|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
<html>
<p>From: Joachim Kempin <br>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 10:21 AM <br>
To: Sanjay Parthasarathy <br>
Cc: Steve Bush; Bill Veghte; Sherri Kennamer, Kurt Kolb; Erica Anderson; Apnl
Olson <br>
Subject: RE: Memphis Product Registration
<p>
i HAVE A STAFF MEETING ON WENDSDAY AND IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO BE
THERE TOGETHER WITH BILL.V PICK YOUR TIME <br>
9:00-12:00
<p>
---Original Message---<br>
From: Sanjay Parthasarathy <br>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 10:19 AM <br>
To: Joachim Kempin <br>
Cc: Steve Bush; Bill Veghte; Sherri Kennamer, Kurt Kolb; Erica Anderson
<br>
Subject: RE: Memphis Product Registration<br>
<p>
I’d like to do this today if possible. Kurt is trying to get a meeting pulled
together for this.
<p>
---Original Message---<br>
From: Joachim Kempin<br>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 9:25 AM <br>
To: Steve Ballmer<br>
Cc: Sanjay Parthasarathy; Bill Gates; Steve Bush<br>
Subject: RE: Memphis Product Registration<br>
<p>
I agree and it is going late, again the issue is not talking early enough.
Sanjay
when can you meet?
<p>
---Original Message---<br>
From: Steve Ballmer<br>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 8:46 AM<br>
To: Joachim Kempin<br>
Cc: Sanjay Parthasarathy; Bill Gates; Steve Bush<br>
Subject: FW: Memphis Product Registration<br>
<p>
Please meet and resolve this week with sanjayp if there are
differences
in view please air for bill and me I am on
vacation so bill may need to weigh in I do not understand why the ms
choice is so much worse than the vendor choice for the oem or why involving
the vendor is Os hard for MS this is a big customer sat issue for the
oem and a big startegic imperative for MS so we may need to put in more
energy than planned
<p>
---Original Message---<br>
From: Joachim Kempin<br>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 7:21 AM<br>
To: Bill Gates; Steve Bush; Brad Chase; Laura Jennings: Sanjay Parthasarathy;
Bill Veghte; John Ludwig
Cc: Steve Ballmer; Pete Higgins; Edward Jung; Eric Rudder; Sherri Kennamer;
Angus Cunningnam; Autumn Neault (Womack); Rodney Viera<br>
Subject: RE: Memphis Product Registration
<p>
I do not believe the mail below reflects the facts. So I do not understand why a
prevents b. We can easily spec this out so that the outside vendor does
promote our services. Nothing prevents us from doing so. The reason why we
are doing this is very simple: <br>
Increase registration, make it easier for customers to register with us and the
OEM in one process and not look heavy handed. <br>
I need to understand why we need to own the transportation process- sounds
like heavy lifting without reasons, but I am flexible. I will be back next week-
let’s talk then.
<p>
---Original Message---<br>
From: Bill Gates<br>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 1:22 AM<br>
To: Steve Bush; Brad Chase; Laura Jennings; Sanjay Parthasarathy;
Joachim Kempin; Bill Veghte; John Ludwig <br>
Cc: Steve Ballmer, Pete Higgins; Edward Jung; Eric Rudder; Sherri Kennamer;
Angus Cunningham; Autumn Neault (Womack); Rodney Vieira<br>
Subject: RE: Memphis Product Registration
<p>
I agree with this. Joachim - can we hold the line on this - its important,
<p>
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT<br>
<u>14</u><br>
Kolb<br>
5/31/01
<p>
MS98 0120873<br>
CONFIDENTIAL
<hr>
<p>
---Original Message---<br>
From: Steve Bush <br>
Sent: Monday. February 09, 1998 9:20 PM <br>
To: Brad Chase: Laura Jennings; Sanjay Parthasarathy; Joachim Kempin; Bill
Veghte: John Ludwig: Bill Gates <br>
Cc: Steve Ballmer; Pete Higgins; Edward Jung; Eric Rudder, Sherri Kennamer;
Angus Cunningham; Autumn Neault (Womack); Rodney Vieira<br>
Subject: Memphis Product Registration <br>
Importance: High
<p>
Issue: <br>
OEM’s want to replace the Memphis product registration process with a third
party (IntelliQuest) Windows product registration process.<br>
Problem: <br>
Replacing the Windows product registration mechanism lets OEM’s own the
process and prevents Microsoft from building into the registration process
future valued added Windows Services. In sum. it lets
OEM’s interject themselves into the first boot customer experience and offer
customers valued added services before a Microsoft proposition or similar
services.
