decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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



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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.


Comes v. Microsoft Exhibits by Number 2588-2647

Comes Homepage ] [ Transcripts ] [ Exhibits by Date ] [ Exhibits by Number ] [ Audio/Video ]

Comes Exhibits by Number, page 7 of 18

The exhibits are divided into 18 pages, due to length. This page contains exhibits 2588-2647. For the other pages in the collection:

Exhibit Description

Comes v. Microsoft

From: Richard Fade
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 1996 9:41 AM
To: Desktop Applications Div Full Time Employees
Cc: Brad Silverberg; Paul Maritz; Natalie Yount: Cathy Turner
Subject: Desktop Applications Future

To: Desktop Applications Division
From: Richard Fade and Jon DeVaan
Subject: Desktop Applications Division Goals and Organization

Yesterday we announced a new organization for the Microsoft Applications and Platforms divisions and specific changes within DAD. The following is a summary of these announcements including the key objectives driving our action.

Microsoft and the PC platform are facing strong challenges from new competitors. It is critical that we focus our product efforts in a manner to create products that beat this competition and keeps the PC platform vital and growing into the future.

The Desktop Applications division has been instrumental to Microsoft's phenomenal success. Internet focused competitors are squarely focusing on new applications models and our core business. DAD must play a pivotal role in defending and growing Microsoft's leadership position. One of the key objectives of the new organization is to create a family of products that spans the spectrum from our free web browser client software to our top of the line Office software. To that end, the product group is reorganizing into two main groups, the Systems Group and the Applications and Internet Client Group. Information shared in the all hands meeting by Paul Maritz yesterday included changes affecting all of the product group organizations, however this mail is meant to focus on changes specific to the DAD team.

Brad Silverberg will head the Applications and Internet Client Group. The major groups in AICG will be the Desktop Applications Division, the Internet Client and Collaboration Division, the Web Authoring Division, and the Tools Division. Richard Fade and Jon DeVaan will lead DAD. We will share the creation of product strategy and direction for DAD. On a day to day basis, Richard will focus on business initiatives and mission (Office product direction, DAD Marketing, Consumer Productivity, products for Small Business, Project/ Team Manager, the Office Web Product Unit,). Jon will focus on Office and individual applications product missions (Office product strategy and development, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, including WW Software and the new Mac product unit). We will also move to consolidate and strengthen out mail offerings, as the result, the Outlook team will move to work in the new Collaboration Division. The Outlook team will play a pivotal role in defining the integration of email, web browsing, and collaboration features and functionality for Microsoft. The FrontPage team will merge with the Image Composer team and become the new Web Authoring Division headed by Chris Peters. Please join us in congratulating Chris, Brian MacDonald, and their teams on their important new roles. Currently some DAD employees provide user assistance, localization and marketing support to the Outlook and FrontPage teams. These individuals will remain part of the Desktop Applications Division but will continue to support to those teams.

Recently you saw an email titled, "Office 97 and beyond" where the challenges that face DAD were detailed. Some highlights of that email are included below.

"It is an odd time for Desktop Applications. Never before have we released a product, Office 97 that is more timely and in step with the needs of customers. Yet at this same point in time our business leadership is more tenuous than it has been since we first entered the application software business dominated by Lotus and WordPerfect. The Internet has produced innovations and promises that are gathering huge momentum and it is certain that over the next few years we will see a dramatic change in our industry's landscape and the products that customers are seeking and purchasing. It is critical that we maintain our industry leadership position and bring Office forward into this "new world". We call this effort Office9.

One of the traits that has made DAD successful over the years has been a constant focus on customers and the marketplace. It is important to look at how both of these have changed over the past two years since we began Office 97. These changes have been quite dramatic:

We Won-Microsoft Office is the dominant desktop productivity suite. We have come from single digit market-share to over 85% share. Our biggest competition is in fact ourselves. We must now ourdo ourselves in each release, and we must be creative and show leadership. We can't count on doing a better job than our competitors because our traditional competitors for the most part have faltered. The risk now is that the growth in the productivity market will be in a new "web" category and we must avoid being relegated to "legacy" applications.

