|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03631.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3631<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<p>
<b>From:</b> Russell Siegelman [russs]<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 12, 1994 7:44 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Anthony Bay; Dan Rosen; James 'J' Allard; John
Ludwig; Paul Maritz; Peter Neupert<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Netscape (nee Mosaic)
</p>
<p>
I doubt we are interested in the client given that we are
licensing the
SpyGlass stuff.<br />
----------<br />
From: Dan Rosen<br />
To: abay; jallard; johnlu; paulma; petern; russs<br />
Subject: Netscape (nee Mosaic)<br />
Date: Friday, December 09, 1994 4:08PM
</p>
<p>
Based on feedback from many folks, I will go ahead and set
up a meeting
with Jim Clark of Netscape. I spoke again with Jim and
will try to set
up either before the holidays or in early January. There
is
considerable disagreement over what a relationship with
Netscape would
bring to MSFT (and even more about why we would enter
one). The key
discussion points with Netscape seem to be:
</p>
<p>
1) Their client. Would we want to consider licensing it?
Is it a
backup to our NCSA activity? Should we support it in
addition to our own?
</p><p>
2) Their server. Where are they heading? Is there any
reason that
what they are doing should be incorporated into what we
are doing?
</p><p>
3) Security. We are clearly going to compete here. Are
there also
areas of cooperation in eCom?
</p><p>
4) Administrative. Assuming that there will be more than
one winner in
Internet-related clients and servers, it is now likely
that Netscape
will be one and we will be another. Should we begin to
think about how
our domains work together? Do we cooperate on standards?
What about
settlements on traffic between domains? etc.
</p>
<p>
I'm sure that there are others who should have been on the
distribution
list. Please let me know. Also other topics to discuss.
</p>
<p>
Jim's key concern is how he might survive a relationship
with MSFT (is
there any form of win-win). I suspect we will need to
address this
early in our meeting, or they will be less candid.
</p>
<p>
Dan
</p>
<p>
<b>From:</b> James 'J' Allard [jallard]<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 12, 1994 9:42 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Anthony Bay; Dan Rosen; John Ludwig; Paul
Maritz; Peter Neupert; Russell Siegelman; Tom
Johnston<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Jim Allchin<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Netscape (nee Mosaic)
</p>
<p>
i'm not clear why we're interested in a relationship w/
netscape - as i see it, jim and co. have 2 strategic
targets - 1.
standards (specifically, commerce and security) and 2. the
internet server market. in bsd, we have these same goals.
that
said, i'm not sure that we have a whole lot to talk abt,
there is certainly no obvious win-win from where i sit.
i'll attend a
mtg, but i don't plan to tell them what we're developing
in bsd under any circumstances.
</p>
<p>
to address your points:
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
1) Their client. Would we want to consider licensing it?
Is
it a backup to our NCSA activity? Should we support it in
addition to our own?
</p>
</div>
<p>
licensing their client legitimizes their security and
commerce "standards". this is exactly why they are giving
it away for
free. only if we want to embrace these standards should we
be interested in their client.
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
2) Their server. Where are they heading? Is there any
reason
that what they are doing should be incorporated into what
we
are doing?
</p>
</div>
<p>
they are heading towards a high flat-fee model, and their
arrangements w/ first data and boa suggest a % of revenue
opp
for them too. where do they fit w/ our goals in bsd and
ecommerce?
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
3) Security. We are clearly going to compete here. Are
there
also areas of cooperation in eCom?
</p>
</div>
<p>
their security plans are to do some "sideband" winsock
hack which addresses only ip, and in a backward way to
boot. we
will be recommending encrypted rpc (and future, dcom) to
the w3c community this week to counter their ssl (secure
sockets layer) recommendation. i don't see them embracing
ecom given that it's ole based and they are targeting
cross-
platform and stand to lose thier % of rev opt by embracing
our mechanism
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
4) Administrative. Assuming that there will be more than
one
winner in Internet-related clients and servers, it is now
likely that Netscape will be one and we will be another.
Should we begin to think about how our domains work
together?
Do we cooperate on standards? What about settlements on
traffic between domains? etc.
</p>
</div>
<p>
i think all we want to do is to cooperate on a technical
level and ensure interoperability to whatever degree makes
sense.
this is what the w3c consortium is all abt and i believe
is a suitable umbrella for discussions of this nature. our
server
administration tool will be "pluggable" so that third
parties can plug stuff in, but i don't see why they'd want
to legitimize our
server by doing this.
</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