<p>
Recommendation: <br>
OEM’s be allowed to define the client UI portion of product registration.
However. they must submit the product registration information to a
Microsoft product registration server using the Microsoft registration
transport. It’s strategically very important that Microsoft owns the transport
so that it can build upon this client-server interaction.
<p>
Call to Action: <br>
I only have a very limited amount of bandwidth to dedicate to advocating and
designing a Microsoft registration process that is OEM compatible. From a
strategic standpoint, it’s critical that we own the registration process as it’s
our future vehicle for signing users up for Windows Services. I see no
technical issues to Microsoft hosting the product registration servers. It’s
merely a matter of trading off OEM concerns against the strategic value of
owning product registration.
<p>
Part of the problem is that the overall business ownership of product,
registration is unclear. Several groups have a vested interest in this process
working flawlessly: customer database marketing, OEM, support, product
groups, etc. Who trades off OEM concerns against the strategic important of
owning the Windows product registration process.
<p>
Background: <br>
The product registration process in Memphis is strategically very important. It
is the customer’s first impression of Microsoft and a strategic client-server
interaction that will be the platform upon which we build for future Windows
Services (HotMail, Windows Passport, Licensing, etc).
<p>
Unfortunately, OEM’s are unhappy with our current implementation and want
a third party IntelliQuest (IQ) to perform their product registration (IQ will
replicate product registrations to us). While l agree that OEM's should be able
to influence the product registration UI, l'm strongly against the OEM's
posting product registrations to lnteIliQuest instead of a Microsoft product
registration server. This would allow the OEM's to offer competing windows
services and use product registration to sign users up for these services. The
problem is that if OEM's own the registration process we would be unable to
build value added services into the registration process (ID issuing. Windows
Passport, HotMail accounts, licensing, etc).
<p>
l've been a big advocate of OEM's defining the client UI and using the
Microsoft backend registration servers to accept registrations. This approach
allows Microsoflt to build value added services into the process since we're
accepting the product registrations The Microsoft.com team who runs these
servers would instantaneously replicate the OEM product registrations to the
IQ registration servers. The risk of this approach is that Microsoft.com is a
mission critical portion of the OEM registration process and must deliver
product registrations with no down time. SanjayP and the microsoft.com team
have committed to this service level. This decision is very unpopular with
OEM's as it makes them dependent upon Microsoft for their
registration process.
<p>
Thx.
<p>
Steve
<p>
MS98 0120874
CONFIDENTIAL
</html>[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 2848 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 06:34 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 11:30 PM EDT |
<html>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT <br>2851<br>
Comes v. Microsoft
<p>
From: Autumn Neault (Womack)<br>
Sent: Wednesday February 18 1998 1:17 PM<br>
To: Bill Veghte: Ed Stubbs, Andy Glass, Angus Cunningham, Raja Abburi, Sherri
Kennamer, Steve Bush,
Ken Moss (Systems), Tonya Bruton, Richard Purcell, Chris Merrit (CTS
Technical)<br>
Cc: Sanjay Parsatharathy, Kurt Kolb<br>
Subject: RE OEM Registration Infrastructure Schedule
<p>
<b>Privileged Material Redacted</b>
<p>
---Original Message---<br>
From: Bill Veghte<br>
Sent Wednesday February 18 1998 10:56 AM<br>
To: Ed Stubbs, Autumn Neault(Womack), Andy Glass, Angus Cunningham, Raja Abburi,
Sherri Kennamer,
Steve Bush, Ken Moss (Systems), Tonya Bruton, Richard Purcell, Chris Merritt(CTS
Technical)<br>
Cc: Sanjay Parsatharathy, Kurt Kolb<br>
Subject: RE OEM Registration Infrastructure Schedule
<p>
You be[?] the best solution is to avoid asking the question. Just want to make
sure we can from
legal/privacy/OEM perspective
<p>
---Original Message---<br>
From: Ed Stubbs<br>
Sent Wednesday February 18 1998 8:57 AM<br>
To: Bill Veghte, Autumn Neault(Womack), Andy Glass, Angus Cunningham, Raja
Abburi, Sherri
Kennamer, Steve Bush, Ken Moss (Systems), Tonya Bruton, Richard Purcell, Chris
Merritt(CTS Technical)
<br>
Cc: Sanjay Parsatharathy, Kurt Kolb<br>
Subject: RE OEM Registration Infrastructure Schedule
<p>
no our customer is already unhappy they are pushed to register lets not add
routing to the mix.