Internet-Nothing has more profoundly changed our business, customers, and industry than the Internet, not even the graphical user interface. How the internet impacts personal productivity applications and software is yet to be seen, but Microsoft and Office must lead the way. Whether this means a new class of application, architectural features, or new components to the Office product, we must aggressively provide an answer to this vexing question.

LORGs-Our software is, and should be, designed for end-users to do their work. Our world has changed in the sense that our primary customer or influencer is really the CIO or corporate site administrator. These people are clamoring for Network Computers and features to reduce the total cost of ownership (TCO). We must proactively understand and meet the needs of this new class of user in order for our business to survive. For example, one of the primary attractions of the Network Computer is the perception that users can walk up to any machine, log on, and have all of their settings, files, and applications travel with them. We must meet these needs along with the Zero-Administration needs of these customers.

Email-Email As becoming everything: All documents, all communication, all work worth doing in a company will become focused on email. Our traditional focus on print-based documents needs to switch to a focus where documents are primarily created, consumed, and stored online. There is a huge threat to the Word franchise (our "anchor store" in the Office mall) from an HTML-based text editor that meets these online document needs better than Office for the primary communication needs of office workers.

HTML-When we began the Internet focus of Office 97 we felt that there would be a world where our document formats would co-exist with HTML. Our leading edge customers are telling us that they need all of our documents to be based on HTML. This has big customer benefits in terms of robustness, indexing, cross-platform viewing (with lower fidelity), and server side processing.

Servers-Servers are becoming a core computing resource within corporations. No longer are they hard to set up and administer, and publishing information (thanks to tools like FrontPage) is far simpler and yields better results than the file- sharing world for which Office has been optimized. The ability to leverage some computation on the server is a key asset that web-based tools have today which we need to exploit to a much greater degree moving forward.

Bloatware-Many of the critics of Office feel our applications are bloated-too many features, too much RAM, too much user- interface, too much hard drive space, etc. These critics would have you believe that all anyone needs is a word processor with four features, but we know that our end-users do not want their products designed by people that fancy themselves UNIX system administrators! Java and components have the perception that software can be made smaller and more full featured at the same time, and we must find ways to address these needs.

Coolness and hipness-Finally there is one issue we need to be very aware of and it is the hardest one since this cuts to the core of what we need to do. It is fair to say that among the very leading edge users, people that generally pride themselves in going against the flow or acting as renegades, Office has lost a certain amount of the elan that it held at the start of the Windows revolution. These users, so called early adopters, are focusing on more "internet" products, such as Navigator, NetObjects, Corel Java Office, and even our own FrontPage. Though these products are new and still early in their adoption curve, we must recognize that the success of Office rests on being seen as the "cool" application to use."

It is important to remember that the people of DAD have created one of the most successful products of all time in Office. In all dimensions --market adoption, product quality, product usefulness, industry recognition, and sheer scale of creating the product -- the people of DAD have been unbelievably successful. It is our intention to take the principles of DAD's success and build on them to create an even more successful future.

We see the principles of success in two dimensions -- product and process. First, the success of Office is built on principles of product: Customer focused innovation, Integration, and Best of Breed. When we started on Office it was said no one could create a product that was both the best integrated and the best at individual product capabilities. It has been hard work, but we have proven it can be done. In addition, our ability to lead the productivity applications categories with functionality that hits home with the user has been superb. Our feature designs are consistently the very best in the industry. Our implementations are the most robust with the right depth and usefulness. Our user driven development methods allow us to identify customer needs and trends that are most important to our users. Second, Office's success is built on strong principles of process: We show respect for Individuals, Roles, and Reality in our processes. DAD delivers innovations in a reliable manner because of these principles. The structure of a DAD project is based on bottom up schedules, milestones, and individual commitment. People work on the product areas that are interesting to them. They get to have full influence over the design, implementation, and release of their feature areas. DAD products are better because the people working on them really care about them, and their creativity and hard work are visible in the finished product. These are all results of our strong process principles.

In order to successfully respond to our upcoming challenges and vigorously focus on our core success principles, we are announcing further changes in the structure of DAD for creating the Office, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access products.

