|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:39 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03501.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3501<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
in every endeavor. With Mike in charge, thtere is no
doubt,
however, that we'll get further ahead of our competitors
and set new records.<br />
With Mike moving out of the Field to corporate, I will be
assuming his responsibilities in the Field with Michelle
Green, Pete Hayes, Andy Bermen, John Mutch, and Brian
Campball reporting directly to me.
</p>
</div>
<p>
#####################################################
138<br />
From bradsi Tue Jan 28 14:12:53 1992<br />
To: steveb<br />
Subject: the message<br />
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 14:12:52 PST
</p>
<p>
we hive tweaked the "incompatible os" message that we're
going
to display to incorporate more of a sense that msdos and
windows
are integral parts of the Microsoft Windows Operating
System.
it's on the way to petermi for review. comments?
</p>
<p>
Microsoft Windows and MS-DOS function together as an
integrated
system. They were designed together end extensively
tested together
on a vast variety of machine and peripheral
configurations.
</p>
<p>
The Windows setup program has detected another operating
system on
your machine. Running Microsoft Windows on any system
other than
MS-DOS could cause defective or unpredictable performance
and is at
the customer's sole risk.
</p>
<p>
Press ENTER to stop, C continue ...
</p>
<hr />
<p>
here are the previous words:
</p>
<p>
Setup has detected that the operating system software
running on this
machine is not MS-DOS. Microsoft Windows was designed to
run with
MS-DOS versions 3.1 and higher. Windows is tested running
on MS-DOS
on a vast variety of machine and peripheral configurations
(see
system requirements and hardware compatibility list for
details).
Running Microsoft Windows on an operating system other
than MS-DOS
could cause defective and or unpredictable performance and
is at the
customer's sole risk."
</p>
<p>
Press ENTER to stop, C to continue
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
139<br />
From bradsi Tue Jan 28 15:17:39 1992<br />
To: davidcol<br />
Subject: the message<br />
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 15:17:38 PST
</p>
<p>
i told steveb:
</p>
<p>
we have tweaked the "incompatible os" message that we're
going
to display to incorporate more of a sense that msdos and
windows
are integral parts of the Microsoft Windows Operating
System.
it's on the way to petermi for review. comments?
</p>
<p>
new words:
</p>
<p>
Microsoft Windows and MS-DOS function together as an
integrated
system. They were designed together and extensively
tested together
on a vast veriety of machine and peripheral
configurations.
</p>
<p>
The Windows setup program has detected another operating
system on
your machine. Running Microsoft Windows on any system
other than
MS-DOS could cause defective or unpredictable performance
and is at
the customer's sole risk.
</p>
<p>
Press ENTER to stop. C continue ...
</p>
<hr />
<p>
here are the previous words:
</p>
<p>
Setup has detected that the operating system software
running on this
machine is not MS-DOS. Microsoft Windows was designed to
run with
MS-DOS versions 3.1 and higher. Windows is tested running
on MS-DOS
on a vast variety of machine and peripheral configurations
(see
system requirements and hardware compatibility list for
details).
Running Microsoft Windows on an operating system other
than MS-DOS
could cause defective and or unpredictable performance and
is at the
customer's sole risk.
<p>
<p>
Press ENTER to stop, C to continue
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
>From steveb Tue Jan 28 14:24:24 1992<br />
To: bradsi<br />
Subject: the message<br />
Date: Tue Jan 28 14:24:23 1992<br />
</p>
<p>
looks great
</p>
</div>
<p>
however, i am wondering if we should change the detection
words to
say we failed to detect ms-dos, rather than say we
detected an os
other than ms-dos. the latter words would make people
think we are
looking for drdos; the former ones would make it clear we
are looking
for ms-dos and didn't find it.
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
140<br />
From bradsi Tue Jan 28 15:44:58 1992<br />
To: a-johna<br />
Cc: sharonh<br />
Subject: RE: What PCWorld had to say about us this
month:<br />
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 15:44:58 PST
</p>
<p>
sharon has it. please talk to her.
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
141<br />
From bradsi Tue Jan 28 15:55:12 1992<br />
To: mikegi<br />
Subject: zachmann<br />
Date: Tue 28 Jan 92 15:55:12 PST
</p>
<p>
do you still have those columns? i'd like a copy, thanks.
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
142<br />
From bradsi Tue Jan 28 16:44:33 1992<br />
To: sharonh<br />
Subject: Re: Corey Smith meeting<br />
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 16:44:32 PST
</p>
<p>
it should include bradc, mackm and richt. i am glad to
sit in. but he wanted to talk to me about their future
plans, and the others should hear directly too
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
143<br />
From bradsi Tue Jan 28 16:45:16 1992<br />
To: davidcol johnen karlst philba<br />
Subject: Re: ms legal 2 for 2 today<br />
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 16:45:16 PST
</p>
<p>
great!!
</p>
<p>
i guess their expert witness sunk them.
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
144<br />
From bradsi Tue Jan 28 16:45:26 1992<br />
To: davidw<br />
Subject: ms legal 2 for 2 today
</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:41 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03630.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3630<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<p>
<b>From:</b> Anthony Bay [abay]<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 08, 1994 7:11 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Dan Rosen<br />
<b>Subject:</b> FW: mosaic summary
</p>
<p>
fyi<br />
----------<br />
From: Paul Maritz<br />
To: Brian Valentine (WGA); Mike Maples; Nathan Myhrvold;
Russell Siegelman<br />
Cc: John Ludwig; Brad Silverberg; Anthony Bay; Pat Ferrel;
Paul Maritz<br />
Subject: RE: mosaic summary<br />
Date: Tuesday, December 06, 1994 5:17PM
</p>
<ol>
<li>I will let O'hare guys give definitive answer on the
restrictions, but
I think it means that we can sell a standalone product
that is purely an
Internet browser - bundling with marvel would (for
instance) not be
standalone.</li>
<li>On the issue of "basing Internet viewer on help or
viewer" - this is
something Bens took aaway as an action item, but in
anycase we need to
get access to the basichnology and a deal like this is
necessary. What
gets layered on what, and integrated in what fashion,
obviously needs
thought. But we should lock this deal in.</li>
</ol>
<p>
----------<br />
From: russs<br />
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 1994 4:14PM<br />
To: mikemap; brianv; nathanm<br />
Cc: abay; patfer; paulma<br />
Subject: RE: mosaic summary
</p>
<p>
I think our concern was covered below, that this code
doesn't support ole
which means that we will have to do a bunch of work to fit
it into the
Blackbird environment. But I understand the situation
that this may be
the
best available and there are some upsides compared to
Booklink. Anthony
and
Pat speak up if you have anything to add.
</p>
<p>
I am a little confused about the restriction: "We cannot
ship a
standalone
Mosaic product until end of CY96. We can ship it in any
form where
Mosaic
is NOT the primary functionality". What if we have an MSN
Internet
version
and this code (or derived code) is the browser for MSN
Internet. Is that
"standalone"? If this is a packaging question then I
think we are clear
because we will not likely ship MSN in a "box", we will
most likely ship
it
with Win 95. But there is a case where we might have
a "frosting" like
box
for MSN Internet. Would we be restricted from this?
</p>
<p>
Paul: how does this fit into last weeks offsite on basing
the Internet
viewer on help or MSDN viewer?
</p>
<p>
RussS<br />
----------<br />
From: Mike Maples<br />
To: Russ Siegelman; brianv; Nathan Myhrvold<br />
Subject: FW: mosaic summary<br />
Date: Tuesday, December 06, 1994 2:54PM
</p>
<p>
Any problem from your camp?<br />
----------<br />
From: thomasre<br />
To: bradsi; mikemap; paulma<br />
Cc: johnlu; bens; coryv<br />
Subject: mosaic summary<br />
Date: Tuesday, December 06, 1994 11:05AM
</p>
<p>
We are looking to acquire rights to 'Mosaic'
World-Wide-Web software for
$2MM. Payments are $1MM on signing, $1MM spread over next
several
quarters.
</p>
<p>
The contract should be ready for your review tomorrow.
</p>
<p>
What we are buying:
</p>
- Source code to NCSA Mosaic (public domain) and Spyglass
Mosaic
(commercial version).<br />
- Windows and Macintosh<br />
- NCSA Mosaic is at v2.alpha, we get all their code thru
CY95.<br />
- Spyglass Mosaic is at v1, we get v2 for Windows in
January and
maintenance for v2.x<br />
- Current Windows versions are Win32s.<br />
- Spyglass v2 includes the Secure-HTTP protocol (embraced
by
CommerceNet).<br />
- Rights (but not ownership) to 'Mosaic' trademark, as
well as visuals
like
the Mosaic 'spinning globe'.<br />
- Spyglass is obligated to release versions of their
products that work
with MS Internet libraries (Catapult)<br />
- Full sublicensing rights, with restrictions below.
</p>
<p>
Restrictions:
</p>
<p>
- This is nonexclusive.<br />
- We cannot ship any derived products until Win95
ships.<br />
- We must acknowledge NCSA copyrights on-screen and in
documentation.<br />
- We cannot ship a standalone Mosaic product until end of
CY96. We can
ship it in any form where Mosaic is NOT the primary
functionality.<br />
- After December 31, 1996, we are free and clear.
</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
