|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 16 2013 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/4000/PX04473.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4473<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<em>[Ed: Underlined text is underlined annotated text in the original
document.]</em>
<p>
ZEOS INTERNATIONAL LTD.
</p>
<p>
Sheri Vail<br />
Microsoft Corporation<br />
One Microsoft Way<br />
Redmond, WA 98052-6399<br />
Faxed August 27, 1992
</p>
<p>
Dear Sheri:
</p>
<p>
Thank you for the letter to Greg and me this morning.
</p>
<p>
Since the last time that we talked, I have not received my messages from you,
and did not
realize that you were trying to get in touch with me. While I cannot speak to
messages that you
may have left for Greg, I assure you that I am the dedicated decision maker that
you seek.
</p>
<p>
On to the applications softwares bundling proposal. As we discussed, your
initial pricing
proposal is <u>higher than we can pay.</u> I believe you were going
to work on a new proposal, and I
suggest that for the time being you keep it simple and just give us
<u>various prices for various</u>
quantities. We would like to offer a choice of applications to our customers, so
the easiest way
to judge the proposal would be with <u>quantities based on
<i>total</i> software</u> purchased by ZEOS
rather than software by title - we simply have no idea of what the title mix
would be.
</p>
<em>[Ed: Above paragraph annotated with a question mark. Handwritten
annotation (unclear): "Who else is in Sam's! What do they
offer."]</em>
<p>
Finally, as we have said, the research proposal certainly sounds interesting.
Before we go
forward on applications bundling research with Microsoft, however, we would like
to establish
the fact that we will be bundling Microsoft applications software. We believe
that to do
otherwise would simply be putting the cart before the horse.
</p>
<em>[Ed: Above paragraph annotated with an exclamation mark. Handwritten
annotation (unclear): "IT helps him understand how his Lotus deal is doing
and why they buy today. we can do again later to determine MS
impact."]</em>
<p>
I look forward to seeing your proposal.
</p>
<p>
Sincerely,
</p>
<p>
Rick Apple<br />
Vice President, Marketing
</p>
<p>
cc: Greg Herrick
</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 16 2013 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/Comes-5082.pdf
<p>
Plaintiffs Exhibit 5082<br />
Comes V. Microsoft
</p>
<p>
Date: 21 Dec 1989 9:26 am<br />
Via: vax<br />
To: iwold,coconnor,cyoung,emcnierney,bbriggs,bfrankston<br />
Subject: (Forwarded) Microsoft Briefing
</p>
<p>
FYI. I do not yet have the copies of slides referred to.
</p>
<p>
---------------------------------<br />
Forwarded message
</p>
<p>
via: mailbox vax, dreed/nocommand on VAX at Lotus (LDC) ** Message Received OK
</p>
<p>
From: LDBVAX::DGILMOUR<br />
Date: 19-DEC-1989 10:05:50<br />
To: @m1:spg_directs<br />
To: LDBVAX::mfahey<br />
Subject: Microsoft Briefing
</p>
<p>
Marty Fahey and I attended the Microsoft Systems review in Redmond on December
15. It was an all-day session of 35m slide presentations and product demos.
There were approximately 90 people in the room, 40 of whom were from Microsoft.
</p>
<p>
About 25 ISVs were represented, including Aldus, Autodesk, Oracle, Wordperfect,
Ashton Tate, Microrim, Informix, and a number of smaller companies who
generally seemed to send their chief technical officer.
</p>
<p>
Copies of the slides were distributed and will be copied to this distribution
list. They contain significant technical detail about the future directions of
OS/2 and Windows. What follows are additional facts raised in the discussion
but not necessarily reflected in the slides.
</p>
<p>
OS/2
</p>
<ul>
<li>Ballmer repeated the "Official" positioning or OS/2 vs.
Windows, based on
machine memory size. But during the course of the day it became clear
that Microsoft believes that OS/2 will appeal primarily to
"corporations
making planned purchases" and for "new hardware", and Windows
will he the
"transition to GUI" for many end users running existing
hardware.</li>
<li>However, a demo of OS/2 2.0 made OS/2 look quite impressive from the
end
user's point of view -- really for the first time. The demo included
running:
<ul>
<li>1-2-3 2.01 with expanded memory</li>
<li>DOS Wordperfect</li>
<li>PM Excel</li>
<li>Microsoft Word (CUI) with Borland Sidekick</li>
<li>Microsoft Windows in a window, with the calehdar application
running
inside that.</li>
<li>Flight Simulator</li>
</ul>
Cut-and-paste was demonstrated from 1-2-3 to Wordperfect and then to
Excel.</li>
<li>OS/2 2.0 has a "Porthole" facility which will allow running
of Windows 3.0
applications with 100% compatibility. (Not clear this applies to all
modes, though this was implied.] Most ISVs present expressed interest in
this migration path over the reverse path.</li>
<li>Microsoft investigated the cost of supporting the PM graphics API
under
Windows to allow PM applications to run. They found that it would take
"100-150K of memory and would slow the applications by 10%".
They
indicated they had dropped the effort permanently, and there was only
minor negative feedback from the ISV group.</li>
<li>Microsoft asked for feedback on how to tradeoff time-to-market with
various features in OS/2. Key decisions were to include tha
"porthole"
facility to run Windows 3 applications, LAN manager support, and the new
Royal fonts to allow true WYSIWYG. They also plan to clean up as many
"rough edges" in the UI as possible. The result would be general
availability sometime between June and September.</li>
</ul>
<p>
Portable OS/2
</p>
<ul>
<li>They discussed plans for this C rewrite of OS/2 which will not include
any
support for the 16 bit segmented architecture of the 286. It is
Microsoft's "UNIX killer" for the 90's.</li>
<li>Hardware targets, in order of priority: i860, MIPS,
386-486.</li>
<li>FCS "shortly after 1990". Kernel and executive are running
today.</li>
</ul>
<p>
Windows
</p>
<ul>
<li>Windows 3: one SKU, three operating modes, $149.</li>
<li>Current Windows: 60K units/month of packaged product through retail
and
OEMs.</li>
<li>In 1 MB system, 7OOK will be free</li>
<li>In 386 enhanced mode, 4x overcommit of physical memory will be
supported.</li>
<li>DOS extenders: In both real and standard modes, both XMS (for 1-2-3)
and
the new Microsoft DPMI (DOS protected mode interface) approaches are
supported.</li>
</ul>
<p>
Applications Integration
</p>
<ul>
<li>DDE acknowledged to be too low level and incomplete. Being reworked
totally in OS/2 2.0 with higher level abstractions and more
features.</li>
<li>Since our last briefing, object oriented plans for OS/2 have become
more
realistic and incremental.</li>
</ul>
<p>
Microsoft's Applications
</p>
<p>
Microsoft's own view is that tha world will divide into Windows applications
and pure 32 bit OS/2 applications. UNIX will never be a viable platform for
volume packaged software because of the lack of a binary standard distributed
as a packaged product. Microsoft will use tha porthole facility to get its
applications to PM, except for Excel, which has been ported natively. It will
then re-code all its applications for the 32 bit version of OS/2.
</p>
<p>
----------------<br />
Marty and I would be happy to call a debriefing discussion meeting if there is
sufficient interest. Please send me EMAIL.
</p>
<p>
/dlg
</p>
<p>
End forwarded message<br />
---------------------------------
</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