<p>
---Original Message---<br>
From: Bill Veghte<br>
Sent Wednesday February 18 1998 8:57 AM<br>
To: Autumn Neault(Womack), Andy Glass, Angus Cunningham, Raja Abburi, Sherri
Kennamer, Steve
Bush, Ken Moss (Systems), Tonya Bruton, Richard Purcell, Chris Merritt(CTS
Technical)<br>
Cc: Ed Stubbs, Sanjay Parsatharathy, Kurt Kolb<br>
Subject: RE OEM Registration Infrastructure Schedule
<p>
in the registration screens do we need to ask the user whether they want to send
info to MS and the
OEM, MS only, OEM only?
<p>
---Original Message---<br>
From: Autumn Neault (Womack)<br>
Sent Wednesday February 18 1998 8:18 AM<br>
To: Andy Glass, Angus Cunningham, Raja Abburi, Sherri Kennamer, Steve Bush, Ken
Moss (Systems), Bill
Veghte, Tonya Bruton, Richard Purcell, Chris Merritt(CTS Technical)<br>
Cc: Ed Stubbs, Sanjay Parsatharathy, Kurt Kolb<br>
Subject: RE OEM Registration Infrastructure Schedule
<p>
here are the open items i had from my notes
<p>
<< File RegWiz open items.doc >>
<p>
---Original Message---<br>
From: Andy Glass<br>
Sent Wednesday February 18 1998 8:18 AM<br>
To: Angus Cunningham, Raja Abburi,Autumn Neault (Womack), Sherri Kennamer, Steve
Bush, Ken Moss
(Systems), Bill Veghte, Tonya Bruton, Richard Purcell, Chris Merritt(CTS
Technical)<br>
Cc: Ed Stubbs, Sanjay Parsatharathy, Kurt Kolb<br>
Subject: RE OEM Registration Infrastructure Schedule
<p>
We made good progress with IntelliQuest today in pursuit of a quality product
for Windows 98. We will
now have IntelliQuest send the data to their backend and forward Microsoft's
data to MS.COM This saves
us the trouble of dealing with OEM data while still making just one phone call.
In order to do this the
following MS action items have been agreed to
<p>
MS-PCA 2562817<br>
CONFIDENTIAL
<hr>
<table border="0">
<tr><td colspan="4"><b><u>IntelliQuest client
functioning by Feb. 22 (UI by 3/12)</u></b></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><b>Task</b></td><td><b>Respons
ible</b></td>
<td><b>Due </b></td><td><b&g
t;Status</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>location detection (phone numbers) modem
setup</td><td>Kenmoss</td><td>-- </td>
<td>Passed to IQ</td></tr>
<tr><td>URL changes to add MSID/HWID</td><td>Andygl
Sherrike</td><td>2/16</td><td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td>TAPl
interface</td><td>Kenmoss</td><td>--</td><td>
;Passed to IQ</td></tr>
<tr><td>Prodreg com post format
</td><td>Kenmoss</td><td>--</td><td>Passed
to IQ</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Modem detection interface
</td><td></td><td>--</td><td></td><
/tr>
<tr><td>Welcome Tnterface
</td><td></td><td>--</td><td>
<tr><td>ensure MS Questions are asked {name address
</td><td>Tonyab Richarp</td>
<td>3/12</td><td>Passed to IQ
<tr><td>End user permission for MS use of
data</td><td>Tonyab Richarp</td><td>--</td>
<td>Passed to IQ</td></tr>
<tr><td>Additional information provided<br>(how data is used.
how to update data for legal
reasons</td><td>Tonyab
Richarp</td><td>--</td><td>Passed to
IQ</td></tr>
<tr><td>MS Branding (?)