Effective January 6, 1997 we will organize as follows for creating Office 9:

In order to increase the effectiveness of our cross product integration, we are creating cross-application feature teams focusing on Total Cost of Ownership, Web Client features, Web Server features, User Interface & Assistance, Programmability, Release, and Base Technology. We will staff these teams using people from the individual application teams; approximately 3 developers, 3 testers, and 1-2 program managers from each product will be required. The feature teams will have complete decision authority for their focus areas including if and how to write shared code and code integration into the individual applications. Each feature team will have a group program manager, development manager, and test manager. Each of these leaders will report to the new Director of Program Management, Director of Development, and Director of Test respectively. One of the three feature team leaders will be assigned informal oversight for the entire team. Creating consistent features was too hard on the Office '97 project. Our goal with cross- application feature teams is to dramatically reduce the amount of responsibility overlap and negotiation required when creating first rate consistent features.

The creation of these new teams will result in smaller application tcams. Our goal is to simplify the work for the application teams, allowing them to focus on features for their application category. To the degree we save time that used to be spent dealing with interactions in larger teams, or negotiating interfaces for consistent features, we will achieve this handily.

In order to maintain a strong focus on innovation in the individual applications, and improve the bandwidth of Office wide decision making, we will create two application business units. The Word and PowerPoint teams share a large customer base of people who use Word and PowerPoint as their primary applications. Text processing and drawing are core technologies that are extremely important to both applications, therefore, Peter Pathe will lead the new Word Processing and Graphics Business Unit. Ralf Harteneck and the PowerPoint team will report to Peter. The Excel and Access groups have very complementary visions for the fixture, to this end, Richard McAniff will lead the Analysis and Database Business Unit. Over the next month Richard will define the exact structure of the Excel and Access teams. Jon Reingold will assist Richard with the transition while he considers other opportunities within DAD.

In order to simplify the transition to Office 9, we are creating the Macintosh Product Unit. The Macintosh PU will be charged with finishing a great new Office 97 for the Macintosh. Following Office 97, the PU will be charged with keeping file compatibility with future Office release on the Windows platform, but otherwise exercising creativity to make great Macintosh applications for the $200 +M annual Macintosh business.

We are also happy to announce the formation of the Worldwide Software group, led by Akio Fuji for Far East and Jeff Olund for Europe and Rest of World. The DAD international groups have done a fantastic job creating timely and high quality Office releases for over 30 languages. As our businesses and capabilities mature, we need to focus more attention on the efficiency of these operations. Alex Morcos and the Middle East product group will report to Jeff Olund, expanding their responsibilities to include development work on internationalization and localization capabilities in Office.

The Consumer Productivity team will continue its focus on productivity and creativity tools. In addition to new versions of Works, Publisher, Picture It!, and Greetings Workshop the team is focused on a new set of products anchored by the new "Family Suite". We will also pursue a more aggressive product plan targeting small business users following on the Office Small Business Edition introduction early this next year. The Project team will continue its focus on its next release due out next spring. Team Manager product group are working on known feature requirements and more fundamental integration with Outlook as the basis for their next release. The above teams will continue to work as organized today.

For those teams with changes within the DAD organization above, those changes will be effective January 6, 1997. During the period between now and then, people should focus on the Office 97 tasks that remain, while considering their roles in the new organization. Over the next two weeks we will identify the individuals leading the new feature teams so you can get more information to help you think about new opportunities. It is quite probable that many of us will have Office 97 work to complete after the new organization goes into effect. It is absolutely critical that we stay focused on completing those unfinished tasks, however, we wanted to announce these organizational changes now to allow you all time to think and plan for your new roles and responsibilities. We look forward to working with all of you in meeting the challenges faced by DAD and Microsoft in 1997. We are confident that by working together we will continue DAD's remarkable success.

Please speak to your manager if you have any questions. Both of us are also available to answer any questions you may have.

