts about this?
<p>
Thanks.
<p>
--- Original Message ----<br>
From: Peter Pathe<br>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:07 AM<br>
To: Judy Lew; Don Gagne<br>
Subject: RE: XDocs prelim revenue swag and EPR
<p>
The ERP doesn't bother me, but my gut tells me that our forecast RPL is too
high, and by a lot. It took Adobe
eight years, l think, to get their business to its current size. We say we'll be
&gt;150% of that in just two years.
<p>
Of course, what l really want to see is NO perpetual license, just an annual
per-user fee. But since we don't have
anybody in marketing working on this, I don't imagine we'll get any creative
thinking behind us before the EPR.
<p>
Another set of useful comparisons would be the SQL CAL, or the VE Runtime price
model. I know those don't
really match what we are trying to do with XDocs, but they might shed some light
on what people are willing to our
solution runtime.
<p>
---- Original Message ----<br>
From: Judy Lew<br>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 9:49 PM<br>
To: Don Gagne; Peter Pathe<br>
Subject: XDocs prelim revenue swag and EPR
<p>
Don/Peter, while the EPR will be focused on headcount issues this year, JeffR
has requested that Finance pull
together forecast financials for his group, including the new businesses. Given
this request, Finance has pulled
together the attached EPR back-up slide for XDocs based on their discussions
with myself and marketing (they're
doing this slide for all of the new categories). This revenue forecast swag will
be included in the overall financials
for their main deck. Given that a business model for XDocs (and overall Office
11) has not been finalized, the
revenue numbers in the attached are based on the current plan of record where
XDocs is sold standalone. The
below assumptions are reflected in this preliminary model. I'll be working with
finance and marketing to refine this
model for post-EPR discussion based on our sizing research and the discussions
that we're having re: the overall
business model for Office 11 and the new businesses.
<p>
Preliminary model assumptions and comments:
<ul>
<li>XDocs is sold as a standalone integrated application (e.g., editor and
designer together); no reflection of
potentially also selling the editor separately or packaging XDocs with any other
Microsoft products.</li>
<li>XDocs pricing at $279 FPP ERP assumes higher perceived value than
Adobe Acrobat at $249 FPP ERP but
takes into account that users are buying Word and Excel as part of Office and
thus is not priced at the same level
of the Office standalone apps at $339 FPP ERP. Note that Adobe's revenues for
their ePaper division (most of
which is the Acrobat family) was $292M for FY02 so our revenue forecast is not
out of line.</li>
<li>The Office attach rate is based on Office licenses forecast to be sold
for that fiscal year (i.e., not to Office
revenue for that year or to the total install base for that year).</li>
<li>The Office attach rate reflects historical attach rates of Project and
Visio (note that the attach rates in the
"Timing/Comps" section is for the current fiscal year of these fully
ramped products; XDocs would be fully ramped
until FY07). Given that XDocs should have broader usage applicability than these
products, our numbers are
likely conservative.</li>
<li>The Revenue Per License (RPL) number reflects a blended number based
on ERP with subsequent waterfall
pricing and weighting for each of the license segments (e.g., more heavily
weighted to enterprise licensing).</li>
<li>The current RPL for FrontPage, Project, and Visio reflects the upgrade
pricing for these fully ramped
products and is thus lower than the RPL being forecasted for XDocs prior to full
ramp.</li>
</ul>
<p>
Let me know if you have any questions or issues with this.
<p>
Thanks, Judy
<p>
---- Original Message<br>
From: Don Gagne<br>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 1:03 PM<br>
To: Judy Lew; Peter Pathe<br>
Subject: RE: BPR timeline
<p>
I thought this year BPR was going to focus mainly on headcount and not product
direction? Did I misread
something somewhere.
<p>
-----Original Message---<br>
From: Judy Lew<br>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:08 AM<br>
To: Don Gagne; Peter Pathe<br>
Subject: FW: BPR timeline
<p>
FYI. Peter, l assume you already have these dates. JohnVa and team are in the
process of getting their
business model swags/plans for Office in place for the upcoming JeffR review on
5/28 and subsequent SteveB on
6/4. I'm meeting with Michael (from Finance) and Christine this Friday to
discuss where we are. We just got our
sizing numbers in last night that I'm in the process of reviewing so as
appropriate we'll incorporate. Will touch
base with you later on this.
<p>
---- Original Message ----<br>
From: Michael Ludwig<br>
Sent: Wednesday, May OB, 2002 10:50 AM<br>
To: Judy Lew; Christine Chang<br>
Subject: BPR timeline
<p>
FYI, here is BPR timeline - So really two important dates (May
14/15<sup>th</sup> - first draft) and then May
24<sup>th</sup> final slides
due.
<p>
<hr>
<p>
5/15/2002 12:00 PM<br>
&nbsp;Checkpoint Slides due
<p>
5/16/2002 11:00 AM<br>
&nbsp;KW BPR Check Point-Slide Owners Only
<p>
5/24/2002 12:00 PM<br>
&nbsp;Final Internal BPR Slides Due
<p>
5/28/2002 9:00 AM<br>
&nbsp;KW Internal BPR-By invitation Only
<p>
5/31/2002 12:00 PM<br>
&nbsp;Final SLT slides due
<p>
6/4/2002 9:00 AM<br>
&nbsp;KW SLT BPR-By Invitation Only
<p>
-mwl<br>
PBS Finance<br>
703-8758<br>
<p>


<h2>XDocs: Emerging Product Overview</h2>
<b>Market Situation</b>
<ul>
<li>Growing adoption of XML by enterprises at the
database and application server levels; momentum
behind Web services</li>
<li>Many XML tools/applications are developer-
focused and targeted at middleware</li>
<li>Fragmented forms market focused mainly on
business process automation and web authoring</li>
<li>Leading vendors in publishing, forms, and XML
development tools beginning to focus on end-user
XML data creation</li>
</ul>
<p>

<b>Preliminary Pricing</b>
<ul>
<li>Standalone Sku - One Price
<ul>
<li>$279 FPP ERP</li>
<li>Standard waterfall applies</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Benchmark
<ul>
<li>Competitor $249 (Acrobat)</li>
<li>Standalone Office apps $339</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
<b>Timing / Comps</b>
<ul>
<li>V 1 Launch Q4 FY03</li>
</ul>
<p>
Attach to Office L Comps FY02<br>
<table border=0>
<tr><td>Visio</td><td>5.5%</td></tr>
<tr><td>Project</td><td>6.6%</td></tr>
<tr><td>Access
(Standalone)</td><td>1.0%</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
[Ed - Heading of table is illegible]
<table border=0>
<tr><td>Frontpage</td><td>$91</td><td>$70<
;/td></tr>
<tr><td>Project</td><td>$155</td><td>$400<
;/td></tr>
<tr><td>Visio</td><td>$158</td><td>$300</
td></tr>
<tr><td>Sharepoint</td><td>$23</td><td>$40&l
t;/td></tr>
</table>
<p>
Note: Adobe's 2001 Rev: ePaper division (the Acrobat family)
<ul>
<li>$292M (24% of total revenue)</li>
</ul>
<p>
<b>Model</b>
<ul>
<li>Ramp toward Project and Visio attach
<ul>
<li>Sizing research results pending</li>
<li>Further pricing discussions pending</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
<p>
<table border=0>
<tr><th>Model (Rev in $M)</th><th>FY
03</th><th>FY 04</th><th>FY 06</th></tr>

<tr><td>Revenue</td><td>$29</td><td>$266<
/td><td>$467</td></tr>
<tr><td>Attach to
L</td><td>0.2%</td><td>1.7%</td><td>3.1%<
/td></tr>
<tr><td>RPL</td><td>$ 179</td><td>$
177</td><td>$ 173</td></tr>
</table>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 9319 summary
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, August 15 2012 @ 01:21 AM EDT
Exhibit PX09319 is a set of tables of test results without textual explanation
of what the tests are or what the numbers mean.

Columns have headings for number of tests passed, tests failed, tests not run,
tests available and show numbers and percentages for different named categories
of tests. There are four groups of tables for "Win NT Same VM",
"Win NT Other VM", "Win 95 Same VM", and "Win 95 Other
VM".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 9350
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, August 15 2012 @ 07:21 AM EDT
JAN-24-92 FRI 12:54 P.04
<p>
IBM CONFIDENTIAL
<p>
COUGAR PROPOSAL
<p>
AREAS OF IBM MARKETING CONCERN
<ul>
<li>CUSTOMER REACTION</li>
<li>MARKETING/COMPENSATION/REVENUE OPPORTUNITY</li>
<li>LAN SYSTEMS</li>
<li>OS/2</li>
<li>COUGAR PRODUCT</li>
<li>OEM</li>
<li>ISV</li>
<li>NOVELL DISTRIBUTION</li>
</ul>
<p>
JAN-24-92 FRI 12:54 P.05
<p>
IBM CONFIDENTIAL
<p>
COUGAR PROPOSAL
<p>
CUSTOMER REACTION:
<ul>
<li>DOS = MICROSOFT. NO COMPELLING REASON TO CHANGE. WILL
BE VERY UNSURE OF COMPATIBILITY. WINDOWS IS CRITICAL.
CAN'T AFFORD TO RISK COMPATIBILITY WITH ANOTHER DOS.
MICROSOFT PERCEIVED AS STANDARD: LARGE OEM BASE;
LEADING COMPATIBLE APPLICATIONS; BEST MARKETING.
</li>
<li>VINDICTIVE MOVE ON IBM'S PART TO PAY MICROSOFT BACK FOR
NOT COOPERATING ON OS/2. WILL CAUSE MANY TO CHOOSE
MICROSOFT-ONLY PATH.</li>
<li>MOST PLAN TO GET 336 EXPLOITATION FROM OS/2.</li>
<li>UNNECESSARY RISK:
<ul>
<li>SOME FEEL OS/2 I5 RISKY; DON'T WANT ADDITIONAL
RISK. SOME ALREADY BURNED WITH IBM APPLICATIONS.</li>
<li>DON'T WANT TO INVEST IN WHAT IS PERCEIVED AS
NON-STANDARD PRODUCT, ESPECIALLY AT THIS PRICE
POINT.</li>
<li>MANY RELUCTANT TO MOVE TO DOS 5.0 FROM 3.3, MORE
SO TO COUGAR.</li>
<li>MANY USERS UPGRADE ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
(EG, NEW HARDWARE SUPPORT).</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>THOSE WHO FEEL MS/DOS I5 INDUSTRY STANDARD WILL NOT
WANT P5/2 WITH COUGAR PRELOADED. WE MUST BE ABLE TO
RESPOND TO CUSTOMER OBJECTIONS.
</li>
</ul>
<p>
JAN-24-92 FRI 12:55 P.06
<p>
IBM CONFIDENTIAL
<p>
COUGAR PROPOSAL
<p>
IBM MARKETING CONCERNS
<p>
MARKETING/COMPENSATION/REVENUE OPPORTUNITY:
<ul>
<li>PC/DOS SUCCESS CURRENTLY ACHIEVED WITHOUT AGGRESSIVE
MARKETING. BELIEVE AGGRESSIVE MARKETING WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO "RETRAIN" CUSTOMERS EVEN CONSIDERING
PRELOAD. DIRECT MARKETING IS NOW FOCUSED ON OS/2.
</li>
<li>COUNTRIES WILL NOT PROMOTE A PRODUCT THEY DO NOT MAKE
PROFIT FROM. BECAUSE OF PRELOAD AND NOVELL
DISTRIBUTION, MARKETING UNITS SEE NO NEED TO 1NVEST IN
MARKETING COUGAR. REVENUE IS CURRENTLY MADE THROUGH
THE DEALER CHANNEL. MARKETING UNITS MUST HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MARKET TO EXISTING AND NEN CHANNELS TO
REALIZE REVENUE OPPORTUNITY (INC. OEM).
</li>
<li>TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT. STATEMENT OF A RELATIONSHIP
WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE PRODUCT POSITIONING COULD HARM O5/2.
WE COULD LOSE SIGNIFICANT PC/DOS SALES IN '92 TO
MICROSOFT ALSO.
</li>
</ul>

<p>
JAN-24-92 FRI 12:55 P.07
<p>
IBM CONFIDENTIAL
<p>
COUGAR PROPOSAL
<p>
IBM MARKETING CONCERNS
<p>
LAN SYSTEMS:
<ul>
<li>EXISTING POINTS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EACH COMPANIES
VIEW OF THE FUTURE CREATES SKEPTICISM REGARDING A JOINT
PORTRAYAL OF A CONSISTENT FAMILY OF OPERATING SYSTEMS.
</li>
</ul>
<p>
OS/2:
<ul>
<li>ACCEPTABLE POSITIONING OF COUGAR WITH OS/2. 386SX+ =
OS/2. 286, 386 WITH A MAXIMUM OF 3 MB = COUGAR.
EXPLAINABLE IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT OF OUR OPERATING
SYSTEM POSITIONING. EXPANDING TO NEW MARKETS: ROM,
PALMTOP, PEN, ETC.
</li>
<li>OS/2 2.0 SUPPORT FOR COUGAR ALA "DOS BETTER THAN DOS" -
BECOMES PART OF THE "INTEGRATING PLATFORM".

</li>
<li>LONGER TERM AFFINITY BETWEEN COUGRR AND OS/2. WHAT
FUNCTIONALITY/WHEN? HOW DOES THIS BENEFIT OS/2?
</li>
</ul>
<p>
JAN-24-92 FRI 12:56 P.08
<p>
IBM CONFIDENTIAL
<p>
COUGAR PROPOSAL
<p>
IBM MARKETING CONCERNS
<p>
COUGAR:
<ul>
<li>PROVIDING AND CONTINUING COMPATIBILITY WHEN MICROSOFT
WILL CONTINUE T0 ASSERT OTHERWISE.</li>
<li>SERVICE AND SUPPORT MEETS CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS?</li>
<li>MIGRATION REQUIREMENTS FROM PC/MS DOS TO COUGAR. EASY
AND TRANSPARENT TO THE END USER? WOULD LARGE CUSTOMERS
LIVE WITH 2 ENVIRONMENTS?</li>
<li>SUPPORT FOR PS 55, BOTH ATLAS AND XGA? YAMATO MUST
VERIFY COMPATIBILITY.</li>
<li>WHAT IS OVERALL COMPATIBILITY VERIFICATION TEST PLAN?</li>
<li>NLS AND ISO CODE FOR DOS 5.X? COUGAR COULD BE INTO
1993 WHICH WOULD MAKE U5 NON-COMPETITIVE IN EMWA.</li>
<li>IMPACT TO SPECIFIC COUNTRY CONTRACTS WITH MICROSOFT?
(EG, JAPAN)</li>
<li>WITHOUT RUP WITH A "SNIFFER" HOW CAN YOU EASILY GET
MAJORITY OF INSTALLED MS/PC DOS LICENSES?
</li>
</ul>
<p>
JAN-24-92 FRI 12:56 P.09
<p>
IBM CONFIDENTIAL
<p>
COUGAR PROPOSAL
<p>
IBM MARKETING CONCERNS
<p>
OEM:
<ul>
<li>VENDORS PRESENTLY PRE-LOADING, SHIPPING DR/DOS UNKNOWN.</li>
</ul>
<p>
ISV:
<ul>
<li>ENDORSEMENTS, COMPATIBILITY STATEMENTS UNKNOWN.</li>
</ul>
<p>
NOVELL DISTRIBUTION:
<ul>
<li>COVERAGE FOR IBM CURRENT AND PLANNED
DEALERS/DISTRIBUTORS WORLDWIDE?</li>
<li>WHAT I5 DR/DOS (COUGAR) DISTRIBUTION PLAN?</li>
</ul>

<p>
JAN-24-92 FRI 12:57 P.10
<p>
IBM CONFIDENTIAL
<p>
COUGAR PROPOSAL
<p>
SUMMARY OF KEY IBM MARKETING CONCERNS
<p>
<ul>
<li>CUSTOMER REACTION</li>
<li>COUGAR COMPATIBILITY WITH MS/PC DOS, WINDOWS, DOS APPS,
OS/2</li>
<li>COUGAR POSITIONING WITH OS/2</li>
<li>MARKETING COMPENSATION/CHANNEL REVENUE</li>
<li>TIMING/POSITIONING OF ANNOUNCEMENT</li>
<li>ABILITY TO ACHIEVE CONSISTENT FAMILY OF OPERATING
SYSTEMS WITH CURRENT CONFLICTING VIEWS OF THE EVOLUTION
OF LAN SYSTEMS</li>
</ul>

<p>
JAN-24-92 FRI 12:57 P.11
<p>

PERSONAL SYSTEMS - OPERATING SYSTEMS DIRECTION
<p>
[Chart showing operating systems in 1992 and mid 90's]
<p>
KEY ELEMENTS
<ul>
<li>OS/2 2.X - "THE INTEGRATION PLATFORM"
<ul>
<li>RUN DOS APPLICATIONS BETTER THAN DOS</li>
<li>RUN WINDOWS APPLICATIONS BETTER THAN WINDOWS</li>
<li>RUN OS/2 APPLICATIONS BETTER THAN OS/2 1.3</li>
</ul></li>
<li>PROVIDE A SUPERIOR NETWORK PLATFORM</li>
</ul>
<p>
JAN-24-92 FRI 12:57 P.12
<p>

PERSONAL SYSTEMS - OPERATING SYSTEMS DIRECTION
<p>
[Chart from previous page with added entries for AIX and another column for late
90's]

<p>
JAN-24-92 FRI 12:58 P.13
<p>

PERSONAL SYSTEMS - OS/2 STRATEGY
<p>
[Chart with following caption]
<p>
<u>KEY ELEMENTS</u>
<ul>
<li>MAKE OS/ 2 AVAILABLE ON BROADBASE
<ul>
<li>AST</li>
<li>COMPAQ</li>
<li>COMPUADD</li>
<li>GRID</li>
<li>NCR</li>
<li>OLIVETII</li>
<li>SIEMENS NIXDORF</li>
<li>TANDY<br>
* * * PLUS * * *</li>
<li>PROVIDED TEST KITS &amp; SUPPORT TO ADDITIONAL
VENDORS</li>
</ul></li>
<li>EXPAND COMMITMENT TO OS/2 APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT
<ul>
<li>CUSTOMERS</li>
<li>ISVs</li>
<li>IBM INTERNAL</li>
</ul></li>
<li>ENHANCED WW TECHNICAL SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE</li>
<li>WORLDCLASS MERCHANDISING CAMPAIGN
<ul>
<li>COMMUNICATE/EDUCATE/EVANGELIZE</li>
<li>COMPREHENSIVE MARKETING PLANS</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
<p>
JAN-24-92 FRI 12:59 P.14
<p>

PERSONAL SYSTEMS - OPERATING SYSTEMS POSITIONING
<p>
[Chart, then another chart on next page, then the following caption]
<p>
TARGET MARKETS
<ul>
<li>DOS/WINDOWS
<ul>
<li>ENTRY USAGE</li>
<li>ALL BEG, HOME</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>OS/2 1.3
<ul>
<li>ADVANCED &amp; SERVER USAGE (ALL MKTS)</li>
<li>INTERMEDIATE (MEDIUM / LARGE ACCTS)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>OS/2 2.0
<ul>
<li>ADVANCED, INTERMEDIATE, AND SERVER USAGE (ALL MKTS)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>AIX
<ul>
<li>ADVANCED TECHNICAL, SERVER USAGE &amp; SHARED
LOGIC</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
JAN-24-92 FRI 13:00 P.16
<p>

PERSONAL SYSTEMS - WORKPLACE MODEL
<p>
[Chart, with following caption]
<p>
<ul>
<li>SINGLE INTERFACE TO MANAGE MULTIPLE TYPES OF OBJECTS
<ul>
<li>DEVICES (PRINTERS &amp; DRIVES)</li>
<li>FILES</li>
<li>PROGRAMS</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>DRAG AND DROP OBJECT SUPPORT</li>
<li>OBJECTS RESPOND VIA A DYNAMIC LINK</li>
<li>SAA WORKPLACE MODEL (CUA)</li>
<li>EASY TO TAILOR</li>
<li>READY TO RUN</li>
<li>DESKTOP SAVED AT SHUTDOWN AND RESTORED AT START-UP</li>
</ul>
<p>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; . . . WORKS THE WAY YOU DO
<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 )