decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
2798 (Intel Impasse Resolved) | 118 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
2798 (Intel Impasse Resolved)
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 01:03 PM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/Comes-2798.pdf

<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2798<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Bill Shaughnessy<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 01, 1997 8:20 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Carl Stork (Exchange); Valerie See; David W. Williams;
Marshall Brumer; Dan Neault<br />

<b>Subject:</b> FW: Intel Impasse Resolved
</p>

<p>
fyi
</p>

<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Jonathan Roberts<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 26, 1997 3:31 PM<br />

<b>To:</b> Bill Gates; Paul Maritz; Jim Allchin (Exchange)<br
/>
<b>Cc:</b> Marshall Brumer; John Frederiksen; Adam Taylor; Phil
Holden; Bill Shaughnessy<br />
<b>Subject:</b> Intel Impasse Resolved
</p>

<p>
We talked to Swope at 2pm and Intel has capitulated on the key issues. There
will be no uber server spec or any mention
of the NC in any press release or spec. We will be reviewing the release on
Monday. Billsha from our side will be intouch
with Swope over the weekend incase something flares up. The folks on the cc:
line remain suspicious and a little
confused by Intel's actions and will be tracking this closely. Will also said
they might do a non NT server configuration
guide, but was not specific or frankly that committed to the notion. Will made
it very clear that alignment with us was
absolutely the most important thing. We ended the conversation on a very
pleasant tone.
</p>

<p>
We have moved to the mode of documenting every conversation we have so we can
avoid any miscommunication.
Attached is Bill's mail to Swope
</p>

<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Bill Shaughnessy<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 26, 1997 3:18 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> <em>[Ed: e-mail address removed]</em><br
/>

<b>Cc:</b> Jonathan Roberts; Adam Taylor; Phil Holden; Marshall
Brumer; John Frederiksen<br />
<b>Subject:</b> Final Recap
</p>

<p>
Will,
</p>

<p>
Per the phone call this afternoon, here is a summary of the key points of
resolution.
</p>

<ul>
<li>Intel will remove all references to NC and Network Computer from press
release and Lean client specification</li>
<li>There will be no announcement of a server specification in the press
release. If a server specification is created it will
be an addendum to the Server 98 Design Guide. This will appear at the earliest
in 6-8 weeks.</li>
<li>The Intel press release will go out next week as planned. There is no
Microsoft or any third party quotes included in
the release.</li>
<li>Microsoft will receive a draft of the Intel press release and
Q&amp;A's Monday morning. Microsoft will provide Intel its
Q&amp;A's Monday as well.</li>
</ul>

<p>
If I have missed anything don't hesitate to call me or send email for further
clarification. I can be reached over the
weekend at home: <em>[Ed: Telephone and pager numbers
removed.]</em>

</p>

<p>
In addition John Fredericksen is available to discuss further any issues
pertaining to Hydra and WBTs.
</p>

<p>
Happy Thanksgiving.
</p>

<p>
Bill
</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

7280 (Sync up on Mobility/DRM support - need action) repost
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 01:12 PM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/7000/PX07280.pdf


<p>Plaintiff's<br />
Exhibit<br />
7280<br />
Comes V. Microsoft</p>
<hr />

<p>
<b>From:</b> Hank Vigil<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 27, 2004 6:01 PM<br />

<b>To:</b> Amir Majidimehr; Pieter Knook<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Will Poole; Brad Brunell (LCA)<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Sync up on Mobility/DRM support - need action
</p>

<p>
I had a call with Pekka today to make sure folks focused post the Finnish
holiday on getting ready for the Exec
meeting we will have in August.
</p>

<p>
One clear area Billg and Jorma agreed we should target "a deal" in the
next month is the DRM/strategy for digital
content flow area.
</p>

<p>
I know things are moving very fast on OMA &ndash; they ratified the spec,
which is not just about media, but apparently
for protected documents as well. NOK I guess was a key driver of this outcome.
</p>

<p>
We do need a very crisp strategy on how we engage/align with NOK here.
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Amir Majidimehr<br />

<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 26, 2004 6:27 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Pieter Knook<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Hank Vigil; Will Poole<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Sync up on Mobility/DRM support -- need action
</p>

<p>
That's what I was trying to do below :). But as you can see, it didn't happen.
Fortunately, the first step of getting
the resources freed up is there and we can not staff up to help form the
strategy. Meanwhile we are doing this
work with borrowed resources and should have somethlng to discuss in 2 to 3
months (August is shot
unfortunately).
</p>

<p>
Did this answer your question?
</p>

<p>
Amir
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Pieter Knook<br />

<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 26, 2004 9:22 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Amir Majidimehr<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Hank Vigil; Will Poole<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Sync up on Mobility/DRM support -- need action
</p>

<p>
I thought Amir you were to setup a meeting with JimAll to discuss how to manage
DRM and
formats across the Windows Platform business.
</p>

<p>
Has this meeting been setup?
</p>

<p>
Sent using Outlook 2003, Exchange 2003 and Windows XP Professional<br />
<em>[Ed: Telephone numbers omitted.]</em>
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Hank Vigil<br />

<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 23, 2004 8:24 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Will Poole; Amir Majidimehr; Pieter Knook<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Sync up on Mobility/DRM support -- need action
</p>

<p>
My two cents is that we should do as Will suggests esp. given the state of the
NOK discussions and the evolution
of our OMA strategies. We need to meet on this soon re. the latter.
</p>

<p>
Bradbr and Amir (or delegate) needs to continue to develop our approach to NOK
for the August meeting.
</p>

<p>
Let's discuss offline.
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Will Poole<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 23, 2004 7:13 AM<br />

<b>To:</b> Amir Majidimehr; Brian Valentine; Michele Freed; Jim
Allchin<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Pieter Knock; Chris Jones (WINDOWS): Hank Vigil<br
/>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Sync up on Mobility/DRM support -- need action
</p>

<p>
We have not met on this yet. If near term funding questions are causing us to
loose ground, then let's fund the
effort ASAP and we (WLT) will figure out how to pay the bill later.
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Amir Majidimehr<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 23, 2004 7:09 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Brian Valentine; Michele Freed; Jim Allchin<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Pieter Knook; Will Poole; Chris Jones (WINDOWS); Hank
Vigil<br />

<b>Subject:</b> RE: Sync up on Mobility/DRM support -- need
action<br />
<b>Importance:</b> High
</p>

<p>
So was this discussed at the WLT? If so, what was the results?
</p>

<p>
If not, then let me say that we are starting to get into a world of hurt. OMA
just approved the DRM V2, and Nokia
is getting ready for a major launch with this technology yet we are sitting here
with no strategy. I have funded one
head out of my less than empty pocket but can't do more. Time is running out on
this and I don't know the next
steps. All I was asking below was for people to hear us out on the situation
analysis. You all don't hate us that
much, do you :)?
</p>

<p>
I would really appreciate some guidance here.
</p>

<p>
Amir
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Brian Valentine<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:22 PM<br />

<b>To:</b> Michele Freed; Amir Majidimehr; Jim Allchin<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Pieter Knook; Will Poole; Tina Krallis (BRUSCA); Jane
Ellis; Chris Jones (WINDOWS)<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Sync up on Mobility/DRM support
</p>

<p>
This should go to the WLT.
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Michele Freed<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 24, 2004 10:27 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Amir Majidimehr; Jim Allchin; Brian Valentine<br
/>
<b>Cc:</b> Pieter Knook; Will Poole; Tina Krallis (BRUSCA); Jane
Ellis<br />

<b>Subject:</b> RE: Sync up on Mobility/DRM support
</p>

<p>
Adding BV and making thread smaller...
</p>

<p>
I thought this type of issue was exactly the type that was to be resolve in the
WLT?
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Amir Majidimehr<br />

<b>Sent:</b> Thu 6/24/2004 10:19 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Jim Allchin<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Pieter Knook; Hank Vigil; Will Poole; Tina Krallis
(BRUSCA); Jane Ellis; Michele Freed; Linda Averett; Mike
Beckerman<br />
<b>Subject:</b> Sync up on Mobility/DRM support
</p>

<p>
Hi Jim.
</p>

<p>
We are trying to get your calendar with Pieter/Hank/Will to discuss where we
should go with respect to formulating
a strategy and executing on a plan with respect to our mobility platform in
general, and DRM/content security
specifically. Pieter and I have already met and agreed that it makes sense for
us to lead the charge here (right
now, it is driven out of MDD). With the recent Intertrust settlement, our
situation in the marketplace has improved,
calling for a new strategy.
</p>

<p>
The reason we need to meet with you is to a) explain the situation at high level
and b) seek your advice on how to
fund this. Because this activity falls in the crack between the two
P&amp;Ls, we have not been able to identify how we
are going to handle (b).
</p>

<p>
On my part, I have already started hiring a senior program manager to start
figuring out the plan and just
committed $1.1M on licensing technology to obfuscate our DRM code for MED
platform (without it, our DRM
would be cracked in one minute, and in the process undermine the security we
have in Windows or eliminate
premium content availability for open MED platforms). I did not have budget for
either one of these but have gone
on to invest anyway, because I think it is essential to do, before Nokia eats
whats left of our lunch :). But this is
not going to lead to a viable strategy/product from us without addition staff to
actually building the technology.
Nor can I take people from LH away to do this work.
</p>

<p>
Since we are just getting started to look at this area, we won't be in a
position to tell you exactly where we should
go But do hope to explain at high level, the opportunity and pitfalls of the
situation. The decision we like to walk
away with is how much we should increase our investments for mobility and where
those resources should come
from.
</p>

<p>
Can you tell us if you like to meet and if not, how we go about resolving this?
</p>

<p>
Thanks,<br />
Amir
</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )