Gordon v. Microsoft Exhibits

Gordon vs. Microsoft Exhibits

These are the exhibits used in the antitrust trial of Gordon v. Microsoft, which took place from March 18-April 15, 2004. The antitrust litigation settled during the trial, but we at Groklaw saved the exhibits first, before they disappeared. We did some group work on them, then we got distracted, and now, finally, here they are, the entire collection for us and for historians.

The numbers take you to PDFs we made of the exhibits; the links marked TIFF take you to the exhibit as it originally appeared on the Plaintiff’s website. Where we have finished a text version, you will find a link marked Text.

Below the list of the exhibits, you will find text versions of the ones we have completed. Also, you will find links to the text within the list. Feel free to help us complete that task.

Gordon v. Microsoft Trial Exhibits

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 35 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 35 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 2

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 35 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 2

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 35A Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 35A Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 1

SysInitVers STRUC
SYSI_DPS    DD        ?              ; DPS chain
SYSI_SFT    DD        ?              ; SFT chain
SYSI_CLOCK  DD        ?              ; CLOCK device
SYSI_CON    DD        ?              ; CON device
SYSI_MAXSEC DW        ?              ; maximum sector size
SYSI_BUF    DD        ?              ; buffer chain
SYSI_CDS    DD        ?              ; CDS list
SYSI_FCB    DD        ?              ; FCB chain
SYSI_Keep   DW        ?              ; keep count
SYSI_MMIO   DS[?]     ?              ; Number of block devices 
SYSI_MCDS   DS[?]     ?              ; number of CDS's
SYSI_DEV    DD        ?              ; device list
SysInitVers ENDS

SYSI_DFS == 0:0 on DR DOS, never see this on MS-DOS
SYSI_BUF == 0:0 on DR DOS, never see this on MS-DOS
SYSI_CDS == 0:0 on DR DOS, never see this on MS-DOS

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 109 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 109 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 10

Microsoft Memo

TO: Russ Werner

FROM: Mark Chestnut

SUBJECT: Status Report for April, 1989

DATE: 5/22/89

The following summarizes major product marketing activities this past month. A summary of the current status of DOS group projects is also attached.

ROM DOS

This was a great month for ROM DOS, as two very high volume potential OEMs who were on the verge of signing with DRI both committed to MS ROM DOS. Vendex/Hcadstart, which is launching a very low cost 8088 machine for distribution through the mass merchant channel, committed to 250K units of ROM DOS and $1 million for the first year. Emerson, which is introducing a full line of low cost PCs (8088, 286 and 386SX), also for distribution through mass merchants, also committed to 250K units and $1.75 million for the first year.

Both Vendcx and Emerson were planning to sign with DRI because it did not appear that we could deliver ROM DOS in the very short term, which is when they needed it Closure of both of these deals was made possible by our decision to do a ROM copy version of DOS 3.31 with large disk partition support, for shipment by the end of this month. Thanks to Tom Lennon and the entire DOS team for moving very quickly and making it possible for us to get this business.

Good progress was also made in getting Intel to move closer to licensing ROM DOS for their Wildcard product I told Intel about our short term plans for ROM copy DOS, and they have agreed to reference sell this with the Wildcard for the time being. Once we have our ROM executable version done, indications are that they will license this from us and distribute it with the Wildcard.

Philba, Tomlc and I also had a meeting with Bruce McCormick, Intel’s marketing guy for Flash EPROM. Intel is really pushing their FEPROM technology (they claim to be 2 years ahead of the Japanese), and are actively trying to get OEM design-ins. A big plus for them towards this end is support in DOS for FEPROM which we happen to be working on and will have completed in a couple of months. Intel is very interested in doing some type of joint PR announcing the availability of the FEPROM file system for DOS from MS and Intel’s next generation of FEPROM products (target late summer timeframe). I proposed that, at the same time, we announce our ROM executable DOS and that Intel is licensing it and distributing with the Wildcard. Intel is very receptive to this. I will be taking Rich Freedman (our summer intern who will focus on the embedded market) to meet with Intel in early June to discuss this further. Getting Intel to license ROM DOS for the Wildcard would be a big win, and the joint PR could give us a great head start in attacking the embedded market

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 109 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 10

RUP

The RUP plan was revised this month so that some additional utilities could be added. Final release is now targeted Tor Sept 30. We .have looked closely at several utilities and feel at this point that we can prqbably include the following in time for a 9/30 release:

1. QuickHelp
2. command line editor
3. undelete command
4. EMM386 with “loadhigh” option

We also looked very closely at doing “Extended Where”, a Magellan-type disk organizer that would be integrated with the shelL It would also have an extensible architecture that would allow for ISVs to easily develop “viewers” (ability to view the files created in a specific application in native form) for their applications. This would be a major advantage over Magellan, which is a closed system (Lotus has to develop the viewers for each application that Magellan supports, resulting in limited app support). We ultimately concluded that we can’t do Extended Where for a 9/30 release, but we’ll continue to work on it for RUP version 2.

There are some issues with the RUP which need to be resolved. They include:

1. 3rd party peripheral support. There are concerns about our ability to support weird mass storage devices, WORM drives, etc
2. OEM support We are currently lacking cooperation from NEC and Toshiba, which represent several hundred thousand machines in the US.
3. Cost to support the product through PSS.

We will be putting together a plan to address the above and will present this along with our recommendations to Steveb on 5/25.

DOS/Win

The DOS group’s action items from the last IBM DOS/Win meeting have been completed, and IBM is working towards presenting a plan for DOS/Win to Hanrahan on 6/7. Tomle is coordinating our end of this and is working on a plan designed to gain MS development control over the DOS portion of DOS/Win.

DOS 4.01

DOS 4.01 continues to gain momentum, as several more OEMs began shipping DOS 4.01 in April The list of OEMs currently shipping now includes:

• Compaq
• Unisys
• Olivetti
• Siemens
• Amstrad
• Intel
• Dell
• Compuadd
• Phoenix

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 109 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 3 of 10

Another big boost to DOS 4.01 momentum will come in the first part of June, when we expect to issue a “DOS 4 works great with networks” press release. The release will announce 3 COM’s shipment of the 3+ redircctor that works with DOS 4, and will also include favorable statements from Novell and Banyan that their products work fine with DOS 4, etc. All three companies have agreed to participate, and I will be working with Marianne Allison to get this thing finalized over the next couple of weeks.

PRI Competitive Response

The first MS product with the nonnested DOS warning code. Quick Pascal, was released. Tom Reeve and Cindy Kasin have committed to implementing it in all new MS application and language releases from this point forward, including international.

I am also planning to hire an independent DOS guru to do an in-depth comparative analysis of MS vs. DR DOS, with the idea of somehow making those results available to the press. This could be useful ammunition to have against DRI, and will be of value even if we choose not to make it public. I approached Ray Duncan about doing this, but he finally said “no thanks”, so I am now talking to Rick Wilton, another DOS guru who writes for MS Press.

DOS Royalty and Packaged Product Business

DOS OEM Royalty, Domestic and International

Royalty business continues to be very strong, with both domestic and international OEM well above budgeted unit shipments for the year (see attached spreadsheet and charts). Domestic revenue is only 92% of budget, however, primarily due to the effect of several OEMs having prepaid balances (meaning that they previously paid royalties on units shipped this year, which explains why units shipped exceeds revenue recognized for the year). .

International royalty revenue is 174% of budget, so overall DOS royalty revenue is $19 million ahead of budget year to date.

DOS Packaged Product, Domestic and International

Domestic packaged product shipments continue their upward trend for April was the best month this year with over 22K units shipped. International packaged product shipments were down in ApriL Both domestic and international packaged product shipments for April show an increase in DOS 3-3 shipments relative to DOS 4.01 shipments. This is because DOS 4.01 shipments were temporarily suspended in April until the Amstrad bug was fixed and all inventory re-worked. I therefore expect DOS 4.01 shipments to continue to increase relative to 3.3, as was the trend in the months prior to April

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 109 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 4 of 10

Performance Against April Objectives

1. Get commitment from Vendex to license ROM.DOS

Done.

2. Get commitment from Emerson to license ROM DOS

Done.

3. Finalize plans for utilities, online doc, etc. to be included in RUP

Progress.

4. Set up European trip with MS subs, get all info needed for RUP support of European OEMs.

Turned over to Tomle.

5. Reach agreement with IBM on functional spec and plan for 6/90 seamless product

Progress.

6. Finalize ROM DOS business plan

Done.

May/June Objectives

1. Finalize and issue “DOS 4 works great with networks” press release

2. Finalize plans for utilities, online doc, etc. to be included in RUP

3. Ship ROM DOS 1.0

4. Get closure on Intel licensing ROM DOS for distribution with Wildcard

5. Bring Rich Freedman on board, get him going on embedded market analysis

6. Get closure with DOS guru on MS/DR DOS comparative study

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 136 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 136 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 2

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 136 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 2

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 286 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 286 Page 1 of 1] [STAMPED] Depo. Ex. 822

>From russw Wed May 16 07:36:52 1990
To: billg steveb
Subject: I have asked philba to spend a lot of time making dos 5 happen fast
Cc: ericst jeremybu joachimk markche richardf
Date: Wed May 16 07:34:40 1990

given the aggressive stance taken by dri this week, I have asked philba to spend more of his time on dos 5 than on win 3.1 planning — like 60-70% to make sure this product happens as fast as it can and that it checks out and to get the troops pumped up.

we are also planning some more extensive pr around our beta ship ( in about 3 weeks) to get acros the message that the product is a now thing vs. a later thing — dri is spending time saying that our dos 5 won’t be around for a long time.

also, I believe that their ems and load-hi modes are incompatible with Win 3.0. we are trying to verify this by the announce timeframe.

[STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 118 C.A. No. 2:96CV645B
[STAMPED] XO196018

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 841 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 841 Page 1 of 4] File ; c:\bradsi\novell.fld
Messages ; 1 – 19

######################################################## 1
>From davidcol Wed Jul 17 08:46:49 1991
To: bradc bradsi gregle philbe richt russs tomle
Subject: novell
Date: Wdd Jul 17 08:46:14 1991

I think we should use Windows to get a Microsoft OS back onto the Netware clients which will bundle or require DR. DOS. We should alter our plans a bit and move all the DOS 6.0 improvements directly into Windows. When the user starts Windows, they get the Microsoft OS (including networking) and all the other cool features that go with that. When they quit, they get Netware and DR DOS and no Windows apps. The key is getting a piece of MS system software on that client so we can deliver our stategy and vision. We can leverage Windows and Windows apps to to this.

We should not consider things that stop Windows from working on Netware. (Netware here = netware + DR DOS.) If it was just DR DOS alone, then we should prevent Windows from working there. Netware has too much market share and too many customers are loyal to it for us to exclude windows from that market.

I think this dictates that we maintain good relationships with Novell so we can stay abreast wjth what they are doing at the detailed technical level. However, I do think that we should do our own winnet drivers and other Novell provider components. If we are going to take over the desktop when Windows starts, it MUST be all Microsoft written software since Novell won’t help us do that.


######################################################## 2
>From jimell Wed Jul 17 08:54:44 1991
To: billg bradsi mikemur paulme steveb
Cc: jimell
Subject; Fw: Novell/Digital Research reach definitive agreement…
Date: Wed Jul 17 08:53:48 PDT 1991

I thought about it all night. Since I came here I said there were two things that concerned me related to Novell: one Novell partnering with IBM and two Novell coming at us at the desktop. Both fears have now come true.

I had planned to call Novell this morning and ask them (I know lots of people there) how they plan to position, etc. But the release below makes it pretty clear.

Given this, I suggest (at least for Systems) that we

a) do not change our public posture

b) do not appear alarmed .. “that’s interesting or curious or something” would be a good quote.

c) we get serious about supporting our networking more than others. This is the strategy that Novell will adopt as soon as they have a product to do so. They will of course continue to support “foreign” OSs like Windows and DOS, but their focus will be on building a new generation OS for the desktop.

I understand the difficulties of working with ISVs to get them to change their support from Windows, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves. I have been fighthing Novell for years — we shouldn’t underestimate their technical or marketing abilities. Their intentions are clear.

Our posture should be the same. We support out networking and also “foreign” servers such as Novell, etc.

d) I suggest that we only include our software on the diskettes for Windows 3.1 and future DOS versions. We can be open without doing this. (Note that doing Netware and LM dual redirectors and the service provider environment are still critical components of the system.) (We ship compatibility software to other formats — we should do the same for networking. We don’t ship parts of 123 or other products in Excel. I never have agreed with this strategy and still don’t. Actually for the current set of products and given where LM has been, that was probably the right strategy, but we must change this for the future.)

e) I suggest that we include winball into 3.1 as a standard feature as soon as its ready with minimal price change.

f) We should provide some part of LM as a standard packaged part of NT. Support pricing must be worked out.o

g) We consider changing our apps to not run unless the OS is our OS.

h) We must leverage our networking and OS strengths together to win this battle. Not doing so already has hurt the networking business and if the release is any indication, it will hurt the OS business in the future.

jlm
| >From rooternef Wed Jull 17 08:12:40 1991
| To: execnews
| Cc: sharonb
| Subject; Novell/Digital Research reach definitive agreement…
|
| Date: Wed Jul 17 08:02:56 1991
|
|
| NOVELL DGTL RESEARCH: Novell and Digital Research sign definitive merger
| agreement
|
| July 17, 1991
|
|
|     PROVO, Utah–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Novell Inc. (NASDAQ:NOVL) and
| Digital Research Inc., a developer of advenced operating system
| software. Including the first DOS 5 operating system, Wednesday
| signed a definitive agreement to merge the two companies, making
| Digital Research, headquartered in Monterey, Calif., a wholly-owned

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 841 Page 2 of 4]

| subsidary of Novell.
|     Under the terms of the definitive agreement signed yesterday,
| existing shares of Digital Research common stock, convertible
| securities and options will be exchanged for $1.5 million newly
| issued shares od Novell common stock.
|     Digital Research is a private company incorpotated in the state
| of California, It is the originator of CP/M, the precursor of
| today’s disc operating systems and DR DOS.
|     “Our strategy is to provide computer users and industry partners
| with easier to use, more powerful, software products to support tight
| integration between desktop computers, computer networks and host
| computer systems,” said Ray Noorda, Novell’s president and chief
| executive officer.
|     “Digital research is an important part of this strategy, Novell
| is welcoming a talented organization with technology leadership not
| only in DOS operating system products, but also forward looking
| expertise in multi-tasking and graphical user interface technology.”
|     Novell said it is responding to customer demand for tightly
| coupling network operating system software with desktop and host
| computer operating systems. Novell has already become the largest
| outside investor in UNIX System Laboratories, the developer of UNIX
| System V release 4.
|     With the merger with Digital Research, Novell is adding DOS,
| multi-tasking and real-time operating system technology. The
| combined resources are seen as providing a dynamic technology
| platform for better integrating DOS, UNIX and Netware operating
| system environments.
|     In addition, the company will continue to develop innovative
| software products to support customer utilization of OS/2, Windows,
| Apple Macintosh and other operating system environments.
|     Dick Williams, president and CEO of Digital Research, said the
| merger gives Digital research significant new market reach through
| Novell’s relations with leading computer vendors, its presence in the
| systems integration market, and far reachind distribution, marketing,
| education and customer support resources.
|     “We have long understood the value to customers of significantly
| extending the capabilities of DOS. Digital Research and DR DOS have
| already set the standard for DOS capabilities in the 1990s. Tightly
| integrated products from Novell and Digital Research will simplify
| network use and better support our mutual customers and industry
| partners.”
|     “With novell, we see ourselves as supplies of total, operating
| system solutions for the enterprise computing environment, from
| banking to industrial automation real-time requirements, to advanced
| graphical user interface technology,” Williams added.
|     Digital Research brings two new software engineering centers to
| Novell. In Monterey, Digital develops graphical user interface
| technology and FlexOS, a real-time, multitasking, multiuser operating
| system for the Intel family of microprocessors.
|     FlexOS combines general purpose operating system ease-of-use with
| real-time, transaction oriented capability necessary for
| point-of-sale, and industrial and process control systems. Original
| equipment manufacturers who deliver FlexOS with their systems include
| FANUC, IBM, ICL, TEC and Siemens.
|     In Hungerford, Berks, the United Kingdom, Digital develops its
| general operating system family of products, including DR DOS, DR
| Multiuser DOS and Concurrent DOS. DR DOS represents between 10 and
| 15 percent of the overall DOS market, is translated into major
| languages, and is sold to end-users worldwide through both software
| distribution channels and more than 200 OEM vendors.
|     The merger agreement has been approved by the boards of directors
| of each company, but remains subject to the approval of Digital
| Research stockholders, regulatory approvals and other normal conditions
| to closing. Certain digital Research stockholders, including each of
| its directors, have signed agreements to vote their shares in favor of
| the merger, which is expected to be completed in October 1991.
|     As part of the agreement, Digital research has agreed to pay a fee
| in the event the merger fails to be completed due to a vote of their
| shareholders, or a change in recommendation by the Digital Research
| board. The merger agreement is expected to be accounted for as a
| pooling-of-interests.
|     Digital research, with 273 employees, had revenue of $40.9 million
| in its fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 1990, up from $36.2 million in
| fiscal 1989.
|     Novell, Inc. is the leading providor of network server operating
| system software that integrates desktop computers, servers, and
| minicomputer and mainframe hosts for information sharing.
|     Novell’s NetWare network computing products manage and control
| the sharing of services, data and applications among PC workgroups,
| departmental networks and across business-wide information systems.
|
|
| CONTACT: Novell Inc.
| Peter Troop, XXX/XXX-XXXX
| or
| Digital Research
| Joe Taglis, XXX/XXX-XXXX


######################################################## 3
>From philbe Wed Jul 17 08:S9:13 1991
To: bradsi
Subject: ReL novell
Date Tue Jul 16 08:47:52 1991

I think we need to carefully measure our ewsponse. Totally freezing them out will force them to compete on a wider basis and could cause the disaster scenario to occur. Not to mention the thin FTC ice that we would be on. On the other hand, we have an advantage with windows and should press it in the system arena. One approach would be to deny enhanced mode to all but real-mode dos customers. This can be to move kernel (or major components of it) into a VxD and thus significantly up the cost of entry to running ‘full’ windows. This has the ‘side effect’ of disallowing enhanced mode under a dpml server and not running the more advance components except in enhanced mode. It is, however, a bunch of work — my guess is 1+ MM.

As for denying them access to windows info, I think this is something we should not do. Having shitty windows support in netware will only hurt us.

| > From bradsi Tue Jul 16 23:33:12 1991
| To: bradc davidcol greglo philbe richt russs tomle

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 841 Page 3 of 4]

| Subject: novell
| Date: Tue Jul 16 23:32:44 1991
|
| this novell thing bugs me. we need to think through what kind
| of relationship we can/should have with novell now
| for dos, windows, dos6 and win32. i’m
| sure jimall and stevea are thinking the same for winx/win4.
| send me your thoughts on novell, I’ll pass along
| some of mine. I want to put together recommendations
| and present to other execs.
|


######################################################## 4
>From tomle Wed Jul 17 09:29:18 1991
To: bradsi
Cc: tomle
Subject: Re: novell
Date: wed, 17 Jul 91 09:28:03 PDT

I spent time last night since I couldn’t sleep very well. Her is what I came up with:

Why would Novell do this?

This seems like an odd move if they really understand the position we were placing them in, why would they make the move gauranteed to get us the most angry?

1) Their greedy. They see a marvelous opportunity to take Microsoft’s position in the systems market. With IBM and MS going at it, it would be a great time for Novell to leverage their Net dominance, their current relationship with IBM and their advantage in Corporate loyalty to muscle our cash cow away from us.

2) They are planning to use the DR-DOS threat to force MS to do what Novell wants in both Dos and Windows. My understanding from Kaveen and Terry is that Novell has a strong Windows strategy so unless they are moving away from that strategy, this move somehow has to make sense in a Windows strategy.

3) Both of the above.

4) They think that offering a complete Novell solution gives them an edge in the corporate environment. You must question, an edge over what? Can they achieve this knowing that Windows will be everywhere?

The really scary part for me is that we were in the infancy stages of developing a relationship with Novell so we know very little. The first question I want to try to answer is, given Novell control over Dos, what would they do to it? My strategy would be to release Dos products very early on that hit key features on the list of things we think Novell would do.

How do we deal with Novell now that this has happened.

1) Windows gets another reason it must succeed. Because of that I strongly recommend the Windows group NOT close off to Novell. Windows must execute on the strategy of being the best network workstation environment and Novell is the key player there. I have to trust the windows folks to be in bed with my enemy while still being on my side. This is exactly what i asked of the lanman guys in Dos 5.00 and it worked.

2) Dos can’t be that close yet. I am sure it was a little disconcerting for the Novell guys to start talking to the Dos group but we gave them assurances and we were building trust. We need assurances from Novell that these groups are maintained separatly and that their NDAs are meanigful before the Dos group can continue developing it’s Novell relationship.

Strategy for dealing with Novell DR-Dos

I am assuming they will take over the Dos market if they can and if they can’t they will force some control over Windows directions.

DR-Dos 6.00 is real and is in beta. If I am right about what they are doing, they will release DR-Dos 6.00 before adjusting the DR-Dos priorities on a Network focus. We can’t let Novell take the lead in the Dos technology market. This will bw a real challange for us but one I think we have to meet.

We must convice Novell there is real value in Windows and Dos having a close intimate relationship.

Tom

| > From bradsi Tue Jul 16 23:33:12 1991
| To: bradc davidcol greglo philbe richt russs tomle
| Subject: novell
| Date: Tue Jul 16 23:32:44 1991
|
| this novell thing bugs me. we need to think through what kind
| of relationship we can/should have with novell now
| for dos, windows, dos6 and win32. i’m
| sure jimall and stevea are thinking the same for winx/win4.
| send me your thoughts on novell, I’ll pass along
| some of mine. I want to put together recommendations
| and present to other execs.
|


######################################################## 5
>From russa Wed Jul 17 10:16:16 1991
To: bradsi
Subject: Re: novell
Data: Wed Jul 17 10:15:07 PDT 1991

My initial thoughts on this are that:
1) this is a strategic mistake for Novell
2) If they change their product strategy mush (ie. build net products that are proprietary to DR DOS) it will be to their detriment
3) they have acquired some programers that will make them more agressive (and successful?) at GUI work
4) the biggest danger for us that they try to be very agressive with DR DOS pricing
5) that competition is not all bad: it may have some shirt/longterm effect on our profits, but it will get us all that much more focused
6) relationship-wise we do have to tread lightly with them

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 841 Page 4 of 4]

In a nutshell, I don’t see why it will be an easier for them to enter our market (DOS) as it was for us to enter theirs (Netware). I suspect if they try a frontal assault on the DOS/desktop os biz it will cost then big $’s and they will not succeed. On the other hand if they use it as a platform for “proprietary” net products (ie. that don’t run on DOS 5.0/6.0) they will be shooting themselves in the foot. And if they offer 2 versions, a “better one” on DR DOS and a “normal one” on DOS 5/6, I think the market will shrug. If they try to beat us to mky with a 32 bit DOS, again, I think the market will shrug, and this might complicate their relationship with IBM. Product wise in desktop or market, if we execute, then I don’t see what they gain.

The flip side of this is, I don’t see why we would change our product strategy to somehow “exclude” them, which would be suicide from a net mkt perspective. From a winball perspective, I don’t think it changes our Netware plans. We still have to co-exist with installed NetWare LANs, and if we can get them to sign up for licensing us the redir/xport, we’d still like to make it easier for the NetWare customer to install winbell/windows on a NetWare LAN. This is good for them, but good for us.

As far as our relationship with them, I think there are some open issues that we need to think through carefully. We obviously need them to continue to support Windows (including winbell), so if they come to us and ask to help them write VxD’s etc, I think we have to help. On the other hand, what if they come and want help getting their new peer to peer product to co-exist with winbell? It’s windows, but it’s a directly competitive product. This is the sticky territory where I think we are bound to have to work with them, but it will be difficult for both companies. One way to look at it is, for the first time we are looking out at a company that is in 2 businesses and that causes conflict for us because we compete with them and need to be friends with them at the same time. Of course this is exactly what companies like Novell have been faced with in dealing with MS for so long. We’ll just have to continue to tread the fine lines. Both companies need each other too much.

The 2 biggest residual effects of the deal are that they can cut the price of DR DOS If they choose to, which might cause us some short term price pressure, and they have apparantly acquired some good GUI programmers. This will probably make them more aggressive about graphical interfaces throughout their product line, which will be good for them.

######################################################## 6
>From russe wed Jul 17 11:43:41 1991 To: bradsi
Subject: RE; Novell/Digital Research
Date: Wed Jul 11:44:38 PDT 1991

Between you and me, I don’t see what has changed that would make us reconsider this. I hope no one at MS, including myself, gets defocused reconsidering this transaction just because Adrian is at Artisoft now. We are embarked on a dev course that makes sense for and we should be single minded in pursuing it. The decision to do all 32 bit VxD work is looking better everyday. I bet that’s why Adrian wants to re-ignite this merger (because he knows that Artisoft probably can’t do it on their own), and it will also give us an advantage against whatever peer product Novell comme up with (I assume they are not ding VxD work since they have not come to us for help.

| >From bradsi Wed Jul 17 11:07:00 1991
| To: russs
| Subject: Novell/Digital Research
|
| Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 11:04:49 PDT
|
| fyi but not for forwarding or discussion with others.
|
| | >From mikemur Wed Jul 17 09:20:55 1991
| | To: billg steveb
| | Cc: bradsi jimll paulme
| | Subject: Novell/Digital Research
| | Date: Wed Jul 17 08:20:48 PDT 1991
| |
| | Adrian King called this morning from his new office at Artisoft.
| | He said that Jack Schoof is “very” interested in re-opening
| | discussions with us regarding MS acquiring Artisoft. Jack
| | believes that Novell is gunning for us. While he understands
| | our decision to do Kate (Winbell) ourselves, he thinks we’re
| | at risk on the low-end DOS peer networking market. He feels
| | that Artisoft can plug that hole instantly for us and can then
| | share with us their sound and windows knowledge.
| |
| | They (Jack and Adrian) would like us to take this as a real
| | “offer” to re-open discussions.
| |
|
|


######################################################## 7
>From russs Wed Jul 17 12:08:14 1991
To: bradsi
Subject; REl Novell/Digital research
Date Wed Jul 17 12:07:04 PDT 1991

What I meant by the VxD comment is the following. Today Artisoft has only a DOS real mode product. I am reading into the new merger proposition from Artisoft that the first thing Adrian talked about with Jack was “how do we get a better Windows product, ie. better integrated UI with Win, prot mode support” etc. And the ease answer of course is, have MS buy us. I think a big piece of this decision, if I was Adrian, would be the 32 bit prot mode work, which I know MS is doingm and I know it is market critical, and I know it will be hard to get it developed at Artisoft.

I am also reading into the Novell picture. Given that there plans to do a peer product are serious, they are most likely giong to follow the LANtastic model (the CNN article even said something like they were out to get Artisoft), ie. a DOS real mode peer product that runs under Windows with the UI being an app.

In both these cases we have 2 significant advantages 1) better memory solution since runs in Win prot mode 2) better integration with Win, since we can hack on file and prt mgr

So where we have an advantage is windows – we will have a significantly better windows product. Meanwhile, Novell, Artisoft and the rest will fight it out for the DOS real mode running under WIN market – good decision by us to stay out of that dogfight and focus on where we add value and gain competitive advantage – Windows.

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 986 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 986 Page 1 of 1] ####################################################### 346
>From philta(?) Mon Sep 30 09:03:27 1991
To: chuckst(?) mikedr scottq
Cc: bradsi davidcol(?) mackm tomle
Subject: Re: Bambi on DR-DOS 6.0
Date: Sat 28 Sep 91 08:46:59 PDT

The approach we will take is to detect dr 6 and refuse to load. The error message should be something like `Invalid device driver interface’.

mike, tom? make – do you have a reliable dr6 detection mechanism?

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 4407 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4407 p. 1 of 3

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4407 p. 2 of 3

Types of Beta Programs:

There are three concurrent Beta Programs planned for Windows 3.1.

• Technical Beta
• Pre-Release
• Preview

Technical Beta is defined as those actively testing the Retail Windows product as part of a Beta Test. Pre-Release is to give customers, primary ISVs, early access to Retail, the SDK and the DDK as appropriate. The Preview program is for those who will not be actively doining testing, but who wish to preview the Retail product (ie. Corporate Accounts).

There are four other groups which will be receiving the Windows 3.1 software early. They are Windows Development Partners, ESP (Early ship program) OEMs (Original equipment manufacturers), general OEMs and some Press/Authors. There may be some general OEMs who are also Technical Beta testers, but it is important to note that they will be receiving additional software besides the retail product

Objectives:

The purpose of the Beta programs is to:

• Get feedback from external sites on the stability of the product
• Test the product on a variety of machine configurations provided by the beta test sites
• Allow early accoss to the software and tools so ISVs gain a *head-start” on updating their applications
• Provide early exposure for the product

Number of Sites:

There will be approximately 360 sites involved with Iha Technical Beta. This groop will consist of Corporate accounts. ISVs, and End users. The Pre-Release program will have have upwards ot 2500 ISV participants. Approximately 500 retail copies will be given out as part of the Preview program. There are approximately 12 Development partners, 15 ESP OEMs and 300 general OEMs who will be receiving Windows 3.1 software.

Software and Frequency of Shipments:

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4407 Page 3 of 3

Length of Beta:

The Technical Beta is scheduled to start on 1/21. The Pre-Release program oficially starts on 2/15. Primarily he difference between 1/21 abd 2/15 is to allow time to create the SDK, DDK and OAK kits and also for some additional testing time. The next major updata will be on 3/15. Some hardcopy docs (updated File Manger/Control panel and release notes) will be included in the 1/21 and 2/15 shipments with the possibility d of an updated version being sent with the 3/15 version. 5/i0 is theapproximate Retail ship date and 6/10 is the appoximate SDK ship date. See table below far dates and approximate numbers shipped.

Beta Coordinator;

The DOS/Windows Beta Coordinator will assist Program Management by providing information on how to start and run a beta program with specific duties in the following areas:
1) With initial input from Program manager, define fields and write database tables using Superbase as startup database.
2) Make recommendations on staffing levels of temporary staff including start date and duration of assignment.
3) Hire and manage temporary staff.
4) Disseminate flow of incoming information, to the admin and tech staff.
5) Coordinate mailings and other projects
6) Maintain inventory of Beta equipment, including printer to do labels (most of this equipment is currentiy in use by the DOS 5.0 beta program).
7) Special projects as requested and time permits.

Support:

Up to two people from PSS (DSBU) will be providing support for the Technical Beta testers. One person from PSS (SSBU) will be answering SDK-type questions from the ISVs (Ie. Pre-Release participants). These dedicated PSS members will be resident in bldg 3 during the Bets Programs. There, will be a dedicated FAX. and answering machine to report bugs. Use of Online 2 will be required by the Pre-Release members. Those customers who are previewing the retail product can Fax or phone in their bugs, but will not be given support unless they buy Online. A bug report sent to Online will not be counted as an SR.

Note: The use of CompuServe has been suggested. I am waiting to see how well CompuServe works for DOS 5 beiore deciding whether it will be used in the Windows 3.1 Beta programs.
Windows 3.1 Beta Plan

[STAMPED]X 548719 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED]MS-PCA 1148391 CONFIDENTIAL

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 4546A Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4546A p. 1 of  3

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4546A Page 2 of  3

a customer can buy a network operating system from Novell without buying anything from Microsoft.
Ray Noorda, Novells chief executive, downplayed his company’s rivalry with Microsoft, saying he was attracted to Digital Research because its version of DOS is superior to Microsoft’s in some ways.
“Now we can add capabilities (to DOS) in advance of Microsoft doing it” Noorda said in a telephone conference.
The deal, which the companies expect will be completed by October, calls for Novell to issue 1.5 million in new shares in return for Digital Research’s private stock. Digital Research said it had revenues of $40.9 million for its fiscal year ended last September.
-O- 5 18 pm edt 07-1 $-91 \023

Copyright (c) 1991 Dow Jones and Company, Inc.
Received by NewsEDGE/LAN: O7/16/S1|14:2O

Bruce Neimlnen

From: bradc
To: bradsi; davidcol; greglo; philba; richt; russs; tomle
Cc; bradc; rtcht; sergjop
Subject: RE: novell
Date: Tuesday, July 30,1991 1:41 PM

Date: Thu Jul 18 14:15:35 PDT 1991

One of my thoughts is that we have to thlink about how to short circuit Novell DOS before it gets off the ground. If we can put a daggar in Dr. DOS (or perhaps we should call it Novelal DOS) now then it will put them on the defensive and have customer worried

Now that we have the NSTL data back and some reasonable data on where Dr. DOS is problematic, I’d like to start a ‘slow leak’ program – every other week or month we try to get the word out on some major dr. dos compatibility problems. At the same time we should be prepared to invest in more third party testing to look for other holes – for example with netware and dr. dos. I’d have to work with PR to develop the specifics of the plan, but if we can get the world to understand that dr. dos has a kit of incompatibities with apps, windows and networks then it will put Novell on the defensive and make it hard for customers or oems (ibm???) to consider dr. dos seriously.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4546A Page 3 of 3

I think we shoud use Windows to get a Microsoft OS back onto the Netware clients which will bundle or require DR. DOS. We should alter our plans a bit and move all the DOS 6.0 improvements directly into Windows. When the user start Windows, they get the Microsoft OS (Including networking) and all the other cool features that go with that. When they quit, they get Netware and DR DOS and no Windows apps. The key is getting a piece of MS system software on that client so we can deliver our strategy and vision, We can leverage Windows and Windows apps to to this.

We should not consider things that stop Windows from working on Netware. (Netware here = netware + DR DOS.) if it was just DR DOS alone, then we should prevent Windows from working there. Netware has too much market share and too many customers are loyal to it for us to exclude windows from that market.

I think this dictates that we maintain good relationships with Novell so we can stay abreast wjth what they are doing at the detailed technical level. However, I do think that we should do our own winnet drivers and other Novell provider components. If we are going to take over the desktop when Windows starts, it MUST be all Microsoft written software since Novell won’t help us do that.

Bruce Neimlnen

From: russs
To: bradc
Subject FW: more on DR DOS. Artisoft, and Novell from Jonathon Schmidt
Date: Thursday, August 08,1991 1:53PM


Date: Thu Jul 18 17:24:07 PDT1991

Here Is the mail I sent that BradSI and I werfe telling you about If you want to talk to Jonathon Schimdt his # at Performance Technology is XXX-XXX-XXXX. Tell him I sent you.

>From russs Thu Jul 18 1423:27 1991
To: steveb bradsl mikemur jilmall
Cc: davidl johnlu
Subject: more on DR DOS, Artisoft, and Noj/ell from Jonatbon Schmidt

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 373 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 373 Page 1 of 12] [STAMPED] SIGNED ORIGINAL

203.25

AMENDMENT NUMBER 1

Dated September 1, 1990

TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENT

Dated September 1, 1990
Numbered G150-0271

for

Microsoft [reg] MS-DOS [reg], Version 4.01
Microsoft [reg] Works, Version 2.0

Between

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
a Delaware Corporation

and

VOBIS DATA COMPUTER GMBH,
A German Corporation

[HANDWRITTEN] .G150-0271

14.2.91/rc

AMENDMENT

[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] X 222270 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT NO 608 FOR IDENTIFICATION DATE: 5-4-[19]98 RPTR [initials]
[STAMPED] MS98 0186787 CONFIDENTIAL

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 373 Page 2 of 12]
Effective September 1, 1990, the below signed parties agree that the indicated portions of the above referenced License Agreement (hereinafter the “Agreement”) are hereby amended by this instrument (hereinafter the “Amendment”), as follows:

1. Exhibit B is hereby amended and as amended shall be read as set forth in the attached Exhibit B.

2. In Exhibit C3 the following paragraph is added in the section ROYALTY PAYMENTS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

As between the Products set forth in Exhibit C3 and C5, COMPANY agrees that for each applicable CUSTOMER SYSTEM shipped or placed in use by or for COMPANY during the term of this Agreement, COMPANY shall license, at most either the Exhibit C3 or the Exhibit C5 Product, but no combination thereof, i.e. no more than one such Product, for use on that CUSTOMER SYSTEM. COMPANY shall still make royalty reports on a Product by Product basis.

3. In Exhibit C3, the table in subsection (a) of the ROYALTY PAYMENTS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS section is hereby amended and as amended shall read as follows:

Customer System / Royalty Rate ($US)
Exhibit M2 / $13.05

4. New Exhibits C5, C6, C7, and C8 are hereby added and as added shall read as set forth in the attached Exhibits C5, C6, C7 and C8.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of September 1, 1990. All signed copies of this Amendment shall be deemed to be originals.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION
By [Signature of Michael R. Hallman]
Name(Print) Michael R. Hallman
Title President
Date 4/22/[19]91

VOBIS DATA COMPUTER GMBH
By [Signature of Theo Lieven]
Name(Print) Theo Lieven
Title General Manager
Date March 28, 1991

[Page Number] 2
[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] X222271 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0186788 CONFIDENTIAL
[HANDWRITTEN] 608-2

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 373 Page 3 of 12]
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULES

MINIMUM COMMITMENT

First Period of This Agreement

COMPANY agrees to pay a minimum of Three Million Dollars (US$ 3,000,000.00) for Product(s) licensed under this Agreement within the first period of this Agreement as described below. The Minimum Commitment Schedule listed below sets forth the minimum cumulative amounts of payments which COMPANY shall make to MS during the first period of this Agreement. To the extent that actual earned royalties exceed the cumulative minimum commitment payments, COMPANY shall pay MS for actual earned royalties. To the extent that cumulative minimum commitment payments exceed actual earned royalties, such excess shall be known as prepaid royalties and shall be recoupable against future earned royalties during the term of this Agreement. The minumum commitment amount payable upon signing of this Agreement as set forth below is recoupable and refundable puruant to Section 4(b) of this Agreement. All other minimum commitment payments are recoupable but not refundable.

Commencing with the first complete calendar quarter subsequent to COMPANY’s shipment to a customer for revenue of Product MS-DOS(R) Version 5.0, German language version, in Exhibit C7, but no later than four (4) months after MS delivers this Product to COMPANY, minimum commitment amounts for royalty periods during the remaining term of this Agreement shall increase an additional Four Hundred Thousand Fifty Dollars ($450,000.00) over the amounts shown in this Exhibit B. COMPANY shall give MS written notice of the first date of shipment of this Product by COMPANY to a customer for revenue within ten (10) days of shipment.

MINIMUM COMMITMENT SCHEDULE (FIRST PERIOD)

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 373 Page 4 of 12] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] X 222273 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0186790 CONFIDENTIAL
[HANDWRITTEN] 608-4
Except for the amount due on signing, the date of payment for the above calendar quarter amounts shall be as provided in Section 3.

MINIMUM COMMITMENT

Second Period of This Agreement


COMPANY agrees to pay a minimum of Three Million Dollars (US$ 3,000,000.00) for Product(s) licensed under this Agreement within the second period of this Agreement as described below. The Minimum Commitment Schedule listed below sets forth the minimum cumulative amounts of payments which COMPANY shall make to MS during the second period of this Agreement. Payments made during the first period of this Agreement shall not be credited towards the minimum commitment requirement in the second period. To the extent that actual earned royalties exceed the cumulative minimum commitment payments, COMPANY shall pay MS for actual earned royalties. To the extent that cumulative minimum commitment payments exceed actual earned royalties, such excess shall be known as prepaid royalties and shall be recoupable against future earned royalties during the term of this Agreement. The minumum commitment amount payable upon signing of this Agreement as set forth below is recoupable and refundable puruant to Section 4(b) of this Agreement. All other minimum commitment payments are recoupable but not refundable.

Commencing with the first complete calendar quarter subsequent to COMPANY’s shipment to a customer for revenue of Product MS-DOS(R) Version 5.0, German language version, in Exhibit C7, but no later than four (4) months after MS delivers this Product to COMPANY, minimum commitment amounts for royalty periods during the remaining term of this Agreement shall increase an additional Four Hundred Thousand Fifty Dollars ($450,000.00) over the amounts shown in this Exhibit B. COMPANY shall give MS written notice of the first date of shipment of this Product by COMPANY to a customer for revenue within ten (10) days of shipment.

MINIMUM COMMITMENT SCHEDULE (SECOND PERIOD)

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 373 Page 5 of 12] EXHIBIT C5 (SYSTEM COMMITMENT)
PRODUCT: Microsoft [REG] Windows [TM]

VERSION NO: 3.0
LANGUAGE VERSION: (Do not fill in if Domestic USA Version)

PRODUCT DELIVERABLES:
(a) Product in Object Code form.
(b) Standard Documentation in Series Number W770-3Z that MS delivers with the Product.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS:
The Product will have features as specified in the above-referenced Product documentation.

ROYALTY PAYMENTS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:
COMPANY agrees to pay MS, according to, and comply with Exhibit C3.

ROYALTIES FOR NEW VERSION RELEASES:
MS may elect to increase the per system royalty applicable to new Version Releases, which royalty shall apply to succeeding releases until changed hereunder or by agreement of the parties. The maximum per system royalty for a new Version Release shall be determined as follows:

Maximum royalty = R + (R*N*1.5%)

where R is the initial per system royalty described above and N is the number of months (rounded to the nearest whole number) that have elapsed from the Effective Date until MS delivers the new Version Release.

ROYALTIES FOR UPGRADES:

COMPANY may elect to pay MS a royalty of fifty percent (50%) of the highest applicable royalty stated in this Exhibit C (i.e., the initial royalty stated above plus increases, if any, for new Version Releases) for each full or partial copy of the Product, including Update Releases and Version Releases, licensed or otherwise disposed of by COMPANY as an Upgrade during the term of this Agreement. Upgrade Product shall conform to the definition contained in Section 1 of the Agreement.

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS:

The Product Microsoft Windows described in this Exhibit contains Version 7.0 of the Microsoft mouse driver (“MS Driver
“) (files designated as MOUSE.COM and MOUSE.SYS), which is MS proprietary software designed for use with the Microsoft Mouse. In the event COMPANY ships a non-MS mouse or pointing device with the MS Driver to end user purchasers of COMPANY’s Computer Systems, COMPANY agrees to pay MS an additional royalty of Five Dollars (US $5.00) for each copy of the Driver so shipped by COMPANY. Reporting and payment of such Driver royalties shall be in accordance with this Exhibit and Section 3 (“Price and Payment”) of this Agreement.

[PAGE NUMBER] 5
[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] X222274 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0186791 CONFIDENTIAL
[HANDWRITTEN] 608-5

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 373 Page 6 of 12]
COPYIGHT NOTICE:
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1985-1989. All rights reserved.

PRODUCT NAME AND ASSOCIATED TRADEMARK: Microsoft [REG] Windows [TM]

OTHER ASSOCIATED TRADEMARKS AND DESCRIPTOR:

Exhibit to the License Agreement dated September 1, 1990, between MICROSOFT CORPORATION and VOBIS DATA COMPUTER GMBH
02/07/[19]90 0876L

[PAGE NUMBER] 6
[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] X 222275 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0186792 CONFIDENTIAL
[HANDWRITTEN] 608-6

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 373 Page 7 of 12]
EXHIBIT CE

ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE VERSIONS

The Product described in Exhibit C5 (“Reference Exhibit”) shall include the additional language versions identified below. COMPANY shall license at most one language version of the Product for use on each applicable CUSTOMER SYSTEM. COMPANY’S royalty obligations shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit regardless of the language version licensed with each applicable CUSTOMER SYSTEM. Nothwithstanding the preceding sentence, COMPANY shall pay MS an additional language version royalty equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the royalty otherwise payable to MS for each full or partial copy of each language version of the Product identified below which is licensed or otherwise disposed of by COMPANY during the term of this Agreement. COMPANY shall report, on a language version by language version basis, and pay such language version royalties pursuant to and as part of its royalty payment and reporting obligations under the Royalty Payments and Reporting Requirements section of the Reference Exhibit. The Product Name and Associated Trademark are, in all Language Versions listed below, the same as in the Reference Exhibit.

1. Language Version: French
Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number W770-3F that MS delivers with the Product.
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1985 – 1990 . All rights reserved.


2. Language Version: German
Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number W770-3D that MS delivers with the Product.
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1985 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

3. Language Version: Portuguese
Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number W770-3P that MS delivers with the Product.
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1985 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

[PAGE NUMBER] 7
[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] X 222276 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0186793 CONFIDENTIAL
[HANDWRITTEN] 608-7

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 373 Page 8 of 12]
4. Language Version: Spanish
Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number W770-3E that MS delivers with the Product.
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1985 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

5. Language Version: Swedish
Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number W770-3S that MS delivers with the Product.
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1985 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

Exhibit to the License Agreement dated September 1, 1990, between MICROSOFT CORPORATION and VOBIS DATA COMPUTER GMBH.
03/14/[19]90 0975L

[PAGE NUMBER] 8
[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] X 222277 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0186794 CONFIDENTIAL
[HANDWRITTEN] 608-8

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 373 Page 9 of 12] EXHIBIT C7 (SYSTEM COMMITMENT)

PRODUCT: Microsoft [REG] MS-DOS [REG]
VERSION NO: 5.0 (Includes QBasic Interpreter)
VERSION NO: 5.0
LANGUAGE VERSION: ____ (Do not fill in if Domestic USA Version)
PRODUCT DELIVERABLES:
(a) Product in Object Code form.
(b) Standard Documentation in Series Number D781-5Z and D707-5Z that MS delivers with the Product.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS:
The Product will have features as specified in the above-referenced Product documentation.

ROYALTY PAYMENTS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

(a) For purposes of royalty payments, this Exhibit shall become effective as follows: If COMPANY prompty provides written notice to MS of the date on which COMPANY first ships this Product to any customer, then this Exhibit shall become effective on the shipment date specified in the notice; otherwise, this Exhibit shall become effective on the first day of the calendar quarter for which COMPANY files a royalty report indicating shipment of this Product.

(b) For each Customer System identified below, COMPANY agrees to pay MS a royalty, at the applicable rate set forth below, multiplied by the greater of (i) the number of full or partial Customer System(s) shipped or placed in use by or for COMPANY during the term of this Agreement, or (ii) the number of full or parital copies of Product, including Update Releases and Version Releases, licensed or otherwise disposed of by COMPANY during the term of this Agreement for use with such Customer System, but excluding copies of the Product for which COMPANY pays royalties at the Upgrade Royalty Rate (see below).

Customer System  Royalty Rate ($US)
Exhibit M1 $7.82

(c) COMPANY’s report shall specify the number of Customer System(s) shipped or placed in use by or for COMPANY during that calendar quarter and the number of copies of Product, including Update Releases, Version Releases, and Upgrades licensed or otherwise disposed of by COMPANY during that calendar quarter. COMPANY shall furnish this statement for each Customer System identified in the Exhibit M9s) and shall report for each Customer System separately by processor. In the event that no Customer System(s) are shipped or placed in use by or for COMPANY during a calendar quarter and no copies of Product are licensed or otherwise disposed of by COMPANY during such calendar quarter, COMPANY shall indicate this on the royalty report.

[PAGE NUMBER] 9
[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] X 222278 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0186795 CONFIDENTIAL
[HANDWRITTEN] 608-9

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 373 Page 10 of 12]
ROYALTIES FOR NEW VERSION RELEASES:

MS may elect to increase the per system royalty applicable to new Version Releases, which royalty shall apply to succeeding releases until changed hereunder or by agreement of the parties. The maximum per system royalty for a new Version Release shall be determined as follows:

Maximum royalty = R + (R*N*1.5%).

where R is the initial per system royalty described above and N is the number of months (rounded to the nearest whole number) that have elapsed from the Effective Date until MS delivers the new Version Release.

ROYALTIES FOR UPGRADES:

COMPANY may elect to pay MS a royalty of fifty percent (50%) of the highest applicable royalty stated in this Exhibit C (i.e., the initial royalty stated above plus increase, if any, for new Version Releases) for each full or partial copy of the Product, including Update Releases and Version Releases, licensed or otherwise disposed of by COMPANY as an Upgrade during the term of this Agreement. Upgrade Product shall conform to the definitiion contained in Section 1 of the Agreement.

ADDITIONAL PROVISION:

Prior to distribution of product by COMPANY, COMPANY shall implement a tracking procedure (e.g., bar coding, serialization) that has been approved in writing by MS. COMPANY’s tracking system shall enable COMPANY to identify its customer (i.e. distributor, dealer, end user) for ecah unit of the Product distributed. COMPANY shall not license or otherwise dispose of the Product unless and until such tracking system has been approved by MS and implemented by COMPANY.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATIO, 1981-1991. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATIO, 1982-1991. All rights reserved.

PRODUCT NAME AND ASSOCIATED TRADEMARK:
Microsoft [REG] MS-DOS [REG]
QBasic [TM] Interpreter

Exhibit to the License Agreement dated September 1, 1990, between MICROSOFT CORPORATION and VOBIS DATA COMPUTER GMBH.
11/29/[19]90 dos5djj

[PAGE NUMBER] 10
[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] X 222279 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0186796 CONFIDENTIAL
[HANDWRITTEN] 608-10

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 373 Page 11 of 12]
EXHIBIT C8

ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE VERSIONS

The Product described in Exhibit C7 (“Reference Exhibit”) shall include the additional language versions identified below. COMPANY shall license at most one language version of the Product for use on each applicable CUSTOMER SYSTEM. COMPANY’s royalty obligations shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit regardless of the language version licensed with each applicable CUSTOMER SYSTEM. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, COMPANY shall pay MS an additional language version royalty equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the royalty otherwise payable to MS for each full or partial copy of each language version of the Product identified below which is licensed or otherwise disposed of by COMPANY during the term of this Agreement. COMPANY shall report, on a a language version by language version basis, and pay such language version royalties pursuant to and as part of its royalty payment and reporting obligations under the Royalty Payments and Reporting Requirements section of the Reference Exhibit. The Product Name and Associated Trademark are, in all Language Versions listed below, the same as in the Reference Exhibit.

1. Language Version: French
Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5F and D707-5F that MS delivers with the Product.
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1981 – 1991 . All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1982 – 1991 . All rights reserved.

2. Language Version: German
Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5D and D707-5D that MS delivers with the Product.
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1981 – 1991 . All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1982 – 1991 . All rights reserved.

3. Language Version: Portuguese
Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5P and D707-5P that MS delivers with the Product.
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1981 – 1991 . All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1982 – 1991 . All rights reserved.

[PAGE NUMBER] 11
[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] X 222280 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0186797 CONFIDENTIAL
[HANDWRITTEN] 608-11

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 373 Page 12 of 12]

4. Language Version: Spanish
Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5E and D707-5E that MS delivers with the Product.
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1981 – 1991 . All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1982 – 1991 . All rights reserved.

5. Language Version: Swedish
Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5S and D707-5S that MS delivers with the Product.
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1981 – 1991 . All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT (C) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1982 – 1991 . All rights reserved.

Exhibit to the License Agreement dated September 1, 1990, between MICROSOFT CORPORATION and VOBIS DATA COMPUTER GMBH.
03/14/[19]90 0975L

[PAGE NUMBER] 12
[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] X 222281 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0186798 CONFIDENTIAL
[HANDWRITTEN] 608-12

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 461 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 461 p. 1 of 3]
I doubt that’s the problem. When I dial MCI on the same machine, I never have a problem. Only dialing into 867-1681. I get a connect message, but then after hitting enter a number of times, nothing happens. So 1 hang up, redial, and repeat 5-10 times until I get the login message.

No problems at all calling other services.

| >From corpop Mon Nov 26 08:18:44 1990
| To: bradsa
| Subject linelock
| Cc: tomh
| Date: Mon Nov 26 08:05:33 1990
|
|
| It’s possible you are running into a hung modem. Please call us
| at 936-3367 when it happens so we can have a closer look.
|
| Thanks, Corpop.
|
|——————————————–
|
| >From joero Sun Nov 25 09:33:02 1990
| To: AllenY GregP corpop
| Subject: linelock
| Date: Sun Nov 25 09:27:59 1990
|
| From bradsi Sat Nov 24 18:50:33 1990
| To: joern
| Subject: linelock
| Date: Sat Nov 24 18:48:07 1990
| Why do I have so much trouble getting through linelock
| to get a login message? I typically have to dial 867-1681
| 5-10 times before I get login.
|
|


################################################################### 101
>From bens Mon Nov 26 12:21:28 1990
To: bradsi
Cc: camcromn davidw pauima philba richab
Subject to share or not to share, that is the question
Date: Mon Nov 26 12:1934 1990

Issue:

– Should MS Apps (and other ISVs) have access to Windows source code?

Complications:

1) If MS Apps have access to the Windows sources, then all ISVs should have access, else we are subject to restraint-of-tradc complaints (to say nothing of the morality of the situation).

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 461 p. 2 of 3]

2) If outside ISVs have access to our sources, then we make it much easier for another company to come along and clone Windows.

I talked to some apps guys on a recent recruiting trip, and they made the following very good point;

Windows is poorly documented

The state machine that is USER.EXE is barely documented in the SDK. Any ISV that wants to write a great Windows app ends up looking at the source code (like our Apps group), unassembling the DLLs, or writing experiment code to divine the actual behavior of the system.

Arguments against giving ISVs access to Windows source code usually boil down to:

An ISV will use some undocumented feature of Windows, or directly access internal data, in such a way that future versions of Windows will be forced to support this bad behavior, restricting MS ability to innovate in Windows.

I claim that letting an ISV looking at the source code is the *best* way to avoid this problem:

1) An ISV that unassembles Windows to figure out its behavior is effectively looking at source code, but without the benefits of source comments. This approach is more work for the ISV, and gives MS no opportunity to guide the ISV. With source code, there are generally comments discussing rationale for the behavior of the system.

2) An ISV that writes test apps to divine Windows behavior is really on thin ice. Either the ISV spends a great deal of effort writing test code to be certain Windows is fully understood, or the ISV may end up making assumptions which are not correct Since tbe former approach is a great deal of work, and the ISV is never sure when to stop (“do I really understand how this works now?”), most ISVs will end up in the latter situation. These are the most dangerous apps, since they are most dependant upon the exact behavior of a specific release of Windows.

The key problem is that our documentation docs not provide sufficient depth of coverage. The key question is:

How much would it cost to provide sufficient documentation, and is that any different, really, from providing source code?

The key difficulty in writing really great documentation is anticipating all the questions an ISV might have about the behavior of the system. Presumably, there is a level of documentation which is great enough that an ISV would have to perform only a small amount of experimentation.

Solutions:

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 461 p. 3 of 3]

A. Status Quo
+ Simple
– MS Apps have (unfair) advantage over other ISVs.

B. Make Windows sources available for a fee, with a restrictive licensing agreement (only available to N trusted employees, must be kept on a secure server, no derivative of these sources may be shipped, etc.)
+ All ISVs are equal
– Cloning risk

C. Disallow all ISVs, including MS Apps, from looking at Windows sources (in practice, this would be a very hard thing to do, and certainly runs counter to the spirit of MS).
+ All ISVs are equal
– Difficult to make happen at MS
– Reduces information flow on Windows to ISVs

D. Write great documentation.
+ All ISVs are equal
+ Avoids cloning risk

Conclusion

Given that we want to make Windows programming as attractive as possible, I vote for (B) making the sources available. This gives us a little extra incentive to keep enhancing Windows, so that it does not become a stationary target for doners, but otherwise benefits the Windows ISV community.

– bens

################################################################### 102
>From ericbo Mon Nov 26 12:25:51 1990
To: jamesm
Cc: dos5beta
Subject: Re: Where is DOS 5.0???
Date: Mon Nov 26 12.24:51 1990

We do not have a current release that has been tested well enough to be used in an internal beta. We are in the process of testing a new version and it should be ready later this week. Mail will be going out when it is ready.

If you wish to be a “guinea pig” and install the build we are currently testing for an internal release, email dos5beta and we will add you to our list If you need disk images though, you will probably have to wait until the internal beta version is ready.

-Eric Hough
Dos 5 Beta Support


>From jamesm Mon Nov 26 12:11:32 1990
To: dos5beta
Subject Where is DOS 5.0???

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 462 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 462 p. 1 of 3]
Cc: bradsi gcnfac janfac
Date: Mon Nov 26 14.4X.39 1990

The Facilities Department can be contacted via e-mail on the “genfac” aliasis. The “facman” alais is no longer in use.

In regards to your request concerning the Bldg 3 2nd floor mens room, I am having a plumber out to correct a clog in the urinal. It looks like it will need to be pulled off the wall to repair correctly. For the urinal to be clogged this bad, something has physically been put down the urinal path. Please be patient for one more day while repairs are effected.

“janfac” will ensure that the area is cleaned up in a sanitary manner.

Thank you for your patience!


################################################################### 127
>From philba Mon Nov 26 14:53:50 1990
To: bens bradsi
Cc. camcronm davidw paulma richab
Subject Re: to share or not to share, that is the question
Date: Mon Nov 26 15:50:19 1990

You bring up some valid points however there is one other point that needs to be understood: ISVs that have access to our code often take advantage of internal data-structures, bugs or other quirks of the implementation. This prevents us from changing the code and adds a serious burden of compatibility beyond the API.

I favor simply doing a better job of documenting.

| From bens Mon Nov 26 12:21:28 1990
| To: bradsi
| Cc: camcromn davidw pauima philba richab
| Subject to share or not to share, that is the question
| Date: Mon Nov 26 12:1934 1990
|
| Issue:
| – Should MS Apps (and other ISVs) have access to Windows source code?
|
| Complications:
|   1) If MS Apps have access to the Windows sources, then all ISVs should
|       have access, else we are subject to restraint-of-tradc complaints
|       (to say nothing of the morality of the situation).
|
|   2) If outside ISVs have access to our sources, then we make it much easier
|       for another company to come along and clone Windows.
|
| I talked to some apps guys on a recent recruiting trip, and they made
| the following very good point;

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 462 p. 2 of 3] |
|   Windows is poorly documented
|
| The state machine that is USER.EXE is barely documented in the
| SDK. Any ISV that wants to write a great Windows app ends up
| looking at the source code (like our Apps group), unassembling
| the DLLs, or writing experiment code to divine the actual behavior
| of the system.
|
| Arguments against giving ISVs access to Windows source code usually boil
| down to:
|
|   An ISV will use some undocumented feature of Windows, or directly
|   access internal data, in such a way that future versions of Windows
|   will be forced to support this bad behavior, restricting MS ability
|   to innovate in Windows.
|
| I claim that letting an ISV looking at the source code is the *best* way
| to avoid this problem:
|
|    1) An ISV that unassembles Windows to figure out its behavior is
|        effectively looking at source code, but without the benefits of
|        source comments. This approach is more work for the ISV, and
|        gives MS no opportunity to guide the ISV. With source code,
|        there are generally comments discussing rationale for the behavior
|        of the system.
|
|    2) An ISV that writes test apps to divine Windows behavior is really
|        on thin ice. Either the ISV spends a great deal of effort writing
|        test code to be certain Windows is fully understood, or the ISV
|        may end up making assumptions which are not correct Since tbe
|        former approach is a great deal of work, and the ISV is never sure
|        when to stop (“do I really understand how this works now?”), most
|        ISVs will end up in the latter situation. These are the most
|        dangerous apps, since they are most dependant upon the exact behavior
|        of a specific release of Windows.
|
| The key problem is that our documentation docs not provide sufficient
| depth of coverage. The key question is:
|
|    How much would it cost to provide sufficient documentation,
|    and is that any different, really, from providing source code?
|
| The key difficulty in writing really great documentation is anticipating
| all the questions an ISV might have about the behavior of the system. Presumably,
| there is a level of documentation which is great enough that an ISV would have
| to perform only a small amount of experimentation.
|
| Solutions:
|
|    A. Status Quo
|       + Simple
|       – MS Apps have (unfair) advantage over other ISVs.
|
|    B. Make Windows sources available for a fee, with a restrictive licensing

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 462 p. 3 of 3]

|        agreement (only available to N trusted employees, must be kept on
|        a secure server, no derivative of these sources may be shipped, etc.)
|       + All ISVs are equal
|       – Cloning risk
|
|    C. Disallow all ISVs, including MS Apps, from looking at Windows sources
|        (in practice, this would be a very hard thing to do, and certainly
|        runs counter to the spirit of MS).
|       + All ISVs are equal
|       – Difficult to make happen at MS
|       – Reduces information flow on Windows to ISVs
|
|    D. Write great documentation.
|       + All ISVs are equal
|       + Avoids cloning risk
|
|
| Conclusion
| Given that we want to make Windows programming as attractive as possible,
| I vote for (B) making the sources available. This gives us a little
| extra incentive to keep enhancing Windows, so that it does not become
| a stationary target for doners, but otherwise benefits the Windows
| ISV community.
|
| – bens
|


################################################################### 128
>From cliffw Mon Nov 26 14:57:51 1990
To: bradsi
Subject: XL Bugs
Date: Mon Nov 26 14:55:23 1990

The PREVIEW bugs have been forwarded to the appropriate people.

The Style Combo box display problem is probably a WIN 3 installation bug. I think this is the problem because I just checked a the beta version on a 386/25 in the configuration lab, and there were mo problems.

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 638 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 638 p. 1 of 6] [STAMPED] Depo. Ex. 33
[STAMPED] Depo. Ex. 607
[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] X0599970
[STAMPED] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 291 C.A. No. 2:96CV645B
[STAMPED] MS-PCA 1177233 CONFIDENTIAL

Microsoft Memo

ADI Software (Windows ISV) – Karlsruhe. Germany

Received a very positive update on the German Win and Win apps market ADI is the exclusive distributor for the Asymmetrix Toolbox and is localizing it. In addition, they used it to write multimedia apps and combined it with their own database technology. It’s amazing how this improved speed. Paul Allen should look at this. On a side note – my old friend Mark Ursino, now Asymmetrix Marketing Manager, seems to be as unpopular as ever according to ADI and Internal Asymmetrix feedback.

CeBIT- Hanover. Germany

The show now consists of 20 halls and next year will be expanded to 24 halls. They had a new record this year with 570,00 visitors in attendance. MS had four well-organized booths. Most impressive was the ISV booth. The main booth, MAC and LAN Man booths were well attended. Business climate was upbeat: 12-16% unit growth to be expected, but a lot of disappointment in Eastern European business opportunities. It will take 5-6 years to see the fruits of any investments. The USSR might not be in for good business for another 10 years. East Germany will be healthy in 2-3 years. (It takes one day to make a scheduled phone call into the Eastern part of Germany, meaning no communication infrastructure). At the same time, skilled and motivated labor does not exist. Fifty years of communist government took the desire to perform out of the country. Do we need to revisit our localization strategy?

Most impressive: TFT color laptops from Sharp, Toshiba. Amstrad (7.5K$), and Aquarius.

Ultra-thin Notebook as well as Amstrad’s “Mac-killer”

KEY CUSTOMER VISITS

I missed Schneider and Compass due to a delay in Frankfurt. Manfred needs to follow up with Koester (ex Schneider now part of Compass), a dealer chain association which is planning to build their own PCs.

Tandon

Tandon is still growing 20% per year, very professional and healthy. Doing 30% of all Tandon sales. The bad news: they signed up to distribute Solborn SPARC stations in Germany and if successful, they will do so in other European countries. We need to change their thinking after the MIPS announcement. They would switch if told by their US headquarters.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 638 p. 2 of 6]

Zenith

Zenith has completely reorganized and changed all sales & marketing management in Germany. They are fighting to come back, and still being profitable, the local VP was able to survive. More important was the message that they are happy with the management changes at HQ and that they now have more input on product directions. 70% of Zenith’s total business is now done in Europe.

DRI

Germany Is their best county worldwide. Lots of Taiwanese clone manufacturers and Vobis are present with DRI bundles. We will have to target them one by one. Interviewed a DRI person who wants to switch sides, will follow up with JoachenH.

Interview with Rainerk

CWedell asked for my opinion of whether he could do the German PSS manager job. I supported his recommendation after talking to him. From the interview and some discussion with the OEM managers. It was obvious that we need a unified European PSS concept. This is particularly true for large account customers when supporting mission-critical apps. These guys shop for the best prices and have started laughing at our European inconsistencies.

WORKS

Still complaints from Juttad that C8M and Schneider are violating distribution agreements. I confronted the CBM GM and he admitted that this had happened but had been corrected In Schneider’s case. I asked GmbH to buy packages without hardware to give us some proof. We should terminate their WORKS license if true – being the second offense. Jochenh told me that al these OEM bundles in Germany are generally helping his WORKS sales.

Aquarius

Aquarius sold 40K units in their first year of existence. Confirmed that 386SX is the best selling PC type in Germany. They upped their commit to 60K and shook hands over a new 2.5M/per year deal giving us $40+ per system. I committed to pay for 20K of advertisements in local catalogs for making DOS 5.0 popular and fighting DRI. Because they had bought FG DOS and WIN before they started shipping royalty based products we forgave them 150K of min commits. Their ultra-thin notebooks is interesting. It contains DRI ROM-DOS from Taiwan, but they will force their vendor to change to MS-DOS.

Ronh please make sure that Taiwan OEM follows up.

Pretty bad if true:
They are working closely with Suja in the USSR and claim they have sold them 65K PCs in components to be assembled locally. The Russian company Informed them that they had signed a deal for $2 for DOS equivalent in Rubles. We denied that such a contract existed asked for a copy. I will follow up with Dalech.

Peacock

The usual “you do not love us” complaint. I promised to visit them in Paderborn in May. They are interested in partnering with us on some integration projects. Key point: IBM is hurling us. Novell is being positioned by the IBM sales force as being “it”. (This was confirmed by 3-4 other OEMs). OS/2 is an IBM proprietary system etc., etc. They and others asked us to do a better PR job in the US and locally to make our story more believable. They told us we as a software company are missing the boat by not having a NOTES type product today and a low-end LAN Man solution.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 638 p. 3 of 6]

Vobis

This is a company owned 20% by Kauhof which in turn is owned by METRO. There was talk in Hanover that an additional 20% might be sold to Kaunof by Theo Liefen, their founder. We met him twice to discuss the new contract. It contains a WIN and WORKS license for all their systems to be expected to exceed 200K units this CY making them number 2 after IBM. And it includes a DOS 5.0 “trigger” license which makes them pay for MS DOS three months after they receive the OAK. Liefen denied that he ever agreed to this. (From my DRI contact, I knew that he had extended his current deal by 50K units- thus putting him under pressure). With Manfred not being present because of his leg surgery, we agreed to meet again the next day to resolve the issue.

Interesting enough, Amstrad and other German companies have been noticing Vobis’ success and its’ DRI bundling. Liefen himself mentioned to us that he could influence DRI in their product development, etc. After talking to Manfred, it was obvious that Liefen was reneging on the deal. Round two: I took the opportunity to negotiate in German, sign our offer as is – this is an agreed upon package deal or if you change any component, we will too. Second option: scratch the DOS clause, pay $35 for Windows instead of $15. You have untill 04/01/91 to consider. If no contract is signed, seize shipping Windows by 05/01/91. They are shipping without a license (!) submit royalty reports for WIN and WORKS and pay up. (They have a valid WORKS license at $25). The proposal showed impact. They threatened with GeoWorks. Lotus, etc We asked if the DOS price was an issue – he answered no. We parted as friends – believe it or not, Manfred will follow up with a letter and a phone call and I have a bet with Jeff that they win sign as is. In my judgement they will hurt if they do not ship WIN and paying $35 for it is out of the question.

IPC

Very amiable meeting regarding marketing plans. They are departing from ESSEX their parent company. Told us that IPC Spain is in financial trouble, I informed Ignacio.

Compaq, Gmbh

Got to know two new GMs and confirmed the European MIPS announcement. Great response so far to their Ballpoint promo. Healthy business outlook based on top management meetings with large accounts at Hanover.

Schneider and Koch

A true disaster meeting. They are one of the leading network software sellers in Germany with a 30% market share. They still are without a 2.0 German LAN Man OAK. One reason was the delaying of the 2.0 amendment by them and second the amendment being held up in legal because of sloppy preparation by Gmbh. They did praise K.H. Breitenbach and his support, but GmbH management – having closed an exclusive distribution agreement for LAN Man (would not have happened at my time) – refused to authorize their dealers for 6 months. Meanwhile, they are selling Novell – now stupid and arrogant can we get? I promised them help by sending an OAK asap and told the German guys to allow them to ship product from their warehouse included in their box in the interim. I hope they can work this out They asked for a distribution agreement and I told them to work with Gmbh. This might not be possible locally until the exclusive deals runs out by year end.

Amstrad

We took them out for a nice lunch in a truly nice place. After the usual “lower your prices” and how well they did their WIN shell without paying 1M$ to MS development, we were able to break the ice. Again, not enough resources to serve and nurture them, let them believe we do not care. They are seriously thinking of shipping DR DOS 5.0 for their German 8086 PCs starting in October – because Vobis does it. They are designing a new low-end and high-end product line and are asking for our help. This time they will get it. We exchanged some market info and they were impressed by how well informed we were. We succeeded in interesting them in Pen-WIN

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 638 p. 4 of 6]

based PC design and recommended doing this before they start a MM PC. Tney agreed – Malcolm was actually really excited about it

I believe the DRI Issue can be put to rest if they see a true effort Malcolm and myself established a good rapport. I am going to make them my European “pet” account.

CBM

Met with their new GM. This was the third time he has worked tor CBM. Lots of energy and drive. He is turning things around 35% of total CBM sales is in Germany. They are still selling 300K 64’s and more than 200K Amigas. Their CD-ROM video is catching on. It is based on an Amiga 500 chip residing in a remote control – a great player as most customers believe and very easy to operate. Tandy, you might get killed! GmbH will follow up with some educational sales opponunities.

Siemens

Feldman and Dewltd asked a lot of questions regarding OS/2, WIN positioning, why MIPS, and how real is LAN Man? I confirmed our MIPS plans and answered their questions. Again they raised the issue of a completely confused market and IBM going around trashing us. We invited them to the planned May briefing. Their first R3000 based MIPS machine will be a WS followed by a MP machine – incompatible for us. They will do a R4000 machine asap. Interesting enough they feel pretty sure that MIPS win ship “error free” CPUs in Q1 CY92 at the earliest. One year too late – by then SPARC 3, a better PA chip, and the next RS 6000 will be out. This means no free lunch for the MIPS consortium. We might have to fight harder than expected. They are developing banking apps by using the PM interface. I confirmed that OS/2 3.0 will conserve the PM interface but I think they understood clearly to move to WIN 32-bit asap to have their investment secured in the future.

They were disappointed about our dying mailserver cooperation but want to do development project with us. I said pick a small one and we can start, build trust and get it done. I will make this somebodies project. All in all a very amiable and constructive meeting.

EUROPEAN OEM REVIEWS

General Issues

European OEM sales are complaining about our LAN sales force taking the business direct. Some countries seem to have a hit list to replace OEM sales and not Novell sales, Schneider & Koch in Germany is miffed, so is Siemens. Looks like the sales force is not always following the rules of engagement – no surprise to me! Time to reinforce?

Sweden

No surprises. Victor wants to extend contract locally to secure support. Tandy will have to make a decision. Nokia had a bad quarter and the outlook is flat. Nokia is another miffed LAN Man OEM who has expressed shipping FG instead of OEM product. This could be complicated if European distribution agreements are not welcome and subs do not cooperate when small units are being purchased. We need a cheaper 400 BPI OEM Mouse to stop Logitech gaining market share (and reduce retail pricing).

UK

Seeing more Notebooks designed/imported with DRI ROM-DOS. DRI’s main thrust in the UK is to sell Flex-DOS and CP/M to imbedded system vendors. Business outlook is solid, only UPB problem with Torus and Apricot – both are being addressed. Biggest issues – resources: we

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 638 p. 5 of 6]

need dedicated administrative support for SandyO’s group and should add al least one additional AM for FG & DOS. We are missing opportunities. Ideally we hire a Pakistani or Indian person.

France

Rumor has it that ailing Goupil is being bought by Siemens/Nixdorf and Fujitsu is interested in Siemens/Nixdorf who is hurting financially. Expect Goupil to ask for min commit relief. ChrisA is leaving the group to work for PascalM. He’s frustrated with running a shrinking business. More about this later.

Spain

Ignacio asked for resources to service Investronica who is getting PCs through Chi Leog. I would not recommend this. 30 OEM people are enough for his royalty business.

Holland

Tulip did not do a LAN Man deal because of our retail distribution. They are considering dropping OS/2 as well. (Want to buy FG instead). This would mean they can buy LAN Man for direct sales only according to our local policy. But Tulip sells through resellers. Bernard, make sure we do not cut a local deal which violates your policy.

Italy

Business is within expectations. Olivetti needs more attention as you can see from their recent letter. Maurb is going to get a fulltime AM in July – finally! He should quit dealing in MSU issues as well and I am unsure why he spends so much tone with BSA activities. Their FG-DOS volume is extremely low and time spent here might increase sales. We should move Lorip into the Redmond OEM group. 95% of her time is spent on Olivetti support.

Germany

Worse than Japan is my only comment:
In talking to CWedell and JoachenH, it is clear that they want to replace Manfred, but this is not enough. They just do not and cannot take on the number of customers they need to serve. The group’s admin sells FG-DOS over the phone and does not give sufficient admin support to the rest of the group which delays contracts by 3-6 months (no kidding!) and/or delivers sloppy work. With 20M$ business, they need one fulltime manager, four people plus a dedicated admin. They have 1/2 manager for OEM royalty business. 2 AMs and .25 of an Admin at the most. During mid-year review and additional HC was rejected – why? The same resource shortage exists in the FG-DOS sales team. They cannot serve 250 (going to 350) customers with 2-3 people. It takes at least 5-6 to serve and nurture them. This is a 20M$ business on its own, why can’t anybody else see this? The result is a demoralized sales force being swamped with customer request who are unable to respond timely and as a result only in Germany does DRI has a stronghold! Bernard please take note and decisive action!

OEM in Europe

A. Communication with customers needs to be improved by direct mail and an installation of a FAX server service. At the same time. I see a need for a semi-annual OEM briefing. We will start 05/31/91 – 12 months between the US meeting and a stretched sales force just does not get the job done.

B. OEM is seen as being a non-attractive group. Stock options are not used properly to attract talent and keep it. Some people complained that their increases and options were decided by local management who does not understand or appreciate what the OEM sales people are doing. Great input. I will insist for the next review not only to send you my evaluation but close the loop to review what local management proposes. Some people even thought that

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 638 p. 6 of 6]
reporting directly to Jeff would be the best solution. I tend to agree, why not follow the ITIS/MSU model?

C. Because of our resource shortage we dont stand a chance to support customers in special/key project situations. I will dedicate some HQ marketing headcount immediately to work on some key project with European customer and the product groups.

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 709 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 709 p. 1 of 4]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 709 p. 2 of 4]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 709 p. 3 of 4]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 709 p. 4 of 4] [STAMPED] MS 0084769 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] EXH  47 DATE 5/17/[20]02 WITNESS Barrett MARY W. MILLER

>From bradsi Mon Apr 29 11:05:50 1991
To: bobgu davidcol philba tunbr
Subject: Re More Undocumented Windows
Date: Mon Apr 29 11:05:46 1991

totally agree, bob!

| > From bobgu Mon Apr 29 09:23:45 1991
| To: bradsi davidcol philba timbr
| Subject: Re: More Undocumented Windows
| Date: Mon Apr 29 09:18:35 1991
|
|
|
| | | Brad, one very major item I forgot in my previous list:
| | |
| | | Microsoft really need to publish the source code for all the
| | | built-in controls (EDIT, etc.), just like the source for DefWindowProc
| | | was made available. It’s nearly impossible to subclass things in a
| | | rational way, because it’s difficult to tell how they implement their
| | | behavior in tbe first place. This of course has been a common complaint
| | | for years
|
| Call me paranoid, but the day we publish sources to the controls is tbe day
| we can no longer enhance them. This isn’t just speculation. We have has
| to add numerous work-arounds in our code to satisfy some app that has
| reverse-engineered some internal feature of a control and assumed that it
| would never change.
|
| The basic question is how hard we want to push for a common user interface
| vs the desire of ISV’s to create custom controls by hacking ours. Hopefully,
| tbe AFX project will eliminate this problem.
|
|
| | | Frankly, I also think it would be useful to release in some wau
| | | the source code for various system utilities, such as Program Manager,
| | | File Manager, Task Manager, etc. Perhaps Microsoft already does this
| | | through “Microsoft University” courses? Actually, that would make a very
| | | interesting and useful book, by tbe way, sort of along the lines of tbe
| | | ‘Inside Windows* book you were discussing: a detailed walkthrough of the
| | | source code for several key Windows components. Would be very enlightening.
|
| The question here is when are we going to publish our shell API’s? To date,
| all tbe “juicy” API’s needed to write a shell have been undocumented.
|
| Soap Box Statement
| ——————
| This group has been MUCH to lax when it comes to adding API in the product.
| Both external and internal. We don’t do any sort of API policing within
| the Group. ISV usability issues are rarely considered. For example, the
| palette support API is a total mess because the developers doing the work
| decided what the API would look like without regard to how the ISV would use
| it. For undocumented API’s we add them at will without thinking about
| whether or not they should be documented. They are hacked in ugly things
| that often eventually get documented. PrestoChangoSelector is one of these.
| We need to do l better job at this.
|


################################################################### 6
>From bradsi Mon Apr 29 11:10:21 1991
To: jimall
Subject: Re: FW: Re: change in Win3.1
Date: Mon Apr 29 11:10:20 1991

thanks, i agree with ericr’s viewpoint. we should do it
right, if we can.

schedules for 3.1: will ship the same time, but we do have to fix
some additional things we hadn’t planned on.



################################################################### 7
>From bradsi Mon Apr 29 11:56:04 1991
To: bradc
Subject: Re: dos announce
Date: Mon Apr 29 11:56:03 1991

what do you think? i’d rather not send the whole development team.
but if they’d be very bummed then I’d reconsider, did the whole developement
team go to the win announce?



################################################################### 8
>From bradsi Mon Apr 29 11:58:47 1991
To: pattys
Cc: jodys
Subject: ISV support issues
Date: Mon Apr 29 11:58:44 1991

good ideas!

| >From bobgu Mon Apr 29 11:20:34 1991
| To: bradsi
| Subject: ISV support issues
| Date: Mon Apr 29 11:16:03 1991
|
| There needs to be SENIOR developers/program managers in the Windows group
| whose job it is to:
|
|   – Act as PSS-Development intermediaries
|   – Reduct the support overhead from developers
|   – Feedback product weaknesses to development based on ISV feedback
|   – Work closely with User-Ed to create usefull manuals
|   – Create real-world sample apps that do real things.
|   – Monitor CompuServe and other popular BB’s to gleen usefull information
|
| These people need to be free from any product responsibilities and be 100%
| totally focused on driving User-Ed and PSS to provide quality ISV support.
| The reporting structure of these people has to be free and clear of the
| groups that have product responsibilities. Take the past SDK groups as
| an example of what happens when ISV support people are a sub-group of the
| retail product development group.
|
| It’s great to hear that you get 5 new heads to do things like this. I hope
| they don’t get mired down in the political muck of getting a product out
| the door.
|
| = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
|
| Now, here’s the real kicker – wouldn’t it be a good idea to have all
| of this in place and available for Win 4 by the time ISV’s started using
| the product???!!!
|
| = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
|
|
| That’s all for now….
|
| -BobGu
|


################################################################### 9
>From bradsi Moo Apr 29 11:59:31 1991
To: bobgu
Subject: Re: ISV support issue
Date: Mon Apr 29 11:59:30 1991

great ideas. I’ve talked to pattys (gm pss) about having you
on the developers support strike team, and she agreed,
you should hear from her shortly (maybe today).



###################################################################
10
>From bradsi Moo Apr 29 12:00:30 1991
To: davidcol
Subject: some ideas
Date: Mon Apr 29 12:00:29 1991

| >From stewlc Mon Apr 29 11:29:41 1991
| To: bradsi steveb
| Subject: some ideas
| Date: Sun Apr 28 11:26:36 1991
|
| 1. To Improve Win3.1 Robustness:
|
| * Buy “Robustness” Tools
|    Purchase a suite of Win backup/recovery tools from Symantec
|    or some other vendor and bundle with Win3.1.
|
| * Completely Eliminate the UAE Message.
|    Replace it with a “Global Protection Fault” message ala OS/2 2.0 so that we
|    appear no worse than OS/2 2.0. Plus make attempts it diagnosing
|    the problem with a help dialog box. We will still be inferior in that
|    we require rebooting. But we will signal to users that we’ve revamped our
|    error handling, that the scheme is similar to OS/2 2.0’s, and
|    that it is in some ways better because of our help dialog.
|
|
| 2. To Discount the Better-Windows-than-Windows Claim:
|
| * Put in OS/2 2.0 and WLO-detection into Win3.1.
|    If an app is WLO, then run it. If OS/2 2.0 exists and the app is not
|    a WLO app, then put up an error message indicating that:
|    – the app is not certified by MS
|    – that it can be run at one’s own risk.
|    Hard for IBM to make a Better Windows claim with such a scheme in place.
|
| Once we detect the existence of OS/2 2.0, there may be other special
| warnings we can emit that highlight legitimate problems with Windows apps
| running on top of OS/2 2.0. For example, a message, each time one
| prints, that says the the Windows and OS/2 printer models are different
| and that output will be different between the two systems.
|


###################################################################
11
>From bradsi Mon Apr 29 12:04:17 1991
To: tunya
Subject: Re: DOS/Win and IBM
Date: Mon Apr 29 12:04:13 1991

a good sign

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 805 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 805 Page 1 of 8]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 805 Page 2 of 8]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 805 Page 3 of 8]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 805 Page 4 of 8]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 805 Page 5 of 8]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 805 Page 6 of 8]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 805 Page 7 of 8]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 805 Page 8 of 8]

Effective July 1.1991. the below signed parties agree that the indicated portions of the above referenced License Agreement (hereinafter the “Agreement”) are hereby amended by this instrurnent (hereinafter the “Amendment”), as follows

1. Section 9, entitled “TERM OF AGREEMENT”, is hereby amended and as amended shall read as follows:

9. TERM OF AGREEMENT
Provided this Agreement has been properly executed by COMPANY and by an officer of MS. the initial term of this Agreement (“Initial Term”) shall run from the EFFECTIVE DATE until the earlier of: (i) two (2) years from the end of the calendar quarter in which COMPANY’s first shipment to a customer of any Product for revenue occurs; or (ii) two (2) years and six (6) months from the end of the calendar quarter during when the EFFECTIVE DATE occurs. COMPANY shall give MS written notice of the first date of shipment of any Product by COMPANY to a customer for revenue.

2. Section 20. entitled “PRIOR AGREEMENT”, is hereby added and as added shall read as follows:

20. PRIOR AGREEMENT
Provided that, as of the EFFECTIVE DATE of this Amendment. COMPANY has paid MS all amounts due under G150-9325 dated December 1, 1989 between COMPANY and MS (hereinafter the “PRIOR AGREEMENT”), and COMPANY has complied with all the terms and conditions of PRIOR AGREEMENT:

a) COMPANY shall receive a credit equal to: i) the minimum commitment payments made by COMPANY pursuant to Exhibit B of the PRIOR AGREEMENT, minus ii) the amount of said minimum commitment payments determined to represent earned royalties in accordance with the PRIOR AGREEMENT. If earned royalties exceed such minimum commitment payments there shallbe no credit. If such minimum commitment payments exceed earned royalties, the excess prepaid royalties shall be transferred to this Agreement and shall be recoupable against earned royalties.

b) The PRIOR AGREEMENT shal lbe deemed to be terminated as of the EFFECTIVE DATE hereof.

3. In Exhibit C3, the table in subsection (a) of the ROYALTY PAYMENTS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS section is hereby amended and as amended shall read as follows:

Customer System           Royalty Rate ($US)

Exhibit Ml                     $13.05

4. Exhibit C4 and C8 is hereby amended and as amended shall read as set forth in the attached Exhibit C4 and C8.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of July ., 1991.All signed copies of theis Amendment shall deemed to be originals.

The Product described in Exhibit C3 (“Reference Exhibit”) shall include the additional language versions identified below. COMPANY shall license at most one language version of the Product for use on each applicable CUSTOMER SYSTEM. COMPANY’S royalty obligations shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit regardless of the language version licensed with each applicable CUSTOMER SYSTEM. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, COMPANY shall pay MS an additional language version royalty equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the royalty otherwise payable to MS for each full or partial copy of each language version of the Product identified below which is licensed or otherwise disposed of by COMPANY during the term of this Agreement. COMPANY thai report, on a language version by language version basis, and pay such language version royalties pursuant to and as part of its royalty payment and reporting obligations under the Royalty Payments and Reporting Requirements section of the Reference Exhibit. The Product Name and Associated Trademark are, in all Language Versions listed below, the same as in the Reference Exhibit

1. Language Version: Danish

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D701-2DK that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

2. Language Version: Dutch

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D701-2NL that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

3. Language Version: Finnish

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D701-2SF that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

4. Language Version: FRENCH

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D701-2F that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

5. Language Version: German

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D701-2D that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

6. Language Version: Italian

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D701-2I that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

7. Language Version: Norwegian

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D701-2N that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

8. Language Version: Portuguese

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D701-2P that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

9. Language Version: Russian

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D701-2SU that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

10. Language Version: Spanish

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D701-2E that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

11. Language Version: Swedish

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D701-2S that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

12. Language Version: Turkish

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D701-2TR that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

Exhibit to the License Agreement dated September 1,1990, between MICROSOFT CORPORATION and VOBIS DATA COMPUTER GMBH
02/26/91 0975L

The Product described in Exhibit C7 (“Reference Exhibit”) shall include the addffioral language versions identified below. COMPANY shall license at most one language version of the Product for use on each applicable CUSTOMER SYSTEM. COMPANY’S royalty obligations shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit regardless of the language version licensed with each applicable CUSTOMER SYSTEM. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, COMPANY shall pay MS an additional language version royalty equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the royalty otherwise payable to MS for each full or partial copy of each language version of the Product identified below which is licensed or otherwise disposed of by COMPANY during the term of this Agreement. COMPANY shall report, on a language version by language version basis, and pay such language version royalties pursuant to and as part of its royalty payment and reporting obligations under the Royalty Payments and Reporting Requirements section of the Reference Exhibit. The Product Name and Associated Trademark are, in all Language Versions listed below, the same as in the Reference Exhibit.

1. Language Version: Dutch

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5NL that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

2. Language Version: French

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5F that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

3. Language Version: German

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5D that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

4. Language Version: Italian

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5I that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

5. Language Version: Portuguese

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5P that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

6. Language Version: Russian

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5SU that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

7. Language Version: Spanish

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5E that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

8. Language Version: Swedish

Product Deliverables:
(a) Product in Object Code Form
(b) Standard document in Series Number D781-5S that MS delivers with the Product
Copyright Notice (if not completed, the Copyright Notice shall be as set forth in the Reference Exhibit):
COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1987 – 1990 . All rights reserved.

Exhibit to the License Agreement dated September 1,1990. between MICROSOFT CORPORATION and VOBIS DATA COMPUTER GMBH.
03/01/90 0975L

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 869 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 869 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 2

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 869 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 2

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 874 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 874 Page 1 of 1]

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 959A Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 959A Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 2

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 959A Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 2

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 979 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 979 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 2

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 979 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 2

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 981 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 981 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 2

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 981 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 2

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 984 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 984 Page 1 of 1]

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 985 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 985 Page 1 of 1]

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 990 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 990 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 2

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 990 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 2 of 2

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1048 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1048 Gordon v. Microsoft p. 1 of 1

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1077 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1077 Page 1 of 3]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1077 Page 2 of 3]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1077 Page 3 of 3]

This is the mail which announced the fixing of the ‘bug’ which had previously prevented DRD6 form working, As of this point, the DRD6 check could have been removed.