Richard and Jon


From: Valerie See
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 1996 8:13 AM
To: Bill Veghte, David Williams (POSD), Rob Short, Chuck Lenzmeier
Cc: Carl Stork, Dan Plastina
Subject: RE: Intel follow-up

ok, no problem. please let us know what comes of the talks with Lanworks next week, but this set of issues will be enough to get us going today. thanks again

From: Chuck Lenzmeier
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 1996 8:10 AM
To: Valerie See; Bill Veghte; David Williams (POSD); Rob Short
Cc: Carl Stork; Dan Plastina
Subject: RE: Intel follow-up

We don't have anythung concrete yet. We're going to be talking to Lanworks about it next week. At a high level, it's just an API to receive a file into some memory location, and another to send a file from some memory location. A number of details need to be work out especially given that we're talking about doing thus in the absence of a real operating system. We need to define the environment that will exist when the loader calls the ROM (e.g., we're in protect mode but we haven't messed around with anything that the ROM set up before it transferred control to the boot image), what the ROM can do to the environment while it's performing the action (e.g., it can switch to real mode), what the environment must be on return (same as on entry), and where the memory for the send/receive can be (hopefully we're not limited to low memory)

-- chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Valene Sea
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 1996 8:03 AM
To: Bill Veghte, David Williams (POSD), Rob Short, Chuck Lenzmeier
Cc: Carl Stork; Dan Plastina
Subject: RE: Intel follow-up

excellent definition of the problem, and what we want to solve. now for the big question, do we have any internal work done yet on the definition of, or at least preferences for, the ROM get/send interface? (it's kind of a chicken and an egg problem but again, it's always best to be first on the table with this kind of stuff. it we don't drve right in with something, Intel will undoubtedly be happy to dictate terms to us. ;-))

(thanks for the input, chuck!)

From: Chuck Lenzmeier
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 1996 7:45 AM
To: Valerie See, Bill Veghte; David Williams (POSD); Rob Short
Cc: Carl Stork; Dan Plastina
Subject: RE: Intel follow-up

For remote boot, we need to define two interfaces. The first is between the NetPC and the boot server. This should be DHCP (to get an IP address for the NetPC and to get the IP address of a boot server) and TFTP (to receive/send files from/to the boot server). These are standard protocols that are already used in various flavors of remote boot.

The second interface is between the ROM and OS loader Boot ROMs that exist today simply load a boot image from the server, transfer control to that boot image, then go away. This means that the boot image has to include code that can drive the net card (i.e., an NDIS driver, a transport, a redir, and everything needed to support them). This in turn means that some mechanism at the boot server needs to know what kind of net card is in the NetPC so that the correct driver can be sent. What we want to do instead is define an interface between the ROM and the boot image that allows the OS loader to retrieve additional files from the boot server. So the ROM would load the OS loader, then the OS loader would use the ROM interface to get ntoskml.exe, hal.dll, the correct NDIS drrver, tcpup.sys, etc. This means that the OS loader can detect the net card at run tume, so the administrator of the boot server doesn't have to do any special setup based on what net card happens to be in the NetPC.

We need to define the ROM get/send interface in a way that doesn't lock us into any one ROM vendor.

Note the assumption here that the OS loader can detect the net card type at run time. If the net card is PCI- based, thus shouldn't be a problem. Then it's just a matter of mapping the PCI ID to the appropriate NDIS driver. If need be, we could do this mapping on the server side.

-- chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Valerie See
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 1996 7:14 AM
To: Bill Veghte; David Williams (POSD); Rob Short
Cc: Carl Stork; Dan Plastina; Chuck Lenzmeier
Subject: RE: Intel follow-up

do you have a list of issues on this topic? we have a conference call with them (Intel) re. NetPC today at 9, and pending your response we can brlng them up or try to stave it off a little, but the latter isn't really a good choice - we're running out of time, as everyone is painfully aware.

From: Rob Short
Sent: Wednesday, December 04 1996 5:14 PM
To: Bill Veghte, David Williams (POSD), Valerie See
Cc: Carl Stork; Dan Plastina; Chuck Lenzmeier
Subject: RE: Intel follow-up

yup, it would be crazy to Intel define this

the only really urgent issue I can thunk of is defining how it boots. if we let Intel do this in a proprietary way we're screwed

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Veghte
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 1996 11:38 AM
To: David Williams (POSD), Valerie See
Cc: Carl Stork; Rob Short; Dan Plastina
Subject: FW: Intel follow-up

Note the flag below on NetPC. we need to get cranking on this. I know it is difficult to do a spec until the sw work is crisply defined but having Intel draft this spec and take it to the industry will cause us more headaches in the long run if we don't get out in front.


---------- From: Paul Maritz
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 1995 4:36 AM
To: Jim Allchin (Exchange), Moshe Dunie
Cc: Marshall Brumer
Subject: Intel follow-up

I spoke to Pat Gelsinger a week ago Friday. Pat has moved to be two-an-box with Aymar, running Intel's x86 chip business, and has been designated as our contact point on NetPC and PC98.

On PC98 - they want to follow-up along the lines of the proposal that we made to them to work jointly on pC-98. They have a guy (russell barker? - marshalb knows) who is going to be there "owner" on this. We need to confirm that Moshed will be our owner on this. Remember that the "owners" are meant to be the decision makers on this (and not have everything escalated). Pat wanted-to have a "kick off review" wlth me on this - I pushed back on this (the owners should do it). At any rate, we need to get back to them on this. They would like to put draft spec out by WinHec. I know our guys want to make sure that we also involve Cpq and HP as part of a kitchen- cabinet, so we need to be proactive.

On NetPC - Pat thinks that we are being slow to follow-up and get spec's out, and he is telling his guys to go ahead and start drafting. They want to have a review for the industry in Jaunary. We need to engage with them, and get ahead of them, and get OEMs involved. I think we should also et a few large account customers involved in order to get some reality in discussions and (eg ) get focus off $743 price point. I guess the PC'98 guy is also their NetPC guy.


Comes v. Microsoft

From: Ben Slivka
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 1997 7:28 PM
To: Brad Silverberg; Jim Allchin (Exchange)
Cc: Paul Maritz
Subject: answering phone calls from direct competitors

DavidMs (works on AFC graphics) got a phone call from someone at JavaSoft asking about how to design stuff in Java to work best on Windows. JavaSoft had called the NT GDI group originally, but they (luckily) forwarded it to the Java team. See e-mail thread below on Collaboration for another incident.

I'm concerned that our direct competitors may be calling in to random people within MS and getting insight into our strategic efforts. Is there any way we can communicate to your groups that contacts from Sun, Netscape, etc. needs to be funneled to some central group so we can avoid leaks?

----- Original Message-----
From: Charles Fitzgerald
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 1997 1:47 PM
To: Curt Smith; Blake Irving's Direct Reports; Blake Irving
Cc: Ben Slivka; Erich Andersen (LCA)
Subject: RE: Whoa! Corel is gettIng into the internet video phone business...

Sun seems to be calling in a lot.

-----Original Message-----
From: Curt Smith
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 1997 1:44 PM
To: Blake Irving's Direct Reports; Blake Irving
Subject: FW: Whoa! Corel is getting into the internet video phone business...

unnamed pm: "oh, yes, I answered a bunch of questions from this guy at sun."

I've had recent conversations w/ people who give information to 3rd parties over the phone and there's little sensitivity among some of the folks who get calls from outside the company about giving away competitive information. let's not make it easy for the clear competitors.

sun, netscape, (corel to a lesser extent), ibm: when they call just get their questions, don't answer any questions, take some notes, send email about what they were looking for, don't call back. if they pester you, tell them your manager needs to return the call.

-----Original Message-----
From: Curt Smith
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 1997 1:24 PM
To: Steve Liffick
Subject: RE: Whoa! Corel is getting into the internet video phone business...

what's your point here? that we should be talking to competitors when they call up asking questions? i hope not. these companles want us to die. don't give them useful information when there's not a chance in the world they're going to ally with us.

what do you think would happen if you called up sun, netscape or corel to ask them about what they're doing in the conferencing space?

it's important to know what the competition is doing, but please don't give away our strategy or product plans by answering random technical questions when people call you up. hackles should raise on the back of your neck when you get a call from one of these 3 companies.

interop events, shows, etc., are the place to learn about the competition.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Liffick
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 1997 12:42 PM
To: Max Morris; Laura Butler; Conferencing Partner information; Charles Fitzgerald; Curt Smith
Subject: RE: Whoa! Corel is getting into the internet video phone business...

I'm a little late jumping in on this thread - but here's another bit of info. Thru PictureTel, Vivo (and thus Corel) is in a position to ship full featured multipoint application sharing (+wb +chat +ft) that is compatible with NetMeeting.

If a deal is struck we should reiterate to Ptel/Vivo that we view Corel as competative with us and the terms of any license should not include source code.


From: Curt Smith
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 1997 10:05 AM
To: Max Morris; Laura Butler; Conferencing Partner Information; Charles Fitzgerald
Subject: RE: Whoa! Corel is getting into the internet video phone business...

don't engage w/ people from corel, netscape or sun. not at all. don't return their call, don't reply to email with information.

-----Original Message-----
From: Max Morris
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 1997 9:57 AM
To: Laura Butler; Conferencing Partner Information; Charles Fitzgerald
Subject: RE: Whoa! Corel is getting into the internet video phone business...

i figured as much, but he wants info on how to use our api's and our video stuff, i figure that's innocuous enough. he won't get anything more than that out of me. and who knows, maybe that's what they use, since our friends way down south don't seem to have anything with video yet.

From: Charles Fitzgerald
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 1997 9:55 AM
To: Max Morris; Laura Butler; Conferencing Partner Information
Subject: RE: Whoa! Corel is getting into the internet video phone business...

corel had been investing in some weird analog videoconferencing stuff for about the last two years. I read this as them dropping it.

not sure I would spend a lot of time with them on NetMeeting. they have hard aligned against and aee shipping communicator with their suite. they may be just fishing for info.

-----Original Message-----
From: Max Morris
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 1997 9:49 AM
To: Laura Butler; Conferencing Partner Information
Subject: RE: Whoa! Corel is getting into the internet video phone business...

They've been in touch with me about using NetMeeting for this...

From: Laura Butler
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 1997 8:33 PM
To: NetMeeting Team; Laura Butler
Subject: RE: Whoa! Corel is getting into the internet video phone business...

I forgot to include a most interesting paragraph:

Corel aims to sell its packages for about $300. Limits on the technology has kept prices out of the reach of most consumers at $500 and higher. Corel's package will include the necessary software and camera, but not a modem.

From: Laura Butler
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 1997 8:32 PM
To: NetMeeting Team
Subject: Whoa! Corel is getting into the internet video phone business...

Corel is looking to get into the picture telephone business (result of Netscape deal?)''

[Ed: Mostly illegible text:] edition of the online Wall Street Journal ... coughed up the $29 subscription fee, here's both the link to the article and the first couple of paragraphs:


Corel Turns Its Attention
To Video-Conferencing

Dow Jones News Services

TORONTO -- Corel Corp.. the Ottawa software firm wrth ambitions to become an industry powerhouse, plans to start marketing picture-telephone equipment for use on the Internet over regular telephone lines by the summer.

Like other firms, Corel is betting that consumers are finally ready to pay for face-to-face conversations when talking on the phone or over the Internet. Significant growth is expected in the consumer video-conferencing market this year because of technological advances and cheaper prices.

Corel is looking at licensing picture-phone software developed by Vivo Software Inc. for its video-conferencing product, and is in talks with PictureTel Corp., a leading video-conferencing company and a partner with Vivo. However, Corel says it might ultimately design the software itself or use another company's technology.


Comes v. Microsoft

From: Steven Sinofsky
Sent: Monday, January 20, 1997 5:24 PM
To: Bill Gates
Subject: FW: Netscape: and Corel to Provide Integrated Software Optimized for Network-Centric

I sent this to aaron:


it is also http://officeweb/public/javaoffice

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert (Robbie) Bach
Sent: Monday, January 20, 1997 4:50 PM
To: Bill Gates
Cc: Richard Fade; Jon DeVaan; Brad Silverberg; Steven Sinofsky; Michael Hebert; Michael Graft; Brad Chase
Subject: RE: Netscape: and Corel to Provide Integrated Software Optimized for Network-Centric Environment

You mentioned this in the MYR today...we are following up and calling analysts to get their info on the Netscape/Corel relationship...MikeHeb will forward as soon as we have it. SteveSi is also looking at the latest Corel Java apps they posted.



-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Friday, January 17, 1997 12:56 PM
To: Robert (Robbie) Bach
Cc: Richard Fade; Jon DeVaan; Brad Silverberg
Subject: RE: Netscape: and Corel to Provide Integrated Software Optimized for Network-Centric Environment

I guess the Groupwise relationship with Novell was structured so that Corel could just ignore it since this attacks that directly. I thought Corel had committed a bunch of royalties for Groupwise and loyalty to Novell. We should have Novell analysts probe this issue.

I do wonder how the pricing between the 2 companies work since they both want to make revenue on these products. We should get Netscape and Corel analysts to probe this issue.

We do need to get our people to evaluate these JAVA products again. I look forward to seeing what the analysis comes up with.

With Netscape and Corel working together its nice that we organized ourselves so the group attacking Netscape and the group attacking Corel are under common leadership! I agree their relationship could get stronger over time with Netscape buying Corel. It would be complex but if they pulled it off it would strengthen them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert (Robbie) Bach
Sent: Friday, January 17, 1997 8:50 AM
To: Bill Gates
Subject: FW: Netscape: and Corel to Provide Integrated Software Optimized for Network-Centric

Per our discussion in the hotel room...this press release actually says they are "jointly developing WordPerfect 8" and integrating Communicator into that. Combine that with the Corel Java work and I think this does make Netscape a key competitor...


-----Original Message-----
From: Library News Service


Comes v. Microsoft

To: Jeffrey Papows/CAM/Lotus@LOTUS, Michael Zisman/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Alex
Morrow/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Ray Ozzie@IRIS, Larry Moore/CAM/Lotus@LOTUS, Eileen
Rudden/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Jack Ozzie@IRIS, Blair Hankins/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Paul
Haverstock/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Barry Briggs/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Douglas
Wilson/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Michael Welles/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Larry
Roshfeld/CAM/Lotus@LOTUS, Paul Haverstock/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Cary
Alexandre/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Steve Manousos/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Joe
Guthridge/ATL/Lotus@Lotus, Jim Flynn/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Jonathan
Booth/CAM/Lotus@LOTUS, Jeff Buxton/CAM/Lotus@LOTUS, Bob Balaban@iris, Dave
newbold@iris, Jeff Eisen@iis, Julio V Estrada/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Mike
cc: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Robert Congdon/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, John
Manopoli/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Dean Burson/CAM/Lotus@Lotus
From: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus
Date: 01/20/97 02:45:21 PM
Subject: Microsoft and Java Beans

Note: the information in this note was received under an NDA which prohibits disclosure to non-Lotus employees of IBM. I'm not sure if those restrictions extend to IBM employees working at Lotus; please check with John Manopoli before disclosing to anyone other than a Lotus employee.

On Thursday and Friday, Bob Congon, Scott Boat and I attended a Java Design Preview at Microsoft. A complete summary will follow, but the news regarding Java Beans and ActiveX is so significant that I am highlighting it in this separate note.

Microsoft disclosed that they are supporting Java Beans, not just as a checkbox item, but as the core component model for Microsoft Java. This is tremendously important to the direction of the components industry, and for our Java products specifically. For the first time, we have a universal component technology, whereby the components we write will run everywhere, including Windows. Furthermore, Microsoft will not ,I presume, be disparaging our adoption of a technology which they themselves are supporting. To give you a sense of their commitment, Microsoft's own Java class libraries are based on the Beans and awt apis.

Though Sun has always promised to bridge Beans to ActiveX, Microsoft is now ensuring that the required support will be first class and that it will be integrated with the OS. Our beans will automatically become ActiveX components in containers such as IE, VB and the Windows shell: ActiveX components written in any language will be appear to Java as beans. Furthermore, our Beans will interoperate with those built from Microsoft's Java libraries and tools. Production code is promised for IE 4.0 this summer, and in the Memphis update to Win95 later in the year. We're on the beta lists.


Jump to: [0001] [0500] [0899] [1627] [2128] [2535_A] [2588] [2650] [3020] [3598] [4440] [5424] [6253] [6652] [7280] [8182] [8887] [9225] [10030]

Last Updated Monday, March 17 2014 @ 04:17 PM EDT

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 )