|
|
|
| Authored by: foulis on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
<p
align=right><b>PLAINTIFF'S<br>EXHIBIT<br><u>4352</
u></b><br>Comes v. Microsoft</p>
Message 77:<br>
From petern Wed Dec 20 18:37:10 1989<br>
To: paulma steveb<br>
Cc: billg billp johnsa stevewe<br>
Subject: the "audit"<br>
Date: Wed Dec 20 18:37:03 1989</p>
while i'm opposed to all the work, i think we need to do it. i just finished
glancing at some of Boca's work on who did what code in 1.2. they have included
things like 57Klocs for online help (we should compare to windows help engine)
or 60 KLOC for hursley on PM (must be important things like PICSHOW, PICPRINT
etc. or an IBM specific driver)</p>
we can use this audit format and forum to demonstrate to jim how bad things
really are. they have so many glaring examples of bad business decisions and
poor investments in terms of code that we can blow some big piece of the $300M
away. i also don't think they've properly backed out a bunch of stuff they said
they had in the $300M (like DM or IBM specific device drivers or ??) and we
should get that cleared up as well.</p>
my point is IBM (including lee, dick and Jim) think they have contributed
greater than 50% of code and value to OS/2. the only point in doing the audit is
to deal with th?? perception...we have only 3 choices:<br>
<ul><li>accept it (and argue it doesn't affect the financials
anyway--which will be hard)</li>
<li>dramatically change it vis the "facts" i.e. the
audit</li>
<li>simply assert their contribution was tiny without going through the
data and convince them we're right somehow (this is what we've been doing
unsuccessfully)</li></ul></p>
i recommend we go down the path of trying to dramatically change their
perceptions...it will help us win the other battles as well...of owning all of
SE, the LAN and making the process more customer/market driven.</p>
it's risky, we have to do it right, but i don't see another credible option at
this juncture.</p>
<br>
<p align=right><b>MS-PCA
2617515<br>CONFIDENTIAL</b></p>
<hr>
<br>
Message 39:<br>
From billp Tue Dec 19 17:24:10 1989<br>
To: johnsa petern steveb<br>
Subject: LM/X development<br>
Cc: billp<br>
Date: Tue Dec 19 17:24:08 1989</p>
Then it could be a problem to engage IBM to do it.<br>
--------------------------<br>
>From steveb Tue Dec 19 11:20:07 1989<br>
To: billp johnsa patern<br>
Subject: LM/X development<br>
Date: Tue Dec 19 11:18:33 1989</p>
follow on work hopefully</p>
<br>
<p align=right><b>MS-PCA
2617516<br>CONFIDENTIAL</b></p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