I recall pointing this out, but can’t seem to find any email to that effect. I’m sure I pointed it out verbally, and also made a notation in the RAID entry on the 3.31 bug. It is still possible that there was a piece of email which I sent through. XENIX and failed to cc myself on. | >From scrottq Wed Oct 15 19:47:12 1991
| To: bambi georgef sankaz
| Subject: smartdrv 4.0.052
| Date: Wed Oct 16 16:54:23 1991
|
|
| Smartdrv 4.0.052 has passed developer resting and can be found on
| \\triskal\scratch\bamabi\smartdrv.exe
|
| Changes include fixes for dos 3.1 floppy handling, big foot packets
| on dos 3.x, and various and sundry bug fixes.
|
| Scott
|

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1130 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1130 Page 1 of 1]

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1133 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1133 Page 1 of 2] [STAMPED] EXHIBIT 133
[STAMPED] CONFIDENTIAL

[handwritten] Non-responsive Material Redacted
[PAGE FOOTER]WinMail 1.21          philba      Wed Feb 24 08:11:14 1993               Page: 4

[STAMPED] X0592177
[STAMPED] Gates DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 85 2/28/[20]02
[STAMPED] MS-PCA 1164868 CONFIDENTIAL

>From aaronr Fri Dec 6 10:25:45 1991
To: karlst philba sandeeps
Cc: marcw
Subject: Re: msdos detection – hot job for you
Data: Wed Feb 24 08:ll:30 PDT 1991

Yesterday it was decided to do this detection and display the message if appropriate we run windows. Aaron has some code that you add to win.com

One question that you need to answer for sandeeps:

Is this a Prompt message or a Banner message?

In HIMEM and SMARTDRV the message is a banner message, they don’t stop, they just display the message and go on. In SETUP and MSD the message is a prompt message:

Non-fatal error detected: error xxxx
(Please contact Windows 3.l beta aupport)
Press Enter to exit or C to continue … <<<<<*************

Which form for WIN.COM? Also, what is the exact message test? For MSD the exact message is:

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1133 Page 2 of 2]

Non-fatal error detected* error 5278 (Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support) Press ENTER to exit or C to continue …

Sandeeps here is the “spec”

This is a NEAR proc that you call, so inside your code segment you do:

 Extrn        IsMsDos:near

This routine takes no arguments, it modifies flags and ONE BIT of the AX register:

    call      IsMsDos
    test      ax,2000h
    jnx       This_Is_MSD0S

NOTES:

Do not try and trace into this routine, you will die.

Try to obscure as much as possible!

The code that makes this call and the code which prints the message based en the result are ‘well separated’.

The bit that is set, and the bit that is looked at by the message guy are different bits.

The bit that controls the nessage is stored in a variable that is touched, read written, ALL OVER THE PLACE.

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1146 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 1 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 2 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 3 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 4 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 5 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 6 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 7 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 8 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 9 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 10 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 11 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 12 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 13 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 14 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 15 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 16 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 17 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 18 of 19]

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1146 Page 19 of 19]

if I installed HIMEM.SYS instead of 386MAX CS=037F was the only change this always happend after windows copied WIN386.PS2 I tryes this about 12 times I had NO autoexec.bat my config only had what STACKER needed

Please sign up and see if we can get on the first wave of final beta shipments.

Thanks
Andy

>From bradsi Mon Dec 16 08:28:38 1991
To: andyhi
Subject: please sign up

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 08:27:59 PST


Ken Ashbaugh
Network Systems and Services
[address]
[phone number] FAX [phone number]

as a beta tester, he’s running a panel at winworld on “msdos apps under win 3.0”. i’ve been telling him how much better win 3.1 is than win3, and I’m trying to get him to change the focus of the panel to more win3.1. but he said he was previously closed out of the beta, thanks.

###################################################### 224
>From davidcol Mon Dec 16 09:44:29 1991
To: davidw dennisad tiamcc winwar
Subject: Re: bug 8847
Cc: rickem
Date: Man Dec 16 09:43:11 1991

Sorry for the back seat driving here dennis, but has this been thought through very well. For example, 1 assume there’s some hack in the font mapper to map courier new 8pt on EGA to Courier 8pt bitmap. What happens if it’s not there?

What about other testing implications? What’s gonna break without that 8pt font that’s been there since June and been through all our testing?

let’s get together and chat about this stuff, I haven’t seen any email that makes me feel good about the thought we’ve put into this one way or the other.

###################################################### 225
>From georgem Mon Dec 16 09:45:13 1991
To: bradsi

if I installed HIMEM.SYS instead of 386MAX CS=037F was the only change this always happend after windows copied WIN386.PS2 I tryes this about 12 times I had NO autoexec.bat my config only had what STACKER needed

CIS has found and fixed the problem.

They will also be able to credit the accounts of people that got charged. They think they’ll be able to have this done by mid-week.

I’m still working on a solution so people can use CIM and TAPCIS to automate the download process.

Andy

###################################################### 229
Fron bradc Mon Dec 16 09:48:04 1991
To: lizsi martyta w-carrin w-clairl w-pamed
Cc: bradc bradsi
Subject: MS-DOS 5 On-going PR plan
Date: Mon Dec 16 09:48:01 PDT 1991

I just read this thank you for getting it to me – lots of good ideas but we are not there yet. I have the following comments:

Situation Analysis
In the DR DOS section i think you are close but do not have the right spin. The editorial comnunity perceives DR DOS 6 as having lots of momentum and as the underdog and they go out of their way to give dr the benefit of the doubt, this happens with even the best mags like pc mag. for example, pc mag two weeks ago mentioned in the comment part of their best seller list that dr was moving up -even though they had not even reached the top 15. this month they mention again that dr is number 14 when one might argue that the more interesting item with at ProGomm Plus moved up to #3! the implications is that we need to target the dr lovers as much as the ms-dos 5 lovers as you suggest later on

you also need to point out that most Of the press incorrectly perceives dr dos to be technically superior

note that though inertia is slowing down Upgrade sales it is still one of the top 5 best sellers in the industry and has been one or two almost every month since ship

Key Messages
I would phrase these differently 1) MS-DOS is the standard – Only MS-DOS is DOS
2 MS-DOS defines the compatibility standard – we care alot about compatibility and are religous about it b/c our users are
3) MS-DOS 5 is technically superior
4) We are driving the MS-DOS standard forward – portable computing initiative and later ms-dos 6

another message is that dr dos 6 is incompatible and buggy, as i said in an earliex mail i bet it ranks with 123 for windows and probably pc tools as the buggiest products to be released this year.

Objectives
Please do not say we are spreading DR DOS FUD. that implies that the data we provide people who ask, like the press is tmtcue – it isn’t. the top two pr objectives are to 1) Ensure the press gets the true story on our superiority and dr’s inferiority – we have the better product; 2) derail the dr dos train – as discussed in the situation analysis the press is generally very kind to dr and the press is helping to create momentum for the product even though it is lousy.

communicating our momentum is a good objective as is cammunicating our technical leadership and how we are moving the standard forward aggressively.

Tactics

use third parties
i like the idea alot but i’m not sure about implementation, building ms-dos 5 user/company profiles is good, who are those third parties you want to solicit? i need more details.

ibm could still go with dr so i want to hold the oem release for now. it is much more powerful if ibm announces anything with dr. it might be interesting to consider a release that indicates that the top x oems (100, 200?) are now shipping ms-dos 5 with their systems, but if our only coverage is page 108 of pc week (like the last release) then there is not enough value in releasing now.

influence coverage
aggressively following reviews is great, but is not enough – i have learned this mistake and will not make it again, we need to proactively provide information to key people in the press as an ongoing part of our business.

we need to track the people positive towards dr just as much as those who are negative, we have a legitmate goal to provide these people our side of the story.

the backgrounder on what people should look for when evaluating an os is a good idea but don’t you think it is too late for ms-dos/dr dos. who will read it now? you need one for windows

dr dos comparison doc if you mean feature comparison, NO! this misses the point, we do not want to get into a feature war or legitimize dr’s efforts to say the two products are equal with dr having more features, we need to take a step above and win the battle on compatibility, technical superiority and our vision.

ms-dos resource kit is done, see randym

share data with folks that shows we are better – good

editor buddy program – excellent how do educate the “buddies” on ms-dos?

leverage upcoming news – much more than ms-dos 5 ran or apm; as i have discussed this is the portable computing iniative – a commitment, a position of leadership.

ms-dos terminology reminder – how will we implement so that we don’t just legitimize dr? ya know when people say pc-compatible they really mean ms-dos compatible

i’ll let bradsi make the call on using gordon letwin more. i’m not sure.

leverage ms-dos marketing
i like on-going direct mail/postcards etc. ms-dos tech workshops are done for now. we need to discuss the upcoming marketing efforts and see where pr can help. whatever happen to the local columnists list?

we should sit down and discuss – pis set-up. i’m sure that you will have additional ideas with my revised objectives. what is the status of getting more resources on ms-dos?

###################################################### 230
>From stephl Mon Dec 16 09:48:35 1991
To: bradsi
Cc: nataliey
Subject: Yogen Dalai
Date: Mon, Dec 16, 1991 9:46 AM

Yogen will be checking into the Woodmark Hotel (in Kirkland) this evening. You can meet him there or leave him a message and be will ccme to you. Thanks,
Stephanie


###################################################### 231
>From greglo Mon Dec 16 09:53:41 1991
To: bradsi davidcol tomle
Cc: mackm
Subject: Re: Novell
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 09:52:50 PST

1. the purpose is to map Fail into a reasonable error code that will be correctly handled by windows apps

2. it would ship only with Win31 retail; no one could distribute separately (although we’ll probably make it available earlier to a few key accounts such as American Airlines)

3. testing will be done by our test group as well as Novell and a few corporate accounts such as American Airlines.

4. maintenance could potentially be done by our group (AaronR; he could do the initial work except that he is booked solid). I don’t know if MSDOS6 will make such changes as to require major changes (like lots of new functions) which could require some help from your group.

| >From tomle Sat Dec 14 10:58:32 1991
| To: bradsi davidcol greglo
| Cc: mackm
| Subject: Re: Novell
| Date: Sat, 14 Dec 91 10:58:03 PST
|
|
| I am still confused about the solution. How do we use this library.
| How will this be used to circumvent Novell’s panic on a return from
| retry,fail. Who uses the library. Is this something your sending in
| the SDK for use with Windows apps? Once we get past undestanding how this
| solution works then I need to know vho is going to test this library
| and who will support it in the future? Do I have to update it every time
| I rev the Dos?
|
| I am not against helping out here, this is a serious problem, I just
| want to understand what I am getting myself into.
|
| Tom
|
| | Here is a summary:
| |
| | This measure is to address the critical-error problem that American
| | Airlines is up in arms about. Today, users think they’ve hung their
| | machines when a server goes down. Novell wants us to crash individual
| | apps instead, but we can do better.
| | It would take about 3-4 days for one of the MS-DOS developers to take
| | the code out of the MS-DOS Kernel and build it into an independent
| | library routine. We could turn that into an installable driver which
| | would allow apps to continue after encountering such an error.
| |
| | We would then ship this driver with Win31: we need not give this code
| | to Novell/DR nor give them permission to redistribute it.
| |
| | FYI: Here are the gory technical details of the problem:
| |
| | A typical scenario would be where WinWord is saving a file out to a
| | NetWare server when the server goes down or the net cable gets
| | pulled, etc. You get a Window critical-error dialog giving you the
| | choices of Retry or Fail. Retry will always just give the same error
| | again, so you can’t escape that way. Fail will also bring up the
| | same error, but if you keep hitting it again and again long enough,
| | eventually you should get back to the application and be able to save
| | your work. Most of the time, however, the user will give up and
| | reboot before then. Also, end users won’t have any way of knowing
| | which seemingly endless chain will end and which will not.
| |
| | The problem is a result of two “design deficiencies”, one for Novell
| | and one for Windows. What NetWare is trying to do is have MS-DOS abort
| | the application: bango, no chance to save your work. That is what they
| | do for non-Windows apps. Windows won’t let them, because Kernel
| | can’t survive having MS-DOS terminate an app behind its back.
| |
| | NetWare generates an int24 (critical-error) with Retry and Abort being
| | the only available choices: it never expects that to return. Windows
| | won’t allow Abort, we offer the user Retry and Fail. When the user
| | chooses Fail we return to NetWare. They say “Whoa! Someone actually
| | returned, this is not kosher!” but they try to handle it as best they
| | can without, you know, really getting involved. They return an error
| | code of -1 to the original calling application. That sounds reasonable,
| | but it turns out that, since -1 is not a valid error return from most
| | MS-DOS functions, apps aren’t checking for it or handling it reasonably.
| | For apps like WinWord, they will just go on writing out more and more
| | file, generating more and more errors which they ignore. It can go on
| | a long time.
| |
| | Novell’s idea of the correct solution is for us to modify Kernel so that
| | they can Abort a Windows app. This would take two weeks of design and
| | coding before it could be testable, followed by goodness knows how much
| | debugging and fixing. These are potentially very destabilizing changes.
| | It is far too late to make these changes now.
| |
| | Our idea of the correct solution is for NetWare to handle these
| | critical errors the same way MS-DOS does: when the user chooses the
| | Fail option, MS-DOS figures out a reasonable error code to return to
| | the app, based upon the actual internal error and the MS-DOS function
| | being called by the application. This is very complicated mapping,
| | involving eight tables and lots of code in the MS-DOS kernel. It
| | would take Novell about three months to reverse engineer this and
| | implement it themselves.
| |
| | But again, it would only take about 3-4 days for one of the MS-DOS
| | developers to take the code out of the MS-DOS Kernel and build it
| | into an independent library routine. We could turn that into an
| | installable driver and ship it with Win31. We need not give this
| | code to Novell/DR nor give them permission to redistribute it.
|
|



###################################################### 232
Fran bradc Mon Dec 16 10:07:48 1991
To: bradsi
Subject: FW: Stacker Update
Date: Mon Dec 16 10:08:06 PDT 1991

any comments?

>From bradc Thu Dec 12 17:57:30 1991
To: bradsi mackm richf
Cc: bradc
Subject: Stacker Update

Date: Thu Dec 12 17:57:47 PDT 1991

User Message follows
Thank you for submitting your bug report to the Windows Beta Program.

Because of the large number of beta sites, and the complexity of the program itself, we will be unable to respond to each of your reports, though we review each one, and will be contacting you in the event that we need more information to narrow down the bug for our development staff.

If you experience critical problems, such as difficulty reading or writing to your hard drive, please notify us as soon as possible, so that we may respond immediately.

In your reports, please make sure to use the Systems EFORM template called “Windows 3.1 Bug Report” and include a copy of your AUTOEXEC.BAT, CONFIG.SYS, SYSTEM.INI, and WIN.INI (when necessary) files, in addition to the steps that must be followed to reproduce the problem.

Your participation in the Beta program is important to us, and we appreciate your efforts in helping us make Windows 3.1 an excellent product.

###################################################### 271
Fran lauraeu Mon Dec 16 11:48:02 1991
To: bradsi jonl sallyn
Subject: MSJ Jan Ed note
Cc: ericm joannes
Date: Mon Dec 16 14:47;21 1991

Please read and OK ASAP. It needs to go out tonight. Thanks.

Windows is stronger than ever. Near the end of 1991, the installed base of Windows had grown to 7.9 million copies. Windows is now the world’s most popular graphical computer environment, with about half (46 percent) of those users outside the United States. The forecast for 1992 is even brighter; sales of 9.2 million copies are predicted. Preinstalled or bundled copies of Windows are new standard with many brands of PCs, including AST, Dell, Everex, Grid and Zenith.

Windows not only sells extremely well, it gets high marks from purchasers. In a survey conducted by Field Research Corporation, randomly selected users gave Windows an average rating of 7.6 on a scale from 1 to 10. The survey also found that users like Windows better the longer they work with it. Users aren’t skimping on the hardware they use with Windows. 70 percent are running on at least a 386SX, and 80 percent work with a display of VGA resolution or better. More than three quarters of the users ran Windows on machines equipped with between 2MB and 4MB of RAM.

Microsoft is going to great lengths to ensure that Windows version 3.1 will enhance Windows acceptance still further. A beta test program with over 15,000 sites is underway to guarantee that 3.1 is very compatible with 3.0 vhile delivering significant new benefits.

The most important improvement of 3.1 is speed: faster printing, faster application startup, faster screen updates, faster disk I/O, and a faster MS-DOS box. Comparing Windows 3.1 beta 1.55 and OS/2 2.0 beta 6.167, testers at Microsoft found that Windows applications load twice as fast under 3.1 than do PM apps load under OS/2 2.0. Perhaps more importantly, they determined that Windows applications running native under Windows 3.1 loaded 30 to 50 percent faster and painted their displays 20 to 60 percent faster than they did running in OS/2 2.0’s “Windows box.” So much for cockamamie slogans like Ra better Windows than Windows.S

The retail release of Windows 3.1 is being augmented in a number of ways. It will support the Multimedia Windows API, and include MIDI and waveform drivers as well as several sound applets. The TrueType APIs will be improved to support font rotation. Drivers for printing high quality Truetype documents, along with a supplementary font library, will be bundled with the retail product. Robustness is also improved with 3.1. Systems developers in Redmond have declared war on UAEs caused by Windows and by misbehaving applications as well. A strongly typed WINDOWS.H, parameter validation for every function call to Windows, and improved error reporting all help in exorcising these demons from your code.

As developers ready their applications for Windows 3.1, their most important job is to test for compatibility. The next issue of MSJ will include a comprehensive checklist for ensuring that your application will run better than ever under Windows 3.1.

###################################################### 272
Frcm torahe Mon Dec 16 11:50:37 1991
To: bobt theresas
Cc: bradsi drg tomhe
Subject: Windows User Survey
Date: Mon Dec 16 11:47:26 pdt 1991

BradSi mentioned something about the Windows User Survey info we have possibly being available for distribution (maybe in summary form?), so Symantec is now excited and wants it ASAP. They also want the customer support tools SteveB mentioned in his speech (not sure what this is exactly).

Any help would be appreciated.

###################################################### 273
Fran andyhi Mon Dec 16 11:57:20 1991
To: marcw winwar
Cc: a-richh korys vlads
Subject: RE: Upgrading OEM display drivers bug
Date: Mon Dec 16 11:54:58 PDT 1991

I think that this is going to generate a lot of calls to the tech team. A good number of internal and external users have OEM displays.

But I haven’t heard many complaints yet, is this a fairly new bug? What happens if we upgrade over a prev. version of 3.1?

>From marcw Mon Dec 16 11:15:38 1991
To: winvrar
Cc: a-richh korys vlads
Subject: Upgrading OEM display drivers bug

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 11:08:49 PST

After upgrading an OEM display that uses the 3.0 internal VGA VDD (most OEM VGA displays do), the user will get an error whenever they try to run and non-windows application, telling them to run Setup again.

The problem is that whenever we upgrade an OEM device over 3.0 Windows, we do not do the correct translation. For displays, we do not change the WIN386 VDD from *VDDVGA to VDDVGA30.386. The change is very straightforward: if we are upgrading an OEM device, we always put the file installation through our existing translation code.

Work around: specify OTHER for display and use the OEM setup disks to specifically install the display.

I am sitting on the fence on this one. The change will ONLY AFFECT OEM DEVICE UPGRADES. Other upgrades or new installs are not affected, so this seems pretty safe. However, there is a simple work around and this change has not been thoroughly tested on all the various OEM device drivers (it affects not just OEM displays, but all OEM devices).

###################################################### 274
>From jeffpar Mon Dec 16 12:04:12 1991
To: bens mikem raype
Cc: bradsi macKm tomle
Subject: Re: cougar command.com
Date: Mon Dec 16 12:03:41 1991

Negative, it is not true.

| >From raype Mon Dec 16 09:05:03 1991
| To: bens jeffpar mikem
| Cc: bradsi mackm tomle
| Subject: Re: cougar command.oom

JonL had a meeting a month or so ago on the “new world” we face with OEMs. One idea which came out of that meeting is the idea of having a benchmark suite which we called “Winstones”. There hasn’t been a lot of general discussion since then, so I thought I would send some ideas on the topic, both to people in the original meeting and to others that may be effected.

I think that Winstones are an INCREDIBLY important marketing move for us, which can benefit just about every aspect of our systems strategy.

The basic idea is simple:

– Create a benchmark suite analagous to SPECmarks, but specialized to Windows based systems (both Win 32 and Win 16, and on x86 and MIPS).

– The suite will include measurments of a set of different activities – screen graphics, printing, text, disk I/O, CPU etc.

– We would create the suite, get it out to magazines and others, and generally publicize the hell out of it.

The general motivation to do this is to provide a focal point for activity to improve the hardware that Windows runs on (accelerator boards, , and at the same time give a firm quantitative basis for many of our present challenges – improving value for our customers, selling Windows vs OS/2a selling Windows NT, promoting Jumbo, promoting TrueType, showing the value of Win32, showing the value of scalability, demonstrating the value of MIPS… There are a LOT of potential benefits.

Note that this is a MARKETING activity. There are a number of technical aspects, but this is first and formost a technical marketing activity.

The Winstone suite would contain a number of different test suites. This is not a small joke benchmark like Dhrystone – it is more like SPEC, but probably even bigger.

There are several requirements placed on Winstones by marketing factors:

– There must be between 5 and 15 different tests. This way you can make a nice graph of system performance.

– We want to have one focussed test in each area that is going to be important for somebody to improve. As an example, if we want to encourage graphics accelerators, then there must be a separate graphics test.

– There should be an overall number – the “WINmark” which is a harmonic or geometric average of the separate tests. We should also define the particular subsets – “Graphics WINmark”, “I/O WINmark” etc.

– We must be able to give the source code of the test away. This is probably not “public domain” in a strict sense (see below) but close to it.

– We want some of the tests to measure the entire machine configuration specific. As an example, some tests will run faster if you have more RAM, so that you can do more cacheing. Although that may not seem fair, it actually is JUST what we want. This is discussed more below. – The tests must be able to run automatically and then return an answer without human intervention.

There would be two categories – system level benchmarks and application level benchmarks. The system benchmarks would primarily exercise Windows and the underlying hardware. The application benchmarks would measure what kind of performance people oould expect in their apps. Note that SPECmarks are purely an application benchmark in this terminology.

The system benchmarks would be created largely by using the “artificial app” technology that has been in use in the NT group. Basically this lets you run a real app, trap all of its calls and arguments, and then be able to replay them in a script. This is a terrific way to get “real” tests easily. We can append the scripts from several different runs of an app or different apps to make a single test for each sub category.

