|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 24 2013 @ 06:26 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03829.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3829<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<p>
<b>From:</b> Mark Brown<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 23, 1997 1:30 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Brad Silverberg; Peter Plamondon; Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen; Linda Norman (LCA)<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross; Erich Andersen (LCA)<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: open tools
</p>
<p>
insiders and logic tell me that Oracle getting an Open Tools license from us is
a gate to the Orcl/Borl Jbuilder bundle deal
announced a few weeks back.
</p>
<p>
Since orcl has been so difficult to deal with, we have agreed to their Open
Tools terms, in principal, just as soon as they
give us (and we confirm) unrestricted rights to <i>buy</i> their
products — something extremely hard for MS to do today.
</p>
<p>
The last time I spoke w/orcl(Tues), they were sending our proposal up the
chain.
</p>
<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Brad Silverberg<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 23, 1997 12:20 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Peter Plamondon; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielson<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross; Erich Andersen (LCA); Mark Brown<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: open tools
</p>
<p>
i just need an answer to the following:
</p>
<p>
- if oracle is asking for broader rights, they are willing to accept it's an
issue between msft and orcl that needs to get
resolved.<br />
- what would it mean and would it be ok for us to let borl just past thru the
rights borl has to orcl? who would orcl be
able to sell to and what rights would they have?
</p>
<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Peter Plamondon<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday,May 23,1997 12:14 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Brad Silverberg; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross; Erich Andersen (LCA); Mark Brown<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: open tools
</p>
<p>
Yes, Oracle's asking for much more.
</p>
<p>
Borland can grant their direct customers the right to redistribute Win32 SDK
components, those Borland
customers cannot grant redistribution rights to anyone else.
</p>
<p>
Oracle wants to let their resellers and distributors grant redistribution to any
of their customers, repeating infinitely
deep through Oracle's entire distribution channel.
</p>
<p>
We should definitely get some value back from granting these broader rights, and
since Oracle currently prevents
MS from purchasing many Oracle products (including at retail), that's what we're
asking for in retum, and they
apparently don't want to yield on this point. Details on our request in
MBrown's attached email.
</p>
<p>
--Peter<br />
<< Message: MS Open Tools Update >>
</p>
<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Brad Silverberg<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 23, 1997 12:07 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Peter Plamondon; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross: Erich Andersen (LCA)<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: open tools
</p>
<p>
is oracle asking for rights broader than what borland has?
</p>
<p>
i realize the approach may not be what we would prefer but could live with it,
as long as it applied only to
where the borl products are sold.
</p>
<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Peter Plamondon<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday,May 23,1997 12:00 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Brad Silverberg; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen; David Vaskevitch<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross; Erich Andersen (LCA)<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: open tools
</p>
<p>
I don't like that approach - we get much more value by granting the rights to
Oracle, assuming we get access
to products they currently block us from buying. This also maintains the rights
Oracle requested as
extraordinary, requiring extraordinary benefit back to MS. -Peter
</p>
<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Brad Silverberg<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 23, 1997 11:59 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Peter Plamondon; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross<br />
<b>Subject:</b> open tools
</p>
<p>
how would you feel if we allowed borland to pass thru their rights to oracle for
oracle selling the borl tools?
oracle would not get any rights borland doesn't already have, it's just a pass
thru.... i need to know
immediately
</p>
<p>
<b>From:</b> Peter Plamondon<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 23, 1997 12:38 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Brad Silverberg; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross; Erich Andersen (LCA); Mark Brown<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: open tools
</p>
<p>
I'll be happy to talk to anyone at Borland and explain the differences between
their license and what Oracle's asking for,
point them to me - 703-7789. -Peter
</p>
<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Brad Silverberg<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 23. 1997 12:36 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Peter Plamondon; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross; Erich Andersen (LCA); Mark Brown<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: open tools
</p>
<p>
borland wont make it an issue with us if orcl is asking for broader rights than
borl has....
</p>
<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Peter Plamondon<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday,May 23,1997 12:27 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Brad Silverberg; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross; Erich Andersen (LCA); Mark Brown<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: open tools
</p>
<p>
Responses below, might be easier to talk directly. x37789. -Peter
</p>
<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Brad Silverberg<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 23, 1997 12:20 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Peter Plamondon; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross; Erich Andersen (LCA); Mark Brown<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: open tools
</p>
<p>
i just need an answer to the following:
</p>
<p>
- if oracle is asking for broader rights, they are willing to accept it's an
issue between msft and orcl that needs to get
resolved.<br />
<u>Oracle needs to accept it's between MS and Oracle, they don't want to
accept it because they'll have to yield to
our demands. Getting these rights through Borland lets Oracle off the hook, and
delivers no value to us.</u><br />
- what would it mean and would it be ok for us to let borl just past thru the
rights borl has to orcl? who would orcl be
able to sell to and what rights would they have?<br />
<u>Borland does not have the rights Oracle is requesting. Oracle
operating under Borland's rights would have to alter
their entire business model and have all their distributors/customers work
directly with Oracle to license
Oracle products, rather than working with Oracle's
distributors/resellers.</u>
</p>
<p>
<u>The only reason we're willing to give Oracle broader rights is because
we can break the logjam on MS getting
Oracle products. No interest at all in granting these rights to Borland, no
up-side to use and a bad precedent.</u>
</p>
<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Peter Plamondon<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday,May 23,1997 12:14 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Brad Silverberg; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross: Erich Andersen (LCA); Mark Brown<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: open tools
</p>
<p>
Yes, Oracle's asking for much more.
</p>
<p>
Borland can grant their direct customers the right to redistribute Win32 SDK
components, those Borland
customers cannot grant redistribution rights to anyone else.
</p>
<p>
Oracle wants to let their resellers and distributors grant redistribution to any
of their customers, repeating infinitely
deep through Oracle's entire distribution channel.
</p>
<p>
We should definitely get some value back from granting these broader rights, and
since Oracle currently prevents
MS from purchasing many Oracle products (including at retail), that's what we're
asking for in return, and they
apparently don't want to yield on this point. Details on our request in MBrown's
attached email.
</p>
<p>
--Peter<br />
<< Message: MS Open Tools Update >>
</p>
<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Brad Silverberg<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 23, 1997 12:07 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Peter Plamondon; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross; Erich Andersen (LCA)<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: open tools
</p>
<p>
is oracle asking for rights broader than what borland has?
</p>
<p>
i realize the approach may not be what we would prefer but could we live with
it, as long as it applied only to
where the borl products are sold.
</p>
<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Peter Plamondon<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday,May 23,1997 12:00 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Brad Silverberg; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen; David Vaskevitch<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross; Erich Andersen (LCA)<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: open tools
</p>
<p>
I don't like that approach - we get much more value by granting the rights to
Oracle, assuming we get access
to products they currently block us from buying. This also maintains the rights
Oracle requested as
extraordinary, requiring extraordinary benefit back to MS. -Peter
</p>
<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Brad Silverberg<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 23, 1997 11:59 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Peter Plamondon; Linda Norman (LCA); Tom Button; Tod
Nielsen<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Paul Gross<br />
<b>Subject:</b> open tools
</p>
<p>
how would you feel if we allowed borland to pass thru their rights to oracle for
oracle selling the borl tools?
oracle would not get any rights borland doesn't already have, it's just a pass
thru.... i need to know
immediately
</p>
<em>[Ed: Messages repeat from here.]</em>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