added</td><td>Autumn</td><td>3/12</td><td>&l
t;/td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="4"> </td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="4"><b><u>MS Regwiz changes
complete by 2/22</u></b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Task</b></td><td><b>Respons
ible</b></td>
<td><b>Due </b></td><td><b&g
t;Status</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>OEM data
encryption</td><td>N/A</td><td>--</td><td>no
t needed</td></tr>
<tr><td>remove OEM customization option<br>(additional
questions) in current Regwiz</td>
<td>Kenmoss</td><td>2/22</td><td>Trivial</td>
;</tr>
<tr><td>OPK
modifications</td><td>a-chrmer[?]</td><td>2/28</td>
;<td>Unclear</td></tr>
<tr><td>MSID/HWID
generated</td><td>Kenmoss</td><td>2/22</td><td&
gt;</td></tr>
<tr><td>Get MSID, Put MSID, Get Item, Put Item
interfaces</td><td>Stevebu</td><td>2/17</td>
<td></td></tr>
<tr><td>HW/SW scan dll
s</td><td>Kenmoss</td><td>2/18</td><td></
td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="4"> </td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="4"><b><u>MS.COM backend
infrastructure by 3/30</u></b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Task</b></td><td><b>Respons
ible</b></td>
<td><b>Due </b></td><td><b&g
t;Status</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>New script to look for IDs on URL if not in
cookies</td><td>Sherrike</td><td>2/22</td>
<td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Test site established on
MS.COM</td><td>Sherrike</td><td>2/22</td><td>
;</td></tr>
<tr><td>Processing for IQ
data</td><td>Sherrike</td><td>3/30</td><td>&
lt;/td></tr>
</table>
<p>
Issues<br>
<i>1. To what extent will we try to support
Netscape and other browsers ?</i>
<br>
Discussed having OEM s put an icon on the desktop for connecting with MS.COM to
take advantage of
our services if a non-lE browser is chosen as the default browser. This icon
would connect to MS.COM
using IE and would pass the ID s that enable the customer to take advantage of
web support without re-
registering.
<p><i>2. Which should come first in
Welcome ICW or Registration ?</i><br>
This issue needs to be worked through.
<p>
If you have any questions or if I have left anything out please let me know
<p>
---Original Message---<br>
From: Andy Glass<br>
Sent: Tuesday February 10 1998 10:50 AM <br>
To: AngusCunningham, Raja Abburi, Autumn Neault(Womack), Sherri Kennamer, Steve
Bush, Ken Moss
(Systems)<br>
Cc: Bill Veghte, Ed Stubbs, Sanjay Parsatharathy, Kurt Kolb<br>
Subject: OEM Registration Infrastructure Schedule
<p>
Given the time constraints due to getting Windows 98 out of the door we need to
move quickly to get a
registration solution in place. This will involve a coordinated effort
andcooperation from all involved.
<p>The first critical deliverable is to have the changes that will be on
the Windows 98 retail/OPK release
tested and in place by Feb 28. This includes changes to Reegwiz and completed
testing of the
IntelliQuest (IQ) client to Regwiz to MS.COM portion of the solution.
<p>After Windows 98 is locked minor additional work can continue on
finalizing IQ's client UI and the
backend infrastructure between MS.COM and IQ. All of this needs to be tested and
in place by April 15
[?]
<p>Here are the major changes needed for the new OEM Registration solution
<ol><li>Intelliquest client
completed Andygl drives with IQ
<p>
MS-PCA 2562818 CONFIDENTIAL
<hr>
<ul><li>location detection (phone numbers) modem setup</li>
<li>ensure MS questions are asked (name, address)</li>
<li>End user permission for MS use of data</li>
<li>MS branding (?) added</li>
<li>Additional information provided (how data is used, how to update for
legal reasons<br>
</li></ul></li>
<li>MS Regwiz changes
complete Kenmoss/Stevebu
<ul><li>HW/SW information coordination with IQ client</li>
<li>OEM data encryption</li>
<li>remove OEM customization option (additional questions</li>
<li>OPK
modifications<br> </li></ul></li>
<li>MS.COM backend
infrastructure Sherrike/Stevebu
<ul><li>Prodreg server enhancements for OEM data (additional
fields</li>
<li>MS connection to transmit data to IQ</li>
<li>file download from IQ to client
(?)<br> </li></ul></li>
<li>OEMIQ unencryption code (?)
Stevebu/Kenmoss</li>
</ol>
<p>
<table border="0">
<tr><td colspan="3"><b><u>Phase
I</u></b></td></tr>
<tr><td>2/11</td><td>Preliminary specs for IQ
complete</td><td>AndyGl (coordinating
SteveBu/SherriKe/Autumn/KenMoss)</td></tr>
<tr><td>2/11-12</td><td>IQ on site spec
walkthrough</td><td>-</td></tr>
<tr><td>2/20</td><td>Prototype client from
IQ</td><td>Intelliquest</td></tr>
<tr><td>2/20</td><td>Regwiz changes
complete</td><td>Kenmoss/Stevebu</td></tr>
<tr><td>2/20</td><td>Prodreg com up for
testing</td><td>Sherrike</td></tr>
<tr><td>2/28</td><td>Client portion (Regwiz IQ
client<br>transmission to MS.COM) tested<br>and
MS RegWiz checked in</td><td>AndyGl (coordinating
Kenmoss/Stevebu/IQ)</td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="3"> </td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="3"><b><u>Phase
II</u></b></td></tr>
<tr><td>3/12 </td><td>Signo
ff on final IQ UI for MS</td>
<td>Autumn/Angusc</td></tr>
<tr><td>3/30 </td><td>MS
backend infrastructure and<br>IQ connection tested
and in place</td><td>Sherrike/Stevebu</td></tr>
<table>
<p> </p>
MS-PCA 2562819 CONFIDENTIAL<br>
<hr>
<p> </p>
From: Ken Moss (Systems)<br>
Sent: Wednesday February 18 1998 5:53 PM<br>
To: Bill Veghte<br>
Cc: Andy Glass, Autumn Neault (Womack)<br>
Subject: RE OEM Registration infrastructure Schedule<br>
<p>
One clarification I do not believe was made
<p>
IQ intends to create an interface where users can (not)register with MS or the
OEM in any permutation
<p>
Ken
<p>
-----<br>
From: Autumn Neault(Womack)<br>
Sent: Wednesday February 18 1998 1:16 PM<br>
To: Bill Veghte, Ed Stubbs, Andy Glass, Angus Cunningham, Raja Abburi, Sherri
Kennamer, Steve Bush,
Ken Moss, (Systems), Tonya Bruton, Ricxhard Purcell, Chris Merritt (CTS
Technical)<br>
Cc: Sanjay Parsatharathy, Kurt Kolb<br>
Subject: RE OEM Registration Infrastructure Schedule
<p>
<b>Privileged Material Redacted</b>
<p>
[[thence follows a repeat copy of the material above this page break, except for
the top message.]]
<p> </p>
MS-PCA 256820 CONFIDENTIAL
<p> </p>
<hr>
[[p.7 of pdf]] MS-PCA 256823 CONFIDENTIAL
<p> </p>
From: Autumn Neault (Womack)<br>
Sent: Wednesday February 18 1998 5:54 PM<br>
To: Ken Moss (Systems), Bill Veghte<br>
Cc : Andy Glass<br>
Subject: RE OEM Registration Infrastructure Schedule
<p>
ageed all (both OEM and MS) or nothing
<p> </p>
[[thence follows another repeat copy of the material above this page break,
except for the top
message.]]
<p> </p>
<hr>
[[p.10 of pdf]] MS-PCA 256826 CONFIDENTIAL
<p> </p>
From: Ken Moss (Systems)<br>
Sent: Wednesday. February 18 1998 6:01 PM<br>
To: Bill Veghte, Autumn Neault (Womack)<br>
Cc: Andy Glass<br>
Subject: RE OEM Registration Infrastructure Schedule
<p>
and one but not the other Which in the case they choose the OEM but not MS I
especially do not like
because we get through all the work of integration, put them on the first action
item of welcome and
then receive no benefit
<p>
Ken
<p> </p>
[[thence follows another repeat copy of the material above this page break.]]
<p> </p>
<hr>
<p> </p>
[[Document last page, p. 13 of PDF stamped MS-PCA 2562829 CONFIDENTIAL]]
<p> </p>
</html>[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