Here is a sample list of the system benchmarks:

• Screen graphics & Text
  • Fonts and rich text
  • General GUI
  • Presentation
  • Draw programs
  • Paint programs
  • CAD programs
• Printing
  • Rich Text
  • Graphics
  • Bitmaps
• Disk I/O
  • General file read/write
  • Database access
  • Multitasking disk access
• Virtual memory
  • Memory allocation/freeing
  • Large memory access
• Multitasking
  • Running many of these tests in parallel
  • Background communications at 9600 baud
• Multiprocessor/thread test
  • CPU bound process with threads suitable for MP
  • CPU and I/O ” ” ” ” ” ” ”
• Messaging
  • Windows message passing
  • OLE performance???
• Multimedia
  • CD ROM input speed ?
  • Animation test?
  • Sound card performance?

In most cases the “artificial app* will give us a very good benchmark pretty easily. To give an example in more detail, here is one way to break down screen graphics and text.

Screen graphics & Text

• Rich text & fonts – combined script from:
  • Word for Windows
  • WordPerfect far Windows
  • Aldus Pagemaker
• General GUI – combined script of dialog/menus from many Window apps
• Draw programs – combined script from
  • Corel Draw
  • Micxografix
  • Aldus Freehand
• Presentation – combined script from
  • PowerPoint
  • Persuasion
  • Freelance
• CAD programs – combined script from
  • AutoCAD
  • AutoSHADE
  • Alias Upfront
  • other’ windows CAD program
• Paint programs – combined script from
  • Aldus PhotoStyler
  • other serious 24 bit paint program

There are thus 6 separate tests done within the screen graphics & test section. Each one should have a running time of between 2-5 minutes so we can get good accuracy, and so that we are future proofing ourselves for a factor of 4X or so speed improvement in the next several years.

Note that we would want to use both ISV apps AND Microsoft apps. I do NOT think that we need to spend a lot of time or effort actually creating the benchmarks “with” the ISVs in a serious way. We don’t want this bogged down with politics, and there is no reason to do so. We probably should get permission from them and should sanity check the data file that we use. If this is done properly the ISVs should love this.

Some of the tests would need to be created by hand, or substantial modifications must be done to the recorded scripts. In the case of virtual memory performance we would want to allocate a ton of memory (say 16 meg) and then touch it to test paging performance. This may be better done with a synthetic program than a recorded script. The multitasking test and Windows messaging tests are other examples which may have to be written largely by hand.

This is almost certainly true of the multiprocessor/threading test. This will have to be some quasi-real example of a parallel algorithm with good scalability out to at least 16 processors. It must be able to run on a uniprocessor. There are many examples we colud use for this.

The goal is that almost all tests must run on Win 3.1 and on Windows NT (in BOTH x86 and MIPS) and on Win32s. This will not be true of a couple of the tests, but in general it must be the case.

Note that we will have to review each of the benchmarks to make sure that it says something reasonable. The existing state of benchmarks in the PC industry is so poor that nearly anything we do will be better than what exists today. Nevertheless we should try to do as good a job as we can.

The application benchmarks are similar in spirit to the SPEC benchmarks, or the larger set of programs which MIPS uses for their benchmarks. The goal is to get sane real programs which truly exercise the cache, memory system, CPU etc.

The ideal thing would be code samples from real products. The obvious problem with this is that we really need to distribute source code to the tests. Another idea would be to use the SPEC set. Unfortunately the SPEC benchmarks run on UNIX systems, and they have a number of problems. SPEC is the best set of benchmarks available, but even so there are a couple of bad programs (particularly matrix3OO) and the set is too oriented toward FORTRAN and numerical stuff.

The best solution from a practical standpoint is to get some public domain code (which may need to be ported to our OS) to create the benchmark. There should be a set of 5-10 different integer programs and again as many floating point programs. We should make sure that the programs are quite different in their composition. There is a place called the Austin Code Works which sells tons of PD software, and that is a good place to look first.
————————————
The goal in creating the benchmark suite is to provide a cannon standard of reference for the Windows computing community to use. The idea of doing benchmarks in each of these areas is not exactly new – PC magazine and other reviewers regularly run ad hoc benchmarks. The problem is that these are of uneven quality, and no single one of them has enough of a following that people use it as a common reference point.

The “brand identity” of the benchmark is just as important as its contents for this particular purpose. We want people to have a universal metric which can be used in advertising, product reviews etc. We want to get this to be a very common way to describe a system. The SPECmark rating has become a very sucessful effort in the UNIX workstation world because it is famous enough for everybody to quote. We want a similar phenonema to occur in the Windows world. The concept of how many “Winstones per dollar” and other direct comparisons will directly follow.

Microsoft should be the direct sponser of Winstones, and we should support that with an active promotional campaign. It may also help to have some publications champion them in their reviews, but we would like this to be “neutral” enough that they become quoted in ALL major reviews, and not just in those of a single magazine. We probably want to announce the benchmark with one or a couple of magazines, but then have them spread to other areas as well.

————————————-
There are many uses of Winstones in our marketing strategy, each of which may have a special implication for our system strategy. In general, winstones can be used in the following ways:

Supporting our product line strategy
We will have a number of different Windows implemenations – Win 3.1, Win32s on Win 3.1, Win NT on x86, Win NT on MIPS. Which one should people buy? Winstones should help explain this. The reason is that many of the tests are designed to test advanced features of wirxiaws, and to scale with the available memory on the machine.

We would like to be able to make a chart like the following.

System             | Win 3.1/16     Win32s   Win NT
---------------------------------------------------
386SX/20, 2 meg    |
386DX/33, 4 meg    |
486/25, 8 meg      |
486/33, 16 meg     |
R4000, 8 meg       |
...

Ideally speaking, this would allow us to directly DERIVE our system strategy from “objective” empirical results. Of course, I would not leave this to chance – we would adjust the benchmarks to make sure this is the case. This should not really require any cheating – the fundamental truth is that if we have reasonable benchmarks, we should be able to demonstrate precisely this effect. Win NT might be slower at graphics than Win 3.1 on a small display because the Win 3.1 code will be tuned assembler, but NT should make better use of large memory (8 meg and above), multitasking and it can do some of the advanced tests (multithreading etc). Win32s will be slower that Win 3.1/16 on the system benchmarks because of the overhead of the thunk layer, but it should show an improvement in the application benchmarks which will exercise large memory in 32 bit mode.

Note that one powerful reason for us to take a leadership position in creating the Winstone benchmarks is that we want to have a BALANCED and COMPLETE set of benchmarks out there otherwise the opposite will happen – people will TRASH our systems strategy. If you just measure a single niche, such as graphics performance, then you could possibly find that our higher end systems do not do as well. The default way that people approach benchmarking is rather naieve and this will HURT us. If this occurs, then we will be fighting a rearguard action in a defensive posture. Coming out FIRST with a benchmark which does support our systems strategy avoids all of this.

Note also that this issue becomes critical to the MIPS platform. Its primary reason for existence is performance, and the Winstone figures for it will be essential for making a case for MIPS. The central marketing message for the companies producing MIPS based Windows machines is that they can deliver more absolute Winstones than any other platform, and hopefully more Winstones per dollar too.

Selling against OS/2
The claim that they will be a “better Windows than Windows” is put directly to the test by comparing the Winstone rating for a given machine configuration. I believe that this can be a very powerful tool for embarrasing them. This can occur in two ways.

First, many of the scripts would be fully Win 3.1 exploitive. It is entirely possible that the suite will not run under OS/2.0. Even if they support the correct feature set, the tests which allocate large amounts of memory will not operate in real mode, and will be at a strong disadvantage in standard mode, so any attempt to run Windows in a restricted mode will be exposed.

Second, even if they can run the scripts, it will be hard to look good. General performance problems will crop up in many ways. Having OS/2 in memory will consume several megabytes, even if there are no other problems.

Windows accelerators
Dozens of companies are creating add on graphics boards to accelerate Windows. They have little technical guidance, and little way of comparing their efforts. Winstones are ideal because manufacturers can directly advertise how their boards effect the “Graphics WINmark”, “Disk I/O WINmark” etc. The existence of a standard metric for this will will help to focus their activities. Competition will increase, and end users will have a better way to judge what they’re getting. To date, most of the “accelerator” performance story has centered on display cards, but we also would like to encourage low cost RAID disks, better system caches, better printing solutions and a variety of other hardware improvements.

PC price/performance
The emphasis on “Winstones per dollar” highlights the price performance aspects of a system, and it is an excellent way to demonstrate the value delivered to the customer. This does not directly help Microsoft, but it does help get the Windows computing world focussed on deliering the maximum bang for the buck to our customers, so it is useful in that context.

Selling Jumbo
The printing benchmark focusses attention on the best Windows printing solution. This is an excellent opporunity to highlight Jumbo and the advantages it brings.

Selling TrueType
The font and text benchmarks are a good opportunity to highlight the benefits that TrueType brings to Windows customers. Alternative approaches would look pretty silly if the decrease the over all Winstone rating of a system.

Taking the technical high ground
Finally, this is an opportunity for Microsoft to take a strong leadership position in nurturing the community of suppliers to the world of Windows computing. Establishing a standard benchmark of this sort is a good move – it helps both customers and IHVs develop better products.

———————————————————-
My take on this is that it is a very important opportunity which we should captialize on ASAP. Comments are welcolm.

Nathan

###################################################### 286
>From georgem Mon Dec 16 12:51:55 1991
To: bradsi
Subject: Re: bullet
Cc: dennisad, elik

I talked to Chuck Bigelow about this so that I could get the story from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

His answer was that bullets really aren’t standardized by various typographers, and so it is really left up to the “random tastes of the artist”. They had always hated the large bullets that seem to go with every other font on the planet. He said it seemed to them that those bullets were almost too big and that they seemed to jump out of the page when you were trying to read it, thereby distracting you. They brought too much attention to themselves, in other words.

Since Lucida Bright and Sans were designed as text faces to be used in books, they wanted a more discreet looking bullet that would blend in better. Since they already had a zillion bullets in the Lucida Stars font, and they knew you could always use one of them if you were unhappy, they did the smaller bullet.

For presentations and such, it would probably be better to use something from Lucida Stars. If you were writing a book, on the other hand, he likes the smaller bullets since they aren’t as garish.


###################################################### 287
Fran greglo Mon Dec 16 12:54:00 1991
To: bradsi davidcol tomle
Cc: mackm
Subject: Re: Novell
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 12:52:58 PST

It is an installable driver which is loaded at boot time by the a system.ini entry. It hooks Kernel’s MS-DOS function handler and critical error and munges the registers on the critical error based on the current dos call. (It could also be a simple DLL loaded by load= rather them an installable driver; doesn’t really matter.)

As for Mack’s suggestion I don’t think it is reasonable for us to provide the workaround and not make it available to customers. If we relegate it to a PSS fix we’d still be sending it out: it’s just that more users will crash and not report it and not realize that a solution exists. It would make no sense to make Novell reimplement it-over again, either. The testing is an additional burden but we are already required to do fairly massive post-beta3 distribution of

RussW is in Zurich and will not be available to attend…

>From lorisi Mon Dec 16 14:36:58 1991
To: wingguad
Cc: debbieh
Subject: Windows Focus Squad Meeting Reminder

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 14:34:45 PST

Next meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, 12/17 at 8:30 am in 2/2103.



###################################################### 346
>From joachimk Mon Dec 16 15:43:46 1991
To: billg bradsi steveb
Subject: EMI
Date: Mon Dec 16 16:20:06 PDT 1991

Mike signed a 20 M$ commit license today for all their 386 sx and higher end systems/per pocessor for WIN and DOS. This was a tough one against DRI. THey will continue to ship DRI on 286 and 8086 systems honoring an old license agreement. DR was at $3-4 with DOS, ve are getting more than $35 for WIN and DOS. The slim pack DOS helped to close the deal.

###################################################### 347
>From debbieh Mon Dec 16 15:53:16 1991
To: jnetter lorisi winsquad
Subject: RE: Windows Focus Squad Meeting Reminder
Date-. Mon Dec 16 17:48:47 PDT 1991

steveb will not be attending as well but the meeting should still take place ….. thanks

###################################################### 348
Fran carls Mon Dec 16 16:00:05 1991
To: billg bradsi paulma tcmle
Subject: ULSI
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 15:58:22 PST

fyi…

| >From [email protected] Mon Dec 16 15:27:25 1991
| Return-Path: <mipos3 [email protected]=””>
| Received: by mipos3 (5.57/10.0i); Mon, 16 Dec 91 13:53:32 PST
| Received: by intelhf .hf.intel.oom (A=~A Smail3.1.17.5 #17.19); Mon, 16 Dec 91 13:50 PST
| Received: by oatt.hf.intel.com (ccmgate) Mon, 16 Dec 91 13:50:10 PST
| Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 13:50:10 PST
| >From: Mike Bruck <mipos3 !mike=”” [email protected]=””>
| Message-Id: <[email protected]>
| To: Robert_Sullivan[S]_at_ccssw [email protected], [email protected],
| mipos3!intelca!microsoft!carls
| Subject: ULSI
| TO: ESM, PR CONTACTS
| THE FOLLOWING RELEASE WAS ISSUED OVER BUSINESS WIRE AT
| 12:00 NOON (PACIFIC STANDARD TIME.).
| Contact: Pam Pollace Intel Corp.
| (XXX) XXX-XXXX
| OREGON JUDGE GRANTS INTEL’S REQUEST
| FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ON KEY MATH COPROCESSOR PATENT
| Key Licensing Issue Also Decided in Intel’s Favor
| SANTA CLARA, Calif., December 16, 1991 – Intel Corp. said it has

yup, was there when they signed today, sergio helped vith this a bit too. big win | From joachimk Mon Dec 16 15:43:46 1991
| To: billg bradsi steveb
| Subject: EMI
| Date: Mon Dec 16 16:20:06 PDT 1991
|
| Mike signed a 20 M$ commit license today for all their 386 sx and higher end
| systems/per pocessor for WIN and DOS. This was a tough one against DRI. THey
| will continue to ship DRI on 286 and 8086 systems honoring an old license
| agreement. DR was at $3-4 with DOS, ve are getting more than $35 for WIN and
| DOS. The slim pack DOS helped to close the deal.


###################################################### 366
Frcm gaben Mon Dec 16 16:55:03 1991
To: davidcol
Cc: a-kelm davidtry noladr richsa stevesh valorieo vinwar
Subject: Re: WPG Dropping the ball on the PCT
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 16:53:44 PST

Ok. We’re just going to keep working with DavidTry on the PCT testing (see his mail below on Valorie’s buglist) . If there is anything else we need to do, let me know.

Thanks. | >From davidool Mon Dec 16 16:12:28 1991
| To: gaben
| Subject: Re: WPG Dropping the ball on the PCT
| Cc: a-kelm davidtry Doladr richsa stevesh valorieo winwar
| Date: Mon Dec 16 16:10:59 1991
|
| Clearly something is screwed up, Windows folks
| don’t usually flame other groups like this
| without good reason. However, we are deep in the middle
| of getting our final beta out and thus won’t be able to
| resolve until after. Fran richsa’s original mail, it
| looks like ve can deal with the gap for final beta.
|

| >From davidtxy Mon Dec 16 14:29:42 1991
| To: valorieo | Cc: a-kelm gaben noladr richsa
| Subject: Results of Valorie’s testing
| Date: Mon Dec 16 14:29:16 PDT 1991
|
| Here’s the most recent info I’ve received fran Valorie. This
| is exactly the sort of data I was looking for. My comments are
| prefaced with “>>>”

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1243 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 1 of 16

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 2 of 16]

Comments on revenue: Europe OEM: Over a million dollars in pure miscellaneous revenue throughout the subs on a budget of $0 for the first month will give us a nice boost for the quarter. I expect to finish close to $1M over budget for the quarter as we do some catch up billings as well as invoice several due-on-signings for license renewals. US OEM: Breman Team Ravenue for January was $2.7 million against a plan of S2.6 million 104% of plan. This indudes all the new accounts now assigned to Peter’s group. Tandon came In at $1.9 million against-a plan of $1 millon which more than offset the $700,00 in lost revenue, bacause of tha Tandon/Positive merger. Compaq had a decent quarter in FYQ2 shipping ovar 2S0K units, and we should be at or near plan for February revenue. Chestnut Team Revenue for January was $4.3 million vs. plan of $4.3 million. NCR had a surprisingty strong second quarter, and also reported some previously unreportad net revenues, which resulted in $1.9 million in January revenues. The revenue outlook for Q3 is looking much bettar – $11.4 million vs. budgat of $10.S million. The addition of Logitech to the group is a major reason for this as they are expected to finish $1 million over budget in 03. AST shipped a record 120K systems in O2 and is also expected to finish well above budget for Q3.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 3 of 16]

General Issues

AB ICL willl start working with Novell. The market demand for Novell is there, and with the general reorientation from a pure technical company to a more market oriented, ICL appears to have taken a decision to complement LAN Managar with Novell. ICL is very upset bacause we did not carry out what was promised at the LM Open Council in September regarding one upgrade price to 2.1. Instead they have at least 5 different RR depending on the customer situation. This in contrast to Retail side. This is really a general problem that the Retail offering and OEM offering generally don’t overlap on work group products, creating situations of discrimination against tha OEM.
IBM is very active selling OS/2 2.0. Victor remains cool, but ICL is leaning over to IBM. Tha major issue is that Micrsoft is not really interested in supporting OS/2 (as Steve Ballmer made very clear). GmbH The situation with Schneider is still unclear. We proposed a solution where Schneider has to write off half of their $3.4m PPB. Schneider may step out totaly of the PC-business. For IPC we couldn’t find a solution up to now. because they felt blackmailed by our proposal, to terminate the contract within the new agreement. ObS is threatening us by several proposals from their side were they want to deduct a high amount from their invoices because of losses the mada caused by not getting the delivery partner contract. Escom and Peacock started a negotiation with us to combine their purchasing. They even told us that it is possible that both companies merge. Robotron Ascots and Robotron Soemtron are liquidated. Open Invoices win be paid.
LTD News that we are cutting a deal with Phoenix to allow them to sell ROM DOS with their BIOS and motherboard design is BAD ! We’ve been working hard in the UK to establish a ROM DOS ‘distribution’ channel. Contracts will be signed in early Feb. The development of this opportunity is a delicate one that has already taken up a lot of our time and effort. The distributor needs a dear run at tha market – the Phoenix deal will provide totally unnecessary competition. Apricot have asked to re-negotiate their agreement. They’re over committed by at least 50%. Wa’ve tentatively agreed to reduce their second year’s min. commit to $1.3M from S2.2M in return for adding a third year to the agreement.
The FG DOS business is an area for growing concern. In December we sent out 26 licenses and only saw 7 of these returned. In January we sent out 38 new agreements and only saw four of these returned !!!! In addition five of December’s agreements appeared in January bringing our total for the two months to less than 30%. It’s becoming s critical issue as we need to look for new business to replace existing pack DOS OEMs as we sign the top guys up to royalty. We desperately need two FG-DOS account managers.
We are also suffering from an explosion of pirate DOS. Products bearing the Minta and AcBEL labels are foremost but at the and of Jan. we saw tha worst yet, with our US EZ DOS appearing on the open market st less than £25 per copy. Our strategy is ideally to put this to bed at source (typically these ‘pirate’ products are rogue products produced under valid MS agreements but shipped without Hardware). If we can’t do this then we have been attempting to get to the UK distributor and simply sell him our genuine package product at price list. As I write we have received an order for 1,000 units from one of these “distributors” in Stonehaven, Scotland.
SPA the “old” OEMs are twisting our arms to lower their numbers to match those of new deals. Trying to reach good tradeoffs, and not to make enemies out of old friends. Andreab is pushing CDC to cover all their systems, eliminating the risk of a DR revamping.

Compaq marketing group continues to grapple with tactical issues on Windows opportunity. Compaq concerned with number of corporate agreements MS has closed for Windows business. IBU division closed to further discussion of EBU and Mouse products. Compaq requests per-system pricing for DOS license.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 4 of 16] [STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED]MS7035052 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164634 CONFIDENTIAL

Ungermann-Bass: UB is concerned about our presenting a clear strategy for LM to the marketplace as we approach NT implementation and move away from OS/2. This strategy needs to be put into a format that the UB sales force can sell into their large accounts. We continue to release deals to the retail channel without considering tha OEM channel. UB would like to be able to compete on a level ground with the resellers (i.e., if we give the channel a free or reduced royalty for upgrades we should offer the same deal to our OEM’s).
Positive wants to bundle applications on their hard drives. This would enable the user to evaluate the applications on their own system in their own home for a fixed number of use . They would than have to call Positive with their credit card number to purchasa the key code which would unlock the applications so that they could run. Mike Maples does not buy into this. Phillips: We are attempting to license the rights to PhotoCD from Philips to be usad on all Windows based Products.
ZDS – has informed us that our best price for Ballpoint is over $11 higher than Trackman. ZDS is very likely to choose Trackman ovar Ballpoint.
ZDS – informs us that Spinnaker is offering lower pricing, free documantation and no foreign uplift. We are uncompative from a price standpoint.
AST – AST’s Tammy Watanaba is recommending IBM’s JDOS and even DR’s JDOS ovar MS’s product due mostly to MS Japan’s expressed attituda towards AST. AST is angry bacause thay believe MS Japan is continuously quoting misleading delivery dates and AST is watching MS Japan ‘court Compaq’ while MS Japan basicaly ignored AST’s afforts to enter the Japan market.

General News

AB Tandy will open a superstore in Copenhagen, selling Victor, IBM, and Compaq. It is the familiar Computer City concept from the US. Observe that it is Tandy that is opening, not Victor Preparations are in full swing. Victor will continue operations as before. Both Computar City and Victor will source from Victor’s newly opened factory in Scotland. It is expected that certain changes in the management structure will occur, but this is not confirmed publicly. BV At a seminar organised by Intel IBM was giving a presentation on OS/2 2.0. Tha product looked very stable. Thay used tha latest build, and the presenters were very confidant that IBM was going to make the target date of end march. At the presentation they positionad OS/2 as the DOS task switcher. Windows compatibility was shown. IBM states that thay have full DDE between OS/2 apps and Windows apps that was not shown. The system performence (a P75) was very acceptable in DOS, Windows and OS/2. At the demo they explicitly showed also DR-DOS in ths OS/2 DOS box. The story was that users are using Windows mainly as task switchar and OS/2 can do this much better. On top of this you get full Windows and OS/2 that is indispensible for IBM mainframe communication. The Apple/IBM deal will not generate products within five years(!) And in the mean time OS/2 is the best solution.
GmbH started a Win3.1 program together with 52 OEM’s for CeBit. Almost all of them agreed to show Windows 3.1 on their machines at CeBit. The program is very well accepted. We started to work, on this together with tha local systems business unit. All OEM’s were informed about our plans for the Windows 3.1 launch and all OEMs answered a questionnaire about thair plans for Windows 3.1.
SPA Good MYR, no change to OEM dept Retail (in lira) at 69% MTD, 86% YTD. SW market worsened in January. Clone market healthy. Super deal closed with Microsys, see Other OEMs section.
SRL 2 finalists for the LA Rep position are ready for final interview with you. Other highlights of the month were the MYR and Systems Strategy Briefing to 3 OEMs and 3 LAs.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 5 of 16]

Account News

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 6 of 16]

Area Summaries

January was the strongest month for PackDOS in the history of MSAB. The figures speak for themselves. In reality January was a super month because of shipment problems in December. This has triggered several PackDOS accounts to consider licensing.
BV The pessimistic outlook we had for this month did not come through. Despite the fact that Sydec signed a licensed agreement they still placed an order for FG M5-DOS. So this month BV is on 180% of budget. The Belgium sale continues below budget. However the application sales in Belgium is at record levels. Clearly this indicates that the dedicated FG-DOS sales person is
urgently required.
GmbH Revenues are far over budget. With $5.9M we are at 153% of budget. The forecast for January was 41,800 units of package MS-DOS Incl. DOS/Windows combo packages. Actually we achieved 44,100 units which is 155% of our budget with 28.400 units. According our February forecast we expect to ship in total 29,000 units. Mice business went well. too. We delivered 9.000 units as forecasted. D+S raised their forecast for the rest of the FY’92 to 12,000 units each month.
LTD ANOTHER RECORD MONTH !!!!! Tht subsidiary beat $10M for the first time ever and our FG DOS sales contributed by beating the 16,000 barrier for the first time. We almost doubled our revised budget of 8,500 units. This is even better news when you take into account the ‘loss’ of Ti’Ko to a royalty contract. They were ordering at least 1,000 units per month previously. Our windows penetration has continued above the 50% mark for the third month in a row. However, this is slightly worrying as we try to move these customers to full royalty licenses due to the high cost of producing DOS and Windows manuals. Dearly EZ DOS isn’t enough without EZ Windows. Meantime we’ve persuaded Phoenix to do OEM manuals at under $35 which will help but it isn’t perfect. This combo needs to cost the OEM less than $20 to be effective. The news that we will be bring the EZ packages to Europe was very encouraging but I have serious reservations regarding Ireland’s ability to deliver small quantities in good time to multiple delivery points. We should do a local deal for the UK/Europe. I will be investigating the possibility of using Amstrads printer who are based in England and provide VERY competitive pricing for Amstrad. The outlook for Pack DOS sales is extremely positive. Feb. looks quieter than January but we’ll still easily exceed our revised budget Of 11,000 units. Msrch, which is year end for the majority of UK companies, looks like being a MASSIVE month.
SPA Sales of PackDOS keep great. at 194% YTD. In units, 21.726, we have beaten this FY budget. Revised budget is 31,000. Doing more active prospecting, and planned a new edition of the packDOS ad we did in November.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 7 of 16]

SRL Pack DOS sales were 76% vs. MTD budget (98% vs. YTO budget). CSEI and Comelta were the first customers converted to royalty business and several others like ADL (5K units) and Sieesa (10K units) may go straight to royalty business next month. Expectation is we will be way over royalty business budget ($8OOK vs. $150K budgeted] and somewhat short on Pack DOS budget (35K vs. 40K units).

Market Trends

MS AB (Bengt Akerlind)
Interest for Win 3.1 is gearing up. It is common knowledge when it will be released. We will ride this wave and convert as many PackDOS accounts as possible from “naked MS-DOS” over to MS- ODS/Win. Rumor has it that IBM will launch OS/2 2.0 on March 25. a few days after our local Win3.1 introduction.
MS GMBH (Jurgen Huels) MurtiMedia is taking off in Germany. Escom and Vobis are advertising MM machines on their front pages of the *Extrablatt” and “Denkzeell”,
We see a high demand for hard disks which is currently not satisfied by any hard disk vendor. This is especially slowing down the notebook business.
MS LTD (Sandy Duncan)
Prices of new machines is getting sillier and sillier. Latest record broker of note is from Opus. 386SX/20. 40MB HD. 1MB memory, color monitor. VGA and DR-DOS at a list price of £599. Viglen and Elonex have pledged to follow! This compares with the PC World (superstore) price of £1,599 for a similarly configured Dell machine and £999 for an Amstrsd with the same spec. Lotus have appointed a full-time “Director of Copyright Protection” to defeat piracy. Lotus believe that 50% of all software in US is illegally copied.
IBM UK announced that they lost £124M in FY ’91. This compares with a profit of £420M in FY ’90. Total UK employees is down by 2,639 to 14,909 and turnover declined by 14%. Total UK IT market in 1991 was estimeted at £27 Billion, up 5.1% on 1990. Projections for 1992 predict similar growth to £28.5 Billion. Largest sector is Finance, followed by manufacturing. Construction was the smallest sector with Telecom showing fastest growth.
Novell is reported to be signing Merisel-Softsel as a disty on a pan-European basis. Could be the start of a significant trend?
The only superstore in the UK “PC World* hasn’t had a lot of press recently but they are reported to be running a ‘mass demo’ of OS/2 2.0 on Feb. 15. They either believe that there’s a significant home/hobbyist market for OS/2 or that corporates make purchasing decisions on Saturdays ! – Very strange.
February looks like being s VERY busy month. Highlight will be the Windows Show in London. OEM people are heavily involved with a total of 12 man days. We’ve helped create a separate technology stand with OEMs including Victor, Zenith , Compaq. NCR and Apricot showcasing their various windows based technologies including NT. 3.1, Pen and MultiMedia.

Key Account Summaries

European OEMs

Actebis Computer GmbH
Oh January 16th, we had a meeting and with Harr Urban and Herr Puhrsch to discuss the final details for an amendment to their contract. Agreed upon was a two year amendment to their contract for 1OOK units of MS-DOS per system at $16.00 with Shell (and this would be for the German version and the $2.00 uplift for all other versions), and $25.00 for 50K Windows (also for German version). We are also working with them on getting approval for their packaging of MS- DOS and Windows.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 8 of 16]

Amstrad (Richard Barrie)
Amstrad have been reasonably quiet after thrreatening to erupt last month ! Major incident took place in the Amstrad car park. Richard Barrie was last seen travelling out of Brentwood on the M2S at 150mph after bashing Sugar’s Rolls Royece in the Amstrad car park. Apparently left his name, address and Digital Research’s phone number on the windscreen.

Apricot (Dale Borland)
Dale and I met with Mike Jordan , who is rssponsible for the contract. Put simply – they’re massively over-committed. From April their min. commits go up to 650K per quarter and they’re currantly only fortcasting half of this. We have agreed tentatively with them to extend the contract by one more year at a commit of £1.3M rather than one year at £2.2M. Currentiy we’re waiting for Apricot to confirm this is OK. Meantime Peter Horne will be meeting with Paul Maritz and Pam Goldschroldt when he visits Redmond on Feb. 18. Dale will attend. Horne has some notion that Multi Processing is fundammentally flawed – hopefully Paul can convince him otherwise.

Brother
They have started talking about putting DOS in their typewriters. This is the pot of gold that we’ve always been looking out for ! – they build 10.000 tvpewriters every week 111 – We have a LONG way to go but this could be very lucrative business for us.

ESCOM (Michael John)
The meetings with our marketing BU’S have been successfully finished. ESCOM will advertise Works for Windows stand alone on one page of his April magazine issue. They still want Microsoft to take over a part of the advertisement cstn for that issue. but we won’t.
ESCOM finally agreed on the application deal. They will hard bundle Excel 3.0 and Word for Windows 2.0. They get a discount of 60% and DM 150.000.00 for advertisement which they will use for their magazine issue. ESCOM will preinstall all application demo’s and test software from Microsoft on every PC.

G2 (Hans Ranselaar)
We finally agreed on the new amendment for G2. Peter Breedijk will sign it on short notice. This amendment will be effective Oct.. 1 .1992 and will include Works for Windows. Where is the Dutch version of Work for Windows anyway? Susan Boeschen told G2 that they could expect this early December 1931.

ICL/Nokia LTD (Lars Ahlgren/Dale Borland)
ICL came in with a very strong Q4 report. The Nordic figures showed over 27,000 units shipped, and from the UK we hear that they shipped over 20.000. This indicates that ICL is getting close to a 50,000 units quarter. License negotioation is closed. We sidestepped Norokorpi and went straight to Mills who gave a verbal OK on (DOS + Windows) $32 PP/PI/3Yrs + $3 for localization. This was a good win for us.

Microsys
Excellent deal closed with Microsys, in a rush to cut off DR from negotiations. A nice royalty for DOS, and a commitment of $720/year, and most of all a bad wound for DR. This gives us almost free way to try and attack Olidata. the last big customer of DR in Italy.

Olivetti (Maurizio Bedinal)
General. Olivetti slowly starting up back again, people is still quite de motivated, in spite of a very good quarterly shipments result: 221.000 systems. Too bad, this only means they pushed a lot down in the channel in December, that implies, Q3 will be bad. IBM approached Olivetti with an offer similar to Bull’s, which Olivetti politely turned down.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 9 of 16]

LM2. The news they got re our mktg. plans for LM CTP ara no big deals, and -worse- we know there is practically no plans. Trying to push Mktg. to endorse this program & push it. if this won’t happen. CTP will be a flop and LM will be even more at risk in Olivetti. They are seriously talking to Novell.

Comms server for NT. Lots of activity in this araa (this is one of the hot banking topics, together with NT). They met us, then DCL, conf called us again, and will meet DCL again. Basically we are trying to sell them the 1.1 for OS/2 as a product now, and its evolution to NT as a perspective Quoted std royalty rates (ind. commitments) and $100k for the source down from $2SOk (as thay will do significant enhancaments that in turn they’ll license to us for free). We may be able to close this deal, prob. at 50% now. Bad news is Dondolini accepted a job for Olivetti Italy and will be gone in one month.

MultiMedia. Olivetti is whining for tha $15 royalty with no commit, which they consider high, and still messing up with MediaVision.

NT-OS/2. Thsa issue is becoming hotter and hotter. On the banking front, Brandi, Mensi!, and developers just had a mtg. with Davidwo, Perttir etc. In Redmond about the issue of porting Olivetti offer to NT. According to a preliminary report by Lorim & Maurz (who was thare too) the mtg. went well and bad. Well because anyway Olivetti is convincad that it a worth the affort to consider NT the target platform for the PB system, and therefore a cooparation will start with us to ensure tools and apps are ported smoothly. Bad bacause Olivetti made clear that thay don’t consider Win 3.1 a viable intermediate step betwean OS/2 1.3 and NT as a replacement of OS/2 2.0. Thay confirmad instaad that if a customar asks/needs OS/2 2.0 they will make this possible, not only shipping OS/2 2.0 per se, but also investing to ‘dress’ OS/2 with suitable apps. This meant thay will spend energy in porting (or ready up to port) their apps, and even LM if we don’t do it. This obviously implies Olivetti widening up their contacts with IBM. On a different front during an interesting mtg. with Piol (that Umbertoo called up), he requested officially that MS accepts to sponsor tha Olivetti R4000 machine launch in Paris in April. This sponsorship is letting them show NT to the audience (only Olivetti top VARis wwide), having a MS executive give a speech, and extending the NT for ISV program to Europe, pushing Olivetti MIPS machines. Waiting for answers from the US.

OPUS (David. Bradley) Bradley and I met with Adam Harris in late January. Basically a great meeting. We’re sure that we can get the DR DOS issue resolved and a Windows deal signed before mid-March. (Their contract expires end March).
One of thee issues that has arisen from this is an issue which effects all of our channels at MS Ltd. Opus’ biggest customer (British Rail) want to put Windows on all of their new and existing PC’s. The new ones are fairly straightforward, but the existing base of c. 8,000 windows capable machines is more of an issua as our large accounts guys as well as one of our dealers are bidding for this business. The situation has been resolved – we will make a proposal to allow Opus to upgrade BR using White Box windows. We’ll also give the same proposal to the dealer involved (MSL) and they can make their pitch against Opus on a fair and equal basis. MS retail, large accounts. Opus, the dealer and ultimately the customer are all happy with this.

Schneider Rundfunkwerks AG (Andreas Niegel) We proposed a solution to Schneider Rundfunkwerks AG to write off 50 % of their prepaids. Mr. Rusniok will present this proposal to the board of directors. We assume that a decision will be taken until February 15th. In this new amendment they want to commit to 50k units a year for the period from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1992. Given that we take standard pricing on this deal it will be a $2.65m commitment. We assume that we have to take pan of their prepaids into that contract.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 10 of 16]

Siemens Nixdorf lnformationsystems AG (SNI) (Jaap VanArkel)
Meeting with Decision Makers in Redmond date Feb. 20th. In preparation. Objective: Convinca SNI that NT it on schedule and the complete NT platform can be offered within our promised time frame.
Windows. Working to get the documentation at SNI before their deadline: February 14th. They recieved the documentation files without artwork. SNI wants to co-operate at the WIN 3.1 Launch. Will work with Windows Business Unit to get maximum involvement.
Windows/CeBIT. SNI will show Windows 3.1 at the CeBIT. About 80 notebook (introduced at CeBit) with Windows installed will be on several places at the CeBIT. The Windows Business Unit will get one or more SNI NT systems in our Booths. Their first pre-installed Windows machine will be introduced at the CeBIT. 386sx price 3000OM.
NT: SNI it pushing NT strategy to their Large Accounts. In all presentation slides NT is positioned as a strategic product. SNI has postponed the multi processor development due to technical problems with Intel.
NT-SNA/COM Server – System Management This month Vesa Suomalaimam (MS) and Clive Partridge (DCL) presented SNI Open Systems development department the MS Comm Server status and strategy and possible co-operation between MS and DCL. SNI was not willing to give out requirements and status on their SNA product for UNIX and OS/2. This due to a bad experience this group had with Microsoft in co-operation on these themes more then a year ago. We agreed on a new start. February 21 we will have a meeting in Redmond about co-operation on system management and get SNI committed to SNA server for NT.
LANMAN: SNI received the LAN Manager for UNIX source code this month and started porting. Expected release date shortly after the CeBIT (April 92). The LAN Manager amendment is approved by both LAN Manager for OS/2 and LM for UNIX planning departments at Siemens and is approved. Amendments are now to the SNI management to be signed. Waiting for language for the TCP/IP utilities.
Mouse: SNI is selling the COMFO package (Logitech Mouse (12$) MS Windows and Comfodesk) as a retail product. They signed up for 10,000 units of Windows (finished goods) for the coming year. MultiMedia: No change, the system is in development and will be introduce at the CeBIT

Tulip (Hans Ranselaar)
The BUN group is working on the LM 2.1. Tulip is offering a free upgrade to customers who purchased after 1 dec. 91. The LM 2.1 package will be made up with the Microsoft manuals and the FG OS/2 1.3 package. This package is much cheaper than the license and the manuals. Our technical people are working with Tulip R&D to fix some LM bugs. We have the attention from Redmond now and this is helping. However there Is not much progress in solving the problem, but there is nothing we can do more.
Tulip had an excellent Q2FY92. they sold about 30K units which 80% more then the previous quarter, making this the best ever. Our royalties amount to over $1000K. The processor split for this quarter is 32% 286, 63% 386Sx 5% others. In particular the sales of Window machines are up.
Roland Diets Marketing manager of TCI will leave April 1, he has accepted a position as marketing manager with the Elsevier publishers.
Tulip is further delaying payments of our latest invoice until all amendments are processed. There is a PPB of about $150K, but the royalties in the last quarter are much higher then the MC. This means that after processing all the amendments Tulip will have to pay us an additional $100K on the old contract. So after the two years of the contract, the difference between the MC and the actual royalty is less then 2%.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 11 of 16]

Victor (Magnus Larsson) During the spring Victor will launch the new series of Grid Pen Computers. The development is handled by Grid. Tandy will establish the Computer City concept in Europe. Tha first store will be locatad in Glostrup outside Copenhagen. It will ba a 3,000 square meters suparstore containing hardware from IBM, Apple. HP, Compaq and Victor. There are plans to establish three more stores in Sweden and one in Norway during 1992. Info in italic it NOT OFFICIAL information yet, even if there has been a flash about it in a Danish newspaper.

Vobis (Stafanie Reichal) During the Mid-Year Review, Bill Gates visited the Vobis store in the Arabella-center in Munich. Bill has now seen their efforts for DR-DOS, unfortunately, but we are working on a long term plan to dramaticaly improve the presenee of MS-DOS in Vobis stores. On January 28th, we had a meeting with Vobis together with Dahmen to discuss the relationship and to officially introduce Stafania as their contact. Issues that ware discussed were whether they would be interested in licensing Win Works and they said they might be interested in talking to us more about it especially at a price of $15.00 or $30.00 bundled with Windows. He is also interested in discussing possible PCWorks 2.0 to WinWorks updates. We think that once he starts feelind stiffer competition from Escom that he will want to talk more to us about this subject of WinWorks. In this metting we were also informed that thay shippad 103,000 systems in Q2FY92 and we will be getting signed and finalized royalty reports from them in the next meeting on February 6, 1992. 68K units want out with MS-DOS S.0. and about 50% of all units went out with Windows.

US OEMs

Compaq (teresach)
The primary activity this month was Windows 3.1 negotiations. Jeffl and Teresach traveled to Houston to begin negotiations. This was followed up by numerous conference calls and a written proposal, counter-praposal, and response. The current status is that Compaq will license Windows for products due out in the June time frame. While Teresach continues to push for the April time frame. Compaq has been unable to move quickly enough to take advantage of the launch opportunity. Peterbra visited the top three Compaq subs in Europa to discuss joint marketing opportunities between the MS and Compaq subs. Billg and Eckhard Pfaiffer spoke briefly regarding Compaq announcements and Windows licensing status. Additional activities were a Pen Windows briefing, NBU and printer meetings.

Ungermann-Bess, Inc. (markbu)
UB is still dedicated to a LM strategy and is interested in raising the level of the strategic relationship between our two companiess. We met with UB to understand the new organization there and to present the MS strategy to them. It is still unclear on how tha new relationship will eventually be structured. It is clear that it will change over the next months as UB’s new rganization settles in.

tomhen
Commodore: Negotiations for the per-system Windows and Works for Windows license is going very slowly. although we did receive a $42.000 PO. for Works for Windows document films. Tomhen made MS DOS 5.0 Portable Computing Initiative Preeentation to their technical staff, which was well received. This is the continuation of our effort to replace DR DOS on their palmtop machine. Tomhen spoke with Lou Egglebrecht (their palmtop architect), he agrees MS DOS belongs on the palmtop.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 12 of 16]

Tandon: Tomhen attended their biyearly executive level Product Planning meeting with Joachimk, and Peterbra. They presented the MS System Software Strategy and Trends in the Intel PC Market.

maricba
Philiphs: Most of January was spent obtaining final signature for the new Master Contract and pushing the contract through the channels at MS. Additionally, Markba spent a great deal of time preparing for the Executive Briefing which is scheduled for February 12th. Philips is presently establishing a factory in Europe that will receive basic PC configurations from Montreal and prepere these PCs for distribution in Europe. Most of the Montreal staff has been in Europe helping to setup this new organization.

We have also had a great deal of activity surrounding tha licensing of PhotoCD directly from Philips to MS. This license issue is very complex and requires the cooperation of the highest levels of management from both our companies. It appears that we will be successful with this license and thus MS will be able to support PhotoCO on all Windows based devices. Part of the Feb. 12th agenda will be to come to agreement on this issue.

Northgate: NG was involved in the budgeting process for almost the entire month of January. As a result things were fairly quiet. We did accomplish the reconciliation of the outstanding moneys MS owed to NG and that did take quite a bit of time. Resolution to this issue was greatly appreciated by NG management. NG is also in the process of re-evaluating its marketing strategics and considering vertical marketing approach to bundling software.

debbiefl
CompUSA: CompUSA has agreed to add a third year to their MS-DOS license and commit to 100.000 units. They have also agreed to license 50.000 copies of Windows for three years. They will preinstall Windows on their machines. They would not commit to a per-processor deal, as they do not want their costs burdened at the low and where they have so few margin dollars. They will be attending WinHEC and using our logos. They have completed the HCT. There is substantial opportunity for both high and low end applications business.

Creative Labs: The Bookshelf license was finally completed. There had been several snags, as MS had told them originally that they could sub license Bookshelf. Our agreements with the third parties, like Houghton Mifflin, do not allow us to sub license. Unfortunately, MM Pub wasn’t aware of that. We also found out that CL cannot distribute Bookshelf in the UK because of a naming dispute MS is having with another company. An amendment allowing them to act at a replicator for OEM’s with MMWin license was drafted and delivered. Pamelago and Debbiefl visited them this month to discuss MM marketing plans and the testing procedure we are implementing for MPC compliant components and systems. CL is extremely interested in being our supplier for Foghorn.

Media Vision: The issue that has been open this month is whether or not we can license them for Windows 3.1 to bundle with their Thunderport board at a price they find acceptable. They have been vary unhappy with what we have quoted them. There are several issues we are pursuing from a legal standpoint, so we can understand exactly what we have to provide them under their current contract. They have an amendment in their hands for signature that will extend their ability to upgrade their installed base until March 30. 1992 and allow them to act as a replicator for OEM’s who have MMWin licenses with MS.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 13 of 16]

Pattyl
NCR – NCR signed up for OEM Premier Online support for $15,000. which went into effect on Monday, February 3rd. The new Mouse Distribution Agreement and the Master License Amendment are on Alok’s desk for signature and will be signed whan he returns from Germany. Introduced Mark Buick as the new NCR Account Manager via the MS-DOS and Windows road show meeting at E&M Dayton. Steve Ballmer and Tom Mays had an excellent (last) call regarding Windows NT and Steve has been invited to Dayton for a strategy update meeting this Spring (Paulma will probably attend). E&M Atlanta came to Redmond on January 9th to understand our pland for MS-DOS 6 and it looks like we’ll be able to accommodate their needs before MS-DOS 6 is available. E&M Columbia has been on site porting NT to the 3550 and there are plans to work out a program to ship NCR MP systems and NT code to selected (important) ISVs. The E&M Clemson NT enoineers were in Redmond for a metting with Carls and Mackm to discuss potential joint development of ‘Win32 on DOS’ (Panther) for their high-end workstations.

