|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03633.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3633<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<p>
<b>From:</b> Ben Slivka<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 13, 1994 9:52 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Lydja Williams; Howard Campbell<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Thomas Reardon<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: mosaic codebase acquisition
</p>
<p>
Good starting point, but we'll definitely need the
interface specs
to understand what work we need to do for you.<br />
----------
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<b>From:</b> Lydja Williams<br />
<b>To:</b> Ben Slivka; Howard Campbell<br />
<b>Subject:</b> FW: mosaic codebase acquisition<br />
<b>Date:</b> Monday, December 12, 1994 5:53PM
</p>
<p>
Oops - I sent the summary of our IA need to thomasre and
didn't copy Ben. Here it is.
</p>
<p>
Lydja<br />
----------<br />
<b>From:</b> Lydja Williams<br />
<b>To:</b> Thomas Reardon<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: mosaic codebase acquisition<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wednesday, November 23, 1994 12:05PM
</p>
<p>
Great news. Thanks for including rights to their Mac code!
</p>
<p>
I'm awaiting documentation from Booklink on the OLE custom
interface they have implemented for us. I should have this
by
the end of the week. I'll set up a time with you in early
December to review. Ideally, for Internet Assistant '95, I
will simply unplug Booklink and plug in a revised Mosaic
from
you guys.
</p>
<p>
Word '95 is scheduled to ship at Win '95 + 30 days.
Internet
Assistant '95 will sim-ship with Word '95.
</p>
<p>
As food for thought, here's a quick summary of the
services IW
provides for us under our current interface:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Gets URLs as files or streams</li>
<li>Posts URLs (for forms, sensitive maps and
isindex)</li>
<li>Provides in-place objects for ftp and gopher</li>
<li>Caches text and graphics</li>
<li>Asynchronous download of text and graphics</li>
<li>Provides download status information</li>
<li>Manages extemal viewers for mime types Word can't
handle.</li>
</ul>
<p>
Lydja<br />
----------
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<b>From:</b> Thomas Reardon<br />
<b>To:</b> Anthony Bay; Bernard Aboba; Lydja Williams; Pat
Ferrel; Russell Siegelman<br />
<b>Cc:</b> John Ludwig; Brad Silverberg; Ben Slivka;
James 'J' Allard<br />
<b>Subject:</b> mosaic codebase acquisition<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wednesday, November 23, 1994 11:03AM
</p>
<p>
i wanted to let all of you know that systems is moving
forward on acquiring
the source code to NCSA & Spyglass Mosaic, for Windows
and for Mac. we will
have full derivative works rights, and will get updates
thru end of 1995.
I expect first source drop at contract signing, hopefully
within 3 weeks.
</p>
<p>
the major restriction is that we can't ship products
derived from this code
until win95 ships.
</p>
<p>
if you need additional details, please ask away, and also
let me know if you
think you or anyone else should be involved in code
reviews or other due
diligence.
</p>
<p>
-thomas
</p>
</div>
</div>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/010807/PLEX_3506.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3506<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<p>
To: davidcol<br />
Subject: Re: message<br />
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 08:51:10 PST
</p>
<p>
what the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and
when he has
bugs, suspect that the problem is dr-dos and then go out
to buy
ms-dos. or decide to not take the risk for the other
machines he has
to buy for in the office.
</p>
<p>
<em>Privileged material redacted</em>
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
25<br />
From bradsi Mon Feb 10 10:50:05 1992<br />
To: steveb<br />
Subject: Re: the message<br />
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 10:50:05 PST
</p>
<p>
i am saying that we should either:
</p>
<p>
a) let it do whatever it does, as is the case with win
3.0. if a
user with dr-dos calls, we tell than we only support
ms-dos and they
should call their vendor.
</p>
<p>
or
</p>
<p>
b) put a kind gentle message in setup. like an
incompatible tsr
message. but not everytime the user starts windows. if a
user
calls pss, treat like (a).
</p>
<p>
A kind gentle message in setup would probably not offend
anyone and
probably won't get the press up in arms, but I wonder if
it serves as
much of a warning. <em>Priv. Material Redacted</em>
</p>
<p>
With a TSR, the solution is to just remove it. With
DR-DOS, or any
others, I doubt the user is in a position of changing. He
will no
doubt continue to install. When he finds problems, he
will call PSS,
with or without a message. I think our biggest exposure
is PSS. We
will get a lot of calls fran Dr DOS users. Perhaps a
message in the
phone system for Windows. It would say something like "if
you are
not using DR-DOS or an OEM version of MS-DOS, then press
##". Then
we give them the message.
</p>
<p>
i admit i'm gun shy on this, especially with stewart's
irritated mail
to me.
</p>
<p>
the most sensible thing from a development standpoint is
to continue
to build dependencies on msdos into windows.
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
26<br />
From bradsi Mon Feb 10 10:52:28 1992<br />
To: karlst<br />
Cc: davidcol<br />
Subject: Re: the new message<br />
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 10:52:27 PST
</p>
<p>
i'm in the process and we're getting close.
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
27<br />
From bradsi Mon Feb 10 10:55:33 1992<br />
To: davidcol<br />
Subject: ** NetWare/Winball Status **
</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:23 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03717_D.p
df
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3717D<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<p>
<b>From:</b> Richard Wolf [ITG/POOCH/rwolf]<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 15, 1995 2:13 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Steven Sinofsky<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Chris Peters; Peter Pathe (ppathe)<br />
<b>Subject:</b> Resurrecting the Netscape deal
</p>
<p>
Here are some ideas, some based on a phone conversation
with Dan Rosen.
</p>
<ol>
<li>Let them see more of DocObj documentation before
signing the deal.<br />
I don't like this at this point because I don't trust
them. Esp if the announcement next Mon includes a plug in
interface
that overlaps the same functionality as docobj.</li>
<li>Put in the agreement a 5 day period upon receipt of
the technology to notify us that they do not wish to
accept the
DocObj technology. Apparently we have done this in the
past for subsequent drops of software but never for the
first
drop. Declining acceptance would be based on a patent
conflict.<br />
This is a bit better than above but still gives them the
right to inspect what we have and then back out.</li>
<li>Wait until Mon and see if they are announcing anything
that conflicts with our agreement. Perhaps we have
complementary technology and there is no conflict.<br />
We still would have to resolve the patent indemnification
issue.</li>
</ol>
<p>
In any event we have to talk to Mike Bocianowsky, out IP
lawyer, to find out how far apart we really are. I have
been
tracking him down as he's out of town and will try to talk
to him this weekend or Mon at latest.
</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