Johnmc
AST – Account turnover from Jeffd began. Traveled to AST and presented to 12 manager and director level personnel a presentation on MS-DOS and Wlndows plans for launch and future directions. Met with engineering group and listened to concerns of NT development, getting a better communication network up and running (direct email via gateway). Discussed AST’s custom Configuration program for direct sales through the resellers. Met with Jim Schraith, VP of channel marketing , Julia Irvine, Marketing manager of mass merchant channel and had Mike Negrin present and outline MS marketing channels and strategies.

AT&T/NCR – Came to verbal agreement with Safari systems group to amend the Rhapsody agreement for MS-0ffice to utilize existing pre-paid from Rhapsody agreement for Safari systems. Met with Naperville Multimedia group and provided information on Win 3.1 and MultiMedia extensions. Naperville group outlined new product plans for a MultiMedia system due in Q193. Confirmed the Naperville group is now responsible for the upgrade MultiMedia kit developed by AT&T. Began formulation of royalty pricing for the PC mail groups Easy link project. Finally scheduled technical review meeting with 3140 group to review MS and NCR future products. Account turn over to markbu began and will be completed in February

Wyse Technology – Met with Rich Wesson and Jim Munro to address outstanding issues. The meeting was very encouraging. Discussed alternative arrangements for EBU products for the Wyse Decision laptop. Wyse will most likely license Works for Windows and Money on a Per System basis for a 6 month period. Discussed the license for Windows and came to a verbal agreement for Windows Per processor if issues surrounding corporate licensing programs can be resolved. Wyse also wants to present to MS executives the business case for the Windows NT Terminal proposal. Wyse sent a programmer and system to NT development group to begin the porting process of NT to the Wyse 700i. Met with NT technical staff to outline projected milestones for SMP port of NT.

Tomda
Zenith – This has been another month of high activity in the ZDS account. ZDS entered the mass market at the January ’92’s CES show and announced that Spinnaker Works will be shipped with all mass market machines. We have lost this business. ZDS is soon to announce a portable pointing device available for all ZDS portables. Logitech’s Trackman is the likely winner. ZDS will ship in excess of 100k units of this product per year. We also met with ZDS and gained closure on Winball. Upon availability of Winball. ZDS will ship this product with all ZDS network ready machines. Groupe Bull and IBM announced that IBM will purchase a stake in Groupe Bull and that IBM will resell ZDS portable machines.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 14 of 16]

Jeffd
AST – AST’s VP of Channel Marketing. Jim Schraith, visited MS’s Mike Negrin. Alex Nadar, and John Williams to discuss co-marketing activities for Windows World, the mass-market channel, and MS’s Fall Promotions. These discussions want well and will be followed up with Mike Negrin visiting Tom Yuen on March 4th. AST announced its new AST Office Advantage product line at the CES show in Las Vegas. Their press announcement stated that Lotus was on Office Advantage PCs which was not true (see issues). AST’s account transition began. Johnmc introduced himself well presenting MS’s system software update on MS DOS 5’s APM and Windows 3.0 momentum. John and I will work together on the outstanding issues and the transition will be complete by February 13th.
AST continues to grow selling 120K systems in Q2.

Darcyh
HP Corvallis -Signed the LOI for Lion. Additionally, signed the MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.X Amendment per processor. Remaining issues are what will be used for the PIM on Lion. MS Mail group presented a spec, for Address Book, as part of Schedule Plus, but did not fully meet HP’s requirements. Chrisp has assigned Roberd full time as Project Mgr. replacing Josephr. Roberd will work to define best PIM solution for HP and to be key technical interface for Lion for MS. Delivered first draft of tha Agreement for Lion.
HP Grenoble
Met with Jacques Clay, GM, Grenoble, at dinner with HP Sunnyvale to discuss proposed Windows bundling proposal. Discussed Windows bundling options and how Windows could benefit Grenoble’s planned network ready/capable desktops, planned for release this spring and Fall. Grenoble is interested in pursuing an exclusive bundling option similar to Corvallis’ Lion. Would like to investigate joint development opportunities. Will be meeting with Jacques in February to investigate how Grenoble/MS can work together. Jimko, TAM, will be visiting Grenoble in Feb./Mar. to review support for HP, and how MS can better support Grenoble.
HP Sunnyvale
Held a meeting with Sunnyvale to hear about plans for ‘Edison’ a pen-based 386 PC, with email and fax capabilities. Planned release Q1 ’93. Key opportunities for MS are Pen Win, MS Mail and Schedule Plus. Met with Duane Zitzner, GM, Sunnyvale, at dinner to discuss Windows bundling proposal. Discussed Windows bundling options and how Windows and Window applications could benefit Sunnyvale’s planned 486/25 CPU upgrade able machine planned for spring ’92. Submitted revised Windows proposal, and will review with Sunnyvale in effort to name Windows system by 2/28, which is required in contract in order to recover $100K of current PPB.
HP Colorado Networks Division (CND)/lnformstion Networks Division (IND)
Bobkr and Darcyh met with Information Networks Division (IND) and Colorado Networks Division (CND) in joint meeting on 1/30. IND is now responsible for all mktg. of LM for UNIX Systems. Discussed ways to promote joint networking strategy and reviewed strategy for LM for UNIX Systems. IND continues to defend Novell announcement as a simple ‘balancing’ message, as they have been leaning too far towards LM. Darcyh will be scheduling meeting with mktg. groups from MS and IND to further educate IND on LM strategy and to investigate joint PR opportunities.

Richab
Hewlett – Packard – The new year brought with it some good progress on the HP front. Highlighting the month was a successful executive meeting where HP gave us their final commitment to build TrueType into the Payette printer. In addition, agreements were drafted to put to rest concerns relating to ownership and disclosure plans for two interface standards.

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 15 of 16]

                                                   +--------------+
                                                   |   Jeff Lum   |
                                                   |   Director   |
                                                   |   Dept 8806  |
                                                   +--------------+
                                                           |
                                                           + --- Debby Johnson
                                                           |     Admin Asst.
          +---------------------------+--------------------+----+------  --  --  --  --  ----+
          |                           |                         |                            |
+---------------------+     +----------------------+            |                  +--------------------+
| Braman Account Team |     | Chesnut Account Team |            |                  |                    |
|    Peter Braman     |     |    Mark Chesnut      |            |                  | European OEM Sales |             
|    Group Manager    |     |   Group Manager      |            |                  |                    |
|     Dept. 1501      |     |    Dept. 1505        |            |                  |                    |
+---------------------+     +----------------------+            |                  +--------------------+
Mark Baber                  Rich Abel                     Lorl Morrison           Bengt Akerlind
Northgate, Philips          Compaq Printer Bus            Database Arministrator  MS AB (Scandinavia)
                            Hewlett-Packard Printer Bus.  European Sales Support
Teresa Chapman                                                                    Meurtzio Bedina
Compaq                      Mark Buick                                            MS SPA (Italy)
                            NCR/AT&T
Debbie Flynn                                                                      Sandy Duncan
Activision, Headland        Jeff Daniels                                          MS LTD (England)
Compudyne, Media Vision     Data General, EMI
                            Logitech, MAS                                         Ignacio Feu
Tom Henningsgard                                                                  MS SRL (Spain)
Austin Computer, Commodore  Tom Davis
Swan, Tandon                Sun, Zenith                                           Jurgen Huels
                                                                                  MS GmbH (Germany)
TBH                         Darcy Holle
Atari, PC Innovations       Hewlett-Packard, Momenta                              Pascal Martin
Tandem/UB                                                                         MS SARL (France)
                            Patty Lazarus
                            NCR                                                   Hans Raneelaar
                                                                                  MS BV (Holland)
                            John McLauchlan
                            AST, Wyse

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1243 Page 16 of 16] [The last page shows the members of the OEM sales team]
[Unreadable]


[STAMPED]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED]MS7036065 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164647 CONFIDENTIAL

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1394 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ] [STAMPED “PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1394” BUT OCCURS AMONG RESPONDENT’S FILES ON THE COURT WEB SITE.]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1394 Page 1 of 4

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1394 Page 2 of 4] a committment [sic] and investment from him, he would like to see an equal committment [sic] and investment from Microsoft. Along these lines, he would like to have a commitment from us for better customer support to him in areas such as documentation and in joint marketing and strategically working together in the marketplace.

On this topic, I would then like to refer to our discussion together with him on the topic of our Marketing Plan and the proposed Christmas and WinWord promotion. Call it fate, but it just so happens today he introduced a gentleman by the name of Marc Pastuere. He is a new member of the Board and is Lieven’s right hand guy in getting Vobis and in particular the “HIGHSCREEN” name recognized in the market. The timing of our presentation and his coming on board couldn’t have been more perfect. They invited us to Lunch to discuss the marketing proposals more in depth. After several hours of discussion, they loved the concept and are basically ready to do the following:

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1394 Page 3 of 4] He therefore feels that as the leading OEM in the Market he should partner with the leading software company….which he feels is Microsoft. In exchange for the above items which he wants to do with us he proposed the following committment [sic] from us on the Marketing side:

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1394 Page 4 of 4]
He needs to know that if we do this project, that we really are committed and support them in making a success, just as they will.

He says that unless we can offer him something which is for a short period of time exclusive for 3 months and can help differentiate himself in the Market and from his competitors, then he is not interested in giving us exclusivity or any of the above mentioned items. Quite simply said, he needs to decide in the next month which partner with whom to work and he is asking us first. He wants us, but may have to choose another partner if we are not interested in this type of strategic alliance. I ask that you consider his proposal for working together and I am basically just reporting to you what Lieven and Vobis are interested in doing. The strategic decision for such lies with you, the management in how we should proceed. Lieven wants to act on this as soon as possible, especially since any Christmas promotions etc. need to be planned to take place as soon as November.

As follow up and to emphasize his interest, he has requested a meeting with Jochen Haink on Tuesday, August 18th in Munich.

Please respond as quickly as possible on your thoughts regarding this email and let me know how we should proceed.

Thanks

Stefanie

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1397 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1397 p. 1 of 4

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1397 Page 2 of 4]

Attached are pre-meeting briefing notes and the Vobis Account Profile for your reference in preparation for the meeting with Vobis’s Founder and President, Theo Lieven. The meeting will take place on the day before the Annual Board of Directors Meeting being held in London, England.

The meeting will be a lunch meeting where current and future strategic issues related to our two companies working together will be discussed and an opportunity for you and the President and Founder of Vobis to be able to meet. I intentionally did not include a formal agenda because I would like to have the meeting be more informal. The pre-meeting briefing has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 18th at the Hyatt Carlton Towers hotel in London at 2PM where I will review the issues and agenda with you in more detail.

[STAMPED] MS-PCA 1164661 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] SR 00016 CONFIDENTIAL

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1397 Page 3 of 4]

Vobis Attendees:

Microsoft Attendees:

Purpose of Meeting/Overall Meeting Objectives:

1) To demonstrate to Lieven/Vobis that Microsoft is committed to them as a partner and that we want to build a successful and mutually profitable business relationship with them.

2) Discuss Microsoft’s future product and systems strategy. (MS-DOS 6.0, Windows NT and Workgroups for Windows.)

3) Discuss Vobis’s plans for the future and how they plan on responding to the quickly changing market.

4) Get commitment for a “Strategic Alliance” between Microsoft and Vobis to work together closely in the market.

5) Get a commitment to get DRI/Novell out of the Account.

6) Get a commitment for Windows for Workgroups.

[STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164662 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED]SRO00I7 CONFIDENTIAL

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1397 Page 4 of 4]

Key Issues to Address:

– Windows for Workgroups

– Windows NT

– MS-DOS 6.0

– New Contract and Marketing Actions

Hot Issues:

– Late Delivery of Documentation and Products

– Problems of Past

– Pricing

NOTE:
Please review the attached Vobis Account Profile which contains up-to-date information on the status of the account and an Executive Summary and personal profile on Theo Lieven.

[STAMPED]MS-PCA 1164663 CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED]SR000I8 CONFIDENTIAL

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1513 Gordon v. Microsoft   [ Top ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1513 Page 1 of 10

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1513 Page 2 of 10]

Executive Summary

Vobis Microcomputer AG (Vobis) represents one of the most strategic accounts to Microsoft both in terms of the revenue they bring us, but also because of their fast growth and strong presence in the German and European market.

From a market share standpoint, Vobis is by far the largest manufacturer and seller of IBM compatible computers in Germany with 1991 annual shipments of 270,000 at a sales revenue estimated at over DM1 Billion ($650 million – the figures have not been officially reported yet). In a recently published IDC report. Vobis was placed as having 15.3% of the Intel-based PC market share in Germany, leading by a significant margin against IBM which had 10.5%, Siemens-Nixdorf with 52%, Escom with 5.1% and Compaq with 5% respectively.

Vobis is also projected to continue to grow rapidly and dominate the German market and eventually expand into the rest of the European market with as much momentum. In the last three quarters alone, they have shipped over 255,000 systems, and expect to ship a record 350,000 systems this CY92. This will place Vobis as the largest shipper of PC’s in the German market

From a royalty revenue standpoint for Microsoft, Vobis is by far our largest OEM in Germany, and one of our largest in Europe. Since they started shipping our products with our systems in Q2FY91, they have brought in $2,506,980.00 in royalty revenue for FY91. Actual revenue for FY92 was $7,449,632.00 although they had been forecasted at $5,174,336.00. Effective July 1st, 1992, Vobis committed to a new I8 month contract agreement for an annual commitment of $11,880,000.00. This commitment includes new licenses for Works for Windows and Entertainment Pack. In addition, we believe there is potential for additional revenue for licensing products such as Windows for Workgroups. This could mean royalty revenue for Microsoft exceeding $12MM in FY93.

Vobis’s strengths and reasons for such success lie in their ability to offer the lowest and most competitive prices for PCs in the market In addition, they have more visibility and presence than any other PC reseller due to their network of 100 sales outlets in Germany and 30 others throughout Europe. This has allowed them to offer customers more convenient locations and easier “one stop shopping” than is readily available elsewhere. They also actively advertise their aggressive pricing for PCs in a monthly collateral piece which is inserted in the top 10 newspapers and magazines in Germany with an estimated circulation of over, 6 million. They also have fast logistics and a quick central operations group in their headquarters.

Vobis’s weaknesses lie in their growing reputation for poor quality control in their products and in customer support. This is where many of their competitors are trying to steal market share from Vobis, even if they cannot compete with them on price.

[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] SR 00035 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0195374 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1513 Page 3 of 10]

Our greatest challenge and threat in this account has been DIGITAL RESEARCH (DRI). Vobis is still DRI’s largest OEM in Europe and where they have had their strongest foothold in an account. There are many reasons that DRI was able to get this position with them. One of them is that Vobis does not want to feel dependent on one vendor and this means Microsoft. Another reason is that internally at Vobis there are several “DRI Disciples” who preach within and to the Vobis customer base that DR-DOS 6.0 is better than MS-DOS 5.0.

Our challenge in countering this DRI threat is slowly being achieved and in the last three quaners alone, the percentage of DR-DOS sold to MS-DOS has dropped from 50% to 18%. In addition, Windows is taking off. In Ql and Q2FY92, our percentage of Windows penetration was 50%. Since Q3FY92, the Windows penetration on their systems was increased to 63%. It is currently after Q4FY92 at 77%. By Microsoft continuing to work together more closely and supporting Vobis with a dedicated Account Management team, by dedicating marketing monies for projects such as training and seminars for their store managers and promotions in their stores (such as with Windows), we will be able to create needed visibility and continue to chip away at DRI’s stronghold in this account as well as any other competitcrs.

[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] SR 00036 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0195375 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1513 Page 4 of 10]

Company Business Profile

Vobis Microcomputer AG (Vobis), a manufacturer of IBM Compatible personal computers and systems, was officially founded in 1975 in Aachen, Germany by Rainer Filing and Theo Lieven. The company originated as a purchasing club at Aachen University of Technology (Germany). Within two years it had become a full-time mail- order business operating out of the garage and apartment of the two founders with a turnover of DM 2 million ($1.15 million) in their first year of business. By 1980, obis had reached a turnover of more than DM 10 million (S5.7 million). The company has since then grown rapidly at an average rate of almost 100% each year.

In 1989, in order to finance and maintain their tremendous growth rate, Vobis sold a 50% share of their business to KAUFHOF Holding Group, the largest retail store chain in Germany and a division of the Metro International Group. By establishing this new distribution channel and partnership with KAUFHOF, Vobis was able to expand its market from the private sector to the semi-professional and professional market Currently, Vobis markets and sells direct to business enterprises and home users with their own brand name called ‘Highscreen’. They accomplish this in Europe through their own network of 130 sales outlets and the network of their partner’s retail outlets (Kaufhof and MediaMarkt) and small business wholesale centers (Metro) which is estimated at being over 400 locations.

The projected annual sales for this CY92 are 350,000 systems at over DM 2 Billion in revenue (S1.2 Billion). Vobis’s primary business and sales are in Germany and they continue to dominate and grow at a strong rate in the German market. However, Vobis’s main strategic goal is to continue to aggressively expand with additional stores throughout Europe (mainly Spain, Italy, Belgium, Holland, later France, UK and Poland), and to grow these markets as successfully as they have grown the German market.

Vobis currently manufacturers their PC’s in locations such as Berlin, Vienna/Austria, the former Philips Computer Plant and through the hardware manufacturer Aquarius Computer. In addition, they just completed building a Warehouse and Assembly Plant near their headquarters in Aachen, Germany where they will be able to centrally store and ship their products to all stores throughout Europe with an immediate response time.

[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] SR 00035 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0195376 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1513 Page 5 of 10]

Quick Personal Profile on Theo Lieven:

– Founder, President and Member of Board. Age 40.

– Attended Aachen University of Technology in Germany, receiving a degree in Mathematics.

– Lieven is the main contact for Microsoft. He is a very complex character who needs special attention to his success and ego-stroking. He is an intelligent, very eccentric man with a great sense of humor. He can be sensitive and if he is teased in a negative manner, he shuts off completely.

Examples of his extraordinary lifestyle and personality are:

• He is still a registered student in the 40th semester in mathematics
• He is a concert pianist with over 12 years of training and lessons
• He is a certified pilot and flight instructor
• He drives only 12 cylinder cars (Jaguar, Mercedes, BMW) and collects eld sports cars
• He indulges daily on gourmet food and expensive old wines

Previously, Lieven did not see the importance of the Operating Systems or software applications to his company’s success. He was aggressively marketing several software products and three (3) operating systems (DR-DOS, MS-DOS, and OS/2). Up until recently, he favored DR-DOS despite the fact that he had to pay for these licenses extra, since he has a per processor agreement on MS-DOS. He is most likely paying about $5 for DR-DOS on a per copy basis.

However, with the signing of the new contract agreement. Lieven has been showing signs of wanting to work closer with Microsoft in a “Strategic Alliance”. He has recently come to realize that the market is becoming increasingly competitive and he needs to be able to differentiate himself from his competitors. He also has had the problem of a growing reputation for poor product quality and service.

In order for Lieven to continue to keep Vobis growing and be successful, he feels that as the leading OEM in the Market that he should partner with the leading software company …Microsoft. He is even willing to discuss no longer offering DR-DOS if we are willing to work together with him in marketing in the European market and helping him sell our software with his hardware. The Marketing Plan which was written towards working together with Vobis was presented to him and he is willing to allow us to include in his stores information racks, auto-demos, window displays, posters, stickers in windows and joint advertising in his flyers. We are currently discussing with the GmbH how we can agree on a joint strategy to work together and present a proposal to Lieven.

[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] SR 00035 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0195377 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1513 Page 6 of 10]

Vobis at a Glance*

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1513 Page 7 of 10] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] SR 00040 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0195379 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

Product Line

Vobis sells a complete line of IBM compatible desktops, laptops, servers and accessory products. This product line is as follows:

Desktops

Laptops:

Servers

Software Bundles

Presently, when Vobis sells any of the above PCs to a customer, they receive a cardboard carrying box called “Software Package” in which they receive the following software bundle:

• DR-DOS 6.0 -OR- MS-DOS 5.0
• Power Basic Basisversion
• PC Tools 7.1
• Microsoft PC-Works 2.0
  -OR-
  Windows 3.1 and WAYS 1.1 with the book tided “Ways” by J. Schieb.
  
• Microsoft Works for Windows 2.0 on select 386/486 Windows machines.
• Microsoft Entertainment Pack Volume 1 on their Video Pro 286 machine.
• HP New Wave 3.0 (on all 386 tnd 486 processors with more than 4 MB).

Other Products
OEM Brand Name (Olivetti, He-Mett Packard, Epson, and other)
Printers, Monitors, Modems, Scanners and Mouses;

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1513 Page 8 of 10] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] SR 00041 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0195380 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

Unit Shipments and Processor Mix

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1513 Page 9 of 10]
[STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] SR 00042 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0195381 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

Royalty Revenue of Microsoft Products

[Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1513 Page 10 of 10] [STAMPED] HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] SR 00043 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
[STAMPED] MS98 0195382 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

License Profile/Contract Summary

• New License Agreement effective July 1,1992 – December 31. 1993. Total per processor royalty is $29 .70.
  
• All products to be pre-installed and they are a Ready-To-Run licensee is well.
  
• MS-DOS commitment doubled from 200K to 400K units annually per processor.
  
• MS-DOS royalty at $9.00 for all language versions.
  
• Windows commitment increased from 100 K to 320 K units annually on all 386 and 484 systems.
  
• Windows royalty at $15.00 for all language versions.
  
• In addition, they have committed in a new separate one year contract for 100K units of Works for Windows Version 2.0, 80K units of PC-Works Version 2.0 md 40K units of Entertainment Pack Vol.1 Version 1.0.
  
• They will also no longer be licensing OS/2.
  
• They no longer have update rights for products and will be including Microsoft registration cards in with all product manuals.
  

Summary of Terms: